With Big Ten expansion seemingly on pause for the moment, let’s take a look at how the scheduling might work in a 16-team Big Ten. Assuming that the Big Ten will have 3 annual protected rivals for each school when USC and UCLA join, I’ve mapped out a couple of different potential matchup lineups: one more heavily based on pure geography and one with more priority to trophy games.
OPTION 1: GEOGRAPHY
Penn State – Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State
Rutgers – Penn State, Maryland, Michigan
Maryland – Penn State, Rutgers, Michigan State
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, Indiana
Michigan State – Michigan, Purdue, Maryland
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers
Purdue – Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan State
Indiana – Purdue, Illinois, Ohio State
Illinois – Northwestern, Indiana, USC
Northwestern – Illinois, Purdue, UCLA
Nebraska – Iowa, Minnesota, UCLA
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, USC
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
USC – UCLA, Wisconsin, Illinois
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Northwestern
Penn State – Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State
- The one school that has 3 clear rivals in all scenarios is Penn State with Ohio State, Rutgers and Maryland. Ohio State-Penn State is now generally the most-watched Big Ten game after Michigan-Ohio State, while the league’s East Coast strategy is based on tying Penn State with Rutgers and Maryland. Notably, that means Penn State-Michigan State goes away as an annual trophy game under both setups. It is a good game, but always felt a bit forced as a rivalry for both sides and the TV networks absolutely 100% need Ohio State-Penn State to continue annually.
- In both scenarios, each school has at least one annual game with a larger brand (assuming that we can consider UCLA to be a brand name) for TV and competitive balance purposes. No one has 3 marquee games or, on the flip side, 3 games destined for Peacock.
- The Geography option took the 2 locked rivals for each school from the 11-team Big Ten era except for PSU-MSU and largely zippered matchups for multi-school states. For instance, each Illinois school plays one California and one Indiana school annually.
- The Trophy Games option would preserve or reinstate all trophy games from the “original Big Ten” era prior to Penn State joining the league. Note that this is only realistically possible if Nebraska has both USC and UCLA as annual rivals (as Nebraska-Iowa would be preserved but Nebraska-Minnesota would be eliminated).
- USC-Wisconsin seems to be the most attractive “western” annual matchup from a national perspective, so that’s in both scenarios.
Go Hawks!
LikeLike
Go Big Red
LikeLike
Hello all-
Everyone at my tailgate is incredibly excited about joining the BIG. Some of us have been talking about it since the UT and OU to the PAC deal fell apart 10+ years ago.
I’m really enjoying this thread. I’m in the Colin and Bernie camp:
Multiple BIG figures on and off the record have stated that maximizing playoff appearances is a top priority for the schedule format, along with fairness and better rotation.
The report from the Athletic about USC not getting OSU or UM as a protected rival makes perfect sense in light of those priorities.
I have thought all along that OSU and UM aren’t going to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage, given their obvious existing rivals. The BIG won’t want top teams getting too many guaranteed losses.
At some point, it’s simple math.
OSU will get UM, PSU and an easier game- maybe IL ?
UM will get OSU, MSU and an easier game- hopefully MN.
TV partners will still be very happy, as they will get USC vs one of OSU/UM every year, on top of all the existing BIG games, and teams with fewer losses and higher rankings will pull better ratings than teams with 2-3 losses.
I don’t see USC getting PSU or MSU either. PSU and MSU will still be matched up on rivalry weekend, right ? Who else would they play ? If they play each other in addition to the above OSU and UM games, having USC as their 3rd game would give them brutal schedules.
So who does USC end up with besides UCLA ? My guess is WI and NW.
If you break the BIG down into tiers of five (excluding USC): WI is in the top tier, along with OSU, UM, PSU and MSU. The other schools (besides WI) will most likely all be playing two of the other four each year.
WI and USC make good dance partners in that sense- it would match the two programs that have the highest likelihood of winning the BIG not named OSU, UM, PSU, or MSU.
TV can sell WI vs USC as a big-time matchup, and I think Fickell would love the CA exposure for recruiting.
WI and Minnesota is the oldest rivalry in D1, so that’s a lock, and WI-IA is probably also a lock. But their third game is much more open.
WI and NW have played a lot, but it’s a very one-sided series, and doesn’t exactly stir up a lot of passion in Madison.
WI would be our top-tier annual BIG game, UCLA would be our mid-tier game, and NW would be our cupcake.
USC and NW are the only two private schools in the BIG, and are the only two in gigantic urban areas besides UCLA.
Some might say USC gets off easy with WI and NW, but WI will be very tough under Fickell, and with ND as an annual opponent, the calculus is different for USC.
The BIG wants to maximize CFP spots, and USC-ND will impact the CFP race in most years, so even though it’s non-con, so I think the BIG will factor that into our rival selection.
PS- What’s up bullet? It’s been a long time sir. Hope you’re well.
LikeLike
Traveler, It’s entirely possible that both USC and UCLA will get paired with Nebraska if the 3-6-6 format is adopted. Nebraska is also a Big Ten newcomer, the Huskers have only one quasi-rival in the conference, Iowa, and it also makes some geographical sense. So we’d have:
USC – UCLA, Nebraska, Wisconsin
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Northwestern
Nebraska – USC, UCLA, Iowa
LikeLike
USC Traveler,
Welcome, and encourage your friends to come here too. It would be good to get some USC (and UCLA) perspective on goings on. I’m not sure how your comment slipped in way at the top of the page like it did, but that’s probably why nobody responded quickly.
Things I’m curious how USC fans are feeling about:
* The B10 adding more P12 schools
Rumors say USC/UCLA expressly didn’t want others to come along. Others are convinced that the B10 has to ad a western wing to keep you all happy.
* Travel concerns
This ties into the previous point, but how concerned are USC fans about the upcoming travel? Will smart scheduling and remote teaching technology reduce the concerns to a reasonable level?
* Teams of interest
What teams are USC fans looking forward to playing? Ignoring locked vs rotating for now, what teams will sell out the Coliseum? Where will USC fans travel to? Is there any sense of rivalry with anyone?
* Game times
Noon ET games in the midwest or east coast? 7pm PT games at home?
* When to play ND
Typically you host ND in the final week every other year, but the P12 can allow that because Stanford covers the other years, and Cal won’t play Stanford the final week anyway. But the B10 already has set pairs (mostly). Could the ND game move up a week (or to midseason) so you finish with UCLA every year?
* The Rose Bowl Game
What should happen with it? How special is it to you?
* BTN
Have you ever watched it? Did/do you watch the P12N?
* The B10 TV deal
How excited are you about games on Fox, CBS and NBC? Do you worry about Peacock-exclusive games? Friday night games?
* The fate of the P12
Do you care what happens to them after you leave? Will you try to schedule lots of OOC games against certain schools (Cal, Stanford, UO, UW)?
I’m really enjoying this thread. I’m in the Colin and Bernie camp:
Multiple BIG figures on and off the record have stated that maximizing playoff appearances is a top priority for the schedule format, along with fairness and better rotation.
But does anyone know what will maximize CFP appearances in the 12-team CFP? Based on history, any 10-2 B10 team would get in and some 9-3 teams. How much will SOS factor into selection vs winning % (the committee will take the 12/13 borderline more seriously going forward)?
People have crunched the numbers, and which games you lock has minimal impact on SOS since you play everyone 50% of the time anyway and team strength varies considerably. The TV networks will apply pressure to get as many big brand matchups as possible to recoup their costs. Also, the B10 east has been a much tougher division than the west yet teams from the East kept making the top 4. If it was fine to lock MI, PSU, MSU and NE for OSU, why is MI, PSU and USC a stretch? Especially if we’re only taking the first few years as USC and UCLA get integrated in to the conference.
I have thought all along that OSU and UM aren’t going to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage, given their obvious existing rivals. The BIG won’t want top teams getting too many guaranteed losses.
And yet, the top teams aren’t really the ones at risk. It’s the second tier teams (MSU, WI, IA, NE, UCLA, …) who will struggle to make the top 12, and your plan gives them harder schedules to make sure OSU, MI, PSU and USC do well. I’m not sure it actually achieves the stated goal.
OSU will get UM, PSU and an easier game- maybe IL ?
Which would be fine from OSU’s perspective, but the networks will complain. OSU will get at least 3.5 games every year against IL, NW, IN, PU, RU, UMD and MN. They’ll also get at least 2.5 games against NE, WI, IA, MSU, UCLA. Then there’s at least 1.5 games against MI, PSU and USC. That’s 7.5 of 9 games. So locking is about the other 1.5 games per season.
With those locked games, the B10 has many priorities to consider: conserving key rivalries (OSU vs. MI, OSU vs PSU, in-state rivalries, etc.), satisfying the networks, CFP appearances, equity (which is not the same as equality of schedules), integrating new members. Every new member since PSU has been given games vs OSU and MI early on – PSU had both for 10 years with OSU locked permanently. NE has MI in its division with OSU cross-division, then OSU as its locked rival in the parity-based scheduling. UMD and RU joined the East with OSU and MI. It’s not a stretch to think USC and UCLA may see OSU and MI a lot in the first 4-10 years.
I’m not sure how much USC playing ND will factor into the thinking, though it will be considered of course.
TV partners will still be very happy, as they will get USC vs one of OSU/UM every year, on top of all the existing BIG games, and teams with fewer losses and higher rankings will pull better ratings than teams with 2-3 losses.
Will they? The networks always want more big games, especially now that they are split across 3 different companies. They will all want king vs king games (OSU/MI, OSU/PSU, OSU/USC, MI/USC, MI/PSU, USC/PSU), then king vs prince (NE, UCLA, WI, MSU, IA), etc.
And if OSU has MI and PSU locked, then they get USC every other year anyway. So everyone’s saying it’s fine to do to OSU (and MI) every other year, but doing it every year crosses some line? I don’t get it.
So who does USC end up with besides UCLA ? My guess is WI and NW.
Many people have suggested NE and WI as likely options. NW and IL may make sense in terms of travel distance.
If you break the BIG down into tiers of five (excluding USC): WI is in the top tier, along with OSU, UM, PSU and MSU. The other schools (besides WI) will most likely all be playing two of the other four each year.
But those tiers only make sense for USC. From OSU’s point of view, the top 5 are MI, PSU, USC, MSU and WI. OSU will have at least 2 of them locked, and play at least 3.5 of them every year (4 at the most). 0.5 games per year is the difference under discussion.
WI and USC make good dance partners in that sense- it would match the two programs that have the highest likelihood of winning the BIG not named OSU, UM, PSU, or MSU.
NW has won more division titles than PSU and as many as MSU. You never know how things may work out. That year to year variation is another reason not to worry too much about locked games. NE was the most elite program in the mid-90s, and now they are mediocre at best. USC was the best, then fell off. Miami hasn’t been the same since 2002.
TV can sell WI vs USC as a big-time matchup, and I think Fickell would love the CA exposure for recruiting.
Fickell would, but the nation will struggle to see WI as big-time unless they are highly ranked.
WI and NW have played a lot, but it’s a very one-sided series, and doesn’t exactly stir up a lot of passion in Madison.
NW fans care about it, and it’s less 1-sided than you think. NW has won 4 of the last 10.
WI would be our top-tier annual BIG game, UCLA would be our mid-tier game, and NW would be our cupcake.
No, whichever of OSU or MI you got would be your top tier game.
USC and NW are the only two private schools in the BIG, and are the only two in gigantic urban areas besides UCLA.
Rutgers? And depending on how you define gigantic, UMD (DC – #6 metro area).
Some might say USC gets off easy with WI and NW, but WI will be very tough under Fickell, and with ND as an annual opponent, the calculus is different for USC.
No, the calculus isn’t different because you play ND. OSU and others play a huge OOC game every year too (next few years: ND, Texas, Alabama, UGA). That’s just part of being a top program. The B10 can’t factor in OOC games very much into this decision.
LikeLike
Hook ’em!
LikeLike
Geaux Tigers!
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU TIGERS!
LikeLike
Got it, Alan. Can’t have anyone mistake you for a Clemson, Auburn, Mizzou, Memphis, or Princeton fan, after all. 😉
LikeLike
HA!
Actually, I forgot to subscribe with the first regular non-specific “Geaux Tigers!” comment and WordPress kept kicking me out when I tried to resend the same comment and subscribe to this thread.
LikeLike
I don’t subscribe (I use an RSS reader to keep up with comments), however, lately I’ve been getting one comment a week emailed to me. Its usually in a thread I haven’t commented on.
LikeLike
Mike,
It started doing something similar to me, so I had to follow the link in the email to cancel my subscriptions (I don’t subscribe either).
LikeLike
I think something closer to 2 will happen, but with more emphasis on maximizing TV viewership (and also giving MSU that visit to Chicagoland that they want so much):
OSU: UMich, PSU, USC
UMich: OSU, MSU, USC
MSU: UMich, PSU, NU
PSU: OSU, MSU, UMD
UMD: RU, PSU, PU
RU: UMD, IU, NU
IU: PU, UIUC, RU
PU: IU, UIUC, UMD
UIUC: NU, IU, PU
NU: UIUC, MSU, RU
NW quad plays each other except UW and UNL don’t play each other and play UCLA instead.
USC: UCLA, UMich, OSU
UCLA: USC, UNL, UW
In this setup, 8 of the 11 Midwestern schools have an annual game against either an east or west coast school (only Iowa, UMTC, and UIUC don’t; OSU visits both because of their PSU game).
It’s possible that the B10 splits PSU-MSU (and also IU-RU), in which case, MSU-IU and PSU-RU become annual.
Is it possible that the B10, instead of tying UMich and OSU to USC, tie them to either the IN schools or RU&UMD (thus leaving USC for UW&UNL and UCLA for the IL schools)? I suppose it’s possible though given what NBC and CBS paid, I find it unlikely.
LikeLike
I feel pretty strongly that out of any school, Penn State is the most locked-in: they *have* to play Ohio State, Rutgers and Maryland annually. Outside of BTN households, the biggest reason why Rutgers and Maryland are in the Big Ten is because Penn State wanted Eastern teams (with a warning shot when they had some discussions with the ACC). To me, PSU not playing both Rutgers and Maryland annually would be like the Big Ten adding Stanford and Cal but not having USC and UCLA play them annually.
So, a lot of my thinking cascaded from there. As much as the TV matchups are critical (and I certainly wouldn’t put it past anyone that the Big Ten would lock in games like OSU-USC), I do feel that there does need to be some small “p” political service to the West Division schools when such a disproportionate focus has been on the East Division ever since the Big Ten went to 14 schools.
LikeLike
I wonder if TV will dictate UCLA-Ohio St. and Michigan-USC as locked rivalries.
That was my first reaction to talk of 3 fixed rivals.
LikeLike
bullet,
OSU has played USC 24 times and UCLA 9.
MI has played USC 10 times and UCLA 11.
If the B10 were to split them, it would be OSU/USC and UCLA/MI.
LikeLike
I think it would be the other way because Ohio St. needs to play Penn St. Having USC would mean they are playing all 3 of the other top programs. Michigan, Penn St. and USC would not be.
LikeLike
IMO, both OSU and UMich play USC annually (or both don’t and both play IN schools or both play RU/UMD) because otherwise, there would be charges of unfairness between the 2 biggest dogs in the B10.
Yes, OSU plays PSU but UMich plays MSU, and the gap between PSU and MSU often isn’t that wide at all.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think it would be the other way because Ohio St. needs to play Penn St. Having USC would mean they are playing all 3 of the other top programs.”
I think the B10 would see that as a plus – those are 3 huge games for TV.
“Michigan, Penn St. and USC would not be.”
True, but they all have to play OSU, and OSU doesn’t. There’s some balance in that. Don’t get me wrong, plenty of OSU fans would complain. But many years, those aren’t the 3 other best teams.
And OSU/USC really is a bit of a rivalry despite not playing that frequently. Certainly more so than USC/MI or OSU/UCLA.
Besides, I said my plan was intended for the first 10 years. After that, needs will change as USC and UCLA are integrated into the conference. Then USC can play 1 and UCLA the other.
LikeLike
I think at the price point the BCast nets are paying for content, the PRIMARY consideration will be combining the biggest brands and making sure there are enough desirable games, from a ratings perspective, to fill all the available inventory.
So I’m thinking something more like, TOSU, PSU, UM, WI, IA, NB, USC play each other as much as possible, THEN fill in remaining time with other considerations.
But make no mistake, the PSU/MD game will never displace something like PSU/USC. I can see it being as-well-as, but never instead-of.
LikeLike
Eh, a lot of PSU people don’t even acknowledge RU and UMD as rivals. And with where the B10 and ACC are at (especially with the top programs in the ACC leaving when their GOR expires), there’s pretty much no threat of PSU going anywhere now.
LikeLike
It’s not just about Penn St. Nobody recognizes Maryland/Rutgers as rivals, but someone has to play them, and Penn St makes more sense than anyone else. Also, nobody outside of Ohio St considers Penn St to be a main rival.
LikeLike
OSU doesn’t consider PSU a main rival. Big game, important game for recruiting and television, but no not a rival. OSU has one rival.
LikeLike
manifesto: “OSU doesn’t consider PSU a main rival. Big game, important game for recruiting and television, but no not a rival. OSU has one rival.”
Yep.
LikeLike
Frank,
USC has played OSU 24 times, by far the most of any B10 team. Next is IL at 13, with MI, PSU and IA at 10.
The East gets the focus because the East wins more. I’m not sure how IL and NW losing in LA helps the West. When the B10 added PSU, they locked them with OSU and MI for 10 years. When they added NE, they locked them with MI while playing OSU for 2 years. Then when they went to parity-based scheduling, they locked them with OSU. When they added RU and UMD, they locked them with OSU, MI and PSU. I expect TV to push for this trend to continue. PSU is locked in the east, but OSU, MI, WI and NE can go to LA.
LikeLike
Frank, there is yet another option to #1 Geography and #2 Trophy games. We could have variable locked games for each school bases upon true rivalries. Each school doesn’t need to have the same number of rivalry games. Here’s my suggestion . . .
4 Rivalry games: Penn St – Rut, MD, OS, MS
3 Rivalry games:
Illini – NW, PU, Ind
Purdue – IU, UI, NW
NW – UI, PU, Wisc
Wisc – MN, IO, NW
Minn – Wisc, IO, NE
Iowa – Wisc, MN, NE
2 Rivalry games:
Ohio St – UM, PS
Mich – OS, MS
Rut – PS, MD
Ind – Pur, UI
Neb – Iowa, MN
Mary – Rut, PS
Mich St – UM, PS
1 Rivalry game:
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
All other conference games would simply be played Round Robin. And using your own axiom of “think like a college president”, would you as the president of Penn State or Northwestern or Indiana or Iowa or Rutgers prefer the annual schedule of Option 1, Option 2 or my Option 3?
LikeLike
Some of these rivalry game locks don’t make sense and NU-Iowa is a rivalry, but in any case, I doubt very much we will see different schools with different numbers of locked opponents.
LikeLike
Richard: “Some of these rivalry game locks don’t make sense and NU-Iowa is a rivalry . . .”
OK, so you just tweak it to include NU-Iowa and whatever “rivalry game locks don’t make sense” to you can also be changed in the blink of an eye. See how easy that is?
LikeLike
Does MSU want that trip to Chicagoland more than a bunch of other schools? Why do they matter more? Everyone wants it due to the number of traditional big ten alumni in chicago and the big recruiting footprint.
LikeLike
Yeah – I know that MSU has been more vocal about wanting to play in the Chicago area, but everyone in the “original” Big Ten has the exact same interest. That’s why I didn’t assign any more weight to MSU vocalizing that preference since that’s little different to me than SEC/Big 12 schools wanting to play in Texas, SEC/ACC schools wanting to play in Florida, or Pac-12 schools wanting to play in California.
LikeLike
I assign more weight to MSU because they evidently have “visit Chicagoland” as their 2nd highest priority (after the UMich game; they’ve pounded the table on this) and
1. The other programs that are at or above MSU in the clout department have other 2nd priorities that are more important.
2. The other programs that have “visit Chicagoland” as a second priority (probably only the IN schools) do not have as much clout.
LikeLike
Furthermore, we have seen the B10 accommodate MSU in that desire at every turn. First with L&L, when MSU and NU we’re in the same division (UW and the IN schools did not get NU annually), and then when MSU and NU were locked the first 6 years of East/West.
LikeLike
Joe,
I think they do. They were vocal about it before, when nobody else was. OSU and the eastern 3 don’t care about it that much. Neither do the western 2. MI has plenty of other rivals. The western quadrangle (NE/IA/MN/WI) all want to play in Chicago, but they want to play each other more. NW doesn’t count for this, and neither does IL.
That leaves MSU, IN and PU. All have good claims on wanting games in Chicago.
But so many schools are close to Chicago that it doesn’t matter that much.
LikeLike
I think Nebraska playing both USC and UCLA is actually a really good move. Nebraska is a king level program (or just outside of being it anymore), but no natural recruiting grounds. Leaving the Big 12 took them out of Texas. This would give them an annual trip to LA for recruiting exposure and, on the other side, seem like a bigger match-up for those schools.
I think the conference is going to tie one of Ohio State or Michigan (or both) out there still, but I’d take the trophy game set up for sure.
LikeLike
Eric,
NE always recruited nationally. The quality of their recruiting classes actually didn’t change all that much when NE left the B12. Now NE pulls in more players from the B10 footprint and FL than they used to, and fewer from TX and CA. Some of it is coach dependent and where they have connections.
In 2009, NE only had 21 players from TX. Now they have 10. But FL went from 3 to 8, MD + NJ went from 3 to 10, etc.
NE recruiting class rankings:
2007 – #17
2008 – #30
2009 – #28
2010 – #26
2011 – #16
2012 – #32
2013 – #22
2014 – #35
2015 – #30
2016 – #26
2017 – #23
2018 – #23
2019 – #17
NE was already sliding before they left the B12. The coaches after Osborne couldn’t maintain that same level.
LikeLike
I mean, Osborne wasn’t pulling in top 5 recruiting classes either. He managed to win national titles with an S&C program and a system that could utilize short-armed linemen to the best of their potential and a few athletes.
LikeLike
The California schools should not object to Nebraska — at least the way they have been playing recently. They will get enough of OSU, PSU, Michigan, etc. without annual matchups.
LikeLike
Frank, always love your insight. Thank you. As an aside, could the B1G FINALLY move off of the name Big Ten? It’s tradition… right? If tradition were so important, they wouldn’t be poaching schools from their “rival” bowl partners for forever in the PAC12. I’d be very happy to see them break with an outdated/antiquated name and do something new altogether, perhaps with a lean to the new geographical reality that is Coast to Coast.
LikeLike
I suggest calling it the “Intercollegiate Conference”.
But in all seriousness, no, the Big Ten won’t change its name. Too much brand equity in that name.
LikeLike
How about the B1G Intergalactic conference?
The B1G could change the logo to B16 and make the 6 look like a G.
LikeLike
Ha, goot one.
LikeLike
Big 16 is owned by the Big 12, along with Big 14. Thinking ahead, they were.
LikeLike
The B1G could change the logo to B16 and make the 6 look like a G.
That is not very future-proof, since they will probably not be at 16 forever.
If ever asked why they are called Big Ten with 16 members, they can just say “ten are big at any given time.”
LikeLike
Well maybe the original name, the Western Conference applies again?
LikeLike
Or better, the original name, “Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives.”
I think that was in force until 1987, viz.
https://bigten.org/news/2010/6/11/big_ten_membership_history.aspx
LikeLike
Big Ten is a trademark. Nowadays it has nothing to do with the number of schools, hasn’t had since Penn State joined. It’s like “Coca” in Coca-Cola. There’s no cocaine in Coke.
Pendants go bananas over stuff like that. They think a double-negative in English is like multiplying negatives in algebra. It isn’t. English uses repetition for emphasis.
LikeLike
I am shocked its hasn’t been changed to refer to the “Big Ten” pillars of sports. Truth, Justice, Integrity, Sportsmanship, etc.
LikeLike
Amateurism, Leaders, Legends, …
LikeLike
Huge opportunity here:
The Jim Delany Big Ten Pillars of Sports Presented by Citi
The Stagg-Alverez Amateurism Pillar Zested Up by RO-TEL.
The Hayes–Schembechler Sportsmanship Pillar Presented Responsibly by Budweiser.
The Dungy–Thompson Humanitarianism Pillar Discount Double Checked by State Farm.
…
Just let the Big Ten know they can send me the check for this idea.
LikeLike
Little 8: “The California schools should not object to Nebraska. . . . They will get enough of OSU, PSU, Michigan, etc. without annual matchups.”
Of course they will. Each school in the conference will play UCLA with a minimum 50% frequency and USC with a minimum 50% frequency. It could easily be scheduled that each of the “original 14” would play a California school every year.
The foremost problem with our current set-up is two many heavyweights playing heavyweights in the East. Making UM and OSU the annual rivals of USC would only compound the problem.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the powers-that-be see that as a problem.
LikeLike
Bump
LikeLike
I suspect the Big Ten will adopt a hybrid model between geography, trophy games, and the third idea that Richard mentioned above, TV value.
Geography is probably the least important of these. A midwestern conference that just added USC & UCLA is probably not concerned about geographic compactness.
I like the trophy game idea, but it has to be acknowledged that the majority of TV viewers could not tell you what most of those trophies are. I tend to agree with Richard (above) that the Big Ten is not going to care about preserving the silly MSU–PSU rivalry.
If they go with three locked games (not the only model but the simplest), I am sure Penn State will lock Rutgers and Maryland. I suspect there will be some griping that they are getting an easier go of it than the other kings.
LikeLike
The B10 could also go with competitiveness-based ties while taking rivalries in to account (which Alan says the SEC will do)
Say you have 4 tiers:
Tier 1 (4 points):
OSU, UMich, PSU, USC
Tier 2 (3 points):
MSU, UW, Iowa, UNL
Tier 3 (2 points):
UMTC, NU, UCLA, PU
Tier 4 (1 point):
RU, UMD, IU, UIUC
UMich: OSU, MSU, PU (9)
OSU: UMich, PSU, IU (9)
PSU: OSU, MSU, RU (9)
USC: UCLA, UW, UNL (8)
MSU: UMich, PSU, NU (10)
UW: Iowa, UMTC, USC (9)
UNL: Iowa, UMTC, USC (9)
Iowa: UW, UNL, UMTC (8)
UMTC: Iowa, UNL, UW (9)
NU: UIUC, MSU, UCLA (6)
UCLA: USC, NU, UIUC (7)
PU: IU, UMich, UMD (6)
UIUC: NU, UCLA, UMD (5)
IU: PU, OSU, RU (7)
RU: UMD, PSU, IU (6)
UMD: RU, PU, UIUC (4)
All of the top 8 are at or a point away from 9 points.
There’s more variation in the bottom half but all are at or a point away from 6 except for UMTC (because the other 3 schools in the NW quad are natural rivals and are all in the 2nd tier, though UNL is going through a down phase) and UMD.
Maybe RU and UMD can alternate between ties to PSU and PU every 4 years.
LikeLike
Heck, switch UIUC/IU vs UMD/RU every 4 years too.
LikeLike
LikeLike
“Says all 10 will sign a grant of rights if the right deal is put before them.”
That feels like a very confident way of saying nothing of merit.
LikeLike
Looking at these options, most schools would seem to be fine with 2 fixed rivals. The schools who would most object would probably be Rutgers, Maryland, Iowa and Nebraska (since Iowa would not pick them). So I guess you need 3 minimum and it doesn’t seem you need 4. As much as some of the west division schools would like Ohio St. or Michigan as an annual rival, they don’t have that now.
So 3 fixed rivals would seem to be the number.
LikeLike
Iowa has at least 4 (UW, UMTC, UNL, and NU) and UMTC would want the Jug game with UMich too, but many coaches/programs also want to play everybody at least half the time.
LikeLike
Frank,
The 3 locked rivals list is my bailiwick, so I’ve got to chime in.
Start with the mandatory games:
RU – UMD, PSU,
UMD – RU, PSU,
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
OSU – MI, PSU,
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI,
IN – PU,
PU – IN, IL,
IL – NW, PU,
NW – IL,
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
UCLA – USC,
USC – UCLA,
I’ll be very surprised if all of those aren’t in the actual set.
Now add in desirable games:
OSU – USC
MI – UCLA
MSU – IN, NW
IN – MSU
NW – MSU
WI – UCLA
NE – UCLA
UCLA – WI, NE
USC – OSU, MI
These keep MSU’s minor rivalry and preferred NW game, and get the big brands playing the new west coast members. USC gets kings while UCLA gets brand smore on their level, but also with some history.
That gets you to 10 of 16 teams with 3 locked games, leaving RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL and NW with 2 each.
So how to pair them?
RU – NW (NYC vs Chicago, NW has lots of alumni in NYC)
IN – IL (regional)
UMD – PU (good engineering schools? – it’s forced
Other pairings are certainly possible.
My final list (for today)
RU – UMD, PSU, NW
UMD – RU, PSU, PU
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
OSU – MI, PSU, USC
MI – OSU, MSU, USC
MSU – MI, IN, NW
IN – PU, MSU, IL
PU – IN, IL, UMD
IL – NW, PU, IN
NW – IL, MSU, RU
WI – MN, IA, UCLA
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN, UCLA
UCLA – USC, NE, WI
USC – UCLA, OSU, MI
I want to note that this list is deigned for the first 10 years or so to integrate USC and UCLA. After that, the locked games out west could change.
Certainly there is room for change, but I think this hits the goals for the B10 of preserving key rivalries and getting the big brands into LA.
I hope the B10 mostly applies a zipper-like approach to scheduling the non-locked games:
USC/UCLA
NE/IA
WI/MN
NW/IL
IN/PU
MI/MSU
OSU/PSU
UMD/RU
Play one for 2 years, then the other if neither of them is locked with you. Make new “pairs” from the singletons leftover from your 3 locked rivals and your partner.
But wait, those locked games seem unfair some will say. Yes, they are unfair. So are the existing rivalries. They key is to remember that all the other games are played 50% of the time. So while IN, PU and IL aren’t locked with any of the big brands, they’ll play half of them every year.
OSU has 3 locked kings, but OSU also has the best W% and never has to play itself. When you look at the overall schedule strength, it doesn’t vary all that much.
I used conference W% from 1993-2021 to calculate SOS. The highest W% was 0.530 and the lowest 0.478, with an average of 0.506. Only PU and NW are below 0.490 (0.478 and 0.486), with 10 schools between 0.494 and 0.515. MN and UCLA’s SOS are skewed higher since NE is no longer playing at the level they were in the 90s. That leaves MI and USC as the top, but that’s hard to avoid since they play OSU. If I change NE’s W% to 0.500 from 0.614, the new toughest schedule is 0.520 with a low of 0.472, 15 schools are between 0.480 and 0.520, and 8 schools between 0.490 and 0.510.
Obviously year to year fluctuations will have a large impact on these numbers.
For comparison:
FTT’s Option 1:
SOS ranges from 0.490-0.530, with MN, RU, IN and UCLA having the toughest schedules while OSU, NW, PSU, NE and USC have the easiest.
I don’t see why the B10 would lock IL and NW with the LA schools, personally. Those games don’t need to be annual.
FTT’s Option 2:
SOS ranges from 0.484-0.533, with MN, IL, UCLA and RU getting the toughest schedules while OSU, PSU, MSU, NW, PU and UMD have the easiest.
I have a hard time seeing NE get both LA teams locked, and again I’m not sure NW is who the B10 would choose to lock out west.
LikeLike
OK, this looks like my TV-friendly locks except without PSU-MSU (PSU locks both other eastern schools).
The more I think of it, the more USC-OSU and USC-UMich seems likely. It just makes sense for many reasons, and probably the LA schools’ home games are reserved for CBS and NBC to get them to pay up.
LikeLike
^
Should say MI – USC
LikeLike
A couple of tidbits from Canzano:
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-spider-senses-tingling-on
I have a hunch this week could bring some news — or at least some direction — when it comes the Pac-12’s media-rights negotiations and/or expansion.
…
Further, the Pac-12 expansion question is looming. I’ve written about San Diego State, SMU, UNLV, Boise State and Fresno State at length. A few have speculated that the conference might be more aggressive, moving to add a soon-to-be Big 12 member or potentially targeting some Conference USA programs.
I reached out to several high-level sources inside the Pac-12 in the last week, asking about media rights and expansion. Nobody wanted to go on the record. One source told me he couldn’t be quoted “…until we get to the other side.”
It makes me think the “other side” is in sight.
Keep your ear to the ground this week. The Pac-12 members likely have numbers from the bidders on the media rights front. The conference may be weighing a three-pronged dilemma: A) Take a pile of money from a streaming service knowing that you sacrifice distribution; or B) Sign on full-boat with ESPN for less money, but bask in the glow of the worldwide leader’s propaganda machine; or C) Some blend of both.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-commissioner-breaks
The Pac-12 is knee deep in a critical media-rights negotiation. Conference leadership and its consultants are sorting out a variety of questions. Among them, weighing how much inventory should be sold to a digital streaming service vs. traditional linear-television distributors.
Said Kliavkoff: “You’re thinking about it exactly the right way — it’s a balancing act. That’s the way we’re thinking about it.”
…
In the talk, Kliavkoff spoke candidly about his relationships with other commissioners. He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten.
…
Kliavkoff sounded confident the Pac-12 won’t lose any of the 10 remaining conference members to the Big Ten or Big 12. I mean, he sounded rock-solid certain. It dovetails with what conference athletic directors have said to me over the last couple of months, but I was still a little surprised at the level of unwavering confidence he expressed.
“Listen, I think if schools would have left for the Big Ten, they would have left for the Big Ten already,” Kliavkoff said.
• STREAMERS:
I am 99.9 percent sure that the Pac-12 will end up with a ton of content on Amazon and/or Apple or another streaming service. But I also think the conference knows it’s too soon to go all-in with a digital partner.
“Certainly revenue is at the top of the priority list but we have to also balance that against distribution,” Kliavkoff said. “We really want our content to be available to any of our fans who want to see it. I’ve set a goal that our content should be available to any piece of glass connected to the internet as part of our next media rights negotiation.”
…
• EXPANSION: Kliavkoff talked about Pac-12 expansion, but he didn’t make it sound like a certainty. In fact, he didn’t really say adding schools has even been talked about, at least formally.
The commissioner did provide a rough timeline, though — get the media-rights deals done first, then make conference expansion decisions.
I’d love to see his math for how UCLA will lose money by joining the B10.
LikeLike
Yeah, GK seems to just be blowing smoke for the home crowd to snort up here.
Anyway, I think it’s smartest for the Pac to get their game-of-the-week with the WWL for whatever ESPN will pay them (not much), negotiating a certain number of games (1 a week?) that will absolutely be shown on ESPN/ABC (even if After Dark) and then get as much money as possible from a streamer for the rest.
Fox doesn’t make much sense because FS1 (and ESPN2 too) don’t really offer more exposure than a streamer.
LikeLike
I’d love to see his math for how UCLA will lose money by joining the B10.
USC and UCLA are both coming to the Big Ten with full shares. So if he thinks UCLA will lose money, he must think USC will lose too. He must know a different math than everyone else in the industry.
LikeLike
It somewhat reminds me of when Debbie Yow – then athletic director at N.C. State – was asked in late 2012 for comments on her former school, Maryland, leaving for the Big Ten. She cynically said she hoped Terrapiu basketball teams enjoy playing midweek games in Madison, Wis. Of course, Yow and her famed basketball sisters are North Carolina natives, and I doubt anyone in the College Park business office is complaining about the checks it gets from the B1G.
LikeLike
“He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten.”
My daughter currently believes Sonic the Hedgehog and unicorns are real. It’s amazing what you can make yourself believe if you want it bad enough.
“Listen, I think if schools would have left for the Big Ten, they would have left for the Big Ten already,” Kliavkoff said.
Change the ‘would’ to ‘could’ and he’s probably accurate here.
LikeLike
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/oklahoma-sooners/bedlam-series-to-be-scrapped-when-sooners-join-the-sec-per-report/
Bedlam is done once OU joins the SEC. OkSU says they just don’t have room to schedule them.
“It (playing Oklahoma) presents logistical issues under our current (scheduling) structure,” Oklahoma State AD Chad Weiberg said, via McMurphy. “We don’t have any openings to play them. We’re full. Unless there are significant undertakings to make the game happen, it can’t happen.”
It should be noted that OkSU just signed an 8 year deal with Tulsa starting in 2024, so that’s 10 games already scheduled for them. They also have series with AR and UO in 2024-27, with an I-AA game to make it all 12 booked (11 in 2025 – no I-AA yet).
https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/oklahoma-state/
Their schedule really doesn’t open up until 2030 unless they start cancelling games, and they already have a major OOC game for 2032-37.
LikeLike
They did say they will continue to play in all other sports, so they are not avoiding each other. There just isn’t a way to play in football.
LikeLike
Note that in a 3-6-6 scheduling framework, the B10 could switch up some of the 3rd locked games every 4 years. I’m pretty certain USC will start the first 4 years with OSU+UMich (leaving UCLA for UNL+UW). But in the next 4 years, OSU&UMich could lock with the IN schools (the IN schools as well as OSU/UMich want that to a degree), UNL&UW switch to USC, and UCLA locks with someone (IL schools?)
LikeLike
Note that in a 3-6-6 scheduling framework, the B10 could switch up some of the 3rd locked games every 4 years.
That is my preferred format, as for many schools that third lock — and sometimes even the second — is kind of arbitrary, and there is no reason to make it permanent. People gravitate to 3-6-6 because it is super-easy to explain.
LikeLike
Personally, I’ve generally been a K.I.S.S. person on various formats (whether divisions, scheduling or playoffs) so that there are consistent and easy to explain.
That being said, I can see the appeal of having only some schools having 3 games locked if they make sense (such as how I believe Penn State needs to be locked with OSU, Rutgers and Maryland while Iowa and Minnesota similarly ought to be playing each other along with both Nebraska and Wisconsin) while making everything else more flexible.
The problem, of course, is how to decide those “flexible” games. I actually like the NFL scheduling format where they based certain games on the prior season’s standings, so there’s a year-to-year strength of schedule component.
I’ve seen some comments before about how the Big Ten locked certain intra-division games over the past few years (such as Northwestern-Michigan State), but note that other than Indiana-Purdue (which is a protected rivalry), all of those other locked intra-division matchups were quite literally chosen randomly out of a hat witnessed by the Big Ten athletic directors. (I’ll have to find the article that described this process, but this is honest-to-goodness how they paired those matchups.)
That’s just evidence that all of us as fans might be thinking way more about the nuances here than the Powers That Be.
LikeLike
Frank, right, that was after they had locked for the first 6 years parity-based. Then to avoid squabbling, they just drew schools out of a hat the second time.
It’s possible that each school would only have 2 permanent locks and the 3rd lock would be parity-based.
So if 2 locks:
USC-UCLA-UNL all lock each other.
UW-Iowa-UMTC all lock each other.
Then a ring that goes PU-IU-UIUC-NU-MSU-UMich-OSU-PSU-RU-UMD-back to PU.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t that be IU-PU-UIUC…? IL and PU have the cannon trophy game.
LikeLike
Brian, true, but do either UIUC or PU care about that game? I never even heard of that trophy (or the Old Brass Spittoon, or the Illibuck) until the B10 split in to E/W and used those trophies as justification.
LikeLike
Richard: “Brian, true, but do either UIUC or PU care about that game?”
That was Purdue’s second-best rivalry for decades we cared a great deal about it. And when the game was in WL, there were bus-loads of Illini fans coming over to fill the stadium. The reason it became lost is that the East-West Divisions eliminated it.
LikeLike
Colin, huh? What are you talking about? PU and UIUC are in the same division and play every year.
LikeLike
One other alternative that isn’t too much non-KISS would be a 3-6-6 where you play 3 every year, 6 twice in 3 years and 6 once in 3 years. That could allow for more made for TV matchups as well as making trophy games a little more frequent.
LikeLike
Possible but unlikely. That doesn’t allow all players to visit every B10 stadium at least once over a 4 year career and the gain is somewhat minimal. Plus it would difficult to make the cutoffs so there would be charges of unfairness, favoritism, etc.
Honestly, I think even my 2 locked opponents for all schools idea is unlikely. But it’s possible that the 3rd lock gets changed around for some schools some of the time.
LikeLike
That doesn’t allow all players to visit every B10 stadium at least once over a 4 year career. . . .
I wonder how important that is anymore. What percentage of players are on the team and travel roster for four years? And among those who are, how high is this on their list of career priorities?
LikeLike
Marc, hmm. Who knows. I know Fitz has brought it up, though, yeah, not sure anyone cares about NU’s opinion.
BTW, an interesting factoid: Devin Gardner played at UMich for 5 seasons but never played against Wisconsin*.
*Wisconsin did visit Ann Arbor in 2010, but due to the wacky schedule changes due to B10 expansion and changing the divisional structure, UMich and UW didn’t play after 2010 and before 2016. No visit to Madison in the years between 2009-2017.
Hmm, I just found out that that series was ridiculously lopsided before 2005.
LikeLike
To be fair, that is something Big Ten leaders (and not just Fitz.) have brought up in the past. But freshmen often are not on the travel roster, unless they are ready to play that early in their careers. And among those ready to play as freshmen, not all last four years (NFL exits, transfers, injuries, academics, etc.).
So the idea that every player saw every stadium over four years was always something of a myth, and is probably even less likely today given the rise of the transfer portal.
LikeLike
Marc – As a non-athlete student back in the day, I would have appreciated the conference’s effort to schedule all teams within a four year period, and would have taken the possibility of football road trips to every conference school as a challenge.
Not to brag, but as a student in the late 80s when the SEC was a 10 team league, I did make a game on every campus except UF and Vandy.
I’m sure all you B1G guys were studying.
LikeLike
Penn State recruits heavily in New Jersey and Maryland. However, they do not consider Rutgers or Maryland rivals. The games are usually not competitive and have had no historical importance to CFB either before or after PSU’s move to the Big Ten. Matchups between MI and MN or OSU and IL have more meaning from a B1G perspective, but don’t show up in schedule suggestions as potential locks. As a PSU alum I have never once heard anyone pound the table for RU or MD. PSU was never considering a jump to the ACC. This always struck me as a Delany strategy to help sell Eastern expansion to the rest of the B1G (and it worked). PSU has played more meaningful games with IA, NE, and others than they have with MD or RU. Personally I’d prefer to lock OSU, UCLA, and MD and just play RU every other year.
LikeLike
The Little Brown Jug is definitely more meaningful but UMTC already has 3 rivals and UMich likely has a bunch of priorities (besides OSU and MSU, visiting the East Coast, visiting the West Coast, IN games for it’s fans to travel to, and visiting Chicago) above visiting MN more often.
LikeLike
Big Ten sources said on-the-record that they feared Penn State leaving for the ACC, and that the Rutgers/Maryland strategy was intended in part to prevent that from happening. That was never cited as the entire reason for doing it.
It never made much sense to me. Penn State and Rutgers only started playing each other regularly in 1977, meaning it existed as an annual game for barely more than a decade before PSU joined. When Rutgers joined the Big Ten, they had not played PSU in almost 20 years.
The PSU–Maryland rivalry had a bit more teeth, as the two played almost annually from 1961 to 1993. Still, PSU did not care enough to schedule it as a non-conference game. As with Rutgers, when Maryland joined they hadn’t played PSU in a bit over 20 years.
That tells you how important those rivalries were to Penn State.
LikeLike
Bob,
Nobody thinks RU or UMD are rivalries for PSU, but PSU is the eastern big brand and the only power school near them. PSU’s fan base is the only one they encounter much, and both are close enough for PSU fans to fill their stadiums. It just makes sense for PSU to keep playing them both.
LikeLike
Marc,
Those were the eastern schools that were available and met the B10’s requirements. They are both near Philadelphia, where much of PSU’s fan base is centered.
Other eastern options (based on most games vs PSU) were Pitt, Syracuse, WV, Temple, Penn, Navy, Bucknell, and Army. Penn and Bucknell are I-AA. The academies would not work. WV isn’t good enough academically. Temple got kicked out of the Big East for sucking, and brings no new territory. Pitt would’ve been redundant for territory (good rivalry, though) back when BTN subscribers were a key factor. That just leaves Syracuse, who left the AAU when NE got booted.
Would SU have been more meaningful? After 1990, they didn’t play again until 2008. SU won twice in 23 games since 1971. Would SU have left the ACC? I doubt it. They fit better there, and it was hard to get UMD to leave.
LikeLike
There are lots of games they could play off the basic 3-6-6 scheme.
A could play B and C 75% of the time (alternating 2 years as 3rd locked rivals with A).
A – R1, @R2, B, no C, (d,e,f,g,h,n)
A – @R1, R2, @B, C, (d,e,f,g,h)
A – R1, @R2, C, no B, (i,j,k,l,m,n)
A – @R1, R2, @C, B, (i,j,k,l,m)
But I tend to think they’ll stick with KISS. Hopefully they will reconsider the third locked games every few years, maybe even pre-design a rotation for them.
LikeLike
A few notes from a Penn State fan:
I don’t generally like the Rutgers/Maryland locks. I’d keep the OSU game and ditch Maryland for whatever other blue blood you could throw this way.
That said…putting on my *think like a university President” hat…the alumni base & good recruiting grounds for PSU are mostly PA, MD, NJ, and VA. There’s some exceptions (everyone loves Florida, Chicago, Southern California) but in general, it’s not westward.
So as much as this is a ho-hum for PSU, I agree with what you wrote. Anyone writing in MSU or whoever else instead of the eastern block is probably not considering the 1,000 foot view from above.
That’s my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Yep. And also, from RU’s and UMD’s POV who else would they want play? PSU is the only big brand school near their fan bases, and the only one near driving distance.
LikeLike
Article on Amazon’s interest in possibly buying some lower-tier Big Ten inventory. Also, will UCLA share B1G revenue with Cal?
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/conference-realignment-amazon-interest-may-affect-big-ten-big-12-pac-12-composition-as-talks-continue/
LikeLike
Amazon in the picture for the B10 only if the B10 expands, and that’s just tough to justify financially. Even if Amazon overpays, someone would have to keep overpaying for ever and ever.
LikeLike
The article notes that: “The likes of Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue and Rutgers would be unlikely to support expansion, ” since they would bear the brunt of games relegated to streaming purgatory.
Dodd cites an unnamed industry source that any streaming deal would exclude 100% of the Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State games. I have to think Warren would need to throw Amazon at least some red meat.
So I guess Warren has some convincing to do, assuming this is something he wants. Money quote:
Approximately 85% of U.S. households have at least one streaming service. However, 85% isn’t 100%.
And not all of those 85% have Amazon. Ratings for Amazon’s first Thursday night game were off the charts, but that might have been due to the novelty factor. No one knows if they can keep it up.
LikeLike
Marc: “The article notes that: “The likes of Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue and Rutgers would be unlikely to support expansion, ” since they would bear the brunt of games relegated to streaming purgatory.”
The likes of Ohio State, Michigan, USC and Penn State would be unlikely to support further expansion because it would further dilute their brands. Marc, do you take the bait every time?
LikeLike
Marc, do you take the bait every time?
I think you meant to address that comment to Dennis Dodd, since those were his thoughts, not mine.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Dodd cites an unnamed industry source that any streaming deal would exclude 100% of the Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State games. I have to think Warren would need to throw Amazon at least some red meat.”
Fox, CBS and NBC already paid for the top cuts. Amazon would get the trimmings at this point. Not only are there the Saturday tripleheaders, but FOX also paid for games for FS1 and BTN, and NBC for Peacock.
Is Amazon going to reimburse them to get better games? Would NBC even want that, if the whole point is to grow Peacock?
“And not all of those 85% have Amazon.”
And of those that do, a large percentage don’t actually use it. They just wanted free shipping.
LikeLike
FS1, BTN, and Peacock would get something, but if the inventory is from more expansion, the increased quality of picks likely would offset them having to work Amazon in to the draft order as well. The problem is, while Amazon may be willing to pay the equivalent of top-3-pick money for non-top-3 picks, are they willing to pay that forever? Because otherwise, expansion would be hard to justify (without ND or any of the top ACC programs coming).
LikeLike
The problem is, while Amazon may be willing to pay the equivalent of top-3-pick money for non-top-3 picks, are they willing to pay that forever?
This is why I am skeptical of any further expansion right now. Even if Amazon pays enough in the current cycle, that money could dry up next time around. Expansion is a forever decision.
LikeLike
Maybe we sell Amazon an auto-renewing membership that can only be cancelled by getting a live B10 representative on the phone, then remove the phone lines from B10 HQ. But we’ll give them free shipping for the games.
LikeLike
Amazon was interested in better games, but the B10 wasn’t. I don’t see that changing unless the new members take less money and play all the Amazon games. Why would any current B10 members want less money and/or less exposure? And I don’t see Amazon wanting just the worst games.
Maybe they can overwhelm the P12 or B12 with cash, but the lack of exposure is a big hurdle. Even the NFL barely dipped a toe in those waters. And NFL cross-promotion only helps if CFB fans watch those NFL games – large parts of those fan bases don’t overlap at all. It’s not like the CFB game would follow the NFL game – that would have big value.
I think UCLA might share a few million with Cal for a few years, their part of how much the TV deal might have dropped in value. More likely, they promise to play Cal OOC every year.
LikeLike
Amazon was interested in better games, but the B10 wasn’t. I don’t see that changing unless the new members take less money and play all the Amazon games. Why would any current B10 members want less money and/or less exposure? And I don’t see Amazon wanting just the worst games.
I don’t expect further expansion in this cycle, but for the sake of argument, let’s say the Big Ten adds Washington and Stanford. Some of those games would be in the top-three rotation (e.g., Stanford @OSU), which would create spare inventory, some of which goes to Amazon. But as I said in another post, Amazon probably needs at least some decent games.
LikeLike
Amazon would want decent games, but nobody playing in a decent game wants to be on Amazon.
Unlike the P12, the B10 isn’t desperate for Amazon’s money right now. It makes no sense for the B10 to agree to it.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see where the 8 Peacock games end up after the NBCUniversal/WarnerDiscovery merger comes to fruition. UNI+?
LikeLike
According to every number I can find, Peacock’s subscriber base is minuscule — roughly about 1/10th of Amazon. And they are practically giving it away.
LikeLike
Which makes the B1G’s decision to make it the conference’s streaming partner all the more bizarre. if NBC demanded it as part of their package, I have to believe there’s some sort of dissolution clause, freeing up those rights in the event Peacock is shuttered or absorbed in a merger. As is, it’s a dead bird walking.
LikeLike
I mean, those are probably the B10 games that have the lowest potential viewership (sadly, that probably means my Wildcats will feature heavily).
LikeLike
Which makes the B1G’s decision to make it the conference’s streaming partner all the more bizarre.
I assume what the Big Ten really wanted was the night game on NBC. A handful of Peacock games was part of the deal, just to give NBC a chance to prove they can make it work.
I have to believe there’s some sort of dissolution clause, freeing up those rights in the event Peacock is shuttered or absorbed in a merger.
I am sure they do, but the bigger worry is that Peacock remains a zombie network — still technically alive, but miles away from the distribution they could have had on Amazon or Apple. Fortunately, this is a short deal, so if it’s a mistake, they aren’t stuck for 20 years, like the (ahem!) ACC.
LikeLike
Marc,
I assume you really mean Peacock Premium (and Premium Plus). They literally give Peacock away, and Comcast subscribers get Premium included in their bill. Just from that Comcast deal, Peacock should have a decent number of subscribers (not viewers, but subscribers). Plus Premium is 60% off this month ($1.99 not $4.99).
https://variety.com/2022/streaming/news/peacock-subscribers-q2-1235326362/
13M paid subscribers, with 27M active accounts. But Comcast has more than 13M T V subscribers, so I’m not sure how that works.
LikeLike
I didn’t even know there were levels of Peacock, which tells you how much attention I am paying to it. But yes, that 60% discount is what I mean by “practically giving it away.”
LikeLike
Of more immediate interest is some details of which 16 teams get screwed with Peacock games each year. When are those games played (F nights?, Saturdays?) and who plays in them (big brands?, medium brands?, RU?)? Are there caps on how often teams play there, or minimum appearance rules?
Which particular streaming black hole they end up in seems less important for now.
LikeLike
Seems like these were just thrown in so I’m quite confident nothing that is top-3-pick quality, so almost certainly no PSU/UMich/PSU. Games between the group of the IN schools, IL schools, UMTC, and RU&UMD when they don’t have winning records are tiny. Sometimes some other matchups too.
And these types of games that currently end up on FS1/ESPN2/BTN draw very few viewers anyway.
LikeLike
I agree with all of that. But there were clear rules about everyone appearing on BTN at least twice per year, limits on night games, ability to refuse night games, etc.
I’d like to see the details about Peacock games, NBC night games, PT night games, and all the other details for the new TV deal.
Then we’ll know if schools have to appear on Peacock every other year or some such. OSU/RU is the sort of BTN game that could be buried on Peacock just as easily.
LikeLike
Again, Brian, I doubt it. Fox and NBC and CBS shelled out a lot of money (and NBC & CBS must be counting on very strong selections for 3rd picks). I doubt that there are restrictions on their top 3 picks besides the BTN appearance one.
LikeLike
Fox and NBC and CBS shelled out a lot of money (and NBC & CBS must be counting on very strong selections for 3rd picks). I doubt that there are restrictions on their top 3 picks besides the BTN appearance one.
Right, but Brian is asking mainly about the Peacock games, which are never going to be top three. After those games, how do the rest get spread around?
LikeLike
Marc, by that time, all the OSU and UMich conference games would already be snapped up*. Most of the PSU conference games too.
*Unless UMich/OSU become bad (again, in the case of the Wolverines).
LikeLike
Marc, by that time, all the OSU and UMich conference games would already be snapped up. Most of the PSU conference games too.
I am not sure how you are counting, but there certainly are weeks when those schools’ games are not among the top three. Hence the question of pecking order (no Peacock pun intended) beyond that level.
I mean…if Peacock is always the sixth choice after the broadcast nets, FS1, and BTN, then I agree they will probably never get a king game. But no one has stated the selection mechanism after the top three.
LikeLike
Marc, these days, OSU games always draw at least decent viewership even when they’re beating up nobodies OOC. Same with UMich when they are good. I believe every OSU game (not taken by BTN) was actually in the top 3 B10 games every week they played. The OSU games that weren’t taken by BTN (there should be 9-10 of them) definitely were in the top 45 B10-controlled games.
In other words, your mental map seems out of date. These days, OSU/UMich are the brands you think ND is while ND isn’t as big a draw as Bama/OSU/UMich.
LikeLike
I see there have been multiple Ohio State and Penn State games on FS1 in recent years. They are also on ESPN sometimes, and I am not quite sure if that necessarily means they were in the top three.
LikeLike
I looked at https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019-college-football-tv-ratings/ and every OSU game they had was 1 of the top 3 most watched B10 games of that week. Including the BTN game.
LikeLike
Same was true in 2017 and 2018, including the 1 FS1 game I saw.
Recall that Fox was putting good games on FS1 in order to grow carriage there.
I think that’s 1 reason why the B10 went with 3 linear carriers this time (no streaming for a top 3 pick either): Because it didn’t want any of its good games buried on FS1 (or streaming), suppressing viewership.
LikeLike
So you believe that every week, the Fox/CBS/NBC line-up will consist of a Michigan game, an Ohio State game, and a Penn State game? (Maybe not in that order.)
Wow!
LikeLike
Marc: Did I say PSU games are always top 3? No.
Plus:
1. Those 3 teams aren’t always playing. The top 3 picks are for 15 games each.
2. Sometimes, they play each other.
3. Some of their games will have to go on BTN.
But yes, OSU, UMich, and PSU would feature disproportionately in the top 3 of a week. I’m not sure why that surprises you.
LikeLike
What was true with 14 teams and what is true with 16 teams may not be the same. You point out FS1 getting some good games because Fox wanted to grow it. Doesn’t that same logic apply to NBC and Peacock? Isn’t that one reason they were willing to pay so much, that they could get some decent games to stream?
Say teams have the following value in games:
Tier 1 (4 pts) – OSU, MI, PSU, USC – Kings
Tier 2 (3) – NE, WI, IA, MSU – Princes
Tier 3 (2) – UCLA, NW, MN, UMD – Decent and/or in big markets
Tier 4 (1) – PU, IL, IN, RU – Bad and/or small market
Now say my set of rivals is used.
8 pt games – 4 locked + 1 = 5 (OSU – 3) running total = 5
7 pt games – 1 locked + 7.5 = 8.5 (OSU – 2) running total = 13.5
6 pt games – 4 locked + 9 = 13 (OSU – 2) running total = 26.5
5 pt games – 7 locked + 12.5 = 19.5 (OSU – 2) running total = 46
4 pt games – 1 locked + 10.5 = 11.5 (OSU – 0) running total = 57.5
3 pt games – 4 locked + 6 = 10 (OSU – 0) running total = 67.5
2 pt games – 3 locked + 1.5 = 4.5 (OSU – 0) running total = 72
That’s just the 72 conference games, so let’s say they are spread over 11 weeks. That means 33 top 3 windows for the networks. Assuming they are spread out optimally, that would be 5 8-pt games, 9 7-pt games, 13 6-pt games, and 6 5-pt games.
If you assume within each level that all OSU games are taken first, then all of OSU’s games would be in the top 3. Likewise for MI, but not PSU and/or USC. But if BTN also gets 1 B10 game from each team, then you might use up all the Tier 1 team games.
But this is in the ideal schedule for TV scenario. We know that doesn’t happen in real life. In reality some weeks have a cluster of big games, while others have fewer. There are going to be some king games available.
I didn’t even look at early OOC weeks when there are many more games.
Why assume BTN gets priority over Peacock for access to teams? Why wouldn’t NBC demand a guarantee (maybe 1 appearance every other year) too?
As I say, I would just like to see all the rules spelled out. How many weeknight games, and when (Wk 1 and T-Day week are different from the regular season)? How many BTN, FS1, and Peacock appearances are required?
LikeLike
Brian, sure, you can posit all sorts of scenarios that I deem unrealistic. We’ll just have to wait and see.
LikeLike
Nobody knows who is is the ACC’s Atlantic and Coastal divisions. Most everyone can figure out the Pac 12 North & South, the B1G East & West, and the SEC East and West, with the exception of Mizzou.
The 3-6-6 model’s beauty is its simplicity. So what if there are a couple of not quite perfect annual games, you get everyone at least fifty percent of the time. That’s about as good as it can get, while still making it easy to understand.
LikeLike
Atlantic & Coastal were uniquely stupid divisions designed to produce the occasional FSU–Miami conference championship game. The football gods punished the ACC by ensuring that this match-up never happened.
The Big Ten tried the same thing with Legends & Leaders, which blessedly lasted only a short time. Adding Rutgers & Maryland gave them a chance to fix it without forcing them to admit how bad an idea it was in the first place.
But divisions are something you see every time you look at the standings. The scheduling format is not like that. I will assume that most fans know that you play every team in your division every year. I suspect most do not know how the other three games are chosen.
LikeLike
Marc – my point is Joe Fan would know the his State U plays X, Y, and Z schools annually, and everybody else twice in a four year period. That’s in line with Frank’s KISS standard, rather than suggestions about some schools having 2 annual games with some others having 4 or 5. No plan will be perfect for everybody, but I’m 100% in the FTT camp that the most simple, easy to understand plan is best, even if you only get to play Team X twice every four years.
LikeLike
Marc – my point is Joe Fan would know the his State U plays X, Y, and Z schools annually, and everybody else twice in a four year period.
I am guessing Joe Fan does not know that, given the amount of ignorance one sees on fan chats. The participants on this forum are dialed into such issues, and might be exaggerating the extent that the average fan is aware of them.
The NFL’s scheduling formula is quite complex, and I suspect very few fans could tell you what it is exactly, other than you play all the teams in your division home & home.
LikeLike
What part of that is unrealistic?
Even in the ideal scheduling scenario, there would be some king games left out of the top 3 picks unless the networks essentially always choose Tier 1 vs Tier 4 games above Tier 2 vs Tier 2 and Tier 2 vs Tier 3 games. That’s simple math. The 4 kings would play 31 B10 games (the other 5 are king-king games already counted).
That would mean only 2 of games like NE/WI, NE/IA, WI/IA, NE/MSU, WI/MSU and IA/MSU would make an OTA network (and none of the other teams not playing a king) because PSU/RU and OSU/IN and MI/IL are being chosen instead. I find that highly unrealistic.
So, the rules for 4th picks and below are also important to know. And scheduling constraints based on BTN or FS1 or Peacock having rights to show certain teams.
LikeLike
Marc,
The B10 had better options but chose L & L instead.
Outer vs Inner and NW vs SE both could’ve worked and made sense.
Outer – PSU, RU, UMD, NE, IA, WI, MN
Inner – OSU, MI, MSU, IL, NW, IN , PU
NW – NE, IA, WI, MN, MI, MSU, NW
SE – OSU, PSU, RU, UMD, IL, IN, PU
Outer vs inner had travel imbalance issues and isolated the newbies.
NW vs SE required two locked crossover rivalries (OSU/MI, NW/IL) but otherwise made decent sense.
LikeLike
Marc,
Marc – my point is Joe Fan would know the his State U plays X, Y, and Z schools annually, and everybody else twice in a four year period.
“I am guessing Joe Fan does not know that, given the amount of ignorance one sees on fan chats. The participants on this forum are dialed into such issues, and might be exaggerating the extent that the average fan is aware of them.”
Back in the 11-team days, how many fans didn’t know who their school’s 2 locked rivals were? It didn’t take long to figure out if you cared at all, and that was true pre-internet.
LikeLike
Back in the 11-team days, how many fans didn’t know who their school’s 2 locked rivals were? It didn’t take long to figure out if you cared at all, and that was true pre-internet.
I think fans generally knew who their locked rivals were, just as NFL fans know the teams in their own team’s division. How the rest of the season was determined, I believe most fans could not have told you.
LikeLike
I find your concern that every team will be forced to be on Peacock unrealistic. BTN being owned by the B10 and Peacock (which may not even exist in its current form) being not is a big difference.
And your simple math doesn’t take in to account that B10 conference games will almost certainly soon be spread over 14 weeks. 45 “top-3” picks total.
Also, you don’t differentiate between kings but really should. Even with the addition of the LA schools, I don’t see any OSU or UMich conference games (assuming OSU and UMich are national title contenders) to fall out of the top 3 picks. Some PSU and USC conference games might.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I think fans generally knew who their locked rivals were, just as NFL fans know the teams in their own team’s division. How the rest of the season was determined, I believe most fans could not have told you.”
Well, there were 6 games left to fill and 8 teams. I think they got the idea. So now with playing half the teams, then the other half, I think they’ll also grok that pretty easily. It’s not like pro schedules, which are much more complicated.
That’s the whole point of 3-6-6 – anyone can understand it easily.
LikeLike
Richard,
It’s not a concern per se, it’s an open question that I want answered. There is precedent for them including rules like that in deals, and NBC made a point of getting some Peacock games as part of their deal, and got 1 less CCG than CBS. There’s been speculation the Peacock games would be Friday nights, but we don’t even know if that’s true. And if it is, do the old rules of refusing to host those games still apply? Lots of unanswered questions.
“And your simple math doesn’t take in to account that B10 conference games will almost certainly soon be spread over 14 weeks. 45 “top-3” picks total.”
If you spread the B10 games out, then you just mix in their OOC games. It doesn’t change much. And I openly said I ignored the 3 OOC weeks. If I didn’t, then I have to include the 12 OOC games played by the kings but those range in opponents so they are harder to categorize. I also need to put in numbers for the princes and even the tier 3 and 4 schools in case they play a king or prince (like ND vs PU).
USC will have 1 8-pt game at least. OSU, MI and PSU will have a 7-pt or 8-pt game each as well. Likely they will all have 2 5-pt games in many years as well. The princes should all have 1 6-pt or better game as well, plus 2 4-pt games. The tier 3 schools also may have some 5-pt games. So that’s 38.5 6-pt or higher games over 14 weeks. That means 3 or 4 of the 5-pt games would be needed.
The 4 kings combine to play 43 games. The OTA networks would have to essentially ignore all other games to show all the king games in their 45 slots. That seems unrealistic.
“Also, you don’t differentiate between kings but really should.”
Right, because any way I did that you were likely to agree with. Besides, I did talk through that.
“Even with the addition of the LA schools, I don’t see any OSU or UMich conference games (assuming OSU and UMich are national title contenders) to fall out of the top 3 picks.”
They already fall to BTN, which is outside the top 3. Why would that end? It’s easy to have a week like: MI/NW, WI/MSU, USC/IA, PSU/UCLA and OSU/RU. No huge games, but several good ones that don’t include OSU. Week 4 last year was similar, with WI/ND, NE/MSU, MI/RU, and OSU/Akron. The OSU game went to BTN and finished 4th for the wee among B10 games.
LikeLike
Man, Brian, you’re a pedant. We both know that BTN takes at least 1 conference game and 1 OOC game from each king, so I didn’t think it was worth mentioning. And yes, some of the OOC games would be dreck. You also like to attack strawmen as I never said all kings would have all their games in the top 3 choices. I said OSU and UMich should (if they are in national title contention) have all their conference games (other than the mandated BTN games) among the top 3. And PSU should have most (assuming that they’re also good and not bad/mediocre). Even if you add up all the OSU and UMich conference games not taken by BTN, that’s only 15 (they play each other). Say another 6 are PSU. There aren’t that many OOC games that would make the top 45 as generally, there aren’t that many attractive Big10-P5 matchups. Maybe 8 of those? And half of them would be owned by the other conference, so only 4 of them. Maybe a couple other OSU/UMich OOC games? You’re still only up to 27, and the other 18 are for USC and the other princes vs each other or some hot/compelling non-royalty team. Not all prince-prince matchups are great TV draws (especially if 1 or both those teams are mediocre/doing badly) and neither is USC when they are not contending for the national title.
I do believe the B10 will spread around the most attractive B10 games smartly before every year so while your proposed scenario is possible, I believe the B10 will work to avoid that.
LikeLike
Richard,
“We both know that BTN takes at least 1 conference game and 1 OOC game from each king, so I didn’t think it was worth mentioning.”
1. We know that’s currently true. Is it part of the new deal? We don’t know. It’s one of those questions I’d like answered.
2. Since that takes out up to 8 king games, it seems relevant to a discussion about what games might end up on Peacock.
3. The point is that OSU already plays in some 4th choice games. Adding USC and UCLA won’t make that less common.
“You also like to attack strawmen as I never said all kings would have all their games in the top 3 choices. I said OSU and UMich should (if they are in national title contention) have all their conference games (other than the mandated BTN games) among the top 3. And PSU should have most (assuming that they’re also good and not bad/mediocre). ”
No, that isn’t what you said. You said this:
Seems like these were just thrown in so I’m quite confident nothing that is top-3-pick quality, so almost certainly no PSU/UMich/PSU.
Assuming one of those PSU’s is OSU, you said 3 of the 4 kings wouldn’t have any games on Peacock. No limitation to B10 games, no qualifications about team quality. You’ve kept moving the goal posts since then.
“I do believe the B10 will spread around the most attractive B10 games smartly before every year so while your proposed scenario is possible, I believe the B10 will work to avoid that.”
The B10 said they will work with TV on this, but they are slightly limited. Teams often have their OOC schedules set many years in advance, and certain games have traditional weeks (like rivalry week). They can also only guess at what will be attractive games. A few teams defy expectations every year. And fans are going to expect to mostly get home and home series in conference play. Plus, it’s not a given that the 3 TV networks will be in agreement.
LikeLike
Brian, I’ve mentioned this before:
IU-PU and UMich-OSU are the only games I can remember (during my lifetime) that have always been played by the B10 rivalry week. All other B10 games have moved around before. That’s not a huge constraint on scheduling.
And the 3 networks don’t have to be in agreement. That’s why they have a drafting order. Then everybody can put the games they choose when they want when it’s their turn.
Dates for OOC games with G5 and FCS schools can also be moved around pretty easily. None of those leagues set their league schedules years in advance. In the future, the B10 may just tell schools not to set dates for those G5/FCS games (or it could tell UMich/OSU/PSU as well as some of the “peasant” class schools to schedule their G5/FCS games for weeks 4&5 while leaving weeks 1-3 mostly free (while telling the prince/middle-class schools to fit all their OOC games in weeks 1-3).
Finally, I see no reason for the BTN requirement to change.
You like to propose scenarios that aren’t likely for some reason. It’s like you’re trolling.
LikeLike
Richard: “IU-PU and UMich-OSU are the only games I can remember (during my lifetime) that have always been played by the B10 rivalry week.”
Prior to circa 1994-95, The Old Oaken Bucket game was played the weekend before the Thanksgiving holiday, not during the 4-day Turkey weekend.
LikeLike
Actually, mixing and matching 4 kings with 4 peons probably works better just in case 1 of the 4 kings is really down. So tell UMich, OSU, PSU, USC & RU, UMD, IU, and UIUC to schedule all their G5/FCS buy games in weeks 5 & 6 (their P5 matchups OK to be in the first 4 weeks). Then tell everyone else to schedule all their OOC games in weeks 1, 3, and 4 (Labor Day weekend week 2 has a lot of slots so probably should feature a full conference slate) or after week 6.
Between MSU, UNL, Iowa, UW, UMTC, UCLA, NU, and PU, you should be able to find 3 good games while the other half of the conference is playing buy games.
LikeLike
Colin, that was rivalry week (last weekend of the season) for the B10 back then, no?
LikeLike
Yes, you are correct. The Ohio St – Michigan game shifted at the same time.
LikeLike
So tell UMich, OSU, PSU, USC & RU, UMD, IU, and UIUC to schedule all their G5/FCS buy games in weeks 5 & 6…
So…you, Brian, and I are not really disagreeing on very much. What you just described is something they could do. But we don’t know what they have actually agreed (or will do), which is what Brian keeps saying.
LikeLike
Marc, right. What _I_ would do if running/advising the B10.
And actually, I’d make an adjustment:
8 teams schedule all their G5/FCS buy games weeks 6&7 (2 conference games spread throughout weeks 1&3-5 along with any P5 OOC games).
Full conference slate Labor Day weekend.
Other 8 teams play conference games in weeks 6&7 and all OOC games in weeks 1&3-5.
So in the last half (7 weeks) of the season, everyone gets 6 conference games and a bye week.
For fairness & and to stop complaints, the group of 8 teams switch positions every few years so everybody has to play buy games on weeks 6&7 (and early-season B10 games) at some point.
The B10 could lay out this scheme for years in the future, allowing schools to plan their OOC schedule.
LikeLike
Stop making up strawmen. I literally said “slightly limited” and you reply with:
That’s not a huge constraint on scheduling.
I never said anything remotely similar to it being a huge constraint.
“Brian, I’ve mentioned this before:
IU-PU and UMich-OSU are the only games I can remember (during my lifetime) that have always been played by the B10 rivalry week.”
So what? Does that mean your memory is correct? Do you assume I read everything you write?
“And the 3 networks don’t have to be in agreement.”
They do if they’re trying to get the B10 to move certain games to certain weeks to spread the games out in a way that helps them. They all may want certain games in a different place based on their other commitments and other games on the schedules of other conferences or teams.
“Dates for OOC games with G5 and FCS schools can also be moved around pretty easily.”
Easy for the P5 schools to say. Maybe the MAC doesn’t want to have 15 games forced on them in random weeks by the B10.
“In the future, the B10 may just tell schools not to set dates for those G5/FCS games (or it could tell UMich/OSU/PSU as well as some of the “peasant” class schools to schedule their G5/FCS games for weeks 4&5 while leaving weeks 1-3 mostly free (while telling the prince/middle-class schools to fit all their OOC games in weeks 1-3).”
Or they could just tell school years in advance to save week 3 here, and week 2 there. You don’t need the whole B10 schedule completed to give some advance notice of these sorts of things.
“Finally, I see no reason for the BTN requirement to change.”
So what? You aren’t party to the negotiations. You not seeing a reason doesn’t mean they didn’t have one.
Again, I’m not saying it did change. I’m simply saying I want to see them lay out all the details. There’s no reason this stuff should be kept secret.
LikeLike
At this point, Brian, I’m going to write you off as a disagreeable argumentative troll with no life as you seem to want to argue for no good reason other than being ornery and disagreeable.
LikeLike
Richard: “At this point, Brian, I’m going to write you off as a disagreeable argumentative troll with no life . . .”
I got me a troll buddy!
LikeLike
Week #3 rating are out.
Only one game cracked the 4m threshold.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
4.05m Penn State at Auburn CBS 3:30p
FOX won the noon slot with Oklahoma at Nebraska (3.41m), nipping UGA at South Carolina on ESPN (3.0m).
The ESPN combination of Miss State/LSU (3.06m) and Miami/A&M (3.40m) eked out a win over the FOX game (Toledo/Ohio State 3.05m) and the ABC game (Mich State/UDub 2.79m).
LikeLike
It’s hard to draw high viewership with so many blowouts.
LikeLike
I’m actually a bit surprised MSU-UW didn’t do better though given it’s 7:30 time slot and that it was a match-up of unbeatens, one of which was ranked somewhat highly. In general, looks like a rough weekend for college football ratings.
LikeLike
It wasn’t a great game to watch, and neither is a huge brand that will draw tons of casual viewers. There were also a lot of simultaneous games of roughly equal quality so the audience was splintered.
Primetime:
Miami/TAMU – 3.49M
LSU/MsSU – 3.06M
OSU/Toledo – 3.05M
UW/MSU – 2.79M
TT/NCSU – 0.75M
IA/NV – 0.35M
UMD/SMU – 0.26M
Plus with the NFL starting, many casual fans have shifted to that.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34632937/wanting-college-football-strong-nationally-sec-commissioner-greg-sankey-optimistic-expanded-playoff
Sankey said the main obstacles in moving up expansion to 2024 remain lining up bowl dates, campus involvement, interaction of TV networks, not bumping up against the NFL and not extending the playoff too far into January.
Not really news, but Sankey lays out all the obstacles to CFP expansion coming early. A lot of those revolve around figuring out the calendar.
LikeLike
Interesting news out of Ames. By mid-2025, the now-empty area between Hilton Coliseum and Jack Trice Stadium will be filled: https://frontofficesports.com/schools-spending-hundreds-of-millions-on-facilities/
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/09/21/proposed-college-football-calendar-season-moves-earlier
The commissioners have drafted a new CFB calendar.
However, maybe the most significant item is the notion that officials need to “further explore potentially making Week 0 fully permissive,” the calendar notes. Under current rules, teams need a waiver to play a game during what’s termed “Week 0,” the weekend before the official start to the season. In another proposed change, bowl games would be permitted to start the second Saturday in December—a week earlier than normal.
…
In fact, there are plenty of hurdles left before the calendar is finalized, most notably a collaboration with officials on the NCAA Football Oversight Committee, who themselves have been working on a separate recruiting calendar. Officials with knowledge of the discussions caution that changes to the 365-day calendar are likely.
…
While opening the door for teams to have an additional bye week, lifting the Week 0 waiver process could be the first step in a move to eventually shift up a week the entire regular season. The change would expand a tight December window in which to play additional playoff games, alleviating a cramped timeline that includes conference championship games, NFL regular-season games (some played on Saturday), midyear exams and graduation.
…
Moving bowl games up a week is another sign in the eventual forward shift of the entire season. This year, the first bowl game is scheduled to kick off on Dec. 16. If the proposed calendar were implemented, bowls could start as soon as Dec. 10, the date of the annual Army-Navy game. Moving bowls up provides a larger window to play the 42 bowls as well as the additional playoff games.
Other than the increased risk of heat stroke (for fans, too) with more games in August, this plan sounds good. Shifting the season up a week may be the only path to scheduling the expanded CFP around the NFL.
LikeLike
Heat stroke is less of a risk/concern for B10 schools. Bigger concern in some other areas of the country, yes.
LikeLike
Other than the increased risk of heat stroke (for fans, too) with more games in August, this plan sounds good.
It is also a lot more games played before the students have arrived for the fall semester.
Shifting the season up a week may be the only path to scheduling the expanded CFP around the NFL.
I think either Gene Smith or Barry Alvarez, maybe both, already said that they believe this will have to happen.
LikeLike
As both an undergrad at Maryland in the mid-’70s and a grad student at Iowa State in the mid-’80s, students returned to campus before the final Saturday in August. And since I’m certain every FBS stadium now has lights, what’s the big deal?
LikeLike
As both an undergrad at Maryland in the mid-’70s and a grad student at Iowa State in the mid-’80s, students returned to campus before the final Saturday in August.
That is certainly not true everywhere.
And since I’m certain every FBS stadium now has lights, what’s the big deal?
I don’t know to what extent the heat matters, but I am sure they will spread the games out over the full day, as they do every other week.
LikeLike
The vast majority of American universities now begin the fall semester in mid- to late August, thus allowing the break between fall and spring semesters to coincide with the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. It’s why most commencements now take place in May, rather than June. (There are a handful of exceptions, notably Princeton and Harvard.) This dates back to the early 1970s, when many campuses were awash in anti-war sentiment, and many believed shifting up the calendar would help limit demonstrations and Kent State-like violence.
One by-product of this was that several northern schools ended their baseball programs; for example, Syracuse discontinued the sport in 1975 (perhaps to focus more energy on lacrosse each spring).
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s not true everywhere (my alma mater, for one), but most colleges now are on a semester system where students arrive around mid-August. Even at UMich (with it’s short terms), students should be on campus by Week Zero.
LikeLike
If the season starts in week zero, I assume that means ending the weekend before Thanksgiving, which is much better for students to be able to attend the final game. Iowa allows students to buy a season ticket without the Black Friday game.
LikeLike
greg: “If the season starts in week zero, I assume that means ending the weekend before Thanksgiving, which is much better for students to be able to attend the final game.”
For years, Purdue has tried to move the Old Oaken Bucket game to Lucas stadium in Indy on Turkey Weekend. Both IU and Purdue have more students in Indy than on campus at that time. IU refuses to do it.
LikeLike
Greg: I’d rather have 2 bye weeks.
A lot of schools have traditions surrounding Thanksgiving week.
LikeLike
I’d rather have 2 bye weeks.
Me too, but I do not believe they will be inserting a bye week. Rather, they will likely move up the CCGs to Thanksgiving weekend, to make room for the new first round of the playoff.
LikeLike
Marc,
As vp notes, the autumn semester started 8/23 at OSU. Quarters start much later (late September), but there’s not much you can do about that. Those students already miss a lot of games. I agree it’s not ideal, but that’s just 1 more thing to blame in the CFP.
LikeLike
The Army-Navy should be played on Veterans’ Day. Nov. 11. It should be exclusive to Army-Navy with no other college or NFL games unless it happens to fall on a weekend.
LikeLike
Also, while heat stroke is a concern for players (in hotter climes, though note that the NFL plays preseason games even before then), baseball fans manage to not die from heatstroke. Do they know something football fans don’t?
LikeLike
Richard: “Do they know something football fans don’t?”
My guess is they know to not wear football pads/helmets since they’re two different sports and baseball players spend 60% of a game in the dugout.
Joking aside, I agree that there are plenty of other sports played during the summer that seem to manage. It’s a concern but not a dealbreaker.
LikeLike
Well, it is perhaps relevant that the majority of MLB stadiums are not in the deep south, and most of those that are have fixed or retractable roofs. Also, most MLB stadiums have a portion of seating that is in the shade, while a lot of CFB stadiums do not.
(With that said, I think the safety issue is more about the players.)
LikeLike
Of course it is more about the players. I was just pointing out that it isn’t just them. 85-year old alumni sitting in the sun for 4 hours when it’s 90+ degrees doesn’t always go well.
LikeLike
Yes. They know to stand outside drinking for 6 hours before sitting in the sun for a few more hours watching a game when it’s 100 degrees out.
And the southwest is dangerous even at night. In Phoenix, it was 93 degrees at midnight on 8/25 with a heat index of 100. It felt like 113 degrees at 6pm. That’s dangerously hot for many people.
LikeLike
^ … know not to …
LikeLike
I know you’re all waiting to see how B1G scheduling affects Rice.
It hasn’t yet. Our home/home with Northwestern is still on the schedule for 2029(Houston)/2031(Chicago).
LikeLike
I would not expect any of the B1G’s non-conference games to change, unless anyone had a date scheduled with USC or UCLA (have not checked).
LikeLike
But, you know, if the SEC goes to 9 conference games, a lot of OOC games would have to be cancelled. But the Pac may go to 8 conference games.
LikeLike
BTW, I looked, and in 2021, the B10 only owned 4 OOC games that drew more than even 2mm viewers.
So every year, roughly 40 of the 45 top picks on linear TV will be B10 conference games. Probably 15 of them would have OSU or UMich (they play each other and 1 of each conference slate will be on the BTN). Roughly 5 of the rest would have PSU. That still leaves 20 for everyone else playing schools that aren’t OSU/UMich/PSU.
Yes, I believe the B10 will schedule some conference games in the first 4 weeks of the season.
LikeLike
Yes. They will start patterning their schedule more like the SEC, with an occasional MAC game later in the season with some early season conference games.
LikeLike
Sort of. Almost all OOC games probably would still be played before November because the weather starts turning bad by then up north and while folks are willing to freeze to sit through a high-stakes conference game or meaningful rivalry game, less would be willing to do so for a buy game vs. a patsy.
But I definitely see the B10 making sure there are at least 3 games every week in September (and Week Zero) that should get at least 3mm viewers (so featuring kings, most likely; likely against non-royalty).
Labor Day Weekend offers a lot of possible slots (IMO, up to 6, or possibly even more) between The, F, Sat, Sun, and Mon.
LikeLike
The ACC also does this.
The Pac 12, Big 12 and Big 10 typically haven’t scheduled many ooc games after Septermber.
LikeLike
Which is good, and they should continue that behavior. Chickenshit Saturday in November is a southern thing that nobody else should copy.
LikeLike
Well that is pretty stupid. It is just moving mid-September games to November. Its the equivalent of Big 10/MAC Saturday. But if you are mixing them in with conference games, it provides value to the networks because not every game is garbage. The networks really had very few interesting games this past weekend from any conference and it showed in the TV ratings. There were only 3 or 4 games not involving someone I followed that were of any interest to me.
LikeLike
November is for games that impact the conference race, not pre-season scrimmages. MACtion games work well in September when fans are excited to have football back and see the new team develop. Nobody wants to sit through those in November weather.
The TV ratings were fine this weekend, the viewers were just split over a bunch of different games. Only the early window had any real difference in total viewers from last week. The mid-afternoon and primetime windows were very similar.
LikeLike
Viewers are ALWAYS split over a bunch of different games. Alabama-Texas had as many viewers as the top 3 games this past week. The top game this week would have ranked 4th last week. PSU vs. a struggling Auburn and OU vs. a struggling UNL were the headliners this week along with Miami-Texas A&M. Toledo-Ohio St. was #5 and just behind #4 MSU-LSU.
LikeLike
They are always split, but not as equally as this week. 6 games got 3M+, while 11 games got 2M+ viewers this week. Last week 4 games got 3M+, and 7 games got 2M+.
For a week with a lot of blowouts and no marquee game, the ratings weren’t bad.
LikeLike
The SEC has this thing where most of the league schedules buy games the Saturday before Rivalry Week. You could spread those games out over the whole season, and I see nothing wrong with that. There is no reason necessarily why the non-conference slate has to be packed into the first three weeks.
LikeLike
Part of it was to get the OOC games in the weeks when not all students were on campus. Then the students were there for all the B10 games. With fewer schools on quarters (NW and UCLA), that’s less of a concern now.
It also put the pre-season opportunities early, so teams could develop against inferior foes before facing tougher games. A MAC game in October or November is basically useless for the coaches except to rest players.
There are also scheduling difficulties for the P5 games, so those generally have to stay early. That means you are only moving buy games later. Why not keep those in September? You have 4-5 weeks (maybe even 6 if they move up the season a week) to get 3 OOC games, meaning plenty of teams could also get their first B10 game in so the networks have options. In October and November you mix in the bye weeks rather than buy games.
Note, I didn’t say they should all be the first 3 games. I prefer them that way for OSU, but I didn’t call for it as B10 policy.
LikeLike
“Why not keep those in September? You have 4-5 weeks (maybe even 6 if they move up the season a week)”
That’s not much different from my plan, which would get all OOC games done by week 7 but offers TV partners a few more attractive B10 league games in the first 7 weeks (so that they have at least 3 attractive games a week: remember that the B10 will only control about 5 attractive OOC matchups total every year because there are so many buy games).
So at this point, I’m writing you off as an anti-social disagreeable ornery misanthrope who wants to pick fights and argue mostly for the sake of being disagreeable and ornery.
LikeLike
Also, I don’t think the B10 (and TV partners) will leave scheduling up to chance. I believe that in the first 4 weeks, they’ll have the kings that look to be national title contenders preseason go against the projected weakest teams in the B10 as well as have the few marquee OOC games and everybody else going through their OOC schedule. The next 3 weeks, the kings/natty contenders go through the patsies on their OOC slate while the princes and other promising teams play each other. The last several weeks of the season is when kings will play each other and princes.
LikeLike
Hey Frank, I saw your tweet on the potential issues with CF playoff scheduling (with NFL games, finals, etc.), but IMO, it just isn’t all that difficult to solve:
First round games may have to be on weeknights that are not Sat, Sun, Mon, or Th before Christmas Eve (so Tue, Wed, Fri) or Sat in a time slot when no NFL game is on linear TV.
Quarterfinals on NYD/NYE
Semifinals on MLK Day
Title game the bye weekend before the Super Bowl.
Easy-peasy.
LikeLike
The leaders of the sport say it is not so easy.
LikeLike
They seem to have trouble thinking outside the box. Or thinking. Who knows, man. I suppose I should be use to it as there’s an example of someone on this site who objects to any change to CFB from how it was in the ‘70’s.
LikeLike
TL;DR – Make more money. Minimize locks, play each team at least twice in a 4 year cycle, maximize flexibility (which really isn’t much it turns out).
If the B1G is getting rid of divisions I don’t think there’s a need for the scheduling solution to be a neat and tidy 3/6/6. We’re talking about a conference named the Big Ten that hasn’t had 10 teams in 30 years, they’ll do whatever they want (see “Leaders, Legends”). And by whatever they want, I mean whatever they think will make the most money.
Gene Smith already told us that TV scheduling is going to not just be considered, but that TV partners are going to be part of the scheduling discussion:
““We know it’s a model we have to go to and include our television partners in that process and structure it and have them be a part of the conversation. Now that we have them, we can begin that conversation and determined that type of thing. Is it based upon who’s going to be strong next year or based upon dates or whatever, and go from there.””
https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/football/ohio-state-football-gene-smith-big-ten-will-no-longer-schedule-conference-games-years-in-advance-eliminate-divisions
That implies to me that the likely outcome is to lock as few games as possible to maximize flexibility each year to maximize ratings. And you have to maximize ratings in the first 4 years of USC/UCLA joining because the next negotiation window is in 2028 (or 2029?) meaning the TV partners need to have made good money or else the next deal won’t go up in value.
What games are must lock?
Penn State – Ohio State
Rutgers – Maryland
Maryland – Rutgers
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State
Michigan State – Michigan
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State
Purdue – Indiana
Indiana – Purdue
Illinois – Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois
Nebraska – Iowa
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
I don’t buy that PSU needs to lock Rutgers and Maryland – I know Frank is adamant about this but I’ve never met a PSU fan that thinks that and there’s no way that PSU leaves the B1G at this point. I also assume that Minnesota and Wisconsin would prefer to play Nebraska less and Michigan, MSU, Northwestern, and the LA schools more.
I don’t think it’s lip service when the B1G says play each team home and home in a 4 year span. So apply zippers to ensure each team plays every school at least 2x in a 4 year span (play 1 per year from each pair). Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Minnesota will have a broken zipper each because they locked 1 of the pair, thus replacing the locked school with “[Open]”. Iowa has ZERO open games because they have 3 locked games.
Penn State – Ohio State, RU/MD, MI/MSt, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]/MSt
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]/PSU
Michigan State – Michigan, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Rutgers – Maryland, OSU/PSU, MI/MSt, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Maryland – Rutgers, OSU/PSU, MI/MSt, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Purdue – Indiana, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Indiana – Purdue, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Illinois – Northwestern, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Northwestern – Illinois, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Nebraska – Iowa, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, USC/UCLA
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, USC/UCLA, [Open]/UNL
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, USC/UCLA, [Open]/UNL
USC – UCLA, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, UW/MN, IA/UNL, [Open]
UCLA – USC, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, UW/MN, IA/UNL, [Open]
So what does that leave in terms of schedule adjustments? Let’s assume that 4-yr cycle, and that the B1G is going to schedule a H&H within said 4 year cycle if it’s a
Penn State – 4 games
Ohio State – 2 games
Michigan – 2 games
Michigan State – 4 games
Rutgers – 4 games
Maryland – 4 games
Purdue – 4 games
Indiana – 4 games
Illinois – 4 games
Northwestern – 4 games
Nebraska – 4 games
Iowa – 0 games
Wisconsin – 2 games
Minnesota – 2 games
USC – 4 games
UCLA – 4 games
If I’m maximizing for TV I’m adding these as the flex pairs (+2 games per 4 years) for the first 4 year cycle:
Penn State – Nebraska, Michigan State
Ohio State – USC
Michigan State – Penn State, Minnesota
Michigan – UCLA
Nebraska – Penn State, UCLA
Wisconsin – USC
Minnesota – Michigan State
USC – Ohio State, Wisconsin
UCLA – Michigan, Nebraska
(Thought about it being USC-MI and UCLA-UW but believe that USC-UW and UCLA-MI would be the better ratings pair in total)
Pair up these remaining 6 teams however since it’s all going to be on BTN/Peacock anyway, so this isn’t scientific:
Rutgers – PU, UIUC
Maryland – IU, NU
Purdue – NU, RU
Indiana – MD, UIUC
Illinois – IU, RU
Northwestern – MD, PU
Ultimately this is why PSU cannot be locked to RU/MD, because that would be forgoing 2 games of PSU-MSt for PSU-RU, and forgoing 2 games of PSU-UNL for PSU-MD. That’s a lot of money left on the table.
Here’s what the above means the “locked” pairs would be for the first 4 years:
Penn State – Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan State
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, USC
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, UCLA
Michigan State – Michigan, Penn State, Minnesota
Rutgers – Maryland, Purdue, Illinois
Maryland – Rutgers, Indiana, Northwestern
Purdue – Indiana, Northwestern, Rutgers
Indiana – Purdue. Maryland, Illinois
Illinois – Northwestern. Indiana, Rutgers
Northwestern – Illinois, Maryland, Purdue
Nebraska – Iowa, PSU, UCLA
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, USC
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
USC – UCLA, Wisconsin, Ohio State
UCLA – USC, Michigan, Nebraska
It doesn’t matter that much though, as we’re talking about 1 game per year for 9 schools, 0.5 games per year for 6 schools, and 0 games per year for 1 school. There’s not really much space to optimize within, and frankly optimizing for TV ratings also has the side effects of slightly increased parity (because top teams play each other slightly more) and allowing the B1G office to tell teams making individual requests (e.g. MSU asking for more Northwestern) to cry into their piles of money and that they’ll revisit in a couple years. Which they will revisit, but only to see if they can make even more money somehow.
LikeLike
This is the system I have always preferred, but everyone here says I am wrong — you need a system that could be explained in a sentence or two, which this obviously is not.
And you have to maximize ratings in the first 4 years of USC/UCLA joining because the next negotiation window is in 2028 (or 2029?) meaning the TV partners need to have made good money or else the next deal won’t go up in value.
If your hypothesis is correct, then you don’t stop optimizing for TV after four years, because there will always be another deal after the next one.
LikeLike
If your hypothesis is correct, then you don’t stop optimizing for TV after four years, because there will always be another deal after the next one.
Yep, that’s the kicker. And you use that to keep ADs in line by suggesting that it’s worth $5-$10M/yr to schedule this way and it’ll go away if you don’t. That funds multiple non-rev teams and pays for salary increases in the AD admin so you know they aren’t going to push back too hard.
LikeLike
Scout: The concept you’ve outlined here (along with the idea from others to spread out the OOC P5 games and OOC buy games to maximize the options each week for the TV partners) would be my preferred approach. The number of must have locks is limited, so why reduce good TV matchups. This is especially true once the playoffs expand and the impact of a single loss is reduced.
As I PSU fan I’m happy to watch NE and MSU vs RU and MD. PSU would still play them 2 of 4 years which shouldn’t impact recruiting in those areas. RU and MD would still get a steady mix of OSU/MI/PSU/MSU as they do now with divisions.
LikeLike
Scout,
“If the B1G is getting rid of divisions I don’t think there’s a need for the scheduling solution to be a neat and tidy 3/6/6.”
Fans like simple. They get angry about unnecessary complications. It’s bets to avoid that if it doesn’t cost you much, such as in this case.
“We’re talking about a conference named the Big Ten that hasn’t had 10 teams in 30 years, they’ll do whatever they want (see “Leaders, Legends”). And by whatever they want, I mean whatever they think will make the most money.”
No, they’ve often chosen the less money path. They didn’t allow multiple B10 bowl teams for 30 years after the Rose Bowl deal started. The sat at 11 teams for almost 20 years when they could’ve added a CCG by expanding. They said no to Texas because they were busy integrating PSU.
“Gene Smith already told us that TV scheduling is going to not just be considered, but that TV partners are going to be part of the scheduling discussion:”
Yes he did. In large part, everyone already knows what they generally want – big brand games. But the B10 did parity-based scheduling before to increase that, then stopped doing it after complaints from schools. It didn’t change the TV deal then. Would it now? How much power will the networks have over scheduling?
“That implies to me that the likely outcome is to lock as few games as possible to maximize flexibility each year to maximize ratings. And you have to maximize ratings in the first 4 years of USC/UCLA joining because the next negotiation window is in 2028 (or 2029?) meaning the TV partners need to have made good money or else the next deal won’t go up in value.”
Those two things are in conflict. maximizing ratings for the LA schools requires locking more games. So do certain other B10 priorities, like keeping members happy and preserving important rivalries.
“What games are must lock?
You hit the obvious ones, but I’d argue these aren’t necessary by your definition:
“Rutgers – Maryland
Maryland – Rutgers”
They aren’t rivals in any way. I’d also lock that game, so I’m not against it, I just don’t think it’s mandatory based on your other decisions.
I’d add NE-MN to your list. NE has played MN 62 times, compared to 42 vs IA. For a newish member, that’s an important tie to keep. If RU/UMD is locked, so should this game be locked.
“I don’t buy that PSU needs to lock Rutgers and Maryland – I know Frank is adamant about this but I’ve never met a PSU fan that thinks that and there’s no way that PSU leaves the B1G at this point.”
They don’t, but RU and UMD need to lock PSU. It’s the only longer-term B10 member near them, it’s the one their fan bases interact with from DC to NYC. The newbies need a school that will fill their stadium.
“I also assume that Minnesota and Wisconsin would prefer to play Nebraska less and Michigan, MSU, Northwestern, and the LA schools more.”
But that doesn’t make you correct (or incorrect). NE is a much shorter trip than going to LA for a road game, or even MI and MSU. And frankly, NE is an easier W than MI or MSU right now. I will again point to NE’s long history of playing MN. I agree that NE/WI doesn’t need to be locked. NE?MN doesn’t have to be, but I think it’s highly preferred to be kept locked.
What I think you are missing is the set of games to lock for preserving secondary rivalries/neighbor games. I think these matter to the B10.
“If I’m maximizing for TV I’m adding these as the flex pairs (+2 games per 4 years) for the first 4 year cycle:
Penn State – Nebraska, Michigan State
Ohio State – USC
Michigan State – Penn State, Minnesota
Michigan – UCLA
Nebraska – Penn State, UCLA
Wisconsin – USC
Minnesota – Michigan State
USC – Ohio State, Wisconsin
UCLA – Michigan, Nebraska
(Thought about it being USC-MI and UCLA-UW but believe that USC-UW and UCLA-MI would be the better ratings pair in total)”
I did something similar above, but with different choices. MN/MSU? That’s not a draw. MSU wants to play NW, and that would draw just as many eyeballs. Why does MI get UCLA instead of USC? MI/USC would draw a lot more viewers.
“Ultimately this is why PSU cannot be locked to RU/MD, because that would be forgoing 2 games of PSU-MSt for PSU-RU, and forgoing 2 games of PSU-UNL for PSU-MD. That’s a lot of money left on the table.”
First, they can be locked. It’s not forgoing any money. The TV deal is already signed without any schedule created. And keeping RU and UMD happy is good for the conference.
“It doesn’t matter that much though, as we’re talking about 1 game per year for 9 schools, 0.5 games per year for 6 schools, and 0 games per year for 1 school. There’s not really much space to optimize within, and frankly optimizing for TV ratings also has the side effects of slightly increased parity (because top teams play each other slightly more) and allowing the B1G office to tell teams making individual requests (e.g. MSU asking for more Northwestern) to cry into their piles of money and that they’ll revisit in a couple years. Which they will revisit, but only to see if they can make even more money somehow.”
But if it doesn’t matter much, why upset schools and fans over it? Why not keep more people happy? What is the benefit, since the TV deal is already signed?
LikeLike
Fans like simple. They get angry about unnecessary complications. It’s bets to avoid that if it doesn’t cost you much, such as in this case.
I mean, TV deals have extended games to over 4 hours and wrecked the gameday experience, including crap buy games against FCS/G5 just because people will watch. If fans are taking that on the chin, how many are going to actually complain about B1G scheduling when it results in bigger games for winning teams and more winnable games for teams that want to be bowl eligible? This group is not representative of the majority of fans, which will simply hear that they are playing their biggest rival(s) annually, hear that you’ll play each team 2x in 4 years, shrug, and go back to complaining about their offensive coordinator.
No, they’ve often chosen the less money path. They didn’t allow multiple B10 bowl teams for 30 years after the Rose Bowl deal started. The sat at 11 teams for almost 20 years when they could’ve added a CCG by expanding. They said no to Texas because they were busy integrating PSU.
I think they often choose the long term money path over short term money, and institutional fit matters a lot. That said, I don’t think those bowl games brought in much money at the time, I think they were net losses due to how TV contracts worked then and also they were considered exhibitions. Obviously the schools didn’t care enough to change this or the B1G would have changed that rule sooner.
They sat at 11 teams for 20 years because they wanted ND. They also had a de facto CCG most years in UM/OSU. The presidents use the “busy integrating school x” line as a polite way to say leave us alone we don’t want to talk to you right now, besides adding Texas would have been a mess as they’d forever have been on an island since there’s no one to pair with them for non-revs and it’s not worth dealing with their ego. Rumor has it that the B1G turned down OUT before they went to the SEC.
It didn’t change the TV deal then. Would it now? How much power will the networks have over scheduling?
I think it’s a little different with a TV deal that has 3 specific and exclusive broadcast partners and you’re going up against the SEC on ABC’s 3 slots. I also think this schedule isn’t explicitly parity based (it’s just a beneficial side effect) and also it should be less of a problem without divisions and with the expanded playoffs – plus I’d wager everything it was Michigan that complained the most about parity based scheduling since they (and PSU) were most heavily punished by it in Leaders/Legends, and then also in East/West since 10-2 is NY6 by 9-3 is Citrus Bowl; also Iowa probably complained because Barta whines about everything.
Those two things are in conflict. maximizing ratings for the LA schools requires locking more games. So do certain other B10 priorities, like keeping members happy and preserving important rivalries.
I should clarify, it’s not specific to maximizing rating for the LA schools, just maximizing ratings in the 4 years after they arrive. There’s going to be conflict that’s unresolvable, and they won’t keep everyone happy. So I figure if they are going to keep all members a little unhappy, doing it in the way that also pays them the most money is probably the best justification they’ll find.
They aren’t rivals in any way. I’d also lock that game, so I’m not against it, I just don’t think it’s mandatory based on your other decisions.
I’d add NE-MN to your list. NE has played MN 62 times, compared to 42 vs IA. For a newish member, that’s an important tie to keep. If RU/UMD is locked, so should this game be locked.
Yeah I agree and initially didn’t lock RU/UMD. It just kept ending up as a de facto lock because they are a zipper pair and also it seems like it should be a rivalry 50 years from now when both teams aren’t getting pummeled in the B1G East every year. I figure I could have not locked it but I don’t see a scenario where that’s not scheduled every year so figured meh, might as well.
NE-MN was the pair that I couldn’t decide what to do with. I think Nebraska would prefer playing more national games against UCLA and PSU than playing MN. And I think MN would like more games vs Michigan. So ultimately I wouldn’t lock it but I’d wager that NE-MN is a common flex pair.
They don’t, but RU and UMD need to lock PSU. It’s the only longer-term B10 member near them, it’s the one their fan bases interact with from DC to NYC. The newbies need a school that will fill their stadium.
Eh, it’s one home game every 4 years they are missing out on, and I’d wager they come out ahead from playing a 50/50 game with UIUC or NU instead of taking the near 100% guaranteed L from PSU. I think the money works out better to have PSU have 4 games to play against other big names instead of RU/UMD – simply because I’d assume that’s 15k tickets at $100/pop (PSU @ RU/UMD) once every 4 years so that’s like $1.5M incremental for each of those two schools but that works out to only $375k/yr.
What I think you are missing is the set of games to lock for preserving secondary rivalries/neighbor games. I think these matter to the B10.
I agree with you however I think the B1G crossed the Rubicon on that when it invited RU/UMD, then burned the bridge when adding USC/UCLA. The Little Brown Jug (UM MN), the Brass Spittoon (MSU IU), the Illibuck (OH UIUC), heck even the new George Jewitt trophy (UM NU) are just casualties here. If this was important to the B1G, then the 6-yr cross division locks from 2014 to 2019 would have been trophy games instead of UM/UW, OSU/NE, MSU/MN, etc, and like UM/MN and MSU/UW were RIGHT THERE and they didn’t go with that. So basically history now shows us these secondary rivalries/neighbors games are nice to haves but aren’t a priority, so I’m going to presume TV ratings trumps.
I did something similar above, but with different choices. MN/MSU? That’s not a draw. MSU wants to play NW, and that would draw just as many eyeballs. Why does MI get UCLA instead of USC? MI/USC would draw a lot more viewers.
Yeah that’s a good point on MN/MSU. I think MI/USC draws more views than MI/UCLA, but I thought that MI/UCLA + USC/UW draws more total views than MI/USC + UCLA/UW. But hey, let’s make USC play both MI and OSU in all of their first 4 years (and also ND), that is must see TV and probably more in line with what I’m expecting from the B1G here. Changes result in:
Penn State – UCLA, Michigan State
Ohio State – USC
Michigan State – Penn State, Wisconsin
Michigan – USC
Nebraska – Minnesota, UCLA
Wisconsin – Michigan State
Minnesota – Nebraska
USC – Ohio State, Michigan
UCLA – Nebraska, Penn State
I think my main point is that these pairings will be optimized for TV ratings and we won’t know exact pairings until fall 2023. Actually, lol, given how the zippers work these schedules are going to be awesome. Look at these conference + big OOC game schedules that are possible:
USC – ND, OSU, UM, UCLA, and then 1 each from PSU/MSU, UW/MN, IA/NE, RU/UMD, NU/UIUC, UI/PU.
Michigan – Texas, OSU, USC, Michigan State and then 1 each from PSU/UCLA, UW/MN, NE/IA, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC.
OSU – Washington, UM, USC, PSU, and then 1 each from MSU/UCLA, UW/MN, NE/IA, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC.
PSU – West Virginia, OSU, UCLA, MSU, and then 1 each from UM/USC, UW/MN, NE/IA, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC
First, they can be locked. It’s not forgoing any money. The TV deal is already signed without any schedule created. And keeping RU and UMD happy is good for the conference.
But if it doesn’t matter much, why upset schools and fans over it? Why not keep more people happy? What is the benefit, since the TV deal is already signed?
I should have said that it doesn’t matter much in terms of schools not getting scheduling preferences in who they play because of rivalry/alumni/competitive balance since it’s at worst a game a year you’d prefer something else and that’s not really moving the needle that much. The TV deal is signed with certain expectations from the TV partners. If the B1G schedules a pair of games that are projected at 4M total viewers combined (say PSU/UMD and USC/RU) instead of flipping the pair and getting 7M combined (PSU/USC and UMD/RU) then those TV partners are going to be very unhappy at the money they aren’t making, which will effect the next contract. I don’t have the information to run all the scenarios, but it’s clear to me that if I can flip one set of matchups and create $15M more value for just that year (3M incremental viewers * $5/viewer) then we have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake with scheduling decisions and thus that’s what will happen. If the options are better games, more money, happier partners and national hype VS RU/UMD’s happiness about football, I think I know what wins out.
LikeLike
Scout,
“I mean, TV deals have extended games to over 4 hours and wrecked the gameday experience, including crap buy games against FCS/G5 just because people will watch.”
The B10 has played played some terrible teams OOC for decades. TV didn’t drive that, the demand for 7 home games did.
“If fans are taking that on the chin,”
Plenty of fans are complaining already, like you. That’s why you avoid unnecessary aggravations.
“how many are going to actually complain about B1G scheduling when it results in bigger games for winning teams and more winnable games for teams that want to be bowl eligible?”
Fans and the schools complained last time the B10 tried it. Bigger games are great for the other teams, but unfair when it’s your team forced to play them just for TV money. And easier SOS for teams that end of doing well is decried as favoritism that got someone to a CCG.
“I think they often choose the long term money path over short term money,”
You mean like keeping RU and UMD and PSU’s eastern alumni happy at the expense of them being locked with MSU, a game neither side cares about all that much?
“That said, I don’t think those bowl games brought in much money at the time, I think they were net losses due to how TV contracts worked then and also they were considered exhibitions.”
As the only conference not playing multiple bowl games by rule, they hurt the B10’s reputation. A lot of great teams sat home when they were co-champs or 1-loss teams.
“Obviously the schools didn’t care enough to change this or the B1G would have changed that rule sooner.”
They needed enough people to agree, and the B10 put academics first. They chose the less money approach.
“They sat at 11 teams for 20 years because they wanted ND.”
They’ve always wanted ND. That didn’t prevent them from adding PSU, or 3 other schools.
“They also had a de facto CCG most years in UM/OSU.”
No. Just no. That was true in the Big 2 Little 8 years, but not in the CFB CCG era.
From 1993-2004, OSU and/or MI were the only champs just twice. Then from 2010-2016 it happened just once.
“The presidents use the “busy integrating school x” line as a polite way to say leave us alone we don’t want to talk to you right now, besides adding Texas would have been a mess as they’d forever have been on an island since there’s no one to pair with them for non-revs and it’s not worth dealing with their ego.”
The B10 wants to add ND but is worried about UT’s ego? The PSU integration was actually quite painful, and did take a long time. But turning down UT was certainly not the long-term money choice. Being on an island is a fake problem. UCLA is about to handle it, and they are much farther away. Besides, with UT on board other schools might have been invited since then to bridge them in.
“Rumor has it that the B1G turned down OUT before they went to the SEC.”
Rumor says a lot of things. Without a source, it’s BS.
“I think it’s a little different with a TV deal that has 3 specific and exclusive broadcast partners and you’re going up against the SEC on ABC’s 3 slots.”
The TV deal is already signed. How will changing scheduling now impact it? And why would CBS and NBC care more than Disney did back when they had half of the B10’s rights? The B10 went up against the SEC then, too.
“I also think this schedule isn’t explicitly parity based (it’s just a beneficial side effect)”
That’s exactly what you and others have described – having more big names and better teams playing each other. That’s what the parity-based scheduling system did.
“and also it should be less of a problem without divisions and with the expanded playoffs”
How does dropping divisions help? NE didn’t like being locked with OSU for 6 years. It didn’t matter that it was a cross-over game and not a division game.
I get that 1 loss means less with the expanded CFP, but that doesn’t mean most schools want to face a tougher schedule than their competition does. That may work out for OSU, but an extra loss for WI/MSU/etc. could easily be the difference in their postseason destination. And that extra loss also could mean playing a road CFP game rather than hosting or getting a bye.
” – plus I’d wager everything it was Michigan that complained the most about parity based scheduling since they (and PSU) were most heavily punished by it in Leaders/Legends, and then also in East/West since 10-2 is NY6 by 9-3 is Citrus Bowl; also Iowa probably complained because Barta whines about everything.”
https://nebraska.rivals.com/news/moos-talks-future-of-black-friday-games-and-big-ten-scheduling-philosophies
Actually Nebraska was the loudest voice, as I recall. MI had other issues during that period.
“We might have some other schedule news here in a week or so in regards to 2022, on,” Moos said. “It was something I really became a bulldog on in regards to Nebraska and some of the traditional power programs in the Big Ten not beating each other up so bad. Because in my opinion the strength of schedule really hasn’t had much impact on who’s being selected for the College Football Playoff. We are in the process of addressing that to hopefully mine another satisfaction.”
And Moos is not saying Big Ten teams should back down from non-conference scheduling.
He feels the league needs to evaluate their approach and look at what’s best for the long-term health of the conference.
“First of all, we play nine conference games,” Moos said. “Six in the division, and then the crossovers. Like I said, in recent years those crossovers have pitted the powerhouses against each other on a consistent basis. …
“I should clarify, it’s not specific to maximizing rating for the LA schools, just maximizing ratings in the 4 years after they arrive.”
I think the B10’s focus will be integrating them into the B10, and showcasing them in games against the big brands is part of that. Fans in LA know OSU, MI, PSU, etc. Those games will help sell season tickets and ease the loss of their usual foes. It’s the same reason PSU needs to be locked with RU and UMD, no matter how much PSU dislikes it.
“Yeah I agree and initially didn’t lock RU/UMD. It just kept ending up as a de facto lock because they are a zipper pair and also it seems like it should be a rivalry 50 years from now when both teams aren’t getting pummeled in the B1G East every year. I figure I could have not locked it but I don’t see a scenario where that’s not scheduled every year so figured meh, might as well.
NE-MN was the pair that I couldn’t decide what to do with. I think Nebraska would prefer playing more national games against UCLA and PSU than playing MN. And I think MN would like more games vs Michigan. So ultimately I wouldn’t lock it but I’d wager that NE-MN is a common flex pair.”
Well, I locked them with UCLA so they’d still get some of that. On paper, NE would rather play PSU more. But only after they start winning 9+ games a year again. For now, I bet they’d rather take their chances with MN.
Overall, our lists had most of the same locks. Reasonable people will disagree on the edges, and the B10 will doing something slightly different from either of our lists.
“Eh, it’s one home game every 4 years they are missing out on, and I’d wager they come out ahead from playing a 50/50 game with UIUC or NU instead of taking the near 100% guaranteed L from PSU.”
They can’t sell tickets as is. Taking away PSU games hurts them and reduces fan interest even more. A winnable game against IL isn’t a viable substitute for them.
“I think the money works out better to have PSU have 4 games to play against other big names instead of RU/UMD – simply because I’d assume that’s 15k tickets at $100/pop (PSU @ RU/UMD) once every 4 years so that’s like $1.5M incremental for each of those two schools but that works out to only $375k/yr.”
I still don’t see the money increase from having PSU not locked with them. The TV deal isn’t changing value either way. PSU sells out at home either way. The other big brands can play the western schools more so PSU can appease the eastern fans that one extra time. It’s not just ticket sales, either. It’s fan morale, donations, merchandise, concessions, parking, local restaurants and hotels, taxes, …
[preserving rivalries and neighbor games]
“I agree with you however I think the B1G crossed the Rubicon on that when it invited RU/UMD, then burned the bridge when adding USC/UCLA. The Little Brown Jug (UM MN), the Brass Spittoon (MSU IU), the Illibuck (OH UIUC), heck even the new George Jewitt trophy (UM NU) are just casualties here. If this was important to the B1G, then the 6-yr cross division locks from 2014 to 2019 would have been trophy games instead of UM/UW, OSU/NE, MSU/MN, etc, and like UM/MN and MSU/UW were RIGHT THERE and they didn’t go with that. So basically history now shows us these secondary rivalries/neighbors games are nice to haves but aren’t a priority, so I’m going to presume TV ratings trumps.”
But they did listen to MSU about playing NW, and some of these minor rivalries were kept in division. You can’t keep them all, and many of them haven’t been annual for a long time. Except in 1983-84, the B10 hasn’t played a round robin schedule. But when given an easy chance to keep more of them under 3-6-6, why not? Many of them have the lesser programs playing each other more, which let’s the big brands play each other more. Isn’t that what your goal was? By not locking games like IL/PU, you give them more games against the big brands.
“Yeah that’s a good point on MN/MSU. I think MI/USC draws more views than MI/UCLA, but I thought that MI/UCLA + USC/UW draws more total views than MI/USC + UCLA/UW. But hey, let’s make USC play both MI and OSU in all of their first 4 years (and also ND), that is must see TV and probably more in line with what I’m expecting from the B1G here. ”
That’s exactly what my plan was. UCLA gets NE and WI so they have big brands, but the games are more winnable.
“I think my main point is that these pairings will be optimized for TV ratings and we won’t know exact pairings until fall 2023.”
I think they’ll do more of spreading games around the schedule to appease TV than adjust the frequency of scheduling. If you already lock a lot of big brand games, you don’t want to also rotate them through the other big brands too much. At some point everyone goes 9-3 and 8-4.
“Actually, lol, given how the zippers work these schedules are going to be awesome. Look at these conference + big OOC game schedules that are possible:”
Yes, at least on paper it looks like they should be very exciting. I wonder if the fans of the smaller programs also feel that way. Are they excited to have another king to play?
“The TV deal is signed with certain expectations from the TV partners.”
And that is largely based on past experience, and how the B10 normally schedules. They trust the B10 won’t screw them. That doesn’t mean they expect the B10 to crush their top teams with SOS.
“If the B1G schedules a pair of games that are projected at 4M total viewers combined (say PSU/UMD and USC/RU) instead of flipping the pair and getting 7M combined (PSU/USC and UMD/RU) then those TV partners are going to be very unhappy at the money they aren’t making, which will effect the next contract. ”
I don’t think it works on that micro-scale. You have to look at all 72 B10 games, and several years of schedules. They don’t expect USC to play OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI, IA, MSU and UCLA every year with 1 rotating game for everyone else. They want enough good games to fill at least 3 slots each week.
“I don’t have the information to run all the scenarios, but it’s clear to me that if I can flip one set of matchups and create $15M more value for just that year (3M incremental viewers * $5/viewer) then we have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake with scheduling decisions and thus that’s what will happen.”
This assumes there aren’t other good games. What about the chance for non-USC schools to get some exposure for their big games while USC plays a lesser program? What about the other tough games USC is already scheduled to play?
No conference has ever been forced by TV to try to have all their top brands play each other annually. The networks understand there has to be a balance. The B10 playing 9 games gives them a lot of what they want.
LikeLike
We’re saying like 99% the same stuff which is nice and means we’re pretty much in agreement. It’s fun to pick around the edges though so I do have a couple thoughts:
The B10 has played played some terrible teams OOC for decades. TV didn’t drive that, the demand for 7 home games did.
Yeah but TV makes it so much worse. I remember attending those noon games in the early 00’s and they were snoozers that ended by 3pm. Personally I’d trade 2 snoozer buy games (1 per year) for a H&H that matters. I’d happily pay more than double the ticket price for the 1 game than 2 boring beatdowns. The restaurants and hotels in the area will be fine with one less game every 2 years, I worked in hospitality, those surges on game days just end up in the owner’s pockets and a little bit more tipped cash goes to the service staff.
Plenty of fans are complaining already, like you. That’s why you avoid unnecessary aggravations.
I don’t think fans complaining about playing better games or playing more winnable games is really anything that moves the needle. If anything it’s going to increase their consumption of the product, which is good, vs my complaints about a horrid experience watching live or on TV, which is bad.
Fans and the schools complained last time the B10 tried it. Bigger games are great for the other teams, but unfair when it’s your team forced to play them just for TV money. And easier SOS for teams that end of doing well is decried as favoritism that got someone to a CCG.
I watch my team smash Rutgers out of obligation, I’d prefer they play another top team so there’s some stake in the game. It seems hollow to complain about playing 1 extra game against a King instead of a Prince because it hurts your win total. I’m kind of not worried about someone sneaking into the CCG because they had an easier schedule. It’s just something sore losers say – besides if the argument is that you got jumped for 2nd in the B1G because that team played an easier game, congrats you’re probably 10-2 and going to the CFP anyway, possibly ahead of the 2nd place team which is going to lose the B1GCG anyway.
You mean like keeping RU and UMD and PSU’s eastern alumni happy at the expense of them being locked with MSU, a game neither side cares about all that much?
I’ll take your word for it, but are RU and UMD alumni going to grumble about getting a 2 yr break from their annual 30 point beat down by Penn State? I’ve never met a PSU fan that cares at all about either of those teams and mostly are just annoyed at them.
No. Just no. That was true in the Big 2 Little 8 years, but not in the CFB CCG era.
From 1993-2004, OSU and/or MI were the only champs just twice.
93 – OSU/UW split the title. OSU wins outright if they beat UM. UW and OSU tied in their game against each other.
94 – PSU at 8-0
95 – NU at 8-0. NU beat Michigan, Michigan beat 7-1 OSU.
96 – NU/OSU split the title at 7-1. NU beat UM, Michigan beat 7-1 OSU.
97 – Michigan 8-0
98 – UM/OSU/UW all 7-1. OSU beat Michigan, Michigan beat Wisconsin.
99 – UW 7-1
00 – UM/NU/Purdue all 6-2
01 – UIUC 7-1. 6-2 Michigan lost to OSU and therefore a share of the title (UM beat UIUC…also also this was the Clockgate season).
02 – Iowa/OSU split at 8-0.
03 – Michigan 7-1. Beat 6-2 OSU for the title.
Looks like 98 and 03 were the only outright game where either winner would be the B1G champ. But I see a lot of games where OSU/UM changed the champ or co-champ. Also OSU has 4 co-champs in this period and UM has 2 outright and 2 co-champs.
Also 04 Michigan lost an outright title due to a loss to the buckeyes and in 05 Ohio beat Michigan to share with PSU, and in 06 and 07 were games where the winner is the outright champ. I think that’s 3 years from 93 to 07 where the OSU/UM game didn’t determine at least a share of the B1G title. You’re right that’s it not exactly a de facto CCG, but it’s pretttaaayyyy close.
[All the comments about parity scheduling/tough games]
The Nebraska thing cracks me up. I don’t even get what Moos is complaining about, here’s Nebraska’s B1G records in the preceding 5 years:
2013 5-3 + OOC loss to UCLA
2014 5-3 + OOC win over Miami (didn’t play OSU or UM)
2015 3-5 + OOC losses to BYU and Miami (didn’t play OSU or UM or PSU)
2016 6-3 + OOC win over Oregon (didn’t play UM or PSU)
2017 3-6 + OOC losses to Oregon and Northern Illinois (didn’t play UM)
You could say hey, what about their 7-1 season in 2012 and I’ll chuckle because they lost OOC to UCLA and they only won the division because Denard Robinson got hurt and then 4-4 UW obliterated them 70-31 in the CCG.
Also the B1G had CFP reps in 2014, 2015, and 2016, so that’s 3 of 4. There wasn’t one in 2017 because 12-0 UW lost to 10-2 OSU. Is Moos making this entire whine because in 2017 OSU didn’t make the CFB because they scheduled Oklahoma and lost to them at home before getting embarrassed against Iowa later in the year? Please, someone explain to me what he heck Moos is whining about here because I cannot make heads or tails of it.
[Lots of stuff about PSU/RU/UMD]
Look, I just don’t get this. You point out RU/UMD cannot sell tickets as is. I’d argue that’s because they have at least 4 guaranteed losses on their schedule in OSU/UM/PSU/MSU. But I also don’t get at all how their fans are jazzed to pay to watch PSU kill them instead of a winnable game against IL. Like, is the argument that RU/UMD fans buy their season tickets to enjoy getting smoked by PSU? That PSU fans buy season tickets on the years they play in RU/UMD? Help me understand this I feel like only Nebraska fans have a reputation for selling out year after year to get punched in the dong repeatedly for 4 hours at home every Saturday.
[preserving rivalries and neighbor games]
I think we’re saying the same thing. All things equal, MSU/MN and MSU/NU have the same ratings (as you point out), so that can happen with flex games if NU is agreeable to play MSU more instead of whoever else. But I presume that given the choice (which is what fewer locks does) if you can create 2 games of a spicy TV matchup instead of a minor rival boost (they still play 2 out of 4 years) I think TV wins.
I like that we’re on the same page basically though. I think the only difference we really have is that I think the B1G schedules more games between top programs than you do and that I think the B1G can muzzle the complains with the 2x every 4 years zipper model for all schools whereas the 2x every 6 years was far more untenable.
LikeLike
Scout,
“We’re saying like 99% the same stuff which is nice and means we’re pretty much in agreement. It’s fun to pick around the edges though so I do have a couple thoughts:”
Agreed. The mandatory locks are pretty obvious, and the TV-friendly games are too. We may get there in different ways, but I think all of the various ideas end up fairly similar in the end.
“Yeah but TV makes it so much worse. I remember attending those noon games in the early 00’s and they were snoozers that ended by 3pm.”
Yes, the TV timeouts are killers. And that only has gotten worse. But a lot of it is the increase in the passing game, so we shouldn’t put all the blame on TV. 3 yards and a cloud of dust runs more clock. Fans want their schools to get paid more, the extra timeouts are the part of that cost.
“Personally I’d trade 2 snoozer buy games (1 per year) for a H&H that matters.”
I wouldn’t, because the current system rewards a better record over SOS. Before the BCS, the B10 played more big OOC games. But once you had to be perfect, teams cut back to 1 good OOC game. With 9 B10 games, they are already running more risks. In the past, the goal was just to win the B10 so OOC games couldn’t really hurt you.
Also, ADs need the 7th home game. Local businesses need that revenue, too.
“The restaurants and hotels in the area will be fine with one less game every 2 years, I worked in hospitality, those surges on game days just end up in the owner’s pockets and a little bit more tipped cash goes to the service staff.”
It depends on the location. Some of these businesses literally live or die based on CFB weekends. Part of that’s a bad business model, but the school also makes more money from the 7th game (tickets, concessions, merchandise, parking, donations). Where is the upside to the AD for giving that away?
“I don’t think fans complaining about playing better games or playing more winnable games is really anything that moves the needle.”
Fans complaining about anything doesn’t move the needle. Nobody listens to us.
“If anything it’s going to increase their consumption of the product, which is good, vs my complaints about a horrid experience watching live or on TV, which is bad.”
Does it increase total consumption? And if so, do the ADs care? They sell fewer tickets if they give up 2 sell outs for 1. The TV payout stays as written in the contract even if the viewers increase. And what is the consequence of more losses? It diminishes the rest of the season. The SEC gets the best viewership with 8 SEC games, 1 P5 OOC game, and 3 buy games.
“I watch my team smash Rutgers out of obligation, I’d prefer they play another top team so there’s some stake in the game.”
Would the coach prefer that? I’m guessing he thinks OSU, MI, and MSU are challenging enough that they deserve some RU/UMD/IN games as compensation. This isn’t the NFL. Eventually RU won’t be complete garbage on the field, too.
“It seems hollow to complain about playing 1 extra game against a King instead of a Prince because it hurts your win total.”
It may be, but people that matter (ADs) did complain last time. They know there needs to be a balance. Fans want all big games all the time, and coaches want 12 cupcakes so they keep their job.
“I’m kind of not worried about someone sneaking into the CCG because they had an easier schedule. It’s just something sore losers say – besides if the argument is that you got jumped for 2nd in the B1G because that team played an easier game, congrats you’re probably 10-2 and going to the CFP anyway, possibly ahead of the 2nd place team which is going to lose the B1GCG anyway.”
When divisions go away, I agree it is much less likely. But people complained in the 11-team days when someone won the B10 but missed the other top teams. People complained in the 12-team and 14-team days about disparities in the crossover games.
3rd is decent, but at best it’s a road CFP game. 2nd and hosting a game sounds much better. I think the committee will try to continue the trend of not punishing CCG losers much, if at all, for a risk the other team didn’t have to face.
“I’ll take your word for it, but are RU and UMD alumni going to grumble about getting a 2 yr break from their annual 30 point beat down by Penn State? I’ve never met a PSU fan that cares at all about either of those teams and mostly are just annoyed at them.”
It’s not the alumni nearly as much as the ADs. They need to sell tickets, keep season ticket holders excited, get sponsors, etc. Nobody has ever claimed that anyone on the PSU side cares about these games beyond them being convenient road games for those living in NYC/NJ or near DC. But there are a lot of PSU fans/alumni on the coast they may not easily make it to State College, but can make it to the road game.
“Looks like 98 and 03 were the only outright game where either winner would be the B1G champ. But I see a lot of games where OSU/UM changed the champ or co-champ. Also OSU has 4 co-champs in this period and UM has 2 outright and 2 co-champs.”
I’m not denying The Game has often been important to the title race, but it’s unfair to the other teams that were in the running to say The Game was the de facto CCG.
“You’re right that’s it not exactly a de facto CCG, but it’s pretttaaayyyy close.”
Agreed. But as an OSU fan, I don’t want to be the guy that arrogantly ignores what others have done. OSU has enough true success to not need to inflate its importance.
“The Nebraska thing cracks me up. I don’t even get what Moos is complaining about, here’s Nebraska’s B1G records in the preceding 5 years:
…
Please, someone explain to me what he heck Moos is whining about here because I cannot make heads or tails of it.”
He’s complaining about having OSU as their locked crossover game for 6 years under the parity-based scheduling plan (started in 2016, but ended early) when OSU was elite and NE was struggling anyway.
“Look, I just don’t get this. You point out RU/UMD cannot sell tickets as is. I’d argue that’s because they have at least 4 guaranteed losses on their schedule in OSU/UM/PSU/MSU.”
Getting blown out doesn’t help, but that’s going away already when divisions go away. We’re talking about locking 1 of them, not 4. But they also can’t sell tickets for games against IL, IN, and PU because nobody cares about those teams.
“But I also don’t get at all how their fans are jazzed to pay to watch PSU kill them instead of a winnable game against IL. Like, is the argument that RU/UMD fans buy their season tickets to enjoy getting smoked by PSU? That PSU fans buy season tickets on the years they play in RU/UMD?”
They buy tickets and sell the PSU game tickets to PSU fans. And some PSU fans will buy the season ticket for just that 1 game and try to sell the rest, because it’s cheaper than getting tickets to a PSU home game. OSU and MI fans do the same thing.
“Help me understand this I feel like only Nebraska fans have a reputation for selling out year after year to get punched in the dong repeatedly for 4 hours at home every Saturday.”
Well, IA fans keep showing up to watch that offense every year. Maybe it’s a corn thing.
“I think we’re saying the same thing.”
Similar things, at least.
“But I presume that given the choice (which is what fewer locks does) if you can create 2 games of a spicy TV matchup instead of a minor rival boost (they still play 2 out of 4 years) I think TV wins.”
I doubt TV will much care at that level of game, and I doubt the B10 would let them dictate the schedule for it. I think TV is more focused on the elite games (one reason to lock USC with OSU and MI for a few years), because there are too many variables for other games. How good is each team? What other games are that week? What are the national storylines? Even OSU/MI varies considerably in viewership from year to year. TV also cares more about how games are spread across the season, because that is controllable.
“I like that we’re on the same page basically though. I think the only difference we really have is that I think the B1G schedules more games between top programs than you do and that I think the B1G can muzzle the complains with the 2x every 4 years zipper model for all schools whereas the 2x every 6 years was far more untenable.”
I’m not even sure we differ that much on how many big games, so much as which games those will be and why/how they will be chosen. After all, any unlocked game is still played half the time so these are fairly minor differences. I do think they will use a 3-6-6 model, but some of those games will be chosen for big brands to play each other more. I also think certain lesser games will be locked for other reasons, but those also benefit the B10. And I do believe the 3-6-6 plan for 2024 will be modified after 4-10 years (once USC and UCLA are assimilated) even without expansion. Over time, RU and UMD will become less dependent on PSU for example. Getting out of divisions will help them a bit, and Schiano should get RU back to mediocre. That will help them tremendously.
LikeLike
Scout wins the message board, for this blog post. Sometimes simple is stupid; the 3-6-6 format leads to awkward and unnecessary forced “rivalries.” Scout’s “flex pairs” offer games that fans will want to watch and TV executives will want to program. However, the apparent money grab – “maximizing for TV” – will draw some ire. Running scared from fans who might get angry over unnecessary complications is not a good way to run a multi-billion dollar entity. But, a slightly different approach might muzzle the ignorami, especially if couched in noble and [still-]cherished[?] American values: liberty [for schools to choose their own protected rivalries] and meritocracy [where winners play winners]:
First, divide the schools into quartiles, annually, based upon recent on-field performance, and have each quartile play a round robin [3 games], over the course of each season. This will help to maximize marquee games, but in a way that is merit-based and dynamic. There are myriad ways to divide the schools. My preferences would be to use a weighted, 4-year time frame, and to use an advanced metric, such as Football Outsiders’ F+. Doing so would’ve yielded the following round robins, if this system was in place for the 2022 season:
(1) OSU, UW, UMich, PSU
(2) Iowa, UMinn, USC, UNL
(3) PU, MSU, UCLA, IU
(4) UMary, NU, UI’nois, RU.
This metric also allows a reasonable amount of movement between quartiles. [Note: For the knee-jerkers among us – not Jersey Bernie – I’m purposely not referring to this as promotion-and-relegation. Oops.] In the 11 most recent seasons, for which there is sufficient F+ data to calculate 4-year weighted-averages, the median number of schools switching quartiles would’ve been 4 [i.e. 2 teams promoted from one quartile to another; 2 relegated], the mode would’ve been 4, and the mean would’ve been 3.82, with a maximum of 8 [once, in 2014] and a minimum of 2 [four times]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, OSU would’ve remained in the upper-quartile throughout the past dozen years. Perhaps surprisingly, Bucky would’ve been right there with the Buckeyes, for the past 11 seasons, while Michigan and USC would’ve been the only other schools to never drop into the lower-quartiles, with Iowa (1 season in the 3rd-quartile), PSU (2), MSU (2), and UNL (5) spending some time down below. Conversely, Illinois (10 seasons in the bottom-quartile), RU (9), UMary (9), and PU (8) would’ve spent most of their past dozen seasons among the dregs. In other words, it’s dynamic, but not chaotic; choose a conservative metric, such as all-time CFB wins, if you want more elasticity, or a radical metric, such as the previous season’s conference win%, if you want more dynamism.
Second, allow schools to protect up to three rivalries [zero to 3 games]. Both schools would have to agree to enter into a protected rivalry, and schools could cancel or create protected rivalries, prior to each season. Thus, some schools may have three protected rivalries (i.e. Iowa), while others may have zero (UMary? RU?). Of course, some protected rivalries will be fulfilled through the round robin, as described above, in which case most teams will likely have less than 6 games on their schedule, after this step.
Third, have each school play at least one school from each of the other three quartiles [3 to 6 games]. These inter-quartile matches will ensure a degree of competitive balance, with individual matches selected with an emphasis on visiting campuses that haven’t been visited recently.
Such a system could be scaled-up, in the event of additional expansion. For example, a 20-team league could still use quartiles, with 4 round robin games, up to 2 protected rivalries, and 3+ inter-quartile games: 4-[2]-[3]. A 24-team league would also work, but with only one protected rivalry…unless shifting to a 10-game conference schedule: 5-[2]-[3]!?!
LikeLike
You lock the 3 game round robin – okay. That locks the 6 worst possible games every year, but that’s your choice. It also means the lower programs get less access to the big brands that sell out their stadiums for them and get them better TV exposure. I’m not sure they want that.
Then it’s 0-3 rivalries, which require mutual agreement annually. If they’re rivalries, shouldn’t they last more than 1 year? So now everyone has 3-6 games.
Third, have each school play at least one school from each of the other three quartiles [3 to 6 games]. These inter-quartile matches will ensure a degree of competitive balance, with individual matches selected with an emphasis on visiting campuses that haven’t been visited recently.
Another one from each quartile, or they need at least 1 from each in the final schedule? If they have a locked rival in that quartile, is that sufficient?
Wouldn’t any sort of rotation among the remaining schools also guarantee some competitive balance? I ran the numbers above for my 3-6-6 set up.
In the long run, this seems like a lot of effort to end up with a very similar schedule to what a 3-6-6 would generate.
Games from my list above that your plan would also seem to lock:
RU – UMD, PSU?
UMD – RU, PSU?
PSU – OSU, RU?, UMD?
OSU – MI, PSU,
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI, IN, NW?
IN – PU, MSU, IL?
PU – IN, IL?,
IL – NW, PU?, IN?
NW – IL, RU, MSU?
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
UCLA – USC,
USC – UCLA,
? are for potential locked rivalries. Not all of them would be kept.
That’s about 2 per school vs my 3, but some of that is dependent on the quartiles. And the differing games would happen 50% of the time in my plan. So in the end, don’t you get about the same schedule?
You could take just your second step above and have a much simpler plan, and one which others have proposed (like Marc). I’m not convinced locking all the quartile games is a net benefit. And I really doubt the B10 would lock UCLA vs both IN and PU when they join the B10.
LikeLike
Maybe I wasn’t clear. The quartiles are not locked. They’re dynamic, based upon recent on-field performance. The only games that are locked are those that two consenting schools agree to lock. Presumably, schools won’t decouple, annually. But, it’s a free country. So, to clarify, what’s your objection?
LikeLike
No, I understand the quartiles aren’t locked long term. But they are locked for that year (to distinguish from the games scheduled against the pool of remaining teams).
My objection to 1-year rivalries? That’s not a rivalry, and it isn’t even a home and home. If a game is important enough to lock in, then it should be that important for multiple years. If it isn’t a game they want for 10 straight years, then don’t lock it at all.
Other objections:
* Quartiles based on advanced metrics. Few people have heard of those stats, and even fewer understand them. Most fans distrust advanced stats and think they are biased against their team.
* Changing quartiles (and thus opponents) annually. The scheduling default should be home and homes, or every other year, not random 1 offs as some stat dictates. It could be really bad for a team like NW which tends to yo-yo in performance.
* It’s fundamentally the same concept as the parity-based scheduling that multiple schools pushed back against just 4 years ago. We should learn from history and have better reasons for scheduling those games.
* It’s s college conference. The goal should be to play everyone frequently and close to equally, but with more important games (rivalries) being annual.
* It seems like an unnecessarily complicated method to achieve essentially the same end result as a simple 3-6-6 plan. What is the upside?
LikeLike
Think of locked rivals as a marriage. The 3-6-6 format that seems to be the consensus around here inevitably leads to arranged marriages that no one really wants: “UMD – PU (good engineering schools? – it’s forced,” as Brian acknowledged. Similarly, Frank concludes, that, “Everyone wants 3 perfectly matched annual games, but that’s impossible for all members.” The latter point is correct; the former is not. I’m simply suggesting that schools should be able to marry whomever they want, and end those marriages whenever they want. Maybe RU and/or UMD doesn’t want to keep their long, storied, 12-game rivalry going. [They played 4 times, before joining the B1G, and 8 consecutive seasons since then.] Apparently, everyone around here would continue to bless that shotgun wedding–even Colin M and Scout, both of whom offer better options than 3-6-6. What if RU and/or UMD decides that ’til-death is too long? Admittedly, it may only be 10-years-to-life, if using Brian’s apparent minimum for a marriage–err, rivalry.
Calling one-off games “locked,” using Brian’s sleight of hand, is like calling a Tinder hook-up a marriage. Yes, “That’s not a rivalry, and it isn’t even a home and home.” You surely didn’t intend the pun; I surely did. A slight tweak could limit promotion-and-relegation – err, tier realignment – to a biennial exercise, to allow for home-and-home matches among the quartiles. But, that isn’t necessary and this is my zig; continue to zag, if that’s your bailiwick.
I will concede that a maximalist position on liberty and meritocracy would not include forcing schools into quartiles, even as a one-off scheduling mechanism. But, that road leads to dissolution of the B1G and independence for all, and not a very interesting comment board post. Instead, think of the quartiles as swinging foursomes. The top-tier round robin includes the two hottest couples in town; that’s premium content that people will pay to watch. The bottom-tier might get some doom-scrolling eyeballs. But, you’d want to maximize the former, if you’re making money off of this analogy.
Misc. pedantry:
–Yes, “locking” – and doom-scrolling – 6 of the worst possible games (i.e. a round robin, involving the bottom-quartile: currently UMary, NU, UI’nois, RU) is a natural outcome of “locking” 6 of the best possible games (i.e. a round robin, involving the top-quartile: OSU, UW, UMich, PSU). But, those bottom-quartile schools are incentivized to improve their standing, and they arguably have the resources to do so. They might climb the ladder and earn better TV exposure, if they find the next Barry Alvarez or P.J. Fleck.
–Brian included 10 question marks next to 5 “rivalries” that he apparently locks. I wouldn’t keep any of those, but it doesn’t matter what I would do, and that’s the point: Would RU and PSU both agree to a marriage? UMD and PSU? MSU and NW? IN and IL? PU and IL? That’s for those schools to decide.
–Using an advanced metric allows for comparing USC and UCLA to the B1G schools, retroactively. Pick a simpler metric, if it suits you or if you fear fans’ distrust; 4-year conference win% would probably work just fine, 4 years after USC and UCLA join.
–We agree that, “The goal should be to play everyone frequently and close to equally, but with more important games (rivalries) being annual.” My proposal does that better than 3-6-6, partly by replacing shotgun weddings with pigskin porn.
–What is the upside? Liberty. Meritocracy. We should learn from history.
LikeLike
Schools don’t join a conference to have liberty in scheduling. It’s the exact opposite, actually.
A meritocracy wouldn’t lock any games based on performance in prior years. Every year is a different team, with huge roster turnover. Giving better teams tougher schedules also goes against that philosophy.
Your plan just locks other “forced marriages,” it doesn’t eliminate them. I see no benefit.
As for RU and UMD, I honestly don’t care if they want to keep playing annually or not. Nobody else wants to play them either. They can always leave the B10 if they don’t like it.
LikeLike
Brian, that’s a desperate and pathetic rhetorical device. You took a factual tenet of my proposal – that no school would be forced to accept a protected rivalry; no forced marriages or shotgun weddings – and claimed the opposite to be true. As a long-time reader and occasional commenter on this blog, I return for the intelligent analysis and respectful commentary. You are capable of both, while remaining prolific and well-informed.
LikeLike
“You took a factual tenet of my proposal – that no school would be forced to accept a protected rivalry; no forced marriages or shotgun weddings – and claimed the opposite to be true.”
The opposite is true. You make the teams in each quartile play a round robin whether they want to or not. Those are forced marriages just as much as an imposed “rivalry” game is.
LikeLike
That’s absurd, Brian; now you’re just trolling. Or, maybe you have been this whole time, and the joke’s on me?!? By your tortured logic, the one-off games that the B1G apparently pulls out of a hat would be considered forced marriages, just as much as a locked, long-term “rivalry” is. Does Tinder have a random hook-up feature, similar to a blind date, but with benefits expected and commitments discouraged? If so, those games pulled from a hat would be that, with your arranged marriages being shotgun weddings. My quartiles have benefits, with no commitments. Figure it out.
LikeLike
Bro, I realize you’re hopped up on Adderall and procrastinating your stats or Matlab homework, but you’re talking about quartiles when the average american is so stupid they thought the quarter pounder was a bigger burger than A&W’s 1/3 pound burger.
https://bettermarketing.pub/the-a-w-third-pounder-failed-because-people-didnt-understand-fractions-a86b966a973a
LikeLike
My kids start enough of their sentences with “Bro” that I’ve learned to be dubious of what comes next. Still, I had to Google “Adderall” and “MATLAB,” to make sure that I wasn’t missing some deeper meaning. Regardless, and to your points, words matter and Bourbon may have been involved, when I typed that. I wouldn’t advise that Kevin Warren ever utter “quartiles,” when standing at a podium, but I was confident that this group wouldn’t get distracted by it. “Tiers” might work, if we think that “zipper” will fly.
LikeLike
“zipper will fly” – we see what you did there.
LikeLike
+1 to “Zipper will fly” I chuckled
LikeLike
Scout, your proposal is actually a form of relegation within the B1G that really could work. I have said that relegation to a different league in college football is impossible for several reasons. (Lower league is less money, loss of coaches, recruits, etc, and virtually no way back up).
Here the weaker teams “drop down” by playing more games against weaker teams, but still get their money and plenty of games among the top teams. If one of the weaker teams, eg Purdue, starts to consistently win 9 or 10 games a year, then their schedule improves, but at all times everything is still the B1G.
LikeLike
Bernie,
The B10 already tried that with parity-based scheduling. We dropped it because schools complained it was unfair. I’m not saying they can’t or won’t try it again, but it’s not unheard of for the B10.
LikeLike
For fun, and after floating promotion-and-relegation [shh!] by quartiles, the following would’ve been the annual quartiles, using 4-year weighted-F+, with the previous seasons weighted at 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% [and with promoted/relegated schools listed in brackets]. In other words, each quartile would’ve played a round robin, in a 3-[3]-[3] format:
2011
OSU, USC, UNL, PSU
Iowa, UW, MSU, UMich
UI’nois, UMary, UCLA, RU
PU, NU, UMinn, IU
2012
[UW+], USC, OSU, UNL
Iowa, MSU, [PSU-], UMich
UI’nois, UCLA, RU, [NU+]
PU, [UMary-], UMinn, IU
2013
UW, USC, OSU, UNL
UMich, MSU, PSU, Iowa
UCLA, NU, RU, [PU+]
[UI’nois-], UMary, UMinn, IU
2014
UW, OSU, USC, [MSU+]
UMich, [UNL-], [UCLA+], Iowa
[PSU-], NU, [UMinn+], [UMary+]
[RU-], UI’nois, IU, [PU-]
2015
OSU, UW, MSU, USC
UCLA, UNL, UMich, [PSU+]
[Iowa-], NU, UMinn, UMary
RU, IU, UI’nois, PU
2016
OSU, MSU, USC, UW
UCLA, UMich, UNL, [Iowa+]
[PSU-], UMinn, NU, [IU+]
[UMary-], UI’nois, RU, PU
2017
OSU, USC, [UMich+], UW
[MSU-], [PSU+], UCLA, Iowa
[UNL-], UMinn, NU, IU
UMary, UI’nois, RU, PU
2018
OSU, UW, UMich, [PSU+]
[USC-], MSU, Iowa, UCLA
NU, UNL, UMinn, IU
UMary, PU, UI’nois, RU
2019
OSU, UMich, PSU, UW
Iowa, USC, MSU, [NU+]
UMinn, IU, UNL, [UCLA-]
PU, UMary, UI’nois, RU
2020
OSU, PSU, UMich, UW
Iowa, USC, [UMinn+], MSU
IU, UNL, [NU-], [PU+]
[UCLA-], UMary, UI’nois, RU
2021
OSU, UW, PSU, [Iowa+]
[UMich-], USC, [IU+], UMinn
NU, [MSU-], PU, UNL
UCLA, UMary, UI’nois, RU
2022
OSU, UW, [UMich+], PSU
[Iowa-], UMinn, USC, [UNL+]
PU, MSU, [UCLA+], [IU-]
UMary, [NU-], UI’nois, RU
LikeLike
Last week’s inaugural Thursday Night Football drew 13.03m viewers, roughly comparable to last year’s Thursday night average of 12.84m per game. Subtracting the local OTA broadcast, the Amazon stream alone attracted 11.87m (according to Neilson).
I do not expect every game to do as well, but it was a good start.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/09/amazon-thursday-night-football-ratings-impressive-debut-chargers-chiefs/
I said in the other thread that I think adding at least two teams (Stanford + Washington?) makes sense. Interested to follow this given the cbs article saying it is still on the table. With the impressive debut from Amazon, plus cross promotional abilities for a Friday and/or Saturday night game, I really think this makes tons of sense, assuming Amazon can sustain the ratings.
Amazon presumably overpays for the last available window. Reduced buy in, plus Amazon, plus the other benefits (expanded playoff payouts, B1G carriage fees, etc)–think this makes a lot of sense for the B1G.
The last window available that B1G can lock down forever, and Amazon will overpay for that. Exposure doesnt seem to be negatively impacted, and the demographics tilt younger.
LikeLike
Yes, but will Amazon overpay forever?
LikeLike
Richard: “Yes, but will Amazon overpay forever?”
I think that’s a more important point than people are acknowledging, at least in the hypothetical situation where Amazon’s overpaying is what drives the B10 to add more teams right now. Once the B10 needs Amazon to have 18-20 teams, Amazon has less incentive to keep overpaying.
LikeLike
I maintain the Big Ten will go whole hog on absorbing the West Coast by adding Washington, Oregon, Cal and Stanford for an even 20, and let Notre Dame become member #21 if it eventually so desires, possibly in the early 2030s. As Frank so often notes, think like a university president; omitting Cal’s elite academics and decent athletics from this equation merely to placate ND’s possible future desires would lead to all sorts of political turmoil. (witness the UC Regents and UCLA). And new media sources will come along that the B1G can financially take advantage of.
LikeLike
I maintain the Big Ten will go whole hog on absorbing the West Coast by adding Washington, Oregon, Cal and Stanford for an even 20….
The fact they have not done this already suggests that the numbers currently are not persuasive.
As Frank so often notes, think like a university president; omitting Cal’s elite academics and decent athletics from this equation merely to placate ND’s possible future desires would lead to all sorts of political turmoil. (witness the UC Regents and UCLA).
Despite the UC Regents political turmoil, nobody thinks that UCLA will actually be prevented from joining the Big Ten. A decade from now, most will not remember that the Regents raised a stink for a couple of months and then gave up. Expansion is forever. You don’t do it because a few minor politicians made an empty protest.
To my knowledge, no conference yet has expanded for academic reasons if the TV revenue wasn’t there. Nobody who has analyzed it has figured out a way to make four more West Coast schools financially accretive if ND does not join.
LikeLike
I suppose the one consideration is the Pac 4 coming at a reduced payout for a while. Slowly equalize them so they full shares in the next deal. That gives time for the expanded CFP numbers to be known.
I still don’t think it’s likely, but that’s the only path I see for it right now.
LikeLike
Reduced payouts are only a bridge to full payouts eventually. So if the conference invites those schools, they have to be sure they’d eventually come out ahead.
LikeLike
Interested to follow this given the cbs article saying it is still on the table.
The article said that Kevin Warren is pursuing it, but he has not persuaded the presidents yet.
I really think this makes tons of sense, assuming Amazon can sustain the ratings.
It probably makes sense to wait a few years and see if the enthusiasm for Thursday Night Football lasts. All we know is they have had one good game.
Exposure doesn’t seem to be negatively impacted, and the demographics tilt younger.
Exposure would be negatively impacted for sure, as it’s another service you are asking people to pay for, so that they can see the maybe one or at most two games per year that their team is on.
LikeLike
Yes, 2 is hard. 4 is impossible. And the original 14 (especially the original 10) would have little desire to fly their non-revenue sports to the West Coast more often and play other Original 10 schools less if the money isn’t there.
I personally wouldn’t mind adding the Bay Area school at all but it’s tough to see how to make the money work unless those schools manage to grow their fanbases a ton.
LikeLike
Is this an old article from a couple of weeks ago or recent, like yesterday? I’ve been looking for it but can’t find it.
LikeLike
It is possible that Colin M is both correct and wrong, when he predicts that, “No one else from the PAC nor B12 nor the ACC nor ND is joining the Big Ten between now and 2036.” That is probably the safe bet. But, ironically, it may be the wrong decision, because people in power are thinking like college presidents, when they should be thinking like CEOs. This is big business, and the B1G is in a position of power, with other conferences vulnerable. And, corporate inertia is typically a vice; not a virtue.
The B1G stands to gain, if there are fewer competitors the next time its television rights go to market. Kevin Warren’s job is to convince the presidents to think like a corporate board of directors, and not like a board of regents. They should collectively set a vision of what they want the B1G to look like, 15 years from now, and then empower the CEO to act on that vision. There is no apparent benefit in letting the PAC and BXII both survive until 2030, when B1G rights next go to market. The B1G should act now and take what is valuable, while positioning themselves for an ACC raid next decade, with the end result being one dominant, national conference; one regional conference that may be dominant at football; and one or two lesser conferences. This interim step would likely be fully subsidized by Amazon or Apple, along with good-faith negotiations with existing partners, if not ESPN-after-dark and/or new conference member buy-ins, so that existing B1G schools actually bring in more money. Then, leak the vision to the extent that ACC, ACC-adjacent [ND], and even SEC schools [Texas, Florida(!?!)] have a few years to think about what is in their best interests.
Could the B1G announce its 2036 membership, before closing on its next TV contracts, prior to 2030? If not, could it negotiate a short-term extension, through 2032 or 2033, for example, and then complete its expansion and negotiate its next deals before the SEC ever goes back on the open market? Regardless, we may have overlearned the think-like-a-president mantra, on this blog. Perhaps the subtitle, not-like-a-fan, was always more important, and we should think-like-a-CEO, going forward.
LikeLike
The problem with this is that if the B1G or SEC starts taking out competitors, eg, eliminating leagues by expansion, Congress is very likely to take a long hard look. In the last few years, politicians have had no problems meddling in college sports without a clue what they are doing.
The CA Bd of Regents is hyperventilating over UCLA. Rumors are around that the legislature in NC are making sure that NC and NC State do not get split, and there are many other such rumors.
If the Regents are upset now, what happens when no P5, 4, whatever wants Cal at all?
If Oregon and UWash are taken elsewhere, I can guarantee that the politicos in both states with be up in arms over the fates of ORState and WAState, though not much can be done.
Repeat that a few more times and there will be an uproar in DC.
College presidents do not view themselves as purely business people. There is an element of collegiality, which is not exactly a highly sought after trait when businesses buy out or destroy competitors.
In addition, at some points the original conference members will barely play each other. Go to 24 teams and how many original ten members will play each other once every three or four years.
There is no analogy to what Amazon, or Microsoft or others have done to wipe out competition by simply buying or destroying anything that might compete with or disrupt the system. I am not an anti-trust expert, but I do think that there should long ago have been actions to stop some of these expansions. I also think that there is small some movement in DC in that direction.
LikeLike
mstinebrink,
“But, ironically, it may be the wrong decision, because people in power are thinking like college presidents, when they should be thinking like CEOs. This is big business, and the B1G is in a position of power, with other conferences vulnerable. And, corporate inertia is typically a vice; not a virtue.”
They aren’t CEOs and shouldn’t be thinking like they are. They are university presidents and should think that way. Money isn’t the only thing that matters to their operations, it’s just really important. They aren’t NFL owners.
“Kevin Warren’s job is to convince the presidents to think like a corporate board of directors, and not like a board of regents.”
No, it isn’t. His job is to be the commissioner and listen to the presidents when they choose to give guidance for the B10’s direction. They run the B10, not him.
“They should collectively set a vision of what they want the B1G to look like, 15 years from now, and then empower the CEO to act on that vision.”
Why do you assume they haven’t? That vision will change every time a new president is hired, but it’s unlikely they don’t share their vision with Warren. Their vision may not match Warren’s. but that doesn’t make them wrong. He came in knowing nothing about college athletics or academia.
“This interim step would likely be fully subsidized by Amazon or Apple, along with good-faith negotiations with existing partners, if not ESPN-after-dark and/or new conference member buy-ins, so that existing B1G schools actually bring in more money.”
Or not. The B10 just talked with all the media companies, so they know exactly what value those companies see with expansion right now. And there is no promise the streamers would continue to pay for it, even if they would overpay now.
“Then, leak the vision to the extent that ACC, ACC-adjacent [ND], and even SEC schools [Texas, Florida(!?!)] have a few years to think about what is in their best interests.”
No SEC school is ever leaving the SEC for the B10 (or vice versa). I don’t know where people get these dreams from.
“Could the B1G announce its 2036 membership, before closing on its next TV contracts, prior to 2030?”
It’s doubtful they’d do it that far ahead. Those would be many awkward years for any schools that are moving. More likely would be 2033-34ish, just like this round.
“If not, could it negotiate a short-term extension, through 2032 or 2033, for example, and then complete its expansion and negotiate its next deals before the SEC ever goes back on the open market?”
I doubt it. I don’t think the networks want a deal that short. I’d guess the next deal would end in 2036 or so.
LikeLike
The B1G should act now and take what is valuable, while positioning themselves for an ACC raid next decade…
Many of us here have run the numbers and cannot see any further Pac or Big XII additions that make money, unless Notre Dame is included. Maybe the numbers presented here are incorrect, but you have not offered any rebuttal to them.
If these schools are not revenue positive, then perhaps the presidents are doing what good CEOs should do, and saying no to any further immediate growth, especially as the latest additions have not been digested yet.
Growth that loses money is not always a great strategy. Adding money-losing Pac schools now does not improve the Big Ten’s position for an ACC raid next decade. They can still do that when the time is right.
LikeLike
Here’s the math in favor of B1G taking four more Pac schools now.
The B1G’s new deal is approximately $1.3B per year for 16 schools or $81.25m per school per year. To add four more schools, new packages have to total $325m/year to break even.
Assuming NBC and CBS are tapped out with one spot each, that leaves FOX (noon & 3:30p) & FS1 (noon, 3:30p, primetime, and possibly After Dark). FOX is prohibited from showing a B1G game against CBS and NBC, and presumably FOX wouldn’t show a B1G on FS1 at noon. That leaves FOX with no windows for additional B1G games and FS1 filling up to three slots with B1G games. The BTN gets two or three games, so when conference play begins, there’s only one extra game to place.
Add four more PAC teams and that give the B1G two more conference games.
What if FOX moves their wrestling programming to Thursday and plays the B1G’s best West Wing game on Friday night? What if the other two games were sold Amazon or Apple?
FOX, CBS & NBC = B1G #1, #2, #3
FOX (Friday primetime) = B1G #4
Amazon/Apple = B1G #5 & #6
FS1 (3:30p) = B1G#7
FS1 (primetime) = B1G #8
BTN = B1G #9 & #10
Is Friday primetime on FOX worth $162.5m/year?
Are two decent games on a streaming service worth $162.5m/year?
FS1’s inventory gets devalued, so maybe FOX only pays $125m/year for the Friday primetime package. If the streaming service is willing to pay $200m/year for its two games, then the B1G breaks even by adding four PAC schools to its West Wing.
FOX only needs to offer another conference – likely the B12 – a two game package to only cover FS1 at noon and FOX at 3:30p, assuming FOX is not interested in having a Saturday primetime package.
LikeLike
The big problem is that the remaining Pac schools are marginal at best at drawing eyeballs. At $150mm for either 15 After Dark or 15 Friday night games, they need to average 2.5mm (or at the very least, 2mm) viewers/game. But no Pac After Dark game did in 2019 or 2021. I’m pretty certain no Friday night game did either (yes, they could improve the top packages as well, though likely not enough to make a difference).
Stanford is close and the B10 may add the Cardinal even at breakeven because of terrific ancillary qualities (same with Cal but they are nowhere near breakeven). But without ND, it’s tough to see how the money is there to add so many Pac schools. 2 is iffy. 4 seems impossible.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten really screwed the pooch when it guaranteed exclusive windows to FOX, CBS, and NBC. This is why we are talking about Friday night and after-dark games.
Now, maybe the nets are paying a little more for exclusivity, but they are not getting my patronage, just because a particular game is a Big Ten exclusive. They would be better off putting some of those games on ABC/ESPN, which is now precluded because of the deal they just did.
LikeLike
Marc: “I think the Big Ten really screwed the pooch when it guaranteed exclusive windows to FOX, CBS, and NBC.”
As a fan. I kinda feel the same way. However when you consider the long-term impact of the huge TV payouts to the Big Ten and the SEC, it’s going to elevate those 32 teams to a tier that will leave all other college football schools in our dust. That revenue, year after year after year, will outdistance the Big Ten and SEC from the rest of the pack in terms of facilities, coaching salaries, recruiting budgets and indirectly as cash works its way into NIL.
Purdue is alreadyplanning a stadium expansion. They are transforming their horseshoe into a complete oval at the end of this season.
The TV contracts are a blessing and a curse. I haven’t missed a Purdue game in years and the revenue guarantess that the Big Ten schools will forever be the Joneses. But TV dictating game times and channels is a bummer.
LikeLike
Marc, CBS and NBC seem to be paying up a fair amount for exclusivity. Either that or they feel the addition of USC will really boost the viewership of the B10’s 2nd and 3rd choice games, because the 4mm+ viewership average that it seems they are looking for (at $4/viewer) is an average that their collection of some 1st choice B10, some second choice, and many 3rd choice B10 games did not historical get.
In any case, the biggest problem is that the remaining Pac teams don’t draw enough eyeballs. Even in one of the best 3 slots, Pac games draw middling viewership.
LikeLike
Richard: “In any case, the biggest problem is that the remaining Pac teams don’t draw enough eyeballs. Even in one of the best 3 slots, Pac games draw middling viewership.”
We all know the Pac-12 network is badly broken business-wise and we also know that football interest west of the Pecos is nothing like the South and Midwest. What if Fox/BTN scooped in and bought the Pac Network media rights for chump change?
That would be a lifeline to the Pac Network, give them a reason to extablish a GOR to stop future deflections, and provide semi-premium content to Mountain Zone and Pacific Zone games. They would own the so-called Late Games in terms of both time and two far-west participants/audience. The BTN and Pac Network could have triple-headers and quadruple-headers every week with shared content. Pac N could do an early morning game with Rutgers-Mich St and the BTN late nighter could be Wash St-Utah.
The B1G could stake out the West without sharing the cash.
LikeLike
Colin, I’m not sure anybody wants the PTN. Running a network isn’t completely free and I’m not sure there is enough interest in it to justify taking it.
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, I’m not sure anybody wants the PTN. Running a network isn’t completely free and I’m not sure there is enough interest in it to justify taking it.”
I certainly agree with that comment but as I said, Fox/BTN should buy up the Pac Network rights for chump change. That would lock up the Mountain/Pacific time zones and invite PAC expansion to UNLV, BYU, AFA, Boise, SDS, whatever. They would capture the entire western TV audience for college football, which we all know isn’t awesome.
LikeLike
It appears that the muckedy-mucks at Amazon, the B1G, and schools currently in the PAC have been reading my posts again.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-in-danger-of-eventual-collapse-as-big-ten-considers-further-expansion-big-12-interest-looms/
LikeLike
Unless some folks on this message board are playing coy, no one has “the numbers” to run – and the mathematical mind to run them – to show the net benefit of more PAC additions, even for the lifespan of the recent TV contracts. Beyond that timeframe, no one has definitive numbers, likely including those numbers and models that are not publicly available. This is the fog of business, in which big, consequential decisions have to be made. Thinking like a college president leads to inertia and missed opportunities. Otherwise, the B1G would already extend to Austin.
Perhaps this lesson has already been learned, and the B1G and SEC are already thinking like CEOs – or corporate boards of directors – and the wise move for the B1G is to take a pass on further PAC additions. For example, the recent coups of conference expansion – UT and OU to SEC; USC and UCLA to B1G – may be just as easily explained with a think-like-a-CEO mantra, as explained by our well-learned, think-like-a-president construct. And, it is possible that think-like-a-CEO better explains conference realignment moves, during the 21st century. But, my sense is that presidents still hold sufficient veto power. Further, they lack the humility to assume BoD roles, are generally not good at making big business decisions, may be hobbled by group-think, and lack the instincts that fit the moment. Anecdotally, Jon Wilner hypothesized, in one of the recent Canzano and Wilner podcasts, that the B1G presidents may not want PAC blood on their hands, when suggesting that he thinks that the B1G may not further raid the PAC. As a Midwestern transplant to California, who has since returned home, I don’t want the PAC to die, either. I’d choose to watch the sunset on the Rose Bowl, with a B1G-PAC match-up and log on the fire, on Jan 1, if I was only allowed to watch one college football game per year; there’d be no hesitation on that decision. But, businesses need to look to the future; not the past.
Rhetorically, how much more should the B1G expect to receive in its next TV contracts, if it has already announced its future 24-school membership, and with at least one fewer consolation prize for Disney, et al, than if it is a 16-team conference, with the PAC an BXII both still out there, and only the simmering possibility that the B1G could expand? It’s not all about money, it’s impossible to accurately predict the future, and the 24-team membership surely matters, but my hunch is that the B1G-24 would command a premium that would make our quibbles over whether Amazon/Apple/buy-ins would fully cover any PAC additions in the early-2020s seem petty.
Also, don’t shoot the messenger, lest this message board succumb to group-think, itself. Half-kidding; fire away.
LikeLike
Unless some folks on this message board are playing coy, no one has “the numbers” to run – and the mathematical mind to run them – to show the net benefit of more PAC additions, even for the lifespan of the recent TV contracts.
I believe Marc is referring to the school valuation numbers we have from people like Bob Thompson who did this for a living. Also other numbers like ratings, market sizes, etc. If someone who negotiated CFB deals for Fox tells you that the P12 schools aren’t additive, it makes sense to listen to him.
But, my sense is that presidents still hold sufficient veto power.
Shouldn’t they? They don’t work for the B10, they work for their schools.
Further, they lack the humility to assume BoD roles, are generally not good at making big business decisions, may be hobbled by group-think, and lack the instincts that fit the moment.
They are dealing with multi-billion dollar annual budgets. They make big business decisions regularly. I don’t think you’ve presented any evidence that they are generally bad at it. If they were, you’d think they’d get fired more often. It might be more fair to say that college athletics largely operate outside of their expertise.
But, businesses need to look to the future; not the past.
Universities aren’t just businesses. They have to work together in many other arenas, and the research money at stake in future collaborations (US gov’t pushes for multiple schools to work together for the big grants) may trump the athletics money.
Rhetorically, how much more should the B1G expect to receive in its next TV contracts, if it has already announced its future 24-school membership, and with at least one fewer consolation prize for Disney, et al, than if it is a 16-team conference, with the PAC an BXII both still out there, and only the simmering possibility that the B1G could expand?
We don’t know, but the B10 got some info on those sorts of things during these latest negotiations. The various networks informed them what certain additions might be worth. One potential constraint is that there are really only 3 valuable TV windows, with 2 lesser windows (F night and late Sat.). We really don’t know about the value of the B12 and P12 since they are negotiating now. It’s already B10 vs SEC in all the TV windows anyway.
Is the competition an SEC16 or SEC24? How much are the networks and streamers looking to invest in CFB by then? How has the sports rights market changed by then?
If the goal is maximize leverage, the B10 and SEC negotiating together would seem like the correct approach. That would be essentially all of the valuable games.
I think this is the basic answer:
it’s impossible to accurately predict the future
LikeLike
Amazon outperforming expectations, with its Thursday night NFL games, would also seem to strengthen B1G CEO Warren’s hand, if trying to convince his presidents to support more PAC additions. The Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast includes George Kliavkoff and Brett Yormark among its “Who’s up” segment, “based solely on the first two weeks of Amazon’s Thursday Night Football schedule”–13mm in Week One and 11mm in Week Two, versus that podcast’s preseason projected over/under of 7.5mm/week for the season average. This is certainly good news for the PAC, if it encourages ESPN and/or FOX to increase their bids to block Amazon, but only if the B1G stays at 16. Otherwise, it may prove fatal, if the B1G thinks like a CEO, invites more PAC schools, and goes looking for an additional TV partner.
Also, Marchand’s closing statement on their PAC rights discussion was money: “If I want to stabilize the PAC-12, if I were them, I would not be too greedy.”
LikeLike
At the risk of a heapin’-helpin’ of crow-emoji, I have declared with Indesputable! Irrefutable! certainty that Washington and Oregon WILL be admitted to the B1G (at a bargain price) BEFORE signing any sort of PAC grant of rights. Yes, brothers & brothers, I said OREGON!! the scoffed-at-scourge of the Frank the Tank set (and only bonfire brand of the bunch). Match-ups are all that matter, and the Ducks are good TV. I also believe my beloved Cardinal will be invited, coupled with a yet-to-be determined suitor: the noble Ashley Wilkes (UNC) the Roguish Rhett Butler (Miami), the insufferable Scarlett herself (ND) or the ethereal Melanie (Cal). I tend to think Warren already knows the direction the ACC targets are leaning.
LikeLike
*bona fide brand
LikeLike
You are certainly excited. Is there any factual basis for this excitement?
If the CA Bd of Regents blocks UCLA, I could see the B1G taking Stanford and then maybe also WA and OR, or only Stanford. That could leave the two U Calfornia schools hoping for an invite together from the B1g 12 or leaves them trying to maintain a league with WaState and OrState. It would be amusing to see how the Bd of Regents would explain the last fiasco.
I would hope that the B1G would never take Cal because of pressure from the Bd of Regents.
Other than that scenario, why are you excited now?
LikeLike
Although I do believe W/O will end up in the B1G, I’m not ‘excited’ at all; just having fun at the expense of the outrage brigade who can’t abide an opinion that differs from their own. That Board of Regents isn’t blocking anything.
LikeLike
Well, the P12 is mid-negotiations now so we shall soon find out. Or do you anticipate no GoR for the P12 in their new deal?
I don’t think the money and TV windows make sense for adding them at this point, but anything could happen. I don’t see how Stanford + Cal makes much sense for the B10 (just Stanford maybe), but UNC and Miami are stuck in purgatory for a while and ND isn’t joining any conference.
I will dispute your claim that UO is the only real brand in that bunch. UW has more history and draws similar viewers. UO’s brand has faded since the Kelly era as they’ve been losing more, and more schools wear alternate uniforms.
LikeLike
Endeavor: “I have declared with Indesputable! Irrefutable! certainty that Washington and Oregon WILL be admitted to the B1G (at a bargain price) BEFORE signing any sort of PAC grant of rights.”
I was branded as a “troll” for a less radical statement than that one.
LikeLike
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article264799339.html
““Had a long call with Jim Delany tonight,” Cunningham wrote in his text to Guskiewicz, referencing the former Big Ten commissioner who led that conference from 1989 through 2020. “He preaches patience and planning. No need to rush right now.””
“One of the talking points, as Cunningham described it: “Should we explore a partnership with the Big 12 or Pac 12(?)” Guskiewicz was intrigued: “We could have a super conference both athletically and academically,” he responded. “Probably would need to be called the Atlantic-Pacific Athletic Conference (APAC). Maybe that’s crazy, but if it would get us a better TV deal, it may be worth considering.” “We need to think about what outcomes we want?” Cunningham wrote back. “What are our priorities? Do we want to maintain all teams in the ACC? Is this a new league? Do we want to have the same number of teams at each school? “Should we play a national schedule or regional schedule?””
NC paper got a bunch of text messages via FOIA requests. Nothing really earth shattering, but kind of interesting that it makes clear Delany was talking with UNC this summer in some capacity.
LikeLike
In advance, yes I realize the Presidents decide. Yes I realize ‘indisputable’ has an ‘i’ 😊, and yes I know the precarious nature of Oregon’s AAU status. It’s still happening.
LikeLike
Ha!
Indeed UW and UO, added to USC and UCLA, flips the athletic competition and eyeballs equation.
I keep wondering if there are enough media demand dollars today to make it happen now. The per school payout estimates are already huge and it appears ND is the only one by itself capable of drawing such new $ today as well as come 2030s time. Each BIG school will expect at a minimum what they received in prior contract years.
LikeLike
The top ACC football programs (FSU, Clemson, and probably likely Miami) also draw enough eyeballs to merit addition.
But no one else in the PAC or B12, really.
For the B10 to take 2 PAC schools, they would have to be able to convince someone to pay $150mm for an After Dark package (say of 15 games). At $4/viewer, that’s an average of 2.5mm viewers. At $5/viewer, that’s 2mm viewers, and note that even the NFL isn’t getting $5/viewer.
The big problem is that in 2021, a total of a big fat zero of the 21 After Dark (10PM or later) games hosted by the PAC drew even 2mm viewers. In 2019, it was 0/19. UW-Stanford drew 1.88mm.
LikeLike
I don’t expect the B10 to take two more schools in this cycle, but for argument’s sake I think they have a couple more levers. Their existing deals can be re-opened for more money if the conference composition changes. Also, BTN revenue would go up because they would get carriage in new markets. Maybe playoff revenue too, depending on how that is calculated.
Not saying this will happen, but if we imagine it did, the After Dark package would not have to pay full freight.
LikeLike
The big problem is that none of the remaining schools in the PAC or B12 are slam dunk ratings draws. The 1 borderline program (Oregon) has zero other qualities that recommend it (its a borderline AAU uni in a small state with few B10 grads and little in the way of recruiting grounds and doesn’t even have traveling fans to buy tickets like UNL does). Miami is a similar TV draw but has a lot of compelling ancillary pluses. Stanford and Cal are terrific in all the ancillary aspects but don’t draw enough eyeballs (though Stanford might be close and would come in if ND does).
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree that the CFP revenue sharing might make it more possible in the future. Until that structure is set, you can’t count on it.
Fundamentally I think the problem is the lack of valuable CFB TV windows. The value on Saturday is limited to the 3 eastern windows. The late window is worth considerably less. The NFL has Thursday, Sunday and Monday. Friday’s are normally bad for TV. I don’t think Tuesday and Wednesday are being seriously considered at this point (doable with a bye before and after, I suppose).
What might be an option eventually is shortening CFB games so they fit in smaller windows. If games fit in 3 hour windows, you gain an additional window if you don’t have down time for local news and post-game/pre-game stuff. Shorter games might keep more viewers, helping to balance the loss of time per game. And it would make a blowout less damaging to the entire slate on a network. 11-2, 2-5, 5-8, 8-11 with the late night PT window as a 5th slot. Plus they can try overlapping games (have counter windows at 12, 3, 6, and 9 so there is always action). I just don’t know how much this might be worth – probably very little or they’d be trying it already.
LikeLike
What might be an option eventually is shortening CFB games so they fit in smaller windows.
They have tried a few ways of shortening the games, but they keep failing because the conferences make TV deals that add more commercial breaks. I am surprised they have not eliminated the clock stoppage after first downs, which could shorten the games considerably.
Replay has also made the games a lot longer, or at least the potential if there are a lot of reviews. Some people have suggested that if the replay official does not see overwhelming evidence within 30 seconds, the call on the field should stand. Or maybe go to the NFL model where coaches have a limited number of challenges per game, instead of the booth deciding what to review.
If games fit in 3 hour windows, you gain an additional window if you don’t have down time for local news and post-game/pre-game stuff.
I have always understood that the local news break is something the network affiliates insist on. (Not an issue, of course, for cable and streaming channels.)
LikeLike
Marc,
“They have tried a few ways of shortening the games, but they keep failing because the conferences make TV deals that add more commercial breaks. I am surprised they have not eliminated the clock stoppage after first downs, which could shorten the games considerably.”
I think the only thing that could work is a running clock like in soccer. Have 4 40-minute quarters with a 20 minute halftime, and you have 3 hours. Or use 30-minute quarters with stoppage time for injuries.
“I have always understood that the local news break is something the network affiliates insist on. (Not an issue, of course, for cable and streaming channels.)”
Yes, that’s my understanding as well. But maybe Saturday news is less important/valuable now than it used to be? Maybe they can make more money from showing CFB, and put news on an alternate digital channel? With games at the current length, there’s no reason not to have the break.
LikeLike
They just give a lower take for 6 of the 7 years and all the big 10 schools come out ahead in this cycle. So do Washington and Oregon. I think they do it for strategic reasons, expecting it to pay off in the long run. If it doesn’t, the dilution is still minimal (maybe 4%) and it won’t be noticed because the next contract will be even higher.
I think one thing that is clear is that Cal isn’t getting much interest. Since I think it likely Notre Dame sits this one out, the Big 10 is looking at Washington and either Oregon or Stanford. And I think its pretty likely Warren does find the votes to add 2. We should know before next August and probably much sooner.
LikeLike
They just give a lower take for 6 of the 7 years and all the big 10 schools come out ahead in this cycle. So do Washington and Oregon. I think they do it for strategic reasons, expecting it to pay off in the long run. If it doesn’t, the dilution is still minimal (maybe 4%) and it won’t be noticed because the next contract will be even higher.
The next contract is going up regardless, whether they add W & O or not. It needs to not only go up—but to go up at least 12.5% more than it otherwise would. Otherwise, the rest of the Big Ten is just feeding those two schools forever.
Nobody knows the exact numbers of a contract that is six years in the future, but those are the projections the Big Ten presidents would need to see, and with a healthy margin of safety, since you don’t expand to break even.
I think its pretty likely Warren does find the votes to add 2. We should know before next August and probably much sooner.
The Pac-12 is almost certainly going to have a new TV deal before then, so I cannot see this lasting anywhere near that long.
LikeLike
I’m pretty certain the current B10 schools have little desire to subsidize 2 new additions forever after the new deal ends but who knows?
Possibly for 2 Stanfords (great in all the ancillary aspects and pretty close in the TV money aspect) but there aren’t 2 Stanfords left in the Pac. Cal is also great in all the ancillary categories but terrible as a TV draw. UO is pretty close as a TV draw but terrible in all the ancillary aspects. UW is pretty good in the ancillary aspects, not terrible as a TV draw but not good either.
LikeLike
Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska and probably Wisconsin are subsidizing 9 schools forever. UW is probably less of a subsidy than any of those 9.
LikeLike
MSU is a strong brand on its own
IA is a strong brand and brings a small state
MN brings a state with a decent market in MSP – valuable for BTN and OTA
RU adds NJ and NYC – valuable for BTN and OTA
UMD adds MD and DC – valuable for BTN and OTA
IL and NW combine to bring a big state and Chicago – valuable for BTN and OTA
IN and PU brings hoops success and a medium state
There is some subsidizing going on, but that will always be true unless every school goes independent. And each school brings other forms of value (academic/research, etc.).
I agree UW would probably be in the upper half in terms of value. This is exactly why they should’ve been added with USC and UCLA if the B10 actually wanted them. That way the number doesn’t go up, then back down. Maybe at the start of the next deal, assuming the value will jump again.
LikeLike
Bullet, only OSU and UMich are really subsidizing a lot. The B10 average is pretty high. Yet PSU, UNL, Wisconsin, MSU, and Iowa are all above (or at least at) that median. Northwestern, UIUC, RU and UMD are being subsidized but also bring huge metros and a lot of population. That leaves only IU, PU, UMTC, and they’re all in decent-sized states and so actually draw good viewership when they are good.
However, as the bar has been raised, probably not both of IU/PU would be brought in to the B10 if they were not already inside. My point is that the B10 would have little reason to add 2 new schools from the Pac that draw as many eyeballs as IU and PU.
LikeLike
To build on my point, Bullet and Brian:
Iowa draws more eyeballs than any school left in the Pac:
View at Medium.com
IU outdraws all of the remaining Pac schools besides UW, UO, and Stanford.
That’s why none of them are slamdunks. If the B10 isn’t going to add another IU and Iowa is about the median (7th in the 14 school B10), that makes all of UW/UO/Stanford borderline and breakeven at best.
So the B10 _could_ potentially add 2 breakeven schools that aren’t additive and will increase travel for all the original 14, and maybe they would if there were 2 Stanfords (excellent ancillary qualities and close enough to breakeven) in the Pac, but there aren’t, so that makes further expansion (without ND or an ACC power or several) more unlikely than not.
LikeLike
No need to persuade me. I have never believed the numbers favor adding more P12 teams. If it had happened all at once I would understand, but not after signing the new TV deal.
I think people are underestimating the downside of expanding to 18 or more schools. The travel, the reduced frequency of playing traditional foes, the difficulty in keeping everyone on board for conference decisions.
You don’t do it to break even financially (or lose money with travel costs) unless there is a huge intangible gain for the conference. I don’t see that in this case. At best there are some minor gains for USC and UCLA by retaining familiar opponents that are closer to home.
Going to 18 for ND +1, sure. Maybe for 2 ACC schools for the southern access (recruiting, etc.). Otherwise, something structural needs to change for it to make sense.
LikeLike
If you made a subsidized list in 1992, Wisconsin was surely on it. Forever is a long time.
LikeLike
I certainly don’t pretend to be an expert on the history of Wisconsin football, but I don’t recall them being relevant to the national conversation pre-Alverez.
LikeLike
Alan,
WI was a laughingstock before Alvarez. Only having NW in the B10 kept them from being the worst B10 program. From 1964-1992, WI went 0.376 (#98). IN went 0.406 (#91). But NW went 0.235 (#112 and dead last in I-A), including their 34-game losing streak. WI only had 6 winning records in those 29 years.
LikeLike
Greg and Alan, note what I said:
IU, PU, and UMTC are all in decent-sized states and so actually draw good viewership when they are good. If they had runs of success like the Badgers have, I’m pretty certain their viewership numbers would be up there too. Same for UIUC. Maybe even Northwestern, RU, and UMD.
And what has to concern the B10 about adding any of UO/UW/Stanford is that while they have had recent success (a bunch of divisional and conference titles as well as playoff appearances by UW and UO), their TV numbers _aren’t_ as good as Wisconsin’s. In fact, their viewership numbers haven’t been as good as UNL and Iowa’s even though those schools are in small population states and neither have done as well recently as UO/UW/Stanford (Iowa’s been alright but UNL has been a trainwreck).
LikeLike
Greg, Alan, etc.:
To illustrate my point, let’s compare a couple rivalry games: In 2019, in a meeting of 2 princes that have won conference and divisional titles recently and made the playoffs, #12 UO vs #25 Washington drew 3.6mm viewers. Not very shabby.
But in 2021, unranked non-prince UMTC (that hasn’t won any title in a while) met 18th ranked Wisconsin and drew over 5mm viewers.
It seems that in B10 country, It Just Means More (at least, when compared to the West Coast).
LikeLike
Richard: “The top ACC football programs (FSU, Clemson, and probably likely Miami) also draw enough eyeballs to merit addition. But no one else in the PAC or B12, really.”
It’s amazing how this FTT forum fantasy self-perpetuates. No one else from the PAC nor B12 nor the ACC nor ND is joining the Big Ten between now and 2036.
LikeLike
Subscribe
LikeLike
The NY Times reports that George Kliavkoff wrote a 3-page letter to the California Board of Regents urging it to block UCLA’s move to the Big Ten.
The NYT says it has the letter, but it did not print the text; it mostly paraphrased. The story is behind a paywall, but here are the most relevant asserted facts:
— U.C.L.A. athletes would more than double their time spent in airplanes and increase by nearly half their time on buses traveling to the Central and Eastern time zones, which would affect their physical and mental health and hurt their academic performance
— with 70 percent of U.C.L.A.’s alumni on the West Coast…it would be more arduous and expensive for them — and athletes’ families — to attend away games
—much of the increased TV revenue…would be eaten up by increased salaries for coaches and administrators that would be required to remain competitive, and by the need to charter flights to ensure that softball players are treated the same as football players when they travel.
—U.C.L.A.’s travel costs, which are $8.1 million for its teams to travel in the Pac-12, would nearly triple — to $23.7 million — if all its flights were chartered
— If the regents instructed U.C.L.A. to remain in the Pac-12…it would offset more than half the damage done to Cal in the Pac-12’s impending media-rights deal
—increased travel contradicts the U.C. system’s objectives of helping to reverse climate change
Note that Kliavkoff says that much of the increased TV revenue would be eaten up by travel costs and salaries. He does not actually say that UCLA would lose money by moving, as he apparently said a few days ago.
He also says that if UCLA remained, it would offset “more than half the damage done to Cal.” But apparently he does not address the damage if a different Pac-12 school replaced UCLA in the Big Ten, as would very likely happen.
LikeLike
Stanford would be ecstatic to take UCLAs spot.
LikeLike
You know, Stanford actually isn’t a bad TV draw. Better than UCLA. Close to UO (playing ND helps).
In the ‘30’s, if the B10 can only get Miami from the ACC and ND still refuses to come, if Stanford football is still good, the Cardinal may be added with the Canes.
LikeLike
Stanford actually isn’t a bad TV draw. Better than UCLA.
I think USC and UCLA were presented as a package deal, which they were happy to take. But if someone told the Big Ten, “take any two West Coast schools you want,” I am not sure UCLA would have been the second one.
LikeLike
In the past year, after the Texas/Oklahoma move, when it was obvious the next reasonable option for the Big Ten to consider was USC, I pictured in my head that USC/Washington was the most compelling add. Could see Stanford as an alternative to Washington for certain reasons but would be confident that the Big Ten would get one of those two as an alternative to UCLA if the Reagents forced them to decline the invite.
But the point is that UCLA wasn’t the main point here, USC was. UCLA not joining the Big Ten doesn’t change much beyond making things more annoying for USC in particular by losing a local team they can bus to.
LikeLike
UCLA not joining the Big Ten doesn’t change much beyond making things more annoying for USC in particular by losing a local team they can bus to.
I think the Big Ten would plan road trips (aside from football) so that USC and UCLA teams could sometimes travel together — one of the rare cases where the oft-abused term “travel partner” actually means something. You don’t get that if the second team is Washington or Stanford.
I don’t know how much the two schools care about their football rivalry, but they would almost certainly have to give that up, since USC wants to keep playing Notre Dame.
LikeLike
The current situation does not need to change with B1G membership. That is USC schedules its last home game against Notre Dame and UCLA has its last home game against USC (those are in years USC-ND is in South Bend).
For UCLA, USC is the #1 rival, but it is a distance second to ND for USC. This is like MSU having Michigan as its top rival but being second to OSU for Michigan.
LikeLike
I think they would have been. Too much recency bias here.
Washington would have pushed them, but its still probably UCLA.
LikeLike
I think he put as negative an assumption in every calculation he could. He doesn’t know the B10’s scheduling plans, nor how UCLA would travel to various competitions. We already saw the analysis that many of their teams would barely be impacted at all.
Would it hurt their academic performance? Athletes traditionally outperform the regular student body, and they already have to travel more. Buses and airplanes have wifi. Students use online system for much of their work. They could study while they travel.
https://alumni.ucla.edu/affinity-partners/
As for the alumni, 80% of UCLA alumni live in CA with 60% in SoCal. I don’t see a huge impact there. They can travel to LA for games instead of SF for the 20% not in SoCal.
And he is slamming the P12 at the same time. Why should UCLA need more expensive coaches and administrators to compete in the B10 vs the P12? Is he openly saying they don’t compete as hard or at the same level as the B10?
Why would UCLA need to charter all flights? Airlines exist for a reason.
He’s guessing on the money, and ignores the damage done to UCLA by not going. And as you say, the damage done to both if USC and Stanford leave instead.
Every trip anyone at a UC makes contradicts reversing climate change. Has their faculty stopped attending conferences? Do all the administrators stay in LA 365 days a year and ride public transit to work? Airlines are moving toward green(er) fuels, and electrification. They could drive on green buses. Heck, the midwest is where the corn for their E85 comes from.
If this does work, how does Kliavkoff expect UCLA to feel about him and the conference afterward? They will be a prisoner. Having a member that unhappy is not a good strategy. They will find ways to get back at you.
I’m surprised the NYT didn’t post the letter online if they have it (I understand not printing it).
LikeLike
Click to access full.pdf
The full pdf is up now.
LikeLike
It’s hilarious to me that his argument is basically, “The PAC sucks and UCLA cannot go be more national competitive with more money, and also the UCLA administration that made this decision is stupid and cannot be trusted to look after their athletes health or welfare.” How in the world does he expect this to be a good thing for him, UCLA, or the PAC?
He also makes absurd emotional appeals to gender equity, “It would cost triple to charter all flights in the B1G so that the softball team is treated like the football team.” and climate change “More CO2 emissions are bad.” Which, no one expects the softball team to be treated like the football team and also they aren’t treated that way now so what are you going for here?
He also says that if UCLA remained, it would offset “more than half the damage done to Cal.”
Lol. Alternatively UCLA B1G money + Cal Pac12 money >> UCLA Pac 12 money + Cal Pac12 money. It’s a net gain for the UC system, if anything he’s arguing that UCLA should go and then subsidize Cal. Also, Cal damaged itself since nobody cares about them, not even their alumni, in football or basketball.
Finally, how stupid is Cal here? Do they not remember when UCONN sued BC? How’d that work out for UCONN in the long haul?
LikeLike
Finally, how stupid is Cal here? Do they not remember when UCONN sued BC? How’d that work out for UCONN in the long haul?
It is quite likely they don’t remember that, as the regents and administrators are not necessarily sports historians. (I am not sure the UConn–BC dispute is really analogous anyway.)
But yeah, I would expect a very toxic conference if Kliavkoff succeeds here. Maybe he is trying to send a shot across the bow of Washington and Oregon, which would also be leaving behind in-state sister schools if they move.
LikeLike
Many of you have followed this realignment carousel for far longer than I have.
Has there ever been a league commissioner come out and attack a school for moving in the way that Kliavkoff has?
While the UConn litigation may make it seem like something similar happened with the Big East, it did not.
When the Big East exploded that was very different than this. First the league offices were not attacking a school. Second the attacks came from other schools who felt stabbed in the back, particularly by Miami and BC.
The president of Miami, Donna Shalala, had given a major speech about how joining the BE saved Miami football. Miami had really fallen into a funk. Even worse than recent years. Joining the BE was the catalyst for the return to the glory years of Hurricane football. About a year later, Miami was gone with VaTech and the football league was on the way to being dissolved. The general opinion was that Shalala was a piece of garbage who could not be trusted and by the way, “what have you done for me lately?”.
BC had also pledged its loyalty to the Big East. Partially in reliance on the actions of if big rival, UConn spent a lot of money upgrading its football program. That is why CT Attorney General Blumenthal (now Senator) filed the ill fated action against BC.
No one in the BE actually objected to VaTech going to the ACC, since even though the league was losing a major team, it was pretty well acknowledged by Big East teams that the ACC was the proper home for VaTech.
Syracuse and Pitt were almost an afterthought, since with the other teams all gone, they were simply extra dominos and they fell when it became clear that the basketball schools were going to ignore football.
LikeLike
I don’t think any of us can recall a situation like this. There’s a couple of issues here that make it unprecedented including a sister school of a system leaving the flagship behind in a worse situation.
But this kind of broadside attack by a conference commissioner that a move was completely misguided is one we’ve never seen before.
And that too in an attempt to keep the school in the conference.
LikeLike
Has there ever been a league commissioner come out and attack a school for moving in the way that Kliavkoff has?
Definitely not, and I wonder how the other schools feel about that — given that they would gladly have taken the same deal if it were offered to them?
LikeLike
Even though I think it would never happen, just imagine the relationship afterwards. Every meeting–Any new business-yes UCLA–Fire the commissioner.
LikeLike
Bernie: “The general opinion was that Shalala was a piece of garbage who could not be trusted . . .”
Donna Shalala was a political operative who knew zero about college athletics. Before she was hired at Miami, she was the far-left Sec of HHS under Clinton. Before that, she was chancellor of U of Wisc. From Wikipedia:
“Under Shalala’s chancellorship and with her support, the university adopted a broad speech code subjecting students to disciplinary action for communications that were perceived as hate speech. That speech code was later found unconstitutional by a federal judge. ‘
LikeLike
Schools that get added have to be “additive” to the conference in the long-term, not just the next TV contract. Marc has been making this point above, but I want to restate it:
It’s never just about the next 7 years and making the numbers work financially for 7 years. Yes, 4 schools can take pay cuts for 7 years… but then what? Everyone takes a permanent reduction in distributions at some point? Because you’re not leaving any school at a permanent distribution discount. That may happen eventually regardless, but Northwestern/Purdue/Indiana/etc. are not going to bring that Trojan horse through the gates right now.
Even if cable goes away entirely, Maryland/Rutgers was a good addition for a variety of reasons: gets the Big Ten into two of the biggest markets on the East Coast (which is far more valuable than the West Coast due to the reality of how TV windows work and that 75% of the population is in the East/Central time zones) and all sorts of other reasons related to demographics/fit/location with the Big Ten’s 3 schools in the East being the most prominent in their states.
Saying that ‘sure Amazon will give us a 4th After Dark” window for $200 million a year for 7 years’ so we should take up to 4 more schools isn’t that compelling when you realize that there’s every possibility that Amazon can decide in the future to just drop the 4th window and only offer for the 3 main windows as they just did with the Big Ten in this recent negotiation.
The After Dark window is never going to be as valuable as the main 3 windows. And it is the one most at danger of losing its value at any given time. That also relates to streaming:
We just saw NFLX’s market valuation implode over the past year; that tells you what markets think about the value of the streaming business right now. Doesn’t mean markets are more right now than they were when NFLX was worth 3 times as much, but it’s worth noting that the bubble has collapsed in terms of valuing those companies as “forever growth” businesses.
The NFL producing terrific numbers on Amazon isn’t that compelling. There’s no competition for the NFL. There will be competition for the Pac-12 for their Saturday Amazon games.
There’s upside in terms of Amazon overpaying the Pac-12 but there’s also risk. The risk being that the viewership numbers are bad and everyone seeing that. 7 years later, disastrous ratings on Amazon will matter when it comes time to negotiate the next contract.
Finally, I just don’t see the value in adding 4 more schools right now.
If the UC regents stop UCLA’s move (which still seems extremely unlikely), just grab Washington or Stanford. USC/Washington might even be more valuable a duo than USC/UCLA though it’ll hurt USC a bit to lose that.
Nothing has changed: the next most valuable schools to the TV contracts are ND, FSU, Miami and Clemson. Washington and Oregon come after those and as we already have seen aren’t necessarily additive alone.
LikeLike
When it comes to the idea of an “after dark” window – just as a concept, forgetting about whether it’s really in play – I keep wondering why people talk about grabbing four more teams for that. I would think it would work just fine if the Big Ten were to grab just two more teams from the PAC-12 (presumably two of Washington, Oregon or Stanford). That would add ~14 addition games a year to the inventory which would be enough for 1 after dark game a week and you could sell off a few extra games in the BTN package if needed to make the numbers work (15 games sounds like a reasonable solid number). The after dark games would be coming from four teams at that point (USC/UCLA/two additional ones) which is enough to spread them around so no individual team gets stuck with too many of them. Maybe you could have a provision where some of the after dark could be at 9PM eastern and have some central teams be able to host say 1 a year if needed.
I just think adding two more teams makes this a conceivable endeavor (don’t expect it regardless) but 4 would be far too many mouths to feed.
LikeLike
Agreed 100%.
Just gets very hard to spread the money among 4 more if you’re not getting ND or some major ACC football brand as well.
2 more though can work as you suggest.
Wouldn’t he hard to imagine 14 extra home games and then a mix of 14 After Dark games out of the 28 home games of USC/UCLA + 2 more schools.
Adding 3 is probably the limit out west, as in ND + 3 from the Pac 12.
LikeLike
And do you really want to go beyond 20? If you aren’t committed to that, why go to 20 without Notre Dame? Washington and Oregon or Cal or Stanford would allow you to blanket the west coast. And with 4 west coast schools, you could do 8 “after dark” games with just 2 night games per school. You could do 12 if they were willing to do 3. Dilution with 2 is also pretty insignificant. With 4 it gets bigger.
LikeLike
Right, 2 more is possible for an After Dark window so a possibility. I think it’s impossible to break even while adding 4 more. But even 2 more Pac schools almost certainly wouldn’t be additive, so would the B10 add 2 more just to break even?
LikeLike
SideshowBob, I also agree 100% with your comments. I hope that the Big Ten invites Stanford and Washington for the reasons you mentioned, plus their academics and markets are great long-term assets for the conference.
LikeLike
Separate point to the above:
Since the Big Ten/Pac-12 relationship is basically dead after this USC/UCLA situation, why won’t the Big Ten just play hardball with the Rose Bowl situation in the expanded CFP.
Originally it was suggested that whichever champion was higher in the top 4 would take the Rose Bowl quarterfinal slot (if either was in the top 4 champions):
Why shouldn’t the Big Ten just say, we’ll take the Rose Bowl spot if our champion is in the top 4 regardless of what the Pac-12 champion is ranked. Pac-12 can take the slot if the Big Ten champion doesn’t get a bye.
Pretty sure the Rose Bowl is going to lean to the Big Ten’s wishes at this point.
LikeLike
They have been pretty careful (so far) to avoid doing things that are blatantly anti-competitive. The Big Ten champ has outranked the Pac-12 champ in seven of the Playoff’s eight years. There is no assurance this will continue, but it is fairly likely to. It’s better to let the Pac-12 have the Rose Bowl slot in the rare years they earn it than to do anything that could prompt regulators to get involved.
LikeLike
Yeah, I can see that as a rationale.
I wonder more about SEC/Big 12 and the Sugar Bowl.
Does that relationship continue? Though hard to ever imagine an SEC champ ranked below a Big 12 champ once Texas/OU.
Once divisions are gone, won’t have 3 or 4 loss teams in championship games.
LikeLike
z33k – the Sugar Bowl’s relationship with the B12 is only a recent development. I think it only runs through current CFP agreement. The Sugar Bowl’s relationship with the SEC informally runs back to the 1930s. I’m sure the Sugar Bowl will do whatever the SEC tells them to do.
LikeLike
UNC may lean Big Ten over SEC based on the rumblings out of Chapel Hill from this summer based on that Observer report:
UNC AD/Prez discussed potential ACC-Pac 12 scenarios:
“Guskiewicz was intrigued: “We could have a super conference both athletically and academically,” he responded. “Probably would need to be called the Atlantic-Pacific Athletic Conference (APAC). Maybe that’s crazy, but if it would get us a better TV deal, it may be worth considering.””
Obviously a lot will be made of the Jim Delany angle but more important than that in my mind was the academic prestige of the conference mattering to the leaders there.
Obviously that can change in 10 years. But realistically how much?
Even though their fans may lean towards the SEC, could easily see the leadership pointing to the Big Ten if joining the more prestigious academic grouping matters with the rest of the factors equal.
But I still think it may be impossible for them to move given the size of the Tobacco Road grouping and especially NC State needing to be taken care of along with all their close rivalries.
LikeLike
Eh, the university presidents talk about academic prestige a lot, but conference realignment is still driven by money. If academic prestige mattered a ton, both Stanford and Cal would be in the B10 by now.
In any case, I don’t think the NC and VA schools break from the ACC, but mostly because now (and in the future) they aren’t additive any more to either the SEC or B10. And I can only see the SEC being willing to make nonadditive additions of UNC and UVa for academic prestige (and basketball and reforming the old Confederacy).
LikeLike
Yeah, I meant that more for schools that have a possible choice of where to go.
UNC is probably first and foremost wanting the ACC to work. But if they have to leave, it’s just an interesting discussion.
FSU I can see leaning towards the SEC because of their location/relationship with UF and proximity of other schools in the SEC.
Though the notion of selling FSU on being the “national Big Ten south brand” might appeal to them.
Different schools have different wants and needs. UNC’s wants/needs are very different from FSU or Miami or Clemson.
LikeLike
Yep, FSU could choose to be the premier southern program in the only truly national conference or one of many similar programs located in the same area of the country in the SEC.
LikeLike
I can only see the SEC being willing to make nonadditive additions of UNC and UVa for academic prestige (and basketball and reforming the old Confederacy).
But as you said earlier, realignment is driven by money, not prestige. Nobody in authority talks about reforming the confederacy anymore.
LikeLike
Yeah, I would wager on UNC and UVa staying in the ACC with all the other NC/VA schools if I have to bet.
LikeLike
Richard – I am in agreement with most everything in your post, but please stop with this reforming the Confederacy BS.
If Ohio State or Notre Dame called Sankey today and asked to join the SEC, do you think the New York native Sankey would say, “Sorry, Mr. Buckeye and Mr. Irish, but your ancestors fought to keep the South in the Union 160 years ago, therefore NO THANKS!”?
LikeLike
Well, their states had Confederat sympathizers. 😉
LikeLike
z33k – I’m sure the NC Regents and the NC State supporters in the legislature are watching what’s going on in California. I would expect that if the the NC Regents doesn’t have oversight of conference movement now, they will by 2030. NC State and UNC will stay in the same conference, either the ACC or SEC.
In the unlikely event UNC has the freedom to choose B1G or SEC, the administrators that would prefer the B1G will find out the same thing that the eggheads at Texas found out – that the fans, politicians & recruits prefer the SEC. Ultimately, these are athletic conferences comprised of athletic departments affiliated with academic institutions.
Nobody in the state of North Carolina is going to get blindsided by UNC like the folks in California did with UCLA.
LikeLike
NC State and UNC will stay in the same conference, either the ACC or SEC.
That has been said for multiple states. I recall there was “no way” Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be separated. Also “no way” Texas would leave Texas Tech behind. I suppose if people say it enough, sooner or later it will be true. So far, it has been wrong every time.
LikeLike
Kansas doing something similar right now.
Members of the Kansas Board of Regents are in the process of creating a new policy that would require any Regents university — KU, K-State, Wichita State, Fort Hays State, Pittsburg State and Emporia State — to get approvals from at least three non-university officials before moving to a new athletic conference.
[snip]
Under the proposed policy, [Regents Chair Jon] Rolph, [Regent President and CEO Blake] Flanders and Carl Ice, the Regents’ vice chair, who also is a leader of the Kansas State University Foundation, would be the three people required to grant approval for a conference change.
https://m.kusports.com/news/2022/sep/16/kansas-regents-taking-steps-ensure-ku-other-school/
via @MattBrownEP
LikeLike
“In the unlikely event UNC has the freedom to choose B1G or SEC, the administrators that would prefer the B1G will find out the same thing that the eggheads at Texas found out – that the fans, politicians & recruits prefer the SEC.”
Texas is a football school and UNC is a basketball school. That’s a bold statement to make about fan preference between the SEC and Big Ten for UNC fans.
LikeLike
If the NC legislature pretty much makes it a matter of law that NC and NC State stick together, then the ACC will survive, though almost certainly without the schools which seem to get mentioned here in every other post, Clemson, FSU and Miami.
It does not seem conceivable to me that the SEC would want both NC teams and the B1G will not either.
The ACC will then be a basketball league with a P5 football status attached. This would also save Wake, BC, Syracuse, and perhaps others, from oblivion.
There is another wild card with the State of NC. I am sure that both Duke and Wake have some (perhaps a lot of) influence in the legislature and they will also both be pushing to keep Tobacco Road together in the ACC by packaging NC and NC State.
If the state of NC acts in that direction, I wonder if the VA legislature will do that with UVa and VaTech.
LikeLike
Bernie & PSU hockey – As I wrote previously, I think the ACC in some form with the VA/NC schools stay together.
I agree that UNC is a basketball school that plays football. Their football value doesn’t move the needle for either the SEC or B1G. Perhaps the game of the season involved UNC & App State in week #1. The programmers at Disney, while they couldn’t foresee the crazy game it turned out to be, surely knew it would be a better game than Colorado State/Michigan that they put on ABC. UNC/App State got the U.
After a decade of getting lapped by the bottom-rung B1G and SEC schools, all of the ACC schools will be shells of their current form (which isn’t great), except for the regular playoff participants.
UNC & UVA have only had passing success at football and don’t appear to have a strong commitment to changing that trajectory. With the state of North Carolina’s football rooting interests so Balkanized, its hard to see how any school delivers the state.
Sure UVA and UNC are great schools, but if academics really that important to the B1G, they wouldn’t have the #1 P5 academic school (Stanford) and the #1 public school (Cal) twisting in the wind.
As I have discussed numerous times, IF the SEC and B1G decide to go to 22 or 24, THEN the SEC is the only conference situated to make UNC an offer they can’t refuse: NC Sate, UVA & Duke all get a spot in the SEC along with UNC.
The decision to go to 24, would only be feasible if the SEC & Disney determined that it would be cheaper (for Disney) to not renew the ACC contract in 2036 AND worth it to the SEC to take all the worthwhile parts of the ACC (FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Duke, UVA & VA Tech) and stick them in the SEC.
LikeLike
I think the ACC in some form with the VA/NC schools stay together.
That is my base case as well, but not because the state will intervene to keep them together. As you say, none of them really delivers the state, and none are good enough football brands.
I think FSU will leave the ACC as soon as it can, taking Clemson along if it joins the SEC. If it joins the Big Ten, I am less sure who the +1 will be, but for argument’s sake let’s suppose Miami. Either way, the rest of the ACC likely stays together.
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/just-5-universities-produce-one-eighth-of-the-nations-tenure-track-professors
Speaking of academic prestige, this ranking may be as good as any for that.
Just five universities have produced one-eighth of the tenure-track professors at American doctoral institutions, and 80 percent of such professors earned their Ph.D.s at just 20 percent of the nation’s universities.
The table is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05222-x/tables/3
Quintile 1
1. Cal
2. Harvard
3. MI
4. WI
5. Stanford
6. IL
7. MIT
8. UT
Quintile 2
9. Cornell
10. Columbia
…
13, MN
14. UCLA
15. OSU
19. PU
20. PSU
Quintile 3
22. IN
23. MSU
24. NW
25. JHU*
29. UMD
34. IA
36. USC
41. RU
Quintile 4
62. NE
The quintiles of faculty production include 8, 13, 20, 38 and 308 schools.
LikeLike
Among plausible expansion candidates:
1. Cal
5. Stanford
18. Washington
21. UNC
30. Arizona
31. Duke
38. Virginia
39. FSU
42. Arizona State
44. Colorado
57. Georgia Tech
61. Utah
77. Oregon
84. Notre Dame
87. Miami
LikeLike
+1 for quintiles.
LikeLike
I sure remember a lot of Cal, Harvard, Michigan, Stanford and Illinois PhDs as professors when I went to Texas. I think if you looked at the top 20 in production, you would find an even higher % getting their PhDs from the elite schools.
LikeLike
Interesting list of faculty production. Other notables:
39 FSU
84 Notre Dame
87 Miami
Not in top 100 – Clemson
LikeLike
Obviously brand value (the only thing national audiences/media companies care about) gets short shrift here, but they alone will dictate a conferences rights-value going forward (in the age of streaming). This brings us back to Oregon v Washington. I like Washington as a second-tier brand. I think they would be a great long-term asset to the B1G. They’re very similar to Wisconsin. Steady and reliable with decent national appeal. Still, there is no brand metric I’ve seen, from ratings, to recruiting, to apparel sales to Q score (brand perception) where they score higher that Oregon. Some here claim the Oregon brand is fading. Just the opposite. Oregon’s brand equity rating has actually increased over the last decade in both the 18-24 and 25-34 demographic. This is nationally. People who hold the brand in high regard, irregardless of being an alumni or having a local affiliation. Could their admission be thwarted by the B1G’s weak sisters not wanting the competition, or some academic apprehension on behalf of the Presidents? Yes, but FSU/ND/Clemson notwithstanding, they are the biggest draw left on the board and I have no doubt Warren will find a way to bring them in. We’ll see!
LikeLike
That first statement seems a bit circular. How are you defining brand value, apart from what the conference gets paid for the school? I think a lot of components go into “brand value,” and they don’t apply equally in all cases.
I agree, UW is solidly second tier. Nobody has claimed otherwise, I don’t think.
Still, there is no brand metric I’ve seen, from ratings, to recruiting, to apparel sales to Q score (brand perception) where they score higher that Oregon.
View at Medium.com
Most watched teams over 5 years:
26. Oregon (1.34M)
28. Washington (1.32M)
They are essentially the same.
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/College-football-recruiting-development-NFL-Draft-picks-results-Development-Rating-2021-166233526/#166233526_1
UW was #3 for developing elite talent for the NFL, UO was unlisted.
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Blue-chip-ratio-college-football-2020-Bud-Elliott-15-teams-who-can-win-a-national-title-148079661/#148079661_1
As recently as 2020, UW was ahead of UO on the blue-chip ratio, meaning they were recruiting better for years. Now UO is ahead while UW is rebuilding. These things fluctuate.
I have no doubt Nike sells more UO gear. That’s what the whole program is built around. But since they have different licensing companies (UO isn’t with CLC), it’s hard to find good comparative stats.
They rank similarly in many things.
Brand perception is a lagging indicator of success on the field. If Lanning can’t get them winning a lot again, their brand will slide.
LikeLike
Recruiting 2021: O #6 W#30
Recruiting 2022: O #13 W #97
If using a time machine or talking about the NFL makes you feel better, go for it. Oregon leads in every category I listed.
LikeLike
University presidents have a more than two-year horizon when deciding which schools to invite. If it happened, those would not be the numbers that made the case.
LikeLike
Petersen retired after 2019. Lake lasted 13 games over 2 seasons before being fired. Gregory was interim coach to finish the 2021 season. DeBoer took over this year. I think that might explain UW’s recruiting being a little down lately.
UW is back to the top 25 in 2023 recruiting at the moment (UO #13, UW #25). You also have to factor in retaining players. UO signed 16 more recruits since 2018 than UW. More players equals a higher score for the rankings. UW was #97 last year because they only signed 10 players as a new coach scrambled to fill up a class.
LikeLike
I also want to note, I’m not claiming UO isn’t a brand. I simply disagree when you say it’s the only brand left in the P12. And UO’s brand value was higher when they were winning more. Making the CFP and NCG boost the brand. Just like UW’s is now sliding as they try to recover from Petersen leaving.
LikeLike
The other problem with Oregon is the recency of their brand appeal. Before this century, they were a consistently middling team, with an average finish somewhere around 5th in their conference, and just three all-time Rose Bowl appearances. Are they now perennial contenders: Or will they revert to their historical average once the Phil Knight gravy train dries up, as it eventually must?
LikeLike
So, I have to give props to Dani here for being in touch with what the kiddies think.
UO definitely is seen as cool by HS recruits (hence why they’re ranked by the kiddies in the top 10). But how much of that is empheral?
UNLV basketball and Miami football were cool once upon a time too. Miami at least is a stone’s throw away from crazy amounts of local talent so you can see how they can come back. But UO’s brand is really propped up by Uncle Phil’s largess. When Uncle Phil goes to the Great Beyond, will Nike or someone else still pay for the UO marketing machine? It’s not like UO has much in the way of local talent or really any other good ancillary qualities. They’re like a cooler Nebraska without the history and dependence on one guy instead of a die-hard fanbase. Or UNLV basketball during the Tark era. And even at their current high point, UO has such a terrific brand that their viewership numbers make them a marginal borderline candidate below Iowa.
Stanford’s actually more sustainable (IMO) because they have more crazy rich alums, a few who even care about sports. UW is marginal too but at least in a growing metro and state.
LikeLike
Perhaps I misunderstood your use of “notwithstanding”, but do you actually believe that Oregon would be picked by the B1G ahead of FSU or ND? Everyone knows that ND is the first choice.
Even if Oregon were otherwise a superior choice to FSU (which I do not believe at all), the B1G entry into Florida would eliminate any other comparison. Much bigger market, wonderful recruiting, etc. etc.
LikeLike
Boy, I wish I had the time to play petty semantics games.
LikeLike
It is not a petty semantic game. You wrote that you prefer Oregon over ND or FSU. I was hoping that you did not mean that. I did not even mention your use of irregardless. That would have been a petty semantic game.
LikeLike
As to claims by the Pac10 commish about travel costs, it sure looks like UCLA could travel commercial to most B1G schools. A quick check shows nonstop flights from LAX to:
Chicago 21+ a day
Newark 38+
Baltimore 14+ (BWI, Reagan, Dulles)
Detroit 7+
Minneapolis 7+
So 5 schools for starters, but wait, there’s more! Several schools are within a relatively short bus rides from those air hubs, comparable to the 1.5 to 2 hour bus rides required to reach Oregon St and Washington St from the airports in Portland and Spokane (the latter having just 1 nonstop a day to LA). Air hub to bus for these is probably similar or better timewise than a connecting flight:
Mich St less than 1.5 hours from Detroit on a bus
Wisconsin about 2 hours from Chicago O’Hare
Illinois, and Purdue about 2.5 hours from Chicago
So that’s 9 of the 14 existing B1G schools should be able to reach fairly easily via commercial air. And Ohio St has 4 non-stop options a day if you include Columbus and 2 hour bus rides to Cleveland and Cincy airports.
Indy has 1 nonstop, same for Omaha (KC has 3 more at 3 hours away), Iowa is a 3.5 hour bus ride from Chicago, Penn St 3 hours from Pittsburgh (1 nonstop) or 3.5 hours from Philly (6+ nonstops).
And of course all these have connecting flights. From Chi there are 3 (nonstop) to State Penn, 6 to Cedar Rapids, 8 to Columbus, and 9 to Indy (then an hour on a bus to Bloomington). Lincoln has 3 nonstops to Denver and Omaha has 7 (17 nonstops LAX to Denver).
The point being that while not every B1G school is easy to get to without charter flights, most are. So the P10 commish is full of crap.
LikeLike
As to claims by the Pac10 commish about travel costs, it sure looks like UCLA could travel commercial to most B1G schools.
As Brian noted, he made the most pessimistic assumptions you could imagine.
LikeLike
BTW, I was thinking about the B10 going to 10 conference games as there really aren’t that many B10-controlled OOC games that are top-45 quality (about 5 a year).
But the B10 almost certainly won’t go to 10 conference games until it adds 1-2 southern schools to get some regular trips to the south (realistically, either Miami or FSU+Miami). But going to 10 conference games allows the B10 to stop at 19 (say, Miami, ND, and Stanford) or some other odd number. You could also do parity-based scheduling for 2-3 games a year while still keeping 3 annual series in that case.
One concern is running out of TV slots as the kings (and princes & NU) really don’t want to play on weeknights after Labor Day and before Black Friday. But with Week 0 becoming a regular week, you’d have 14 Saturdays, then you could have a full 3-game slate on Black Friday, 6 more extra slots on Labor Day weekend (spread over Th, F, Sun, and M), and 3 more games Th, F, and M (or W?) Week Zero Week. That gets you up to 18X3=54.
With 10 conference games, the B10 may ask schools to schedule more M3 buy games too (which they start doing anyway for ticket sales as few people want to see games vs G5/FCS).
LikeLike
I would expect a lot of pushback about going to 10 B10 games. It has all the same negatives as going to 9 while the ACC and SEC stuck at 8 (fewer CFP spots, fewer bowl-eligible teams), plus the loss of all the good OOC games. IA and USC would be stuck with 11 games scheduled for them. The other brands want the chance for big OOC games against opponents of their own choosing, and they want 7 home games. I think it would take a lot to convince the schools to move to 10 games in a 12-game schedule.
Not only do the kings not want to play weeknights, the B10 and the networks don’t want to waste those games on weeknights.
Is there reason to think the M3 would agree to buy games? That’s a big blow to their ego, especially the better M3 programs. I think G5 games will last for a long time.
LikeLike
1. Some current B10 schools already want to go to 10 conference games (you can probably surmise that these are not the king/prince programs) even before any expansion.
2. By the time the B10 goes to 10 conference games, the SEC will already have been at 9 conference games for a while.
3. Some M3 programs like ORST and CU already accept buy games. Obviously so have a bunch of the G5 programs joining the B12. Granted, it’s likely that it’s mostly the brands with destination stadiums who can regularly convince M3 schools to accept buy games but by this time (in a Big19/20), schools like USF and Memphis (possibly Boise and/or SDSU too) would also be M3 programs.
LikeLike
1. I’m not doubting you, but I don’t recall seeing that. I’m guessing it is far from a majority.
2. I don’t know your timeline for when the B10 would do it, so who knows? But my point is that playing 1 more conference game than the competition hurts playoff and bowl chances. As long as the committee favors W’s over SOS, it will sacrifice at-large spots. It will also cost some mediocre teams bowl eligibility as they finish 5-7 instead of 6-6.
3. Some do, but not many. Maybe more will in the future, but they’ll be very expensive compared to G5 games.
LikeLike
“As long as the committee favors W’s over SOS, it will sacrifice at-large spots”
Right, but I don’t actually see the committee favoring wins over SOS. Take a look at CFP rankings. Plenty of instances where teams with more losses are ranked above teams with fewer losses.
BTW, Gene Smith is the one saying there are already B10 schools who favor 10 conference games.
LikeLike
Mind you, I don’t think G5 and FCS OOC games would go away. Most OOC games would still be G5/FCS in a B10 with 10 conference games, but also a handful of M3 buy games as well (and a few HaHs).
Oh, and unlike pollsters, I don’t believe the CFP committee would just blindly look at number of losses when picking the 12-team playoff. Plus, if the 10th B10 conference game replaces a OOC P5 game (which would be the case in most instances), I don’t see why the schedule difficulty would increase that much.
LikeLike
Maybe not blindly, but no 2-loss team ever made the top 4. The scrambling starts to happen with 2-loss vs 3-loss teams, but that’s mostly CCG losers (so really also 2-loss teams), or the result of head-to-head play (where the 9-3 team beat the 10-2 team).
It guarantees your conference a loss. That’s 8 more guaranteed losses for the B10 every year (a few more than they would’ve gotten in OOC games). It also reduces the chances to show how your conference compares to others. An OOC win can be the only chance for a middle or lower tier team to really get national respect.
LikeLike
Brian – maybe not in the CFP era, but I’m sure you remember a certain two-loss team (albeit both were in 3OT thrillers) that won a BCS championship …
LikeLike
The B10 isn’t winning all P5 OOC games.
“An OOC win can be the only chance for a middle or lower tier team to really get national respect.”
Huh? Knocking off a B10 power will do more to gain respect than beating the type of P5 opponents UMTC and UIUC can get to agree to HaHs with (schools like CU and KU).
Also, the top 4 isn’t all that important when the playoff is expanding to 12.
LikeLike
Alan,
I do remember. I also know that the only 1-loss team LSU was ahead of was #8 KU. KU was #8 because they lost to MO, the only ranked (at the end of the season) team they played all season. Everyone else in the top 25 had 2+ losses.
LikeLike
I doubt you’ll 10 conference games for any Div I league, whether FBS or FCS, until the schedule is expanded to 13 games. As the NFL now has a 17-game slate, the concept isn’t so far-fetched.
LikeLike
Yeah, it probably won’t fly. There some B10 teams who want a 10-game B10 slate (Iowa is the median B10 program and the IN schools, RU, UMD, NU, UIUC, and UMTC generally can’t find OOC opponents for HaH better than Iowa). Though PSU (and UMD; maybe RU) want to schedule more Eastern teams, Iowa has ISU, if ND joined, they would want more OOC games rather than less, the Pacific schools would want to schedule western opponents, UNL would want to schedule OU OOC often, Northwestern has alums all over the country (as does UMich) and OSU and UMich could do better than Iowa OOC.
LikeLike
I would be very surprised if the bottom quarter of B1G teams wanted 10 B1G games. Those teams are playing to have winning seasons and get bowl invites.
Playing a buy in game against an FBS team (or two) makes the odds of those things happening much more likely than playing an extra game against second quartile BiG teams. Paying Temple to visit is a much more likely win than Wisconsin or Michigan State with a home and home series.
Upper quartile B1G teams never think about whether they will get a bowl invite, the only issue might be whether they refuse a mid level bowl on a bad years.
In addition, as with all other P5 teams, the bottom teams in the B1G want 7 home games, which is not likely with ten B1G games.
Obviously if it became necessary for TV inventory to have 10 B1G games, RU, UMd, IN, ILL, etc., would do it, but I doubt that they would be happy about it.
LikeLike
It is not just the bottom quarter. The top quarter (Michigan, OSU, PSU) generate a lot of money on ticket and other game day sales (they are 1, 2, and 3 in college football attendance). NE, WI, MSU, USC and IA also have good attendance. I doubt a 10th game gets authorized until these teams believe it is worth the tradeoff.
LikeLike
Coaches want Bowl eligibility because it helps them keep their job, but from the perspective of a school administration, I don’t think it’s a big concern. Most of the lower tier bowls pay out so little that schools lose money by going. What the administration (at IU/PU/UIUC/UMTC) is calculating is that an extra B10 game will likely sell more tickets than an OOC game vs the type of opponents they can schedule (like UVa or CU, and definitely Temple or other G5/FCS opponents). They’re in the heart of B10 country, have been part of the conference for over a century, and their fans care more about games vs. traditional B10 opponents.
Now, as I mentioned, the calculations may be different for the Eastern schools who may want to play more Eastern opponents, which they can only do OOC.
LikeLike
I agree that the original 10 teams obviously have a huge interest in traditional rivalries. That is why I really doubt further expansion unless the new teams at the least pay for themselves.
I doubt very much that IN, IL, Purdue, etc., would want a game against Oregon or Washington rather than an extra game against each other, or Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. At least Stanford has a little pazzaz because of the other things that Stanford brings off the football field.
While an extra home B1G will bring in more people, the question is will it bring in more people than two other games. With a 10 game league schedule, it is unlikely to have 7 home games.
LikeLike
Bernie, well, some of those schools don’t require 7 home games, it seems. PU has an away OOC game every year, so won’t have 7 home games every year. UMD will too later in the decade. RU had only 6 home games in each of 2019, 2021, and 2022.
LikeLike
BTW, while the NFL regular season now has 17 games, with a 12 or 16 team playoff, if CCGs still exist, that’s a max of 5 extra games, so the same as what NFL players making 6/7/8 figures a year play. Played by in-theory amateur in-theory unpaid in-theory full-time students who are in theory working towards a degree.
So I think the only way 13 games come about is if everybody plays CCG Week like what the B10 did in 2020.
LikeLike
Well the NFL did it by reducing their preseason games.
LikeLike
I doubt you’ll 10 conference games for any Div I league, whether FBS or FCS, until the schedule is expanded to 13 games. As the NFL now has a 17-game slate, the concept isn’t so far-fetched.
The trend over time has been more games, so a 13-game regular season eventually is probably a good bet. But probably not anytime soon, since they have just agreed to expand the college football playoff. This means some teams could be playing 17 games vs. the current maximum of 15.
Note that the last two expansions of the NFL regular season (from 14 to 16, and now 16 to 17) came at the expense of a shorter pre-season. I realize most of the stars barely play in the pre-season — still, the number of games for the entire team has not changed.
I am sure CFB does not want to eliminate the bye week, and with the 12-team playoff coming there is no extra time available at the end of the season. To add a 13th game, they would probably need to start even earlier in August than they already do.
LikeLike
Unless a 13th game is just everyone playing CCG week.
LikeLike
If super-conferences happen, say 24 members, it is likely that they will not play any OOC games. Every game will be a conference game.
LikeLike
Most schools want some buy games. Almost all want 7 home games, which you cannot have if every game is in conference.
LikeLike
I understand the rationale for most big programs to want 7 home games, and I understand the impact of home weekends on the local economy. However, as the price B1G and SEC teams pay for OOC buy games increases and the TV value of conference games increases, there will eventually be a tipping point where 10 conference games makes financial sense. We aren’t there yet, but I don’t expect 9 game conference schedules to last forever. The net revenue from that one extra home game will eventually be less than the TV value of a better matchup.
LikeLike
It’s a long way off.
OSU athletics is worth about $400M per year in economic impact for the state. OSU directly makes at least $10M per home football game (tickets, donations, concessions, parking, merchandise), with Columbus making millions more.
LikeLike
The breakeven will actually likely come soon.
1. Note that many B10 schools don’t make nearly as much per home game as OSU.
2. If the B10 playing 9 conference games each is worth $75mm/school in TV money in a few years, $150mm/school by the end of the next TV deal after this coming new one isn’t inconceivable. And that’s for 9 conference games a team or $16.7mm a game. Granted, the quality of the OOC games would drop, but only a handful of them are top 3 picks now anyway.
But ND and Miami would almost certainly have to be added at a minimum for 10 conference games (ideally FSU too).
LikeLike
Richard: “If the B10 playing 9 conference games each is worth $75mm/school in TV money in a few years, $150mm/school by the end of the next TV deal after this coming new one isn’t inconceivable.”
This is why the ACC’s long-term TV deal and GOR are so devastationg. The value of their programming may increase dramatically but they are stuck with being paid peanuts until 2036.
LikeLike
Where is the evidence that a 10th B10 game would increase that payout significantly?
The value of the TV deal will increase if nothing changes with the scheduling, and so will the value of a home game.
LikeLike
Math, Brian. If the TV contract the B10 can get with 9 conference games is X, the value with 10 conference games should be roughly 1.11 * X – .
But we know that
1. There aren’t actually that many B10-controlled OOC games that would be worth a top-3 pick (maybe 5 a year).
2. Networks tend to discount OOC games because unlike league games, teams can change opponents and back out of series at any time.
Anyway, I know you’re backwards-looking and won’t consider the possibility of change until it hits you in the face, but just as the B10 went to 9 conference games before the previous TV negotiations to raise its TV payout and the SEC will go to 9 conference games to raise its TV payout, the same economic logic applies to going to 10 league games a team. Especially as all/nearly all the top TV draws eventually consolidate to either the B10 and SEC. The only alternative that could stop a 10-game conference slate (eventually) is a B10-SEC challenge series that the 2 leagues sell off the rights too, but that seems unlikely because even if Clemson and FSU are taken by the P2, UGa still has its rivalry game with GTech.
In short, you can’t be like “I see the economic logic of going to 9 conference games” yet also say “I don’t see the economic logic in going to 10 conference games”.
But it may be a decade or so before 10 league games come. And it’s possible that, to get ND on board, the B10 stays at 9 conference games forever.
LikeLike
“If the TV contract the B10 can get with 9 conference games is X, the value with 10 conference games should be roughly 1.11 * X – .”
That’s a huge assumption with no evidence to base it on. The value of the deal is based on the schools and the number of games much more than the schedule. The B10 isn’t 12.5% ahead of the SEC because of 9 games vs 8. The B12 and P12 aren’t 12.5% ahead of the ACC based on 9 games vs 8.
Most of the money is coming from the 3 exclusive OTA packages. How much marginal increase in value is there for those packages by adding a 10th B10 game, especially if it comes at the expense of good OOC games?
The B10 loses some inventory by going from 9 to 10 games, so the quality has to improve quite a bit to make it worth a lot more. If the difference is the 4th picks (and below) per week improve, that isn’t worth very much. If the B10 schedule is already skewed to have more big games when playing 9, then most of the 10th games will be lesser valued.
Take OSU:
Locked – MI, PSU, USC
Rotating – UCLA/MSU, NE/IA, WI/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN, RU/UMD
The average additional game would be at the OSU/MN level, and it may come at the expense of half of a OSU/ND game.
OSU/ND drew 10.53M viewers. OSU/MN would typically be a 4-5M viewer game at most.
“But we know that
1. There aren’t actually that many B10-controlled OOC games that would be worth a top-3 pick (maybe 5 a year).”
So far this year:
Wk 0/1 – ND@OSU, NE@NW, CSU@MI, PSU@PU, WMU@MSU, IL@IN
An OOC game topped each B10 game. If a buy game tops 2 of the 3 B10 games (including one with a king), it’s a hard sell that the 10th B10 game brings a lot of value.
Wk 2 and 3 had all OOC games, and Wk4’s ratings aren’t out yet.
“just as the B10 went to 9 conference games before the previous TV negotiations to raise its TV payout and the SEC will go to 9 conference games to raise its TV payout, the same economic logic applies to going to 10 league games a team.”
No, it doesn’t. Otherwise the ACC or P12 would just jump to a 10 or 11-hgame schedule to make the money they want. There are different amounts of value added from 8 to 9 vs 9 to 10, and different amounts of internal pushback.
More games helps keep the frequency of opponents high, one of the reasons the B10 went to 9 games after expanding twice. But the value of 7 home games is very high to the upper programs, and so is the ability to have 1 good home-and-home OOC series. A 10th B10 game in a 12-game schedule eliminates one of those things.
I didn’t push back against 9 games, I actively supported it. It made sense for all the right reasons. 10 games doesn’t in the current environment, but environments can and do change. I never said it would never happen, or that it wouldn’t be the right decision at some future point.
You theorize B10 and SEC expansion as part of your argument. While that may well happen, we don’t know which schools will be where so I’m talking the 16 team B10 only. But I’d consider 2036 a long way off at this point anyway.
I did say we’re a long way from when dropping a 7th home game will make financial sense for the large programs. You could, in theory, have 10 B10 games and 7 home games if everyone is happy to only play buy games. USC and IA would be screwed, though.
“Especially as all/nearly all the top TV draws eventually consolidate to either the B10 and SEC.”
Unless they don’t. Or maybe B10 teams want to play some schools from another region of the country.
“The only alternative that could stop a 10-game conference slate (eventually) is a B10-SEC challenge series that the 2 leagues sell off the rights too, but that seems unlikely because even if Clemson and FSU are taken by the P2, UGa still has its rivalry game with GTech.”
Yes, that’s the only possible alternative to 10 B10 games in the foreseeable future.
In short, you can’t be like “I see the economic logic of going to 9 conference games” yet also say “I don’t see the economic logic in going to 10 conference games”.
But it may be a decade or so before 10 league games come. And it’s possible that, to get ND on board, the B10 stays at 9 conference games forever.
LikeLike
Brian:
2 points:
1. Yes, OSU-ND is worth more than OSU-UMTC, but the B10 would control the extra OSU-UMTC games twice in 2 years but only 1 of the OSU-ND games every 2 years. Hence why there are so few OOC games that are top 3 picks.
2. The ACC and Pac wouldn’t make as much by increasing conference games because they have fewer/smaller TV draws in their conference. That is different from the B10 and SEC.
So it probably would enhance the Pac TV money if they went down to 8 conference games and scheduled a bunch of OOC games vs. B10/SEC powers. But if you’re the B10/SEC, you enhance your TV money by having more conference games (or only playing TV draws in other conferences).
LikeLike
In short, you can’t be like “I see the economic logic of going to 9 conference games” yet also say “I don’t see the economic logic in going to 10 conference games”.
Then why not 11?
LikeLike
Marc, 11 or 12 conference games _might_ occur with more expansion and if TV rights for a B10 game keep going upwards.
LikeLike
On a streaming note, #1 with big fan base Georgia was not OTA or cable yesterday vs. Kent St. They were only on ESPN+ and SECN+. Seems like an experiment by ESPN to see how well it works.
LikeLike
Typically those types of games would be on SECN or one of their overflow channels. But not yesterday.
LikeLike
Every SEC school is required to play a game on ESPN+/SEC+.
LikeLike
I don’t remember that before. When did that change?
LikeLike
bullet – I think its been happening for the last few years. After the CBS game, Disney owned the rights to all the SEC games anyways and ESPN+ is part of the ESPN/Disney platform. Programmers have been putting a rent-a-win each week on the streaming service for the last few years. I remember reading somewhere that each school would have one game on ESPN+.
LikeLike
I thought they were just putting them on the SECN overflow channels. I’ve seen 3 different games on the SECN at the same time in the past. Don’t remember how long ago that was. There’s still one overflow channel listed.
LikeLike
I think BIG should dump football divisions as soon as possible. Historical rivalries get annual schedule priority and the generated ones or within division annuals since the first championship game, revert back to conference scheduled rotation.
Divisions date back to 1991 and SEC expansion and are no longer necessary for a conf championship game.
LikeLike
Your wish likely will come true very soon.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
College football games are taking longer, and everyone, including TV, wants to fix that
By Seth Emerson Sep 23, 2022
There’s a touchdown. That means a timeout is coming. Here comes a replay review. Add on another couple of minutes. The offense just made a first down. So the clock stops. And uh oh, here comes that official in the red hat onto the field, the dreaded indication another TV timeout is coming.
You’re not imagining it: College football games are taking longer. And not a small amount longer.
But the television networks and their annoying timeouts aren’t to blame. Nor are the long replay reviews. It’s not even the epic weather delays, because even if you take those out the average college football game has lengthened by four minutes since 2017, now up to an average of 3 hours, 22 minutes, even though the number of plays is going down.
“Four minutes is a lot,” said NCAA coordinator of officials Steve Shaw, who tracks the data. “The why is very complex.”
Perhaps, but there is one main, overriding reason why game times have gone up so much lately: passing. The evolution of college football offenses toward being more pass-heavy leads to more scoring, which results in clock stoppages but also more first downs and more incompletions — although incompletions are also down because teams are becoming better at passing, thus leading to all those first downs, touchdowns and field goals. It’s not that teams are passing more, it’s that they’re good at it.
FBS-wide per-game averages (both teams)
2002 9.1
2012 9.7
2022 10.3
Meanwhile, the number of running plays, which inherently means more times the clock will run after a play, has gone down. There were 79.0 rushes per game in 2002, then 77.6 in 2012 and 74.6 so far this season.
There’s no evidence this is going away. Passing works. And college football already has gone through a litany of tweaks to clock rules through the years, with a couple of more quick fixes perhaps coming. (More on that later.) But the length of games is a looming issue that everyone involved, including the television networks, is interested in exploring.
“In a perfect world, games could always be 3:15 to 3:30 in length, that would be the wheelhouse,” said Nick Dawson, ESPN senior vice president for programming. “I would say the majority, anecdotally, fits in that window. But certainly, there are exceptions to the rule. It’s hard because there’s a balance. If it’s a great competitive game, 56-52 game that runs four hours, nobody’s complaining, right? If it’s a 60-10 game that takes four hours, then you run into the issues.”
But Dawson said there’s a concern about holding the interest of young viewers, which is why he would be open to exploring more creative ideas, such as more advertising while the game is on air, in exchange for fewer TV timeouts.
“From a TV perspective, I don’t know that we’ve seen a negative impact yet based on game length, based on viewership. But I do think we have enough data on just viewing trends and fandom trends and younger demos to understand that this could be an issue moving forward; it could be an issue in the future,” Dawson said. “Is there a time now for all the stakeholders involved across college football to come together and try to figure some solutions to maybe avoid a problem before it becomes a real problem?”
NFL games do a better job of neatly fitting in their time windows, but college football has a couple of notable differences. Halftime in college is 20 minutes, eight minutes longer than the NFL, but there isn’t much clamor to shorten that at the college level.
“I’ll have band directors coming to burn my house down,” Shaw said. “There’s a pageantry component in college football.”
Average game times
2013
3 hours, 17 minutes
2014
3 hours, 23 minutes
2015
3 hours, 22 minutes
2016
3 hours, 24 minutes
2017
3 hours, 19 minutes
2018
3 hours, 19 minutes
2019
3 hours, 18 minutes
2020
3 hours, 28 minutes
2021
3 hours, 28 minutes
2022
3 hours, 32 minutes
* Includes weather delays
Another is replay reviews: The NFL keeps it to coaches’ challenges and the final two minutes of the half, while college allows the game to stop at any time. While that may lead to some games during which the stoppages seem interminable (and unnecessary), the data shows that on average only two replay stoppages happen per game, with an average delay of two minutes. So that’s four minutes per game, a number that has gone down through the years as replay has become more efficient.
And yet the length of the game has gone up. The average game time, not counting weather delays, was 3:17 only nine years ago. That has increased to 3:28 last year and 3:32 this year. (The number of 3:22 that Shaw cited doesn’t include weather delays, but he says the basic trend is the same.)
The NCAA and its rules committee have tried various tweaks through the years:
• In 2008, they made drastic clock changes, that after an out-of-bounds play, once the ball is ready to play, officials restart the clock, other than the final two minutes of halves. That had a significant impact, according to Shaw.
• In 2017, they decided to make halftime 20 minutes without exceptions. Some teams had been asking for 24-minute halves for a ceremony, for example, or playing loose with the 20 minutes. Now the clock is supposed to start once the first half ends and the second-half kickoff happens on time.
• In 2018, they went to a 40-second clock after a touchdown or kickoff, like any other play, something they had been lax on.
• In 2021, they adjusted replay reviews to check the game clock so they only would look at a play for the final two minutes of the first half and the final four minutes of the game. Then they cut it to the final two minutes of the second half for this year.
But with games still going longer, a couple of more options are on the table:
• Treating incompletions like plays that go out of bounds: The clock stops, but once the ball is set and ready to play, the clock re-starts. Shaw said that’s roughly 10 seconds each time it happens. This could hurt offenses trying to catch up, but if they don’t want to lose time on incompletions, they would know to get to the line and be ready.
• The other is no longer stopping the clock on first downs. But Shaw thinks that won’t have a big impact because the officials have been doing a good job of spotting the ball and moving the chains quickly, after which point the clock re-starts.
“Even though you think, ‘Man you’d save 10 seconds every first down,’ you really probably won’t,” Shaw said. “That probably won’t have as big an impact as re-starting it after incompletions.”
Even that has an asterisk. Shaw pointed out this stat: In 2021, FBS teams set an all-time record for best completion percentage. So that also could make it difficult to speed it up.
“The philosophy has been that we want to work on the edges of the game,” Shaw said. “But we’re kind of at a point where we’ve squeezed it, all the juice is out. There might be something that someone can come with creatively. But we’ve kind of squeezed all the juice out.”
Average plays per game
2013 143.6
2014 144.0
2015 143.2
2016 143.0
2017 140.0
2018 140.6
2019 138.6
2020 139.6
2021 137.4
2022 138.2
* Includes plays that count
That’s where TV timeouts could come into play. Right now they average about 2 minutes, 30 seconds to three minutes per break, and usually, there is an average of three breaks per quarter. (It depends on how many stoppages there are for scoring, injuries, replays, etc.)
Yes, there are contractual rules about how many timeouts need to be reached per game. But that has not gone up “dramatically” through the years, said SEC associate commissioner Mark Womack, who tracks game lengths and other logistics for the conference.
Womack doesn’t blame TV timeouts for why games take longer, using an example of two recent SEC games that were on the SEC Network: Georgia hosting Samford was 2 hours, 51 minutes, while South Carolina hosting Georgia State took 3, 43 minutes. The Georgia-Samford game was shortened into a 12-minute fourth quarter, but that’s only three minutes of game action.
Certainly, many national games, such as SEC on CBS games, have longer ad breaks. But that doesn’t explain the games on smaller tiers that also go long.
“TV probably has the same elements to it then (in 2017) that it has now. Those aren’t changed dramatically,” Womack said. “As a matter of fact, we’ve probably tightened them up by using our timeout clock. The fan looks at it and says, ‘Guys this TV timeout is going on forever, they take five-minute breaks.’ Well no they don’t, and you can see it now.”
But ESPN is open to ideas, according to Dawson. Advertising while the game is on — between plays, coming out of timeouts, etc. — has been tried but could be expanded. This is something that could happen right away, rather than wait until the TV contracts come up, but it’s not a switch that can just be flipped.
“The challenge is you’ve got to get all partners on the same page: The advertisers, do they like that, are they willing to pay for that. The viewer, do we think the viewers like that. There’s a lot of dynamics there that are going to have to come together around creating solutions,” Dawson said. “But I think we probably need to do a better job of coming together as a group of stakeholders and putting ideas on the table, and finding ways to test them, to see hey this one doesn’t work, but maybe this one does, and helps to chip away at potential issues down the road.”
That’s because there’s a realization that pass-heavy offenses aren’t going away. Georgia Tech is a stark example: Four years ago, in the last year it used the option, its average game length was 3 hours, 7 minutes. Last season, the Yellow Jackets averaged 3 hours, 30 minutes.
Everyone is clear they don’t want the game to be homogenized where everyone runs the same kind of offense. That’s part of the “charm of college football,” as Dawson put it. But there’s an examination on what could be done, especially with College Football Playoff expansion coming, to avoid having games become a long slog.
College football has evolved. The clock rules, and other things, may have to adapt.
“It is a tricky balance,” Dawson said. “Where can you find things where you can legislate, through rule-making, to speed up the process of the game, while still allowing for the creativity and the uniqueness of each individual program, each individual philosophy, on offense and defense.”
LikeLike
The article didn’t mention that a few years ago they implemented a running clock on kickoffs as soon as the ball was ready for play. Coaches hated it, and that change was rescinded.
LikeLike
They could definitely cut some TV timeouts and show short 15 second ads (maybe on a split screen, or on the bottom) when teams are huddling to burn clock or there is some stoppage of play (punt/kicking unit coming on), etc.
LikeLike
Do we need a 20-minute halftime? In NCAA basketball, it’s 15 minutes. In high school hoops, it’s 10 minutes.
Do they need to return to the locker rooms for halftime? How about a ten-minute break right there on the sideline?
LikeLike
I don’t know how to measure what is truly “needed,” but halftime with a return to the locker room is a feature at all levels of the sport. The marching band performance is valued by many fans. There is no marching band in basketball, so no comparison there.
As a practical matter, halftime allows time for a bathroom break. The last CFB game I attended, it was a pretty long round trip to the loo. By the time I got back, the game was just about ready to start.
With the season getting longer, they will probably be looking at measures to reduce the amount of game time, which mitigates the stress on players’ bodies. Reducing the halftime does not achieve that.
LikeLike
Halftime is also a concession break which is good for the fans and the schools’ revenues.
LikeLike
Well, actually there is plenty of time for the marching band performance prior to kickoff. And you could make a reasonable argument that a team sitting on its bench for a ten-minute halftime would be more rested than a team running back and forth to the locker room for a twenty-minute halftime.
For some outside-the-box thinking, how about showing a commercial during play reviews? The refs could take a mandatory 60-second time-out during play reviews and this would replace a TV timeout. No one is really interested in seeing the ref look into the TV box on the field. If there has been no play reviews before the half ends, they they could go to a TV timeout in the last two minutes.
LikeLike
Players need to hydrate, use the restroom, get medical treatment (further evaluation, re-taping, wrapping/bracing injuries, etc.), and recover from the conditions sometimes (warm up, cool up, dry off, change gear, etc.). That’s hard to do on the sidelines. So is any team-wide coaching adjustment.
A fixed halftime length that’s enforced isn’t the problem. The passing game and clock rules are. Drop the total game time (12 minute quarters), or use a running clock (like soccer) except for changes of possession or something (so they can get their ads in).
LikeLike
Brian: “Players need to hydrate, use the restroom, get medical treatment (further evaluation, re-taping, wrapping/bracing injuries, etc.), and recover from the conditions sometimes (warm up, cool up, dry off, change gear, etc.). That’s hard to do on the sidelines.”
Actually, it isn’t. With these little sideline medical tents that are now in widespread use, most of those functions can now be done on the sideline. As far as using the restroom, Oregon has sideline pop-up porta potties that players can use at any time during a game.
Brian: “So is any team-wide coaching adjustment.”
I’m not sure there is such an animal. I played four years of HS football and while there are certainly coaching adjustments made during games, each one is targeted to a specific group – linebackers, OL, QBs, etc. That could certainly be done on the sidelines.
LikeLike
As an aside, YouTube TV is nice because you can skip ahead by 15 seconds (press 10 times to skip an entire ads block). And they also have a feature that shows big plays (that mostly works).
LikeLike
Do you get much out of that if you are watching the game “live”? I put that in quotes because there is always a delay, but I think that technique would work for one break at most, before you would be caught up.
LikeLike
With a DVR you can start watching a game from the beginning 60-75 minutes after kickoff and catch up live in the 4th quarter by skipping commercials and half-time.
To shorten games the clock can start after the ball is marked on penalties as well as incompletes.
LikeLike
When you get caught up, you can go through the big plays in other games (or do some chores) before going back to the main game you’re watching.
LikeLike
TV timeouts are a real drag on the in stadium experience. With Georgia, SEC Network games are the worse. They have to have ceremonies celebrating last year’s tennis team and the professors who got awards. That should be limited to halftime.
I’ve got no problem with using the out of bounds rule on incomplete passes and first downs.
And maybe have a time limit on instant replay. If you can’t figure it out in 2 minutes, its not clear and convincing. Ruling on the field stands. Maybe you need a little extra time to adjust the clock.
LikeLike
Was that in stadium or on TV? Usually all of those in game ceremonies are during TV timeouts and are not broadcast. Just something to kill the time while nothing is happening on the field due to a TV timeout.
LikeLike
In the stadium because the TV timeouts are interminable.
LikeLike
Of the 3 1/2 hours of total time, 2 1/2 hours are dead time with nothing happening. This is especially painful if you are attending the game, because you have to sit and take it. At home there are other opportunities to do things. And simply DVRing the game and tuning in an hour or two late lets you cut out all the crab.
The biggest change you could make to improve the experience would be to eliminate the official use of replays. No sport should allow the officials to review replays and revise their calls. If TV, or even the stadium big screens want to use replays to rile up the fans, that’s fine. But don’t change any calls.
People complain about baseball, but the ball is always in play except for inning changeovers. Baseball does move slowly, until the ball is hit, but it is a summer afternoon sport, and it has to be leisurely.
LikeLike
PS. The replay-based decisions are wrong half the time anyway, and they do not improve the quality of the officiating. Shut up and learn the home ump’s strike zone.
LikeLike
Agree re replay. Can’t stand it; mostly it’s about avoiding bad publicity. Ditch it and just have the official (or umpire) make the call and continue play.
As there is a min of TV time outs… how ’bout a maximum?
I’d also like to see the hash marks return to 53′ 4″
Alas, none of the above will happen.
LikeLike
Agree re replay. Can’t stand it; mostly it’s about avoiding bad publicity.
No, it’s about getting the calls right. I think there are ways that replay delays could be further reduced while still leaving it in place so that the most egregious mistakes can be fixed. (I don’t know where Bob Sykes got the purported statistic that replay decision is wrong half the time.)
But if the article Colin quoted is correct, replay is not really the main driver of games getting longer: it’s the shifting emphasis towards passing in modern offenses.
LikeLike
If replay were about getting calls right there wouldn’t be any need for coach’s challenges much less limits on them.
Speed up the game by reverting to rules in use in the 1970s which would have the affect of favoring the run game. (Though keep the time keeping changes and those rules which enhance player safety.) No reason to limit DB-WR downfield contact prior to a pass being thrown for instance.
LikeLike
If replay were about getting calls right there wouldn’t be any need for coach’s challenges much less limits on them.
We are talking about college football here, where almost all replay reviews are initiated from the booth.
Speed up the game by reverting to rules in use in the 1970s which would have the affect of favoring the run game.
So true, because nothing should ever ever ever change. I would far prefer to have the rules Rutgers and Princeton used in 1869. Why allow any evolution of the sport after that?
LikeLike
BTW, re: 10 home games:
I’d expect Iowa (because of the ISU game) and PSU (because they want to play more Eastern opponents) to be most against it.
Also may keep ND from joining or they may be against it vociferously if they’d joined by then.
But I don’t actually expect OSU and UMich to be very against the idea, Brian, when the TV money goes up even more. That’s because I’d expect both to still have 7 home games, so it’s the marquee HaH OOC series going away. But the median B10 team is Iowa and their marquee OOC opponent is usually stronger than Iowa, so they wouldn’t actually be disadvantaged for the playoffs by going to 10 league games (in fact, they may be helped). So it would then come down to flexibility in scheduling vs more money (and in a decade, that “more money” bit likely will be a significant sum).
10 homes games also works much more easily in a 16 or 18 team league that a 20 team league. With 16 or 18 teams, you can have 5 or 6 annual series respectively, so 2 or 3 of them can be semi-locked based on historic strength (parity-based scheduling) (3 permanently locked), changing every 4 or 6 years.
So, I guess we’ll see. With 10 conference games, a 6-5-1 schedule (with the neutral site game being a marquee game) starts to make a lot of sense for many schools. The RRR game likely makes much more for Texas than a regular home game because people have to donate a lot to get the limited tickets to that game and that’s a game people figure to want to get tickets for every year rather than every other year.
The big problem is that there’s really no suitable neutral site stadium in IA for the Iowa-ISU game (though I suppose they could put it in Chicago, the Twin Cities, KC or StL).
PSU could also host a marquee OOC game in DC (vs. VTech/WVU, maybe UVa?). Maybe around NYC/Philly vs Syracuse?
I suppose PSU/OSU could also (potentially) go neutral site, alternating between Cleveland and Pittsburgh.
LikeLike
BTW, my math was wrong.
9 home games work for 16/18/20/22 schools.
10 home games work for 16/19/21 schools.
LikeLike
My original objection above was to the argument that dropping the 7th home game would make financial sense soon. I could see 10 B10 games before I’d think the big programs would drop 7 home games regularly.
I think USC and UCLA would also push back on the 10th B10 game, in addition to the schools you list. Especially USC, since they have ND locked.
I also think OSU and MI would, because they’d rather play a marquee HaH series. They lose that ability to go to regions of interest to them and play other king programs. USC might be a good example – they have toned down their OOC scheduling to mostly be 2 buy games plus ND (essentially a 10th P12 game), with occasional games against big brands.
I don’t know that neutral site games (which usually seem to be in the south vs southern teams) will be their top choice. The other schools not playing a 10-game schedule would prefer HaH’s (even AL has cut back on the neutral site games), so they might be tougher to schedule anyway. We’ll just have to see how that trend goes in CFB.
LikeLike
I don’t see the 10 conference game coming until both the B10 and SEC have expanded again, leading to almost no kings outside the B10 and SEC. I suppose the kings in the B10 and SEC could still schedule each other. And ND may be in the B10 by then too.
And thinking about it more, I still think it makes sense for PSU to schedule neutral site games. It makes no sense for PSU to trade HaHs with schools with much smaller stadiums like Syracuse/WVU/VTech/UVa/(UNC/NCSU). That’s like OSU trading HaHs with WVU and UK.
PSU should at least try to negotiate a 1-1-1, with the neutral site game in DC/Philly/NYC but owned by PSU.
LikeLike
And PSU should make that a permanent neutral site game. Say a permanent neutral site game in DC vs VTech (or maybe rotating opponents VTech/UVa/WVU/UNC/NCSU in DC). But make it a destination game that PSU fans would want to see so would buy season tickets to get. Would get PSU the recruiting exposure in the Tidewater states that they want.
LikeLike
PSU like a lot of college towns has a huge economic dependence on home football games. Sure, the school could make up the revenue with neutral sites, but if they want to make good with all the locals especially the area businesses, they would not want to have fewer home games. That would be a ton of lost revenue for the surrounding area that depends on it.
LikeLike
Just to show how far behind in facilities some schools are, Rutgers just installed a new light system in its football stadium. Can anyone really imagine a B1G school not having the money for a decent light system in its football stadium? Welcome to RU. The wifi system has also just been upgraded.
It is hard to fully appreciate how far Rutgers was, and still is, behind virtually all other B1G schools in “basic” facilities, but they are starting to get there. It was only a few years ago that the men and women soccer teams got their own facilities, without sharing with each other and other sports.
I believe that the Iowa game was the first night home game ever at Rutgers. I am virtually positive that they have played night games at MetLife Stadium, about 35 miles away from campus. MetLife is the name of the stadium co-owned by the Giants and Jets, both of which play all home games there. It replaced Giants Statium. MetLife is about 10 miles from Manhattan.
Rutgers has also dramatically changed the tailgating experience, including the addition of a boardwalk similar to the Jersey Shore (the area not the TV show), with rides and games just like the real thing. Anyone who goes to a game at SHI Statdium (add the T to the name as you wish), must be familiar with the famous Jersey Shore, so it is a nice touch.
By the way, for those who are not aware. New Jersey does not have beaches, it has the Jersey Shore. To get there, one much “go down the shore”. Even cities with Beach in the name are down the shore.
LikeLike
Jersey: “Just to show how far behind in facilities some schools are, Rutgers just installed a new light system in its football stadium. Can anyone really imagine a B1G school not having the money for a decent light system in its football stadium?”
Ohio Stadium didn’t receive permanent lighting until 2014. Previously they rented trucks with stadium lights on cranes for night games. The expense was part of OSU’s apprehension regarding scheduling a lot of night games every season.
If I recall, the permanent lighting itself was more of a concern regarding the stadium engineering, rather than a simple money issue. They might’ve actually saved money by making installing permanent lighting, but I don’t know that for sure.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure Michigan’s permanent lights were installed in the Brandon era, i.e., around when Ohio State got them. Before that, stadium lighting was trucked in.
LikeLike
I saw Army play at Rutgers in the late ’90s, and that game was definitely played under the lights.
LikeLike
Nice synopsis of where we are and how we got here…
WITH MAPS!
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-realignment-is-changing-college-football-in-20-maps/
LikeLike
One important reminder when they talk about the geographic growth of conferences – travel time. Before the mid-30s, the fastest train from Chicago to MSP was 10 hours. In the mid-1930s, Chicago to MSP (410 miles) by train took 6.5 hours, so OSU to MN was probably 10+ hours. That was considered a regional conference. Now you can fly from Newark to LA faster than that, but it isn’t regional.
There was a sweet spot in the 70s/80s when conferences were probably as close together (in terms of travel time) as ever, before expansion in the 90s started to spread things out. But people forget how slow travel used to be. The Rose Bowl was a multi-day drip one way.
And that was before wifi, online courses, learning management systems, etc. which allow students to study while they travel.
LikeLike
Brian – the 1899 Sewanne Tigers (the Episcopalians’ Notre Dame) sure didn’t whine about travel.
The Tigers went on the road (train tracks) and played five games in six days, beating the likes of Texas (12-0), A&M (10-0), my Greenies of Tulane (23-0), my beloved LSU Tigers (34-0), and Ole Miss (12-0). And – as the saying goes – on the seventh day, they rested.
https://sewaneetigers.com/sports/2021/4/28/sewanee-traditions-1899Team.aspx
LikeLike
That probably explains why OSU and UMTC essentially never played each other before 1939 (only 3 times in 1921, 1922, and 1931) even though they had both been in the B10 since 1912.
LikeLike
Also explains why LSU and UK never met on the football field even once before 1949 even though they had been conference mates continuously since 1922 (first in the Southern conf and then in the SEC).
LikeLike
Actually, wait, they were in the same conference for all but 1 year between 1911-1948 but never played each other in football.
LikeLike
But LSU and UK played every year (except 1951) from 1949 until 2002.
LikeLike
All hail progress!
LikeLike
Well Alabama and Auburn didn’t play between 1907 and 1948. SEC rivalries don’t necessarily follow geography. Georgia and Tennessee didn’t play between 1937 and 1968 (although before I-75 it was hard to get between Athens and Knoxville) and only 8 more times between 1968 and 1992.
LikeLike
The writer seems to have a view that geographic dispersion is necessarily bad, and as Brian notes, does not consider changes changes in travel time. There is also this peculiar statement:
“BYU appears to be the first school — besides Hawaii, for obvious reasons — to be unable to drive to visit any conference foe.)” I am pretty sure West Virginia can’t drive to any of its current conference mates either. It will be able to drive to UC once the latter joins the Big XII, but not today.
LikeLike
In general, the kiddies that write for 538 (and they’re mostly all kiddies that 538 can hire for cheap) aren’t terribly knowledgeable about college football.
But maybe they think 13.5 hours (the driving time from Morgantown to Ames) is a drivable distance but 14.5 hours (the driving time from Provo to Manhattan, KS) isn’t?
LikeLike
Oh wait, Provo to Lubbock is 14 hours.
But I’d say is 528 is wrong in any case. BYU won’t be the first geographic outlier.
First, Orlando to all of Houston/Cincy/Morgantown are all 13.5-14 hours.
More importantly, when Miami was in the BE, it’s nearest conference mate (VTech) was a little short of a 13.5 hour drive away.
So unless 538 is saying that 13.5 hours is a drivable distance away but 14 hours is not, they’re not right.
LikeLike
One of the so-called “kiddies” on that article’s byline is Jake Lourim, formerly the Managing Sports Editor at the Michigan Daily, the University of Michigan student paper. It is pretty unlikely that he got that job without decent knowledge of college football. He is 5½ years removed from graduation and has written about college sports for the Louisville Courier-Journal, Forbes and the Washington Post, in addition to 538. He writes about football a lot.
So yeah, it is an obvious blunder, but even more inexcusable because this guy is a professional sportswriter.
LikeLike
Marc: ““BYU appears to be the first school — besides Hawaii, for obvious reasons — to be unable to drive to visit any conference foe.)” I am pretty sure West Virginia can’t drive to any of its current conference mates either.”
If geographic logic ruled realignment, the B12 and PAC would swap, consolidate and expand. PAC would add BYU, SDS and Boise while the B12 would get Colorado, AFA and Colorado State.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Brian Howell @BrianHowell33
From my own research, the list of Power 5 teams that have started a season with 4 consecutive losses by 25-plus points:
1893 – Tennessee
1921 – UCLA
1932 – Louisville
1950 – Virginia Tech
1957 – Indiana
2022 – Colorado
Colorado Football Schedule
Sep. 2 TCU Horned Frogs L 38-13
Sep. 10 at Air Force Falcons L 41-10
Sep. 17 at Minnesota Golden Gophers L 49-7
Sep. 24 UCLA Bruins L 45-17
LikeLike
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-in-danger-of-eventual-collapse-as-big-ten-considers-further-expansion-big-12-interest-looms/
LikeLike
Some parts of that article don’t ring true. For one, $150mm for an After Dark deal likely would be needed to bring 2 schools in, not $100mm for 4 schools.
Other parts do ring true, such as Fox and ESPN being opposed to more B10 expansion as no content carrier wants market power concentration by content providers. Also the part where observers doubt enough money can be found.
LikeLike
@Richard – I was trying to wrap my head around that “less than $100 million” figure to make Big Ten expansion worth it, too.
My semi-educated guess is that it would be based on a combination of factors: (1) an additional circa $100 million media package with Amazon or another partner, (2) increased BTN revenue from entering into the San Francisco Bay Area, Portland and Seattle markets and (3) Cal, Stanford, Washington and Oregon taking less-than-full revenue shares from the Big Ten for several years.
That’s the only way that I see it working on a pure financial basis. There may be other reasons why the Big Ten would still add those 4 schools, not the least of which is that they may decide that having a full West Coast wing is important for the league for the long-term regardless of the short-term revenue impact.
LikeLike
I’m not buying it. Kevin Warren may indeed be looking to squeeze additional Big Ten football media rights revenue out of some carrier but that doesn’t automatically equate to further expansion of the conference. I think the Big Ten’s reputedly continuing pursuit of four Pac-12 schools is internet-inspired urban legend. Notice that all of the so-called sources for this rumor are anonymous?
As I mentioned previously, the long-dysfunctional Pac-12 Network is probably a Blue Light Special right now with the departure of USC and UCLA. Maybe Fox/BTN could buy it for chump change or partner with is for some joint programming.
LikeLike
Whether something may or may not happen, if we expect any news of any value that isn’t simply just a publicist-approved press release, reports are going to have anonymous sources. No one is getting someone like Kevin Warren or a FOX executive coming out on-the-record saying, “The Big Ten is negotiating with Washington, Oregon, Cal and Stanford! Stay tuned!” That doesn’t mean that we should take such reports as gospel, but I’m just saying the fact that there are unnamed sources isn’t a reason to discount a report from legitimate news outlet at all (because, once again, that’s the only way to get *any* news of any value in the majority of circumstances).
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten’s reputedly continuing pursuit of four Pac-12 schools is internet-inspired urban legend.
As Frank noted, the one common thread in these reports is that Kevin Warren is pursuing it. There are plausible reasons that could be true, even if in the end the Big Ten does not expand any further.
Notice that all of the so-called sources for this rumor are anonymous?
Even the true rumors are usually anonymous. However, the true rumors are only about 5% of the total. No real insight is required to believe that everything is false, and you will be right 95% of the time.
LikeLike
Frank,
The 16 are supposed to average about $75M each over the current deal. Adding only $100M for 4 schools would make that $65M each if split equally. If the newbies will take a 50% share, then it would be $72.2M each for the 16. But where would the money come from to make those other 4 whole? Everyone else getting almost no growth with the next deal?
I know, you hypothesize BTN money helping. But 2 schools in SF hurts that plan. How many new BTN households could you add? 5M? Some already have it, and would just pay a higher rate. 5M at $1/month is $60M per year. That gets us halfway to getting the 4 to a full share. And it further dilutes the value of owning a BTN share.
The math still doesn’t make sense.
Maybe the 4 don’t get a full BTN ownership share? How long would they willingly take partial payouts? If they only brought $250M instead of $300M, that’s easy to smooth out on the next deal. But $160M to $300M? That’s asking the current members to give up a lot of growth.
LikeLike
Brian: “The math still doesn’t make sense.”
I done told you. The Big Ten and the SEC will remain at 16 teams until 2016 and probably thereafter. Period.
LikeLike
When did I ever say the math would/could/did make sense?
And I have to disagree with you. I really don’t see the B10 or SEC at 16 in 2016. IIRC, they were both at 14 and there’s no way to expand retroactively.
LikeLike
Due to the reliance on unnamed sources, it is hard to figure out which opinions belong to whom. The gist that I got out of it, was that Warren is trying to get the numbers as high as he can. Then, persuade the presidents that the value is there over the long haul, even if the additions seem dilutive in the short run.
Does Warren have enough of a track record that you would take his word for it? There are consultants too, but you can get a consultant to say anything.
LikeLike
@Marc – It’s interesting that the one thing that the various reports seem to agree on (whether they think the Big Ten is expanding or not) is that Kevin Warren himself is pushing further expansion. Regardless of what eventually happens, that’s pretty notable in terms of how aggressive he’s looking at the marketplace.
I get it from his perspective. A larger fiefdom is beneficial to his own status and legacy – a 20-school Big Ten would effectively have as much power as the NCAA with an NFL-level national geographic footprint. I really do go back and forth on whether it’s good for the Big Ten overall. Generally speaking, I tend to think that the Big Ten is eventually going to need to fill out a fuller West Coast contingent beyond USC/UCLA. On the other hand, there’s a part of me that still has a bit of a traditional thinking that the existing Big Ten schools actually want to play each other more and that could potentially be worth more in value than diluting their schedules.
LikeLike
Frank, I definitely agree that many of the original B10 want to play each other a lot (especially the schools lower on the totem pole, but even those higher up too). The OSU/UMich/MSU vs IN schools games tend to get better viewership than OSU/UMich/MSU vs RU/UMD games, and OSU/UMich/MSU like being able to travel to away games at the IN schools though games like UIUC-IU don’t draw more than RU-UMD.
On the other hand, I do see ancillary benefits from adding Stanford & Cal (it’s a shame Cal’s viewership is so poor) or Stanford+UW.
The end state may be a 20-24 school league with ND, Stanford, Miami, and some combo of GTech, FSU, UVa, U Washington, UO.
If the B10 added just the first 4 schools, 13 of the 16 current P5 schools ND has played the most would be in the B10, and that doesn’t even include FSU, which ND has a memorable history against.
LikeLike
The basic rumor, which is perhaps being pushed by B1G offices, is that the B1G will pick up two to four PAC schools. This will result in the existing 16 making less money, maybe a meaningful amount less.
How long can the extra two or four teams take lesser payouts before there is serious resentment? Even with the lesser payouts the other teams probably still lose money.
If you are the president of Purdue, which has been in the B1G for more than 100 years, would the thought cross your mind that if Stanford is getting less money, someone might wonder if Purdue should?
After all if Purdue applied to the B1G now, they would be rejected as the second school in Indiana, not counting ND. How would Purdue feel when Washington and Stanford complain that they are worth more than Purdue?
This will be done so that Ohio State can play Washington instead of Wisconsin. I have a hard time understanding that. Does Penn State really want to play Oregon that badly?
I also have not seen any changes in the comments of Ohio State and Iowa against this type of expansion. Personally, I would imagine that Ohio State probably has more influence in this decision than Warren does. I presume that the university presidents do not necessarily share the vision of an NFL lite for the B1G.
LikeLike
Bernie, those are all reasons that the rumors of further expansion of the Big Ten make no sense. In addition, does the Big Ten really want to disembowel the Pac-12 Conference? If we take USC AND UCLA AND Washington AND Oregon AND Stanford AND Cal, what is left over is little scraps of meat for the Mountain West and Big XII to munch and snack upon.
LikeLike
Colin and Bernie, I don’t think the B10 presidents care all that much about whether they will be an NFL-lite or not. That is, they won’t be against the idea of being an national conference on principle (seeing as they’ve already expanded to both coasts). But they do have certain concerns. Iowa has stated they have 4 rivals they’d like to play every year (UNL, UMTC, Wisconsin, and NU). Michigan certainly wants to visit both coasts but besides their OSU and MSU rivalry games, also like frequent games vs. the IN schools because they allow its fans to go on easy road trips.
Probably everybody would like the academic prestige, high concentration of B10 alums, and recruiting grounds of the Bay Area schools (same with GTech, but the Jackets are as poor a TV draw as Cal; Miami, FSU, and UVa all also have strong points) but yeah, Iowa has already said that expansion is a no-go if it means dilution of TV money, and I bet many B10 schools feel the same way.
So if Warren wants to be commissioner of a national NFL-like league, he would be better off figuring out what ND and FSU would need in order to join, because ND and FSU can pay for a school each while Miami can pay for itself (and Stanford is close). So I believe the B10 presidents would approve an expansion of ND with Stanford + Cal/UW, (and later) Miami, FSU with GTech/UVa.
LikeLike
How long can the extra two or four teams take lesser payouts before there is serious resentment?
The answer is, they simply must reach financial parity in a reasonable amount of time — no longer than it took Rutgers and Maryland.
And yes, it must be obvious even now that if the league were starting again with no previous loyalties, they probably would not take two Indiana schools, just as the SEC would probably not take Vanderbilt, nor the ACC Wake Forest. I agree that most of the league is not dying to play more West Coast games. The financials need to be compelling—not money-losing or even break-even.
I would imagine that Ohio State probably has more influence in this decision than Warren does.
Warren can only recommend, but I doubt that any expansion would be made that Ohio State opposes.
LikeLike
In addition, does the Big Ten really want to disembowel the Pac-12 Conference?
No conference yet has turned down a financially accretive deal out of a desire to keep a fellow conference alive. Also, no conference yet has made a deal that loses money. So it is basically about the money.
LikeLike
My guess is these rumors will continue until the PAC signs a TV deal and short GOR or the 4 Corner schools get antsy and go to the B12.
LikeLike
My guess is these rumors will continue until the PAC signs a TV deal and short GOR or the 4 Corner schools get antsy and go to the B12.
I would more-than-guess. It is a certainty.
LikeLike
Right now, the Big 10 has 2 LA teams. Add 2 to 4 more Pac teams and they own the west coast. That would be a strategic move.
The new schools will probably take a reduced payout for 6-7 years. Then the new contract will kick in with a higher payout and nobody will be able to tell if the new members reduced the contract because the increase will give all 18-20 a raise.
LikeLike
I think that’s the answer on if expansion will happen though. If there’s a back on forth on whether it’s good for the Big Ten overall the answer has to be no. History would seem to agree, with PSU a slam dunk, Nebraska at the time a slam dunk (though I think the B1G presidents regret giving in to Delany on that one), Maryland and Rutgers were a slam dunk pair. USC and UCLA as a pair is a nobrainer.
The only other slam dunk, no-brainer pairs I see would be UNC-Duke, ND + 1 of FSU/Washington/Stanford/UVA, Florida-Georgia. And even then the UNC-Duke pair is based on the fact that I think a basketball conference with Indiana, UCLA, Duke, UNC, Michigan, Michigan State, Maryland, OSU, and Illinois creates a ton of compelling 1-2M+ viewer games that ESPN and Amazon would pay up big for. That’s 4 of the 6 basketball blue bloods in one conference.
If Washington-Oregon or Stanford-Cal were slam dunks it would have already happened or at least the messaging wouldn’t be so mixed; alternatively if those pairs were slam dunks then USC-UCLA would never have moved. I think a pair could make sense if you could trade, like Washington-Oregon for Iowa-Nebraska seems like an upgrade over the next 100 years but it isn’t going to happen.
I also don’t think there’s really a need to fill out a west coast contingent. USC/UCLA is on a geographic island but is that a problem with air travel being what it is today? It’s easier to get to LA than Penn State. USC/UCLA are culturally aligned with the B1G schools.
Just feels like going past 16 is a huge decision that should be nearly unanimously awesome. The B1G is never going to be NFL-lite, no matter what Kevin Warren wants, because it’ll be missing everything in the SECs footprint and the northeast (which cares nearly 0 about college fb and instead all about NFL). Also becoming the NFL-lite risks people asking themselves why they shouldn’t just watch the NFL instead. At some point, the extra $5-10M/yr isn’t worth the risk of loss of cohesion between the schools or creating indifference for fans.
Maybe I’m thinking too small. A 24 team B1G with 4 divisions, 11 conference games, and the 4 division winners going to a 4 team playoff to determine the B1G champion would be cool. Do away with the playoffs completely and then have a bowl game that’s B1G champ vs SEC champ – assuming the SEC also goes to some kind of 4 team playoff. The rest of the schools not in the B1G or SEC (including ND if they don’t join) can do whatever they want and then we can go back to having mythical national champions.
LikeLike
Scout: “Maryland and Rutgers were a slam dunk pair.”
I would far prefer Colorado and Mizzou. Both ar clearly more representative of the Big Ten culture. As far as Rutgers and Maryland, we could have gotten the same TV markets with Army and Navy.
LikeLike
Sure. Except the B10 presidents would know.
I’m not sure it’s all that great a strategy when it means more West Coast flights for the original 14. “Locking down the West Coast” sounds nice in Risk, but the plain facts are that the West Coast just isn’t that valuable because folks there don’t seem to be as much in to top tier college football as most of the Midwest and all of the South. The Pac draws between 1/3rd and 1/2 as many TV viewers as the B10 because the top brands there (when you remove USC) draw (slightly) fewer TV viewers than Iowa.
Adding BC and UConn “locks down” New England but nobody thinks that’s all that valuable (because New Englanders pay even less attention to FBS football).
So in short, I could see Stanford + 1 of UW/UO with an After Dark package (and even that is a little bit of a stretch). Otherwise, ND would be required to add Stanford+UW+UO.
LikeLike
Scout, FSU+Miami is a slam dunk (or FSU+Clemson for the SEC). Obviously ND is as well. None of the VA and NC schools are. TV networks won’t pay money comparable to college football money for a bunch of basketball games that mostly top out at 1-2mm viewers (when the 16-team B10 and 16-team SEC will each control around 40 football games that get 3-15mm viewers each, totalling around 200mm viewers).
LikeLike
I tend to think that the Big Ten is eventually going to need to fill out a fuller West Coast contingent beyond USC/UCLA.
One thing to keep in mind about additional West Coast schools is that in addition to the financial questions there is also the issue of whether the Midwest and East schools really want to deal with the extra travel. One reason the Big Ten presidents said they were not particularly concerned with the logistics of adding the LA schools is that, as things stand now, all the travel issues are almost entirely on USC and UCLA; for everyone else it’s just one game in LA per team per year.
Obviously this isn’t an insurmountable issue in terms future expansion, but it does mean that the pre-LA schools are going to need to stand to gain a lot financially to justify making any more West Coast additions.
LikeLike
Scout, at some point the Big 10 has to decide whether it wants to be a conference or a TV alliance, with the associated risks to long term stability.
At 16 or 18, its still a conference. At 24-28, its a TV alliance. 20-22 is kind of in-between.
LikeLike
I forgot about Miami.
Still, I’m not sure they are a slam dunk. When Miami is good to great and in big matchups they are a ratings juggernaut. But when they either aren’t good or are playing scrubs does anyone at all care? I honestly don’t know their ratings outside of some big matchups.
I also don’t think they are much of a cultural fit, small enrollment, they’d have the fewest varsity teams in the B1G (16, Northwestern has 18 everyone else is over 20) so far away from everything that they aren’t a travel pair for FSU (they are 500 miles apart to drive), and their brand is the convict side of Catholics vs convicts. Also over half the country thinks Miami will be under water in 50-100 years.
I don’t see the B1G presidents approving them. Just my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Riffing off of *Richard’s “end state” – and because you shouldn’t keep an otherwise useful spreadsheet waiting – here’s a 3-[3]-[3] schedule, 15 years too soon:
*Note: I’ve substituted Cal, instead of UVA, given my interpretation of recent news.
(A) Round robin between sextiles – sometimes you just have to work with what the good universe gives you – with teams promoted-and-relegated, annually [3 games]. These would be the sextiles, if using weighted-F+, from the past 4 seasons [40%/30%/20%/10%], and if the B1G-24 was in place for the 2022 season:
–OSU, UND, UWisc, UMich
–PSU, Iowa, UO, UMTC
–UMiami, UWash, USC, UNL
–PU, MSU, UCLA, IU
–FSU, Cal, UMary, NU
–UIUC, Stan, GATech, RU
(B) Mutually agreed upon, protected rivalries [zero to 3 games]. To be clear, both schools would have to agree to these and these could be changed, annually. So, expect strategic alliances. And, perhaps significantly for Notre Dame, schools could effectively influence one-third of their conference schedule, if they have willing partners and/or want to switch things up. And, of course, these are just semi-educated guesses, for fun–the schools decide:
OSU: PSU, USC, FSU [With The Game already protected, as a round-robin match, and with Notre Dame and Bucky already on the schedule, damn the torpedos, we have recruits to entertain, weekly!]
UND: USC, GTech, UWash [Because we like a national schedule and haven’t been to the Pacific Northwest in awhile.]
UWisc: UMTC, Iowa, UNL [Because Coach Alvarez called.]
UMich: MSU, UCLA, UMTC [With The Game already protected, we’ll balance a West Coast foe with a long-time foe (Little Brown Jug).]
PSU: OSU, UMiami, FSU [Not West Coast.]
Iowa: UWisc, UNL, PU [With the Floyd of Rosedale already protected, we maxed-out on historic rivalries.]
UO: UWash, UMiami, Stan [Uncle Phil pays the bills.]
UMTC: UWisc, UMich, UNL [With the Floyd of Rosedale already protected, we maxed-out on rivalries, including a newer one.]
UMiami: PSU, UO, FSU [Just happy to be out of jail (ACC).]
UWash: UND, UO, Cal [Because Notre Dame asked. And, with USC protected, a Bay Area trip makes sense.]
USC: OSU, UND, UCLA [With these 3, plus UMiami, UWash, and UNL already protected, shouldn’t we have to pay the B1G!?!]
UNL: UWisc, Iowa, UMTC [Because our new friends wanted to play us.]
PU: Iowa, UIUC [We’ve played the three “I” schools more than anybody; the Old Oaken Bucket (IU) is already protected. We’ll let fate decide the third game (i.e. part “C,” as described below).]
MSU: UMich [With the Wolverines locked and the Irish busy, and with Purdue and Indiana already protected, we’ll spin the wheel, twice.]
UCLA: UMich, USC, Stan [With our round robin consisting of 3 Midwestern foes (MSU, PU, IU), we’ll accept the Wolverines’ rose, but otherwise stay in California.]
IU: NU [With the Old Oaken Bucket (PU) and Old Brass Spittoon (MSU) already protected, we’ll spin the wheel, twice.]
FSU: OSU, PSU, UMiami [While our round robin opponents (Cal, UMary, NU) are not the SEC, at least we’re seeing the country, and the pay is nice.]
Cal: Stan, UWash [We’re worried about balancing the debt load and the travel costs (FSU, UMary, NU), and hope that the wheel doesn’t land on Piscataway.]
UMary: GATech [Can we lock UNC? We rejected RU. Spin twice.]
NU: UIUC, Stan, IU [With Cal protected, we’ll lock Stanford, and see who prevails…in the classroom.]
UIUC: NU, PU [Given our round robin (Stan, GATech, RU), maybe this will help recruit students.]
Stan: UO, Cal, NU [Uncle Phil’s money is our rounding error. We’ll swap UO for Notre Dame, annually.]
GATech: UND, UMary [We’re just happy to be here. Spin.]
RU: none [Odds are, we get Maryland, regardless.]
(C) Inter-sextile games [3 to 6 games]. Each school’s schedule will be filled, with opponents selected by longest length of time since visiting a given campus, while ensuring that schools with 5 home games in the previous season are awarded 4 in the next. Of course, this section could include 4 to 7 games, if expanding to 10 conference games.
LikeLike
Scout, at some point the Big 10 has to decide whether it wants to be a conference or a TV alliance, with the associated risks to long term stability.
It became a TV alliance when Penn State joined.
At 16 or 18, its still a conference. At 24-28, its a TV alliance. 20-22 is kind of in-between.
These words are meaningless. I recall many people thought 16 was too big to be a conference.
LikeLike
As far as Rutgers and Maryland, we could have gotten the same TV markets with Army and Navy.
This assumes Army and Navy want to be in the Big Ten. Army couldn’t even cut it in Conference USA. Oh, and their other sports (now in the Patriot League) would get clobbered too.
We are all wrong at times, but for some strange reason you do not learn from mistakes. One would think you would see the pattern as major conferences keep expanding and don’t take service academies—and indeed, do not appear to even seriously consider them. There must be reasons for it.
LikeLike
Marc: “One would think you would see the pattern as major conferences keep expanding and don’t take service academies—and indeed, do not appear to even seriously consider them.”
I appears you didn’t understand my comment. I said that I would have preferred Colorado and Mizzou to Rutgers and Maryland. I then elaborated by saying that we could have taken Army and Navy to gain the same TV markets as RU and UMD, and it really wouldn’t make much difference since all four brands are nothingburgers.
LikeLike
Canzano: Handicapping Pac-12 expansion candidates
by John Canzano Sep 28 (much narrative deleted by Colin)
The candidates:
San Diego State
The public research university boasts an alumni base of 300,000 and just opened a new 35,000-seat football stadium on campus. The biggest selling point to the Pac-12, however, is simple old-fashioned geography.
SDSU is located in Southern California, amid 1.1 million television households. Given the defections of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten, adding SDSU feels like a no-brainer for the Pac-12. The conference needs a tentpole university in Southern California. If the Pac-12 is only going to add one or two members, SDSU makes the cut.
Odds: Even
Biggest question: If UCLA somehow ends up staying in Pac-12, is SDSU the only addition?
Southern Methodist University
The big-dollar boosters at SMU are eager for the institution to get to a Power Five Conference. SMU is a research university. That will play well with the academics in the Pac-12. The Mustangs only have an undergraduate enrollment of around 7,000 and play football in Gerald Ford Stadium (capacity: 32,000).
Best of all, the campus sits on 234 acres that sit smack in the middle of a Nielsen TV market (Dallas) that has 2.7 million households. The geography doesn’t work well, but the television market is difficult to ignore.
Odds: 5 to 1
Biggest question: If it takes SMU, would the Pac-12 need to add another Texas-based university?
UNLV
The Pac-12 holds its basketball and football championship games in Las Vegas and conference commissioner George Kliavkoff is well connected on The Strip. There are ample sponsorship opportunities, it’s located in the Pacific Time Zone and the conference would get a foothold in a rapidly growing sports city.
The TV market is just so-so (No. 40 nationally), but UNLV is a speculative play all the way. The football hasn’t been great historically. But conference expansion isn’t about on-field performance as much as it is about adding strategic partners and capturing television households.
I’m placing Vegas in front of some others here because I think it — and 757,000 TV households — offers strong upside. The population in the area grew 8.7 percent from 2010 to 2020. Projections predict that Las Vegas and Southern Nevada could have 3.3 million residents by 2060.
Odds: 6 to 1
Biggest question: Does the growth in Las Vegas continue at record rates in the next 20 years?
Boise State
Boise State desperately wants to get to the Pac-12 or Big 12. It hired consultants to help with that cause, per multiple sources. The Broncos know this is a limited window and maybe their best shot of getting to the Power Five. They currently receive about $5.5 million in annual media rights revenue. Boise State feels like a partner that would be willing to come at a discount in the first few years.
$12 million in year one? $15 million in year two? $20 million in year three?
If the Pac-12 wants to boost the media rights payouts to Oregon, Washington and others, this isn’t a bad way to get there. If the Pac-12 added a couple of reduced-distribution members, it might be able to close the financial gap with the Big Ten and SEC. I don’t think the presidents and chancellors in the Pac-12 will love the academic fit, but this is a new world and Boise State has a strong relationship with ESPN.
If the Pac-12 chooses to add only two members, I have a difficult time seeing Boise State as a pick. But if it adds four or six, this could work.
Odds: 8 to 1
Biggest question: If you add multiple Mountain West Conference schools… do you become the Mountain West?
Rice
If the Pac-12 is going to take SMU, I have to think it would also look hard at Rice University. The Owls are the fifth-smallest school competing in FBS football nationally, but the campus sits in a television market (Houston) that includes 2.5 million homes.
Since 1996, Rice has bounced from the Southwest Conference to the WAC to Conference USA and is now set to join the American Athletic Conference in 2023. But the move is viewed by industry insiders as temporary. Could the Pac-12 poach Rice to help justify the SMU addition? Are there other candidates in Texas and Louisiana that make more sense?
Odds: 9 to 1
Biggest question: The Pac-12 criticized USC and UCLA for ignoring geography, is it committing the same sin here?
Fresno State
I nearly placed the Bulldogs in front of Boise State on this list because I think Fresno State would be more motivated take a substantial discount. It wants to be included. It always has.
The Central California Valley television market doesn’t blow you away, but it’s fertile recruiting territory. The proximity in California to Los Angeles and the Bay Area is a selling point. If you rope in the Sacramento DMA — a reach, I know — the television market starts to get interesting.
The biggest selling point is simply the Pacific Time Zone. If ESPN and others are interested in owning the majority of college football inventory in the time zone, Fresno State could be a wise addition. I don’t think the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors will fall all over themselves to get the Bulldogs. But at the right price?
Odds: 10 to 1
Biggest question: Would Fresno State be willing to come into the conference at a significantly reduced media rights payout?
Southwest Pod
There are a number of interesting universities in Texas and Louisiana that might be attractive if the Pac-12 decides to venture outside the Pacific Time Zone. Would the conference want to grow to 16 teams? If the Pac-12 added SMU and Rice, could it find two other partners and create a four-team pod in the Texas and Louisiana region?
I keep thinking about a conversation I had recently with Mississippi State coach Mike Leach. I asked about the biggest differences between the Pac-12 and SEC. Leach said it was defensive tackles. He pointed to the ample number of talented high school defensive lineman being recruited from Texas and Louisiana. I wonder if the Pac-12 would want to plant a flag in the region.
Odds: 15 to 1
Biggest question: Does this dilute the Pac-12 to the point of no return?
LikeLike
So he’s saying there’s a chance for my Greenies from Tulane to join the PAC?
LikeLike
Rice to the Pac? Loki the Bubba would be thrilled. (Assuming there is still a Pac.)
LikeLike
I wish anyone other than Dodd was reporting this since all of the other reporting is the Big Ten is done. I’m not saying he’s making anything up, but a little part of me thinks he’s getting fed information from Big 12 partisans.
Assuming his report is true, if I were the ACC I would be on the phone with the four corners, KU, TCU, Tech and maybe WV. Jim Phillips needs to channel his inner ninja Swofford and make sure the ACC is the clear #3 conference if the Big Ten makes any more moves.
LikeLike
@Mike – To be sure, Brett McMurphy has also reported on Big Ten expansion and he has been surprisingly (at least for me) very clear about what his sources say: it’s a matter of “when” it happens as opposed to “if” it happens.
Now, I share your skepticism because you’re correct that many other reputable reporters have said the exact opposite. I really vacillate day-to-day (or even hour-to-hour) in going from thinking that there’s no way the Big Ten is expanding for several years to then thinking that the Big Ten will be expanding before the end of the football season… and then back around again. We’ll see.
LikeLike
Who outside of Wilner and Canzano (Pac 10 homers) have said the Big 10 is done?
Even Wilner doesn’t seem certain about it. He always couches his comments with, If the Big 10 doesn’t take anyone else,….
I seem to recall someone saying UW and Oregon didn’t generate enough 2 or 3 weeks ago, but that is the only report I remember saying the Big 10 was done for this contract period.
LikeLike
Getting a B12 team to pay a large exit fee to make less (at least through 2036) in the ACC is going to be a hard sell.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Week 4’s 4m viewer club includes:
5.57m Florida @ Tennessee CBS 3:30p
4.59m Wisconsin @ Ohio State ABC 7:30p
4.38m Maryland @ Michigan FOX noon
Honorable mention: 3.5m Arkansas v. A&M ESPN 7p
LikeLike
This is certainly an endorsement of FOX’s Big Noon strategy. The Michigan–Maryland game was close, but it was not expected to be. That it would be the third highest game of the week is remarkable.
LikeLike
You know, rereading that Dodds article, the only way that “less than $100mm annually” number makes sense is if Dodds meant “less than $100mm annually _per_school_”. It’s possible the B10 presidents have told Warren “if you can get another media deal that pays close to $400mm/year with those 4 schools, we’ll be OK with original B10 schools playing each other less, shipping non-revenue athletes West more often, and add them)”.
Can Warren get that? Certainly by a traditional cost_per_eyeball measure, that seems impossible. But if it’s Amazon, they may not be driven purely by the ads-profit they can derive. They reportedly offered more than CBS & NBC for the primetime and late afternoon slots, and CBS and NBC are already paying a lot for what they’re getting by traditional metrics.
So it’s possible Amazon will pay (slightly) more than CBS/NBC for even worse picks, no CCG, and no UMich/OSU/PSU.
Making the new Amazon slot 4th pick for Friday nights makes a lot of sense.
As someone else on Twitter pointed out, that would lead to a ton of cross-promotional opportunities between the NFL and B10 with the NFL on Amazon Th leading to Fri B10 on Amazon, then Fox&CBS B10 on Sat and NBC primetime Sat leading in to Fox&CBS NFL on Sun and NBC primetime Sun.
To get existing B10 schools to buy in, he may have to promise OSU/UMich/PSU they’d never have to play Friday night* (other than Week Zero and Labor Day weekend) and probably even that the other B10 schools with big stadiums (UNL, Wisconsin, Iowa, and MSU) never have to host on Friday nights (outside of Week Zero, Labor Day weekend and Black Friday).
Now the big question is if Warren can convince Amazon to pay close to $400mm (more than NBC and CBS) for 4th choice (worse than NBC and CBS) with no OSU/PSU/UMich games** (but still plenty of games between USC/UCLA/UO/UWash/Stanford/Wisconsin/UNL/Iowa/MSU/UMTC) to choose from).
A lot of these games would be hosted on the West Coast, so expect many (all?) of the Friday night games to have a 9PM/9:30/10PM Eastern start.
* Virtually all OSU/PSU/UMich games besides the games required to be on BTN would be top 3 picks anyway.
**Well, other than potential Week Zero/Labor Day weekend games.
LikeLike
Frug brought up a good point: adding 4 more West Coast teams means a lot more travel hassle for the MW/E B10 schools. So it’s possible that Amazon has already agreed to paying close to $400mm for 4th choice games Friday night (but no OSU/PSU/UMich games) and now Warren needs to get a critical number of the current 14 schools on board.
LikeLike
To add to this:
The B10 could say none of the current 14 schools have to host Friday night (after Labor Day and before Black Friday) if they don’t want to so Friday night games would mostly be hosted by the 6 new PAC schools. And also, the 14 (really, 11, if no UMich/OSU/PSU) current B10 schools would only go on the road to play a Friday night (after Labor Day and before Black Friday) game at most once a year.
With Week Zero opening up, though, there are actually a lot of slots for Amazon. The top 45 picks by Fox, NBC, and CBS will all be on Sat except for 2 on Black Friday and another Fox one (maybe Th night Week Zero week to kick off the season?). That still leaves Fri night, 3 slots Sun, M night of week zero and Th night, Fri night, 3 slots Sun, and Monday of Labor Day weekend.
Could Amazon pay close to $400mm for 20-22 games (5 Week Zero, 5-6 Labor Day weekend, 11-12 the rest of the season)?
Possibly a bunch of B10 basketball games too?
UO, UW, USC, and UCLA may have to get use to playing several Friday night games every year, though. Then again, they’ll also make a ton more money. And they’re already use to playing Friday nights (UW and UCLA will both play twice on Friday this year, though granted, 1 of UCLA’s is on Black Friday).
LikeLike
I doubt he meant $100 million per school because that would be more than what CBS paid for the 3:30 window for the entire big ten including the big 3 ratings schools. IMO the $100 million for 2 schools and not four.
All sources release information now with a purpose. Nothing is accidentally leaked. No one leaked USC/UCLA joining until it was a done deal so all this information is out there for a purpose. So game out what’s the purpose. So game out what’s the article trying to do.
I think one is obvious is to disrupt the PAC negotiations, making it impossible for it to get a deal. I believe that both the Big Ten and Big 12 want PAC schools but I don’t think the Big Ten wants to hold the knife that killed the PAC for litigious reasons. It would be easier if some schools voluntarily left for the Big 12 first.
I think the Big Ten adding western schools to join USC and UCLA is inevitable. As noted many times here, any school out west would be dilutive but for the long term stability of USC it’s going to have to be done. Penn State complained a lot about having eastern schools and eventually was placated. USC will eventually do the same. What is that number of schools? I think it will be as minimal as necessary so my guess is two but wouldn’t be shocked if it was just one. Which two I have no idea.
LikeLike
There is still one difference between USC and PSU. USC can not realistically threaten to leave the B1G, unless the SEC goes to LA – not likely at all.
There are also the old rumors that USC does not want Oregon or Washington coming to LA.
PSU had a viable ACC option at that time. In fact PSU might have saved the ACC.
LikeLike
That is true but I seriously doubt the Big Ten will tell USC to shut up and be happy because you have nowhere else to go. I think they will try to accommodate USC within reason.
I have a hard time believing the Big Ten would add 4 dilutive schools but I can definitely see Stanford being added at some point. Stanford has been very quiet through this whole process. There has been no reports of Stanford meeting with the Big Ten as opposed to leaks about Oregon and Washington. Couple that with the rumor USC doesn’t want Oregon nor Washington and definitely at least in Washington’s case those schools don’t really alleviate travel concerns for the LA schools, I could see those teams being left out. But if Stanford does get an invite which I think they will, do they go alone or with another school from the PAC other than Oregon or Washington.
Is Amazon willing to pay for Stanford +1. Probably not so is the only purpose of that article to create enough division that the PAC dissolves and the Big Ten can just scoop up Stanford without fear of litigation?
LikeLike
Psuhockey, there is a big difference between Stanford and all the other colleges on the West Coast. Stanford doesn’t need the money.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/10-universities-with-the-biggest-endowments
LikeLike
Colin: Needing the money will have little to do with it. Look at Texas and their endowment. They still joined the SEC.
LikeLike
Richard: “Needing the money will have little to do with it. Look at Texas and their endowment. They still joined the SEC.”
Texas isn’t a good analogy. Texas had no travel issues with the SEC vs B12. It did not lose its key rival (OU) by switching conferences and actually restarted two longtime rivalries, A&M and Arkansas.
Stanford joining the Big Ten would mean enormous travel problems for all Olympic tsports plus losing Cal as its archrival.
LikeLike
Colin,
Need and want are two different things. Stanford has a very successful athletic department especially in nonrevenue sports. They would happily take more TV money to fund it.
It’s easy to discount the nonrevenue sports as not mattering at all, but they are very important for a lot of schools. They don’t bring in the television money but they do attract high achievers and donations.
LikeLike
Stanford doesn’t need the money.
Sure it does. Although Stanford has a huge endowment, most of that money is not for athletics. Less than 18 months ago, the school announced it would be cutting 11 sports. Although they reversed that decision, I doubt they are suddenly swimming in so much cash that money is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Colin, there are a bunch of scenarios out there, but assuming 1 where they lose Cal, yes, they would lose Cal but they would gain/keep USC, which is also a rival and bigger brand, which they would otherwise lose, as well as UCLA.
I notice that you’re like Brian in thinking it’s still 1970.
LikeLike
Richard: ” . . . there are a bunch of scenarios out there, but assuming 1 where they lose Cal, yes, they would lose Cal but they would gain/keep USC, which is also a rival and bigger brand, which they would otherwise lose, as well as UCLA.”
I don’t think that you appreciate that Stanford without Cal will be “double trouble” for the other Big Ten schools to travel to compared to USC and UCLA. When Iowa golf, tennis or volleyball teams fly into LAX they will play doubleheaders with USC and UCLA. This will reduce their travel time and expense by 50% compared to flying into SFO for a one night stand.
Also, we haven’t seen the slightest indication that Stanford wants to follow USC and USLA to the Big Ten. The Cardinal will probably retain both rivalries regardless of which conference they’re in. Oregon is obviously chomping at the bit to get into the Big Ten but Stanford hasn’t blinked.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt the Big Ten will tell USC to shut up and be happy because you have nowhere else to go. I think they will try to accommodate USC within reason.
But USC/UCLA agreed to join with no additional West Coast partners. Indeed, some reports claimed they actively discouraged the Big Ten from adding any more Pac schools. But even discounting that, they were willing to join as the only two, at least for now.
If placating USC is the main reason for adding more schools, I do not see it happening for many years — not until the Trojans played in the 16-team Big Ten for a while, and we find out how big of a problem it is.
If additional Western expansion makes sense, I do like your 3-D chess explanation that the Big Ten is waiting for the Four Corners schools to start flirting with the Big XII. I agree that nobody leaks without a reason, and that is the best explanation yet.
You surely know the Penn State politics a lot better than I do. But the Big Ten’s eastern expansion happened because Maryland wanted out of the ACC—and Maryland was valuable on its own terms, regardless of what Penn State might have wanted. That it also made PSU happy was the cherry on top. But if Maryland had been content in the ACC, I do not see any other Eastern additions that would have been possible (Rutgers not being worthy on its own).
LikeLike
As for travel issues, as several people have noted, it would be an increase in travel of 10-25 hours a year total for non-revenue athletes, depending on the sport. They aren’t traveling by train any more.
LikeLike
Marc, eh. UMD and RU are pretty similar. It was mostly to keep PSU happy and to weaken the ACC.
All that other stuff (BTN footprint, recruiting grounds, B10 alums) nice too.
LikeLike
Marc, eh. UMD and RU are pretty similar. It was mostly to keep PSU happy and to weaken the ACC.
But it was made possible by UMD’s unhappiness in the ACC, something that neither Delany nor PSU had any role in. And Delany had financial projections that were a net win, which made PSU’s opinion a nice-to-have, but ultimately irrelevant.
UMD and RU are not similar, which we know because RU got the call only after UVA said no.
LikeLike
Marc, UVa being more valuable than RU doesn’t make UMD and RU unsimilar.
The B10 has had chances to add schools that would increase revenues before and turned them down. The Eastern additions were driven by the PSU issue.
LikeLike
I absolutely do not think that the B1G will tell USC to shut up. I am the one who thinks that USC when USC signed with the B1G, it got a West Coast veto over Oregon and WA. I have also insisted that the USC situation is not analogous to TAMU, which already was a member of the SEC when TX joined.
LikeLike
The B10 has had chances to add schools that would increase revenues before and turned them down. The Eastern additions were driven by the PSU issue.
You have the syllogism backwards. It’s not that they always say yes when there is a chance to make more money. But when they do say yes, money comes first. No story yet has claimed that they expected to lose money on Maryland and Rutgers, but felt they had to do it to keep PSU happy.
UVa being more valuable than RU doesn’t make UMD and RU unsimilar.
Syllogistically, you could make that argument. However, it is untrue. One illustration is Mandel’s kings-princes-barons-knight-peasants list, which at the time had Maryland as a knight and Rutgers a peasant. (He has since demoted Maryland to peasant.) Maryland was moving to a near-peer league. Rutgers was moving up to a new level.
You could also look at fan and public reaction at the time. Everyone understood that Maryland was somewhat close to a Big Ten type of program, whereas Rutgers was not.
LikeLike
Marc, that’s little more than Mandel’s opinion, and he’s (IMO, too) heavily influenced by recent results on the field.
LikeLike
Marc, that’s little more than Mandel’s opinion, and he’s (IMO, too) heavily influenced by recent results on the field.
That is why I gave multiple data points, not one. By every measure that one could imagine Maryland was an obvious Big Ten type of program, and Rutgers was not.
And beyond that, although that list might be Mandel’s opinion, I think it more-or-less tracked reality at the time. I think you would have found almost nobody who considered Rutgers and Maryland similar. You’ve gotta give that one up.
LikeLike
Bernie,
Also, USC is used to playing in a conference. PSU’s long history as an independent was part of the problem. Many of their fans were too used to PSU being able to schedule whoever they wanted.
USC fans understand having most games pre-determined for you. And they don’t much care about the other P12 football teams as far as rivalries.
LikeLike
What I worry about is maybe you could make the finances work this cycle but what happens if streaming loses interest in sports properties or other bidders cool on sports. It’s likely the per school payout would be higher for all 20 schools next cycle but it’s also possible the per school payout for the 16 schools would have been higher if they didn’t expand.
It seems to me one of the reasons we are seeing higher media rights for the Big Ten and SEC is because the networks are not paying for the other conferences and schools. Addition by subtraction. Maybe I am off base but it would have me concerned especially when adding schools like Cal and Stanford.
LikeLike
Stanford actually draws eyeballs decently well (this is assuming Stanford doesn’t tank to being dreadful going forward). Credit the ND game some for that, but the Cardinal are up there with UO and UW as TV draws (though that still makes all 3 of them Iowa or a little worse).
But yes, right now, Cal would be a big black hole. Great in everything but the most important aspect.
LikeLike
Of course, no one knows what Amazon has really offered for such a crappy package. The question is if it’s sustainable, because otherwise you are feeding those dilutive schools for the next 50 years, at the expense of everyone else.
You have designed a horrible system where the math perhaps works, but the non-king programs take repeated body shots, all in the name of the almighty dollar. Now, I don’t mind if the Big Ten makes more money. But never has such a god-awful way of doing it been proposed.
Do you really think they might consider this, or are you only laying out the particulars to show how terrible it is? I suspect there will easily be enough schools to vote it down, if indeed this Warren’s idea.
Bear in mind, Friday night games are not just an imposition on the home team. They are an imposition on the road team too. I doubt that the Big Ten members will be very impressed with the idea that regular Friday games are great, as long as they are not the host.
Could Amazon pay close to $400mm for 20-22 games (5 Week Zero, 5-6 Labor Day weekend, 11-12 the rest of the season)?
Money aside, there are probably insurmountable logistical issues with having enough Amazon crews to carry 5 or 6 games in each of the first two weeks, but then never more than one game per week thereafter.
LikeLike
Marc, you did note that I’m limiting visiting on Friday night to once a year for each school, right?
And if the Amazon package is for 15 games, if 10 of them are in Week Zero and Labor Day weekend, that would cut down the Friday night games (after Labor Day) to 5.
Your question on whether it would be a sustainable model is a valid concern. Potentially also the one about crews (though I don’t know how fast they can move around; they have a few days between Th/F and Sun and baseball crews work day after day all the time).
LikeLike
BTW, about the sustainability aspect, yeah, for an Amazon deal that pays $400mm/year (or whatever the inflation adjusted number will be) for games the first 2 weeks + Friday nights, the B10 may want to lock that in for 13 years. The top 3 choices per week would still go to the open market after 7 years.
I do understand that many schools do not want to host on Friday night, and as I said, B10 could limit Friday night visits to once a year for each school at most.
So say only those current schools who volunteer host on Fridays (after Labor Day and before Black Friday) as well as the 4 new schools. In their case, it’s the price of admission to the B10.
LikeLike
Dodds specifically said OSU, MI and PSU wouldn’t be playing in the Amazon games.
As CBS Sports reported last week, the newest media partner would not get any games involving Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State.
He also added this:
A different industry critic stressed there is no strategic reason for the Big Ten to expand further. In fact, that person thought expansion might invite lawsuits from slighted programs and possible scrutiny from the federal government.
LikeLike
Dodds specifically said OSU, MI and PSU wouldn’t be playing in the Amazon games.
True, but this is a non-existent agreement. Maybe the B10 tested the waters with Amazon to see what a such a package would be worth. It does not mean the parties will ever sign such a deal.
LikeLike
Agreed.
I felt the quote was relevant since Richard had speculated that maybe those 3 would be exempt from the games.
LikeLike
Brian: “A different industry critic stressed there is no strategic reason for the Big Ten to expand further.”
Duh. Duh, Brian, duh. Got it into your head , Brian?
LikeLike
WTF is your problem? I’m the most anti-expansion person here, I just accept that it may happen (not will, may) and I can understand the rationale behind it. I’ve never supported it. I don’t want more P12 schools, and I don’t want more ACC schools.
Even that critic would agree that the B10 would expand if (huge if) ND wanted to join, and it would make strategic sense. The critic was speaking in terms of the P12 schools.
LikeLike
Northwestern is building a new football stadium. It will cost $800 million and will be funded entirely with donations.
The facility, which will still be called Ryan Field, will seat just 35,000. That’s twelve thousand fewer than the one it replaces, which was already the smallest in the Big Ten. There are only a couple of Power Five schools with smaller stadiums than that (Wake Forest, Washington State). But it makes sense, as NU seldom sells out.
LikeLike
It makes a lot of sense given attendance issues and how small the local fanbase is; there’s just not much they can do when I’d imagine only a small % of students graduate and stay in Chicago; the structure will be very aggressively shaped so that it sounds a fair bit louder than the current bowl structure even with 12k less people.
Sightlines look impressive; upper deck will be within 110-140 feet of the field whereas the typical bowl structures have those over 200 feet out.
I’m not too surprised the cost is going to be well above every estimate (early estimates were $400-500 million) given it’s a total rebuild and will include pretty much top of the line everything in an expensive market to build.
Ryan family had given $480 million with around half budgeted to the stadium and other half to academics. Sounds as if their stadium donation will go from $240 million up to over $400 million. I’ve heard they’re paying at least 50% regardless of how high the eventual cost goes.
Either way long overdue; will end up having spent well over $1.2 billion on athletics facilities over the 2016-2026 period when the stadium is finished.
LikeLike
Seems like a ridiculous amount of money for only 35k seats. You could create an endowment with money to pay players and coaches. 35k is extremely low for a Big Ten school.
LikeLike
Tulane’s stadium seats around 30k. It might have cost $200m when it was built a decade ago. It is very nice.
I’m a stadium nerd and this past summer completed my quest to attend games in all MLB ballparks.
$800m for a 35k seat CFB stadium with no land acquisition costs or other infrastructure means there will be MLB/NFL-type amenities out the wazoo. Is every seat going to be in a club or suite?
TCU’s stadium is probably the best I’ve visited with its mix of MLB/NFL-type amenities and feel of a ballpark. It has roughly 50k seats. It went through an almost complete rebuild a decade ago and they just added another club. I doubt they spent half of what Northwestern says they will spend.
LikeLike
Mini-purple-Jerryworld in Evanston!
And yeah, it does seem to me that NU could spend this money in more impactful ways to society elsewhere, but if a top donor or several tells you he’s giving 9 figures to build a new stadium, then just do it?
And yes, maybe the idea is to get high-powered/high-net-worth NU alums to rent/buy suites?
NU expects to take in more revenue with the new smaller stadium than they do now, so revenue-per-fannwill go up.
LikeLike
Revenue per fan will assuredly go (way up) given the NFL-style amenities, but I’d also assume that there will be a fair bit more events in this stadium.
More concerts and other events seems pretty likely.
LikeLike
Here’s what $300m in renovations to 75% of the stadium over the last decade will get you in Fort Worth.
https://gofrogs.com/sports/2018/7/13/facilities-tcu-facilities-football-html.aspx
LikeLike
Here’s what $73m could get you in New Orleans eight years ago.
https://tulanegreenwave.com/facilities/yulman-stadium/30
It was constructed in such a way to expand up to 40k, in the event a M3 or P2 conference comes calling.
LikeLike
There are 10 MLB parks (one-third of the total) with a capacity under 41k. I didn’t realize Cleveland down-sized and is now the smallest ballpark in the Majors. Whenever Tampa Bay and Oakland get around to building new parks, they will likely be closer to 30k than 40k.
LikeLike
The issue is just, does it make sense to build a larger venue that can hold more seats for Ohio State/Michigan/Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Michigan State, or does it make sense to build a smaller venue with gold-plated amenities for every seat.
35k sounds small, but the structure that they’re looking at will be a far better atmosphere than any 50k shaped bowl structure.
The upper deck will be relatively close to the field (about 50-75 feet closer than most larger stadiums). The canopy will keep in noise.
It’ll look, feel, play way better in person and on TV than the current stadium.
40k+ seats doesn’t really make that much sense for a small private school with maybe only 1/3 or 1/4 of its alumni base in Chicago if there’s not much of a T-shirt fanbase like ND or Miami has/have.
LikeLike
35,000 screams AAC or MWC. They really should go to 40k.
They won’t be able to handle the big crowds. They have averaged over 40k for the season 4 times going back to 1996 and over 35k 6 additional times. From 2010-2019, they were over 35k 6 times and the lowest was 33,366.
LikeLike
Sounds like MLB approach. Price out some of your fan base but generate more $$s. Not really the idea of college athletics which is to connect with as many alumni as possible.
LikeLike
(NU doesn’t have a lot of undergraduate alums; and most of them live outside Chicagoland and aren’t within driving distance.)
LikeLike
Design looks like it would be very difficult to expand, so they may be stuck with 35k.
LikeLike
That design looks impossible to expand; whatever the # is, will be the permanent #.
I am curious for what the plan is for games against Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska.
Pretty sure every game against those 3 has been sold out for years; I can’t recall an Ohio State or Michigan game that wasn’t a 47k+ sellout in fact.
So are the tickets just going to be stupidly expensive for games where demand is way north of 35k?
LikeLike
And even teams like Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State have each sold out Ryan Field several times in recent memory.
But yeah, I can understand the concerns about a Big Ten venue in Chicago being that small; but at the same time, pricing will mean the revenue comes in regardless.
LikeLike
“So are the tickets just going to be stupidly expensive for games where demand is way north of 35k?”
Seems like that’s the plan. Seems like NU wants to make season tickets (and big game tickets) valuable.
The model seems to be Cameron Indoor Stadium (football version).
LikeLike
Vandy never has a homefield advantage with its 40K stadium.
Maybe Northwestern is making the new stadium that small as to accommodate Wildcat fans, and limit visitors to the visitors’ sections
LikeLike
Alan, that is the speculation on the Iowa boards. Keep visiting fans from taking over half the stadium.
LikeLike
Maybe Northwestern is making the new stadium that small as to accommodate Wildcat fans, and limit visitors to the visitors’ sections
There is going to be a lot of Northwestern season tickets going to be purchased by brokers to accommodate the large visiting Big Ten fan bases. It may actively push their fans out of the bigger games.
LikeLike
The donors and alumni always have first crack at college season tickets, and there are always a few seats reserved for students and visitors. Any tickets brokers get will be taken from casual fans that buy single game tickets. However, these fans can probably buy season tickets at the new stadium and finance them by selling off the top game or two to a ticket broker.
LikeLike
(psss, Mike, take a look at how purple the stands are during big games at Evanston).
LikeLike
Fenway Park on the Lake.
LikeLike
I guess Northwestern will try to steal the concerts normally scheduled at Wrigley Field.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s a fair bet that the new stadium will get a fair bit more use than just 6-7 football games and a graduation ceremony.
Concerts and other events like that seems like a pretty logical use case given the size and likely amenities.
LikeLike
Concert wise, I think it hurts Ravinia (Highland Park) more than it hurts Wrigley
LikeLike
The U.S. Air Force Academy has been grounded, errrr put on probation.
The NCAA is downright unpatriotic!
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34690748/air-force-football-placed-two-years-probation-recruiting-violations-covid-19-dead-periods
LikeLike
Thinking about the Dodds article more, a Friday night (early season off-Saturday) Amazon deal makes a lot of sense except for the most important part: the money part.
If the total deal is $100mm, I can see why Amazon would pay that as that would be a cheap price, but why would that induce the B10 to add 4 more schools and dilute for everyone?
If it’s close to $100mm/school (so $400mm total), sure then the B10 has reason to add 4 schools, but that is actually more than double the market worth of those 4 schools. And note that while Amazon is willing to overpay some, it didn’t overpay by double even for the NFL. Just enough to beat out the competition.
So in short, unless ND comes, we’ll have to wait for the ACC to collapse (though I suppose 2 of Stanford/UO/UW could be added in a nondilutive manner).
LikeLike
Yes indeed, I think you have correctly assessed that a package of the crappiest games at the worst times is worth far less than the major nets are paying for the best games at the best times.
I could write a whole essay on why the package as you designed would never and could never be done. But as the money isn’t there, the essay is not needed.
I suppose 2 of Stanford/UO/UW could be added in a nondilutive manner…
I suspect the Big Ten presidents are still following a version of the Delany rule, which is that additions need to be much better than merely nondilutive.
LikeLike
Back on Stanford, my unscientific BIG expansion theory pre-announcement, is USC wanted in for sure and was wanted for sports, UCLA needed in for $, made a single city travel partner and rival for USC, as well as double-header LA weekends possible for other sports, and thereby was an obvious second.
Stanford was projected to come in with ND if ND said yes. ND paid for both so no need to analyze Stanford any further. BIG probably would have sat at 18.
Now, with ND apparently getting a new NBC TV pay raise, the talk is plan B, C, etc., now versus a decade forward. Washington and Oregon probably weren’t even considered yet, nor any east coast schools.
Some term resolution is coming down the barrel soon for PAC, Big 12, and BIG soon. I tend to agree with Wilner of the PAC moving forward as is until 2030s, unless new Big 12 TV negotiations make some PAC schools jump to them.
Big 12 could actually be a mover in this with no LA to play in and potentially more $ depending on TV offers- think no SoCal for AZ schools, CO as an isolated, newer member without UT or Neb to return to, and UT following BYU.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with Wilner of the PAC moving forward as is until 2030s, unless new Big 12 TV negotiations make some PAC schools jump to them.
The Big XII is playing a pretty good hand. They have no schools that the Big Ten or SEC would conceivably covet, so that league is going to be stable for a while. They lack a premier program, but they have mostly solid ones in markets that are passionate about college football. Any Pac school joining would play in the more desirable Eastern and Central time zones (no more after dark games) and would have regular recruiting trips to Texas.
It is entirely possible that the Big XII’s TV deal will be better than the Pac-12’s. In short, no matter what Wilner says, I think it’s likely that a few Pac schools will at least consider offers from the Big XII.
LikeLike
Marc – the B12’s next football deal probably looks like this:
B12 #1 – FOX 3;30p window
B12 #2 – FS1 noon window
B12 #3 – Maybe FS1, maybe ESPN, maybe streaming
Everything else – ESPN+ or Amazon or Apple
LikeLike
Alan, I don’t believe Fox (or anyone) will commit to an exclusive window for the B12 (because they can’t be assured that the B12 will have a network-worthy game every week), but it’s likely that Fox and ESPN will split the first 1-2 B12 picks every week and the rest go to a streamer.
LikeLike
Richard – FOX and FS1 would be either be prohibited from running a B1G game in those windows or competing against itself. I think its safe to have the B12 #1 as a sacrificial lamb going against ABC’s SEC game and CBS’ B1G game.
But you might be right, Disney and Fox may split the baby as they did this time. But unless the B12 has a top 10 matchup, I can’t see them getting a better spot with Disney than some time on ESPN2. Of the three ABC windows and the three ESPN windows, I anticipate the SEC or ACC (mostly SEC) filling all those slots most weeks. Disney/SEC have shown hesitation to compete against themselves.
LikeLike
Right, Fox can’t show B10 games in the later afternoon or primetime. Which means they can show B12 games in the afternoon or primetime on Fox and any timeslot on FS1. So I don’t see why they’d lock in with the B12 on that 1 timeslot and channel.
I still see Fox and ESPN splitting the best B12 games with the rest going to a streamer.
LikeLike
This week the Big 12 has ABC, Fox, FS1, ESPN2 and ESPN+ for its 5 games.
With 12 teams, they won’t have but a couple of games on ESPN+ (or the equivalent).
BYU and Houston were TH/F on ESPN. I’ve forgotten, but I believe UCF was on ESPN2, however their game got moved. Cincinnati is on ESPNU.
LikeLike
It seems far more likely that the B12 is leaking rumors about possible B1G offers to PAC schools as a way to help nudge the 4 corner schools in their direction than the B1G actually considering dilutive offers to 2 or 4 more PAC schools. Even if none of them jump to the B12 it helps foster the weakened PAC narrative at a time when both leagues are looking to solidify their place in the pecking order. Time will tell.
LikeLike
It seems far more likely that the B12 is leaking rumors about possible B1G offers to PAC schools as a way to help nudge the 4 corner schools in their direction…
I have an innate distrust of off-the-record rumors. But I think Dodd and McMurphy are good enough reporters that they would not accept a Big XII source as an authority on what the Big Ten and Pac-12 are thinking about. The Dude of WV might do that, but I do not believe Dodd or McMurphy would.
LikeLike
Yeah, McMurphy being so adamant that the extra B10 Pac additions will happen suggests that someone in the B10 office really wants them to happen (B10 schools make the final decision, though).
LikeLike
Some of you refuse to believe them, but Dodd and McMurphy both said they had Big 10 sources on those stories.
There seems to be a bunch of people who just can’t believe the Big 12 still exists.
LikeLike
The Big-12 is pathetic. With the exception of Kansas and West Virginia, the conference will very soon have no schools that are even top dog in their state or TV market. And those two schools are not considered the conference standard-bearers (for football). The conference is stable because it is undesirable as things currently stand.
The only thing the Big-12 really has going for it right now in football are a number of stellar coaches. Why Coach Mullet never left Oklahoma State is beyond me, as the school was the launch pad to far greater things for Jimmy Johnson and Mr. Hat @ LSU. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Aranda and Campbell will eventually move on to better gigs.
At that point, the conference could sink to 3rd-tier in football, buoyed only by access to the Texas and Florida scraps left on the table by the Longhorns, Aggies, Sooners, Razorbacks, Tigers, Gators, and Seminoles. Put that together with a lack of academic prestige and the Pac-12 schools should look to go there for what reason?
The Pac-12 has the top dog in all of its markets. Even if they lose the northern top dogs, 3 of the 4 corner schools remain top dogs in their markets. They will be the ones with leverage when negotiating their new home environs with the likes of the Big-12, not the other way around. If the corner schools are deserted by UW, Oregon, Stanford, and Cal; IMO they are more likely to form a new conference with their view of the “best of the rest” than join the Big-12 as is. And I see absolutely no reason for them to make any proactive moves.
LikeLike
The problem is that most of the Pac area just doesn’t care all that much about college football (besides OR and UT, the latter which the PAC will share with the B12) while the B12 schools are located in areas that care a lot more about college football and thus will watch its games some.
LikeLike
Plus, the Big 12 is currently the best basketball conference and will probably get a little stronger net., at least in the short run.
The Big 12 has also been the 2nd strongest football conference most of the last few years despite Texas being mediocre. Massey is currently ranking them #1 this year after being #2 last year, #1 in 2020 and #2 in 2019. Pac 12 was basically tied with AAC and MWC in the final Massey last year and won 28% of its ooc games vs. FBS, worst of the 10 conferences.
Big 12 has most of the last 10 years been ##3 in distributions also. So if they are pathetic, what do you think about the rest of the non-P2?
LikeLike
Well, that was with Texas and OU, though.
But the B12 without Texas & OU is more attractive than the Pac without the LA schools. Probably about or more attractive than the ACC without their FL schools and Clemson (ACC without the football powers would still be a basketball powerhouse, though).
LikeLike
That would have been cool, but alas. Regarding the current scene, couldn’t they pounce on some nearby large commercial parcel from a concern leaving SoCal?
https://news.yahoo.com/why-uclas-plans-campus-football-135739954.html
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd: College Football Playoff expansion may put early rounds in competition with NFL for viewership.
CFB leaders have apparently decided that the first-round games need to be played over two days, which certainly makes more sense than trying to cram them all into one day.
But at that time of year, the NFL plays on Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. It appears the solution is to play on Thursday and Friday, with at least one of the Thursday games going head-to-head against the NFL on Amazon.
There was a report a few months ago that the whole season might start a week earlier, on what is now “Week 0,” to accommodate the playoff The article cited above describes that proposal as “problematic,” with the reasons unstated.
There is already agreement that the first round needs to be at least 12 days after the CCGs, and the second round will be played over New Year’s weekend. That leaves only a couple of dates when the second round could imaginably be played.
They are still looking at starting the playoff in 2024, though it is not yet agreed to do so.
LikeLike
Sorry… That leaves only a couple of dates when the first round could imaginably be played.
LikeLike
So yes, there are only a handful of dates when the 1st round games can be played. THEN PLAY THEM ON THOSE HANDFUL OF DATES.
The NFL isn’t playing games in every single one of those timeslots. I’m pretty certain 4 empty ones can be found.
This stuff isn’t rocket science.
LikeLike
Duh!!!
Most people make complex things much more complex than they need to be.
You just simplify the problem into its pieces.
LikeLike
Yep. I think you can tell who’s worked in the business world in this thread.
LikeLike
1st round games could conceivably be spread over more than 2 days. Winners of those games aren’t playing each other, after all, and their opponent would have a big rest advantage anyway.
Also, I don’t see any NFL games the Saturday before Christmas Eve this year. When they did play, it seems like the NFL didn’t take up all the time slots on that Saturday (before Christmas Eve) and had them on the NFL Network. There’s also no rule saying the 1st round games can’t be on Tue or Wed (before Christmas Eve) besides Fri and Sat.
I’ve said this before, but this really should be easy-peasy stuff, but the geniuses who run college football seem unable to think outside the box (or think much at all; they’ve already managed to argue themselves out of hundreds of millions of extra dollars by not expanding the CFP ASAP).
LikeLike
1st round games could conceivably be spread over more than 2 days.
Not really. CCGs are December 7, 2024. They do not want to play the very next week, for reasons that I hope do not require explanation. They probably do not want to play on a non-holiday Tuesday or Wednesday, for reasons that I hope do not require explanation.
That gets you to Thursday, December 19, and Friday, December 20, 2024. Play those two days, and three out of four games have no NFL conflict. It also means all four winners have approximately the same amount of time to prepare for their next game, so it is more-or-less equally fair to everybody.
I don’t see any NFL games the Saturday before Christmas Eve this year.
This would be extremely useful information if they had a 12-team playoff this year.
There’s also no rule saying the 1st round games can’t be on Tue or Wed (before Christmas Eve) besides Fri and Sat.
You really seem determined to play games at the worst imaginable times. What could possibly go wrong?
LikeLike
“They probably do not want to play on a non-holiday Tuesday or Wednesday, for reasons that I hope do not require explanation.”
You seem to not want to explain because whatever explanation you give likely will not hold up to scrutiny. And yes, that the NFL doesn’t play the Saturday before Christmas this year or last year is pertinent information. Do we know if they’ll even play on the Saturday before Christmas in the future? And why is Th night OK but Tue or Wed night not?
Again, this is not rocket science:
If there are only a handful of dates/timeslots when the NFL isn’t playing and the 1st round games can be played. THEN PLAY THEM ON THOSE HANDFUL OF DATES/TIMESLOTS.
LikeLike
You ought to be skeptical when a person who has never done a thing, says that this thing is easy. It’s like when the armchair fan (who has never played a down) yells at the TV that he could coach the team better than the actual coach.
Now, in the case of the playoff, we are talking about very large numbers and a lot of egg on faces if they get it wrong. Remember, the BCS spread out the major bowls over multiple days, and ratings went down. Playoff games on New Year’s Eve did not work out so well. This is the risk you take when you try something nobody has done before, like playing on (non-holiday) Tuesdays.
So this is a decision you want to make very carefully, because a screw-up would be awfully expensive. The idea of playing the first round on a Tuesday is so ludicrous that I am not going to waste pixels explaining all the reasons no sane person would do it.
LikeLike
Marc; ” The idea of playing the first round on a Tuesday is so ludicrous . . .”
That is generally true but the two-week period around the Xmas/New Year holidays is clearly an exception. Students are all out of school and evening TV is a choice between Miracle on 34th Street and It’s A Wonderful Life.
Excluding Xmas eve, Xmas day, NY eve and NY day, I believe any day of the week would be good for the playoff games.
LikeLike
Not getting it done is awfully expensive.
Its really not that hard. Just administrators who want to make it hard. Too many lawyers involved in the negotiations.
And nothing done now is set in stone. If something doesn’t work, you change it for 2026.
They scheduled games with less than a week’s notice in 2020 during the pandemic.
Its just balancing everyone’s interests that is difficult You quit fooling around, make decisions on the dates and other issues and then deal with the bottlenecks, such as availability of sites.
The presidents were tired of the commissioners playing games and made some decisions and told them to get it done.
Never let the perfect get in the way of achieving the good.
LikeLike
What Bullet said.
They’re costing the institutions they work for real money with their stupid slow-walking.
Marc, I gotta wonder how much experience you have in the real world as you keep thinking there much be Good Rational Reasons for dumb confounding unexplainable slowness when oftentimes, it’s just ego and collective action problems.
LikeLike
And also what Colin said. A Tuesday playoff game around the holidays (when bowl games are normally played) is no more ludicrous than a Thursday playoff game around the holidays.
LikeLike
A Tuesday playoff game around the holidays (when bowl games are normally played) is no more ludicrous than a Thursday playoff game around the holidays.
There are a few key differences here. First, the winners get to play another game, so you need to consider prep time for the next round. Second, you want every team’s prep time to be similar, so that you are not saddling anyone with an unfair disadvantage.
Of course, only the very worst bowl games are played on a non-holiday Tuesday. It is the bowl game graveyard. The teams playing in those games lose money. The payout is a pittance. Even at Christmas time, Tuesday games do not attract many viewers. At no level of the sport are Tuesday or Wednesday games regularly played.
Taking the 2024 season as an example, the CCGs would be on Saturday, December 7. The first round would be on campus on Thursday and Friday, December 19-20. The second round would be at the major bowls on Tuesday and Wednesday, 12/31 and 1/1. Thus, every team would have 12–13 days of preparation if they played in a CCG. And every first-round winner would then have similar preparation time for the second round. That is as fair as you can make it.
I assume the Thursday, December 19, games would have start times of roughly 5pm and 8:30pm ET, so only the second one would go up against the NFL on Amazon. Three out of four would have no NFL competition. The Dodd article implies that this is what they are likely to do.
Marc, I gotta wonder how much experience you have in the real world as you keep thinking there much be Good Rational Reasons for dumb confounding unexplainable slowness when oftentimes, it’s just ego and collective action problems.
You must have me confused with someone else. I am not defending their slowness. Quite the opposite, I agree with everyone here that they should get it done already. I was just explaining what they very obviously will not do, which is to play games on campus on a mid-December Tuesday, which no reporter covering the sport has suggested they are even considering.
There is no problem I can think of, and you have not stated any, for which mid-December Tuesday night games are the the answer. By the way, the model the presidents approved states that the first round would be played “the second or third weekend in December…with at least 12 days between the conference championship games and the first-round games.”
LikeLike
Marc: “Second, you want every team’s prep time to be similar, so that you are not saddling anyone with an unfair disadvantage.”
This will be flat-out impossible. Notre Dame and wild-card selections that don’t play conference championship games will always have an extra week’s prep time.
LikeLike
This will be flat-out impossible. Notre Dame and wild-card selections that don’t play conference championship games will always have an extra week’s prep time.
My post referred to preparation time, which means having an opponent to prepare for. No playoff team will know its opponent until after the CCGs. I do understand that independents and at-large selections will have an extra week of rest.
LikeLike
“Second, you want every team’s prep time to be similar, so that you are not saddling anyone with an unfair disadvantage.”
Irrelevant as they’re not playing each other in the second round anyway, so none of the 2nd round games will feature teams with the same prep time but fine, if you really want it to be fair, assign the time slots by random draw.
Anyway, play it on the 3rd Fri and Sat then. Main point is that this stuff just isn’t that difficult. But the 1st round games would have to be played before Christmas, no matter what dates you choose, when none of the major bowl games are played, so that was also an irrelevant criticism of Tuesday/Wednesday first round games, especially since playoff games have happened on Tuesday & Wednesday before.
LikeLike
“My post referred to preparation time, which means having an opponent to prepare for. No playoff team will know its opponent until after the CCGs.”
If you’re referring to prepping for the 1st round games, both opponents who are facing off will have the same amount of prep time against each other after the official announcement regardless of when those 4 games are played, so again an irrelevant point.
LikeLike
Now that we have a 12-team playoff, this is a good type to rethink the entire college football schedule. Considerations:
– Compared to 25-30 years ago, virtually all colleges are starting the autumn semester within the last two weeks of August. Thus the so-called “Week O” is now open for scheduling games.
– Back in the Good Ole Days, Rivalry Week was the weekend before Thanksgiving. Students were still on campus and attendance was very good. Starting the season in Week O would allow us to return Rivalry Week to that time and move the conference championship games to Turkey weekend. Those games are not on campus anyway so an empty campus is not a problem.
– Moving the CCGs to Turkey week then frees up the second week in December to accommodate first round playoff games with a 12-16 day break after the CCGs.
It’s not a no-brainer but that scenario seems to be the best way to accommodate the 12-team playoff without radical changes to the current format.
LikeLike
@Richard: Rather than rebut it again, I would ask what is the purported problem for which mid-December Tuesday and Wednesday games are the best answer. I cannot think of one, and you haven’t stated any.
The presidents already signed off on a plan that requires 12 days of separation between the CCGs and the first round. You would probably conclude that anyway, even if they had not mandated it—but they did. In 2024, that knocks out Tuesday 12/10 and 12/17. The next Tuesday is 12/24, which would leave the winners just a week to prep before the second round, and you presumably do not want that either. Tuesdays and Wednesdays are out.
Anyway, play it on the 3rd Fri and Sat then.
The Dodd article said they are looking at Thursday, which I have no reason to disbelieve. Friday and Saturday would work too, but the Dodd article said that if they are going to compete against the NFL, Thursday is better.
LikeLike
Marc, it’s interesting that you can’t think of a problem that playing on Tue and Wed solve when you mention it in that reply: the NFL doesn’t play on Tue and Wed.
Now granted, with the very tight window, the 1st round games may have to be played Fri and Sat anyway (unless the powers-that-be adopt Colin’s suggestion and start the season what is now Week Zero or even the week earlier and end the regular season the weekend before Thanksgiving).
LikeLike
em,>Marc, it’s interesting that you can’t think of a problem that playing on Tue and Wed solve when you mention it in that reply: the NFL doesn’t play on Tue and Wed.
I said that I could not think of a problem for which playing Tuesday and Wednesday was the best answer. I did, of course, realize the one advantage it has: no NFL. It is so undesirable in every other way that I cannot imagine they would do it. And that was before I realized that the plan the presidents signed off on actually precluded those days.
LikeLike
Marc, you seem to think that playing on a holiday Tue or Wed is just immensely worse than playing on a holiday Thu when the NFL is playing for some unfathomable reason.
LikeLike
BTW, Marc, it’s “one source” in the Dodd’s article who says CFB would rather go against a streamer than a cable or OTA network, but I given the choice between going against the NFL Network or Amazon, I’d rather go against the NFLN.
LikeLike
Marc, you seem to think that playing on a holiday Tue or Wed is just immensely worse than playing on a holiday Thu when the NFL is playing for some unfathomable reason.
Rather than me explain it again, tell us what your schedule would be.
LikeLike
Marc, I believe I mentioned it before:
Any open slots before Christmas Eve when the NFL doesn’t play (or is only on the NFLN) that fits the window the college Presidents set.
LikeLike
Any open slots before Christmas Eve when the NFL doesn’t play (or is only on the NFLN) that fits the window the college Presidents set.
That precludes Tuesdays and Wednesdays in 2024, the first year they could play. CCGs are Saturday, 12/7. The presidents mandated a 12-day break after the CCGs, which wipes out the second and third Tuesdays of the month, and the fourth is Christmas Eve.
LikeLike
Weekdays on which bowl/playoff games will be held this season:
Five on Mondays
Seven on Tuesdays
Five on Wednesdays
Four on Thursdays
Nine on Fridays
Twelve on Saturdays
None on Sunday.
https://bowlseason.com/sports/bowl/schedule/2022-23
LikeLike
Weekdays on which bowl/playoff games will be held this season:
You have miscounted. There are 7 on Mondays and 5 on Tuesdays, and so forth. But anyhow, the days of the week are skewed by when Christmas and NYD fall, which are different every year.
Perhaps more relevant to this conversation is that the earliest bowl this year is on Friday 12/16. That day or 12/17 is the last realistic date a first-round game could be played if there were a 12-team playoff this year.
If they were playing bowls on Tuesday 12/13, that would be quite interesting, but naturally they are not.
LikeLike
Marc: “. . . the days of the week are skewed by when Christmas and NYD fall, which are different every year.”
Yes, we all know this. But we nonetheless have a blessed bounty of days in December to dedicate to playoff games. We have Mondays and Tuesdays and Fridays and Thursdays and Saturdays. It can be done without playing on Xmas eve/Xmas day.
Now, we might need to displace the HOMETOWN LENDERS BAHAMAS BOWL or the JIMMY KIMMEL LA BOWL PRESENTED BY STIFEL. But it could be done.
LikeLike
ESPN offers $800 Million over five years, but hey guys, the PAC 12 sticks together! I learned it here. Yup. Nothing happens until 2143! 😂
LikeLike
Apparently word has gotten back to PAC soothsayer Jon Wilner, because he has gone full Jonathan Swift with an (im)Modest Proposal for Amazon to gobble the conference whole. ESPN isn’t even mentioned, which confirms it.
LikeLike
BTW, only two days ago, on his podcast, Wilmer was predicting between 40-50M per school-with ESPN still in the mix. This lowball scuttlebutt dropped yesterday, just in time for Jon to pen A Brave New World. For Jon’s sake I wish the PAC would survive, but behind the scenes the winds of change keep blowing.
LikeLike
My brother’s at the UCLA game against #15 Washington and says it’s well over half full. Still, that’s weak when you consider they had a $20 ticket deal (with kids 17 and under getting in for free). Troy Aikman is using Northwestern’s new stadium as the prototype for a new 30g seat Westwood based stadium he’s spearheading. I hope he succeeds, but with USC averaging 66g (along with Washington) and Oregon averaging over 100g, it does reflect poorly on the Bruin (faithful). It’ll be interesting to see the impact B1G membership has on attendance.
LikeLike
Another issue, that UCLA-Wash game started at 7:30 PT, 10:30 ET and according to the UCLA Bruins website it’s 31.3 miles and about 38 minutes via interstate. Using the Metro on city streets, it’s two hours.
LikeLike
“Oregon averaging over 100g”
Huh?
Autzen is nowhere near that big. What are you counting?
LikeLike
In fact, UO managed to sell out Autzen only once in 2021 despite Autzen only holding 54K (the OrSt rivalry game). In 2018 (when UW visited), UO only managed to sell out Autzen for the UW and UCLA games).
LikeLike
That stadium, with its unobstructed San Gabriel Mtn setting, has obviously paid huge dividends in selling the California dream for the past 100 yeats, but it couldn’t be in a more inconvenient location.
LikeLike
When the nets can’t even show the sunset anymore without revealing the pathetic crowd size, you know it’s time for a boutique Westwood stadium 😂
LikeLike
Dearest Richard, I don’t know how that number popped into my head, but I appreciate your correction. I was uproariously wrong. You’ll be disappointed to learn that I take great pleasure in owning my mistakes. It actually makes me feel good 😁.
LikeLike
$160mm/year probably only for “tier 1” (say, the top 16-20 games a year), not all Pac rights.
But that figure also means there’s no way anyone would be willing to pay the B10 $300mm/year more to add 4 more Pac schools. Extra $150mm/year to add 2 of the best Pac TV draws remaining also pretty unlikely.
LikeLike
The big issue is that the top 15 games of the PAC without the LA schools will draw in total roughly 1/3rd the viewers as the top 15 games in the Fox B10 package and the CBS SEC tier 1 package.
That doesn’t get you a lot of money.
And some of the very top drawing games are when power programs from elsewhere come to play @ PAC teams (like ND@Stanford).
LikeLike
Yikes, I just read today’s PAC12 and Amazon exclusive proposal by Wilner.
Boy, I remember all the scuttle 11 years ago in Texas and the band-aids to hold the Big 12 together as a conference, but that involved UT staying put as the anchor and Oklahoma staying for a few years.
I think USC and the LA market, along with UCLA, was the PAC’s anchor as a conference.
It is shakey ground and a buyer’s market in the west.
LikeLike
Hard to tell if this is a Swiftian modest proposal or if he really thinks they should do this. Several articles have mentioned that revenue and distribution do not necessarily coincide. This is why the Big Ten reportedly turned down Amazon, even though they could have made more money there.* You do not want your best games on a platform more than half the country doesn’t have access to.
(* The Big Ten did give a handful of games to Peacock, which feels like a mistake to me. But those will be the worst games, and in the context of a record-breaking deal they were willing to take that risk.)
LikeLike
More than half the country has access to Amazon Prime.
Right now, Thursday Night NFL games on Amazon aren’t drawing very different viewership from last year (actually, considerably outdrawing TNF games that were exclusively on the NFL Network)
Last week, the Th night NFL game on Amazon outdrew both of the MNF games (on ABC and ESPN).
LikeLike
The best estimate I could find was that 42% of the country has Amazon Prime. (By “access” I meant that they had signed up. Perhaps by “access” you mean that they could if they wanted to.)
I think there is a novelty factor, and a conference would want more than 2–3 weeks of evidence before basing their entire strategy on that. I am certainly not surprised it outdraws the NFL Network — I am sure everyone expected that.
LikeLike
The NFL Network is in about 57.4M TV households, or about 47.5%, so the two are similar in penetration.
LikeLike
I presume that there are very different demographics between the NFL Network and Amazon Prime. People who sign up for the relatively inexpensive NFL Net are doing it to watch football.
People who sign up to Prime are generally there for the “free shipping” or perhaps Prime Video, or other Prime benefits.
Prime membership numbers alone will not disclose possible interest in streaming college football. Of course, Amazon will certainly overpay just to test the market.
LikeLike
A lot of people don’t “sign up” for the NFL Network, maybe of them “got” the NFL Network as part of an overall cable/satellite package. And wouldn’t necessarily watch it or even know what channel number it was. The NFL really pushed their channel to be on wider distribution, more than other league networks (and had the influence to be able to do so).
People who have Prime streaming are aware of it and use it. They might not care about the NFL per se, but if they are they would generally know the games are on there and would find them easily.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34714751/wisconsin-fires-football-coach-paul-chryst-sources-say
Wow! Apparently WI is turning into OSU. Paul Chryst is out after averaging 9-3, winning 10 games 4 times in 6 full seasons (2020 doesn’t count), and winning 3 B10W titles. That is what losing big to IL at home does to a coach.
Jim Leonhard should do a good job as the interim, and I fully expect him to be their choice for the full job.
Chryst, 56, finishes 67-26 in seven-plus seasons at Wisconsin, his alma mater. He won 10 games or more in four of his first five seasons with the Badgers, winning a Cotton Bowl and and an Orange Bowl, and three Big Ten West Division titles. But the program fell off beginning in 2020, going 4-3, before a slow start to the 2021 season, in which the Badgers finished 9-4.
According to Chryst’s contract, Wisconsin will owe him $16.4 million if he is fired without cause, although a different settlement could be negotiated.
LikeLike
The wheels really fell off for Bucky this season, and I think it’s how UW lost to the Illini. Bielema dominated his old team the way Wisconsin use to destroy other B10 teams outside of the big 3 (which all have a big talent advantage on UW)–by bulldozing all over them and pushing them around in the trenches.
LikeLike
Richard: “The wheels really fell off for Bucky this season, and I think it’s how UW lost to the Illini.”
Three mice roared in the Big Ten on Staurday: Illini over Wisky, Purdue ruined # 21 Minnesota’s homecoming and Maryland over Michigan State, all solid wins.
LikeLike
Well, UMD almost certainly is better than MSU this year. Sparty giving Tuck a trillion gazillion dollars based off a successful half-season was extremely foolish.
LikeLike
That was a head-scratcher too. As a collegiate head coach, he was 18–14 after last season’s 11–2. I suspect 2–0 vs. Michigan was the most important factor in the decision. Still, it is rather slim evidence upon which to base a 10-year $95m contract that was (at the time) the second-highest in the land, behind only Nick Saban.
LikeLike
Wisconsin with a big gamble that Jim Leonhard is Dabo Swinney.
LikeLike
He’s been getting HC offers for a while now. This way they get to see if he is ready for the job. If they didn’t make him interim, he was probably gone at the end of the year anyway. If they don’t remove the interim tag in/by January, he’s probably gone as well.
LikeLike
Yep, Leonhard was getting a better role pretty soon regardless.
Some people have compared this to the Pelini firing, but I don’t see this as being similar at all. In the case of UNL, they were getting rid of a successful coach in a touch place to win (in modern football) with no surefire replacement.
In the case of UW, they have a sustainable formula for success and have someone (or several) strong candidates lined up.
LikeLike
Some people have compared this to the Pelini firing, but I don’t see this as being similar at all. In the case of UNL, they were getting rid of a successful coach in a touch place to win (in modern football) with no surefire replacement.
Its probably closer to Nebraska’s Steve Peterson firing Frank Solich. Nebraska had trouble hiring a replacement because the job was seen to have expectations not in line with reality. Any new Wisconsin coach is going to have to win 75% of their games in order to be an improvement over Chryst. That’s a huge bar to clear. When Bill Callahan didn’t didn’t win at Solich’s clip, the former players, alumni, and fans revolted. If this works Chris McIntosh is a visionary leader. If it doesn’t, he’s Steve Peterson and set Wisconsin back significantly.
LikeLike
Mike, well, comparable to the Solich firing if UNL had in place a ready replacement or 2 who promised to win the traditional Husker way.
It doesn’t seem like Bucky will go down the (dumb) trendy route and get a Callahan (they tried that once already, and it actually didn’t work out that badly, but the guy left). Now, if they do hire an Andersen/Callahan (again), then I am prepared to call them braindead, but if they replace with Leonhard or Leipold, they’re simply trying to get back to the formula that has worked for them for decades, but executing better.
LikeLike
Mike, well, comparable to the Solich firing if UNL had in place a ready replacement or 2 who promised to win the traditional Husker way.
I agree, its not a perfect comparison. Nebraska thought they had their guy all lined up too.
Leonhard seems to be their “will do no worse than” option. That’s at least smart. If they can pull in a more established coach (Aranda, Leipold) then it might be even smarter. However, as Steve Peterson learned, it can all go south on you in a hurry.
If Leonhard is their guy, I do think its a huge risk since he’s never run a program. Some coaches just can’t handle a Big Ten job (Frost) and some just don’t connect well with stakeholders (Herman). I have no idea if its accurate, but I have heard rumors that Leonhard wants to modernize the Wisconsin offense. If so, then Wisconsin is putting a ton of faith in a DC with only seven years of being a FBS assistant redesign their program on the fly.
LikeLike
The last time Kansas was 5-0 they finished 5-7 so banking on Leipold also has risks. He won at lower levels but still has the 4 ranked B12 teams + OK & TX left to play in 2022.
LikeLike
Mike, I agree, this is looking more like the Solich firing by UNL. Phil Longo’s Air Raid style offense isn’t a good fit for Bucky’s natural strengths and weaknesses (not to mention their current roster) at all.
I think we can look forward to seeing Madtown get to experience the what Husker fans lived through with the Callahan experience.
LikeLike
This firing is a head-scratcher. Sure, this weekend’s loss was embarrassing, but you would think a coach with his track record would be given a little more leeway.
LikeLike
A few factors:
1. Wisconsin being whipped the way they were by a former coach at a historically inferior neighbor (being out-Wisconsined) just wasn’t acceptable. It’s as if IU hired Urban and destroyed OSU with better athleticism across the field (or UMD/RU hired Bill O’Brien and boatraced PSU). OSU and PSU likely would fire their coach in that case too.
2a. It’s likely Wisky didn’t want UNL to take their first-choice coach at the end of the season (Leipold? Leonhard?) If you’ve decided that a change is necessary, there is little sense waiting.
2b. Bucky was grooming Leonhard to be HC. So little sense waiting given how the season has gone.
3. Big UW donors extremely pissed and said they wouldn’t give money unless Chryst was gone. I know UW is trying to raise money to catch up on facilities with Northwestern (also the top of the B10).
LikeLike
I’ve been fiddling around with some different ways to view the PAC and Big XII upcoming TV contracts based on OTA slot value that I wanted to throw out there. I’ll say in advance I think this comes across as harsh on the post-OUT Big XII teams and that’s not my intent – I think the H8 schools just got dealt a bad hand that conference leadership played poorly and had Texas being Texas. Anyway, on with the show.
I think the key part here is what an OTA slot is worth. It seems based on the B1G and SEC contracts that (all times EST) a Noon, 3:30, 7/8pm slot is worth ~$350M assuming you can effectively guarantee a football game with 4M viewers on average a week in it, 14 or 15 times a year. The basis for any media rights deal seems to be anchored there, since that’s the vast majority of the money. By rough math, a package across the overflow channels (ESPN/2/U, FS1), conference networks (ACCN, SECN, BTN, PACN), and streaming (ESPN+, theoretical PrimeVideo or Apple TV) including all other sports are worth ~$150M. For evidence, we know the B1G media deal that’s up to $1.3B/yr is going to be $350M (CBS OTA) + $350M (NBC OTA) = $700M and let’s assume FOX OTA is $450M because it has the UM-OSU game each year and more CCGs so that puts us at $1.15B, leaving that $150M.
We can safely assume the SEC is similar, as we’ve heard the 3:30 game of the week slot formerly owned by CBS was bought by ESPN for low $300M and that was before OUT. I think it’s safe to assume that a SEC OTA slot is roughly equivalent to the B1Gs value, even if their slightly older contract values it less pre-OUT renegotiations, so for forward looking purposes we have something that looks like this:
B1G has 3 OTA slots – FOX Noon, CBS 3;30, NBC 7/8pm
ND has 0.5 OTA slot – NBC 3:30
SEC has 2.5 OTA slots – ABC Noon, 3:30, 7/8pm except for when ABC picks an ACC game, let’s assume that’s once every other week.
ACC has 0.5 OTA slots – ABC
I know the above isn’t perfect since ND could have a differing number of home games but I’m assuming an average of 7 home games (half of 14/15 basically). You could also claim that based on how big ESPN is that the SEC and ACC functionally have an extra half or more of an OTA equivalent slot a week – go for it it doesn’t really affect the OTA part of this analysis and if anything further reduces the number of good TV slots left. I also couldn’t find anything that stated the ACC is guaranteed any ABC or ESPN game minimums so maybe the SEC is higher and the ACC lower but again it’s not really relevant since it’s locked up already. I’m also discounting a late night OTA slot (10:30pm) as not being relevant here.
So the Big XII and Pac10 are looking for a new media rights deal. Let’s start them at $150M each for all non-OTA games – I think it’s roughly equivalent since Big XII has no conference network but uses ESPN+ currently and the PAC12N isn’t really available most places anyway. What’s left for them OTA? NBC at Noon, FOX at 3:30, FOX at 7/8pm (until October when Fox has MLB), CBS Noon, CBS at 7/8pm. Theoretically ABC could have an OTA slot since it’s not exclusive like B1G or ND contracts dictate but they have the SEC and ACC locked down so I’m assuming they don’t actually have any OTA slots left. I’d call the FOX 7/8pm slot 0.5 of a slot due to FOX’s baseball deal. I’ve heard no indications that NBC or CBS are looking at adding more games, so let’s assume those slots aren’t available.
So we’re left with 1.5 FOX OTA slots, or $525M a year. Now the question is can a conference of Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal, WSU, Oregon St, Utah, Colorado, ASU, Arizona or a conference of Baylor, Okie St, ISU, Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, KSU, WVU, UCF, Cinci, BYU, Houston deliver 1 conference game a week at an average 4M viewers? And remember that the FOX 3:30 slot is up against SEC’s best game on ABC, B1G’s 2/3rd best game on CBS, ND on NBC, and whatever ACC/SEC game is on ESPN. I think the answer is a pretty clear no: https://showbuzzdaily.com/?s=SKEDBALL+SPORTS+TV+RATINGS
So let’s assume that those conferences OTA average half the ratings of the B1G or SEC will, which on average seems optimistic based on the showbuzzdaily archives and all the analysis we’ve seen on this topic but let’s run with it. So we cut that OTA slot value in half to $175M a year, or $263M/yr available. That’s what I think the number we’re seeing from FOX and ESPN for the PAC come from. The PAC wants $300M/yr for their top game on OTA FOX or ESPN1 (flex option to ABC) but they are being offered a little more than half that at ~$160M/yr – this makes sense to me given the SEC/B1G baseline for ratings and OTA value. I think that’s the baseline best OTA option for both conferences, $160M/yr from OTA (FOX or ESPN1 as equivalent) + $150M/yr for the rest of their rights. That’s $31M each for the 10 PAC teams, or $26M for the 12 Big XII teams.
And I think the PAC10, being first to act vs the Big XII and assuming no one else leaves, has to take that deal. Take the equivalent of 1 OTA slot from FOX, work out some kind of weekly late night slot for ESPN/ESPN2, maybe a couple Friday games, keep scheduling home and homes with the B1G and SEC if possible for the Oregon/Washington/Stanford/WSU/Utahs to have high drawing OOC matchups, rest on FS1/PACN. If you don’t take that OTA from FOX, you get no OTA but maybe some more ESPN coverage (but just as an afterthought given ESPN’s other commitments) and probably not as much cash.
This is where it gets bad for the Big XII. Logically, if there is widespread consideration that the B1G might take 4 more Pac10 schools (UO, UW, Stanford, Cal) but everyone accepts that the B1G nor SEC will not ever take another Big XII school then it holds that the 4 most valuable Pac10 schools are more valuable on average than the 4 most valuable Big XII schools. And if the Big XII would actually take the 4 corners schools (Utah, Arizona, ASU, Colorado) then they must think those 4 raise the average payout of the conference, meaning those 4 on average are better than 6 of the 12 schools already in the conference. So how is it possible that the Pac10 has 8 schools (out of 10) that are logically more valuable on average than at least half the Big XII, but the Big XII will get a better paying media rights deal? It’s not.
This is why I think the Big XII ultimately is looking down the barrel at a much worse deal than the PAC10 could face and why they are trying so hard to take the 4 corners schools – if the PAC10 isn’t killed then all that’s left for them is 0.5 of a FOX OTA slot (valued at $80M/yr) and figuring out how to increase the value of their non-OTA package for 12 teams to be more than the $150M/yr the B1G gets for its 16 teams (seems unlikely). The end result would be $230M/yr for 12 teams, or $19M/yr per team.
This would explain the rumor that Yormak is seeking to extend current BigXII deals (https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/2022/08/31/big-12-looks-to-potential-early-extension-of-media-rights/) as the starting point. It’ll also never happen because ABC/FOX almost always put OU and Texas in those big OTA slots and now they will be in the SEC. Obviously, this would suck for the Big XII teams, especially those that are OG Big 8. But when I baseline the PAC10 and the Big XII against the B1G and SEC contracts and look at what’s available in terms of OTA and other TV inventory it just seems like something has to give, which I presume is going to be how much the Big XII gets per year in media rights.
LikeLike
I think your reasoning is a little off. Valuable time slots get assigned to games that bring eyeballs, not the other way around. So you should just look at what each school brings in viewership.
In viewership, UO and OKSt are about tied (and around the Iowa level, which is the median for the B10) and everybody else in the PAC and B12 are lower. The reason why nobody is considering OKSt. as an addition to the B10 or SEC isn’t because their TV value is worse than any PAC school, but because the SEC sees zero reason to add a marginal school in a small state that they already own and the B10 sees zero reason to add a marginal school in a small state that doesn’t have research at the B10 level. And note that everyone doing the math has figured that no combo of PAC schools makes sense as an addition to the B10 on a purely eyeballs level (stuff like research and visiting B10 alums in metros are invoked) while in the B12 case, the B10/SEC have other reasons besides eyeballs to not consider B12 schools (almost none of the B12 schools are up to academic snuff for the B10 while the SEC already owns the most valuable territory of the B12). But networks and streamers care approximately zero about stuff like academic prestige and care only about eyeballs. In terms of viewership, if anything, the B12 has an edge on the PAC. I actually don’t believe adding the 4 Corners schools would make more money for the B12 (directly). If anything, it may lose the current B12 schools a tiny bit of money (yes, viewership for PAC schools is poor), but the B12 probably figures (rightly) that taking the 4 Corners and killing off the PAC raises the B12’s long term prospects.
Anyway, between ABC and ESPN, the Mouse has A LOT of premium slots 6+ESPN After Dark, so 7). Even if 3-4 of them go to the SEC each week and roughly 1 to the ACC, both the WWL and Fox will still have room for both the PAC and B12. My guess is that Fox and the Mouse share roughly 2 games from each of the B12 and PAC between them (roughly 1 game-of-the-week and 1 other game from both conferences), with some games going on Fox/ABC/ESPN and some on FS1/ESPN2/ESPNU and the rest of the PAC and B12 inventory go to streamers.
LikeLike
BTW, Bob Thompson agrees with me:
https://mobile.twitter.com/rltsports/status/1577087523305594880
We know that it’s eyeballs that drive TV payouts, not OTA slots, because ND won’t get anywhere close to $175mm despite occupying half of a season’s worth of a prime Sat OTA TV slot. NBC is expecting an average of at least 2mm viewers for ND home games (ND has traditionally averaged above that but NBC is taking single-school risk where the Domers stink for years on end). BTW, if you take out basketball and the B10 CCG and Peacock, NBC and CBS are paying roughly $250-260mm for 15 (roughly 1/4 first choice, 1/4 2nd choice, and 1/2 third choice, with the first choice picks not at the start of the season, according to Bob T) games, so they’re expecting an little over 4mm viewers average for their B10 regular season games. I think they’re banking on the LA home games and later season 1st picks (when they have flex picks in 6/12 day windows) being pretty valuable. Fox paying roughly $280-300mm for its collection of half the 1st and half the 2nd picks (but first overall, so always the OSU-UMich game) so they’re banking on an average of about 5mm viewers for their top 15 regular season B10 games.
LikeLike
Shrug. I think the PAC10 makes their deal with Fox for first pick, ESPN for 2nd and 3rd, and puts the rest on PAC10N. Then the Big XII has to take what’s left and has no leverage because they offer little to no incremental viewers given everyone else is signed. Which was sort of my point, if the PAC signs first the BigXII will have to take what’s offered since their games won’t displace much if any of the inventory FoX/ESPN already own.
Basically I’m arguing that even if Bob Thompson is right we’re talking like $25M per PAC and $28-30M for the BigXII (or $20M vs $23-24M). No one is leaving the PAC for the Big XII over that difference. Even if the Big XII might (and that’s a big might) draw more total viewers than the PAC you would only value buying the BigXII inventory at the incremental value it drives for you (or vice versa). So the networks low ball the PAC then low-ball the BigXII even worse.
I guess my main point is that neither conference is worth that much, neither will be on OTA (or ESPN1) much, the gap isn’t enough for anyone to change conferences, and whoever signs first makes more than the other. Which I think is opposite the stuff I read that the BigXII deal will be materially larger than the PACs.
LikeLike
I’m arguing that even if Bob Thompson is right we’re talking like $25M per PAC and $28-30M for the BigXII (or $20M vs $23-24M). No one is leaving the PAC for the Big XII over that difference.
I think you are probably right that this is not enough to induce anyone to leave the Pac. I cannot think of a school (in a major conference) that moved voluntarily for so little money.
…whoever signs first makes more than the other.
I think you have it backwards. Media rights go up over time, not down. Everyone knows the Big XII is coming next. They won’t be paid less just because their contract came up later. They will be paid more.
LikeLike
Yep, Marc has it right.
Networks pay for viewers. They’re not running out of slots, even on the premium channels (Fox, ABC, and ESPN, in this case). So the new B12 will make more than the new Pac. Not a ton more but slightly more. And besides their showcase games, I’d expect a lot to go to streamers.
LikeLike
The PAC & B12 will not be on much in the prime Saturday slots but the after dark (PAC) and Friday (B12?) slots also have to be filled and with the $$$ the B10/SEC make I doubt they have an appetite to schedule games at those times. Fox also has Saturday afternoon open. This will usually be the third best OTA game in the slot behind ABC and CBS. Fox may do better targeting the more passionate fanbase of the B12 than the PAC in this slot since the viewers need to pass on two or more better games based on national interest to view the game on Fox.
The PACto B12 moves always required further B10 invites to the PAC. If the leaks about expanding out west stopped from the B10 than this talk would have died. No school is moving for B12 media money, although I think Thompson is probably right about 10%-15% more than the PAC.
LikeLike
Media rights go up until they don’t, just like stocks, real estate, etc. And long term, yeah it’ll be up overall. I think the Big XII is in for a nasty surprise right here though, because networks buy content for INCREMENTAL viewers. So for Disney that means can you provide better ratings than the (assuming byes) 7 SEC, 6 ACC, 1 (I think but maybe it’s 2) AAC, 1 Boise (or is it MWC in general?), and # (idk how many they own) SunBelt games Disney already owns per week during conference season (obvs more with non-con)? And if so, by how much?
https://showbuzzdaily.com/articles/skedball-weekly-sports-tv-ratings-9-26-10-2-2022.html
The marquee game in the new Big XII, ranked OkieSt vs Baylor, came in last amongst all network games this week. With a 4.2M lead-in, no ND on NBC competition, a substandard SEC on CBS game (by CBS 330 standards that is), and FSU-Wake on ABC… and they drew pretty poor ratings. So I think the answer is not much.
Which is why I think that the PAC takes a deal with FOX that is a little less money but guarantees 1 OTA game a week, sells the #2 to ESPN for after dark, and then the Big XII is boxed in to how many incremental viewers they pull. Which, if you believe they can pull an incremental 3M viewers a week across all platforms, is worth 3M * 13 weeks + 5M CCG = 44M viewers * $5 = $220M. Roughly $18M a team per year for all football rights. What’s the BigXII’s option if they don’t take that deal?
Alternatively, the BigXII makes a little more in exchange for Tuesday and/or Wednesday night games earlier in the season. That would be incremental viewers.
LikeLike
Although the B12 game got only 97% of the views ABC got (FSU-WF) it did get 149% of ESPN (PSU-NW). All were trounced by CBS’s 5.8 million SEC game. The B12 drew 6.9 million views compared to the B10 7.5 million views with both having 4 games on OTA/national cable. PAC had 4.3 million for 3 cable games (no OTA this week).
FOX only has the PAC or B12 for 3:30 and any prime broadcasts since they cannot use B10 in exclusive windows and Disney has SEC/ACC locked up. The best PAC games were USC-ASU and Washington-UCLA (Friday) both in ESPN late night slots. These had 80% and 70% of the B12 game viewers. Oregon-Stanford only drew 28% of the B12 game on FS1.
LikeLike
We all understand incremental viewers. Yes, Scout, the best B12 games, even in the new B12, will draw better than the worst SEC and ACC games (a bunch which are guaranteed to the SECN, ACCN, and other channels anyway) as well as various G5 games.
LikeLike
The SEC and Big 10 have only added 4 schools. They already generally get at least an ESPN game in every time slot. There’s plenty of ESPN/network slots left for the ACC, Pac and Big 12.
LikeLike
The OKSt-Baylor game drew 2.41mm. those are respectable numbers. The B12 isn’t getting B10/SEC TV money anyway. To make half what the B10/SEC make (or a little less), the top 3 B12 picks have to average about 2mm viewers.
As comparison, 4 B12 games on OTA TV didn’t break 2mm viewers last year, but 6 Pac games on OTA TV didn’t.
LikeLike
Theoretically ABC could have an OTA slot since it’s not exclusive like B1G or ND contracts dictate but they have the SEC and ACC locked down so I’m assuming they don’t actually have any OTA slots left.
Disney took the SEC away from the CBS, but they lost the Big Ten. The CBS SEC package is only 15 games. More than 15 Big Ten games appear today across the Disney networks, so it is a net loss. They absolutely have room for the Pac-12 and the Big XII, both of which they carry today.
LikeLike
Canzano: Hate for Pac-12 Networks could turn to love
Former Fox Sports Networks president speaks out
The Pac-12 is engaged in a negotiation of its media rights. (Photo: Serena Morones)
You hate the Pac-12 Network? I don’t like it, either. But I’ve realized over the years that we’ve been all kinds of wrong about the conference’s television entity.
We don’t really hate it.
We hate that we can’t easily get it.
The network is well-produced. It has talented editors, producers, directors, camera operators and on-air talent. The technology and infrastructure is cutting edge. But when you discover your college football team will play Saturday on the network, you cringe and complain. Justifiably so. Because the distribution was a fail from the launch.
Hold that thought.
Bob Thompson is retired. The University of Oregon graduate and former president of the Fox Sports Networks has rare insight into media-rights negotiations and the world of live-sports programming.
Thompson worked as a cable operator, a network executive, and has negotiated hundreds of deals with sports leagues, distributors, and conferences. He’s a consultant now and a tremendous resource when it comes to understanding what might be happening with the Pac-12 Conference’s mysterious and ongoing media-rights negotiations.
“I think it’s pretty clear by how long this thing’s taking that it’s not the same package they have right now,” he said on Monday.
It won’t be a repeat of the Pac-12’s current FOX-ESPN package, Thompson said.
“If that was the case you could do that deal in a matter of months because all you’re talking about is: ‘What’s the price?’ Because the splits would stay the same. Pac-12 Networks would stay the same. There’s no new guy coming in to get into the selection process.”
Thompson gave a wide-ranging interview on the Canzano & Wilner podcast (listen here). He spoke about the value of potential Pac-12 expansion candidates, the Oregon-Washington dilemma, and nailed down what he thinks every Pac-12 member will ultimately receive in distributions (Hint: it’s respectable). But it’s the stuff Thompson said about the Pac-12 Networks that caught my attention.
“It’s clear there’s been a sea change,” he said.
Thompson believes we’re approaching an inflection point in the television industry. The height of the “bundle” on satellite-cable providers was as much as 105 million (households) for some channels. That’s down to about 72 million now.
“We’re bleeding at a rate of 1.29 million (households) per quarter,” Thompson said.
Viewers are pivoting away from traditional linear programming. It’s why Thompson is predicting that ESPN will eventually launch a simulcast of its regular programming on its ESPN+ app.
“I think you will see a channel on the ESPN+ app that will be basically be a simulcast of the feed you would get if you were getting it through DirecTV and Comcast,” he said.
I imagine a fresh-out-of-college executive sitting in an ESPN management meeting at this very moment, pounding a fist on the table, and saying, “We’re falling behind!!!”
It’s a rally cry I hope extends to the Pac-12 Conference, too. Because your viewing frustrations and the conference’s desire for additional revenue point to the same solution — the Pac-12 Networks.
Ironic, isn’t it?
The very entity that we’ve all come to loathe now has the conference in an interesting and advantageous position. In the last decade, viewing habits and technology evolved. The conference woke up in 2022 with Amazon streaming NFL Thursday Night Football and Apple cutting a $2.5 billion deal with Major League Soccer.
It’s exactly the right time to sell the Pac-12 Networks content. Amazon and Apple would presumably love to have the programming, but neither has the infrastructure to produce 800-plus sporting events a year.
It’s an interesting marriage for that reason. Apple currently airs Major League Baseball games, but they’re produced by the MLB Network. And MLS will produce the soccer games it sold to Apple.
Said Thompson: “The Pac-12 Networks present a very viable option to be the producing entity for the package that ends up on the streamer.”
The core of the conference’s media rights are still likely bound for a traditional provider. But 36-or-so football games we normally see on the Pac-12 Networks and the rest of the conference’s Olympic-sports programming feel right for Amazon or Apple.
What are the two things Pac-12 football fans hate the most?
A) Late kickoffs and B) the Pac-12 Networks.
I find it interesting that Amazon or Apple could swoop in, buy the Pac-12 Networks content, air those football games in more reasonable Saturday time slots, and solve both problems.
I’m with the college kids on this one. I’ll bet you are, too. The Pac-12 has fallen behind and positioned itself over the last decade in a way that hasn’t worked for fans. I’ll bet the Pac-12 Networks is tired of feeling like the bad guy, too.
LikeLike
Week 5 TV numbers are in.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
4m viewer club:
5.83m Alabama at Arkansas CBS 3:30p
4.98m NC State at Clemson ABC 7:30p
4.20m Michigan at Iowa FOX noon
For all the pontification earlier this week about the new B1G deal producing an average of 4m viewers for each of the three OTA windows, I think you all are grossly overestimating TV viewership.
ABC, CBS, ESPN & FOX combined viewers for noon: 10.59m
ABC, CBS, ESPN & FOX combined viewers for 3;30p: 12,34m
ABC & ESPN combined viewers for primetime: 7.77m
Best ratings for a game not involving a Stewart Mandel King or former King:
2.79m Kentucky at Ole Miss ESPN noon
2.41m OK State at Baylor FOX 3;30p
FYI – future SEC members:
2.47m Oklahoma at TCU ABC noon
1.19m West Virginia at Texas FS1 7:30p
Great number for FS1. ESPN2 usually beats Fs1
Future B1G west wing members:
1.92m Arizona State at USC ESPN 10:30p Saturday
1.70m Washington at UCLA ESPN 10:30p Friday
More data for a B1G after dark package. it helps that both UCLA & USC are decent this season.
LikeLike
Through five weeks (and week “0”) only 15 games have exceeded 4m viewers and two of those were on off days during the Labor Day holiday weekend with no competition.
All games in the 4m club involved at least one King or former King (Baron).
LikeLike
Alan, the B10 average is moved up by big-time games such as OSU-PSU, UMich-MSU, UMich-PSU, and (especially) UMich-OSU. Those games sometimes double that 4mm average (OSU-UMich often 3-4 times that). So the B10 is definitely dependent on the king programs (and also ideally MSU) being in the top 10 (playoff contenders in the new world that’s coming).
The first and second B10 picks (the top 30 games) will have no trouble clearing that 4mm average. The third pick (games 31-45) traditionally have not, however, which is why I said CBS and NBC must really be banking on the LA home games or they feel they can get some of those B10 games with huge viewership in their draft (evidently there’s some complicated drafting order after the games enter the 6-12 day window stage) or they feel the exclusive timeslots give a boost that doesn’t exist now or they’re overpaying.
BTW, note those After Dark games don’t break even 2mm viewers. Hard to get enough money to pay for even 2 additions in that case.
LikeLike
Richard – last season, in an uncommonly good season for the B1G with Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State all being contenders in November, the B1G had 14 conference games and five OOC games break 4m viewers.
Giving the B1G half credit for the OOC games, that averages to 1.27 games per week averaging 4m.
LikeLike
Was last year, “uncommonly good” for the B10? UMich and MSU were up compared to recent years, but PSU was down, OSU was their usual contending self, UW and Iowa weren’t all that special, and UNL was the tire fire they’d usually been in recent years.
In the new world with the expanded CFP, I’d expect “staying in CFP contention the entire season” to be the bare minimum expectation at all 4 of OSU, UMich, PSU, and USC (also about half the SEC). And MSU, UNL, Wisconsin, Iowa, UCLA, and maybe some other teams should also be in CFP contention some years.
Finally, 26 B10-controlled games broke the 3mm viewer mark last year. As I said, the B10 will have no trouble exceeding the 4mm average with it’s top 30 games. CBS and NBC are banking on games 31-45 averaging 3.67mm viewers. That’s the part that seems more uncertain. It seems that they are really banking on the addition of the LA schools (specifically, USC) juicing viewership.
BTW, yes, the B10 is really dependent on tentpoles OSU and UMich being up and at least good enough to stay in playoff contention the whole year.
LikeLike
BTW, yes, the B10 is really dependent on tentpoles OSU and UMich being up and at least good enough to stay in playoff contention the whole year.
Is it though?
https://showbuzzdaily.com/articles/skedball-weekly-sports-tv-ratings-11-23-11-29-2020.html
2-3 UM vs 0-5 PSU drew over 4M in the COVID year when ratings were way down.
https://showbuzzdaily.com/articles/skedball-weekly-sports-tv-ratings-11-16-11-22-2020.html
Wisconsin vs Northwestern at 3:30 ABC drew 4.25M vs Bedlam drawing 4.1M at 7:30 ABC.
https://showbuzzdaily.com/articles/skedball-weekly-sports-tv-ratings-11-2-11-8-2020.html
Trash Michigan vs Indiana drew 1.7M on FS1.
Michigan and MSU fans are also Detroit Lions fans, they are tuning in no matter what. OSU is always good so there’s no issue there.
LikeLike
Well, I suppose I should say “really”, but B10 games definitely draw more viewers overall when both OSU and UMich are national title contenders.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t say*
LikeLike
BTW, the comparable numbers for the SEC (breaking 4mm viewers) in 2021 were 12 conference and 3 OOC games.
LikeLike
Not a good year for the SEC, historically, other than having two participants in the CFP championship.
LikeLike
2019 numbers:
B1G: 11 conference games and 2 OOC games over 4m
SEC: 12 conference games and 6 OOC games over 4m
LikeLike
Regarding the premier TV windows, keep in mind that under the current TV agreements, the SEC only has access to noon on ESPN, 3:30p on CBS, and primetime on ESPN. The B1G has access to noon on ABC, ESPN & FOX; 3:30p on ABC, ESPN & FOX; and primetime on ABC & ESPN.
Given that the B1G has access to five OTA windows and the SEC has access to only one, the B1G should be crushing the SEC in the number of 4m+ games.
LikeLike
Alan, being on ESPN is a slight disadvantage, but it’s almost like an OTA network. And it’s rare for either conference (in their current forms) to have even 3 games on a Saturday that draw 4mm+ anyway. Also, as 1-2 of the ESPN slots are going to the SEC and as the (current) ACC, B12, and Pac have some big games too, in practice, the the B10 doesn’t have that many premier TV slots.
LikeLike
CBS and NBC must really be banking on the LA home games or they feel they can get some of those B10 games with huge viewership in their draft. . . .
I am a bit unclear about the viewership levels the networks are banking on. Is there much of a history of the LA home games regularly clearing 4 million? I think they can do at times, but consistently?
LikeLike
Well, the LA schools haven’t consistently hosted B10 powers like OSU/UMich/PSU (or even MSU/UW/Iowa/UNL) before.
And they don’t all have to clear 4mm. Just enough of them have to clear 3mm for CBS and NBC’s investment to be worthwhile.
LikeLike
Right. That is what I am not convinced of. Figure there will be two L.A. games per year involving OSU/Mich/PSU. I expect those to be blockbusters. ND@USC will be a blockbuster in alternate years. That leaves a lot of games that I suspect will be sub-3mm most of the time.
LikeLike
Figure there will be two L.A. games per year involving OSU/Mich/PSU.
I mean three.
LikeLike
The various Midwestern princes (MSU/UW/UNL/Iowa) vs USC (and maybe even UCLA) may also draw over 3mm viewers depending on how good the teams are.
Anyway, CBS and NBC don’t need all the LA home games to be great draws. Just enough of them (+all the various other 1st/2nd/3rd picks they hold, though the greatest viewership would come from their 1st and 2nd picks, obviously) to average 4.33mm in their window.
LikeLike
BTW, Marc, I have the B10 matching both UMich and OSU against USC annually. USC vs PSU half the time and UCLA vs the 3 big dogs half the time would mean 4 of these annual games. Half of them in LA means 2 of them would be in LA. But USC would also be facing UNL/UW/MSU/Iowa half the time, so 2 of them every year, and 1 of those games would be in LA. I also have the B10 setting UW and UNL vs UCLA annually. That’s 3 games for UCLA vs. the Midwestern princes (1.5 in LA). 4.5 B10 games in LA a year where both participants are either a king or prince. Add in the ND@USC game, and that’s 5 attractive games in LA a year.
Between them, CBS and NBC have (roughly) 30 games. The first/second choice games should average around 5mm, or 75mm total. If the 5 attractive LA home games average 4mm, or 20mm total, to get to 130mm total (65mm per network), the other 10 3rd choice games need to average 3.5mm. That’s a bit ambitious. The other 10 3rd choice games need to average 3mm if the 5 top LA home games average 5mm, which seems more doable.
LikeLike
BTW, rule of thumb is that for the new B10 to hit its benchmarks, its top 45 games should draw in a total of 200mm viewers (probably 45 games breaking 3mm viewers each.
Same benchmarks for the SEC.
LikeLike
Kind of interesting. A former Endeavor co-worker of mine, who left the company in 2017 to become a production assistant (at Amazon Studios) on the ‘All or Nothing: The Michigan Wolverines’ documentary series, just sent me a text. He asked if I was aware Amazon Prime and BTN Originals were negotiating a B1G, team-by-team ‘Hard Knocks’ style series to appear exclusively on Prime. ‘Nope’, being my response. Considering Peacock is the BTN streaming partner, and Amazon is supposedly deep in talks with the PAC 12, it seems like an oddly timed endeavor…..unless 😁. Make of it what you will, but I thought it was interesting.
LikeLike
I have no idea if this is true, but it is not a crazy idea. Amazon Prime is in more households than BTN or Peacock. If you want to see how much pull the Big Ten has on a streaming platform, this seems like a relatively low-risk way to find out.
I have said before that the Big Ten might regret putting games on Peacock, given the very poor market share of that platform. But I gather it was a bone they threw to NBC. Peacock will get only the worst games, and not very many of them, so they are limiting the disaster if it does not go well.
LikeLike
Not surprised. You have no idea about a lot of things.
LikeLike
Not surprised. You have no idea about a lot of things.
Wouldn’t it be nice if more people were willing to admit how little they know.
LikeLike
I think it’s inevitable that Amazon will eventually get a B10 package. But either ND or FSU have to be added with Miami for more expansion to make sense (and if ND, they could choose Stanford and GTech if they want that; same goes for FSU).
I’d say 5 games on both Week Zero and Labor Day week in nontraditional slots (Th/F night, 3 slots Sunday, and Monday night) as well as a combo of F night and After Dark games after Labor Day.
LikeLike
Amazon could have had a B10 package in this round, and in my view should have. Peacock is getting 8 games. Let’s say the Peacock games plus 4–5 more had gone to Amazon—enough to feature one game per week. Those games probably would have had wider distribution, and would have made no less money. Amazon would have treated them as something special, whereas on Peacock they will be second-class.
You cannot complain too much about a package this lucrative, but it’s not perfect. This is something I feel should have done. The Peacock games are a wasted chance.
LikeLike
I do not believe that the Peacock games be simply be viewed as available.
They were part of the package to NBC. Any games to Amazon would have had nothing to do with Peacock. Those games will be putting one toe into the pool for the B1G and others will be watching,
LikeLike
I totally understand that Peacock was part of the NBC deal. But NBC would bid whether they got Peacock games or not. Rather than put eight games on such a crappy channel, I would have put those games (and say 6 more from FS1/BTN) on Amazon. NBC of course would have paid slightly less, but I bet Amazon would have paid at least that much.
Tell Amazon, “this is your chance to prove that CFB works on a streaming channel. Ace this test, and you are getting more next time.” Amazon would have had better distribution and stronger production values. NBC, which has nothing to prove, will not invest in those games the way Amazon would have.
LikeLike
The offer of Amazon was reportedly higher than a network, but was rejected by B1G. Every report out there has indicated that the involvement of the B1G and Amazon would be based only on further expansion.
Most certainly the NBC offer included Peacock as something of a throw in to play with.
How can we assume that FOX, CBS, and NBC would have been OK with splitting off anything to Amazon? There has been no indication that is would have been possible to have one of the other networks “share games” with Amazon. The choice was either take two networks and Amazon or take the 3 networks and throw a few games NBC/Peacock.
It will be really simple for Amazon to outbid ESPN and experiment with the PAC. Three hundred million would certainly get the entire PAC schedule even with another team or even two. Will that happen? That would be the grand experiment with a league that has little to lose at this point.
LikeLike
We are talking about somewhat different things here. There is a report — anonymous, as usual — that Amazon was the highest bidder for one of the packages that eventually went to one of the networks. The Big Ten was not ready to commit to streaming to that extent, so they didn’t take it.
Interesting though that is, I am talking about a different package—one that never made it to market. I am not speculating whether the broadcast nets would have been OK with it, because we do not know if such an idea was mooted, or with whom, or what their objections were. I don’t think the rumor mill is so great that we know every idea that was bandied around, or exactly what each party’s negotiating posture was.
LikeLike
NBC might have paid a lot less, as in nothing. The Peacock games may have been a mandatory condition. They demand one from ND, too. NBC know that the B12 or P12 would agree if the B10 wouldn’t.
LikeLike
NBC might have paid a lot less, as in nothing. The Peacock games may have been a mandatory condition. They demand one from ND, too. NBC know that the B12 or P12 would agree if the B10 wouldn’t.
It is interesting how much people assume about private negotiations. The Peacock games may have been a mandatory condition. Or they may not have been.
LikeLike
I would wager that NBC wouldn’t have walked from the B1G if the B1G refused the 8 Peacock games – they aren’t going to make more money from a deal with the PAC-10 or Big XII, or else they’d have done that from the start. It’s clearly a throw-in that’s just not worth arguing that much about if you’re the B1G.
It also isn’t going to be re-upped because it’s going to prove to be useless for NBC in driving retained Peacock subscribers. It drives a bunch of sign-ups and free trials, and then those people all cancel. This is probably good for Comcast/NBC currently as they wanted to tell Wall Street about all their new starts and subscribers and whatnot, but after a couple years of that it becomes about retention and this strategy is junk for retention. It doesn’t actually drive people to stay unless they forget to cancel, because you don’t just change customer behavior by inconveniencing them once a year for something they want to watch. Like, Premiership works for Peacock because it’s essentially a 10 month series for sports fans – there is games for their team every month, all-in one place, so it’s easy and $4.99 feels good for that. Literally every B1G and ND fan that has to sign-up for Peacock that doesn’t already have it is going to be pissed off at the start of their engagement with Peacock and that’s not how you want to acquire customers.
There’s a reason Amazon and Netflix and Apple (companies that have run subscription businesses for years) aren’t interested in small, fractured content packages – it’s because they know this already from YEARS AND YEARS of running subscription services. Amazon got the NFL because they now have a gigantic Thursday night event for 18 weeks a year that also coincides with the most profitable and sales heavy retail months (e.g. Xmas and Black Friday) and they can cross promote the shit out of it (they can broadcast their own Amazon-ads to 11M-15M people every Thursday now). Since they had the NFL, only a B1G or SEC window on Saturdays would be worth them pursuing at the college level, though I wouldn’t rule out seeing the PAC10N being available as a channel on Prime Video, that would be a huge win for the PAC10N’s availability.
So yeah, some Comcast exec told the NBC exec negotiating the deal to do this for the Peacock exec trying to pump the subscriber and new starts metric and the B1G was like “yeah whatever we don’t care if we piss off football fans of Illinois, Rutgers, Northwestern, Indiana who will have 1 non-con and 2 conference games each on Peacock, just pay us another $20M NBC.” and NBC said “Great thanks!” since all 3 execs are happy, and then both parties moved on with the important parts of the negotiation. Then in negotiations 7 years from now the B1G will be like “Hey, our alumni were not happy about this and also the schools on it are balking at doing it again so we’ll need $60M/yr this time to continue” and then NBC will be like “That’s not worth it for us we can only pay $8M/yr this time” and then will promptly jointly decide to not do this ever again because it’s so far apart it cannot be bridged.
I could see Amazon trying to buy the rights to B1G basketball games provided it was 2-4 games per team per month from Nov-March. That level of content would actually make sense for retention purposes for Amazon, wouldn’t detract from the NFL. Actually, since there’s so many games and few are on broadcast (even much of March Madness is TBS/TNT/TruTV), there’s probably a winning strategy here to buy CBB rights for multiple conferences if you could sort out the production scale challenges.
LikeLike
FWIW, I endorse most of Scout’s theory. I think the Big Ten was not ready for streaming. NBC wanted to put a few games on Peacock, and Warren said, “Yeah. Whatever.”
LikeLike
Marc,
“It is interesting how much people assume about private negotiations. The Peacock games may have been a mandatory condition. Or they may not have been.”
And yet you assumed they were not. I said they might have been. So who was making the assumptions? Does anyone think the B10 wanted games on Peacock? Clearly the people in the negotiations felt that was the price of doing business, and more valuable than keeping the games and taking less money from NBC (or taking more money to put a bunch of games on Amazon).
LikeLike
I don’t really see Warren as a “whatever” guy in negotiations. He’s all about extracting value (maybe 2% of him actually cares about college sports). Maybe he did want the Peacock games, to prove a point about streaming. Maybe he accepted them as the cost of extracting maximum money and visibility from the B10 inventory.
But if all the rumors about him wanting more expansion, and/or adding a streamer package, are true, then why would he willingly throw away inventory? Those were games BTN could’ve shown, freeing up the better BTN games to sell to someone else (Amazon). With 16 teams, those 8 games matter to the quality of package available to offer Amazon (or for B10 after dark, or whatever).
I have to believe Warren felt they were the cost of him getting the best deal he could get the presidents to accept.
LikeLike
I think the Peacock games are more of less the B1G presidents dipping their collective toes in the water for streaming, to see how many blue hairs go crazy because the Purdue Northwestern game is on Peacock. If its not too bad, maybe in seven years they sell a bigger streaming package with better games and more money.
LikeLike
Alan,
But do those sorts of games (PU/NW, RU/IL, etc.) tell them anything about how fans of bigger programs will react?
Vanderbilt fans will tolerate things that LSU’s fans never would.
LikeLike
Brian, will they not tolerate things NFL fans tolerate? Th night football already on Amazon.
LikeLike
In the NFL it’s 1 game a year out of 17 and it’s a home game every other year. It also makes each team another $30M+ per year. And it’ll still be a sellout because the people that live in the city are the fans. It’s also the only game on that night.
This is a far cry from putting one of the B1G’s big 3 on Peacock on a random Saturday in November. Like, Rutgers less than 10 years ago didn’t even have all their games televised. Michigan has been on ABC, Fox, or ESPN at Noon for 40 years basically. Those fan bases are going to react very, very differently.
That said, I don’t think Michigan/OSU fans are going to freak out over being on Prime once a year, since everyone has that already and if they don’t they will for the Lions/Browns Thursday NFL game that year.
LikeLike
The NFL always has OTA broadcasts in both teams’ local markets (required by their anti-trust exemption). I doubt there will be as much objection to streaming the OSU-PSU game if it is being broadcast OTA in both Ohio and Pennsylvania. However, the B10 has no obligations to do these OTA broadcasts and a lot of fans and donors could get upset if this game was streaming only.
LikeLike
I don’t see the B10’s very biggest games (like OSU-PSU) going to Amazon-only soon, but the B10’s 46th-60th best games on Amazon-only? Yes, I can see that, especially with expansion.
LikeLike
Yes
LikeLike
The theme of this thread being “Proposed Annual Rivals in the Future Big Ten”, let’s look at Proposed Annual Rivals in the Future Pac-12. The Pac-8 originated as four natural rivals: UW-WSU, UO-OSU, Stanford-Cal and USC-UCLA. They then added another pair of natural rivals, UA-ASU.
However their next expansion screwed the pooch: Utah and Colorado. The PAC needs to get back to the tradition of pairs of annual rivals to salvage the conference.
SDS and UNLV. A bit of a stretch but close enough.
Utah and BYU. If the PAC can’t pry BYU away from the Big XII, then get Utah St.
Colorado and AFA or Colorado St or Wyoming – or all three of them.
Wild card – Boise-BYU and UU-USU
Wild card # 2 – Hawaii – UNLV (already archrivals) and SDS – Fresno St.
The PAC needs to keep the Big XII O*U*T of the Mountain and Pacific time zones.
LikeLike
The B12 is already there (BYU) and has no interest in any of the schools mentioned except those currently in the PAC. However, it will take another B10 raid for any PAC member to consider the B12.
LikeLike
However their next expansion screwed the pooch: Utah and Colorado. The PAC needs to get back to the tradition of pairs of annual rivals to salvage the conference. SDS and UNLV. A bit of a stretch but close enough.
The rivals you are talking about are one game per school per year (out of 12). If Utah and Colorado were bad additions, then how are SDSU and UNLV “close enough”?
If Utah + Utah State is a ratings blockbuster, what about the other 11 Utah State games they would be getting that add nothing useful to their inventory?
LikeLike
Some bars in the west cities have loved the PAC12 network only games for a decade because it brings in many people to see the games they want and don’t get at home.
Amazon could conceivably flip that for the PAC and make games available in homes first, and at any kickoff time, competing against the OTA game windows, rather than just late night OTA for PAC.
But I still would be shocked if it was anything close to Big 10 or SEC $ numbers for PAC. I also doubt the Big could add more PAC teams for games on a 4th provider which competes with their upcoming game slots unless such is allowed in the new media contract.
LikeLike
Most of the talk here about additional Western expansion is written from the Big Ten’s perspective: could the league earn enough to justify taking more schools?
SI has an article today that looks at it from the schools’ perspective: would it be worth it to them?
Relying mainly on former Fox executive Bob Thompson, the article concludes that the schools ought to stay put. Thompson believes they’d come in at such a steep discount that they would not be making any more money than in the Pac-12. But their path to the playoff would be a lot more difficult, so they might as well stay out West.
I find it hard to believe that any of those schools would turn down the Big Ten if they were offered. But I don’t believe they will be.
LikeLike
Any PAC school will take a B1G invite even if it has a 10 year buy-in. At least there is gold at the end which is something that will never happen in the PAC. I do not believe the B1G has the votes to allow permanent second-class status. If that is provided to new invites what is to prevent it being expanded to Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Rutgers, et. al.
LikeLike
I assume that the agreement among the B1G schools would prohibit giving existing member schools lesser shares. I do agree that a number of the lower tier schools would vote against any permanent second class citizens for fear of the future.
That would create long term instability for the league.
It is amazing how people constantly claim that RU and UMd were given reduces shares when they actually got full shares from day 1, but had to buy into the BTN. The LA schools are not being required to buy in, for lots of reasons.
LikeLike
I actually found an old article that gives some context for the buy-in for Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland.
https://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/49883/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers
The B1G had sold first-tier rights to ESPN from 2007 to 2017 at $100M/yr.
They sold all second tier rights to the BTN from 2007 to 2031-2032.
Adding the B1GCG in 2011 was for $20M/yr through 2016.
So when Nebraska joined in 2011, their presence in the B1G was included in the B1GCG contract negotiations, but didn’t change the first-tier rights (at least that I can find anywhere).
For Maryland and Rutgers, joining in 2014 weren’t expected to change much for first tier rights at all though it looks like the B1G tried but didn’t get much if anything (https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/11/20/why-adding-cash-strapped-maryland-and-rutgers-makes-sense-for-the-big-ten/?sh=5f88ccd855d6).
So of course those 3 schools had to buy-in for the BTN equity. It’s also been published that even their “take home” post buy-in were higher each year than if they had remained in their prior conferences. Also the B1G couldn’t be certain they made the right choices to up per school payouts until the 2016-2017 renewal negotiations, which were at least 3 years away from when the school were accepted into the conference (2010 for Nebraska, 2012 for Rutgers/Maryland) before negotiations on the next media contract would happen. With USC and UCLA their membership was planned into all the contracts ahead of time, so their buy-in happened via the increase each existing B1G school gets with them joining in 2024 vs not joining.
For PR reasons, I’d presume both the B1G and the member schools (including the newbies) should be saying that all 5 of the schools joined as full members but chose to pay the buy-in for BTN equity over a 6-year period, while some schools also needed to pay back loans they took from the B1G upon joining. It’s funny to me that I see pissed off fans of Neb, Rutgers, and Maryland, complaining about not being full members and the B1G screwing them and yada yada yada (it’s mostly Nebraska fans but hey, even PSU fans still think the B1G has it out for them 30 years later), and SEC fans bragging that Texas A&M and Mizzou were full members from day 1 unlike the B1G, and it all could have been avoided if someone had fixed their language ahead of time.
LikeLike
Do you really see pissed of NE, UMd, and RU fans in numbers?
I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of RU fans were and still are thrilled by the B1G deal. It was the B1G or the AAC, at about $7 million per team per year.
There will also be a few people bitching about everything and anything. There was a one week story about RU and UMd asking the B1G to forgive loans. That story quickly disappeared and, honestly, there is no reason to believe that it happened.
I do not know the pulse of NE or UMd fans, but both left established leagues for more money in the B1G. With the potential chaos in the ACC, I would imagine most UMd fans are very happy with being in the B1G.
I am almost certain that the B1G guaranteed each team that they would start with no less than the conference that they left was paying.
LikeLike
I know several Nebraska fans and the consensus is that the Big Ten isn’t as good as the old Big Eight (Bob Devaney-Tom Osborne glory years) but it’s a heck of a lot better than the Big XII.
LikeLike
Agreed. The B1G splits media rights equally and always has I think. It severely doubt that the B1G presidents, any of them, would even suggest permanent second class membership, and if one did (though, I can totally see Nebraska suggesting it) I cannot imagine it being entertained for even a second. As you point out, no schools already in the B1G that adds below average value in football (as you pointed out NU, Indiana, etc) are going to risk that precedent and I think the presidents at Michigan, OSU, and PSU are all smart enough to know that even the Harlem Globetrotters need the Washington Generals and an extra 5-10% in media rights revenue a year isn’t worth the aggravation it’ll cause. Plus, as has been pointed out numerous times, the “below average value” schools are also the ones located in the biggest media markets (Chicago, DC, NYC).
Now, to those that already screeched about Nebraska and Maryland and Rutgers not being full members, that’s not true. They are all full B1G members, and were from the day they joined. They just had to buy-in to get their equity stakes in the B1G Ten Network. Also Maryland and Rutgers took loans that had to be paid back. It’s really poor messaging on the part of the B1G that they didn’t emphasize that all schools get equal distributions/full shares and then they may have used some of that money to reimburse payments due. UCLA and USC fully pre-paid for their equity stakes in the B1G Ten Network by joining this contract – they bring both huge markets and huge ratings, which cannot be said of Nebraska (ratings, not market) or Rutgers/Maryland (market, not ratings).
Assuming BTN valuation is $1B, so that’s $1B/14 = $72M in equity per existing school so UCLA and USC would need to increase the BTN valuation by $144M to not be dilutive. I’m rather confident that adding LA increases the BTN’s value by at least 14%. The LA DMA is 17M people, and I think the population of states that have a B1G team in them is < 100M today, so that alone gets there without even accounting for the increase in media rights from the ratings they bring.
If you're Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford you would immediately accept any offer from the B1G that's Pac10's expected payout + difference in travel costs expected because it keeps you whole financially, moves you to a stable conference, and you can always wait for that pot of gold because even if you don't get it you're still better off than in the PAC10. But it doesn't matter, because the B1G would never offer that, it's not a charity, and the financial math + non financial criteria will either work out or it won't.
LikeLike
Scout: “The B1G splits media rights equally and always has . . .”
Unequal media rights and revenue is what really broke apart the old Big XII with the Longhorn Network being part of the unequal media rights. TV revenue was also lopsided in favor of Texas and OU.
LikeLike
Unequal media rights and revenue is what really broke apart the old Big XII with the Longhorn Network being part of the unequal media rights. TV revenue was also lopsided in favor of Texas and OU.
Suppose the Big XII had had equal sharing from the beginning. Where would that league be now? While the exact timing of the departures might have been different, I contend the outcome would have been the same.
The “have-nots” accepted unequal revenue, in order to keep the “haves” happy. With equal revenue sharing, Texas would have received less, and if anything would likely have left sooner.
LikeLike
Marc: “Suppose the Big XII had had equal sharing from the beginning . . .”
If we’re talking about TRULY equal sharing to include tier 3 rights like the BTN provides, they might still be together. They never had that. Bear in mind that Texas and Oklahoma weren’t the first schools to leave. They were the last schools to leave.
LikeLike
I’m with Marc.
Equal revenue sharing wouldn’t have addressed the issues that prompted Texas to leave for the SEC:
1. Unattractive home state of games in the B12
tying in to
2. Tougher to recruit against A&M when Ags are in the SEC.
LikeLike
The nonsense about unequal revenue sharing keeps getting repeated. The 6 schools who left were all FOR unequal revenue sharing. 4 of them left after the conference implemented equal revenue sharing. The Pac and Big East had far more unequal revenue sharing, but until a few months ago, the Pac held together.
The SEC and Big 10 have equal revenue sharing because, historically, the schools were pretty similar. And having similar schools contributes to stability. The equal revenue sharing is a consequence of stability, not the cause of it.
And there is no conference in history that has been more unequal then the Big 10 in the last few years with the buy-ins. One year Rutgers made $11 million while the 11 long term members made $54 million.
LikeLike
Bullet: “The nonsense about unequal revenue sharing keeps getting repeated.”
If you are going to dispute my comment then you need to respond to all of it, not just half of it. I said that “. . . unequal media rights AND revenue . . .” busted up the Big XII.
That includes the Longhorn Network and plans to showcase high school football games as a recruiting tool. This would be funded by $15 million/yr from ESPN.
UT offered to share the LHN with A&M but the Aggies didn’t agree immediately. After a few months they said “OK” but DeLoss Dodds told A&M that it was “too late”. Too late for what?
LikeLike
Texas was looking around since the SWC fell apart. They’ve always felt too good for the BigXII, they’ve flirted with every P5 conference at some point in the last 30 years.
I don’t know what Texas is looking for, but for their sake I hope it’s another 20 years of 5 to 7 win seasons because that’s what’s coming for them. Can’t wait to watch them kick up a fuss in the SEC and try to rope A&M and OU into a group against Bama and co, while A&M kicks and screams and Mizzou tries to stay invisible.
The Big 8 schools confuse me since I’d have thought they would be much more institutionally aligned. Aren’t they all the same school basically? Like, OU, MU, CU, NU, KU, ISU, KSU, OSU seem like they should have held together vs Texas but they didn’t. How did all those bonds break to where Texas got everything they wanted?
LikeLike
Scout – with the exception of cross-division football scheduling and the A&M temper tantrum last summer, the SEC is a fairly congenial lot. Once the nine game schedule gets adopted, there will really be nothing to argue about down here, other than on-field matters, and who’s cheating.
LikeLike
That’s not at all how the buy-ins worked but I’m not going to explain it again.
LikeLike
“The Big 8 schools confuse me since I’d have thought they would be much more institutionally aligned. Aren’t they all the same school basically? Like, OU, MU, CU, NU, KU, ISU, KSU, OSU seem like they should have held together vs Texas but they didn’t. How did all those bonds break to where Texas got everything they wanted?”
The Big 8’s difficulty was that it had a small population footprint so was going to be left behind or picked apart. Now, yes, if they had stayed together in their own little conference, almost everyone brought something:
MU and CU population, OU and UNL football brand, KU basketball brand, even OSU decent football brand (granted, KSU and ISU, not much). But it’s not like they were going to survive in their own little conference, and unlike the core ACC schools in NC/VA who tend to care most about basketball and each other (OK, VTech cares most about football but probably won’t get a chance to leave for some place better), football powers OU and UNL definitely weren’t going to be willing to be left behind financially and did have options.
So in short, the problem is that some of the Big 8 schools were more like Texas than they were like other Big 8 schools.
LikeLike
@Colin
UT offered to share the LHN with A&M but the Aggies didn’t agree immediately.
I know you know this, but can you imagine how Texas would have “shared” the LHN? Somehow it would have made A&M worse off. That’s just how Texas rolls, isn’t it? I hope A&M wins the next 12 games against Texas.
LikeLike
Scout: “I hope A&M wins the next 12 games against Texas.”
Given how the Aggies have embraced NIL payouts with great gusto, that might actually happen
LikeLike
I can respond to whatever I want to Collin. The other part has been refuted conclusively many times before. The LHN had nothing to do with it. That is an absolute fact All you have to do is read the reports of Pearlman, the UNL president and Loftin, the A&M president. With revenue sharing, there can at least be an informed different opinion.
LikeLike
bullet: “The other part has been refuted conclusively many times before. The LHN had nothing to do with it.”
bullet, I was on the faculty at A&M at the time that this LHN travesty went down. You are dead wrong. Period. Nothing has been conclusively refuted. The LHN was not the only issue that brought about the dissolution of the old Big XII but it was far and away the primary factor.
And I think you know this. But you are in denial.
LikeLike
Scout, you really shouldn’t comment on things you are ignorant about. It was going to be a 50/50 partnership. Despite the comments you get from Aggies, the administrations of the two schools worked together pretty well throughout the 80s, 90s and 00s. They were united with the legislature. They settled the south Texas lawsuit by each absorbing different schools in the Rio Grande Valley (UT got Brownsville & Pan American, A&M got Laredo, Texas A&I and Corpus Christi). They worked together on getting out of the SWC, albeit in different directions.
LikeLike
Loftin played you people like a drum. Read his interview in the A&M student paper. The leaders used the LHN to stir you people up (which with Aggies is pretty easy to do), but he made the decision in 2010 when Nebraska and Colorado left. He was just waiting for an opportune time politically. The LHN was totally irrelevant. It didn’t even exist then and nobody had any idea how lucrative it would be.
LikeLike
bullet: “The LHN was totally irrelevant. It didn’t even exist then and nobody had any idea how lucrative it would be.”
The polar opposite is true. I was on the faculty at A&M when all of this went down. The Aggies left the B12 because they were fed up with Texas and the LHN was the last straw. Mizzou left for the same reasons.
LikeLike
“Collin M” The polar opposite is true. I was on the faculty at A&M when all of this went down. The Aggies left the B12 because they were fed up with Texas and the LHN was the last straw. Mizzou left for the same reasons.”
This is 100% false. If the LHN never existed, Big 12 realignment would have happened exactly the same way. Mizzou had been trying to leave the Big 12 since 2009, LHN had no impact on their decision. The same with A&M, LHN was merely a convenient political excuse for them to use.
Your A&M affiliation doesn’t bolster your claims, it just highlights your bias. It’s impossible to have a rational, honest conversation about anything Longhorn-related with an Aggie.
LikeLike
Scout,
Especially key is that OSU and MI have not asked to get paid more, so no newbie has a chance of getting that approved. As long as those two profess to be happy with equal shares, it won’t change.
LikeLike
And that is important since the biggest proponents and beneficiaries of unequal revenue sharing in the PAC (when it existed) were USC and UCLA. Nebraska was also a big proponent of unequal revenue in the B12.
LikeLike
The key issue is that the financial math just doesn’t make sense when adding them as full members.
Which means none of them are added to the B10 unless ND decides to join the B10 (or Miami with or without FSU in a decade when the ACC gets raided).
In a decade, if ND decides to join the B10, Stanford would be paid for, Miami could be added, ideally with FSU though it’s possible ND could pay for GTech too.
If no ND and no FSU, the B10 may add only Miami and either go to 10 conference games (somewhat unlikely due to pushback from powerful key B10 members) or add an 18th school (Stanford? If the Cardinal don’t suck for a decade; their viewership is bolstered by the ND game and isn’t bad when they’re good, and they should still have plenty of money and will have an awesome academic brand).
LikeLike
I don’t think any school will get in because the add of another school “pays” for them. I think the B1G’s actions prove that as the best way to add more PAC teams from a “let’s blur the values so they are added while yearlies go up and we can offer full membership sooner” was to add Cal/Stanford or UO/Washington with USC/UCLA. But even then, the B1G presidents would want to know what it would look like to add just subsets of those 6 schools, so it would be unblurred anyway. And I’m certain the B1G knew the values of additional PAC adds beyond USCLA before making their decision. Because UO and UW applied for membership already is the rumor and they were told to wait, so the B1G had already made that decision before USCLA was announced.
Besides, you can just add ND solo. So you’d need either to all play 8 or 10 conference games with 17 members, or you could have 1 school play 10 games each year, but you don’t have to add someone with ND that doesn’t stand on their own. ND is in the footprint, they don’t need a travel partner for non-rev sports.
That said, you might pair ND with a school that isn’t dilutive but isn’t really accretive either that the presidents really like, like Washington or Stanford, but that creates really weird non-rev travel so maybe it’s not worth it.
If I had to guess, the only school that could be “paid for” by ND is UVA in a 4pack of UVA/UNC/Duke/ND. But since allegedly UVA was offered as #14 with Maryland I think the B1G presidents feel UVA already pays for itself.
LikeLike
UCLA was paid for by USC. They actually would have been as dilutive as Stanford/UO/UW by themselves.
And in theory, the B10 could have conference members play different numbers of conference games, but no, that’s not happening in the real world. Think of the ruckus that would ensue if the B10 went with such a hairbrained scheme. So as we know that the B10 wasn’t willing to drop down to 8 conference games (thus diluting their TV value) or go up to 10 (because certain powerful B10 schools are against that) or have that wacky plan where different B10 schools play a different number of conference games when they added USC and so added UCLA as well, if ND comes, it’s almost certain someone else would come with them (likely Stanford, which is excellent in all the peripheral aspects and not far off from paying for itself if it isn’t bad at football).
If neither ND or FSU are available, it’s a tougher call, and Miami+Stanford would just be breakeven, but the B10 may still add them, in part to get more access to rich FL recruiting and also all the benefits Stanford adds.
LikeLike
UCLA is a basketball blue blood and a football prince that historically is ahead of Wisky/Iowa, is a top 25 school, plays in the Rose Bowl, is in LA, and is second all time (to Stanford) in total NCAA championships won. We’ll never know because adding UCLA alone was never on the table but I’m pretty confident if USC had gone independent or something and thus UCLA + Cal was on the table the B1G would take UCLA + Cal. UCLA might not be quite as valuable as USC due to football ratings differences, but I think it’s nuts to say they would be dilutive on their own. The key point is the combined value of the 2 is much more their individual values separated.
The 1 team plays a different number of games thing does sound nuts upon reflection so I think my issue is ND + 1 of Stanford/Oregon/Washington feels really weird since you’re islanding those schools far away without any of their rivals, no travel partners. I don’t think the B1G expands past 16 anytime until the 2030s if ND wanted to join tomorrow I could see ND+Colorado making some sense since you can travel pair Colorado and Nebraska (and restore a rivalry) plus Colorado is a great fit if only they committed to not sucking at football anymore. Or add ND and kick Nebraska out so they can rejoin the Big XII 🙂
ND is never going to join a conference though, no reason for them to unless the SEC and B1G somehow manage to lock everyone not in those conferences out of national title contention, and since that would create a billion lawsuits and congressional involvement, ND will always have a path to a title and plenty of schools willing to schedule them. If the ACC collapses because a couple teams join the SEC and B1G then ND will just park all their Olympic sports in the Big East and keep on trucking as a football independent.
LikeLike
Some of us have used the lingo “odd-numbered school” and “even-numbered school.” Odd-numbered schools are the more compelling ones (USC, Maryland). Even-numbered schools are the ones chosen to get the conference back up to even numbers (UCLA, Rutgers).
The even-numbered schools are not freeloaders; they just do not drive the decision to expand on their own. Rutgers was added because Maryland was available (and UVA said no). Had Maryland stayed in the ACC (or UVA said yes), Rutgers would still be in the AAC. Texas A&M and Missouri are similar in the SEC.
Oklahoma is clearly no freeloader, but it’s joining the SEC because Texas was ready to move, not the other way around.
Odd numbers are awkward, not only because a team would need to play one less conference game. Also, someone would need to have a bye during Rivalry Week, which nobody wants. Murphy’s Law says eventually the team with the bye would qualify for the CCG, and would get an unfair extra week of rest that its opponent didn’t get.
I think my issue is ND + 1 of Stanford/Oregon/Washington feels really weird since you’re islanding those schools far away without any of their rivals, no travel partners.
At this point, so many programs have left their historic rivals behind that I cannot believe it is an issue anymore. And there is no such thing as a travel partner, other than schools in the same metro area (USC/UCLA). Aside from that, “travel partners” in realignment have as much existence as the Great Pumpkin.
We agree that ND is almost certainly not joining a conference in this cycle, but if it did, I am not at all worried that the Big Ten would find a happy even-numbered school to join them.
LikeLike
Plus, Stanford isn’t that far from LA. Midwestern teams could play all 3 in non-revenue sports in one trip. And while they wouldn’t have Cal in conference play, USC and UCLA would be decent rivals for them. They would keep playing Cal in all the non-revenue sports OOC.
LikeLike
Brian: “Stanford isn’t that far from LA. Midwestern teams could play all 3 in non-revenue sports in one trip.”
That really isn’t true. LA to Palo Alto is 356 miles by interstate, 5 hours 30 minutes if I-5 isn’t congested and it’s always congested. That’s the same as Chicago to Columbus, Ohio – 356 miles by I-65 and I-70.
LikeLike
Scout,
I disagree with you about Notre Dame. Notre Dame will eventually join a conference because they will have trouble putting together a good football schedule. That reality isn’t any time soon but will be what eventually makes them join a conference. It will likely take the Big Ten going to a 10 game schedule and the ACC being picked apart by the SEC and Big Ten. Neither of those things are happening for a least another decade but they will both eventually happen.
LikeLike
Scout: You can call UCLA whatever you want, but UCLA simply is a worse TV draw than Iowa (and much worse than Wisconsin).
UCLA+Cal definitely would not be added because Cal is a terrible TV draw. UCLA-Cal got all of 386K viewers in 2021. Granted, that was on FS1, but the reason why UCLA-Cal is always on FS1 or PTN is because it seems like nobody actually watches that game besides (some) alums.
LikeLike
https://showbuzzdaily.com/articles/skedball-weekly-sports-tv-ratings-11-22-11-28-2021.html
Unsurprisingly the
10:40pm EST game on FS1 at the very end of Rivalry week between 7-4 UCLA and 5-6 Cal had no viewers. Shocking.
What’s funnier is the 2019 rating where Cal UCLA in that same FS1 late night slot outdrew a 4pm EST Miami game on ESPN2. Yet you think Miami is worth it?
Also Duke vs Gonzaga pulled a 2.9M for a 1040pm EST game on Black Friday. UCLA vs Gonzaga pulled a 1.6M the night before. UCLA bball vs the B1G is gonna be great ratings.
LikeLike
Colin, planes have been invented for a while now. So either land in the Bay Area first, then fly to LA and then back home or vice versa. For a sport like volleyball, that would mean games Th-Sat-Mon or F-Sun-Tue or some other setup over a long weekend (heck, no reason this can’t be done with basketball too). Hmm, I suppose the middle trip could also be at Stanford but that’s a short plane ride between SF and LA. Even the bus ride isn’t that long. Taking a bus between Stanford and UCLA takes less time than between Northwestern and UMTC or Northwestern and OSU or UIUC and UMich or Iowa and IU (and a bunch of other B10 trips). And these are trips to/from the original 10 B10 schools.
We think of UMTC and UNL as close to each other but the trip between those 2 campuses is farther than UCLA-Stanford.
If ND & Stanford join, the B10 actually sets up pretty well as 6 triads for travel purposes for non-revenue sports (maybe all sports):
USC/UCLA/Stanford
UNL/UMTC/Iowa
UW-Madison/NU/UIUC
ND/PU/IU
MSU/UMich/OSU
PSU/RU/UMD
LikeLike
Scout, you’re falling for the fallacy of comparing some of the best games for School A to some of the worst for school B and saying “look, School A is more attractive than School B!”
That’s what someone did when comparing some After Dark games to some LSU and FSU games. Yes, some UCLA/Cal games may draw more than some LSU/FSU/Miami games, but overall, LSU/FSU/Miami draw more eyeballs than UCLA/Cal. And they aren’t all on the same tier.
LSU/FSU > Miami > UCLA > Cal.
Miami, BTW, is about the Iowa level as a TV draw, so on the edge, but I think they’re valuable because of the insanely rich local recruiting ground (and state) they sit in.
LikeLike
Notre Dame will eventually join a conference because they will have trouble putting together a good football schedule.
ND will always be able to put a schedule together, because other conferences will be eager to accommodate them. Why? Because nobody (except the Big Ten) wants ND in a conference.
Let’s say ND goes to the SEC, and says, “Can you give us two dates per year in October and November?” The SEC will say Sure! Then, ND asks the Big XII for the same, and the Big XII says Sure! And so on. They all know that refusing to help just pushes the Irish into the Big Ten.
If ND gives up football independence, it will only be because they cannot keep up financially.
LikeLike
Marc: “ND will always be able to put a schedule together . . .”
Fully agree. Even if this ACC deal peters out, they could easily join the Big East for all Olympic sports with zero football games dedicated. Far better team travel logistics, too. Actually, that seems more logical than the ACC deal that they have right now.
LikeLike
I don’t think they will, but historically, a number of conferences had schools playing different numbers of games. In the SEC, just looking at 1964 before Tulane left, Alabama played 8 conference games and Tulane played 5 with the others playing 6 or 7. The MVC often had schools playing different numbers of games.
One alternative would be a designated conference game. Again, I think the chance of this is remote, but you could have 9 conference games except for say, Iowa, who counts Iowa St. as their 9th conference game.
LikeLike
Bullet, well, way back in the day, because travel across the length of a conference was difficult, you didn’t really have conference-mandated football schedules.
Hence why UK and LSU didn’t play a single time 1911-1948 even though they were conference mates 37 of those 38 years.
Marc, what you say makes sense logically and theoretically, but
1. The B12 schools that are left won’t generally be big draws that boost season ticket packages.
2. That leaves the SEC (well, and UO and UW), but schools plan out their OOC schedules years in advance, and various schools have constraints on who they schedule OOC. It also makes a ton of financial sense, once the B10 and SEC split up the ACC football powers, to monetize their OOC schedule and set up a B10-SEC Challenge in football. As I’d expect that to make a decent amount of money for the B10 and SEC, I’m pretty certain the SEC would care more about that than keeping ND from the B10 (which doesn’t actually gain the SEC much of anything).
LikeLike
Marc,
I disagree. Notre Dame will be hard pressed to get good opponents on the schedule as conferences keep expanding and the likelihood of more conference games. The top teams only schedule one tough out of conference opponent each season and a couple of cream puffs for some easy home revenue. Maybe Notre Dame can get one good team year from each conference and someone else. Their schedules have already taken a dive since they partially joined the ACC and that’s with Clemson, Florida State and Miami in the ACC. Eventually those teams join the rotating two teams as you suggest from the other conferences. Notre Dame is already behind in the payout. Take a couple more name brand teams off their schedule, and they will fall behind a lot more. Maybe that’s Warren’s overall plan by adding more PAC schools. It may force Notre Dames hand scheduling wise. So they would get one king from the SEC, one king from the Big Ten and a bunch of mid tier ratings teams to fill out the schedule. That’s going to be a tough sell for the networks.
LikeLike
I don’t consider Chicago far away from Columbus, either. Once you’ve flown to CA, hopping a quick flight from SF to LA (or vice versa) is no big deal. These are major airports with lots of flights. It’s not like going to PSU or PU in the middle of nowhere.
LikeLike
Purdue has its own airport. It also has the top aviation program for pilots in the nation and the best USAF ROTC program in the nation.
https://collegegazette.com/best-aviation-schools-in-the-us/
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/general/2010/101111FrooninckxROTC.html
LikeLike
I disagree. Notre Dame will be hard pressed to get good opponents on the schedule as conferences keep expanding and the likelihood of more conference games. The top teams only schedule one tough out of conference opponent each season and a couple of cream puffs for some easy home revenue.
Well, my entire premise is that other conferences do not want to see the Big Ten get stronger, and are willing to help out the Irish to some extent if it means they stay independent. If the SEC gives ND two games a year, that means any given member faces the Irish just once every eight years. They can manage that. Now the Big XII does the same, and so on.
No conference minds having ND on their schedule. They love it, as those games are always a ratings bonanza. It’s ND who does not currently have room for them—not the other way around.
LikeLike
Colin: “Fully agree. Even if this ACC deal peters out, they could easily join the Big East for all Olympic sports with zero football games dedicated. Far better team travel logistics, too. Actually, that seems more logical than the ACC deal that they have right now.”
Huh? ND’s issue are (attractive) late season football games, which joining the BE doesn’t solve at all. Before their ACC deal, they had to agree to a HaH with Northwestern in order to fill late-season dates.
Marc: “Well, my entire premise is that other conferences do not want to see the Big Ten get stronger, and are willing to help out the Irish to some extent if it means they stay independent.”
Yeah, my disagreement is with your premise. The only “other conferences” that matter is the SEC, and, IMO, whether ND joins the B10 or not just doesn’t matter to the SEC that much if the SEC isn’t getting ND anyway (any more than the SEC cared about PSU staying independent or the B10 cared about SC staying independent). Once the ACC is divvied up, the SEC will care more about increasing revenue with a B10-SEC Challenge.
LikeLike
Richard: “ND’s issue are (attractive) late season football games, which joining the BE doesn’t solve at all.”
ND has no issue at all scheduling attractive games from mid-October thru November. USC, Stanford and Navy are always in that time slot and major conferences like the Big Ten no longer pack all of their conference games into late-season. They now spread them out for TV. This year Nebraska-NW was in August and Purdue-Penn St was Sept 1st. Games like those leave slots open for OOC games later in the season.
In recent years both NW and Michigan have played the Irish in mid-season. ND will never have trouble finding opponents in Oct-Nov.
LikeLike
Even if this ACC deal peters out, they could easily join the Big East for all Olympic sports with zero football games dedicated. Far better team travel logistics, too. Actually, that seems more logical than the ACC deal that they have right now.</em
ND joined the ACC because they no longer considered the BE schools true peers in the Olympic sports. Maybe they will re-think it, but that was their reasoning at the time.
The ACC was loaded with schools that ND had historically played in football, and they already played about 2–3 ACC schools per year anyway. Bumping that up to five was not that big a change. But as the ACC has turned out to be weaker in football than they expected, it has resulted in a notably watered down schedule for them.
LikeLike
Marc: “But as the ACC has turned out to be weaker in football than they expected, it has resulted in a notably watered down schedule for them.”
Yep, I agree with your analysis although I could make a good argument that ND men’s hoops and Mike Brey are in waaaay over their heads in the ACC. But back to Richard’s claim that ND would have trouble scheduling major opponents in Oct-Nov, that simply is no longer the situation. Conferences now try to fill out the full season with conference games for TV. I don’t think the ACC, Big Ten, Big XII or Pac-12 would have any problems making accommodation for ND in late season. The ACC and Pac-12 have been doing it for years.
LikeLike
In recent years both NW and Michigan have played the Irish in mid-season. ND will never have trouble finding opponents in Oct-Nov.
True, and on top of that, the Big Ten jumped through hoops to make the mid-season Mich–ND possible. Michigan had been scheduled to play Rutgers that week. The league (and Rutgers) agreed to move it, so that the ND game could happen.
Every conference wants Notre Dame on their schedule, and within reason they are willing to rearrange things to make it happen. Of course, the Pac-12 has done that for years.
LikeLike
SEC scheduling was not all about geography. Alabama didn’t play Auburn between 1907 and 1948. They have played Tennessee annually since 1928 with the exception of 1943 during the war. Tennessee, however, didn’t play Georgia between 1937 and 1968. Yet Georgia has played Kentucky every year since 1956 and Auburn since 1892 with the exception of 1 year during WWII and 2 years during WWI.
LikeLike
Colin, USC, Stanford, and Navy are only 3 games for close to 2 months. Again, ND had to agree to a HaH with Northwestern before they entered that scheduling agreement with the ACC just to fill late season slots. Do you think the Domers consider Northwestern a peer?
So sure, ND could potentially fill late season slots, but would they get the high-profile opponents they (and their TV partner) want? NBC already discounts what they pay ND for home games in part because as an independent, any scheduled games could be cancelled on short notice in the future, in part because the ACC isn’t so hot in football (and also because ND could be bad for a while). Now, ND could decide to take less money and play a poorer schedule (and also never get a bye in the first round of the CFP) and stay independent and keep home games at specific start times if that is what Irish alums want, but I’m not so sure all of them will cling so desperately to independence in a decade or 2.
We’ve already seen changes in TV viewing habits. Traditionally, the 4 biggest CFB draws for TV were UMich, USC, ND, and Texas (with OSU 5th).
The past decade, they have been Bama & OSU at the top followed by UMich and UGa (with ND 5th).
Obviously, Texas and USC have not helped themselves by being downwwhile Bama and OSU have been national title contenders the entire season pretty much every season (and UGa has been a national title contender much of the time too). But while both ND and UMich have been up and down, ND has been more successful (more double-digit win seasons and 3 CFP/BCS appearances vs 1 for UMich). Yet UMich has been the bigger TV draw.
In that poll where UO was seen as cool by HS recruits, the order went
Bama, OSU, UGa, OU, Clemson, LSU, A&M, Texas, UO, Miami.
No ND.
In short, the college football world isn’t the 1 you and Brian grew up in, Colin. In the future, the SEC and B10 will be seen as the top leagues. If you’re not in 1 of them, you’ll be an afterthought.
LikeLike
Richard: “USC, Stanford, and Navy are only 3 games for close to 2 months.”
It’s 3 games within the 7 week period or 43%.
Richard: “Do you think the Domers consider Northwestern a peer?”
The Domers have scheduled Tennessee State, Marshall, Toledo, South Florida, New Mexico, Ball State and Bowling Green as Sept or first week of Oct opponents 2019-2023. Do you think the Domers consider them as peers?
LikeLike
I looked at the 2018, 2019 & 2021 season TV ratings for Notre Dame. These were all pretty good years on the field for the Irish: 2018 (#5), 2019 (#12), and 2021 (#8).
For the most part, Notre Dame’s big numbers came in for King v King matchups or when there was no competition in the window. Generally speaking and based on these three seasons, the Irish can’t carry a bad matchup the way Ohio State and Michigan usually do.
In 2018, ND’s worst game from an eyeballs standpoint was Vandy (a 2;30p kick on NBC during week #3) that drew in 2.11m viewers.
In 2019, the Irish had four games that drew under 2m viewers; 1.56m (Navy NBC 2:30p), 1.5m (New Mexico NBC 2:30p), 1.28m (Bowling Green NBC 3;30p), and 1.1m (BC NBC 2:30p).
In 2021, the Irish went under 2m viewers twice: 1.86m (Navy NBC 3:30p) and 1.455m (GA Tech NBC 2:30p).
Keep in mind that of the 33 Notre Dame games during those three years, two apiece were on ESPN, CBS, and FOX, six on ABC, and 21 on NBC, with 15 games on during primetime.
Notre Dame’s biggest games were Georgia (2019 CBS 3;30p – 9.29m); USC (2018 ABC primetime – 7.809m); Michigan (2019 ABC primetime – 6.75m and 2018 NBC primetime – 7.091m); Wisconsin (2021 FOX noon – 5.369m); and VA Tech (2018 ABC primetime – 4.473m), along with two Week #1 games with no competition: Florida State (2021 Sunday primetime on ABC – 7.75m) and Louisville (2019 Monday primetime on ESPN – 5.6m). Every other game was under 4m.
USC/ND doesn’t appear to be a silver bullet. In 2019, the game drew 3.16m and in 2021, the game drew 2.868m. Both games with on NBC during primetime.
In total, eight games over 4m and six games under 2m.
LikeLike
Alan: “I looked at the 2018, 2019 & 2021 season TV ratings for Notre Dame. These were all pretty good years on the field for the Irish: 2018 (#5), 2019 (#12), and 2021 (#8).”
Alan, I do not at all disagree with you. The Domers have a great thing going for them. That is why I have repeatedly said that they ain’t gonna join a conference.
LikeLike
Colin, did ND schedule HaH with any of Tennessee State, Marshall, Toledo, South Florida, New Mexico, Ball State or Bowling Green? They did with Northwestern and came to Evanston.
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, did ND schedule HaH with any of Tennessee State, Marshall, Toledo, South Florida, New Mexico, Ball State or Bowling Green? They did with Northwestern and came to Evanston.”
Richard, you again ignore the discussion at hand. Please focus upon the issue, OK?
We are talking about ND being unable to schedule any quality opponents from mid-Oct thru Nov. That is complete bull-feces. It is jackass nonsense. ND could easily schedule top 25 opponents from August 15 thru Thanksgiving with H&H games and fill out with home and nones against the MAC and the Tenn States and the UNLVs.
LikeLike
Colin: “We are talking about ND being unable to schedule any quality opponents from mid-Oct thru Nov. That is complete bull-feces. It is jackass nonsense. ND could easily schedule top 25 opponents from August 15 thru Thanksgiving with H&H games”
And to bolster your contention, you list Tenn St. and MAC buy games. LOL. You seem to be the one who has trouble focusing. Just saying something and then providing weak evidence (you must think Tenn St. is a powerhouse) doesn’t make it true.
Actually, Brian’s right. I shouldn’t bother arguing with you because whether you actually are consciously trolling or not, in behavior, you act exactly like a troll.
LikeLike
Richard: ” I shouldn’t bother arguing with you because whether you actually are consciously trolling or not, in behavior, you act exactly like a troll.”
Ah shucks Richard, you finally outed me. I are a troll. I tried to clean up my act but the voices in my head kept calling me back: “Colin, you are hopeless trollbait, a troll creature of great loathing and shame.” OK, you finally got me.
LikeLike
Alan, yep, lots of people living in the past or have a mythical image of ND lodged in their brain. These days, ND isn’t the greatest TV draw in all of college football as many people seem to think it is (USC also fallen as their fans are notoriously bandwagonners). Lots of Domers in that group but even more sadly, lots of non-Domers too.
These days, Bama and OSU are the top TV draws followed by UMich and UGa. ND closer to PSU, which is definitely a king but not among the very top.
LikeLike
Scout,
Stanford being paid for by ND would be different for a few reasons:
First, the presidents would love an excuse to add Stanford for the academic relation.
Second, the B10 would not go to just 17 members so they have to add someone else. There is no way the schools would agree to unequal schedule sizes (or 8 or 10 games) just to avoid adding a school.
Third, Stanford adds another ND game to the B10 inventory, increases the possibility for 4th window games, and adds a huge TV market. Stanford almost pays for itself as is, and ND is more than valuable enough to cover the remainder.
Fourth, ND may want Stanford as a condition of joining. ND likes it’s biennial trips to SF.
The B10 knows Stanford + another P12 school (like Cal) does not make financial sense, but ND + anyone makes a ton of sense.
Yes, Stanford would add a lot of travel for the current B10 members. But it would also mean visits to SF for alumni and recruiting, so it’s not necessarily a terrible thing.
As for UVA, just remember that was their value then. With in-footprint BTN subscriptions not being as important in the future, adding them now might not make as much sense. The B10 already has access to the DC market, so UVA doesn’t bring any large markets. UVA has mediocre support in the state, with VT probably more popular (it’s split regionally). Also, UVA would’ve been a built-in rival for UMD. I think the B10 had to at least ask them as a condition of adding UMD, but I think Delany was happy to get RU instead (for the NYC access).
LikeLike
“But Thompson told Wilner that Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford would benefit by staying in the Pac-12, partly because of the College Football Playoff will be expanded to 12 teams in the 2026 season,”
Jeepers Marc, have you ever heard that crazy theory on this forum previously?
LikeLike
Multiple people parroting hypotheticals they believe could possibly make sense does not make said hypothetical any more true. Like, we all know that if you’re not the B1G or SEC, the expanded CFP is a benefit for your conference. Heck, it’s a huge benefit for the MAC and Sunbelt, which might get a team in one year now as opposed to absolutely never in the 4-team CFP.
Besides, if the benefit of easier CFP access outweighed all the other benefits of being in the B1G then those schools wouldn’t want to be in the B1G, and we wouldn’t be having any of these rumors or conversations. And again, UCLA/USC had to know that the B1G would support CFP expansion post them joining. Texas/OU and the SEC might have been a little surprised at the Alliance’s pushback but probably figured it was short term. UCLA/USC definitely knew that the B1G would support the 12-team CFB proposal and so would the ACC and Pac10 change their minds out of necessity.
LikeLike
Jeepers Marc, have you ever heard that crazy theory on this forum previously?
Indeed I have, but Thompson’s theory came with a huge caveat. He thinks their payout would be equal either way, due to the long buy-in those schools would suffer. Most of us find it very hard to believe that these schools would actually turn down the Big Ten, just because a retired media executive with nothing on the line thinks they should.
FTT has long argued, and I agree, that university presidents prefer predictable annual revenue over a variable bounty that depends on having a good year. If they could make more in the Big Ten, they would move and take their chances on the playoff.
But it is all academic, since you and I (and most of us here) think the Big Ten is not expanding again in this cycle, whether those schools want in or not. I bet Bob Thompson knows that too. So he can make an easy prediction without fear of being wrong.
LikeLike
The discussions about adding this or that school are entirely wrong-headed. The B1G has an opportunity to become a true continental athletic conference. Its true competitors would not be the SEC or MAC or whatever. It would be the NFL and NBA, and eventually, MLB, NHL, MLS, and MLL
The continental B1G would be marketed as a whole, not as separate schools. As separate schools, tOSU and ND have no value. Their value comes from the other schools they play.
To preserve value, schools should be added to the B1G as groups that have a long mutual history of rivalries and games in all sports. For that reason, the addition of Penn State without a rival was a mistake, as were the additions of Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. The additions of USC and UCLA are also mistakes. But those mistakes can be remedied the the additions of Washington, Oregon, Stanford and CAL. Perhaps Utah and Colorado, too.
The ultimate goal for a continental conference would be at least 24 schools, but 32 might be optimal, especially considering scheduling and travel issues. Thirty two is the size of the typical professional league. Any number divisible by four is the rule, but 36 and certainly 40 would be too many.
The AD’s and Presidents need to think holistically. The piecemeal approach to conference expansion is wrong.
LikeLike
I’m sorry Penn State is unrivaled so how could it have been a mistake?
LikeLike
Bob,
ND as a separate school has no value? NBC seems to disagree, and so does the ACC (and every other conference in CFB).
To preserve value, schools should be added to the B1G as groups that have a long mutual history of rivalries and games in all sports. For that reason, the addition of Penn State without a rival was a mistake, as were the additions of Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. The additions of USC and UCLA are also mistakes. But those mistakes can be remedied the the additions of Washington, Oregon, Stanford and CAL. Perhaps Utah and Colorado, too.
PSU and RU have a long history. So do PSU and UMD. Pitt is as close as they come to a rival, I suppose, but Pitt might pick WV as their top rival.
OU wasn’t coming with NE. Nobody else in the Big 8 really mattered to NE.
USC/UCLA seems to meet all your criteria, but is still a mistake? How would UU and CU help USC and UCLA – they have no history? I don’t know that UO and UW matter all that much to them either, but they at least have history.
But here’s the problem: The P12 is way behind financially. Adding most of it to the B10 doesn’t suddenly make it valuable, it just dilutes the B10.
LikeLike
Oklahoma tried to come with Nebraska at one point:
https://stormininnorman.com/2015/07/28/oklahoma-sooners-in-the-big-ten-closer-to-reality-than-you-may-have-thought/
OU, Nebraska, A&M, Kansas, and ISU.
Irony being the source says they couldn’t agree on a revenue sharing plan, which I’d have to imagine was either related to the equity buy in or that the B1G wouldn’t entertain unequal shares for OU, Neb, or A&M or let them keep their T3 rights.
I also recall lots of smoke about David Boren trying very hard to get into the Big Ten post 2012 departures of Mizzou and A&M. Maybe I’m misremembering.
LikeLike
ISU never had a chance, TAMU was never interested, and I don’t believe OU would leave UT willingly. This sounds exactly like the sort of false moves people float to get leverage for what they really want.
LikeLike
I think that is Warren’s vision. Maybe not 28 or 32, but a “national” conference.
Remains to be seen how the presidents feel about that.
LikeLike
bullet: “I think that is Warren’s vision. Maybe not 28 or 32, but a “national” conference. Remains to be seen how the presidents feel about that.”
The Big Ten will remain at 16 throughout the lifetimes of both you and me.
LikeLike
I dunno about you, Colin, but I expect to see the 2030’s.
LikeLike
Richard: “I dunno about you, Colin, but I expect to see the 2030’s.”
I’m 74 years old with two doctorates, DVM and PhD in Food Science. Also board-certified in Preventive Medicine. I avoid Alzheimer’s disease because I know that the etiology is precipitation of aluminosilicates within the brain. Therefore I fastidiously avoid all aluminum-containing food additives such as aluminum-containing baking powder, like those yummy biscuits at Red Lobster.
Suggest you do the same.
LikeLike
Huh. Thanks for the tip. I truly appreciate it.
LikeLike
Oh great. Aluminum is in a bunch of processed foods (including a bunch of stuff that is baked, including bread). So fresh vegetables, meats, rice, (maybe pasta) and eggs are it, it seems.
LikeLike
Richard: “Aluminum is in a bunch of processed foods (including a bunch of stuff that is baked, including bread).”
The foremost problem is aluminum-containing leavening agents used in foods like pancakes, self-rising bread, muffins, etc. Those yummy biscuits at Red Lobster pack a real wallop. Ditto the corn muffins at Cracker Barrel.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10350420/
LikeLike
Since I think it will happen relatively soon, I REALLY hope you are wrong Colin!
LikeLike
What exactly makes you think that any college presidents view the competitions for their leagues as professional major league sports? Why should they have that view? Then there might as well be semi-pro teams affiliated with universities. Eliminate little details like classes or graduation.
Why bother with the university affiliations at all?
Go to 32 schools and the original teams will play each other every few years. Do you think that the fans, students, and alumni want that?
This of course totally ignore the virtually guaranteed reaction by Congress if the B1G and the SEC each expanded to that point and squeezed out the other leagues. If the SEC did not go along, the B1G would be a pariah.
You firmly believe that the expansion to the east that gave the B1G NYC, Philly, Baltimore, and DC, and then LA, was a mistake that you would cure by going to a bunch of schools in the west that will dramatically reduce the per team value of the B1G. (Yes, PSU was in Philly, but the Philly TV market also includes several million people from south Jersey, which would include a lot of RU alums).
You do realize that the new TV deal was only possible since the B1G goes from NY to Chicago to LA. At least that is view of the president of CBS sports. ND brags that they get to play in NY, LA, and Chicago and they were the only team that could do that. Now the entire B1G does it.
LikeLike
. Then there might as well be semi-pro teams affiliated with universities. Eliminate little details like classes or graduation.
But enough about Alabama, UNC, LSU, and Ohio State.
LikeLike
Even if the Eomers irrationally cling bitterly to vndependence long after it makes logical sense for them to do so, I think it makes sense for the B10 to add Miami + Stanford/UO eUO draws eyeballs about as well as Iowa but is terrible in all the ancillary stuff like academics/research, location, B10 alums, and recruiting hotbed but also is seen as a cool brand by young folks and has Uncle Phil’s money while Stanford is a little worse than Iowa if they are winning but is great in the ancillary stuff and also has tons of money and the ND game)i The value of the top 3 B10 TV packages probably wouldn’t go up much at all, but it would enable an Amazon package of 4-5 games on both what is now Week Zero as well as Labor Day weekend and 5-7 Friday night/After Dark games later in the season that would bring in at least $150mm total.
Picture an opening weekend (Week Zero) slate of
Th night PSU-Miami on Fox
Fri night USC-Stanford/UO on Amazon
Sat noon OOC home opener @OSU on Fox
Sat afternoon OOC home opener @UMich on CBS
Sat primetime UNL-UMTC on NBC
Sun noon Iowa-Northwestern on Amazon
Sun afternoon Wisconsin-UIUC on Amazon
Sun primetime MSU-PU on Amazon
(UCLA-RU/UMD and IU-RU/UMD on FS1 and BTN some time on Sat)(n if the D.
LikeLike
Amazon doesn’t want a junk package, that isn’t going to move the needle for them at all. They bid on a T2 package, not tier 50.
LikeLike
How do you know what Amazon would bid on? The package described is similar to what is on BTN today. It is not junk. BTN has done very well. It is easy to forget now, but a lot of people thought BTN was a crazy idea — until it worked.
LikeLike
It’s just how content subscription service customer acquisition and retention works. The BTN was both on cable and acted as the overflow channel for games that weren’t consistently televised prior. That package would be be fine for launching the BTN but it’s absolutely not for a streaming service looking to grow membership.
There’s a reason that Amazon put up the biggest bid and tried to buy T2. Why would they settle for T4/T5? If that’s what they wanted they would have bought it already. But they don’t, so they didn’t. I’m not trying to be dismissive it’s just Amazon isn’t exactly known for settling.
LikeLike
Well…no. Why insist that you know what is unknown? The only thing sort-of-known (anonymously sourced) is that they bid on T2 and were turned down. Whether they sought or would have bid on any other package is not known. It is not even known if other packages were potentially available.
They already have the #4 NFL package, as Thursday typically night lags behind both of the Sunday afternoon packages (CBS & FOX) and the Sunday night package (NBC). To the extent your argument is that Amazon does not bid on #4, that is clearly not true.
If that’s what they wanted they would have bought it already.
That assumes it was offered to them. We don’t know if it was.
LikeLike
Great, WordPress messing up my text already.
Anyway, you might be right? But I wouldn’t say it’s BTN-tier. Even though 4th pick (so mid-tier of games in an expanded B10), its comparable to the top tier games in the new Pac, new B12, and new ACC after it loses it’s football powerhouses. Getting a lot of first week games that are conference games is also advantageous as those games get a viewership bump (most fanbases enter a season with high hopes). So you can probably expect a 2-2.5mm average.
If Amazon doesn’t pay enough, ESPN may.
LikeLike
Per Sports Business Journal, the Pac-12’s exclusive negotiating window with ESPN and FOX has expired. It will now take its sports packages to the open market.
(Thanks to FTT for the retweeting that.)
LikeLike
Marc: “the Pac-12’s exclusive negotiating window with ESPN and FOX has expired. It will now take its sports packages to the open market.”
Translation: Pac-10 media rights are now laughingstock after the departure of USC and UCLA. They’ll be lucky to get ACC chump change.
LikeLike
Eh, no reason for either side to make a deal in the exclusive window. ESPN or Fox will pay a reasonable price eventually.
LikeLike
True, so why wouldn’t the four corner schools ditch it for the greener pastures of the B12? I know you’re adamant no further realignment is in the cards.
LikeLike
…so why wouldn’t the four corner schools ditch it for the greener pastures of the B12?
I suspect they are waiting for greater clarity on the situation. The media consensus is that the P12 and B12 payouts (per school) are going to be pretty similar. That is not a certainty, but they might as well have better information before making a move. If the money difference is not compelling, I think the Pac-12 is where they would rather be for the next few years.
I have to think the four corners schools have at least considered it, and will keep doing so. Even if you believe — as Colin does — that the Big Ten won’t expand again in our lifetimes, as a P12 member you can never be positive of that. The B12 is going to be the most stable of the M3, simply because there is nothing left there that the B10 and SEC could conceivably covet.
LikeLike
EndeavorWMEdani: I know you’re adamant no further realignment is in the cards.
No no no, I didn’t say that at all. I said that the Big Ten and SEC were finished with realignment until circa 2036. I expect to see all kinds of horse trading among the ACC, B12, P12 and G5 schools.
LikeLike
I wonder how the B10 will handle homecoming games (when times have to be set well in advance) and games like the PSU Whiteout that the Lions really want to play at night. Will all homecoming games be in the first 2-3 weeks? (Time and dates for all games the first few weeks are set before the season starts.)
Will OSU-PSU always be at night and UMich-MSU always be in the afternoon but CBS and NBC alternate each season on who broadcasts which?
Will the PSU Whiteout always be early in the season?
LikeLike
Right now, PSU hosts OSU in even years and generally a marquee/local OOC opponent in odd years, so the marquee OOC opponent early in the season could serve as the Whiteout opponent in odd years.
Except in 2025 because PSU currently only has Nevada and Villanova at home OOC in 2025.
PSU may have to plug that hole fast.
LikeLike
When the B10-SEC Challenge eventually gets set up, Labor Day weekend would be the best time for it: 3 slots Sat-Sun-Mon + Th night and F night. Possibly an After Dark slot (or 2) too.
By then, the last week of the regular season could be moved to the week before Thanksgiving, CCGs on Thanksgiving weekend, 2 rounds of playoffs in Dec and the Jan 1 bowls (let’s just say the Rose and Sugar) serve as semifinals.
Season starting 2 weeks before Labor Day weekend as well (what is now Week Zero and Week -1?) These days, the vast majority of colleges have kids on campus by mid-August, and there are a lot of advantages to those weeks before Labor Day: Yes, there are NFL preseason games, but the NFL regular season hasn’t started, and for the most part, neither has HS football, so you could have games on Th and F nights, 3 slots on both Sat and Sun as well as Mon night.
LikeLike
Why do you think there will be a B10-SEC challenge?
LikeLike
To monetize the OOC schedule better. Currently, big-time OOC games, even those that eventually draw huge viewership, are heavily discounted by broadcasters* because schools can and do back out of scheduled OOC games (such as UMich backing out of a series with UCLA and UNL trying to back out of a series with OU).
So a B10-SEC Challenge is only logical. What’s keeping something like that from happening now are those intrastate southern ACC-SEC rivalry games (and sure, schools like to have control over OOC scheduling, etc., but as we have seen historically, they tend to like money more), but once Clemson and FSU (and maybe GTech) enter the P2, that issue goes away as they’ll either become conference games or be incorporated in to the B10-SEC Challenge. It would even rekindle some neat rivalry games. For instance, UIUC-Mizzou and possibly IU-UK (if the KY politicians allow it). UNL-OU could become annual too. Some schools may have to be carved out of the requirement to participate (Iowa in order to play ISU and maybe UGa in order to play GTech) but you’d still see plenty of heavyweight matchups. Imagine some combination of UMich/OSU/PSU/USC vs. Bama/LSU/UGa/UF every year.
The B10 may insist on a basketball B10-SEC Challenge too in order to salvage some pride.
*This is a challenge for ND too. I think one reason the Irish are consistently underpaid by NBC given their historical viewership is because they have full control over their schedule and could even end their relationship with the ACC and their rivalry games whenever they want, so NBC is not only taking single-school risk (where the Domers are bad for years) but also quality-control risk (and of course, either school could back out of the high-profile non-ACC/rivalry games the Irish have scheduled). Hence NBC will pay roughly $250mm for 15 B10 games (the rest are for MBB, the CCG, Peacock) so arguably overpaying to get a piece of the B10 action but reportedly $60mm for 7 ND games (so underpaying ND).
LikeLike
So all other OOC games are a great concern for the networks, but they think a challenge series could never end or have weak matchups so they’ll pay a lot more for it? What is your evidence (quotes from TV execs, etc.) to support that?
And how much more do you think this could generate? All the existing big OOC games would go away to be replaced by these games.
LikeLike
A football Challenge Series would be like basketball challenge series. Paid for by networks. So when they end, networks stop paying for them.
And in a world where FSU, Clemson, and Miami all end up in the P2, there won’t be that many big-time/king OOC opponents for the P2 besides the other P2 league anyway outside of ND (if they don’t join the B10) and UO and UW by those who consider them big-time (if they don’t join the B10).
Anyway, this series would be worth $200mm/year, or $100mm per conference or roughly an extra $5mm per school. Main TV contracts for the B10 and SEC will maybe have $40mm/year knocked off.
I can see PSU maybe may not be willing to trade OOC games against local M3 schools (WVU/Pitt/Syracuse/VA schools) for a few extra million but UMich and OSU would be scheduling mostly schools in the new SEC as their marquee OOC opponent anyway, and most of the rest of the B10 would welcome such a series as well (schools like IU and UIUC don’t really have much luck getting anything like marquee opponents to agree to HaH games with them).
LikeLike
BTW, you must not be paying close attention, but I definitely have read articles over the years where college football insiders (might have been TV execs or conference execs or ADs; can’t remember) bemoan the current way high-profile OOC football games are set up (a decade in advance, so by the time the teams actually play, you have little idea how good the 2 teams are and how well-matched they are; yes, teams tend to schedule HaHs in their brand tier but it’s still much more hit-or-miss than a challenge series) as asinine.
LikeLike
BtW, the current OOC setup isn’t a great concern for the _networks_ (I think they’d be fine continuing to severely underpay for them), but rather, the conferences. The idea of a B10-SEC Challenge Series in football really shouldn’t be from left field for you when the B10, quite recently, was entertaining the idea of challenge series with 2 other conferences that were much weaker TV draws even when they had their top dogs (you forgot the Alliance already?)
LikeLike
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/big-ten-media-rights-acc-b1g-challenge-future-in-question/
The hoops challenges are just small parts part of the regular TV deals. I’ve never seen evidence that they are explicitly written into the TV deals. And with the B10 leaving ESPN, the B10/ACC challenge might end due to network ownership of games.
ESPN helped create the challenge and currently holds the rights to all games. Andy Katz of the Big Ten Network shared that the conferences and their media partners could come to a new arrangement. The easiest way to solve the issue would be if ESPN handled the ACC’s home games while another network handled the games hosted by B1G teams.
…
Katz points out, however, that even if a media arrangement could be worked out, the B1G may not wish to continue the ACC challenge after expanding to add USC and UCLA to the B1G conference schedule. Katz adds that while a TV split makes it possible to continue, it doesn’t help with the likelihood of the Challenge continuing with the new partnership.
Then there’s the question of if the schools want to be trapped in such a deal. It’s easy to handle in hoops, but less so in football. Some schools already have locked OOC rivalries (IA, USC, UK) and the probably don’t want 11 games imposed on their schedules every year. Others want the freedom to control who they play, not have networks dictate it.
For every good game, you also add weak ones like RU vs anybody, MsSU vs anybody, etc. And these replace similar games already being played. Why would networks pay $200M more for the equivalent of the what they already get? If all the best teams end up in a P2 and they would play each other anyway, why pay more for it? They’re already paying for the rights to all those home OOC games.
IL already schedules series like KU, Duke, and MO OOC. How would just playing the SEC help that – they’d get teams like VU and MsSU. IN has UVA, UL and ND coming up. Will they get an SEC king?
You are completely changing the discussion, but of course some have complained about scheduling OOC series 10 years in advance. You can change that without losing the freedom to choose your opponents.
People brought up OOC games, and they got promptly rejected. Just like they did when the B10 and P12 discussed it before moving to 9 games instead. One reason the alliance games were rejected is that they didn’t fix a problem.
You have just decided that the networks would pay huge money for these games. You have no supporting evidence. The conferences talk with the tv execs all the time – if there was huge money out there, they would know about it. So why aren’t they all pushing for it?
LikeLike
I didn’t say “huge money”, I said a few million extra per school. And we know the reason why there isn’t a B10-SEC Challenge Series now: because of all those committed intra-state rivalry games the SEC has. And it doesn’t make sense for the P2 to arrange a challenge series with other leagues besides themselves. You’re not going to hear chatter of something that won’t occur so long as the ACC still has its football powers.
But again, Brian, like you always are, you’re backwards looking and can’t conceive of any change occuring in the future (so you’re pretty much always blindsided by any change that comes in CFB).
In the future, a bunch of those current SEC-ACC rivalry games will become either conference games or could be incorporated in to the B10-ACC Challenge. I have ND as more likely to join the B10 than not as well in a decade. But say ND still isn’t part of the B10. You could exclude UGa, Iowa, UK, and USC and still have a massive challenge series. With OSU, UMich, PSU, MSU, Wisconsin, UNL, UCLA, Miami, FSU vs Bama, LSU, UF, Texas, A&M, OU, Clemson, Auburn, Tennessee, you’d have 9 massive matchups of kings/princes facing off against other kings/princes. It doesn’t matter if few people watch RU-MSSt. Like in any TV package, the bulk of the viewership will be in the heavyweight matchups.
BTW, Brian, one of the frustrating things with engaging with you is that it’s like debating someone pretty dense and it’s annoying to have to repeat myself. I’ve already stated why networks would pay more for a challenge series than the current setup. Could you please state what I said? Thanks.
LikeLike
I didn’t say “huge money”, I said a few million extra per school.
You said $5M per school, which is $10M per game including the bad ones.
And we know the reason why there isn’t a B10-SEC Challenge Series now: because of all those committed intra-state rivalry games the SEC has.
That’s one reason. Many of the other schools don’t want it or they’d already be playing each other all the time. And if ESPN wanted it they would’ve made that known.
And it doesn’t make sense for the P2 to arrange a challenge series with other leagues besides themselves. You’re not going to hear chatter of something that won’t occur so long as the ACC still has its football powers.
…
In the future, a bunch of those current SEC-ACC rivalry games will become either conference games or could be incorporated in to the B10-ACC Challenge.
You just said that wouldn’t make sense.
I’ve already stated why networks would pay more for a challenge series than the current setup.
No, you haven’t. You’ve stated why you think the networks should pay more for it. The fact that they have never done so might indicate they disagree.
LikeLike
Brian: “You just said that wouldn’t make sense.”
OK, let me explain it really slowly: In the future, I expect those current SEC-ACC rivalry games to be either conference games or be incorporated in to the B10-ACC Challenge because I expect FSU and Clemson (possibly GTech) to be in the P2.
And yes, I said each school can expect $5mm for their OOC slate with a B10-SEC Challenge (maybe I should be conservative and say $4mm for their OOC slate) instead of roughly $2mm/school now. And yes, that includes the UIUC-Ole Miss game that brings in little because those big time games are worth a lot. By the latter part of the new B10 TV contract, those big time OOC matchups like OSU-ND and Bama-Texas that bring in over 10mm viewers each would be worth more $40mm per game. So OSU-Bama and UMich-UGa that are projected to pull in 10mm viewers each would mean $80mm right there. It doesn’t take much more to get to a total of $160-200mm.
LikeLike
OK, let me explain it really slowly: In the future, I expect those current SEC-ACC rivalry games to be either conference games or be incorporated in to the B10-ACC Challenge because I expect FSU and Clemson (possibly GTech) to be in the P2.
You can say it as slowly as you want, it still makes no sense. You just said previously that no P2 conference would do a challenge series with an M3 conference because it wouldn’t make sense. Now you are saying there will be a B10-ACC challenge (football, not hoops). Those two things don’t go together.
And yes, I said each school can expect $5mm for their OOC slate with a B10-SEC Challenge (maybe I should be conservative and say $4mm for their OOC slate) instead of roughly $2mm/school now. And yes, that includes the UIUC-Ole Miss game that brings in little because those big time games are worth a lot. By the latter part of the new B10 TV contract, those big time OOC matchups like OSU-ND and Bama-Texas that bring in over 10mm viewers each would be worth more $40mm per game. So OSU-Bama and UMich-UGa that are projected to pull in 10mm viewers each would mean $80mm right there. It doesn’t take much more to get to a total of $160-200mm.
1. Do you have any basis for the $2M/school value?
2. Do you have any basis for the $40M/game with 10M viewers?
Fundamentally, I just don’t see as much increased value as you do. You claim letting TV schedule the games (if all 4 networks could somehow agree on it), OOC games that would be happening anyway suddenly gain a huge amount of value. I just don’t see it.
3. If all those other games don’t bring value, then why do a full challenge? Why not just schedule a handful of games? And once you’re doing that, why not let the schools pick their opponents rather than TV? They’ll naturally select within their tier, and they’ll be happier about having control. The conferences can restrict them from scheduling so far in advance.
LikeLike
To monetize the OOC schedule better. Currently, big-time OOC games, even those that eventually draw huge viewership, are heavily discounted by broadcasters* because schools can and do back out of scheduled OOC games (such as UMich backing out of a series with UCLA and UNL trying to back out of a series with OU).
This is a plausible idea, though I think you rate it with more certainty than the facts allow. (Most of us on this comment board are more sure of our conclusions than we should be.) I certainly agree that if the networks offered a big payday for a B10/SEC challenge, the two leagues would be very tempted to accept it. I don’t know if they would.
Despite the cancellation of the Michigan–UCLA series, most of the scheduled non-conference games are played, so I think you are overstating that. I do not see any evidence that the TV payouts are discounted because the networks expect a high percentage of the marquee OOC games to be cancelled.
Anyhow, future non-conference schedules are never fully known when TV deals are signed. The networks trust that the schools will keep scheduling as they have in the past—and mostly they do.
I think one reason the Irish are consistently underpaid by NBC given their historical viewership is because they have full control over their schedule and could even end their relationship with the ACC and their rivalry games whenever they want.
The Irish have followed the same scheduling pattern for years now. Nobody knows if they are contractually required to do this, since the NBC contract is private. But say ND pulled a fast one, and started playing a 100% cupcake schedule. Maybe they get away with this at first, but they would pay dearly for it at the next renewal.
That is why I doubt there is any such discount in the NBC contract. Either ND is contractually required to play the level of opponents they do. Or, they know they could never get another contract if they stopped doing it. I suspect that the quality of the opponents is a topic of conversation at every renewal. ND surely knows they could make more money if they agreed to stop playing the likes of UNLV.
LikeLike
Marc: “But say ND pulled a fast one, and started playing a 100% cupcake schedule. Maybe they get away with this at first, but they would pay dearly for it at the next renewal.”
I believe that was previously true but we’re now in a different world with the 12-team playoff. ND is now virtually assured of getting in every year and their chances of being 11-1 or 10-2 are better with a slate full of cupcakes.
LikeLike
@Colin: What you are suggesting, in essence, is that Notre Dame start playing a G5 type of schedule. You are assuming that nobody would notice that they went 11–1 or 10–2 without playing a serious opponent.
To the contrary, I think this would be noticed. You could hardly miss it, since ND cancelling its ACC commitment and its series with USC/Stanford would be big news for anyone who follows college football.
The rest of the sport is willing to treat ND as an equal, but not if they try to game the system to this extent. Every time ND gets in the playoff, they are taking a berth from someone else. Nobody will allow this to continue if they are not making a serious attempt to earn it.
So in your hypothesis, ND would lose their NBC contract (or would be paid a lot less for it), and they would not make the playoff every year either.
LikeLike
Marc: “ND cancelling its ACC commitment and its series with USC/Stanford would be big news for anyone who follows college football. . . . So in your hypothesis, ND would lose their NBC contract (or would be paid a lot less for it), and they would not make the playoff every year either.”
It’s amazing how my comments get misquoted on this forum. I said nothing about ND cancelling its ACC commitment and its series with USC/Stanford. I said nothing about ND losing its NBC contract or being paid a lot less. That clearly is not going to happen regardless of who they play.
The ACC commitment is 75% cupcakes in itself and that absurd Navy game is obviously a cupcake. That leaves four open games per season. Starting in 2024 ND plays Purdue for five straight years so that’s followed by Indiana for two years. That leaves three open games per season. Hey, ND is actually in cupcakeville right now.
LikeLike
That is 3 open if Notre Dame stops scheduling 2 buy games against MAC et. al. opponents each year. After the buy games only 1.
LikeLike
“Anyhow, future non-conference schedules are never fully known when TV deals are signed. The networks trust that the schools will keep scheduling as they have in the past—and mostly they do.”
Hence why OOC games are currently discounted (or if you like, not monetized fully; same thing). Networks would definitely pay more for an OOC challenge series they’d have control over in setting up rather than OOC games they “trust” individual schools to set up.
As for ND, the discount is already there. ND gets paid noticeably less per viewer for the viewers they bring NBC than the B10 gets from its TV partners on a per viewer basis (for TV contracts signed at the same time).
LikeLike
As for ND, the discount is already there. ND gets paid noticeably less per viewer for the viewers they bring NBC than the B10 gets from its TV partners on a per viewer basis (for TV contracts signed at the same time).
But I think that discount is for the type of schedule they play now, not due to the risk that they would pull a fast one on NBC, and play an even worse schedule during the life of the deal.
LikeLike
Hey, ND is actually in cupcakeville right now.
They are playing a tougher schedule than Clemson and Michigan are playing — and both of those two are top five teams right now.
LikeLike
Marc: “They (ND) are playing a tougher schedule than Clemson and Michigan are playing — and both of those two are top five teams right now.
What more evidence do you need that playing a weak schedule is the key to making the playoff?
LikeLike
What more evidence do you need that playing a weak schedule is the key to making the playoff?
My only point here is that Notre Dame has not manipulated the system by virtue of its ability to choose its own schedule. But anyhow, nobody has made the playoff yet. Notre Dame would probably not make the playoff this year even with a 12-team field. Michigan and Clemson still have a lot of football left to play, but they would be top-five teams in just about any era with their results to date.
LikeLike
Marc, I’m saying that ND is underpaid even for the schedule that they play. And part of that is because there is more uncertainty to the ND schedule vs. a conference slate (part of it is single-school risk).
NBC is paying ND like they almost never expect those 4mm+ viewership games (granted, ND doesn’t schedule a lot of those tough games, but they schedule some).
LikeLike
I believe ND is contractually bound to the ACC through the current grant of rights. They are even committed to playing five ACC teams every years. The other seven games they control.
LikeLike
bob sykes: “I believe ND is contractually bound to the ACC through the current grant of rights. They are even committed to playing five ACC teams every years.”
That is also my understanding. During the past five years, ND is 28-3 vs the ACC and 4-0 vs Navy, They typically play a MAC team every year and a home-and-none vs a nobody like New Mexico, Tennessee State or UNLV. Then USC and Stanford. That’s ten games right there with at best two heavyweights.
LikeLike
😜👍 to FtT & 5-1🔥LLINOIS!!
LikeLike
Meawhile, the pre-season scuttlebutt from down on the Farm was that Shaw was told he was coaching for his job this year. 😂 Who are they kidding.
LikeLike
Post-game text from a former roommate: ‘Leave it to Stanford to brilliantly short the college football market’ 👍😂
LikeLike
Shaw just broke the school record, dating back to Stanford’s entrance into the Pac-12 in 1918(!) for most consecutive conference game losses (previously 9). The team has not really been competitive this year. His days likely are numbered, but I don’t know where his contract stands. The Cardinal would do very well to hire Greg Roman. He was the offensive mastermind when Harbaugh was coach. I bet Roman would take the job, but probably would not stay long if he turned the team around – kind of like Bill Walsh in the late 1970s.
LikeLike
There is a long history of Stanford had coaches leaving for higher-level jobs if they have any decent success. Shaw was an outlier. He had a top-20 finish for six of his first seven years, winning his division five out of seven. For any other Stanford coach, that would have been a sure ticket to a bigger job.
But lately the wheels are off the bus. The Cardinal are 1–4, and with the schedule that lies in front of them, it is hard to see very many more wins.
LikeLike
Ranked in the AP poll for the first time since 2011! We finally broke our streak for longest time unranked among P5 teams!
LikeLike
Colin’s bodacious, outrageous, audacious and ostentatious way-too-early selections for the college football playoff:
1. Ohio State
2. Georgia
3. Oklahoma State
4. UCLA
LikeLike
Good as any prediction especially if SEC and BIG champs have a loss. Clemson this year-who knows? UCLA is hot.
LikeLike
13 conference games have drawn 4mm or more viewers this season. 11 of them have been B10 (6) or SEC (5). The other 2 are ACC.
RRR not among them.
LikeLike
49-0 games usually don’t do real well on ratings! Still 3.36 million, #5 for the day.
LikeLike
49-0, between two unranked 3-2 teams, played at 11 am. I agree, 3.36 million for a game with that profile is incredible.
LikeLike
Sounds like Warren is tapping on the brakes regarding further Big Ten expansion. From The Athletic:
Big Ten’s Kevin Warren on further expansion: ‘We’re analyzing what makes sense’
By Scott Dochterman Oct 12, 2022
MINNEAPOLIS — In a Target Center suite a few levels above the playing floor Tuesday, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren outlined the next steps for his league regarding future potential expansion. And he chose his words carefully and ambiguously.
At the lectern, Warren told reporters the Big Ten needed to be “mindful” when it came to adding potential new members. In an exclusive interview with The Athletic, Warren described mindful as something more in tune with his staff and key Big Ten stakeholders rather than becoming influenced by any external factors.
“We’ve been blessed with 14 incredible institutions, and that is what is the foundation of the Big Ten Conference,” Warren said. “And then adding two more, USC and UCLA in 2024, there is so much work to be done between now and then.
“I said recently to our senior leadership, what are like the can’t-miss priorities? One of them is we have to flawlessly integrate USC, UCLA, which we will. We’ve got to flawlessly integrate our new network partners.”
The other piece is ensuring a successful transition to a 12-team College Football Playoff structure by perhaps 2024. It doesn’t mean expansion is not a priority, but it no longer has the immediacy it did during the summer.
“I’m always mindful of what’s going on at different conferences and the different markets and what’s happening,” Warren said. “But right now, we’ve got to make sure we take care of our business.
“I don’t think I’ve pushed pause on anything. Ever. I’m a big believer in taking care of what you have, taking care of these new opportunities. USC, UCLA and our new partners and CBS with basketball and football and NBC. And then making sure that you’re prepared when things happen.”
USC and UCLA are set to join the Big Ten in 2024. (Sean M. Haffey / Getty Images)
The landscape has shifted dramatically in college athletics, even during the past 16 months. In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the NCAA violated antitrust laws in restricting players’ ability to make money off their name, image and likeness. In July 2021, Oklahoma and Texas accepted invitations to join the SEC no later than 2025. Then on June 30, both USC and UCLA were accepted as Big Ten members beginning Aug. 2, 2024.
In addition, the Big Ten agreed to a seven-year media rights package worth around $8 billion with Fox, CBS and NBC beginning in 2023 through 2029. With Oklahoma and Texas’ departure, the Big 12 invited BYU, UCF, Cincinnati and Houston as members starting in 2023. The Pac-12 has opened inquiries into expansion to replace USC and UCLA, and several waves of expansion have taken place among the Group of 5 conferences. The Playoff will expand from four teams to 12 no later than 2026.
“Because of all the conference movement that’s going on, is it always somewhere in the atmosphere? Sure,” Warren said. “Generally speaking, I don’t believe we are in a position that we have to go out and aggressively try to recruit any other schools.
“I think you’re going to see over the next couple years — just look back 24 months — the movement that has occurred in the SEC and the Big 12 and the Pac-12, Conference USA. I don’t think that’s going to slow down, and maybe it’s just done in a different manner. But so much of this now is on the table that people are analyzing what’s in the best interest?”
That includes some Big Ten programs, which are reluctant to seek new members beyond USC and UCLA. It also includes each conference’s grant-of-rights agreements, which often determine potential realignment. The Pac-12 and Big 12 are up for new media rights deals in 2024 and 2025. The ACC’s grant-of-rights deal lasts through 2036. Once a school grants the league power over its media rights, it forfeits that revenue through the duration of the contract should it leave the conference. It’s unlikely an ACC school would risk leaving that much money unless it felt it could win in court.
“Most fans, generally speaking, were never focused on that,” Warren said. “But now people are looking into that. When do they expire? What does it really mean? What does it mean for other conferences? So, I think that kind of dialogue creates an environment where people will have questions and raise issues and explore their opportunities.
“That’s one reason why I just want to make sure we stay strong and fortified in the Big Ten Conference to be prepared if a unique opportunity or opportunities arise for us and it makes sense for our member institutions that we’re in a position to do it.”
The distance from Los Angeles to the closest current Big Ten city — Lincoln, Neb. — is 1,500 miles. A trip from LA to Rutgers is nearly 2,800 miles. There’s always the potential for USC and UCLA eventually to want additional Pacific time zone members to cut down on cross-country trips. For now, the league has created a scheduling committee to alleviate or soften potential travel concerns, especially in basketball and the Olympic sports. It could include multi-team events, one flight for multiple competitions or shifting teams toward California in early season spring sporting events.
“We’re analyzing what makes sense,” Warren said. “We’ve got to be smart. Also, are there opportunities for future potential corporate partners to help us kind of shoulder some of that responsibility from a financial standpoint?
“The good thing about it is once you make a determination to lead and make these decisions where you’re prepared, it puts you in a position where you can be creative and do certain things.”
LikeLike
It is probably not fair use to copy an entire article behind a paywall and post it here with only minor commentary.
LikeLike
I think the conventional wisdom is correct. Warren is chomping at the bit, but a few (several?) members are against it, particularly at a full share, and if it results in the Pac’s demise. -And yet, with the Big 12 media negotiations underway and already looking more promising on the ESPN/Fox front than the Pac’s closed window, I still think it’ll go Warren’s way. Yes, the streaming-only deal from Amazon or Apple could bring a respectable payout for each PAC member, but it might not be enough to prevent a defection or two from the likes of Colorado etc. One thing’s for certain, there’ll be plenty of Big 12 negotiation leaks before any PAC GOT is signed. That side by side comparison of the pending deals could be determinative. If there are defections to the Big 12, effectively crippling the PAC 12, I have to believe those resistant B1G members would soften there stance if the new members came in at a non-dilutive ‘price point’.
LikeLike
*GOR. Grant of rights, not Game of Thrones 😊
LikeLike
Canzano comments about same article . . .
Canzano: Big Ten sounds like it’s standing down vs. Pac-12
Shift of tone from Kevin Warren. John Canzano Oct 12
When Kevin Warren took that victory lap in late July at Big Ten Media Day, he used words such as “bold” and “aggressive” nearly a dozen times in his remarks.
The Big Ten commissioner had just poached USC and UCLA. He posed for a photograph on the steps of the venue with the head of a third-party, public-relations team, then walked inside and announced his conference may not be done.
That comment hit the Pac-12 footprint like a bag of bricks. Would the Big Ten try to take Oregon and Washington? Maybe, Stanford, too? Speculation buzzed. Now, nearly three months later, Warren is striking a very different tone.
Warren spoke with reporters on Tuesday in Minneapolis, this time as part of his conference’s basketball media day. Football was still on everyone’s mind, but it was a series of comments Warren made to Scott Dochterman of The Athletic that caught my attention.
Said Warren: “Because of all the conference movement that’s going on, is it always somewhere in the atmosphere? Sure. Generally speaking, I don’t believe we are in a position that we have to go out and aggressively try to recruit any other schools.”
It sounds to me like Warren and the Big Ten are backing off, for now. I’ve long believed that Notre Dame is the only no-brainer addition left for the Big Ten. I also think the Irish are better off remaining independent, as long as they have access to the College Football Playoff and a pile of media-rights money.
Oregon and Washington don’t pencil out for the Big Ten. I don’t blame the Ducks and Huskies for hiring consultants and doing some back-channeling. They’d be foolish not to explore the options. But, unless the Big Ten is going to give both schools a full $72.3-million-a-year media-rights share in year one, leaving just doesn’t make sense. They’ll have much better access to the playoff staying in the Pac-12.
Warren cast a far more measured tone on Tuesday. He steered the focus to the conference’s current members and its network partners. It was a dramatically different scene than the chest-thumping act from the summer, first at media day, and then, in a celebratory interview with HBO’s Real Sports.
This Warren appeared interested in managing public expectations. Also, he sounded more mindful of the college sports eco-system, pointing out that several other conferences, including the Pac-12, were engaged in media-rights negotiations.
“I’m always mindful of what’s going on at different conferences and the different markets and what’s happening,” Warren told The Athletic. “But right now, we’ve got to make sure we take care of our business.”
From the moment USC and UCLA announced they were leaving, the vibe inside the Pac-12 hasn’t changed. Multiple athletic directors and university presidents told me early-on that as long as Oregon-Washington stayed put, they felt the remaining 10 members of the conference would stick together.
Still, Warren’s bold comments in July couldn’t be ignored. I wonder, what’s changed? Perhaps some of the Big Ten members made it clear they weren’t willing to subsidize any future members. Or maybe the announcement that the playoff was expanding stabilized the landscape. Whatever the case, things have settled, for now.
The Pac-12 is currently engaged in selling its media rights. After that, I think the conference will add at least one member via expansion. I’ll have more on this in the coming days.
LikeLike
Try a link and just using some excerpts. You don’t need to quote entire long articles.
LikeLike
Thankyou.
LikeLike
Brian: “Try a link and just using some excerpts. You don’t need to quote entire long articles.”
Can you open these?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tennessee-college-football-alabama-11665693085?mod=sports_lead_pos1
https://theathletic.com/3691059/2022/10/14/big-ten-football-schedule/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/10/13/spencer-anderson-maryland-chess/
LikeLike
I can. I don’t subscribe to WSJ or The Athletic so I can’t read the whole pieces, but that’s sort of my point. I should have to pay The Athletic to read a full article of theirs that is behind their paywall. How else can they stay in business?
We also don’t want Frank to get in trouble because we are abusing fair use.
LikeLike
Brian: “I should have to pay The Athletic to read a full article of theirs that is behind their paywall.”
I don’t pay for the The Athletic. I subscribe to the NY Times and they provide access to The Athletic for free.
Brian: “We also don’t want Frank to get in trouble because we are abusing fair use.”
I subscribe to the NY Times, Wall St Journal and Washington Post and have posted articles from all three newspapers. Given the low readership of Frank’s forum and the infrequency with which I copy n’ paste an article, I have a hard time imagining that any of those behemoths would even spend the time to write a cease-and-desist letter. Furthermore, Frank is a lawyer and if he feels that any of my posts are a serious copyright infringement, he can simply delete them.
LikeLike
Colin,
“I don’t pay for the The Athletic. I subscribe to the NY Times and they provide access to The Athletic for free.”
So you indirectly pay for it. Same thing.
“I subscribe to the NY Times, Wall St Journal and Washington Post and have posted articles from all three newspapers.”
Good for you. Now try linking instead of pasting entire articles. People would rather read the whole article on the source site anyway.
“Given the low readership of Frank’s forum and the infrequency with which I copy n’ paste an article, I have a hard time imagining that any of those behemoths would even spend the time to write a cease-and-desist letter. ”
3 articles in 2 days isn’t infrequent.
“Furthermore, Frank is a lawyer and if he feels that any of my posts are a serious copyright infringement, he can simply delete them.”
So you’re going to be an ass until forced to stop. I’m shocked.
Frank has always avoided moderating this blog as much as possible. Why would you force him to intervene when you already know what you’re doing is wrong? I’m sure he has better uses for his time than cleaning up after you.
LikeLike
Brian: “Now try linking instead of pasting entire articles. People would rather read the whole article on the source site anyway.”
I’m not sure what it takes to get something into your head. Only subscribers can read the full articles within these publications. If you are not a subscriber, the link opens but 90% of the content is blocked. Brian, do you understand this?
LikeLike
Yes, and people that don’t subscribe aren’t supposed to be able to read the entire article. They are adults who can choose to subscribe if they want to read them.
LikeLike
Brian: “They are adults who can choose to subscribe if they want to read them.”
Brian, guess what? Same applies to you. If you don’t want to read my posts, don’t read them. But do us all a favor and stop the childish bitching, OK?
LikeLike
It hard to miss 3 screens worth of stolen text, jackass.
A former faculty member should know better than to steal IP.
LikeLike
Brian, if I hear one word from Frank, or the FBI, or the newspapers’ attornys, then I’ll stop posting articles.
But if all I hear is more squealing from Bitchy Boy Brian, don’t expect any changes.
LikeLike
Brian’s 100% right. Even as much as I might want to read, I should have to subscribe to read the whole article. You should link and give a brief summary of the highlights, possibly by quoting a paragraph or so.
LikeLike
bullet: “You should link and give a brief summary of the highlights . . .”
Why should I provide a link if the content is blocked?
LikeLike
Because it isn’t blocked for everyone.
LikeLike
Yep, Endeavor, I think you got it right. The B10 office is gung-ho about expansion and building a national mini-NFL. Several key B10 members schools, not so much, especially if it means subsidizing new additions.
So no expansion for now. Possible expansion by the end of the current B10 TV deals (how UO, UW, Stanford, and Cal perform in TV ratings over the next few years pretty key).
Almost certain B10 (and SEC) expansion when the ACC GOR ends.
LikeLike
Richard: “Almost certain B10 (and SEC) expansion when the ACC GOR ends.”
I believe the polar opposite will happen. In the next 14 years the TV payouts to the B1G and SEC will so vastly exceed the chump change that the M3 are getting that there will be a stark delineation between those conferences. NIL, facilities, coaching salaries compounded over 14 years by literally billions of dollars. It will be the Joneses and the wannabes.
Why would the Big Ten presidents allow further expansion? Why would they say “Hey. let’s further destroy the Pac and the ACC and bring in UNC and Washington with no fiscal advantage.”?
LikeLike
FSU and Clemson definitely bring a fiscal advantage, besides recruiting grounds. Miami brings recruiting grounds.
Facilities/coaching salaries/NIL can all be bought. So if the potential is there to make the whole conference better, it will be done.
LikeLike
The B10 office is gung-ho about expansion and building a national mini-NFL. Several key B10 members schools, not so much, especially if it means subsidizing new additions.
I wonder which members are for it? If the numbers are as they appear, I would expect almost all to be against further expansion right now.
LikeLike
Marc: “If the numbers are as they appear, I would expect almost all to be against further expansion right now.”
I expect almost all to be against further expansion in the future, too. Imagine it’s 2036. Why would the schools of the Big Ten and SEC want to share their TV bounty with Washington or FSU or Miami? It would probably be dilutive and even if was revenue neutral per school, why would Iowa or Michigan State want the logistical difficulty and expense of getting their Olympic teams to the far corners of the country? Remember, we can tag-team the two schools in LA but that can’t be done with any of the other expansion candidates.
LikeLike
It would only be beneficial if they thought the expanded footprint would lead to increased ratings or improve recruiting. I am not totally sold adding a recruiting hotbed really helps recruiting for northern schools. Does it help Syracuse or Boston College? What seems to help the most is money and seeing these schools compete for championships or top bowls.
Basketball is totally different. A lot of smaller schools are able to compete against the football schools just fine.
LikeLike
Colin, FSU and Clemson are definitely revenue-additive.
Miami probably revenue-neutral but have other positives (recruiting grounds, B10 alums, and FL is a hugely important state).
You have to consider what other leagues do too. If the either of the P2 passes on FSU (or Clemson), can they count on the other league passing too? I doubt it.
Kevin:
3 of Syracuse’s top 5 and 6 of their top 10 recruits in their 2022 class are from FL(5) or GA(1) so it seems to help them a lot. Yes, having money and competing for championships would help more.
LikeLike
Richard: “FSU and Clemson are definitely revenue-additive.”
I seriously question that. Clemson is in the # 37 TV market and FSU is # 106.
http://bl.ocks.org/simzou/6459889
LikeLike
Colin: You must think that Bama (#45 TV market), PSU (#107 TV market), and ND (#98 TV market) are some of the worst TV draws in college football rather than some of the best.
LikeLike
Richard: “You must think that Bama (#45 TV market), PSU (#107 TV market), and ND (#98 TV market) are some of the worst TV draws in college football rather than some of the best.”
Apples and oranges. Bama and Penn State are state flagships and the top brands in large sections of the country. Clemson and FSU are Little Brothers and sandwiched between USC, Tennessee, Georgia, Bama, Auburn and Florida.
LikeLike
Why would the schools of the Big Ten and SEC want to share their TV bounty with Washington or FSU or Miami? It would probably be dilutive…
From 2014–19, FSU was the #14 ratings draw, better than 75% of the Big Ten. Every school in the top 15 is in the Big Ten or SEC, except them and Clemson. And their #14 rank was during a period when they were below their historical playing strength, and against a crappy ACC schedule. FSU is massively accretive.
…why would Iowa or Michigan State want the logistical difficulty and expense of getting their Olympic teams to the far corners of the country?
I get that argument for Washington. Nobody would mind an annual trip to Florida.
LikeLike
Marc: “Nobody would mind an annual trip to Florida.”
We’re not talking about an annual trip to Florida. We’re talking about tennis, volleyball, golf, baseball, wrestling, etc, etc. And in fact, Notre Dame AD Swarbrick recently complained about the arduous 16-hour trip for ND’s Olympic teams going from South Bend to Tallahassee.
LikeLike
We’re not talking about an annual trip to Florida. We’re talking about tennis, volleyball, golf, baseball, wrestling, etc, etc. And in fact, Notre Dame AD Swarbrick recently complained about the arduous 16-hour trip for ND’s Olympic teams going from South Bend to Tallahassee.
You are right. And yet, they choose to do it. That’s because schools usually optimize conference affiliation for their revenue sports. The non-revenue sports just have to take it.
Of course, the problem is worse for ND because they chose to be in a conference where almost none of the schools are within driving distance. They could join the Big Ten and get shorter travel, and yet they don’t. Which tells us how important it is.
LikeLike
Marc: “That’s because schools usually optimize conference affiliation for their revenue sports. The non-revenue sports just have to take it”
Using ND-ACC as an analogy makes no sense. ND got an extra-special kissy huggy deal to park their Olympic sports in the ACC. Iowa or Illinois gain nothing but a luge pain in the ass by agreeing to send all of their Olympic teams down to FSU every year.
LikeLike
Using ND-ACC as an analogy makes no sense. ND got an extra-special kissy huggy deal to park their Olympic sports in the ACC. Iowa or Illinois gain nothing but a huge pain in the ass by agreeing to send all of their Olympic teams down to FSU every year.
ND is one of many who have optimized conference affiliation for their revenue sports. Yes, ND had specific reasons. Everyone’s got reasons. If ND cared that much about their tennis team, they would be in the Big Ten. (For the record, it was you who brought up ND, not me.)
The Big Ten just added two schools that are two or three time zones away for all of its members, with no one to say, “Whoa! What about the tennis team?” It was the right move for football, so they did it.
You can look it up, but Penn State was the last Big Ten addition that is known to have been not unanimous. Some members voted no because State College is hard to get to. You know how that turned out.
Like PSU, FSU will be massively accretive financially. Unlike State College, Florida at least has nice weather in the winter and is good for recruiting. So yeah, of course they would do it. One visit (at most) to Tallahassee per team per season is not going to be the reason they vote no.
LikeLike
Marc: “The Big Ten just added two schools that are two or three time zones away for all of its members, with no one to say, “Whoa! What about the tennis team?”
Bogus analogy – The LA schools will be “two-fers” on B1G trips for Olympic sports. FSU will be a one-and-done.
Marc: “Like PSU, FSU will be massively accretive financially.”
That’s your opinion. My opinion is that it would be a break-even at best and likely cash negative. Bear in mind that “accretive financially” after the B1G’s new media rights contract of 2024 is going to take a lot more money than previously.
LikeLike
Colin: little brothers? Did you stop paying attention to college football after the ’50’s or something?
Clemson draws considerably more TV viewers than SC. FSU draws about as many viewers as UF even though UF have more heavyweight matchups in the SEC vs kings while FSU has to play in the low-wattage ACC.
By your logic, the SEC shouldn’t have added little brother A&M either then, right?
LikeLike
Richard: “Clemson draws considerably more TV viewers than SC. FSU draws about as many viewers as UF . . .”
When Clemson plays Georgia or ND, many viewers tune in. When FSU plays UF or ND, many viewers tune in. Check the rating for FSU-Duke or Clemson-UVA.
LikeLike
Colin,
Bama and Penn State are state flagships and the top brands in large sections of the country. Clemson and FSU are Little Brothers and sandwiched between USC, Tennessee, Georgia, Bama, Auburn and Florida.
http://www.winsipedia.com/clemson/vs/south-carolina
Clemson is not a little brother in CFB. Clemson leads the series 72-42-4. It is #21 all-time in W% while SC is #84. Clemson has 3 national titles to 0 for SC. Clemson has 26 conference titles vs 1 for SC. The only advantage SC has in football is that George Rogers won a Heisman while nobody from Clemson has.
Also, FSU is on par with UF in general. Both have had tremendous success in the past 40 years and won multiple national titles. UF is up now, but these things can change quickly.
While Clemson and FSU are both surrounded by a bunch of SEC schools, they are also surrounded by tons of elite athletes. They both have had tremendous recruiting success despite the competition.
And as for markets, why do you only consider the college town DMA? Does OSU not bring all of OH? Does PSU not bring Philadelphia? I would think the TV viewer data matters much more. Also, we know that for TV purposes a lot more than the local market becomes in-footprint when a school is added.
LikeLike
Colin, check the ratings for when UF or SC play minnows.
And you dodged my question: By your logic, the SEC shouldn’t have added little brother A&M either then, right?
LikeLike
Richard: “And you dodged my question: By your logic, the SEC shouldn’t have added little brother A&M either then, right?”
Totally different scenario. Texas was contiguous to the SEC and added the entire state to the footprint of the SECN at the same time that UT was starting up the Longhorn Network.
LikeLike
The LA schools will be “two-fers” on B1G trips for Olympic sports. FSU will be a one-and-done.
State College, PA, is also a one-and-done. They added Penn State anyway.
How many conferences have turned down a financially beneficial addition because the travel was too far? Of course, if it is not financially beneficial, then travel is irrelevant, because nobody expands to lose money.
That’s your opinion. My opinion is that it would be a break-even at best and likely cash negative. Bear in mind that “accretive financially” after the B1G’s new media rights contract of 2024 is going to take a lot more money than previously.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I provided facts upon which mine is based. You provided none. FSU has TV ratings better than 75% of the Big Ten. They have done that with their crappy ACC schedule, and in a period when they have underperformed on the field. If a program outdraws 75% of your current members, how could that be “likely cash negative?”
LikeLike
Marc: “You are entitled to your opinion, but I provided facts upon which mine is based.”
You did indeed provide facts but your facts do not explain how adding FSU will INCREASE the payout per school on the Big Ten’s $1 billion+ media rights deal. FSU has played Notre Dame three of the past four years thus their viewership numbers are skewed.
LikeLike
Colin: “Totally different scenario.”
LOL, you don’t just move goalposts, Colin, you warp them in to a completely different shape. That’s the exact same scenario. FSU would also add the BTN all through FL and contiguousness doesn’t matter (you did notice that LA isn’t contiguous to any part of the B10, right?)
BTW, if the B10 adds FSU, it would also add Miami.
LikeLike
For quite a while there has been no reason to believe that the B1G would be expanding in the imminent future. (As virtually everyone here has agreed.) The numbers absolutely do not work for any of the remaining PAC teams.
There has certainly not been anything indicating that USC or UCLA are looking for more west coast teams. The one report was to the contrary, that USC does not want Oregon and Washington recruiting in LA. That could have been a material promise to USC, but we do not know.
It has looked as though Warren and the B1G offices have been much more enthusiastic about further expansion than the schools have. It is at least possible that the league was dropping rumors to Brett McMurphy and others, with the hope that B1G schools would respond favorably to those “insiders” and reconsider expansion.
If that was Warren’s plan, it did not work. The rumors got a lot of people very excited, and others (WaState, OrState?) very worried, but ultimately did not hurt the B1G at all. I am not sure that it hurt any one else either.
No other teams in the PAC are leaving to join the Big 12. By all accounts, the Big 12 will get a few million more than the PAC, but not enough for the PAC to split. Even if one or two four corners schools went to the Big 12, why would that make Oregon, WA, etc., more attractive to the B1G?
It is also possible that the teams in the B1G really do not want to see the PAC collapse, and certainly not at the hand of the B1G. That makes total sense to me.
Warren also does not seem to have any expectation that the ACC GOR will be dissolving any time soon.
The big issue now is what will happen with the PAC contract and then the Big 12. What will Amazon or Apple do? I could see Amazon (Apple?) make an outsized offer to the PAC for as a test.
The test could show Amazon whether college football is really worth big bucks. It could also be used to see whether Amazon could pay the B1G enough to add some PAC schools in five years or so.
What do Oregon and WA do regarding a GOR? There is no good reason for them to not agree to at least five years. If they refuse to agree to a reasonable GOR, then what network will pay decent money with no assurance that they will not be around for a few years?
LikeLike
Selective reading on your part. There has definitely been a difference of opinion here on whether the Big 10 would soon expand again. I think almost everyone has figured ND isn’t coming, but west coast schools, not so certain.
LikeLike
Not selective reading at all. I was being polite and not calling out people who were certain that Oregon and Washington and maybe the SF schools were on board any minute now.
It would take about two minutes to find several posts certain that more expansion was a done deal, but why do so?
I think that the majority agreed that the B1G was done for a few years and I saw no reason to reopen a disagreement that is now officially closed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YIKES! Passive aggressive does not suite you . I much prefer the Bernie Bada-Bing! who would bury the entire Big Ten under Giants Stadium if they even hinted at kicking Rutgers to the curb. You’ll be happy to know nothing has changed. I still wholeheartedly believe OR/W/STANFORD (at least) will end up in the B1G. I’m also more convinced than ever there could be PAC defections to the B12 (and cut-rate B1G additions) now that ESPN’s looooowball offer has banished the PAC to the open market of misfit toys. Why would Amazon or Apple overpay now? For guys who have sworn up and down nothing will happen until 2036, you sure are defensive about my contention things are still in flux. There are three contract negotiations still pending. Those results will tell the tale about the expansion timeline. I believe the disparity between B12 and PAC contracts may be larger than you think and definitely preferable exposure wise. I also found Warren’s comments on expansion noncommittal but positive. Based on my interpretation of his word-salad he’s still clearly open to the idea.
LikeLike
*Suit. Though we both know you’re so suite! 😊
LikeLike
Possibly by the next B10 TV contract.
IMO, Stanford comes with ND (which I have as more likely than not).
UO and UW both have positives (UO: at least not dilutive; uncle Phil’s money; cachet amongst the kiddies; UW: academics/research; B10 alums in Seattle) as well as negatives (UO: pretty much everything else outside of football/coolness/uncle Phil; UW: Still a bit dilutive; travel).
While the door is always open for ND, I think the B10 wants to see if they can land FSU + Miami first.
LikeLike
I’m also more convinced than ever there could be PAC defections to the B12 (and cut-rate B1G additions) now that ESPN’s looooowball offer has banished the PAC to the open market of misfit toys.
If ESPN lowballed the Pac-12, it seems to suggest that those schools are not worth as much as they think they are. That’s hardly a compelling argument for Big Ten expansion with those very same schools.
I also found Warren’s comments on expansion noncommittal but positive.
His comments could support any outcome. But he sounded a lot more aggressive two or three months ago. In that sense, he appeared to be walking back where he was before.
LikeLike
Marc: “His comments could support any outcome. But he sounded a lot more aggressive two or three months ago. In that sense, he appeared to be walking back where he was before.”
It could be as simple as the B10 presidents telling him to stop blabbermouthing and sounding like a dick, but who knows. I didn’t really get the “ok we’re done” sense from his comments though. They read like a bunch of nonspeak.
LikeLike
Marc, you likely won’t believe this, but OR/WA ‘s brand/match-up value is MUCH greater against the likes of M/OSU/PS/USC/UCLA, than against the PAC 12 remnants.
LikeLike
Marc, you likely won’t believe this, but OR/WA ‘s brand/match-up value is MUCH greater against the likes of M/OSU/PS/USC/UCLA, than against the PAC 12 remnants.
You are probably correct about that. The question is whether that is enough to get the networks to raise their already-record-breaking media deal by a sufficient amount that no one loses money.
LikeLike
Right. The key thing is, so long as the B10 stays at 9 conference games, additional games current B10 kings/princes play vs. UO/UW means fewer games against each other (roughly speaking). So if the added schools aren’t as much of a TV draw as Iowa, they’re dilutive.
The OSU-UO game last year got boffo viewership, but MSU-UW got pretty mediocre viewership even though both were unbeaten and MSU was highly ranked.
UO probably at the Iowa level (with other strengths and weaknesses listed before); UW and Stanford a little below, but the B10 likely not in a rush to add even 2 of these schools (if no ND or ACC powers) if it’s uncertain if they’re additive or dilutive. The SEC certainly isn’t chomping at the bit to add potentially dilutive schools far away culturally and geographically from it’s homeland.
LikeLike
I do not think that the consensus here is that there will never be further expansion of the B1G, though there are those who believe that. The prime issue has been whether there will be more expansion this year. Or perhaps next year. I think that the general belief here was that it would not happen in the next few years.
I believe that Warren has finally gotten the message that his bosses will not accept adding teams that dilute the payments to the other members. Ohio State and Iowa have publicly made that clear and I imagine a number of other schools agree with them completely.
Why would mid-western schools want the extra aggravation of trips to the west coast, when they lose by adding those schools?
None of the remaining west coast teams seems to offer enough. Stanford possibly would, but certainly Cal would not, so one school in the SF area is not going to work. Adding Stanford and Washington would be a travel and logistical nightmare and not bring in enough money. SF and ND is a very different issue.
I think that there will be expansion, but only when the ACC opens up, even if that is more than 10 years from now. By the same token, I think that the SEC is waiting for openings with ACC schools, but no one else.
The only exception would be if Amazon/Apple determines that streaming extra games is worth a bazillion dollars, so adding schools suddenly has real value.
An interesting question is what UW and OR do now regarding a GOR. If the PAC cannot get a GOR, how much is a TV contract worth? Will the streaming services be interested in putting up decent money with no guarantee of at least 5 years?
LikeLike
An interesting question is what UW and OR do now regarding a GOR. If the PAC cannot get a GOR, how much is a TV contract worth? Will the streaming services be interested in putting up decent money with no guarantee of at least 5 years?
By the time the Pac-12 is ready to sign, I think UW and OR will know if they have a shot at the Big Ten. If they don’t, there is no reason not to sign up for five years.
The only really problematic GOR in college sports is in the ACC, and that’s because it is way too long. The schools signed away their rights for 20 years, a time horizon that nobody is capable of predicting with any accuracy.
Perhaps the GOR issue is overstated. Conferences didn’t used to have them, and they still had TV deals. There are probably other ways to protect the media providers, e.g., allowing them to re-open the deal if conference composition changes.
LikeLike
These days, the networks would definitely want a GOR. Especially in the case of the Pac where the most attractive TV draws are trying to leave.
It can be a short 6-7 year GOR, however.
LikeLike
“As virtually everyone here has agreed” was your specific quote. To come up with that is selective reading.
There is nothing “officially closed.” Warren said he hasn’t “paused” anything and he is expecting continued rapid change. Neuheisel is still saying UW/Oregon to Big 10 is a done deal. McMurphy hasn’t said anything contradicting the multiple comments he made saying further expansion of the Big 10 was happening.
About the only thing that is consensus is that Notre Dame has likely decided to stay independent for now.
LikeLike
Exactly. McMuphy has a new Warren quote up where he implies the 20 school time horizon could be one, five or seven years. That sounds fairly bullish. We simply don’t know, but expansion is definitely not off the table. Whenever someone on this forum writes ‘I think everyone here is in agreement’ it’s really referring to the four guys who post 95% of the comments.
LikeLike
McMuphy has a new Warren quote up where he implies the 20 school time horizon could be one, five or seven years. That sounds fairly bullish.
The exact quote begins with, “not something we’re aggressively doing right now.” That sounds like five or seven years is a lot more probable than one — although he is not ruling anything out.
It stands in stark contrast to his previous interview, when he said, “We’re going to be aggressive. We’re going to be bold,” and didn’t hedge it in any way whatsoever.
Five or seven years, of course, is approximately in the timeframe of the next TV deal — precisely the time frame when many of us think they could start looking at it again. (Other than Colin, who says the Big Ten will not expand again in our lifetimes.)
LikeLike
Warren’s full quote: Because of the landscape we live in, college athletics right now, just being a prudent businesswoman or businessman, you have to be mindful of potential conference realignment or expansion. But this is not something we’re aggressively doing right now.
When people ask me right now: Do I think certain conferences may grow through a natural evolution to 18 or 20 schools? I do believe that. Now, over what time period is the critical question. I don’t know if that’s within a year, or five years, or seven years. I just think there’s been kind of like that … kind of like the Big Ten grew in the past.
I just think there’s going to be some natural growth.
—-
That does make it sound like B1G and/or SEC will likely expand at the end of the next cycle. That is quite a bullish statement, when many here thought it would be ten years away.
it’s really referring to the four guys who post 95% of the comments.
LOLOLOLOLOL
Warren interview:
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-football/news/big-ten-commissioner-kevin-warren-expansion-not-something-we%E2%80%99re-doing/yhkdudzkguta6y6e4j5nqbsb
LikeLike
B10 and SEC will expand around when the ACC GOR ends. Uncertain if any expansion before then, especially if ND doesn’t move.
LikeLike
One other notable thing about the Warren quote, he didn’t say a thing about 24 or 28 like some people on the internet and some writers and ADs are speculating. He specifically mentioned 18 and 20. And he is clearly talking about the Big 10 and SEC which both will soon be at 16. The Big 12 would have to add 6 schools to get there.
LikeLike
I think Bernie is right that most people who post here do not expect the Big Ten to expand again in this contract cycle.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2022/10/10/nebraska-hiring-matt-rhule-move-cornhuskers-have-make/8234710001/
Should NE hire Matt Rhule? Will someone hire him mid-season to jumpstart their rebuild? Auburn will soon be looking for a coach, so NE might want to jump early.
LikeLike
I believe Rhule turned down UO for Baylor last time because he didn’t want to have to travel far to recruit. In which case, he’d be a terrible fit at UNL.
UNL’s best options are probably still the 2 Midwestern program-builders at the 2 KS schools.
LikeLike
UCLA AD Martin Jarmond on the Rich Eisen Show about their move to the B10.
LikeLike
This was fabulous Brian, thank you for posting it! Sent it to my Bruin brother.
LikeLike
Are you kidding me? Does anyone actually believe this guy?? “We pursued this on our own. Didn’t know about USC until the end.” Yeah, right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What, you’re not buying that? 😁 He’s smart enough to know the UC Board of Regents are watching with bated breath.
LikeLike
I don’t believe they didn’t know until the end, but other stories have said the discussions were with each school separately so maybe they didn’t “officially” know about USC until very late. USC may have been hypothetical up until a certain point, or maybe other potential partners were considered. It’s all about plausible deniability for legal purposes, right?
LikeLike
All I will say, is that almost nothing Jarmond said rang true.
LikeLike
His job is to always spin things to look good for UCLA, not to tell the truth.
LikeLike
Michigan is in the FOX Big Noon window tomorrow with their #1 crew (Johnson & Klatt) for the fourth week in a row. That is probably not how they drew it up when the season started. Obviously, this week’s game (Mich vs PSU) was going to be featured no matter what, but not necessarily the others.
LikeLike
Marc, as I told you, when OSU and UMich play up to their potential (and are in the top 10/top 15), they will take up 2 of the 3 most valuable B10 TV slots every week they play (other than the mandated BTN games).
LikeLike
I recalled you saying that (and don’t disagree with it either), but in the structure of the current TV deal, it is atypical that one team is in the same window with the same announcers four weeks in a row.
LikeLike
Yep, it is. But more likely when Fox always puts their biggest game at noon. The Mouse would put its biggest B10 game of the week in all different time slots and sometimes on ABC, sometimes ESPN.
We’ll see more of this when the B10 goes to the new 3 channel setup.
LikeLike
I think with 3 networks taking turns getting #1 picks, it will be even less common for any team to stay in the same window week after week unless Fox is always #1 or #2. All 3 networks will want multiple OSU and MI games.
LikeLike
Could still happen. Evidently the drafting starts when the 12/6 day windows start (so past the early season, when Fox will likely have all the early #1 picks). I do believe Fox has only #1 and #2 picks but in any case, it’s possible for the OSU and/or UMich games to bounce around between #1-#3 but (due to the opponent and the rankings of the 2 competing teams) but still end up on the same network (with the same broadcast team).
LikeLike
Yes, it could. It just takes the right alignment of schedules.
I think that 3 networks plus the addition of USC will make it less likely than it is now with 2 main networks and no USC, but it is certainly not impossible.
LikeLike
True, 4 in a row is unusual. Normally ESPN would have broken up the string by picking them at some point. I think it’s just a quirk of the schedule.
Week 4 – ABC took OSU/WI (7:30) over MI/UMD for Fox
Week 5 – OSU was on BTN vs RU, PSU played NW, so MI/IA was a clear #1 pick
Week 6 – ABC took OSU/MSU (4:00) over MI/IN for Fox
Week 7 – OSU is on a bye and MI/PSU is a huge matchup – easy #1 pick for Fox
Both times ABC drew slightly more viewers with OSU, but either game could’ve been the #1 pick.
MI gets a bye next week, so the streak will end. OSU/IA gets the Big Noon slot instead, with PSU/MN on ABC in primetime.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Big Ten football’s scheduling future still up for discussion, and 2 issues stand out
By Scott Dochterman Oct 14, 2022
MINNEAPOLIS — Stitched along the side of the 98.3-pound Floyd of Rosedale traveling trophy, there are score markers for the Minnesota and Iowa football teams through the 2039 season.
Every fall since 1935, the Gophers and Hawkeyes have played for the bronze pig, which is considered one of college football’s most recognizable symbols of victory. Next month, the longtime foes will meet for the 116th time, tied for the Big Ten’s fourth-most-played rivalry. But despite those embedded markers, it’s not guaranteed those games — or any other great Big Ten trophy dash — will take place beyond this fall.
The 2023 Big Ten football schedule sits blank. It’s undetermined whether geographic divisions will exist next year or in 2024 when USC and UCLA join the Big Ten. A final decision was expected for next week when the league’s athletic directors meet in person, but there still are too many logistical hurdles and differences of opinion among administrators regarding the 2023 format. There are some leaders who prefer to start a single-division format next year, while others would like the East-West to remain until USC and UCLA’s arrival. There are advantages and disadvantages to both formats.
“The big thing we want to make sure,” Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren said, “is that we don’t create anything that has unintended consequences, especially for football. What do we do to help our schools have a chance to compete for a College Football Playoff spot and play for the national championship? That’s what’s on my mind. What works the best and what makes the most sense and really think through all the permutations that possibly exists. Do we stay the same? Do we make an adjustment? Do we adjust it at all?”
There are multiple layers to the future scheduling discussion, and two stand out. The first is ensuring one or multiple football teams qualify for the Playoff. Another is protecting some of the league’s most sacred annual rivalries. Those interests don’t automatically align. Multiple times, Penn State officials and head coach James Franklin have called for an end to divisional play. From 2016 to 2019, the Nittany Lions finished in the final 12 of the CFP rankings, yet they never qualified for the four-team event. Rivalries don’t enter as much into Penn State’s perspective after joining the Big Ten in 1993.
This spring, former Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour said, “I think in terms of looking at what we’re trying to achieve from a conference standpoint, I’m not going to pound my fist over anybody in particular.”
Every fall since 1935, the Minnesota Gophers and Iowa Hawkeyes have played for the Floyd of Rosedale trophy. (Scott Dochterman / The Athletic
It’s different at a place like Iowa, which has finished in the CFP’s top 16 four times since 2015, including in each of the past three seasons. The Hawkeyes joined the Big Ten with Indiana on Dec. 1, 1899 and have historical rivalries with Minnesota and Wisconsin and a budding series with newcomer Nebraska. Iowa would like to protect those games as annual encounters.
“I’m going to fight for as many of the rivalries as we can get, but I also understand it may be in the best interest of the conference to not play every one of those every year,” Iowa athletic director Gary Barta said.
Most schools are somewhere in the middle. Illinois, a Big Ten charter member, has met in-state foe Northwestern 115 times — the same as Iowa-Minnesota. Illinois has a rivalry trophy with Purdue, which is located only 90 miles east of Champaign. Illinois also has the Big Ten’s second-oldest traveling trophy (along with Indiana-Purdue) with Ohio State. Those teams played every year from 1914 to 2002, but the Big Ten’s former permanent-rival system bumped the Illini-Buckeyes game from annual status in favor of a yearly Penn State-Ohio State game.
“Some campuses have one school that they feel really strongly about playing and other schools have four,” Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman said. “So how do you navigate that? You certainly don’t want to create or fabricate rivalries that don’t exist, but on the other hand, you certainly want to protect those that do, and so there’s a lot of nuance to it.”
Therein lies the challenge for Warren, his staff and league athletic directors. Every major Big Ten rivalry except Purdue-Indiana — the only crossover series considered permanent — is contained in divisional play. If a historical series like Iowa-Minnesota or Northwestern-Illinois gets discarded to ensure a more natural rotation, it frays the fabric of the nation’s oldest conference.
“No matter what, if we stay the same or make an adjustment, we have to have a certain amount of those protected rivalry games,” Warren said. “You just have to. One thing I don’t want to do at the expense of any decisions … that’s what I’m talking about, the unintended consequences. We end up taking away what has made the Big Ten the Big Ten for the last 127 years.”
Protecting three annual foes and facing the other 12 twice every four years guarantees all of the important rivalries and makes for an easy scheduling pattern. But for the recent additions like Maryland and Rutgers or USC and UCLA, it could hatch inorganic yearly games. Or it could force a longtime Big Ten brand to play a border rival less regularly to compensate for a newcomer.
Two permanent games for each school hits just about every required series and rotates other opponents seven times over 11 years, but that might bury the Iowa-Wisconsin series, which is important to both schools.
That’s why there is some momentum about keeping the status quo for one more season, waiting until USC and UCLA join the league and unveil a new structure rather than enacting three different versions in a three-year span.
“I think the timing does matter,” Whitman said. “We have to kind of filter all that through what makes the most sense in terms of from the conference’s perspective, from an institution’s perspective. I think that there are a lot of pros and cons to divisions/divisionless, next year/the following year, and so we just have to assess all that collectively and figure out what the right direction is.
“There’s certainly some games that are important to us geographically, in terms of our traditional rivalries. We have trophy games with a number of different opponents. So, I think it kind of depends on what your criteria are. Every school is going to have to go through what are the things that really bring you together with another school and that are worth trying to push to the forefront in terms of a priority as you look at what a divisionless structure could be.”
Yet there’s a competitive side that doesn’t intersect with tradition. In the eight years of East-West divisional play, the East Division has won every championship game. This year, three Big Ten East teams are ranked in the Top 10, while only one West Division team is ranked in the Top 25. The regular-season games largely are competitive between the divisions with the East leading 77-70 in eight seasons, and the series is tied at 5 this year. But midlevel games don’t carry the relevance of a highly ranked duel, especially for the Big Ten title.
With a Playoff berth at stake for the winner, an uneven title matchup could prevent the champion from qualifying for the four-team tournament. It shuts out any opportunity for the league’s second-best team, should it compete in the same division. But the uneven nature of this year’s divisional structure actually could help the Big Ten earn multiple Playoff berths.
If the Big Ten champion is undefeated and the East Division runner-up had only one loss, the league might have a case for both teams making the CFP. It came close in 2016 when runner-up Ohio State ranked third and league champion Penn State was fifth. But a second head-to-head clash between both teams likely would send one tumbling out of the top four.
“Those are things we’ve got to think through,” Warren said. “Those are things that I think about all the time. I mean, it sounds good, which is great. But you’ve got to think through it because what I don’t want to do is get to the point and go, ‘Oof.’
“When someone says to me, ‘Well, there’s only a 1 percent chance of that to happen,’ that’s why I spend my time looking at it. Because if that 1 percent happens, I’ve got to walk to the podium and be able to explain this stuff. So that’s why we’re taking the time.”
Dochterman’s Big Ten prosposal
Nebraska – Iowa, Minnesota, UCLA
Iowa – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan State
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue, USC
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, UCLA
Indiana – Purdue, Michigan State, Maryland
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, Maryland
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers
Michigan State – Michigan, Indiana, Northwestern
Penn State – Ohio State, USC, Rutgers
Maryland – Rutgers, Ohio State, Indiana
Rutgers – Maryland, Michigan, Penn State
USC – UCLA, Penn State, Illinois
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Purdue
Note: Red rivalries are considered permanent; others could rotate every four years
Big Ten realignment also works in concert with Playoff expansion to 12 teams, perhaps as early as 2024. The top six conference champions and six at-larges will qualify for the tournament, which will feature four byes. Any new scheduling structure will be designed to help the Big Ten qualify as many teams as possible and prevent the oddest scenarios, such as three 9-0 teams.
Warren also wants to keep the Rose Bowl vibrant and be “conscientious” with its partner bowls. With four first-round CFP games staged on campuses, he’s concerned about winterized stadiums and whether games could be held in Big Ten communities or shift to a nearby indoor facility. Some games will require a midweek kickoff at night, which creates extra challenges for campuses. Plus, athletes have classes, semester finals and graduations. Then there’s concern about fans becoming priced out by traveling to three neutral sites to attend a CFP championship game.
“I’ll be able to tell you how I really feel in the next couple of weeks as we work through our meetings,” Warren said.
Additionally, there’s a media-rights component to Big Ten realignment. The league’s new deals kick in next year, which does not include UCLA and USC. A single-conference entity might not include some of the league’s highest-rated games like Michigan-Penn State or an impactful rivalry game like Iowa-Wisconsin. If the East-West structure remains one more season, those games are guaranteed.
“The athletic directors really want to make sure they’re diligent about looking at it from all sides, understanding what the entire national landscape looks like, what it looks like in the CFP environment,” said Kerry Kenny, the Big Ten’s senior vice president for television, media analytics and emerging platforms. “I think it’s just wanting to really understand and digest all the possible scenarios before moving forward in a certain direction or not moving forward in a certain direction.”
Unless something unforeseen happens next week in Rosemont, Ill., league and school officials will make the decision about the 2023 structure and schedule in “weeks to months,” Warren said. They meet in Indianapolis around the league championship game Dec. 2. It’s likely a decision gets made at that point.
“I think commissioner Warren’s comments are appropriate, weeks to months; obviously, not months to years,” Kenny said. “We don’t have that luxury.”
LikeLike
I don’t understand how Dochterman came up with some of those protected series. I can’t imagine that the B10 would stop making annual the UM-PSU and OSU-MSU games (that tend to draw huge viewership) and not replace them with USC-UMich and USC-OSU.
So:
Nebraska – Iowa, Minnesota, UCLA
Iowa – Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, UCLA
Northwestern – Illinois, Michigan State, RU/UMD
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, RU/UMD
Indiana – Purdue, Michigan State, Illinois
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, USC
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, USC
Michigan State – Michigan, Indiana, Northwestern
Penn State – Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Maryland – Rutgers, Penn State, NU/PU
Rutgers – Maryland, Penn State, NU/PU
USC – UCLA, Michigan, Ohio State
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Wisconsin
LikeLike
Richard: “I don’t understand how Dochterman came up with some of those protected series.”
In the actual article, the annual protected opponents were shaded pink and the “fillers” were not. That wasn’t conveyed in my copy n’ paste.
LikeLike
Dochterman does fine with his permanent/locked[/pink] rivalries. But, for gods’ sakes, this shouldn’t be that difficult, as others on this message board have suggested. Just let each school have up to 3 locked rivalries, by mutual consent, and backfill thereafter. [Let me suggest, once again, backfilling partially on merit, similar to the NFL scheduling mechanism.] Dochterman gets this; PSU probably doesn’t want “pink” games with RU or UMD: “This spring, former Penn State athletic director Sandy Barbour said, ‘I think in terms of looking at what we’re trying to achieve from a conference standpoint, I’m not going to pound my fist over anybody in particular.'” Hard to say if he’d not pound his fist over OSU, but safe to say that his fists would be pocketed over RU and UMD.
LikeLike
She. . . I know that because she used to be AD at Cal. Not sure how that qualified her to be hired AD at PSU. She inherited Tedford and the program slid after he left.
LikeLike
And speaking of Kal sliding, she hired Sonny Dykes. IMO, given TCU is now top dog in the Big-12, that is all you need to know about the strength of that conference this year.
I will go out on a limb right now and predict that Texas will beat TCU and Gary Patterson will get some measure of revenge.
LikeLike
Thanks, Redwood. I totally thought that you were pointing out that Dochterman is a she. Geezus!?! Sandy sounds like she’s got her sh!t together.
LikeLike
Scott Dochterman is a staff writer for The Athletic.
LikeLike
It’s easy for Barbour to say that since she knows OSU/PSU would be preserved and she doesn’t want to be stuck with RU and UMD (nobody does).
LikeLike
Yes, as a fellow subscriber to The Athletic, you might appreciate my initial shock at thinking that I was being informed that Dochterman is a she. I had to read my comment to realize that Redwood was referring to Barbour, whose quote I had shared; an entirely reasonable copy n’ paste, if you’ll pardon an immodest assessment.
My point was that Dochterman takes this concept right up to the verge of resolution – to self-determination and liberty(!) – where schools would be free to lock-in up to 3 protected rivalries, by mutual consent. They – see what I did there? – even go so far as to highlight the desirable rivalries, in red [looks pink to me], leaving the forced marriages unhighlighted. Dochterman does allow for annulments after four years. But, forcing even four years of a rivalry that nobody wants is dumb, as Ms. Barbour seems to suggest. Even Brian now seems to agree.
LikeLike
No, I think many of those games serve a purpose. The fact that PSU doesn’t want them doesn’t mean RU and UMD don’t want and/or need them. OSU didn’t want PSU locked, but it was. So was MI vs PSU for 10 years, so there is precedent for short term locked rivalries. Convenient how now PSU is so against locking rivalries when it was a condition of them joining in the first place.
I don’t see the upside to not locking 3 games for each school, versus the benefits of simplicity. As Dochterman says, you can rotate the less important ones every few years if that’s makes people happier.
LikeLike
Brian: “I don’t see the upside to not locking 3 games for each school . . .”
Obviously, it creates false rivalries. Changing the false rivalries every few years isn’t a solution.
LikeLike
I don’t see a problem with “false rivalries”. We (Northwestern) have to put up with playing MSU as often as possible just because Sparty wants to visit Chicagoland.
LikeLike
Not every annual game has to be a rivalry. It’s okay to play a team annually that you don’t deeply care about. It’d be different if good rivalries were being dropped to play these games instead. Maybe some of them will become rivalries. Others are just local games fans can travel to. Some are purely for integrating the newbies, and/or getting the most money from the most recent expansion.
OSU has played IN 85 times in the last 100 years, but neither side thinks it is a rivalry. Still, it’s good to play a local team. Not every game can be MI or IL (for OSU).
LikeLike
@Brian – I agree. I don’t get the pushback on having 3 annual games for every member at all. Not every annual game can be Michigan-Ohio State… and that’s OK! Ultimately, every school needs/deserves a base of regular predictable opponents every single year. Even Notre Dame has that with USC, Stanford and Navy as an independent.
It’s strange to me that few people had a problem with 6 locked divisional opponents per year, yet when it switches to a non-division format with 3 annual games against some of those exact same divisional opponents, fans get weirded out in saying that certain matchups aren’t logical, suggest having some with 3 annual rivals and some with only 1, etc.
As I often like to say: K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid. 16 teams means everyone has 3 annual opponents and then plays everyone else in the league 50% of the time. Who those annual opponents should be might be debatable, but the overall format ought to be obvious to everyone.
LikeLike
“Ultimately, every school needs/deserves a base of regular predictable opponents every single year.” Needs??? Deserves?!? Huh!?! While it might be “okay to play a team annually that you don’t deeply care about,” should the new B1G motto be, “Let’s K.I.S.S. and everything will be…okay?”
Kevin Warren: “I said recently to our senior leadership, what are like the can’t-miss priorities? One of them is we have to flawlessly integrate USC, UCLA, which we will. We’ve got to flawlessly integrate our new network partners.” Welcome your new members with self-determination, and extend that autonomy to your existing members. Let their experience inform other potential future members, regardless of the degree of metallic glitter on their helmets, that B1G integration is not immolation. Then, imitate the NFL and restore a merit-based scheduling mechanism to increase the likelihood that your best football teams play each other, and you’ve flawlessly addressed both of the CEO’s top-two, can’t-miss priorities. #KISS:[3]-3-3 [I’m sure that’ll catch on.]
LikeLike
Part of integrating the newbies is locking them with the B10 teams their fans already know about and care about, while they build familiarity with the rest. USC and UCLA don’t want to play RU and UMD (or IN and PU) just as much as OSU and MI, and the B10 wants high-value games. You achieve both by locking USC with OSU and MI while UCLA gets NE and WI.
Yes, that means USC gets 2 locked kings. OSU, MI and PSU have that now, and OSU and MI still would in my plan. PSU would have 1 locked king (OSU), but would play at least 1 more every year. It’s perfectly reasonable, and it will help them sell tickets.
After 10 years, they can revisit the plan and see what changes, if any, schools want to make. By then the newbies will be mostly integrated (and there may be a new set of newbies).
LikeLike
This article shows exactly why adding two or four more western schools makes no sense at all. It is hard enough to maintain important traditional rivalries with 16 schools. (Particularly when financially dilutive.) This was certainly another reason for schools to be against that expansion.
I do not believe that Washington or Oregon have established rivalries with any of the existing 14 teams. Add them and good luck with traditions that other schools wish to keep.
LikeLike
2 makes minimal difference. With 3 protected rivalries and 16, you get 3 every year and 12 six times in 12 years. With 3 protected rivalries and 18, you get 3 every year and 14 six times in 14 years. It also give USC and UCLA some better rivalries instead of one true rivalry.
LikeLike
If 2 more (and assuming no ND), I’m sure the B10 would rather add FSU+Miami or Miami+somebody (Stanford or maybe UO or maybe UW).
LikeLike
This article shows exactly why adding two or four more western schools makes no sense at all. It is hard enough to maintain important traditional rivalries with 16 schools.
But most of us agree, to varying extents, that the Big Ten is eventually adding two or four more schools. They just might not be Western ones.
LikeLike
Yeah, they’d have to be worthwhile enough to add given the drawbacks of expansion.
FSU+Miami, definitely.
Also ND+anybody.
With other combos, it becomes tougher.
Possibly Miami+Stanford (if Stanford can be consistently good again, which may be more difficult in the NIL & many-transfers world).
Potentially Miami+UO/UW too.
LikeLike
Possibly Miami+Stanford (if Stanford can be consistently good again, which may be more difficult in the NIL & many-transfers world).
College sports programs tend to revert to their historical norms. The late Harbaugh and early Shaw eras were exceptional. Outside of that, Stanford is historically a middling Pac team.
Even without NIL/transfers, you would expect Stanford long-term to be consistently mediocre. As you say, NIL and transfers could make it worse. Like any middling program, they will occasionally rise above it, but never consistently. If you add Stanford, you have to assume that that is what they will always be.
LikeLike
This article seems to me like we’re looking at 2023 being the same division structure as 2022 and then 2024 is the new format. I think it’s kind of an easy give to any current West division schools worried about a divisionless format. You say fine, we’ll delay it until 2024 but then we’re going to it (divisionless). Plus it gives another year to adjust some OOC schedules to bring forward more in-conference games to the first couple weeks of the season.
At the end of the day, divisionless (especially with a flexible number of locked rivals per team/temporary “locked” rivals) is better for everyone involved except the current West division teams not named Nebraska. Plus, Iowa (who has been the biggest beneficiary of the East/West structure since it started) seems to be already grudgingly accepted it:
“I’m going to fight for as many of the rivalries as we can get, but I also understand it may be in the best interest of the conference to not play every one of those every year,” Iowa athletic director Gary Barta said.
When you contrast that to his comments about having to have 7 home games every year as non-negotiable, that seems to denote some flexibility. Also, if the B1G adopts the Flex (link: https://frankthetank.org/2022/09/20/geography-or-trophy-games-proposed-annual-rivals-in-the-future-big-ten/#comment-381984) model I proposed then Iowa gets all 3 key rivals locked and Barta can take a victory lap and get another contract extension or something by saying “I made sure we kept all our rivalry games and we have a great schedule even if we no longer have a West division we still play all those schools at least twice every four years.” Then maybe he can fire Brian Ferentz and hire an OC that isn’t terrible.
Also:
Therein lies the challenge for Warren, his staff and league athletic directors. Every major Big Ten rivalry except Purdue-Indiana — the only crossover series considered permanent — is contained in divisional play. If a historical series like Iowa-Minnesota or Northwestern-Illinois gets discarded to ensure a more natural rotation, it frays the fabric of the nation’s oldest conference.
COUGH The Illibuck (OSU vs Illinois) and the Little Brown Jug (Michigan vs Minnesota) COUGH
Last, I agree with the point made by Jersey Bernie about adding two more teams causing scheduling issues. If you go to 18/20 teams, you need 10 conference games so it feels like a conference. At 14 teams the schools most effected in not getting to play everyone are Indiana and Purdue, which are basketball schools and in the case of Indiana one of the worst football schools ever historically, and Purdue is in the West and probably misses playing UM/MSU/OSU more but I assume doesn’t care to play the eastern 3 of PSU/UMD/RU.
If we take that lens of where is worth playing, the pause on expansion makes a bit more sense. If we consider conference admission dependent on needing to be accretive financially, academically, and demographically (for incoming students both for academics and athletics) it really torpedos any hope of Oregon getting into the B1G short of a 24+ team B1G.
LikeLike
It’s really simply that there aren’t any slamdunk additions before the ACC GOR ends if ND doesn’t move. Are you saying the B10 doesn’t feel like a conference now in the divisional play era? Because now already, effectively, some B10 schools only play other B10 schools roughly 1/3rd of the time in football.
You can still play everyone at least 1/3rd of the time even with 18/20 schools and have 5 or 4 locked rivalry games.
But I agree that overlooking the Jug game is egregious.
LikeLike
I think it feels mostly like a conference but 2 out of every 6 isn’t enough imo. The SEC is way worse at 2 out of every 12 or something like that, hasn’t A&M never hosted Georgia or vice versa? That’s nuts to me.
Anyway, yeah need to play 2 every 4.
LikeLike
Again, that (2 games/4 years) doesn’t happen now with the current divisional set up.
Peeps will adjust. And yes, some SEC teams essentially never play other SEC teams. They still have a very strong conference identity.
LikeLike
So my take is we should correct that flaw in the current division setup. The B1G has 12 years of division play and we can do better, we don’t need to”get used to” crap that doesn’t benefit anyone. I personally don’t care what the SEC does and historically they didn’t play each other with any consistency.
LikeLike
20 to 24 teams requires that all games be in conference, no OOC games, and that means only 6 home games.
LikeLike
No it doesn’t. You could go all the way up to 22, have 9 conference games, and still have 3 annual series and play everyone else as frequently as some B10 schools play each other now (1/3rd of the time).
LikeLike
Scout,
COUGH The Illibuck (OSU vs Illinois) and the Little Brown Jug (Michigan vs Minnesota) COUGH
To be fair, it said major rivalries. Those are old rivalries, but they are lopsided and not all that highly valued by many on either side anymore. WI/MN, IA/MN and NW/IL count as major, but not Illibuck and the LBJ. The Game has dwarfed those.
LikeLike
Kennesaw State is joining C-USA
LikeLike
Minneapolis wants the B10 CCG in 2025.
Minnesota Sports and Events, which has helped secure events such as the 2018 Super Bowl and last spring’s women’s NCAA Final Four, plans to make a bid to bring the Big Ten football championship game to U.S. Bank Stadium as soon as 2025. It would be the first year the game — so far — has not been awarded to Lucas Oil Stadium.
The Big Ten women’s basketball tournament will be at Target Center this spring and next, and the men’s tournament will be here in 2023, as well. With the pending addition of UCLA and USC in Fall 2024, the Big Ten will have the nation’s biggest media markets to choose from, from the New York Metropolitan Area to Los Angeles and stops in between that include Chicago and the Twin Cities.
Speaking at the first day of Big Ten media days at Target Center, Commissioner Kevin Warren sounded ready to continue to branch out.
“Now,” he said, “we have the flexibility to have (basketball tournaments), really, anywhere across the country.”
The Big Ten hasn’t officially opened bidding on the football championship, a conference spokesperson said. The request-for-proposal process will cover two years, and Minnesota Sports and Events hopes to throw its hat into the ring.
Hosting hoops in NYC and DC didn’t go so well. It won’t in LA either (you know they’ll do it at least once). 11 of the schools are midwestern, so the games should stay there almost all the time. I could see the Bears’ new stadium hosting the CCG, and it will probably be in LA at least once. I wouldn’t mind MSP and Detroit also being in the rotation – it doesn’t need to stay in Indy.
LikeLike
MSP too far out of the way for the football CCG, especially since, with no divisions, the chances of Eastern schools in it rise.
Detroit acceptable. Chicago should be the permanent location for the football CCG once the new domed stadium is built there (center of the B10, has the most B10 grads by far, and a major airline hub).
The basketball tournaments can and should move all over.
LikeLike
Indy is central and very close to Columbus which is important since OSU is there often.
I wonder how USC and UCLA fans will handle a CCG in Indy or elsewhere in the Midwest. Could see some half empty stadiums in the future.
LikeLike
Depends on who they’re playing. A highly ranked OSU/UMich team can fill a stadium in a home or adjacent state all by themselves. Same with a lot of schools in their home state. Some in adjacent states too. And some even farther away. I’m thinking schools like UNL/PSU/MSU/Iowa. Getting rid of divisions should mean both teams are pretty highly ranked so that would help.
LikeLike
Greg Flugaur has claimed since July that further B10 expansion before 2024 would have a go/no-go decision by October 15. He now says it is officially no-go.
He also says the P12 will survive and expand (SDSU + 1).
LikeLike
Greg Flugaur did say that the decision day would be October 15, but he has been all in on the B1G adding four more western teams. Every little tiny indication that expansion was not dead proved to him that the B1G was expanding now. Of course, the other YouTube college expansion commentary was almost exactly the same as his for a while. In the last week or two, while others backed off, he kept up the mantle for expansion.
This is Episode 73. Watch 71 and 72 where is still all in.
Two quick notes. Problems with travel to FSU are largely on the other end. The FSU campus is about 15 minutes from the airport. It is a small airport, but does have direct flights to all of the major eastern and midwestern airports. Not a lot, but it has them. It is not at all like some schools that are a two hour bus ride from the destination airport.
Back to passive-aggressive Rutgers. Considering how thrilled the networks were about having games from NY to Chic to LA, it might be hard to explain that NY is not in the picture. RU has one thing. Location, Location, Location.
I would not be surprised if RU football gets worse (if that is possible) in the next few years. There is a real NIL problem. As a starter the state of NJ has legislation stopping the university from being involved with NIL at all. That is a disaster. And at the moment there are not a whole of people putting up money.
Sort of chicken or egg. Football stinks so why put up NIL money, so football will get even worse.
LikeLike
Bernie: “It (Tallahassee) is a small airport, but does have direct flights to all of the major eastern and midwestern airports.
A dirert flight is not a nonstop flight. There are no nonstop flights from O’Hare to Tallahassee. I did a google search and the fastest I could find was a one-stop that took 6.5 hours and arrived after midnight. Most of the flights from Chicago to Tallahassee have two stops.
LikeLike
There used to be direct flights. I guess that they cancelled those. In 2021, United Airlines cancelled all TLH service.
Years ago there were no direct flights into Newark Airport. Then they were instituted and today it again seems that they have been eliminated. I have no clue when.
EWR and O’Hare are major hubs for United Airlines. I do not know if United ended TLH to EWR and O’Hare in 2021, or before then, but it does not much matter.
Since there are no direct flights from O’Hare or Newark, I totally retract my comment about ease of access to FSU.
I just checked and there are still direct flights to Reagan in DC, but there are no longer any non-stops from TLH to the mid-west or northeast.
What is so strange is that Tallahassee is the capital of FL and has regressed to such terrible access by air.
Bottom line, FSU will be a pain in the butt to access by anything other than charter.
LikeLike
Colin is correct that Tallahassee is a pain to get to. He is mistaken that this will have any effect on the decision whether FSU joins the Big Ten. The revenue sports take charters, and nobody ever turned down an addition they would otherwise make because of travel for the others. It is a matter of, at most, one trip per sport per year. They would just have to take it.
As I have pointed out, State College is also a pain to get to, and they added Penn State anyway. I could think of multiple good reasons why FSU might not ever join the Big Ten. This won’t be one of them.
LikeLike
Marc: “Colin is correct that Tallahassee is a pain to get to. He is mistaken that this will have any effect on the decision whether FSU joins the Big Ten.”
I am growing weary of this serial misrepresentation. Travel logistics are but one reason that FSU is a bad fit for the Big Ten. Non-AAU status is another reason that FSU is a bad fit for the Big Ten. Lack of fiscal accretion in the huge, new media contract is another reason that FSU is a bad fit ror the Big Ten. Another 14 years of fiscal beatdown by the ACC GOR is another reason that FSU is a bad fit ror the Big Ten. They will be MAC status in 2036.
LikeLike
Lack of fiscal accretion in the huge.
You will note I said, “I could think of multiple good reasons why FSU might not ever join the Big Ten. This won’t be one of them.”
If indeed the money is not there, then they will not get an invitation. Nobody will say, “And besides…travel.” You don’t talk about travel if the money doesn’t make sense. But if the money makes sense, you don’t sweat the travel either. So you see, it is a non-issue either way.
Non-AAU status is another reason that FSU is a bad fit for the Big Ten.
Now there you could be correct. But if so, why are you nattering about travel as if it mattered? It doesn’t.
LikeLike
It hasn’t been that long that the state of Florida designated Florida and FSU as preeminent research universities. I think FSU is on the rise.
LikeLike
Kevin: “I think FSU is on the rise.”
The ACC will be proud.
LikeLike
Marc, there are multiple reasons that FSU is a bad fit for the Big Ten. You continue to throw up one reason or another and challenge me to defend my position. There isn’t one reason why FSU is a bad fit. There any many reasons that FSU is a bad fit and those have been belabored here ad nausium.
LikeLike
It hasn’t been that long that the state of Florida designated Florida and FSU as preeminent research universities. I think FSU is on the rise.
It might be, but its competitors are trying to get better too, and the AAU is very stingy about adding new members. Just eight have been added in the past quarter-century, with five getting kicked out or encouraged to leave.
LikeLike
FSU is in a large and growing state with a tremendous amount of applications annually, they will be set up for significant growth. Very similar to the university of Georgia which I think is trending toward AAU status.
Hard to see schools like Kansas retaining AAU without the long term favorable demographics.
LikeLike
Marc, yes, the AAU moves slowly, but FSU (and Miami too, if they aren’t devastated by a direct hit from a hurricane or 2) are on the right path.
LikeLike
Richard: “the AAU moves slowly, but FSU (and Miami too, if they aren’t devastated by a direct hit from a hurricane or 2) are on the right path.”
The AAU won’t add another member on our lifetimes.
LikeLike
Can’t speak about your lifetime, but certainly in mine. The AAU has added a new member every 1-9 years since its founding.
LikeLike
Richard: “Can’t speak about your lifetime, but certainly in mine. The AAU has added a new member every 1-9 years since its founding.”
I was joking – a spin upon my prediction that the B1G and SEC won’t expand again.
LikeLike
CFP expansion killed more conference expansion this year. ND can get its own comparable paycheck this cycle.
PAC might backfill like Big12 did which can still be good football but it pushes forward the inevitable of so said M3 in 2030s when all are on the moving table if it raises P2 shares and the M3 have playoff access like G5, i.e. viable options than P2 or bust.
LikeLike
CFP expansion killed more conference expansion this year. ND can get its own comparable paycheck this cycle.
No, it didn’t. Regardless of the playoff format, ND was going to remain independent. Without ND, the majority of us do not see any remaining Pac schools that could be financially accretive to the Big Ten. The only potentially accretive schools are in the ACC, and they are locked up until 2036.
ND’s dilemma has not changed. Their NBC deal underpays them, and their playoff revenue is unpredictable. This year, for example, they would not make the playoff under either format. Whether they can tolerate that indefinitely remains an open question. But just like everyone else in the ACC, they are committed until 2036, with unknown damages if they leave early. And they don’t yet have a number from NBC for the next deal. So for now, they stand pat.
Ultimately, playoff expansion is going to amplify the financial disparities, as only the Big Ten and SEC are positioned to regularly put multiple schools into the 12-team field. And their playoff money does not depend on how well any particular team does, because in a 16-team B1G/SEC, someone will always be good. In years ND falters on the field, as they have this year, they get nothing.
LikeLike
Why do you believe that ND is underpaid? If any of the other networks agreed with that, they could have bid more for the ND contracts in the past.
Now with the new B1G multi-network deal it is probably too late, since no one else needs the ND games as fill ins.
As has been discussed here countless times, if NBC signs a five year contract with ND, they have no clue what they will be getting two years from now.
LikeLike
Bernie: ND is getting the best they can _as_an_independent_ with their fairly unimpressive home schedule (and single-school risk). But in the past, they’ve made less than they would have in the B10 and also what their viewership numbers would indicate. That is likely to be true going forward as well.
LikeLike
That does not mean that they are under paid. They are getting fair market value.
That FMV is less than it would have been in the B1G and ND has willingly taken less cash in order to maintain independence.
It is a tradeoff that ND has willingly accepted, which by definition means that they have not been paid properly.
LikeLike
You are both saying the same thing. Bernie is correct that ND is fairly paid, given all of the constraints that they place upon themselves. Richard is correct that they are making less than they could.
LikeLike
Just noticed in the TV listings that this Saturday’s UNLV at Notre Dame game is on Peacock but not on NBC. Wonder if that is the beginning of a trend.
LikeLike
Just noticed in the TV listings that this Saturday’s UNLV at Notre Dame game is on Peacock but not on NBC. Wonder if that is the beginning of a trend.
The current deal allows NBC to put one ND game per year on Peacock exclusively. Not sure when that started, but this is not the first year. Obviously, the Peacock game will always be the least desirable one.
LikeLike
which by definition means that they have not been paid IMproperly
LikeLike
What Richard said. ND is underpaid compared to their value in the Big Ten. They are not (to my knowledge) underpaid compared to what other networks would offer for the identical package.
ND is earning suboptimal money with NBC, because they have created conditions that make it impossible to put the package out for bid. Every other broadcast network wants to be able to show two games on a Saturday afternoon. ND’s treasured 2:30pm CT kickoff won’t work anywhere except NBC.
ND could probably make more money if the package were bid competitively, but that would require compromises they have historically been unwilling to make. On top of the kickoff time, I am not sure if other networks would give ND their own announcers and their own website, as NBC does. But the cost of that arrangement is a package no one else bids on.
LikeLike
This is right, now please stop. 😆
LikeLike
Something that may be of only concern to Frank and me;
This season has obviously been a pleasant surprise for the Illini. They are 6-1, ranked for the first time since 2011, and have arguably the best defense in the country. Even the offense, while below average, features Chase Brown who is leading the nation in rushing yards. However, I was looking at his stats and noticed something disturbing. Here are his YPA by game since the start of the season in chronological order:
7.9
5.5
7.3
5.4
5.2
4.7
4.4
There is obviously a worrying trend there. Moreover, here are his rushing attempts per game, once again in chronological order:
19
36
20
20
25
31
41
In short, the Illini are increasing Brown’s workload every week despite the fact he keeps getting less efficient every game. Obviously there is a cause and effect dilemma here (is he getting less efficient because they keep increasing his workload or are they having to increase his workload because his efficiency keeps dropping?), but Bret Bielema may need to seriously consider how he is managing Brown’s workload given Brown is largely carrying the offense.
LikeLike
frug, Purdue and Illinois are tied for the lead in the Big Ten West. We haven’t seen that in many moons.
LikeLike
8-1 UIUC could be facing a 7-2 PU.
9-1 UIUC could also be facing an unbeaten UMich.
LikeLike
Richard: “8-1 UIUC could be facing a 7-2 PU.”
Probably won’t happen. Purdue plays at Wisconsin on Saturday and the Badgers are the Boilers’ invincible nemesis. Since 2004, Purdue is 4-6 vs Ohio State but 0-15 vs Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Circle of Life. Bucky has been 1-12 vs the Bucks after 2004.
LikeLike
UIUC’s first 4 games were against Wyoming, IU, UVa, and Chattanooga. Last 3 against Bucky, Iowa, and UMTC.
I think that explains the discrepancy.
LikeLike
Yeah, I should have mentioned that. Opponent strength is obviously a very large factor, but that alone wouldn’t explain why (among other things) he averaged 2 YPA less against UTC than he did against Wyoming and UVA.
I can’t blame Bielama for wanting to ride his workhorse given the circumstances, but with Brown having already surpassed his previous career high for carries in a season with 6 games left (7 if the Illini win the division), he might want to find a way to ease up a least a little.
LikeLike
Part of it was your QB getting hurt. Maybe other injuries (WR, OL) as well. But I agree, it is risky to run a college RB that heavily. With DeVito getting healthier, Brown might get a bit of a break.
It’s just setting up the inexplicable loss to NW with a division title on the line for IL.
LikeLike
I have, sadly, little faith in that occurring.
LikeLike
@Frank
IANAL, so curious what’s the thoughts here: https://tulsaworld.com/sports/college/osu/yormark-oklahoma-and-texas-will-remain-in-big-12-through-2025-big-12-commissioner-says/article_e278042c-4f0e-11ed-ba01-efa755ef5e54.html?
I was reading on the CNsBBS board (can’t post there since the mods don’t seem to be activating new accounts) that people are blaming FOX for not negotiating something to get Texas and OU out of the BigXII GoR sooner. And that makes sense to me that FOX isn’t going to sell two years of OU and Texas games to ESPN for a discount when they can just keep them and make the money as planned, while ESPN doesn’t really have any incentive to pay full market price to FOX and assume the risk.
That said, isn’t ESPN the party most likely to be against a GoR settlement negotiation? They have another 13/14 years of the ACC sewn up at a discount and challenging a GoR without precedent is a gamble that university presidents won’t take, as you’ve said. So wouldn’t a settlement to get OU/UT out of the BigXII GoR sooner be setting a precedent for the ACC schools to follow? Am I thinking about this wrong?
LikeLike
Yep, it’s not in Fox’s interest to let Texas and OU out early unless they get at least as much value back from ESPN, and ESPN evidently isn’t able or willing to offer that much to trade, possibly because they like protecting GORs.
So Texas and OU may want out early, but they have the least leverage of anyone in this affair, having signed the GOR.
Anyway, I look forward to the 14-team B12 for 2 years, not least because it’ll tell us how UCF and Houston (who have 2 of the largest undergrad enrollments in the country, BTW) fair at drawing eyeballs in a “full” M3 conference.
LikeLike
FOX has no reason to give up its rights. That said, a settlement would have no bearing on the ACC GOR.
There are frequently settlements to get out of a GOR. Maryland settled with the ACC when it left to come to B1G.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/maryland-acc-settle-fight-over-exit-fee-conference-will-keep-31m/
LikeLike
There are frequently settlements to get out of a GOR. Maryland settled with the ACC when it left to come to B1G.
The ACC did not have a GoR when Maryland left. Their settlement with the ACC pertained to the conference exit fee. To my knowledge, no conference GoR has ever been terminated early.
LikeLike
@Marc – Correct. The ACC schools only signed a GOR *after* Maryland left. In fact, it was a direct response to the Maryland defection. UT and OU are the only schools that have announced leaving a league with a GOR that hasn’t expired, but they have taken extreme pains to emphasize that they weren’t leaving until after the GOR concluded (even though they thought in the back of their minds that they could negotiate some type of early buyout).
LikeLike
I think the blame here is misplaced. The power of the GoR comes from two interlocking provisions:
1) The conference owns the media rights for the life of the deal.
2) Teams only get a share of the payout if they remain in the conference.
The Big XII is not going to give up those rights without getting paid all they are due. But the SEC does not want TX and OK ahead of time, if it does not receive any of the income from their games.
Thus, to break the GoR early, ESPN would need to pay double. They would need to pay both the Big XII and the SEC for the same content. There is no realistically imaginable sum that would make this worthwhile.
I think you are right that ESPN probably does not want to send a message that the ACC GoR might be breakable. But the simple fact is — as valuable as TX and OK football are, they are not worth paying for twice. That is why the schools will remain in the Big XII through the end of their contract.
LikeLike
https://www.nfl.com/news/prime-video-to-stream-black-friday-nfl-game-in-2023
The NFL will stream a Black Friday game starting next year.
The first-ever NFL Black Friday game will take place Friday, Nov. 24, 2023 with an expected kick off of 3 p.m. ET. The participating teams will be announced when the 2023 schedule is released.
…
Speaking at Tuesday’s Fall League Meeting in New York, Commissioner Roger Goodell said there was no commitment beyond 2023, but the league does not usually “do things for one year.”
Will this kill off CFB Black Friday games? Will they cede that afternoon TV window to the NFL? Will the NFL expand to multiple games in the future, taking over the primetime window as well?
LikeLike
It may make shifting the CFB season earlier a week an easier sell. Then Thanksgiving Saturday becomes CCG week and you could conceivably fit 2 rounds in before the NYD games become semifinals.
Rivalry week shifts back to the old B10 rivalry week (weekend before Thanksgiving).
In that case, I still think allowing 2 bye weeks a season makes a ton of sense, so start the season what is now Week -1 (2 weekends before Labor Day weekend).
LikeLike
Thanksgiving Saturday becomes CCG week and you could conceivably fit 2 rounds in before the NYD games become semifinals.
Mathematically, that might be possible, but it would be hard to do that without going head-to-head against the NFL. Also, they want to enhance the major bowls, not to cannibalize them.
LikeLike
Eh. After the old fogies retire, I’m not sure how many people in power really want to lay it on the line to defend the bowls. You could argue that _some_ bowls would be defended, so I could see the Rose and Sugar become permanent semifinals (and maybe the championship rotates among the other 4?), but eventually, I think the presidents care more about decreasing the disruption to the spring semester while fans will eventually get sick of traveling to 3 neutral site games in a row (so you’ll see a drop in attendance of the NYD/NYE quarterfinal bowls).
Plus, the NFL doesn’t play on Saturdays until the 3rd Saturday of December, leaving the 2nd Saturday of December open.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how many people in power really want to lay it on the line to defend the bowls.
I am not sure either, but the presidents’ directive called for the quarterfinals to be played at the major bowls.
Plus, the NFL doesn’t play on Saturdays until the 3rd Saturday of December, leaving the 2nd Saturday of December open.
Just using this year as an example, let us say the CCGs were Thanksgiving Saturday. Given the two-week buffer between rounds that the presidents mandated, the first round could be played the weekend of 12/9, which is fine. But the second round would be the weekend of 12/23, and there’s your NFL conflict.
On top of that, you are killing ticket sales for the Rose and Sugar Bowls, as nobody would know who is playing in them until a week before. I am struggling to imagine who would think that was a good idea.
LikeLike
Ah, OK, so the problem seems to be that you’re going off of current directives rather than being willing to see where the sport will evolve in the future.
In the future, I believe the presidents will become concerned with more disruption in the spring semester and fans will rebel against being forced to travel to 3 neutral site games in a row and they won’t be willing to protect bowls for that. So yes, I believe that a 13th game Thanksgiving weekend, CCGs going away, and the first 2 rounds on campus the first 2 weekends of Dec (which would still allow plenty of time to plan travel to the Rose and Sugar–note that people generally have far less time to plan travel to the national title game after NYD right now) will come in to being.
LikeLike
I doubt all college teams / conferences will avoid scheduling in an NFL streaming-only window. If the NFL changes that to a national OTA broadcast that will have a larger impact.
LikeLike
That’s my guess – if it’s a streaming Amazon game, then college football will continue playing on Black Friday. No one should be willingly putting up college games of any value against NFL games on OTA, though.
FWIW, I don’t think this impacts whether the regular season ends on Thanksgiving weekend at all. Ultimately, the NFL is taking up so many slots that college football just has to triage and find the “least worst” situation in competing with them. I wouldn’t give up an entire valuable highly-rated Thanksgiving weekend of rivalry games because of a single streamed NFL game on Black Friday.
LikeLike
Doesn’t the NFL have some sort of antitrust exemption that bars them from playing on certain days? Is it only Saturday while CFB is going on that they are restricted from?
LikeLike
MLB is the only sport with a formal antitrust exemption. Now, as a matter of prudence it is probably unwise for the NFL to try to squash CFB, for a whole bunch of reasons — just as both they and CFB steer clear of Friday nights. But they are not actually barred from playing on any particular days.
LikeLike
Saturdays when college football is in season and Fridays when HS football is in season. So I guess someone would need to look up how “season” is defined in that law.
LikeLike
Marc, that’s actually not true:
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/SB-Blogs/COVID19-OpEds/2021/12/16-Frommer
“The resulting law — the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 — gave the NFL (and other pro sports leagues) a broadcasting antitrust exemption, while also essentially banning the NFL from televising games on Saturdays during most of the fall, to protect college football. The ban also covers Friday nights in deference to high school football.
The broadcasting prohibition begins on the second Friday in September and ends on the second Saturday in December. That’s why fans don’t see NFL games on Saturday until the end of the season. The NFL will play its first Saturday competition of the year this weekend, when the NFL Network televises a pair of games.”
LikeLike
Never saw that one before. Thanks.
LikeLike
The anti-trust exemption is specific to media rights for professional sports teams and allows the NFL to negotiate as a single entity (vs. 32 teams) for broadcast rights so it is very important to the NFL. The prohibition is specific to broadcasting games not playing so the NFL can play on Friday and stream the game without issue. They cannot effectively broadcast OTA until mid-December when the limitation ends. The specific limitation is they cannot broadcast within a 40 mile radius of any scheduled high school or college game. If a broadcast can be received anywhere in that circle it violates the exemption. When you put circles around all the stadiums and the broadcast towers it pretty much covers all population centers. In the future if streaming pays enough the NFL could play and stream games every Friday and Saturday night (vs. just black Friday) since that is not prohibited. What might stop the NFL is the potential of triggering future legislation that ends exemptions or put other restrictions on them.
LikeLike
Good point. In 10 years, that “protection” for college and HS games could be worthless as streaming gains in popularity.
LikeLike
I feel like I’m missing something. The BigXII owns the rights to all OU and UT home games for 2023 and 2024, roughly half of which are owned by ESPN. Both those schools aren’t getting any media money from the BigXII for 23&24 since the exit fee is two years of media rights and the schools seem to be preferring to just not get paid than to pay a lump sum or negotiate a deferred payment.
So if that’s the case, why not just leave in 2023? You’re already not getting paid until 2025, the BigXII doesn’t make any more or less in those years whether you play BigXII or SEC conference games, and both ESPN and Fox would likely make more from televising OU & UT conference games in the SEC. So OU & UT are neutral financially from leaving in 2023 vs 2025, the BigXII is neutral financially, and ESPN and Fox are better off from an earlier move.
I suppose the BigXII’s point would be that by leaving in 2023 vs 2025 those schools forfeit the 2 years of media rights distribution that pays the exit fee. Plus the H8 schools lose out on probably 2 final home games vs OUT.
Though I wonder if there’s a scenario where OU and UT could schedule 2023 and 2024 SEC conference games where each “home” game is actually a neutral site game that uses the SEC’s media contract. Be kind of goofy to play all those games at the Cotton Bowl or Jerry world and Austin and Norman restaurants/hotels miss out on some revenue but maybe the math works.
This is all probably absurd ramblings and will never happen anyway. Which leads me to a pair of thoughts:
1. Why did OU and UT ever agree to such a high exit fee? They had to know that post Mizzou/A&M departures there wasn’t anyone else that was a flight risk and it could only hurt them later on.
2. What were they thinking when planning this in 2021, that they would find a way out sooner? It drove USCLA to the B1G sooner and delayed CFP expansion and undoubtedly the other commissioners will never forget Sankey pushing for expansion while holding the knife behind the BigXII’s back – you cannot trust him at all now.
LikeLike
Oops this was supposed to be in response to Marc above.
LikeLike
Texas and OU would still be paying that huge exit fee even if they left in 2023. So leaving early would just mean not being paid for 2 years (or paying a huge lump sum in 2023), which they very likely are not willing to suffer.
LikeLike
@Scout – UT and OU might be perfectly fine with leaving the Big 12 immediately since they’re not getting paid rights fees for the next 2 years, but the SEC wants nothing to do with having their own conference games being held under the Big 12 TV contract (particularly with FOX involved).
At the same time, regarding the Big 12 exit fee, remember the context a little over a decade ago: you’re correct that UT and OU were always the most likely flight risks for the Big 12, but that’s also exactly why the league’s TV partners needed above-and-beyond reassurances that UT and OU were staying for the long haul in order to maximize the TV contract rights fees. That included signing the GOR and having a fairly punitive exit fee.
LikeLike
I’d have thought the TV partners would be fine with the GoR and not care about the exit fee. Since if schools (specifically UT & OU in this case) leave a conference it’s presumably for bigger games with higher ratings. Heck, Fox would probably love for OU and UT to not have an exit fee from the BigXII and thus they get their years of media rights from those schools at a huge discount since they are worth far more in the SEC . The exit fee seems only relevant to the other schools in the conference, but who remaining in the conference had any leverage to demand OU & UT agree to one? Kansas?
I kind of thought the SEC might be better off with half of OU and Texas’ conference games (the road ones) under their TV contract for two years than have none of them for those 2 years. Obviously that’s a weird branding thing but since ESPN already has half of their home games does the SEC really care that much that FOX gets to broadcast like 4 SEC conference games a year for 2 years? Enough to wait another two years to get them fully in conference?
Idk, it’s just weird to me that there’s this ESPN+SEC vs Fox+B1G thing. Why would the SEC care if some of their games end up in Fox for 2 years if they, their schools, and ESPN are all better off? ESPN and Fox have split the rights for the B1G, PAC, and Big XII for years, and SEC games have been cross promoted on ESPN/ABC with those networks during that time. Is there some SEC animosity towards Fox that’s non-public?
Like, there’s the famous Delaney “consider them rolled” comment via a vis ESPN but the B1G still sold rights to ESPN for years after that. What’s the cause of SEC animosity with Fox?
LikeLike
Exit fees are perplexing, and not just in the Big XII. Over and over again, schools have voted for exit fees that they then had to pay themselves just a few years later.
I kind of thought the SEC might be better off with half of OU and Texas’ conference games (the road ones) under their TV contract for two years than have none of them for those 2 years.
Offsetting that, the rights to OU and UT home conference games would be paid out to the Big XII, which makes it unsustainable.
Why would the SEC care if some of their games end up in Fox for 2 years if they, their schools, and ESPN are all better off?
Because the SEC would not get paid for those games.
Undoubtedly the other commissioners will never forget Sankey pushing for expansion while holding the knife behind the BigXII’s back – you cannot trust him at all now.
Every commissioner knows they would have done exactly what Sankey did.
LikeLike
I do agree at all. Every commissioner would have taken TX and OU in a heartbeat. That is the way that it goes.
I would hope that they would be honest enough to not be trying to negotiate with other commissioners while withholding such a material fact, that the B1g 12 was losing its two top teams to the SEC.
Obviously, I do not know what legal representations were made, so I have no way to state that what Sankey was trying to do was fraud. Too many elements of fraud in this instance are unknown to the public.
It was not ethical. Yes, I know that there will be screaming in reaction to this.
LikeLike
Bernie – Sankey was one member of a four-person committee that drafted a plan that was in the best interest of and benefitted every conference, regardless of any future membership changes. Obviously, the presidents and chancellors agreed since they adopted the plan.
If you want to talk about unethical self-dealing, look no further than the B1G commissioner entering into an “Alliance” with the P12 and ACC, while stealing the two most valuable assets from their longtime Rose Bowl partner and wingman.
The B1G’s actions are comparable to Germany’s relative to the Molotav-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact of 1939 with the USSR.
You’re a lawyer. If you were counsel to OU, UTx, or the SEC, the first thing any lawyer would have done prior to entering into negotiations is draft a non-disclosure agreement for all parties to execute.
LikeLike
Every commissioner knows they would have done exactly what Sankey did.
Maybe, but that’s because they are unethical people.
Any commissioner would’ve added OU and UT, and almost nobody disputes that or argues Sankey was wrong to do it. Hiding it while trying to force through a CFP expansion plan that includes an ESPN-only extension is a different issue. That’s the part that troubles some people.
LikeLike
Alan,
Even lawyers are supposed to avoid conflicts of interest. They don’t have to publicize what the conflicts are to do that.
I don’t recall anyone holding up Warren as a positive example of ethics or morals, so that’s a bit of a strawman.
As always on the internet, you lose the argument when you compare the other side to the Nazis.
LikeLike
Brian – lawyers are held to a higher standard than college administrators.
Sankey was one vote out of 11 and worked on a recommendation from a working group that – after the “Alliance” commissioners’ temper tantrum and the adults got involved – was adopted unanimously.
If you didn’t like my witty Molotov-Rippentrop reference, you’ll hate this next one. Brian – you’re like the Daughters of the Confederacy re-writing history to suit your opinion. (Smiley-winky faced emoji).
LikeLike
The expansion plan wasn’t something particularly to the SEC’s advantage.
Everybody now wants the expansion plan that was designed.
Absolutely nothing unethical about what Sankey did. In fact, knowing what he did, he might have opposed a 6+6 since the non P2 were weakened. But he didn’t. He supported something that most people (not you Brian) would agree is for the good of the game.
LikeLike
Sorry. By definition, any time that you get involved in a major negotiation which involves hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars, full disclosure is needed. (The same is true for a deal with thousands of dollars.)
That does not mean that someone cannot have access to information that others don’t, but here it was a hugely material fact created by the actions of the SEC in failing to announce. There was absolutely no amount of due diligence that would have allowed others to learn the SEC was changing the make up of two of the P5 conferences.
The fact that the other leagues almost agreed to the proposal and then backed out proves the point.
The other leagues might have agreed anyway if everything was on the table, so why did Sankey hide it? Why did the other leagues pull out?
The UT OU deal was done, so if Sankey was not concerned that it would be a problem, he could have announced it. What was Sankey’s need to hide this? The deal was completed, only the announcement was delayed.
There have been any number of articles written in the past year stating that the other leagues had problems with what Sankey did. Now they will live with it for money.
As far as Warren, first of all if he is the CEO of the B1G, then all of the colleges are on the Board of Directors. He reports to them, not the other way around. I hope that Warren would not have done the same thing, or that the Presidents would have stopped him. Not from taking UT and OU, but from hiding it.
If Warren did the same thing and had signed up USC and UCLA without disclosure while negotiating the playoffs, that would have been just as bad.
Warren’s action may or may not be the same as Sankey, who tried to get others to act in reliance on his misrepresentations, though it is unclear what happened with the B1G.
The “alliance” did not cause any of the other schools to change their positions. The PAC did not enter into or avoid a new deal because of the informal agreement between the conferences.
We also have to assume that USC and UCLA approached the B1G (which welcomed them with open arms). This may have started well after the alliance was in place, when the two LA schools read the T leaves and realized that their next TV rights deal would be tens of millions behind whatever the B1G was about to get.
Is that almost the same as Sankey? Maybe, but again the PAC did nothing in false reliance on B1G promises.
LikeLike
Bernie: “We also have to assume that USC and UCLA approached the B1G . . .”
Yes, that is a certainty. I have read several articles which said the Big Ten “poached” USC and UCLA. That is BS. How on earth would Warren have known that they both wanted to jump?
Both schools approached the Big Ten just as OU and UT approached the SEC. It wasn’t the other way around.
LikeLike
Bernie – Sankey was part of a working group whose purpose was to make recommendations to the larger body where he was one vote out of 11. The B12 was represented on the working group and never wavered from the recommendation, and they were the conference that got poached. The “Alliance” was jealous because the dirty-dumb-cheating SEC pulled off the biggest coup in the history of realignment, a deal that any of them would have (a) taken and/or (b) turned down or (c) couldn’t close in the past. And yes, pulling two kings and locking up the second largest state where college football is a religion is still a bigger get than two schools from the second largest city that is much more interested in pro sports, or going surfing or hiking.
So the “Alliance” commissioners were the only parties to vote against a plan that offered something for everyone. Several months later the grownups (chancellors and presidents) come in and adopt the identical plan proposed by the working group and tell the children (commissioners) to make it work. All of the whining excuses from the “Alliance” commissioners turned out to be complete bullsh!t.
Not disclosing ongoing negotiations with OU & UTx had no bearing on the proposed playoff format. If Sankey had been pushing for 8-12 at large spots, then you’d have a point.
LikeLike
Jersey, the fact that they have all signed off on the same deal, by definition, shows that it wasn’t a conflict.
In fact, it would have been unethical to have disclosed confidential negotiations.
LikeLike
Alan,
Brian – lawyers are held to a higher standard than college administrators.
https://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/lawyers-the-most-despised-profession-in-america/
By whom? Much of the public thinks lawyers as a group are maybe 1 step above used car salesmen. A plurality of federal politicians are lawyers, for example. And no matter what they do, they almost never get disbarred (less than 0.1% per year). So who is upholding this standard?
Sankey was one vote out of 4 on a working group which omitted the ACC, B10 and P12. ND got what it wanted. The SEC got what it wanted. The B12 thought it was getting what it wanted, because it didn’t know it was being stabbed in the back at the very same moment. The G5 got what they wanted.
I wonder why the 3 that formed the Alliance might have opposed the plan? The ACC had already expressed their issues with the concept of expanding the CFP at that time – they didn’t care what the plan was then. The plan was designed to undercut the B10 and P12 by harming the Rose Bowl, and to hurt everyone by extending ESPN’s exclusive deal with the CFP. Maybe the working group should have asked the excluded P5 members what their opinions were before trying to force a quickie deal on them.
worked on a recommendation from a working group that – after the “Alliance” commissioners’ temper tantrum and the adults got involved – was adopted unanimously.
1. The commissioners voted how they were told to vote. That’s not a tantrum just because you didn’t like the outcome.
2. No, they didn’t adopt the same plan. The adopted plan starts at the end of the current ESPN deal and goes to an open market to seek TV partners, and will try to start earlier if agreements can be reached. That’s a very different deal, and addresses one of the primary complaints the B10 had about the original deal.
you’re like the Daughters of the Confederacy re-writing history to suit your opinion
You’re the one getting history wrong here.
LikeLike
They did not sign off on the same deal. ESPN will not have exclusive rights to the expanded CFP after 2025 in the deal the presidents approved. They would have in the deal Sankey and company tried to force through. Huge difference.
LikeLike
Scout,
Yes, I’d think the remaining schools really want those last home games against OU and UT and would pressure Fox not to let them leave early.
As for why they agreed to the exit fee, what choice did they have? They didn’t want to leave at that time and the others demanded a high fee. Much like when the ACC raised their exit fee before UMD left, and FSU fought it but was outvoted. If you don’t plan to leave during that period, then it isn’t a big deal.
LikeLike
I cannot imagine any legal reason why a GOR agreement cannot be settled, not broken, settled. I have seen totally unbreakable contracts be terminated when someone puts up enough money. That does not break the contract, only modifies it in some way for payment.
That does not mean that the side that wishes to enforce the contract ever needs to settle, only that in theory it can happen.
The contract with the network could well be the bigger problem. Look at the ACC where there is constant talk that 8 schools could terminate the GOR, etc. The problem is that ESPN owns the network rights, so that will not happen early.
LikeLike
In theory, it could happen. In practice, it seems like the relevant parties just haven’t reached some arrangement agreeable to all.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
How much will the impending loss of USC and UCLA from the Pac-12 impact recruiting at the remaining schools in that conference? Seems like the Pac-12 has been struggling in the recruiting wars even before the defections. — Wesley L.
The first thing your brain may do when you ponder the potential recruiting consequences of USC and UCLA’s decision to join the Big Ten is consider geography. That’s what mine did because, well, we’ve been conditioned to think about recruiting that way for the past 20 years.
Though geography is important — proximity to a school is always going to be at least a point of consideration in every recruitment — the game has changed. Even after USC and UCLA bolt, both of those schools’ primary recruiting territories are still going to be California. And the primary recruiting grounds for the schools remaining in the Pac-12 will also stay the same, with California still a major point of emphasis.
Where it’s going to be an issue is the perception of the conference. If you thought it was rough right now, imagine when one of the conference’s two biggest brands (USC) is no longer there. As we continue to inch toward the reality of two super conferences (the Big Ten and SEC), the perception of the other conferences is going to take a hit.
Yes, Oregon is a major brand in college football. Right now, the Ducks are the saving grace for the Pac-12. But ask yourself: Will a five-star prospect from California — or any area Oregon recruits — view the program in the same way? Will top-level prospects still find playing at Oregon as tempting in the super conference world as they do now?
And if those prospects don’t, you’ll start to see a steady decline in Oregon’s relevance, which will hurt the Pac-12 even more.
We haven’t even gotten into the financial aspect of this. The programs in the Big Ten and the SEC are going to be making so much more money from lucrative television deals. They will be searching for creative ways to spend that money because there are only so many times you can renovate a locker room. That surplus of money is going to go into the recruiting budget — more trips, more staffers, more resources. All of those things play a major part in recruiting, both strategically and when it comes to the types of experiences perspective athletes have on unofficial and official visits.
When USC and UCLA are in the Big Ten and Oklahoma and Texas are in the SEC, how will we view the Big 12 or the Pac-12? The concept of “Power 5” and “Group of 5” is no more, but I suspect it’s very likely that programs in those two conferences will be viewed similarly to the way we currently view the best Group of 5 programs.
For a program like Oregon or even Washington, that’s not a good scenario. So what could happen? Further expansion. Nobody wants to be left in no man’s land.
We still have no idea what the next round of expansion is going to look like. The Big 12 and the Pac-12 are in very similar positions, and it wouldn’t surprise me if a few critical holdovers in one jumped to the other. Both conferences are trying to recover after losing not only their biggest brands but the top moneymakers.
This may be tough to hear if you’re a Pac-12 fan, but there is no question more difficult times are coming, whether it be in the form of further expansion or being left behind in the super conference world. There is just no path where I can see the conference leftovers drastically improving their recruiting positions with the new circumstances of the conference. That’s not just because of the on-the-field issues of not having USC and UCLA, but also how perception is going to continue to change once these super leagues are formed.
LikeLike
The best UO can hope for is to be like Miami when it was in the BE or FSU when it was winning every game in the ACC or Clemson now: A national power in a creampuff conference (Gonzaga now and UNLV during Tark’s heyday are MBB analogues).
Though Miami, FSU, and Clemson all sit in incredibly fertile areas of HS football talent while UO doesn’t (though NoCal is close by, so they’re better off than UNL in that sense).
The worst is being like the BE after Miami and VTech left: still above the G5 and entertaining, but with no national powers.
So it would still be possible to be a national power in a M3 conference without its biggest brands and with much less money, but you’d have to dominate your conference and win your conference at least half the time and probably more in order to get the recruits (and transcendental QB) required to win a natty.
Honestly, the schools best situated to do that are the ones sitting in the middle of very fertile recruiting areas, so one of the 3 eastern TX B12 schools or VTech/UNC/NCSU if they get left behind in the ACC after all the ACC football powers are taken. I suppose potentially SDSU if they get picked up by the Pac.
LikeLike
Week 7 TV rating are out. Only two games broke the 4m viewer threshold, but 1o games had an audience of over 2m.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
11.56m Alabama at Tennessee CBS 3;30p – the highest viewership of the season
6.45m Penn State at Michigan FOX noon
For those of you keeping score at home of games with over 4m viewers for the season:
SEC (11) – six conference games and five OOC games
B1G (9) – seven conference games and two OOC games
ACC (4) – two conference games and two OOC games
P12 (1) – one OOC game (Ore v UGA)
B12 (1) – one OOC game (UTx v Bama)
Notre Dame (1) – (v Ohio State)
Total viewership by time slot for OTAs & ESPN:
Noon – 10.85m
Afternoon – 17.21m
Primetime – 10.73m
PS – I’m so happy that the creamsicles from Rocky Top beat the Evil Empire!
LikeLike
Alan: “I’m so happy that the creamsicles from Rocky Top beat the Evil Empire!”
Hard to believe that the last team to beat Tennessee was Purdue, ten months ago.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Boilermakers on their great season, so far.
LikeLike
Alan: “Congrats to the Boilermakers on their great season, so far.”
This Saturday we play Wisconsin at Madison and we’re 0-15 vs the Badgers since 2004. Mother of all snakebit. Purdue favored but we’ll probably find a way to lose again.
LikeLike
The Bama Tennessee game was great and the viewership must have continued to grow until the end. Had to be one of the best games this year.
Penn State Michigan had to be losing viewers as the Wolverines pulled away.
LikeLike
BTW, it’s possible that Thanksgiving weekend stays the last weekend of the CFB regular season. But if so, I think what you’ll see is that the NCAA (well, the major colleges) say that you could choose to have a CCG, or you could choose to have everyone play a 13th game that weekend. Then everyone will choose to play a 13th game that weekend (it would mean more revenue for everyone). The first 2 rounds (on campus) could then be the first 2 Fri/Sat of Dec, before the NFL is allowed to broadcast games.
LikeLike
I general, I think everyone who posts here, including me, is far too sure of things that are in fact uncertain.
But this is just a terrible idea on so many levels. I am struggling to imagine why it appeals to you, unless you are secretly hoping the playoff will fail.
LikeLike
Marc, it seems like whether you deem some idea terrible is simply by going off of feels. It’s not something you’re use to ergo you think it’s terrible. I don’t see you raising any valid objection.
BTW, I should mention that this isn’t something I expect soon, but eventually.
LikeLike
There are several pretty clear drawbacks:
These games are going to be on short rest. For example, fly home from a CCG. Prepare for an unfamiliar opponent, then fly across the country for a first-round game. If you win, fly home across the country, prepare for another unfamiliar opponent, and a few days later fly across the country for a third time. This is why the schedule the presidents mandated requires at least 12 days between games.
The travel logistics are quite complex, and unlike the regular season are totally unplanned up to the last minute, because you don’t know you are even in those games, much less who you are playing. Certainly it could happen that USC flies to Indy for the Big Ten CCG, then back home, then to Tallahassee for a first-round game, then back home, then to State College PA for a second-round game, and maybe one of those is on a Friday night on top of that. All in 13 days.
Inevitably, you will have combinations like Mississippi State at Wisconsin, where the visiting team doesn’t have cold-weather gear, since they have never played an outdoor northern game in December. That is one of the reasons the teams need extra time between rounds.
Could you do that? Sure, but I am waiting to hear what’s good about it.
Needless to say, you are killing the major bowls except for the Rose and Sugar. You are speculating that nobody will mind, and people won’t travel for those games anyway. But that is not a fact, it is a guess.
LikeLike
Yes, this is my conjecture of how the future will unfold, except you got a few facts wrong:
1. There would be no neutral site game as CCGs would be replaced by a 13th game (on campus).
2. There’s actually less travel for the quarterfinals as only 1 team would be traveling while the other stays at home. And yes, some teams would have to travel on short notice, but if NFL teams can do it (as well as college teams in 2020; remember teams traveling on short notice that year?), I don’t think it’s insurmountable. And I already listed the reasons for this scheme.
LikeLike
Lower level college football teams also travel across the country on short notice all the time.
LikeLike
Yes, some teams would have to travel on short notice, but if NFL teams can do it (as well as college teams in 2020; remember teams traveling on short notice that year?).
Yes, some did it during the COVID year. The one thing none of them said, was: “Let’s do this more often.” The NFL is obviously different (seasoned professionals not balancing football with schoolwork. They also have far fewer teams, all of whom have some experience with this. The NFL regularly plays Thursdays, but college teams generally do not unless they have a bye the week before.
I don’t think it’s insurmountable.
I don’t think it’s insurmountable either. But if you follow the presidents’ plan then there is nothing to surmount.
LikeLike
Marc, as I noted, lower level college football teams with even fewer resources also travel across country (even more rounds) on short notice for playoff games.
And yes, the Presidents gave out their guidelines given the current setup we have now (with 12 regular season games and CCGs).
But wait until they face more disruptions to the spring semester because of the playoff rounds extending more in to the spring semester and they hear from fans who complain about having to travel to 3 neutral site games (often far from where they live).
When another round of conference games brings in as much money as a CCG (which I believe is already the case now), people see how awesome playoff games on campus are, and teams complain of having to play a CCG before the playoffs (vs the teams that get in the playoffs without playing in the CCG), you’re going to see movement to get rid of CCGs in favor of a 13th game (which would mean a 10-game conference slate for the B10, most likely) as well as more rounds on campus (so in the first 2 weeks of Dec).
LikeLike
https://tucson.com/sports/pac-12-hotline/pac-12-hotline-big-tens-tone-changes-which-is-good-news-for-pac-12-stability/article_17ea0aac-4c02-11ed-aafe-ef44767ae34d.html
Jon Wilner, the Pac’s biggest cheerleader says its doom is inevitable as is a Big 10 western wing.
Of course, he doesn’t expect it for another 7 years.
LikeLike
The is an odd thing about the article. It explains in copious why adding four more Western schools now would be dilutive, not accretive. But then, without explanation, he says that “A western arm of the Big Ten is inevitable” [eventually].
If it doesn’t make sense today, it does not follow automatically that it will make sense next time either. Maybe it will, but he does not say why.
There’s this tantalizing parenthetical:
(We also believe the initial valuations Warren received from the Big Ten’s media partners were considerably less than he had promised the schools, forcing him to add USC and UCLA in order to reach the $1 billion mark. But that’s a topic for another day.)
Wilner is a good writer, and I am sure he has a basis for this. Nevertheless, it seems to suggest that the Big Ten only added those two schools so that Warren could keep a promise, rather than all of the other reasons they did it. Anything is possible, but that does not ring true.
LikeLike
I agree about the disconnect. One of the reasons I don’t see the Big 10 deferring the addition of Washington and Oregon. The exact same reasons will exist in 7 years. Either its worth it for strategic reasons and for sources of revenue other than direct TV contract revenue or it isn’t. You can, with a 6-7 year buy-in, make it positive for the existing 14 as well as Washington and Oregon during this contract period. That doesn’t change the math of the next contract. Only that the newer contract will be a raise and its easier to mask the new members being dilutive. Everyone will get more money, just perhaps not as much as if they stayed at 16.
But BTN revenue, sponsorships, more playoff positions, connections with alumni and other revenues could make it worth it. Long run, more west coast presence, instead of just an LA island, could improve ratings for all Big 10 games as the Big 10 would own the coast.
LikeLike
It’s possible that the B10 only adds UO & UW only after 1 of them pull a Clemson and becomes an annual national title contender.
That would raise their TV value; possibly enough to make them attractive to TV partners (mostly by making the After Dark slot more attractive).
LikeLike
Marc: “The is an odd thing about the article. It explains in copious why adding four more Western schools now would be dilutive, not accretive. But then, without explanation, he says that “A western arm of the Big Ten is inevitable” [eventually].
“If it doesn’t make sense today, it does not follow automatically that it will make sense next time either. Maybe it will, but he does not say why.”
Not only that, he says another reason that Big Ten expansion is on hold is because the B1G presidents don’t want to be responsible for breaking up the Pac-12. So they will be OK with breaking up the Pac-12 after a few years??? Classic non sequitur.
LikeLike
Colin and I occasionally agree on something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The B1G presidents would prefer the Big 12 first stab the Pac, so that someone else can be held directly culpable for its demise.
LikeLike
Vincent – so the B1G cuts the Pac’s throat from ear to ear, leaves the Pac’s carcass to bleed out in the street, and then the B12 backs over the Pac in a pickup truck and the Pac’s cause of death is the B12’s actions?
LikeLiked by 1 person
vpo819: “The B1G presidents would prefer the Big 12 first stab the Pac, so that someone else can be held directly culpable for its demise.”
The first conference to “stab” the Pac was the Big Ten.
LikeLike
History says that if all the other boxes are checked, expanding leagues don’t stay their hand out of concern that a competing league survives.
LikeLike
You won’t get many takers around here, but until the PAC12 streaming offer is revealed, this ‘cycle’ of realignment is still at halftime. If it comes in on the low end, ESPN MIGHT counter with an only slightly worse offer. Being an exclusively after dark package give the PAC no leverage and few suitors. The B12 is in a far stronger position to end up on a cable network with an equal or greater payout. The B1G won’t kill the PAC, but the four corner schools still might, in this cycle. Then, it’s only a matter of how low the buy in is for OR/WA/Stanford to the B1G. Lots of domino still to fall over the next six months.
LikeLike
Exclusive time slots in play:
FS1 at noon
Fox at 3:30p
FS1 at primetime
Assuming FOX will keep regular non-sports programming or MLB playoffs on primetime.
ESPN
1. Friday primetime (and some Friday After Dark?)
2. Saturday After Dark
Available non-exclusive time slots:
ABC noon & primetime, but mostly will be filled by SEC games starting in 2024.
ESPN noon, 3:30p & primetime, but mostly will be filled with ACC & SEC games.
FOX could offer the B12 its three available time slots and be done.
Disney could offer the PAC Friday primetime and Saturday after dark slots, along with a few 3:30p ESPN and primetime ABC/ESPN slots throughout the year.
Each conference gets roughly three decent – though not ideal – slots that will typically get obliterated by the B1G and SEC games airing at the same time.
LikeLike
There’s also FS1 at 3:30PM. But I don’t see why anybody would offer either the Pac or B12 exclusive time slots. Most likely, Fox and the Mouse split the B12 package again if the B12 doesn’t want to try streaming. Pac may try streaming to maximize dollars with Fox and the Mouse also picking up some games (generally for After Dark or The/F nights).
LikeLike
I agree wholeheartedly the most likely outcome is Fox and ESPN splitting the Big-12.
LikeLike
Agreed. Warren didn’t add the two schools, the presidents did. And they did it after lengthy talks with the networks. It makes sense that the additions got the B10 past $1B per year, but they wouldn’t add dilutive schools just to increase the number and the presidents wouldn’t cover for Warren if he promised a number he couldn’t deliver.
LikeLike
Yeah, Wilner’s pulling that out of thin air. The original 14 B10 schools were already going to get $1B/year by the end of the new deal (so a little over $70mm/school). The addition of the LA schools just pushed that up to roughly $75mm/school by the end of the new deal.
LikeLike
Ironically, doom for the Pac is more likely to occur if UO or UW pull a Clemson and manage a string of national title contending (and even natty-winning) seasons, and can raise their TV viewership to what Clemson garners now. Also if the B10 strikes out on both of FSU and Miami. Also if ND suffers a string of mediocre seasons as an independent.
LikeLike
Ironically, doom for the Pac is more likely to occur if UO or UW pull a Clemson and manage a string of national title contending (and even natty-winning) seasons, and can raise their TV viewership to what Clemson garners now.
Yes, but I think you would agree how unlikely that is. Clemson sits in the middle of very fertile recruiting territory, which UO and UW do not. And even with that advantage, what Clemson has achieved is very rare. When was the last time a program pulled a Clemson, other than Clemson itself? It’s perhaps a once-in-a-generation event.
LikeLike
Miami in the 80s & 90s.
Florida in the 90s.
Florida State in the 90s.
LikeLike
It’s tough but not impossible, and being in a weak conference does help! (If you’re not among the richest programs with great local recruiting grounds).
Since the ’80’s, I’d say the schools who have pulled a Clemson (besides Clemson) are the 3 FL powers (UF, FSU, Miami), and arguably LSU and UGa too. The last 2 had won natties before but had been more like MSU until recent decades.
But point taken that all of them are located in really rich recruiting grounds. So after all the top brands are taken from the M3, the schools most likely to pull a Clemson (while in an M3 conference) are the 3 east TX schools in the B12, UCF, and the publics in NC/VA. UO and OKSt. have a shot too as they sit in a state adjacent to really rich recruiting grounds. Who knows, maybe the B10 will indeed expand in to NC/VA some day (a few decades from now). Or even take in UCF or UH some decades from now. I know it sounds crazy now, but they have some of the biggest undergraduate enrollments in the country, sit in very fertile football-crazed regions, and Orlando doesn’t have an NFL team. In that sense, UCF is not too different from PSU, say around 1970 (grew in to one of the biggest unis in this country, at that time, sat in one of the best regions for football talent in this country, and central PA doesn’t have an NFL team).
LikeLike
Oh, and before all those southern schools, I’d say the last school to pull a Clemson was PSU, which rest only became seen as a football power some time in the ’70’s (PSU was so not respected that they somehow managed to go undefeated and win a major bowl without being crowned a national champion 3 times in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s).
LikeLike
Richard: “(PSU was so not respected that they somehow managed to go undefeated and win a major bowl without being crowned a national champion 3 times in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s)”
That’s what happens when your schedule is chock full of Army, Navy, West Virginia, Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse.
LikeLike
I guess I exaggerated a bit! More like once per decade. Joe Paterno created the modern PSU program out of practically nothing in the 1960s. Bowden created FSU in the 1970s. Miami the 1980s, UF the 1990s. Clemson was arguably something different, because they had a long history of success; it just was not very recent success when Dabo got there.
Paterno/PSU is the only example not in the deep south, which is not good news if you are rooting for Oregon or Washington.
LikeLike
And Wilkinson with OU in the ’50’s (UNL dominated the Big 8 unimpeded in the first half of the 20th century).
Anyway, UO has a shot (they do have a history of recent success). Arguably UCF and the 3 eastern TX B12 schools have a better shot, though.
LikeLike
All of you Big-12 promoters fail to note:
1) University Presidents don’t want to be in that league
2) There are no non-competitive time slots available in the central time zone, except for a weeknight, and the Big-12 has previously refused to play on weeknights
3) FS1 slots are worse than streaming
a) A noon start (eastern time) in the central time zone, while apparently okay
with the Big-12, is a non-starter for the Pac
b) Primetime v. OTA, ESPN & BTN primetime will get almost no viewers
4) Fox at 3:30pm goes up against the #1/#2 SEC and BiG games of the week
Pac is pursuing the right strategy. It is the superior option for after-dark, but has now opened the door to Big-12 Thursday/Friday Night primetime if it wants it. But it probably doesn’t.
LikeLike
1) Cal, Stanford and UW don’t want to be in the Big 12. The rest just prefer a California presence.
2) Big 12 had all 4 games on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/FS1 last weekend. Only two involved Texas or Oklahoma. Both of their new members playing were on ESPN. Pac 12 had 1-USC-Utah and ACC had 1-FSU-Clemson. Big 12 gets plenty of coverage now.
3) FS1 is nearly as good as ESPN2, way better than streaming or conference networks. FS2 is not very good, but Big 12 and Pac 12 are rarely on that channel.
BTN did worse last weekend than a couple of games with non-P5s and the only P5 game they outdrew was Indiana=Maryland on ESPN2. BTN is not a threat.
4) Fox has to go up against the SEC and usually the Big 10 now at 3:30. No change.
Not one of your points was valid. Big 12 won’t be near the SEC or Big 10, but it should be just fine. Just like the lower tier of the Big 10 will be fine even though its ratings often won’t beat some G5 games.
LikeLike
I’m guessing there’s not much we would agree on, but at least we both got to experience the Oasis before it closed 🌲🍻😜🍕
LikeLike
We agree that Stanford needs to get rid of Shaw and find a way into the BiG!
LikeLike
Awwwww, thanks! AND YOU’RE RIGHT. I had a nightmare the ND win (glorious as it was) earned him a five year extension 😂
LikeLike
What strategy, the process of elimination? Its rights are on the open market because, like it or not, the Pac has limited appeal without the LA schools. It’s basically cannon fodder for those after dark slots. The future of college football is two super conferences. That’s inarguable. Would you really rather have Stanford and Cal left behind, than be members of the B1G’s 5/6 school western wing? I would not.
LikeLike
BTW, regarding that long debate above on who did who dirty, can we all just agree that all’s fair in love and college football conference realignment?
LikeLike
As someone who strives to optimize an IP’s value in as timely a manner as possible, I agree, unfortunately, most University Presidents aren’t exactly survival of the fittest types.
LikeLike
Some of you folks on here are the first I have ever seen to declare that a privately-negotiated transaction with no competition is a better way to maximize value than putting your wares for sale on the open market. Where does this logic come from? Are you bureaucrats?? Or do you have an agenda???
My point above, in addition to the fact that only WSU and Oregon State would find the Big-12 palatable, is that there are very few time slots that the Big-12 will lock up that are desirable for the Pac. So, it will not be the end of the world if the Big-12 closes a deal first. The Pac wants their games at 3:30pm (eastern), or 7:30-9:00pm (Eastern). Period. The conference will take the Saturday after-dark slot for the money, but otherwise, ESPN & Fox aren’t offering much of anything to the Pac. . . .
Of course I would like Stanford, Cal, and UW to be part of the BiG’s western wing. But, I am not betting on it happening for Stanford & Cal.
Finally, riddle me this: why did OU and Texas announce their departure 4 years ahead of time? Seems very odd.
LikeLike
Cal’s situation looks dire, which is a shame, but they just haven’t invested much in winning football. Stanford is in if ND ever decides to join the B10. Possibly even before then (say with Miami) if the Cardinal can rediscover their winning ways.
But both Stanford and Cal are great in all the ancillary stuff (tons of B10 alums in the Bay Area, good local recruiting grounds, a large metro, excellent academics/research brand, a hub airport, and conceivably busable to/from LA) so they just need to meet that viewership/TV value bar as I’m sure the B10 presidents would love to add them to the club if they aren’t dilutive.
LikeLike
Cal attracts political activist students who, if not actually opposed to college sports, have no interest in them. You might be able to fill a 15,000 to 20,000 seat stadium, but nothing larger.
Northwestern has the same problem, as does Michigan. A significant, but minority, clique of Rutgers faculty opposed Rutgers in the B1G, because they opposed big time college sports.
My two daughters, who attended tOSU and Otterbein, never once attended a sporting event in college. There are lots of B1G students who have never attended a sporting even either. tOSU, with some 500,000 or so living alumni, can still fill Ohio Stadium (not so much the Schott), but that is an exception.
LikeLike
Cal attracts political activist students who, if not actually opposed to college sports, have no interest in them. . . . Northwestern has the same problem, as does Michigan.
??? Michigan has the largest stadium in the U.S., which it fills regularly.
LikeLike
These trends tend to be self-reinforcing. It is hard to develop a fanbase if you never had one. Kids in Michigan (the state) become either UM or MSU fans because their parents are, and their grandparents were.
I grew up in Michigan. On any given fall Saturday, just about everyone knew whether UM and MSU had won or lost, even if they were not sports fans themselves. That sports obsession is not created overnight. It takes generations.
There is no logical reason why Cal should be bad at athletics. Many schools comparable to Cal are better at sports than Cal. But to create that passion where it does not exist is a multi-decade project (assuming the will to do so). It’s not going to happen before the next Big Ten media deal, or the one after that.
LikeLike
UC Berkeley Racial/Ethnic Diversity of Undergraduates
Univ of California Berkeley Undergraduate Racial-Ethnic Diversity Breakdown
Race/Ethnicity Number
Asian 10,523
White 6,335
Hispanic 5,328
International 3,781
Multi-Ethnic 1,720
Unknown 964
Black or African American 580
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 49
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/university-of-california-berkeley/student-life/diversity/
LikeLike
I think it doesn’t help that
1. CA is a huge state and only 2/9 UCs are in the P5 (only 3 of the many CalStates are in the G5) so even among those who attend a CA public, many don’t have much reason to care about college sports much.
2. Other than UCLA sometimes, none of them have been as successful as USC.
3. The CA P5 schools are all located in metros/regions with NFL teams (for most of the recent past), unlike OSU and PSU (and Texas, UF, the AL schools, the OK schools, UNL, Iowa, and many others) so fewer t-shirt fans. UMich and USC (and Miami if you count them as a king) seem to be the only CFB kings that are in a metro that has an NFL team, though I suppose UGa and LSU are somewhat close to one (also ND but they have a national fanbase anyway).
4. Californians just don’t seem to care as intensely about football as much as folks do in the Midwest and South.
LikeLike
Richard: “Californians just don’t seem to care as intensely about football as much as folks do in the Midwest and South.”
The entire western half of the US doesn’t care as much about college football as folks in the Midwest and South.
LikeLike
Though it is a chicken and egg issue. They don’t care as much because Cal doesn’t win much. They don’t win as much because they don’t get as much financial support.
It seems like UO actually is winning over NoCal T-shirt fans by being cool and winning (though I have to say I didn’t notice Ducks paraphernalia when I lived out in the Bay Area, but that was 20 years ago now and before they started changing uniforms and became cool to the kiddies).
LikeLike
Colin, I wouldn’t write off the entire West. On a per capita basis, folks in OR, ID, WY, and UT show some interest in college football, but these are all low-population states and their interest is still more on the level of NC/VA/IN than NE/AL/OH/IA/SC/OK.
LikeLike
If I thought entering the open market was a good sign for the PAC12, I would agree with you, but let’s face it, ESPN and FOX made their best offer while in the exclusive window. If there was going to be a bidding war, it would have happened then. Amazon and Apple are likely the Pac’s only remaining opportunity to score a respectable deal. As to where my loyalties lie, every member of my family attended a PAC school as an undergrad or postgrad. It seems silly now, but I actually cried when I learned USC/UCLA were leaving the PAC (despite my BA from UofM) because of what the conference has always meant to my family. Not that I begrudge you your suspicions. The company I work for has indeed been hired by the B12 to advise them on their media and content strategy, but Endeavor encompasses a large umbrella. I have nothing to do with that account and, much to my dismay, those involved are maniacally tight lipped. I simply want what’s best for my schools. I’m selfish that way.
LikeLike
I am not saying that everything is peaches and roses for the Pac-12.
But let’s posit that the Pac-12 was looking for $30-$40m/school, and ESPN/Fox came in at <=$25m – along with unpalatable demands like poor channel and time slots, fan-unfriendly windows to pick match-ups, and stuffing all Pac-12 Network games onto ESPN+. Logically, the Pac-12 would go hunting elsewhere before accepting part or all of the offer(s) on the table. I have no illusions about NBC or CBS being interested. But, in addition to Amazon and Apple, there is TNT/TBS – not to mention CBS Sports.
As for Cal, I am not sure it's a matter of investment but rather competence. They rarely make a good coaching hire. Of course, like UCLA, they are also more constrained in what they can pay a coach compared to Stanford & USC. . . At one time, there was a sizable latent fan base, waiting for a competitive/winning team. But I suspect it has died off, and not been replenished. Stanford has suffered from this phenomenon plus purposefully ignoring, if not alienating, the surrounding communities who would be most inclined to support the university's sports teams.
LikeLike
Yeah I don’t get it either. Everything BigXII related defies basic logic and is misrepresented. Like, the Big XII made a statement about negotiating with ESPN and Fox early and I think it was ESPN that released a statement that this wasn’t actual renegotiations since those are next year but instead it was just a discussion with partners. So I presume everything Yormack says is bullshit spin.
LikeLike
I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Either the B12 has a deal soon or they don’t. And yeah, going to the open market makes sense unless they got something from ESPN/Fox (like dedicated windows? Who knows)
LikeLike
I wonder if it’s something like, all of the Mouse’s B12 games have to be at noon (this blocks out a decent number of SEC games from that time slot and also enhances the chances of a B12 game following GameDay) and all of Fox’s B12 games have to be at 3:30EST (meaning at least some B12 games will be on Fox).
The Mouse likely will put the 2 most attractive SEC games in the primetime and late afternoon slots (though 3rd best SEC game will likely go at noon; RRR game as well regardless of stakes).
LikeLike
It all depends. How enthusiastic will the open market be? Do you want to keep the current relationship? How much are the current partners likely to bid high now to minimize their risk of getting outbid later? The Big East had a deal on the table with ESPN for about $15 million per football school, turned it down and ended up getting $2 million and a bunch of defections.
And there is something to obtaining valuable inventory slots. I’m sure that’s why ESPN and Fox had no interest in the Big 12 a couple of years ago before the Big 10 deal was done. They wanted flexibility to offer the Big 10 prime slots.
LikeLike
bullet: “It all depends. How enthusiastic will the open market be?”
That is a great question. Isn’t the college football market circa 2024 close to saturation right now? As some talk about further B1G-SEC expansion, just how many more key games do the networks need to fill their time slots?
The B1G will have games every week with Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Southern Cal, UCLA, Michigan St, Wisconsin, Nebraska. The SEC will have games every week with Bama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, LSU, Florida, And of course there are also great M3 matchups like UCLA-Oregon and Clemson-Cuse this week
So how many good games can CBS, Fox , NBC, ABC/ESPN show within their time slots? More to the point, why should they pay a lot more for FSU-Duke than FSU-Indiana?
LikeLike
Isn’t the college football market circa 2024 close to saturation right now?
Has anything been added to the market? As I am seeing it, all we’ve got is a re-shuffling of what the market already was.
LikeLike
Marc: “Has anything been added to the market? As I am seeing it, all we’ve got is a re-shuffling of what the market already was.”
Nothing has been added to the market. So why should the networks pay more for what they’re getting right now?
LikeLike
Colin:
1. Inflation. Why does everything cost more than 6-10 years ago?
2. Besides inflation, rights to sports are more valuable as TV ratings drop for everything else.
Just look at what the B10 got. Even without adding the LA schools, the B10 was going to more than double it’s TV money from 6 years ago.
LikeLike
Finally, riddle me this: why did OU and Texas announce their departure 4 years ahead of time?
I think their hand was forced when the news leaked (Texas A&M suspected). Otherwise they probably would not have announced it quite so soon.
LikeLike
Redwood: “Finally, riddle me this: why did OU and Texas announce their departure 4 years ahead of time? Seems very odd.”
It’s my understanding they were up against a timeline on whether or not to renew the B12 GOR.
LikeLike
…only WSU and Oregon State would find the Big-12 palatable
One’s definition of palatable changes with circumstances. Sure, they would all prefer to see the Pac-12 survive, but isn’t it mostly about money in the end?
…there are very few time slots that the Big-12 will lock up that are desirable for the Pac.
Every Big XII time slot is desirable for the Pac except noon ET.
There is plenty of room for both leagues on traditional TV. ABC/ESPN lost the Big Ten, and they typically carry multiple B10 games every weekend. They have a lot of windows to fill.
LikeLike
86 – the UT/OU move to the SEC was leaked to the press by the Aggies hoping to quash the plan by getting TX and OK politicians involved. That leak had to move up the timeline. If not for the Aggie leak, we may not know about the move now, USC & UCLA probably wouldn’t be moving to the B1G, and the expanded playoff would have been approved for 2024, generating hundreds of millions of dollars for college football.
Thanks Aggie!
LikeLike
Alan, here’s another tall tale about Texas. If that second shooter behind the grassy knoll had shot first, he probably would have hit the First Lady instead of the President, the Secret Service would have jumped on top of the limo, JFK would have survived, LBJ wouldn’t have been president and the US would never have sent any combat units into Vietnam.
LikeLike
Alan,
It’s an interesting hypothetical, but I see a different outcome.
I agree TAMU moved up the timeline, but there’s no way they would believe they could keep this quiet for over a year. It was going to come out sometime that summer no matter what. I think the plan was to wait at most a couple of months after getting CFP expansion approved, then announce it. The hope would be that with all that new CFP money about to roll in, everyone would be willing to let UT and OU leave early for a lesser price.
Your next point is a good one either way. If the CFP early expansion was approved last summer, would USC and UCLA still have approached the B10? Perhaps they would’ve felt that was enough new money to keep them in the P12. Or maybe they still would’ve followed UT and OU’s lead and moved to bigger money.
But big picture, I’m not convinced early CFP expansion ever had a chance. The ACC said in advance that they were against it in concept, so the plan details made no difference to them. I think the B10 would’ve been against it (to protect Fox?) as well.
The P12 not agreeing is all the committee’s fault. They had the working group come up with a basic format plan, but didn’t discuss the most important issues before asking for a vote. They didn’t have a calendar for when to play, and they didn’t address the revenue split. Since the whole point of the expansion is more money, how could they not think that some details on how to split the money would be needed?
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34841169/cfp-committee-undecided-expansion-date-hopeful-2024
What’s worse is that they still haven’t really talked about it.
“It’s true time is not on our side, but we haven’t given ourselves a deadline,” Hancock said. “It’s more important to get it right than to get it fast.”
There was a sense of optimism entering Thursday’s meeting — multiple sources had said they hadn’t heard any good reasons why the playoff couldn’t expand earlier — but there was also a realization that determining the dates for the games is a significant challenge that persists, especially with campuses hosting the first-round games. The commissioners continue to struggle with conflicts surrounding the academic calendar, including December commencement and final exams, plus finding TV windows that don’t compete with the NFL.
“It’s been a fascinating process, because every time you turn over one stone, you start tripping on other issues,” said Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher, who chaired Thursday’s meeting.
There have also been repeated concerns about how the New Year’s Six bowl games would figure into the rotation. The four quarterfinal games and two semifinal games would be played in bowls. The CFP would have to come to terms on a TV contract for the first-round games. (ESPN would retain control, through existing bowl and playoff deals, of the quarterfinals, semis and title game until the current contract expires following the 2025 season.)
…
If the CFP can implement the new format in time for the 2024 season, it could garner roughly $450 million in gross revenue. Revenue distribution continues to be a limited part of the discussion, as the Big Ten and SEC are poised to become the sports’ first 16-team superconferences, with an opportunity to have to more representation in the new model.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said it’s just one piece of the puzzle.
“We haven’t spent a lot of time on revenue distribution,” he said. “We have a model that has different numbers in it. That’s out there some place.”
LikeLike
And yes, thanks TAMU! Any delay in going to 12 is a good thing.
LikeLike
If not for the Aggie leak, we may not know about the move now, USC & UCLA probably wouldn’t be moving to the B1G, and the expanded playoff would have been approved for 2024, generating hundreds of millions of dollars for college football.
It was already well known that USC had a roving eye. If they were at all forward looking, their decision had nothing whatever to do with what the SEC did. The expanded playoff means more revenue for everyone, but it only amplifies disparities that already existed. A bigger playoff wasn’t going to elevate the Pac-12 to anywhere near parity.
Of course, nobody’s eye roved more than Texas. Everyone here expected them to test the waters again as their GoR approached expiration. If we knew that, surely industry professionals did too.
I don’t recall the three original no votes (B1G, Pac, ACC) saying that they would have approved playoff expansion earlier, had it not been for the UT/OU move. We can speculate all we want, but this is not an established fact. Many of the actual issues, such as revenue distribution, were unresolved then and indeed still are.
LikeLike
I suspect it wasn’t supposed to be announced until the summer of 2022, but the Aggies leaked it. And I’m sure the idea at that point was to negotiate a release for 2023 or 2024 with just 2022 as a lame duck season, but a maximum of 3 lame duck seasons, not 4.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3714393/2022/10/21/big-ten-tv-deal-questions/?source=emp_shared_article
Scott Dochterman looks at the many lingering questions about the details of the B10’s new TV deal.
LikeLike
Can’t read it, any thing super relevant you can share here?
LikeLike
Scout, here’s the article . . .
Big Ten TV deal issues: Will Week 0 matchups expand? More Black Friday games?
By Scott Dochterman Oct 21, 2022
There are plenty of questions and not many answers about the Big Ten’s new television package, which goes into effect in 2023 and runs through the 2029 football season.
What largely is known is what was reported when the deals were disclosed. In 2023, Fox will remain the lead rights holder and air games both in the noon ET window and other time slots. NBC will carry 16 prime-time games in 2023 while CBS (and streaming partner Paramount+) will show seven afternoon contests. Fox/FS1 is slated for 27 games and BTN has 41 that year as well. NBC’s Peacock streaming service also will broadcast eight Big Ten football games. All of those totals will adjust in 2024 when USC and UCLA join the Big Ten.
There are many unresolved issues that will command attention from league officials and media partners in the months ahead. For one question in particular — the weekly selection order between CBS and NBC — Kerry Kenny, the Big Ten’s senior vice president for television, media analytics and emerging platforms, said, “We’ll do a Tory Taylor and punt that out to the future.” But there are a few topics of which he can share opinions and provide a breakdown, about 10 months before the 2023 season opener.
Week 0
The Big Ten has used Week 0 to launch its season for the last two years, and the league sees the early week as a chance to increase its profile and jump-start viewership.
In 2021, Nebraska-Illinois moved their Week 0 opener from Dublin, Ireland, to Champaign, Ill., because of the pandemic, and the game generated 3.2 million viewers for Fox. This year, the Nebraska-Northwestern opener that took place in Dublin had 4.42 million viewers. Because Wyoming played at Hawaii this year, Illinois hosted the Cowboys in Week 0 and had 512,000 viewers on BTN.
The NCAA currently has only three permissible ways for teams to compete in Week 0: stage an international game, face an FCS opponent or compete against a school that plays in Hawaii that season. In the future, the Big Ten would like to make Week 0 part of its annual schedule.
“I think definitely developing some sort of future Week 0 strategy is part of that overall conversation we’ve been having with the athletic directors,” Kenny said. “We’re a little bit kind of hemmed in by (the NCAA policy), but just overall, as we look at what the new CFP expansion landscape looks like, there’s been conversation about this 365-day model with college football. What are some of the opportunities that may be different in the future than were in the past?
“Obviously, we would raise our hands if our schools are willing to play in Week 0 and get that little earlier start to practice time, and the TV partners have the room to be able to carry those games. For the last two years, Nebraska-Illinois, a competitive game, with really good viewership. It was the same thing over in Ireland. And even the Wyoming-Illinois game this year was one of BTN’s most viewed Illinois broadcasts that they’ve had in quite some time. So, it’s a really unique opportunity to kick off the season in a meaningful way.”
Black Friday
The Big Ten has agreed to schedule two annual Black Friday games beginning in 2023. CBS will broadcast a post-Thanksgiving afternoon tilt while NBC will air a prime-time matchup. The Big Ten traditionally uses that weekend for many of its most historic rivalries, including Ohio State-Michigan, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Illinois-Northwestern, and Purdue-Indiana.
Nebraska has played annually on Black Friday since 1990, first with former Big 12 rivals Oklahoma and Colorado, then from 2011 onward with Iowa as a Big Ten member. The Hawkeyes enjoy playing on that date as well. It’s likely that the series will continue annually on Black Friday, especially after a BTN record of 1.94 million viewers tuned in last year.
As for the second Black Friday game, there are possibilities and limitations, Kenny said. Some campuses host high school football championships or deal with logistical challenges on Thanksgiving weekend. Others welcome a chance to play a nationally televised game in front of a potentially huge audience.
“We’re being really strategic in talking to all of our athletic directors who want to know what that day will look like,” Kenny said.
“But (we also need to be) making sure that we’re delivering to our TV partners quality content that they’re able to really promote on a unique platform and a unique day to hopefully millions of people that are watching at home.”
Outside of Nebraska-Iowa, no other schools have volunteered for a Black Friday game despite the league previously soliciting interest. Among other schools, the most recent non-Saturday game that weekend was Illinois-Northwestern, which was played on Thanksgiving in 2001. But that was rescheduled because of the September 11 attacks. This year, the Illini have played a Thursday night home game and a Friday night road game, so school officials are open to changing the calendar when required.
“I think Black Friday is an interesting opportunity for different programs that are trying to achieve different objectives,” Illinois athletics director Josh Whitman said. “Certainly, we’re a school that hasn’t been shy about trying to move off of a traditional Saturday. It gives us a chance to step out from kind of the rush of games on a Saturday and be in a different position.
“It’s a great opportunity for the Big Ten to get itself out there in a unique window. If we’re in a position to be part of that, then I’m sure that’s something we’ll be excited to entertain at the right moment.”
CBS currently airs an annual SEC game on Black Friday that kicks off at 2:30 p.m. ET. The kickoff time likely will change next year, too. Beginning in 2023, Amazon Prime will stream an NFL game on Black Friday starting at 3 p.m. ET. Competing for viewership against the NFL — even for a top-tier college football conference — is a challenge better left unaccepted.
“To be able to sandwich two Big Ten games around that (NFL game) will be kind of a nice way to brand that day,” Kenny said. “With CBS we’ve called it the afternoon Black Friday game, so we’re kind of still working through exactly what the start times will look like with them. But NBC definitely is committed to being in prime time like they will be for Saturdays throughout the season.”
November prime-time games
Before league officials commenced negotiations, they asked schools for opinions on the Big Ten’s November late-season kickoff policy. The most recent contract allows networks to schedule in prime time through November’s first weekend. From the second weekend onward, both schools must agree to the change. Those stipulations were relaxed for the 2020 season during the pandemic.
This year, the status quo remains in effect. It changes next year with NBC carrying prime-time games. The November portion remains semi-open in 2023 before the 16-team league kicks off in 2024.
“It is a process that’s still ongoing,” Kenny said. “Each year is a little bit different. Obviously, you’ve got 2023, which is different before the two new schools join, and then some intricacies later on.
“We’re still in the process of finalizing some of those details. But definitely, there is a commitment to really promote Big Ten football in prime time in a meaningful way with NBC as that platform.”
Streaming and ‘The Draft’
With eight games appearing on a streaming-only platform, there are scheduling possibilities. Could the Big Ten open its Saturday with an early start at 11 a.m. ET? What about an old-fashioned 1 p.m. kickoff or a late-night start? Those questions and more remain for both the Big Ten and Peacock.
“We’ve learned a lot about them and we’re still working in a meaningful way to understand what their priorities are,” Kenny said. “The same with us indicating to them what the priorities are. But the linear construct of college football weekends, when you’re dealing with a streaming platform, you’re not restricted in that same way.
“We’re trying to understand how do we create the best Big Ten football Saturday from the time of the pregame show kicks off until Saturday Night Live that’s on NBC? How do we structure each day working with our partners to make sure, one, that the biggest games have the best platforms, but, two, there’s games that are going to have storylines, and you want to make sure you don’t cannibalize the storylines or viewership just because of where you’re scheduling the games.”
The Big Ten’s draft has changed over the years. When ABC/ESPN was the lead property, it automatically selected the league’s top two games, then it either had No. 3 or it went to BTN a few weeks per year. When Fox and ESPN split the package beginning in 2017, all of the networks had numbered selections, and their choices were calculated based on games, weekends and other programming. With Fox/FS1, CBS/Paramount+, NBC/Peacock, and BTN, the draft will contain competing interests along with the Big Ten’s strategic insight. That process is far from complete.
“I think there’s going to be significant remnants from the current process,” Kenny said. “But as you add one additional premium partner and you have rigidity around time slots, it’s going to change the context of maybe where certain networks select and how the 12- and six-day process works.”
2024 and beyond
With USC and UCLA’s arrival in 2024, each network’s Big Ten football allotment grows. Fox and FS1 share 32 games while NBC and CBS each televise 15, Peacock streams eight and BTN airs around 50.
CBS, NBC and Fox all share rights to the Big Ten Championship Game. Fox airs the championship in 2023, 2025, 2027, and 2029. CBS holds those rights in 2024 and 2028 while NBC carries them in 2026.
Before it figures out its 2024 schedule and structure, the Big Ten must complete its 2023 schedule and decide on whether to extend its geographic divisional alignment or shelve it. Those decisions could come as soon as next week or as late as the Big Ten Championship Game in early December.
LikeLike
I think week 0 eventually is the new week 1, so to speak. There’s more total money in having games spread over one more week, so it’ll happen officially once the B1G and SEC put enough games there that it becomes a defacto week.
I wonder if the play is to try for Nebraska @ UCLA on Black Friday Prime Time when it’s a year ND is @ USC to close the season. Then you see if you can get Iowa State @ Iowa to be the Noon game in those years.
In other years where USC/UCLA close the season, have Iowa/Nebraska as noon and then maybe see if you can get Rutgers @ Maryland for the night cap?
Probably too complicated but something’s going to need to happen schedule wise anyway if USC closes every other season with ND.
LikeLike
That could work?
Black Friday:
Noon: ISU@Iowa
Primetime: UNL@UCLA
Sat:
OSU-UMich
Axe game
ND@USC
Next year:
Black Friday:
Noon: Iowa-UNL
Primetime:
Er, something (PSU vs MSU/RU/UMD? Honestly, probably should be the Bucket game at Lucas Oil)
Sat:
OSU-UMich
Axe game
UCLA-USC
LikeLike
But the B12 would have to buy in. I suppose BYU could play Utah last game of the week when ISU@Iowa, but then someone in the Pac would have to play OOC (UMass/UConn/NMSU?)
LikeLike
I think the B10 should really lean in to Week Zero (which I believe anybody can schedule for any reason starting soon) and Labor Day weekend. On each of those weekends, you have potentially 8-9 slots (3 slots both Sat and Sun, F and M nights, and potentially Th night too), so schedule compelling B10 matchups for each of those slots. OSU and UMich can get large viewership even for their buy games (PSU and USC to a lesser extent too). Then you could have up to 7 B10 conference matchups. This becomes a really powerful lineup with the additions of some combo of ND, FSU, Miami, or even potentially UO and UW.
LikeLike
BTW, I think it’s a great idea (suggested by several people) for NU and UIUC to play for the Hat at Wrigley every Black Friday at noon.
That would also allow Chambana to host the IHSA HS football championships every year (instead of the IHSA title games having to relocate to DeKalb every other year).
I’m not sure why the powers-that-be haven’t embraced that.
LikeLike
Richard: “I think the B10 should really lean in to Week Zero . . .”
I completely agree. Cripe, below is the complete, entire roster of games that were televised on Week O. Three Big Ten conference games would have totally dominated the ratings.
WKU 38, Austin Peay 27
Northwestern 31, Nebraska 28 (in Dublin, Ireland)
UNLV 52, Idaho State 21
Utah State 31, UConn 20
Illinois 38, Wyoming 6
Florida State 47, Duquesne 7
Florida Atlantic 43, Charlotte 13
North Carolina 56, Florida A&M 24
North Texas 31, UTEP 13
Nevada 23, New Mexico State 12
Vanderbilt 63, Hawaii 10
LikeLike
Yeah, but it’s a short term benefit since if the B1G does it then the SEC and ACC will as well and then we’ve just extended the season a week. I’m not necessarily opposed to that though since it’s another week of football and an additional bye week (or pull the season forward a week to end pre-Thxsgiving week), fewer students on campus makes it kind of suck though since it is a collegiate sport.
LikeLike
Scout: “fewer students on campus makes it kind of suck though since it is a collegiate sport.”
No offense but you are wrong about that. Times have changed. Nowadays almost all colleges in session during the last one or two weeks of August. If a few are not, then that few should be excluded from Week Zero games.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, the vast majority of colleges are now semester schools where students arrive on campus in mid-August.
And for schools on the quarter system, pushing the season up a week doesn’t matter all that much anyway as they don’t arrive on campus until mid-Sept anyway.
LikeLike
For quarter based schools if it’s a home game (which hopefully it wouldn’t be) then that would be one less home game students could reasonably attend. So you don’t have to exclude them completely but making them host would be kind of crappy.
No offense taken. I thought most semester based schools generally did move in the week prior to Labor Day, with classes starting the day after Labor Day. I think it’s kind of easy to resolve though, if you’re scheduling more interesting Week 0 games just don’t have the schools not in session have home games.
LikeLike
Scout: Honestly, what is the problem? The vast majority of schools now start in mid-late August. For the few that do not, they won’t be included in Week O games
LikeLike
There is no problem, I admitted I was wrong and am agreeing with you.
LikeLike
BTW, Scout, yes, I’d expect Week Zero to be the new Week 1. But there are more slots available on Week Zero (actually, even more on Labor Day weekend). 3/4 slots both Sat and Sun as well as Th, F, and M nights Week Zero, 3/4 slots Sat, Sun, Mon + Th & F nights Labor Day weekend. So less competition for eyeballs in each TV slot.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/10/21/cfp-expansion-frustrated-nfl-scheduling
CFP Leaders Frustrated As NFL Encroaches on Scheduling Battleground
With the NFL encroaching onto Black Friday, the scheduling problem of expanding the playoff is becoming increasingly complex.
ROSS DELLENGER
The NFL continues to encroach on the territory that has for years belonged to its free farm system. Black Friday is only the latest. The NFL starts playing regular-season games on Saturdays in mid-December, has expanded its own playoff to create an additional wild-card game and has started to dominate Thursday nights with the league’s streaming package on Amazon.
All of this has college football executives rightfully stewing as they attempt to schedule eight additional games in an expanded playoff—all the while trying to avoid going head-to-head with America’s No. 1 sport.
“You’re just trying to minimize all the ways the NFL will f— you,” says one top CFP official.
***
And while the NFL’s takeover of Black Friday has no impact on expansion playoff games, it’s another dagger from the big league fired at its little brother.
***
During the meeting, Hancock and his staff posted a calendar on the meeting room wall that detailed holidays, on-campus graduation ceremonies and, yes, the NFL’s own schedule. Commissioners have established tentative dates for the expanded CFP’s four rounds, but nothing is concrete. And there are NFL conflicts abound:
The first round will be played the third week of December, the same weekend that the NFL begins playing regular-season games on Saturday. As many as three NFL games will be played on that third Saturday in December. Couple that with the NFL’s Amazon-streamed Thursday night game and college football will have to go head-to-head against the NFL giant at some point. Commissioners realized there is no choice. They’ve toyed with the idea of holding playoff games as early in the week as Wednesday, but that is a long shot. College football’s four first-round games will likely kick off on Friday and Saturday, the latter being pit against the big dogs.
The CFP quarterfinals are scheduled around New Year’s Day. They won’t be impacted by NFL games in 2024 and ’25. There is talk now of holding three quarterfinal games on New Year’s Day and one quarterfinal on either New Year’s Eve or the day after New Year’s Day.
The semifinals are scheduled for about a week later, depending on the year. In 2024, that’d be the weekend of Jan. 10-12. And wouldn’t you know it, that’s NFL Wild Card weekend, where a slew of playoff games are scattered across Saturday, Sunday and Monday. Will college football have to play a midweek semifinal? Maybe. Thursday and Friday nights might be the best options. (The championship game is expected to be pushed a week or two from its original schedule and remain on Monday.)
***
For now, though, until it moves up the regular season, college football is stuck. It’s up against the biggest beast in American sport, a goliath who refuses to assist its farm league, the big dog who is biting the hand that feeds it.
“They don’t care,” says one CFP official. “We’ve got to decide when to play our games. If we go head-to-head, they’ll be hurt too.”
LikeLike
That’s why my idea of moving the regular season up 1 more week but expanding to 13 regular season games (over 15 weeks) ending Thanksgiving weekend and getting rid of CCGs + the first 2 CFP rounds the first 2 weeks of Dec (so NYD are semifinals only) makes a lot of sense.
Then the national title game MLK Day.
Peeps have to think long-term here.
LikeLike
I agree with getting rid of CCGs in a world where there’s a 12 team playoff. The CCG really will only hurt you by adding a loss to your second best team. Also could enable 10 conference games and 3 non-conference games, which I’m a huge fan of. And, honestly, shared conference titles is probably a really good thing for conferences that are now 16 teams given that’ll be more titles to share around the King and Prince schools.
Think about it, if you’re the SEC and have Georgia, Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Auburn, and A&M, you have 9 of your 16 schools expecting to compete for a title every year. If we assumed a perfect parity that’s not real then that’s basically 1 per year per team assuming the field sneaks in once every 10 years (I’m aware this doesn’t actually happen but let’s pretend for a minute that SCAR, Vandy, Mizzou, Miss St, Ole Miss, Arky, or Kentucky could win the title occasionally). So in reality lots of those schools are going to have 20+ year droughts in conference titles, and that’s gotta cause issues when they aren’t raising any banners except maybe “CFP Participant” every couple years.
LikeLike
Yep, CCGs made money for a while but they really don’t have any justification to exist (when you could replace them with a 13th game for everyone in a world with expanded playoffs). I expect the SEC and B10 to push to get rid of special privileges for conference champs in the CFP in the future as well.
LikeLike
They make huge money and it is 100% owned by the conferences, not shared with the rest of FBS. Are you sure you are the real Richard and not someone who has never read FtT before?!
LikeLike
Bullet, did you read my reasoning? Due to TV rights fees going up (which, BTW, conferences also don’t share with anyone else), a 13th game for everyone already makes at least as much for the SEC and B10 as their CCG does and as TV rights fees will almost certainly go up even more in the future, there would be even less of a financial rationale to have CCGs instead of a 13th regular season game for everyone. In fact, I think we’re already at the point where having a CCG instead of a 13th game for everyone actually _costs_ the SEC and B10 money. And once CCGs lose their financial rationale, there’s not much justification for keeping them in a 12-16 team playoff world.
LikeLike
Richard – from a TV standpoint you are just wrong. The B1G and SEC CCGs draw way more of an audience than a 13th game or the “field”. Look at 2020 as the experiment.
In 2020, The Notre Dame/Clemson ACC CCG (9.9m) actually outdrew both the B1G (8m) & SEC (8.9m) games. Several other games were taking place on that day and they all barely registered. In fact, the highest rated non-championship game that day only drew 1.6m (UTk/A&M). People like championships. If meaningless games are competing against championship games, the meaningless games will get slaughtered and draw only ESPNU type numbers. I understand that 2020 is the COVID year, but still fail to see how percentages would greatly change.
The unanswered question is who will show up in person to watch a 3-9 Northwestern play a 4-8 Indiana in Bloomington when it conflicts with the B1G title game that is possibly a Michigan/Ohio State rematch? My guess is not many. I could say the same thing for my beloved LSU Tigers if they are having a down year and they have a 13th game against Mizzou and there’s a top five matchup in the SEC CCG at the same time. My guess is these 13th games would be the least attended games of the season – even worse than rent-a-wins in early September when it’s hot.
By contrast, here’s the rating for the last several B1G/SEC CCGs:
2021: SEC 15.3m; B1G 11.7m
2019: SEC 13.7m; B1G 13.6m
2018: SEC 17.5m; B1G 13.2m
2017: SEC 13.5m; B1G 12.9m
These single CCGs will draw more viewers than entire slate of conference games. Period.
LikeLike
A lot of the value of the CCGs is exclusivity. The other part of the value is top ranked teams playing. A 3-9 U of vs. a 6-6 State U. just doesn’t have nearly the value. Look at the ESPN contract they took over from CBS. Those are the top SEC games each week. Not run of the mill games. And they are valued as much as all the rest of the SEC TV inventory (excluding the SECN games which are separate). Its obvious with the Big 10 contract that the top 3 games are almost all the value. So your idea gets rid of an exclusive, meaningful, top matchup and throws in a bunch of commodities with limited value.
And that doesn’t even get into the athlete wear and tear issues, which TPTB have avoided talking about since they are only adding the equivalent of 4 games with the playoff (4 first round winners play an extra game, 4 NYD winners play an extra game).
LikeLike
bullet, the CFP expands to 16 teams it wouldn’t be unreasonable to abolish CCGs and allow the two top teams of both the Big Ten and SEC to be automatic qualifiers. It would then be top two from the B1G & SEC, conf champs of four top ranked other conferences (using whatever format they wish to pony up their conf champ) and the eight top-ranked at-large teams.
LikeLike
the CFP expands to 16 teams it wouldn’t be unreasonable to abolish CCGs and allow the two top teams of both the Big Ten and SEC to be automatic qualifiers.
Assuming a 16-team playoff, the top two teams in those leagues are going to be in the playoff anyway. Indeed, the top three or four probably will. If you look at the basketball tournament, it keeps expanding, but they have not gotten rid of the conference tournaments that produce a singular team that gets the automatic bid. Fans want that.
LikeLike
Marc: “Assuming a 16-team playoff, the top two teams in those leagues are going to be in the playoff anyway. ”
Right. Therefore there is no need of a CCG.
LikeLike
Marc: “Assuming a 16-team playoff, the top two teams in those leagues are going to be in the playoff anyway. ”
Right. Therefore there is no need of a CCG.
The CCG establishes who won the conference, which teams and fans continue to value. Basketball has not eliminated the conference tournament that determines who gets the autobid, even though the top two Big Ten teams are shoo-ins for the dance regardless.
LikeLike
Bullet:
But as you yourself note, a 13th game for all would add 3 high-value games vs. only 1 in the case of a CCG! So even if you assign zero value to the mediocre games, you would still get as much or more value from 13 regular season games for all (and a 10-game conference slate, meaning more likely-unprotected high-viewership matchups like PSU-UMich, PSU-USC, OSU-MSU, OSU-UNL/UW, UMich-UNL/UW, etc.) So Bullet, it’s pretty clear you haven’t run the numbers while I have, so trust me when I say a 13th regular season for all is already as or more lucrative than a CCG.
Alan:
See my response to Bullet. A 13th game (and 10 conference games) means another week of a full slate of games, including high-profile games, so you’re making the mistake of focusing only on mediocre matchups instead of more PSU-UMich, PSU-USC, OSU-MSU, OSU-UNL/UW, UMich-UNL/UW. Fox, NBC, and CBS are expecting roughly an average total of 14.3mm viewers for the top 3 B10 games every week. As you can see, that is more than every recent B10 CCG and half the recent SEC CCGs. And that isn’t even counting the extra home ticket sales that a 13th game would bring in.
Re: Wear and tear:
So, if people in charge cared all that much about wear and tear, they’d get rid of CCGs. They also wouldn’t add a bunch more rounds of playoffs.
It’s nonsensical to say that wear-and-tear isn’t a problem for the players playing in the CCGs but is a problem for players not playing in CCGs.
Marc:
For a conference by the B10, the MMB tournament exists mostly to make money. As regular season MBB games draw a negligible number of viewers, I expect the financial justification to keep existing for MBB tourneys. But if there isn’t a financial justification for CCGs, then replacing them with a 13th game makes a ton of sense.
Also, was there some great clamoring for a definitive champion back when the B10 didn’t have a CCG? I didn’t hear it. It seemed like fans were perfectly happy with co-championships, and on aggregate, you had more happy fans as more fan bases got to claim they were conference champ.
LikeLike
Richard,
Also, was there some great clamoring for a definitive champion back when the B10 didn’t have a CCG? I didn’t hear it. It seemed like fans were perfectly happy with co-championships, and on aggregate, you had more happy fans as more fan bases got to claim they were conference champ.
Then you weren’t listening. At all. People against it were mocked for being stuck in the past, etc.
LikeLike
Lots of those schools are going to have 20+ year droughts in conference titles, and that’s gotta cause issues when they aren’t raising any banners except maybe “CFP Participant” every couple years.</em.
Those droughts exist now, and no one in the SEC is suggesting it is a problem. Five members of the SEC have never won a title in football—not even a shared one. Four others have droughts more than 20 years.
In the Big Ten, three have never won it, although they are all recent new members. Six have droughts of 20+ years, and Iowa is pretty close to that (18). Again, nobody in the conference is saying this is an issue.
LikeLike
I agree with getting rid of CCGs in a world where there’s a 12 team playoff. The CCG really will only hurt you by adding a loss to your second best team.
The CCGs make money and satisfy fan interest in a definitive champion. Also, there are playoff autobids for the top six conference champs, and this feature is highly unlikely to be eliminated.
Now, about “hurting” your second-best team, this is easily resolved. Let’s say X was previously ranked ahead of Y, but X lost in a CCG while Y stayed home. One can simply say that by rule that Y is not permitted to leapfrog X.
Of course, assuming — as I believe is true — that CCGs make money for the P2 conferences and are valued by fans, those games won’t go away due to an inability to solve the above problem. Such a trivial issue would never be the reason why an otherwise successful game stops being played.
LikeLike
“Also, there are playoff autobids for the top six conference champs, and this feature is highly unlikely to be eliminated.”
I wouldn’t say “highly unlikely”. That may stay, it may be reduced down to 4 in the future, or it may go away entirely (though probably not before expansion to 16). The CFP will be in flux for a while, I predict.
LikeLike
It is a very safe prediction that the new new playoff model is not the final one. The trend of all playoffs is that they expand periodically. You can go to 16 with no scheduling issues: just eliminate the byes. At some point, this will be irresistible.
…while the CCGs had been very lucrative for the B10 and SEC, these days (with the way the value of TV rights have skyrocketed) and for the foreseeable future, a 13th game for all would be at least as lucrative for the B10 and SEC.
Since they will want a champ, the obvious way to do this is to play a flex final game for everyone, as they did in the COVID year, with match-ups determined the week before. But as others have noted, the TV value is disproportionately in the top games. Most of those flex games would be near-worthless and very poorly attended.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten and SEC CCGs have been very lucrative and continue to be. And it is money they do not share with anyone else. No way they are getting rid of them as long as that is the case.
Would they dumb down the CCGs by adding a plain 13th game for all? Well, the history of the sport is that the regular season keeps growing, so I would not bet against it.
But I would bet more on expanding the playoff to 16.
LikeLike
That (playoff to 16) could happen eventually too. And while the CCGs had been very lucrative for the B10 and SEC, these days (with the way the value of TV rights have skyrocketed) and for the foreseeable future, a 13th game for all would be at least as lucrative for the B10 and SEC. I imagine for all the other leagues who’s CCGs are worth far less as well.
So I believe replacing the CCGs with a 13th game for all will eventually come.
LikeLike
Food for Thought:
https://thestreamable.com/news/survey-pay-tv-subscriptions-fall-by-13-percent-cord-never-movement-stronger-than-ever
Strengthens the argument to go OTA (a la BiG & NFL) and/or to Streaming (e.g. – Prime & NFL). The days of sports subsidization by the masses via cable/satellite subscriptions are numbered.
LikeLike
Right, they’ll subsidize them through streaming bundles instead. Just like sports fans subsidize everything they don’t watch.
LikeLike
The non-sports, non-local channels’ are trivial in comparison and are bundled by the likes of Disney into their sports offerings. Sports fans provide little subsidization compared to non-sports fans.
Moreover, while Disney is indeed trying to push a streaming bundle, the ease with which the consumer can cancel is a huge benefit over cable/satellite. And there is more competition in streaming (Prime, Apple TV) to hinder Disney and Fox’s efforts to maintain the bargaining power they have with cable/satellite.
I am rooting for Paramount and its strategy of effectively offering everything on its streaming service that it does on CBS. Peacock also seems to be following this approach right now. Just wait until Amazon, Apple, and Netflix or Google buy Fox, NBC Universal, and Paramount.
LikeLike
True. Although subscriber growth is obviously important to the streamers, minimizing churn (maintaining subs) is becoming the top priority domestically. The HBO contingent bristles at the thought of sharing a service with Discovery, but like it or not, the more reality shows a streamer has the less churn they experience. It’ll be interesting to see how live sports plays a role in sub stickiness. As far as consolidation goes, I would be shocked if WBD and NBC Universal don’t merge. Paramount, with its great catalog of IP, is clearly ripe for an acquisition and Murdock merging FOX & News Corp. could put them in play as well. The age of the BIG streaming bundle is clearly upon us, but cable has proven slightly more stubborn than I originally anticipated.
LikeLike
To combat churn and consumer dissatisfaction with the cable-like costs of subscribing to multiple services, the streamers are already batting around the idea of working together to create an a la carte bundle of their own. A Disney+/Amazon/HBOmax bundle for instance, but with a year long subscription.
LikeLike
Year-long subscription would have to be heavily discounted. And I don’t see Amazon ever agreeing to REQUIRE a bundle to watch Prime Video.
LikeLike
I saw an article about this recently. Now that consumers have a choice, they still actively prefer a bundle over buying every little channel à la carte. But it’s not the same thing as a cable bundle, because you have so many more choices and the switching cost is near zero.
If you are a sports fan and only want sports, there is probably a bundle tailored to you, or you could buy just sports channels ALC. In practice, it seems most people do not want that hassle.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, there is not a bundle geared only to sports. That IS the problem. Unfortunately, Disney and Fox – in particular – take an “all or nothing” approach to their content.
Still, it would be great to see a YouTubeTV package with only ABC/ESPN, Fox/FS1, TNT & TBS, CBS/CBS Sports, and NBC/NBC Sports. I think that would be palatable to me. And I would be willing to consider signing up for a year.
LikeLike
I’ve had YouTube TV since its inception, You do realize you can eliminate all the channels you don’t like, right? You can easily create the exact channel list you mentioned. $65 s month gets you (sports wise) BTN/CBS/CBS Sports/ESPN/ ESPN2/ESPNU/Fox/FS1/FS2/Golf channel/MLB net/NBA tv/NBC/NBC Sports/SEC network/Olympics network/TBS/TNT. And most of all Turner Classic Movies 😁
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. I am aware of that. I want a lower price for giving up the non-sports channels!
I know – I am cheap when it comes to entertainment.
LikeLike
Then you might want to go to the next two home games. They’re free!
LikeLike
Give it time. At first there were no bundles. Now there are a few, plus cable-like streaming services. But as the companies realize they can gouge people for more total money with bundles, they will grow. Whatever is worst for the consumer is where this industry tends to head.
LikeLike
Yes, but only the older demographics put up with it. If the 18-34 demographic never signs up for the traditional bundles, and this habit trickles upward as they age, eventually the industry will have to cave. Boycotts are powerful in achieving what you want, as long as you are patient.
Plus, the likes of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Netflix will not need to rely on blatant gouging to achieve their purposes.
LikeLike
…as the companies realize they can gouge people for more total money with bundles, they will grow.
Consumers seem to want bundles. The vast majority of à la carte channels are failing.
LikeLike
Netflix used to be anti-ads, too. Things change.
LikeLike
Redwood,
I don’t think the numbers back you up on that. Young people are paying huge amounts to stream, too. The 35-49 year olds pay a little more, but that’s probably because they can afford it (and have kids so they want Disney to babysit for them).
https://www.cloudwards.net/streaming-services-statistics/
While cord-cutters initially turned to streaming services to circumvent package deals, many consumers now want some sort of streaming service bundle. In one survey, 46% of people said the streaming service choice was becoming overwhelming and 64% said they would prefer a bundle that allowed them to choose which streaming services they wanted.
LikeLike
Right now, the numbers support me. YouTube TV is the #1 streaming bundle, but has only 5m subscribers (out of 100m HH). Hulu is #2 at 4m. To date, the vast majority of households that have left cable/satellite bundles have not moved to a streaming bundle.
I posted this above over the weekend: https://thestreamable.com/news/survey-pay-tv-subscriptions-fall-by-13-percent-cord-never-movement-stronger-than-ever.
The link says that the percentage of households subscribing to pay-TV bundles have dropped from 77% to 66% in the past 5 years and the majority of those who have NEVER had a bundle, the majority are 18-34 years old. Of those likely to subscribe to a bundle, 75% are over 45 years old.
I grant you that a streaming service that allowed you to pick which streaming services to bundle would be ideal and very popular. But the ‘big boys” don’t want this. Right now, Prime Video comes the closest to offering this, but its offerings are the smaller, niche services like PBS Masterpiece, Documentaries, etc; Acorn, BritBox, AMC+, etc.
LikeLike
Without a CCG, how does one determine a conference champion in a conference of more than 10 teams? If in a soon-to-be 16 team B1G, how is tOSU the conference champion if it only plays 9 of the 16 teams? Suppose there is a randomized schedule so that it doesn’t play Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, and USC. Or maybe it only plays half of them. Then what?
It seems to be that a conference championship game is mandatory in a large conference. It is disposable only in a round robin schedule, and in some outcomes not even then.
LikeLike
Tie-breakers. And you can always have co-champs. What did the B10 do back in the days when it didn’t have CCGs (and only 1 team could go to the Rose Bowl)?
This isn’t some scenario the B10 hasn’t faced before. And especially when the CFP expands to 16 (or even 14) but even before then, having 4 co-champs won’t be the end of the world. If you recall, the B10 has had 4 co-champs before and people didn’t rend their clothes and tear out their hair.
BTW, a scenario with a completely randomized schedule where OSU doesn’t play UMich or PSU isn’t a realistic one.
LikeLike
Tie-breakers. And you can always have co-champs. What did the B10 do back in the days when it didn’t have CCGs (and only 1 team could go to the Rose Bowl)?
Yes, it did work that way. If there is any interest among fans or administrators to return to that era, I have not seen it anywhere. They used to play in leather helmets too.
If you recall, the B10 has had 4 co-champs before and people didn’t rend their clothes and tear out their hair.
I reserve the rending of garments for more severe problems. With that said, it wasn’t a much beloved system, and there were not many tears at its demise. Fans want to see a champion decided on the field.
LikeLike
In a conference with 16 teams and only 2 or maybe 3 fixed opponents, the remaining 12 to 13 schools will be cycled almost randomly. In fact some sort of random or largely random scheduling is the only fair way to do it.
In the long run, if the B1G does get to 18 or 20 or more, schools will not have more than 1 fixed partner, and each school will cycle through all the others. A tOSU schedule without Michigan is unlikely, but one without Penn St or Wisconsin or USC is.
LikeLike
bob sykes: “In a conference with 16 teams and only 2 or maybe 3 fixed opponents, the remaining 12 to 13 schools will be cycled almost randomly.”
If you look at it objectively, any divisionless format would be more equitable than the fixed East-West divisions that we have right now. Nothing could be more unfair than loading up Indiana with annual games against Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.
LikeLike
I expect the Big Ten to go divisionless by the time USC and UCLA join. Until recently, NCAA rules mandated the division split, which clearly has not worked very well in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The bottom East division teams would not win in the West, but they could at least compete and pick up extra wins.
The loss of regulare big games such as OSU v. USC or Penn State just reinforces the need to be very selective on further expansion.
LikeLike
I disagree. Some rivalry games are very important to some schools. I just don’t see Iowa ever agreeing to give up any of UNL/UMTC/UW. In fact, that Iowa/UMTC/UW triangle won’t be broken (there was a lot of publicly-voiced backlash when the Iowa-UW series was broken by L&L). And UMich definitely isn’t going to give up or be forced by the B10 to give up either MSU or OSU (or rather, MSU definitely isn’t giving up UMich and neither is OSU.
LikeLike
Au Contraire.
I think the rational approach to a large conference is a geographical split AND a conference championship – perhaps with 3-6-6 scheduling, but perhaps not. If 3-6-6, then a sub-optimal tiebreaker would occur at the division level. Division record and/or national ranking could be considered as deciders for division champs. Head-to-head & overall conference record could be determinants too.
West = USC, UCLA, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, and Northwestern.
East = Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, tOSU, MSU, Michigan, Indiana, and Purdue.
This would make even more sense for basketball – play each team in your division twice, but the other division only once.
LikeLike
Nah, divisions are going away (for the B10, at least).
LikeLike
Looks like ESPN is going to get the best of the Big12, with Fox getting the remnants in a 350m range deal, with the PAC’s Amazon/ESPN deal coming in slightly lower. It’ll be interesting to see if this is accurate and if it is enough to trigger any more realignment.
LikeLike
Talked to someone else who believes the Big12 deal will be closer to 400m. Should know soon.
LikeLike
Marchand at the NY Post offers more clarity and insight.
LikeLike
I doubt the best of the Big 12 (minus UT and OU) is worth much compared to the middlings of the SEC and Big Ten.
LikeLike
Depends on how you define middlings. Compared to the mddle 3rd of the SEC, LSU, Auburn, A&M, Tennessee, Ole Miss, no. But to Iowa, Michigan St., UCLA, Purdue, Illinois, maybe its not a big deficit. And Minnesota, Northwestern, IU, Rutgers and Maryland are worth less.
LikeLike
bullet – under no reasonable measure is LSU in the middle 3rd of the SEC.
LikeLike
Btw, congrats Alan on LSU’s win over Ole Miss. The fans must be at least reasonably pleased with Brian Kelly so far.
LikeLike
Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma.
That will be the top 3rd.
With the 14 team SEC, LSU, Tennessee and Auburn are all close for #4 to #6.
LikeLike
Bullet –
National Championships: 1. Alabama (13), 2. Oklahoma (7), 3. LSU & Texas (4), 5. Florida (3), 6, Georgia, Auburn & Tennessee (2), 9. Ole Miss, Arkansas & A&M (1)
National Championships during the BCS/CFP era: 1. Alabama (6), 2. LSU (3), 3. Florida (2), 4. Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Texas & Oklahoma (1)
SEC Championships: 1. Alabama (29), 2. Georgia & Tennessee (13), 4. LSU (12), 5. Florida & Auburn (8), 7. Ole Miss (6), 8. GA Tech (4), 9. Kentucky & Tulane (2), 11. Miss State (1)
Oklahoma has 50 conference championships (SWC, MVC, Big 6,7,8 & 12) and 14 this century. Texas has 32 conference championships (SWC) and 2 this century. It’s hard to compare these championships to SEC championships when Oklahoma only had Nebraska as competition, and Texas only had Arkansas and sometimes A&M as competition for most years. To compare apples to apples, I’d give OU & UTx half credit
SEC Championships this century: 1. Alabama (8), 2. LSU (5), 3. Georgia, Auburn & Florida (3)
AP Poll All-time Rankings:
1. Oklahoma, 2. Alabama, 8. Texas, 10. Tennessee, 11. LSU, 12 Georgia, 13. Auburn, 15. Florida, 20. Arkansas, 21 A&M, 24. Ole Miss
AP poll rankings (2000-2019): 1. Oklahoma (337), 2. Alabama (301), 3. LSU (276), 4. Georgia (237), 5. Texas (215), 6. Florida (208), 7. Auburn (167)
All-time winning percentage:
2. Alabama, 5. Oklahoma, 7. Texas, 11. Tennessee, 13. Georgia, 14. LSU, 17. Florida, 18. Auburn, 23. A&M
All-time wins
2. Alabama, 5. Texas, 5. Oklahoma, 9. Tennessee, 11. Georgia, 12. LSU, 13. Auburn, 16. A&M, 20. Florida, 24. Arkansas
2000s winning percentage:
1. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 6. Florida, 8. LSU, 9. Georgia, 14. Auburn, 21. Tennessee (Alabama not in top 25)
2000s wins:
2. Texas, 2. Oklahoma, 5. Florida, 6. LSU, 8, Georgia, 11. Auburn, 21. Tennessee (Alabama not in top 25)
2010s winning percentage:
1. Alabama, 4. Oklahoma, 6. LSU, 10. Georgia, 22. Auburn, 25. A&M (Texas Tennessee & Florida not in top 25)
2010s wins:
1. Alabama, 3. Oklahoma, 6. LSU, 9. Georgia, 19. Auburn, 24. A&M (Texas, Tennessee & Florida not in top 25)
Heisman trophy winners:
1. Oklahoma (7), 2. Alabama (4), 3. Auburn & Florida (3), 5. LSU, Georgia, A&M & Texas (2), 9. South Carolina (1)
Stewart Mandel’s 2022 Kings & Barons listing:
Emperor – Alabama
Kings – Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma & Texas
Barons – Auburn, Florida, Tennessee & A&M
Looking at all these stats and taking into consideration recency bias for this century, I would rank the new SEC pecking order as follows:
1. Alabama
2. Oklahoma
3. LSU, Texas & Georgia
6. Auburn & Florida
8. Tennessee
9. A&M
LikeLike
In terms of TV draw, the new B12 is roughly comparable to the lower half of the B10 and SEC. The best TV draw in the new B12 (OK St.) is roughly equal to the median B10 draw (Iowa) and top of the lower half of the SEC (Ole Miss).
They’re being paid accordingly.
LikeLike
Good data Alan.
But there are only a few where LSU rates even with Texas. Alabama, Texas and OU are clearly the top 3. There are 7 kings just about everyone agrees on-USC, Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma. Florida is one of the SEC top 4, even though they rank lower in your numbers because they are a different program and different state than they were from the 1890s-1979. LSU, Tennessee, Georgia and Auburn are pretty close and can be ranked in any order depending on what you value. I put Georgia in the top tier because of a combination of recent success and market value (Georgia is a populous state).
LikeLike
bullet – thanks for the compliment, but then you go on to completely disregard the data presented. OK…
LikeLike
One other piece of data-top 5 finishes since 1968, schools with 2 or more:
1 OSU 23
2 OU 21
3 AL 20
4 FSU 16
5 USC 15
6 PSU 13
7 Miami 12
8 NE 12
9 TX 12
10 ND 12
11 FL 11
12 UM 10
13 GA 9
14 Clemson 7
15 LSU 6
16 AU 6
17 OR 6
18 TN 6
19 CO 5
20 WA 5
21 Pitt 3
22 AZ St. 3
23 UCLA 3
24 TCU 2
25 Utah 2
26 BYU 2
27 Stanford 2
28 SMU 2
29 Michigan St. 2
30 Arkansas 2
31 Boise 2
32 MO 2
33 Houston 2
34 WV 2
LSU is tied with Auburn and Tennessee for 4-6 among the future SEC. The 3 Florida schools are 4th, 7th and 11th because of their success starting in the 80s, but none are nearly as high in all-time metrics like winning %.
LikeLike
bullet – that’s an odd place to start. What’s so significant about 1968?
LikeLike
Ehhhhh…
Trying to divide up the top half of the new SEC is futile as it’s so loaded with kings.
I have
super-kings: Bama (overachieving), LSU, UGa, UF, Texas (underachieving)
regular kings: OU (overachieving), Tenn
super-princes (essentially the same as regular kings): Auburn, A&M
And Bullet, I don’t know where you got the idea “there are 7 kings just about everyone agrees on-USC, Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma.”
Maybe if you’re still stuck living in 1970, that is the case, but since 2000, LSU has been better (or at least equal to, but in most aspects, better) than (underachieving) Texas.
LikeLike
Alan,
I think those are all reasonable stats to consider, but you are inadvertently biasing things against UF. Spurrier got there in 1990 and and left after 2001. Many of your points look all-time, when we know UF was weak for much of the 20th century, or since 1998/2000. That leaves out most of his success, or buries it under decades of mediocrity.
Only talking about UF vs LSU here
National Championships:
both have 3 in the modern era (since the I-A/I-AA split)
National Championships during the BCS/CFP era:
Since 1990, both have 3
SEC Championships this century:
Since 1990, UF has 8 vs 5 for LSU
AP Poll All-time Rankings:
Weeks in AP poll: 644 vs 642
Weeks at #1: 41 vs 38
AP poll rankings (2000-2019):
Not going to look it up
2000s winning percentage:
Since 1990, #5 UF vs #15 LSU
2000s wins:
Since 1990, #3 UF vs #15 LSU
Looking at all these stats and taking into consideration recency bias for this century, I would rank the new SEC pecking order as follows:
1. Alabama
2. Oklahoma
3. LSU, Texas & Georgia
6. Auburn & Florida
8. Tennessee
9. A&M
It depends on how much recency bias you want to apply and what you count as recent. I’d tend to put UF and LSU on the same level. If anything, you may have UGA overrated because of too much recency bias. I’d swap UF and UGA in your list.
LikeLike
Brian – I counted all that information into the all-time analysis. Prior to 1990, UF never won a SEC championship. and they have been mediocre to above average since Meyer left – by evidence of the Gators not ranking in the top 25 in wins or winning percentage during the 2010s. If anything, I devalued Alabama’s dominance under the Bear, and again under Saban when they had half a dozen conference mates fielding competitive, top 25 caliber teams.
I think my analysis was fair to all teams. You and bullet have a few items to nit pick. That’s OK.
What I’d really like to see is a “quality win” analysis for all-time wins and all-time winning percentage. With Texas & Oklahoma racking up so many wins and conference championships against conference mates that historically sucked certainly affects any real apples to apples analysis. Let’s face it, for most of Oklahoma’s history, they had two tough games on their schedule – Nebraska & Texas. And Texas had maybe two between Oklahoma, A&M, and Arkansas. But I didn’t go there, giving them full credit for dominating largely inferior opponents. Also, while the SEC historically had six or more teams that were competitive, prior to the 80s they only played six conference games. I haven’t researched other SEC schools, but I do recall LSU regularly scheduling OOC games with the likes of Notre Dame, USC, Florida State, Miami, and A&M when I was in school.
That’s the great thing about college football, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
LikeLike
Alan,
1968 is when the AP poll permanently switched to the final poll coming out after the bowl games.
LikeLike
Thanks. Good to know.
LikeLike
Alan,
I counted all that information into the all-time analysis.
I know. That’s why I said it was inadvertent. I don’t think you were trying to bias the outcome, and 1998 and 2000 are reasonably long ago. I just wanted to point out that in the case of UF, those cutoffs make a big difference in terms of the shorter term stats.
Pre-1990, it is no contest. UF, like the other FL schools, was nothing until the 80s. But under Spurrier and Meyer, they were darn good.
I think my analysis was fair to all teams. You and bullet have a few items to nit pick. That’s OK.
Fair, sure. It just happens to hurt certain schools, as any choice of arbitrary cutoff dates would. If there was an easy database for all the accomplishments where you could give diminishing weight to older achievements, that would make this comparison much easier.
http://winsipedia.com/ranking
About the best I can find for now is the Winsipedia rankings which averages rankings in 12 factors, all of them all-time. You can take their table and weight the categories if you want a better list.
What I’d really like to see is a “quality win” analysis for all-time wins and all-time winning percentage.
That would hurt everyone. Most conferences were dominated by a few schools, with lots of cupcakes on the schedules.
Let’s face it, for most of Oklahoma’s history, they had two tough games on their schedule – Nebraska & Texas. And Texas had maybe two between Oklahoma, A&M, and Arkansas.
Also true for OSU, MI, ND, USC, AL, etc.
I haven’t researched other SEC schools, but I do recall LSU regularly scheduling OOC games with the likes of Notre Dame, USC, Florida State, Miami, and A&M when I was in school.
Most SEC schools don’t have a great history for OOC games. There was a lot of regional cupcakes instead.
LikeLike
Brian – while generally decent, I take issue with the Winsipedia website for counting “claimed” championships, thus pumping up schools claiming pre-historic retroactive “championships” as well as those from minor – generally not recognized – awarding bodies. Kind of like Ole Miss putting up signs claiming to be SEC West champions when they’ve never been to a SEC CCG – technically true but bullsh!t all the same.
LikeLike
I started with 1968 because it was the first year the AP consistently ranked a top 20. Before that it was sometimes 10 and sometimes 20. So I have a spreadsheet with data going back to then.
There are other good reasons. 1968 is really a year of change. Early 60s was a transition period with a few different teams at the top such as Minnesota, Ole Miss, Michigan St., Navy and Arkansas, but its really the 50s when the top looks much different. But some reasons 1968 was a year of change:
1) peak of Vietnam War-leading to growth in state colleges and a separation from the privates.
2) Season the Jets won the Super Bowl putting the NFL into more prominence.
3) Players who went to college after Joe Willie’s first contract were seniors-and were no longer likely to take a day job instead of the NFL.
4) 4 full years after unlimited substitution rules meaning a further divide from schools that had money and big rosters.
5) Invention of the wishbone.
6) Prior year was the last time Indiana went to the Rose Bowl and Wyoming went to the Sugar Bowl (IU, Minnesota Purdue tied for the Big 10 title. Purdue only has one since. IU and Minnesota haven’t done it again). 1967 top 10 included Indiana, Wyoming, Purdue and Oregon St. This alone is probably a good enough reason to exclude 1967 and prior!
7) Its the first full season I remember! I only remember bits and pieces from 1967-like OJ and USC beating IU in the Rose Bowl and Gene Stallings and A&M beating Texas to win the SWC with a 6-4 record and then beating Alabama in the Cotton.
LikeLike
Alan, I was looking at the polls and noticed how a few teams dominated the very top. I did an analysis going back to 1984 when BYU won. That was the last time somebody outside those top 20 programs won an AP title (and 18 of those 20 have won an AP title with UW winning a coaches title-Oregon is the only one of the 20 not to have an MNC). But the pattern continued very strong back to 1968. It weakens before then. There are only 14 times since 1968 where someone outside those 20 programs cracked the top 3. There really are a very limited number of teams who can win it all.
LikeLike
bullet – you and Brian convinced me that 1968 is a good line of demarcation for CFB, even though the sport didn’t become truly integrated until the early 70s with the SEC sadly dragging up the rear, but I’ll go with 1968.
CFB time periods:
Prehistoric (retro champs) – 1869 to 1935
AP pre-bowl champ- 1936 to 1967
AP post-bowl champ – 1968 to 1997
BCS/CFP – 1998 to present
Regarding evaluation of present-day programs, can we all agree that 1998 to present should count more than 1968 to 1997, and that 1968 to 1997 should count more than 1936 to 1967, and that 1936 to 1967 should count more than 1869 to 1935?
LikeLike
Alan,
Agreed, it is definitely flawed. I just haven’t found anything noticeably better yet.
LikeLike
Alan,
I think most would agree achievements should lose value over time, but how quickly depends on what you are trying to do.
For some things, like explaining ND’s king status, the past is what matters. In many ways, I think the newspaper and radio days of CFB built the reputations of many of the powers. Then the NCAA’s days of controlling TV cemented it.
If you want an objective assessment of “the best” program over all time, then yes. But you also have to be careful with metrics and the different rules different teams played under. For example, the B10 limited bowl access until the mid-70s so the B10 teams have a lot fewer bowl appearances and wins (many were trips to Pasadena to play USC in the Rose Bowl). The SEC played fewer conference games. The B10 played fewer total games. The poll rules changed over time, and the voters’s access to fair coverage of all teams has changed tremendously. I think it’s easier to rank within a conference than nationally as most of those differences will go away. Another big problem is if you use ordinal rankings, like Winsipedia, instead of actual values.
As for how to adjust the weight, there are many options. I prefer an exponential decrease to a linear one, but then you have to pick the time constant. Maybe something like 40 years?
LikeLike
You bring up another point Alan. Every conference was integrated by 1968. I think the SEC and SWC were first integrated in 1965. They weren’t fully integrated and not all schools were integrated in 1968, but the process had started. Texas in 1969 was the last all white MNC winner. They did have a Black freshman, but freshmen couldn’t play then.
LikeLike
Power changes slowly in college football. The only top team that has faded since 1968 has been Arkansas. Nebraska may be on the verge. The only programs really moving up are the 3 Florida schools-FSU, UF, Miami and Oregon. But Ohio St., Michigan, Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Nebraska, Penn St., LSU, Tennessee, Auburn and Georgia were all very strong back then. Clemson wasn’t very good in the 60s, but had been in the 50s and were good again by the late 70s.
1968 final poll 1. Ohio St., 2. Penn St. 3. Texas 4. USC 5. Notre Dame 8. Georgia 11. Oklahoma 12. Michigan 13. Tennessee 16. Auburn 17. Alabama 19. LSU Nebraska didn’t make the polls that year, but starting in 1969, they made the top 12 for 21 straight years.
LikeLike
I never considered Arkansas a king. Even in 1968, they weren’t a king. At that point in time, they had had really only 1 good decade and no national titles (before 1959, the Hogs had won the SWC only 3 times, each time carrying 3 losses).
I’d say UNL is really the only program that has fallen from king status after 1968 (UMTC fell before). Roughly 1 program a decade has ascended to king status after WWII. OU in the ’50’s, PSU in the ’60’s, the 3 FL schools in the ’70’s-’90’s (though it’s arguable if Miami still is) and LSU and UGa have ascended since then from very good to king status. You certainly could make the case for Clemson too.
LikeLike
Marchand seems to think they will get “similar” amounts. That very likely means the Four Corners schools won’t initiate a move on their own. Schools normally do not make a voluntary switch unless the difference is compelling.
Of course, if the Big Ten moves first, by taking Oregon and Washington for example, then naturally they would have to act, but they likely won’t be the first movers if the money is the same or close.
LikeLike
The additional value is in ESPN/Fox exposure. He also said Amazon isn’t inclined to pay more for the rights just because they’re a streamer. With Apple apparently out, they may be the lone bidder.
LikeLike
His warning that AMAZON tier one could turn into Pac12 Network 2.0 is a real concern, but what choice do they have? None.
LikeLike
Given a choice between Fox Sports (as opposed to Fox) and Prime Video, I would definitely take the latter. At the very least, I expect that the Pac will now get full distribution for games that currently appear on the Pac-12 Network. As someone who has rarely had access to the Pac-12 Network, I think that will be a big deal in itself.
LikeLike
Given a choice between Fox Sports (as opposed to Fox) and Prime Video, I would definitely take the latter.
That is my feeling as well. Fox (and its affiliates) have consistently the worst production values of the major networks — and yet their share of the Big Ten contract is increasing.
At the very least, I expect that the Pac will now get full distribution for games that currently appear on the Pac-12 Network. As someone who has rarely had access to the Pac-12 Network, I think that will be a big deal in itself.
Ditto. A few weeks ago, I wanted to watch a Pac-12 game (a rarity for me). It was on their network, and I couldn’t get it. At least Amazon is available everywhere. I expect Amazon to pull out the stops for whatever CFB content it can get. It wants to catch the bigger fish next time around.
LikeLike
I read somewhere recently (Canzano?) that just as NBC produces the Thursday Night Football broadcast for Amazon, the Pac-12 Network will produce the games shown on Prime. Although I don’t know if this is true, apparently the Pac-12 Network productions are considered to be first-rate.
So with respect to “pulling out the stops”, Amazon;s efforts will likely have to be in terms of time slots and marketing.
LikeLike
Random tidbits from this weeks polls…
LSU and Tulane are both ranked at the same for the first time since 1998. Alan must be excited.
Also, when K-State and Okie St. meet this weekend it will mark only the second time teams will face off with both ranked (the other was 2011).
LikeLike
Frug – thanks. I am.
Based on SI.com’s bowl projections, I’m working on logistics for attending the Orange (LSU) and the Cotton (Tulane) bowls. It doable!
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3724796/2022/10/24/big-ten-2023-schedule-divisions/
Unfortunately, the B10 is keeping divisions for 2023. Expect the 2023 schedule to drop soon.
There was strong consideration to revamp from geographic divisions to a single-conference entity for 2023 but there were too many issues to implement for next season. Among the most discussed issues for Big Ten administrators and school officials include the desire to unveil one new system for USC and UCLA rather than in consecutive years, the number of protected games and television concerns.
LikeLike
The article also mentions something I have seen elsewhere—that Penn State has no rivals it especially wants to play every year. I wonder how that will affect the Big Ten’s strategy. Just about every format suggested here (and elsewhere) locks at least one, if not both, of Maryland and Rutgers with PSU.
What, if anything, would you do differently if it is really true that PSU does not care about those games?
LikeLike
FLEX system goooooooo!
LikeLike
PSU may not care about RU, UMD, or even the OSU game, but I’m pretty certain both UMD and RU will list PSU as their most important must-have series and the B10 will want to keep OSU-PSU (too many high-viewership games going away if none of PSU-OSU, PSU-UMich, OSU-MSU, PSUMSU, OSU/UMich-UW/UNL are locked), so I expect those 3 PSU series to be locked.
Heck, NU definitely has no great desire to have a permanent series with MSU, but the B10 tries to match up MSU-NU as often as possible just because Sparty wants to visit Chicagoland often.
LikeLike
You do nothing differently, because it isn’t just PSU’s opinion that matters. RU and UMD need PSU as a locked rival. That trumps PSU’s preference not to play them annually. It would like if the B10 added more P12 schools to help USC and UCLA, but then didn’t lock the games against them.
PSU is quite hypocritical when they say this. When they joined the B10, they demanded to play both OSU and MI for the first 10 years, with OSU locked after that. Neither OSU nor MI thought PSU was a rival then or now. Now they say they don’t have any rivals because they want to drop RU and UMD, knowing that the B10 will insist on keeping OSU/PSU for financial reasons.
LikeLike
And at least a good part of the reason for the eastern expansion to MD and NJ/NYC was to satisfy PSU with eastern teams.
It appears that there were literally no eastern schools to which the B1G could expand and keep PSU happy. PSU’s natural rival was Pitt, but for obvious reasons Pitt was not a viable choice. (No doubt PSU did not want to share PA with Pitt in any event).
LikeLike
Agreed Jersey. You wonder how much of this is actually PSU or James Franklin. The later seems to not want to deal with OSU every year. I thought playoff expansion solved that problem? If they want to win championships they will have to beat OSU.
If PSU would prefer just a random schedule I guess I can understand but for years they were complaining about not having travel partners. Maybe they don’t want to lock in both Rutgers and Maryland every year but they should at least play one of the two every year. PSUs fans certainly seem to enjoy traveling to both schools for road games.
LikeLike
If PSU’s views were stated accurately, they did not ask to drop RU and MD; they simply expressed no specific preference for those opponents over others.
I think the statute of limitations on PSU’s previous demand has expired. It was over 30 years ago. Those on the PSU side who insisted on playing UM/OSU every year, and those on the Big Ten side that agreed to it it, are all long gone.
LikeLike
Well stated Marc. Penn State doesn’t mind playing MD or RU, they just don’t want to have 2/3 of their future 3-6-6 scheduled locked with them. The reason most draft schedules lock them with PSU is no one else is pounding the table to play them either.
My personal preference would be for PSU to play as many B1G team as possible (including USC and UCLA). Locking RU and MD reduces the number of games against the rest of league.
LikeLike
PSU got the locked rivals they wanted/needed to get established in the B10, and they got them for 10 years. And that was for a top level program to get comfortable in a new environment. Surely RU and UMD deserve at least as much support, especially since PSU is part of the reason they were added.
Locking both guarantees 1 road per year the eastern PSU fans can easily travel to. I’m not sure 1 more game in IN or IL really helps them.
LikeLike
Bob,
With just 1 locked game, PSU would play 1 extra game (8 vs 7) against everyone else every 14 years. Essentially, PSU would see everyone else every other year either way.
LikeLike
Bob, it doesn’t turn out to be a big difference, though. If the B10 went with no tied series (which isn’t happening anyway) in a 16 team league and 9 conference games, PSU would play every other team 60% of the time. Under 3-6-6, PSU would play the non-tied teams 50% of the time. That’s a difference of 1 game every decade. 1 extra home game vs. USC (and UCLA) every 2 decades. A negligible difference that doesn’t seem like a good reason to sacrifice rivalries and logical tied series.
LikeLike
If I’m a PSU fan, I wouldn’t be thrilled to have RU and UMD as 2 of 3 locked “rivals”. However, if you take the long term view, both schools, especially UMD, have the potential to become consistent top 25 programs. In the case of UMD, I would argue that only UCLA has more upside in terms of the non-Michigan, USC, OSU, PSU B1G programs. If Locksley can keep UMD trending up, I could see the PSU – UMD game becoming a more even rivalry and one that PSU fans look forward to.
LikeLike
Startup:
Well, PSU would have locked the toughest team in the B10 (OSU) along with RU and UMD, so their schedule would be somewhat close to the B10 median overall. And again, PSU had been complaining about how it’s path to the B10 CCG was too unfairly hard, not that they don’t have enough high-profile matchups.
LikeLike
Brian: “That trumps PSU’s preference not to play them annually.”
Frankly, I don’t believe that PSU opposes annual games with UMD and Rutgers. That seems to be an internet rumor that has grown to urban legend but it makes no sense. PSU has tons of alumni in both NYC and Wash DC and both metro areas have long been rich recruiting grounds for the NLs. Is there a credible source for this rumor?
LikeLike
I don’t believe that PSU opposes annual games with UMD and Rutgers…. Is there a credible source for this rumor?
For starters, the rumor is not that PSU opposes annual games with UMD and Rutgers. The rumor is that they are not insisting upon them. It is a subtle distinction, but a real one nevertheless.
The basic math suggests that even if the conference schedule were totally random (which of course it won’t be), at least one of the two would almost always be on their schedule anyway. It is only a question of whether both of them will.
The rumor, if you call it that, came from the Athletic article above, and I saw it in another article a week or two ago that reviewed all of the scheduling options that the Big Ten might be considering.
The earlier article mentioned what we have often said here, that the 3+6+6 scheduling model is the simplest, but it also forces the league to create artificial rivalries that have no historical basis. It said that there are some teams that have 3 annual rivals that they are extremely eager to preserve (e.g., Iowa), whereas others do not. Penn State was said to be in the latter category.
But in the event they go with 3+6+6, PSU will probably get OSU/RU/MD, because any other combination makes no sense at all. No one said that PSU was opposed to that. They only said that PSU was not resisting other options that are on the table.
LikeLike
Marc: “But in the event they go with 3+6+6, PSU will probably get OSU/RU/MD, because any other combination makes no sense at all.”
Here’s what is wrong with that: Who does Penn State play on rivalry week, when all of those OSU-UM, Indiana-Purdue and Minny-Wisky games are being played?
LikeLike
Why not just go with divisions but rotate division make up every 2 years? This way you can avoid the Mich and OSU rematch but then integrate USC and UCLA enough so they are playing Eastern counterparts more frequently for TV benefit. Need the 2 years to have the home and away benefit and the 4 vs 5 home game issue. Need to balance the 4 vs 5 over a 10 year period.
LikeLike
Here’s what is wrong with that: Who does Penn State play on rivalry week, when all of those OSU-UM, Indiana-Purdue and Minny-Wisky games are being played?
The Big Ten has in recent years rotated PSU’s rivalry week game among MSU, Maryland, and Rutgers. This is a natural consequence of none of them having a longstanding rival in the conference.
LikeLike
Well, besides MSU, but UMich is a bit preoccupied that week.
Anyway, that last week, as MSU’s rival is occupied, UCLA’s rival is occupied when ND visits, and the rest don’t have year-ending rivalries, MSU and PSU could alternate visits to UCLA when ND@USC. I suppose UCLA could alternate visits to MSU and PSU as well. Maybe RU or UMD could host UConn or UMass when ND@USC.
LikeLike
Kevin,
How is that not basically the same as 3/6/6? If division membership changes every 2 years, you don’t really have divisions.
LikeLike
With the 3/6/6 I understand the top two teams would face off in the CCG. The other approach keeps the division winners. If you keep Michigan and OSU in the same division you will guarantee no rematch in the CCG.
Division winners may not be the top 2 conference teams but will guarantee no rematch of the Game.
LikeLike
This would never happen but if divisions are scrapped, the B1G could move up UM-OSU to avoid a possible rematch the following week in the B1G championship game. Then PSU would be able to finish the season with OSU and UM would finish with MSU. The reviled UM AD Dave Brandon floated this idea and it was met with much backlash. But to me it makes some sense, although that assumes UM and OSU remain the two best teams in the league moving forward. If Riley can keep USC trending up, they have the highest ceiling of anyone in the league.
LikeLike
Startup: “This would never happen but if divisions are scrapped, the B1G could move up UM-OSU to avoid a possible rematch the following week in the B1G championship game. Then PSU would be able to finish the season with OSU and UM would finish with MSU. The reviled UM AD Dave Brandon floated this idea and it was met with much backlash.”
It was an understandable backlash. Partly because it was viewed as disrespecting The Game during a period where UM has had relative futility in it. In some ways it was viewed by UM and OSU fanbases as UM’s AD waving the white flag.
I’m not going to say it will never happen, since ‘never’ is a very long time. But I will say there are few things OSU fans care about more than that game. Even asking about changing the time the game starts sets some fans off, let alone considering moving up the date. It’s been the last game almost every year since 1935.
This is potentially going to come across as pompous, but sometimes I’m unsure fans of other schools quite understand how much The Game means to Ohio State. Maybe even Michigan since they have MSU as well. It’s just foundational to Ohio State football in so many ways. It goes beyond year long countdown clocks and nonsense like crossing out ‘M’ on everything on campus during that week.
Any OSU AD that agreed to such a change, including Gene Smith who’s held in very high regard, would likely be risking their employment. Just my opinion of course, but I cannot imagine OSU’s fanbase and donors accepting such an outcome.
LikeLike
The solution is simple: Go to 13 regular season games and get rid of the CCG. No rematches in that case. I think many conferences will see the logic of that.
But that’s assuming that there is some great abhorrence of rematches. I can’t say I see that. There have been a bunch of rematches in CCGs. The B12 CCG (new edition) by definition has to be a rematch. And the B12 actually wanted that!
LikeLike
Delaney floated playing UMich-OSU earlier in the season as well. I can see why the schedule makers would like that idea. But there has been massive backlash every time that has been suggested.
And also, why mess with a good thing? The UMich-OSU game has the highest average viewership of any regular season series over however many years you bother to count.
The B10 will have 4 kings once USC joins, and I think the B10 will lock both UMich and OSU to USC (at least in the beginning). Add in some princes that have great years every so often and I think OSU-UMich CCG rematches will be fairly rare. Plus, even if it happens, what’s the big deal?
LikeLike
There have been a bunch of rematches in CCGs.
The objection (to the extent it exists) is to re-matches in consecutive weeks. In most cases, the Rivalry Week opponent was historically in the same division or in a different conference. This meant that if the CCG had a re-match, it would not be against the team you just played 7 days earlier.
This potential objection was why Jim Delany proposed moving Michigan/OSU to earlier in the season, an idea that was scrapped after the backlash others have mentioned. The ACC famously put Miami and FSU in different divisions so that it could have such a re-match, which of course has never happened. But those two do not play in Rivalry Week.
LikeLike
Marc:
Ah. Yeah, I’m not sure it’s such a big deal. In any case, back-to-back rematches have been possible in the B12 for a few years now, will be possible in the Pac this year, and will be possible in the SEC when they get rid of divisions.
And I hope we can all agree that the way the ACC set up divisions was one of the dumbest ways possible. It makes as much sense as L&L.
LikeLike
startupsandheismans,
This would never happen
Good.
but if divisions are scrapped, the B1G could move up UM-OSU to avoid a possible rematch the following week in the B1G championship game. Then PSU would be able to finish the season with OSU and UM would finish with MSU.
This is a solution seeking a problem.
1. How often would there be a rematch?
2021, 2018?, 2007?, 2006?, 2003?, 1992
The ? is for years where it depends on the tiebreakers.
That’s the list with 11, 12 and 14 teams. Adding USC and UCLA should make it even less frequent, especially if OSU/USC and MI/USC are locked games.
So basically, it wouldn’t be very common.
2. So OSU gets to play MI and PSU, and MI gets OSU and MSU, back to back forever? That sounds fair.
Why would the B10 necessarily want PSU/MSU to end the season? That doesn’t even need to be a locked game. Why not PSU/USC or PSU/UCLA?
The reviled UM AD Dave Brandon floated this idea and it was met with much backlash.
As it deserved. It sounding like he was running scared.
But to me it makes some sense, although that assumes UM and OSU remain the two best teams in the league moving forward.
Which hasn’t been true most years since the 10 Year War.
If Riley can keep USC trending up, they have the highest ceiling of anyone in the league.
I don’t know about that. USC’s ceiling is as high as anyone’s, but at a certain level it can’t get any higher. AL, OSU, USC, UT, OU, etc. all asymptote to the same ceiling. AL has been better at reaching it lately.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3374426/2022/06/21/big-ten-football-schedule-balanced-rivalries-dochterman/
Barbour said she wouldn’t fight for any particular game. She’s also retired this summer, which might be one reason she wouldn’t fight for any particular game. Also, that article was written before USC and UCLA were added. What made sense for 14 teams is different from what makes sense for 16.
Penn State athletics director Sandy Barbour, who is retiring this month, said last month “I’m not going to pound my fist” to play any team annually.
…
“There’s a preferred concept, which is as it relates to some number of protected (rivals), probably the smaller the better,” Barbour said. “Because if you’re trying to go through a true rotation, the more protected (rivals) you have, then you’ve created pods instead of divisions.”
…
When it comes to football scheduling, perfection is unattainable. But the Big Ten prides itself on finding win-win solutions, and a three-opponent structure checks just about every requirement. It protects its historic rivalries, adds flexibility and maintains a consistent scheduling cycle. That’s a victory in my book.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“With the 3/6/6 I understand the top two teams would face off in the CCG. The other approach keeps the division winners. If you keep Michigan and OSU in the same division you will guarantee no rematch in the CCG.”
You didn’t mention keeping OSU and MI in the same division in the your first post. The B10 has vacillated on that. Originally they wanted the option of a rematch. Maybe they will want it again as long as they can lock The Game.
Division winners may not be the top 2 conference teams but will guarantee no rematch of the Game.
Is that better? From the B10 perspective, what’s the upside to having a weaker team in the CCG versus risking a back to back rematch? Doesn’t it potentially punish every team in the same division as the top team?
LikeLike
Brian – I think the goal should be to game for the maximum number of teams making the 12 team playoff each year. I think rematch’s could impact the number of playoffs. I don’t have the data and there are certainly a lot of “what-ifs” but there would be a lot of faith in the committee to not punish CCG results.
The league tends to base most of their decisions on maximizing TV money so that would be my prediction.
LikeLike
Richard,
The solution is simple: Go to 13 regular season games and get rid of the CCG. No rematches in that case. I think many conferences will see the logic of that.
It would require a rule change obviously, but it would certainly eliminate rematches. I’m not sure a bunch of barely bowl eligible schools want to risk a 13th game and have to be 7-6 unless they get another cupcake OOC, though. That net effect might be a negative overall.
But that’s assuming that there is some great abhorrence of rematches. I can’t say I see that. There have been a bunch of rematches in CCGs. The B12 CCG (new edition) by definition has to be a rematch. And the B12 actually wanted that!
Agreed. I’m about as anti-rematch as anyone, but few people seem to care. Maybe because they are used to it from the NFL. I thought the UF/FSU rematch for the MNC was particularly bad, and the AL/LSU one wasn’t necessary either. But overall viewership has been decent for postseason rematches.
Back to back rematches have been rare, and I do think it would hurt viewership. I wish they’d put in rules to prevent one unless the first game was controversial, but they won’t. You have to set rules to choose the 2 best teams and live with it.
LikeLike
Brian said, “I thought the UF/FSU rematch for the MNC was particularly bad, and the AL/LSU one wasn’t necessary either.”
The 2011 LSU/AL re-match was ab-so-FREAKING-lute-ly NOT necessary!
Bring on OK State!
LikeLike
Kevin, I believe (and certainly hope) that the top 2 teams in the 16 team (4 king, 5 prince) B10 will be strong enough to get in to a 12-team playoff even if 1 beats the other. I don’t think the committee punishes a loss by a top 10 team to another top 10 team much at all unless it’s a blowout. Typically, the top 2 teams would be seen as better than other B10 teams and the B10 would have placed 3-4 teams in to the CFP pretty much every year if the CFP had been 12 teams from the beginning.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“I think the goal should be to game for the maximum number of teams making the 12 team playoff each year. I think rematch’s could impact the number of playoffs. I don’t have the data and there are certainly a lot of “what-ifs” but there would be a lot of faith in the committee to not punish CCG results.
The league tends to base most of their decisions on maximizing TV money so that would be my prediction.”
Ideally the goal would be to find the best team, but I agree they are likely to aim for the most CFP participants. It would take a lot simulation to find the numbers, but I’m not sure either path has much of an advantage. Divisions could get in a weaker #3 from the other division via a CCG upset, but no divisions could help a 9-3 or 10-2 #2 earn their way in via upset. And if the weak #3 upsets a 2-loss #1, might that bump the #1 out of the CFP? Would #2 then be at risk as well?
As for TV value, would a back to back rematch of OSU/MI outdraw OSU vs WI? I’d think so. Maybe OSU vs USC would top OSU/MI part 2, but that’s about it.
LikeLike
IMO, following the logic all the way through, PSU’s position is a vote for divisions.
LikeLike
PSU’s playoff chances are better without divisions.
LikeLike
PSU is one of the B10 schools most against divisions (which means a ton of locked games, BTW).
LikeLike
3-6-6 could leave PSU with the worst locked games. A division would spread it out.
Moreover, people here talk about the BiG schools wanting to continue to play each other. A good way to make that happen is with divisions – especially if there is further expansion.
LikeLike
Redwood, again, PSU has complained the most about having a tough schedule/tough route to winning the conference, _not_ about having easy games.
And divisions would actually split up series that been played for a long time unless the B10 expands to 20-24.
LikeLike
People here talk about the BiG schools wanting to continue to play each other. A good way to make that happen is with divisions – especially if there is further expansion.
The complaint is that long-standing rivalries can no longer be played. Divisions amplify that problem, e.g., that OSU/Illinois and Michigan/Minnesota can no longer be contested annually — and as the league expands their meetings will be even less frequent.
For example, OSU has more than 50 all-time games with eight Big Ten programs. But six of those eight are in the west division (all but Michigan and Indiana). In a divisional set-up, those games would become rarer. You would play seven in-division, and just two in the opposite division.
LikeLike
The most mystifying thing to me about this mini-thread is why Redwood so wants the B10 to have divisions when I don’t see any B10 fans all that worked up about getting rid of divisions and in fact, have noted many reasons why they don’t think divisions are a good idea.
I mean, I don’t see any B10/SEC/B12/ACC fans really insistent on the Pac having divisions (for good reason).
LikeLike
Marc: “The complaint is that long-standing rivalries can no longer be played. Divisions amplify that problem, e.g., that OSU/Illinois and Michigan/Minnesota can no longer be contested annually.”
The conference doesn’t want to create or fabricate rivalries that don’t exist but at the same time wishes to preserve the rivalries that have been in place for decades. We can have it both ways. The Big Ten could set up its conference scheduling with a variable number of locked games for each school based upon true rivalries and geographical proximity. There is no reason that each school must have the same number of locked rivalries. Here is a suggested format:
4 annual rivalry games:
Penn St – Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio St, Michigan St
3 annual rivalry games:
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern
Minnesota– Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
Iowa – Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
2 annual rivalry games:
Ohio St – Michigan, Penn St
Michigan – Ohio St, Michigan St
Rutgers – Penn St, Maryland
Indiana – Purdue, Illinois
Nebraska – Iowa, Minnesota
Maryland – Rutgers, Penn St
Michigan St – Michigan, Penn St
1 annual rivalry game:
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
All other conference games would simply be played on a Round Robin basis. This would mean that 1-rival schools such as USC and UCLA would be playing all of the other Big Ten teams with a slightly greater frequency than 4-rival Penn State would. Likewise, 2-rival Indiana would be in the Round Robin rotation slightly more frequently than 3-rival Purdue.
But does this matter? It would still be far more equitable scheduling than the current East-West Divisions that the conference uses. This format would also be preferable to setting up bogus annual rivalries such as UCLA-Purdue or Maryland-Ohio State.
LikeLike
The Big Ten could set up its conference scheduling with a variable number of locked games for each school based upon true rivalries and geographical proximity.
This is the format I have long favored. Consensus here and in the media is that it’s too complicated. (I might not lock precisely the games you did, but directionally that is the way I would go.)
LikeLike
I am not insistent on divisions for another conference. I am just trying to highlight the fallacies of some arguments being made here.
For example, Colin states, and Marc concurs, that the complaint is that trophy games such as tOSU v. Illinois & Minn v. UM will no longer be played. Colin then goes on to propose locked rivalries that exclude those games, and Marc agrees. WTF?? Colin also gives 4 locked rivals to PSU, which apparently professes to want none, and 3 to another 6 teams. If you are going to do that, you are already almost half way to a division.
In the PAC-12, the CA teams insisted on playing each other every season as a condition of expansion from 10 to 12, despite the Bay Area teams being in a different division than the SoCal teams. So those games got locked. The SEC also has locked games outside of one’s division (e.g. – Alabama/TN, Auburn/Georgia, LSU/FL). In the BiG, you could have divisions and still have locked rivalry games that would enable tOSU, for example, to play Illinois every season.
If you have 2 divisions, this simply means the other 7 teams in the western division would only see tOSU once every 7 years – excepting conference championship games. But you could also have 4 de facto “divisions” to create the 3-6-6 effect except that games could be locked outside of divisions.
Btw, IMO CCGs should be counted as “playing a team”. Do you really want to see two teams play each other twice in the same season? Doesn’t it just muddy the waters?? One of UM and tOSU will play in the vast majority of CCGs, so they will average almost 2.5 games/season against the other division – assuming there are only 2 divisions.
Given the current 16 teams, I think it makes the most sense to keep 2 divisions and lock trophy games as necessary. Others vehemently disagree with me. That’s fine, but at least be logical with respect to your priorities. If your complaint is the lack of protection for trophy games, then don’t propose solutions that ignore trophy games.
LikeLike
Redwood: “For example, Colin states, and Marc concurs, that the complaint is that trophy games such as tOSU v. Illinois & Minn v. UM will no longer be played. Colin then goes on to propose locked rivalries that exclude those games, and Marc agrees. WTF???”
Redwood, that’s the beauty of the variable locked annual game (Acronym VLAG) system. You wanna lock in tOSU v. Illinois & Minn v. UM as annual rivalries? OK, let’s do it! Let’s add ’em in.
We’ll just move Illinois up from 3 annual games to 4, Minny also goes up from 3 annual games to 4, and both tOSU and Michigan go from 2 annual games to 3.
See how easy that was? Here’s the revised roster, which took me about two minutes tp modify:
4 annual rivalry games:
Penn St – Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio St, Michigan St
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State
Minnesota– Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
3 annual rivalry games:
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern
Iowa – Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
Ohio St – Michigan, Penn St, Illinois
Michigan – Ohio St, Michigan St, Minnesota
2 annual rivalry games:
Rutgers – Penn St, Maryland
Indiana – Purdue, Illinois
Nebraska – Iowa, Minnesota
Maryland – Rutgers, Penn St
Michigan St – Michigan, Penn St
1 annual rivalry game:
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
LikeLike
Colin,
The conference doesn’t want to create or fabricate rivalries that don’t exist but at the same time wishes to preserve the rivalries that have been in place for decades.
Says who? The B10 has locked non-rivalries many times since 1993.
And if they don’t want to lock non-rivalries, why do you lock games like PSU/MSU, IL/IN and NW/WI but not OSU/IL or MI/MN?
The Big Ten could set up its conference scheduling with a variable number of locked games for each school based upon true rivalries and geographical proximity.
You can’t have it both ways. Either they don’t want to create/fabricate rivalries, or geographic proximity is a sufficient reason to lock a game (PSU/RU, PSU/UMD, etc.).
And why doesn’t OSU/USC count, with their 24 games (more than OSU vs NE, RU or UMD – almost more than all 3 combined) including 7 Rose Bowls (4 with the MNC on the line)? Or UCLA/NE which have played 13 times, more than NE against most of the B10 East?
LikeLike
Brian: “You can’t have it both ways. Either they don’t want to create/fabricate rivalries, or geographic proximity is a sufficient reason to lock a game (PSU/RU, PSU/UMD, etc.).”
It appears that you are in deep denial. You can indeed have it both ways. A system of a variable number of locked rivalries games does not create bogus rivalries and at the same time it preserves all traditional rivalies that are worth saving.
If you want to debate something, you need to pony up logical reasoning. Don’t tell me that my format isn’t the optimal system because you say so.
LikeLike
IMO CCGs should be counted as “playing a team”. Do you really want to see two teams play each other twice in the same season? Doesn’t it just muddy the waters??
There is no perfect system. The main objection is that the CCG could feature an 11–1 team vs. a 7–5 team that won a weak division. This leads to an anti-climactic CCG, deprives the 11–1 team with an opportunity to improve its strength of schedule, and introduces the possibility of a very weak champ that was not the best team over the course of the whole season.
If you eliminate divisions, the CCG will always feature two good teams, at a price that re-matches could become more common. Of course, even with divisions, the CCG is sometimes a rematch.
I think every league will be ditching divisions, because the the advantages override the drawbacks. (The Big Ten and SEC have not what they’ll do after their new members join, but I will be surprised if they keep divisions.)
Others vehemently disagree with me. That’s fine, but at least be logical with respect to your priorities. If your complaint is the lack of protection for trophy games, then don’t propose solutions that ignore trophy games.
Trust me, we noticed this. In a 16-team league with divisions and 9 games, you play your division mates annually, but a home-and-home cycle with the other teams takes 8 years. In a 16-team league with the 3-6-6 format, you play 3 teams annually, and a home-and-home with the others in 4 years.
Most Big Ten teams do not have 7 other members that they especially want to play annually, which is what a division system forces you to do. They also want to see the rest of the league in their home stadium more than once every 8 years, which is what you get with static divisions.
LikeLike
Colin,
“The conference doesn’t want to create or fabricate rivalries that don’t exist but at the same time wishes to preserve the rivalries that have been in place for decades.”
https://theathletic.com/3317733/2022/05/17/big-ten-football-scheduling-format-playoff-administrators/
“We have some really kind of powerful rivalry games that we want to make sure that we figure out how to keep, but also we want to create some new rivalries,” Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren said.
The B10 does want to create new rivalries.
LikeLike
The Big 12 Plans for an Era of College-Sports Domination by the SEC and Big Ten.
The above article is likely behind a paywall for most of you. Money quote:
The article repeats Yormark’s well known desire to expand into a “fourth time zone,” but says nothing new about how or when he expects to achieve that.
LikeLike
He’s a marketing guy. Lots of bluster, not much substance.
LikeLike
Not all marketing guys are bad. There is no evidence yet that would put him in the bad column.
LikeLike
If the new Big 12 contract is sufficiently lucrative, they could have a major western expansion. Add Washington, Oregon and perhaps a couple of the four corners schools. Done.
Would OR/WA accept, or would they wait for Kevin Warren to ride in a beautiful horse and rescue them?
In my opinion, if the Big 12 offer to OR/WA is really a major increase in funds, they should take it an go. Relying on the wishes of the B1G offices and ignoring the likely position of the schools would be a big mistake.
Of course, the simple issue might be that the Big 12 will not make enough to entice any PAC team.
LikeLike
The B12 will only make a few million more per school than the Pac, at most, which would be partially eaten up by increased travel costs, so yes, the B12 won’t be making enough to entice any Pac school.
LikeLike
Certainly not Washington or Oregon. Big 12 expansion with Pac schools is based on the assumption UW and Oregon get invited by the Big 10.
LikeLike
But is that not the problem? What if that assumption is totally wrong?
Has Kevin Warren harmed the PAC, not by taking the two LA schools, but by pushing an agenda that may very well never come to be? There is no reason to believe that WA/OR will pay for themselves and the current 14 schools would need to make trips to the Pacific Northwest, while the league does not get additional pro rata revenue.
As discussed here at length, permanent reduced revenue is not a viable long term solution, so at some point, those schools will need to show how they can each produce $80 million plus per year during the current B1G contracts.
It is pretty clear that the B1G offices were pushing for more PAC schools, while tOSU and Iowa were openly against it and probably quite a number of other schools were simply not as vocal.
In addition, it is still totally possible that when USC joined the B1G it received some assurances that Oregon (and maybe Washington) are not to be invited. If OR suddenly became a huge brand (with appropriate academics), might that lead to a sit down where USC had to bite the bullet? Perhaps, but if that does not happen, why should we believe that OR/WA to the B1G is a likely event within the next couple of years? Or perhaps ever.
Look at all of the effort that is required to fully integrate the two LA schools. If two more PAC schools were imminent, wouldn’t it have been easier to do four at once?
It is quite possible that WA/OR will hold out for the B1G invitation and refuse to sign a meaningful GOR with the PAC. Could that crush the PAC by telling other teams that leaving now is a good idea? I do not know the answer it is a potential problem for the PAC.
LikeLike
Bernie, other Pac schools would leave only if they have better places to go. They aren’t getting in to the B10 or SEC (well, except Stanford if ND comes) and the B12 being able to pay only a few million more per school (at most) likely isn’t worth it.
LikeLike
Speaking of potential Pac 12 to Big 10 additions, saw this on another board:
Stanford is giving away free tickets to its last two games since attendance is so poor.
https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2022/10/25/stanford-giving-away-free-tickets-for-final-two-home-games
LikeLike
It is quite possible that WA/OR will hold out for the B1G invitation and refuse to sign a meaningful GOR with the PAC. Could that crush the PAC by telling other teams that leaving now is a good idea? I do not know the answer it is a potential problem for the PAC.
It would be the Pac’s death knell if they refused to sign. But WA/OR don’t want to commit program suicide, and I don’t think the Big Ten has any reason to damage them either. If the Big Ten is not ready for them, it will say so, and they will sign for another 5–6 years with the Pac.
I expect the Big XII deal to be a little better than the Pac’s, but not to a degree that would entice Pac schools to move unless their league is falling apart.
LikeLike
Marc, I agree that is precisely what should happen. WA/OR should get a confirmation from the B1G offices that nothing in happening for at least 5 to 7 years and maybe never.
Sadly, I am enough of a cynic to wonder if that solution, which is the only reasonable one, will be the future of this. It still bothers me that several independent sources in the know had OR and WA to the B1G a few weeks ago.
That had to come from Warren’s office. Why? Is Kevin Warren just learning that the schools call the shots, not his office?
As much as I have taken the position that what Sankey did re UT/OU announcement timing was wrong, what Warren has done with WA/OR is not exactly pure and innocent either, if it causes those two schools or the PAC to be harmed by false rumors.
Again I have no problem with the LA schools, since that is pretty normal operating procedure among leagues.
LikeLike
Bernie: “That had to come from Warren’s office. Why? Is Kevin Warren just learning that the schools call the shots, not his office?”
Are we 100% sure on that? The Big12 hasn’t exactly been coy about their intentions since this summer, and Yormark has repeatedly indicated he wants to move the B12 westward. It doesn’t necessarily feel super conspiracy theorist level of crazy to wonder how much of this is coming from Warren versus coming from somewhere else.
That said, it’s not like Warren doesn’t potentially benefit from the P12 deal being terrible too.
LikeLike
Everybody’s a big boy here. UW and UO already know the B10 isn’t taking them right now so they’ll sign a short-term GOR for a short-term TV deal.
They’re not going to refuse to sign a GOR and self-destruct with no offer in hand from the B10.
LikeLike
…what Warren has done with WA/OR is not exactly pure and innocent either…
Purity and innocence are not traits for which anyone in this business is known, at least not if they stay employed. That is part of the reason why I have no issues with the way Sankey handled the TX/OK moves, because I think every one of his peers would have done the same.
Most conference realignment rumors are wrong, even when they come from good reporters. Exactly what Warren thought he was getting by leaking that, assuming he was the leaker (or authorized it), is unclear to me. I could make the same guesses that we all can, but those guesses would have a wide band of uncertainty.
LikeLike
Week 8 TV ratings are out.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
This week’s 4m viewer club includes:
4.75m Syracuse at Clemson Noon ABC
4.46m Texas at OK State 3:30p ABC
4.38m Iowa at Ohio state Noon FOX
Honorable Mention: Ole Miss at LSU 3:30p CBS
Total viewers for each time slot:
Noon 9.812m (ABC, FOX & ESPN)
3:30p 12.67m (ABC, CBS, FOX & ESPN
Primetime 8.66m (ABC, ESPN & FS1)
After Dark 1.32m (ESPN)
LikeLike
Wow, that’s a lot of eye bleach needed for the noon crowd.
That IA offense was offensive, and OSU wasn’t much better for much of the game. How does Barta justify not firing Brian Ferentz?
LikeLike
If you credit FGs/TDs after a turnover/blocked punt where the Iowa offense doesn’t record a first down to the defense/special teams, the Iowa defense&special teams have outscored the Iowa offense in 4 of 7 games this year and tied the Iowa offense in another game. And 1 of the 2 games where the Iowa offense outscored the Iowa defense+special teams was against 2-6 Nevada (only wins against TX St. and NM St.; winless in the MWC and lost to Incarnate Word).
LikeLike
The same way Northwestern is going to struggle to rid itself of Jim O’Neil.
Nepotism-based hires are very difficult to undo when the Head Coach is as established as Kirk or Fitz.
Fitz hired his friend to be DC even though the past history of O’Neil’s NFL defenses showed he is incapable of handling the position.
LikeLike
Welp, NU football has held up the Hawkeyes as the standard to match since the Barnett era so there you go!
LikeLike
The Iowa Football Team Is the Best Case Against Nepotism That Humankind Has Ever Seen
Iowa’s offense isn’t just terrible this year. It has been terrible every year under Brian Ferentz.
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/college-football-entertainment-technology-sports-e34f290accfc1b880daf3beddf07efed
On a related note, Amazon and Nielsen disagree on viewership numbers. Is Amazon padding their counts? Is Nielsen undercounting? How accurate are Nielsen’s estimates, which are what the entire advertising market is built on?
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2022/10/26/big-ten-conference-releases-2023-football-schedule.aspx
The new 2023 B10 schedule is out. It is very similar to the old one released in 2018 (https://bigten.org/documents/2018/8/29//FUTURE_FOOTBALL_SCHEDULES_2022_25.pdf?id=6057).
LikeLike
I’m a little surprised there aren’t more weeknight games that first week. Even if CBS carries that Th night UNL-UMTC game, then the first 2 Sat and 1 Sat sometime later (when they move an SEC game to primetime), that’s only 4/7 games. Unless they swap some slots with NBC a few weeks (CBS in primetime, NBC in the afternoon) or some of the CST games get pushed to After Dark. Oh, they could carry Iowa-UNL Black Friday too. 5/7.
And that 2nd week looks dreadful for the 3 broadcasters.
They may have to broadcast
UNLV@UMich
YSU@OSU
Delaware@PSU
LikeLike
Maybe CBS feels the need to air NCIS or one of its spinoffs those nights.
Sometimes the games get shifted after the schedule is announced. Maybe CBS has to know which games they will get first, then they will talk to the teams about shifting days.
Top3 by week (my guesses – order is debatable some weeks):
1 – PSU/WV, OSU/IN, NE/MN
2 – MI/UNLV, OSU/YSU, MSU/Richmond? (all the good games are road OOC games)
3 – MSU/UW, PSU/IL, PU/Syr.
4 – PSU/IA, MI/RU, WI/PU?
5 – MI/NE, MSU/IA, PSU/NW
6 – OSU/UMD, MI/MN, NE/IL?
7 – WI/IA, OSU/PU, MI/IN
8 – OSU/PSU, MI/MSU, IA/MN
9 – OSU/WI, MSU/MN, PSU/IN
10 – MSU/NE, MI/PU, PSU/UMD?
11 – MI/PSU, OSU/MSU, WI/NW?
12 – NE/WI, OSU/MN, IA/IL?
13 – OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, NE/IA*, WI/MN
* – Black Friday game
? – at least 1 other game of about the same interest level
There are a lot of weak weeks in there. Adding USC and UCLA will certainly help with that. Is it good or bad to load up Wk 8 and Wk 11 with big games, or is it just unavoidable?
LikeLike
Brian: Note that only 2 games will be broadcast OTA most weeks after Week 2 as CBS will only carry 7 games in 2023. CBS has to carry the SEC all the weeks after Week 2 in the afternoon slot (besides 1 week) so it seems like they are constrained to a terrible Week 2 game like NBC and Fox.
And yeah, the Athletic did say that some more games will be moved. Likely a game to Labor Day Sunday and at least 2 to Friday nights. So I suppose CBS could broadcast the Labor Day Sunday game and a Friday night game.
The way the B10 set the schedule up, every OSU, UMich, and PSU conference game could be carried by the 3 OTA broadcasters (besides the 1 mandated BTN game) even if only 2 of the OTA broadcasters are showing games every week after Week 2.
LikeLike
Note that only 2 games will be broadcast OTA most weeks after Week 2.
This is one of Kevin Warren’s biggest blunders.
LikeLike
Marc:
Huh? It will be 3 OTA a week when the B10 expands to 16.
And in 2023, CBS doesn’t have room as they still have their full slate of SEC games in the afternoon timeslot.
2 games OTA a week most weeks isn’t all that different from now anyway.
LikeLike
The way I am counting it is not OTA and non-OTA. I think the more relevant factor is networks with strong distribution (OTA+ESPN) and those with weak distribution (FS1, BTN, Peacock). In the new deal, a higher percentage of the inventory moves to the latter category. I consider that a blunder. Time will tell.
LikeLike
Marc: Except your assumption is wrong. I counted and in 2021, 14 B10-controlled games appeared on Fox and 20 on ABC or ESPN when the B10 had 63 conference games. In 2024*, the B10 will have roughly 45 games appearing on Fox, CBS, and NBC and 70 conference games. That means the ratio of high-visibility games to conference games goes from 54% in 2021 to 64% in 2024**.
*2023 Is a wacky transition year as CBS can’t carry a full slate yet, but with 7 games on CBS and roughly 30 on Fox and NBC, 37 B10-controlled games will appear on high-visibility channels vs. 34 in 2021. So if you count 2023, the ratio of high-visibility games to conference games goes from 54% in 2021 to 59% in 2023 to 64% in 2024.
** I used conference games as the denominator because there usually aren’t that many attractive OOC games that the B10 controls; roughly 5 a year that an OTA network or ESPN would want to broadcast.
LikeLike
Oh wait, add another B10-controlled game to ESPN, so 14 Fox, 21 ABC/ESPN B10-controlled games for a ratio of 56%. Still less than 2023, 2024 and later.
And ESPN doesn’t show many B10 conference games anyway. Only Iowa-UW in 2021.
LikeLike
I was going by the press release, but I trust your stats more. It feels like an undesirable deal to me, and yet, given your numbers maybe it is not as bad as it first seems.
LikeLike
Thanks, Marc, but what press release?
LikeLike
I also notice that the B10 helped out NBC a little by having UMich-MSU and OSU-PSU the same week, then OSU-MSU and PSU-UMich the same week, though I suppose CBS could get a game on those weeks too (somewhere).
PSU White Out game likely the WVU game to start the season.
It’s be interesting to see if the homecoming games will be early in the season (mostly against OOC opponents) so that the networks have more flexibility to pick and choose later in the year.
LikeLike
Canzano: Pac-12 plotting on Media Rights and Expansion
What I know and think…
JOHN CANZANO
OCT 2
George Kliavkoff sat in a black, metal, high-top chair and fielded questions on Wednesday at Pac-12 Conference headquarters in downtown San Francisco.
Kliavkoff was positioned alongside deputy commissioner Jamie Zaninovich, the conference’s supervisor of men’s basketball. It was Media Day. Basketball was supposed to be the focus. But I tuned into the news conference via the Pac-12 Networks to see if there was anything new on the conference itself.
Will a new media rights deal get done in days? Months? Years?
“Somewhere in that range,” Kliavkoff answered.
Would it include a digital streaming service?
“I don’t see any scenario where we don’t end up streaming some of our games.”
Who are the expansion candidates?
“We’re not going to talk about specific candidates for expansion. I’m not going to get ahead of my board on that.”
Kliavkoff was intentionally vague and spoke in broad terms. Turns out, I can learn a lot more by simply calling around the conference.
Here’s what I know and think:
• The Pac-12 CEO Group will meet next week, per multiple sources. The conference’s remaining 10 presidents and chancellors are expected to drill down on the media-rights negotiations. It feels like a fork-in-the-road moment.
• I believe Amazon and ESPN are the most likely media partners for the Pac-12, but I’m told there could be a surprise third entity. Apple? Would that be a shock? Turner kicked the tires on college football early on. But would it choose the Pac-12 as the entry point? It’s also possible the third party is only being included at this point to foster some negotiating leverage. So there’s that.
• One conference AD forecasted “three to four weeks” as the media-rights timeline. Not to have a done deal, but to have clarity.
• Bob Thompson, the retired Fox Sports Networks president, told me recently that it’s much easier to get a media rights deal finalized when you’re simply renewing with existing partners. The complications comes when you’re including a new entity and need to negotiate every detail.
• The Pac-12 is still holding out hope that UCLA will reverse course and stay in the conference. I think it’s an unlikely outcome. The UC Regents will meet on Nov. 15-17 at UC San Francisco. The prevailing thought is that the regents may require UCLA to pay a subsidy to UC-Berkeley. Along with increased travel expenses and the cost of competing in the Big Ten, will it be enough to make the Bruins backtrack? We’ll see.
• George Kliavkoff was asked by a reporter from The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday how he’d expect to work cooperatively with UCLA if he “thwarted its wishes” to leave for the Big Ten Conference.
Kliavkoff said, “We’re not thwarting anyone’s wishes. It’s up the regents. We’re just providing information as requested.”
• I find it interesting that the timeline for the UC Regents meeting and the “clarity” on the media rights front appear to coincide. Just me spitballing here. Anyone else find this interesting? It’s possible the Pac-12 has intentionally positioned the timeline. Perhaps because it wants UCLA to have concrete media-rights numbers in front of it when the UC Regents meet.
• Expansion or no? I’m not sold that the Pac-12 has to expand, but it sounds like the conference is exploring options. San Diego State makes sense. Maybe UNLV or SMU, too. I know Fresno State and Boise State would love to be included, but the Pac-12 CEO Group is likely to view them as dilutive. It’s why I keep thinking there’s a splashier expansion move out there.
Kliavkoff said: “We’re going to be looking at schools that makes sense for us.”
More as this develops…
LikeLike
“George Kliavkoff was asked by a reporter from The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday how he’d expect to work cooperatively with UCLA if he “thwarted its wishes” to leave for the Big Ten Conference.
Kliavkoff said, “We’re not thwarting anyone’s wishes. It’s up the regents. We’re just providing information as requested.””
He may come to regret screwing with UCLA/B10 in the end, should they somehow force UCLA to stick around. I get that he has a job to do, but that USC travel partner is gonna come from somewhere and it isn’t the MWC.
LikeLike
I get that he has a job to do, but that USC travel partner is gonna come from somewhere and it isn’t the MWC.
No school can be a travel partner for USC except UCLA. Every other potential addition is far enough away that they would generally travel separately.
Big Ten non-revenue programs might visit two west coast schools in the same trip, much as National League teams used to do when LA and SF were the only two MLB teams in the West. But the USC volleyball team isn’t going to swing up to Seattle to pick up Washington’s team before heading out to Columbus.
LikeLike
Eh, call it a “scheduling partner” then. Whatever. The concept holds (that another team from the Pac is coming with USC to the B10).
LikeLike
Marc: “No school can be a travel partner for USC except UCLA. Every other potential addition is far enough away that they would generally travel separately.”
Sorry, I didn’t mean travel partner in the scheduling sense. Call it “conference buddy”, “good friend”, whatever, I mainly meant that in the event UCLA was somehow forced to back out I wouldn’t be surprised to see the B10 act aggressively in some manner such as inviting one or more other Pac12 members.
Is that giving the B10/Warren more credit than they deserve? Yeah probably. But after all of this I have a hard time seeing Warren saying “aw shucks ya got me” if Kliavkoff backdoor politicked his way into keeping UCLA.
LikeLike
Sorry, that came across as a bit pedantic. I agree, undoubtedly Warren would open his rolodex to the next Pac-12 candidate, who would be happy to take the call.
LikeLike
Marc: “Sorry, that came across as a bit pedantic. I agree, undoubtedly Warren would open his rolodex to the next Pac-12 candidate, who would be happy to take the call.”
True, but any Pac-12 school other than UCLA would essentially double the travel difficulties of having West Coast teams. There may be other options.
The ACC is frozen until 2036 but maybe Mizzou or Vandy is tired of getting beaten up in the SEC. Both are better cultural fits in the Big Ten and travel logistics would be much better than Washington, Oregon or Stanford.
LikeLike
Huh?
Not really. Still the same number of trips to the West Coast. Except a hop to/from the other WC school instead just across LA (a short hop if Stanford replaces UCLA).
LikeLike
Richard: “Huh? Not really. Still the same number of trips to the West Coast. Except a hop to/from the other WC school instead just across LA (a short hop if Stanford replaces UCLA).
Richard, no offense intended but it appears that you don’t understand this issue. The distance from USC to UCLA is 12 miles. Big Ten Olympic teams will fly into LAX, play a doubleheader, then fly back to the Midwest.
USC to Stanford is six hours by interstate. That’s a day’s travel and checkout to a different hotel. Flying from USC to Stanford is a day’s travel and checkout to a different hotel and a lot more expensive. Why can’t you get that into your head?
LikeLike
Also, the B10 isn’t taking Vandy.
LikeLike
Colin: “The ACC is frozen until 2036 but maybe Mizzou or Vandy is tired of getting beaten up in the SEC. Both are better cultural fits in the Big Ten and travel logistics would be much better than Washington, Oregon or Stanford.”
Vandy being a better cultural fit in the B10 is a new one to me, though I do love their mascot. But I tend to subscribe to Frank’s belief that no one is leaving the SEC or B10.
It also doesn’t address the fact you’re then leaving USC on an island entirely by itself. Does Washington or Oregon change that? No, not really from a practical standpoint, because obviously Seattle is very far away from LA. But from a perception standpoint I’d say it does. And someone like Stanford isn’t that far away, though yes LA->Palo Alto is still pretty far away.
Also, my original statement is more one of professional vindictiveness on Warren’s part. He’s not going to be interested in sniffing for the SEC’s table scraps if he loses UCLA. I’d sooner see him attempt to keep UCLA by working to destabilize the entire conference. And watching the B10’s potential largesse shrink due to Kliavkoff’s actions might give Warren the ammunition he needs with the presidents, depending of course on what some of those P12 schools are projected to be worth within the B10.
How plausible is any of this? Probably not very. But people at the top tend to be some of the most vindictive people around, so it’s hard not to think Warren would be out for blood if at all possible.
LikeLike
manifesto: “It also doesn’t address the fact you’re then leaving USC on an island entirely by itself.”
If UCLA doesn’t join then USC is on an island all by itself. Period. It doesn’t matter what other school will join the Trojans.
Manifesto: “[Warren is] not going to be interested in sniffing for the SEC’s table scraps if he loses UCLA. I’d sooner see him attempt to keep UCLA . . .”
Of course we all want UCLA rather than another school. This entire discussion is about what happens if California’s disgusting politicians prevent that from happening. For travel logistics, Mizzou, Vandy and Colorado would all be far better than Stanford, Oregon or Washington. Why create two travel nightmares rather than one?
LikeLike
For travel logistics, Mizzou, Vandy and Colorado would all be far better than Stanford, Oregon or Washington. . . . Why create two travel nightmares rather than one?
The history of realignment is that conferences (& schools) chase the money and accept whatever travel hassles come with it. Even if the Big Ten wanted Mizzou or Vandy, nobody thinks they are leaving the SEC, so let’s talk about Colorado.
From most Big Ten locations, the trip to Seattle or San Francisco is about two hours more than to Denver. I am not sure that really qualifies as a “nightmare.” A difference of two hours per trip would very likely not tilt the balance towards Colorado in the presidents’ minds.
LikeLike
Marc: “From most Big Ten locations, the trip to Seattle or San Francisco is about two hours more than to Denver. I am not sure that really qualifies as a “nightmare.” A difference of two hours per trip would very likely not tilt the balance towards Colorado in the presidents’ minds.”
That is true but the Hawaii article talks about ‘bundling” non-conference schools for Olympic teams on long trips. You really can’t bundle anyone with Oregon or Washington but Colorado has Wyoming, Colorado State and the Air Force Academy all within a 2 hour drive. Colorado also has a Big Ten archrival, Nebraska.
LikeLike
Also, my original statement is more one of professional vindictiveness on Warren’s part. He’s not going to be interested in sniffing for the SEC’s table scraps if he loses UCLA.
Even if you take vindictiveness out of it, I suspect Missouri and Vandy are not high on his wish list.
LikeLike
Marc:
Colin seems to think that people still get around on horseback and on wagons. Colin, you stated your age once but I didn’t realize you forgot to add a “1” in front.
Colin:
In no sport will teams play a doubleheader on the same day in LA against both the Trojans and Bruins even though UCLA and USC are relatively close to each other. So the difference between adding UCLA and Stanford is a short trip. Why can’t you get that in to your head?
LikeLike
“So the difference between adding UCLA and Stanford is a short trip.”
My typo should have added a question mark to indicate sarcasm: “So the difference between adding UCLA and Stanford is a short trip?”
LikeLike
Colin, the B10 isn’t adding Wyoming, Colorado State or the Air Force Academy just because you can reach those places by horseback easier than WA or OR.
For that matter, the B10 isn’t adding CU.
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, the B10 isn’t adding Wyoming, Colorado State or the Air Force Academy just because you can reach those places by horseback easier than WA or OR.”
Honest to God, Richard, have you been diagnosed with dyslexia?
LikeLike
“My typo should have added a question mark to indicate sarcasm: “So the difference between adding UCLA and Stanford is a short trip?””
Yes. An 85 minute flight, to be exact. Obviously it would take longer by horseback.
Stanford is closer to USC than UMTC is to any other B10 school besides Iowa and UW (which aren’t all that close either) or CU is to UNL.
LikeLike
The Hawaii article talks about ‘bundling” non-conference schools for Olympic teams on long trips.
Yes, that is how Hawaii plays the hand they have been dealt. This does not mean that the Big Ten is looking to emulate that for future additions. No mainland conference I can think of has made the Hawaii travel plan a priority in their additions.
LikeLike
Marc; “Yes, that is how Hawaii plays the hand they have been dealt. This does not mean that the Big Ten is looking to emulate that for future additions.”
I didn’t say that the Big Ten was looking at it to emulate. That is your distortion of my comments.
LikeLike
Colin,
“That is true but the Hawaii article talks about ‘bundling” non-conference schools for Olympic teams on long trips. You really can’t bundle anyone with Oregon or Washington but Colorado has Wyoming, Colorado State and the Air Force Academy all within a 2 hour drive. Colorado also has a Big Ten archrival, Nebraska.”
The B1o isn’t worried about OOC games. We’re talking about B10 games, so the bundle is USC + someone for all the current members, or the existing pairs for USC coming east. If you’re already flying to USC, going to UW for the next game isn’t a big deal. It’s a 3 hour flight. UO and Stanford would obviously be closer. For 1 trip a year, it just isn’t a big deal. USC has more road trips to make, but not all that many. All their OOC games can be near home if they want.
Give up on CU already. They have essentially zero chance of joining the B10. They do not bring sufficient value and USC has no ties to them. Why would any B10 team want to bundle CU with AFA, CSU or WY? Even CU doesn’t care about most of those schools.
MO and VU aren’t leaving the SEC, either.
LikeLike
Brian: “Why would any B10 team want to bundle CU with AFA, CSU or WY?”
Well, would Iowa prefer to send it’s volleyball team to Oregon for a one and done or to Colorado for four matches with CU, AFA, CSU and WY?
LikeLike
“I didn’t say that the Big Ten was looking at it to emulate. That is your distortion of my comments.”
In which case, why even bring up those random CO schools?
BTW, there are a bunch of Div I schools in SoCal as well.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Well, would Iowa prefer to send it’s volleyball team to Oregon for a one and done or to Colorado for four matches with CU, AFA, CSU and WY?”
100% without a doubt to UO, since that would be a conference game. Why would they want 4 OOC WVB in the mountain states?
Even in your imaginary world where anybody besides you thinks CU is worth adding to the B10, why would IA want 3 OOC games in the mountains to go along with a conference game? Much more likely the B10 has them going to another conference game just before or after CU, probably to USC.
LikeLike
Brian, if UCLA cannot join the Big Ten, why don’t you tell us who we should get as the 16th school? You’ve already said that Warren needs to do nothing more than go to his rolodex and pick the replacement, so this should be easy for you. As soon as you reply, I’ll launch into a little rant explaining why your selection is asinine.
LikeLike
Brian, if UCLA cannot join the Big Ten, why don’t you tell us who we should get as the 16th school?
[Not Brian, but…] Every report I have seen suggests that the Big Ten’s next priority would be one or more of Washington, Oregon, or Stanford. You appear to favor Colorado primarily for travel and its purported rivalry with Nebraska. In their actual behavior, conferences and schools have repeatedly eroded or ended rivalries and chosen suboptimal travel, in favor of priorities they valued more.
It is not difficult to go through the list of recent major conference realignments and figure out why they were made. The short story is that conferences and schools chase the money, rivalries be damned, and figure out the travel later. This is what they almost invariably do.
LikeLike
Marc: “Every report I have seen suggests that the Big Ten’s next priority would be one or more of Washington, Oregon, or Stanford.”
If you look at this objectively, there is no reason at all to get another West Coast school if UCLA gets blocked. Stanford has given zero indication that they want to leave the Pac-12 and I very much doubt they would do so. Also, their fan base is miniscule.
Most of us expect Oregon to revert to the Oregon of yore when Uncle Phil’s money dries up. Washington is a long haul and really brings nothing to the table that Colorado doesn’t, Colorado had an online petition to join the Big Ten before USC & UCLA bolted (link). Washington would be creating a travel nightmare for itself by joing the Big Ten whereas Colorado’s travel logistics are about the same in either conference. Roughly equivalent football brands, academics, TV markets, airport access, NFL presence.
https://www.change.org/p/b1g-conference-university-of-colorado-should-switch-to-the-big-10-conference
LikeLike
“Washington is a long haul and really brings nothing to the table that Colorado doesn’t, Colorado had an online petition to join the Big Ten before USC & UCLA bolted (link).”
That petition was started three years ago and has garnered all of 53 votes. Notably, half as many as a petition to “update Springfield, Mo, city ordinance to allow pet potbelly pigs”, and that one is only a couple days old (https://www.change.org/p/update-city-ordinance-to-allow-pet-potbelly-pigs-they-are-not-livestock). So it’s not like Colorado is rallying in the streets to get to the B10, at least not via Change.org.
I like Colorado. It’s a good school in a fun state. And maybe the B10 will decide they’re a unique fixer upper opportunity, even though they’ve got more than a couple of those right now already. But I doubt it, and think they’re more likely to try and dig into Silicon Valley and the northwest tech hub of Seattle.
LikeLike
Washington is a long haul and really brings nothing to the table that Colorado doesn’t. . . .
Washington is better than CU in almost every regard, except travel. Not that CU is a bad school, but Washington is a better one.
Washington would be creating a travel nightmare for itself by joining the Big Ten.
It is basically the same “nightmare” that USC and UCLA already signed up for. Granted, they have the very slight advantage that they can play each other every year, which Washington would not have. But for double the TV revenue, do you really think the Huskies would turn that down?
LikeLike
Marc: “It is basically the same “nightmare” that USC and UCLA already signed up for. Granted, they have the very slight advantage that they can play each other every year,”
That isn’t a slight advantage. It’s the difference between sending golf teams and tennis teams 12 miles or 1,000 miles.
So would Washington turn down a Big Ten offer? Well, if Washington would be coming without Oregon and UCLA remained in the Pac-12, that’s a different scenario than USC + UCLA + Washington + Oregon all going to the Big Ten together. So yeah, they might turn that down.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Brian, if UCLA cannot join the Big Ten, why don’t you tell us who we should get as the 16th school?”
Because it’s been discussed to death on here already.
In order of preference:
1. Go back to 10 members
2. Stay at 14 members
3. Add one of the valuable but unavailable options (ND, UT, OU, UF, UGA, FSU, maybe GT or Miami)
4. Add a breakeven at best but unavailable option (MO, UVA, UNC, maybe GT or Miami)
5. Add a plausible 16th team
Those options with USC coming and UCLA not available would be UW, UO and Stanford. Cal is a non-option if UCLA is blocked, and all other P12 and B12 schools are lower on the list. Personally, I think UW is the best B10 fit of the 3 options but it’s not the most valuable. Stanford is probably the most valuable, but the worst fit of the 3. If I was Warren I’d pick UW, if I was a president I might be tempted by Stanford instead.
“You’ve already said that Warren needs to do nothing more than go to his rolodex and pick the replacement, so this should be easy for you.”
No, I haven’t. But he could easily do it. Pick any of those 3, and they’d say yes and laugh at UCLA the entire time.
“As soon as you reply, I’ll launch into a little rant explaining why your selection is asinine.”
How will anyone notice the difference from anything else you post (that isn’t just stealing someone’s IP)?
Stopping posting baseless ideas and people won’t mock them.
LikeLike
“If you look at this objectively, there is no reason at all to get another West Coast school if UCLA gets blocked.”
Honestly, they could stay at 15 and count IA vs ISU as a conference game to make the numbers work.
What about your vaunted concern for having nearby schools for additional games in one trip? Those would have to be on the west coast.
“Stanford has given zero indication that they want to leave the Pac-12 and I very much doubt they would do so.”
They’ve said nothing either way, just that there was no formal overture from the B10. You are welcome to your doubts, as there is no evidence to say otherwise.
“Also, their fan base is miniscule.”
But their market isn’t, and they are relatively close to USC, and they are an elite university academically. Bob Thompson said they were the most valuable P12 school remaining.
“Most of us expect Oregon to revert to the Oregon of yore when Uncle Phil’s money dries up.”
1. Knight is a billionaire who has put UO in his will. Likely UO knows what they can expect to receive from him, and likely Knight made it known to the B10 as part of his summer campaign to find UO a better home.
2. Once they have facilities and a brand name, it’s harder to revert in terms of brand. Look how popular teams like NE and TN still are despite long periods of struggle.
3. Schools like IA, WI and NW built strong(ish) programs from nothing in the 80s and 90s. They didn’t have huge donations to pay for it, either. Heck, Boise built a program with good coaching and smart recruiting. UO has their blueprint in place for recruiting CA and winning.
“Washington is a long haul and really brings nothing to the table that Colorado doesn’t,”
A long haul from where? Boulder is almost as far from LA as Seattle is. Plus UW brings better CFB success, more fan interest, a bigger market, better academics, a pacific time zone location (for B10 after dark options and USC comfort), and stronger ties to USC.
“Colorado had an online petition to join the Big Ten before USC & UCLA bolted (link).”
So? Does anyone doubt UW would agree to an offer? Some fans also want back into the B12. They just are upset with how bad their team is, it has nothing to do with thinking through their options.
“Washington would be creating a travel nightmare for itself by joing the Big Ten”
1. Irrelevant. The only relevant discussion on this topic is about the travel logistics for the current B10 members.
2. They are adults and can presumably read a map. If they accept an offer, they understand the consequences. USC was fine with it, and UCLA was fine with it (and even explained how minor the differences would actually be).
“Roughly equivalent football brands, academics, TV markets,”
Only for loose definitions of roughly equivalent.
LikeLike
Me: “Washington would be creating a travel nightmare for itself by joing the Big Ten”
Brian: “Irrelevant. The only relevant discussion on this topic is about the travel logistics for the current B10 members.”
Do you understand that the Olympic sports teams of Iowa, Rutgers, Michigan, etc will all be going out to the West Coast twice every year instead of just once? Do you understand this, yes or no? You seem to think it will be just the same as having USC and UCLA twelve miles apart.
LikeLike
“That isn’t a slight advantage. It’s the difference between sending golf teams and tennis teams 12 miles or 1,000 miles.”
For at most extra time a year per sport (when they are already flying long distances east 3-5 times a year).
So flying long distances 5 times a year is OK but flying 6 times a year is suddenly a deal breaker? Nobody thinks the way you do, Colin.
Also, no, the B10 won’t stay at 15 (which would mean a 10 game conference slate when only 12 CFB games are currently allowed a season).
LikeLike
Richard: “So flying long distances 5 times a year is OK but flying 6 times a year is suddenly a deal breaker? Nobody thinks the way you do, Colin.”
Actually, no one thinks the way you do, Richard. If you think the difference in travel requirements of golf teams/tennis teams/volleyball teams/basketball teams etc etc etc for UW in the Pac vs UW in the Big Ten boils down to flying 5 times a year vs flying 6 times a year, you are out of touch with reality.
LikeLike
Even though Stanford recruits nationally and therefore should find a national conference very appealing, I do fear that the school might actually say “no” if the BiG came calling for it in lieu of UCLA. Don’t forget that it was the Card who apparently put the kibosh on Texas to the Pac-10 in the early 1990s.
But since UW and UO would not say “no”, if Stanford had a modicum of sense, it would accept despite whatever reservations the school might harbor.
LikeLike
Redwood: “But since UW and UO would not say “no” . . .”
They won’t be coming together. It would be one or the other. As I mentioned before, it’s a different scenario from the previously discussed package deal of USC+UCLA+UW+UO all joining the Big Ten together.
LikeLike
Colin, nope, you’re the one who is consistently out of touch with reality. Have you not wondered why everyone thinks your reasoning is flawed and considers you a troll while nobody agrees with you?
And yes, for UW, it’s 1 extra flight a year and a little longer flights (an extra 10-25 hours a year for their athletes).
You must think that Huskies travel to away games in AZ by covered wagons or something.
LikeLike
Richard: “And yes, for UW, it’s 1 extra flight a year and a little longer flights (an extra 10-25 hours a year for their athletes).”
Guys, help me here. Does anyone understand what he’s talking about?
LikeLike
Colin,
Richard: “So flying long distances 5 times a year is OK but flying 6 times a year is suddenly a deal breaker? Nobody thinks the way you do, Colin.”
Actually, no one thinks the way you do, Richard. If you think the difference in travel requirements of golf teams/tennis teams/volleyball teams/basketball teams etc etc etc for UW in the Pac vs UW in the Big Ten boils down to flying 5 times a year vs flying 6 times a year, you are out of touch with reality.
Let’s start with UCLA’s report to their BoR, assuming UW is similar in terms of travel practices.
Click to access b1attach.pdf
Page 11:
Travel impacts
In examining UCLA’s 25 athletic teams and 700 student-athletes, it is clear that a transition to the Big Ten would impact student-athlete travel.
Fourteen of UCLA’s 25 teams – about 373 students – do not compete in structured conference competition or compete usually in multi-team events and tournaments, and therefore would have minimal or no increase in travel: Women’s Beach Volleyball, Men’s and Women’s Golf, Men’s Volleyball, Men’s and Women’s Cross Country, Indoor Track & Field and Outdoor Track & Field, Women’s Rowing, Women’s Swimming & Diving, Men’s and Women’s Water Polo. Of these 14, four are sports not sponsored by the Big Ten, and would thus maintain existing schedules.
Three of UCLA’s 25 teams currently utilize chartered flights for competitions: Women’s Basketball, Men’s Basketball, and Football (155 students). These teams currently have five or six conference away trips each season.These would see increased flight times of one to three hours each way and time zone changes that may warrant an extra night away from campus on certain occasions.
The remaining eight UCLA teams (175 students) are: Men’s Baseball, Men’s and Women’s Soccer, Men’s and Women’s Tennis, Women’s Softball, Women’s Gymnastics, and Women’s Volleyball. Currently, these teams take two to five conference-related away trips each year. They currently may also travel for
non-conference competition to the Midwest, South, and East Coast once or twice per season. As members of the Big Ten, some non-conference competitions could instead take place in California, reducing travel time. Year-over-year projected travel time increases would be the difference in travel to conference away games in the Midwest compared to the Mountain/Pacific West. In cases where the travel requirements present a significant burden, charter flights or other conference alignments are of course possible. As noted earlier, current UC teams compete in at least two and as many as seven conferences per campus.
1. That’s 3 of your teams with no impact
2. That’s 2 that use charters and travel 5-6 times per year for conference play just like Richard claimed, with 1-3 extra hours per flight plus time changes. They can play more road OOC games relatively close to home.
3. That’s 3 that take 2-5 conference road trips (as Richard claimed) which would grow longer, but would allow for 1-2 shorter road trips OOC to reduce the total burden. They also could move to charters as warranted.
LikeLike
Brian: “Fourteen of UCLA’s 25 teams – about 373 students – do not compete in structured conference competition or compete usually in multi-team events and tournaments, and therefore would have minimal or no increase in travel.”
Sorry Brian, your UCLA/Pac-12 analogy is totally bogus. In the Big Ten both USC and UCLA would compete in 21 sports, not 14.
“The schools will make the move in 2024. It will include all sports except beach volleyball, men’s volleyball and men’s and women’s water polo.”
https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/usc-ucla-planning-to-bolt-for-big-ten-in-seismic-shakeup/
And back to UW, obviously golf team trips to WSU or Oregon State are not analogous golf team trips to Minnesota or Iowa.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Do you understand that the Olympic sports teams of Iowa, Rutgers, Michigan, etc will all be going out to the West Coast twice every year instead of just once?”
Do you understand that you play half the teams at home in conference play in many sports, and often not all of the teams in the conference? Never have anyone travel to both USC and UW in those. It’s not difficult.
For the rest, schedule weekend triangle trips to LA then Seattle (or vice versa) before returning. It’s not difficult.
LikeLike
Brian: “Never have anyone travel to both USC and UW in those.”
Then Brian says ” . . . schedule weekend triangle trips to LA then Seattle (or vice versa) before returning.”
You contradict yourself. Are you going to never have anyone travel to both USC and UW in the same year, or are you going to schedule weekend triangle trips to LA then Seattle?
Brian, two West Coast teams that are 1,000 miles apart will mean twice as many trips to the West Coast (or 1,000 mile ‘triangle’ trips’) every year. You cannot fuzzy math your way out of it.
LikeLike
Colin has trouble understanding that in some sports, conference play is low or non-existent. His examples of flying the golf team and tennis team are especially ludicrous (and shows he pays zero attention to those sports). College golf teams just enter various tournaments and don’t play each other 1 vs 1 (“conference play” is just the conference championship/tournament).
Both the USC and UMich tennis teams play 50% of their matches OOC.
LikeLike
“The schools will make the move in 2024. It will include all sports except beach volleyball, men’s volleyball and men’s and women’s water polo.”
https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/usc-ucla-planning-to-bolt-for-big-ten-in-seismic-shakeup/
LikeLike
Learn to read, idiot. You even quoted the relevant part and got it wrong. That’s full on troll behavior.
Brian: “Fourteen of UCLA’s 25 teams – about 373 students – do not compete in structured conference competition or compete usually in multi-team events and tournaments, and therefore would have minimal or no increase in travel.”
Sorry Brian, your UCLA/Pac-12 analogy is totally bogus. In the Big Ten both USC and UCLA would compete in 21 sports, not 14.
What does the bold part say? Are the words too big for you? I’m pretty sure UCLA knows exactly how many of its teams will be in the B10.
And back to UW, obviously golf team trips to WSU or Oregon State are not analogous golf team trips to Minnesota or Iowa.
Which would be a valid point if any of those trips actually happened.
Those 14 teams they mention above include the golf teams. This is why:
https://gohuskies.com/sports/mens-golf/schedule
Sep 9 (Fri) All Day
Maui Jim Intercollegiate
Scottsdale, AZ
Sep 10 (Sat) All Day
Maui Jim Intercollegiate
Scottsdale, AZ
Sep 11 (Sun) All Day
Maui Jim Intercollegiate
Scottsdale, AZ
Sep 19 (Mon) All Day
Husky Invitational
Bremerton, WA
Sep 20 (Tue) All Day
Husky Invitational
Bremerton, WA
Sep 26 (Mon) All Day
Inverness Intercollegiate
Toledo, OH
Sep 27 (Tue) All Day
Inverness Intercollegiate
Toledo, OH
Oct 21 (Fri) All Day
Georgia Collegiate
Alpharetta, GA
Oct 22 (Sat) All Day
Georgia Collegiate
Alpharetta, GA
Oct 23 (Sun) All Day
Georgia Collegiate
Alpharetta, GA
Oct 31 (Mon) All Day
Cal Poly Collegiate
Carmel, CA
Nov 1 (Tue) All Day
Cal Poly Collegiate
Jan 30 (Mon) All Day
Southwestern Invitational
Westlake Village, CA
Feb 1 (Wed) All Day
Southwestern Invitational
Westlake Village, CA
Feb 8 (Wed) All Day
Amer Ari Intercollegiate
Waimea, HI
Feb 9 (Thu) All Day
Amer Ari Intercollegiate
Waimea, HI
Feb 10 (Fri) All Day
Amer Ari Intercollegiate
Waimea, HI
Feb 13 (Mon) All Day
Genesis Invitational Collegiate Showcase
Pacific Palisades, CA
Mar 6 (Mon) All Day
Lamkin Grips San Diego Classic
San Diego, CA
Mar 7 (Tue) All Day
Lamkin Grips San Diego Classic
San Diego, CA
Stanford University Logo
Mar 30 (Thu) All Day
The Goodwin
Stanford, CA
Apr 1 (Sat) All Day
The Goodwin
Stanford, CA
Apr 10 (Mon) All Day
Western Intercollegiate
Santa Cruz, CA
Apr 11 (Tue) All Day
Western Intercollegiate
Santa Cruz, CA
Apr 12 (Wed) All Day
Western Intercollegiate
Santa Cruz, CA
Apr 28 (Fri) All Day
Pac-12 Championships
Stanford, CA
Apr 29 (Sat) All Day
Pac-12 Championships
Stanford, CA
Apr 30 (Sun) All Day
Pac-12 Championships
Stanford, CA
May 15 (Mon) May 17 (Wed) All Day
NCAA Regionals
May 26 (Fri) May 31 (Wed) All Day
NCAA Championships
Scottsdale, AZ
The only change would be where the conference championship is played. All their other invitationals could stay exactly the same. They are coming to OH already as much as they go to any P12 schools.
LikeLike
You really do struggle with this whole reading thing, don’t you? Says a lot about TAMU’s faculty standards.
I said:
“Do you understand that you play half the teams at home in conference play in many sports, and often not all of the teams in the conference? Never have anyone travel to both USC and UW in those. It’s not difficult.
For the rest, schedule weekend triangle trips to LA then Seattle (or vice versa) before returning. It’s not difficult.
You reply:
Brian: “Never have anyone travel to both USC and UW in those.”
Then Brian says ” . . . schedule weekend triangle trips to LA then Seattle (or vice versa) before returning.”
You contradict yourself.
No, I don’t. I specifically broke it into two separate groups of teams – the vast majority who do not play conference teams multiple different times per year, and those who do.
If you only play everyone once (or less) per year, then don’t give anyone two west coast games. That’s so simple even you might understand it.
For teams that play multiple teams multiple times (is this hoops only?), then schedule them to play both USC and UW in one weekend trip much like how road trips work now (EX. Th/Sa or F/Su in hoops). They can travel from LA to Seattle on the off day between games. Again, it’s so simple even you might be able to understand it.
LikeLike
Brian, your quibbling is nonsensical and childish. It is screamingly obvious that two Big Ten schools on the West Coast that are 1,000 miles apart would entail a great deal more travel for all sports vs an addition such as Colorado or Mizzou.
Do you subscribe to Richard’s philosophy that Seattle and Denver are same-same travel for Big Ten schools?
LikeLike
That’s a strange way to admit you were just blatantly, factually wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
“It is screamingly obvious that two Big Ten schools on the West Coast that are 1,000 miles apart would entail a great deal more travel for all sports vs an addition such as Colorado or Mizzou.”
At no point in this entire conversation has that ever been the question under discussion. You said UW was in for a travel nightmare and gave some factually incorrect reasons why CU would be a better option. Then you chose to die on the hill of how bad the travel would be for UW, which was proved false again.
Nobody doubts Boulder and Columbia are geographically closer to the midwest. It’s irrelevant, since neither school is a candidate for joining the B10 (CU isn’t wanted, MO isn’t wanted and wouldn’t leave the SEC), but it is true.
“Do you subscribe to Richard’s philosophy that Seattle and Denver are same-same travel for Big Ten schools?”
I believe he said they were about the same for USC. That I do agree with. Denver is a little closer but involves a time change.
For the current 14 members? Of course Denver is closer. UW is still a better candidate for adding.
LikeLike
Bitchy Boy Brian: “Nobody doubts Boulder and Columbia are geographically closer to the midwest. It’s irrelevant, since neither school is a candidate for joining the B10 (CU isn’t wanted, MO isn’t wanted and wouldn’t leave the SEC),”
You speak on behalf of the Big Ten and Mizzou as though you are their spokesman. You aren’t. If UCLA is blocked from joining the Big Ten, either Colorado or Mizzou would be far better candidates than Washington to replace them.
You speak of the collective ramblings on this forum as though that is the actual mindset of Warren and the Big Ten presidents. It isn’t. You are in denial.
LikeLike
No, I’m speaking for people with common sense, which all but 1 person here seems to have in decent measure. CU and MO are poor candidates for the B10. There is no information anywhere indicating that either of them has gotten even the slightest hint of interest from the B10 in the recent round of expansion.
Even realignment amateurs can see they are poor fits:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/
I’m pretty sure the presidents know it , too.
There is also no indication that MO or its fans want to leave the SEC for the B10. Why would they pay a big exit fee just to make about the same money and still not play many of their old rivals? Why give up all the TX recruiting access they have now?
LikeLike
Brian: “CU and MO are poor candidates for the B10. There is no information anywhere indicating that either of them has gotten even the slightest hint of interest from the B10 in the recent round of expansion.”
Once again, you completely distort the issue. We were not discussing B1G expansion candidates, we were talking about replacements for UCLA if the CA BOR and/or governor were able to block UCLA from moving to the Big Ten. Why can’t you get that into your head?
LikeLike
“We were not discussing B1G expansion candidates, we were talking about replacements for UCLA if the CA BOR and/or governor were able to block UCLA from moving to the Big Ten.”
They’re the same thing. Why can’t you get that in to your head?
LikeLike
And lest we forget, the B10 met with UW and UO. That shows some minimum level of interest on both sides. CU had no such meetings.
LikeLike
Brian: “And lest we forget, the B10 met with UW and UO. That shows some minimum level of interest on both sides. CU had no such meetings.”
You don’t know who they met with. The Big Ten office said they had heard from over ten schools but didn’t name them.
LikeLike
You don’t know who they met with. The Big Ten office said they had heard from over ten schools but didn’t name them.
I do not recall that the Big Ten office specifically acknowledged hearing from over ten (or any number of) schools. The news is always unsourced. But to the extent there is any reporting at all, it’s about Washington and Oregon, not Colorado.
The vast majority of your pro-Colorado arguments have been travel related. Conferences and schools have shown repeatedly that travel is pretty low on their list of reasons for realigning (or declining to do so).
I think you are vastly overstating the issue anyway — using the word “nightmare” for something that is just a little inconvenient. But even if your characterization is correct, that is not how such decisions are made, going by the major conference realignment moves of the last 30–40 years or so.
LikeLike
Marc: ” I do not recall that the Big Ten office specifically acknowledged hearing from over ten (or any number of) schools.”
UCLA and USC Have Moved On. What Happens to Everyone Else?
Notre Dame, the ACC and the remaining members of the Pac-12 must figure out how to play their hands amid the college football consolidation.
By Laine Higgins Wall Street Journal Updated July 5, 2022 12:16 pm ET
The shock from last week’s stunning defection of Southern California and UCLA from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten Conference hasn’t settled yet, but another urgent question is already on the table for college football: What happens to everyone else?
It’s an especially pressing matter for the reeling remnants of the Pac-12, the Atlantic Coast Conference and famously independent Notre Dame. For the moment, all three are on the outside looking in at the dominant conference juggernauts being built by the Southeastern Conference and the Big Ten.
All three of those big constituencies must figure out how to play their hand in this newly destabilized world of big-time college sports. Since Thursday, 10 schools have informally reached out to Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren, said a person familiar with the matter.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-football-pac-12-big-ten-notre-dame-11657026907?st=hf6679h3z1ld2yg
10 Schools Have Reached Out About Joining The Big Ten
https://thespun.com/big-ten/10-schools-have-reached-out-about-joining-the-big-ten
LikeLike
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/oregon-big-ten-preliminary-expansion-discussions
UO meeting with B10.
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/washington-latest-pac-12-school-to-meet-with-big-ten
UW meeting with B10.
We have published reports of meetings with UO and UW, which the B10 has not denied. There are no published reports of meetings with any other schools, nor of any interest in P12 schools outside of the northern 4 (UW, UO, Stanford, Cal).
All reporting about CU has been about the B12.
CU to the B10 is your fever dream.
LikeLike
Brian, there is not going to be any further expansion of the Big Ten. Period. The conference will remain at 16 for the rest of your lifetime. All of us understand this except you.
Recent discussion has been about the remote possibility that UCLA is blocked by the CA BOR/politicians and that some other school may be selected as a replacement. That discussion is probablu moot because UCLA will probably join the Big Ten, but it’s not yet a done deal.
LikeLike
Colin,
Stupid trolls are just stupid.
I’m really starting to understand bullet’s comments about Aggies.
“Once again, you completely distort the issue. We were not discussing B1G expansion candidates, we were talking about replacements for UCLA if the CA BOR and/or governor were able to block UCLA from moving to the Big Ten.”
That replacement would expand the B10 from 15 to 16, so they are exactly an expansion candidate.
Why can’t you get that into your head? Have you been checked for senility lately?
LikeLike
I do not recall that the Big Ten office specifically acknowledged hearing from over ten (or any number of) schools. The news is always unsourced.
@Colin: You posted two news stories, apparently attempting to refute the above when they actually confirmed it. The Big Ten office did not acknowledge anything. The stores referred to an anonymous “person familiar with the matter” and named no particular schools.
LikeLike
Marc: “You posted two news stories, apparently attempting to refute the above when they actually confirmed it. The Big Ten office did not acknowledge anything. The stores referred to an anonymous “person familiar with the matter” and named no particular schools.”
Oh yeah, Marc, you’re right. The Wall Street Journal just made up some lies about Warren and the Big Ten and published them to goose up people like you.
LikeLike
“there is not going to be any further expansion of the Big Ten. Period. The conference will remain at 16 for the rest of your lifetime.”
Well if you say it, it must be true. Jackass.
“All of us understand this except you.”
Now you’re using the royal “us”? What makes you think anyone agrees with you about much of anything? You really should look into getting a senility check.
LikeLike
I still think the Pac 12 should add the top Big 12 brands + SDSU to get back into Southern California. I’m taking TT, TCU, and OKSU. There is nothing you can do from keeping UW, UO, Cal and Stanford from leaving when the B1G comes calling but you can be proactive and ensure the Pac 12 lives on. I’m fact I could see this future Pac 12:
PACIFIC
ORSU
WSU
Fresno State
SJSU
SDSU
UA
ASU
SOUTHWEST
UC Boulder
Utah
TT
TCU
Houston
OKSU
SMU
This would be a high flying, high scoring league. In contrast to the defensive minded B1G and SEC.
LikeLike
The Pac can only take schools that want to join them, and seeing as the new B12 will likely pull in at least as much TV money as the new Pac (but likely a little bit more) and all those schools want to be tied to the state of TX, I don’t see how you’re pulling that off.
LikeLike
TT and OKSU were ticketed to what would have been the Pac 16 before UT scuttled the deal at the 11th hour. So I would think there are some at both schools that would entertain the idea now. And you would still have the tie to Texas since TT, OKSU, and TCU are probably the next biggest brands in Texas after UT, A&M, and OU. If I’m OKSU, trips to AZ, CA, CO are preferable to trips to KS, IA, and WV.
We keep getting reports of the Four Corner schools jumping to the Big 12 but no reports about the Pac 12 acquiring any Texas schools when as you said the money will be roughly equal in both leagues. It seems that whichever conference makes the first move will wind up as the #3 league with the other gets relegated to group 0f 7 status, so why not make the first move if you’re the Pac 12?
LikeLike
It’s likely that nobody is jumping anywhere between the B12 and Pac with the money being about equal, but if anything, the B12 will make a little more, and no B12 school will jump to a different league away from where their recruiting grounds and alums are to make less money.
The Pac those B12 schools were potentially joining was a different Pac (and some B12 powers were coming along). When the facts change, people’s motivations change.
LikeLike
startupsandheismans,
The B12 has a large exit fee. The P12 has none. Without a huge financial disparity, teams are only going to move in one direction in that scenario.
LikeLike
Every media report has the Big XII earning more than the Pac-12 in the next deal, or perhaps about the same. Schools do not switch conferences to lose money. Besides that, the Big XII’s exit fee is 2 years of media rights. TX and OK are gladly paying that to get the SEC’s much higher distributions over time. But nobody would pay that to stand still.
And lastly, the Big XII is a stable conference. The Pac-12’s stability is unknown. I cannot think of one good reason why a Big XII school would sign up for that. Yes, it is true that several Big XII schools were willing to move to the Pac years ago, but under vastly different circumstances. That chance has passed.
LikeLike
F😇ck around and find out.
LikeLike
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-10-25/what-ucla-usc-big-ten-travel-hawaii
Hawaii has some tips for USC and UCLA on their extra travel.
LikeLike
The athletes in all sports at the LA schools will be making 3-5 trips to the Midwest/East for B10 games the entire year (if B10 scheduling isn’t exceptionally stupid). That’s not nothing but I would think that’s something the student-athletes can work around, especially since they’re already making 3-5 trips a year flying across half the US (the American West is big; Seattle is only slightly closer to LA than Lincoln is).
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy Breaking News! 😂
“Big 10’s new media rights deal (about $70 million annually/school) more than double Pac-12 but Pac-12’s George Kliavkoff tells LA Times “eventually we’ll catch those guys. We’re going to be looking at expansion.” Sources: Pac-12 adding Dallas Cowboys, NY Yankees & Real Madrid”
LikeLike
Manchester United wants in. Travel partner for Real Madrid.
LikeLike
…but not until 2036, unless Saul Goodman, Perry Mason and She Hulk can find a loophole on their GOR.
LikeLike
Big mistake. The Cowboys have been pretty lousy for years and the Yankees have not won a World Series in more than a decade.
Of course, the Cowboys will create access to Texas and the Yankees can be a backup NYC team to Rutgers.
Overall. those two will weaken the league.
LikeLike
I think you’re underestimating Aaron Judge. He’d make for a dynamic TE. Though, granted, many pitchers won’t fare so well on the gridiron. On the other hand, the ‘Boys would wipe the floor with any college football team (they have also won their division fairly often recently). On the other other hand, while many RM players are fast and dynamic, I’m afraid they’re too small all around and would be absolutely bullied in the trenches.
LikeLike
Why the Michigan athletic department doesn’t like night games.
The Michigan–MSU game is at 7:30pm tomorrow night, the first time that rivalry has been played under the lights. There is a long history of misbehavior by fans on both sides — setting couches on fire, that sort of thing. The athletic department and the police are worried about vandalism after people have been drinking all day.
LikeLike
I obviously forgot that the 2017 game was also played at night.
LikeLike
Michigan – welcome to my world.
LikeLike
Seems like a bunch of “whining” from Michigan to paraphrase Harbaugh.
LikeLike
I don’t consider it whining. Many Big Ten programs (and their fans) have had similarly conflicted views about night games, which they have had to accept with greater frequency at the almighty altar of TV.
LikeLike
It’s 2022. Michigan is going to have to play a few night games each year. That will only be confirmed going forward with the NBC window starting next year.
LikeLike
I don’t believe they are denying or contesting that. Everyone will. Big Ten teams previously could decline to play late-November night games, and it appears starting in 2023 they must accept them.
LikeLike
Seems like a Michigan problem, then. UMich should just not make it’s stadium staff get to work at 8AM gameday to work a night game. Or run more shifts. Do they make stadium staff start work at 12:30AM for a noon game?
LikeLike
Part of that staff is police, security and paramedics, who all have to be there if a bunch of tailgaters are there or on their way there. They can do shifts if there are enough people available, but the Ann Arbor police force isn’t the NYPD in terms of size. And handling over 100,000 fans, most of whom are driving in to the stadium area, is a lot bigger issue than what NW deals with.
OSU has to bring in lots of outside officers to deal with the traffic and crowd. They start making roads one way hours before kickoff even for a noon game, and it lasts for quite a while after the game. Game day restrictions that require enforcement start at 5 am.
All that said, OSU obviously does plenty of night games so it is far from impossible.
But UM is correct about the bad blood and vandalism that rivalry game drives. It’s one reason OSU and MI both refuse to play The Game at night.
LikeLike
Do they make stadium staff start work at 12:30AM for a noon game?
The carousing starts practically the same time no matter what, regardless of the kickoff time.
LikeLike
In my experience, in regard to game day attmosphere, the UofM vs MSU game was always the most aggressively hostile and unruly (bad energy) game Michigan played. Unlike the OSU and ND games, I truly believe the decades of perceived disrespect MSU feels it has suffered at the hands of Michigan plays into this. With only an hour separating them, it’s a short drive for those who come for the post game activities. Yes, M students do paint Sparty (statue) etc. but the MSU fans take it a step further. I would have no problem going to a night game between them, but it is a slightly more fraught experience. With the extra hours of drinking, plus the dark of night, it only makes sense. Yes, my perspective is probably biased.
LikeLike
*atmosphere. -It’s all Sparty’s fault!! 👍😁
LikeLike
Frank tweeted about an interview with Purdue Pres Mitch Daniels. I do not have any up close info, but from a distance it seems like he has been a very good president for Purdue, but he is about to retire.
Daniels made it very clear that Purdue does not want expansion now at least until the LA schools are fully integrated. He also made it clear that he would not support further expansion unless it increased revenue for the existing schools.
“When you talk about expansion, it’s served important purposes. Certainly, the eastward expansion was a little awkward, but I think that hasn’t worked out badly. Now, the grab for the LA market and my own personal view – a good time for a timeout. Let’s see how we can digest this situation, let’s at least see how we intend to because I don’t think anybody has yet and I haven’t seen a plan for what that world would look like. I mean, I don’t think we’re going to send our softball team to LA on a frequent basis to just be a little flip about things but, I think it would be wise to, at least, have an agreed-upon design for the 16 before we plunge ahead to some bigger number.
Carmin: Well, your commissioner has mentioned 20.
Daniels: I know, and that might be the right answer. I can’t say it’s not. I think the westward move is a much longer move, not just in mileage, but in concept than the expansions we’ve seen over the previous 10 years. I just think caution would be in order here. There’s not that much more money in it, I don’t think. People have somewhat overrated and overstated in going beyond 16. I think people have a little bit overestimated the incremental money of the LA schools. It’s real. It’s not as big as some people have thought beyond what we would have had anyway.
Carmin: So it doesn’t average a billion dollars a year?
Daniels: I’m not talking about the total; I’m talking about what it means to the individual schools when it filters down. It’s more, but it’s not massively more.
Carmin: You would have to define massively because right now, I think schools …
Daniels: It’s a few million more a year. But in the context of we’re already over $100 (million).”
So if adding a school breaks even for the others in the league, there may not be any reason to do so. Schools that lose money are totally off the table.
Daniels is now saying pretty much what tOSU and Iowa have stated before. I obviously do not know, but I would expect that most of the schools in the B1G agree with that approach.
https://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/2022/10/28/ncaa-purdue-athletics-big-ten-football-athletes-employees-name-image-likeness/69589717007/
LikeLike
Yep. Adding the LA schools bumped up the per school payout of the new B10 TV deal (towards the end of the said deal) from roughly $71mm/year to $75mm/year. Not nothing, but not school-changing money.
It seems obvious that the B10 won’t expand to decrease it’s per capita payout. It likely won’t expand just to keep the same per capita payout as well. Which really means that unless UO/UW/someone else (UCF? In a few decades?) goes on a Clemson-like run and really increases their fanbase, the only possible additions would be ND or the ACC football powers when the ACC GOR ends (and possibly an even-number addition like Stanford with ND).
To be fair, UO is poised to go on such a run as it’s seen as cool by the kiddies and does well in recruiting despite its location.
LikeLike
The are two potential moments of truth for OU.
1. When Phil Knight passes on or otherwise stops supports OU.
2. When the time comes that the spread in TV income between the PAC and the SEC and B1G makes it very difficult to compete effectively.
Can OU raise enough NIL money without Phil Knight, when SEC and B1G teams are in much better position to do so due a $40 million + advantage in TV revenues.
LikeLike
That’s a good question. Though Uncle Phil could always establish a foundation to fund UO NIL once he enters the great beyond.
And with weakened competition in the Pac, it’s very possible for UO to, if not go on a Clemson-like run (which would require winning national titles), go on a (recent) OU-like run, pretty much winning its conference every year and thus making the 12-team playoffs every year. Would that be enough to raise its fanbase? UO actually is in a somewhat similar situation to Iowa and Clemson: the dominant CFB team with no past history of winning many national titles in a smallish state that it shares with another P5 CFB team but with no NFL team. Though a key difference is that SC is more populated than OR (IA has fewer people than OR). Right now, UO draws as many viewers as Iowa, so on the borderline as a worthwhile addition. If it can increase its viewership to that of Clemson’s (granted, yes, with smaller conference payouts than the B10/SEC but in a more winnable conference), it would be additive.
LikeLike
It sounds like Daniels was just a weak yes for Rutgers, Maryland, USC, and UCLA. It’s damning with faint praise to say that RU and MD were “a little awkward, but I think that hasn’t worked out badly.”
Which really means that unless UO/UW/someone else (UCF? In a few decades?) goes on a Clemson-like run and really increases their fanbase, the only possible additions would be ND or the ACC football powers when the ACC GOR ends (and possibly an even-number addition like Stanford with ND).
One must be very careful when proposing additions that are founded upon recent gridiron success. What goes up can also go down. In a recent post, I had asked how many schools had had Clemson-like runs, other than Clemson. They were pretty much all Southern ones, unless you go back to Penn State under Paterno.
I do not think you can count Oklahoma winning the Big XII almost every year, because OU has been a king since the 1940s. Preserving king status that you already had, though never guaranteed, is certainly easier than creating it out of nothing. I think nobody has created a new king in the last 40 years or so without residing in, or having access to, prime recruiting territory. None of the remaining Pac schools has that.
Of course, there are reasons the Big Ten might add another Pac school or two down the road. But I am assuming the decision won’t be driven by recent gridiron success that could very well be fleeting.
LikeLike
Marc: “One must be very careful when proposing additions that are founded upon recent gridiron success.”
Classic example was the ACC adding Louisville. I betcha they have buyer’s remorse on that one.
LikeLike
Yes, Louisville is Exhibit A. The decade or so before they joined was the best in program history. Since then, they have reverted to their historical average. (Playing an ACC schedule could possibly have something to do with that, but I don’t think explains it entirely.)
As I recall, FSU and Clemson wanted to add another football brand. Louisville has not delivered, but their next best choice (UConn) has performed even worse. But UConn is certainly better academically, so perhaps in hindsight they would have preferred to have the Huskies.
LikeLike
I don’t think the ACC is in any position to care about academics. And Louisville MBB is (despite the poor performance in recent seasons) a king-level program by revenue and fan support.
LikeLike
Richard: “And Louisville MBB is (despite the poor performance in recent seasons) a king-level program by revenue and fan support.”
Those glory days came to an end when Louisville fired Coach Rick Pitino, Athletic Director Tom Jurich and President James Ramsey, all for filthy misconduct.
LikeLike
I don’t think the ACC is in any position to care about academics.
Even middle- and bottom-tier conferences do consider this when expanding.
LikeLike
Marc, I’m not saying whether the ACC does care about academics, I’m saying whether they should care. Which, in their position, should be a “no”. They should be trying to maximize TV value as much as possible.
LikeLike
Classic example was the ACC adding Louisville. I betcha they have buyer’s remorse on that one.
Unless they wanted to try going with 13 teams, it was Louisville or UConn. Yes, the Cards have reverted, but the Huskies have been even worse.
LikeLike
I agree completely with Frug. I don’t see any reason for the ACC to regret adding L’ville as I believe they are at least the ACC median (and probably above the median) as a TV draw. If there’s anything the ACC should regret, it’s not adding WVU earlier.
LikeLike
frug: “Unless they wanted to try going with 13 teams, it was Louisville or UConn.”
The ACC had other options – West Virginia, UCF, Army, Navy, Cincinnati
LikeLike
The ACC had other options – West Virginia, UCF, Army, Navy, Cincinnati.
UConn and Louisville are the only two schools the ACC seriously considered. At the time they made the decision, there would’ve been no reasons to think that UCF or Cincinnati were better choices than Louisville. West Virginia had only just joined the Big XII and was not going to switch again. The service academies have made it clear they do not want to join a major conference.
LikeLike
The ACC had other options – West Virginia, UCF, Army, Navy, Cincinnati
WVU had already joined the Big XII. Cincy and UCF had historically not been any better at FB than Louisville (and FSU and Miami may have put up a fight about adding a third Florida school). The same is also true for Army and Navy (at least in the last 50 years) and they haven’t shown any interest in joining a power conference.
LikeLike
frug, there were other options too – East Carolina, Temple, Buffalo, USF. For that matter, Houston and Tulane are just as close to the Atlantic Coast as Louisville is and both have much better airports. To say the only options were Louisville and UConn simply isn’t true.
LikeLike
East Carolina, Temple, Buffalo, USF. For that matter, Houston and Tulane are just as close to the Atlantic Coast as Louisville is and both have much better airports. To say the only options were Louisville and UConn simply isn’t true.
None of us are saying those were the only options. We are saying that none of those options made more sense at the time than the two they actually considered. Some would have made zero sense at any imaginable time, such as Temple, Buffalo, or East Carolina.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point that the only schools to ascend to king status in recent decades have been located in (what are now) recruiting hotbeds (and when PSU ascended, it was located in a football recruiting hotbed of the time).
Which means the B10 should keep an eye on UCF. UCF’s medical school is younger that USF’s or FSU’s medical school so they aren’t there in terms of research yet, but FL is growing and UCF has a huge student body, meaning a lot of future alums who will follow their football team, and (like Columbus and Austin) Orlando doesn’t have a NFL team. The Citronauts are as likely as any current non-royalty program to go on a Clemson-like run in a decade or few.
LikeLike
Certainly UCF is in an incredible recruiting territory, but I am not sure of its long term research or academic advances.
The State of FL officially declared UF and FSU as the state’s two preeminent research institutions. That may be a factor on where future research dollars go.
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/fsu-uf-named-states-top-research-universities/
In addition, as has been mentioned often here, FL is restricting admission to UF and FSU, even as the state grows in population. That has resulted in increasing selectivity for both of them.
UCS, USF, Univ North FL (UNF) and others will take the excess students, but will not likely improve much academically.
LikeLike
UCF is already the best of the rest (outside the top 2). It’s like the UT-Dallas of FL (which is itself trying to become the UCSD of TX). All 3 of those publics were started post-WWII in metro areas and with a tech focus.
So the question is really whether FL can support more than 2 top publics (like CA).
LikeLike
Richard, the best of the rest by what standards? Certainly football, but academically USF is more highly ranked than UCF.
One big problem that UCF has is that it is an enormous commuter school. There are 60,000 students and less than 8,000 dorm spaces. More than 80% of students are commuters. I do not think that this lends to academic excellence.
In addition, the State of FL has not shown any indication that it is looking for a third state university to push academics. UCF and USF will both get better over time as the FL population quickly expands.
LikeLike
Both USF and UCF have announced goals of joining the AAU (as many schools do).
https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2021/09/27/usf-wants-to-join-an-elite-club-of-universities-50-million-could-help/
After years of striving to achieve “preeminent” status in Florida, finally reaching the goal in 2018, the University of South Florida has set its sights on getting into another prestigious club.
The primary objective is an invitation to the American Association of Universities, a group of 66 major research universities in the U.S. and Canada with top-flight faculties, big research budgets and incoming classes filled with some the nation’s highest-achieving students. The group’s initials, AAU, are starting to become almost as familiar around campus as “USF.”
Former USF president Judy Genshaft sometimes mentioned the goal in speeches. Her successor, Steve Currall, who left the job suddenly over the summer, put it in bold letters in the university’s 10-year strategic plan.
…
And last month, when the state Board of Governors approved the university’s request for an extra $50 million from the Legislature, USF said it would spend most of the money on hiring hundreds of new faculty members — with the goal of getting into the association.
They are overly ambitious to think they’ll get there in 10 years. FSU and Miami haven’t gotten there yet, and they are ahead of USF.
http://www.nicholsonstudentmedia.com/news/board-of-trustees-drafts-ucf-s-future-with-goals-for-2033-more-work-still-needed/article_8cdada32-bb50-11ec-a2f8-7bfa6baee25b.html
The Board of Trustees presented a draft of its strategic plan to meet two academic goals by 2033 at a meeting on Wednesday.
This strategic plan describes a 10-year vision, including how UCF will take intentional steps and make strategic investments to become the university for the future, according to the meeting’s agenda.
The two main goals for this year’s strategic plan are to become eligible for membership in the Association of American Universities and to become a top 25 public research university by 2033.
They have no chance of making it by 2033, but they could get there in time if the state makes it a funding priority.
LikeLike
I got bored, so I returned to the original post topic. What if the B10 follows the rumored SEC scheduling plan of a 3/6/6 with 2 tiers for parity (tier 1 teams lock 2 tier 1 and 1 tier 2; tier 2 teams lock 2 tier 2 and 1 tier 1)?
My tiers:
Tier 1: OSU, MI, USC, PSU, NE, MSU, WI, IA
Tier 2: UCLA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN, UMD, RU
UCLA/IA is a tough call, but someone had to drop to tier 2.
Start with the mandatory games, then add desirable games, then fit the rest:
UMD – RU, MI, MN
RU – UMD, PSU, IN
PSU – OSU, RU, USC
OSU – MI, PSU, IL
MI – OSU, MSU, UMD
MSU – MI, WI, NW
IN – PU, IA, RU
PU – IN, IL, NE
IL – NW, PU, OSU
NW – IL, MSU, UCLA
WI – MN, IA, MSU
MN – WI, UCLA, UMD
IA – NE, WI, IN
NE – IA, USC, PU
UCLA – USC, MN, NW
USC – UCLA, PSU, NE
That is not a good system for the B10. It kills some good rivalries (like IA/MN) and forces a lot of odd choices.
LikeLike
I think you have successfully proven that this is not the scheduling format they will choose.
LikeLike
I (and I’m sure plenty of you as well) have noticed that the B10 has put some of the games with the highest potential viewership on the same week in 2023: UMich-PSU and OSU-MSU on the same week and UMich-MSU and OSU-PSU on the same week. In fact, that latter pair of games are on the same week in 2022 as well. I wonder if that is a deliberate attempt by the B10 to make sure top games/teams are spread across the broadcast partners. On 2024, with 4 kings (and assuming that OSU and UMich are tied to USC while PSU-MSU is saved for sometimes the final weekend), the B10 could put on the same week for its broadcast partners:
OSU-PSU + UMich-MSU + USC vs UW/UNL
UMich-USC + OSU vs MSU/UW + PSU vs UW/UNL
OSU-USC + UMich vs PSU/UW + UW vs MSU or PSU vs Iowa
That would leave half of the following king/king and king/prince matches for other weeks (besides OSU-UMich and USC-UCLA which are at/near the end of the year each year:
USC-PSU
USC-MSU
USC-Iowa
OSU-UNL
OSU-Iowa
OSU-UCLA
UMich-UNL
UMich-Iowa
UMich-UCLA
Also PSU-MSU and PSU-UCLA, which may be last week of the year some years.
LikeLike
In fact, the last week of the year could have:
UMich-OSU + USC vs ND/UCLA + PSU vs UCLA/MSU
And all these big weekends could be spaced 3 weeks apart (so with 2 weeks between them):
Week 0, Labor Day weekend, and weeks 2-3 for OOC games and some B10 games, then the big weekends could be weeks 4, 7, 10, and 13 (Thanksgiving weekend).
The B10 will probably work to ensure that at least 3 of the 4 kings are in action and available for selection in those 6 non-big weeks after full conference play starts (or at least make sure a couple of prince-prince matchups are available to choose from those weeks).
LikeLike
I had a dream, and you are hearing it here first! And Colin might appreciate this:
At least a decade from now, Texas will tire of the SEC and successfully scheme with a slightly remorseful USC to create an alternative 12-team conference for themselves that will consist of:
Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado or Utah, Florida State, Miami
USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Stanford & Cal or Utah & Arizona
WIth lots of kings and princes, the conference will be competitive financially, allow Texas & USC to prevent unfavorable conference rule changes via a 75% super-majority vote requirement, and likely appeal to Nebraska and FSU more than the BiG and SEC, respectively. Oklahoma, UCLA, and Miami will tag along with their more powerful brethren and the Pac remnants will be grateful to be included.
The divisions, formalized or not, will be as listed, with a 5-2-2 conference schedule
LikeLike
Redwood: “And Colin might appreciate this . . .”
You guys seem to believe that I have a woody to get Colorado into the Big Ten. I don’t. I have repeatedly said that I think the Big Ten probably will and undoubtedly should remain at 16 for decades. However, recent discussion have been about who would replace UCLA if the Bruins get blocked. That isn’t further expansion beyond 16, it’s about one school to replace UCLA.
USC is an Ohio St/Michigan/Penn St caliber addition. There aren’t any more USCs out there. After that, there is a small herd of roughly equal Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado. I might add that it would be mighty interesting to know the ten schools that recently contacted Warren after USC and UCLA were announced.
So which school is the best choice to replace UCLA? Just because we now have one solo extreme outlier, does that make it rational to add another one? Colorado is obviously the best cultural fit, it’s contiguous and the Buffs already have an archrival in the Big Ten, Nebraska. Just look at a map:
LikeLike
Colorado is obviously the best cultural fit. . . .
This is an interesting definition of obviousness.
…and the Buffs already have an archrival in the Big Ten, Nebraska.
I don’t know which rivalries deserve the “arch” prefix, but Oklahoma was Nebraska’s primary rival when they were both in the Big 8/12. The Oklahoma rivalry was played more often and was more competitive.
Interestingly, Oklahoma State is the only former Big-8 school that Nebraska played less often in football than Colorado
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado%E2%80%93Nebraska_football_rivalry
LikeLike
Yes, I read that article before posting. It noted that Colorado considered Nebraska its main rival, but the Cornhuskers did not. You also see there that the rivalry was not competitive for most of its history.
LikeLike
Marc: “Yes, I read that article before posting. It noted that Colorado considered Nebraska its main rival, but the Cornhuskers did not. You also see there that the rivalry was not competitive for most of its history.”
I didn’t say that the rivalry was competitive nor did I say that it was mutual. I said that Colorado’s archrival was Nebraska.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that the rivalry was competitive nor did I say that it was mutual. I said that Colorado’s archrival was Nebraska.
Absolutely correct. But the other factors are the reasons why it does not matter very much. Indeed, major conference realignments tend to break old rivalries, not to create or restore them. Texas to the SEC is very much an outlier in that regard.
LikeLike
“USC is an Ohio St/Michigan/Penn St caliber addition. There aren’t any more USCs out there. After that, there is a small herd of roughly equal Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado.”
No, there isn’t. There’s a roughly equal tier of UW, UO and Stanford. Below that would be P12 schools like ASU, UA, CU and UU.
Only in your fevered imagination is CU on the same level as UW, UO and Stanford as far as B10 consideration.
“I might add that it would be mighty interesting to know the ten schools that recently contacted Warren after USC and UCLA were announced.”
Most of the P12, and a few from the B12. Maybe a couple of real dreamers from non-P5 conferences.
“So which school is the best choice to replace UCLA?”
UW or Stanford, depending on your priorities.
“Just because we now have one solo extreme outlier, does that make it rational to add another one?”
It makes it largely irrelevant to the B10’s decision. Travel is a minor consideration for the B10 accepting a new member. Every new member in the last 50 years has stretched the footprint considerably.
“Colorado is obviously the best cultural fit,”
No, it isn’t. Not in any way. Stanford and UW are better academic and athletic fits.
“the Buffs already have an archrival in the Big Ten, Nebraska”
No, they don’t. An archrival reciprocates the feeling. CU is to NE like PSU is to OSU.
From your own link:
The rivalry’s intensity was often disputed; while Colorado generally viewed Nebraska as its biggest rival, Nebraska historically viewed Oklahoma as its most significant rival.
LikeLike
I do wonder whether UT’s decision to move to the SEC would have resulted in a different decision had they known USC was heading to the B1G. Could the allure of playing in the B1G with more like minded institutions plus USC, UCLA, and perhaps more (UW, UO, Cal, Stanford) changed the calculus to head to the SEC?
LikeLike
Honestly, I doubt it. TAMU and other SEC schools were recruiting too well in TX, and the SEC schools are closer to home than the B10 is. In the SEC they have TAMU and AR to revive old rivalries. It’s a decent fit for them.
LikeLike
I also doubt it. Realignment decisions are almost always made for football reasons, and the SEC is overwhelmingly a better football fit for Texas than the Big Ten.
The faculty might have preferred the Big Ten (if they had a say in the matter), but Notre Dame’s faculty preferred it too, and we know how that one turned out.
LikeLike
One thing UO has going for it in terms of a B1G invite (not saying this would sway any votes) is they are all in on football, something only OSU can really say among B1G schools. There isn’t much discernible difference between OSU and PSU and UM in terms of resources and fan support, yet OSU operates in a seemingly different tier. I’m not sure either PSU or UM despite massive resources will do what it takes to compete against the best of the SEC for example. I have no doubt OSU will. I also have no doubt UO will.
It’s interesting you mention the IA comparison. Both get roughly the same TV audience, yet IA is content to cash their B1G check and be mediocre most of the time. Oregon on the other hand has used innovation to work around its inherent disadvantage to punch above its weight class.
Oregon is not a King but they would give the B1G another national title contender. Compare this to the oft mentioned potential ACC additions down the line: UVA, Duke, GT, UNC. These are all weak football brands that will never contend for anything (well I guess if I squint I could see UNC finally realizing its potential).
LikeLike
Eh, UNL is all-in on football too. And I don’t see much indication that Iowa is content to be mediocre (though you certainly could argue that Wisconsin could put more resources in to winning). But let’s not act like recruiting limitations are not real or that every school has a massively wealthy Uncle Phil. UO has done very well building their brand, but they also have limitations they have to work with. In fundamental ways, UO can’t be an SEC-type power even if they want very hard to be (just as UNL can’t be).
LikeLike
Gary Barta allowing Brian Ferentz to remain as OC (and keep getting annual raises) sure seems like they are content with mediocre.
LikeLike
Regarding Iowa, my criticism is not that they aren’t winning national titles or recruiting at an elite level. It is that unlike UO they are not maximizing their potential despite having a lot going for it (fan support, resources, etc.) They have enough money to make Ferentz one of the highest paid coaches in the game but their offense has been terrible for years and has likely cost them multiple wins during that span. Maybe use some of those resources to hire a competent OC? Until this year, there has been no real pressure to make a change, and I doubt there will be a change because Iowa seems content to win 7-8 games most years. This wouldn’t fly at most schools.
Earlier in the season I would have included Wisconsin in my criticism, but they surprisingly made a move to dismiss Paul Chryst. We will see who they hire. Personally I think Jim Leonard would be more of the same (good enough to win the B1G West, not good enough to win a playoff game).
You are correct, UNL is all in.
LikeLike
OK, fair point, guys, on Iowa not replacing the junior Ferentz.
With Wisconsin (and UMich), it’s not so much the coaching as it is the spending. They definitely could prioritize spending on football more. But it would be tough for Wisconsin and Iowa (and UO for that matter) to win once they get to the Final Four, in any case. Schools that have everything (recruiting grounds + money + brand + administration backing + alignment + coaching) have such an advantage. Right now, there are 3 of them (you probably don’t need me to name them) though LSU and UF (possibly USC, FSU, and Clemson; and even Texas) could get there.
Harbaugh at UMich and Heupel at Tenn have done a heckuva job. They have their teams operating pretty much at their ceiling right now (like Bob Stoops back in the day when he started out at OU). That’s top 6 in the country. Capable of winning the national title when the very tippy-top tier have some weaknesses, but still a tougher job than Bama/OSU/UGa.
LikeLike
Regarding Iowa, my criticism is not that they aren’t winning national titles or recruiting at an elite level. It is that unlike UO they are not maximizing their potential despite having a lot going for it (fan support, resources, etc.)
I am not sure this really is the right explanation. It’s not that they are content with mediocrity. Put Brian Ferentz aside for the moment. Other than that, Kirk Ferentz is an historically great coach—for Iowa.
It’s simply impossible for them ever to be an Alabama. For what is possible at Iowa, Ferentz has been terrific. Indeed, quite a few Big Ten programs would be pretty happy to have results like his. (Just ask Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, or Minnesota, to name a few.)
Putting in Brian Ferentz at OC has turned out to be a big blunder, but given the elder Ferentz’s track record up to that point, it was perhaps reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he is allowed to continue, I would chalk it up to incompetence, not that they are actually content with being bad.
LikeLike
Marc,
Brian Ferentz was hired as OL coach in 2012 and did well. In 2017 he became OC and RB coach, after the previous OC was fired. In 2018 it switched to OC/TE. In 2022, he became OC/QB coach.
IA points per game:
2022 – 16.4 (125th/131)
2021 – 23.4 (99th/130)
2020 – 31.8 (40th/128)
2019 – 25.8 (88th/130)
2018 – 31.2 (44th/130)
2017 – 28.2 (66th/130)
2016 – 24.9 (95th/128)
2015 – 30.9 (53rd/128)
2014 – 28.2 (71st/128)
So what was bad enough to get the previous OC fired isn’t bad enough to even stop giving BF raises. Barta is his boss, not Kirk, so this is the school accepting mediocrity. It’s been 6 years, so they know what he is by now. BF played OL in the NFL, and did well coaching it. He has zero experience with QBs, and shouldn’t be coaching them. That blame falls squarely on Kirk, and on Barta for allowing it.
Plus BF was one of 2 coaches accused by players of making racist remarks. The other one got in trouble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Ferentz
In 2017, Ferentz’s offense worked with new starting quarterback Nate Stanley, who replaced the graduated C.J. Beathard. The offense was inconsistent, … After the season, Ferentz switched to coaching tight ends.
2018 and 2019 saw Stanley and the Iowa offense utilize several future NFL players, including tackles Tristan Wirfs and Alaric Jackson, wide receivers Brandon Smith and Ihmir Smith-Marsette, and All-American tight ends Noah Fant and TJ Hockensen. However, Iowa’s offensive inconsistency continued, with Iowa ranking 91st and 86th out of 130 FBS teams in yards per play in ’18 and ’19.
…
Ferentz named quarterback Spencer Petras as Stanley’s replacement prior to the 2020 season. … Iowa’s yards per play fell slightly, though their national rank in YPP remained at 86th out of 130.[12]
In 2021, … Despite the improved field position from the defense, however, Iowa’s offense struggled to score points, ranking 99th in the country in points per game. The Hawkeyes’ yards per play average dropped to 120th in the nation. … After the season, two of Iowa’s top wide receivers, Charlie Jones and Tyrone Tracy, transferred to division rival Purdue.
…
On his year as a running backs coach, Ferentz stated in 2020 during a coaching clinic “I’m like the worst running back coach in America. I was a shitty running back coach… I did it for a year, and I quit. It was too hard. I was no good at it.”[20] After taking over as quarterbacks coach in spring 2022, Ferentz told media “man, I got a lot to learn.”[21]
LikeLike
I think those numbers show something different than you are suggesting. For the first four years of BF’s tenure as OC, he had them headed in the right direction, i.e., they had improved from 95th in FBS to 40th.
Iowa is historically a second quartile football program, regardless of who coaches there, so 40th is probably about where they belong. Of course, they are never going to say outright that 40th is good, but that is the reality whether stated or not.
The wheels fell off the bus last year, but even non-nepotistic programs do not always fire a guy after one bad year, though some do. (I have not dived into the details of whether there was an extenuating circumstance that explained it.)
LikeLike
I see 3 out of the past 4 years at 88th or worse, and the one good year was the COVID year so it’s an outlier in many ways. He yo-yo’d the first few years, and some of that can be dependent on the players (when you have a new starting QB vs a returning QB).
I also see quotes from a coach admitting he doesn’t know about the position he is coaching and is bad at it. A good HC wouldn’t put him in that position twice in 6 years, but he also shouldn’t accept it.
And don’t forget the allegations from former players. That should also carry some weight in evaluations.
LikeLike
There isn’t much discernible difference between OSU and PSU and UM in terms of resources and fan support, yet OSU operates in a seemingly different tier.
Up to the end of the last century, UM and OSU were pretty similar historically. OSU has the advantage that Ohio produces more high school football talent than the state of Michigan. Also, UM was derailed in this century by two catastrophically bad coaching hires, whereas OSU made great ones.
Anyhow, I am not sure that excellence is explained by arguing that the others are not trying hard enough. Iowa should fire Brian Ferentz, but there are a boatload of other reasons why they could never replicate Ohio State, no matter how hard they tried.
LikeLike
Or teams may try too hard and make what might be major boo-boos,
Michigan State giving Mel Tucker a 10 year $95 million dollar contract after one great year and the potential threat of offers from bigger programs.
Texas A&M giving Jimbo Fisher that 10 year fully guaranteed $95 million contract. The key is the fully guaranteed. Absent that, would Fisher survive this season?
Going back a long time and in a different manner, BC, Syracuse and Pitt leaving the Big East to go to the wilderness (for them) of the ACC. The loss of VT and Miami hurt the Big East, but these three killed the football BE, which could have maintained its status as a P6.
LikeLike
Bernie: “Going back a long time and in a different manner, BC, Syracuse and Pitt leaving the Big East . . . . The loss of VT and Miami hurt the Big East,”
The Big East sealed its doom on the day that the conference was founded without inviting Penn State.
LikeLike
The Big East’s problem was being a silly hybrid of members; SU, BC and Pitt are distinctly different animals from Seton Hall, Providence and Georgetown. Once football entered the equation, its long-term future was doomed, especially after Swofford outwitted Mike Tranghese in the eat-or-be-eaten battle 20 years ago.
LikeLike
vpo819: ” . . . especially after Swofford outwitted Mike Tranghese in the eat-or-be-eaten battle 20 years ago.”
Yeah, but before that Swofford could have expanded the ACC from eight schools to 18 with Miami, FSU, South Carolina, VT, WV, Pitt, Penn State, Rutgers, Cuse and BC. All were available for plucking at that time. So let’s not credit Swoffie with too much smarts.
LikeLike
Or teams may try too hard and make what might be major boo-boos. . . . BC, Syracuse and Pitt leaving the Big East to go to the wilderness (for them) of the ACC. The loss of VT and Miami hurt the Big East, but these three killed the football BE, which could have maintained its status as a P6.
I am not sure I follow your train of thought. BC, Syracuse, and Pitt obviously hurt the Big East by leaving, but they did not hurt themselves. I have never before heard anyone say that they were ultimately worse off in the ACC. All you are saying is that the BE would have been better off had they remained, which of course it would: no conference wants to lose members.
While it is impossible to game out every scenario, I think the BE would have very obviously been a notch below any of the current P5. It would have been the only one of the then-P6 that lacked a first- or even second-tier football program—kings and barons in Mandel’s terminology. Inevitably, something had to give.
The Big East sealed its doom on the day that the conference was founded without inviting Penn State.
Very likely true.
LikeLike
I agree that not taking Penn State was a fiasco.
My comment about the others is taking a long term perspective. None of three have accomplished much if anything in the ACC, other than an occasional year like Pitt last year and Cuse this year.
There is no reason to expect that the Big East would have lost its P6 or gotten a worse deal than the ACC, so there is also no particular reason to believe that the move to the ACC was a financial advantage. If the BE had not collapsed, would they be making less than the ACC? Who knows. Certainly the BE covered a huge population, though not football hotbeds for sure.
Now decades later if the ACC breaks up in 2036, BC probably has no where to go. Could it suffer the fate of UConn and become a P5 independent? No other P5 league will have any interest in them. Syracuse could suffer a similar fate.
Or they could both wind up in a league with leftovers somewhere between P5 and G5. If Tobacco Road really wants to stay together, the ACC will survive as the number 4 P5, still ahead of the PAC, but behind the Big 12.
I think that Pitt should end up in the Big 12 as a natural geographical rival to Cincinnati and WVa, so they should be OK.
Do we know that any of this would happen, no. On the other hand it is not as though the move to the ACC has worked out for them.
For that matter, the best days of VaTech and more recent Miami were in the BE. The move to the ACC for VaTech made complete sense. As to Miami, that is not as clear, but at least they had a geographical reason to move.
LikeLike
“There is no reason to expect that the Big East would have lost its P6”.
There’s plenty of reason to expect it. The trend in college football is that the powers consolidate and even the mid-level teams consolidate. Expecting the BE to survive until now is like expecting the SWC (with it’s small footprint) to survive until now. The BE’s issues of having a footprint that mostly didn’t care that much about college football and weak local recruiting grounds wasn’t going away. And even if the ACC eventually ends up like the BE was (like the Pac and maybe the B12 as well), it still made sense for Syracuse and Pitt to jump to get at least a few decades of more money and P5 status. BTW, after Miami and VTech left, the BE wasn’t ever going to pull in the money the ACC did because there were no football powers like FSU/Miami/Clemson left in the BE.
LikeLike
You may be correct. But, when the pie stops growing, those who to date have not been content with the money they were making will start scheming ways to make more. That is how we got to where we are now.
Moreover, it’s one thing to boot out a conference member. It’s quite another to bail on a conference for a better conference.
LikeLike
Redwood:
1. When you get to the P2, there aren’t that many better conferences left. Schools like OSU and UMich aren’t forsaking the B10 (which will make more than the SEC and generally will make about as much) for a few million more a year.
2. The pie hasn’t stopped growing yet, and barring a catastrophic war/depression (in which we’ll all have bigger problems to worry about), I don’t see the pie at least keeping up with inflation.
LikeLike
None of three have accomplished much if anything in the ACC, other than an occasional year like Pitt last year and Cuse this year.
Syracuse, Pitt, and BC were not going to be football powers in any conference. The move was about exposure and money, as such moves almost always are. I mean… Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers have not accomplished much in the Big Ten, but they are happy to cash the check every year.
There is no reason to expect that the Big East would have lost its P6 or gotten a worse deal than the ACC, so there is also no particular reason to believe that the move to the ACC was a financial advantage. If the BE had not collapsed, would they be making less than the ACC? Who knows.
I think you are perhaps writing this with your heart, and not your head. The Big East (after Miami and VT left) lacked any top-tier or even second-tier football programs. They most assuredly would have made less than the ACC, which for all its faults does have a few top football brands.
The term P6 (or P5) basically refers to conferences that have guaranteed slots in major bowls. There is no rule that makes this status eternal — it is totally dependent on having a product that those bowls are willing to pay for. Even before the league’s final collapse (when it was still technically a P6 conference), the fact that it was noticeably weaker than the other five was much discussed. At some point, you need to live up to that billing or it gets taken away.
LikeLike
Assuming the B1G and SEC take the top brands of the ACC in the future, there is still a group of schools remaining that would would allow the ACC to live on in some form:
BC
SU
Pitt
Louisville
Wake Forest
VT?
NC State?
Clemson?
Miami?
I include Clemson and Miami above because it’s unclear whether either would be added by the SEC or B1G. Remember this would occur 10+ years from now. If Clemson falls back to its historical average, then I don’t see the SEC taking them when they already have SC. In the case of Miami, FSU and UF give you FL so not sure the SEC needs Miami. And while I would add Miami to the B1G, we have to assume its lack of AAU status would prevent that from happening.
I could see NC State in the SEC but only as a combo with UNC. If the SEC can get UNC alone or with Duke, then NC State has nowhere to go. Similar thing with VT. I’m sure the SEC would want UVA, but I feel UVA would prefer the B1G. Does the SEC want VT without UVA?
Even if you move Clemson. Miami , VT, and NC State to the SEC/B1G, there’s still a decent core left to continue on. You could add UConn and/or UMass. You could add USF. Maybe ECU or some of the upstart NC programs. This would likely be the weakest of the remaining P5 leagues, but it’s still better than the G5. If Clemson and Miami are still in the ACC, then you can try and go after UCF, Cincinnati, and/or WV, who may prefer being in an Eastern league.
LikeLike
Yeah, even without 1-3 football powers, the ACC will still be in the M3 range around the Pac and B12. And while it may seem logical for the top brands in the M3 to consolidate, it’s most likely that no schools jump between them as the payout differential just doesn’t justify that.
LikeLike
The B10 has stated that AAU status is not a requirement for membership. It’s an indicator of the type of school they want (heavy focus on doctoral research), but they understand the AAU can be finicky. Miami is close to AAU membership anyway. They are certainly good enough to accept if everything else is up to par.
LikeLike
The ACC’s best hole card is that it has 15 members, and there are only a few schools the Big Ten could imaginably take. Any combination of NC or VA schools is very likely dilutive. There isn’t a single strong football program that delivers either state by itself, and if you take a bunch of them you are watering down the league too much. We are probably past the point where you add schools to get cable subscribers, as the Big Ten did with Maryland and Rutgers. The SEC’s strategy is harder to guess at, but I think there is a very good chance they take a pass on NC/VA for the same reasons.
LikeLike
Right, the ACC will definitely survive.
LikeLike
Marc, I think there is a flaw in the logic you and Richard are using about dilutive additions. If you flip this on its head, the marquee schools should utlimately decide to ditch their poor conference brethren and form new conferences that only include the more elite programs.
A so-called 12-20 team super-conference would earn even more money than they do in their current conferences. Such a conference would probably have Florida, FSU, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, USC, and likely 4-8 others (Auburn, UCLA, Wisconsin and/or Washington, ND and/or Clemson, and perhaps Oregon).
LikeLike
I think there is a flaw in the logic you and Richard are using about dilutive additions. If you flip this on its head, the marquee schools should ultimately decide to ditch their poor conference brethren and form new conferences that only include the more elite programs.
I think the marquee schools want a few punching bags on their schedule. Even the kings can’t have double-digit wins every year if their schedule consists entirely of other kings.
I have said before that if the Big Ten were re-forming from scratch, and ignoring history, it probably would not take two Indiana schools. That is a very different matter than kicking them out, now that you have them.
But just because the Big Ten has no plans to kick out existing members who are weak at football, does not mean it wants to add even more schools of that type.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
Yes, that’s the NFL lite plan that many fans advocate for. Usually it’s because they only watch big games (their school didn’t play CFB, was I-AA or smaller, or it stinks at I-A football), or so the big boys and their money obsession get out of the way so the rest can return to “normal” college football with regional conferences and not chasing the almighty dollar all the time. They are clearly not ADs or presidents who have to deal with the finances.
I’m with Marc. The kings want some easier wins on their schedule. If they wanted to drop the other schools, they would have by now – just like the Pac did in their history, getting rid of Idaho. What they do want is to not dilute their payouts more by adding more below average members.
LikeLike
Right, colleges aren’t NFL teams (yet). They have other stuff they care about. Speaking for the B10, pretty much all the Midwestern B10 schools want to visit Chicago for alumni outreach/donations. The 2 biggest dogs (OSU and UMich) have stated that their fans like playing neighboring schools they can easily travel to and easily get tickets to (the IN schools). IU (MSU), UIUC (OSU), NU (UMich), and UMTC (UMich, Iowa, Wisconsin, UNL, and I guess PSU) have trophy games with bigger football powers. Many B10 schools also have a lot of East Coast alums and so like visiting the East Coast (RU and UMD) and for recruiting.
So that means the B10 powers havc reasons to not kick anyone out, but they’re also not adding dilutive schools (OSU and UMich fans can’t easily travel to any new addition and there aren’t any trophy rivals outside the B10 that are realistic additions (ISU isn’t realistic). Though being in the Bay Area does help Stanford’s cause due to the high number of B10 alums (and some recruits) there. To a lesser degree, so does being in Seattle (Washington).
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-finalizing-six-year-2-3-billion-extension-of-media-rights-deal-with-espn-and-fox-sports/
Deal almost done.
LikeLike
Huge win for a conference who just lost its two biggest schools (brands) to proactively get this done-with a little sugar on top. The B12 put together a very experienced, well connected team. Good for them.
LikeLike
Yormark took all the slings and arrows for being a blowhard salesman unworthy of his position, yet closed the deal from the Windex side of the window. Kliavkoff’s fake-it-till-you-make-it bluster better pay off, or their WILL be defections. Tank’s Cranks hardest hit.
LikeLike
Eh, likely not this round. The B12 schools will pull in about as much as the Pac schools and the B10 is sitting pat for now.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff really needs to shut about why UCLA should not leave the PAC for the B1G. He seems to be almost relying on a change.
It does not really look as though any other PAC schools are going anywhere for now.
LikeLike
Bernie, what Kliavkoff should do is what the ACC did after losing Maryland: circle the wagons.
Add SDS, Boise, try to get BYU, either Colorado St or AFA, maybe UNLV and then ask them all to sign a Draconian 20-year GOR with $100 million exit fee. The B12 has publicly announced that it has its sights on the P12 for expansion. If Kliavkoff can’t get them all to sign, at least he can say “I tried.”
If the P12 loses the Four Corners to the B12, then the P12 goes from M3 to G6 and the P12 Network goes from pitiful to deceased.
LikeLike
The Big XII managed to increase its payout per school while losing its two best programs. Very impressive.
Now George Kliavkoff is on the clock. Nobody expects him to match the Big XII’s $47m per school. But he probably needs to hit the $40s to be reasonably assured that his current members will remain loyal.
LikeLike
Let’s stick to only the TV money and exclude the other stuff for an apples-to-apples comparison. The B12 will get $380/12 schools or $31.67mm/year/school in TV money.
Bob Thompson has the Pac eventually landing a $300mm deal, or $30mm/year/school. Probably with a portion on streaming though, so the B12’s big win over the Pac will be exposure, with the B12 having their 4 biggest games of the year and CCG on ESPN while the Pac will have a lot of content on streaming.
BTW, if OU and Texas had stayed in the B12, the B12 probably would have pulled in around $550mm/10 schools, or $55mm per school. Let’s say $52-58mm/school to account for uncertainty.
The Pac would have pulled in $500mm/12 schools or $41.67mm/school.
B10 would have been at around $71mm/school (instead of $75mm/school with the LA schools).
The SEC on it’s already undervalued TV deals would have been at $50mm/school without adding Texas and OU.
While the SEC will catch up with the B10 in it’s next TV deal (about a decade from now), even with a generous look-in bump for adding Texas and OU, the 16-school SEC will take in about $60mm/school in TV money until it gets a new TV deal.
So Texas made the move to the SEC solely for recruiting purposes.
LikeLike
So Texas made the move to the SEC solely for recruiting purposes.
I think after all revenue sources are counted, they will be ahead financially too. I agree that the difference in the first few years might not be as big as most people thought. But still, they did not move to break even.
LikeLike
My point is that, yes, Texas would still make more money in the SEC (especially in the long-term, but that’s a decade or so away), but, especially when your take in to account the B12 exit fee, Texas wouldn’t actually make all that more money in the SEC (and Texas has tons of money anyway). So yes, it seems like their main motivation was recruiting, or at least not letting A&M become the supreme recruiting power in TX.
LikeLike
Richard – wrong again.
According to the SEC’s 2021 tax documents, the SEC received $588,115,430 in TV and radio revenue. That accounts for $42m of the $54m each school received for 2021.
Let’s do a little back of the napkin math.
Current CBS, ESPN & SECN deals equaled $588m last year. The CBS deal is worth around $55m of that. In 2024, subtract $55m from the total and add $330m for the new ABC tier 1 deal, and you get $863m. That deal was negotiated prior to UT & OU joining the SEC. They will receive a pro-rata deal equal to $61.64m each. Add $123.29m to 863m and you get $986.29m in total conference revenue. Now, let’s look at adding a 9th game and the revenue created by having more 4m+ viewer games with UT & OU playing SEC schools. Let’s say the football regular season is worth 80% of the value of the contract. I’d say that’s a little on the conservative side, but fair and makes the math easier. 80% of $986.29m is $789m. Then, let’s say the SECCCG is worth $59m by itself. So $730m divided by an eight-game conference schedule is $91.25m. Add a ninth conference game, so add $91.25m to the $986.29 and you get $1.077.51B. I know some of the state of Texas doesn’t pay full freight on the SECN but with UT in the conference, they will. Also, adding the state of Oklahoma paying full freight some slight value. Maybe the UT & OU, the SECN can justify a higher out of market price.
Let’s say all-in TV & radio SEC money in 2025 is $1.1B ($68.75m per school before NCAA and bowl payouts are added). That’s still less than the B1G’s $1.3B + BTN revenue, but it’s a heck of a lot more than the B12. And I’m not taking into account the look-ins for ESPN/ABC and profit sharing with the SECN. Therefore, UT will receive a sizable bump – even with the loss of the LHN – in the SEC than if it had stayed in the B12.
LikeLike
Alan, OK, I was going off of what Mandel had posted as the 14-school SEC’s TV money ($700mm/year).
LikeLike
Alan,
One quibble. I don’t think payouts directly scale linearly with the number of conference games in the season. Adding a 9th conference game reduces the total inventory, and likely removes good OOC games to be replaced by SEC games instead. If you told me the SEC promised to drop their I-AA games for the 9th game, that would be different.
I don’t know how to quantify the value of the change, but you also may be underselling the value UT and OU will bring, especially with CFP expansion. I’d expect the SEC to almost equal or exceed the B10’s total payout (depending on the CFP revenue model).
LikeLike
Brian – I tried to go low, or risk being labeled a SEC sunshine pumper. However, I think I have greatly underestimated the value of UT & OU playing the likes of Alabama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, A&M and the rest on an annual or every other year basis. As ESPN’s Burke Magnus said last month in a podcast, CFB value is all about rivalries and matchups. UT & OU bring the RRR to the SEC and rekindle long-simmering rivalries between UT & Arkansas, and UT & A&M, while setting up wonderful conference games like we’ve witnessed as OOC games over the last few years – 2019 LSU-UT (8.63m viewers) and 2022 Alabama-UT (10.6m).
I highly doubt the SEC schools will be allowed to drop their OOC P5 requirement with the adoption of a 9-game conference schedule (unlike Michigan’s 2023 schedule). Going forward, I would expect SEC schools will have a 9-game conference schedule, one P5 OOC game, one FCS game, and one G5 game.
LikeLike
So if you use $863mm as the starting point instead of $700mm, at 14 schools, the SEC would take in about $62mm/school. A little more than the B12 if they had kept Texas and OU, but not a huge about more. With Texas + OU, I added $250mm to $863 to get $1112. That might be too much, but I think your addition of the 9th conference game is a bit too much too (as yes, some attractive OOC games owned by the SEC would go away). Anyway, that still gets to roughly $70mm/school.
LikeLike
Alan,
One thing I’ll be curious to see is what happens with UT vs AR. That rivalry means a lot to the older fans, but they’ve only played 6 times since 1991, and 2 of those were bowl games. Will the rivalry get rekindled for the younger generations, or has it died out and some new SEC rivalry will replace it (UT vs AU – it’s a rule all SEC schools must have a rivalry with AU, right?)?
LikeLike
Brian – I think a UTx/Arkansas annual game depends on what is decided on the timing of the UTx/A&M matchup. If Texas plays the A&M game on rivalry weekend, then Arkansas may have to play LSU the last week of the season. If the SEC keeps LSU/A&M game to end the season, then UTx can play Arkansas that weekend and Oklahoma can play Mizzou.
I’ll re-post my best guess on the annual games tomorrow, but here’s a sneak peak.
Texas – Oklahoma, A&M and Arkansas
LSU – A&M, Bama or Florida, and Ole Miss.
LikeLike
The pigs get UT fans fired up. It was the #2 rivalry after OU from the mid-60s to mid-80s and maybe beyond. We’ve played them with enough frequency it hasn’t fallen off the radar. And of course, more than anyone else in the SEC but OU and A&M.
LikeLike
bullet: “It was the #2 rivalry after OU from the mid-60s to mid-80s”
For about 20 years I’d say it was UT’s #1 rivalry . . .
https://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2019/dec/06/frank-and-darrell-unique-rivalry/
LikeLike
bullet,
I’m just wondering if that’s true for the younger fans. If they don’t remember UT before Vince Young, how important can AR be to them?
At one point, OSU fans would’ve been convinced that Illibuck would always be an important rivalry.
It would be nice if UT/AR does get revived, whether it’s annual or not.
LikeLike
Canzano: Big 12 beats Pac-12 to finish line — but not bottom line
Pac-12 source: “We are very confident to beat that number.”
JOHN CANZANO
OCT 30
The Big 12 Conference stepped in front of the Pac-12 Conference and got its media rights deal done early. It’s a six-year contract with ESPN and FOX, as first reported on Sunday by Sports Business Journal.
The total value of the deal is $2.28 billion. Average annual payout, split between members: $380 million.
The market for live sports programming is hot. Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark got the extension done early. Give him credit for doing what he promised he’d do. But it sounds like the Big 12 beat the Pac-12 to the finish line — but not the bottom line.
The Big 12’s average per-school annual payout: $31.6. million.
“We are very confident to beat that number,” a Pac-12 source told me Sunday.
The Pac-12 is still negotiating. The original projections from industry sources placed the annual payouts in the range of $27 million to $29 million for the 10 remaining members. That would have put the Pac-12 Conference 10-15 percent below the Big 12. But that was before Amazon waded into the fray.
Amazon wants to be in the college live-sports programming space but doesn’t have the infrastructure to produce games. It uses the NFL Network for the Thursday Night Football production. The Pac-12 Networks already handle the production of 36 football games.
Maybe we should wait to see what happens, but it feels like Pac-12 could land somewhere in the neighborhood of $32-34 million per school.
LikeLike
If the Pac has to pay Amazon production costs, their final per capita numbers may be slightly higher than the B12’s but their overall take wouldn’t be, and their exposure would be worse. Still doesn’t change the overall picture, which is that the Pac, B12, and ACC are all pretty similar and in the M3 well behind the P2 so likely no schools are moving between them.
LikeLike
Not surprisingly, the B12 deal has a pro rata clause for future expansion, which they’re already flashing around. The PAC12 meeting this week to discuss their media negotiations should be a fly-on-the-wall worthy. But wait, Wilner to the rescue! tweeting that 17 yr old recruits really do love to watch games on their iphones- while Canzano speed dials Yoda (Bob Thompson) for another quotable dose of reassuring agitprop. If only we could bottle it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is remarkable that Canzano does not seem to mind having no other expert he can call except Thompson. That will bite him in the butt someday. Thompson is obviously competent, but he has blind spots and is wrong sometimes, just like everybody.
LikeLike
Agree. Thompson’s a smart guy and a good source, but has admitted the new sports economy (NIL, streaming etc) is dramatically different than when he was at FS. Canzano’s new post implies that Amazon is about to ‘bring a bag’ to the Pac12 table, arguing they’re desperate to acquire sports rights. This, despite the fact there are seemingly no other bidders. Apple’s earnings call gave the impression they were sitting this one out and Amazon is not going to pay one dime more than necessary.
LikeLike
Eh. Bob Thompson has been pretty spot on so far (maybe off on this detail or the other but generally in the range).
The end result is that the M3 leagues will all be pretty close to 1 another.
LikeLike
BT two days ago. “The Big 12 isn’t near as close to a TV agreement as they thought.” If you mean he’s been ‘spot on’ in his Capt. Obvious contention the B12 and Pac numbers won’t be THAT far apart, correctamundo! Though exposure on ESPN/Fox makes the B12 deal far superior under any circumstance. Also, his claim a move to the Big Ten doesn’t make financial sense for some Pac-12 schools is ludicrous. He’s obviously a very accomplished, well connected guy, but his PAC homerism doesn’t always serve him well.
LikeLike
You Canadian? 😉
LikeLike
If the Pac and B12 won’t be that far apart in money per capita, it probably will be the case that no Pac schools will forgo better geography and travel for better exposure, especially as, when it comes to exposure, Amazon is already somewhat close to ESPN and Amazon is trending up while ESPN distribution is trending down.
In the end, the differences just aren’t big enough to justify a move.
LikeLike
Therein lies the rub. Not all Pac schools are geographically created equal, nor do their allegiances run as deep. Colorado etc.? Also, there is no evidence a national audience (outside of the participating schools footprint) will app surf from linear to prime to check in on a college game of any stripe, much less the PAC. I doubt many would presently. You could be right that no one moves, Amazon may purposely bid high enough to insure it doesn’t, but I wouldn’t count on it.
LikeLike
Amazon stock says “…hold my🍺!”
LikeLike
CU moved to the Pac from the B12 in part because they have more alums in CA than any part of the Plains east of CO.
LikeLike
Also, there is no evidence a national audience (outside of the participating schools footprint) will app surf from linear to prime to check in on a college game of any stripe, much less the PAC.
Sports on streaming platforms are a risky bet in general. Ratings of Amazon’s NFL Thursday night package appear to have dipped, after a good first couple of weeks when there was still a novelty factor.
But at one time sports on cable was considered a risky bet too, and so was sports on broadcast TV if you go back far enough. The Pac-12 is going to give streaming a try, because the other options are worse. I do not expect Amazon to vastly overpay.
(Heck, even the Big Ten is giving streaming a try with their Peacock deal, although they are taking very minimal risk to do so.)
LikeLike
Location of alums is why it seems unlikely Pac schools will move to the Big 12 until the Big 10 expands again. $5 million more in the Big 12 is probably not enough to get anyone to move.
LikeLike
Some key points:
* It’s for 6 years (ends 1 year after the B10’s deal)
* It averages $380M per year, which is $31.7M per school
* That’s the average, so it will start well below that and grow about 7% per year
* The new deal doesn’t start for 2 more years. Until then they still get $220M.
* Don’t forget about inflation. $380M in two years is more like $340M now with current inflation, which would be $28.3M per school.
* This includes all their tier 3 rights. Before, some school (like KU) could make a lot off of tier 3.
While Big 12 teams will earn approximately $5 million more annually with the contract extension than they currently receive with the Longhorns and Sooners in the league, had those programs remained in the Big 12, the conference would have received a far larger contract.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34910144/big-12-nears-six-year-228b-tv-extension-deal-espn-fox
ESPN’s uptick in investment in the league will give it access to both the most inventory and the league’s top games. According to reporting from the SBJ, ESPN’s so-called “A” package includes the top four football picks each season and 12 of the top 20. That gives Fox a sizable portion of strong inventory among the 26 football games it has each year. According to the SBJ, ESPN gets the Big 12 football championship and the men’s and women’s basketball championships.
Along with a significant investment and commitment to Big 12 football, Fox is adding Big 12 basketball to the package.
…
This extension will mark the end of what’s known as third-tier rights for the Big 12, in which schools controlled certain game inventory. Instead, those third-tier rights will be distributed to ESPN, which means the schools no longer have to sell them.
LikeLike
Typically, over the last 10-12 years, these contracts have been growing with 3% to 4% escalations. Don’t know where you are coming up with 7%.
LikeLike
I believe Bob Thompson threw it out there as a typical figure, but I don’t have a reference at the moment.
In this era of inflation, a 3% growth would be losing value over time. The current P12 deal has a 5.1% escalator clause, as one example.
LikeLike
It was an outlier from all the other contracts at that point in time. I wondered at the time if they wanted to have a higher average than the Big 12 and ACC, but gave up on some time value of money. Their deal was $21 million average and the Big 12’s was $20 million on average (since revised to about $22 million). The Pac 12 has never exceeded the Big 12 in distributions under the contract even though the Big 12 doesn’t have Tier 3 included.
LikeLike
UCF will soon have a richer yearly payout than FSU or Miami, but…13 YEARS!
LikeLike
Pretty certain FSU and Miami are actually in about the same range as UCF. The ACC deal ramps up as well.
But yeah, FSU and Miami will have to wait a while to be paid what they’re worth. FSU definitely will see a huge jump up when they switch conferences.
LikeLike
Canzano and Wilmer comedy routine hits a speedbump! Wilner, who is infinitely more respected than his blowhard partner, somehow is relegated to sidekick status on their podcast, in name and airtime. Despite this, on their latest episode, Wilmer attempts to inject a dose of reality concerning the Big12 deal. After Canzano besmirched the deal as desperate and underwhelming, predicting a big surprise coming for the Pac from Amazon. Wilmer responds hesitantly “……..could be.” 😂 Wilmer then said he’s still not convinced the PAC will stick togethere, at which time Canzano interjects, “Oh come on! No! I got 100% (stick together).” Wilner stuck to his guns. “Survival is a 5 point favorite over extinction and I’m sticking with that. ” It was a small of defiance by an actual journalist who seems to have had enough of the BS. Good for him.
LikeLike
*together/ *a small act of defiance
LikeLike
Details of what Jon Wilner thinks:
LikeLike
😁 Beat me to it. With exception to the UCLA pipedream & B1G undervaluation, it’s excellent.
LikeLike
Wilner has said that any Pac 10 school will accept a Big 10 deal and that if 4 go to the Big 10, the 4 corners will almost certainly go to the Big 12. Wilner is saying he thinks (but only “thinks,”-he’s not certain) that the Big 10 is done for now.
LikeLike
Navigate came pretty close to nailing it (the B12 deal) back in March.
https://nvgt.com/blog/power-5-conference-payout-estimates/
LikeLike
Did they? I think they came in a little low, especially since they included some CFP expansion in their numbers.
These estimates include a new CFP agreement in 2026 with expansion to 8.
Note that the other 4 conferences all take a big jump that year, but not the B12. What would the numbers be if they expected it to go to 12 in 2026?
LikeLike
I wish they would publish an update that included the B10 adding USC and UCLA, and the 12 team CFP expansion. Maybe they’re waiting to learn what the CFP financial model will be.
LikeLike
I think this analysis included CFP expansion.
LikeLike
Only to 8 teams. And they don ‘t specify the revenue model in that article.
LikeLike
https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimates-12-team-cfp-expansion/
This one has it with 12. Still nothing with USC and UCLA.
Our updated estimates rely on some key assumptions listed below.
The new CFP payout for 11 playoff games that also takes over all NY6 game relationships in a 12-team playoff.
The 12-team CFP payout model is adjusted to reward performance more than CFP has historically done. This would transform the CFP payout to be more aligned with the NCAA Basketball Tournament model.
Our initial model estimated that 63% of payout goes towards base payments to conferences and the remaining 37% goes towards conferences in NY6 bowls and playoff games, which was also assumed in this new model.
To allocate non-base payouts, we looked back at the last 11-years (2011 to 2021) of college football performance and assumed the proposed 12-team playoff rules are used for participation to estimate the number of teams included in the playoff each year:
*P5 Champions are included in the playoff.
*Highest Ranked G5 conference champion is included in the playoff.
*Remaining 6 playoff teams are at-large bids.
The new realignment with the SEC and Big 12 is accounted for in the methodology.
To estimate the value of each round participating, we assumed each round of the playoff sees increased TV viewership by 25%, and assigned values to each game, and totaled those estimates by conference and averaged them over the same 11-year timeframe.
LikeLike
I really doubt CFB will split CFP revenue like that.
More likely is you get 1 credit for the first round, the 4 teams with byes get 2 credits, and you get a credit for each game after your first game. 26 credits a year. If they wanted to have more of a “base” amount, they could give a credit to each of the 6 highest conference winners. Then each P5 conference, assuming their conference champ is always among the 6 highest ranked conference winners, are guaranteed 2/32 of the playoff money (roughly a pot of $1B, I believe) but most would get at least 3/32. The very most a conference could earn is 18/32 (but that is a bit unrealistic).
LikeLike
Here’s the current model.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2017/9/20/revenue-distribution.aspx
For the 2022-23 academic year:
1. Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a postseason football game. Each independent institution will also receive $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.
2. A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for a Playoff Semifinal. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement.
3. Each conference whose team participates in a Playoff Semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta, or Peach bowls, or in the national championship game will receive $2.74 million to cover expenses for each game.
Based on calculations from the 2021-22 season, the following distributions were made in the spring of 2022 (Estimates for the 2022-23 season will be finalized following the 2023 CFP National Championship.):
1. Each of the 10 conferences received a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose, or Sugar bowls, the base combined with the full academic performance pool was approximately $74 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar bowls received approximately $95 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base). The conferences distribute these funds as they choose. Notre Dame received a payment of $3.55 million by meeting the APR standard; the other six independents shared $1.88 million.
2. Certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision received approximately $2.96 million in aggregate.
Basically, the P5 get $74M each, plus a few million for a team in the CFP and NY6. The G5 split $95M.
P5 = 370 (80% of guaranteed money)
G5 = 95 (20% of guaranteed money)
Teams in = 56 (11% of total)
Total = $521M
Plus some other minor things (ND money, I-AA money, etc.).
I could see a similar 80/20 split of base money, with the P5 getting equal splits per school. But the amount of performance money will likely go way up from 11%. Navigate’s 63/37 split might not be too far off. Schools like guaranteed revenue streams. I doubt it would be more than 50/50.
LikeLike
Yeah, there may well be a bunch of guaranteed money, but it would probably be based on per-school or possibly historical participation in the CFP rather than per conference (the SEC and B10 simply won’t stand for taking only as much as the 10-school Pac), nor does the P2 want to incent the M3 conferences to take in more conference members.
Payouts based on participation likely go way up. Probably something like $10mm for making the first round, $20mm for a bye to the 2nd round (you don’t want to penalize conferences/schools who earn a bye) and $10mm for each extra game a school plays in. The SEC, B10, and everybody else (mostly the M3) will probably earn roughly a third each over time (SEC a little over a third, the B10 a little under a third).
LikeLike
One thing to note is that the current distribution does not include Rose, Sugar or Orange Bowl money. 2 out of 3 years, the Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12 and SEC get $40 million from Rose or Sugar, the ACC gets $27.5 million from the Orange and Notre Dame/SEC/Big 10 get the other $27.5 million from the Orange (those were the average payouts over the contract). The new model will have to compensate the conferences for the fact that those bowls become part of the playoff.
LikeLike
Bullet, the CFP money will more than double so everybody will make more than before.
I expect the B10 and SEC to make a base of roughly $160mm ($10mm/school) and the performance part to be something like $10mm/credit, earning 1 credit for making the first round, 2 credits for a bye to the 2nd round, and 1 credit for any extra game you appear in. 26 credits total. In the unlikely event that a conference sweeps all the at-large bids and wins every playoff game, the max they can earn in performance credits is 18 ($180mm). More likely is that over time, each year the SEC averages about 10 credits, the B10 averages about 7.5 credits, and everybody else about 8.5 credits total (though it could be 11-7-8).
LikeLike
Yes they will make more, but the P5 are giving something up, so they will need to get a higher % to be satisfied.
LikeLike
Bullet, the P5s would still make more in guaranteed money. Also in performance -based money, in very real likelihood. To end squabbling, just have more of the money be performanced-based. Then you make what you earn on the field.
LikeLike
P5, especially SEC and Big 10, don’t believe in money for nuthin’. They need something direct to offset the bowls they are giving up.
LikeLike
Bullet, under any system I proposed (per school or per past performance), the B10 and SEC would make more than the M3 and G5 in both base and performanced-based money. It’s really the Pac and B12 who lose, relatively, and that’s because they lost their biggest brands.
I frankly don’t understand what you’re going on about, Bullet. Under a more performance -based system, both the SEC and B10 will make more both in absolute and relative terms than under the old CFP payout system. You focus only on what they lost and not on what they will gain.
LikeLike
There will be some kind of P5/G5 split of revenue. You aren’t understanding that the contract bowls need to be added to the P5 share of the split. And 9 votes are going to be against giving the SEC and Big 10 a fixed base bigger (per school) than the rest of the A5. Its a total non-starter. Its a lose-lose for the SEC and Big 10 to try to take their ball and go home. Revenue probably will be more performance based than now, but they aren’t going to want the risk of total performance based.
LikeLike
Bullet, I understand this far better than you do (including the P2/M3/G5 split). There’s no way the SEC and B10, with 16 schools and contributing far more to the CFP, will accept the same base as the Pac (with 10 schools) or even the B12 and ACC (with 12-14 schools) when those 3 conferences will contribute more like 1/3rd or less of the value to the CFP rather than about half.
It’s far more likely that the P2 and G5 ally to maximize their shares than that the P2 and M3 ally to squeeze the G5.
It seems like your problem is still thinking the old world (of a P5 and G5 separation) exists when that’s gone.
LikeLike
The B1G and the SEC also have the nuclear option of walking away, reverting back to the AP and coaches deciding the national championship and scheduling a 10-game bowl alliance such as:
Rose: SEC 1/2 v B1G 1/2
Sugar: SEC 1/2 v. B1G 1/2
Cotton: SEC 3/4/5 v. B1G 3/4/5
Peach: SEC 3/4/5 v. B1G 3/4/5
Fiesta: SEC 3/4/5 v/ B1G 3/4/5
Citrus: SEC 6/7/8v. B1G 6/7/8
Las Vegas: SEC 6/7/8 v. B1G 6/7/8
LA Bowl: SEC 6/7/8 v. B1G 6/7/8
Whatever the Outback is now: SEC 9/10 v. B1G 9/10
Gator: SEC 9/10 v. B1G 9/10
No Congressional interference as there is no playoff to exclude other conferences. A 1984 BYU Holiday MNC is still possible under this scenario
LikeLike
The B1G and the SEC also have the nuclear option of walking away, reverting back to the AP and coaches deciding the national championship and scheduling a 10-game bowl alliance…
I would submit that although they have that option in theory, they do not have it in practice. The public outcry and adverse reception would simply not be tolerable. Of course, it would never get to that: no system will be adopted that the Big Ten and SEC both oppose.
No Congressional interference as there is no playoff to exclude other conferences. A 1984 BYU Holiday MNC is still possible under this scenario.
Congress can interfere simply because it wants to.
It seems like your problem is still thinking the old world (of a P5 and G5 separation) exists when that’s gone.
There might be nothing in the new playoff rules that distinguishes them, but there is an enormous financial disparity. I suspect the MAC commissioner doesn’t go into those meetings under any illusion that the Power Five commissioners are his equal. Also, the P5 have autonomy to make rules for themselves that do not apply to everyone else.
LikeLike
The thing about having the nuclear option is you never use it but have to convince others that you may be willing to use it. Warren says he’s a disrupter.
LikeLike
Marc, there’s also an enormous financial disparity between the P2 and M3. In fact, by pretty much all metrics, the disparity between the P2 and M3 will be as big or bigger than between the M3 and G5.
So, again, saying there is a “P5” makes as much sense as saying there is a “L8” (for “lower 8”) in the new world.
LikeLike
…there’s also an enormous financial disparity between the P2 and M3. In fact, by pretty much all metrics, the disparity between the P2 and M3 will be as big or bigger than between the M3 and G5.
In addition to the financial disparity, the (P2+M3) have rules autonomy, and they win the overwhelming majority of NCAA championships across all sports. The M3 have multiple programs that have won football NCs. The only non-(P2+M3) school that have done it in the poll era was Army, and that was in 1944–45.
So for that reason, if you had to answer the old SAT question “which of these things is most unlike the others,” it would be the G5, whereas the P2/M3 are more similar than dissimilar.
LikeLike
Marc: Historically. Then again, historically, there wasn’t a P2 and M3. There was a P5 because the P5 leagues weren’t that far apart.
Like many people on this board, you seem to be more backward-looking than forward-looking.
LikeLike
In the future (especially after the P2 takes the ACC football powers), a non-P2 team winning the CFP title will be as rare as a non-P6 team winning the Big Dance. It could and has happened! UNLV won in 1990, technically, UConn wasn’t in a P6 conference when it last won the MBB natty, and Gonzaga has come close a few times recently, but it will be as rare in football.
I guess some folks need several decades to past before they concede the new reality.
LikeLike
Richard, you are assuming a world that doesn’t exist.
As of now, Washington and Oregon are stuck in the Pac 10. FSU, Clemson and Miami are in the ACC for the next 14 years. Notre Dame is still an independent.
Sankey has pointed out how college football needs to be national for it to thrive. Two of the three all SEC championships have been ratings disasters. Taking their ball and going home would be a financial loss and a long-term horrible strategic move for the SEC and Big 10. And don’t forget, these college presidents move around. They won’t always be at their current school in the Big 10 and SEC.
For the SEC and Big 10 to demand more just because is a really bad look. They have a really good argument that a 16 school conference get 60% more than a 10 team conference, but to claim two or three times? And they will already be getting double from their TV contract. The Big 10 does often display that type of arrogance, but it doesn’t play well outside academic halls.
And frankly, the Big 10 might not be better at football than the Big 12. The Big 12 has been better most recent years even with Texas down. It makes demanding more an even worse look.
There really is only so much you can spend. Schools like Texas and Ohio St. are already sending a bunch back to academics. Much of the additional money will be spent in non-rev sports, like baseball. The fact is that the Big 12, Pac 10 and ACC will be making more than ever before. Just not nearly as much as the SEC and Big 10.
Texas and Oklahoma were offered a guaranteed amount by the R5 when they decided not to go to the Pac 16. They declined. They didn’t think it was right. In fact, they got rid of the “earned” part of the TV contract and switched to an even split model. Now A&M threw a fit about not getting guaranteed money, but that was A&M. I don’t think TPTB in the Big 10 and SEC will be so greedy. They will want more, but they will want to earn it.
LikeLike
Bullet, nowhere did I say the P2 will make 2-3 times more than the M3 conferences in base CFP money. You’re the one who was defending the absurd suggestion that a 10-12 school Pac & B12 will take in the same base CFP money as a 16-school P2 conference, but I’m glad you backed off that.
LikeLike
Apparently not even the crickets are bothering to squeak out a leak from that important PAC meeting that took place up in San Fran-psycho earlier today. Meanwhile, Wilber is already testing my newfoundrespect by continuing to prop up his goofy ‘UCLA might stay! ” narrative on twitter. At least he’s pushing for ‘better fit’ Stanford to take its place! #freethetree 🌲! Speaking of which, Pat Forde has a decent (it’s all relative) article up about the Big12 deal.
https://www.si.com/college/2022/10/31/big-12-media-rights-deal-november-top-games Not bad for a guy who’s daughter was a superstar student/athlete at Stanford, yet had no clue about Herbert Hoover ‘s connection to the school, until UMans grad Dan Wetzel filled him in 😵 but I digress 😁 Happy Halloween! 👻
LikeLike
*Wilner (unless he keeps that UCLA stuff up, then I’ll let spellcheck call him Wilber)
LikeLike
Sports Business Journal has the current state of play for the Pac-12 deal. Short story:
“Pac-12 officials’ initial reaction when they heard of the Big 12’s deal was relief. Big 12 schools each will receive around $31 million per school as part of the deal, and Pac-12 officials are optimistic that they will be able to eclipse that figure.”
” While Amazon and ESPN are the clear front-runners, the Pac-12 has had talks with Apple, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery. The theory is that the presence of multiple serious bidders will help drive the price up.” (The Big XII did its deal while ESPN and Fox still had exclusivity, meaning it did not talk to other potential bidders.)
“ESPN took pains to make sure that its Big 12 deal would not result in a bigger per-school payout than the ACC.”
“I was told that the Big 12 will not eclipse the ACC…at any point in its deal, which runs through 2030-31. ESPN is likely to approach Pac-12 negotiations in a similar way.”
LikeLike
It is good to have official confirmation that the ACC will remain ahead of B12, and possibly locking in the much-maligned ACC contract will keep them in 3rd place through 2036. Most likely the Middle 3 will have roughly the same level of payouts.
The deal including all 3rd tier rights is also noteworthy:
I keep seeing one aspect of the Big 12 deal that is creating confusion among fans on social media. Historically, the Big 12 had what it called “Tier Three” rights, which are the rights schools retained and sold to local broadcasters. These are the rights, for example, that Texas used to create the Longhorn Network with ESPN. ESPN now controls all of those rights as part of its deal; there are no more institutional-controlled games and no more Tier Three rights.
LikeLike
It is good to have official confirmation that the ACC will remain ahead of B12, and possibly locking in the much-maligned ACC contract will keep them in 3rd place through 2036.
Just to be clear, the article says that ESPN is not paying more per school for the Big XII than it pays for the ACC. But the Big XII has a Fox contract too, which the ACC doesn’t have. When all income sources are counted, I am not sure if the ACC will remain ahead of them through 2036.
It is partially a matter of apples and oranges. The ACC has a network that it partially owns with ESPN (similar model as the Big Ten and the SEC). The Big XII still doesn’t have that. I am not clear if this makes them better off or worse.
However, as you noted they have finally gotten rid of the third tier controlled by the schools individually. They were the last major conference with that arrangement.
LikeLike
Marc: “However, as you noted they have finally gotten rid of the third tier controlled by the schools individually.
aka the Longhorn Rule.
LikeLike
Everybody had their own Tier 3 until the Big 10 proved the conference network model. Texas and Nebraska tried to start a Big 12 network at the time, but nobody else was interested. They had to pay for a study themselves. Pac 12 created their disastrous network when they moved to 12. ACC basically gave it all away to ESPN with their contract at the time SEC followed a few years later with a conference network and then the ACC put theirs together after seeing the successes in the big 10 and SEC.
LikeLike
Exactly
LikeLike
Marc,
“Just to be clear, the article says that ESPN is not paying more per school for the Big XII than it pays for the ACC. But the Big XII has a Fox contract too, which the ACC doesn’t have. When all income sources are counted, I am not sure if the ACC will remain ahead of them through 2036.”
Others online are reading that differently – that Fox took the lesser package and agreed to a price, then ESPN agreed to a price for their total package that would keep the ACC ahead overall.
LikeLike
For reference, the ACC’s tax filing for 2020 statement of revenue shows $397,411,225 for TV revenue, $104,934,579 for bowls, $60,064,478 from the NCAA, $10,538,178 for conference championships, and other revenue of $859,803.
With the average TV money for the new B12 contract in 2025 ($380m), the ACC already exceeded that amount in 2020. Note that the ACC splits 14 ways, while the new B12 will split 12 ways. It’s very reasonable to assume, with yearly escalators, that the ACC members will be making more in TV money than the B12 will under their new contract.
The ACC contract only looks terrible in comparison to the B1G and the SEC.
LikeLike
The B12 money doesn’t not include post season
LikeLike
Kevin – that’s why I didn’t include it, but wanted to give full disclosure of all ACC revenue for their most recent tax filing.
Apples to apples comparison is the $397m in 2020 ACC TV payment and the $380m 2025 B12 TV payment. The ACC bowl money is NOT included in the ACC TV money total.
LikeLike
Thanks Alan. Seems the ACC network has or is really helping them. Not surprising the ACC is still ahead. They have better markets and better brands. Unfortunately Miami and FSU can’t get their act together.
LikeLike
Others online are reading that differently – that Fox took the lesser package and agreed to a price, then ESPN agreed to a price for their total package that would keep the ACC ahead overall.
Now that you mention it, that makes some sense. If there is any logic to it, the ACC should be ahead of the Big XII, as their top brands are better. They also get 2½ Notre Dame games every year.
Basketball is probably only 20% of the deal, and although both leagues are strong, you would probably rather have UNC–Duke twice a year over anything the Big XII has.
The ACC contract only looks terrible in comparison to the B1G and the SEC.
I don’t think any sane ACC member expects to make Big Ten or SEC money. The real complaint is simply that they are underpaid relative to what they could get on the market today, due to their former commissioner snookering them into a 20-year deal.
LikeLike
The Big 12 basically tripled their value. Their contract averaged $22 million (after revisions), but they lost 50% of the value with UT and OU. So they went from $11 million to $32 million. So the ACC, while appearing to be more valuable, is lucky to move ahead of the Big 12, given they are stuck with a contract written in 2012 when sports values were much lower.
LikeLike
Bullet: You have sources for that (about OU and Texas being half the value of the old B12)? I’m inclined to think it was close to half but not half. More like 40%. Maybe a little more than that.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The Big 12 basically tripled their value. Their contract averaged $22 million (after revisions), but they lost 50% of the value with UT and OU. So they went from $11 million to $32 million.”
Not quite. I think that 50% figure was based on a new total deal and going from 12 to 10 teams. It was also a number quickly thrown out by Bowlsby in anger, so it may not be accurate.
Thompson said USC + UCLA were 40% of a new P12 deal, and that was from losing 1 king and the LA market. The B12 isn’t losing any major market with UT and OU leaving, so the blow should be less despite UT + OU > USC + UCLA on the field.
22*12 = $264M. 50% of that is $132M, or $13.2M per remaining school. And the new deal includes tier 3 while the old one didn’t. They are currently getting about $4M per school for those rights, so call it $17M going to $31.7M. It’s still good growth.
LikeLike
Richard,
Bowlsby said that in 2021.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31945492/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-warns-50-hit-tv-contract-value-texas-oklahoma-leave-sec
Texas lawmakers dug into the future of the Big 12 without the Sooners and Longhorns. Bowlsby said the TV contract value would take a 50% hit.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think Bobby B was exaggerating for effect there. You could argue Texas and OU were between 40%-50% of the TV value of the 10-school B12, though.
LikeLike
Texas and OU being half the Big 12 value has been repeated a lot. Bowlsby for one:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/31945492/big-12-commissioner-bob-bowlsby-warns-50-hit-tv-contract-value-texas-oklahoma-leave-sec
LikeLike
It is good to have official confirmation that the ACC will remain ahead of B12, and possibly locking in the much-maligned ACC contract will keep them in 3rd place through 2036. Most likely the Middle 3 will have roughly the same level of payouts.
ESPN just made sure the next ACC contract “look in” doesn’t go anywhere.
LikeLike
ESPN+ had those rights for 7 of the 8 remaining schools for about $4M each per year. Kansas was making more on its basketball 3rd tier rights. So $27.67M apples to apples, and less for Kansas.
LikeLike
Never seen any good numbers on what the 7 were getting for Tier 3. I’ve seen estimates as low as $1 million, but usually $2 or $3 million. But none of that info was particularly reliable.
LikeLike
I’ve seen a connected poster saying the deal starts at $28 million and goes to $35 million a school by 2031.
LikeLike
I should mention when comparing brands I think the PAC is better than the other 2 but their fan bases are mostly terrible and the time zone issue kills them. The brand assessment is just my opinion but West Coast brands use to be very popular. I guess they still are with students.
LikeLike
The poor fan support and time zone issues are precisely why they are not great football brands — which is where 80% of the media rights value comes from. Of course, plenty of students still want to attend those schools — just try getting into Stanford. But the football product is not a huge part of its appeal.
LikeLike
Maybe we have a different definition of what “brand” means. I agree that it seems like the Western schools seem to pull in their students and alums as well as Midwestern and southern schools (and UO certainly is seen as cool by younger folks, so does better on social media than in TV audience). But it certainly does seem like, outside of UO, the Western schools have trouble getting non-affiliated folks to join their fanbase (and even OR doesn’t seem as intensely in to college football as IA, NE, or many parts of the South are).
LikeLike
I guess I am thinking of brands holistically including academics, athletics and location. Maybe it’s the sunshine and palm trees and the Holllywood aspect of the west coast and the mountains and beauty of the Northwest.
LikeLike
Geraldo Canzano exclusive!
Bill Walton pens heartfelt haiku in attempt
to thwart big ten move.
UNCLA’s WRONG TURN
All progress requires change…
not all change is progress,
I’m Bill Walton,
I’m a California native, resident,
engaged citizen, voter, and taxpayer,
I’m a product of California’s terrific
public school systems,
I’m a proud UCLA alum,
I am not in favor of UCLA’s recent announced
decision to leave the Pac-12 Conference of Champs,
nor their desire to join the Big 10,
I don’t like this attempted move,
I don’t support it,
I hope it does not happen.
LikeLike
No problem, Bill. Create a trust that pays UCLA $40 million per year for at least the next seven years, with an escalator to match any new B1G contract after that point. A one billion dollar starting point should cover that for many years.
See very simple solution.
Actually a real question is whether Phil Knight will do something like that for Oregon or Stanford.
LikeLike
I figure if Bill can fly around the world to see the same band perform the same songs over a thousand times, those students can fly to Ann Arbor to play volleyball. 😹 I did mercifully cut his poem short. He goes on to repeat Kliavkofff’s claims about saving $ by staying in the Pac, then offers up his pièce de résistance; the detrimental affects of such a move on the student athletes’ mental and physical health. This from a guy who STILL brags about smoking dope in the UCLA locker room after every game. I do agree it asks a lot of the students, which is one reason I’m pro-western wing, but sanctimonious Bill begs for an eyeroll. To clarify, Walton claims to have seen the (Garcia) Grateful Dead 856 times, but Dead related acts 1000 times. lol
LikeLike
Under a 3-6-6 scheduling model for the SEC, here’s my latest guess for the 3 annul opponents starting when UTx & OU eventually join. I’ve done this several times and it always changes.
There has been discussion regarding ranking the schools in a tier #1 (contenders) and Tier #2 (pretenders). This is very difficult to do as it changes from year to year. CFP #1 Tennessee and #11 Ole Miss have really screwed it up this season, but over the last twenty years, I think tier #1 would be: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M; and tier #2 would be: Arkansas, Kentucky, Miss State, Mizzou, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Vandy. As a bone to the tier #2 schools, each tier #1 schools would play two other tier #1 schools annually and one tier #2 schools, and vice versa for tier #2 schools.
I’ll admit some of my annual matchups don’t get my heart pounding, but no one is saying these annual matchups have to be forever. Initially, I’d stick with this for eight years and then shake things up for some of the more non-traditional annual matchups. For the most part, I stuck with the 2/1 split. Vandy and Mizzou didn’t quite fit.
(1) Alabama – Auburn, Tennessee (2), and LSU
(2) Arkansas – Mizzou, Miss State, and Texas (1)
(1) Auburn – Alabama, Georgia, and Mizzou (2)
(1) Florida – Georgia, Kentucky (2), and Oklahoma
(1) Georgia – Florida, Auburn, and South Carolina (2)
(2) Kentucky – South Carolina, Florida (1), and Tennessee
(1) LSU – Texas A&M, Ole Miss (2), and Alabama
(2) Miss State – Ole Miss, Arkansas, and Texas A&M
(2) Mizzou – Arkansas, (1) Oklahoma, and (1) Auburn
(1) Oklahoma – Texas, (2) Mizzou, and Florida
(2) Ole Miss – Miss State, (1) LSU, and Vandy
(2) South Carolina – Kentucky, Vandy, and (1) Georgia
(2) Tennessee – Vandy, (1) Alabama, and Kentucky
(1) Texas – Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and (2) Arkansas
(1) Texas A&M – LSU, Texas, and (2) Miss State
(2) Vandy – Tennessee, South Carolina, and Ole Miss
Auburn/Mizzou is the biggest head scratcher, but it just worked out that way. Mizzou kind of gets screwed as the only tier #2 school with two tier #1 opponents, but they do pick up former Big 6/7/8/12 conference mate in Oklahoma, and the closest geographic school with Arkansas. While Auburn & Mizzou could call their game the 2nd Rate Tiger Bowl presented by Frosted Flakes (as LSU is the unquestioned #1 Tiger in the SEC).
While Florida and Oklahoma have no history other than the 2008 BCS title game, I really like this matchup as it helps integrate OU into the SEC, rather than a more regional choice like Arkansas or A&M. I struggled with swapping Bama/LSU and UF/OU and having UF/LSU and Bama/OU. This is really a coin flip. I may change my mind tomorrow.
Vandy get three tier #2 schools, but Vandy needs all the help they can get.
While as a LSU fan, I hate to lose Miss State, Florida & Auburn, LSU will still play them 50% of the time, and instead of playing Georgia & Tennessee twice over 12 years, we’d get them every other year.
LikeLike
Auburn has so many rivals. They aren’t playing Mizzou.
And OU/A&M is pretty much a must. So logically South Carolina gets Florida. giving up UK who gets Mizzou. Auburn then gets Mississippi St.
But its a pretty good effort.
LikeLike
I tried to do this for the B10 above. The two-tier plan is terrible for the B10, an obviously it struggles for the SEC as well. If you don’t rigidly adhere to it (like you didn’t), that helps, but I think it still forces an unnecessary structure. Not all tier 1 (or tier 2) schools are equal anyway. I think they’re better off saying that’s a guiding principle and will be followed when greater priorities do not dictate otherwise.
One thing I do think would be smart is zippered scheduling for the 6/6 as much as possible.
SEC:
UT/TAMU
MO/OU
LSU/AR
MsSU/MS
AL/AU
UGA/UF
TN/VU
SC/UK
(or similar – you’re the SEC expert)
You get your natural locked rival, plus two more chosen for tradition/geography/balance, then the unpaired partners of your other 2 rivals become the 6th pair. That should integrate new members in nicely while getting equal travel to all corners of the conference.
LikeLike
As a Mizzou fan, rude. But appreciate the attempt. I know we are newbies but several tier 2 schools would work as our rival. We’d happily take Vandy in the hopes of gaining at least 1 conference win per year. South Carolina is a nice rival, the battle for the Mayor’s Cup as the best Columbia, which thanks to this weekend’s win will reside in the show-me state for another year. Tennessee and Kentucky are SEC East rivals. Ole Miss is geographically fairly close to St. Louis if you want a more outside the box option.
LikeLike
Right, when the SEC drops divisions and goes 3-6-6, the annual opponent criteria will be (1) true rivalries and (2) geography. Examples:
Mizzou – Oklahoma, Arkansas, Vandy
Oklahoma – Texas, A&M, Mizzou (If you look on a map, Oklahoma and Arkansas are quite close but the last time they scheduled a regular season game was 1926.)
A&M – Texas, LSU, Oklahoma
LikeLike
Hence why I think the SEC should just try to preserve rivalries.
The B10 eventually gave up on strength-based (parity-based) scheduling because you just can’t predict who will take off (or plummet) in the future. Nobody foresaw UIUC’s rise this year and few foresaw Tennesee’s.
LikeLike
Random thoughts about the CFB Committee rankings that were released tonight…
– Strong year for BB schools. UCLA, Illinois, Syracuse, UNC, Wake, NC State all ranked, with Kentucky presumably just outside the top 25.
– Really surprised to see LSU ranked so highly. I’ve only seen one other rankings system (objective or subjective) with them as a top 10 team.
– Texas ranked 24th even though objective system unanimously agree they are top 10 team. That’s what happens when you 5-3 thanks to a tough schedule and inability to win close games.
– I don’t understand ranking Clemson ahead of Michigan.
– Illinois ranked for the first time in the history of the CFB Playoff!
LikeLike
Should have added “Knock on Wood” to that last point.
LikeLike
Yeah, ranking Clemson ahead of UMich is frankly BS. I wonder how much of that is regionalism/spreading the wealth to maintain interest in other conference races.
There’s a lot more football to be played, but this is where a 12-team playoff is superior to a 4-team playoff: where the committee decisions matter would be in ranking flawed teams in that case rather than teams that are undefeated (or who’s only loss would be to a team above them) which is the case now.
LikeLike
Yeah, ranking Clemson ahead of UMich is frankly BS. I wonder how much of that is regionalism/spreading the wealth to maintain interest in other conference races.
A rational committee could rank Clemson higher than Michigan without any other agenda, and I say that as a Michigan partisan. Michigan has played just one ranked team (PSU) vs. three for Clemson. Michigan has played just two teams that currently have winning records (PSU, Maryland) vs. four for Clemson (this is not counting their FCS foe, Furman). Michigan has played six of its eight games at home vs. four for Clemson. Five of Michigan’s eight games have been in conference vs. six for Clemson.
Obviously it is not the Michigan players’ fault that Iowa and Michigan State are having bad years, but the committee can only weigh the body of evidence that exists. It will all even out because Michigan has Illinois and Ohio State yet to play, whereas Clemson has no remaining ranked teams on its schedule (until the CCG).
LikeLike
I guess stuff like game control and eye test matter until they don’t. Clemson barely escaped WFU and Syracuse while UMich has won every game pretty easily.
Anyway, there are more games to be played. Clemson is barely favored over ND and likely will lose at least 1 more time this season.
LikeLike
The difference between 4 and 5 is huge in the 12-team system, too. And 2 vs 3 will matter while it doesn’t currently.
Also 5 vs 6 vs 7 vs 8 will be important as well (for the top 4 and for these teams).
LikeLike
frug – LSU as the highest ranked two-loss team is logical, but was still a pleasant surprise. LSU lost to #1 Tennessee and to a 5-3 Florida State team. The late October LSU is unrecognizable when compared to the clusterf*ck one-point loss to the Seminoles. LSU recently throttled one-loss #11 Ole Miss, the best win of all the two-loss schools. One of K-State’s losses is to my Tulane Greenies. One of Utah’s losses is to an underwhelming 4-4 Florida team.
LikeLike
One could make a case for PSU as well. They lost to #2 and #5. but destroyed AU on the road for a common opponent comparison.
LikeLike
It doesn’t help that Penn State has lost two of their last three, though. But they do have a great chance of running the table.
LikeLike
Canzano: Pac-12 and San Diego State in a dance
Parties in “ongoing communication.”
JOHN CANZANO NOV 2
San Diego State University has worked Huron Consulting Group for years on a variety of higher education matters. It wasn’t until recently that Jim Delany joined the team.
Delany spent three decades as commissioner of the Big Ten Conference. After he retired and left his post in early 2020, Delany launched a consulting business. In early 2021, Huron contracted Delany to collaborate with them. He went to work helping San Diego State position itself for a potential move to a Power Five Conference.
The Pac-12 Conference has had “ongoing communication” with SDSU as a potential expansion target, per a well-placed source.
Huron’s Managing Director Tim Walsh confirmed on Wednesday that San Diego State hired his firm and that it “beat out 20-something competitors” for the job. Delany and retired Duke University athletic director Kevin White are both part of the Huron team.
“Our relationship with San Diego State is well known,” Walsh said. “We continue to advise, but as far as conference expansion, we have no comment.”
Athletic department officials at SDSU declined comment for this piece. The Pac-12 president and chancellors aren’t talking, either. They’re hunkered down this week in San Francisco, with two days of meetings on conference’s media rights and expansion fronts. But conference commissioner George Kliavkoff has been clear with the Pac-12’s timeline.
First, the completion of the conference’s media-rights deal. Then, possible expansion.
Said Kliavkoff last week: “We’re going to be looking at schools that make sense for us.”
San Diego State has been busy, too. The Aztecs broke ground on a new 35,000-seat football stadium in August of 2020. They spent $310 million and used favorable Southern California weather to zip through the construction process. They opened Snapdragon Stadium this football season.
Premium seating has been a big hit. The luxury boxes sold out. The club seats went next. Also sold out are four “Founders Suites,” which hold 30 guests and require a 15-year commitment. All-inclusive price for a Founders Suite: $3.75 million.
The higher education folks at San Diego State have also been busy elevating their mission. The 125-year-old university had long desired the ability to offer an independent doctorate degree. It was hamstrung by an archaic state law, however. The law required California State University institutions to partner with a doctoral degree-granting institution, like the University of California.
SDSU’s Vice President of Research, Hala Madanat, and the university’s Dean of Graduate Studies, Tracy Love, wrote a joint editorial in The San Diego Union Tribune last March. “It is time to change and to move forward,” they wrote.
Politicians in California agreed. In late September, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 684. It allows CSU campuses to offer independent Doctor of Public Health programs. That not only raised the profile of San Diego State, it positioned the university as a more attractive academic addition to the Pac-12.
Walsh, the Huron executive, said the higher education mission and athletics missions aren’t independent.
“They’re part of the same strategy,” he said. “San Diego State wanted to elevate its brand into a different stratosphere.”
So what now? That’s become the question to ask.
The Pac-12 is kicking the tires. San Diego State wants to be a Power Five member. Also, the Big 12 is lurking and may have interest in SDSU as well. Over the weekend, the Big 12 announced it re-upped its media-rights deal with ESPN and Fox, netting an average of $31.6 million annual distribution for its members.
There’s something interesting in the Big 12’s new media deal, however. The pro-rata clause for expansion was only agreed upon by ESPN, which holds 63 percent of the new contract. Fox, which owns the other 37 percent, declined to include it. The clause also only allows for the addition of a Power Five member, per media insiders.
I bounced that tidbit off Bob Thompson, the retired president of Fox Sports Networks. He said: “Networks hate those clauses. Basically, the Big 12 doesn’t get any guaranteed extra money for adding San Diego State. It’s not automatic. And if they add a Power Five member, they’d only get 63 percent. The current members would have to take a haircut. That helps the Pac-12.”
While I had Thompson’s ear, I asked about the potential addition of San Diego State. The Pac-12 is losing USC and UCLA — and 5.7 million Los Angeles-area television households — to the Big Ten Conference in 2024. Does the addition of San Diego State and 1.2 million TV homes move the needle?
“It’s bigger than Eugene and Pullman, Wash.,” Thompson said. “In the eyes of television, it’s obviously not San Francisco and Los Angeles, but it’s solid.”
If the Pac-12 adds San Diego State, would it also another institution to get back to 12 members? If so, who are the other candidates? UNLV or SMU? Boise State or Fresno State? Someone else? There doesn’t seem to be an obvious answer. And given that the NCAA now allows conferences to hold a football championship game without having divisions, an unbalanced conference (11 members) would work.
On Monday, the Pac-12 CEO Group met alongside the conference athletic directors in downtown San Francisco. The ADs participated in strategy sessions and talked media rights. The presidents and chancellors reconvened on Wednesday morning for a second session without the athletic directors present.
That’s where things stand… while San Diego State waits.
LikeLike
“First, the completion of the conference’s media-rights deal. Then, possible expansion.”
Why? If the PAC is serious about SDSU, why would they finish TV negotiations and then consider expansion? The only thing that makes sense is if the PAC enters negotiations to obtain offers to the members of TV numbers with and without additions, such as SDSU – or maybe only SDSU.
The networks must know what they would pay for the addition of that school. Does it make sense or not?
Unlike the B1G or SEC, I do not think that the actual dollars per school is necessarily the biggest issue for the PAC. Getting back into Southern Cal. after losing LA might have major non-financial importance – such as recruiting. or keeping the Big 12 out of their markets.
LikeLike
Bernie: “Why? If the PAC is serious about SDSU, why would they finish TV negotiations and then consider expansion?”
I completely agree and had the same thoughts when I first read it. Seems perfectly back-asswards.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I think it’s because they need that information from the TV people to inform their decision. They will seek numbers with and without a few candidates, and then they can decide on expansion after they see those numbers. They might be willing to lose a little to expand for a school like SDSU just to get back into SoCal, or they might not. They certainly won’t take a huge loss to do so.
The B10 did the same sort of thing with the P12 4 because they weren’t obvious additions like USC and UCLA were. They got the values, and the presidents said no.
LikeLike
Very logical, but not what the statement says. It claims contract first, expansion afterwards.
I hope that is not the PAC approach, since it is nuts.
I doubt that the B1G added LA schools, got a contract, then went back for evaluations on additional schools. The B1G knew what the additional schools were worth before signing with the networks. Warren may have tried for second bite at that apple later, but they had to have a good idea up front. (Unless the pre signing deal with USC/UCLA was no more west coast schools o no evaluation was needed. Even then, I believe that the B1G still had a pretty good idea of what the networks would pay before finishing with LA.)
On the B1G west coast “expansion”, it is astonishing how many talking heads still insist the the B1G must get more west coast schools for ease of LA travel, and totally ignore the travel issues created for the other 14 schools.
As far as SDSU, it depends on the non-economic factors are worth. Does the PAC think that the Big 12 is serious about offering SDSU. If there will be an offer, what is it worth to block it? Is more access to South Cal for recruiting needed and what is it worth.
Sort of like the B1G, SEC and FSU. Does the SEC really need FSU? Wouldn’t they be better off if FSU joined another M3 league? But the SEC does not dare take the chance of the B1G getting FSU, so that makes for an interesting situation and the SEC must go after FSU when the time comes.
LikeLike
Eh, though the SEC could live with the B10 with FSU (or in FL some other way). I don’t think it’s a huge deal to the SEC either way.
LikeLike
The SEC doesn’t need Florida State but adding the Seminoles to the conference would create many compelling games, which is what Disney’s CFB strategy is all about.
LikeLike
Alan: “The SEC doesn’t need Florida State but adding the Seminoles to the conference would create many compelling games, which is what Disney’s CFB strategy is all about.”
The SEC is overloaded with compelling games right now: Texas-A&M-OK-AR-Ole Miss-LSU-Bama-Auburn-Georgia-Tennessee-Florida. Why as FSU?
LikeLike
Bernie,
Yes, but that contract can/will include language for what happens if SDSU gets added. The existing members may not be willing to expand first and then hope a good TV deal results, because they know they’ll have to sign a GOR. There are a lot of details to vet about a G5 school moving up to the P5.
And if more schools do leave, the others don’t want to be stuck with an extra mouth to feed while the contract loses even more value.
The B10 got numbers pre-LA expansion, then with LA expansion (and presumably asked what if about more P12 schools). But the negotiations were already really complicated, so they may not have wanted to get too deep into all the various combos of P12 additions.
LikeLike
The SEC is overloaded with compelling games. . . .
Actually it isn’t. You never have too much good inventory. I think the SEC is looking longingly at the Big Ten’s exclusive windows on 3 networks in 3 time slots — something they don’t have. There are not very many schools left that raise the average quality of the SEC (and that would likely accept if invited). FSU is one of them.
LikeLike
Marc: “There are not very many schools left that raise the average quality of the SEC (and that would likely accept if invited). FSU is one of them.”
FSU would be above average quality in the SEC? Let’s look at the top half: Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, LSU. Bama, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee. Which one of those is FSU “above”?
LikeLike
FSU is above A&M historically and peers with the other schools except Bama. You can make the case that they are above Florida historically.
LikeLike
Kevin: “FSU is above A&M historically and peers with the other schools except Bama. You can make the case that they are above Florida historically.”
All-time Florida leads FSU 37-27-2.
LikeLike
All-time Florida leads FSU 37-27-2.
This is counting the early years of the rivalry when FSU almost never won. In the past 40 years, the rivalry is pretty much even. I would not argue, as Kevin did, that FSU is the superior program, but it is not inferior either.
LikeLike
Marc: “I would not argue, as Kevin did, that FSU is the superior program, but it is not inferior either.”
Over the years, FSU hasn’t played a lot of SEC opponents but another couple of examples, Auburn leads the series 13-5-1 and Georgia leads 6-4. To claim that FSU would be clearly above average in the SEC has no basis if you look at historical scores. The Noles would be mediocre at best and probably a mainstay in the bottom half.
LikeLike
Colin, I know that you like to perpetually live in 1959, and maybe you’ve already forgotten all the decades since 1985, but FSU is 4-1-1 vs. UGa since 1961 and 4-1 vs. Auburn since 1987.
So, Colin, no, FSU won’t revert to ’50’s form (when they had just started admitting men again) if they joined the SEC.
LikeLike
Richard: ” FSU is 4-1 vs. Auburn since 1987.”
Cherry-picked gibberish. Auburn and FSU haven’t had a regular season game scheduled since 1990. Here’s Auburn’s all-time record vs FSU:
1/6/2014 vs. Florida State (14-0) L 31 34 @ BCS Championship
10/20/1990 vs. Florida State (10-2) W 20 17
10/21/1989 @ Florida State (10-2) L 14 22
1/2/1989 vs. Florida State (11-1) L 7 13 @ Sugar Bowl
11/7/1987 vs. Florida State (11-1) L 6 34
10/12/1985 vs. Florida State (9-3) W 59 27
10/13/1984 @ Florida State (7-3-2) W 42 41
10/1/1983 vs. Florida State (7-5) W 27 24
10/22/1977 @ Florida State (10-2) L 3 24
10/23/1976 vs. Florida State (5-6) W 31 19
10/25/1975 @ Florida State (3-8) W 17 14
10/26/1974 vs. Florida State (1-10) W 38 6
10/28/1972 vs. Florida State (7-4) W 27 14
11/23/1963 vs. Florida State (4-5-1) W 21 15
11/24/1962 vs. Florida State (4-3-3) T 14 14
11/19/1960 vs. Florida State (3-6-1) W 57 21
11/23/1957 @ Florida State (4-6) W 29 7
11/24/1956 vs. Florida State (5-4-1) W 13 7
10/23/1954 vs. Florida State (8-4) W 33 0
LikeLike
From 1987-2000, FSU was in the top 5 for 14 straight years. I don’t think anyone has ever come close to that. They have 3 MNCs, same as Florida. They have 15 ACC championships and didn’t even join until 1992. Florida never even won an SEC title until 1990 (at least one that wasn’t forfeited by probation). Florida has 8 SEC titles in almost 90 years in the SEC. To say FSU isn’t comparable to Florida is ludicrous.
LikeLike
bullet: “To say FSU isn’t comparable to Florida is ludicrous.”
I didn’t say they weren’t comparable, although comparing SEC titles to ACC titles is pretty lame. I said the FSU would be a middle-of-the-pack member in the SEC aka “mediocre”.
LikeLike
Colin: Listing the most recent results is “cherry-picked gibberish” while listing a bunch of results from the ’50’s-’70’s is relevant?
Colin, are you sure you realize it’s not 1969 any more? Are you aware that the ’70’s are more than 4 decades ago now and FSU has won 3 national titles and finished in the top 10 20 times since then?
LikeLike
OK Richard, let’s forget the old days and look at RECENT results. During the past five years, playing in the mighty ACC, FSU has gone 5-7, 3-6, 6-7, 5-7 and 7-6.
LikeLike
Colin: Texas, USC, and UCLA have done about as well as FSU in recent years, yet the SEC and B10 still took those schools.
Colin, you object to being called a troll, but you behave like one.
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, you object to being called a troll, but you behave like one.”
I’ve never objected to being called a troll. I’ve also been called a dumbass and, more recently, a jackass. I really don’t have much of a problem with it.
LikeLike
There’s something interesting in the Big 12’s new media deal, however. The pro-rata clause for expansion was only agreed upon by ESPN, which holds 63 percent of the new contract. Fox, which owns the other 37 percent, declined to include it. The clause also only allows for the addition of a Power Five member, per media insiders.
This was a key bit to me. If Fox wouldn’t agree, it’s basically the same as not having a pro rata clause. It’s also important that it only applies to other P5 schools.
LikeLike
Couple of other strange things about this. Jim Delaney is in on this, like Ghost Of Christmas Past? And some high-powered, top dollar consultant team is needed to hook up SDS and the Pac? Cripe, SDS is a screamingly obvious choice. All they had to do was read FTT’s forum.
LikeLike
1. SDSU isn’t obvious at all. Mostly because hardly anyone watches them on TV now. Unlike this message board here, the consulting firm probably could better prepare the most compelling sales presentation possible for SDSU.
2. Delaney’s involvement isn’t strange. Some guys like to stay involved and enjoy doing some work to earn some more money for their great-great-grandkids’ college fund.
LikeLike
Richard: “SDSU isn’t obvious at all.”
So please tell us which school is more obvious.
LikeLike
I think every media report I have seen has said that SDSU is the one school the Pac-12 would take for sure, if it expands.
LikeLike
Colin: None.
But anyway, if you think it’s such a slamdunk, then tell SDSU to hire you as a consultant as you’ll make sure they get in to the Pac or B12. I’m sure they’d be willing to pay you a pretty penny if they get an invite.
LikeLike
Assuming the B12 really wants to be a coast-to-coast conference and get to 16 members, BUT can’t pry any schools from the P12, who’s on deck?
MWC – San Diego State, Boise State, Fresno State, Colorado State, UNLV, or San Jose State?
American – Tulane, USF, Memphis, East Carolina, or SMU?
Assuming the money works, and it wouldn’t take much ($4m/yr for MWC and $16.5m buyout with two years notice, and $7m/yr and $10m buyout with 27-month notice), I would think they pick USF, San Diego State and Boise State as no-brainers, if Disney/FOX gives them 1/2 pro-rata, or so. The big dilemma is number 16.
LikeLike
I think national is overrated, but if they want it, is it to add the 4th TV window? If so, that takes a lot more western teams. If they just want to be in all the regions, that’s different.
Just to be in the regions:
USF to pair with UCF
SDSU (if available) to “pair” with BYU and add the PT time zone
Memphis and Tulane for recruiting
4th time zone:
USF to pair with UCF
SDSU (if available) and UNLV
Boise to “pair” with BYU
LikeLike
The coast-to-coast idea might merely be an idea to be realized over time, much like Kevin Warren’s 20-team Big Ten. Some of the ideas mentioned here are probably dilutive, and they have not yet absorbed their four newest additions.
I would hope that his presidents put the kibosh on further expansion unless a truly compelling opportunity presents itself. The Pac-12’s four corners are such an opportunity. I suspect nothing else is. The Big XII will always be able to hunt-and-peck from the G5; there is no good reason to rush into it.
LikeLike
Yeah, some people seem to be interpreting marketing/sales statements as strategy, which is silly.
Just as Warren boasting of the B10 being in 4 time zones doesn’t mean the B10 will add CU or UU anytime soon (just that the western edge of NE is in the mountain time zone), the B12 “coast-to-coast” statement likely just means adding Gonzaga (and possibly other non-football MBB powers), not schools that are dilutive in any way.
LikeLike
Hybrid conferences don’t seem like a good idea to me. But could it be a move for consolidation of basketball? The Big 12 and ACC pick apart the Big East (in basketball this time, not football)? Part of a longer term breakaway from the NCAA?
Certainly from Gonzaga’s point of view, they could be looking for membership in a conference that will be above any line. Without BYU and Gonzaga, the WCC is not in the top half of Division I.
LikeLike
Well, what doomed the old BE was other conferences taking its strongest schools that played football. Then the MBB-only schools broke off because the remaining football-playing schools didn’t offer enough value in MBB. But I don’t see the P2 taking any more B12 schools, and the B12 becomes a very strong MBB conference if it adds all the MBB-only bball powers.
LikeLike
Week #9 members of the 4m viewers club.
8.27m Ohio State/Penn State noon FOX
5.62m Florida/Georgia 3:30p CBS
5.58m Michigan State/Michigan 7:30p ABC
4.04m Kentucky/Tennessee 7p ESPN
LikeLike
Report that Gonzaga is talking to Big 12. That would give Big 12 coast to coast league, from Orlando to Spokane. Of course the Gonzaga football team has not played at all in 80 years, so they might be a bit rusty.
Not quite sure how that would work. We shall see.
https://www.si.com/college/texas/news/gonzaga-bulldogs-join-texas-longhorns-big-12-conference-brett-yorkmark
LikeLike
B12 becomes the new BE.
Maybe they could get all the non-foorball members of the BE to join as well! (And UConn could always drop down in football)
The eastern members of the B12 would like that. Actually, the Midwestern B12 schools too.
LikeLike
Is SDSU this year’s UConn?
LikeLike
Gonzaga’s AD met with Big XII commissioner Brett Yormark in person recently to discuss the possibility of the Zags joining the XII.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/34934063/sources-gonzaga-talks-big-12-joining-conference
Who knows if this will go anywhere, but a face to face meeting means both sides are treating it at least somewhat seriously.
LikeLike
I wonder if this is leverage for Gonzaga with the P12. You’d have to think they’d prefer staying on the coast and playing in their own time zone.
LikeLike
There are a lot of “experts” out there saying Gonzaga can go to the Big 12 for basketball only. As far as I can tell, that’s not possible unless Gonzaga goes independent for all sports, because of NCAA bylaw 20.02.8 (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90008). Did something change with those rules? Are these “experts” assuming Gonzaga would orphan their other sports for basketball? Or are the “experts” not really “experts”?
LikeLike
Further, what league would let Gonzaga take its one profitable sport and leave everything else behind. In addition, how could Gonzaga bball revenue pay for the travel of all other sports across the country?
George Kliavkoff must be outraged to even read this since UCLA with an extra $40 million or so cannot afford to switch leagues according to him.
The Big East which is not quite up to Big 12 basketball levels, but close enough, distributes less than $5 million per school, including NCAA money.
LikeLike
??? Why can’t Gonzaga enter the B12 for all sports? I don’t think they have a football team. B12 teams already have to visit BYU sometimes in non-revenue sports. Another leg to/from Spokane on the same long weekend isn’t a huge deal.
LikeLike
Why can’t Gonzaga enter the B12 for all sports? I don’t think they have a football team.
They absolutely can (assuming they sponsor enough Big 12 sponsored sports). A lot of the commentary yesterday was the only way the Big 12 makes sense for Gonzaga is if its basketball only. Bob Thompson says the payout would be around 8 million for the Zags. That’s not a ton of money to fly your non-revs to various corners of the country. As far as travel partners go, The distance between Provo and Spokane (760 miles or a two hour flight) is roughly the same distance as Lincoln, NE and Ann Arbor, MI. No one considers the Huskers and Wolverines potential travel partners.
LikeLike
BYU being a two hour flight from Spokane is not exactly a close travel partner, but assuming it works geographically, how does it work financially?
If Gonzaga gets an extra $4 or $5 million per year more than it is making now, how does that pay for extra expenses for the 12 other non-basketball sports?
By the way, are 12 sponsored sports enough? I thought that there was a minimum of 16 for FBS schools, so Zag would be a non-FBS school in an FBS conference. Then what?
LikeLike
1. Gonzaga isn’t exactly an easy busride away from most of the schools in its current conference.
2. Where are you getting the number 12 from? Gonzaga sponsors 8 sports each for men and women. But even if they are technically in the B12 conference, in many of those sports (like golf, cross country, rowing, track), there isn’t much of a conference schedule. And in tennis, teams regularly play as much OOC as in conference. So that really only leaves basketball (both genders), baseball, women’s soccer and women’s volleyball playing a B12-heavy schedule. That’s not many teams.
LikeLike
Also, it’s not like we have not seen non-FBS schools in a FBS conference in ages. Did you forget the old BE already?!?!?!
LikeLike
As soon as someone challenged Canzano on his assertion that Fox’s pro rata was removed from the extended B12 contract, Canzano quickly name-checked Bob Thompson as the final word on the matter. Bob’s updated response? He can’t respond ‘for a variety of reasons’. In other words, speak-to-the-hand, I may be wrong. Point being, BT hasn’t been a President of the nascent Fox Sports Network for over a dozen years. Two regimes have come and went. If there’s such a thing as ‘informed speculation’ he’s no doubt the gold standard, but it’s unfortunate so many people hang their hats on his every word. By the time this is over, being Canzanoed is going to be a verb.
LikeLike
Not being able to respond is very different from denying it. I think he has some business/legal restrictions on him.
LikeLike
Why can’t Gonzaga enter the B12 for all sports?
I think we are mixing up the impact on the B12 and the impact on Gonzaga. The B12 is already spread-out. The impact to them of adding Gonzaga to the mix would be trivial. There are other reasons it might not happen, but it wouldn’t be for that.
But the travel impact for Gonzaga’s other sports would be significant, and they wouldn’t be getting football money to pay for it. Schools have made such moves for football. None yet has done it for basketball, but there is a first time for everything.
BYU being a two hour flight from Spokane is not exactly a close travel partner.
Herewith your regular reminder that when an expansion proposal depends on the words “travel partner,” it is not going to happen.
LikeLike
Marc, that’s not true.
Creighton moved from the MVC, where they could bus to several conference opponents to the BE, where they could bus to no other conference member and half the conference is half a continent away (so a similar distance as the Zags are from the Plains/TX where most of the B12 is).
Wichita St. moved from the compact MVC, where they could bus to several conference opponents, to the ACC, which is spread over half the country and has the majority of its members in the Eastern time zone, half a continent away from KS.
LikeLike
Wichita State moved to the AAC (not ACC) so less travel than ACC, but a lot less money also (FCS to top of G5). To the point of the post: I doubt if the travel will stop Gonzaga from joining B12 but also doubt how serious this is. The B12 still needs to integrate 4 new members and exit OK/TX. I view this more like the WA/OR meetings with the B10 at a slightly higher level.
LikeLike
Little, yeah, I meant the AAC.
Not sure if that was a mistyping or bad autocorrect.
But in any case, schools definitely have moved to a league that entails more travel costs solely for MBB before (I’m pretty certain Wichita St. didn’t make the move to the AAC for the sake of soccer).
LikeLike
I think those moves were less distance, but you are right…I had forgotten them. The trend in realignment is that if the move makes sense for the revenue sports, the non-revenue sports have to live with it. There are so many reasons why this move might not happen, I would never believe that travel had a part in the decision unless one of the parties comes out and says it.
LikeLike
Well the Texas president once said he wasn’t going to fly the women’s softball team all over the midwest (ie no Big 10). And he also said athlete travel was a serious consideration in the Pac 16 deal.
LikeLike
Bullet: Different school, different economics, different priorities, different options, and he’s from a different generation.
The funny thing is that in the B12, Texas was already flying their softball team all over the Midwest a lot (not to mention that Texas had wanted to join the B10 back in the day), but regardless, schools like Creighton and Wichita St. have shown that they’re willing to fly their softball team halfway across the continent often for a relatively small increase in money.
LikeLike
BTW, Bullet, if in the B10, the Texas softball team would travel a grand total of 4 times a year in to B10 country.
UCLA athletes in a handful of sports (many sports don’t play much of anything like a conference slate at all) have increased travel of 10-25 hours total a year by joining the B10. I doubt it would be more for Texas, so it seems to me that when it comes to athlete travel, many folks just go off of feels (or just look at a map and maybe assume people still got around on covered wagons or something) instead of analyzing using cold hard numbers.
LikeLike
Mike,
It says the multisport conference has to offer a certain number of sports and have a certain number of members, not that every member has to play them all. There are single sport members in multisport conferences all the time, but usually it’s because their home conference doesn’t offer the sport. I don’t see a specific bylaw that says you have to play MBB in your home conference.
LikeLike
Why would any conference agree to have all of the Gonzaga sports, except that one that helps the conference make money? Maybe the WCC needs them for scheduling reasons, but other than that?
Perhaps the Zags will go independent in other sports and pick up local games, etc., to minimize travel.
LikeLike
Why does any conference take in all the non-revenue sports they can of any new addition? Same reason. Try to answer why the B10 didn’t force RU to play their non-revenue sports somewhere outside the B10.
In any case, I don’t understand why you care so much.
LikeLike
I do not care. It is a matter of curiosity to see whether this is another of the multiplicity of strange rumors that have been floating around, or will this be the oddball that actually happens?
How many thousands of questions have been asked on this board about potential expansion and whether it will happen or not? Do you care about any or all of those? Just asking. If you do not, why are you participating? This is all a somewhat meaningless intellectual exercise, since we have no possible impact on any of it. That is fine with me.
What possible relevance or connection does this have to the B1G expanding by adding two schools on its eastern wing, RU and MD? Or is the question related only to Rutgers.? I thought that the consensus here, at least, was that all members in the B1G (and SEC) are equal.
Has the B1G ever offered to accept a football only college, or is this a special creative case? Perhaps you feel that the B1G should have asked both schools to join for football only.
I know that Johns Hopkins is a lacrosse only school, but I am not quite sure if that is even vaguely relevant to your question, other than to show that there are exceptions to every seeming rule.
Oh, and by the way, I still do not understand why any league would take all of the non-revenue sports while Gonzaga moves elsewhere with the most important money maker in the entire league.
LikeLike
I guess we’ll have to see. I expect the Zags to go where it is most financially advantageous for them and the non-revenue sports to deal with it.
A lot of sports don’t play anything like a conference slate. I just took a look at SLU’s tennis schedule and they seem to play zero A10 teams before the A10 conference tournament.
LikeLike
JHU participates in a range of sports. Lacrosse is its only D1 sport, a fact that lead to some other schools (ACC?) complaining to the NCAA.
LikeLike
I didn’t say anyone would, I just said I don’t think the rules forbid it.
LikeLike
But here are a few possible reasons:
If Gonzaga is a good geographical fit
If Gonzaga is a rival in sports beyond MBB
If it’s a better conference with Gonzaga in it in the other sports
If Gonzaga pays them
If Gonzaga promises them a bunch of MBB games in exchange
Imagine if the Zags promised 5 MBB games per year, 3 at Gonzaga (so on TV) and 2 on the road (so they could get some TV money). It keeps up the exposure and provides at least a little extra money, as well as providing some quad 1 games for a small conference.
LikeLike
Brian, that would be an ND/ACC agreement on an obviously much smaller scale.
That might work if the cost of other team travel does not overwhelm financial benefit.
I still think that a lot is being thrown against walls to see it sticks. Of course that gives talking heads (and this board) lots to talk about.
LikeLike
Through eight weeks, Amazon is a strain on the NFL’s viewership.
The NFL’s ratings are down 5% year-over-year. But the vast majority of that is due to the Thursday night package on Amazon, which is down 16%. To put it in raw numbers, the OTA packages have lost about 196,000 viewers, while Thursday night has lost two million.
As the article notes, the NFL is not going to bail out of streaming after just a half-season. Still, it is a cautionary tale for anyone that thinks streaming is the way of the future. It might be eventually, but isn’t now.
LikeLike
Well, the NFL can’t bail out of streaming even if they want to. They signed a 10-year deal with Amazon.
Before the end of that deal, streaming is likely to have caught up and surpassed cable (OTA still would offer the best distribution, obviously).
When the BTN deal ends in the ’30’s, the B10 may switch to purely OTA + streaming.
LikeLike
Yesterday is a case study in what will be lost with the advent of a 12 team playoff. Both the Tennessee-Georgia and Alabama-LSU games would be much less consequential rather than winner-take-all; both losers would still be very much alive for a playoff berth. Clemson’s loss to the Irish would be largely irrelevant beyond its entertainment value.
Consider also TCU at Texas next week. Big stakes for TCU. Similar game two years from now? Not so much.
LikeLike
jog267: “Yesterday is a case study in what will be lost with the advent of a 12 team playoff.”
If you’re trying to make a case that the current 4-team playoff is preferrable to the 12-team format, I’d estimate that 95% of college football fans would not concur.
LikeLike
Yep, I agree with Colin on that 95% figure. Yes, those games you mentioned would be less consequential, but I disagree a lot less. They’d actually still have a good amount of effect on both seeding/byes as well as margin for error going forward. You must have noticed that the NFL allowing 9-7 and 8-8 teams in to the playoffs does not decrease its viewership. In fact, it’s sky-high.
In the new CFP system, not only would the Texas-KSU game have been very consequential (while now, that game has zero CFP implications), but so would have UIUC-MSU. PSU would still have a shot at the playoffs (now they are essentially just playing for a better exhibition game). And actually, even that Clemson-ND game actually would be just as consequential as it is now. In the new world, yes, Clemson could still make the playoffs with a loss, but that major win would keep ND’s hopes for the playoffs alive while now, they’re just playing for pride/being a spoiler.
LikeLike
Oh, and in the new CFP system, that TCU-Texas game would still have big stakes. For Texas, though, who’s CFP hopes would still be alive right now while now they can only hope to play spoiler.
LikeLike
Also, B10 divisions are going away, but if the 12-team CFP world existed right now, 5/7 teams in the B10W would have a shot (however slim) at the CFP as they would have a shot at winning the B10. Even UNL would have had some hope until they lost this weekend.
In the B12, any school with 2 conference losses or less (4/10) or maybe even 3 conference losses or less (6/10) would still have hopes of winning the B12 and thus making the CFP.
In the Pac, 5/12 schools would have 2 losses or less and a realistic shot at the Pac title and CFP berth. UO-UW next week would have major playoff implications for both schools. Who’s talking about that game now?
LikeLike
Yesterday is a case study in what will be lost with the advent of a 12 team playoff.
It’s a case study in how all playoff expansions work, regardless of which sport. Regular-season games like Tennessee–Georgia are mainly for seeding rather than elimination. But farther down the pecking order, the number of meaningful games expands exponentially.
The people who run these sports keep expanding their playoffs, which tells you what they think is more important. Playoffs expand because fans will watch them. And guess what: they will watch Tennessee–Georgia too, even when it doesn’t mean as much.
LikeLike
But farther down the pecking order, the number of meaningful games expands exponentially.
This all depends on your point of view. There won’t magically be more teams with a realistic chance to win the national title in the future, there will just be more teams that get to lose in the CFP. If meaning is related to who has a legitimate title shot, then nothing changes with the expansion except in a chaos year like 2007 where maybe #5 is as good as #1. If meaning is related to just making a tournament, then yes the number of meaningful games increases. But that is a much lesser form of meaning at the same time. It is not clear that the total amount of meaning in games really changes. What playoff expansion does is reduce the importance of elite games to emphasize a bunch of mediocre games instead. What a win for fans. If I wanted that in CFB, I’d watch the G5 regularly.
LikeLike
Brian: “There won’t magically be more teams with a realistic chance to win the national title in the future, there will just be more teams that get to lose in the CFP.”
Actually, the 12-team CFP does both. It isn’t magic but if we had the 12-team playoff this year, there are perhaps ten schools that could possibly win it all; UGA, Bama, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, tOSU, Michigan, Pac winner (USC/UCLA/Oregon), TCU, even ND if they continue playing like they did against Clemson. But with the 4-team playoff, there is no way the SEC would get more than two teams in.
LikeLike
“But that is a much lesser form of meaning at the same time.”
Depends on who you are. For a lot of programs; I daresay the vast majority of P5 programs, not to mention all the G5 schools (who, let’s be honest, don’t have a realistic shot at the natty), just making the CFP is as big a deal as winning the national title is for the top 3 programs.
So expanding the CFP would increase the total overall meaningfulness of regular season CFB games by a lot.
LikeLike
No, because making the CFP means a lot less when the G5 is guaranteed at least 1 slot every year. It’s the same as making the NY6 G5 slot now.
Winning the title is a much bigger deal, but it’s beyond their reach.
LikeLike
“No, because making the CFP means a lot less when the G5 is guaranteed at least 1 slot every year. It’s the same as making the NY6 G5 slot now.”
Huh? You said it yourself: (Roughly) 1 CFP slot for a G5 school each year. Just as there is 1 national title winner each year. Meaning just making the CFP is as momentous an event for them as winning the national title is for a school that contends for the national title each year.
LikeLike
The “meaning” of the games will be comparable to basketball, which places dozens of its teams in the tournament who have almost no realistic chance to win the championship. Still, every tournament school considers it a big deal.
LikeLike
Well, maybe not for those schools who legitimately should expect to make the Big Dance every year. But in MBB, there are more of those as the MBB tourney has such a big field. With a 12 team CFP, really only UGa, Bama, and OSU are pretty much assured a spot and are only battling for seeding/byes.
Also, this idea that seeding/byes don’t matter also sounds weird to anyone who follows a sport with a playoff system with seeding and byes. NFL teams certainly don’t have that attitude. That’s because they care about willing the title.
LikeLike
With a 12 team CFP, really only UGa, Bama, and OSU are pretty much assured a spot and are only battling for seeding/byes.
The notion of GA as an automatic qualifier is fairly recent. Before Kirby arrived, GA had at least 3 conference losses in 10 of the previous 20 seasons. Likewise, Alabama between Bryant and Saban was quite pedestrian much of the time. In the decade before Saban, the Tide had 3 or more losses in 7 out of 10 seasons.
LikeLike
Yep, if you go over a really long period of time, no one stays on the top forever. I suppose people would have penciled in OU and Clemson in a (12-team) CFP every year until they would have suddenly stopped making it.
But lets just stick to how many schools you can predict would make a 12-team CFP before the begin of the year. It’s a really low number. And I doubt fans of even those teams would stop paying attention to regular season games when OSU-Toledo draws over 3mm viewers and UMich-CSU draws almost 4mm viewers.
LikeLike
Predict with absolutely certainty, I meant.
LikeLike
Yes. Now mostly just 11 games will matter, with some moderate meaning in games determining who fills the bottom seeds. You can pencil in half the CFP field to start the season, and even 2 losses won’t change that.
Welcome to December Madness, this time with the NFL dominating many of the TV windows.
Maybe CFB should move to spring to avoid the NFL overlap. They can roll straight from March Madness into a double elimination all team CFB tournament and just eliminate the regular season – good for player health.
LikeLike
Brian, you’re underestimating how big a deal making the CFP would be to schools (and their fans) who pretty much never have a realistic shot at the national title.
As for penciling in teams, you can say that about the top 3 of Bama, UGa, and OSU, but that’s about it. Even some schools that would expect to make the CFP every year would sometimes miss it. Clemson in 2021, UO in 2020 and 2021, OU in 2021 and very likely this year, and I’m actually struggling to think of more schools who’s inclusion in the CFB should be considered automatic. A&M and ND were in the top 6 of the AP preseason poll this year but the regular season definitely has mattered to them in terms of making the playoffs.
BTW, considering that they barely escaped with wins in ACC play (and we all know how mediocre the ACC is) and then got whipped by a team that lost to both Marshall and Stanford, Clemson definitely is not a shoo-in for the CFP this year either.
LikeLike
No, you’re overestimating it. The G5 have an autobid, just like they do to the NY6 now. Every P5 champ should also make it. CFP expansion lowered the bar.
LikeLike
Brian, do you at least have the humility to acknowledge that you have no clue how a supporter of a school who realistically will never have a shot at the national title feels?
LikeLike
I know how lots of them feel, because I’ve talked with them about it. I do know plenty of people that aren’t OSU (or other king) fans. They don’t all feel like you do about this.
LikeLike
OK, Brian, since you talk to many of them, what proportion of them are against CFP expansion and what proportion are for it?
LikeLike
CFP expansion lowered the bar.
As it did, and does, in every sport that expands its playoff. And yet every sport keeps doing it.
LikeLike
Honestly, most don’t much care because they don’t think they’ll ever make it anyway. The ones that have been excited were not in favor because of their school and what it would mean for their regular season, but because they’d rather have more CFP games to watch as a neutral fan.
LikeLike
Marc,
As it did, and does, in every sport that expands its playoff. And yet every sport keeps doing it.
And? How is that relevant to the discussion that was going on? It was about how big of a deal making the expanded CFP will be.
LikeLike
So it seems like most people see more benefit from the expanded CFP than not, then.
LikeLike
That is irrelevant to the topic under discussion, which was “how big a deal making the CFP would be.”
LikeLike
Well, maybe not for those schools who legitimately should expect to make the Big Dance every year. But in MBB, there are more of those as the MBB tourney has such a big field. With a 12 team CFP, really only UGa, Bama, and OSU are pretty much assured a spot and are only battling for seeding/byes.
Also, this idea that seeding/byes don’t matter also sounds weird to anyone who follows a sport with a playoff system with seeding and byes. NFL teams certainly don’t have that attitude. That’s because they care about willing the title.
LikeLike
Canzano tidbits follows. Most interesting thing is that UCLA’s fate may still up in the air. Looks like UC Board of Regents will take up the issue mid-November.
“National radio show host Dan Patrick — who I respect immensely — said his source told him that San Diego State to the Pac-12 is expected to be announced as soon as this week.
“The news feels right. But the timeline is too ambitious. In fact, two trusted sources told me on Monday that nothing has changed. They insist SDSU remains a solid expansion candidate. Nobody I spoke with expects an announcement this week.
“The Pac-12 still has to finish off its media rights negotiations and learn UCLA’s fate (UC Regents meet Nov. 15-17) before the conference can proceed with serious consideration of San Diego State, SMU, UNLV and others.”
LikeLike
You left out the best part: In touting Oregon as an institutionally successful football program, Canazano summarized the records at Oregon & outside of Oregon of its 3 most recent head coaches who have gone on to coach CFB elsewhere: Cristobal (35-13, 31-52), Taggart (7-5, 63-73), and Kelly (46-7, 26-26).
This is somewhat of an unfair comparison for Taggart & Kelly. Taggart engineered two program turnarounds before reaching Oregon, which dragged down his record. Kelly was handed a great situation at Oregon, and then took on a turnaround at UCLA. But, it has always been obvious that while Cristobal can recruit, he cannot coach.
LikeLike
Week 10 4m viewer club members.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
13.06m Tennessee at Georgia 3:30p CBS
7.58m Alabama at LSU 7p ESPN (competing with decisive game 6 of the World Series* and Clemson/Notre Dame)
4.76m Ohio State at Northwestern noon ABC
Total viewers per timeslot:
NOON – 11.23m: 4.76m OSU/NwU ABC; 2.73m UF/A&M ESPN; 2.51m TTU/TCU FOX; 1.23m AFA/Army CBS
3:30p – 16.252m: 13.06m UTn/UGA CBS; 2.23m PSU/Ind ABC; 962k Ore/CU ESPN
PRIMETIME – 12.3m: 7.58m Bama/LSU ESPN; 3.22m ND/Clem NBC; 1.5m UM/FSU ABC
AFTER DARK – 2.04m: USC/Cal ESPN
Network totals for the season – 4m+ viewer games:
12 – ABC
9 – CBS & FOX
4 – ESPN
0 – NBC
10m viewer club for the season:
13.06m UTn/UGA 11/5 3:30p CBS
11.56m Bama/UTn 10/15 3:30p CBS
10.6m Bama/UTx 9/10 noon FOX
10.53m ND/OhSU 9/3, 7:30p ABC
* Saturday’s Phillies-Astros World Series Game 6 averaged a 6.1 rating and 12.55 million viewers on FOX, marking the lowest rated and least-watched Game 6 of the Fall Classic on record.
LikeLike
ESPN+ subscriptions up to 24.3m.
https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/espn-subscriptions-increase-to-24-3-million.html
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34989790/cfp-rose-bowl-negotiating-game-role-expanded-playoff
Gee, who could have possibly foreseen that the Rose Bowl might be an issue with expanding the CFP? Ignoring the issue the first time around was not helpful.
LikeLike
I did not see anything in the article suggesting that they ignored that issue. Some folks in the room think the entire world of CFB should not revolve around that one game.
It appears that in the years they do not host a quarterfinal, the Rose Bowl wants an exclusive 5pm ET window so that it can show—at best—the Big Ten #3 vs. the Pac-12 #2. (Sometimes, the match up might even be worse than that.) I can understand why some parties to the conversation consider that request inflexible.
Of course, the Rose Bowl faces the same existential question everyone did the last time: they can drag their butts for, at most, two years. In 2026, they lose a big chunk of their leverage. At least eight of the ten conferences, plus Notre Dame, are not going to twist into a pretzel to make the Rose Bowl happy.
And the article lacks any comment from the Big Ten. I suspect this is not the hill Kevin Warren would choose to die on.
LikeLike
Why would it be in the article? We all know they excluded the B10 and P12 from the working group, and came up with a plan that had no consideration for what to do with the Rose Bowl. Everyone in the room knew it would be an issue, but they ignored it and tried to ramrod it through anyway. Now they seem shocked that the most traditional bowl, which is also the most watched non-NCG/CFP game and tied to a vastly valuable TV entity (the parade), wants special treatment.
The discussion is centered around one of the most lucrative television windows in college sports, and while it’s not the only issue surrounding early expansion, it’s one of the most complicated.
It’s lucrative because it’s the Rose Bowl. Primetime should be a better slot, but it isn’t.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/01/rose-bowl-ratings-lowest-ever-espn-stanford-iowa-viewership-college-football/
See the ratings chart in the article.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2011/01/rose-bowl-numbers-game/
And in this one.
Ratings and viewership for college football’s Rose Bowl game, dating back to 1986 and 2002, respectively.
Excluding national championship games, the Rose Bowl has been the highest rated college football bowl game every year since the BCS debuted in the 1998-99 season.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-playoff-ratings-bcs/
The Rose doesn’t top the semifinals, but it’s been close. No other bowl can make that claim, and it’s not even close.
LikeLike
Why would it be in the article? We all know they excluded the B10 and P12 from the working group, and came up with a plan that had no consideration for what to do with the Rose Bowl.
This is false. There was no cabal to exclude the B10 and P12. Rather, the larger group—of which those two conferences are a part—agreed that a smaller one would sift through options and come back with a proposed format.
As far as I can find in any source, the smaller group was not supposed to answer every imaginable question. It was supposed to come back with a format (number of teams, qualification criteria), which it did. No one besides you has said that the smaller group failed in its task — indeed, its recommendation was unanimously accepted exactly as they proposed it.
LikeLike
Really Brian. You know better than to push the nonsense that the Big 10 and Pac 12 were “excluded.” Kliavkoff, Phillips and Warren weren’t part of the group and I think their personal egos were part of the reason this didn’t get approved months ago.
LikeLike
No, it is not. It’s 100% fact. They picked a group that excluded the B10 and P12 to develop their plan. And we know their plan had no consideration for what to do with the Rose Bowl.
I didn’t say they had a sinister reason for it, just that they did it. And some of us pointed out long ago that it might not have been wise because those two conferences know better than anyone else the likely pushback from the Rose Bowl.
I never said they failed in their task. They did indeed come back with a plan.
And no, it was never accepted. Their original plan was for an immediate all-ESPN extension of the CFP. That was not approved and many different sides have said that would be a bad idea.
LikeLike
I think their personal egos were part of the reason this didn’t get approved months ago.
Talk about nonsense. You disagree with them, so you have consistently portrayed this as them throwing a temper tantrum and other derogatory comparisons.
The ACC said they were opposed to any expansion plan long before anything was presented. Was that a pre-emptive tantrum from Phillips?
The B10 didn’t want an all-ESPN CFP, nor did it want the Rose Bowl to be undermined. Warren would’ve told anyone those two things in advance if he had been asked.
Kliavkoff wanted more information about the revenue distribution, since that is the only purpose of the CFP. How dare he ask for actual relevant details before signing a contract?
And all of them do what their presidents tell them to do, so you should be blaming the presidents if you don’t like the initial vote.
LikeLike
Given that they are now 100% behind it after being straightened out by the presidents, its pretty hard to think it was anything but ego.
The Big 10 and Pac 12 voted for the people on the select group. They were 100% behind the working group, so your comment is just totally inane. You just don’t like the idea of a playoff. That’s fine. Some people don’t. Just admit it.
LikeLike
Given that they are now 100% behind it after being straightened out by the presidents, its pretty hard to think it was anything but ego.
Only for you, since you decided a long time ago that must be the explanation. They weren’t “straightened out,” they were given new orders. The commissioners do what the presidents tell them to do – that’s their job. The presidents changed their opinions over time.
The Big 10 and Pac 12 voted for the people on the select group.
Did they? Before or after the current commissioners were in place? Before or after current presidents were in place? The people in place matter.
They were 100% behind the working group, so your comment is just totally inane.
Voting for something and being 100% behind it are not the same thing. And which people were voting matters, too. Were they still 100% behind it when the SEC’s secret expansion news broke just as they were trying to force through the all-ESPN expansion? Not so much.
You just don’t like the idea of a playoff. That’s fine. Some people don’t. Just admit it.
I fully admit some people don’t like the playoff – there are always some people on the correct side of an issue. I have never said otherwise. In fact, I’ve pointed it out multiple times. I also said I didn’t like it from long before it existed, so don’t act like I ever tried to hide my opinion of it.
That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The CFP committee (really Hancock) planned poorly. Any 11 of us could’ve pointed out that just picking a plan for the number of teams was not sufficient. The revenue model, the calendar/schedule, and the bowls were all obvious problems that also needed to be addressed. The whole CFP committee is at fault for thinking just a plan was enough.
They could’ve simultaneously looked into the calendar issues and had some options ready for any size plan. They could’ve had some initial revenue splitting plans under discussion (not in fine detail). They could’ve come up with plans for the major bowls, especially the Rose which they had to know would fight for NYD at 2pm PT. It was amateur hour, and now you see them struggling to play catch up while looking stupid.
LikeLike
The CFP committee (really Hancock) planned poorly. Any 11 of us could’ve pointed out that just picking a plan for the number of teams was not sufficient.
The committee itself never claimed otherwise. The working group answered the questions it was tasked with.
It makes sense that they went no farther, because so many of the other questions are different—or perhaps become completely irrelevant—if you do not first agree with the idea of expanding to 12.
Now, it may be that the four working group members underestimated the challenge of addressing the remaining issues. If you have ever been on a working group, you might know what that is like.
But none of the commissioners who voted no have said that the working group failed to do what was asked of them. In fact, they did it so well that the presidents eventually adopted their proposal almost verbatim.
LikeLike
I didn’t say they failed either.
LikeLike
The next 2 years will be a mess because everybody has to agree to a new setup, but after that, it’s a blank slate, so just set up a 5-year deal where
1: Push up the season start (to what is now Week 0 or even Week -1).
2. End the season Thanksgiving week (now, that would be CCG week, but I’d much prefer to replace CCGs with a 13th game for everyone, and it’d make everyone more money too).
3. First 2 rounds of the CFP at higher seeds the first 2 weeks of December (so playing for home field advantage would matter, and these are weeks when the NFL can’t be on Saturdays).
NYD has 2 semifinals. Rose always gets 1 semifinal (starting 2PM Pacific, 5PM Eastern). Other 5 major bowls get the national title game and 1 semifinal every 5 years. Other years, 2 of them can play NYD before the Rose Bowl (the other 1 NYE or something).
I think the B10 and Pac would be onboard as well as the SEC (which would get a semifinal in its territory 4/5 years as well as the national title game in its territory 4/5 years).
LikeLike
For all of the above to happen, the presidents would need to change their minds on a bunch of things they already agreed that contradict it.
Rose always gets 1 semifinal…
What I am seeing in the above article is that the bulk of industry parties are not willing to give them that. The Rose Bowl’s opponents smell chum in the water.
Other 5 major bowls get the national title game and 1 semifinal every 5 years.
Translation: most of the time, they are minor bowls. I can see why such an idea would not be popular.
Two rounds on campus is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons, but the only way I see it happening is if the proposed format fails. Otherwise, they won’t want to kill off the major bowls, which is what your proposal effectively does.
LikeLike
Marc, I think you give the other bowls (besides the Rose) more clout than deserves. We’ll see how it plays out, but I actually don’t see other bowls besides the Rose having many conferences to protect them.
LikeLike
Marc, I think you give the other bowls (besides the Rose) more clout than deserves. We’ll see how it plays out, but I actually don’t see other bowls besides the Rose having many conferences to protect them.
What the other conferences want is a sunny tourist destination for their best teams to play over the New Year’s holiday, and of course a big payout. The second round on campus could never be as lucrative. I don’t have the math for that, but the folks who put the format together know the numbers in their sleep. The idea of playing two rounds on campus never received serious consideration.
Most coaches and administrators don’t want the second round on campus either. In your model, some teams would play their major rivalry, a CCG, and two playoff rounds over four consecutive weeks. The proposed model creates much more breathing room between the CCGs and Round One, and between Rounds One and Two.
The NYD bowls would need to flop rather badly before anyone would sign up for the drawbacks of two rounds on campus.
LikeLike
I don’t know that the schools and conferences want to give up each of them having a piece of Thanksgiving weekend over to the CCGs so that the playoff can move up a week. And the playoff starting after the first weekend in December is a plus. Otherwise there is a big 3 week gap until January 1. 2 weeks promotes better play.
LikeLike
the other bowls are reasonable and don’t think the tail should wag the dog.
LikeLike
Playoff games the 2nd weekend of December won’t fly with a lot of schools due to “dead” weeks/final exams. Also interferes with ESPN’s Heisman Show – lol.
LikeLike
The other bowls aren’t as valuable, don’t draw as many viewers, aren’t tied to a lucrative TV-covered parade, don’t have as much tradition, and aren’t as deeply tied to 2 power conferences.
The other bowls and conferences want to undermine a valuable asset because it isn’t theirs. Instead, they should be trying to find ways to also benefit from it.
LikeLike
The other bowls and conferences want to undermine a valuable asset because it isn’t theirs. Instead, they should be trying to find ways to also benefit from it.
This is probably true. But the Rose Bowl is a scarce asset: one game on one day, with two teams. The people who control it don’t want to share what they have built. I can see why nobody else wants to help the Rose Bowl, when the Rose Bowl is offering them nothing.
LikeLike
Playoff games the 2nd weekend of December won’t fly with a lot of schools due to “dead” weeks/final exams.
Someone was probably going to point out that FCS plays that weekend. But FCS does not have any better date to play that round, whereas FBS does.
LikeLike
Marc,
This is probably true. But the Rose Bowl is a scarce asset: one game on one day, with two teams. The people who control it don’t want to share what they have built. I can see why nobody else wants to help the Rose Bowl, when the Rose Bowl is offering them nothing.
The Rose is a semifinal every 3 years, so the bigger the Rose Bowl is considered the more money everyone makes. I already posted how easily it crushes the other NY6 games as non-CFP bowls, and is on par with some semifinals.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2021/9/7/tv-viewership-history
Semifinal viewer averages by bowl:
Rose 24.8M
Sugar 23.2M
Fiesta 20.4M
Peach 18.4M
Cotton 17.5M
Orange 17.4M
The Rose had 2 games over 27M, (2 of the 3 that topped 22M). The Sugar is buoyed by it’s first year of the CFP semi with OSU vs AL. A valuable Rose Bowl has already benefitted everyone.
If everyone else wants a taste (or a bigger taste), then they need to bring it up when discussing the revenue split.
LikeLike
Selected questions to Canzano:
Q: Do you think playoff expansion will affect Oregon’s decision on conference realignment? — @pnwnd
A: It already has. The expansion of the College Football Playoff to 12 teams changed the calculus. Oregon has a much easier path to the future playoff in the Pac-12 vs. the Big Ten. Also, important note: the Ducks haven’t been invited by the Big Ten.
Q: Say a miracle happens, and UCLA is blocked from bolting to the Big Ten, does the Pac-12 then only add SDSU? What’s been the latest on conference stability? — @WebFootChicano
A: Conference members continue to tell me they’re galvanized and unified. If UCLA stays in the Pac-12, I expect San Diego State would be added as a replacement for USC.
Q: Why is my skin so dry in the morning? — @therockfordfile
A: Make sure you’re drinking enough water — hydrate inside-out. Skip the scalding hot shower at night, too. Also, be mindful of running your furnace all night, blowing too much continuous hot air. That’s all I have on this front.
LikeLike
With their B1G windfall, maybe UCLA can cover the 10 yr, 17m naming rights deal Cal signed with FTX. (Nothing screams ‘Take us Big Ten!” like playing on FTX Field 😊) Then again, the contract was to be paid in crypto, so they might only be out a cup of coffee. Leave it to Berkeley to have the only cryptocurrency sponsorship in the NCAA. The former CEO’s mother, Barb Fried, was a professor of mine. Super nice lady.
LikeLike
This issue with the California Board of Regents meeting on Nov 15-17 to “decide the fate” of UCLA is quite curious to me. As I understand the charter, BOR oversight is strictly for academic matters and all athletic decisions are made by the individual schools. If that’s true, why is the BOR meeting to “decide UCLA’s fate”?
LikeLike
The BoR delegated that authority, but insist that they still have the legal right to overrule any decisions made at the lower level. Basically, they want to force UCLA to help support Cal since they couldn’t get the B10 to take both.
LikeLike
This FTX fiasco is sort of the cherry on the PAC sundae.
LikeLike
Making currency out of Blue Sky;
Crypto seems very clever and sly;
But when the bottom falls out;
Then there is little doubt;
It’s really just another Ponzi.
LikeLike
I think it’s hyperbolae to say that UCLA’s “fate” will be decided at this week’s regents meeting.
This is a regularly scheduled 2-day meeting with many items on the agenda. During a 60-minute closed session, the Board will purportedly discuss: “UCLA Big Ten Membership – Potential Legal Issues and Financial Impacts.”
It probably requires more expertise than we have on this forum to say whether the regents could block UCLA’s move, if they were determined to do so. But I think it is fairly unlikely that it would be done in just a 60-minute session.
Of course, there are probably options that, while not formally blocking the move, could delay it or make it more difficult. But I do think it is inaccurate to say their “fate” will be decided, unless the decision is to do nothing.
LikeLike
Marc: “I think it’s hyperbolae to say that UCLA’s “fate” will be decided at this week’s regents meeting.”
I agree. Those were Canzano’s words, not mine, and he’s reputed to be the Pac-12 insider. Until I read his article, I though UCLA to the B1G was a done deal, and that’s why I said his words were puzzling. Maybe he knows something that we don’t. I’d be shocked if UCLA was blocked, but we’ll see in a couple of days.
LikeLike
It’s been on the agenda before. That’s when they demanded the report from UCLA about the impacts of the move.
LikeLike
Q: Do you think playoff expansion will affect Oregon’s decision on conference realignment? — @pnwnd
A: It already has. The expansion of the College Football Playoff to 12 teams changed the calculus. Oregon has a much easier path to the future playoff in the Pac-12 vs. the Big Ten. Also, important note: the Ducks haven’t been invited by the Big Ten.
The “important note” that he saves for last is perhaps the only note that matters: they do not have an invitation!
He seems to be suggesting that maybe Oregon doesn’t even want an invitation anymore. I suspect this is a guess: he regularly cites Pac-12 insiders off-the-record, when he’s got a source. For this, he apparently does not have one.
FTT said years ago, and I agree, that university presidents prefer predictable annual revenue over lumpy revenue that depends on won/lost records. For this reason, I think Oregon would undoubtedly accept a Big Ten invitation, if it were offered — but I do not think it will be.
LikeLike
Well with 2 weeks left, if there were no divisions, the Big 10 CCG would already be set, an immediate Ohio St.-Michigan rematch.
With divisions-we have a big game in the east and chaos in the west!
LikeLike
The ACC would be the same either way – Clemson vs UNC
The SEC would likely be UGA vs TN instead of UGA vs LSU, based on H2H, but the final 2 weeks would matter.
The B10 CCG will be anticlimactic no matter what this year, but I’m not a fan of back to back rematches. The first game should be cancelled if it won’t matter.
LikeLike
Too much money involved for that. Maybe Ohio St.-Michigan should be moved to the next to last week after expansion.
LikeLike
It’s a new world with the addition of the LA schools, and even without expansion, UMich and OSU would have rarely faced off in a top-2 B10 CCG over the past few decades.
But in any case, that’s another reason why replacing CCGs with a 13-game regular season for all (and no CCGs) is better.
LikeLike
Keep divisions. With USC in the west, the BiG will often be able to re-create a Rose Bowl-calibur matchup. Let USC & UCLA host the game in Vegas.
LikeLike
B10 schools wouldn’t be able to play each other often enough for their liking with 2 divisions in a 16-team conference and 9 conference games.
Unless something like 4 4-team divisions can be worked out (then the 9th conference game would function as semifinals and be determined on the fly).
LikeLike
With USC in the west, the BiG will often be able to re-create a Rose Bowl-calibur matchup.
The Big Ten won’t want most of USC’s (and UCLA’s) schedule to be against the worst half of the conference. That is not how you show off your bright shiny new toys.
LikeLike
Question. Is there really serious bad blood between Notre Dame and Michigan, and why?
If there is, is that likely to factor into a ND decision on joining a conference?
LikeLike
https://www.herloyalsons.com/blog/2012/09/19/the-hand-that-rocks-the-cradle-why-we-hate-michigan/
Some ND fans are still angry about Fielding Yost (died in 1946). He refused to play them after an early loss, and kept ND out of the B10 when was UM’s AD,
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/7954463/hate-fueled-football-great-rivalries
Plus, they’re alumni are so similar that they can’t help but hate each other.
LikeLike
I do not believe there is “serious bad blood” (or even non-serious) between Michigan and Notre Dame. There was a 35-year gap when they didn’t play due to the issues Brian mentioned. But starting in 1978, they played almost annually, and had intended to continue doing so.
But when ND joined the ACC, with the condition of playing 5 ACC games a year, some of their longstanding annual series had to be cancelled, including the Michigan game. They also cancelled the Purdue series (MSU as well), and nobody has suggested they had bad blood with Purdue.
There are ND fanboys who still bring up what Yost did as if it affected them personally, which of course it does not — they are just regurgitating the lore. No one in charge at ND today has acted like they have anything against Michigan or any other Big Ten team. Should they eventually conclude that independence is no longer tenable, I don’t doubt they would join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Marc, I agree with your comments about ND until you said “Should they eventually conclude that independence is no longer tenable,”
I’ve attended about a dozen ND-Purdue game in West Lafayette and three in South Bend. Their mentality is “Purdue belongs to a conference. It’s a regional school. ND is independent. It’s a national school.”
Independence is their brand and it has worked very well for them over the years. The Domers will never ” . . . conclude that independence is no longer tenable, . . ” If this ACC deal bottoms out, they’ll work out something with the Big East. They also once played Olympic sports in the Midwestern City Conference. You’ve heard of that conference, right?
Notre Dame is not joining a conference in football. Period.
LikeLike
You will note that I said, “Should they eventually conclude. . . .” I did not attach any probability to it. We are not disagreeing about anything, at least up to that point.
AD Swarbrick has publicly stated a list of conditions that would cause ND to join a conference in football. Those conditions do not yet exist, but it was obviously something he had considered—nobody says that off the cuff. And he would be very unlikely to say that without having discussed it internally. That alone, I think, is sufficient evidence that joining a conference is not the unthinkable prospect that it once was. They have thought about it.
After USC and UCLA announced that they were joining the Big Ten, there were a few prominent ND homers who suggested they should join too. Former QB Brady Quinn was one of these; that is just one I remember offhand. There were others. It might not yet be the majority view among the Faithful, but it was significant: in the past you would never hear prominent alumni make that suggestion. It was the red line almost nobody would cross.
So, if I were you, I would not be quite so sure that ND will “never…period” join a conference in football. Would they still prefer football independence? Yes, of course. But the probability of them joining a conference eventually is definitely nonzero.
LikeLike
Brian, thanks. Reading that, I would imagine that if ND is forced to give up its independence, the Irish would want to play in conference against Michigan.
I only bring this up since there are a couple of guys on YouTube channels who seem to think that even if ND is backed up against a wall, it would not join the B1G, I had no clue if they had any basis for this.
LikeLike
I would not put much credence in that, unless you know for sure that the YouTubers are channeling the ND administration — which I suspect they are not.
ND prefers football independence, for very well known reasons. But should that change, they are not going to spurn the Big Ten (and all of that money) because of what Fielding Yost did in the 1940s. Some of the Faithful might be that dumb, but the administration is not.
LikeLike
From today’s WaPo, heavily redacted:
In largest strike of 2022, California academic workers walk off job
Some 48,000 teaching assistants, postdocs, researchers and graders at California’s prestigious public university system are seeking more pay and child-care benefits
By Lauren Kaori Gurley November 14, 2022 at 11:07 a.m. EST
In the largest work stoppage of the year, thousands of academic workers at the University of California system went on strike Monday over the university system’s bargaining practices with their union, which is trying to secure higher wages.
Some 48,000 teaching assistants, postdocs, researchers and graders on the front lines of teaching and research at California’s prestigious public university system are seeking a minimum annual salary of $54,000 and increased child-care benefits, saying they do not earn enough to live in the state. They also accuse the university of not bargaining in good faith with their union, the United Auto Workers.
“At every turn, the university has sought to act unlawfully at the bargaining table, which is preventing us from reaching an agreement,” said Neal Sweeney, the president of UAW Local 5810, which represents more than 11,000 UC postdocs and academic researchers.
The University of California strike is also the largest academic strike in higher education in U.S. history, according to the UAW.
The strike threatens to disrupt classes, research and grading ahead of final exams at the UC system’s 10 campuses. Students would have to rely solely on professors for grades, teaching and other one-on-one instruction.
University administrators and the union continued to meet over the weekend through Sunday evening, with some progress toward a deal, but union officials said they remained far apart on the core issue of wages.
The United Auto Workers is asking UC leadership for a minimum salary of $54,000 for all graduate students and a minimum salary of $70,000 for all postdocs, as well as annual cost-of-living adjustments in contract negotiations. Many graduate students earn in the low $20,000 a year, and postdocs earn a minimum of $55,631. The union has also requested $2,000 a month in child-care reimbursements, expanded paid parental leave and public transit passes for its members.
The university system has offered pay increases ranging from 4 percent to 7 percent in the first year of the contract, with smaller subsequent raises. Workers have rejected those offers, saying they are too low. For example, many teaching assistants would earn less than $30,000 a year with the university’s proposal.
University negotiators have also offered child-care stipends of between $2,500 and $4,050 a year and some transit subsidies. Some workers receive $3,300 in child-care subsidies a year. Workers have said the proposed annual stipend would barely cover a month of child care. Still, the union said, bigger pay increases are paramount to winning a contract that improves the quality of life for their members.
The increased militancy around cost-of-living demands at the UC system follows a wave of unauthorized “wildcat” strikes that broke out at UC Santa Cruz and spread across a number of UC campuses in 2021. Workers demanded cost-of-living stipends to account for the soaring price of housing in the state. Following the strikes, UC Santa Cruz agreed to increase housing stipends for teaching assistants.
The union said the vast majority of UC graduate students spend more than a third of their income on rent. For example, teaching assistants at UCLA earn an average of $24,000 a year, the union said. The median annual rent in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim metro area is more than $36,000 a year, according to Realtor.com.
UC teaching assistants described commuting hours away for affordable housing, donating blood plasma to make ends meet and paying more than half their income in rent.
Aya Konisha, a teaching assistant and second-year PhD student in the sociology department at UCLA, said she cannot afford to live near campus and has to commute an hour on public transit to get to school.
“My salary is definitely not enough to make ends meet,” said Konisha, whose rent takes up half her monthly income of $2,400. “I make all of my food at home. I don’t make any expensive purchases at all and I often skip meals when I have to teach. UCLA is supposed to be the number one public university in the United States … but it’s extremely inequitable.”
LikeLike
Meanwhile, NYT has a piece up detailing UCLA’s financial woes as well as their stadium conundrum.
Probably unlikely, but what if Amazon passes on the PAC.altogether (as Dodd’s article implies they could)?
LikeLike
UCLA should probably make Dignity Health Sports Park (known as Home Depot Center and StubHub Center before) their home stadium.
Would definitely drive up ticket prices.
LikeLike
Whose bright idea was it to commit to the Rose Bowl through 2042?
LikeLike
On the bright side, plenty of seats for fans of visiting B10 teams!
LA teams may get B10 fans who come to cheer for their own team and also those who come to root against a hated rival.
LikeLike
Whose bright idea was it to commit to the Rose Bowl through 2042?
The Bruins had for years shared the Coliseum with USC, because they could never get approval to build their own on-campus stadium. But they were always second-class citizens at the Coliseum, where USC had first dibs.
They figured, why not move to the iconic Rose Bowl, where they would not be competing with anyone? Given the apparent unlikelihood of ever getting an on-campus stadium approved, they decided to lock in what seemed like a good deal at the time. I believe in exchange for a long-term contract the stadium was able to pay for long-overdue renovations.
While they have usually not sold out, attendance there has not always been as terrible as it is this year.
LikeLike
Troy Aikins’ opinion notwithstanding, the Rose Bowl is a horrible game venue – even after the renovations.
LikeLike
Redwood: “. . . the Rose Bowl is a horrible game venue . . .”
The biggest problem is that it’s two hours from the UCLA campus on the rooter buses and there are long lines waiting to get on the rooter buses.
LikeLike
…the Rose Bowl is a horrible game venue – even after the renovations.
Most CFB stadiums aren’t paragons of modern comfort. I have not been to the Rose Bowl, but descriptions of it are not that different from Michigan Stadium, which was never very comfortable but as a fan you simply didn’t care. (Most fans stand for most of the game anyway.)
Almost all NFL teams have abandoned their old stadiums, some of them several times over. The NFL Giants, for instance, have had four permanent homes and two temporary ones since 1925. Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands was far more comfy that most CFB stadiums, and yet they demolished it after just 33 years. No college would have done that.
LikeLike
Marc: “Almost all NFL teams have abandoned their old stadiums . . .”
Bogus analogy. Those NFL teams blackmailed their host cities with new-stadium-or-we’re-leaving. Perfect example is Indianapolis. UCLA isn’t moving to San Diego or Las Vegas.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl is a great stadium in a great setting.
LikeLike
Marc: “Almost all NFL teams have abandoned their old stadiums . . .”
Bogus analogy. Those NFL teams blackmailed their host cities with new-stadium-or-we’re-leaving. Perfect example is Indianapolis. UCLA isn’t moving to San Diego or Las Vegas.
There is much validity to it. The vast majority of franchises in the 4 major pro sports have managed to get new stadiums or arenas, some of them more than once. Not all used the threat of leaving town to achieve it.
And you generally don’t see schools saying they wish they could have such stadiums. They are happy with the old ones.
LikeLike
Marc, we actually don’t know how happy or unhappy schools are with their (generally) old stadiums because they can’t move and they can’t remodel/rebuild unless they have the money. But as programs with money have regularly upgraded their stadium, I get the sense that actually, no, many schools aren’t all that happy with a very old stadium. But as it doesn’t make sense to complain and trash your stadium when you’re trying to sell tickets, you won’t hear schools complain much (there’s no benefit to them doing so).
LikeLike
No, I think here is really something to it. A move to replace the Swamp in Gainesville or Bryant-Denny in Tuscaloosa would be deeply unpopular, even funds the money to do so. College fans adore their iconic stadiums in a way the fans of pro teams mostly do not, even when those old stadiums objectively are not all that comfortable.
LikeLike
I’m on UC’s side on parts of this.
1. These grad students also get free tuition at UCLA and on-the-job training for their chosen profession. That has tremendous value.
2. Being a TA is not supposed to be a full-time job. Usually it is capped around 50% of full time, and often unavailable over summer.
3. In your career, you aren’t supposed to spend more than 33% of your income on housing. Why should that be true for students?
4. Why do grad students need to pay median rent? Live someplace cheaper than average. Also, get roommates. If typical rent is $36k per year, that’s just $9k per person if 4 people share it. That’s $750 per month, below 33% of the $2400 per month they get paid.
5. Grad school is optional. If you can’t afford it, or aren’t willing to make lifestyle sacrifices, don’t do it. Or leave CA to do it. Rent is cheaper is Urbana-Champaign than LA.
6. Major in something that will bring a big paycheck, so you can afford to pay off loans for grad school. Doctors and lawyers have been doing that for decades.
And where do they all think the money for this giant pay increase is going to come from? Either tuition goes up, punishing all students, or it comes from research overhead (which reduces the number of RA spots available). It’s not like universities are swimming in excess cash.
That said, the old abuses of grad students do need to end. The constant 60+ hour work weeks with no days off are not right.
LikeLike
Brian: “I’m on UC’s side on parts of this.”
I agree. I’m not sure if I included it in my redacted article but the grad students also UC to pay for the daycare of their kids. Where is that money coming from? Research grants?
Another thing to consider. If they get more money for housing and are able to live closer to campus, who gets moved out?
LikeLike
UC strike is underway . . . .
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/nearly-48000-university-california-academic-workers-strike
LikeLike
30 state lawmakers wrote a letter in support of the workers.
Very simple, increase funding to the campuses for the sole purpose of paying the workers. This should not decrease other funding.
LikeLike
Bernie: “Very simple, increase funding . . .”
Works every time – increase spending.
LikeLike
Bernie,
You know it’s not that simple. If they raise funding somewhere, they take it from somewhere else. More likely is that the state doesn’t raise funding but still demands the schools pay more. And then demands they stop raising tuition so quickly. Then wonders why the schools are losing out on research funding with their 75% overhead charge.
LikeLike
I couldn’t believe that, “but I have to commute an hour on mass transit!”
Welcome to the real world, hon.
And maybe try to get LA to implement policies that will bring rents down, much as Dallas and Houston do.
LikeLike
bullet: “And maybe try to get LA to implement policies that will bring rents down, much as Dallas and Houston do.”
Here’s the problem with that. LA has 69,000 homeless losers. Lowering the rent does not create more housing. Understand?
LikeLike
He meant building more.
I believe LA has stupid zoning laws and NIMBYism.
LikeLike
bullet said: “And maybe try to get LA to implement policies that will bring rents down, much as Dallas and Houston do.”
That is not an appropriate analogy. Dallas and Houston can build more housing just about anywhere within their metro areas. UCLA needs more housing near UCLA, not on the other side of town. Forty years ago the Bruins nixed an on-campus stadium because there was not enough space and not enough parking. That was forty years ago. I imagine the situation is a good deal worse today.
Plus if you build housing on or near the campus, they’re going to need more parking spaces. Parking is a huge problem at the University of Louisville and the congestion in Louisville is nothing compared to LA.
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
The neighborhood nixed the stadium back then, which also why UCLA can’t consider an on-campus stadium now.
The need some of Elon Musk’s tunnels to connect them to the Rose Bowl. It’s only 26 miles or so.
LikeLike
Brian: “The neighborhood nixed the stadium back then, which also why UCLA can’t consider an on-campus stadium now.”
We kinda got off on a tangent here with the stadium but back to the UCLA housing shortage, it looks like that’s being resolved right now . . . .
https://la.urbanize.city/post/westwood-ucla-student-housing-construction-july-2021
https://therealdeal.com/la/2020/03/11/uclas-900m-student-housing-project-will-add-5k-beds/
LikeLike
They didn’t want the stadium for NIMBY reasons. There’s plenty of space. Blocks and blocks of minor college supporting retail that could be acquired. Easily torn down for a stadium.
Not saying they are wrong for not wanting a stadium. Just that space isn’t the reason.
LikeLike
Considering the Washington Post and NYT stories together, would the B1G breathe a sigh of relief in the UC BOR cancelled Ucla’s transfer to it?
LikeLike
No. Why should either of those issues matter to any other B10 school?
UCLA was added
1. To control the whole LA market
2. To make USC happy (and for the USC-UCLA rivalry)
3. For an easier travel pairing with USC.
None of those aspects are affected by what’s in the news articles.
That said, the B10 probably is indifferent about adding UCLA vs. UO/UW/Stanford. USC is the big add.
LikeLike
Richard: “That said, the B10 probably is indifferent about adding UCLA vs. UO/UW/Stanford. USC is the big add.”
I flat guarantee that that the Iowas and Michigan States and Rutgers are not indifferent about whether we add two schools 12 miles apart vs two schools 350 miles apart, 800 miles or 1000 miles apart.
LikeLike
That is correct, but Stanford would be an acceptable consolation prize if the CA Board of Regents is incredibly stupid and has the power to stop UCLA.
(I do not believe that this will happen, but stranger things have happened in CA.)
LikeLike
Stranger things happen in West Hollywood every minute of every day 😂 Still, I think UCLA is home free.
LikeLike
UCLA was added because it’s a top school with a huge alumni base, in the 2nd best market, a basketball blue blood, a football prince, and has a terrific all sports program. They become even better paired with USC (and vice versa), but that’s the cherry on top.
If you took the best individual aspects from UO/UW/Stanford and combined it into 1 school then you get an entity that has slightly better football ratings (UO), a slightly better school (Stanford, albeit smaller and private), and a slightly better all sports program (Stanford). The B1G would have taken UCLA without USC, and there is no way they would be indifferent in replacing them with UO/UW/Stanford.
Anyone that thinks UCLA is a throw in is being purposefully obtuse.
LikeLike
Scout: “Anyone that thinks UCLA is a throw in is being purposefully obtuse.”
Plus USC and UCLA are 12 miles apart and both fly out of LAX. They’re already discussing joint charter flights to the Midwest and the obvious doubleheaders when Midwestern B1G schools go to LA.
Also, Wall St Journal academic ranking place UCLA the #2 public university in the nation.
1.University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of California, Los Angeles
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, San Diego
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
University of Washington-Seattle
United States Military Academy
Purdue University West Lafayette
LikeLike
Exhibit A for why the Pac should favor Amazon over ESPN & Fox:
From the Sports Business Journal –
PRIMETIME BATTLE: Wilner in a separate piece notes of the conference’s “two mega-collisions” on Nov. 19 — either Utah at Oregon or USC at UCLA — one “would receive primetime treatment” from Fox. The other would be “relegated to the night window” on ESPN. Wilner: “Why in the world would the Pac-12 place a showdown with College Football Playoff implications in the 7:30 p.m. broadcast window, when the eastern half of the country is shutting down for the night?” Nov. 19 “stands as the biggest football Saturday the conference has produced in eons.” Both games “deserve primetime kickoffs.” The Pac-12 “didn’t assign one of the games to the late window.” ESPN and Fox “control the schedule” and are paying an average of $250M per year “for that right.” In fact, the conference was “just as frustrated with the decision as the fans.” Everyone associated with the Pac-12 “wanted both games to start when viewership is highest coast-to-coast.” Multiple sources said that ESPN “asked for a waiver allowing it to air the other Pac-12 showdown in primetime, alongside the Fox broadcast.” Fox “said no.” Any other response “would have been a bad business decision.” That “left ESPN with two broadcast windows available” for its Pac-12 game, except there “really was only one choice: 7:30 p.m” (San Jose MERCURY NEWS, 11/8).
Not too long ago, Disney would have shown the #2 game in the 3:30pm window. Now that it won’t, the value of its distribution is diminished.
LikeLike
Exhibit A for why the Pac should favor Amazon over ESPN & Fox.
Maybe just more evidence that Larry Scott negotiated a lousy deal.
LikeLike
I think networks basically have that same power for all P5 conferences. I’s just that only the P12 can suffer by being pushed into the late window. The other windows work reasonably well for everyone else. The B12 wasn’t always fond of Fox’s noon kickoffs for big games, though.
LikeLike
No doubt on the negotiating front. But the fact remains that not long ago ABC would choose big Pac-12 games for the 3:30pm slot. Now, they never do. This weekend, Disney picked Clemson-Miami and tOSU-Maryland over Utah v. Oregon. Since the ACC is given preference over the Pac, and the SEC will soon be as well, the Pac needs to return the finger to Disney.
The Pac has no choice but to take the leap into streaming and hope that it works out. The alternative is to be permanently stuck with lower status at ESPN and Fox. If I was negotiating for the Pac, I would tell ESPN they can have the #2 Pac games in the 3:30pm or primetime slot when playing an ACC team, and the #3 Pac game in the 7:30pm slot. Amazon gets the #1 game, non-ACC #2 games, and #4 and below games.
LikeLike
Sounds like you want to “punish” Disney for the crime of maximizing the available inventory that is contractually available to it. Extending the finger to a business partner is never a great strategy unless they’ve done the same to you. It is not Disney’s fault that the Pac is a tarnished asset, nor is it Disney’s fault that Fox would not relinquish the exclusive window that the Pac itself agreed to.
I don’t know how much more Amazon will pay for the same inventory, but check out the NFL’s ratings on the Thursday night package: they’re way down relative to what Fox got last year over-the-air. The biggest complaint with Larry Scott’s package is that so many of the games are not seen in most of the country. You don’t want to repeat that mistake where you just cross out one corporate media name and replace it with another.
I don’t claim to know what the best package for the Pac would be, but I am pretty sure “screw you, Disney” is not the best way to get it.
LikeLike
No. You are wrong. The big complaint with Larry Scott’s strategy is that so many Pac-12 games are not seen in Pac-12 territory. HUGE difference. With Amazon, anyone will be able to easily and inexpensively access Pac sports: $140/year for Prime membership v. $600 for Sling TV to get Pac-12 Network and likely >$1,000 on cable to access Pac-12 national Network.
Streaming is the future. It’s just a matter of time – the younger demographic needs to grow older and the older demographic to die off. The Pac will always be below the SEC and ACC on ESPN. And the Pac is now locked out of the OTAs – witness this week’s scheduling decision by Disney. So, unlike the other conferences, the Pac has little to lose by staking out prime territory in the future now. But this time, it needs to negotiate guaranteed time slots, just as the BiG just did.
LikeLike
You are suggesting they double down on what has failed them the last dozen years.
LikeLike
How is making ALL of the Pac games cheaply and easily accessible doubling down on Larry Scott’s strategy of making all Pac-12 Network games difficult and expensive to access?
Those of you outside of Pac-Land probably cannot comprehend the notion of fans often being unable to watch their team play UNLESS they sign up for the equivalent of BTN on Sling TV as part of that service’s sports add-on package. In my view, getting those games onto ESPN 2, U, + or whatever is not much of an improvement. Putting them on Prime would be.
In addition to solving the Pac-12 Network problem, Prime reaches 85% of the country already. Given the current situation, that is plenty of national reach for the Pac. With the OTAs are off the table, it is more important right now to get attractive time slots for games than 100% reach. I think the benefit of locking in attractive time slots on Prime when they are still available outweighs the cost of not being able to as easily switch channels to another game. Having the #1 Pac game of the week go up in primetime against the #3/#2 BiG game on NBC and/or the #2/#3 SEC or ACC game on ABC or ESPN should be more fruitful, on average, than the alternatives now on offer. And, of course, there is also the possibility of late primetime Friday night games.
LikeLike
If I was the Pac, I would put my #2 game of the week on Friday night ESPN (so monopolize that timeslot on ESPN) and put everything else on Prime on Saturday (so Prime could protect 1 game a week before the season starts, then ESPN picks 1 game a week, then everything else on Prime). Maybe limit the Friday night package to 10 games and all Pac teams have to appear there twice (home and away) each season.
LikeLike
Because few people will find them on Amazon.
LikeLike
Bullet, considering what Pac TV viewership numbers are, it seems like approximately zero neutrals care to find them on linear/cable TV anyway.
LikeLike
Sone UCLA Student Athlete Survey results (just some snippets)
UCLA stands to roughly double its current Pac-12 media rights revenue by joining the Big Ten. The school is projected to make between $65 million and $75 million during its first year of conference membership, with additional income flowing in from College Football Playoff and NCAA tournament distributions that would likely dwarf what the Bruins would make by remaining in the Pac-12.
The conference switch also would prevent UCLA from eliminating Olympic sports teams, something the school said was a possibility given its $102.8 million athletic department deficit. UCLA told the regents that by cutting six teams and eliminating scholarships for eight other sports, it could save about $11 million.
UCLA athletes who responded to the survey made one thing clear: They value being in the same conference as USC far more than they do California, the other school in the UC system that would be most affected by the Bruins’ defection to the Big Ten. Among survey respondents, 93% said it was important or very important to keep UCLA in the same conference as USC, while 24% felt the same way about keeping UCLA and Cal in the same conference.
As for the benefits of the move, 77% said increased national exposure, 69% said increased resources, 59% said increased TV opportunities, 56% said greater NIL opportunities, 53% said enhanced services to student-athletes, 43% said compete at the highest level, 30% said increased attendance at all games and 28% said maintain the USC rivalry.
The biggest expenditure related to conference realignment would involve increased travel costs. UCLA estimated that it would have to pay an extra $4.62 million to $5.79 million for additional charter flights, though that figure could be “significantly reduced” through scheduling accommodations such as neutral-site games and shared flights for UCLA and USC teams.
LikeLike
https://dailybruin.com/2022/11/15/uc-regents-plan-to-discuss-uclas-move-to-big-ten-at-upcoming-meeting
It was reported that UCLA faced the prospect of cutting some of its Olympic sports if it didn’t make the move to the Big Ten. The school estimated that it could save $11 million by cutting around six sports and eliminating scholarships for eight other programs.
But the move to the Big Ten is also expected to add costs related to travel, nutrition, academic support and mental health services. In the report, UCLA estimated spending an additional $9.15 million to $10.32 million annually on such costs. Travel represents the bulk of those estimated costs at up to nearly $6 million in additional travel costs per year.
Some proposals to reduce such travel costs have included UCLA and USC sharing chartered flights to the Midwest and the East Coast.
…
Overall, 35% of the surveyed student-athletes said the move to the Big Ten would be a good idea, 20% said they had no opinion, 38% said they would need more information and 7% responded that it would be a bad idea.
I seem to recall some in the media saying all the athletes were against the move.
Click to access b2a.pdf
From the document UCLA sent the BoR:
As noted in prior meetings, UCLA exercised authority delegated from the President in executing its agreement with the Big Ten. The Board retains the authority to take action to affirm, overturn, or abstain from acting on UCLA’s decision.
LikeLike
The athletes seem to have a better understanding of the differences than a lot of other people commenting on the situation (Pac-12 media/Bill Walton/etc.).
If the regents are really coming at this with no biases, the move makes sense. Issue is more of what to do about Cal being hurt by loss of UCLA (and USC) or whether to do anything about that.
LikeLike
The Regents seem to be missing a few things. It really appears that they thought that the easiest solution was for Cal to join UCLA in the B1G, with no regard of whether that was likely to happen in the near future (or, in my opinion, ever).
They also may believe that by restricting UCLA, USC would drop the whole silly idea. Further if they stop UCLA, they assume that no other PAC school would be invited to the B1G or accept an invitation.
I believe that the Regents and Kliavkoff are actually endangering Cal, more than helping. I assume that Stanford would take the UCLA slot, which, due to the 450 miles would not be ideal for anyone, but would hurt Cal by the loss of a serious rivalry, and no extra money could come to Cal from UCLA or any source. Of course, UCLA would immediately announce that 6 teams were being dropped and scholarships being reduced for others.
Any new PAC media contract would not be substantially higher, so then what for UCLA or Cal?
The simple solution should be for the State of CA to fund UCLA and Cal with an extra $40 million or so per year for athletics and that might solve some problems. No I do not even think that is a realistic possibility.
LikeLike
Bernie: “I assume that Stanford would take the UCLA slot . . .”
I believe that is a bogus assumption. Unlike Washington and Oregon, we have seen nothing coming out of Stanford that they have any interest in joining the Big Ten. Stanford doesn’t have a $100 million debt like UCLA has.
And while a USC/UCLA tag team makes logistical sense, a second West Coast school hundreds of miles from USC does not. The Big Ten would be better off bringing in Mizzou, Iowas State or Colorado.
LikeLike
. . .we have seen nothing coming out of Stanford that they have any interest in joining the Big Ten.
Schools do not always drop hints about conference moves they would like to make. It is faulty reasoning to suggest that because you have not heard anything, therefore they are not interested.
The Big Ten would be better off bringing in Mizzou, Iowa State or Colorado.
No school is leaving the SEC, and there is no way the Big Ten would want a second school (that is historically terrible at football) in a low-population slow-growing state like Iowa. Colorado is a non-ridiculous suggestion, but others are more compelling.
It is interesting that you dismiss Stanford due to the absence of rumors, and then suggest 3 other schools for which there are also no rumors.
LikeLike
Marc: “It is interesting that you dismiss Stanford due to the absence of rumors, and then suggest 3 other schools for which there are also no rumors.”
Actually there are rumors about Mizzou going to the Big Ten:
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/mizzou-football/eli-drinkwitz-on-rumors-about-mizzou-leaving-sec-for-big-ten-nobody-has-asked-me-if-were-getting-traded/
And Iowa State to the Big Ten:
https://www.offtackleempire.com/2021/7/28/22596674/breaking-news-conference-realignment-b1g-big12-expansion-iowa-hawkeyes-cyclones-pollard-gotcha-again
And Colorado to the Big Ten:
https://www.change.org/p/b1g-conference-university-of-colorado-should-switch-to-the-big-10-conference
LikeLike
I agree that Stanford accepting a BiG invitation is not at all a slam dunk. Not that he matters, but David Shaw is completely against it.
The larger issue is that with recent rule changes (notably moving commitment day to December from February and the new transfer portal – not to mention NIL), the school’s ability to compete effectively in football has been jeopardized. Fundamental policy changes will be required by Stanford to adapt (such as being open to taking transfers), and it’s not clear there will be institutional support for such changes. I think there is a chance that Stanford football ultimately goes the way of Rice and Tulane. It will be interesting to see.
With regards to the UCLA student survey that was posted here, Canzano says only a small fraction of those sent the survey responded, which makes it worthless.
LikeLike
If 100 out of 600 student athletes responded then that’s a representative sample. 100 out of 600 is actually far beyond the threshold for statistical significance.
Also, the ship has sailed on Mizzou and ISU. I think Mizzou would leave the SEC for the B1G in a nanosecond though, but Kansas could conceivably be a better choice than Mizzou despite the smaller state/market given their BBALL history, and Kansas is 10000000x a better choice than ISU. If the B1G wanted another in footprint school then Pitt & Cinci are far better choices than ISU.
Colorado is kind of fascinating to me as a choice. If they hadn’t abandoned institutional support for athletics in the early 2000s they’d be a fantastic choice to pair with ND. Then again, they aren’t exactly a great bus-ride pair with Nebraska so for all intents and purposes the non-rev sports teams are having to fly there anyway, so might as well take Washington over Colorado.
Since UCLA isn’t going to be stopped from joining the B1G it’s kind of a moot point.
I’d rank B1G expansion candidates in a hypothetical world where travel doesn’t matter and we’re only considering revenue sports as:
Overall (take as an odd number and figure out the rest later tier)
ND
UNC
Florida
I honestly don’t think the B1G wants to deal with Texas at all so I excluded them. But if they did have real interest they’d be here.
Looking West I’d rank it as:
1. Washington
2. Colorado
3. Oregon
4. Stanford
5. Cal
6. Arizona/ASU (if you switched the schools’ locations then UA would 2nd or 3rd on this list)
7. Utah
East I’d rank it as:
1. UVA
2. Florida St
3. Duke
4. GT
I honestly don’t think the B1G cares at all about Miami, VaTech, NC State, Clemson, Syracuse, or Pitt.
LikeLike
Actually there are rumors about Mizzou going to the Big Ten… And Iowa State to the Big Ten… And Colorado to the Big Ten…
Did you actually read those articles before posting them? The first article says that the head coach was asked about moving to the Big Ten, and he dismissed the question.
The second article asks, “Could Iowa State end up in the Big Ten?” but provides no evidence suggesting the answer is yes.
The third article is just a link to a fan petition. Things fans want are not rumors. Otherwise, all of the ideas you post here would count as rumors too.
LikeLike
Marc, you are in denial. There are clearly some discussions concerning all three schools going to the Big Ten. I didn’t imply there were mobs of rabid fans storming the AD offices. I said there were rumors.
LikeLike
With regards to the UCLA student survey that was posted here, Canzano says only a small fraction of those sent the survey responded, which makes it worthless.
It is pretty common that surveys have low response rates.
LikeLike
@colin
I believe Marc was implying that the rumors be somewhat credible. None of those three links are credible (and the OT Empire link refutes the idea).
LikeLike
Scout: “I believe Marc was implying that the rumors be somewhat credible.”
I didn’t say the rumors were credible. I said there were rumors.
LikeLike
And while a USC/UCLA tag team makes logistical sense, a second West Coast school hundreds of miles from USC does not. The Big Ten would be better off bringing in Mizzou, Iowas State or Colorado.
No, it wouldn’t. Only you think that is true. ISU is literally worthless to the B10, and would just dilute everyone’s payout. MO and CU would also be dilutive (not that MO would have any interest in leaving the SEC). They would require less travel. That is the only advantage they offer, and it does not nearly balance all the other downsides they bring. Stanford brings a better school, better market, and better athletics.
LikeLike
Brian: “Stanford brings a better school, better market, and better athletics.”
Stanford isn’t interested in the Big Ten, the Big Ten isn’t interested in Stanford and the Cardinal would bring the SF market just as well as they delivered it to the Pac-12 Network.
LikeLike
As usual, you are just making stuff up.
Stanford isn’t interested in the B10? Based on what?
The B10 isn’t interested in Stanford? Based on what?
Stanford “brings” the SF market by being in it. The B10 brands will bring the viewers, not the Cardinal. Just like RU and UMD did.
LikeLike
My comment, verbatim; “I doubt the Big Ten would pony up an offer to Stanford (7,000 undergrad enrollment, tiny fan base) and I also doubt that Stanford would accept if they were offered.”
Brian’s libelous distortion of my comment: “As usual, you are just making stuff up. Stanford isn’t interested in the B10? . . . The B10 isn’t interested in Stanford?. . .”
LikeLike
Marc, you are in denial. There are clearly some discussions concerning all three schools going to the Big Ten.
It is far from clear, unless by “discussions” you are counting fan desires and speculations. I am proposing that Alabama hire me to replace Nick Saban after he retires. Does that count as a rumor?
I should think it needs to be someone from the school, not just a fan.
LikeLike
Marc: ” . . .unless by “discussions” you are counting fan desires and speculations.”
Yes, I am counting fan desires and speculations. My comment was about “rumors”. Do you remember that? Those “fan desires and speculations” would be rumors, right?
LikeLike
What a lying piece of crap.
Your comment:
Stanford isn’t interested in the Big Ten, the Big Ten isn’t interested in Stanford and the Cardinal would bring the SF market just as well as they delivered it to the Pac-12 Network.
It’s literally the comment above my response.
LikeLike
The Stanford faculty has had recent meetings on various issues, including athletics. What that means, I do not know. There are, not surprisingly, a group of faculty members at Stanford who thing that sports is over emphasized. No surprise there.
How would we know if Stanford has an interest in the B1G? Other than Oregon, generally schools do not discuss realignment in public. Honestly, I thought that the who situation with Oregon and B1g being played out so publicly was strange.
Yes, we know that Gonzaga to the Big 12 is in the news/
Mizzou is in the SEC and is going nowhere. Iowa State offers nothing to the B1G, as the number two school behind Iowa. Given a choice of Colorado or Washington, the Huskies seem to have far more to offer, even if the trip is slightly long.
LikeLike
Colin, once you say that there are discussions about Missouri, Iowa State and CO to the B1G, you honestly lose all credibility. Ignore Missouri and Colorado for the moment, but the chance of Iowa State is less than zero.
At least tOSU, Iowa, and Purdue have very publicly stated that they want no more expansion unless the new schools add monetarily to the existing schools (and there is no reason to doubt that most if not all B1G schools agree). What could the number 2 school in a relatively small state be worth? Could Iowa State add more than $80 million per year to the B1G?
How? Does Iowa State bring any new large population centers? Etc., etc.
The point in adding a replacement for UCLA (which is not happening) would be to not totally isolate USC. Yes, LA is 1000 miles from Seattle, but at least they are in the same time zone.
LikeLike
Bernie, you are distorting the conversation here. It began with you saying “I assume that Stanford would take the UCLA slot . . .”
I doubt the Big Ten would pony up an offer to Stanford (7,000 undergrad enrollment, tiny fan base) and I also doubt that Stanford would accept if they were offered. My comments concerned the fact that there are several schools that would be a better fit than Stanford and they would also be more likely to accept a bid.
LikeLike
And Iowa State is a better fit though it adds very little money and could not possibly meet the financial standards set by the schools?
LikeLike
Bernie: “And Iowa State is a better fit though it adds very little money and could not possibly meet the financial standards set by the schools?”
Stanford adds very little money and could not possibly meet the financial standards set by the schools.
LikeLike
Week-11 4m viewer club.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
8.71m Alabama @ Ole Miss 3;30p CBS
5.03m TCU @ Texas 7:30p ABC
Honorable Mention
3.88m Nebraska @ Michigan 3:30p ABC
3.63m Washington @ Oregon 7p FOX
3.57m LSU @ Arkansas noon ESPN
Over 4m viewers by conference Week-0 thru Week-11:
SEC (16): 11 conference & 5 OOC
B1G (13): 11 conference & 2 OOC
ACC (5): 3 conference & 2 OOC
B-12 (3): 2 conference & 1 OOC
P-12 (1): 1 OOC (Oregon v. Georgia)
Ind (1): Notre Dame @ Ohio State
LikeLike
The SEC has definitely had great ratings this year. A lot of that is driven by the early season rankings which are often not reality for the first month or more. The B1G has been down this year. Very few ranked teams so matchup’s aren’t great. Really need MSU, Wisconsin and either Nebraska or Iowa to be ranked. Prefer Nebraska to return to success. Will definitely help with USC and UCLA. Two teams that should be ranked most if the time.
The Game should draw great ratings this year. I would think over 15 million.
LikeLike
Kevin – neither USC nor UCLA have sniffed the 4m viewer club this season.
FYI – the SEC still has top in the top 5, half of the top 6; half of the top 8, and five of the top 14.
LikeLike
If USC and UCLA are playing other ranked legacy BIgTen teams the ratings will be strong. You will have eyes from multiple regions watching. A USC or UCLA vs Michigan will draw more than 4m vs Michigan vs Illinois.
You can’t look at USC playing Utah or some other program on the west coast. You are only getting viewers from the West Coast.
LikeLike
Adding USC and UCLA will bump B1G ratings but also SEC is adding Texas/OU so it’s a wash. Both conferences will continue to draw top ratings, with some yearly variance depending on factors like rankings/matchups and so forth. I sort of expect the SEC to on average outdraw the B1G since football is religion in the south and until the B1G wins some national titles their games simply aren’t as meaningful as the SECs. Do I think the non-Bama/Georgia SEC teams (like Ole Miss or Kentucky at points this year) get inflated rankings vs non-SEC teams (like UCLA or Minnesota at points this year)? Yes. But at the end of the day when your top teams win all the titles and often crush other conference champs in the playoffs then there’s not a lot to hang your hat on.
The SEC wasn’t the SEC!!! until 2011, after it clearly surpassed the B1G in 2007 due to back to back blowouts vs OSU and then 2009 when it surpassed the Big 12 by handling Texas and Oklahoma in back to back years. Then Auburn beat Oregon for 5 SEC titles in a row, which led to us getting the Bama-LSU rematch the next year, culminating in 2012 when Bama obliterated ND. 7 national titles in a row by one conference, which I think is unprecedented but haven’t checked. Then FSU (BCS) and OSU (CFP) each won a title but after that the playoffs became the Bama show (6 title game appearances in 7 years) with special guests Clemson (4 NCG apps) and Georgia (2); OSU and LSU each snuck in 1 but LSU won big and OSU got blown out.
The B1G would need to win 4 titles in a 10-year period to have any claim to being as good as the SEC, and would need that to come from at least 2 teams. Bonus points if they beat the SEC teams in the CFP semis or finals. The B1G desperately needs at least a title each in the next 10 years from Michigan and USC and at least some CFP first round wins from 2 or 3 of Nebraska, PSU, UCLA, MSU, Wisconsin. Otherwise we’ll continue to see only OSU get the benefit of the doubt.
That said, I think the biggest shift is that Texas and OU’s fanbases that watch non-UT/OU games will stop watching stuff like TCU-Kansas (which would affect their conference champ hopes) and instead watch Florida-Arkansas (or something like that). I suspect that’s a huge tailwind for SEC games in general and a huge headwind that the Big12 is going to find out about.
Also it would not surprise me if The Game hit 18-20M this year in viewers. It’s going to be obnoxiously hyped next week and even more so if both OSU and UM stay undefeated.
LikeLike
The B10 actually draws about as many viewers as the SEC. Football is a religion in big chunks of the Rust Belt/Midwest as well.
I mentioned it before, but UW-UMTC drew over 5mm viewers in 2021.
LikeLike
Here’s a map that shows intensity of fan interest in CFB:
LikeLike
No. Texas and OU fans will still watch a lot of local schools.
They have friends and relatives who went to those schools.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say B10 has been down. Yes, UW and MSU are down but UIUC had been up and most importantly, OSU and UMich have been top 5 (or close to it) and unbeaten pretty much the entire season. Those 2 can carry an OTA slot even vs a patsy.
And yes, OSU-UMich should draw gigantic viewership (again).
I think this season is about typical for the B10.
LikeLike
You only have 3 ranked B1G teams currently. Definitely not a typical season.
LikeLike
Fewer ranked teams. More top 4 teams.
LikeLike
As you said, UW and MSU are down, with Illinois being the only counterweight. Those do not quite balance out. Also, Penn State had lost to both Michigan and Ohio State by the end of October, knocking them out of contention relatively early. Iowa is also worse this year than they are historically.
So yeah, a down year overall.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3904973/2022/11/16/cfp-expansion-revenue-rose-bowl/
The Rose Bowl remains one of the biggest hurdles to early College Football Playoff expansion, but revenue distribution was a key issue resolved on Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:
* The CFP’s Board of Managers met virtually on Wednesday to discuss both outstanding issues and acknowledged that the CFP will need to continue conversations with the Rose Bowl, a source with knowledge of the meeting told The Athletic.
* The Board was able to resolve issues tied to revenue distribution for the 2024 and 2025 seasons, if the CFP is to expand from four to 12 teams before the end of its current contract.
* The source said that the revenue distribution model agreed upon by the Board will make payouts more even per Power 5 school.
Note that they only resolved this for 2024-25.
Basically the P5/G5 split is the same but the P5 schools each get an equal share rather than the P5 conferences getting equal shares. We foresaw that change coming. The 2026 split is a much bigger debate.
LikeLike
The UC BoR punted to 12/14 to make a decision about UCLA to the B10. This is just getting tedious.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35047242/letter-lead1-proposes-appointing-coo-college-football
LEAD1 wants a COO for CFB. And anther committee, just what CFB needs.
Leaders throughout college athletics are considering appointing a chief operating officer of college football who would report to a proposed FBS football governing board, according to a lengthy letter from the LEAD1 Association obtained by ESPN.
The letter was sent this week to every Division I athletic director, members of the NCAA’s Division I Transformation Committee and the NCAA’s board of directors.
The proposal has been circulated at the highest levels of college football, including the 10 FBS commissioners and College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock, sources said.
…
According to the group’s proposal, the FBS football governing board would primarily be comprised of people with significant football knowledge, and appointed by their conferences. There would also be a representative from the American Football Coaches Association, along with four independent directors, including at least two former student-athletes — a combination of unbiased people and those who have a players’ perspective, which the Knight Commission has separately been pushing for.
The FBS football governing board would “decide all matters related to FBS football” except for rules related to academics, financial aid and health and safety. While the board would oversee things like officiating, rules and possibly scheduling, many agree there are issues that should remain at the level of university presidents, and the NCAA would remain a legal shield.
…
The COO would be a similar position to that of Dan Gavitt, who is the NCAA senior vice president of basketball. FBS football is currently the only collegiate sport that is governed by the NCAA but runs its own national championship, through the CFP. The NCAA deals with issues such as rules, officiating, concussion litigation and enforcement, but doesn’t have a person like Gavitt at the table when significant decisions about the sport are made. This proposed position would also be on the NCAA president’s leadership team/cabinet.
LikeLike
NY Times reports that the PAC will pay $15 million payout due from UCLA to B1G to withdraw from B1G.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/sp…
This is behind a paywall and I do not pay for the NY Times.
Greg Flugar reports that the PAC will pay UCLA more than any other school, but Flugar personally doubts that WA/OR will accept that.
The PAC is also projecting more than$40 million per team TV money. (Good luck with that).
Flugar actually does not believe that the UCLA buyout is only $15 million.
Here is the link to Flugar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tAVJ-arcTw&t=317s
Interestingly the NY Times article is factually wrong, as it says that Rutgers joined the B1G knowing that it would not get a full share for six years. I do not understand why writers and talking heads repeat that endlessly when it is so simple to verify.
LikeLike
The NYT article also says that the Pac would pay UCLA a bit more than it pays all the others. It did not say how much more. I agree with Bernie that this might not go over well with Washington and Oregon.
One of the regents compared the situation to instant replay: “I’d look at it like a football game where the call on the field is being reviewed,” said the regent John A. Pérez, a former Assembly speaker. “It’s not about whether we would make the same call. It is whether there is clear evidence that it should be overturned.”
LikeLike
Bernie, your link doesn’t work. Here is the NY Times article:
California Regents Set December Showdown for U.C.L.A.’s Big Ten Move
The leaders of the University of California system said they needed more time to consider whether to allow U.C.L.A. to move from the Pac-12, to the detriment of Cal-Berkeley.
By Billy Witz Nov. 17, 2022
SAN FRANCISCO — The University of California Board of Regents on Thursday put off until next month a decision whether to bless or block U.C.L.A.’s move to the Big Ten Conference, saying it needed more time — and information — before making such a consequential call that would also affect the state’s other flagship university, Cal-Berkeley.
The regents have expressed concern about the burden that repeated trips to the Eastern time zone for competitions would place on athletes’ academics and the financial hit Berkeley would take after U.C.L.A.’s departure. But they were also hesitant to set a precedent by overturning — and undercutting the autonomy of — one of their 10 campus chancellors.
So, after meeting in a closed session for 90 minutes, the regents emerged to announce that they would hold a special session on Dec. 14 to resolve the matter.
“I’d look at it like a football game where the call on the field is being reviewed,” said the regent John A. Pérez, a former Assembly speaker. “It’s not about whether we would make the same call. It is whether there is clear evidence that it should be overturned.”
Martin Jarmond, the U.C.L.A. athletic director, called the meeting “informative,” but declined further comment as he hustled to catch a ride to an airport.
U.C. President Michael Drake said the special meeting would “pressure test” the plans U.C.L.A. has laid out. During the open session, a handful of regents asked U.C.L.A. Chancellor Gene Block for more information while revealing little about which way they might be leaning.
The regents have expressed some disappointment that the Pac-12 Conference is in negotiations for a television rights deal, because there is no direct comparison against what U.C.L.A. has said will be annual revenues of $60 million to $70 million under the Big Ten contract. (The school has estimated it will spend an additional $10 million per year on travel, nutritional, academic and mental health services after switching conferences.)
But last month, the Pac-12 provided to several regents a glimpse of what its deal, which it has been negotiating for months, might look like if U.C.L.A. decided to remain: a range between $42 million and $47 million per school, with U.C.L.A. getting a little more than the remaining 10 schools in the Pac-12 once Southern California leaves for the Big Ten in 2024, according to two people familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss them. The holdovers in turn would be getting a little more than San Diego State if it left the Mountain West to become the conference’s 12th team.
Then the Big 12 announced its deal with Fox and ESPN, which will be worth $31.7 million per school. That number was far enough below expectations that the Pac-12 lowered its estimates for the regents by about 10 percent.
Whether the Pac-12 can present to the regents firm numbers with a finalized television rights agreement by mid-December is uncertain.
The Pac-12’s willingness to sweeten the offer for U.C.L.A. also included a willingness to pay the buyout the Los Angeles school would have to fork over to break the Big Ten agreement. That buyout is $15 million, according to three people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal terms of the deal.
Multi-tier payouts are not unique in college sports. Gonzaga, for example, receives a greater share of the West Coast Conference’s N.C.A.A. men’s basketball tournament revenue, and Rutgers joined the Big Ten knowing it would not receive the same payout as longstanding members for at least six years.
But while such a tiered arrangement might incentivize U.C.L.A. to return, which would in turn bring additional revenue for the other schools in the conference, it would create a built-in revenue gap between U.C.L.A. and Berkeley — one of the main issues that drew scrutiny from the regents in the first place.
When the Big Ten announced on June 30 that it would be welcoming U.C.L.A. and U.S.C. for the 2024-25 season — shortly after the San Jose Mercury News had reported the departure — the shock was not just the breadth of the move but how surreptitiously it had been undertaken.
A small handful of regents, including Richard Leib, the chairman, and Drake, the U.C. president, had been informed of the impending move a few days earlier but were directed to keep quiet.
Though U.C.L.A. did not sign the agreement with the Big Ten until July 13, the Los Angeles schools’ departure was seen as a done deal since the regents, in the early 1990s, had granted broader decision-making authority to the campus chancellors.
However, amid anger from Gov. Gavin Newsom — and others on the board — that they had been kept in the dark about a decision that benefited U.C.L.A. at the expense of Berkeley, the U.C.’s general counsel told the regents in August that even though they had delegated authority to the chancellors they had not relinquished it.
The upshot: the regents could block the move if they so chose to do so.
Over the course of the next few months, as the regents began to learn more about a subject — big-time college sports — in which almost none of them were fluent, they began to center their concern on what extensive travel to places like College Park, Md.; State College, Pa.; and East Lansing, Mich., would have on athletes’ education.
Nancy Skinner, the California state lawmaker who helped launch a nationwide flurry of state legislation that enabled college athletes to earn money from endorsements, said she may craft a bill restricting the amount of time — travel included — that California colleges could demand their athletes spend on their sport.
Still, several regents said, they also worried about setting a precedent by reversing a decision made by a campus. (To that end, the regents have been considering alterations to the bylaws to prevent chancellors from acting unilaterally on a similarly consequential decision again.)
The regents, though, never came close to reaching a decision on Thursday.
The questions in open session hinted not just at the underlying issues they are trying to resolve, but also about the role of college athletics as a billion-dollar business enterprise that is becoming less and less tethered to the college ideal.
When the regent Lark Park asked Block and his counterpart, Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ, to explain how their thinking about conference membership had evolved in recent months, their answers were revealing.
Block, whose athletic department has lost $103.1 million in revenue over the last three years that it has been forced to cover with a loan from the university, described his school’s leap as necessary in a “volatile” climate. He added that the increased revenue could be used to invest in programs that could then be put in place across the campus. “It’s not simple; it’s painful,” Block said. “But was in the best interests of our student-athletes and in the best interests of our institution.”
Christ, who signed off on a $20.1 million subsidy from the university to the athletic department in the 2021 fiscal year, acknowledged the volatile environment and said conference consolidation and the increased professionalization of college football and men’s basketball was bad for athletes, particularly women.
“I’m seeing changes that I very much decry,” she said.
The exchange clearly laid out the two paths available, one of which by next month the regents will presumably choose.
LikeLike
Christ, who signed off on a $20.1 million subsidy from the university to the athletic department in the 2021 fiscal year, acknowledged the volatile environment and said conference consolidation and the increased professionalization of college football and men’s basketball was bad for athletes, particularly women.
I’d love to understand how finally paying bball and fball players (who are predominantly black) closer to what they are worth to the school disadvantages women. These entire athletic departments and facilities are built on top of the backs of the football team damaging their bodies for our enjoyment.
If football disappeared so would 85 scholarships for women’s sports as well as all the funding for fancy buildings. What do Ivy League athletic facilities look like compared to schools like Cal, Stanford, Northwestern, and Duke?
Don’t get me wrong, I think going full professionalization is awful because no one watches minor league baseball, the G league, or the USFL. I wish the big schools would just drop all pretense and say “fuck it, we don’t care at all about money paid to any of our students, athletic scholarship recipients or not. It’s none of our fucking business and we will not stand in the way of them making the decisions that are best for them.” Honestly, how is booster Bob paying $50k in cash to a recruit any different than someone setting up $50k scholarships for top engineering students? You can get scholarships worth more than tuition you know, the schools rebates the students back the difference.
LikeLike
Scout: “I’d love to understand how finally paying bball and fball players (who are predominantly black) closer to what they are worth to the school disadvantages women.”
LSU has a female gymnast who is making over $2 million/yr in NIL. . . .
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/lsus-olivia-dunne-claps-back-critics-over-nil-deals-too-much
LikeLike
Yes. Pretty much entirely off her looks. Dunne would be making that much as an influencer even if she didn’t play college sports.
Almost all college sports revenue is indeed generated by the 2 revenue sports where the athletes are predominantly and disproportionally black.
LikeLike
Geaux Tigers!
LikeLike
“A step back for woman.” What a disgusting comment by humorless hypocrite Tara Vandetveer. She’s usually all for ncaa womens athletes getting paid….unless they’re PURDY. Livvy Dunne was ‘WME Sports’ first NIL deal and for good reason. Sex sells. Yup. It’s true. This beautiful athletic woman actually has three agents to assist her in making bank while the getting’s good. Ahhh, capitalism. It gives me giddy little goosebumps. She even shares an agent with (real athlete) Joe Burrow for goodness sakes. What’s this world coming to?! At present time, it’s coming to Olivia. Good for her.
LikeLike
Bernie’s link.
But last month, the Pac-12 provided to several regents a glimpse of what its deal, which it has been negotiating for months, might look like if U.C.L.A. decided to remain: a range between $42 million and $47 million per school, with U.C.L.A. getting a little more than the remaining 10 schools in the Pac-12 once Southern California leaves for the Big Ten in 2024, according to two people familiar with the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss them. The holdovers in turn would be getting a little more than San Diego State if it left the Mountain West to become the conference’s 12th team.
Then the Big 12 announced its deal with Fox and ESPN, which will be worth $31.7 million per school.
That number was far enough below expectations that the Pac-12 lowered its estimates for the regents by about 10 percent.
…
The Pac-12’s willingness to sweeten the offer for U.C.L.A. also included a willingness to pay the buyout the Los Angeles school would have to fork over to break the Big Ten agreement. That buyout is $15 million, according to three people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal terms of the deal.
LikeLike
The B1G has been very quiet on this matter of late. At what point does it start to throw its weight around?
It seems the most likely scenario is UCLA leaving and paying Cal a subsidy. For argument’s sake, let’s say UCLA stands to make $70MM in the B1G. Cal stands to make $40MM in the new P12. What if the UC Regents say, ok we will let UCLA go, but you’re going to transfer $15MM to Cal so both schools will be earning the same $55MM and Cal will not be adversely impacted by the move?
How is a subsidy in the interest of the B1G? It is essentially a B1G subsidy of Cal a non-B1G member. If you’re the B1G you want UCLA to come in firing on all cylinders, not having one hand tied behind its back. And how long does this subsidy last? For a few seasons or for as long as UCLA remains in the B1G? I also don’t know how this is in the interest of the P12, with the UC Regents requiring Cal to be the highest paid school in the league. Not great for stability.
If I’m the B1G, it’s time to let the UC Regents know that UCLA should move subsidy free. If that’s a problem, Oregon, Washington, and Stanford can easily be invited devaluing the P12 even more. You either get one school in the Power 2 or you get none.
LikeLike
startupsandheismans,
The B1G has been very quiet on this matter of late. At what point does it start to throw its weight around?
The B10 hasn’t said anything since announcing their move, and I doubt they will publicly. Behind the scenes, I’m sure they have been doing things.
It seems the most likely scenario is UCLA leaving and paying Cal a subsidy. For argument’s sake, let’s say UCLA stands to make $70MM in the B1G. Cal stands to make $40MM in the new P12. What if the UC Regents say, ok we will let UCLA go, but you’re going to transfer $15MM to Cal so both schools will be earning the same $55MM and Cal will not be adversely impacted by the move?
I don’t think it would be that much. At most it would make Cal whole to what the P12 would’ve gotten with UCLA staying put. They said that was $42-47M, then lowered it 10% so $37.8-42.3M. So if the P12 gets $30-35M without UCLA, that’s roughly $7.5M per year to make Cal whole.
How is a subsidy in the interest of the B1G? It is essentially a B1G subsidy of Cal a non-B1G member. If you’re the B1G you want UCLA to come in firing on all cylinders, not having one hand tied behind its back.
It’s UCLA’s problem, not the B10’s. Other schools came in paying a buy-in to the BTN that was larger than the subsidy.
And how long does this subsidy last? For a few seasons or for as long as UCLA remains in the B1G?
Unknown, but maybe just for the current TV deal. After that, it’d be hard to set the number. I suppose they could keep it at $7.5M with an inflation adjuster forever, but I don’t think they want that.
I also don’t know how this is in the interest of the P12, with the UC Regents requiring Cal to be the highest paid school in the league. Not great for stability.
That’s the P12’s problem, not the BoR’s. But the P12 might apply some pressure to make the subsidy end sooner rather than later.
If I’m the B1G, it’s time to let the UC Regents know that UCLA should move subsidy free. If that’s a problem, Oregon, Washington, and Stanford can easily be invited devaluing the P12 even more. You either get one school in the Power 2 or you get none.
The BoR are politicians. Threats are not a good tactic here. They’d use it as an excuse to dig in their heels and keep UCLA in the P12. You want to let the logic inform their vote, while making it crystal clear that inviting Cal also is not an option. Despite what Frank says, I don’t think the B10 is particularly interested in adding Cal under any circumstances.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Andy, this might seem a bit counterintuitive. But which team would be most negatively affected if they were to win the Big Ten West?
If it’s Iowa, does that justify Brian Ferentz sticking around? Does Jeff Brohm end up getting hired elsewhere if it’s Purdue? Similarly, does P.J. Fleck row a different boat somewhere else next season if the Gophers are in the conference championship game? And if it’s Wisconsin, what does that mean for their coaching search?
For likely minimal reward (probably being trounced by Ohio State or Michigan), it seems like there’s the potential for a much higher long-term loss. — Matt
This question perfectly sums up the vibe of the Big Ten West in 2022 because it really doesn’t sound that weird. With five teams — all objectively worse than the best three teams in the Big Ten East — still mathematically alive for the title, who might be harmed the most by earning a trip to Indianapolis?
Matt lays out some compelling reasons why winning could be losing, but I only see one program that might truly be harmed long-term.
For Illinois, Minnesota and Purdue, the benefit of making the Big Ten title game for the first time far outweighs any potential negative. The Illini have to beat Michigan to make that happen, so they feel like the least likely to make it. But if they did, well, they would already have beaten Michigan. So Illinois fans would be pumped and would feel pretty good about their chances in the game. They’d swarm Indianapolis.
Meanwhile, Purdue and Minnesota making the game could make Jeff Brohm and P.J. Fleck more attractive candidates elsewhere, but remember that every Big Ten school is about to get a massive cash infusion. No school in the league should lose a coach to another school unless that school is a legitimate national title contender. They all should be able to pay to keep the coaches they want to keep.
The timing of Paul Chryst’s firing at Wisconsin always felt like a way to get interim coach Jim Leonhard enough runway to earn the job permanently. A Big Ten West title would only serve to reinforce the notion that Leonhard is the correct person to lead the Badgers. He understands the program’s identity as well as anyone. If he retools the offensive staff and revamps the recruiting department to mirror other programs of that level, that feels like a win-win.
Iowa is the one that could be harmed, because, as Matt pointed out, Hawkeyes coach Kirk Ferentz might think a division title would justify keeping son Brian as the offensive coordinator when the younger Ferentz’s body of work suggests he harms the program every day he remains in that position.
What makes Iowa so frustrating to watch this year is that the Hawkeyes’ defense and special teams are elite. They are not merely above average. They are not merely good. They are excellent. Last Saturday against Wisconsin, special teams coordinator LeVar Woods’ punt and punt return teams allowed Iowa to effectively dominate that game. But why settle for a 24-10 win in a game that would have ended 44-10 if the Hawkeyes had a remotely competent offense?
It is not hyperbole to say that even an average offense next to that defense and those special teams would make Iowa a top-10 team. But Woods’ and defensive coordinator Phil Parker’s units are wasted by the elder Ferentz’s stubbornness on this subject. Remember, Kirk is the one who encourages the overly conservative ethos that Brian has carried out poorly the past few years.
This feels somewhat similar to the decision Smart faced at Georgia following the 2019 season. Would he keep offensive coordinator James Coley and continue smashing his head against the same offensive brick wall, or would he hire someone else and then empower that person to run a more creative offense? Smart made the change and hired Todd Monken. It took some time to get the quarterback situation figured out, but once Monken accepted midway through the 2021 season that Stetson Bennett gave the Bulldogs the best chance to win, the offense became one of the toughest to stop in the sport. Georgia varies tempo. Georgia spreads out defenses on occasion. The Bulldogs take more offensive risks than they did in Smart’s first few years in charge. But Georgia often puts two tight ends on the field and runs the ball down opponents’ throats. That type of offense is theoretically what Iowa wants to run.
Can Iowa be Georgia? Probably not in the grand scheme because the Bulldogs recruit better raw material. But with a willingness to be more creative and with competent QB coaching, Iowa can be one of the best teams in the Big Ten — even after divisions go away. And if you can be one of the best teams in the Big Ten, then you can compete for national titles.
Kirk Ferentz said he intends to evaluate everything when the season ends. For the sake of the program, here’s hoping he does. Iowa is squandering its defense and its special teams by accepting something south of mediocre on offense, and it’s time that stopped.
LikeLike
From WaPo:
Maryland football’s attendance trouble has challenging solution: Win more
By Emily Giambalvo November 18, 2022 at 8:00 a.m. EST
On even the nicest afternoons in the fall, with picturesque skies paired with the manicured turf and bright red Maryland logos, large swaths of empty bleachers dull the stadium scene in College Park. In the upper decks, fans appear as individual specks dotting the stands. Some sit alone. There is plenty of space.
At Maryland, sagging football attendance is an unwelcome trend that everyone — coaches, players and school officials — can see but nobody has fixed. Through five home games this season, the stadium has hosted an average of 21,226 spectators. That count, which Maryland provided to The Washington Post, includes ancillary attendees, such as staff, media and band members. Announced attendance, the metric publicly available, inflates the estimated crowd size because it includes distributed tickets that go unused.
This fall, Maryland’s attendance peaked with an actual crowd of 26,276 (36,204 was the announced attendance) against Purdue. Even then, a stadium that holds close to 52,000 was barely half-full. The Terps may top that mark Saturday, a credit to traveling Ohio State fans. When Maryland faces Rutgers two days after Thanksgiving, the usual scene probably will reappear. Tickets for that game are available for $3.
Maryland’s attendance woes have persisted for much of the past decade as the school jumped from the ACC to the Big Ten in 2014 and the Terps struggled on the field. Photos of vacant stands circulate online, reaching recruits and handing opposing fan bases an opportunity to mock, and they advertise the revenue hit Maryland takes each time it can’t fill its seats.
Maryland’s average announced attendance of 31,920 ranks 66th among 133 Football Bowl Subdivision schools and places the program on a tier with Boise State, Appalachian State, Navy and Stanford. The Terrapins have the second-worst attendance in the Big Ten, behind only Northwestern. A chasm exists between Maryland and the powers it is chasing — evident during each road game played in front of a raucous opposing crowd.
The Terps’ smallest home crowd of the season — 17,293 for Michigan State last month — was on a rainy day in College Park. Meanwhile, Penn State fans, armored with ponchos, packed Beaver Stadium last weekend in the rain when the Nittany Lions dismantled Maryland. After the game, a reporter asked Penn State defensive end Chop Robinson, who transferred from Maryland, how many fans would fill College Park’s stadium on a gloomy day in November, and he said, “Not a lot.” When pressed for an estimate, Robinson said, “Less than 10,000.”
Maryland’s campus sits inside the Beltway, and the stadium is less than 10 miles from the U.S. Capitol. The Terps’ program sells its location to recruits as a gateway to professional opportunities, but the transient nature of the city might not help breed loyal Maryland football fans. The millions who live here have plenty of entertainment options, sports and otherwise, stretching from D.C. to Baltimore.
“The market is so unique,” said Jordan Looby, who oversees marketing strategy and fan experience at Maryland. “There’s so much competition.”
The most comparable schools might be Georgia Tech (36,625 average announced attendance) in Atlanta, as well as Los Angeles-based programs Southern California (63,133) and UCLA (37,411), which are both in the top 20 of the College Football Playoff rankings.
The saturated market hurts Maryland’s efforts to improve attendance, but so has the team’s performance. Since the school fired Ralph Friedgen after the 2010 season, the Terps are 56-83. They haven’t won more than seven games in a season, and they have beaten just three ranked teams during that stretch — at No. 23 Texas in 2017, against No. 23 Texas at FedEx Field in 2018 and then at home in 2019 against No. 21 Syracuse, which floundered the rest of the season. All three victories came in September, and Maryland has suffered numerous blowouts against the Big Ten’s elite.
“I do believe that this area in particular likes winners,” said Scott Weitz, the president of the Terrapin Club, which has roughly 5,800 members.
Weitz, who graduated from Maryland in 1990, doesn’t think the Terps need years of improved results to attract a larger crowd. The problem, he said, is that “we really haven’t beaten a team we weren’t expecting to beat in a long time.”
The Terps have occasionally packed the stadium in College Park: The university added bleachers to meet student-ticket demand against Penn State in 2019. That game turned into a 59-0 rout. A similar buzz surrounded last season’s matchup with Iowa, and the Terps suffered another lopsided loss.
Dramatic upsets happen every weekend in college football, but Maryland has yet to play spoiler against a ranked Big Ten foe. Those are the games that create memories — ones that infuse hope into conversations at tailgates and lure fans into the stadium in case that magic surfaces again.
“We’ve got to get rid of the narrative of big game equals Maryland didn’t win the game,” Weitz said.
If Maryland had upset Penn State on the road last weekend, Weitz suspects there would have been a jolt of enthusiasm heading into Saturday’s matchup against No. 2 Ohio State. Instead, the Terps lost, 30-0, and the Buckeyes’ dominance threatens a similar result.
Coach Michael Locksley understands his team has to do its part to coax fans into the stands. He has a degree in marketing, and he coached on the staff when Maryland won an ACC championship in 2001.
Fans want Maryland to “close the gap between the top teams in our league,” Locksley said earlier this season. “Well, the challenge is, will our fans help me close the gap with creating an environment that makes it tough when people come in the Shell? … For us to have the type of program that can go out and recruit [top] players, we need to show that we have a community that really values what this program’s all about.”
Winning games would help Maryland fill the stands, but filling the stands may help Maryland win more. A raucous environment could compel fans to buy tickets so they can take part, but the only way to create that atmosphere is if they pack the stadium. “It’s a little bit of a chicken or the egg,” Looby said.
Still, the marketing department works to reverse the trend. Maryland was previously “operating from below baseline” with an “antiquated” video board, Looby said. The Terps rectified that by unveiling an impressive replacement last year. A better sound system allows the school to fill lulls with captivating videos and clips that show off players’ personalities. “We’re getting rid of all the excuses,” Weitz said.
Maryland has tried to reach new fans by partnering with a digital advertising agency and targeting campaigns at certain areas. When star wide receiver Rakim Jarrett scored against Michigan State, Maryland launched an email campaign with discounted tickets for people in Jarrett’s native Prince George’s County. The staff has similar campaigns prepared for other local players.
Maryland’s athletic department crafts these marketing efforts, imagines ways to enhance the fan experience and works through the inexact science of ticket pricing. But then Maryland’s game each Saturday determines the difficulty of the school’s stadium-filling endeavor because a lackluster performance probably will lead to another day with empty stands.
“It’s not about price,” Weitz said. “I don’t think it’s about [being] hard to get here. I don’t think it’s about traffic. There has to be a demand, and the way you get demand is to win games.”
LikeLike
This means that MD may have a continuing problem. Their QB, Taluia Tagovailoa, is quite good. He is Tua’s brother and was highly ranked coming out of high school.
He is a redshirt junior on is on many pre season award watch lists. In 2021, he had one of the best QB seasons ever for MD football.
If they cannot draw and win with Taluia, when will it happen?
LikeLike
How did that reporter determine GTech and the LA schools were most comparable to UMD? Rutgers, Miami, Northwestern, UW-Seattle, the Bay Area schools, ASU, TCU, UMTC, BC, and CU exist too.
LikeLike
Because they fit the reporter’s narrative? Because the reporter is more familiar with them?
LikeLike
I think the likely answer is “because the reporter is ignorant”.
LikeLike
SI’s Ross Dellinger reports that the Rose Bowl is the last obstacle standing in the way of CFP expansion in 2024–25.
According to the article, the Committee deciding the fate of the playoff has delivered an ultimatum: accept what we are offering, or playoff expansion is delayed another two years, after which the Rose Bowl’s leverage would be greatly reduced.
The Committee has already agreed that the six principal bowls will rotate hosting the quarterfinals, which means each of them will be a host two years out of three. The Committee offered the Rose Bowl a quarterfinal in the first two years. The question is what happens in 2026.
The Rose Bowl wants an exclusive window (no other games played at the same time) at 2pm PT on New Year’s Day to show a Big Ten vs. Pac-12 game, even if it might be a battle of third-place teams. The playoff Committee wants to be able to show a quarterfinal during that time. That, and only that, seems to be the entire issue.
The Big Ten and the Pac-12 are the Rose Bowl’s partners. The Pac-12 especially needs the revenue that playoff expansion would bring. Besides that, they have placed a team in the playoff just six out of eight years, which could be seven out of nine if they don’t get the right breaks the next few weeks.
If I had to bet, I suspect the Pac-12 is strongly urging the Rose Bowl to capitulate.
LikeLike
Predictable but still unbelievable.
Compromise option #1: Rose bowl gets a quarterfinal every year and no semifinal.
Compromise option #2: Rose bowl keeps their time slot to play #4 B1G v #2 P-1? every three years, but it’s not exclusive and the game is aired on ESPN2 or FS1.
Compromise option #3: Every FBS school sues the Rose Bowl for $1B in lost revenue due to their ass-holerly in holding the college football world hostage in expanding the CURRENT deal, by requiring a condition in the NEXT deal that is not before the committee.
And the Rose Bowl gets completely left out of the next deal by majority vote.
LikeLike
Good luck with #3. The Rose Bowl doesn’t owe anyone anything. They have a contract and have the right to stick to it.
Leaving out the Rose Bowl partially depends on how much the B10 and P12 stand up for it.
LikeLike
I really don’t understand why everyone doesn’t just go with option #1. All the other 5 NY6 bowls would get semifinals more often, so I can’t imagine they’d be against that.
LikeLike
Compromise option #1: Rose bowl gets a quarterfinal every year and no semifinal.
Part of the issue is that the playoff committee does not want to make decisions about future years beyond 24–25. I do not see them locking in the Rose Bowl to a long-term format that they might later want to change.
Compromise option #2: Rose bowl keeps their time slot to play #4 B1G v #2 P-1? every three years, but it’s not exclusive and the game is aired on ESPN2 or FS1.
The proposal on the table is that the Rose Bowl would be televised opposite a quarterfinal. Those would be the only two games at the time. I think the Rose would get a better network than ESPN2 or FS1.
Compromise option #3: Every FBS school sues the Rose Bowl.
They’d lose. The Rose Bowl is not required to terminate its contract early, no matter how much other people would benefit by it. (Same analogy with the ACC and their ruinous ESPN deal.)
I do think the Rose Bowl will capitulate. If they were the sole hold-outs for 24–25, they would be in an extremely unfavorable position in 26 and beyond.
LikeLike
“Part of the issue is that the playoff committee does not want to make decisions about future years beyond 24–25.”
Then they are idiots. Kicking the can down the road only leads to lost revenue for the colleges (for instance, the 12-team playoff could have been in place for the 2023 season if dumbasses had come to an agreement). That’s why the Presidents got fed up with the ADs and gave them a directive.
LikeLike
Only 2024–2025 requires unanimous consent to tear up contracts already written. In 2026, they get a clean slate. I don’t really see a reason to lock it up now for 12 years, as they did the last time.
You, of all people, should be glad that they are not. If they locked up anything, it would be the plan the presidents mandated, which I know you oppose.
LikeLike
Marc, nope, they could always lock up a different plan.
It doesn’t seem like people are willing or able to think outside the box here.
LikeLike
It doesn’t seem like people are willing or able to think outside the box here.
This presumes that “think outside the box” = “adopt the plan I want.”
It’s easy to forget that the 12-team plan the presidents approved IS outside the box; it’s just not the plan you want personally. In other sports, playoffs have typically expanded a round at a time. To go immediately from 2 rounds to 4 is a pretty big leap that very few people predicted.
LikeLike
Marc, no, “think outside the box” means coming up with a plan that is acceptable to enough schools and conferences that matter. Namely the SEC and B10 in 2026 and later. I extremely doubt the presidents in those 2 conferences are willing to die on the hill of QFs on NYD. I do believe the B10 would, sure, like the Rose in its traditional 2PM Pacific timeslot. And everyone likely wants to extend the playoffs in to spring semester as little as possible.
And nobody seems to be all that disturbed about moving the season up a week so starting the season week zero and CCGs on Thanksgiving weekend.
The SEC may want the Sugar to get equal status with the Rose, in which case, whatever, rotate the semifinals among the NY6 bowls, when the Rose and Sugar aren’t semifinals, they both play 5PM Eastern NYD (semifinals 1PM and 9PM). When they are semifinals, they get the 5PM and 9M slots and 2 other NYD6 bowls play the 1PM NYD slot. There’s nothing wrong with playing multiple NYD bowls in the same time slot again. Or heck, Sugar gets the 9:30AM NYD timeslot when it isn’t a semifinal. Start your morning off right!
In any case, it’s possible to negotiate all this to an agreement if you have a flexible mind. That’s the thing I love about Bob Thompson; he loves/loved making deals and in his mind, there are very few absolutes. It seems that too many people involved in CFP negotiations are hidebound and think in absolutes instead of trying all sorts of ideas.
LikeLike
Or heck, if the SEC throws a fit and wants at least equal billing with the B10, tell the Rose that if it wants its special protected timeslot, it has to be B10 vs SEC. With the LA schools moving to the B10, the Rose would still be a host conference vs. a visiting conference.
Between them, the B10 and SEC have the majority of CFB fans.
LikeLike
Marc, no, “think outside the box” means coming up with a plan that is acceptable to enough schools and conferences that matter.
But the plan they have agreed to is precisely that. We are down to the 2027 Rose Bowl as the last remaining roadblock.
LikeLike
Marc that would mean it’s not. The Rose can be so intransigent only because it has conferences backing it.
LikeLike
The Rose can be so intransigent only because it has conferences backing it.
We shall see, but the presidents mandated a plan, which included the Big Ten and Pac-12 voting yes. Those two conferences have been remarkably quiet, so I think the Rose Bowl is flying solo right now.
LikeLike
Marc, nothing in the Presidents’ plan said the Rose had to move from its NYD slot, so I don’t know where you get the idea the B10 and Pac don’t support the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/college-football-sports-e01545eb1af871299afc489404740484
For another view, Ralph Russo wrote this piece.
Flipping the current four-team playoff to 12 teams for the final two years of the current television contract will give those in charge of the postseason a look at how it works before committing to any part long term.
The number of teams and games is unlikely to change, but nothing about the how, when and where starting in 2026 is a lock. There is a chance the calendar for the entire college football season could be different by then.
…
If the CFP doesn’t accommodate, the Rose Bowl could stick with its current contract and make it impossible to expand early.
“The Rose Bowl Game continues to be open to the possibility of early expansion of the existing playoff. While we have requested specific contract assurances in our initial discussions with the College Football Playoff, we continue to remain open to these discussions,” game organizers said in a statement. “We have no intention of being the lone roadblock that would keep expansion from happening before the end of its current cycle.”
…
“There hasn’t been a whole lot of conversation about 2026 yet,” CFP Executive Director Bill Hancock told AP. “We want to take care of 2024 and/or 2025 and then focus on 2026 and thereafter.”
…
In 2024 and 2025, the Rose Bowl is not scheduled to host a semifinal. In theory, this made it easier to flip the format for those years. The Rose Bowl would keep its highly valued time slot and host quarterfinals. Pushing back the semifinals and championship games for each of those years has been deemed doable.
But after the 2025 season, those dates don’t mean anything.
There is discussion at both the CFP and NCAA level about starting the season a week earlier. Turning Week Zero, the week before Labor Day weekend, into Week 1 would mean playing conference championship games on Thanksgiving weekend.
The playoff could start a week or two after that, and the quarterfinals (on campus or in bowl games) the following week. After a Christmas break, the semifinals — not the quarterfinals — would be played on New Year’s Day, similar to the way it is now.
…
Here’s a solution: Make the Rose Bowl a permanent semifinal, played on New Year’s Day, along with the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans.
It is ridiculous that they aren’t discussing 2026 and beyond when they know that is vital to the issue at hand. Especially if a calendar change could eliminate the problem.
LikeLike
That was akin to my idea. If the Rose and Sugar are permanent semifinals, the other 4 NY6 bowls could rotate the national title game between them. Though having semifinals NYD does solve the scheduling issue as the semifinal bowls could be 1PM and 9PM Eastern when the Rose isn’t a semifinal bowl so there could still be rotation.
LikeLike
Yes, full props to you. As you may recall, I was a sceptic because this pretty much kills most of the bowls. But maybe they would indeed do that. The article demonstrates that at least some people consider it a worthy idea.
Florida’s AD Scott Stricklin is the only school administrator quoted on the record. Obviously, a Southern school would prefer a December home game over a neutral-site game. He might not like it as much when his Gators have to play in State College. Eventually, there’d be a quarterfinal played in Ice Bowl conditions: Michigan’s game against Illinois yesterday had 11 degrees wind chill, and it is not even December yet.
LikeLike
Yes, but there are bigger considerations than relative quarterfinal home advantage.
1. CFB has exclusive TV windows (no NFL) the first 2 Saturdays in Dec (probably Friday night too). Seems dumb not to take advantage of that.
2. Uni presidents really aren’t all that keen about extending the playoffs in to spring semester (winter quarter) for more schools as it’s pretty disruptive to schooling. If semifinals are NYD, then only 2 schools potentially have to cancel classes for a few days. If QFs are NYD, that’s 2 schools where a big chunk of the student body is away attending a playoff game once and another 2 schools where a big chunk of the student body is away attending a playoff game _twice_.
Compared to those concerns, protecting bowls seems like a trivial concern. Ultimately, the schools will do what is best for them, not the bowls.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 letter to the UC Board of Regents. Copied from PDF, many typos.
On behalf the Pac- 12 Conference and in the interest of assuring all perspectives are considered inyour deliberations , wanted to reach out ahead of the UC Board of Regents September 22 discussion regarding UCLA’s decision to leavethe Pac-12 Conference and join the BigTen Conference . The purpose ofthis letter isto provide
facts and context with respect to the impact ofthat decision on the UCLA student athletes, the UCLA community and ourConference membership , including UC Berkeley
As a Conference , we were extremely surprised and disappointed by UCLA’s decision to leave for the BigTen. The Pac-12 has a storied tradition of more than 100 years marked by athletic and academic excellence, and UCLA has
been integral tothat excellence as a very successful member of the Pac-12, winning 119 team NCAA titles (second only tothe Pac- 12’s Stanford University) across 20 sports.
UCLA’sdecisiontoleavethe Conferencethatithasbeena memberofsince1928, anditsotherflagshipUC universityinUCBerkeley, abandonsour sharedvalueofsupportingthewell-beingofstudentathletes. Should UCLA’s decisionstand, itwilldamagethefabric, century- oldhistory, rivalriesand familialtiesofthePac-12
Whileweacknowledgethat overturning UCLA’s decision would be significantforthe UC Board of Regents, we believethattheimpactof UCLA’s decision on theyoung women and men who it is chargedwith supporting warrantssuch an outcome. We alsowant toensuretheUC BoardofRegents that should UCLAremaininthePac
12,theywillnotonly be welcomedwith open arms, butbe assured ofafuture of continued growth and success.
We have five significant concerns with UCLA’s decision, described in more detail below
1. Significantimpactonstudent-athletephysicalandmentalwell- being, whicheffectsbothacademicsand athletics
Our mission at the Pac-12is to develop the next generation of leaders by championing excellence in academics athletics , and the well-being ofour student – athletes. With a mission to support our student- athletes , we are very
concerned that UCLA’s decision to join a conference located in the Central and Eastern time zones will unquestionably place much greater physical and mental stress on student -athletes because of significantly increased travel, and cause more hours and days away from campus, impacting both academic and athletic success.
WeknowfrompublishedmedicalresearchbytheNationalInstitutesof Health, studiesconductedbytheNCAA, anddiscussionswithourownstudent-athleteleadersthat significantadditionaltravel, includingrepetitivetravel
across3 timezones, impactsstudent-athletes physicalandmentalwell-beingandtheiracademicpursuits These increasedtravel demandsrequire student-athletestotravel across multipletimezonesregularly, which disruptssleep, mood, and physicaland cognitivefunction for daysaftertravel and has cascading personaleffects.
Infact, a common medicalguideline isthat a body requires one day to adjustfor eachtimezone crossed From our calculations based on nine ofthe UCLA teams with regular season conference travel schedules (football men’s and women’s basketball women’s volleyball, women’s soccer, baseball, men’s and women’s tennis, and
softball UCLA student-athletes competing in the BigTen willfly 159% more air miles and drive 44% more bus ground millesthan they do today in the Pac-12. Longer flight and bus times add up over the season and willresult in fewer days on campus with their fellow students focused on education . Even ifUCLA athletics decides to charter moreflights, UCLA student- athletes willface, on average , double the days missed on campus
2. Significant hardship for the families of UCLA student- athletes and UCLA alumni
Beyond the travel hardship for student-athletes , we are also concerned by the significant additional burden UCLA’s decision puts on families of student-athletes and loyal, invested alumni. Withalmostallaway, conferencegamesoccurringat least2,000milesfrom campus, thefamiliesof UCLAstudent athleteswillface longerand moreexpensivetrips towatchtheirkidscompete. 70 percent of UCLA alumni liveon theWestCoast andwillface similartravel and expensetowatchthe Bruinsplay awaygames.
3. Significant negative impact on UCLA expenses
Despitealltheexplanationsmadeafterthefact, UCLA’sdecisiontojoin theBigTenwas clearlyfinancially motivatedafterthe UCLAathleticdepartmentmanagedto accumulate morethan $100 M in debt overthe past threefiscalyears. Thefinancial upliftto UCLAas an impetusfor itsdecisionhasbeenwidelytoutedbythemedia
andinpublicdiscourse WhileitistruethattheBigTen Conferencehasrecently announceda largemediarights dealanddistributions from theBigTento itsmemberschools willbelargerthandistributionsavailabletoPac- 12schools from thePac- 12 Conferenceforthenearfuture, UCLAmembershipintheBigTen willalsorequire significantadditionalathletic departmentexpenditures. By ourestimates, UCLA’sadditionaltravelcosts, competitivesalaries, andgame
guaranteeexpenseswillmorethanoffsetALLtheadditionalrevenuesthatUCLAwillgeneratefromtheBigTen’s mediarightsdeal UCLAcurrentlyspendsapproximately$8.1M peryear ontravelfor itsteamstocompeteinthePac- 12Conference.
UCLAwillincura 100% increaseinitsteamtravelcostsifitflies commercialintheBigTen ($8.1M increaseper year), a 160% increaseifitchartershalf hetime ($13.1Mincrease peryear), anda 290% increase ifitcharters everyflight($23.7Mincreaseperyear)
Beyondtravel, we alsoexpectUCLAto increaseexpenses tocompetewiththeaverage BigTenathleticdepartment. Basedon UCLA’slatestexpenses, normalizedtothe averageBigTen athleticdepartments budgetandsize, UCLA willhaveto increaseitshead coaches salaries& bonusesby19%, itsassistantcoachsalariesby13%, itsguaranteed expensesby 122%, anditsadministratorsalariesby 27%. This represents approximately$15M inadditionalannual expensesjustto competeat an”average BigTen budget. Finally, UCLAwilllikelyfaceotherincreasedannual
expensestocompeteas a memberoftheBigTenin marketing, fundraising, recruiting, andgameoperations.
AnyfinancialgainsUCLAwillachievebyjoiningtheBigTenwillend up goingto airline and chartercompanies administratorsandcoaches salaries, andotherrecipient ratherthan providingany additionalresources for student-athletes.
4. Significant negative impact on Pac- 12, and by extension Cal, revenues
thelastpublicRegentshearingon thistopic, theimpactof UCLA’sdecisiononthePac-12mediarightswas addressed SinceUCLA’s announcement,thePac- 12hasbeen negotiatingitsnext broadcastagreements. As a resultofthetiming, we haverobust marketdata regardingthecurrentvalueofUCLAtoourConference’soverall
mediavalue, aswellastheadverseimpactthis movewould havespecificallyon UCBerkeley.
OurexpertsagreethatlosingbothLosAngelesschools( andthereforetheLA TV market) andthebrandsofUSCand UCLAwouldmostlikelyreducethetotalPac-12 mediavalueby upto30% This reductionintotalvalueneedstobe offsetbythefactthata newmediarevenuedealwouldonlybe sharedamong10schoolsratherthan12. As a
result, theactualreductioninmediadollarsforeachof our 10remainingschools wouldbereducedbyupto 16% isdifficultto discloseexactprojectionson thefinancialharmto UC Berkeleyand other Pac- 12schoolsofUCLA
leavingtheConferencewithoutdisclosingconfidentialinformationrelatedto ourongoingmedianegotiations. That said, a 16% reductioninmedia revenuesissignificantbecause mediarevenuescompriseapproximately65% ofthe
Conference’srevenuedistributionstoits memberso
We believe reversingUCLA’s decision toleave the Pac-12would offset morethan halfofthe financial damageto UC Berkeley caused byboth Los Angeles schools leaving because itwould return LosAngeles, the second largest USTV
market, tothe Conference. Beyondthefinancialimpact, UCLAreturningtothePac-12would createmorestabilitythatwillensurethefuture successandgrow thof both UCLA and UC Berkeley, alongwithallPac- 12members. Thereis urgencyinthis
situation, however. We are recurrently negotiatingournext mediarightsdeal andare solicitingbids withand without UCLA weareforcedtosigna dealwithoutUCLA, thefinancialharmwill belockedin for yearstocome.
5. Significant negative impact on UCsystem’s stated goal of reducing carbon emissions
A finalconcern relates back to the additional travel required of UCLA injoining the BigTen and its impact onthe overallstated climate goals of the UC system . UCLA’s additional travel and carbon output resultingfrom a moveto the BigTen and the associated increased travel which by one recently published estimate willresult in 1,788 tons of additional emissions per year will have a significant negative climate impact and runs countertothe efforts and investments of the UC system and directly contradictory to UCLA’s public commitment to achieve climate neutrality by 2025.
Foralltheabove reasons, and most importantlyforthe current andfuture generations of UCLA student- athletes, wewouldstrongly support a decision bythe UCBoardof Regentsto reversethe decision made byUCLA realizethis briefletter only toucheson questionsyouandyourfellowRegentsmayhaveaboutthe impactof UCLA’s decision Ifyou wouldliketodiscussitfurtherorwould likeadditionalinformation, pleasefeelfreeto contactme. Inaddition, I am availableandwouldbehappyto cometestifyinmoredetailatyour convenienceas theUC BoardofRegents continuesto review UCLA’sdecision.
Thank you foryour consideration
Bestregards,
GeorgeKiliavkoff
Commissioner
360 3rd Street 3rdFloor San Francisco, California Pac-12.com
LikeLike
From the NY Times . . .
California Regents Hear Out Pac-12 on Whether to Block U.C.L.A.’s Move to Big Ten
The leaders of the sprawling University of California educational system are considering whether they should halt the move by U.C.L.A.
By Billy Witz, Sept. 22, 2022
SAN DIEGO — When members of the University of California Board of Regents met Thursday to discuss whether to quash U.C.L.A.’s move to the Big Ten Conference, they had an unexpected item to consider: a letter enumerating why the decision to join the conference was a bad idea — even a financial loser — for one of the state’s flagship public universities.
The three-page letter arrived earlier this week from someone the regents had never heard from before: George Kliavkoff, the commissioner of the Pac-12 Conference.
In the letter, obtained by The New York Times, Kliavkoff indicated that U.C.L.A. had not fully considered the consequences of its move, which was made largely to extricate the school’s athletic department from a financial hole but caught many of the regents by surprise and angered Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was upset by the lack of transparency.
In a special meeting last month, the regents said they could halt the move.
Read the Pac-12 Letter to the University of California Regents (posted by Colin previously)
Letter from the commissioner of the Pac-12 Conference to the University of California Board of Regents, objecting to a move by U.C.L.A. to go to the Big Ten Conference.
With the Pac-12 negotiating a new media rights deal — with or without U.C.L.A. — the letter by Kliavkoff may be considered a last-ditch effort to maintain a football presence in the lucrative Los Angeles television market. (The University of Southern California, which is private, also said it would move from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten.)
Though Kliavkoff touched on issues that the regents discussed last month, his letter, which the board discussed in closed session, according to two people in the room who were not authorized to speak publicly, attempted to quantify the effects of U.C.L.A’s departure.
“No decisions,” U.C. President Michael V. Drake said in a brief interview after the three-day meetings concluded. “I think everybody is collecting information. It’s an evolving situation.”
Richard Leib, the chair of the Board of Regents, said he did not know when the regents would make a decision. “A lot of what was in the letter wasn’t new, but it added some detail,” he said, adding that he could not reveal what was discussed in closed session.
As it stands, the regents and the Pac-12 are in somewhat of a race against the clock. The regents, as slowly as they often move, recognize that schedules, logistics and other planning will start soon for U.C.L.A. and, to a lesser degree, Cal-Berkeley, the other U.C. school in the conference. And the Pac-12 is eager to close on its television deal. Both would prefer the other to go first.
In his letter, Kliavkoff, who declined an interview request, wrote that U.C.L.A. athletes would more than double their time spent in airplanes and increase by nearly half their time on buses traveling to the Central and Eastern time zones, which would affect their physical and mental health and hurt their academic performance. And with 70 percent of U.C.L.A.’s alumni on the West Coast, he wrote that it would be more arduous and expensive for them — and athletes’ families — to attend away games in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
Most pointedly, Kliavkoff also wrote that much of the increased TV revenue that U.C.L.A. is expected to reap from the Big Ten’s seven-year, $7.5 billion media rights deal if it joins the conference for the 2024 football season would be eaten up by increased salaries for coaches and administrators that would be required to remain competitive, and by the need to charter flights to ensure that softball players are treated the same as football players when they travel.
U.C.L.A.’s travel costs, which are $8.1 million for its teams to travel in the Pac-12, would nearly quadruple if all its flights were chartered, Kliavkoff wrote.
If the regents instructed U.C.L.A. to remain in the Pac-12, Kliavkoff wrote, it would offset more than half the damage done to Cal in the Pac-12’s impending media-rights deal. The U.C. system estimated that the departure of U.S.C. alone would diminish the 11 remaining Pac-12 schools’ media rights by $9.8 million per year. U.C.L.A’s departure would diminish the value of those rights further.
Sign up for the Sports Newsletter Get our most ambitious projects, stories and analysis delivered to your inbox every week. Get it sent to your inbox.
In a final nod to a board that may not be conversant in the semiprofessional world of major college sports, he noted that the increased travel contradicts the U.C. system’s objectives of helping to reverse climate change.
Kliavkoff acknowledged it was a heavy ask, but wrote that “for the current and future generations of U.C.L.A. student-athletes, we would strongly support a decision by the U.C. Board of Regents to reverse the decision made by U.C.L.A.”
The way U.C.L.A.’s intentioned move unfolded so quietly has agitated the regents enough that they are wrestling with revising rules on how they delegate authority — even if they choose to let U.C.L.A. go to the Big Ten. “The N.C.A.A. of 30 years ago probably made sense to leave with the chancellors,” Keith Ellis, an alumni-regent designate, said in an open session. “Not so much now.”
U.C.L.A. has portrayed its proposed move as a leap toward a financial life raft for an athletic department that had been swimming in red ink thanks to a floundering football program, an apparel deal turned sour and the effects of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Los Angeles Times reported in January that U.C.L.A.’s athletic department debt had ballooned to $102.8 million over the last three years. That number has been reduced after Under Armour paid the school $67.5 million earlier this year to settle a breach-of-contract lawsuit after the sports apparel company walked away from its contract with U.C.L.A., which had been the richest apparel agreement in college sports.
However, U.C.L.A.’s football attendance woes show no sign of abating. In three home games at the Rose Bowl against middling competition, the Bruins have played before announced crowds totaling 90,214 — still not enough to fill the venue.
U.C.L.A. and Cal are the jewels of the decorated University of California system, which has 10 campuses, an enrollment of nearly 300,000 and a $44 billion budget. To better manage the system’s vast bureaucracy, the campus chancellors were granted greater autonomy in 1991 to make agreements for their universities. (Coaching contracts are an exception.)
Over the years, even as the money involved in college athletics soared, chancellors’ authority became construed to mean that they could operate with fewer headwinds.
So when U.C.L.A. was deep in talks with U.S.C., the Big Ten and its media partner, Fox Sports, U.C.L.A Chancellor Gene Block informed Drake, the U.C. president who oversees the university chancellors. Drake is a seasoned participant in that world, having served as chair of the N.C.A.A. Board of Governors when he was the president at Ohio State.
While Block informed Drake of the talks, only a handful of regents were aware until shortly before the Los Angeles schools’ departure was reported on June 30 by the San Jose Mercury News. The political ramifications were quickly made clear when Newsom, who is a nonvoting board member and appoints some of the regents, was upset at the lack of transparency because of its impact on another U.C. school.
Still, the move seemed little more than a fait accompli until Charlie Robinson, the U.C. general counsel, told the regents last month that they had the power to nix the agreement. “When the regents and the president extended authority to the chancellors, they didn’t give it away,” Robinson told the regents last month.
Leib, the board chair, said on Wednesday that “in my mind, this is absolutely in the purview of the regents.” He said he expected the board would make a decision on whether to intervene by the end of the year. “By November, it will get more clear.”
Among the considerations for the regents is potential litigation, no matter what decision they make, Leib said Wednesday. If the regents force U.C.L.A. to remain in the Pac-12, “it would be a big deal,” Leib said. “There would be a lot of people happy and a lot of people upset.”
Block was asked Thursday morning, standing outside the Price Center, the U.C. San Diego student center where the three-day meeting was held this week, if he was surprised by the place U.C.L.A. finds itself in.
“I’d be happy to talk to you; I’m available. But I’m being respectful to the regents,” Block said. Asked why, as U.C.L.A.’s top official, he wouldn’t address such a significant story, Block nodded. “It is,” he said. “At the appropriate time, we’ll talk about it.”
And with that he excused himself and walked up a staircase, saying he had to get to the meeting. It was scheduled to start 25 minutes later.
LikeLike
Considering that California politicians live in La La land, an outright ban on Ucla’s move to the B1G is quite possible, maybe even at the 50% level. In recognition of force majeure, or even good fellowship, the BiG might wave the exit fee. Certainly long-term friendly relationships with Cal and Ucla are in the B1G’s interest.
But the fallout from the UCBOR cancelling the move might be worse than the cancellation itself. Just how deep into the administration of the UC campuses do the Regents want to go? Do they intend to vet and hire/fire coaches? Do they intend to review individual course syllabi? Or hire/fire faculty? Or maintain detailed supervision of admissions, including review of the actual admits?
Every state university system with two or more campuses has a Board of Regents. How many other state Boards would start to meddle in school operations. There were threats by the Ohio Legislature some years ago to mandate Ohio State’s scheduling of other state schools (all in the MAC). No legislation ever appeared, but tOSU always schedules at least one Ohio MAC school in its out-of-conference games.
All the major state universities have long traditions of autonomy and independence. They cannot fail to sympathize with the problems of the Ucla administration. What recourse do they have?
The proverbial can of worms is now open.
PS. How would a ban or no ban affect the Rose Bowl contract? The Rose Bowl is as much an interested bystander as the PAC 12.
LikeLike
50% sounds very high. They would be hurting UCLA significantly if they do that, which risks aggravating a lot of alumni. Cal is only minorly hurt by UCLA leaving, and the BoR can help reduce that.
Coaches’ contracts are already an exception from the delegated authority for the UC system.
Basically, the BoR wants input on every major decision. Especially if it impacts multiple campuses. That’s not unreasonable.
Other states have already interfered academically – see FL among others.
The Rose Bowl has probably made its opinion known behind the scenes.
LikeLike
“Certainly long-term friendly relationships with Cal and Ucla are in the B1G’s interest.”
I can’t think of anything worth $15mm. I don’t see the B10 budging in that situation. I do see them immediately adding 1 of Stanford/UW/UO.
LikeLike
Just how deep into the administration of the UC campuses do the Regents want to go? Do they intend to vet and hire/fire coaches? Do they intend to review individual course syllabi? Or hire/fire faculty? Or maintain detailed supervision of admissions, including review of the actual admits?
I agree with Brian that the Regents are much more than 50% likely to approve UCLA’s move. With that said, you are making a number of false comparisons. The decision to leave the Pac-12 permanently has far more consequences than just a coaching hire.
LikeLike
Also, as Brian noted, Board of Regents objections have often been mentioned as potential obstacles to conference realignment. This is the first time I recall that it has been tested in this way, but it is a potential issue with other pairs of state schools in the same conference, such as UNC/N.C. State, Washington/WSU, and so on.
LikeLike
Actually, only schools who belong in the same university system. That’s obviously true of the UCs. It’s also true of UNC and NCSU. But note that OK St. could not keep OU from leaving. Neither could Texas Tech keep either A&M or Texas from leaving. Those schools are in different university systems. UW and WSU are in separate university systems. So are UO and ORSt. BTW, so are UVa and VTech.
But FSU and UF are in the same university system, which may turn out to be crucial.
LikeLike
If the Washington or Oregon politicians wanted to stop UW or OU from splitting, they could do it. Period. Without regard to a Board of Regents. The Texas and OK legislatures did not want to stop UT or UO from moving up in competition and money.
If Washington and Oregon left the PAC and the league crumbles, WashState and OrState would be destroyed due to difference in money at MWC, which is about $5 million per year. As long as the four corners stay, with WashState, OrState, Cal, I think the PAC will survive as a P5, in one form or another.
Do I think that either legislature would intervene – no. And I do not think that the BoR in CA will stop UCLA. The point is that one could expect Kliavkoff to try to intervene in internal state politics and stop Wash or OR from upgrading. Kliavkoff would undoubtedly argue that the PAC is about to die and that will kill off the remaining OR and WA schools.
He should not do that. Particularly when he will never reach the mid to high $40 million contract that he has been promising.
As far as UF and FSU, many years ago UF did not want to play FSU. It was the legislature and Governor, not any university board, who informed UF that they would play annually, or the state would pass a law forcing them to play.
LikeLike
Bernie: “Do I think that either legislature would intervene – no. And I do not think that the BoR in CA will stop UCLA.”
A couple of weeks ago I would have placed the BOR blocking UCLA at 5%. But now we have the BOR and the Pac-12 and the CA governor all opposed. The delay in the decision from Nov to Dec gives time for the nefarious lawyers to drive more sedges. My new odds for the BOR blocking UCLA are 25%.
LikeLike
The governor and P12 have been against it from the start, though for different reasons. There is no evidence the BoR is against it, just that they want input. None of that has changed for months.
LikeLike
Why are you posting this ancient news (and the letter above) now? It was already discussed.
LikeLike
Brian: “Why are you posting this ancient news (and the letter above) now? It was already discussed.”
Bitchy Boy Brian having another bitchy tantrum?
LikeLike
Don’t you need to go steal someone else’s intellectual property?
Typical Aggie troll.
LikeLike
Brian: “Don’t you need to go steal someone else’s intellectual property? Typical Aggie troll.”
Bitchy bitchy bitchy. . . .
LikeLike
If I were in a leadership position at either U Washington or U Oregon, I would be really unhappy with Kliavkoff.
If either of those two gets an invitation to move, one could expect the same letter purporting to protect WaState or OrState, Personally I expect that Kliavkoff is destroying the remaining PAC. What will happen when his new TV deal is $30 million rather than the $40 plus that he has promised everyone?
LikeLike
Amen. Great point.
LikeLike
I agree with Bernard that Kliavkoff is doing himself no favors by (potentially) overpromising. He’s in fake-it-till-you-make-it mode, hoping to keep all the cats wrangled until the number drops, which could sow discord/distrust going forward. I’m guessing 32-34m range. I differ with conventional wisdom on UCLA. I think they will be allowed a clean break. Maintaining a good working relationship with UCLA is far more valuable to the UC System than any subsidy Berkeley would receive. It also sets a precedent that will rear it’s head ad infinitum for the BoR (I’m talkin’ a Capt. Quint size bag of worms!). Next thing you know Santa Cruz is going to demand footwear be worn to class as it’s UCLA stipend 😊
LikeLike
*Its
LikeLike
I wonder how sports-savvy the Regents are? Kliavkoff is pitching revenue that assumes UCLA returns to the fold and no one else leaves. Who would believe that?
LikeLike
Probably not at all sports-savvy.
LikeLike
The bubble mentality of academia is impossible to discern.
LikeLike
The regents are not academics. At least, not necessarily.
LikeLike
Marc: “The regents are not academics. At least, not necessarily.”
I don’t think any of them are . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California
LikeLike
I know Louisiana is different from other states in many ways, but university management boards down here are composed of political appointees, many of whom contribute to campaigns and most very much care about sports. Most are well-educated, but none that I know of are academics.
LikeLike
Alan,
Them being political appointees (and campaign donors) is typical. Some of OSU’s care a lot about sports, but it doesn’t mean they really know anything about them and how realignment, TV deals, and other such things actually work.
https://trustees.osu.edu/
The Ohio State University is governed by a board of 17 governor-appointed trustees who are responsible for oversight of academic programs, budgets and general administration, and employment of faculty and staff.
https://trustees.osu.edu/university-board/board
The governor of Ohio appoints 15 voting Ohio residents who serve nine-year terms and two voting student trustees who serve two-year terms. Additionally, the board selects up to three non-voting, non-Ohio residents to serve as charter trustees for three-year terms.
LikeLike
Once, as a junior faculty member, I was invited to a joint Trustees/Faculty luncheon to exchange views. The Chairman of the BoT was some political hack from Cleveland a woman whose only job was managing the Cleveland Democrat Party..
A member of the Physics department tried to engage her. First he asked her that since tOSU was the flagship school of the system, shouldn’t it get special funding? She said that would be unfair to the other schools. Then, he pointed out that the student/faculty ratio at tOSU was twice that of Michigan, which made it hard to do research. She replied that tOSU had many more students than Michigan.
Silence ensued. An unrefutable argument. Dessert consisted of a large scoop of coffee ice cream topped with chocolate sauce and a maraschino cherry.
LikeLike
MoffettNathanson wants Iger to clamp down on ESPN costs and eliminate all “non-essential” sports. Reinforces wisdom of BiG moving away from ESPN, and supports rationale for Pac to do the same.
Interestingly, the analyst also wants Disney+ to focus only on avid fans of the existing Disney franchise (including Pixar, Star Wars, and Marvel), and for Hulu to be sold to Comcast. In other words, the opposite strategy of Warner Brothers Discovery, Paramount Global, and likely Comcast/Peacock.
LikeLike
MoffettNathanson wants Iger to clamp down on ESPN costs and eliminate all “non-essential” sports. Reinforces wisdom of BiG moving away from ESPN, and supports rationale for Pac to do the same.
I am not quite following the rationale, as by any definition college football surely falls into the “essential” category.
LikeLike
The question, to which we can have no answer, is the definition of “essential”.
Is the SEC essential, along with the ACC (which ESPN has on the cheap), to the exclusion of the PAC? College football could be essential while the PAC is left hanging in the breeze.
I would imagine, that the best case scenario for the PAC and ESPN is that the ESPN offer just went down. It could leave the PAC with little choice other than the hope that Amazon or Apple will give them a bunch of money while not bidding against any other major offer.
Good luck with that.
LikeLike
It doesn’t sound like ESPN was the among the highest bidders for the Pac in any case.
So the Pac likely will look to streamers for money while looking to selling some cheap 2nd/3rd pick package to a cable/linear broadcaster.
LikeLike
At the moment is unclear if the PAC has any bidders, notwithstanding the claims of grandeur by Kliavkoff.
LikeLike
It doesn’t sound like ESPN was the among the highest bidders for the Pac in any case.
ESPN chose to allow its exclusivity window to expire. During that window, it would’ve needed to bid high enough that the Pac would re-sign without testing the market. Given Kliavkoff’s expectations, there was probably no rational bid they would accept. In that case, why bid high?
As I understand, ESPN isn’t out of the running. They simply allowed the exclusivity to expire.
LikeLike
WBD is already in austerity mode. Zazlav is doing everything he can to dig WBD out of its mountain of debt. As a result, HBOmax is no longer creating/acquiring any original shows or movies for the service. Instead it’ll be a dumping ground for existing HBO & Discovery shows as well as WB’s theatrical run movies. They make noises about being interested in live sports, but Zazlav appears to be getting WBD into fighting shape for a potential Universal acquisition. Until then, according to their earnings call, their focus will be on franchises like DC/Potter/Jurassic etc. VERY concerned about the prospect of Amazon lowballing the Pac, considering the dearth of competition, or deciding not to bid at all, which would spell the deathknell of the conference. I have to believe ending up on Apple (If they bid) would spur defections. Having the future of the PAC is Amazon’s hands, in this environment, is a bit disconcerting. Sweet dreams Kliavkoff! 😇
LikeLike
Grain-of-Salt-Alert 💄(that’s my lipstick siren). Scuttlebutt is that live sports was Chapek’s fixation, Iger sees the value of live sports, but is adamantly against Disney having any vested interest in a sportsbook (a necessity in the long run, as rights fees skyrocket and the tech titans enter the fray) His preference would be to sell it, but only if ESPN remains a part of the Disney bundle. Good luck. Also: No one believes Iger will leave after two years. It’ll take five years. And lastly (let’s go deep into the weeds), Although Peter Rice is most often mentioned as his successor, Iger supposedly prefers a woman take the reigns and feels Dana Walden has all the ingredients and patients to become a loyal surrogate in his absence. 😁 The board may have other ideas. -Carry on!
LikeLike
4m viewer club for week 12. Revenge of the B1G edition.
6.60m Ohio State at Maryland 3;30p ABC
5.47m Illinois at Michigan noon ABC
4.87m Tennessee at South Carolina 7p ESPN
4.53m USC at UCLA 8p FOX*
4.48m Georgia at Kentucky 3:30p CBS
4.35m TCU at Baylor noon FOX
*1st P-12 conference game of the year to make the 4m club
LikeLike
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
LikeLike
You as well, Bernie.
LikeLike
Happy Thanksgiving, folks
LikeLike
in my opinion (as most others agree), the odds of the UC regents rejecting UCLA’s Big Ten move outright seem pretty low given the Pac-12 doesn’t really have concrete figures to offer as an alternative.
And the survey of athletes came back mostly positive on the potential switch.
But if they do, I think the obvious thing to do is replace UCLA with Washington.
I don’t think the Big Ten has to overreach by taking 3 more or 5 more.
Washington is the closest school to UCLA and would bring in another large market in Seattle/Washington (though you obviously lose the “monopoly” on LA).
I don’t think replacing UCLA with 3 is likely at this point. To me, Washington is an easy replacement for UCLA if need be. Expansion beyond 16 doesn’t make sense until the 2030s when the ACC schools and ND will be more likely to be available.
LikeLike
z33k,
I agree with you. I think the odds of the BoR blocking the move entirely is slim. I could see them “taxing” UCLA for at least a few years as way to placate influential Cal alumni.
If they do block UCLA, then I agree that adding someone else instead of UCLA is the most likely response by the B10. The B10 will not give in and also add Cal, and I also don’t see how adding 3 or 5 makes sense. Everyone who supports that seems to base it on not isolating USC, but that’s exactly what USC signed up for and by some accounts wanted. Every extra P12 school places a large travel burden on the current 14 members. USC and UCLA were ideal because it was 2 schools in one city trip. Now it will be a triangle trip, the question is where is the other city.
Forced to choose, I think the B10 would select between UW, UO and Stanford in this scenario. UW is the most B10-like of the 3 and brings Seattle. Stanford is great academically, weak in fan base, but in San Francisco. I think the B10 would be happy with either one, and different factions probably have different preferences.
Stanford would be an extra kick in the sack for the UC BoR as they watch both of their schools’ rivals leave and get paid a lot more. It would also make for an easier trip to/from LA for B10 visitors. But I’m not 100% sure Stanford would apply. If they didn’t, then UW would be the obvious alternative. UW has a larger fan base and would fit well in the B10. I believe they would apply. I think UO would be third choice, with taking all 3 a distant 4th. Behind all of those would be consideration of mountain/southwest schools CU, UU, ASU and UA, but the B10 1might prefer to stay at 15 for a while or look elsewhere rather than add any of them.
I don’t see expansion beyond 16 without a major anchor school to drive it – ND, or maybe FSU.
LikeLike
I think its all a meaningless dog and pony show to demonstrate that they care and have power. Nothing will change.
LikeLike
I agree with your analysis completely Brian.
And like you and bullet, I think this is mostly a show by the UC regents to show they’re in charge and the real powers that be in the UC system.
I find it very hard to believe that they’ll overrule this move absent some kind of very strong showing by the Pac-12 that it can keep UCLA whole (relative to a Big Ten baseline), and that obviously seems impossible.
Even the UC regents are probably skeptical about the Pac-12 numbers without firm numbers from TV partners.
At most they might add a $3-5 million per year charge to UCLA for 8-10 years to “make Cal whole” and appease Cal’s alumni/supporters among the UC regents.
That’s not going to make or break anything for UCLA; it’d just be a minor thorn in their side like a coaching buyout would be.
As far as replacement situation, I agree again. It would come down to UW/UO/Stanford and UW or Stanford seem like the more likely 2 choices given location/market/academics/etc.
Washington’s the most similar to the Big Ten schools as we’ve all pointed out many times.
The “take 3 or 5 and blow up the Pac-12” thing has always seemed ridiculous or sort of from a point of view that doesn’t look at how or why the Big Ten is expanding.
Big Ten isn’t moving out of spite or anything like that, it’s looking at what the best fits are that benefit the conference and member schools most.
Obviously the “city duo in LA” was attractive for a variety of reasons including ease of travel for the current 14, but if UCLA’s move is revoked, then you find the best #16 and move on…
No matter how we analyze the situation, there’s no financial justification for moving to 18 right now and so it won’t happen.
LikeLike
z33k: I think the obvious thing to do is replace UCLA with Washington.
Just last week, someone said that the obvious thing to do is replace UCLA with Stanford.
LikeLike
I mean, I think Brian has it right that the Big Ten will look at all 3 of UW/UO/Stanford for the #16 spot.
I don’t think you can go wrong with either Washington or Stanford, but in a general sense, Stanford is probably a better partner for ND than anybody else.
(And there’s the open question of whether Stanford is interested in a Big Ten invite; hard to tell).
Washington is the most “Big Ten-like” of all the remaining schools and located in a large city/market.
Stanford fan support has always been questionable, though that wouldn’t matter as a +1 with ND.
LikeLike
In the unlikely event that UCLAis forced to bail, it comes down to what the presidents of the B1G schools want.
Stanford is in the SF market and is attractive assuming the goal is ND. Perhaps the university presidents are interested in taking the top academic sports school in the country. Since it is not the ADs, but the presidents, how important is this? Of course, this assumes that Stanford would accept, which may not be a guarantee.
It is also a little bit closer to LA than the other options.
Washington is the most like the other B1G schools. Major state U, big enrollment and also in Seattle. I still do not see Oregon ahead of Washington for the B1G.
Would any of these in lieu of UCLA have any impact on the existing contracts? That would be highly relevant to say the least.
LikeLike
Bernie: “In the unlikely event that UCLAis forced to bail, it comes down to what the presidents of the B1G schools want.”
LikeLike
Colin, if your objective is for the B1G to have another really lousy football team, that is not necessary.
Rutgers has that role well covered for now and possibly quite a while in the age of NIL. With all of its other issues, the State of NJ passed some lousy NIL legislation, which the legislature is now “considering” amending. Basically, the universities can’t be involved in getting NIL, though the RU AD did mention it last week.
To put it in perspective, Seton Hall U of the Big East has exactly zero recruits for next year’s class. The basketball coach has specifically come out and said that is for lack of NIL funds. Not totally due to NJ law, but that does not help.
LikeLike
Bernie, if your objective is for the Big Ten to have a member school that is 500 miles closer to Alaska than it is to Chicago, then let’s bring in Washington.
LikeLike
…if your objective is for the Big Ten to have a member school that is 500 miles closer to Alaska than it is to Chicago, then let’s bring in Washington.
In conference realignment, geography is not totally irrelevant, but it is pretty far down the list compared to other factors that usually drive the decision.
LikeLike
Marc: “In conference realignment, geography is not totally irrelevant, but it is pretty far down the list compared to other factors that usually drive the decision.”
The polar opposite is true. Location is clearly the foremost consideration. Excluding USC and UCLA to the Big Ten, every conference expansion of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 over the past century has been into a contiguous state in the same region of the country. You could add the SWC + Big Eight = Big XII to that list before the B12 was dismembered by the P4.
LikeLike
This perhaps requires a bit of clarification that I should have thought was obvious. Yes, it’s true that, among P5 conferences, only the Big XII expanded non-contiguously until the Big Ten took USC and UCLA.
But among the contiguous AAU schools available when the Big Ten went from 11 to 12, Nebraska wasn’t the closest. Missouri, Pitt, or Iowa State would have been closer. But they took Nebraska.
Now that the Big Ten has broken the seal on contiguity, it would be pretty surprising — shocking, really — if they suddenly thought that mattered enough to prefer Colorado, when by every other relevant standard it’s not the school they’d really want.
LikeLike
Missouri, Pitt, or Iowa State vs Nebraska is a bogus analogy. Obviously they are all in the same geographical ballpark so which one is closer is a moot issue.
We are talking about a 16th school in the event that UCLA gets blocked. USC is a top brand but there are no others in that league in the western US and therefore no others that are worth the logistical nightmare involved with another isolated West Coast school.
LikeLike
Part of the problem is, you have repeatedly used the word “nightmare” for things that are not particularly scary at all.
LikeLike
“The polar opposite is true. Location is clearly the foremost consideration.”
Which explains the ACC ignoring WV but the B12 adding them. Which explains the ACC, which started in MD, NC and SC, now stretching from MA to FL and to KY and IN. Which explains the midwestern B10 now stretching from NJ to NE, and about to expand to LA. Which explains the SEC being in MO, OK and TX. Which explains the P12 including CO. And then there’s the B12 extending to IA, FL, OH and UT. Yes, the importance of geography is very clear.
“Excluding USC and UCLA to the Big Ten, every conference expansion of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 ”
So it’s true for 3 of the 5 major conferences. And it assumes that contiguous is the same as logical or compact geography. You can get from the Atlantic to the Pacific with 7 contiguous states. By your argument, adding a school in TN would be worse than adding a school in WY to the B10. But then, you always have poor arguments to support your poor ideas.
LikeLike
Brian, you are in deep denial and chock full of venom and bile. Give it a rest.
LikeLike
Well, when Brian says “you always have poor arguments to support your poor ideas”, he’s spot on.
It is what it is, man.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35107378/sources-nebraska-working-hire-matt-rhule-coach
Matt Rhule to NE? It’s a decent hire if it happens, but their last NFL retread didn’t do so well.
LikeLike
Bigger concern is that Rhule turned down UO for Baylor last go-around because he didn’t want to travel far to recruit. That doesn’t seem an ideal attitude at UNL. Though I suppose he could still use local talent to turn UNL in to another Wisconsin/Iowa like Biels has done at UIUC.
LikeLike
David Shaw has resigned as head coach at Stanford. At first, Shaw was able to maintain the top program that Jim Harbaugh had built. He won at least 10 games in five of his first six seasons. But Stanford hasn’t gone to a bowl since 2018, and after two 3–9 campaigns he evidently decided (or perhaps was given some encouragement) that it was time to go. I suspect he’ll be a broadcaster next season.
Probably the most surprising of Stanford’s three wins this year was a 16–14 victory over Notre Dame in South Bend. But the other two wins were against Colgate and Arizona State, another 3–9 Pac-12 team.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of parallels between how Northwestern has faded the past 2-4 years (excepting the Covid year with the transfer of Peyton Ramsey carrying them) and how Stanford has faded as well.
LikeLike
Yes, their yearly W-L records are almost mirror images in recent years.
I think the NIL era and free agency/transfer portal has hurt both.
LikeLike
If I were the Administration at Northwestern, I’d give Fitzgerald another season if he wants one. I think they were better than the record suggests. They had five one-score losses. Plus, their games against Ohio State and Penn State were within one score well into the 4th quarter. They are never going to be a perennial power, but I think Fitz. deserves one more shot. The past two seasons are obviously not acceptable, but I think he is better than that.
LikeLike
Fitz is going nowhere soon regardless. He has something close to a decade left on his current contract and (as far as I know) still the backing of NU football’s biggest donor/booster/benefactor, and from what I have read, Pat Ryan is a very patient man.
But while NU had some close losses, they were to teams NU should usually beat and while NU did play both OSU and PSU close until late, the weather was a big help in both those games. And we got our doors blown off by every single 1 of our (frankly, fairly mediocre) B10W opponents besides PU and our lone win vs UNL.
So 2022 Northwestern was definitely a bad football team fighting Rutgers to avoid the very bottom of the B10 than anywhere close to the rest of the mediocre teams in the B10W.
There will definitely be a staff shake up and I don’t expect the NU administration’s patience to last forever. Given the good will Fitz has amassed, I don’t expect the NU administration to make a move unless NU misses 3 bowl games in a row, but with a fancy pricy new stadium coming that NU wants to fill up with alums paying a ton, they’re not going to be willing to average 3-9 for a half-decade either.
So 2023 will be make-or-break for Fitz. The bare minimum expected will be a bowl game.
LikeLike
‘Resigned’ 😊 Whatever it takes. As for the new hire, I can only hope they don’t go the former coordinator route. No Bloomgrens or Peps need apply. That would be a disaster. I believe NorCal’s own Chris Petersen is the perfect fit. He already lives in the area half the year. He still wants to coach, but has made no secret of his distaste for the portal and nil. Expectations/pressure would be manageable. It may be the only job in the power five that could successfully lure him back. The fact he is practically the embodiment of California also doesn’t hurt. 🌲 Get it done Bernie!
LikeLike
Where does Petersen spend half the year in CA? How do you know he still wants to coach?? What about Stanford is better than UDub?
I also would be thrilled with Clawson, and would be fine with Troy Taylor or Greg Roman.
LikeLike
South Lake Tahoe. He summers and skis there. You do know he was born and raised up there right? Went to school in Sacramento and at UCDavis? He’s joked several times on Fox Sports about the itch to coach agian. I think it would have to be just the right fit. As for your candidates, Troy Taylor would certainly be high on my list.
LikeLike
-Clawson is also a real possibility (4th on my list) but he’s
an east coast guy through-and-through.
-Sorry, I know Greg Roman is a favorite of yours, and his name
Is getting tossed around, but I find him an uninspired pick.
-I see Wilner is also on the Petersen wagon. (Hooray?)
-I didn’t know this, but according to Kyle Bonagura (at ESPN)
Chris Petersen was interested in the Stanford job years ago.
-Petersen was part of a ‘Speakers Series’ I saw in ’19 where he
discussed his upbringing and career. His California roots I
run deep.
LikeLike
Petersen rejected Stanford the year that Shaw was hired. He was interested enough to talk to Stanford, but not enough to leave Boise State. I know where Petersen is from, but did not know that he spends half the year in Tahoe – likely on the Nevada side to avoid taxes 😉
Who are #2 and #3 on your list behind Petersen and ahead of Clawson? I don’t think that Stanford will get the pick of the litter, hence my greater enthusiasm for Roman than you have.
LikeLike
So true 😂. My list is short and sweet
1) Chris Petersen (lab engineered to perfection!)
2) Dave Aranda (Cerebral Californian. Not happening)
3) Troy Taylor (great fit and w/drive Cal nuts but big leap from SAC St.)
4) Clawson (high upside but seems riskier to me.)
5) O’Brien (he’ll be secretly working the portal between 3-5AM 😁)
5) Greg Roman (For you! He would be fine, but they can do better)
LikeLike
I don’t think a CA connection is nearly as important as a Stanford connection is, although being a Cal alum is close enough. Petersen is an exception because of his competence and I think he understands what Stanford is about. And maybe his “Our Kind of Guys” culture would keep people out of the transfer portal.
Clawson is appealing because he sounds like an Ivy-League type, and would probably fit in really well at Stanford. Stanford recruits nationally, so his east coast ties might really benefit recruiting overall. The only potential issue is culture shock, but he went to Williams so I doubt that would be an issue.
I think Taylor is a lot riskier than Clawson, because Taylor only has FBS experience AND I could see him jumping to Cal at the first opportunity.
LikeLike
Clawson definitely has a genteel manner about him that will appeal to the school. Also, good point about recruiting. On the other hand, he did just lose to Duke. Elko anyone? As for Taylor, he doesn’t strike me as the type of guy who would accept the Stanford job unless he was fully committed. If Cal really is his dream job (a reasonable assumption 😆), I would hope he’d pass on Stanford. Not to worry, it’s Petersen-or-bust!
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel, who, for the last month, has been working on a piece about the decline of Cardinal football, said on his podcast, he has talked to several of the schools largest boosters in the last 24hours. To a person, they told him they’ve heard the school is already targeting Chris Petersen. Who knows if he’ll take it, but at least they’re doing their part. 😇
LikeLike
The Mandel piece is up on The Athletic. It basically confirms what was apparent to fans of Stanford football and provides more details. Validation for all Stanford alums who wanted Shaw to go.
Couple this with the University President, AD, and Admissions Director getting behind both early enrollment (Stanford was the last holdout on this in the country) as well as participation in the transfer portal, and the school is now demonstrating that it will make adjustments to maintain the ability to compete at the highest level. The only remaining thing to deal with is NIL, and the AD said they are trying to figure out a way to do it in accordance with Stanford principles.
The one good thing about Muir as AD, is that important boosters can bowl him over. The last time Stanford football went into the toilet it was because Doofus AD Ted Leland was not only ignorant and lazy, but excluded any external input/influence. That led to Buddy Teevens and Walt “No guns allowed” Harris.
LikeLike
A lot of smoke around Roman.
LikeLike
Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel argues that Georgia, Michigan, TCU, and USC should be in the playoff no matter what.
He is assuming, as I believe everybody is, that those will be the top four in this week’s CFP rankings. Clearly, those will be your four playoff teams if they all win their CCGs. But suppose one or more of them do not? His argument is that a team should not be “penalized” for playing one extra game that it might lose, while #5 and #6 sit at home and do not take any risks.
To be clear, Wetzel understands that the Committee has not always operated this way. He just thinks it should. Whether you agree with Wetzel or not in this particular case, it might be preferable to have a policy on such situations, which will be more common in the 12-team format.
I would not mind a rule which states that if a team was eligible for a CCG but did not reach it, then it cannot leapfrog a team that played in a CCG and lost. That would make the penultimate rankings quite important, and not just the intellectual exercise they are now. But there is no such rule today.
LikeLike
What he really means is that no team that fails to win its regular-season division/conference champioship should get in ahead of a team that does. I have always believed that should be the case. That is why Alabama’s 2011 NC was such a travesty. The Tide failed to win their division and still got into the championship game.
LikeLike
I agree, Alabama should have never been part of the 2011 BCS NCG after losing at home in November and being a division runner-up to the team that beat them in November in Tuscaloosa.
LikeLike
It wasn’t fair to LSU or to Oklahoma St. It made absolutely zero sense in a 2 team playoff.
And it resulted in one of the most boring and least watched games in BCS and CFP history. I chose not to watch. I had seen the first one and it was kind of boring and I didn’t feel that Alabama should be there.
LikeLike
The reason it happened is that Oklahoma State lost a game late in the season to a clearly inferior team and its strength-of-schedule wasn’t great. Stanford was right there with the Cowboys, with just 1 loss to a better team. Oregon decisively beat Stanford on the road, but then lost a close one at home to USC. So it was hard to pick a Pac-12 team. The Fiesta Bowl proved that OSU and Stanford were very evenly matched, so it’s not at all clear that the Cowboys deserved to go over either Stanford or Oregon.
LikeLike
Oklahoma St. lost on the road in double OT the day after a plane crash killed several members of their athletic department, people many of the players knew.
LikeLike
So if the 2 best teams in the nation share a division, #2 should never be eligible for the CFP?
If you use the logic that 12-0 should lock you in, shouldn’t any undefeated G5 team also get in over a P5 champ with a loss? And why shouldn’t OOC schedules matter for CFP selection? Conference titles are based on 2/3 – 3/4 of the season only, but the national title is for the entire season.
I understand the concept of not punishing CCG losses, especially if the favorite wins, but I do believe you have to factor in the results for rankings. This year, UGA and UM are already locks regardless. But USC has a loss already. What if they lose to Utah again? Shouldn’t the committee in theory consider a team whose only loss is to #2? None of this really matters, as OSU would lose its semifinal anyway, but Wetzel’s argument just isn’t logical to me. The decision was made to select the best 4 teams, not the best 4 champs. Getting to a CCG doesn’t make you a top 4 team.
LikeLike
So if the 2 best teams in the nation share a division, #2 should never be eligible for the CFP?
No, that is not what Wetzel suggested. He is fine with teams making the playoff that did not win a division, and gave examples to support it, including Ohio State in 2016.
What he said, is that if the Committee thinks team Y is worse than team X today, then Y should not get the benefit of sitting at home without risk while X plays a CCG that it might lose. If Y was already ahead of X (as Ohio State was over Penn State in 2016), he is fine with Y making the playoff.
LikeLike
The problem with this interpretation is that the CFP committee has not yet updated its rankings. It would be very reasonable for the Committee to put tOSU #4 and USC #5 given USC’s strength-of-schedule: the Trojans did not play 2 of the 3 #2 Pac-12 teams and lost to the 3rd. If tOSU is already ahead of USC and USC loses, then the whole argument falls apart.
LikeLike
Both traditional polls and most of the national reporters think OSU will be 5th. Wetzel agrees with them, and he is drawing some conclusions from that.
I agree that the committee could rationally put OSU 4th based on SOS. In that event, it would trigger a situation similar to 2016, when OSU made the playoff despite not winning its division, but was already ranked in the top four before the CCGs.
Wetzel appears to be assuming that situation won’t occur this year, but you are right that it could.
LikeLike
In general that thinking makes sense, but not always. What if they only think X is better because they had an easy schedule, then they get crushed by the first good team they face in the CCG? Shouldn’t that result matter? I’m all for not punishing the expected loser if they lose, but I think there are times when it should matter that a favorite loses the CCG.
I’m not advocating for OSU to make the CFP this year, just talking general principle.
LikeLike
IMO, this debate shows that getting rid of CCG’s and going to a 13th game for all (ending Thanksgiving week, so pushing up the start of the season to what is now Week Zero or before) would be a good idea.
LikeLike
@Richard: I don’t recall. . . . do you favor a flex 13th game, or just a plain-old schedule where all the games are known in advance??
LikeLike
Marc: Plain old 13-game schedule preset before the season begins.
LikeLike
Plain old 13-game schedule preset before the season begins.
So, it seems to me your proposal has two separate and unrelated components: 1) Do you play a CCG? 2) How many other games do you play?
If you don’t like a CCG, which apparently you don’t, then abolish it now. That game is optional. No rule requires it. In contrast, adding a 13th game for all does require a rule change, which I see no evidence that administrators or fans want.
A 13th game without a CCG reduces but does not eliminate the possibility that you’ll have co-champs who didn’t play each other, and no mechanism to settle it on the field—the entire reason that CCGs were invented to begin with. I suspect most fans would find that unsatisfying.
LikeLike
I can only speak of myself, and I think replacing CCG’s with a 13 game regular season would be more satisfying. I doubt you have the authority to speak for everyone else either. In a world with a 12-team playoff, viewership of the SEC and B10 CCGs will take a hit. For that matter, winning the conference will matter as much as winning the conference title does now in MBB. That is, not all that much compared to how far you go in the playoffs.
LikeLike
Richard: “I can only speak of myself, and I think replacing CCG’s with a 13 game regular season would be more satisfying . . .”
I agree, plus I do not believe that one CCG brings in more revenue that another 7-8 conference games or 14-16 OOCs.
LikeLike
Marc,
“A 13th game without a CCG reduces but does not eliminate the possibility that you’ll have co-champs who didn’t play each other, and no mechanism to settle it on the field—the entire reason that CCGs were invented to begin with. I suspect most fans would find that unsatisfying.”
That was the original justification for the one conference that first created one, but it is not why P5 conferences added CCGs. They are all about money. The conferences couldn’t care less about determining a champion on the field. The B10 had co-champs for decades. Eventually CCGs proved so profitable the B10 had to add one.
LikeLike
Yep, CCGs, definitely for the B10 and SEC, are solely about money.
As the money is already better if everybody plays 13 games, I think we’ll eventually get there.
BTW, you say there isn’t any fan push for 13 games, but there wasn’t a fan push for 12 games either, but CFB expanded to 12 because that meant more money for the schools.
LikeLike
I doubt you have the authority to speak for everyone else either.
That is why I said that I don’t see any evidence that fans or administrators want this. What I personally want is irrelevant.
The conferences couldn’t care less about determining a champion on the field. The B10 had co-champs for decades. Eventually CCGs proved so profitable the B10 had to add one.
It is not inconsistent to care about your job and also make money from it. College football did a lot of antiquated things that made no sense. This does not mean you go back to them, now that they are finally gone.
I cannot recall the last time the Big Ten had “co-champs” that had not played each other, but it wasn’t a common occurrence. The infamous Michigan–OSU tie in 1973 that had to be decided by a vote of Big Ten ADs. Almost no one wanted to see that ever again. The whole point about CCGs, is that with larger conferences that will happen more often.
LikeLike
Marc,
I cannot recall the last time the Big Ten had “co-champs” that had not played each other, but it wasn’t a common occurrence.
2002. OSU and IA were both 8-0. OSU played in the BCS NCG (Fiesta Bowl) and IA went to the Orange Bowl.
Also 1996 (OSU and NW), and 1998 (OSU and WI didn’t play, but both played MI). That’s 3 times in 7 years (much more frequent than normal, I grant you), so it wasn’t rare either.
LikeLike
The decision was never made to select the 4 best teams. Do you really think TCU is the #3 team in the country? TCU will get in because it has the 3rd best record, provides needed geographical diversity, and is a politically correct team to include.
If a team is not the best in its division, let alone conference, how can it be best in the country? And it’s not like tOSU lost a close game to Michigan. The Buckeyes were blown out in the second half – especially the 4th quarter. The better way to look at this is why should the division winner be punished by having to play a revenge game in the CFP?
That said, the SEC West is an unusual case this year. While LSU is the division champ, it has the same coference record as Alabama, won in OT at home against the Tide, and has a worse overall record. I would rank Bama higher than LSU for CFP consideration.
Pac-12 screwed up with its tiebreaker this season. The Huskies should be playing USC. They beat Oregon on the road, while Utah lost to Oregon on the road. Utah & UW did not play each other. Enough said.
Fortunately, all of this will become moot soon.
LikeLike
The decision was never made to select the 4 best teams. Do you really think TCU is the #3 team in the country?
Yeah, I do — subject to the caveat that ranking teams that didn’t play each other and have few (or no) common opponents is an inherently imprecise exercise.
TCU will get in because it has the 3rd best record, provides needed geographical diversity, and is a politically correct team to include.
Both of the traditional polls have TCU 3rd, and those polls have been doing similar things since before all of us were born. A team like TCU would always be at least 3rd, regardless of where they are politically or geographically.
If a team is not the best in its division, let alone conference, how can it be best in the country?
You know, it’s amazing but I have been following sports for about 50 years, and nobody has ever asked that before. Remarkable that you have instantly seen the fatal flaw when nobody else did.
LikeLike
Sorry about the snarky reply (above). All sports with a playoff have the potential to crown a winner that was not necessarily the best over the course of the regular season. That is a feature of playoffs, and one of the reasons why some people like the old system better. But every other sport I can think of (in America) has at times crowned a “wild card” champ. That is what playoffs and tournaments can do, and the vast majority of fans seem to think it’s fine.
…the SEC West is an unusual case this year. While LSU is the division champ, it has the same conference record as Alabama, won in OT at home against the Tide, and has a worse overall record. I would rank Bama higher than LSU for CFP consideration.
This has happened before. In 2016, the Committee chose 11–1 Ohio State, which didn’t win its division. They did it again the following year, selecting 11–1 Alabama, which did not win its division. Alabama went on to win the championship. Every other CFB playoff team has been a conference champ (almost all of them), a CCG loser (Georgia last year, Notre Dame the year before), or ND as an independent.
In the two human polls, Alabama is now ranked higher than both of the teams they lost to, Tennessee and LSU. Nothing unusual about that—it has happened many times before. But Alabama is 6th in both traditional polls. I am not sure they can get to 4th, even if multiple CCG favorites lose.
Pac-12 screwed up with its tiebreaker this season. The Huskies should be playing USC. They beat Oregon on the road, while Utah lost to Oregon on the road. Utah & UW did not play each other.
I have read and re-read the Pac-12’s tiebreakers. They seem pretty reasonable to me. The NFL tiebreaker for wildcard teams works the way the Pac-12’s does. When there are 3 tied teams, the head-to-head is applicable only if one defeated both of the others. That did not happen here.
Since Utah and Washington didn’t play, they looked at records vs. common opponents. All three tied teams were 5–1. Then they looked at records vs. the highest-ranked common opponents. All three tied teams were 1–1. It was decided finally by the strength of conference schedule. Utah’s combined conference opponents were 38–43, Oregon’s were 37–44, UW’s were 32–49.
LikeLike
This is not the NFL. A team’s ranking makes a lot more sense to me – especially if you want to enhance the conference’s visibility – than strength of schedule. . . Of course, a divisional structure would have avoided this outcome.
LikeLike
This is not the NFL. A team’s ranking makes a lot more sense to me – especially if you want to enhance the conference’s visibility – than strength of schedule…
Well, that is not the system you proposed. But anyhow, no league currently uses ranking to make the decision. The main problem is that the committee ranking doesn’t come out until Tuesday night. That means the league would go three days without knowing who is playing in the CCG, which is untenable: teams need time to prepare.
Of course, a divisional structure would have avoided this outcome.
Even if you like divisions better, a 3-way tie within a division can happen too. Then you are down to the same type of tie-breaker the Pac-12 used here.
In the BCS era, the Big XII once used the BCS ranking to break a 3-way tie, which a lot of people felt was unfair. But that was only possible because the BCS rankings came out the next day, a situation that no longer exists.
LikeLike
The difference with a division tiebreaker is that all of the tied teams will have played each other. Since Oregon beat Utah, and UW beat Oregon, if Utah had beaten UW then going through the tiebreaker steps to choose Utah would be fine. But, in the absence of Utah beating UW, it doesn’t make sense to me.
LikeLike
…in the absence of Utah beating UW, it doesn’t make sense to me.
Well, that is why I pointed out that the NFL does the same thing (for tied teams not in the same division). All you could say was, this is not the NFL. I don’t see why that matters, but I looked up the American Athletic Conference (AAC) tiebreaker, which is just like the Pac-12 and the NFL:
“The Conference records of the tied teams are compared in a mini round-robin format. If, within the mini round-robin, any of the tied teams did not play each other, the group of teams shall remain tied, unless one team defeated all other tied teams.”
So that’s at least three leagues (two college and the NFL) with the same rule for this situation. I would be curious if any league anywhere has done it your way.
LikeLike
I agree with Marc here. Using anything outside of conference play for tiebreakers, which is what using rankings would mean, would be dumb and unfair (because schools always play different OOC schedules from each other). Conference berths should be determined only by conference play.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“The decision was never made to select the 4 best teams.”
Yes, it was. You can dispute their rankings, but their stated goal is the 4 best teams.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2016/9/30/overview
The selection committee ranks the teams based on the members’ evaluation of the teams’ performance on the field, using conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, and comparison of results against common opponents to decide among teams that are comparable.
I’m not advocating for OSU this year, but as you point out the division winner isn’t always the best team in that division. Things like schedules, weather, and injuries can cause the better team to lose the 1 game that matters most.
I would fully support a change to it being the top 4 champs, but that was never the criterion.
LikeLike
Btw, what a coup for Wisconsin! Sounds like the Fickells regret not going to South Bend?
LikeLike
Well, Fickell stood on principle and wouldn’t take another job while his current team was going to play in the playoffs. But ND taking his assistant definitely spurred him to leave UC this year, methinks.
It’s hard to say how much he regrets it. Meeting expectations in Madtown roughly as hard as meeting expectations in South Bend. With the money B10 schools are getting, he’ll probably make about the same at UW as at ND. Recruiting challenges similar (tougher at UW but lower expectations). The biggest difference is that ND does have an outside shot at a natty maybe every few decades or so when they are at their very peak while UW really wouldn’t be able to reach that peak. But Fickell could always get of his dream jobs later if he does well in Madtown.
LikeLike
The Michigan–OSU game had over 17m viewers, peaking at 19.6m. It was the most-watched regular-season CFB game ever on Fox, and the most-watched on any network since 2011.
LikeLike
Re: Wetzel’s piece on the CFP field being totally decided already.
There’s a reason Ohio State has better odds of making the playoff right now than TCU or USC:
TCU and USC are 1.5-2.5 favorites in their championship games. Kansas State and/or Utah have terrific chances to knock them off and scramble things.
Right now sure, if the season ended today, the playoff field is obviously Georgia, Michigan, TCU, and USC.
But the odds of both TCU and USC winning is considerably less than 50%, which is why Ohio State is actually in a decent spot right now (unless the CFP committee puts them behind Alabama which I don’t expect).
Doesn’t mean it’s fair that TCU/USC are the ones risking their spots while Ohio State isn’t in a CCG but that’s just how it goes.
LikeLike
z33k: Just wait until Purdue knocks off Michigan in the Big Ten CCG. Now THAT will scramble the CFP. Boilermakers are mere 16 point dogs – easy peasy!
LikeLike
Just wait until Purdue knocks off Michigan in the Big Ten CCG. Now THAT will scramble the CFP.
Most analysts seem to think Georgia and Michigan are in even if they lose.
LikeLike
Marc: “Most analysts seem to think Georgia and Michigan are in even if they lose.”
Yep, I agree. However the really interesting question is: Who goes to the Rose Bowl?
Let’s say Purdue wins the CCG and Michigan goes to the CFP. Who goes to the Rose Bowl?
Let’s say Michigan wins the CCG and goes to the CFP. Who goes to the Rose Bowl?
Let’s both Michigan and OSU both go to the CFP. Who goes to the Rose Bowl? Third best conference record is Penn State at 7-2.
LikeLike
As I understand, in years it is not a semifinal, the Rose Bowl gets the top Big Ten and Pac-12 teams that are left after the playoff is filled. Seeding is according to the CFP rankings, with no auto-bid for champs.
Thus, assuming Michigan is a playoff team no matter what, the only question is what happens to OSU. If OSU is not in the playoff, it goes to the Rose Bowl. If OSU is in the playoff, then Penn State goes.
This assumes that Purdue is probably too far out of the rankings to overtake OSU and/or PSU, even if it beats Michigan c0nvincingly.
LikeLike
@Marc
That only applies if the Big Ten champion is in the CFP in a year where the Rose Bowl is not a semifinal.
In a year like this, Purdue goes to the Rose Bowl if they beat Michigan.
The Rose Bowl is obligated by contract to take the Big Ten/Pac-12 champions if they are not in the CFP.
LikeLike
I trust your research. I searched for a while and could not find anything to that effect.
LikeLike
@Marc
Here:
https://tournamentofroses.com/2022-rose-bowl-game-returns-to-traditional-format/
“The selection process for the Rose Bowl Game has, in a sense, gotten easier in the College Football Playoff (CFP) era. In what is known as a “traditional” Rose Bowl Game year, like the 2021-22 college football season, the Rose Bowl Game is contractually obligated to feature the Pac-12 Conference Champion and the Big Ten Conference Champion.”
Rose Bowl gets to pick replacements if the champions are released to go to the CFP.
LikeLike
z33k,
TCU I agree with, but not so much USC. Both OSU and USC are 11-1 with 1 conference loss right now. OSU’s loss was to a higher-ranked team, while USC’s loss was closer and on the road. USC never had to face a team as highly ranked as MI. Both beat ND. OSU @ PSU was a slightly better win than USC @ UCLA. Their resumes are very similar right now. A second loss to the same lower-ranked team might be a reasonable deciding factor in this case (not that I want OSU to get crushed by UGA in a semifinal).
LikeLike
Those are all pretty rational arguments. The question philosophically is whether you want the Committee to have broad discretion or to rein it in with rules governing every type of situation.
A Committee with discretion cannot always be consistent, because the participants change every year, and it will always have borderline calls that are arguable. Rules make it more predictable, but there are always bad cases that the rules fail to cover. That was one of the downfalls of the BCS: they kept tweaking the formula every time it produced the “wrong” answer.
I think that was one of the reasons they chose to have a Committee, rather than to continue the BCS formula. Ultimately, they felt that a bunch of trustworthy experts in a room will do better than a formula that cannot account for every contingency. There has never been a serious proposal (that I have heard of) to abolish the Committee and go back to formulas.
The Wetzel proposal, though obviously not a formula, is an attempt to overlay more rules on what is otherwise fairly broad discretion.
LikeLike
They should at least have kept the BCS formula, and forced the committee to explain any deviations from it. That would put neutral, “objective” data out there and force actual explanations from the committee rather than baloney about the eye test.
LikeLike
Much of the baloney exists because the Committee produces interim rankings that are completely meaningless, except for water-cooler talk. Nobody here is heaping similar scorn on the basketball Committee, which announces its results only once—when they matter.
LikeLike
Short simple observation.
As we enter conference championship play, TCU is the only school in the top 8 in AP rankings that is not in the current or future (USC) B1G or SEC.
LikeLike
Some of that is chaos: Clemson losing a game to South Carolina that it should not ordinarily lose; Notre Dame somehow losing at home to Stanford and Marshall.
On the other hand, TCU is undefeated, but they repeatedly had to win games in the 4th quarter or overtime. If they lose even one of those, they are probably not in contention.
LikeLike
There will always be chaos in CFB, but I think we’ll see the top of the rankings dominated by the SEC and B10 in the future.
I expect the 2 conferences to garner half or more of the CFP slots every year.
LikeLike
When USC and UCLA leave the PAC, it will be MUCH easier to go undefeated or 1-loss in the Pac and you will increasingly see Pac teams in the top 8 as a result. The Pac and Big-12 will become more Notre Dame-like in how they are ranked – i.e., “over-ranked”.
Meanwhile, the large BiG and SEC conferences will increasingly have multiple loss top-tier teams that will be ranked below the TCUs and undefeated/1-loss Pac teams of the world.
But with a 12-team playoff, it will not matter.
LikeLike
We’ll have to see if the CFP Committee will weigh SOS heavily. What you said _could_ happen, but more likely is that the Committee will treat the Pac and B12 like the BE after Miami and VTech left. Stronger than the G5 but weaker than the top power conferences.
The final 2005 BCS ranking had 1-loss WVU 11th behind
2-loss teams.
The final 2006 BCS ranking had 1-loss Louisville 6th behind 2 2-loss teams.The final 2009 BCS ranking did have undefeated Cincy 3rdahead of undefeated TCU but behind undefeated Texas and undefeated Bama.
6
LikeLike
Big East 2.0 was actually better than the Big 10 and ACC most years. They just didn’t have an Ohio St. or FSU. But they had good depth.
LikeLike
Top of the conference kind of matters when you’re talking about a small playoff field (relative to the number of teams).
LikeLike
The Committee has repeatedly dissed undefeated G5 teams, with the sole exception of Cincy last year. And that only happened because the Bearcats coincidentally had Notre Dame on their schedule, in a year when they were great and the Irish were good. If Cincy were undefeated against this year’s schedule, in which their toughest opponent was Arkansas, I submit they would not be a top four team.
None of this is to take away from what they achieved last year — nobody goes undefeated without doing a lot of things right. But it was sheer luck that they had a great team in a year when they happened to have the chance to prove it in South Bend. The Bearcats do not always schedule non-conference opponents as prominent as ND, and the Committee would not have given them as much credit for beating Arkansas.
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2022/11/28/ohio-state-president-kristina-johnson-to-resign/69646772007/
In what may be relevant news for future B10 expansion, OSU’s president is stepping down in May (after being asked to by the BoT). The details don’t matter, but OSU’s voice on B10 matters does. The next OSU president may not be so pro-expansion, pro-athletics, pro-TV money. It could have a significant impact on future votes, such as which candidates (if any) are considered for future expansion.
LikeLike
The next OSU president may not be so pro-expansion, pro-athletics, pro-TV money.
Couldn’t the next OSU president be more in favor of those things, rather than less?
FYI, Michigan’s former president, Mark Schlissel, was not keen on athletics, and he made it fairly obvious. There were a ton of other things wrong with him too, and that is not why he was fired, but they did not choose another one like that.
To the extent athletics matters at all in the decision, I think it would be pretty stupid (and totally unnecessary) to choose a president who is hostile to something that is so big a part of the school’s brand.
Perhaps needless to say, you can be pro-athletics but anti-expansion.
LikeLike
Yes, the next one could be, but people commented how OSU’s voice and position changed when Dr. Johnson took over. She is a former college athlete herself, as well as having spent time in the business world. President Drake (before her) was a more stereotypical academic and not as aggressive on pushing athletics. I doubt whether he would’ve pushed to resume football in 2020, for example.
I’m not saying the next president will be hostile to athletics, but they might be ignorant and/or indifferent to big time athletics. And any time a new person is in charge, some of the decisions will change.
LikeLike
Why was she forced out?
LikeLike
There are no details out yet, and OSU and Johnson both publicly deny that she was forced out. Perhaps she just wanted to step down several years early (health reasons?, better opportunity?).
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2022/11/28/ohio-state-president-kristina-johnson-to-resign/69646772007/
The university’s board of trustees asked Johnson, 65, to resign following a review conducted by an outside firm into concerns about her that were raised by staff, sources in the administration told The Dispatch. What those concerns were and the details of the review are not clear.
…
Several hours after The Dispatch first reported that Johnson was leaving as a result of an investigation, Ohio State spokesman Ben Johnson said: “There was not an investigation. An outside consultant was engaged to assist with the president’s performance review, as has been done in years past. The board was aware of President Johnson’s intent to leave the university advance of the November board meeting and therefore an annual review was not completed.”
In a statement through her attorney, Rex Elliot, Johnson called the reports “inaccurate” and said the events were “mischaracterized.”
“I’m saddened by the circumstances. My record of accomplishment at Ohio State speaks for itself, and I made the difficult decision to step down,” Johnson said.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl picture is very clear right now (Rose Bowl by contract must take the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions if not in the CFP since it’s not a semifinal):
Utah goes to the Rose Bowl if they beat USC and win the Pac-12. Washington goes if USC wins the Pac-12 and gets a CFP bid. Washington at 10-2 is clearly above the rest of the Pac of 3 loss teams in the Pac-12 by ranking as we’ll see Tuesday.
Purdue goes to the Rose Bowl if they beat Michigan and win the Big Ten. Ohio State goes if Michigan wins the Big Ten and TCU/USC win. Penn State goes if Michigan wins the Big Ten and Ohio State ends up in the CFP as well.
So we’re basically down to some pretty simple scenarios for the Rose Bowl. Utah or Washington from the Pac-12 and then Purdue or Ohio State/Penn State from the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The interesting wrinkle here is that the least likely matchup is last year’s Rose Bowl: a rematch of Ohio State-Utah.
If Utah wins the Pac-12, they likely push Ohio State into the CFP at #4 over USC (with 2 losses to Utah) and then you end up with Utah-Penn State as the Rose Bowl.
Ohio State-Washington and Utah-Penn State are the most likely outcomes here.
LikeLike
SI’s Ross Dellinger reports: Final Decision on the Rose Bowl’s Fit Within Expanded Playoff Expected This Week.
The article is ambiguous. It says the Rose Bowl “sent at least two different proposals outlining its wishes to the CFP Board of Managers.” But the article describes only one such proposal. It says the Rose Bowl would relinquish its exclusivity in the 5pm ET window in exchange for being a semifinal two years out of every three, starting in 2026.
Dellinger says that this demand “met with a visceral reaction from fellow bowl officials as well as many CFP presidents and commissioners.” I assume “visceral” means negative, though that is an unconventional way of putting it.
Of course, you would expect the other bowls to dislike this, since there is almost nothing in it for them. I suspect the presidents are not yet sure they want to put the semifinals on New Year’s Day. Despite the protestations of some here, it is far from clear that this is the best idea. It certainly could be, but I can see why they would be reluctant to guarantee that now, just because one bowl wants it.
The article points out that “No Power 5 league needs expansion more than the Pac-12,” but it is unclear whether the Pac-12 has had any role in pressuring the Rose Bowl to moderate its stance.
LikeLike
The great irony in this I suppose is that the Rose Bowl has its best bargaining position right now given that unanimity is required to expand the playoff early.
(Same applies to ESPN of course which won’t have the same negotiating power when a new contract is being discussed).
If there is no expansion now, then the Rose Bowl can only take what the Big Ten (and Pac-12, but realistically the Big Ten is the power player here) will go for on its behalf.
LikeLike
There are a few unknowns here.
How long is the Rose Bowl insisting on locking in its semifinal status? How do the presidents and administrators feel about semifinals on New Year’s Day? I know Richard thinks this is the obvious thing to do. It is far from obvious to me.
If semifinals are on NYD, what happens to the non-semifinal bowls? In the original proposal, early-round playoff losers would not go to a bowl. But with only one round on campus, that would still leave 8 very good teams playing on NYD. With two rounds on campus, that knocks out another 4 of these.
Is that still the case? If it is, the eight of the best twelve teams in the country would not be playing on NYD, a pretty significant difference from what we are used to. Non-semifinal bowls would be losers’ bowls with teams that didn’t win their conference and 4th/5th-place Big Ten and SEC teams. Do the presidents want to spoil NYD to that extent?
I mean, you can talk about bowl pageantry all you want, but a Sugar Bowl with the SEC fifth-place team is just not that compelling. Indeed, in its non-semifinal years, the Rose Bowl would likely be Big Ten #4 vs. Pac-12 #2, a far cry from what it has been. In contrast, as a quarterfinal it would always have a game that means something.
LikeLike
Everyone else seems to expect the Rose Bowl to just submit to the will of the CFP. There seems to be no recognition of the greater value the Rose Bowl has. Everyone keeps blaming the Rose Bowl, but a negotiation takes both sides coming to the table. The only proposal from the CFP I have heard about was to treat the Rose Bowl exactly like every other game.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure the CFP leaders know that the Rose Bowl is the highest rated and most lucrative bowl. You’ve often accused them of being concerned with money and little else. So, whatever they might know, I am sure they know that.
But even allowing for this, the Rose Bowl’s value (though high) is still finite. It seems to me they are trying to use their prospective veto over 2024–2025 to get longer-lasting concessions they probably do not deserve on the economics alone. I can see why other parties would take issue with that.
LikeLike
They are concerned with money. That’s why they should’ve made some sort of counter offer that recognizes the Rose Bowl’s value.
But I believe the non-B10/P12 people in the room are jealous of the Rose Bowl and don’t want the Rose to continue to be more valuable than their bowls, so they’re trying to undermine it. Rather than looking for ways to leverage the Rose Bowl’s value to help everyone, they just want to take it away from the B10 and P12. They aren’t negotiating in good faith, just making demands on hoping public outrage will force the Rose to cave.
One can argue that the Rose isn’t arguing for concessions just for themselves. They’d support the Sugar and Orange asking for similar concessions.
LikeLike
Nobody knows anything, but this doesn’t seem likely. The media reports are all, “The Rose Bowl is the obstacle.” If the Rose Bowl leaders were the reasonable ones, I would expect the Big Ten and Pac-12 to come to their defense. The silence of those two conferences is conspicuous.
LikeLike
At least the Rose has made multiple offers. Have you heard a word about the CFP giving an inch?
The CFP went into this thinking the Rose would be the obstacle and they have made it that by taking a hardline approach to the Rose. Treat them like the enemy and they will become the enemy.
As for B10 silence, the B10’s president on the managing committee just resigned. Maybe her focus has been on more personal matters lately. Warren may be waiting for new marching orders as someone else takes that role. Also, the B10 and P12 may be choosing to stay out of it because of their ties to both sides of the issue. It’s lose-lose for them to take a side publicly.
LikeLike
At this point in time, it may not be clear that the B1G and the PAC are willing to agree to anything. Clearly Kliavkoff (and others no doubt) are more than resentful of the LA schools leaving the PAC.
On the other hand, I expect that more than a few B1G people are not very happy with the approach that Kliavkoff is taking with UCLA and the apparent belief of Kliavkoff that if he can hold onto UCLA, no other team will leave the PAC.
Kliavkoff also seems to still be trying to convince USC to not move (alone?), though without the help of the CA University system BoG.
LikeLike
Let’s play out the Rose Bowl’s request in a 12-team playoff scenario. I’ll use this week’s AP for the example.
The B1G qualifies #2 Michigan for a 1st round bye as champion. #5 Ohio State and #8 Penn State also qualify for the CFP.
The P-12 qualifies #4 USC for a 1st round bye as champion. #9 Washington also qualifies for the CFP.
So, in a year when the Rose is not hosting a quarterfinal (assuming the schedule doesn’t change) but hosting a semifinal, the Rose Bowl Committee wants the exclusive January 1 4p EST window to show a game between non-playoff participants like unranked Purdue and #12 Utah. This would force two of the quarterfinals to another date (12/31 or 1/2? assuming no NFL conflict) to stage their version of a Holiday Bowl North sandwiched between two other playoff games.
Yes, that is unreasonable.
If the season gets moved up to week zero and the semifinals take place on 1/1, the example gets even crazier, by pushing back the kickoff of a semifinal game to past 8p EST, just so the meaningless and possible blow-out Purdue/Utah game can wrap up.
Unreasonable again.
I, for one, hope the season continues to start on Labor Day weekend with quarterfinals taking place on January 1. If the Rose wants to keep their cherished timeslot, they can be a quarterfinal every year, never host a semifinal, and bid – just like every other city – for a championship game. Under this scenario, the Rose gives something (semifinal game) but gets something (1/1 timeslot) in return.
Furthermore, it’s hard for the CFP committee to guarantee the Rose anything past 2024, since the calendar going forward hasn’t been adopted.
If the Rose doesn’t give (and screws the rest of college football out of $1B, then be prepared to welcome the Jimmy Kimmel LA Bowl to the NY-6 in place of the Rose.
LikeLike
Bernie: “I expect that more than a few B1G people are not very happy with the approach that Kliavkoff is taking with UCLA . . .”
I’m not worried about Kliavkoff. However the delayed UCLA decision by the CA BOR is more worrisome. The only justification that I can imagine for the extra time is to trump up some reasons to block UCLA from leaving.
LikeLike
I just think it’s interesting that there is nobody (in this notoriously leaky process) taking the Rose Bowl’s side — even off the record.
When the 3 conferences vetoed the 2024–25 expansion initially, there were plenty stories leading up to it, suggesting what their objections were. We just don’t have that here.
LikeLike
Marc,
Also.
The media reports are all, “The Rose Bowl is the obstacle.”
Because they are repeating what the CFP tells them. Or perhaps more precisely, the Rose Bowl game is the obstacle, but the Rose Bowl committee is not solely to blame for that obstacle. A refusal to negotiate in good faith by the CFP is keeping it an obstacle.
Like now, when they just made a fake deadline and gave the Rose Bowl an ultimatum to cave in or risk being left out in 2026 and beyond.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35138651/sources-rose-bowl-given-wednesday-deadline-cfp
Leaders of the College Football Playoff issued an ultimatum to the Rose Bowl this week, giving a self-imposed deadline of Wednesday to determine whether the CFP can expand in time for the start of the 2024 regular season, and if the game’s most storied bowl can’t agree to the terms, it’s possible it could be excluded from the New Year’s Six bowl rotation in the next contract, sources told ESPN.
…
While the Rose Bowl’s position in an expanded CFP isn’t the only obstacle that slowed the process, it is the last and most complicated. The discussion centered on one of the most lucrative television windows in college sports.
Is the window that lucrative, or is the Rose Bowl that lucrative and it happens to be in that window? Does any other TV content do extraordinarily well in that window?
The Rose Bowl was willing to temporarily concede its relationship with the Big Ten and Pac-12 to host a quarterfinal game in 2024 and 2025, but in return asked for assurances in the new contract.
…
A CFP source said it was fair to call it an ultimatum, but not a threat. CFP leaders are asking the Rose Bowl to reconsider some of the guarantees it’s seeking in the next contract.
…
A source said the CFP has assured the Rose Bowl it will do everything it can to work around the Jan. 1 2 p.m. PT slot, but has asked all of the bowls to take a leap of faith because the commissioners can’t be bound to promises that will or won’t impact the value as they’re trying to negotiate the next deal.
1. What grounds has the CFP ever given the Rose Bowl for trusting them? They have done nothing but try to undermine its value from day 1.
2. The commissioners can’t be bound to promises, even if they wouldn’t effect the value of the deal? That’s a much bigger problem than the Rose Bowl. That just makes them bad people and poor negotiators.
When the next contract is negotiated, it doesn’t have to be unanimous — making it much easier to move on without the Rose Bowl and/or the Big Ten and Pac-12 votes.
The self-imposed deadline of Wednesday was issued because the host cities are running out of time and have bent over backward to accommodate the CFP to this point while they try to work out the details.
So now they are threatening the B10 and P12, too.
Do they not remember that Pasadena is one of the host cities?
LikeLike
Alan,
With the CFP it’s all or nothing, and screw Pasadena, the Rose Bowl, B10 and P12.
Frankly, screw the CFP and all the fans of it. I hope the Rose, B10 and P12 return to the pre-BCS days (I know they won’t). I hope the Rose blocks early expansion, and even better if the B10 and P12 support it.
“pushing back the kickoff of a semifinal game to past 8p EST”
CFB does that voluntarily on a regular basis. 6 bowl games were scheduled to start at 8:30 pm or later last season. Pro playoff games often start after 8 too.
Or you could just tell them they get 5-8 and that’s it.
“If the Rose wants to keep their cherished timeslot, they can be a quarterfinal every year, never host a semifinal, and bid – just like every other city – for a championship game. Under this scenario, the Rose gives something (semifinal game) but gets something (1/1 timeslot) in return.”
See, that would be a reasonable counter offer. But the CFP won’t even do that.
“Furthermore, it’s hard for the CFP committee to guarantee the Rose anything past 2024, since the calendar going forward hasn’t been adopted.”
No, it really isn’t that hard. You sign a deal and live up to it.
“If the Rose doesn’t give (and screws the rest of college football out of $1B, then be prepared to welcome the Jimmy Kimmel LA Bowl to the NY-6 in place of the Rose.”
That number keeps growing. ESPN says it’s $450M, and they should know since it’s their exclusive TV deal.
We’ll see how various groups respond when the CFP proposes to leave out the Rose Bowl. Maybe the B10 and P12 will have something to say then.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I just think it’s interesting that there is nobody (in this notoriously leaky process) taking the Rose Bowl’s side — even off the record.”
There’s only 2 groups that might support the Rose. We haven’t heard anything from either of them on either side of this issue. There are zero leaks, presumably by intention.
LikeLike
Labeled stubborn by some and traditionalists by others, the Rose Bowl’s position has long been expected, previously described by some as “the biggest hangup” and the “big issue” to expansion. Top-level conference executives anonymously expressed their frustration over the game, which has been historically protected by longtime relationships within the Pac-12 and Big Ten.
So if the Rose Bowl being the biggest issue was expected, why did they ignore it in all their planning?
As for playing the semis on 1/1:
However, in new iterations of the playoff in 2026 and beyond, there is deep discussion about moving the regular season up a week and shifting the calendar so the semifinals are played on New Year’s Day.
That may explain the Rose’s new proposal, which was based on the semis being played on 1/1. I’d be fine with the Rose and Sugar and Orange (the three oldest and most traditional of the CFP bowls) rotating as semis 2 out of every 3 years. The Fiesta Bowl is a relative newcomer, the Peach was never on the same level as the others, and Dallas weather on 1/1 isn’t great. Phoenix, Atlanta and Dallas can compete for the NCG, and host other bowls.
LikeLike
So if the Rose Bowl being the biggest issue was expected, why did they ignore it in all their planning?
From the various press reports, I get the impression they have been talking to the Rose Bowl for a long time. They are simply the last ones who have not agreed.
Of course, there is the question whether you come up with a format that meets the sport’s needs and then work with the parties to implement it, or assume a priori that one party has a veto, no matter what makes sense for everyone else.
That may explain the Rose’s new proposal, which was based on the semis being played on 1/1. I’d be fine with the Rose and Sugar and Orange (the three oldest and most traditional of the CFP bowls) rotating as semis 2 out of every 3 years.
As you can imagine, it’s all about money. The Fiesta and Peach got to be major bowls because of what they could pay.
LikeLike
“For a long time” is not the same as “since they started pondering early expansion.” If you know the Rose is the biggest obstacle and that they have a veto, then you should start by talking with them to see what they want and have plenty of time to negotiate a compromise. Instead they put it off and hoped peer pressure and public outcry would force the Rose’s hand, and the Rose knows that’s what they tried to do.
But the article says there’ll be a resolution by next week, so it’s not like all of this is actually holding anything up. How much work was done last week?
LikeLike
“For a long time” is not the same as “since they started pondering early expansion.”
That’s true, but your argument presupposes that the goal of playoff expansion should be, “what the Rose Bowl wants,” rather than what’s best.
I realize that you believe the best possible expansion is: none. But supposing you wanted to expand, would you contort the process to please one party who has a 2-year veto?
Remember, every conference had a 2-year veto as well, and initially 3 of them exercised it. Eventually they all caved (to my surprise). If you design the process around the 2-year veto, you probably make bad decisions that are oriented around who can be the biggest jerk.
LikeLike
Marc,
“That’s true, but your argument presupposes that the goal of playoff expansion should be, “what the Rose Bowl wants,” rather than what’s best.”
No, it doesn’t. It presupposes that you should allocate the longest possible time for negotiating around what you perceive to be the biggest obstacle. If you expect it to be a tough negotiation, start it sooner.
“I realize that you believe the best possible expansion is: none.”
The best is reverting to the bowl system.
“But supposing you wanted to expand, would you contort the process to please one party who has a 2-year veto?”
Yes, if I really wanted those 2 years. That’s how negotiations work. Both sides get something. I have yet to hear what the CFP has offered the Rose beyond equal treatment with the Peach Bowl.
“Remember, every conference had a 2-year veto as well, and initially 3 of them exercised it.”
And 1 of them said in advance they would for outside reasons, while the other 2 were the most likely objectors and also are the two tied to the Rose Bowl. Which goes back to, talk to the obstacles early and often. Don’t throw out a plan you know they’ll hate and then try to force it through.
“Eventually they all caved (to my surprise).”
No, they didn’t. They scuttled the ESPN-only extension plan, and that was a primary objection for the B10. Also, the presidents may well have changed their minds after seeing the financial impact of COVID. That isn’t caving in my opinion.
“If you design the process around the 2-year veto, you probably make bad decisions that are oriented around who can be the biggest jerk.”
You don’t have to give the Rose everything it wants forever. But I see no evidence of the CFP looking for a middle ground. They deserve for the extension to be blocked at this point.
LikeLike
@Brian: I can’t tell if you are a poor negotiator in general, or if your normally clear-eyed view is fogged because you hate the playoff and loathe everyone responsible for implementing it. You obviously want it to fail.
The CFP managers say they have worked with all of the bowls throughout the process. No one from the Rose Bowl has said, “The problem here is that they didn’t involve us sooner.” That gloss on it appears to be your invention.
Our knowledge is limited by what the parties choose to leak. Thus, we don’t know every offer and response. But every article is citing the Rose Bowl as the the intransigent and unreasonable party. No one is offering a different view, as one would normally expect if another view existed.
The Rose Bowl’s insistence on defining its role long into the future, when no media deal exists past 2024, and no other party is insisting on that, seems to me prima facie unreasonable. The Rose Bowl is special, but it doesn’t deserve what it is asking for.
LikeLike
Marc,
“@Brian: I can’t tell if you are a poor negotiator in general, or if your normally clear-eyed view is fogged because you hate the playoff and loathe everyone responsible for implementing it. You obviously want it to fail.”
Yes, I want it to fail. It is already undermining the regular season, and that will just get worse. It is a pox on CFB.
“The CFP managers say they have worked with all of the bowls throughout the process.”
Talked to is not really the same as working with. I’m sure they kept all the bowls in the loop, but all the other bowls quickly agreed to the CFP’s requests so only the Rose was left to deal with. What have you seen to indicate they have tried to work with the Rose, rather than just demanding 100% flexibility from the Rose?
“No one from the Rose Bowl has said, “The problem here is that they didn’t involve us sooner.” That gloss on it appears to be your invention.”
Yes, I’m saying it. If you expect a tough negotiation and you have a deadline, you should start the serious talks sooner rather than later.
“Our knowledge is limited by what the parties choose to leak. Thus, we don’t know every offer and response.”
We keep hearing about offers from the Rose from sources within the CFP, but nothing about any offers from the CFP from those same sources. If the CFP was making a bunch of reasonable counter offers, they would’ve leaked it to a make the Rose look worse.
“But every article is citing the Rose Bowl as the the intransigent and unreasonable party. No one is offering a different view, as one would normally expect if another view existed.”
No, I wouldn’t expect that since the reporters are pro-CFP expansion, many of them work for ESPN which has a direct stake in the negotiations, and they are writing for an audience that is pro-CFP expansion. They are also all referencing CFP sources.
“The Rose Bowl’s insistence on defining its role long into the future, when no media deal exists past 2024, and no other party is insisting on that, seems to me prima facie unreasonable.”
The actual future media deal is largely irrelevant to this. Does it matter which network will air the Rose Bowl, or other CFP games? They just need to look at the calendar for the games and the available TV windows. Their media advisors can tell them the general financial impacts of various scenarios.
And again, they don’t have to promise anything indefinitely.
“The Rose Bowl is special, but it doesn’t deserve what it is asking for.”
So make them a counter offer. That’s how negotiation works, right? Both sides stake out extreme positions and then work towards a middle ground?
LikeLike
Colorado hires Deion Sanders . . . .
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/deion-sanders-confirms-offer-from-power-five-school-next-head-coach
LikeLike
They offered him the job, but he hasn’t taken it (yet). He’s also said other schools have reached out to him.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/35130417/acc-sec-challenge-announced-2023-24-college-hoops-season
As was discussed previously, the B10/ACC Challenge will end after this year, as will the B10/SEC Challenge. A new ACC/SEC Challenge will be started by ESPN instead. Perhaps Fox will try to start a B10/B12 Challenge.
Look for ESPN coverage of B10 hoops to disappear next year, as they like to do with things they don’t own.
LikeLike
You mean the Big Ten-ACC and Big 12-SEC, respectively.
And I too would like to see Big Ten vs. Big 12 to complement ACC vs. SEC.
LikeLike
I do, but I blame the article.
The introduction of the ACC/SEC Challenge marks the end of the ACC/Big Ten Challenge after 23 years and the end of the SEC/Big Ten Challenge that began in 2013.
LikeLike
About the Rose Bowl:
We have to be aware of who has the whip hand here. It’s the CFP, not the Rose. The CFP can do without the Rose. The Rose can not do without the CFP (well, it could, but it’d become irrelevant soon). The Rose is trying to get the best deal they can but if they make demands that are received poorly (such as asking for 2 semis every 3 years), they could end up with nothing. And while I would like to protect the Rose’s timeslot, I think they really overplayed their hand here. Yes, the Rose isn’t much different from any other bowl now. Wait, in some respects, it’s worse, being in an aging stadium. Yes, there is still the nostalgia factor, but nostalgia only goes so far.
I still don’t understand why the Rose can’t just be a permanent QF slot (if QFs on NYD) or get the semis at the same rate as other bowls (if semis on NYD) but keep their time slot.
LikeLike
Well, you are basically suggesting that the Rose should be treated the same as the other top-drawer bowls. The Rose counters that they’re every other bowl’s granddaddy, and with their TV ratings they’ve earned the right to be special.
As far as I can tell, everyone agrees what will happen in 2024 and 2025: the Rose will be a quarterfinal both years, in its traditional time slot. The problem is that the Rose wants assurances now as to what its position will be in 2026 and beyond. But there are currently no media contracts past 2025. The playoff managers feel it is unrealistic to make long-dated promises to one party about a deal that doesn’t exist yet, when every other party has agreed to be flexible.
An article yesterday on cbssports.com was blunt: ‘Asked what leverage the Rose Bowl has in the process, a person involved in the CFP process simply replied, “They have none.”‘
The article adds: “There has been no indication how the Big Ten and Pac-12 feel about the situation, but perhaps it’s obvious given neither conference is aligned with the Rose Bowl in this matter.”
LikeLike
Marc,
“Well, you are basically suggesting that the Rose should be treated the same as the other top-drawer bowls. The Rose counters that they’re every other bowl’s granddaddy, and with their TV ratings they’ve earned the right to be special.”
I don’t think that’s accurate. The Rose has never said the Orange and Sugar shouldn’t also get special treatment, they’ve just said that the Rose does deserve it.
“As far as I can tell, everyone agrees what will happen in 2024 and 2025: the Rose will be a quarterfinal both years, in its traditional time slot.”
It seems like they agree on that, yes.
“The problem is that the Rose wants assurances now as to what its position will be in 2026 and beyond.”
Of course they want the assurances now – it’s the only time they have any leverage.
“But there are currently no media contracts past 2025. The playoff managers feel it is unrealistic to make long-dated promises to one party about a deal that doesn’t exist yet, when every other party has agreed to be flexible.”
You don’t need a media deal in place to make a promise. And promises don’t have to be long-dated. I’m not sure why the Rose should care that the Peach Bowl agreed to be flexible. The Peach is much newer, never had a regular TV window and was never particularly popular with viewers, so it doesn’t give up anything by being flexible. Atlanta just wants a game.
“An article yesterday on cbssports.com was blunt: ‘Asked what leverage the Rose Bowl has in the process, a person involved in the CFP process simply replied, “They have none.”‘”
Which is factually untrue. They can block early expansion, so they have some leverage. It doesn’t mean it’ll get them anywhere, but they do have it.
“The article adds: “There has been no indication how the Big Ten and Pac-12 feel about the situation, but perhaps it’s obvious given neither conference is aligned with the Rose Bowl in this matter.””
What does that even mean? There has been no indication, so it’s obvious how they feel?
I will say Delany would be handling this much better than Warren.
LikeLike
The Rose has never said the Orange and Sugar shouldn’t also get special treatment, they’ve just said that the Rose does deserve it.
I don’t know what the Rose Bowl said about other bowls. But I think they know perfectly well that any concessions given to them must come at somebody else’s expense.
You don’t need a media deal in place to make a promise. And promises don’t have to be long-dated.
They pretty much have to be, since a promise that goes out only a year or two would not be worth very much.
What does that even mean? There has been no indication, so it’s obvious how they feel?
It’s an inartful sentence that appears to have words missing. However, I think the intent is clear: the Big Ten and the Pac-12 are not coming to the Rose Bowl’s defense.
LikeLike
“I don’t know what the Rose Bowl said about other bowls. But I think they know perfectly well that any concessions given to them must come at somebody else’s expense.”
Yes, the Peach Bowl especially. But since the Rose and Sugar currently have 2 tie-ins and the Orange has 1.5, the CFP could easily justify treating those 3 bowls differently than the other 3 (Peach, Fiesta, Cotton).
“They pretty much have to be, since a promise that goes out only a year or two would not be worth very much.”
It only needs to be worth what the Rose is giving up. Giving them a few years of something might be all it takes to make this go away. The new TV deal won’t be too long anyway, as everyone will want to see how it’s going with potential NFL competition and a new calendar.
“It’s an inartful sentence that appears to have words missing.”
Something happened to it – maybe an editing error. It makes no sense as written.
“However, I think the intent is clear: the Big Ten and the Pac-12 are not coming to the Rose Bowl’s defense.”
Not indicating their stance doesn’t automatically mean they aren’t aligned with the Rose Bowl. It simply means we don’t actually know where they stand.
LikeLike
I agree that they have not played this well, but I don’t think the CFP has either. Nor have the B10 and P12, who should be open about their positions whichever side they are on.
I would say that the Rose has the whip hand for the short term, though. They have a contract and are not obligated to change it to satisfy others. If others want the extra $450M, they should incentivize the Rose in some way to agree. Both you and Alan have mentioned possible counter offers, which is more than the CFP has done.
LikeLike
Yeah, but the Rose doesn’t intent to stop existing after 2 years. Which is why they eventually caved. It’s like saying the GOP has the whip hand in debt ceiling brinkmanship when, no, they eventually would have to cave (after their histrionics) as it’s in nobody’s interest for the US to default on its debt, just as it would definitely not be in the Rose Bowl’s interest to piss off the CFP/other college football partners so much that they exclude the Rose from everything in the future.
LikeLike
The Rose is going to lose value anyway, so I’m not sure the risk was quite as high as some make it sound. It will be a shell of itself from 2026 on under the new deal.
LikeLike
Can we have a Frank (pun intended) discussion about the physical condition of the Rose Bowl?
While I have never attended a Rose Bowl game, I have attended a game in the Rose Bowl. Pasadena is a beautiful town. The parade looks great on TV, even though we prefer interactive parades in south Louisiana. The sunset over the St. Gabriels is stunning. The aerial view of the stadium is awe-inspiring. The exterior “Rose Bowl” sign is iconic.
With that being said, the inside of the stadium is a dump. The sightlines aren’t good, the bathrooms and concessions are a joke, to go along with bleacher seating, and a microscopic video board. In my opinion, it is not a good place to actually watch a game.
LikeLike
Sure, but if it’s going to be a shell of itself regardless, what does it gain from doing something to spite the rest of college football? Its best hope is to be in the good graces of those with power, which preventing the playoffs from starting early definitely won’t do.
LikeLike
Alan,
I’ve never been, but I’m not surprised. Plenty of college stadiums are terrible places to watch a game. It comes with keeping 100 year old buildings.
LikeLike
The sight lines aren’t that bad. Concessions are overrated. Tailgate and it doesn’t matter. I have yet to see a stadium where the restrooms were a positive feature. As long as you don’t have long lines.
Rice Stadium IMO is the best football stadium I have ever been in. It has great sight lines. You feel close even in the upper deck. And its restrooms and concessions are way below average.
LikeLike
I’m in agreement with Marc on the Rose Bowl’s situation. I think the Rose Bowl’s position is much weaker due to the Big Ten taking USC/UCLA than it was before that.
Why? Because the Big Ten’s (and Pac-12’s) interest has shifted. Before, when the Big Ten viewed the Pac-12 as an equal partner, things were different. Delany negotiated the crossover game; the Rose Bowl had 2 conferences of similar power behind it and protecting the game.
But now, things are scrambled. The Big Ten knows, 3 or 4 of its teams are likely to be in the playoff in any given year. Protecting the traditional Rose Bowl matchup doesn’t do much when Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/USC are way more focused on going to the playoff.
I think 100% that Marc is onto something here with the focus on the notion that nobody (not even whispers/leaks in the background) are coming from the Big Ten or Pac-12 to protect the Rose Bowl.
The traditional Rose Bowl matchup is basically done with USC/UCLA moving to the Big Ten. Things started to fray when the Pac-12 negated the Big Ten/Pac-12 crossover game that Delany negotiated but now the landscape has shifted from the Power 5 to a Big 2 landscape.
The Big Ten is probably okay with scenarios that the Rose Bowl may not like as much (i.e. the higher rated Big Ten/Pac-12 team getting slotted there in a quarterfinal).
I think it bears watching what happens here; as valuable as the Rose Bowl has been historically for the Big Ten/Pac-12, things will change substantially in a 12 team playoff where 3-4 Big Ten teams aren’t available every year.
LikeLike
This is also why I think the CFP-Rose Bowl negotiations got to this point.
Rose Bowl asks were too high and Big Ten hasn’t been backing them. Obviously this is just speculation, but it would explain why the Rose Bowl might end up being told to take what they get.
Without the Big Ten backing their asks, they have no leverage.
LikeLike
Well, they still have $450M worth of leverage.
But you’d think the Rose would’ve talked with the B10 and P12 since July and had some idea what they would support and what they wouldn’t.
LikeLike
They have the leverage of making sure they become irrelevant in the future, you mean. Or do you think the Rose would be able to get anything it wants after pissing off all other parties in college football?
LikeLike
No, I think exactly what I said. They had $450M of leverage. The CFP had the rest of time after the next 2 years as leverage.
It’s not equal by any means, but it’s incorrect to say they had no leverage.
LikeLike
So not no leverage. Just a piddly amount. Because people just aren’t going to believe you when you say you’re willing to hurt yourself to hurt the rest of college football.
LikeLike
It was always possible they would stick to it, depending on how much influence the city has over the committee. We’ve seen that politicians in CA might take an odd stance on a college athletics issue that financial impact on them.
LikeLike
Seems like wishful dreaming on your part.
Finances of college athletics don’t impact state politicians a whole heck of a lot. Finances of the Rose Bowl impact the city of Pasadena a lot more.
LikeLike
Richard,
I never thought they would (unless city officials forced it somehow – never underestimate the idiocy of elected officials), I just wanted them to.
LikeLike
Yep, wishful dreaming, like I said.
LikeLike
Even if you nuked the playoff and went back to the old bowl system — Brian’s preference — would the Big Ten even want its champ locked into playing the Pac-12 every year? It is no longer a game of equals.
LikeLike
Agreed and I think that’s exactly why the USC/UCLA move changes the equation dramatically. Two of the biggest Pac-12 brands are leaving for the Big Ten. The power balance has shifted drastically (I’d say that as well if you slot Washington into UCLA’s spot, say if the UC regents try to stop their move).
There’s no way the Big Ten would ever consider a scheduling alliance with the Pac-12 as it will be in 2024 unlike 10 years ago.
Heck, I think it’s far more likely that if you nuke the playoff, the Big Ten would consider making the Rose Bowl its championship game (maybe shifting it to SOFI though).
The old Rose Bowl relationship is probably dead after 2023; can’t see the Big Ten arguing for keeping it given the USC/UCLA move.
The only thing I can see the Big Ten considering is an offer to keep the quarterfinals that weekend with the Big Ten (or higher of Big Ten/Pac-12 champs slotted there.
I can’t see the Big Ten caring much about the Pac-12’s involvement either way.
LikeLike
If the playoff “gets nuked” by the Rose, here’s my recommendation going forward.
1. Let the AP & the coaches pick the mythical national champion.
(you’re welcome, Brian)
2. The bowl season becomes a B1G/SEC challenge as follows:
Sugar – B1G #1 v. SEC #1 or B1G #2 v. SEC #2
Jimmy Kimmel LA Bowl – B1G #2 v. SEC #2 or B1G #1 v. SEC #1
Cotton Bowl – B1G #3 v. SEC #3
Peach Bowl – B1G #4 v. SEC #4
Citrus Bowl – B1G #5 v. SEC #5
Las Vegas Bowl – B1G #6 v. SEC #6
Whatever the former Outback Bowl is called now bowl in Tampa – B1G #7 v. SEC #7
Music City Bowl – B1G #8 v. SEC #8
Gator Bowl – B1G #9 v. SEC #9
Independence Bowl (because it’s my list) – B1G #10 v. SEC #10
The Rose can have their parade and non-exclusive time slot on 1/1 pitting the Pac-1? champ v. the Big 12 champ or Notre Dame. The Orange could feature the ACC champ versus the B-12 #2 or Notre Dame, and the Fiesta could invite Pac-1? #2 v. B-12 #2, ACC #2 or Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Alan,
To be clear, they aren’t saying the Rose would nuke the CFP – just a what if the CFP didn’t exist.
1. Let the AP & the coaches pick the mythical national champion.
(you’re welcome, Brian)
They still do, and I’ll laugh when they ignore a CFP result and keep the loser ranked higher (like an SEC team getting upset in round 1). I think they should both go back to declaring champs after the regular season and just ignore the CCGs, bowls and CFP. It’s not like anyone cares about their rankings once the CFP rankings start anyway.
2. The bowl season becomes a B1G/SEC challenge as follows:
No thanks. Play your local cupcakes (or the ACC/B12) in those games. I’d be fine with the B10 never playing an SEC team again, especially not in the south. I note you “forgot” to include the Pinstripe. What about the Fenway or Quick Lane bowls? Military bowl? (you didn’t just pick southern sites – I’m not saying you did).
LikeLike
Although I used the phrase “nuked the playoff,” that isn’t going to happen. The only remaining question is if it’ll expand in the 2024 season, or continue in its current form for two additional years. After that, it’ll be a 12-team playoff — with the Rose Bowl or without them.
Whatever little bit of leverage the Rose Bowl has now (and it is not much, apparently), they lose it entirely after the current contracts expire. If the Rose Bowl scuttles the expansion, costing the industry $450 million, they will be offered the annual consolation game on ESPN+ featuring the Big Ten #4 vs. the Pac-12 #2. Tag line: “It’s a Losers’ Bowl, but hey, we have a great view of the mountains!”
LikeLike
So maybe the B10 could finally start winning a decent percentage of them? That would be a nice change of pace.
With the CFP, it will be a game of equals (all the better teams are out of the mix) – is that better?
LikeLike
z33k,
“I think the Rose Bowl’s position is much weaker due to the Big Ten taking USC/UCLA than it was before that.”
I agree.
“Why? Because the Big Ten’s (and Pac-12’s) interest has shifted. Before, when the Big Ten viewed the Pac-12 as an equal partner, things were different. Delany negotiated the crossover game; the Rose Bowl had 2 conferences of similar power behind it and protecting the game.”
It’s also Delany vs Warren. Delany would value it more than Warren ever will, which is just another reason Warren is a bad commissioner for the B10.
“The Big Ten knows, 3 or 4 of its teams are likely to be in the playoff in any given year.”
They hope. This year it’d be three.
“Protecting the traditional Rose Bowl matchup doesn’t do much when Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/USC are way more focused on going to the playoff.”
The solution is killing the CFP, not killing the Rose Bowl. But I agree, it will be a less important game in the expanded CFP world.
“I think 100% that Marc is onto something here with the focus on the notion that nobody (not even whispers/leaks in the background) are coming from the Big Ten or Pac-12 to protect the Rose Bowl.”
But they also aren’t coming out against the Rose Bowl when they could be. I’m sure both are talking to the Rose behind the scenes, but they have ties to both sides so they appear to be staying neutral. It’s a terrible look for the B10 and P12, frankly. They should take a position publicly.
“The traditional Rose Bowl matchup is basically done with USC/UCLA moving to the Big Ten.”
UCLA hasn’t been there since 1999, and USC once since 2009. MI hasn’t gone since 2007, and OSU thrice since 1997. 9 of the last 10 P12 teams in the Rose were not USC or UCLA.
“The Big Ten is probably okay with scenarios that the Rose Bowl may not like as much (i.e. the higher rated Big Ten/Pac-12 team getting slotted there in a quarterfinal).”
So say that publicly. Being silent is cowardly.
“I think it bears watching what happens here; as valuable as the Rose Bowl has been historically for the Big Ten/Pac-12, things will change substantially in a 12 team playoff where 3-4 Big Ten teams aren’t available every year.”
That’s the great unknown. Exactly why does the Rose draw such strong viewership? The CFP claims it’s all the time slot. Is it the time/setting? Is it the conferences? Is it the teams?
Lesser teams will reduce the viewership, as being a meaningless bowl already has to some extent. Competing with the CFP would obviously hurt them. But it’s not like they can change their start time much, since it’s linked to the parade.
If the semis will be on 1/1 as they are discussing now, I don’t see the problem in playing games at 12, 4 and 8 every year (Orange, Rose, Sugar) – 2 semis and a bowl. Other bowls (Fiesta, Cotton, Peach, Citrus, …) can compete with the bowl game, but not the CFP.
If the quarters will be on/near 1/1 as the presidents initially said, that’s different. But I think fighting the NFL is a bigger concern. Make the Rose a permanent quarterfinal with no shot at a semi or NCG.
LikeLike
It’s also Delany vs Warren. Delany would value it more than Warren ever will, which is just another reason Warren is a bad commissioner for the B10.
It’s funny you say that. I always thought Delany’s middle name was “Cash.” He followed the money. For most of his tenure, the Rose Bowl was the most lucrative place for his teams to play. That, and only that, was the reason he supported it for so long — not due to any sentimental attachment.
LikeLike
He’s also the one who supported Legends and Leaders, and fought against a playoff (pre-BCS years especially). He didn’t chase every dollar if he felt something more important was at stake. But once he decided to chase money (BTN for example), then he was ruthless about it.
LikeLike
4m viewer club for Week 14.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
17.14m Michigan at Ohio State Sa 11/26 noon FOX
6.71m Florida at Florida State Fr 11/25 7:30p ABC
6.68m Notre Dame at USC Sa 11/26 7:30p ABC
6.27m Auburn at Alabama Sa 11/26 3:30p CBS
4.34m Iowa State at TCU Sa 11/26 4p FOX
Dishonorable mention goes to my beloved Tigers inexplicably not showing up in College Station and the Aggies picking THAT game to finally play up to pre-season expectations.
3.92m LSU at Texas A&M Sa 7p ESPN
LikeLike
I was shocked when I saw that score, but it was a chaos weekend.
LikeLike
BTW, despite all the talk about the B10 being down, I had my doubts that the viewership numbers for the B10 in 2022 were all that different in 2022 vs 2021, so being the nerd that I am, I added up all the viewers for all B10 games on Fox, ABC, and ESPN (so no FS1, ESPN2, etc).
2022:
Fox: 83.91mm viewers in 17 B10-controlled games
ABC: 54.52mm viewers in 13 B10-controlled games
ESPN: 5.97 viewers in 4 B10-controlled games
2021:
Fox: 85.71mm viewers in 15 B10-controlled games
ABC: 69.21mm viewers in 15 B10-controlled games
ESPN: 7.23mm viewers in 4 B10-controlled games
So B10 viewership roughly the same between 2021 and 2022 other than the ABC games (the WWL seemed terrible at picking B10 games this year).
More importantly, as I calculated that Fox would have been expecting 75mm total viewers and the Mouse 55mm total viewers given what they paid, I think Fox is very happy about the B10 both years while the Mouse is OK with 2022 (B10 games on ABC still averaged over 4mm viewers/game) and was over the moon in 2021.
LikeLike
For some perspective, in 2021 the average NFL game viewership was 17.1 million, or pretty much exactly the same as MICH – OSU.
LikeLike
Hallelujah! Rose bowl backs off its unreasonable demands and signs the deal.
12 team playoff in 2024 moving forward per Pete Thamel.
LikeLike
Bluntly, I think that the Rose Bowl knew the Big Ten wasn’t going to back up its demands here.
At the end of the day, they had to get in line.
No way this was going to be held up when the presidents want this to move forward.
At the end of the day, the Rose Bowl was swimming naked. Yes it’s a valuable showcase, but the Big Ten is no longer as interested in protecting the traditional Rose Bowl matchup.
LikeLike
Sometimes there is no need to overthink the obvious. The lack of vocal support from the Big Ten and Pac-12 turned out to mean exactly what we thought it did. The Rose Bowl’s true leverage turned out to be exactly what ESPN reported yesterday: none.
LikeLike
No, they had some leverage. They just didn’t have more leverage than the CFP had.
It’s too bad. R.I.P Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
They didn’t do anything all that crazy. They tried to negotiate a deal, and gave up when the other side refused and time ran out. People talk like they were committing horrible crimes by daring to negotiate. They didn’t delay anything.
LikeLike
The problem is that the Rose Bowl was asking for guarantees for 2026 and beyond but nobody could grant that.
The whole season could be restructured if the season moves up a week and the first round and possibly second are played on campus.
LikeLike
If they move the season up and have first round and quarterfinals on campus I would propose the Rose Bowl become a permanent semifinal in its traditional time slot. I know other bowls wouldn’t be happy but beyond the Orange and the Sugar Bowl are there any really worth saving?
You would maximize TV viewership with this approach. B1G would lose the relationship but that would be gone anyway if quarterfinals are moved to campus. Sprinkle in 2 or 3 other bowls on NYD morning and I think that solves the issue. If you need more teams involved in the post season then increase to 16 teams and add a few other bowls the week leading up to New Years.
LikeLike
If they move the season up and have first round and quarterfinals on campus I would propose the Rose Bowl become a permanent semifinal in its traditional time slot.
Well, the Rose Bowl proposed to be a semifinal two years out of every three and the mangers turned them down.
I know other bowls wouldn’t be happy but beyond the Orange and the Sugar Bowl are there any really worth saving?
What exactly makes the Sugar and Orange Bowls worth saving, and not the others? There’s tradition, but you saw how much that mattered in the Rose Bowl’s case. Ultimately, the survivors will be the ones who can cough up the most money. That is really what this is about.
You would maximize TV viewership with this approach. B1G would lose the relationship but that would be gone anyway if quarterfinals are moved to campus. Sprinkle in 2 or 3 other bowls on NYD morning and I think that solves the issue.
Quarterfinals on New Year’s Day probably maximizes TV viewership. There is a long history of watching college football on that day. When the BCS tried to move those bowls to other days, ratings went down. TV audiences on a random Saturday in December will be good, but probably lower. Meanwhile, the other 2 or 3 bowls you are talking about would be losers’ bowls, with none of the top 12 available to them.
LikeLike
If you want to showcase your sport to the country you play the semi final in the Rose Bowl every year. The Rose Bowl attracts people that are not big sports fans due to the beauty and pageantry. On average the Rose Bowl would out rate an equivalent game even if played at the same time.
The Rose Bowl is worth saving. Same as the Kentucky Derby or the Masters. The later 2 draw better ratings than their counterparts and it’s often the uniqueness of their venues.
LikeLike
Of course they could grant that. Contracts like that are made all the time. They weren’t going to grant that, but they could.
LikeLike
Best part of this news is that Frank will create a new post so we’ll have a new comment thread that’s way shorter.
LikeLike
I’d rather they had opted out (and chosen to wither on the vine from 2026 on). Either way, the Rose Bowl is dead.
LikeLike
I believe the Rose Bowl negotiation was something like this. I’ve the utmost respect for Brian — possibly the smartest guy here — but a negotiator he is not.
LikeLike
What, exactly, was the harm in them asking? Everyone else already dislikes them, and they had more value at stake than any other game. I never said they should get their way, I said the CFP should’ve actually engaged them early in good faith negotiations. They could’ve reached this same place without all the public outcry and rancor.
LikeLike
What, exactly, was the harm in them asking?
They delayed the inevitable for months, and in the end got nothing they were asking for. I suspect the CFP managers will remember that the next time the Rose Bowl wants a favor.
It’s not a good look when you’re the last holdout, and your position is so unreasonable that you get nothing. I can’t measure the effects, but every news story portrayed them in a negative light. Maybe there are some hidden costs of that.
LikeLike
What was actually delayed? They still plan to expand in 2024-25.
LikeLike
Yeah, the Rose just annoyed everyone in the process and destroyed goodwill, which is dumb when their future is mostly reliant on the goodwill of potential allies.
LikeLike
They never had goodwill with anyone but the B10 and P12, just a brand with a lot of value.
LikeLike
So you were wrong the first time when you said “everyone”, as “everyone” definitely would include the B10 and Pac. And that’s what I’m getting at. Right now, the only thing the Rose has going for it is nostalgia by the B10 and Pac. But they jeopardized their goodwill there. That isn’t smart.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean to include the B10 and P12 in that. I thought it was clear that “everyone else” was the other bowls and conferences, not the Rose, B10 or P12.
LikeLike
No, it’s not clear at all, Brian. The B10 and Pac aren’t tied at the hip to the Rose.
LikeLike
Your mistake is thinking that everyone already disliked the Rose. For sure, if you negotiate from that assumption, you will definitely end up with everyone disliking you.
For a long time, the B10 and Pac were willing to stick up for the Rose, but after this little maneuver, the Rose ended up with nothing and probably lost allies.
LikeLike
From the athletic . . .
Updated college football bowl projections: Penn State to Rose, Ohio State to Orange
PHOENIX, AZ – DECEMBER 27: Cheez-It bowl logos on first down markers before the Cheez-It Bowl college football game between the Air Force Falcons and the Washington State Cougars on December 27, 2019 at Chase Field in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo by Kevin Abele/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
By Scott Dochterman and Stewart Mandel
Nov 30, 2022
The Rose Bowl’s likelihood to invite Penn State and shift Ohio State to the Orange set forth a chain reaction involving 17 different matchup changes. It’s not as simple as flipping those Big Ten rivals and calling it good. When the Orange Bowl selects a Big Ten team, the league vacates its ReliaQuest Bowl (formerly the Outback) spot to the ACC/Notre Dame. That Tampa, Fla.-based bowl has the first ACC/Notre Dame selection after the New Year’s Six and the ripple effect goes from there.
While the prospect of a Notre Dame-LSU game in Tampa sounds fantastic, knowing the SEC controls its contract pool of bowls brought us back to reality. Unless it’s in the New Year’s Six, don’t count on a Brian Kelly Bowl anytime soon.
A couple of other notes. Buffalo can become the 80th bowl-eligible team with a win against Akron. The NCAA Football Oversight Committee will hear New Mexico State’s waiver request on Thursday. New Mexico State (5-6) had its game against San Jose State canceled in October when SJSU running back Camdan McWright was killed in an auto accident one day before kickoff. New Mexico State has since scheduled a game against non-scholarship FCS team Valparaiso for this weekend. If the waiver is denied, New Mexico State will count as a five-win team, not six.
If there aren’t 82 bowl-eligible teams, the five-win team with the best Academic Progress Rate (APR) becomes a fill-in opponent. Rice has the best APR among 5-7 teams, followed by UNLV. Auburn and Michigan State are tied for third, but Auburn won the tiebreaker based on a better APR score one year ago.
Reminders:
• Most bowls do not have to select in strict order of conference standings. “Big 12 No. 3” means third choice, not third place. The SEC office plays matchmaker with its bowls and schools.
• Notre Dame can fill one of the ACC’s bowl spots.
• ESPN Events owns and operates 16 of the 41 FBS bowls, most of them involving the Group of 5 conferences. It has the latitude to move teams around to create interesting matchups.
• Bowls’ priorities range from TV audiences to maximizing attendance. A team like Texas could generate sizable ratings, but a motivated fan base like Kansas could swarm to a location in droves and help boost ticket sales and the local economy.
All times Eastern.
New Year’s Six
Orange
Dec. 30
Clemson (ACC) vs. Ohio State (SEC/B1G/ND)
Miami
8 p.m. ESPN
Sugar
Dec. 31
Kansas State (Big 12) vs. Alabama (SEC)
New Orleans
Noon, ESPN
Fiesta
Dec. 31
No. 2 Michigan vs. No. 3 TCU
Glendale, Ariz.
4 p.m./8 p.m. ESPN
Peach
Dec. 31
No. 1 Georgia vs. No. 4 USC
Atlanta
4 p.m./8 p.m. ESPN
Cotton
Jan. 2
Tennessee (at-large) vs. Tulane (at-large/G5)
Arlington, Texas
1 p.m. ESPN
Rose
Jan. 2
Penn State (B1G) vs. Washington (Pac-12)
Pasadena, Calif.
5 p.m. ESPN
Remaining bowls
Bahamas
Dec. 16
Miami-OH (MAC) vs. UAB (C-USA)
Nassau, Bahamas
11:30 a.m. ESPN
Cure
Dec. 16
Marshall (ESPN) vs. BYU (ESPN)
Orlando, Fla.
3 p.m. ESPN
Fenway
Dec. 17
Wake Forest (ACC No. 9) vs. East Carolina (AAC)
Boston
11 a.m. ESPN
New Mexico
Dec. 17
San Jose State (MWC) vs. Rice (ESPN)
Albuquerque, N.M.
2:15 p.m. ESPN
LA Bowl
Dec. 17
Washington State (Pac-12 No. 6) vs. Boise State (MWC No. 1)
Inglewood, Calif.
3:30 p.m. ABC
Lendingtree
Dec. 17
Southern Miss (Sun Belt No. 5) vs. Bowling Green (C-USA/MAC)
Mobile, Ala.
5:45 p.m. ESPN
Vegas
Dec. 17
Oregon (Pac-12 No. 3) vs. LSU (SEC Nos. 3-8)
Las Vegas
7:30 p.m. ABC
Frisco
Dec. 17
Houston (ESPN) vs. Fresno State (ESPN)
Frisco, Texas
9:15 p.m. ESPN
Myrtle Beach
Dec. 19
South Alabama (ESPN) vs. Liberty (ESPN)
Myrtle Beach, S.C.
2:30 p.m. ESPN
Idaho Potato
Dec. 20
Utah State (MWC) vs. Buffalo (MAC)
Boise, Idaho
3:30 p.m. ESPN
Boca Raton
Dec. 20
Georgia Southern (ESPN) vs. Connecticut (ESPN)
Boca Raton, Fla.
7:30 p.m. ESPN
New Orleans
Dec. 21
Troy (Sun Belt No. 2) vs. North Texas (C-USA)
New Orleans
8 p.m. ESPN
Armed Forces
Dec. 22
Air Force (ESPN) vs. Oklahoma State (ESPN)
Fort Worth, Texas
7:30 p.m. ESPN
Independence
Dec. 23
Louisiana* (Army) vs. Memphis (AAC)
Shreveport, La.
3 p.m. ESPN
Gasparilla
Dec. 23
Coastal Carolina (ESPN) vs. Cincinnati (ESPN)
Tampa, Fla.
6:30 p.m. ESPN
Hawaii
Dec. 24
San Diego State (MWC) vs. Middle Tennessee (C-USA)
Honolulu
8 p.m. ESPN
Quick Lane
Dec. 26
Wisconsin (Big Ten No. 8) vs. Eastern Michigan (MAC)
Detroit
2:30 p.m. ESPN
Camellia
Dec. 27
UTSA (ESPN) vs. Ohio (ESPN)
Montgomery, Ala.
Noon ESPN
First Responder
Dec. 27
UNLV (ESPN) vs. Western Kentucky (ESPN)
University Park, Texas
3:15 p.m./6:45 p.m. ESPN
Birmingham
Dec. 27
SMU (AAC) vs. Florida (SEC No. 9)
Birmingham, Ala.
3:15 p.m./6:45 p.m. ESPN
Guaranteed Rate
Dec. 27
Illinois (Big Ten No. 7) vs. Baylor (Big 12 No. 6)
Phoenix
10:15 p.m. ESPN
Military
Dec. 28
UCF (AAC) vs. Duke (ACC No. 8)
Annapolis, Md.
2 p.m. ESPN
Liberty
Dec. 28
Kansas (Big 12 No. 5) vs. Missouri (SEC Nos. 3-8)
Memphis, Tenn.
5:30 p.m. ESPN
Holiday
Dec. 28
Pittsburgh (ACC Nos. 2-4) vs. Utah (Pac-12 No. 4)
San Diego
8 p.m. Fox
Texas
Dec. 28
Texas Tech (Big 12 No. 4) vs. Arkansas (SEC Nos. 3-8)
Houston
9 p.m. ESPN
Pinstripe
Dec. 29
Minnesota (Big Ten No. 5) vs. Syracuse (ACC Nos. 5-7)
Bronx, N.Y.
2 p.m. ESPN
Cheez-It
Dec. 29
Oklahoma (Big 12 No. 3) vs. Florida State (ACC Nos. 2-4)
Orlando, Fla.
5:30 p.m. ESPN
Alamo
Dec. 29
Texas (Big 12 No. 2) vs. UCLA (Pac-12 No. 2)
San Antonio, Texas
9 p.m. ESPN
Duke’s Mayo
Dec. 30
Maryland (Big Ten No. 6) vs. NC State (ACC Nos. 5-7)
Charlotte, N.C.
Noon ESPN
Sun
Dec. 30
Louisville (ACC Nos. 5-7) vs. Oregon State (Pac-12 No. 5)
El Paso, Texas
2 p.m. CBS
Gator
Dec. 30
North Carolina (ACC Nos. 3-5) vs. Kentucky (SEC Nos. 3-8)
Jacksonville, Fla.
3:30 p.m. ESPN
Arizona
Dec. 30
Wyoming (MWC) vs. Toledo (MAC)
Tucson, Ariz.
4:30 p.m. Barstool
Music City
Dec. 31
Iowa (Big Ten No. 4) vs. Ole Miss (SEC Nos. 3-8)
Nashville
Noon ABC
ReliaQuest
Jan. 2
Notre Dame (ACC No. 2) vs. Mississippi St. (SEC Nos. 3-8)
Tampa, Fla.
Noon ESPN2
Citrus
Jan. 2
Purdue (Big Ten No. 2) vs. South Carolina (SEC No.2 )
Orlando, Fla.
1 p.m. ABC
Teams that have accepted official bids are in bold.
LikeLike
Official Announcement: College Football Playoff Expands to 12 Teams Beginning in 2024
Some details not firmed up yet (e.g., the precise dates of the first round).
LikeLike
Marc – here’s a link that works (hopefully).
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/news/2022/12/1/cfp12-2425.aspx
2024 – opening round on campus during the week that ends 12/21/24. Quarterfinals at Fiesta, Peach, Rose & Sugar. Semifinals at Cotton & Orange. Championship on 1/20/25 in Atlanta.
2025 – opening round on campus TBA. Quarterfinals at Cotton, Orange, Rose & Sugar. Semifinals at Fiesta & Peach. Championship on 1/19/26 in Miami.
LikeLike
National title game MLK Day, which makes a lot of sense.
So it seems like the semis may have to be Th and F night (or W and Th night?) to not conflict with the NFL and have more than 7 days between rounds.
So 2024 season semis 1/9 & 1/10.
LikeLike
Ooops…sorry about the broken link.
2024 – opening round on campus during the week that ends 12/21/24.
Actually, it says: “at either the home field of the higher-seeded team or at another site designated by the higher-seeded institution.” I believe this was a compromise because some Northern schools — Ohio State stood out — said they were uneasy about hosting a home game that late in the year.
It will be interesting to see how that works. How much would it cost to reserve a domed stadium that might not be used, depending on who the 5–8 seeds are? Who pays if that happens?
To use this year as an example…if chalk holds this weekend, then the first-round hosts would be OSU, Alabama, Tennessee, and PSU (two northern teams). If USC loses its CCG, then the first-round hosts are probably USC, Alabama, Tennessee, and PSU (one northern team).
I don’t know if PSU would have the same qualms about hosting a late December game that OSU had.
LikeLike
Reserving a stadium is up to the school who cares to do it, so if OSU doesn’t want to play at home, they pay. I doubt many schools, even in the North, will feel the same way as OSU.
LikeLike
Reserving a stadium is up to the school who cares to do it…
I’ll believe that when it’s decided. Although I believe Gene Smith was sincere, I suspect in the end OSU will stage the game at home.
LikeLike
@Marc
“I don’t know if PSU would have the same qualms about hosting a late December game that OSU had.”
I would suspect we would have absolutely none! If PSU were finally good enough to make ‘the tournament’, I can’t imagine them giving up any home field advantage. Besides, it’s not like they have any alternative sites nearby. At least OSU could consider Indianapolis, or (with hysterical laughter) Detroit, or Cincinnati.
And please, CFB Playoffs, start calling yourself what you actually are-“MONEY MADNESS”! I look forward to hearing of future first rounders declining to participate for ‘Ol State U’.
LikeLike
And please, CFB Playoffs, start calling yourself what you actually are-“MONEY MADNESS”!
College football has been about money for many decades, certainly since before all of us were born. Just about every change in the history of the game has come with a rending of garments by traditionalists. Eventually, a new generation of fans grows up who never knew it any other way.
LikeLike
Before 1984, the TV money was tiny and controlled by the NCAA. It has changed a lot since then to be more about the money.
LikeLike
Before 1984, the TV money was tiny and controlled by the NCAA. It has changed a lot since then to be more about the money.
I agree that 1984 was a watershed year.
But even before 1984, there was a steady expansion in the number of bowls: only the Rose Bowl in 1930, fifteen of them by 1980. Of course, the Big Ten’s restriction that only its champ could go to a bowl had been lifted in the mid-1970s. The regular season expanded too, from nine games in the 1950s, to 10 in the 1960s, to 11 in the 1970s.
All of those changes made more money.
LikeLike
Yep, and colleges were admitting football players who couldn’t read just to win games and fill stands. That wasn’t out of the goodness of their hearts (as they’d often revoke the athletic scholarships if players got injured). It was to make money. And all that was happening before you were born, Brian.
Unless you’re over 100 years old, you’ve never experienced a time when money didn’t have a major influence on college football.
LikeLike
The regular season varied by conference for a long time. The B10 was still playing 9 games in the 60s (at least OSU was). And they really didn’t make much money back then. Media money was a pittance, and tickets were cheap by modern standards.
All streams of revenue have grown tremendously, but it TV even faster than the others.
LikeLike
@Marc
“College football has been about money for many decades, certainly since before all of us were born.”
Really!? Perhaps you need a more limited factual statement, and certainly a self-reset on the demographics of this blogs participants. I am a forties boomer and have watched CFB since the mid 50s. I do not recall money becoming a mainstream discussion until the 80’s. And as Brian alludes to below, here is what started us on the road to where we are today.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/85/
” Just about every change in the history of the game has come with a rending of garments by traditionalists.”
Thanks for noticing, but dude, I am down to my ‘frickin’ depends!
“Eventually, a new generation of fans grows up who never knew it any other way.”
That’s wonderful; I just don’t want them to do it on my watch!
LikeLike
Brian and LargeR:
Money may not have been discussed as publicly, but you’re deluding yourself if you thought that money didn’t have a big impact back in the day as well. More likely is that you 2 were just ignorant of the reality of college football back then because you were young and money wasn’t discussed as much.
The point about tickets being cheap: maybe in absolute terms, but in absolute terms, everything was cheap back in the day. In relative terms, football games were already bringing in big amounts of revenue back in the day. Why did you think Michigan built a 72K seat stadium back in 1927? It wasn’t out of the goodness of their hearts to let more people to see the wonders of Michigan football. It was to extract more ticket revenue.
The 1894 Harvard-Yale game netted $119K, or over $3mm in current dollars. Around that time, the salary of professors at Harvard/Yale/Amherst was about 2.3K-2.5K/year. So that 1 game brought in enough money to pay for 50 professors for a year.
Money certainly had enough impact to sway schools in to admitting illiterate kids solely to play football. It’s frankly weird to me that you think a change in the postseason of college football is so tragic yet you seem unperturbed by colleges making a mockery of their academic mission by letting in kids who clearly don’t belong in college (and have done so for over a century) just to play football.
LikeLike
“Money may not have been discussed as publicly, but you’re deluding yourself if you thought that money didn’t have a big impact back in the day as well.”
It was not nearly as important back in the day, and especially not TV money. OSU’s athletic revenue has doubled since 2005 – inflation is half that. Media revenue is about to surpass total ticket sales, which it has never done before.
The B10 had annual revenue of about $20M when Delany took over in 1989. That would be $48M today ($4.8M per school). Media revenue has exploded, and is driving the changes.
“The point about tickets being cheap: maybe in absolute terms, but in absolute terms, everything was cheap back in the day. In relative terms, football games were already bringing in big amounts of revenue back in the day.”
Tickets to the dedication game vs MI in Ohio Stadium cost $2.50 in 1922. That would be $44.35 in 2022 dollars. The cheapest ticket to The Game this year was $149 face value. Tickets were cheaper in the past, period.
“Money certainly had enough impact to sway schools in to admitting illiterate kids solely to play football.”
Ego and a coach wanting to keep his job can also explain that.
“you seem unperturbed by colleges making a mockery of their academic mission by letting in kids who clearly don’t belong in college (and have done so for over a century) just to play football.”
1. You have zero idea how either of us feel about that.
2. Not every school has the same academic mission.
3. Who “belongs” in college? Did someone put you in charge of that and not tell us? That’s the exact same sentiment racists have used for centuries to keep minorities out of schools (not that I think you mean it that way).
4. Schools have been doing that for legacies for over a century. Where’s the outrage over dumb but rich white kids getting in? OSU does it for people outside of football and hoops as well, they are just who gets media attention.
LikeLike
Brian, I am mostly definitely against legacies as well even though in theory, my kids would stand to benefit from that (ha!) but my point is that money has been corrupting college football since nearly the beginning.
LikeLike
A home in an open stadium in the north is December is wantonly reckless endangerment of the fans, athletes, officials, and staff. It is simply unconscionable, especially when Lucas is available. I hope if OSU or Michigan or PSU they get sued into bankruptcy.
LikeLike
How do fans of northern NFL teams ever survive this cruel world?
LikeLike
With taxpayer funded new stadiums (often with domes) and stadium improvements to make them safely usable in winter.
LikeLike
Northern NFL stadiums are designed for winter use. CFB stadiums are not, because historically most of them are not used past Thanksgiving.
I suspect eventually there’ll be a game like Ole Miss at Wisconsin in a blizzard with the wind chill below zero. On fairly short notice, they’d have to come up with cold weather gear that they have never needed before. NFL teams have it, because they play in December every year.
The potential issues are not trivial.
LikeLike
Marc, as you mentioned yourself, northern FCS and other lower division schools host playoff games in Dec on short notice all the time.
LikeLike
I hope some fans sue the crap out of schools for slip and falls and other injuries. Take all the millions out of the CFP and give it to the lawyers. That’d be karma.
LikeLike
Yes, yes, Brian, we’re already well aware you’re a spiteful bitter old man. You don’t have to keep telling us that.
LikeLike
A home in an open stadium in the north is December is wantonly reckless endangerment of the fans, athletes, officials, and staff.
Oh, come on! FCS does it, and has for years. (And I’ll bet their stadiums have fewer creature comforts than those in FBS do.)
LikeLike
And fewer people, smaller facilities, less traffic, and often not centuries old plumbing buried in feet of ancient concrete.
The biggest concern is a frozen field and injuries (research shows they do increase in cold weather). but you also have risks for fans on site and traffic accidents on slippery roads.
LikeLike
Is Lambeau Field wantonly reckless endangerment of the fans, athletes, officials, and staff?
LikeLike
Yes. It is criminal.
LikeLike
@Bob
As a Packer fan and a Wisconsinite I can tell you 80k season ticket holders disagree. You dress for the cold weather as a fan.
Players have heaters. College stadiums such as Camp Randall also have heaters on the sidelines.
If we are not going play on campus you might as well cancel the playoff and go back to the BCS.
LikeLike
Let’s be realistic here. In the Midwest, he first week in December isn’t much different than the last week in November. The really cold stuff is late December, January and February.
LikeLike
Exactly. Mid to late January is cold. Early December is pretty mild. 10 degrees and under is cold. Anything above is no big deal.
All the northern college stadiums are equipped with the same stuff the pros use including heaters and heated benches. Every team has parkas.
LikeLike
Kevin: “All the northern college stadiums are equipped with the same stuff the pros use including heaters and heated benches. Every team has parkas.”
And think about all of those kids in Canada playing outdoor hockey all winter long. And that ice is really hard!
LikeLike
Kevin,
The fans volunteer for it so let them enjoy it.
The refs have no choice, nor do the staff or players. At some point exposing them all to extreme cold and wind chills is reckless. Players in the Ice Bowl suffered permanent injuries from the cold.
LikeLike
Midwestern cold snaps are hit or miss in early to mid December. But the record low in Columbus for 12/21 is -15 with an average of 26. Get a polar vortex coming in like happened a few years ago, and it could be dangerously cold.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“All the northern college stadiums are equipped with the same stuff the pros use including heaters and heated benches. Every team has parkas.”
1. Outdoor pro stadiums often have heated fields to prevent frozen ground. Many college fields lack that.
2. Northern teams have heaters. Some have heated benches, but far from all do. But some may only have them for the home team.
LikeLike
This isn’t rocket science. The ground is rarely frozen in early December. I’ve been living in Wisconsin for 50 years.
You tarp the field and have heaters going before the game.
Heated benches can be trucked in if necessary. They are heated with propane tanks. This is comical that people are losing their minds over this issue.
Cold is a mind set.
LikeLike
Kevin: “This isn’t rocket science. The ground is rarely frozen in early December. I’ve been living in Wisconsin for 50 years. You tarp the field and have heaters going before the game.”
Also, there is no question that that global warming is occurring in the Midwest. The corn belt has been moving northward for years (link) and the seed companies in the western Canadian provinces are planning for a shift from wheat to corn in as little as five years.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farmers-must-adapt-as-u-s-corn-belt-shifts-northward/
There will also be a vast increase in arable land in Canada by 2050. There is no question that the Midwest will have extended growing seasons and warmer weather.
LikeLike
No heated benches for visitors are a home field advantage. Even in the NFL Dallas shipped in benches last year because they were informed by previous team that visiting benches were out of order.
Very few college teams have heated fields. There are also plumbing issues at restrooms and concession stands that do not exist at NFL stadiums.
LikeLike
The ice bowl was -13 with a -35 degree chill factor. That doesn’t happen very often and the teams would make arrangements if there was that type of forecast.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“You tarp the field and have heaters going before the game.”
That’s almost exactly the mistake they made for the Ice Bowl, IIRC.
“Heated benches can be trucked in if necessary.”
And players and equipment can be bussed to a domed stadium.
“Cold is a mind set.”
1300 Americans die every year from exposure on average. That doesn’t sound like a mindset to me.
LikeLike
A bunch of pussy cats.
LikeLike
The Big Ten has far more in common now with the SEC than it does with any other conference. It’s important to remember that when we discuss things like CFP expansion. The shift from a Power Five to a Big Two has changed everything.
Yes, Big Ten and SEC fans may disagree on many things, but the two conferences are far more alike than any other two at this point.
Ultimately, that’s why the Rose Bowl has no leverage. The Rose Bowl is whatever the Big Ten thinks it should be. Yes the Pac-12 has a voice, but even if the Pac-12 supported the Rose Bowl getting traditional Big Ten/Pac-12 matchups, that requires the Big Ten to sign on…
I agree with Brian that possibly things might be different with a staunch traditionalist like Delany in charge.
But maybe not (after all, Delany did pull the trigger on many changes like adding Penn State/Rutgers/Maryland and the 9th conference game; Delany also supported the BCS and then the CFP which both eroded the Rose Bowl relationship).
Once USC saw Texas/Oklahoma move to the SEC, they were leaving the Pac-12. And the Big Ten was never going to say no to USC. You never say no to a school like that. Delany would have added USC/UCLA.
And that finished off the Rose Bowl relationship. There’s just no interest on the Big Ten side in continuing that when the value of the relationship is gone when USC/UCLA (representing a half of the Rose Bowl’s Pac-12 participants) go to the Big Ten.
Washington/Stanford represent another 15 appearances each; Cal and Oregon another 8 each. Not saying any or all of those schools end up in the Big Ten, but I think Washington and Stanford have a path to the Big Ten. Oregon a possibility. Don’t need the Rose Bowl relationship if the Big Ten is bringing the West Coast schools that it cares about in conference.
It’s a tough day for traditionalists; I get that, but this is where the sport has gone and the Big Ten had to keep pace. Everything over the last 30-40 years feels like it’s led to this point in a series of natural consequences. The escalating TV deals and then the money in the sport and then the collapse of the cable bundle/fracturing of audiences as well as NIL, etc. The Rose Bowl relationship was always living on borrowed time.
LikeLike
No PAC rights deal expected until until early/mid ’23
LikeLike
I saw that. It seems like an awfully slow negotiation. I understand they have to wait for a decision on UCLA’s future, but their schools and fans are going to be getting anxious waiting that long.
LikeLike
z33k,
“The Big Ten has far more in common now with the SEC than it does with any other conference.”
No, it doesn’t. It has athletic financial concerns in common with the SEC, and that’s it. The two have vastly different views on almost everything that actually matters to a university – academics, the value of a broad athletic department, etc.
…
“I agree with Brian that possibly things might be different with a staunch traditionalist like Delany in charge.
…
“There’s just no interest on the Big Ten side in continuing that when the value of the relationship is gone when USC/UCLA (representing a half of the Rose Bowl’s Pac-12 participants) go to the Big Ten.”
Delany might still see some value in the Rose Bowl. Warren never would, because it’s not the NFL.
USC is 1/3 of the all-time P12 teams in the Rose Bowl, but USC has only appeared once since 2009. UCLA hasn’t gone since 1999. 9 of the last 10 P12 teams weren’t from LA.
“It’s a tough day for traditionalists;”
It’s always a tough day for traditionalists, because everyone else wants to keep screwing up the world.
“I get that, but this is where the sport has gone and the Big Ten had to keep pace.”
No, it didn’t. It chose to. It had other options.
“Everything over the last 30-40 years feels like it’s led to this point in a series of natural consequences. The escalating TV deals and then the money in the sport and then the collapse of the cable bundle/fracturing of audiences as well as NIL, etc.”
And soon the trillion dollar law suit for not paying former players, and past head injuries, and anything else they can come up with. I hope the whole sport disappears (same as going semi-pro – it’s not CFB), and tanks all of big time college athletics with it.
LikeLike
Does that mean you’ll finally disappear from the comments sections here?
LikeLike
We need Brian here.
And Colin and Endeavor and Alan and bullet.
The reason this place is such a great discussion board is because of the different perspectives and viewpoints.
A staunch traditionalist like Brian is necessary imo.
LikeLike
Don’t try to swipe my kisses Brian, he meant that for me!! 😘 Here’s to hoping things look up for you in 2023, Richard!! 🙏👍💕 & Keep spreading that sunshine as only you can!! 🌞
LikeLike
Oh, I have kisses to share for everyone (air kisses; I’m not going so far as actually touching any of y’all).
LikeLike
No, it means I’ll have even more time to be here.
As is, I won’t have any more postseason games to ever watch so December and January have freed up nicely.
LikeLike
Sorry. Looks like your Buckeyes backed in this year.
LikeLike
That’s even more reason not to watch. It’ll be a bloodbath.
LikeLike
You remind yourself that you don’t need to read every comment, and then this gem drops:
“It’s always a tough day for traditionalists, because everyone else wants to keep screwing up the world.”
Well played, sir.
LikeLike
Seems like first round and quarterfinals on campus will be an advantage to the Big Ten. Michigan vs Texas in the Big House on Dec 7th would be ideal.
LikeLike
It’s definitely what a lot of B10 fans want to see.
LikeLike
I do believe the round(s) on campus will be an advantage to the northern schools particularly. A lot of the southern teams have kids who perhaps have never even seen December weather up north, much less played in it. That is one of the reasons I suspect the southern schools might resist quarterfinals on campus.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35158491/big-ten-hopeful-university-california-regents-ok-ucla-move
Warren speaks, but not a word about the Rose Bowl. Useless coward.
Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren is hopeful any “remaining open issues” surrounding UCLA’s transition from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten can be resolved when the University of California regents meet Dec. 14.
Warren told ESPN on Thursday that the Big Ten is respectful of the UC regents’ evaluation of UCLA’s intent to join the Big Ten, which was announced June 30.
…
Warren said the Big Ten has addressed sensitive areas such as travel, student-athlete mental health and academics, which have been raised in regents meetings and by others critical of the move. Before a regents meeting in November, UCLA provided a document outlining the school’s financial plans for travel, academic support, mental health services, nutrition and other areas surrounding the conference move, as well as a survey of Bruins athletes about their thoughts on switching leagues. In a statement after the November meeting, the regents said the additional time would allow them to address any additional questions before the final vote.
…
“There are no unanswered questions,” Warren said, “We’re prepared. We have formal integration committees. It’s a perfect fit for USC and UCLA, and we look forward to moving forward together in a respectful manner, once they finalize all of the open issues from a UCLA standpoint that they have with the board in California.”
Warren also told ESPN that the Big Ten will discuss whether to keep or eliminate football divisions at its meetings in the spring next year, in anticipation of a 16-team league for the 2024 season.
LikeLike
Warren speaks, but not a word about the Rose Bowl. Useless coward.
The article gives the impression it was an interview on a particular subject (the integration of USC/UCLA), and he answered what he was asked about.
Even were that not the case, what is there to say? The Rose Bowl got everything it wanted in 2024–2025. The entire issue was a set of ridiculous demands they made about future years for which no decisions have been made.
(I cannot help but laugh about the sudden fondness for Jim Delany, who was one of the most loathed people in sports when he was in power.)
LikeLike
He strayed off topic to mention divisions, but can’t toss in a word about the Rose Bowl? Bull. He very intentionally chose not to say anything on the subject (as he has avoid doing for weeks/months) like the useless coward he is.
“Even were that not the case, what is there to say?”
The B10’s position on the Rose Bowl, whatever it is.
Sure everyone else hated Delany. But he was pretty good at being a commissioner, even if I didn’t agree with all his decisions. Warren is not a college conference commissioner.
LikeLike
Divisions were on topic as it is part of the structure of the conference after the two new schools join. There is nothing imaginable to say about the Rose Bowl. It is beyond obvious that the Big Ten agreed with everyone else that the RB’s demands were absurd, but why poke a stick in their eye when it’s not even necessary to bring it up?
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl is always on topic for the B10 commissioner, plus it is the biggest news story of the moment and is directly related to the move of USC and UCLA (which undermines the RB and its value).
He’s a useless coward.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl ceased being a thing to care about when UCLA and USC announced their intentions to join the B1G.
It sucks. But if we cannot go back to 5 or 6 equalish, 12 team regional ish conferences then I see more acceleration into NFL lite and I kind of hate it.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl started to erode when the Big Ten and the Pac-12 joined the BCS. It crumbled a bit more when the playoff launched.
Last year, the Rose Bowl between Ohio State and Utah was an exciting game, but both teams wanted to be somewhere else. It was the consolation prize for not making the playoff. The Buckeyes sold only 2/3rds of their ticket allotment.
This year, the Rose Bowl is reportedly considering taking Penn State, which has not been to the game since 2017. (That’s if Michigan beats Purdue.)
LikeLike
Marc,
“The Rose Bowl started to erode when the Big Ten and the Pac-12 joined the BCS. It crumbled a bit more when the playoff launched.”
I’d start even earlier – it started to erode in 1986 when the Fiesta payed to get a 1 vs 2 game (PSU vs Miami). It got worse when the Bowl Coalition started in 1992, then even worse with the BCS.
As fans have focused on MNCs, the bowls have died. Part of it was inevitable as travel got so much more common and easier – a trip to CA isn’t such a special thing anymore for many fans.
“This year, the Rose Bowl is reportedly considering taking Penn State, which has not been to the game since 2017. (That’s if Michigan beats Purdue.)”
As I posted below, OSU apparently asked them to pick PSU instead.
LikeLike
Fans always focused on MNCs. It was just stupid in the past when the better teams couldn’t meet because of bowl tie-ins. Bowls making back room deals 7 games into the season. Those were the bad old days.
LikeLike
Not nearly as much they didn’t, especially in the B10. We focused more on winning the conference and going to the Rose Bowl. If you won the Rose, you had a great season and also had a shot at the MNC. Now any non-CFP season is abject failure, and any non-MNC year a waste.
LikeLike
RIP Big Ten-ACC Challenge (aka the only interconference challenge anyone cared about.)
In the final tally. the ACC won the overall series 13-8-3 and won the total games battle 152–127. Interestingly, despite the ACC going 10-0 over the first decade of the challenge, it went only 3-8-3, over the final 14 years.
LikeLike
In the wake of the Rose Bowl’s capitulation, Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel is triumphant.
Wetzel has been thoroughly anti-bowl for decades — he even wrote a book about it. He thinks every playoff round should be on campus except the final — something no one running the sport appears to agree with.
LikeLike
https://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/ohio-state-request-rose-bowl-penn/607959
This is how far we’ve already fallen. OSU has asked the Rose Bowl to pick PSU instead, so OSU can go to the Orange Bowl. We’ve been twice in 4 years, and only sold 13,000 of 20,000 tickets last year. Fans are even less enthusiastic this year after yet another wasted season and season-ending embarrassment, plus knowing most of the top players will opt out of the game anyway.
The reasons for OSU not being in the Rose Bowl are valid, but it should be the Rose wanting PSU instead rather than OSU wanting out.
LikeLike
What you’ve left out is that OSU did not want to go to the Rose Bowl in either case. The preferred outcome was to beat Michigan and go to the playoff. Failing that, they prefer the Orange Bowl. The Rose Bowl is the third choice. And they didn’t want the Rose Bowl last year either.
Since all bowl and playoff revenues are pooled, OSU gets the same payout no matter what. A second Pasadena trip in a row, when the last one was only 2/3rds sold, tells you where their priorities are.
LikeLike
Is there a better argument for why the Rose Bowl has nearly 0 leverage right now than Ohio State being tired of going there after 2 visits in the last 4 years.
Just 3 visits in the last 25 years?
LikeLike
The same Ohio State that played in the Fiesta Bowl setting 4 times in 5 years and 5 times in 7 years under Tressel (yes 2 of those were for the BCS championship) doesn’t mind giving away a Rose Bowl bid after playing there 2 times in 4 years.
LikeLike
Because the entire season is wasted by losing to MI, and the Rose has been rendered a meaningless game by the CFP. OSU wouldn’t have been excited for a repeat Fiesta Bowl after losing to MI either. I doubt OSU will sell out their Orange Bowl tickets either. There is no non-CFP game OSU fans would be excited for, and many wouldn’t even be excited for the CFP and the chance to get embarrassed yet again.
LikeLike
Because the entire season is wasted by losing to MI. . . .
Well, in the old bowl system what would you want in years you lose to Michigan? I realize a lot of OSU fans have come to view beating Michigan as practically automatic, but that historically that was not always the case. Before OSU’s great run over the last ~20 years, that game was usually a toss-up.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Well, in the old bowl system what would you want in years you lose to Michigan?”
For next season to hurry up and get here to try to get revenge. No game ever really mattered after losing to MI.
LikeLike
Marc,
“What you’ve left out is that OSU did not want to go to the Rose Bowl in either case.”
I didn’t leave it out, that was the “how far we’ve already fallen” part.
And I wouldn’t say OSU prefers the Orange Bowl. It’s that OSU hopes more fans will buy tickets for a new location, because they don’t want to be in the Orange Bowl either.
Yay CFP, for making the NYD major bowls undesirable.
LikeLike
Personally, the Rose Bowl relationship was more about the concept of the powerhouses of the West/Pacific playing the powerhouses of the North/Midwest.
By bringing USC and UCLA (or Washington as a placeholder if UCLA is prevented), I think you basically remove the remaining value of the Rose Bowl.
The 14 current Big Ten members will get to play one of USC or UCLA every year. Nearly all schools will get to visit LA every other year (Rose Bowl or Coliseum).
And we all know more expansion is coming. The odds of FSU staying in the ACC are so low that I don’t see how we avoid more realignment in the 2030s.
If I had to put money on any scenario, I’d put money on Miami/Washington in the Big Ten after the next round of realignment. FSU likely chooses SEC over Big Ten, and those 2 make the most sense for the Big Ten after FSU.
For the traditionalists, there is some good news: I think college football will mostly stabilize in terms of conference size and playoff size after a “final” round of realignment in the 2030s.
We’ll likely reach the point where realignment doesn’t make much financial sense and while I can imagine some pushing for playoff expansion to 14-16, I think the Big Ten and SEC will want their champions to have a bye (which they’d be virtually guaranteed after the 2030s realignment in the current system).
LikeLike
I always thought that the Rose Bowl was all about giving the Big Ten Champ a chance to get out of the snow at a time when California was MUCH more appealing than Florida. But now, many Midwestern snowbirds have homes in Arizona or Florida. That would explain the relative appeal of the Fiesta and Orange Bowls relative to the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
It was about that. Going to CA used to be a rare and exotic trip for many people, especially in winter (not the standard summer family road trip).
In general the Rose is still more appealing. OSU fans aren’t excited about any bowl again this year, so the school is hoping a new site will spur better ticket sales.
LikeLike
True. And that is one of the reasons the bowl model is outdated. People travel much more.
LikeLike
There is actually a strong sentiment at FSU to go B1G. The majority of the fans would probably pick SEC, but some of the powers that be like the academic prestige of the B1G compared to the SEC.
Where that will stand in 5 or 10 years remains to be seen.
LikeLike
So did the egg heads at Texas and Oklahoma …
LikeLike
z33k,
“Personally, the Rose Bowl relationship was more about the concept of the powerhouses of the West/Pacific playing the powerhouses of the North/Midwest.”
I partially agree. I think it was about the setting, and B10 fans escaping winter. It happened to be the P10 because having a local host makes sense, but I think it could’ve been just as big if it had been a southern conference playing there since 1903 or whatever, and B10 vs that conference since WWII. But only the P10 made since financially from the Rose’s point of view.
It mostly likely would’ve needed to be the ACC as part of the relationship was the agreement on major topics in college athletics between the B10 and P12, and the B10 never agreed with the SEC or SWC/B12 on those types of issues. In other words, the Orange Bowl with the ACC vs the B10 could’ve been almost the same thing. It was certainly big for the Big 8.
“By bringing USC and UCLA (or Washington as a placeholder if UCLA is prevented), I think you basically remove the remaining value of the Rose Bowl.”
Value for whom? Pasadena? TV? The B10?
I’d agree more if the LA schools had been in the Rose Bowl more often recently, but they have only been there once in over a decade.
“And we all know more expansion is coming.”
No, we just mostly suspect it is. I’m not sure Colin would agree that it is coming.
“The odds of FSU staying in the ACC are so low that I don’t see how we avoid more realignment in the 2030s.”
Anything’s possible.
“If I had to put money on any scenario, I’d put money on Miami/Washington in the Big Ten after the next round of realignment. FSU likely chooses SEC over Big Ten, and those 2 make the most sense for the Big Ten after FSU.”
I don’t think any more expansion happens for the B10 without ND, so I think none will happen. More likely to me would be some new superleague. I just don’t see how the numbers for 18+ work without ND, especially because I’m not convinced any FL school wants to join or that the B10 wants to add them at the moment.
“For the traditionalists, there is some good news:”
No, there isn’t.
“I think college football will mostly stabilize in terms of conference size and playoff size after a “final” round of realignment in the 2030s.”
I doubt it. It will continue the march to NFL lite. Once the genie is out of the bottle on this stuff, it doesn’t stop.
“We’ll likely reach the point where realignment doesn’t make much financial sense”
We have, barring ND moving which they will never do.
“and while I can imagine some pushing for playoff expansion to 14-16,”
There is already a push for 16.
“I think the Big Ten and SEC will want their champions to have a bye (which they’d be virtually guaranteed after the 2030s realignment in the current system).”
That’s why others are already proposing 20-24 like the lower divisions.
LikeLike
But that’s just it, absent the superleague concept, why would the Big Ten and SEC expand further beyond a point where the teams are additive (I believe FSU + Miami or Miami + Washington are additive).
And the same applies to the playoff, if the Big Ten/SEC want 4 champions to get byes (which would almost always include theirs), then why expand the playoff further.
Those factors I think will be key in settling everything down into a more long-term stable configuration.
The Big Ten + SEC will already be like AFC + NFC, just not merged under the same roof. There won’t be a point to significant further change.
LikeLike
…why would the Big Ten and SEC expand further beyond a point where the teams are additive
I don’t think any league expands unless the teams are additive. But (as I recall) there has literally never been a 10-year period without changes of membership among the power conferences.
So I would hesitate to say the end is in sight, because there is never an end. Sure, we all see the possibilities after as the ACC’s GOR approaches expiration. Longer term, there will be new moves for reasons that aren’t apparent to us now.
And the same applies to the playoff, if the Big Ten/SEC want 4 champions to get byes (which would almost always include theirs), then why expand the playoff further.
The trend among playoffs is that they tend to grow. Naturally, it will be about money, because it always is. Expand to 16 and you get four more lucrative games with a boon to the local economies that host them.
There’s already grumbling that although the top four champs get a bye, they don’t get the extra home game that the 5–8 seeds get. I don’t know when it’ll happen, but I am sure they will go to 16 eventually.
LikeLike
The cream of the ACC will get picked off by the SEC and B10 in the 2030’s. It’s possible ND waits a little after that to give up independence. But yes, demographic growth is a strong tailwind for CU and the AZ schools (as well as UW-Seattle). Definitely by around 2050. Huge enrollment and demographic growth a strong tailwind for UCF and Houston by about that time as well.
LikeLike
Richard: “It’s possible ND waits a little after that to give up independence.”
ND has the ideal situation right now with the 12-tem NCP format. They’ll never give up this so-called independence,
Half of their schedule is ACC cupcakes plus Navy. All other opponents are hand-picked by ND. They don’t play a CCG. Six at-large slots after six of the conference champions are automatic. They’re going to get in every year.
LikeLike
They’re going to get in every year.
Well, they wouldn’t get in this year. They would have missed it in 5 out of Brian Kelly’s 12 seasons. So roughly, I would estimate the Irish are a 50/50 shot to make the playoff in most years. But still, that is probably better than if they are in a conference.
LikeLike
Ohio State sitting absolutely pretty tonight.
TN might be the happiest (they’ll get the Orange Bowl bid).
LikeLike
No, they are walking up the ramp into the slaughterhouse. They will get crushed in a semifinal, by UGA or MI.
At least the Rose “controversy” is solved this way, I suppose.
LikeLike
Boy-o, USC B10 games will be a ton of fun to watch* **.
* UCLA B10 games too.
** Unless you appreciate sound fundamentals like blocking and tackling. In that case, you may suffer an aneurysm.
LikeLike
You can throw OSU into that mix, too.
LikeLike
I’m looking forward to the USC-OSU games.
First to 70 wins!
LikeLike
But what about the second half?
LikeLike
The offenses would get a well deserved rest after their exhausting extertion. The defenses too, from the miles they rack up chasing after the ball carrier.
Don’t worry, the first half alone would last 3 hours so you’d still get your money’s worth.
LikeLike
Maybe we want Utah rather than Ucla.
LikeLike
bob sykes: “Maybe we want Utah rather than Ucla.”
This was not a surprise. Last year Utah beat USC 42-26 in LA and they beat Oregon twice, 38-7 and 38-10. Over the past two years the Utes have been the best team in the Pac-12.
LikeLike
From WaPo:
USC’s loss is Ohio State’s gain (college football winners and losers)
December 3, 2022 at 7:38 a.m. EST
Pump the brakes on the restoration of the Trojan dynasty on the Left Coast.
Utah had a bit to say about that Friday night — and it rattled the playoff picture even before Saturday dawned on the East Coast.
The Southern California coronation seemed to be well on its way 20 minutes into the Pac-12 title game. Then Utah tightened up, Trojans quarterback Caleb Williams injured his hamstring, and the No. 11 Utes surged to a 47-24 triumph to knock No. 4 USC (11-2) out of a potential semifinal slot.
Williams’s numbers — 28 of 41 for 363 yards, three touchdowns and an interception — were good. He could still win the Heisman Trophy next weekend.
But the Trojans had no answers for Utah and will wind up in a non-playoff destination (the Cotton Bowl, perhaps?). And Ohio State should set to work penning thank-you notes to some folks in Salt Lake City for giving them a second chance at a national title and creating some tumult on the final weekend before the playoff field is set.
That faint sound late Friday night? That was the repetitive beeping from the No. 5 Buckeyes (11-1) backing into the playoff.
Ohio State entered the weekend needing help to make up for its home loss to Michigan to close out the regular season. And it sure got it from Utah, which smacked around Southern Cal in the second half of the Pac-12 title game en route to a blowout victory.
Now comes a reasonable question: If the Buckeyes were manhandled by Michigan in the Horseshoe, what’s going to happen when they face a Georgia team every bit as physical in a possible semifinal? Or, for that matter, how would they regroup in case of a rematch with the Wolverines?
Legitimate questions, both. But it’s a much better problem for Ryan Day and Ohio State to face than trying to summon the excitement to play the ACC champion in the Orange Bowl. The Buckeyes received new life Friday. It’s up to them to take advantage of it.
LikeLike
Pity their Heisman candidate QB was playing injured for most of the game. Like the first time they met, the USC defense couldn’t contain Utah. But unlike the first time, the USC offense couldn’t match them score for score. After the injury, USC was a different team.
LikeLike
No pity from here for Caleb Williams, whose fingernails were spotted before the game with the message “F— UTAH” (this according to John Canzano). Stay classy, Caleb. Also, Riley reportedly fired his entire defensive staff after the game. As Thurl Ravenscroft may have sung, “You’re a goner, Mr. Grinch…”
LikeLike
Jim Leonhard headed to the Coast?
LikeLike
UC should be reaching out to him about replacing Fickell. It’s a P5 job and in the midwest.
Or maybe OSU could throw $2.5M per year at him to introduce a defense to OSU.
LikeLike
His family doesn’t want to move. 3 kids and family all nearby. He turned down Power 5 head coaching jobs last year. He also turned down the DC job for the Packers.
He played in the NFL for 10 years and was constantly moving. Tough on a young family.
LikeLike
Kevin: “He played in the NFL for 10 years and was constantly moving. Tough on a young family.”
Tell me about it. I was an active duty US Army officer for 28 years and moved 13 times during that period, including eight years overseas. People assume it’s not a problem because we have military quarters available to move into but that is urban legend. We had military quarters availabe to move into exactly twice in 13 moves.
The lowest blow by the Army was 1985 when they ran out of PCS funds. That meant that instead of everybody moving in the summer, we had to wait until the new fiscal year on October 1, So thousands of Army families enrolled their kids in local schools circa Sept 1, pulled them out of school on Oct 1, moved hundreds or thousands of miles to a new station, then enrolled them in new schools in the middle of the semester. In our case, in October of 1985 we moved from Clark Air Base, Philippines, to Munich, West Germany. No quarters available but we got there in time for Octoberfest.
LikeLike
You had it easy Colin! My Dad got transferred 16 times in 22 years with one company and changed jobs some after that, so I had 18 houses in my first 18 years and 8 schools (and that included 4 years in one house for 1st-4th).
LikeLike
bullet: “You had it easy Colin! My Dad got transferred 16 times in 22 years with one company and changed jobs some after that, so I had 18 houses in my first 18 years and 8 schools (and that included 4 years in one house for 1st-4th).”
Sorry, bogus analogy. Private companies pay moving costs including real estate commissions for employees who move. Little doubt the NFL is far more generous than most companies. The federal government does the same for civilians but not for military members. When we PCS, we have ten days to find a home. After that, you report for duty regardless whether your family has a place to live. If you own a home at the base that you just left, selling it and paying the real estate commission is your problem, not Uncle Sams. If I had known all of this when I first took my commission, there is no way I would have had a military career.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Private companies pay moving costs including real estate commissions for employees who move.”
For high level executives, sure. Maybe some others, but it is far from universal. They usually have some relocation assistance, but moving is not always free, especially not when it is an employers’ market. In a tight labor market (like now) you’re more likely to get those funds.
LikeLike
Brian: “For high level executives, sure. Maybe some others, but it is far from universal.”
Well, this conversation is based upon an NFL coach and I hve little doubt their relocation compensation is lavish. Secondly, the federal government pays all moving costs for civilians, whose moves are voluntary. The federal government does not pau all moving costs for military, whose moves are not voluntary.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“His family doesn’t want to move. 3 kids and family all nearby. He turned down Power 5 head coaching jobs last year. He also turned down the DC job for the Packers.
He played in the NFL for 10 years and was constantly moving. Tough on a young family.”
Luke Fickell said all those same things, but it’s hard to return to being a DC after a taste of being HC, and then its hard to not want to climb the ladder eventually.
LikeLike
Fickell also didn’t leave immediately for a HC role somewhere else after he was interim HC for a bit.
LikeLike
Colin,
No, it’s based on a college coach who used to play in the NFL.
But you broadened it when you said:
“Private companies pay moving costs including real estate commissions for employees who move.”
Now you added:
“Secondly, the federal government pays all moving costs for civilians, whose moves are voluntary.”
Which isn’t 100% true, but I don’t feel like getting into the details.
LikeLike
Brian: ‘ “Secondly, the federal government pays all moving costs for civilians, whose moves are voluntary. ” Which isn’t 100% true, but I don’t feel like getting into the details.’
Compared to military members, it is 100% true. Federal civilian employees get their real estate commissions paid when they sell their homes and if it doesn’t sell, the federal government buys the home. The employee gets three appraisals and if unsold after three (?) months, Uncle Sam buys the home paying the middle appraisal.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35200158/jim-leonhard-leave-wisconsin-staff-bowl-game
Jim Leonhard is leaving WI after the bowl game. No word on what his next job may be.
LikeLike
And TCU lost. Looks like GA, AL, tOSU and Mich, 2 SEC and 2 B1G
LikeLike
Pardon most non-B1G and SECers if they yawn or show disgust. Alabama is like Jason — it can’t be killed.
LikeLike
And a lot of B10ers and SECers. Don’t think they all want to see OSU and AL either. Heck, many OSU fans don’t want to see OSU in it. But anything is better than AL getting in.
LikeLike
Bernie: “And TCU lost. Looks like GA, AL, tOSU and Mich, 2 SEC and 2 B1G”
Does two-loss Bama beat out one-loss TCU?
LikeLike
Certainly. Just watch it happen.
LikeLike
I guess we’ll see but I very much doubt TCU drops out for 2-loss Bama.
LikeLike
Bernie,
TCU will stay in, and probably even stays #3. USC might drop out since they also were 11-1 and OSU has the PSU win which USC can’t match.
USC passed OSU because OSU was coming off a loss and not playing in the CCG, but now USC has a big loss to a lower-ranked team than OSU lost to so minds might change. This loss erases the argument that USC only lost to Utah because it was a road game. I could USC staying #4, but the consensus of neutral people is that OSU will climb back to #4.
LikeLike
OK, so what happens now that Kansas State upset Texas Christian in overtime for the Big XII title? My nightmare now is that Ohio State and Alabama both dislodge TCU and Southern Cal from the playoff and we wind up with two Big Ten brand names and two SEC brand names. For many, 2024 and a 12-team playoff couldn’t come soon enough.
LikeLike
My guess in order of probability (assuming UGA and MI win):
1. UGA, MI, TCU, OSU
2. UGA, MI, OSU, TCU
3. UGA, MI, TCU, USC
A 12-0 team losing their CCG in OT to a top 15 team won’t suffer very much. USC is more likely top drop because they lost big to a team they lost narrowly to before. I see no way AL jumps them.
LikeLike
I guess that we will find out in a couple of days.
If the team involved was not Alabama, but say Mississippi, they would not make the playoff, nor deserve it. The committee will do backflips to get Bama in.
Beyond that, is TCU really one of the top 4 teams in the country? Do you think that TCU would only have one loss in the SEC? Or for that matter in the B1G?
LikeLike
1. I think Bama is a more talented team than TCU.
2. Like Brian, I don’t believe the committee will punish a TCU team that only lost in OT to a good team (and controversially; TCU arguably scored a TD on 3rd down before failing to on 4th down).
LikeLike
Bernie,
“Beyond that, is TCU really one of the top 4 teams in the country?”
It doesn’t matter what I think. The CFP committee thought they were before the CCG (and still do today).
“Do you think that TCU would only have one loss in the SEC?”
Probably not, but they might be structured and coached differently if they were in the SEC. They are who they are in part because they play in the B12.
“Or for that matter in the B1G?”
Yes. MI is the only B10 team I feel confident is better than them. OSU and PSU could beat them, but they could also lose to them. It partly depends on the schedule.
LikeLike
Do you think that TCU would only have one loss in the SEC? Or for that matter in the B1G?
Actually, a lot of objective systems have the Big XII as the strongest conference in the country this year. Jeff Sagarin and College Football Reference both give the Horned Frogs a top 15 schedule.
I doubt they are really one of the 4 best teams in the country, but their record has more to do with being a bit lucky than their schedule.
LikeLike
@vpo819 “For many, 2024 and a 12-team playoff couldn’t come soon enough.”
Being not one of the ‘for many’, I’d say be careful what you wish for. Imo, in the future, the SEC will separate itself further from everyone. The year is coming when you could have 4 SEC teams in the semis, and more in the 12 team. But heck, the money will be good for ‘some’ up the food chain, as long as the players at the bottom don’t unionize and remain unpaid, while ‘working’ for NIL and scholarships. A similar economic model was used pre civil war to the benefit of ‘some’.
LikeLike
SEC and B10, you should say (which we already knew). If the 12-team playoff had existed since the CFP began, the B10 would have been the conference that would have gotten the most teams in to the playoffs up to now.
LikeLike
largeR,
I could see that happening, as the SEC continues its dominance on the field. That will further sway recruiting in their favor, and they could regularly have 4, and maybe even 5 (6 in a special year) teams in the CFP, and all the final four spots.
LikeLike
As you seem not to have read my post, I’ll paste it again:
“SEC and B10, you should say (which we already knew). If the 12-team playoff had existed since the CFP began, the B10 would have been the conference that would have gotten the most teams in to the playoffs up to now.”
Going forward, while the B10 doesn’t have the SECs recruiting grounds, it does have the money, and that’s a relative advantage as talent will more and more follow the money (like in the NFL).
OSU/UMich/PSU will also benefit from a relatively easy path to the CFP (they will make it most years and will often be joined by another B10 team (like USC).
The SEC teams will beat each other up (and probably as importantly, many of those programs will be going through angst, turnover and turmoil often as 9/16 teams in the new SEC expect to make the playoffs every year but not all of them will), so no, they won’t have 5 or 6 teams in the CFP.
LikeLike
🎁 All the Cranks down in Frankville were tucked in their bed 🎀 Secure in the notion expansion was dead 🎅 …Then the Grinch left the PAC12 a contract of coal🎄 Now the Cranks down in Frankville are all eating crow! 👼
LikeLike
Alan,
Hopefully Tulane beating UCF (assuming they hold on) makes up for LSU missing the bus to Atlanta. Just about every thing that could go wrong for LSU has in the first half. Sometimes it’s just not your day.
LikeLike
Thanks Brian. It was Georgia’s day and is their season. I feel very good about the LSU program and Kelly going forward. 9-3 was the ceiling for LSU this season, nobody saw LSU in the SEC CCG, and anytime we beat Alabama, it’s a decent season.
Tulane winning the AAC is an incredible accomplishment. This will be the first time since 1939 that the Green Wave will participate in a major bowl. This season was the first season since 1947 that Tulane was ranked playing a ranked team and they did that twice – winning each game. Now bring on the Trojans in the Cotton Bowl!
My biggest disappointment yesterday was TCU. If Alabama makes it in over the Horned Frogs, my head will explode. See guys, I’m not really that much of a SEC homer after all.
LikeLike
TCU will get in but here’s the problem – if TCU is #4, then we’ll have a rematch of #2 Michigan and #3 Ohio State.
LikeLike
If Bama is #4, it theoretically be worse with two SEC teams and two B1G teams playing. Awful. I am sure that there will be no third Mich v OSU semi. Rank OSU fourth and that solves it.
By the way, my saying I except Bama in does not mean that I think that is it a good idea. Personally, I would like to see anyone, certainly including TCU, in over Alabama. I just think that the pro Bama, pro SEC bias is so strong that a two loss Bama team will get in.
My first choice would have been USC, in there with GA and two B1G teams, but so be it.
LikeLike
I am reasonably sure the committee will not put OSU 3rd. TCU has a better record than OSU (by one-half game) and played a stronger overall schedule. Both lost their most recent game, but Ohio State was thumped at home, whereas TCU just barely lost in OT at a neutral site to a top-10 team they’d beaten previously.
Given the previous ranking, it is hard to see a basis for flipping them.
LikeLike
I agree that if TCU makes it, tOSU will have to be 4th, just to avoid a third Mich-OSU game. If Bama passes TCU, then there will be two B1G v SEC semis.
If it has to be two SEC teams, it is a shame that Tennessee got destroyed by LSU. Anyone other than Bama again. (And I still fully expect pro Bama bias, but will be very happy to be wrong)
LikeLike
It will be shocking if Alabama makes the field. Every commentator I’ve seen thinks they won’t. But the fact it is even a conversation here is an indication of how little credibility the committee has.
I like a suggestion Brian posted the other day. There ought to be a mathematical ranking as there was in the BCS era, which the committee would follow unless there were a very compelling reason to deviate from it. This would remove much of the “eye test” crap.
It seems to be almost universally agreed that the committee would avoid a Mich–OSU rematch in the first round, even though I’m pretty sure the published rules do not say anything about rematches. In my view, 4th is the most defensible ranking for OSU even without considering that Michigan is 2nd. But many analysts seem to suggest that the committee is doing this to avoid a rematch, rather than arguing that 4th makes sense on its own terms.
I do think that after the field expands to 12, avoidance of rematches (at least in the first round) ought to be explicitly part of the seeding criteria.
LikeLike
Marc: “I do think that after the field expands to 12, avoidance of rematches (at least in the first round) ought to be explicitly part of the seeding criteria.”
I agree, that’s a good idea although it could get kinda tricky if you had a field that included, for example, three SEC teams plus three Big Ten teams.
LikeLike
It would need to be a guideline, not a command. If there is no good solution to avoid it, then you play the rematch.
The basketball committee has a similar guideline, although with 68 teams there is a lot more flexibility to move teams around without doing much damage to the natural seeding.
LikeLike
With 16 teams, there’s a good chance they didn’t play each other.
LikeLike
I know the committee has sometimes been controversial, but in the end its top four were exactly what everyone expected.
LikeLike
It looks as though TCU made it from early reports.
I am thrilled to be totally wrong about Bama.
LikeLike
I think where you went wrong, Bernie, is that you think the Committee has a pro-Bama/pro-SEC bias. IMO, they don’t. They _do_ have a pro-talent/pro-eye-test bias, which is similar but not the same thing (and may help the B10 in the future as more money helps buy more talent). Bama got the benefit of the doubt before because, as you yourself concede, they had a ton of talent before.
This year, they still have a lot of talent, but just by the eye test, 2022 Bama just isn’t as dominant as previous versions and has more weaknesses, so when you couple that with TCU’s resume (running the table in the regular season playing in a conference that is tough top to bottom) and only barely losing to a good team in OT (controversially, as they arguably scored a TD on 3rd down in OT) in an extra game that Bama didn’t have to play, and you couldn’t justify keeping TCU out for Bama.
I think the Committee got it right this year, but yes, I’d prefer a weighted ranking system instead.
IMO, the only thing the Committee got wrong this year was ranking USC #4 and OSU #5 entering this week. Looking at their resumes, OSU should have been ranked above USC before this week.
LikeLike
IMO, the only thing the Committee got wrong this year was ranking USC #4 and OSU #5 entering this week.
I can’t really fault the committee for that. Both of the traditional polls had USC 4th, so if this is a mistake, it’s one that an awful lot of people were willing to make.
Now granted, the polls operate (and have always operated) with their own logic that often ignores analysis that should matter. Despite all of their mumbo-jumbo, the committee has usually produced rankings that were pretty similar to the polls, just as they did this year.
According to advanced metrics and computer rankings, USC is quite a bit worse than the polls were evaluating them, which is probably why you disagree with the #4 ranking they had before yesterday. That’s just a built-in flaw in the way the polls have always worked.
LikeLike
Advanced metrics but also eye test. USC’s D wasn’t tackling well before this weekend.
LikeLike
Basically, by any non-stupid metric, OSU was better than USC before this weekend.
The only reason humans on both the Committee and polls ranked USC higher was because of (the human flaw) of recency bias. OSU had gotten blown out at home (albeit by a top 2 team) recently and USC lost to Utah (the first time) earlier. Reverse the weeks that the USC and OSU losses happened and I’m sure the places in the ranking would have been reversed.
LikeLike
All of that is true, but the committee is really just another human poll, and this is what the human polls have always done: recent wins and losses matter more.
LikeLike
I thought #7 was a better ranking for USC and certainly not better than #5.
LikeLike
BTW, I think it would be absolutely hilarious if Day and OSU win the natty a few weeks after many people were calling for a ton of folks to be fired in Columbus.
Mind you, I do not rate that as a likely possibility, but OSU does have the talent to match UGa, if not the execution, but
1. Wacky/random things happen in football (especially college football played by guys around age 20) like turnovers.
2. UGa could have a bad game (they almost lost to Mizzou).
3. I expect OSU to be motivated.
4. OSU may actually fix some schematic issues in time.
But I would be severely disappointed if I heard a peep of joy from you, Brian, or that you even watched the games or that you count this season as a OSU national title year as according to you, OSU’s season is already over.
LikeLike
1. There aren’t a lot of OSU fans calling for Day to be fired, and the other trouble spots had new coaches (DC, OL) so it’s harder to justify firing them.
2. OSU does not have the talent to match UGA. UGA is a better version of MI, and OSU’s talent strengths are in the wrong places to match up.
3. OSU isn’t winning the title.
4. UGA could have abad game, but OSU is more likely to as they have had several in a row.
5. OSU won’t be more motivated than they were against MI, and that didn’t help enough. It just means they make stupid emotional mistakes.
6. They can’t magically develop a run game or defense. They’ve been working on both since January. All they talked about all year was toughness, then MI smacked the crap out of them. They also couldn’t run against several other teams. And everyone with a pass game exploited the pass D, and several exposed the run D. The players are who they are at this point. Other than getting a few people healthy, not much can change.
7. I’d be happy and I would count it as a title since the NCAA does, but I wouldn’t watch it. I haven’t watched any CFP game yet (OSU’s or anyone else’s), and see no need to start.
LikeLike
“the other trouble spots had new coaches (DC, OL) so it’s harder to justify firing them”
After the UMich game, I was hearing plenty of OSU fans calling for heads to roll in Columbus regardless of what sense that made.
LikeLike
It’s a tiny vocal minority. More are just angry at the same issues continuing to crop up year after year, even with the coaching changes. Day’s seat might get warm after another blowout loss, and then going 9-3 next year.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think Day should be playing to avoid a blowout vs. UGa in the semifinal:
Play a vintage Hankwitz-style (peak NU) bend-don’t-break D:
Conservative Cover 2 shell keeping everything in front of you. force UGa to march down the length of the field to score, never giving up any easy big plays and hope for mistakes by UGa (granted, tougher with experienced 29 year-old 8th-year senior Ste. Ben. XXXIV at the helm), never blitzing until key situations in the red zone when there is less space for the offense to operate, and keep it close entering the 4th quarter for the moral victory.
LikeLike
If I’m Day I’m more worried about how I score on Georgia. Isn’t Tennessee’s offense conceptually similar to OSU’s? And UGA smothered Tennessee.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, we are constitutionally incapable of keeping everything in front of us no matter how many deep safeties we play. We could play 10 deep safeties and still get beat on a deep ball. The DB will be 2 inches from the WR, but will never, ever break up the pass or intercept it. A jump ball has literally n0 risk against the OSU defense.
I have complete confidence Day will run the exact same offense against UGA that hasn’t worked against any decent defense this year. Look for Stroud to be under constant pressure and get sacked or throw it away a lot. Also look for the worst screen game in America. Then Stroud will force the ball to Harrison on 17 plays in a row and hope for miracle catches.
LikeLike
Scout, no, I don’t believe so. OSU and Day run a more traditional spread offense, I believe. Tennessee runs the Art Briles option/RPO with receivers split very wide (even the slot receivers outside the hashmarks) running many verts all at a very quick pace. It’s kind of gimmicky.
LikeLike
Scout, here’s a good description of the Briles offense that Tennessee runs:
https://americaswargame.substack.com/p/the-veer-and-shoot-part-i
The Veer and Shoot is gimmicky because the receivers run simple choice routes instead of a full route tree to develop skills and it’s relies a lot on hurry-up and the opponent to make mistakes while going fast. OSU runs a more traditional pro-style spread (and recruits talent by telling them they will teach them the individual skills to do well in the NFL). OSU’s problem is that their players on D aren’t fulfilling their assignments despite their talent.
LikeLike
Maybe the D is a bit of an issue but they also only scored 23 against Michigan. Is 23 points enough to beat UGA? Can OSU run the ball at all against UGA?
LikeLike
Scout,
No 23 pts won’t be enough and no we can’t run the ball at all on UGA.
LSU threw for over 500 yards in the CCG, so OSU might exploit some things there.
LikeLike
OSU got within the UMich 35 7 times.
Yes, the stalled drives are a concern. Bigger concern is that Stroud isn’t great under pressure. But relying on Stroud and the receiver corp to carry them is still OSU’s best option (unless OSU can establish the run).
LikeLike
Agreed. It’s the only option, really.
LikeLike
4m viewer club, CCG edition.
10.89m SEC – UGA v LSU Sa 12/3 4p CBS
10.70m B1G – Michigan v Purdue Sa 12/3 8p FOX
9.41m Big 12 – K-State v TCU Sa 12/3 noon ABC
5.97m Pac 12 – Utah v USC Fr 12/2 8p ABC
LikeLike
That’s a record for the P12, and pretty good for a Friday night.
The ACC only drew 3.47M, not far ahead of the AAC with 2.70M.
LikeLike
Drawback of a 4-team playoff instead of a 12-team playoff is that nothing was at stake in the ACC CCG.
IF the season moves up a week and CCG week becomes Thanksgiving week, I certainly expect the 5 P2 & M3 CCGs to each have their own time slots. ACC and Pac CCGs on Black Friday, possibly.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2022/12/06/looking-successful-college-football-coaching-hire-heres-formula/10705810002/
Interesting look at the most common traits of recently hired successful P5 head coaches:
1. Multiple years of P5 experience as a coach of some sort
2. At least 45 years old
3. Offensive background
4. Prior ties to the program or at least the conference
This article is about correlation, not necessarily causation, but many of those traits make sense – experience, familiarity, and knowing offense. You can hire an up and coming DC.
Maybe the offensive minds are better because it’s more about planning and strategy, while defense is more tactical since it’s reactive by nature? Maybe offensive minds are just more personable people so they can recruit better?
LikeLike
Poor analysis that looks at insufficient data and time length.
1. Note that they are looking at very short-term track record (only hires made 2018-2021 looked at). Offense probably easier to revamp when a coach can get parts on the transfer portal to fit a scheme than defense, which, besides scheme, also requires revamping the culture (toughness, assignments/accountability/discipline).
2. I disagree with some of their subjective ratings. Locksley, Norvell, and Jedd Fisch are rated good even though they have losing records (or are about .500 at a king program in their tenure, in the case of Norvell) but Schiano & Clark Lea are rated bad hires even though they have improved their football teams compared to before in tough situations and are getting better over time (even though they have losing records, but so does the first group).
And Mel Tucker at CU was hired away to a better job. Hard to say that was a “bad hire” unless you could foresee the future.
If you move Schiano, Lea, and Tucker to “good”, defensive coaches actually do as well as offensive coaches.
LikeLike
https://www.yahoo.com/video/deion-sanders-offered-29-5m-215627349.html
CU doesn’t have the money to pay Deion Sanders, yet. That seems odd, since usually the booster clubs and local media deals cover much of the salary. This where the P12 TV deal is killing them.
According to The Denver Post, Sanders’ new salary breaks down accordingly:
* $5.5 million in his first season
* $500,000 in base pay
* $1.75 million supplemental income for radio, television, and public appearances
* $1.74 million for promotion and fundraising
* $1.5 million for “development of the student-athlete”
His salary will increase to $5.7 million in 2024, $5.9 million in 2025, $6.1 million in 2026, and $6.3 million in 2027.
Although the numbers are lucrative, Colorado University’s athletic director Rick George admitted that they have not yet secured the funds to fulfill Sanders’ proposed contract.
“We don’t have the money yet, but I know we’ll have it. So, I’m not worried about that piece,” George explained when asked about Sander’s contract.
LikeLike
A bit scary. So if Sanders has a few good years, an SEC or maybe even B1G team will offer him $8 or $9 million and steal him. He is from the south/southeast, so the SEC is his old neighborhood.
Of course, even though FSU is in the ACC, I believe that at the right time, they could also get the money to meet the price for Deon, assuming he works out (which I believe that he will due to his access to NIL money).
LikeLike
Bernie, I agree. So what’s scary?
LikeLike
I presume that CU can’t afford to pay him right now, while B10 and SEC teams easily could.
LikeLike
The disparity in money is distorting the sport. I realize that is simply the case and nothing can be done about it, but it does seem a shame that a major P5 program probably will not be able to afford its coach.
LikeLike
That’s what always happened with the “kings” relative to everyone else.
It’s just now everyone in the Big Ten/SEC will basically be “financial kings” in the sense of having an extra $50-100 million revenue compared to the rest of the Power 5.
LikeLike
Ah, the problem is that you still believe the P5 exists. We’re in the world of the P2 + M3 (+ G5) now.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35204361/alabama-ad-see-sec-expanding-term
The SEC isn’t expanding any time soon, and Kevin Warren is still jerking around the P12.
Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne said Wednesday he doesn’t expect the SEC to further expand “in the short term” while speaking at the Sports Business Journal’s Learfield Intercollegiate Athletics Forum.
“I sure think so,” Byrne said when he was asked if the conference is done adding more teams. “I can tell you there’s nothing that is out there that I foresee where there’s going to be major disruption in the short term. And you never know down the road, each campus, the challenges, the pressures they face are different.”
…
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, also speaking at the conference Wednesday, said he echoed Byrne’s comments regarding expansion.
“I’m not a recruiter,” Sankey said. “We’re focused on the growth to 16. We don’t have a number in mind, we think we’re really well-positioned … but I won’t predict what others will do.”
When Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren was asked Wednesday on a separate panel at the conference whether the Big Ten was done expanding, Warren said: “For now.”
LikeLike
What are you expecting Warren to say? The SEC obviously isn’t expanding before the ACC GOR ends because there’s no school that is a good fit and not very dilutive left for them (before the ACC GOR ends).
That’s not true for the B10, which would obviously take in ND if the Domers ever are willing, would definitely replace UCLA with another Pac school if UCLA doesn’t go through, and have a few West Coast options that aren’t very dilutive.
In a world where the powers-that-be are playing chess, you seem to want the B10 to play tic-tac-toe.
LikeLike
I thought Notre Dame was committed to join the ACC, if it joined any conference for football. It could, of course, do a partial joining, if it scheduled its free 7 games with the B1G. Even if they don’t do that, once USC comes aboard, ND might be scheduling 3 or 4 B1G schools every year.
LikeLike
What he says and what the B10 actually does are not necessarily connected in any way, shape or form. He could have given a commissioner-speak answer that say nothing like Sankey did.
I expect him to say nothing, like he has for the past few months. If he says something, then I expect more than 2 words. He’s a lawyer, he should know how to speak many words while saying nothing. He has is otherwise useless, so he could at least learn how to non-answer questions he can’t avoid entirely.
He could easily have said the B10 was focused on its current expansion and integrating USC and UCLA. Or “joked” about not even knowing if the B10 was expanding to 16 at the moment, and then again made his case for the BoR to approve UCLA’s move.
ND isn’t available before the ACC GoR ends either, and probably not then either. The B10 has not displayed serious interest in going to 18+ with P12 schools, that’s just a fever dream of some fans at this point. Some presidents and others have been quite clear about resistance to it.
The best players can say one thing convincingly and still consider doing other things. Warren can’t walk and chew gum.
LikeLike
He _could_ have done it differently, but you still don’t have a convincing argument for why he _should_ have.
LikeLike
You asked what I expected, I answered.
I probably should have expected him to continue being the terrible commissioner he has proven to be so far.
LikeLike
At this point, I should just write off your rants as an old man yelling at clouds.
LikeLike
Warren’s comments were with regard to UCLA and the UC BofG.
If UCLA is prevented from joining the B1G, does anyone think the league will stay at 15? Is the PAC not the most likely source to add a replacement for UCLA?
Warren also had to send a message to the UC BofG. Stop UCLA and the PAC will lose another big school. Kliavkoff seems to be suggesting that if UCLA stays, the PAC can add one school and be back to full numbers. It is not that simple.
LikeLike
I agree with your take.
The Big Ten will not sit at 15. This is a clear message to Kliavkoff that if they somehow manage to get UCLA back, they will lose somebody else (probably Washington but maybe Stanford or Oregon).
I think that’s the reason why Warren is saying “no more expansion for now”.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2022/12/08/ucla-potential-move-big-ten-hurt-athletes-california-regents/10853706002/
The NCPA wants the BoR to stop UCLA from moving.
A college athlete advocacy group is urging University of California regents to block UCLA’s planned move to the Big Ten conference, citing the toll that the additional travel will have on athletes’ academic performance and mental health, among other factors.
In a letter addressed to the regents and dated Wednesday, National College Players Association executive director Ramogi Huma described the school’s proposed move to the Big Ten as a “short-sighted money grab.” He also argued that the move will disproportionately impact Black athletes.
…
He also reasoned that the increased travel could disproportionately hinder the academic performance of Black male athletes, who represent 28% of Black male students at UCLA. White male athletes make up just 2% of white male students at the school.
“This move would also reduce the ability of UCLA athletes’ family members to attend games,” Huma wrote in the letter. “… It will hit the athletes from low-income homes the hardest because their families will not be able to afford airplane tickets and hotel stays to attend games that are on the other side of the country.”
UCLA leaders say the additional revenue from a Big Ten move would help the school provide more resources for athletes. They have pledged to add $10 million to the athletic department budget to cover additional academic and mental health resources for athletes, as well as charter flights to limit travel time.
I don’t really buy his racial argument. First, most of those black male athletes are on the CFB, MBB or T&F teams. T&F is one of the unaffected sports for travel because they do regional meets. CFB and MBB get the most perks of any team for travel and academic resources (all charter flights, unlimited tutoring, etc.). Other athletes would love to get the same help that CFB and MBB get. Both sports were listed in the UCLA report as sports with marginal travel impact.
CFB will get 7-8 games in LA, so they have 4-5 trips. But those are long weekends, and many/most players have a reduced academic load during the season. MBB will be able to play multi-game road trips, and again only need about 5 of those trips. And remember, they are already taking flights for all their conference games in the P12, so they’re looking at 1-3 more hours per flight.
The fraction of black male students who are athletes is irrelevant to his point. That would only matter if he was claiming that black male students would be disproportionately harmed.
As for the argument about low-income families, how many P12 road trips can they afford to go on? Are they flying to Seattle and Phoenix and Denver for games and then flying back that same night? Yes, B10 flights will cost more (not sure how much). I’m not sure that hotels will (SF, Seattle, etc. aren’t cheap), or if families can get flights back after an 8pm PT game. Out of state families, or even non-SoCal families deal with this for essentially every game. Is he proposing that UCLA stop recruiting any poor kids who aren’t from SoCal? Should they stop recruiting players from HI and the east coast? Players can choose not to go to UCLA if their family’s inability to attend games is a concern.
LikeLike
” . . . the move will disproportionately impact Black athletes . . . ”
Now they’re playing the race card. UCLA is dead in the water.
LikeLike
This same group can and will make the same argument about any other school changing to a league that is more distant than their current league. Any other PAC team wanting to join the B1G or probably even the Big 12 will be copied with the same letter.
This is clearly a political hit against UCLA. Either the Cal Regents, or, more likely, Kliavkoff went to them to get support against UCLA moving.
The relationships between the PAC teams really has been poisoned by Kliavkoff. How will UCLA deal with the other teams now if held back? How about WA or OR, both of which do not seem ready to sign a GofR? Now this third party group is trying to get into the middle of it.
Kliavkoff has actually said that the PAC TV deal was held up because Colorado hired Deon Sanders. Of course, two weeks ago no one knew that was going to happen and the PAC contract has been going on for months.
Meanwhile per Brett Yormark, the Big 12 is also circling around. At this point if the Big 12 actually grabbed a couple of PAC teams, plus Gonzaga, the PAC would be on the verge of disaster. They would need to grab multiple MWC teams and then the TV contract would be really interesting.
Clearly losing USC and UCLA was a destabilization for the PAC. I think that Kliavkoff has made it worse since then.
LikeLike
Bernie: “Clearly losing USC and UCLA was a destabilization for the PAC.”
UCLA ain’t gone yet and I’m now even more skeptical that the Bruins will join the Big Ten. In retrospect, the Pac-12 delaying their TV contract makes sense if they think they’ll keep UCLA. They’d still “own” the LA market.
Don’t be surprised if Kliavkoff comes up with some other type of poison pill that prevents other Pac schools from leaving. If CA decides that UCLA leaving harms Cal, then wouldn’t Washington leaving harm WSU and Oregon leaving harm OSU?
LikeLike
UCLA is gone. Its just a dog and pony show at this point and Warren and the UCLA people are playing nice because UCLA does still have to get things from the BOR.
LikeLike
Exactly the argument I made here several weeks ago about WA and OR. And the legislatures will get the same letter from that organization.
I would never have expected this, but Colorado to the B1G is looking better, since there is no little brother. Good grief.
If CO skips out of the B1G, does that encourage UT or the AZ schools to look to the B1G 12? That would be fun.
LikeLike
Bernie: “I would never have expected this, but Colorado to the B1G is looking better, since there is no little brother.”
Here’s another possibility: If UCLA gets blocked, does USC back out and stay in the Pac-12?
LikeLike
No, and UW and UO don’t have the same board as WSU and OrSt.
Note that OKSt. could not block OU and TTech could not block A&M or UT.
LikeLike
Richard: “Note that OKSt. could not block OU and TTech could not block A&M or UT.”
Flat out wrong. UT President William Powers infamously sent an email to Ohio State President Gordon Gee saying that UT to the Big Ten had a “Tech problem”.
LikeLike
What are you talking about????
Texas left. Tech is still there.
Back then, it was political clout. Tech had an unusual amount of political clout in that era. They don’t now. Even then, they couldn’t stop Texas. But relations with the legislature would be difficult.
LikeLike
Bullet: “What are you talking about???? Texas left. Tech is still there.”
What are YOU talking about? That email from Gee was in 2011. Texas is still stuck in the B12.
LikeLike
Having the same board is irrelevant if the state legislatures get involved. As I have pointed out, many years ago UF and FSU did not have any kind of common board.
UF did not want to play FSU, but they were told to either play or the legislature was going to pass a law requiring it.
Similar threats could made to UW and UO. The legislators could declare that the state universities could not change conferences without taking their “little brothers”.
WaState and OrState are in serious jeopardy if the PAC explodes. The MWC only pays about $5 million per school. Even with upgrades such as those two, it will still likely be under $10 million for the MWC, at the best.
LikeLike
I don’t know why you think only fb and mbb players get academic help. At UGA it didn’t matter whether they were football or the equestrian team. They all had a huge network of academic support. They might not get to travel as well, but they still need to be kept eligible.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that, I said they got the most academic help. More tutors, more preferential scheduling, more staff to enforce study hall and class attendance, etc. And getting full rides, they can afford to stay 5 or 6 years more easily than many athletes on partial scholarships can.
LikeLike
Those on partial scholarships get the same academic benefits. At least at UGA.
LikeLike
It seems they do not care about the impact on the athletes in the 10 sports that will be dropped if UCLA stays in the PAC.
LikeLike
Or the athletes at USC. The head of that group is a former UCLA football player, and wants revenue sport players to be paid. Note his lack of concern about the female athletes (more of their teams would add travel, with fewer charters probably).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marchand and Ourand on a variety of subjects, with these relevant here (starts about 9 minutes in):
* P12 TV deal – Still expect it to be similar to ACC and B12 deals. ESPN and Amazon are interested, Fox and NBC may be interested for the right price.
* Only Kevin Warren seems interested in more B10 expansion.
Around 25 minutes in:
* Later they talk NBC Sports and have a snippet from it’s boss, then talk about FS1 and ESPN and streaming vs linear channels
LikeLike
One note at the end – Amazon will miss their promised target of 12.5M for TNF and will have to make it up to advertisers.
LikeLike
Ouch, Bernie. Tough way to lose a road game. That’s about as close as you could get to two equal teams in the second half.
LikeLike
So typical for Rutgers. They manage to lose those games, when 2 more points might have gotten them ranked in the top 25.
A few days ago, RU blew out then number 10 Indiana by 15 points, at the RAC (now Jersey Mike’s Arena, but always be called the RAC).
The RAC (Rutgers Athletic Center) is a small venue of about 9,000 seats, but it is really one of the best home court advantages in the country.
As far as Amazon and TNF, I would expect that this will lower their offer for PAC
Finally, as to expansion, Warren has been the only one who wants to expand further since the day after the LA teams came on board. Honestly the statement from Purdue, at least, made it look as though some teams were not thrilled with that but accepted it.
If the UCLA is actually blocked, they do need to be replaced, but that will be it for a while.
LikeLike
Inside scuttlebut is that Stanford will either hire Jason Garrett, which is public news as he was on campus today, OR Troy Taylor of Sacramento State. The Stanford board is 70/30 in favor of Garrett, while Instagram apparently is 70/30 in favor of Taylor.
Apparently, Greg Roman, Vic Fangio, Bronco Mendenhall, and Brent Brennan (San Jose State) all interviewed. The first three were eliminated on Monday, while Brennan somehow seemed to still be in the running until recently.
What say you WWE?
In other news, Stanford landed a 4-star QB commit today with no head coach. For more than half the eventual commits, the place does indeed sell itself.
LikeLike
😂 I wondered if you might not have something to say! That 4star is from Long Beach. HUGE get in Lieu of our depleted QB situation. I couldn’t remember if you mentioned Garrett or not? Such an obvious candidate-duh! -yet somehow didn’t garner a lot of buzz. Taylor has always been high on my list, but I would be quite happy with Garrett. Who’s your top choice now?
LikeLike
I guess I defer to the wisdom of the Stanford premium board, and favor Garrett.
The argument is that he did win in the NFL – notwithstanding Jerry Jones – and held the job for 9 years + succeeding in CFB is much easier than in the NFL. Moreover, as both a former NFL QB and coach, he should have credibility/cache recruiting. Finally, he is a Princeton alum, which should go over well both with parents and the university as a whole. The feeling is that he would bring in a much better staff than Taylor could – which hopefully would set up a decent succession plan. But nobody seems to be sold on Garrett as an offensive guru.
In addition to perceived likely staff quality, the knocks against Taylor are first that he is not known outside of CA (or possibly even NorCal) and Stanford needs a national name. Second, former NFL coaches do much better in the power-5 than former FCS coaches. Third, rumor is that he bleeds blue & gold and would jump at the Cal job in a heartbeat.
LikeLike
All good points.
LikeLike
That was quick 😂. Garrett just tweeted he’s out. I’m a member at the CardBoard and they seem to think Petersen and even Aranda are still in the mix (I know, I know, but it’s Christmas! 🎅🌲). Sorry Frank, I promise not to turn this into an off-topic play-by-play of shattered coaching dreams.😇
LikeLike
Meltdown city at Rivals’ Cardinal Sports Report. Calling for the incompetent AD’s head. The problem appears to be that a committee is making the final decision. You never want a public announcement of a “finalist” as opposed to an actual hire – like what we saw today.
Anyway, Petersen apparently said “no” very early. And a sitting coach like Aranda cannot expose themselves to a public circus like Garrett just did.
LikeLike
Yeah, I read all the comments on the Farm Report over there last night. Getting rid of Shaw AND Muir simultaneously would not be a good look. Not happening. The real coaching coup de grâce would be Taylor turning them down for his inevitable shot at Berkeley. Yikes. The funniest comment on the rivals forum was short and sweet. ‘Jim Leonhard!!’ (I hope that wasn’t you 😄)
LikeLike
Endeavor: “The funniest comment on the rivals forum was short and sweet. ‘Jim Leonhard!!’”
If Jim Leonard ends up at Purdue, it will complete the most amazing circle jerk in the history of college football.
Jeff Brohm Purdue to Louisville.
Scott Satterfield Louisville to Cincinnati.
Luke Ficknell Cincinnati to Wisconsin.
Jim Leonard Wisconsin to Purdue.
LikeLike
😂 NICE! -Let it be 🎶 Let it be 🎶 Let it be 🎶 Let it beeeeeee!
LikeLike
Whoa! I thought the “Bob Thomas field goal” coaching change after the 1983 seasons was impressive:
Bart Starr fired from GB Packers
Forrest Gregg hired by GB from Cin Bengals
Sam Wyche hired by Bengals from Indiana
Bill Mallory hired by IU from Northern IL
Lee Corso (former IU before Wyche) hired by NIU.
LikeLike
Ha! Not me. I don’t get the Leonhard mania.
After a night’s sleep, I think I blame Garrett more than Stanford for yesterday. He and/or his agent attracted national attention – when no other interviewee did, the job was offered to someone else, and having also lost out to Elko last year felt a need to save face.
LikeLike
Pretty happy. Taylor was my top ‘realistic’ pick. This is a major upgrade for him and not without risk for Stanford. I have to believe they wouldn’t have signed him unless he’s precluded from leaving for Cal. Face it, this is a better job. If he really wanted to coach at Cal he would have just waited. I do wonder what kind of overtures they might have made to him.
LikeLike
Is Condi to thank for Taylor? Apparently the search committee was split on Garrett/Taylor and requested to meet with both. Whether Garrett arrived believing he had the job in hand, I don’t know, but it didn’t go as planned. It’s hard to imagine he would risk the embarrassment of showing up on campus and not feel he was going to get it. Anyhoo. It would seem he did not take kindly to Condi Rice’s fairly aggressive line of questioning, and basically pulled himself out of the running. Both CR and Andrew Luck we’re team Taylor, that is known. I think Garrett would have been good, but Taylor is a natural fit and a proven winner (albeit in a smaller stage).
LikeLike
I was not excited about Garrett, despite the arguments in his favor. Taylor is definitely not low-risk, but will fit in well with the Stanford culture. And I agree that people who spend time on the Farm tend not to be too eager to leave, regardless of previous loyalties.
I don’t know any of the details of the “committee” deliberations, and am unaware of Rice’s “line of questioning”. I think Luck & Rice were in the press release to add credibility to the decision.
I have a hard time believing that Garrett didn’t know that “finalist” interview at Stanford is no slam dunk. I also put the blame for his appearance on campus becoming national news on him and his team. Finally, I think he pulled out after he was told he did not get the job. Compensation could have been an issue. He may have asked for more money than was initially on the table. It sounds like Taylor will start off at $3 million. Stanford only pays up to retain.
LikeLike
First of all, the search committee, of which Condi was a member, DID interview Garrett that day. Second, They did not invite him to campus from half way across the country to tell him he didn’t get the job. That’s ridiculous. Agents micromanage these negotiations specifically to protect their clients from reputational risk. The details of the offer (compensation/duration etc) would already have been discussed, if not negotiated, by this stage. Contract management is the agent’s job not the clients. Something went south in that interview and it had nothing to do with money. That’s what I heard, and that’s what I believe.
LikeLike
Actually, kind of par for the course. Probably before your time, but Ron Turner was the Jason Garrett of the Tyrone Willingham hire and Mike Riley was the JG of the Buddy Teevens hire. Stanford generally doesn’t hire football coaches the way most schools do. They usually have this committee, filled with the likes of Condi Rice and Andrew Luck, that conducts at least the final interview and the hire can become political. Bowlsby’s hire of Harbaugh was unusual in how it was done.
In this case, I heard that Taylor was pretty much on track to get the job all along, that Garrett was a late entrant, and that ultimately Taylor prevailed. With two widely differing coaching backgrounds, I can imagine there being a split in the committee along the way.
LikeLike
If I ruled the world? …’beep’…’beep’…beep’…. (That’s the Brinks truck backing up to Mike Elko’s house)
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/college-football-sports-army-west-point-black-knights-navy-midshipmen-villanova-wildcats-22ec674cfc3e34d8a978e4340f743367
Army’s AD discusses independence and the possibility of joining a conference someday.
LikeLike
This is interesting.
The remaining football members of the Atlantic Sun and WAC have agreed to align to form the foundation of a 10-member football-only conference, sources told ESPN, with the intention of becoming the 11th FBS conference.
Sources said the founding documents for the league state the group intends to move “from what is currently known as FCS football to what is currently known as FBS football at the earliest practicable date.”
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35216756/atlantic-sun-wac-teams-pairing-move-fbs-sources-say
LikeLike
It’s a pure money grab, and they’re counting on the NCAA not enforcing minimum attendance standards (15,000 rolling average over 2 years). They also need 16 teams and 200 scholarships. I assume they’re counting on the CFP money plus body-bag game checks to cover the extra expenses. I can’t imagine their media deal will be lucrative.
Name ideas?
A&W conference – obvious sponsor tie-in
Western Sun Conference
LikeLike
It’s a pure money grab…
Money is what most college sports decisions are about. The phrase “money grab” is simply the subset of them that a given person doesn’t like.
LikeLike
No, it’s the term for a decision that is solely about seeking money, even to the detriment of everything else. They even admit it is just about money in the article (wanting bigger checks for body-bag games). None of those schools belong in I-A (check their attendance), nor can they likely afford it without a big chunk of CFP money. Schools shouldn’t get to just choose to move up and take a slice of the CFP.
LikeLike
The question for me is how this will get approved or whether they’ve discovered some kind of work around.
Sure they’re most likely targeting CFP money alongside broadcast money, but who’s going to approve a new football only FBS conference.
Will there be pushback from the G5 if their pot of CFP money is going to be split with this new conference?
LikeLike
Will there be pushback from the G5 if their pot of CFP money is going to be split with this new conference?
I think “pushback” is the mild term for it. I don’t see them volunteering to split their pot with a sixth conference, nor do I see the P5 giving up any of theirs.
LikeLike
Based on how the money was split in previous iterations, the P5 and G5 effectively take different base shares from the pot.
According to recent reports (Athletic reported it a few months ago), the Big Ten/SEC pushed to normalize the P5 payouts so that every P5 team will get a similar base amount and the larger 16 team conferences aren’t disadvantaged as they had been under the original CFP deal which gave each conference the same base share.
The G5 splits a separate base share of CFP money.
I feel 100% sure that the Power 5 won’t be giving up money to any new conference. There’s no doubt about that.
So then the question is the G5’s base share of CFP money.
That’s really the only pot of money that would be available to this new 11th FBS conference, and I agree with you that I would be shocked if they volunteer to split equally with this new conference.
Now they may be forced to if the Power 5 conferences allow this new conference to join FBS and make it a G5 (which would then be a new G6).
LikeLike
The question for me is how this will get approved or whether they’ve discovered some kind of work around.
If they start allowing football only FBS conferences, realignment will kick into high gear. There is going to be a ton of incentive to be in the most regional cost effective non-revenue “home” conference and in the best football only conference.
LikeLike
Name ideas?
Wac-A-Sun
LikeLike
https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2022/12/ucla-athletic-director-martin-jarmond-benefits-of-moving-to-big-ten-far-outweigh-some-of-the-challenges.html
UCLA’s AD was also on one of those panels at the SBJ’s recent event.
During a panel discussion Thursday at the Sports Business Journal’s Intercollegiate Athletics Forum in Las Vegas, Jarmond was asked about the longer travel that will be involved for the Bruins’ more than 20 teams to compete in a conference where 14 schools are based in the Eastern and Central time zones.
“I’m going to be respectful; obviously we have next week there’s a regents meeting and that’s great,” Jarmond said. “I don’t want to say too much except for, people travel all the time. This is straight from our student-athletes; when you’re elite level, you play club and you travel everywhere. It’s not like you stay in the same state and play all the time. You’re in California. You’re in Florida. You’re in Texas. Elite athletes have been doing this since they were 12 years old. So that’s no different.”
Jarmond said “people go to extremes” in portraying the travel that will be involved for UCLA’s teams in the Big Ten. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff has even stated that the impending move will be more costly than beneficial to UCLA.
“You’d think we’re going to play Rutgers every week,” Jarmond said. “You’re not going across (the country) every week. You might be in a conference or a situation where you’re talking about five trips, five times, then by the way one might be different; it might be a leg that’s combined so you might be talking about four. You’re talking about four times a year where you may have two hours here, two hours there, whatever more. In the grand scheme of things, it’s not that much.
“Is it more? Yes, absolutely. Are we doing things that are going to mitigate some of that? Yes, absolutely. But the benefits far outweigh those challenges that are presented whenever you change something, whether it’s travel or that kind of thing. I think people go to the extreme in anything. Once you take a step back, look at the numbers, look at the data, it’s very clear the benefits far outweigh some of the challenges you might experience.”
LikeLike
Brian, so the B1G has issued a statement that the game winning shot by tOSU against RU should not have counted. Rutgers should have won, but the refs blew it.
As everyone said after the game, the kid first stepped out of bounds and then came back in and shot. Somehow that seems normal for a Rutgers game.
https://www.onthebanks.com/2022/12/9/23502568/big-ten-releases-statement-admitting-ohio-states-game-winner-over-rutgers-should-not-have-counted
I wonder if the refs get any punishment, or are the only losers the kids on the court whose season may be adversely impacted come NCAA time? They lost a quality road win.
LikeLike
I wonder if the refs get any punishment, or are the only losers the kids on the court whose season may be adversely impacted come NCAA time? They lost a quality road win.
I’ve no idea what the Big Ten will do, but I do not feel referees should be “penalized” per se for blown calls, any more than you “penalize” the player for a turnover.
The press release said that this crew is one of the best in the country, so I take it they have not made a habit of this. When you depend on human officials, there are going to be mistakes sometimes. The players aren’t perfect either.
LikeLike
That is all true, but here the last two Ohio State players who touched the ball both illegally stepped out of bounds. It was two major officiating mistakes on one play. It happens, but should not be excused.
They were not judgment calls such a charge v a block, or a ticky tacky foul, but rules violations. Mistakes happen, but that is still very sloppy by the refs.
When players make mistakes, their teams may lose, the player may get benched, or whatever. Stuff happens, They are kids and amateurs, Sometimes players make incredible mistakes. (Chris Webber calling a time out that did not exist and his team lost?)
By the way, a player who turns the ball over is penalized. His team loses possession of the ball, the same thing that should have happened for either of these players stepping out of bounds. If it is in the last seconds of a one possession game, the penalty for a turnover might be a loss. It happens.
If the inbounds pass were thrown out of bounds, that would be a turnover and tOSU loses, There is the penalty.
Beyond that, turnovers are very natural parts of ever college bball game. Two blown rules calls by the refs on effectively one play is not normal.
Saying that this is one of the best team of refs is totally meaningless. What were they going to say, we sent lousy refs? Sitting here, we have no idea if these refs are great or regularly mediocre at best.
I am not saying fire the refs, but a message needs to be sent to the refs, and for that matter to the players on all of the teams in the league. No one wants to lose a game that way.
Let’s face it, how many times during a season does a league have to make an announcement that its refs made a mistake (two here) that changed the outcome of a game? Obviously the B1G viewed this as a major matter (possibly because sportswriters all over the country commented on it),
LikeLike
I didn’t think it was legal when it happened, but nobody said anything and all that matters is that they didn’t call it.
The B10 said all refs will get some extra training on rules, and I’m sure this crew was given some extra homework. But they make so many calls per game, blowing a few is inevitable. What’s stupid is that such a call isn’t reviewable.
LikeLike
If the shot should not have counted, then the remedy is to disallow it and award the win to Rutgers. If the rules do not allow it, then the B1G should simply award the game to Rutgers by force majeure, as the insurance companies say.
LikeLike
bob sykes: ” . . . the B1G should simply award the game to Rutgers by force majeure, as the insurance companies say. . . .”
Bob, there would be no end to it. Hundreds of replay reviews would be demanded every week,
LikeLike
While the correct call would with near-certainty have ended the game in Rutgers’ favor, there is a very slight chance that OSU would have won, although it would have required a miracle. That is why they do not change the outcome of the game, no matter how horrendous the call.
Some might remember Jim Joyce’s bad call on June 2, 2010. Armando Galarraga of the Detroit Tigers had retired 26 straight Cleveland Indians. The last batter hit a weak grounder to the first baseman, who threw to Galarraga covering the bag. The throw was on time by a half-step, but Joyce astonishingly called the runner safe, spoiling a perfect game. Galarraga retired the next batter, recording (officially) a 1-hitter.
MLB considered reversing it afterward, since the call was wrong beyond a doubt, and with the correct call the game would have been over. Nevertheless, they decided to adhere to the rule they’ve always had, that a judgment call on the field stands, however obviously wrong it may be. (Today it would be reversed with replay, but that wasn’t allowed at the time.)
LikeLike
Bob,
There was still time on the clock. There is no way to know what might have happened in those few seconds. That’s why they can’t change game outcomes.
LikeLike
Even if the turnover were called and the chance of tOSU winning anyway was less than one percent, the game should not be overturned. To quote a famous line, Sh#t happens.
I just find it amusing that this happens to Rutgers which already has all of the grief that it needs, though the men’s bball program does show hope.
The brother of Ron Harper Jr. is now a junior in a NJ HS and the number 5 ranked player in his class. He is a very heavy RU lean. They have couple more top 50 players who are likely recruits, including one coming next year.
For other teams that may not be a big year, but for RU it is. Their basketball coach Pikiell’s main strength has been finding “hidden gems” and coaching them up to be a decent team.
Sort of like Wisconsin and Iowa football.
LikeLike
Bernie: “He is a very heavy RU lean.”
Just wait until Texas A&M and Uncle NIL show up at his front door.
LikeLike
Colin, the three teams which I support are Rutgers, FSU and Wisconsin. I have posted that here earlier. (Kids undergrad to FSU and UW-Madison)
Anyway, some time ago I posted that the top recruit in NJ had been an RU lien for years, then suddenly signed with TAMU. Prior that that, I believe that there were either one or two top 25 NJ players to go to TAMU in the previous five years combined, and neither were in the top ten or 15 in the state. That was two middling players out of 125,
Usually RU loses the top players in NJ to Penn State, ND, Michigan. and other B1G schools, etc. A few have gone to southern schools like AL, or USC, but not to UT, TAMU, OK, etc., or many other SEC or Big 12 schools.
NIL money talks.
LikeLike
Bernie: “Anyway, some time ago I posted that the top recruit in NJ had been an RU lien for years, then suddenly signed with TAMU.”
Bernie, I’m well aware of that. That’s why I joked about another NJ kid going for the NIL at A&M.
LikeLike
Colin, I left out the NYU Violets (not undergrad). A few years ago the Women’s Volleyball Team won the D3 national championship. That is probably one more than Rutgers has won in the last few decades.
LikeLike
From The Athletic: Inside Deion Sanders’ first 4-star flip to Colorado: ‘Nobody is safe’
By Ari Wasserman Dec 11, 2022
When four-star running back Dylan Edwards of Derby (Kansas) High decommitted from Notre Dame shortly after reporting a Colorado offer from the freshly hired Deion Sanders, the general assumption was this is how quickly Prime Time works.
Less than a week on the job and Sanders already flipped a top-tier, four-star prospect away from Notre Dame? Erasing months of relationship-building simply because he’s Deion Sanders? Making recruiting — the hardest element to being a college football coach — look easy? That, as everyone expected, is what makes Colorado dangerous. This is what Coach Prime’s Kingdom looks like.
LikeLike
I thank Brian for the correction about time left. I had missed that.
Now for self-contradictions,
I am opposed to letting game officials having access to replays. Whatever happens happens. Move on.
It is also notable that the replay reviewers get it wrong half the time.
I am also old enough to hate the college football playoffs, although I watch them. 1970 was perfect. Three national champions—Nebraska, tOSU, and Texas. It doesn’t get any better than that
LikeLike
I am opposed to letting game officials having access to replays. Whatever happens happens. Move on.
I don’t see any scenario that the replay genie is ever going back in the bottle. I’d like to rein in the use of it.
One option is to limit the review to 60 seconds or so. If the official can’t see immediately that the original call is obviously wrong, then it stands. That would allow replay to fix the most egregious errors while eliminating the reviews that seem to go on forever.
It is also notable that the replay reviewers get it wrong half the time.
I can’t find any source that states replay reviews get it wrong half the time.
LikeLike
Marc: “I can’t find any source that states replay reviews get it wrong half the time.”
Right, that’s BS. The replay is generally a good thing. I well remember the bad ole days when screamingly wrong calls were ignored and play was immediately resumed.
LikeLike
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/oklahoma-texas-gaining-momentum-to-leave-big-12-join-sec-early-2024
The odds of OUT joining the SEC early seem to be improving, but it’s all predicated on ESPN footing the bill.
There is “growing sentiment” and “momentum” for Oklahoma and Texas to leave the Big 12 a year early and join the SEC in 2024, industry sources told Action Network.
…
There remain many obstacles for an early move, but one source said the “climate is right” for the Sooners and Longhorns to exit the Big 12 after the 2023 season and begin play in the SEC in 2024.
“There’s a lot of moving parts, but there is the desire on many fronts for this to get done,” an industry source said.
Sources indicated several factors why the likelihood of an early move for OU and Texas has increased:
* The Big Ten grows to 16 teams with the addition of USC and UCLA in 2024, coinciding with the first year of the College Football Playoff’s expansion to 12 teams.
* The Big 12 decided to add four teams in 2023 — even before OU and UT remained in the league.
* The Big 12 securing its new media rights deal.
Privately, Oklahoma and Texas were never in favor of adding new Big 12 members while they remained in the league, sources said.
…
“There have been ongoing discussions to find a way for Texas and OU to leave early without costing (the Big 12) any money,” an industry source said. “However, everyone has to be made whole.”
How everyone is “made whole” is the biggest sticking point for all parties.
Big 12 bylaws require Oklahoma and Texas to pay an exit fee the sum of the league’s distribution for two years — which is about $84 million per school, sources said. Historically, when a school leaves a conference, that exit fee is negotiated down to about 60%, meaning OU and Texas could possibly get out for about $50 million each.
OU, Texas and the Big 12 have been involved in discussions for months but still have not reached a final agreement on the schools’ buyout amount, sources said.
…
How eager is ESPN to pay that increased amount [due to the pro rata clause] to the SEC in 2024 instead of waiting until 2025? If OU and Texas join the SEC early, that could decrease the value of the Big 12’s final year of its current media rights with ESPN and FOX, which the Big 12 would oppose.
Would ESPN be willing to offset those smaller numbers to the Big 12 and also pay more to the SEC? Would OU and Texas agree to pay more than the expected $50 million buyout to get out early? Would — or even could — OU and Texas schedule nonconference road games at Big 12 teams in 2024 to help offset the decrease in the media rights for that year?
“The Big 12 would like it to happen a year early, the SEC would like OU and Texas a year early, but FOX could care less and I’m not sure what ESPN will do,” an industry source said.
Added another source: “ESPN has all the keys to the castle for this to happen.”
LikeLike
Tomorrow is D-Day for UCLA. My hunch is that the BOR won’t block the Bruins but may create various penalties and hurdles so onerous that they stay in the Pac-12.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-media-rights-deal-on-hold-as-league-awaits-resolution-on-uclas-big-ten-status-from-regents-meeting/
The P12 is also eager for the UC BoR to finally make a decision on UCLA.
A source familiar with the hearings told CBS Sports there is a “2% chance” UCLA is compelled to stay in the Pac-12. And one person intimately involved in the process speculated, if UCLA is forced to stay in the Pac-12, the Big Ten would then poach more teams from the Pac-12 (Oregon? Washington?) in order to fulfill its media rights contract finalized in August. That deal is the highest valued of its kind nationally at $1.2 billion per year.
Either way, what will be left for the Pac-12 in terms of money, visibility and viewership is up for debate. A deal heavy on streaming is expected. The problem with the emerging technology is that streaming giants haven’t fully latched onto live sports programming just yet.
“It’s a demonstrated fact that, when you go from traditional TV to streaming exclusive, you’re going to take a little bit of a haircut,” Fox executive vice president Mike Mulvihill told the SBJ audience last week. “The people on the conference side and the league side who control these rights have to weigh that revenue opportunity that might exist with a streamer against the loss in average viewership.”
…
One industry source expressed concern over the “depressed” digital market. That may be reference to reports of Amazon and Google laying off tens of thousands of employees in the coming months.
…
Industry insiders suggested the Big 12 was able to cut in line ahead of the Pac-12 for its media rights deal because of the depth of the conference without Texas and Oklahoma. Over the last two seasons, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU and Kansas State have played in the conference title game.
On the other hand, Pac-12 excellence has been concentrated at the top lately with Oregon and Utah each splitting the last four conference titles. In essence, the value of getting second, third and fourth picks from Big 12 inventory allowed more freedom and profitability than getting smaller Tier 1 (top games) inventory from the Pac-12.
…
Coaches and administrators everywhere are concerned about going too heavy into streaming at the moment amid concerns about recruiting and visibility. That’s one reason Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren was urged by members not to pursue California, Oregon, Stanford and Washington earlier this summer.
…
The current situation may be resolved by UCLA simply cutting a check to Cal — its UC system partner — each year. UCLA’s all-in figure from the Big Ten may be as much as $100 million annually. In a new deal, the Pac-12 would get significantly less than half that number.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff might be the most incompetent of the P5 commissioners, even granting that he inherited a shitshow.
“It has significantly impacted the timeline,” Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff said last week at the SportsBusiness Journal Intercollegiate Athletic Forum in Las Vegas.
That’s a bit rich on Kliavkoff’s part, given that his own actions have contributed to the BoR taking its time to study the issue. Don’t make a case, and then complain that the deciding body slows down to consider it.
The article also says what most of us here believe: if UCLA stays, the Big Ten will just poach another Pac-12 school, and Kliavkoff will be right back where he started. Or maybe worse: you could argue that Washington or Oregon would be a more devastating loss than UCLA.
“He absolutely adds value [to the conference],” Kliavkoff said. [of Deion Sanders].
This is a reach, putting it mildly. No network is going to pay more for Pac-12 football because Deion Sanders is there.
On Twitter, Bob Thompson pointed out that the Pac-12 has had 42 interim and permanent head coaches over the life of the current deal: on average, they don’t last long. And most that succeed at a place like CU are usually gone as soon as there’s an opening the next level up coaching the ladder.
LikeLike
I think we all agree that the best outcome for the Big Ten is USC + UCLA. However if that doesn’t happen, it probably means we get the LA TV market plus another juicy one in the west, e.g. San Francisco, Seattle or Denver. It seems that would be an even worse outcome for the Pac-12 than losing only LA.
LikeLike
Nothing Kliavkoff can actually do here. I’d give him a break, he’s just doing and saying the things that’ll help him keep his job – what he’s doing makes sense, even if we all laugh because we know it’s hopeless. Like, even if Deion is a super shitshow, those first two games (Nebraska and TCU) are going to have more people watching because it’s Deion and not random retread coach #5. So Kliavkoff is technically correct in his statement.
Nothing short of going back in time and adding Texas/Tech/Oklahoma/OSU would have made this work, and even then OUT may still happen.
LikeLike
https://www.postguam.com/forum/ucla-big-payday/article_6d47d432-79c2-11ed-aa9c-ab922faf7f71.html
Opinion piece about the UCLA move, indirectly from the LA Times.
And yet, here is UCLA, planning to abandon the Pac-12 conference and join the Big Ten, following a vote from the University of California Board of Regents next week. Opponents of the move are hoping to block it; they will almost certainly lose.
They will lose because this is not about a sports tradition or weather patterns. This is about big business and treating our college campuses as settings for in-demand entertainment and only incidentally places where students happen to attend classes. This is about cold hard cash.
(USC is also moving to the Big Ten, which is similarly silly and craven, but as a private institution, USC does not have to go through a state board to make it a reality.)
With the addition of the Southern California teams, the Big Ten’s new media deal is expected to bring in roughly $100 million annually for each of its 16 member schools, far outpacing the $31 million that the current Pac-12’s television deal promises.
Note that he is wrong about that number – the $100M number is the rough total B10 payout estimate including all revenue streams, not just the media deal. The number he should give is $70M.
Boosters of the UCLA switch say this money is desperately needed or the university may have to cut sports teams. The school’s athletic department posted an unheard of $62.5 million budget shortfall for fiscal 2021 and a three-year deficit of more than $100 million.
The department blames its disastrous ledger sheet on the pandemic, the elimination of home football games in 2020 and losing a lucrative deal with Under Armour in which the school’s athletes were walking billboards for the company.
…
The players will have to travel a great deal more throughout the season once UCLA moves to the Big Ten. Their flight schedule will be comparable to a pro team, but charter airfare’s not the only price players and the schools will have to pay.
Figures presented at the UC Board of Regents meeting in November indicated that as much as $10 million will need to be spent on more academic advisors to travel with the team, more mental health therapists to get them through the rigors of the new schedule, and in addition to that, the program will also allocate “$252,000 for education, preventative measures and direct psychiatric care to help with sleep, eating disorders, substance abuse and other acute care.”
Again his numbers are wrong. The $10M was for everything – travel, staff, etc.
An NFL team plays 8-9 road games per year. UCLA plays about 5, and they are already flying for all of them (except to USC) including some OOC games across the country.
These figures are cited as financial costs instead of social costs, to the shame of all parties involved: The nine-figure payday at the end of the rainbow will be offset only a bit by the risks to the academic and mental health of the players the adults are supposedly there to safeguard.
…
I once asked a prominent college football coach about paying athletes in the revenue-producing college sports, especially football and basketball. He answered that there was value in the “purity” of amateurism, in the role of the student athlete. Paying players would sully that special experience.
I followed up by asking why his team, historically in the Atlantic Coast Conference, planned to blow up the purity of its history by moving to – yes – the Big Ten. His response was, “This is big business and sometimes big businesses must restructure to survive.”
LikeLike
This is about cold hard cash.
“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
LikeLike
Lol is that quote about purity from Edsall? He was the Maryland FB coach at the time IIRC so it’s either him or an assistant that is prominent. Kind of funny that they give enough detail in that article to identify the person but refuse to state their name.
LikeLike
Tony Altimore (strategy analyst and USC/P12 guy) on UCLA and the move to the B10. He doesn’t just talk, he has slides with details. It’s from a couple of weeks ago, but gets into details of UCLA’s finances and other issues.
In short, he says UCLA is going and the P12 will likely add SDSU and SMU.
LikeLike
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-12-13/ucla-usc-big-ten-pac-12-move-college-sports
Here’s an opinion piece in favor of UCLA moving.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/3995657/2022/12/13/big-ten-football-schedule-divisions-usc-ucla/
Scott Dochterman looks at B10 scheduling starting in 2024.
The Big Ten will keep its East and West divisions through the 2023 season, and then USC and UCLA are slated to become official members on Aug. 2, 2024. It’s a near certainty the conference will then switch to a single-conference layout for scheduling and championship game qualification. But there are a few details to discuss before making it official, largely the number of protected rivals and opponent frequency. The topic has generated significant discussion but likely will wait until the league’s winter meetings in mid-February or perhaps as late as the spring meetings in May before it concludes.
LikeLike
I appreciate the practice of limited excerpting from behind paywalls, but there were some money quotes that are worth considering, from Gary Barta, Iowa’s director of athletics, in Dochterman’s recent article in The Athletic [“Big Ten schedules, divisions: What makes sense when USC, UCLA join the conference?” (12/13/2022)]:
“I think most of us anticipate where it’s headed, but we need to finalize it.”
“We’ve talked about, ‘What are our principles?’” Barta said. “A lot of them will be the same that they’ve been. Then some of the others might be, ‘Could we have differing numbers of rivals?’ We’re looking at that. Obviously, right away I said, ‘Here’s who I’d like to have,’ and it’s probably not hard to figure out who they are, the trophy games. But that hasn’t been decided.
“One of the principles we want is that if a player is here for four years, he gets to go to every stadium at least once so that we don’t have those seven-year gaps. So can we accomplish that and different (numbers of) rivals?”
So, [3]-6-6 seems like “where it’s headed,” with up to 3 locked rivals per school?!? This is a simple-to-explain solution to the widely acknowledged problem that 3-6-6 creates, with its several shotgun weddings–those permanently locked “rivalries” that one or both schools don’t care for. If [3]-6-6 is the selected approach, it will be interesting to see what types of sideboards the B1G places on its schools, when it comes to mutually agreeing to locked rivals. An approach that maximizes self-determination would be fascinating. Presumably, some schools would prioritize historic rivalries, trophy games, and/or geography. But, others may place more emphasis on exposure, recruiting, and/or strength of schedule. Let’s hope for no sideboards; give ’em liberty!
Playing this out, hypothetically, it seems plausible that no school would decline an invite from USC, for establishing a permanent rivalry, with the possible exception of Iowa, since Barta already has them booked for 3 locked rivalries. Thus, would USC choose to lock UCLA, OSU, and UMich? Likewise, would OSU decide that it likes the idea of annual trips to SoCal, and lock UMich, USC, and UCLA? That would leave UMich with OSU, USC, and MSU, presumably. And, PSU, realizing that OSU and UMich are booked, may regret opening the door to [3]-6-6. Would PSU then make entreaties to MSU, UW, UNL, UCLA, or UMTC, to avoid being randomly assigned temporary rivalries that they don’t want? Of course, as the number of mutually locked rivalries increases, the dynamism of [3]-6-6 decreases. In other words, schools may avoid shotgun weddings, only to find themselves in singles mixers with unattractive options. But, dissecting schools’ decisions on this would sure be fun.
LikeLike
You point out another problem with giving the schools total freedom on this. Someone needs to keep in mind what’s best for the B10 overall, and force some schools to do things they may not want to do. In your example above, the B10 should force OSU to play PSU because it’s too valuable of a game to let go. Likewise the B10 should force PSU to play RU and UMD.
The easiest solution to the “forced” rivalries in a 3/6/6 setup (other than just accepting them, obviously) are to rotate them every 4 years. So it’s 2 extra games against that team in 4 years, then with another team. Over time, maybe some of them become actual rivalries and the schools ask to lock it in.
Start with the mandatory games:
RU – UMD,
UMD – RU,
PSU – OSU,
OSU – MI, PSU,
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI,
IN – PU,
PU – IN, IL,
IL – NW, PU,
NW – IL,
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
UCLA – USC,
USC – UCLA,
I’ll be very surprised if all of those aren’t in the actual set.
Now add in desirable games:
RU – PSU,
UMD – PSU,
PSU – RU, UMD (these two could be rotated so they each play 75% of the time)
MSU – IN, NW
IN – MSU
NW – MSU
These keep MSU’s minor rivalry and preferred NW game, and keep the eastern newbies with a king.
Now add in short term games for integrating the newbies and maximizing TV value:
OSU – USC
MI – USC
WI – UCLA
NE – UCLA
UCLA – WI, NE
USC – OSU, MI
These get big brands playing the new west coast members. USC gets kings while UCLA gets brands more on their level, but also with some history. After 4-8 years, there could be some rotation (to OSU+NE, MI+WI vs USC, UCLA; then pair them the other way, etc.).
That gets you to 10 of 16 teams with 3 locked games, leaving RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL and NW with 2 each. RU/UMD, IN/PU, NW/IL and PU/IL are already locked.
So how would I pair them?
RU – NW (NYC vs Chicago, NW has lots of alumni in NYC)
IN – IL (regional)
UMD – PU
Other pairings are certainly possible, and this is where the rotation could kick in.
Years 1-4:
RU – NW
IN – IL
UMD – PU
Years 5-8:
RU – PU
IN – NW
UMD – IL
etc.
My final list for a pure 3/6/6:
RU – UMD, PSU, NW
UMD – RU, PSU, PU
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
OSU – MI, PSU, USC
MI – OSU, MSU, USC
MSU – MI, IN, NW
IN – PU, MSU, IL
PU – IN, IL, UMD
IL – NW, PU, IN
NW – IL, MSU, RU
WI – MN, IA, UCLA
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN, UCLA
UCLA – USC, NE, WI
USC – UCLA, OSU, MI
I want to note that this list is designed for the first few years to integrate USC and UCLA. After that, the locked games out west could change.
Certainly there is room for change, but I think this hits the goals for the B10 of preserving key rivalries and getting the big brands into LA.
I hope the B10 mostly applies a zipper-like approach to scheduling the non-locked games:
USC/UCLA
NE/IA
WI/MN
NW/IL
IN/PU
MI/MSU
OSU/PSU
UMD/RU
Play one for 2 years, then the other if neither of them is locked with you. Make new “pairs” from the singletons leftover from your 3 locked rivals and your partner.
LikeLike
Brian: “The easiest solution to the “forced” rivalries in a 3/6/6 setup (other than just accepting them, obviously) are to rotate them every 4 years.”
The easiest solution to the forced rivalries is to not have any of them. If we use a format of variable-but-not-more-than-3/round-robin 6,7 or 8, then it’s easy to get to a balanced, equitable schedule without forced rivalries. Using a modification of Brian’s proposed mandatory games:
RU – UMD. PSU
UMD – RU, PSU
PSU – RU, UMD
OSU – MI.
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI,
IN – PU,
PU – IN, IL,
IL – NW, PU,
NW – IL,
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
UCLA – USC,
USC – UCLA,
The OSU-PSU game is no longer locked but both of them will be playing USC and UCLA with a better than 50% frequency and PSU will also be playing Michigan more often. Once divisions go away, the focus should be upon equitable distribution and maximum exposure.
LikeLike
Colin,
“The easiest solution to the forced rivalries is to not have any of them.”
No, it actually isn’t. It’s somewhat complicated for the scheduler and is way too complicated for casual fans. Rotating rivalries achieves the same result but is much simpler to do and for fans to understand. Even simpler is locking 3 rivals for everyone.
“If we use a format of variable-but-not-more-than-3/round-robin 6,7 or 8, then it’s easy to get to a balanced, equitable schedule without forced rivalries.”
What is “balanced”? What is “equitable”? The plan forces uneven frequency of games and unequal SOS. The plan also fails to address other concerns of the B10 (maximizing the T V payout in future years, increasing CFP participants, maximizing exposure of the newbies, integrating the newbies, helping the newbies sell tickets, maintaining minor rivalries and regional contests for the old members when possible, …). Games are already aired in an unequal fashion (bury the crappy games on BTN, etc.), and it’s done for the good of the B10 so it’s equitable. The locked rivalries of the past were also unequal.
“The OSU-PSU game is no longer locked but both of them will be playing USC and UCLA with a better than 50% frequency and PSU will also be playing Michigan more often.”
That’s the second most valuable game in the current B10, and PSU’s most valued game (even if it’s a unidirectional rivalry). It is bad for PSU and the B10 to not lock that game. MI is less important to PSU. When PSU joined, they demanded OSU and MI locked for the first 10 years but only OSU after that.
“Once divisions go away, the focus should be upon equitable distribution and maximum exposure.”
Maximum exposure for whom? If it’s the B10 overall, then you don’t want equal game frequency at all. You want the most brand-brand games you can get. Equitable doesn’t mean equal, it means treating everyone fairly.
LikeLike
So, 3-6-6 is so simple, with its mix of consensual and forcibly locked rivalries, zippered scheduling, etc., but as soon as you introduce liberty and freedom, it’s suddenly “way too complicated for casual fans”?!? This is American college football. In America. It’s preposterous to suggest that casual fans – a group comprised mostly of American citizens – will struggle to understand the difference between allowing schools the autonomy to establish consensual rivalries, versus having “someone…force some schools to do things they may not want to do.”
LikeLike
mstinebrink: ” it’s suddenly “way too complicated for casual fans”?!?”
Right, plus the fans don’t need to figure it out. There is no question that variable locked rivalries is a more complex scheduling format than 3/6/6. But the fans won’t be doing the scheduling, the Big Ten Conference will.
Back when the B1G had eleven schools, scheduling was more complex vs ten. But it wasn’t a problem for the fans. The B1G did it.
LikeLike
What a load of faux-patriotic BS.
Liberty and freedom are irrelevant here. Those are terms related to what the government can and can’t control. This is a business decision by the B10 in terms of what games to schedule.
But since you want to talk “freedom,” all 16 schools are free to leave the B10 at any time. Or they can agree to the B10’s scheduling plan. Nobody is forced into anything. They are adults that need to agree on a path forward.
And yes, your plan is too complicated for casual fans. “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.” Nothing is more equal than everyone playing a 3/6/6 schedule, and nothing is easier to understand.
Schools can form whatever rivalries they want. Those don’t have to be the same as their locked 3 games. The B10 can’t lock all the rivalries anyway. Nobody is forcing the schools to do anything, they are choosing to agree to the scheduling plan and stay in the B10. They have input along the way in forming the scheduling plan, and then agree to abide by the final vote.
People and schools are forced to do things they don’t want to do (and not do things they do want to do) all the time. That’s life. OSU doesn’t want to play RU, but it’s a price they pay for staying in the B10 and getting those NYC TV dollars. OSU doesn’t really want PU to get paid just as much as OSU, but it understands that’s what’s best for the B10. Society requires sacrifices for the common good.
LikeLike
“Back when the B1G had eleven schools, scheduling was more complex vs ten. But it wasn’t a problem for the fans. The B1G did it.”
Apples and oranges. We aren’t comparing 14 teams to 16 teams.
How did the B10 do the scheduling with 11? 2 locked rivals for everyone with the rest rotating. Not 3 locked for some, 2 for others, and 1 (or even 0) for the rest.
LikeLike
Brian: “How did the B10 do the scheduling with 11? 2 locked rivals for everyone with the rest rotating.”
Right. That’s how the great Purdue-Iowa rivalry was created.
LikeLike
PU/IA wasn’t locked with 11 teams. They didn’t play in 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2009 or 2010. With 10 teams, they played annually since 1959 (and from 1929-1956). That seems like history worth preserving.
Here’s the list from 2010 (pre-divisions):
Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota
LikeLike
This looks like a pretty reasonable starting point. Add a 3rd fixed game. All of those stay except for Michigan St.-Penn St. so that PSU can play Maryland and Rutgers. One possibility-Nebraska plays Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin. USC plays UCLA, Michigan, Rutgers. UCLA plays USC, Ohio St., Northwestern. Michigan St. adds IU and MD. Illinois adds Purdue. RU plays MD.
LikeLike
bullet: “. . . Add a 3rd fixed game. . . USC plays . . . Rutgers. UCLA plays . . . Northwestern. Michigan St. adds . . . MD. ”
Do you see how absurd these forced rivalries are?
LikeLike
I notice you didn’t mention the original set (though they aren’t all great) or the other 10 or so bullet listed. That sounds like a pretty good percentage.
All of your “absurd” rivalries will be played at least every other year, so what’s the big deal if they become annual? Maybe they become actual rivalries in time.
I wouldn’t lock the same list bullet did, though. USC/RU and UCLA/NW make no sense to me when there are more valuable or useful games to lock. I certainly don’t think USC is looking to maximize flights to NYC, nor does RU want to pay for frequent flights to LA.
LikeLike
Brian: “I wouldn’t lock the same list bullet did, though. USC/RU and UCLA/NW make no sense to me when there are more valuable or useful games to lock.”
OK, exactly what are the more valuable or useful games to lock? We are talking about rivalries, not jacked up games for TV ratings. Do you understand that loading up OSU with annual games against Michigan, Penn State and USC will REDUCE the number of Big Ten teams getting into the playoffs and INCREASE the number of SEC teams getting into the playoffs?
LikeLike
Colin,
“OK, exactly what are the more valuable or useful games to lock?”
I just put my list above. Go read it.
“We are talking about rivalries, not jacked up games for TV ratings.”
No, we are talking about locked games for scheduling. We call them locked rivals, but they don’t need to be rivalries. They are games the B10 thinks should be annual. Many are rivalries (all the in-state games, The Game, etc.), but a bunch aren’t. NE, PSU, RU and UMD don’t have true rivals in the B10 (yet), but they do have games that are important to them. And the B10 has games that are financially important to them. And the B10 needs to integrate new members, And the B10 wants to maximize return on their new additions. And the B10 wants lots of high-viewer games to drive value for the next TV deal.
“Do you understand that loading up OSU with annual games against Michigan, Penn State and USC will REDUCE the number of Big Ten teams getting into the playoffs and INCREASE the number of SEC teams getting into the playoffs?”
No, because you’re portraying your opinion as fact.
OSU already plays MI and PSU annually, and they have made the 4 team CFP more than any B10 team. MI has made it twice as well, and PSU almost did. There is zero evidence that OSU playing USC would suddenly drop lots of teams out of the top 12 (or even just more than it raises into the top 12). USC isn’t always better than other teams OSU also faces like MSU, WI, or IA. Playing a tougher schedule may be rewarded in CFP rankings, especially when the SEC teams are getting so much credit for their conference games.
LikeLike
Brian, do you think the SEC is going to do this? Their 3/6/6 will be set up with Texas being an annual rival of Bama and Oklahoma being an annual rival of Georgia because those will be big “TV games”?
LikeLike
Since Ohio St. already had Michigan and Penn St., I gave them UCLA and paired Michigan with USC. I could have paired USC or UCLA with Wisconsin or Iowa, but felt like the Nebraska matchup was a more natural rivalry for WI and IA. And USC and UCLA get annual matches with schools in Chicago and NYC which will help them connect with alumni in those cities. And they do each have the other as well as Ohio St. or Michigan, so they need a lesser opponent. Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA are outside the core. Its pretty easy to get 3 rivals for the middle 12 schools. There are many options.
LikeLike
bullet: “Since Ohio St. already had Michigan and Penn St., I gave them UCLA and paired Michigan with USC.”
This fixation with pairing the top brands against each other is puzzling. The Big Ten wants to get as many as at-large berths in the CFP as possible But if our top brands beat each other up, we’ll end up with a bunch of three-loss teams and one at-large while the SEC has a herd of two-loss teams and four at-larges.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Brian, do you think the SEC is going to do this?”
1. Irrelevant. The B10 isn’t the SEC.
2. Ask Alan for an informed opinion on that.
3. UT and OU have some pre-existing rivals in the SEC (UT – TAMU, AR; OU – MO) plus each other.
4. There were hints/rumors that the SEC might use 2 tiers, with tier 1 playing 2 tier 1’s and a tier 2, and vice versa for tier 2 schools. The point would be to have more high-value games for TV, and to give harder SOS to the better teams while the lesser teams get easier SOS. Those are concepts similar to what I mentioned.
5. The B10 has done it before.
“Their 3/6/6 will be set up with Texas being an annual rival of Bama and Oklahoma being an annual rival of Georgia because those will be big “TV games”?”
If AL didn’t have 17 other rivals, yes. Same with UGA. Even UT comes in with 3 strong rivals. That’s not the same scenario as USC and UCLA.
USC has played OSU more than any other B10 school (24 to 13 for IL). They’ve played OSU more than CU or UU. And some of those have been big games (7 Rose, 1 Cotton; 4 MNC’s were determined by the games). MI has more Rose Bowls vs USC but fewer regular season games.
UCLA has played NE more than any other B10 school. WI is a close third (1 game behind IL) but has the relatively recent Rose Bowl history with UCLA.
I didn’t pull those matchups out of a hat.
It’s exactly what the B10 did with NE (big brands and newbies needing exposure):
2011-12: division + PSU, OSU, WI
2016 (start of 9 games and parity-based schedule): division + OSU + UMD + IN
2017: OSU + PSU + RU
2018: OSU + MI + MSU
2019: OSU + UMD + IN
2020: OSU + PSU + RU
2021: OSU + MI + MSU
2022: MI + IN + RU
The whole parity-based scheduling plan was based on getting more big games. PSU’s initial schedule locked OSU and MI for 10 years and kept OSU locked ever since.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Since Ohio St. already had Michigan and Penn St., I gave them UCLA and paired Michigan with USC. I could have paired USC or UCLA with Wisconsin or Iowa, but felt like the Nebraska matchup was a more natural rivalry for WI and IA. And USC and UCLA get annual matches with schools in Chicago and NYC which will help them connect with alumni in those cities. And they do each have the other as well as Ohio St. or Michigan, so they need a lesser opponent. Rutgers, Maryland, USC and UCLA are outside the core. Its pretty easy to get 3 rivals for the middle 12 schools. There are many options.”
There are lots of options. I’ve made the list multiple times, and it is usually a little different each time. OSU has a lot more history with USC than UCLA. MI’s is more balanced between the two. I gave USC both for brand value and integration. Nothing will help them sell tickets as much as OSU or MI coming to town, and UCLA will still play one of them every year. UCLA can compete better vs WI and NE, plus they have some history against those two schools. That doesn’t make my list correct and your wrong. I can almost guarantee the B10 won’t exactly match my list.
I don’t see USC or UCLA locked with NW or RU, but I understand your thinking. I just think fans might rather get the biggest brands right away. I don’t think they really associate RU (or UMD) with the B10 at this point. NW for UCLA makes more sense in that regard, but many schools are close enough for Chicago alumni to drive to (WI, IL, IN, PU, OSU, MI, MSU).
LikeLike
At ease, Comrade Brian. The B1G Motherland is still contemplating its schedule for the future. It may determine that granting the republics the freedom to enter into their own alliances is simply too complicated for our lesser comrades to understand. The politburo may still fall back on what has been proposed here; it may even adopt exactly what you have proposed. Regardless, your service to the union has not gone unnoticed.
But, for real, “Liberty and freedom are irrelevant here…Nobody is forced into anything…Nobody is forcing the schools to do anything…People and schools are forced to do things they don’t want to do (and not do things they do want to do) all the time. That’s life…Society requires sacrifices for the common good.” So, a big “no” to liberty and freedom, because sacrifices are necessary and schools will be forced to do things, but nobody is actually forced to do anything, because they can just leave?!?
“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.” –Vladimir Lenin
LikeLike
It’s an athletic conference run by its members, not a government. Any member can leave if they don’t like the decisions the group makes. They always have a choice, so they aren’t forced to do anything. But if they choose to stay, then they have to abide by the group decisions. Scheduling is one of those things that is highly controlled by a conference, because it affects all members. OSU and MI can’t just play each other 9 times and ignore everyone else. PU can’t only play the shitty teams so they can get more wins. Once the B10 picks a plan, everyone has to abide by it. They are welcome to campaign for change, and they often do (see NE not wanting to play OSU annually).
So the schools are completely free – they can choose to be in the B10 or not. They can advocate for their preferred scheduling model, even after a different model has been chosen. But they have to follow the rules if they agree to be in the B10, just like they have to follow NCAA rules and local/state/federal laws. Freedom comes with obligations in a society.
LikeLike
Colin,
“This fixation with pairing the top brands against each other is puzzling.”
Only to you. It is an obvious business decision to others.
“The Big Ten wants to get as many as at-large berths in the CFP as possible”
All else being equal, sure. That doesn’t mean it’s their top priority. If that was their primary motivation, they wouldn’t be playing 9 B10 games right now. They wouldn’t have implemented parity-based scheduling. They wouldn’t have added Friday night games. They wouldn’t have expanded with RU, UMD and UCLA. They wouldn’t have put OSU, MI and PSU in the same division. They wouldn’t have locked PSU with MI and OSU for a decade. They wouldn’t have locked OSU and PSU permanently. They wouldn’t have locked OSU with NE in the parity-based scheduling.
The B10 has expanded 3 times in the recent past and followed the same basic plan each time. The new schools got to play OSU and MI early and often to help them sell tickets, feel part of the B10, and get a national spotlight as a B10 member. This helps integrate the new members and maximizes the return on the new addition.
“But if our top brands beat each other up, we’ll end up with a bunch of three-loss teams and one at-large while the SEC has a herd of two-loss teams and four at-larges.”
2022 – 5 of top 15 have 3 losses, B10 would get 2 at-larges (3 if you count USC)
2021 – 3 of top 15 have 3 losses, B10 would get 2 at-larges
2020 – skipped
2019 – 3 of top 15 have 3 losses, B10 would get 2 at-larges
2018 – 6 of top 15 have 3 losses, B10 would get 2 at-larges
2017 – 4 of top 15 have 3 losses, B10 would get 2 at-larges (3 if you count USC)
2016 – 7 of top 15 have 3 losses, B10 would get 3 at-larges (4 if you count USC)
2015 – 3 of top 15 have 3 losses, B10 would get 2 at-larges
2014 – 7 of top 15 have 3 losses, B10 would get 1 at-large
LikeLike
Brian, we don’t know what the Big 10 will prioritize. There’s a different list if they try to maximize big games. But the reason OU didn’t play Nebraska annually in the Big 12 is because they also played Texas and didn’t want to be disadvantaged. Will some of the powers in the Big 10 push back against too many “big games?” That is the reasoning with my choice. Will Ohio St. want to play the 3 strongest programs every year? Will USC want Ohio St., Michigan and say Wisconsin, along with their ooc vs. Notre Dame?
I think that list of 2 annual opponents is a good starting point. That is what they decided before to prioritize. You then just have to add in the 3rd game.
LikeLike
bullet: “Will Ohio St. want to play the 3 strongest programs every year?”
Of course they won’t. And it would also minimize the number of Big Ten teams getting into CFP. I don’t mean to be insulting but it’s just an absurd concept.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Brian, we don’t know what the Big 10 will prioritize.”
We don’t know, but I’m using history as a guide. The B10 has chosen key rivalries and then big games in the past. So did I. I have tried to be clear that I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that I don’t agree with you. There’s no reason we need to agree. Eventually the B10 will provide the actual answer (please don’t be a “Leaders and Legends”-level stupid decision).
“There’s a different list if they try to maximize big games.”
Yes.
“But the reason OU didn’t play Nebraska annually in the Big 12 is because they also played Texas and didn’t want to be disadvantaged.”
OU isn’t a B10 school. How they think doesn’t say much about how B10 powers think on this issue. The B10 and P12 jumped to 9 games while the ACC and SEC stuck at 8 for this reason. Different conferences have different priorities.
“Will some of the powers in the Big 10 push back against too many “big games?” ”
NE did (with others concurring), leading to the end of parity-based scheduling. But that was also driven by the unbalanced divisions.
“That is the reasoning with my choice.”
I understand, I just don’t agree.
“Will Ohio St. want to play the 3 strongest programs every year?”
This is one my issues. MI, PSU and USC are the three biggest brands in the B10 (besides OSU), but not necessarily the there best teams. One or more of WI, MSU and IA often are in that mix, and sometimes others. We already know OSU doesn’t push back on playing MI and PSU every year, and they also didn’t complain about getting NE annually in the parity-based scheduling.
“Will USC want Ohio St., Michigan and say Wisconsin, along with their ooc vs. Notre Dame?”
If they’re concerned about how their fans will react to the conference switch? Yes. OSU, MI and WI would sell tickets and be brand names their fans know and respect. They don’t want UMD, RU, NW, PU and IN as their home games.
Even if they only locked 1 rival (UCLA), USC would play at least one each of OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, WI/IA, NE/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN and RU/UMD. That’s 1.5 kings, 1.5 princes, and 4 others (plus UCLA, plus a 9th game). How much different is locking OSU and MI for a few years? Then they get OSU + MI + one each of PSU/MSU, WI/IA, NE/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN and RU/UMD (plus UCLA). I did the math before (it’s posted about 2500 comments ago), and it really isn’t a big SOS difference.
“I think that list of 2 annual opponents is a good starting point.”
To a certain extent, yes. But it doesn’t include NE, RU, UMD, USC or UCLA so it’s limited. I think you’ll find most of those games in my list as well, and many that aren’t are because of new additions (fitting in NE/IA and NE/MN, PSU with RU and UMD).
“That is what they decided before to prioritize.”
As I said elsewhere about the B10’s scheduling history:
USC has played OSU more than any other B10 school (24 to 13 for IL). They’ve played OSU more than CU or UU. And some of those have been big games (7 Rose, 1 Cotton; 4 MNC’s were determined by the games). MI has more Rose Bowls vs USC but fewer regular season games.
UCLA has played NE more than any other B10 school. WI is a close third (1 game behind IL) but has the relatively recent Rose Bowl history with UCLA.
I didn’t pull those matchups out of a hat.
It’s exactly what the B10 did with NE (big brands and newbies needing exposure):
2011-12: division + PSU, OSU, WI
2016 (start of 9 games and parity-based schedule): division + OSU + UMD + IN
2017: OSU + PSU + RU
2018: OSU + MI + MSU
2019: OSU + UMD + IN
2020: OSU + PSU + RU
2021: OSU + MI + MSU
2022: MI + IN + RU
The whole parity-based scheduling plan was based on getting more big games. PSU’s initial schedule locked OSU and MI for 10 years and kept OSU locked ever since.
“You then just have to add in the 3rd game.”
Yes.
LikeLike
bullet,
More on this specific point:
“Will Ohio St. want to play the 3 strongest programs every year?”
Want to? No. OSU likes winning as much as anyone.
Would accept it if the B10 felt it was important? Yes.
Gene Smith also likes to sell tickets, and he regularly schedules a home and home with an OOC king (including USC) while having MI and PSU on the schedule. He’s not exactly scared of competition. He’d probably just want MI to also play USC to keep it balanced. He could always choose to soften the OOC schedule if he was concerned about missing the CFP too often.
LikeLike
Brian;
Permanently having all the other top programs is different than an introductory period. No doubt USC and UCLA will play Michigan and Ohio St. early.
I think that list of 11 pairings from before Nebraska, except for PSU/MSU, are extremely likely to be included. Add PSU-MD, PSU-RU, MD-RU, UNL-IA, USC-UCLA, USC or UCLA-tOSU, UCLA or USC-UM. That gives you 17 of 24 that seem pretty certain (16 teams X 3 /2=24).
You’ve then got 1 more pairing for MN, WI, IL, NW, PU, IU, MD, RU, USC, UCLA and 2 for MSU and UNL.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Permanently having all the other top programs is different than an introductory period. No doubt USC and UCLA will play Michigan and Ohio St. early.”
I never said my plan was intended to be permanent. I’ve said it was for the first 10 years or so (maybe as few as 4, maybe 8 due to how the rotations work) the first few times I’ve mentioned it.
“I think that list of 11 pairings from before Nebraska, except for PSU/MSU, are extremely likely to be included.”
Just as a refresher, it’s these 11 games:
IA – MN, WI
MN – IA, WI
WI – IA, MN
IL – IN, NW
NW – IL, PU
IN – IL, PU
PU – IN, NW
MI – MSU, OSU
MSU – MI, PSU
OSU – MI, PSU
PSU – OSU, MSU
I agree that many of these will remain, and you’ll see them in my proposed list. 3 are in-state rivalries, two are high-value rivalries (OSU-MI, OSU-PSU), and several others make regional sense (WI-MN, etc.).
These are my “mandatory” games:
RU – UMD,
UMD – RU,
PSU – OSU,
OSU – MI, PSU,
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI,
IN – PU,
PU – IN, IL,
IL – NW, PU,
NW – IL,
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
UCLA – USC,
USC – UCLA,
You’ll see 8/11 of the old list still there, with the changes being PSU-MSU, PU-NW and IL-IN. And we agree about PSU-MSU going away.
IL-PU is an actually trophy game (Purdue Cannon), plus MSU has been vocal about wanting to play NW and MSU-IN is a trophy game.
The replacement for them appear on my “desirable” games list:
RU – PSU,
UMD – PSU,
PSU – RU, UMD (these two could be rotated so they each play 75% of the time)
MSU – IN, NW
IN – MSU
NW – MSU
So we agree on 8/11, and that 1 of them will go away, then I did some swapping in the other 2 games to better fit trophy games and expressed opinions of schools.
“Add PSU-MD, PSU-RU, MD-RU, UNL-IA, USC-UCLA, USC or UCLA-tOSU, UCLA or USC-UM. That gives you 17 of 24 that seem pretty certain (16 teams X 3 /2=24).”
I have the first 6 of those as well, so we’re at 14/17 with minor changes in 2 more. I just also have USC-MI instead of UCLA-MI. That’s the only major difference so far.
“You’ve then got 1 more pairing for MN, WI, IL, NW, PU, IU, MD, RU, USC, UCLA and 2 for MSU and UNL.”
I’ve used up MSU’s 2 and MN’s 1. At this point I have 3 locked for PSU, MSU, MN and IA, with 2 locked for everyone else but USC and UCLA with 1 each.
Now add in short term games for integrating the newbies and maximizing TV value. I have 4 major brands left in the current B10 with a free game (OSU, MI, WI, NE), so I paired them this way:
OSU – USC
MI – USC
WI – UCLA
NE – UCLA
UCLA – WI, NE
USC – OSU, MI
These get big brands playing the new west coast members. USC gets kings while UCLA gets brands more on their level, but also with some history. After 4-8 years, there could be some rotation (to OSU+NE, MI+WI vs USC, UCLA; then pair them the other way, etc.).
That gets you to 10 of 16 teams with 3 locked games, leaving RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL and NW with 2 each. RU/UMD, IN/PU, NW/IL and PU/IL are already locked.
These are the arbitrary games, in that I don’t think any of them serve a major purpose for the B10 nor do I think any of these schools have a strong affinity to play any specific one of the others.
So how would I pair them?
RU – NW (NYC vs Chicago, NW has lots of alumni in NYC)
IN – IL (regional, and both are already locked with PU)
UMD – PU
Other pairings are certainly possible, and this is where the rotation could kick in.
Years 1-4:
RU – NW
IN – IL
UMD – PU
Other options:
RU – PU
IN – NW
UMD – IL
NW – PU
IN – RU
UMD – IL
NW – UMD
PU – RU
IN – IL
etc.
My final list for a pure 3/6/6:
RU – UMD, PSU, NW
UMD – RU, PSU, PU
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
OSU – MI, PSU, USC
MI – OSU, MSU, USC
MSU – MI, IN, NW
IN – PU, MSU, IL
PU – IN, IL, UMD
IL – NW, PU, IN
NW – IL, MSU, RU
WI – MN, IA, UCLA
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN, UCLA
UCLA – USC, NE, WI
USC – UCLA, OSU, MI
I want to note that this list is designed for the first few years to integrate USC and UCLA. After that, the locked games out west could change.
Certainly there is room for change, but I think this hits the goals for the B10 of preserving key rivalries and getting the big brands into LA.
I hope the B10 mostly applies a zipper-like approach to scheduling the non-locked games:
USC/UCLA
NE/IA
WI/MN
NW/IL
IN/PU
MI/MSU
OSU/PSU
UMD/RU
Play one for 2 years, then the other if neither of them is locked with you. Make new “pairs” from the singletons leftover from your 3 locked rivals and your partner.
What would the long term plan look like? Good question. I will assume no new expansion as obviously that would change things.
The first 2 subsets of games don’t change for me:
RU – UMD, PSU,
UMD – RU, PSU,
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
OSU – MI, PSU,
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI, IN, NW
IN – PU, MSU,
PU – IN, IL,
IL – NW, PU,
NW – IL, MSU,
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
UCLA – USC,
USC – UCLA,
That just leaves 1 games for RU, UMD, PU, IN , IL, NW, OSU, MI, WI and NE, plus 2 games each for USC and UCLA.
I still think you want brands in LA, but it can be more balanced now:
OSU – USC
MI – UCLA
WI – USC
NE – UCLA
UCLA – MI, NE
USC – OSU, WI
I left OSU-USC because of their history. You could easily swap OSU for MI and it would likely be more fair. While locking LA schools with RU or UMD would be interesting, that’s a lot of travel. I don’t think they’ll lock in the IN or IL schools either, but you could. I’d rather lock those schools with the eastern pair (less travel and competitively balanced).
LikeLike
This is fascinating btw: https://www.wsj.com/graphics/where-graduates-move-after-college/?mod=students_jobhunt
Useful when considering realignment.
LikeLike
Yes, hence Frank’s post back in 2018 about it (https://frankthetank.org/2018/05/18/oh-the-places-youll-go-where-big-ten-graduates-live-and-conference-realignment/).
One of the odd things is how few OSU alumni move to Chicago compared to other B10 schools. It’s not a shock that almost half stay in the 3 C’s in Ohio, but more go to NYC than Chicago, and LA isn’t far behind.
OSU’s percentage in each metro area:
Columbus – 36.0
Cleveland – 6.3
Cincinnati – 4.3
New York – 3.3
Chicago – 2.6
Washington – 2.2
Los Angeles – 2.0
Other B10 schools in Chicago:
IL – 42.0 (2.5 LA)
NW – 36.4 (4.2 LA)
IA – 15.6 (2.3 LA)
PU – 15.0 (2.0 LA)
IN – 13.2 (2.6 LA)
WI – 10.0
MI – 6.8
MSU – 6.5 (2.2 LA)
MN – 2.4 (1.8 LA)
NE – 2.3
PSU – 1.0-1.9 (1.6 LA)
RU – < 1.0 (58.3 NYC, 2.4 DC, 1.5 LA)
MD – < 1.0 (36.4 DC, 6.9 NYC, 1.9 LA)
USC – 1.0-1.9 (3.6 NYC, 2.2 DC)
UCLA – <1.0 (3.3 NYC)
OSU isn't that much further away than UM or MSU, but it's a big drop in people.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
That hilarious claim they might ‘revisit the issue’ after the PAC12 has its deal in hand, to possibly request a 3-5m subsidy for Cal, will never happen. Pure face saving nonsense. They’ll never pay a dime (as I said a month ago). That would open a pandora’s box AND the big can of worms inside it.
LikeLike
…Just the fact they describe it as a non-obligatory ‘contribution’ shows they know which way the wind blows.
LikeLike
Now maybe, just maybe, Kliavkoff can actually work on a new TV contract for the PAC.
This also makes it clear to WA, OR and CO, etc, that they are not likely to get an offer from the B1G in the next few years, so they can sign at least a short GOR to maximize the new contract.
LikeLike
Or maybe it means the B$G can get serious about offering them now that #16 has been locked down?
LikeLike
Click to access b2.pdf
UCLA’s mitigation plan:
1. UCLA may proceed with its planned membership in the Big Ten Conference on condition that it implement the mitigation measures described below;
2. UCLA will adopt and implement annual plans to mitigate the travel impacts of its
membership in the Big Ten Conference; …
3. UCLA will increase budgeted student-athlete academic support beyond levels established for the 2023-2024 fiscal year in an amount not less than $1.5 million; …
4. UCLA will increase budgeted student-athlete nutritional support beyond levels
established for the 2023-2024 fiscal year in an amount not less than $4.3 million; …
5. UCLA will increase budgeted student-athlete mental health services beyond levels established for the 2023-2024 fiscal year in an amount not less than $562,800; …
6. UCLA will work with the UCLA Division of the Academic Senate to request that faculty provide appropriate accommodations and access to remote courses and online materials to student-athletes, and will engage Student Affairs in facilitating conversations between student-athletes and faculty members;
7. UCLA will collect information on an annual basis from student-athletes concerning their experiences with mental health services provided by UCLA, particularly with regard to wait times;
8. UCLA will conduct an annual survey of student-athletes to ensure the mitigation
measures described in this item are sufficient and to identify any additional areas of support that may be needed. Results of such survey shall be shared with the President of the University;
9. The requirements of Paragraphs 1 to 8 shall be effective starting July 1, 2024 (the
beginning of the University’s fiscal year) and shall continue until the expiration or
termination of the Big Ten Conference New Member Agreement executed by UCLA on or about July 13, 2022, or earlier, if UCLA ceases to be a member of the Big Ten
Conference, in which case these requirements will be reviewed and may be modified, as appropriate, by approval of the Board of Regents;
10. UCLA will establish a reserve fund with the Office of the President in the amount of $2.5 million to be used to supplement the amounts specified in this item, if the mitigation measures are determined to be insufficient; such reserve fund shall be established no later than July 1, 2024 and shall remain in place until the earlier of June 30, 2026, or until UCLA ceases to be a member of the Big Ten Conference;
11. The President will return to the Regents at a future meeting, after Pac-12 media agreements are finalized, with a recommendation for a contribution by UCLA to the Berkeley campus in the range of $2 million to $5 million, to be used to enhance student athlete support at that campus. Such recommendation will be based on the best available information on projected revenues for both campuses.
During the meeting, BoR upped the cap to $10M for the Berkeley tax.
LikeLike
#6 shouldn’t even need to be stated (your job is to educate the students, not to enforce arbitrary rules you implemented), and it’s a key point to why this is less of a problem now than ever before. With online courses, flipped courses, recorded lectures, asynchronous quizzes and exams, online office hours, etc., athletes don’t need to miss class in the same ways they used to miss it during a road trip.
Kudos to UCLA for including mental health and nutrition guarantees as well.
LikeLike
Aside from the Berkeley tax, weren’t they planning to do versions of these things anyway?
LikeLike
Yes but always best to let the UC regents take credit so they can tell Newsom and Cal folks they’re in charge of the process.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes, this is all stuff they’ve said before that they would do (except the tax). But here they actually committed to numbers and a plan for oversight of their adherence to the plan, and a slush fund in case any of their mitigation aspects is more expensive than projected.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten feels any pressure to move to 18 before the mid-2030s when we get to the big run on the ACC.
ACC+ND shakeout is next on the agenda before revisiting any West Coast schools.
I don’t think any of us are surprised by the UC regents decision today. I expected a small subsidy for 6 or 7 years to Cal from UCLA.
Most likely it’ll be something like $5-7 million a year for 6 or 7 years.
And then we get to all come back here in 10-11 years. It’s amazing how long we’ve been discussing realignment, but we’re only halfway done.
LikeLike
Agreed, the other P12 schools just don’t bring enough to justify the costs. Borrowing the P12’s argument, all that extra travel for the current 14 members for no extra money doesn’t make sense. And that’s not counting the diluted rivalries. I think USCLA will be playing lots of west coast OOC games for a long time.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m at the point where it feels impossible to make a financial case right now for anybody else on the West Coast.
For as much as we talk about the value of the 4th window, it doesn’t seem clear that there’s enough viewership and money there to justify additions for that.
USC/UCLA understand what they signed up for here. They’re signing up to be part of a footprint in the East/Central timezones that gets them much higher viewership nationally and puts them in much more relevant timeslots.
I still think Washington (and Stanford) have good chances to end up in the Big Ten, and maybe Oregon has decent odds, but I don’t see the urgency at this moment and I don’t think any of them is the justification for moving beyond 16.
They’re all +1s in some sort of sense waiting for news from the ACC.
Notre Dame (as always), FSU, Miami, and then maybe UNC are all above Washington/Stanford/Oregon in pecking order for the Big Ten in my opinion.
The more valuable schools always move first in realignment. Everyone else has to wait.
LikeLike
For as much as we talk about the value of the 4th window, it doesn’t seem clear that there’s enough viewership and money there to justify additions for that.
The 4th window has been valuable only to one party: ESPN. That’s because any live game is better for them than another installment of SportsCenter. Maybe that’ll change in this cycle with streaming partners, but historically no other broadcaster has sniffed at those games. That of course limits the value, because there is no bidding war.
LikeLike
This is where you get into the strategy of ESPN. Will they “encourage” the P12 to add a couple of MWC teams to get back to 12, further undercutting Fox’s MWC late night coverage? If ESPN can cripple Fox’s late window games, then that time slot gains even more value.
We know the P12 has kicked the tires on SDSU, and several others. Many say SMU would be their 2nd choice, but several others offer things that might be of value to the networks. Boise brings a brand but a bad academic reputation. UNLV brings a market and nothing else. Fresno brings another CA school and a sizable fan base. HI could make sense for football only (those extra games would create more inventory, too) but would require Gonzaga or someone to bring all the other sports up to 12. SMU gets the P12 into TX and adds a big market, but it’s isolated from everyone else and has limited market penetration.
LikeLike
z33k: “I don’t think the Big Ten feels any pressure to move to 18 before the mid-2030s when we get to the big run on the ACC. . . ACC+ND shakeout is next on the agenda . . .”
There are some keyboard conference commissioners here who believe it is inevitable that ND and the ACC elite end up in the Big Ten/SEC but I’ll stick with my previous prediction: The Big Ten and SEC won’t expand again in our lifetimes.
LikeLike
FSU is already pointing out how they belong in the Big Ten and SEC based on their athletics revenue in presentations to their donors.
The notion that somehow this is going to die down anytime soon is far fetched.
We can certainly revisit this in 10-15 years, but it will be a shocker if FSU isn’t already making noise by 2032 about leaving the ACC.
LikeLike
z33k: “FSU is already pointing out how they belong in the Big Ten and SEC based on their athletics revenue in presentations to their donors.”
z33k, I hear ya but this isn’t about what FSU wants. It’s about what the Big Ten and SEC need. After about ten years of financial beatdown by both conferences, I think the schools of the Big Ten and SEC will be so far ahead of FSU and Clemson in terms of NIL, facilities, coach salaries and recruiting funds that they won’t be desirable additions to either P-2 conference.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35254728/uc-regents-approve-ucla-big-ten-move-include-conditions
“We looked at the reality of where we are and what the alternatives were,” Board of Regents chair Rich Leib said. “And I think in the end we just decided that the best thing to do is the way we did it, which is conditions, but allow them to go.”
As part of the board’s decision, UCLA will have to increase its expected investment in student-athlete resources and might have to provide a subsidy to the University of California, Berkeley in the range of $2 million to $10 million once a Pac-12 media deal is secured, depending on the amount of the deal. A UCOP spokesperson said the frequency of the $2-10 million subsidy to UC Berkeley is yet to be determined.
…
“Berkeley really took a hit by UCLA leaving,” Leib said. “They suffered quite a bit. We don’t know how much, but we felt it was important … that we somehow make Berkeley, maybe not whole, but at least help them in that situation.”
…
On Wednesday, the board directed UCLA to provide additional yearly resources for student-athlete support as condition for its move to the Big Ten.
“We actually added more to it, so all together we have about, between 11 and 12 million of enhancements,” Leib said. The official number is a range between $11.03 million to $12.20 million.
Those enhancements include providing about $6.3 million to academic support, nutritional support and mental health services for all student-athletes. Roughly $4.3 million will be for food, requiring breakfast and lunch on campus for all UCLA athletes, professional dietitian services and nutritious meals while they are traveling.
…
“We don’t know what’s gonna happen with the Pac-12 at this point,” Leib said. “They were hurt by USC and then UCLA making this [move] … but really USC was the first one. There are indications that it might be a very strong media contract that they get in the end, which would make Berkeley a lot better, so therefore maybe the payment would be far less. It just depends, it’s really hard to know. So we wanted to give ourselves a wide range.”
So it sounds like the tax will happen at least once, it’s just the amount and the frequency that are up for debate. If/when the P12 gets a low media deal, they may be more inclined to make UCLA pony up.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think the issue will basically be settled with making the transfers for the length of this next Pac-12 media contract.
I’d be a bit surprised if they make it permanent since no conferences are signing incredibly long contracts at this point.
The Pac-12 is planning on signing a 6 or 7 year deal to get back to the market in case a streaming heavy deal doesn’t work out or in case something changes in their ability to sign a better deal.
And the Big Ten is on a 7 year deal, so it makes sense to make the length of the transfers 6 or 7 years.
There’s very little clarity beyond this decade in terms of what media money looks like.
5-7 years of $5-7 million transfers to Cal is probably a pretty fair “Berkeley tax”.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2022/12/14/ucla-can-join-big-ten-university-california-regents-decide/10899822002/
More from the BoR chair and others:
“I would love there to be harmony amongst everybody,” said Rich Leib, chair of the UC Regents. “To be honest with you, I would love for Cal in the Big Ten. … But that’s not where it is right now.’’
Leib said the regents explored the possibility of the Big Ten taking Cal and adding additional Pac-12 schools — Stanford, Washington and Oregon.
“We certainly put some pressure on to see if we could,” he said. “In the end, the expansion was not going to be on the table for us.’’
Ultimately, Leib said, the key to building enough support to approve UCLA’s move was setting aside money to enhance the experience for the school’s athletes.
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block, inundated with criticism after UCLA announced its intentions in June, said “we’re happy to have it resolved” but did not look outwardly happy.
He called the proceedings “unsettling.”
“Well, to me personally unsettling because this is a difficult decision,” he said. “I’ve been a member of the Pac-12 for a long time and my education was at a Pac-12 institution (Stanford and Oregon), so this is hard.’’
…
But Tyrone C. Howard, a UCLA professor of education who also is director of the UCLA Black Male Institute, expressed support for the move.
“If there’s worry about the move harming Black male student athletes, that is cause for a much deeper and different discussion, because they face more complex challenges than which conference their school is in,’’ said Howard, who argued the additional media revenue would allow the school to provide more resources for its athletes.
LikeLike
The amount of money Cal gets will depend on the value of the Pac-12 media rights deal and must be used to enhance support for the school’s athletes.
I think the bold part is a key point. Cal can’t just spend the money however they want (though money is fungible), it has to be for athlete support. UCLA may keep a watchful eye on how it is spent and report back to the BoR in an attempt to end the tax if it isn’t being used as intended.
LikeLike
I think that clarifies that the Big 10 going to 20 is not on the table at this point in time. Doesn’t necessarily mean 18 is not on the table.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-geeking-out-on-the-media
Now that we know UCLA is leaving, it’s a good time to look back at this piece from Canzano. He asked Bob Thompson to rank the remaining P10 schools and give an idea what an unequal revenue distribution might look like.
Thompson geeked out on the numbers and created a formula to measure market size, television households, football brand, win percentage, Olympic sports, fan support, and men’s basketball impact.
…
The figures above are estimated “Year No. 1” numbers based on a five-year media rights contract with an average annual payout of $350 million. It includes an industry-standard four-percent annual increase and assumes the conference will be able to monetize the Pac-12 Networks.
The average payout in the first year: $32.4 million per school.
Here’s his tiered plan:
UW, UO, Stanford – $38.7M
ASU, UU, Cal – $32.2M
UA, WSU, CU, OrSU – $27.7M
4 schools get $4.7M less and 3 schools get $6.3M more. The middle 3 get about the same (-$0.2M).
I’m told the conference members are discussing whether Pac-12 schools that earn postseason windfalls (College Football Playoff, NCAA Tournament, bowl games, etc.) should get to keep a larger share of those payouts. The conference members currently pool the postseason money and share equally. I think that’s going to change. But — would some of the Pac-12 schools also demand more media-rights money?
It’s not something the Ducks — or anyone else — have been advocating for in open sessions, per a well-placed Pac-12 source. But if we’ve learned anything in the last couple of months, it’s that college athletics has left the traditional subsidization model in the rearview mirror.
I think unequal postseason revenue sharing is quite likely in many conferences, especially with CFP expansion. I expect some portion of the revenue each conference receives to be split equally and the rest not.
LikeLike
The NCAA is now dropping even the pretense of caring about academics, choosing a politician to be their next president.
https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1603408289173209098?
LikeLike
The NCAA is now dropping even the pretense of caring about academics, choosing a politician to be their next president.
“Pretense” is the key word. I am not sure how true it was, even when they said it.
LikeLike
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/uc-regents-cal-ucla-big-ten-payment
A Cal viewpoint on UCLA leaving.
The UC Regents finally deliberated and allowed UCLA to move onto the Big Ten along with USC. This has long been expected.
What wasn’t expected is the Regents did indeed deliberate on the long-speculated payout to UC Berkeley (and by proxy Cal Athletics), and agreed that UCLA should pay $2 to $5 million, contingent on the eventual Pac-12 television contract.
That figure was then revised to $2 to $10 million.
…
That could mean $20 to $100 million in the next decade coming to Cal from UCLA’s move. All in all, not a bad bargain.
…
But if this payout is annual, it will provide Cal with a much needed influx of cash. The Bears have a lot of debt they’d like to service out, particularly from the Memorial Stadium renovation, and in absence of steady TV revenue and sagging ticket sales, this financial boost is just what they need.
That being said, we’re still a long way from anything actually happening. UCLA doesn’t leave for the Big Ten until 2024. It’s likely UCLA will contest the ruling of the UC Regents if they find the right legal bearing. It’s unclear how this will hold up since this ruling is fairly unique.
And this is still a band-aid. Cal and what remains of the Pac-10 are still very much dependent on a good television deal. Otherwise, this conference is in danger of sinking out of the major powers, and those schools that remain will be looking to abandon ship. That includes Cal, who will certainly try to join UCLA in the Big Ten and seek additional revenue sources, because difficult decisions await without increases in steady revenue.
I don’t see legal grounds for suing, nor do I think UCLA wants to sue. It was hard enough getting the move approved. The BoR is the boss of UCLA and can tell them how to spend their money and what conference to play in if they so choose.
Besides, over time the UC president will likely phase out the tax. After this next TV deal, there won’t be much basis to say how much UCLA leaving hurt Cal.
Also this confirmation the Berkeley tax is annual:
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/cal/basketball/knowlton-on-fox
Cal has bigger issues to worry about. They’re 0-11 in MBB this year, in the 4th year of the coach, but the AD is staying patient. And they went 4-8 in football, so no excitement there either. Maybe a new AD would help.
“At Cal, we expect excellence in all we do. Whether it’s academics, athletics, Nobel Laureates — that’s just what we expect at the No. 1 public university in the country. And there’s nobody — not Mark Fox, not Jim Knowlton, not anybody involved in this program — that wouldn’t say that this is not good enough.
…
“The kind of start that we’ve had this year is just unacceptable. We take responsibility for that. I truly believe as an AD you have to show some tactical patience. You have to evaluate exactly where you are, what are the options and how can we continue to get better.
“No one’s going to make excuses. Mark’s not making excuses. We’ve had some injuries, we’ve had some COVID, we’ve had some challenges this year. But the bottom line is we’re not good enough and we are all, every single person that’s associated with this program, is working hard to set the student-athletes up for success and to find a path that will allow us to win games.”
Those sure sound like excuses.
— Amid the frustration I sense from fans is a more worrisome reaction: Apathy. Your men’s basketball attendance numbers have dropped six seasons in row since 2015-16 when you drew an average of 10,183 fans to games at Haas Pavilion. So far this season, the average is 2,328 and three of your seven home games have attracted fewer than 1,400 fans. How much of a concern is that? And how does that factor into your decision-making going forward?
“It’s absolutely a concern. We want Haas to be a home-court advantage. When I think about our Stanford game last year when the entire place was rocking (with 8,773 fans), that was a home-court advantage for our student-athletes. And that’s the home environment I would love to have every single home game in Haas Pavilion.
“It’s a concern. The success of the team helps, but way more important than that is all the other things we have to do as a department to make the fan experience special. And those are the areas we are focusing on while Mark focuses on putting that team on the court that’s going to help us get Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as far as wins.”
I think the winning is actually a lot more important than the ambience.
LikeLike
I feel bad for Cal sports fans in the sense that this kind of move has a way of crystalizing the hierarchy that exists among universities.
It’s really going to be hard for Cal fans/alums to accept but UCLA has become the more prominent university of the pair, and that will be a big difference especially in terms of sporting renown.
Berkeley will still have its niche in certain sectors of academics, but outside of that, it’s going to be UCLA by a fair distance.
LikeLike
z33k,
I’d feel bad except for a few things:
1. UCLA has been the much bigger sports brand since the 1950s (football and MBB)
2. Cal’s rival is Stanford, and they aren’t being separated
3. Cal’s fans (or lack thereof) have put Cal in this position. The B10 would want into the SF market if anybody cared at all about any of the local P12 schools there. They have all these wealthy alumni and no money. They’ve let their revenue sports fall apart.
LikeLike
From what I can find, Cal has a $6 billion dollar endowment, which is substantial for a public university.
From that, I conclude that if they really wanted to emphasize sports a bit more Cal could probably convince a few donors to give money to the athletic department, as opposed to the more likely academic departments. Of course, there is absolutely no reason why sports should be a higher priority if they do not care.
Stanford, of course, has one of the largest endowments in the country. There is no doubt that if it were a priority, more gift money could be requested for certain sports (or NIL). Certainly their Olympic programs seem to be sufficiently funded.
LikeLike
Here’s what bothers me about UCLA’s “Berkeley tax”. I understand that’s about money that they are losing because the Pac-12 TV contract is diminished. But if the Pac-12 picks up SDS, does that not give them a huge boost in TV revenue? It’s a bonanza they would naver have gotten if USC and UCLA had stayed in the Pac-12.
LikeLike
Yeah you’re definitely right on the relative brands, but killing the annual rivalry (and switching conferences) cements that they’re no longer on the same level.
I agree to some extent re:2, but I think for Cal associated politicos especially, UCLA and Cal as brothers on similar planes was important to maintaining the relative standings of the universities.
Stanford is just different as an elite private even though it may be the more important rivalry due to geography/history of the SF area.
And yes, the fact that they’re in massive debt from all these sports projects instead of having them funded by major donors is a pretty glaring red flag.
SF is a lot like Boston; it’s a place where there’s lots of students and lots of technology, universities, etc., but it’s a completely professional sports market.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Yeah you’re definitely right on the relative brands, but killing the annual rivalry (and switching conferences) cements that they’re no longer on the same level.”
Who says they’re killing the rivalry? I assume UCLA will want lots of OOC games in state in all sports, for cheaper travel and so local athlete’s families can go. I think they’ll try to regularly schedule the P12 schools they care the most about (UW, UO, Cal).
“I agree to some extent re:2, but I think for Cal associated politicos especially, UCLA and Cal as brothers on similar planes was important to maintaining the relative standings of the universities.”
They officially made the 2 equal as schools in 1926 I believe. UCLA joining the B10 doesn’t change that for anything important (academics >>> athletics for both schools). The P12 is still a major conference, too. If UCLA had stayed, would they feel both schools aren’t on the same level as the SEC and B10? I doubt it.
“Stanford is just different as an elite private even though it may be the more important rivalry due to geography/history of the SF area.”
It’s also it’s academic rival, as Cal really wants to be Stanford but public. Cal doesn’t really care about big time athletics. UCLA does care about revenue sports in a way Cal doesn’t. Maybe it’s the LA vs SF difference.
LikeLike
University endowments are generally highly restricted in what they can be used for, and athletics is way down on the list. Moreover, it is the income from the endowment that is entailed; the principal cannot be spent at all. A typical big donor will endow a faculty chair in a particular subject, or a scholarship for students in a particular major. Sometime they give a building. So Cal’s endowment does not help their AD finances.
The NIL can of worms has only just been opened. We will have to wait and see what eventually crawls out. Longstanding major college powers might lose status and become once upon a time has beens. tOSU in the MAC?
LikeLike
Colin,
“Here’s what bothers me about UCLA’s “Berkeley tax”. I understand that’s about money that they are losing because the Pac-12 TV contract is diminished. But if the Pac-12 picks up SDS, does that not give them a huge boost in TV revenue? It’s a bonanza they would naver have gotten if USC and UCLA had stayed in the Pac-12.”
It’s all supposed to be factored in by the president in making his recommendation for how much to tax them. I doubt SDSU will be a big boost, but it might at least reduce the loss a bit. Especially if SDSU takes a reduced share for the first TV deal.
The real trick will be setting a value for what the P12 would have gotten if USC left but UCLA stayed. There are estimates of that, but no hard numbers. Would a different network have bid if UCLA was included but won’t without them? Kliavkoff’s estimates have all been wildly optimistic. Will UC rely on some media consultant’s numbers as a more unbiased source?
And what about the benefit to SDSU that UCLA leaving would create? I understand it’s a different school system, but it’s a CA school and helps the residents of the state.
LikeLike
Brian, I fully agree. That is indeed the dilemma.
LikeLike
Bob Sykes, to me the relevance of the Cal endowment is not the funds can be redirected to sports. Of course not.
The point is that Cal must have big money donors to reach that level as a public university.
LikeLike
Wall Street Journal academic rankings have UCLA ahead of Berkeley. Their top ten publics:
▶
24 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 16 65 4 236 $17,357
▶
27 University of California, Los Angeles 18 134 12 19 $15,718
▶
33 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 22 96 195 309 $10,085
▶
36 University of California, Berkeley 19 254 110 56 $18,522
▶
40 University of California, Davis 30 196 223 13 $15,886
▶
43 University of California, San Diego 29 236 312 13 $14,864
▶
45 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 27 300 25 63 $14,660
▶
45 University of Washington-Seattle 34 190 254 82 $10,692
▶
47 United States Military Academy 56 23 89 >400 –
▶
48 Purdue University West Lafayette 49 112 4 266 $12,684
LikeLike
“No one’s going to make excuses. Mark’s not making excuses. We’ve had some injuries, we’ve had some COVID, we’ve had some challenges this year. But the bottom line is we’re not good enough and we are all, every single person that’s associated with this program, is working hard to set the student-athletes up for success and to find a path that will allow us to win games.”
Peak Tom Izzo “weird guys” energy here.
LikeLike
Did the UC BoR set precedent that the P12 may come to regret soon? Everyone thinks SDSU is their top choice for expansion. Will the Cal State BoR try to force Fresno to be #12, or demand a payment from SDSU to FSU?
https://twitter.com/rltsports/status/1603402377918386176
LikeLike
There are strong internet rumors that Ohio State is having trouble with several 5 star defensive recruits because of a lack of NIL money. There are even rumors that one top 15 player has been guaranteed more than one million dollars to go to UGa rather than tOSU.
https://www.outkick.com/ohio-state-buckeyes-nil-outbid-top-recruits-football/
LikeLike
Some donors are telling OSU there are limits to their giving. OSU can’t just keep raising ticket prices and required donations to buy tickets, and then ask for a huge bump for NIL, on top of the academic side running a capital campaign and pushing for more donations.
Also, a lot of alumni don’t believe in NIL. It’s hard to convince them to give for it.
LikeLike
I think the B1G alumni may be comfortable redirecting money from donations that otherwise would go to the AD into a collective that creates a payout (like $50k/yr) for all scholarship players on the team. They probably also will have alumni that will shift ad dollars to use B1G athletes for their businesses’ marketing, and enable the players to get a cut of the merchandise sales (this is already happening). And for top players that contribute to winning, there’s going to be bigger deals and a good chunk of $10k autograph signings.
What’s not going to happen is B1G alumni paying million dollar signing bonuses to 17 year old kids on the hopes that they will help win games. Their alumni and fans all have professional sports teams to follow, and they simply aren’t going to pay a stupid amount of their own money to pretend to be team owners in the hopes of winning a playoff game against an SEC team.
It’s just not sustainable long term for boosters to pay millions so they can cosplay as sports team owners. Can you imagine paying $1M a year for a 5* that turns into a bust? How well do you think that 19-year old is going to react to suddenly not getting their “NIL” deals re-upped and not playing much? And wait until promised NIL deals fall through because the booster’s business cannot pay it anymore.
I’m all for the players getting money and don’t care if someone wants to spend their own money on the hopes of their favorite team winning more games. I do think NIL will cause talent to be more spread out because along with the transfer portal it makes it harder to stockpile 4/5* depth that’s okay starting 1 or 2 years then being drafted. I also think it’s going to remove the incentive for a material number of players since that’s life changing money and they didn’t need to wait for the carrot of being drafted by the NFL – it’s also going to come with a ton of distractions.
LikeLike
Michigan’s 2023 recruiting class is just 21st, not exactly what you would expect for the program that has won the Big Ten two years in a row. There are multiple reasons for this, but the NIL deficit is a big reason for it. According to ON3, Michigan is averaging just $22k per player in NIL vs. $94k for Ohio State, which has the #3 class currently.
I think Gene Smith said that if we start paying the players, he’s done. Well, we are basically there. I mean…the schools are not writing the checks directly, but they are doing everything but that to facilitate it.
LikeLike
On3’s thing is a guess at what they think each player’s NIL deals would be worth, which is pretty much based on their position and their ratings. All the Michigan vs Ohio State NIL average tells us is that Ohio State has commitments from players that ON3 rates as better players. I could be wrong, but check NIL averages by class rank and I believe it correlates like that.
Michigan’s 2023 class is messed up because both coordinators left and Jim’s NFL flirtation hurt them massively with some key targets and the continued negative recruitment. 2024 looks fine and should be back to the normal top 7-15 rank they normally sit in – if they aren’t largely in line with Notre Dame and Penn State that would be a concern.
LikeLike
I didn’t want to get into it on this forum, but yes, Michigan’s recruiting deficit is indeed partly due to Harbaugh’s NFL flirtation a year ago and replacing both coordinators. But every source I’ve checked says that Michigan has less NIL money to distribute than its peers, and that this has been a factor as well.
The portal is a potential equalizer, and Michigan has done well there.
LikeLike
Some ND coach said that Notre Dame would drop college sports if student athletes werepaid.
LikeLike
NIL may drive more colleges to abandon defense (63-56 is still a win). It has worked for the smaller schools in the B12. A lot less will need to be raised if most NIL money goes to offense. College football could look much more like Arena Football.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35259868/nlrb-pursue-unlawful-labor-practices-usc-pac-12-ncaa
The NCPA is at it again.
The National Labor Relations Board has directed its Los Angeles regional office to pursue charges of unfair labor practices against USC, the Pac-12 and the NCAA. The NLRB will argue that athletes at USC are employees of those three groups and that their rights have been unlawfully restricted. If they are successful, athletes who play men’s basketball, women’s basketball or football at any private college in the NCAA will be granted the rights of employees, including the freedom to create unions.
The claim was filed on behalf of USC athletes by the National College Players Association, an advocacy group that has led several campaigns to increase various benefits that college athletes receive.
And if they are successful, private school are kicked out of the NCAA (they can form their own private version) and most other varsity sports on campus end as all the funding is gone. Would these sports be covered under Title IX if they are jobs?
LikeLike
I absolutely cannot understand how those three sports could be treated differently under Title IX.
The fact that men’s FB and BB probably account for well more than 90% (probably well above 95%) of total athletic revenue does not lessen the obligation to women’s sports.
This is an all or nothing proposition for the varsity sports at the campuses. That does not mean that every “employee” would be paid precisely the same amount, though I do not see why not.
Also I assume that most if not all players would lose scholarships once they are employees. Fun fun fun.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I am posing the question to all the various lawyers here. I know I don’t know the answer.
Does it matter that they would be professional sports jobs, not college sports opportunities? What if scholarships are no longer given, or are included as part of their income? Would the schools even run these teams, or would they form a separate legal entity for that which licenses the logo and things?
If all the revenue dries up, why keep offering varsity non-revenue sports? Intramurals and club teams are much, much cheaper. As long as nobody gets scholarships, that’s still equal opportunity.
Let’s see how they like paying CA income tax on all that NIL money and football wages. One more recruiting advantage for the SEC.
LikeLike
Title IX isn’t the issue. Its employment law. I don’t believe these sports can be treated differently than any other. At least not without specific congressional legislation. And I don’t see Congress bailing out the schools on employment status on any sport. On the other hand, Congress is much more likely to pass legislation defining all scholarship athletes as employees. If courts don’t, I expect Congress to at some point in the next 20 years.
LikeLike
Federal employment law does not apply to public employees. Only 13 of the 69 P5 schools are private, and only 2 of those are kings (USC, ND). The NLRB may make private school athletes’ employees, but they cannot do that for the 80%+ that attend public schools. A federal judge (appointed for life) may uphold this, but Congress will not get involved in either direction. The vast majority of private schools lose money on athletics and thousands of scholarships will disappear if employee status is required. That is something few congressmen will want to run on in their next election.
LikeLike
Purdue hires Drew Brees as temporary asst coach during crucial period for recruiting and transer portal. Now that’s a new gimmick.
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_9b42b10e-7c97-11ed-be49-93b94e9ed004.html
LikeLike
We were at the game when Drew Brees completed 55 of 83 passes against the Badgers, but Wisconsin won the homecoming game at Camp Randall. To say that it was wild is an understatement.
Ron Dayne was still at Wisconsin at the time.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35264496/bill-nix-nfl-draft-army-1st-round-hopeful-andre-carter-ii
US government is about to stop military athletes from being able to go straight into the pros (again), and it is effective immediately.
Since 2019, athletes at military academies have had the ability to apply for a waiver to delay their active service requirement and immediately pursue professional sports opportunities.
That rule, pushed through by former President Donald Trump in 2019, appears on the cusp of being revoked. Tucked in Section 553 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the Senate on Thursday and is headed to President Joe Biden’s desk, is language that states an “agreement by a cadet or midshipman to play professional sport constitutes a breach of service obligation.” The bill covers Army, Navy and Air Force and states: “The cadet may not obtain employment, including as a professional athlete, until after completing the cadet’s commissioned service obligation.” That obligation is, according to Army, five years of active duty and three years in the individual ready reserve.
The change is expected to take place when the bill is signed, which could be as early as next week. Carter and other current athletes at service academies will not be grandfathered in, meaning they would lose the ability to immediately pursue professional sports opportunities.
Here’s hoping their top current players transfer, even if they’re out of eligibility. You shouldn’t change the rules on them like that.
LikeLike
Army linebacker Andre Carter II, 6′ 7″ 260 lbs, was a certain draft choice.
LikeLike
Weird thing to revoke, and even dumber to not exempt players that joined under the old law. There’s a handful of players from those 3 academies each year that apply for the waiver, and I’d have imagined the benefit from that outweighed the cost. Good thing our politicians are focusing on the big issues are country is facing.
LikeLike
Scout I agree with you – stupid and short sighted. So what else is new.
While Roger Staubach did have to serve four years, every time he took the field for the Cowboys everyone was remined that he went to Annapolis.
The same thing with David Robinson in the NBA.
This idiocy really puts players like Andre Carter on the spot. If he really wanted to serve in the Army, he now has to realistically give up his NFL dream.
LikeLike
Brian
I think that the key to your comment is one area discussed here in prior years.
At what point do the revenue sports, primarily football and men’s bball, actually become separate entities? Once players are employees is that not inevitable? How many schools would refuse to have such teams? Quite a few I would imagine.
Perhaps some would lease space from the universities and license the use of the school name. Effectively would that not create minor league sports teams with school names attached? What TV networks would pay to schedule such teams with their very loose affiliation to colleges? Would schools make TV deals as their part of the “take”?
Would schools with huge athletic dept investments in facilities be forced to accept minor league teams to pay off debt?
Who would be interested in those games? Would Georgia fans root for a minor league team wearing school uniforms? Why not just root for the Atlanta Falcons and be done with the whole Bulldog thing?
Ultimately I think that many schools would refuse the employee relationship and tell players that we will give you a scholarship if you come here, but you will not be employees, Your choice. No one is forcing kids to accept scholarships.
That would be the ultimate realignment, with semi-pro schools in one or two leagues and amateurs in other leagues. What a mess.
There is no way that a court could compel a university to operate minor league sports with paid employees under the university banner. Just easier for the school to cut the sport.
Think how many tens of thousands of kids per year will lose out on college, due to this push for employee status. A very large number of those losing scholarships would be young black men and women for whom a sports scholarship was the only way to move up in the world.
Works out fine for the one or two percent that become pros, but too bad for the others who no longer can go to college at all.
If there is no football team with scholarships, Title IX becomes much less of an issue and many women will have sports eliminated and lose their scholarships.
I do not think that the politicians pushing this or judges who might decide cases have any clue at all what they are doing.
Every single person on this board understood exactly what a fiasco would be created by the NIL rules being put in place. How many of the politicos or judges foresaw the inevitable problems? Not many. There may have been some who understood and planned to game the system.
I do agree with your comment that some no tax states such as Texas, Florida and Tennessee would gain major advantages over California, NJ, and other states. I left out NY State since there is the University of Buffalo football and a few college basketball teams, but not many. St. John’s basketball would get hurt, but that may be it,
LikeLike
Ultimately I think that many schools would refuse the employee relationship and tell players that we will give you a scholarship if you come here, but you will not be employees, Your choice. No one is forcing kids to accept scholarships.
Yeah agreed. The players could refuse to accept the scholarship offer from the schools, but the schools won’t be compelled to offer employment.
It gets interesting if that happens. I sort of doubt even the SEC schools would want to create an employer relationship with the players. I doubt it would even effect B1G ratings that much to be amateur and let the SEC be semi-pro – oh no, the B1G isn’t going to win national championships in football or basketball, whatever will they do; note, the B1G has ONE total FB/BB title in the past 20 years. And I’d expect the B1G to be joined by the Pac10 schools and a huge chunk of the ACC.
No one watches semi-pro sports, let the schools that want that go fuck off in the distance and create and award a championship for the remaining schools. Hell, hold the champ game on Jan 1st in the Rose Bowl each year. Oh no, the B1G or PAC champion isn’t playing the best SEC/BigXII team to determine the true national title, whatever shall we do about that I’m sure that model will have to collapse on itself. As long as the non semi-pro schools can hire good coaches, they will be fine since the on-field product will be good enough.
I have to be wrong about this though, right? No University is stupid enough to be the first to move and become a semi-pro team or license their brand to one, are they?
LikeLike
Scout: “The players could refuse to accept the scholarship offer from the schools, but the schools won’t be compelled to offer employment.”
Another thought, if the players are employees then the scholarships that they sign would appear to be contracts. Seems that would end the transfer portal for those under contract.
LikeLike
Yeah then it’s just how they do soccer academies in the rest of the world, except licensed brands from universities.
LikeLike
Texas, Oklahoma SEC-bound in 2024 as tone shifts in Big 12? What we’re hearing
By Stewart Mandel, Max Olson and Andy Staples, and Nicole Auerbach and Seth Emerson
https://theathletic.com/4007179/2022/12/16/texas-oklahoma-big-12-sec/
Multiple sources confirmed to The Athletic that discussions have been ongoing for several months regarding the Red River rivals leaving the Big 12 a year earlier than planned, in time for the 2024 football season. Big 12 officials held a meeting last week in Las Vegas, and in the portion of the meeting in which Texas athletic director Chris Del Conte and Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione were recused because officials were discussing future business, “momentum” emerged for an early exit, according to an administrator within the SEC. An administrator within the Big 12 confirmed that the tone in the league regarding this topic shifted following that meeting.
***
One Big 12 school official said he believes there will be resolution in a matter of weeks, not months, and that the issue may be contributing to a delay in releasing the league’s 2023 football schedule. That official echoed others who believe an earlier divorce would benefit all parties involved.
***
The timing of such a move would make sense on several fronts. The SEC’s new television deal with ESPN begins that season. So will the 12-team College Football Playoff. And if it happens, the SEC’s expansion to 16 teams would coincide with the Big Ten’s, with the league adding USC and UCLA in ’24. Meanwhile, four new schools — BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF — will be beginning Big 12 play next season.
***
Multiple sources indicated that both sides are eager to move on from each other. The Big 12’s new members arrive next season, creating an awkward two-year period with 14 schools, and the league recently gained clarity on its financial future post-Oklahoma/Texas, signing a six-year $2.28 billion extension with ESPN and Fox that will begin in 2025.
But the remaining members won’t let OU and Texas go if it means seeing their 2024-25 check from the conference dip. The league’s network partners would be owed compensation for lost value in that final year of their current contracts — and Texas and Oklahoma happen to be the most valuable members. Former commissioner Bob Bowlsby told the Texas state legislature last year that the two schools account for roughly 50 percent of the current contract’s value, which as of 2019-20 was worth about $25 million per school.
More often than not, when a school leaves a conference, the two sides wind up negotiating a reduced exit fee.
***
While neither TV partner can force a conference member to stay or leave, they directly impact the negotiations.
Fox’s part is fairly straightforward. It will expect a substantial makegood if Texas and Oklahoma leave early. Worth noting: Fox has the first pick of Big 12 games in 2024, and that pick is often the Red River Showdown. A reduced payment amount or some other financial compensation would need to be negotiated.
ESPN, meanwhile, will own those schools’ 2024 rights whether they remain in the Big 12 or move to the SEC. There’s long been speculation the network would want OU and Texas in the SEC sooner to be part of the Game of the Week package that currently airs on CBS. ESPN is paying a reported $330 million a year for that game alone.
However, those rights would be a lot less expensive if the schools remain in the Big 12 for another year. SEC schools made $54.6 million in conference revenue last year compared with $42.6 million for Big 12 schools, and that number will increase with the new ESPN deal. And the SEC is attempting to renegotiate that deal to an even higher number, the SEC administrator said, as it was completed before Texas and Oklahoma signed on, and because it will likely soon go from eight to nine conference games.
***
Two Big 12 ADs expressed confidence a deal would be reached. Simply put, they need OU and Texas to agree to a high enough exit fee to make the remaining members and their network partners whole.
A person with knowledge of the discussions believes they’ll get there.
“The compensation for (leaving early) would cancel out a gap that exists in their television deals for the remaining eight that were original Big 12 members,” he said.
A noteworthy landmark is fast approaching. Per Big 12 bylaws, a member must give at least an 18-month notice of its departure date. That letter would have to arrive by Dec. 31 if they intend to join the SEC on July 1, 2024.
LikeLike
This doesn’t make sense to me:
Multiple sources indicated that both sides are eager to move on from each other. The Big 12’s new members arrive next season, creating an awkward two-year period with 14 schools, and the league recently gained clarity on its financial future post-Oklahoma/Texas, signing a six-year $2.28 billion extension with ESPN and Fox that will begin in 2025.
But the remaining members won’t let OU and Texas go if it means seeing their 2024-25 check from the conference dip. The league’s network partners would be owed compensation for lost value in that final year of their current contracts — and Texas and Oklahoma happen to be the most valuable members. Former commissioner Bob Bowlsby told the Texas state legislature last year that the two schools account for roughly 50 percent of the current contract’s value, which as of 2019-20 was worth about $25 million per school.
The league’s network partners already agreed to pay the 12 remaining members slightly more each in 2025 without Texas/OU than they would have paid each of the 14 members in 2024 with Texas/OU. How can the league’s network partners argue that paying (roughly) $25M to each team in 2024 unreasonable when they just signed a deal to pay them $25.8M in 2025? It’s the same conference composition, just a year ahead of schedule.
What’s the league’s partner going to argue, that they made less than they expected and were thus massively underpaying in 2024 despite paying the same amount in 2025? Do they expect anyone to believe that they cut a deal with the Big XII from 2025 onward where they have materially lower profits than they did when Texas/OU were there? Doesn’t make any sense.
LikeLike
I think the idea is not that they are paying too much, but that the profits are too low. They would get better ratings and more for their ads with UT and OU. So, yes, they have “windfall profits” in 2024 and a more reasonable rate of return in 2025.
LikeLike
Wilner’s mailbag with some relevant questions.
Can you explain why expansion candidates like San Diego State need to wait until after the Pac-12 media deal is signed? Isn’t a prospective media package stronger if it’s known that SDSU and, say, SMU will be in the fold? — @Cargoman0363
A rich topic, for sure. And I’ll attempt to address the most relevant facets here.
First, and for those unaware, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff was asked recently which piece comes first (the media rights deal or a decision on expansion) during a college athletics forum last week in Las Vegas.
“You can do it either way,” he said. “We’ve decided to sequence it as follows: media deal first, grant of rights next, expansion third.”
Understandably, Kliavkoff has been wary of sharing too many details of the Pac-12’s negotiating strategy, so we’re left to make our best guess.
And our guess is the conference has determined no expansion candidates are obviously revenue accretive, minimizing the need to expand before hammering out the media rights deal.
If the 10 remaining schools stand to receive $ 30 million annually in media revenue (to use an easy, round number), none of the expansion options (San Diego State, SMU, Gonzaga, Fresno State, UNLV) would increase that figure materially.
As a result, the conference is focused on finding the right network partners and the right packages of games on those network partners — in other words, the exposure piece.
But that approach comes with some risk: The expansion candidates grow impatient and accept offers from other conferences. (Hello, Big 12.)
We suspect that risk is low, especially with the football expansion options.
The Big 12 has already passed on SMU, and San Diego State has strategic aims beyond football that make the Pac-12 its strongly preferred destination:
The campus specifically and the California State University system generally would leap at the chance to align with a conference that includes Stanford and Cal.
For that reason, SDSU won’t make a move until it hears from the Pac-12.
(Gonzaga’s situation is different, but our hunch is the Zags much prefer membership in the Pac-12 to life in the Big 12.)
So while there is risk in the Pac-12’s approach, it seems somewhat mitigated in each case.
That said, the Hotline has spoken to numerous sources in the sports media world over the past few months who believe the strategy is backward — that the Pac-12 should solve the expansion piece first, then formulate a media rights deal.
…
When do you expect the TV rights deal to be made public? I have to believe that negotiations were done with UCLA staying and leaving? — @flintaeroinc
My guess is that resolution comes in the second half of January or the first part of February. But it could stretch into March. Kliavkoff has said repeatedly that he feels “no urgency” to complete the deal.
(Whether that’s a smart strategy is debatable.)
And remember: The media rights deal is just one step in the larger process of determining the Pac-12’s future structure.
The second piece is signing the grant of rights, in which each school agrees to bind its media revenue to the conference. That piece could take days, maybe weeks. It’s difficult to know.
Then comes the third step: a decision on expansion.
All in all, the entire endeavor could be completed early in the first quarter of 2023 or not until sometime in the second.
And yes, the conference and its network partners ran multiple sets of valuation models, with and without UCLA.
But all along, they were assuming the Bruins were gone.
GK’s approach seems backwards to me, too. Generally you want a GoR in place in order to get the best media deal. Maybe he means they’ll negotiate the deal with and without a GoR to then encourage the schools to sign the GoR. I can understand expanding with G5 schools later, but they’ve got to be discussing their potential value with the networks now. I think adding them first might build some confidence and yield a slightly better TV deal.
LikeLike
Brian: “Then comes the third step: a decision on expansion.”
I realize that I’m a heretic here – some would even say troll – but I continue to believe the best path forward for the Pac-12 is to nail down a herd of schools within the footprint: BYU, UNLV, SDSU, SJSU, Boise, Utah St, AFA, Colorado St, Wyoming, Fresno, New Mexico, Hawaii, and then own the entire West excluding LA.
LikeLike
Those schools will always be there for them, maybe not BYU. I don’t see how the Pac-12 is better served by merging in a chunk of the mountain west though.
LikeLike
The best of the G5 have already been taken. Its a dropoff to the rest (other than Boise who nobody seems to want). And the next schools up are really USF and Memphis in the east. The Big 12 had USF, Memphis, Boise and SMU as their next 4.
SDSU does not get particularly good ratings. They DO provide a presence in Southern California that may make it worth it.
LikeLike
Colin,
I just don’t see the value in it. The MWC makes a lot less than the P12. How does adding all of them help? A few of them to get to 12 to have more inventory and add some key markets might make sense (a la the B12 expansion), but beyond that it’s pure dilution.
The B12 already took the better G5 schools to add. UCF won a national title* and brings Orlando and FL access. UC made the CFP and gets them into OH. BYU is a national brand with a past MNC and a decent home market. UH had some recent success in the AAC, replaces their lost Houston school (TAMU) and keeps them at 4 TX schools.
The remaining AAC and MWC schools are less valuable options, and few make sense for a west coast conference.
* SDSU is in SoCal
* Boise has some brand value
* UNLV would bring a big market that doesn’t care about them at all
* HI might make sense for football only, but talk about a travel nightmare (pair with Gonzaga?)
* BYU won’t pay the exit fee to leave the B12, and Utah probably doesn’t want them
* UU brings all of UT, so USU is no help
* CU brings all of CO, so AFA and CSU don’t help at all
* WY has no population
* UNM has no fans
* SJSU is behind Cal and Stanford in the SF market
You didn’t mention SMU (a popular option) or anyone else in TX, but some think TX (and central time) access is worth it.
LikeLike
I continue to believe the best path forward for the Pac-12 is to nail down a herd of schools within the footprint: BYU, UNLV, SDSU, SJSU, Boise, Utah St, AFA, Colorado St, Wyoming, Fresno, New Mexico, Hawaii, and then own the entire West excluding LA.
No analyst thinks the Pac-12 is going to get a better media deal than the Big XII got. Why then would BYU want to pay an exit fee to get, at best, the same amount from the Pac-12, and on top of that worse starting times for many of its games? Many of the other schools you’ve listed are schools the Big XII already considered and rejected.
LikeLike
Marc: “Why then would BYU want to pay an exit fee . . .”
I didn’t say that BYU would want to pay an exit fee. The Pac-12 would pay it. I said that the pac-12 needs to own the West, excluding LA.
LikeLike
Marc,
John Ourand just predicted Amazon will pay the P12 more than the B12 is getting, plus CBS paying them a bit on top.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/early-exit-for-texas-oklahoma-to-sec-could-be-aided-by-future-nonconference-games-at-big-12-stadiums/
OU and UT playing some road OOC games in B12 territory may be the price of leaving early for the SEC.
It is likely any deal involving the Longhorns and Sooners joining the SEC a year early in 2024 would include Big 12 rightsholders being made whole with a series of future nonconference games involving those teams within the league’s footprint, industry sources tell CBS Sports.
…
Texas and Oklahoma are using SEC TV consultant Alan Gold to facilitate a deal, sources tell CBS Sports. The idea would be to “use games as currency” — atoning for the viewership decline with Texas and Oklahoma playing a selection of future nonconference games at Big 12 schools.
…
“They would have to play games in the [Big 12] footprint so Fox and ESPN can have value,” an industry source told CBS Sports. “If ESPN and Fox are happy, [the Big 12] would be happy.”
That could potentially lead to the continuation of the Bedlam series between Oklahoma and Oklahoma State that was expected to end when OU joined the SEC in 2025.
When those games would be played or how many would be scheduled is not yet known.
“Ultimately, the Big 12 is the position to say either ‘yay’ or ‘nay,'” said one person involved in the negotiations.
…
Sources differ in categorizing the likelihood of a deal with some believing it imminent while others consider a resolution improbable.
“I don’t see it happening,” an industry source said of an early departure.
An announcement that Texas and Oklahoma would join the SEC in 2024, instead of 2025, could come as soon as early next year, one source told CBS Sports.
“It’s advanced. It’s further along,” said a source involved in those conversations. “It was going on long before Las Vegas.”
…
“[Texas and Oklahoma] have been pushing pretty adamantly that they want to exit sooner rather than later,” a Big 12 source tells CBS Sports. “They seem to have issue with the four new universities we’ve brought into our conference. That’s kind of expedited things. I feel like something will be worked out for them to leave the league a year early.”
LikeLike
I’ll believe it when they give a good package of games to Fox.
Fox with first choice would have gotten the Texas-OU game as well as a bunch of other games with Texas/OU as part.
So let’s first see what the actual package is. The financial details of separating OU/Texas from the Big 12 are the easy part. The hard part is making FOX whole.
LikeLike
I agree, I don’t see a lot of reason for Fox to agree without a lot of compensation. A series of games in the future isn’t as valuable as the same number of games in 2024 unless they are much better games. And that could squeeze the B12 from both sides, as OU and UT are trying to negotiate a lower exit fee as well while Fox may want a discount.
I thought the last bit about OU and UT having issues with the newbies was interesting. Presumably they think their fans won’t care about those games. But you’d think the B12 would want the newbies to get a game against both teams before they leave, and all the current members would want 1 last home game against one of the teams.
I understand it’s awkward, but the games are just too valuable to easily give up.
LikeLike
Testing – comments not appearing again.
LikeLike
Sports Business Journal reports that Amazon will get most of the PAC TV contract.
https://sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2022/12/19/Insiders/sports-media.aspx
I saw this on Greg Flugaur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUMFOYo9W2A
Article by John Ourand and operative paragraph is:
Amazon gets Pac-12 rights
ESPN will be prepared to split the Pac-12’s media rights with Amazon, but will not offer the conference significantly more than it pays for the Big 12. That will lead the Pac-12 to sell almost its entire media package to Amazon for a price that is slightly higher than what the Big 12 gets from ESPN and Fox. The Pac-12 will carve out a handful of prime-time football games that it then will sell to CBS.
LikeLike
“Sports Business Journal reports that Amazon will get most of the PAC TV contract.”
You are misinterpreting, SBJ is not reporting that news. This article is a list of John Ourand’s predictions, opened by stating “This is how I see 2023 shaking out.”
LikeLike
You are correct. I listened to the Flagaur report and did not independently confirm. My bad. Thanks, greg.
Really dumb considering how wrong he, as well as other YouTube sites, were on B1G expansion.
LikeLike
ESPN will not offer “significantly more” than it pays the B12 for a share of the P12 rights, so Amazon will pay slightly more than ESPN + Fox for the whole set of rights minus a few games for CBS?
If Amazon isn’t offering a sizable bump in money, why not keep ESPN in the deal? You’ll lose a lot of exposure.
Why does CBS want primetime P12 games? They could’ve gotten those from the B10 (swap a few weeks with NBC). CBS looking to get deeper into CFB coverage, adding another P5 conference and more than 1 games per week, indicates a change in their strategy.
Also this from that SBJ article:
ESPN, Fox share expanded CFP rights
The College Football Playoff expands from four to 12 teams in 2024-25, but ESPN holds the rights to the semis and championship through 2026. Look for ESPN and Fox to share early round CFP games for those two years. Lots of companies — Warner Bros. Discovery Sports and Amazon among them — will be waiting in the wings to bid on this package when the whole thing becomes available.
LikeLike
Fluguar thinks that if Ourand is correct, that the lack of broadcast TV exposure will cause some PAC programs to leave, most likely for the Big 12. His choices are Arizona and Colorado.
I wonder if this reopens B1G expansion. Warren has said the B1G is done with expansion for now (probably the Presidents choice, not his). But if some PAC teams are willing to accept a partial share in B1G revenues, say $40 million rather than $70 million, in order to get national exposure, wouldn’t that change the B1G calculus? $40 million is more than they will get from the Amazon deal. Does that make Cal more attractive? Also, would membership in the B1G increase TV viewership and stadium attendance for the PAC schools? They would then be part of a true national conference.
The culture of the B1G used to be that all share and share alike, but this is a new world.
LikeLike
Bob,
First, Flugaur thinking it will happen doesn’t mean it will. Ourand projected the P12 would get more money than the B12 either way. Why would schools leave their old rivals and western alumni access to get paid less and travel to FL, WV, OH, IA, OK, and TX?
The P12 is ahead of the curve in believing in streaming as the future, but many people share that view. Why jump ship over a perceived risk? Why not at least wait and see how it turns out? These are the schools that agreed to the 7 channel P12N experiment and stuck it out. After all, the NFL has gotten some decent numbers on Amazon so they know the platform isn’t terrible.
Second, I agree with Marc. A buy-in period is one thing, but I doubt the B10 wants to get into permanent tiers of payouts. Also, what is the benefit to the 16 schools in adding these P12 schools? If the 16 would get $100M/year each in the next deal as is (just to have a round number), they don’t want to be earning $90M instead and having even more diluted rivalries (fewer OSU, MI, etc. visits). IA spoke very plainly about that – unless the money goes up, expansion won’t be approved. And if those P12 schools would make the B10 more money now, they’d already have invitations.
Now, circumstance may change in a few years so those P12 schools would be capable of raising the payout per school. But if so, they’d also get paid a ton staying in the P12 and would likely prefer that.
I just don’t see how more B10 expansion makes sense without a ND/FSU type of school involved, or a fundamental change in how revenue is made. Maybe the expanded CFP payout structure will change something, or a legal case, or NCAA changes, or something.
LikeLike
I think Miami/Washington is probably the only scenario that seems plausible (as an answer to the SEC going for FSU/Clemson) as a backup scenario for the Big Ten that doesn’t involve ND/FSU.
Miami/Washington have good enough brands and bring large enough markets with good demographics that they should be worth somewhere around the average Big Ten school (at worst slightly less). They’d really finish providing national reach for the current 14 schools in a minimalist + revenue maximizing way.
But yes, ND or FSU are really the clear 2 that have the most value and provide an “obvious” expansion scenario for the Big Ten.
I think Miami/Washington is on the table if FSU goes to the SEC.
LikeLike
…if some PAC teams are willing to accept a partial share in B1G revenues, say $40 million rather than $70 million, in order to get national exposure, wouldn’t that change the B1G calculus?
At some point, partial shares have to become full shares. I mean, if Cal agrees to a lower share permanently, at some point a clever administrator at Michigan or Ohio State will wonder why we can’t do the same to Rutgers.
That’s why I suspect there are enough “no” votes for an expansion that makes any school a permanent second-class status, because of the dangerous precedent it sets. If partial shares are only temporary, then of course you need to believe those schools (ultimately) pay their own way.
LikeLike
This is exactly why the Big Ten is not going to expand simply to increase numbers or build a “west coast pod” or whatever scenario people are throwing around to make the map look nice. Nobody in power cares what the map looks like anymore.
The only thing that matters is the long-term financial outlook when you add schools and whether it’s financially justifiable (or otherwise justifiable) for the current set of schools.
Schools have to be able to bring somewhere near the average value of the Big Ten in order to justify expansion, or they have to bring something of future value (some big market/demographics) that bridges the gap.
I think you can easily make a case for FSU + 1 (Miami or Clemson) to either the Big Ten or SEC. That’s an easy case to make given FSU’s phenomenal football tv value/brand. And Miami or Clemson is a perfect partner that also holds its own weight.
I think a case can be made for Miami + Washington to the Big Ten; that combo should be worth near the average value of the Big Ten schools considering the markets/demographics/reach/brands at play. Would plant flags in the remaining two regions without Big Ten schools (Pacific Northwest and Southeast) with the 2 most valuable football schools available that also command significant markets/demographics/etc. and are most similar to the current Big Ten schools.
Everything else gets a lot harder to see at this point (ignoring Notre Dame for the moment). Washington/Oregon is hard to justify if it doesn’t work right now; how is it going to when the Big Ten is at $100 million per year distributions? Oregon is a tough travel situation regardless as well.
UNC sounds great for demographics and their sports brand is strong, but financially do they work for either the Big Ten or SEC? Maybe one of them takes it to block the other, which would be a rare case where a pair (UNC + UVA for example) doesn’t quite justify their additions in terms of “football tv value” but they get added anyways because the presidents (of the Big Ten or SEC) want to expand their footprint into those important markets and the academic heft of those flagships provides other value.
I’m at the point where I really do think we get to long-term stable configurations for the Big Ten/SEC at 18 (or less likely 20) in the next phase in the mid-2030s.
LikeLike
Michigan and Ohio State have already declined to offer lower shares permanently (Rutgers would have taken that deal), or to request unequal rev, and even signed away their T3 rights when they would have made far more relatively than not doing so. I think the B1G schools have smart enough administration to realize that the idea of second class citizens in their partnership of equals isn’t clever at all.
They are the big fish in the B1G pond and it works for everyone. If you are going to have schools play the Washington Generals role, having them be schools located in the top cities in the world and also be outstanding schools academically is great. And if it ever got to the point where they are athletic equals then presumably there is no problem anymore.
LikeLike
Michigan and Ohio State have already declined to offer lower shares permanently. . . .
I do not recall that the idea was ever on the table for them to decline, though I agree Rutgers would have taken it.
My only point is that they ever did open the door for new members to enter on that basis—as others suggested above—it very likely does not end with the first school or two. Therefore, those most likely to oppose it, assuming it ever were proposed, would be the schools at risk, not Michigan and Ohio State.
LikeLike
Scout, I do not know, but at the time that Delany saved Rutgers, I would imagine that RU would have probably taken a permanent half share. Obviously Delany convinced the other teams of the virtue of adding the East Coast members.
At the time of the invitation, the only other option seemed to be to stay in the AAC, which still pays out less than $8 million per year under its new TV contract.
Would there eventually be resentment? Probably. Primarily because people outside the university would be screaming about athletic department expenses, which happens now anyway,
Would any school with a partial share be permanently second (or third) class? Rutgers football seems able to manage that already, though it will not finally get a full share until 2027, as a result repayment of loans to the B1G.
Once tOSU and Michigan made their decision, that probably should end the issue permanently.
The only possible modification that I could see would be to let teams that make the 12 team playoff or the NCAA tournament to keep a little bit extra. I do not expect that either.
z33k, I agree with you. Going beyond 18 or maybe 20 would mean that the original ten get to play each other that much less often. Not what they want.
As Purdue and Iowa have said, they want no new members unless there is a significant financial improvement for the existing teams. Ohio State has gone further, and, at least for now, claims it wants no expansion.
LikeLike
I think it’s best to view the B1G as a partnership of equals, where you look to add new schools as equals to the partnership when (as Frank has stressed) 1+1 = 3. Or in this case 16+2 >= 19 And my point is essentially that if you hold that view you can never extend an offer that is less than equality (excluding any short term buy-in of equity), even if the candidate would take it. The candidate(s) must generate surplus in total value per partner in joining the group, not dilute it but cover it up with accounting tricks. You don’t “elevate” someone to being a peer but then declare them not a peer.
Maybe I’m wrong and things have changed. But I feel like the Big Ten brand is second only to the Ivy League in terms of conveying the quality of its grads and the homogeneity of its schools. Which is actually why I think that if someone was dumb enough to think they were being clever by proposing it, that Michigan/OSU would be smart to be the loudest voices shutting it immediately down because to not do so would be to indicate that they viewed themselves as above the group and that they are not all actually peers, which creates a bunch of problems.
LikeLike
I think we all agree with that. You might want to go back and read the context in which the word “clever” was used.
LikeLike
https://www.tvrev.com/news/reaching-football-audiences-free-report-from-vizio
How do NFL and CFB viewers overlap in 2022?
According to this study:
35.3% of TVs watch the NFL
25.7% watch CFB
22.0% watch both
13.3% only watch NFL
3.7% only watch CFB
1. More than 2/3 of TVs don’t watch football. It may be the most popular sport or show, but most people don’t watch it.
2. Of football viewers, 56.4% watch both, 34.2% watch only NFL, and 9.5% only watch CFB.
That’s millions of people who watch CFB but don’t watch the NFL (including me). Those are the people most likely to be driven off by the recent changes in CFB.
LikeLike
That’s millions of people who watch CFB but don’t watch the NFL (including me). Those are the people most likely to be driven off by the recent changes in CFB.
It could also be the opposite; most of them will keep watching CFB because there is no other variety of the sport competing for their attention.
CFB keeps changing and it has not lost its audience yet. Just for fun, go back and read the NCAA’s arguments in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the case that ended the their monopoly control over televised games. The NCAA predicted terrible catastrophes should the Court rule against it, few of which have come to pass.
Every change that’s made, there is someone to say that it will ruin the sport. If that’s predicted often enough, perhaps eventually it will happen. But it hasn’t yet.
LikeLike
Marc,
“It could also be the opposite; most of them will keep watching CFB because there is no other variety of the sport competing for their attention.”
I didn’t say anything about how many would be driven off, just that this is the group most susceptible to being driven off by professionalization. I’m certainly not claiming all or most will go away, just that those who go away will tend to be from this group. NFL fans seem highly unlikely to be driven off by those changes, unless it makes it too much like a minor league for their tastes.
The NFL competes for everyone’s attention, but this chunk of fans chooses not to give the NFL their attention despite being football fans. Making CFB more like the NFL isn’t going to increase their interest. It drives them away. They choose no football over professionalized football.
“CFB keeps changing and it has not lost its audience yet.”
Total numbers, no. But it has lost some fans while gaining others. Professionalizing CFB may gain them more NFL fans than they lose CFB-only fans. That doesn’t mean those fans aren’t going away, or that they won’t stop donating to the schools. Will the new fans donate as much as those they lose?
“Just for fun, go back and read the NCAA’s arguments in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the case that ended the their monopoly control over televised games.”
No sane non-lawyer reads a SC case for fun. I’ll pass.
“The NCAA predicted terrible catastrophes should the Court rule against it, few of which have come to pass.”
Opinions vary. The sport as we knew it has been destroyed.
“Every change that’s made, there is someone to say that it will ruin the sport.”
I didn’t predict ruin in the sense of the sport disappearing. I do say amateur CFB has been ruined and that a segment of the fan base is being lost because of that. It may gain a larger new segment because of those same changes. I don’t dispute that, I just don’t care if it does. It’s still the death of the version of the sport I enjoy.
“If that’s predicted often enough, perhaps eventually it will happen. But it hasn’t yet.”
Like everything else good in life, lawyers will continue to screw with CFB until it is completely ruined.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35291263/nfl-draft-path-cleared-andre-carter-ii-due-bill-provision
After the outcry, the government slightly backtracked and will make anyone who enrolled in a service academy before 2021 eligible for a waiver to delay service until after playing pro sports.
It’s still a mistake to force athletes to serve before they can play (lots of good, free advertising when an academy player is in an NFL game), but at least it only applies to recent enrollees.
A provision has been included in the omnibus appropriations measure, expected to pass this week, to make Carter and other current academy upperclassmen eligible for a waiver that will allow for a legacy exception for a 2019 ruling that allowed deferred service to play pro sports. This provision appeared on the Senate appropriations website Tuesday morning.
LikeLike
I disagree entirely. Newly minted 2nd lieutenants and ensigns are assigned duties in the field that are physically strenuous, especially in combat situations. These positions require youth. If one of these new graduates sits out 4 years to play a rough sport like football, they will likely come back to the military with injuries and having forgotten much of their earlier training. Even if they survive, they are 4 years behind their classmates in the seniority and promotion lists. Make them serve their time when it is due.
LikeLike
bob sykes: “Make them serve their time when it is due.”
I agree if those are the rules when they enter the academies. But what happened is that the rules were changed for cadets/midshipmen after they had been there a couple of years.
LikeLike
Bob,
“Newly minted 2nd lieutenants and ensigns are assigned duties in the field that are physically strenuous, especially in combat situations.”
So are lots of other ranks, especially in the elite services (and non-coms).
“These positions require youth.”
Most SEALs are in their 30s or older. That seems like a fairly strenuous job, but you can be up to age 30 to get in (normally it’s 28). You can be in your 30s and join the Green Berets.
“If one of these new graduates sits out 4 years to play a rough sport like football, they will likely come back to the military with injuries and having forgotten much of their earlier training.”
Nobody gets hurt in military training or combat?
And how much positive publicity and free advertising for the US military will they have gotten before they return? In a world where their #1 problem is recruiting, the military need to consider that.
“Even if they survive, they are 4 years behind their classmates in the seniority and promotion lists.”
That’s something for them to consider when making the decision, but lots of people don’t get promoted at the same rate.
“Make them serve their time when it is due.”
Or watch them transfer as seniors, or maybe never enroll.
https://www.armywcap.com
And remember, we already have the WCAP (world class athlete program in the Army). If they can make a special program for Olympic athletes, why can’t they do something for pros? Let them serve in the offseason and do some PR appearances during the season. It seems odd that they will give Olympic athletes special treatment, but not NFL-caliber athletes.
The US Army’s World Class Athlete Program (WCAP) allows top-ranked Soldier-athletes to perform at the international level while also serving their nation in the military. Our members train and compete throughout the year – and aim for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
WCAP Soldiers come from the Active, Reserve and National Guard components, and are selected for their ability to perform at the highest level of their sports. After joining the unit, they hone their skills with elite civilian and military coaches at America’s best facilities. Meanwhile, they keep current with Army requirements, attend military schools and stay competitive with their uniformed counterparts.
WCAP Soldiers also conduct essential outreach activities. They hold clinics, speak to high school and college audiences, talk with athletic teams and make appearances in support of Army recruiting stations. They become a training asset to the larger Army, too, through Total Soldier Enhancement Training (TSET), which sends Mobile Training Teams of WCAP Soldier-athletes to lead units through customized resilience and performance enhancement skills training.
WCAP also grants the Army important national visibility, and reinforces public pride in our Armed Forces. Especially during high-profile competitions like the Olympics, WCAP Soldiers provide positive role models, motivate their fellow Soldiers and give Americans another reason to get excited about the Army. Since 1948, 446 Soldiers have represented the United States at the Olympics, earning 111 medals in a variety of sports. WCAP continues that proud tradition.
LikeLike
And if they are NFL caliber, they likely serve their 4 years and leave. If they do the NFL first, there would at least be some chance they stay longer than the minimum.
LikeLike
@bob sykes: I have no idea if athletes lose the ability to perform the military duties expected of other academy graduates after a tour in the NFL. It seems very doubtful, but I would defer to those who’ve actually done it.
The thing is, it’s extremely rare that an academy player has a significant NFL career. We are talking mainly about one kid across the three academies that play football. Given that an exception already exists for Olympians, it hardly seems worthwhile to stomp on the miniscule number of cadets who make it to pro ball. As others have suggested, the PR benefit to the academy is probably more worthwhile.
LikeLike
Looking at the TV ratings for the entire regular season and championship weekend, there were 48 games that were watched by more than 4m viewers, and only 26 watched by over 5m.
Only four of the 26 games that had 5m or more viewers did not involve at least one SEC or B1G team (B12 CCG 9.41m; ND/USC 6.68m; P12 CCG 5.97m; and TCU/UTx 5.03m).
Only three of the 48 games did not involve at least one current/former King (Stewart Mandel pecking order*), but those three all included TCU (B12 CCG; at Baylor 4.35m; and v Iowa State 4.34m). The only game that exceeded 5m viewers that didn’t involve a king/former king was the B12 CCG. 12 of the top 17 games featured kings/fmr kings v kings/fmr kings,
No 4m+ games involved a current G5 school.
Looking at M3 schools not moving up to the B1G or SEC, TCU led with four appearances (B12 CCG, UTx, Baylor & Iowa St), Clemson with three (NCSU, Syracuse & GA Tech), and Florida State with two (LSU & UF).
Seven games garnered more than 10m viewers. All involved at least one SEC/B1G team.
17.14m Michigan at Ohio St.
13.06m Tennessee at Georgia
11.56m Alabama at Tennessee
10.89m Georgia v LSU – SEC CCG
10.70m Michigan v Purdue – B1G CCG
10.60m Alabama at Texas
10.53m Notre Dame at Ohio State
Michigan carried six non-king/fmr kings (Purdue, Mich St, Ill, UMd, Iowa & Indiana) to viewership over 4m. Ohio St did it five times (UMd, N’west, Wisc, Mich St & Iowa), while Alabama did it four times (Ole Miss, A&M, Aub & Ark).
Overall conference standings
(21) SEC – 11 SEC games over 5m; 3 OOC games over 5m; 5 SEC games over 4m but less than 5m; 2 OOC games over 4m but less than 5m
(17) B1G – 7 B1G over 5m; 1 OOC over 5m; 8 B1G over 4m; 1 OOC over 4m
(6) B12 – 2 B12 over 5m; 1 OOC over 5m; 3 B12 over 4m;
(6) ACC – 2 OOC over 5m; 3 ACC over 4m; 1 OOC over 4m
(4) P12 – 1 P12 over 5m; 2 OOC over 5m; 1 P12 over 4m
(2) Notre Dame – 2 (OhSU & SC) over 5m
*Emperor – Alabama (7); Kings – Clemson (3), Georgia (6), LSU (3), Michigan (8), Notre Dame (2), Ohio State (8), Oklahoma (zero), Texas (3) & USC (3); former Kings – Florida (4), Florida State (2), Miami (zero), Nebraska (1), Penn State (3) & Tennessee (6))
LikeLike
Really demonstrates how strong a draw Michigan is, despite a long period of relative mediocrity.
LikeLike
I think that down period may actually be helping their ratings now. People aren’t as sick of them winning as they are the other top programs recently.
LikeLike
I’m really impressed with Tennessee too.
LikeLike
Michigan continued to draw pretty well on TV even during the Rodriguez/Hoke years. Not as well as now, but better than your typical mediocre team. So it’s not surprising they draw well now that they are actually playing up to their reputation.
This is why Mandel’s Kings list is meaningful. The Kings have advantages that tend to endure even in bad times. King status isn’t eternal, but it takes many years to lose it.
LikeLike
Finebaum thinks Oregon and Washington are coming to the B1G in a couple of years.
LikeLike
Did he say why?
LikeLike
Marc: “Did he say why?”
No. just another keyboard commissioner spouting nonsense.
LikeLike
Be fair, Colin. He’s a talking head, not a keyboard commissioner.
LikeLike
Brian: “Be fair, Colin. He’s a talking head, not a keyboard commissioner.”
OK, but we’ve kicked around the pros and cons on this forum and there does not seem to be any compelling reason for the B1G to add UW and UO. The TV payout may break even at best but it clearly isn’t additive, both are geographical outliers that do not facilitate double-headers like UCS and UCLA do, the Big Ten presidents probably do not want to be blamed for destroying the Pac-12, both schools have little brothers who will have a fit and Oregon will likely fade away again when Uncle Phil is no longer around.
Finebaum may be more of an insider than I am but his prediction doesn’t pass the smell test.
LikeLike
He knows people in AL and the SEC in general. I’ve never known him to have inside access to PNW schools.
LikeLike
Oregon, the state, as a market may be fading away as well…
LikeLike
https://www.macrotrends.net/states/oregon/population
I’m not sure such a short term trend means much, especially during the pandemic. OR has been growing for a long time, and pre-pandemic the PNW had been a rapidly growing region. OR grew 10.6% from 2010 to 2020, and has grown a bit since 2020. WA grew 14.6% in 2010-2020.
LikeLike
We have in-laws who live in Portland. For decades they bought their groceries at a local market. However there came to be so many aggressive panhandlers at the entrance, to include following them to their car screaming and writing down their liscence plate number if they weren’t given a “good” handout, that they stopped going there entirely.
For the past few years they drive to a CostCo where they can shop in peace. CostCo keeps the losers away from the entrance and the parking lot.
LikeLike
Aren’t we all keyboard commissioners? Some spend more time at the keyboard; some less. Some prefer more expansion; some less. Some prefer none; some actually prefer contraction. Some prefer more locked rivalries; some less. Some prefer more freedom and liberty; some none. Presumably, some are god-fearing; some not so much. To each their own; gods bless America.
LikeLike
mstinebrink: “Aren’t we all keyboard commissioners?”
Well, perhaps. But there’s quite a difference between “I don’t think there will be any further expansion of the Big Ten” and “FSU and Miami are no-brainers”.
Also, we aren’t syndicated journalists like Finebaum. He appears to be making a published prediction with no source and probably no basis in reality.
LikeLike
He didn’t say exactly when, either. But I should think Finebaum is well enough connected to get some insider stuff.
In the B1G, both Oregon and Washington would play games in the Eastern and Central time zones, and they would get a lot more TV exposure. They clearly are more valuable in the B1G than the PACxx, so that might also be a factor in his opinion.
I don’t think the O/W issue is settled.
LikeLike
He didn’t say exactly when, either. But I should think Finebaum is well enough connected to get some insider stuff.
I agree he’s got connections, but he didn’t say, “Big Ten insiders I’ve spoken to tell me that….” That’s what talking heads say when they’ve got a source. Instead, he says, “I felt it for some time.” Feelings matter, but this is a bit less than a sourced story.
In the B1G, both Oregon and Washington would play games in the Eastern and Central time zones, and they would get a lot more TV exposure. They clearly are more valuable in the B1G than the PACxx, so that might also be a factor in his opinion.
All true, but these are reasons why Oregon and Washington would want to move, not reasons why the Big Ten would invite them.
LikeLike
Marc: “I agree he’s got connections, but he didn’t say, “Big Ten insiders I’ve spoken to tell me that….” That’s what talking heads say when they’ve got a source. Instead, he says, “I felt it for some time.” Feelings matter, but this is a bit less than a sourced story.”
Exactly. “I felt it for some time.” could have been a nasty hemorrhoid.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35304457/nfl-sunday-ticket-headed-youtube-2023-season
The NFL’s Sunday out of market coverage will move to YouTube in 2023.
The NFL announced a multiyear agreement on Thursday for Google to distribute the league’s “Sunday Ticket” package of out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on YouTube TV and YouTube Primetime Channels.
The NFL was seeking $2.5 billion per season for the package, which has been on DirecTV since 1994. The satellite provider has paid $1.5 billion per year on an eight-year contract that expires at the end of this season.
Commissioner Roger Goodell said during an interview with CNBC over the summer that the next move for “Sunday Ticket” would be to a streaming service because that would be the best option for fans.
…
Besides Amazon, Apple and ESPN also expressed interest in the “Sunday Ticket” package.
“As the ways fans enjoy NFL football evolve in a changing media landscape, partnerships with innovators like YouTube will ensure that more games are available to more fans,” said New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who is also chairman of the NFL’s media committee. “This partnership will grow our game for future generations and allow them to follow their favorite sport.”
The NFL has had a presence on YouTube since 2015, when it launched its official NFL channel. That has increased to include channels for all 32 teams and 10 official league channels, including NFL Films, NFL Network and Mundo NFL.
I’m a little surprised YouTube won out, but maybe the NFL is looking to have a package on every major streamer as well as every major OTA network. And maybe the NFL is so expensive so it has to be spread that widely.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2022/12/23/deion-sanders-contract-colorado-coach-vote-against/10947145002/
One regent voted against Deion Sanders’ contract at CU. He explains why (and it’s not personal).
Usually, at other major universities, football coaches’ contracts are rubber-stamped by university governing boards with no dissent.
Just not here and not with Kroll, who made similar dissenting votes with the previous two coaches at Colorado – and for similar reasons.
So his vote is not about Sanders specifically. He said it’s instead about his fiduciary responsibility as an elected regent looking out for the long-term interests of the university and its students.
…
He gave three general reasons for his vote, and the university has a general response to each:
►1. The business model is not sustainable, he says. Coaches are making more money than ever. In Boulder, Sanders will start his five-year deal at $5.5 million annually, more than CU has ever paid a coach, but still far less than what other coaches make in the Big Ten and Southeastern Conferences. Kroll said the university helps “subsidize” athletics with millions of dollars in funding, including a mandatory athletic fee of $28.50 per semester for undergraduate students. In 2019-20, CU reported $11.2 million in allocated revenues, which is defined as the sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and other funds allocated to the athletic department. This ranked fifth among public schools in the Pac-12 Conference, according to USA TODAY Sports data.
The university noted that coaches’ contracts are not paid “through tuition money, taxpayer dollars or the campus general fund” and instead are paid through athletic department revenues, such as ticket sales, donations and media rights.
►2. Kroll noted that players soon might be classified as employees under the law. Kroll is not against such a classification but doesn’t see how Colorado can afford to add this huge new labor expense.
The university said it couldn’t speculate on what might happen in this regard. It has noted a huge surge in sales and positive publicity for the university since Sanders’ hiring, which already is enough to justify it in the eyes of many CU alumni and fans. Like other schools, CU’s football program drives most of the revenue in athletics and helps pay for other sports.
►3. Kroll said he is concerned about head injuries from football and their long-term effect on players. CU in particular has had a number of former players who have died or suffered other health problems associated with head injuries.
The university noted it has “been a leader in research into the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of traumatic head injuries in collaboration with the NCAA.”
In short, Kroll says the university and its constituents would be better off using its resources on other healthier and more sustainable pursuits, such as research labs or residence halls.
…
Kroll said his vote also was influenced by personal regret. Back in 2017, he voted in favor of a three-year contract extension for then-head coach Mike MacIntyre, who had just led the Buffaloes to a 10-4 season in 2016, one of only two winning seasons for Colorado in the past 17 years.
Then just a year and a half later, CU fired MacIntyre in November 2018 after his team’s on-field performance collapsed with six straight losses. CU ended up paying $7.2 million to buy out his contract.
“There was a lot of pressure to approve that contract,” said Kroll, a CU Denver graduate who works at a nonprofit in the education sector. “I ended up voting for it, and he was gone in a year and half. I sort of felt like I compromised my beliefs on the subject and sort of vowed to not do it again.”
CU’s counterargument to #1 is silly. The coach’s contract may not come directly from those sources, but money is fungible and they use those funds to pay for other parts of the CFB program while pulling from another part of the funding bucket to pay the coach. What things you pay for from ticket sales vs student fees and allocated revenue doesn’t matter, it’s how much you charge in student fees and how much revenue you allocate to pay for athletics period.
As for #2, they can’t speculate publicly but they better be planning internally for the contingency. They can only do their best on #3 and try to protect themselves from lawsuits.
I think the most valid concern is the fiduciary responsibility and the cost of buyouts. Coaches get paid too much because that’s the going rate, but they shouldn’t get huge buyouts if they’re fired for failure. Contracts should specify acceptable performance. But the tradeoff is that the school also shouldn’t get a payout if a coach chooses to leave. At most they should get a right to match clause that let’s them equal the higher pay another school/the NFL offers for the duration of the contract.
LikeLike
I’m glad you pointed out just how ridiculous that answer to #1 was.
If you have a $100 million budget AD with $80 million in revenue and $20 million in transfers, then it doesn’t matter which of the revenue or transfer money is being spent.
That regent had a good point on that one in particular. Trying to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC without Big Ten/SEC TV revenue will cause a lot of programs to need either more transfer money or donor money.
It’s going to be really hard to keep up with $40-60 million less per year in conference distributions.
ND, Clemson, FSU, Miami, Oregon, Washington may be able to keep up in football spending, but how many others will in the Power 5?
By 2028-2029, the difference in distributions will be significant.
LikeLike
Rhetorical question: UCLA is now saddled with a “Berkeley tax” in which the Bruins will be forced to pay Cal for perceived loss of TV revenue due to UCLA going to the Big Ten. But if SDSU now gets invited to join the Pac-12 and gets a big boost in TV revenue, shouldn’t the Aztec’s pay a “UCLA rebate” to the Bruins for creating an opportunity that they would never have gotten if UCLA stayed put?
LikeLike
Does SDSU pay a CSU system tax to Fresno St and San Jose St for the same reason theirs a Cal Berkeley tax?
LikeLike
Time for some end of the year What Ifs about B10 expansion.
The B10 has expanded many times since it’s founding in 1896. How might things be different now?
1. 1896 – founding 7 = Chicago, IL, NW, MN, WI, PU, MI
Note the more western flavor of the original group. That’s almost the B10 West division. It strikes me as a little odd IN was left out back then, but it may have made sense at the time.
Notre Dame would’ve been a perfect geographical fit. Anti-Catholic sentiment in the US at the time may have been a factor against them. This is a time when travel really mattered, and they had MN but not the much closer Notre Dame.
2. 1899 – add IN, IA (9)
The western core is now complete with IA onboard, and the lack of IN is corrected.
ND still would’ve been a great fit geographically, and NE asked to be admitted in 1900.
3. 1907 – 1st contraction as MI is kicked out (8)
4. 1912 – add OSU (9)
5. 1916 – add MI back in, getting to the first Big 10 (10)
I wonder if one reason for not expanding beyond 10 back then was that they were concerned about playing each other frequently and worried the conference would be too large. Both ND and NE could’ve been members at this point, adding a whole lot of future MNCs to the B10 total. This is also an era when other neighboring schools (MSU, ISU, Pitt, etc.) could’ve been added. We know MI really worked against ND in this era, and that probably hurt the B10 in the long run.
6. 1946 – contraction #2 as UC drops out (9)
7. 1949 – add MSU (10)
Now we get to the familiar B10. This was a contested expansion with other candidates including ISU, Marquette, NE, ND, and Pitt.
I’ll start my what ifs here.
a. What if the B10 chose someone else over MSU in 1949?
How long would MSU have been willing to stay independent? Was there any other conference they would join (MAC?)? Would the B10 have soon added MSU anyway? Might they have brought in MSU and PSU earlier than 1993?
I tend to think ND would’ve pushed for PSU to be added sooner for the eastern connection, and I think MSU would’ve gotten in after their strong years in the 50s and 60s. Say PSU gets added in the 70s or 80s.
This is the only path I can see to ISU ever getting in. It would have to happen before TV mattered. Would the eastern push to PSU still have happened? I think so. Would MSU get in later? Probably.
If the B10 chose Pitt, then I think PSU gets added a little sooner as well. An eastern growth might’ve been more attractive to ND than going west (NE, ISU). This was probably Pitt’s last chance as well, because PSU wouldn’t want them and then BTN made TV too important.
I just can’t grasp Marquette as an option.
b. What if the SEC went to 12 a few years earlier, so the B10 could see the power of the CCG before they expanded to 11 by adding PSU. Would they have jumped straight to 12, and if so with whom?
The B10 waited about 25 years to go to 12 after seeing a CCG, so clearly they didn’t think the value was that high. I don’t think it would’ve influenced them. It took the BTN to really make going to 12 worth it to the B10.
c. What if the B10 had been at 11 already, so they went to 12 when they added PSU? Would they still have expanded in 2010 and/or 2014, and if so with whom?
I think BTN money drove those expansions, so yes. NE and MO would’ve been the obvious pair from the B12 in 2010 to me. Maybe KU instead of MO, but I doubt it. I doubt the B10 would’ve taken 4 unless UT /OU were interested.
In 2014 the money from UMD probably still drives expansion. I could see KU as #16 potentially with NE and MO both already in, but the money from RU would have still been too tempting I think. So that’s 16 with NE, MO, UMD and RU.
The question is who the 11th team was (pre-PSU or with them). ISU? Pitt? ND? If ND, then UMD and RU were an obvious expansion but NE and MO might not have happened. My guess is that Pitt might’ve been that team, though (because ND wouldn’t agree).
d. What if the B10 had been at 16 already, do they still add USC/UCLA?
If ND was a member, then I think yes to get that ND/USC rivalry in-conference. ND would welcome the national exposure. Otherwise, I’m not sure. They might have waited on ND.
LikeLike
https://frontofficesports.com/amazon-is-reportedly-planning-to-launch-a-sports-content-app/
Amazon is planning to launch a sports app.
In 2023, Amazon plans to beef up its sports content even more.
The company has plans to launch a sports-specific app, according to The Information.
* The app would host all of the live sports that are currently streamed through Amazon Prime Video.
* It could provide a mechanism for the tech giant to charge extra for sports viewing rights.
* Currently, Prime’s $14.99 monthly membership includes access to live sports.
…
It’s also investing in daily talk shows, like the morning roundtable-style show called “Bonjour Sports Talk.”
Stream On
CEO Andy Jassy reportedly confirmed that the streamer is interested in acquiring more sports rights.
The next acquisition could be rights to the Pac-12 Conference, which has made a major push to do a deal with Amazon, Front Office Sports previously reported.
The fifth most-valuable company in the world could also make a move for the NBA, which is seeking $50 billion to $75 billion for its next media rights deal.
Apparently just driving Prime subscriptions isn’t lucrative enough. Will this new app be an extra fee on top of Prime, or a separate thing entirely (no Prime required) but that can be bundled with Prime at a discount? It sounds a bit like Disney’s model.
It would give Amazon incentive to invest heavily in sports, and they could afford to reach a critical mass of rights where viewership wouldn’t drop all that much by being on Amazon. They could become the new ESPN of streaming.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/12/28/bowl-system-eyeing-sweeping-overhaul
The bowl system is considering its future after CFP expansion.
“This is not bowl week,” Ohio State offensive coordinator Kevin Wilson said here Tuesday. “This is playoff week.”
It is all a reminder of the complicated relationship between the College Football Playoff and the bowls—an affiliation made more murky with the impending expansion of the CFP. That’s why this offseason is one of the most critical for the future of bowl games than any before it, says Nick Carparelli, the executive director of Bowl Season, the organization that operates the 41 bowl games.
“There’s more drastic change going on in college athletics than I can ever remember and maybe ever in its history,” Carparelli says. “It’s time now to shift our focus to Bowl Season and determine what role we play in the college football calendar. Everything else in college athletics is evolving, Bowl Season will evolve as well.”
Carparelli and bowl officials plan to meet with conference commissioners this spring to explore significant changes that could revolutionize bowl games and pave the way for the future of college football’s postseason. Serious change appears on the horizon, Carparelli says, as bowls work to evolve in the current climate of college football.
Executives are expected to examine a great number of bowl-related issues, including stiffening the criteria for bowl eligibility from a 6–6 record; providing more standard name, image and likeness (NIL) payments to all players participating in a bowl; further incorporating bowls in the expanded playoff; shifting bowl games up a week in December; establishing more flexibility in conference bowl affiliations; and, finally, incorporating more television partners within Bowl Season.
…
“People need to take a deep breath,” Carparelli says. “Just because some bowls don’t have an impact on the national championship, it doesn’t mean it’s not meaningful to a lot of people. Even the lowest rated bowl games have 2 million viewers, which out-rates some of the best regular season college basketball games and other alternative programming (Editor’s note: 13 bowls drew fewer than 2 million viewers last year, with the Bahamas Bowl’s audience of 851,000 people ranking as the smallest). Coaches want to play in them and 90% of student-athletes want to play in them.
…
Bowl Eligibility
Is it time to make bowls more valuable again and increase the standard from 6-6 to 7-5?
“That’s the conversation,” says Carparelli.
…
“It’s important to remember that the bowl system is a market-driven system. No one is forcing communities to host them and conferences to participate in them,” Carparelli says. “We are hoping to find out from commissioners what the number will be. Do their teams want to participate at 6–6 or 5–7? Our system is geared for that and we can continue with that. But we’ve got to find out.”
…
NIL
Bowl game sponsors are getting creative in the era of NIL, striking deals with participants that may both stave off bowl opt-outs as well as provide a work-around to the NCAA policy prohibiting pay-for-play.
This could open the door to a more standard operating procedure of bowls directly paying players, potentially steering the money paid to conferences and schools toward athletes.
“We are really eager to have that conversation,” Carparelli says. “We think we can be a great solution for the commissioners. We know they are under increased pressure to find ways to put money in the pockets of student-athletes especially with the rapidly escalating television revenue. They are not able to pay players directly. If they were to desire bowls to make payments directly to players instead of conferences and schools, we can do that.”
…
“The payouts from bowl games could certainly be directed entirely to the players instead of the conferences if that’s what the commissioners wanted,” Carparelli says.
…
CFP
For months now, Carparelli has argued that bowls should be more incorporated into the expanded playoff. In the adopted expansion format, quarterfinals and semifinals are hosted by the six New Year’s Six bowl games in a rotation. But four first-round games are played in mid-December at on-campus sites of the better seed.
Carparelli plans to continue to push for a new group of bowls to host first-round games. He knows that won’t happen in the 2024 and 2025 versions of the playoff, but he hopes that commissioners will explore the possibility when agreeing to a new CFP contract starting in 2026.
…
“We continue to believe strongly that all playoff games should be at off-campus sites,” he says. “Having a competitive neutral environment is really important. Bowls are ready for a quick turnaround. They can handle it. They know years in advance that they’ll be hosting those games. And most of our bowls are located at warm-weather sites.”
The latter is important given this past weekend’s weather situation, Carparelli notes.
First-round games in an expanded playoff would have been played this past week, when a winter storm rolled through many Big Ten college towns, dropping several inches of snow, plummeting temperatures and creating harsh winds. Using the CFP’s final rankings this year, Ohio State would have hosted a playoff game, likely in 25 miles per hour winds and single-digit temperatures.
“The weather was treacherous this weekend across every Big Ten market,” Carparelli says. “It would be hard to imagine games of that magnitude being played in those conditions.”
Flexibility
…
Under this proposal, bowl games could start as much as a week earlier than normal, spreading out the 41 games over three weeks instead of two.
“If the season starts a week earlier, then it would be logical that bowls start sooner,” Carparelli says. “We are seeing some of the teams that barely qualify for bowls want to play them sooner and be home for the holidays. If the season ends earlier, we need to have that conversation.”
…
“Should there be more flexibility in the system where bowl games and conferences aren’t locked in with one another? Should there be more conferences involved with more bowl games?” he asks. “Some people even suggest going back to the old bowl system. That might be a stretch, but there is discussion to be had. In the old system, at the end of the season every institution is up for bid. Best teams get sought after by the bowl games with the deepest pockets. That’s how it used to work.”
TV
…
While 17 bowl games are owned and operated by ESPN, 24 are not, leaving the potential for other networks to get into the act of televising bowl games, Carparelli says. But it’s unclear if more bowls will find new broadcasting homes elsewhere.
“Each bowl game is in charge of negotiating their own TV contract,” he says.
We’ll see if anything comes out of the discussions. Making bowl eligibility harder only makes sense if the bowls also have to pay NIL to players to get teams to come. Otherwise everyone seems happy with the profit they make as is.
I agree that more flexibility would help the smaller bowls. If anyone other than ESPN wanted the smaller bowls, they could have them already. I doubt they make financial sense for any OTA network, but maybe they would for a streamer.
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/college/maryland/Article/Kevin-Willard-Big-Ten-doesnt-understand-how-to-schedule-a-basketball-game-has-caused-its-title-drought-201188531/
UMD’s MBB coach blames the B10’s scheduling for the national title drought. Some of it is sour grapes from a coach new to the league, but he makes some decent points too.
Kevin Willard thinks the Big Ten’s basketball scheduling is a mess and he isn’t afraid to say it. The Maryland basketball coach went in-depth about it on his radio show.
…
One of his biggest complaints is the glut of 9 p.m. tipoffs. His team plays three 9 p.m. games in a row beginning Jan. 31 against Indiana, followed by road trips to Minnesota and Michigan State. Their first two conference games, against Illinois and Wisconsin, were also 9 p.m. games.
…
He also thinks there are too many games bunched together.
…
Maryland plays just two of its first seven conference games at home.
…
On the Big East: “They never would load up five of your first seven on the road. I just, you know, I started from an outsider looking in, now being in the conference, I can understand why there’s been such a long national championship drought in the Big 10. Because I just don’t think they know how to schedule.”
…
On the Big Ten’s national title drought: “Tom Izzo and Matt Painter, these guys are legendary coaches, Hall of Fame coaches. Fran McCaffery in this league is unbelievable, has unbelievable coaches in there. But there’s a reason why they haven’t won a championship since 2000. It’s not the coaches. I mean, these are elite, elite coaches and elite players, the got all the players have gotten drafted,” he continued. “And I’m looking at it, it’s just, how do you send a team five of the first seven on the road? How is that equal in any manner? And if you look at all the other conferences, it just doesn’t happen. So you know … It’s not going to change. So it’s more or less me trying to get an understanding of me taking better care of my guys in December.”
Some of this is the price you pay for chasing the max TV deal. It may even get worse in the new deal. But some of his complaints probably have validity and could be mitigated with careful scheduling.
LikeLike
Late night starts on short rest sort of sounds like the NCAA tournament, The B1G is not having a problem getting teams in the tournament; they just are not winning it. The scheduling complaints might make it harder to get selected but should actually help prepare teams for the tournament.
LikeLike
I think part of the argument is that our teams are worn out by March because of the scheduling. Add in a grinding, unnecessary B10 tournament and the players aren’t ready for the demands of March.
LikeLike
The scheduling can be a mess (primarily due to the chase for TV $), but I doubt it has a significant impact on the Big Ten’s MBB title drought.
The Big Ten has had 14 Final Four participants since 2001.
The Big Ten has had 7 national runner’s ups since then. Michigan x2, Indiana, Michigan State, Illinois, Ohio State, Wisconsin have all gotten to the Final Four and won the first game before falling to the national champion.
Those teams just didn’t get the job done in the final game (3 of those 7 games were close).
Hard to call that a total collapse or something like that, it’s just that at the high end some other programs have a bit higher ceilings than the Big Ten programs and won those games (UNC, Duke, Villanova, Louisville, Florida).
I mean the fact that 6 different programs have gotten to the national championship game in 20 years is an impressive feat in some sense. But the only thing that gets focused on is the actual national champion…
LikeLike
I don’t want to knock any of the 6 Big Ten programs that got to the national championship, but look at the opponents:
UNC and Duke can be called the top 2 programs of the last 40 years, maybe 2 of the top 3 if you throw UConn into that conversation. Those 2 were going to be incredibly tough to beat in the national championship game.
Florida and Villanova each won 2 championships in a short time frame: Florida won 2 in a row, Villanova won 2 in 3 years. When programs are operating at that kind of supernova status, it’s just hard to overcome.
Louisville isn’t really an outlier having won 3 total championships and being the archrival to Kentucky and a major basketball program in its own right.
Just hard to overcome opponents like that; history always favors opponents like that over teams with less tradition (though obviously programs like Indiana, Michigan State, and Michigan have tons of tradition in their own right).
LikeLike
Sure, and we need better guard play too. But maybe cumulative fatigue also catches up to our teams deep in the tournament more than the opponents. A few plays either way have decided many/most of those games.
LikeLike
If Warren is off to lead the Bears (and I expect the Bears to pay top dollar to get a guy who showed he can build a stadium), I expect Jim Phillips to be back in Chicagoland. The B10 AD’s like Phillips; if it had been up to them, they would have made Jim B10 commissioner last time, Now that Warren has gotten the B10 the highest-paying TV deals (and also the LA schools), it will be up to Phillips to smooth over ruffled feathers and (more importantly) recruit FSU and Miami (and ideally ND) to the B10. The B10 would be willing to add 1 of Stanford/GTech for the Domers. Heck, possibly even 3 of Stanford/GTech/UNC/UVa to get the Domers.
LikeLike
If the B10 adds FSU+Miami+ND+Stanford, 4 5-team divisions actually set up nicely:
East: PSU, FSU, Miami, RU, UMD
Central: UMich, OSU, MSU, IU, PU
Midwest: UIUC, NU, UW, Iowa, UMTC
West: ND, UNL, Stanford, USC, UCLA
At least 1 permanent cross-over rival:
OSU-PSU (rivalry)
UMich-FSU (heavyweight matchup)
MSU-Miami (maybe heavyweight matchup)
IU-RU (IU alums in NYC)
PU-UMD (engineering schools)
UNL-Iowa (rivalry)
ND-NU (rivalry)
USC-Wisconsin (heavyweight matchup)
UCLA-UMTC (maybe heavyweight matchup)
Stanford-UIUC (engineering schools)
Though you could set up a permanent cross-over rival between each division:
UMich-ND (rivalry)
OSU-USC (heavyweight matchup)
MSU-UCLA (maybe heavyweight matchup)
PU-Stanford (engineering schools)
IU-UNL (corn)
UMich-UMTC (rivalry)
OSU-Wisconsin (heavyweight matchup)
MSU-NU (MSU visits Chicagoland for alums)
PU-UIUC (engineering schools)
IU-Iowa (more corn)
ND-Miami (rivalry)
UNL-PSU (sorta rivalry)
USC-FSU (heavyweight matchup)
UCLA-RU (2 biggest metros in the country)
Stanford-UMD (engineering schools)
Iowa-PSU (sorta rivalry)
Wisconsin-FSU (heavyweight matchup)
UMTC-Miami (maybe heavyweight matchup)
NU-RU (NU visits alums in NYC)
UIUC-UMD (engineering schools)
8th game to match up schools that have gone the longest without meeting.
9th game for B10 semis and the other games.
Some schools would almost never play some others, but
1. The original 10 B10 schools would still play the teams they care about most annually. (Actually, probably true for everyone)
2. TV execs would love this.
3. With 20 schools, that would be true in any case.
4. Annual games are how you build rivalries and this way, pretty much all the old rivalries folks care about are kept and some new ones may form.
5. UMich and OSU would never meet in back-to-back weeks.
LikeLike
Richard,
“If the B10 adds FSU+Miami+ND+Stanford, 4 5-team divisions actually set up nicely:
East: PSU, FSU, Miami, RU, UMD
Central: UMich, OSU, MSU, IU, PU
Midwest: UIUC, NU, UW, Iowa, UMTC
West: ND, UNL, Stanford, USC, UCLA”
That’s a lot of travel for NE and ND. They might not want that.
“At least 1 permanent cross-over rival:
OSU-PSU (rivalry)
UMich-FSU (heavyweight matchup)
MSU-Miami (maybe heavyweight matchup)
IU-RU (IU alums in NYC)
PU-UMD (engineering schools)
UNL-Iowa (rivalry)
ND-NU (rivalry)
USC-Wisconsin (heavyweight matchup)
UCLA-UMTC (maybe heavyweight matchup)
Stanford-UIUC (engineering schools)”
I’m not convinced those are worth it. The only games with history in there are OSU/PSU, NE/IA and ND/NW (and NW is way down ND’s list of rivals).
“Though you could set up a permanent cross-over rival between each division:
UMich-ND (rivalry)
OSU-USC (heavyweight matchup)
MSU-UCLA (maybe heavyweight matchup)
PU-Stanford (engineering schools)
IU-UNL (corn)
UMich-UMTC (rivalry)
OSU-Wisconsin (heavyweight matchup)
MSU-NU (MSU visits Chicagoland for alums)
PU-UIUC (engineering schools)
IU-Iowa (more corn)
ND-Miami (rivalry)
UNL-PSU (sorta rivalry)
USC-FSU (heavyweight matchup)
UCLA-RU (2 biggest metros in the country)
Stanford-UMD (engineering schools)
Iowa-PSU (sorta rivalry)
Wisconsin-FSU (heavyweight matchup)
UMTC-Miami (maybe heavyweight matchup)
NU-RU (NU visits alums in NYC)
UIUC-UMD (engineering schools)”
That’s a lot of locked games with minimal value. I think at 20 you need to focus on rotation.
Pods of 5: 9 = 4 locked + 15 * 33%
With 4 locked games (pods), you could play everyone else 33% of the time in 9 games.
Locked rivals: 9 = 3 locked + 8 * 50% + 8 * 25%
If you only lock 3 rivals per school, you could play 8 more teams 50% of the time and the remaining 8 25%. That would let coastal teams have less travel, and it should keep all the important games played every other year.
Similar options:
Locked rivals: 9 = 3 locked + 6 * 67% + 10 * 20%
Locked rivals: 9 = 2 locked + 3 * 67% + 2 * 50% + 12 * 33%
“8th game to match up schools that have gone the longest without meeting.
9th game for B10 semis and the other games.”
I’m not convinced the B10 is ready for or wants flex scheduling like that in Week 14. I think they’d rather rotate games to keep games more frequent.
“Some schools would almost never play some others, but”
That’s a recipe for a conference falling apart.
“1. The original 10 B10 schools would still play the teams they care about most annually. (Actually, probably true for everyone)”
Maybe. But there’d be a lot of pushback on those locked games, and jealousy over who gets certain teams (ND, FL and CA schools especially).
“2. TV execs would love this.”
Only if fans do. Will Miami UCLA ever feel like a B10 game? Will people tune in?
“3. With 20 schools, that would be true in any case.”
So don’t go to 20.
“4. Annual games are how you build rivalries and this way, pretty much all the old rivalries folks care about are kept and some new ones may form.”
It’s also how you integrate new members into a conference. If they almost never play existing members, will they really feel like they are in the B10?
“5. UMich and OSU would never meet in back-to-back weeks.”
That isn’t locked into your plan unless you assume the semifinals would be based on pod winners and not the top 4 teams. There would be huge complaints about a weak pod (midwest?) always getting a spot while elite runners up are left out.
LikeLike
Once you get to 18 teams, or maybe even 16, divisions and pods are not going to work, because there is no way to make the competition fair: e.g., MD in with MSU, PSU, MI, and tOSU. MD and RU don’t need to see more than two of them each year. Let MD play PU or NE.
The best you can do is give each school one locked game at a set time. Both schools would have to agree.
The rest of the schedule has to be set either randomly so that each school has about the same strength of schedule. You might want to do the NFL thingy where last season’s top team get harder schedules, and the weaker teams get easier schedule.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35341811/sources-kevin-warren-strong-candidate-bears-president
For those that haven’t seen the news, I linked ESPN’s article about it.
This is a good time for him to go. He’s always been more interested in the NFL, the B10 has rebuffed his push for more expansion at this time, and his contract should be nearing its end.
Jim Phillips was the first person that came to mind for me as well. Is he willing to leave the ACC so soon? How long is his contract? If he isn’t interested, who might be the next traditional candidate? Would they look at current ADs (Gene Smith?), or would they want someone with some commissioner experience?
Or maybe the B10 wants to continue the path of having a commissioner who knows nothing about college sports, but knows TV or the NFL or something. That’s worked really well for the P12 and B10 so far.
Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren has emerged as a strong candidate to be the next president of the Chicago Bears, sources told ESPN on Thursday.
Warren is one of the final candidates in the Bears’ search for the team’s next president/CEO and remains engaged after a lengthy search, with sources telling ESPN that he’s a serious-enough candidate that he interviewed in person.
…
It’s unknown who Warren has informed of his Bears candidacy, but sources said it’s not something that’s been widely circulated. The search is expected to finish in the upcoming weeks.
“We have not set a timeline for announcing Ted Phillip’s successor,” the Bears said in a statement Thursday. “Our search team has cast a wide net, spoke to many outstanding candidates and looks forward to introducing our next President and CEO at the process’s conclusion.”
It’s unusual for a sitting commissioner of a Power 5 conference to interview for a professional sports job and stay engaged in a process this long, which sources said is indicative of Warren’s interest level. He has worked in the NFL as both an agent and a team executive. When he left the NFL, Warren was the highest-ranking NFL executive working on the business side for a team.
“Over the course of three decades in professional and collegiate sports, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren regularly receives unique opportunities and requests for his expertise from leaders across a variety of industries ranging from professional sports ownership groups to private equity firms,” the Big Ten said in a statement Thursday.
“The Commissioner utilizes each occurrence to listen, learn and assist every stakeholder in the most appropriate and effective manner. The Commissioner remains focused on the Big Ten Conference, its 14 member institutions and over 10,000 student-athletes in both regular season and postseason play.”
…
Warren has publicly pushed for more expansion for the Big Ten, but that has been met internally with resistance. And for the near future, the Big Ten will be a 16-team league that stretches from New Jersey to Los Angeles.
Warren began with the Big Ten in June 2019, becoming the first African American commissioner of a Power 5 conference. He has not been given a contract extension since coming aboard, and the length of his deal and any talks of an upcoming deal have not been discussed publicly by the league.
LikeLike
“Is he willing to leave the ACC so soon?”
Phillips, a Chicagoland native, would leave faster than it took for TCU to leave the WAC for CUSA (and CUSA for the MWC and the MWC for the B12).
The contract would be the only hold-up but contracts can be renegotiated. I doubt the ACC would want a commish who would rather be at another league.
LikeLike
faster than it took for TCU to leave the WAC for CUSA (and CUSA for the MWC and the MWC for the B12)
You forgot the time they quit the MWC to join the Big East and then quit the Big East to the join the XII… without ever actually playing a game in the Big East.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Now that Warren has gotten the B10 the highest-paying TV deals (and also the LA schools), it will be up to Phillips to smooth over ruffled feathers and (more importantly) recruit FSU and Miami (and ideally ND) to the B10. The B10 would be willing to add 1 of Stanford/GTech for the Domers. Heck, possibly even 3 of Stanford/GTech/UNC/UVa to get the Domers.”
I don’t think there is any recruiting of ND. NBC or someone will always give them a big enough TV deal that they can stay independent. It would take a structural change to CFB that requires them to be in a conference to make the CFP (like the top 32 teams leaving the NCAA to form NFL Lite) in order for them to join one.
I agree the B10 would add a partner of their choice if ND demanded it, but the B10 would want to go to an even number anyway. Of course the schools would have to be available (ACC currently isn’t, but neither is ND) and willing to join (would Stanford join, or would they rather stay with Cal?), and that’s not assured. I’m not sure UVA or UNC would agree to come unless the SEC told them they weren’t wanted down there. GT would prefer the SEC as well, but they might be a tough sell to the SEC with UGA so close to Atlanta.
LikeLike
The SEC wouldn’t add GTech. That makes as much sense as the B10 adding Pitt.
And even without ND, the divisions still work (though the protected cross-overs would have to be reworked): just replace ND and Stanford in the West with UW and UO.
LikeLike
I’ve seen it posited the SEC might take some of those teams (UVA, UNC, GT, FSU, Miami) just to block the B10 and maintain total domination of the southeast.
I have no idea what they would or wouldn’t do.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is off the table until 2036, or so, because of their agreement with the ACC.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is off the table until The Second Coming because of their agreement with the ACC. They are not joining a conference, period. The ACC is the Irish enabler.
Phillips has two kids who attend ND, one on an athletic scholie. He is the ultimate ND groveler and he will do whatever ND wants him to do.
LikeLike
After seeing what has been happening at Stanford during its football coach search and the aftermath, I am now quite confident that the school would accept a BiG invitation in a heartbeat. The AD needs/wants the $$$$$$, and the higher-ups have publicly committed to having a competitive football team in a world of NILs and unlimited transfers.
You know Stanford is serious about football when the muckety-mucks agree to start taking up to 5 players per season from the transfer portal. And, the school has already landed 2 – one from the SEC no less! Now we have to wait and see if the new coaching staff can perform on the field.
LikeLike
I really don’t think it matters who the Big Ten commissioner is for much of the next decade probably. It’s really in the early/mid-2030s that it’s going to matter a great deal.
LikeLike
From The Athletic: The 12-team CFP’s to-do list for 2026 and beyond: After expansion, still much to resolve
By Nicole Auerbach Dec 29, 2022
The 2023-24 college season will be a historically notable one for many reasons, none bigger than its role as the final year of the four-team College Football Playoff. The 12-team bracket is coming, and it’s coming soon, but launching the expanded field in time for the 2024 regular season required quite a bit of effort and even more compromise.
The CFP’s current contract with its exclusive media partner ESPN and the bowls involved in the postseason runs through the 2025-26 season, which meant those contracts needed to be broken and/or amended to make this happen. But some of the solutions reached along the way were short-term ones, agreed upon for just the two seasons of the 12-team Playoff. Everyone involved knows that bigger battles are coming, as the commissioners and presidents who oversee the CFP start from scratch with a brand-new contract that will begin with the 2026 regular season.
Nothing automatically rolls over from the current contract. It’s probably safe to assume the term length will be shorter than the initial 12-year deal, to allow for flexibility within the model — some commissioners spoke out about the four-team field’s issues as early as December 2018 but couldn’t address them substantially for years — and to match the trend across the industry toward shorter deals, such as the Big Ten’s new seven-year media rights agreements.
So what do we already know about the 12-team Playoff in 2026 and beyond? And what still needs to be resolved over the next year or two? Let’s dive in. Here’s what we know will be included in the new contract:
A 12-team bracket, with six spots designated for the six highest-ranked conference champions and first-round byes for the top four seeds.
Games on-campus for the first round, hosted by seeds No. 5-8.
Games at bowls for the semifinal round and at neutral sites for the national championship.
The size and composition of the selection committee will “remain substantially unchanged,” per the CFP, as will the method of selection.
And here are the areas that still need to be resolved for 2026 and beyond:
Week 0
Could the regular season begin a week earlier than it does now? Moving the entire season up to the weekend before Labor Day weekend is very much a possibility as college football leaders explore ways to alleviate pressure on the back end of the calendar while tacking on two additional rounds of games in the expanded Playoff.
If games were to begin during what is colloquially referred to as Week 0, that would move most traditional rivalry games to the weekend before Thanksgiving and conference championship games to the weekend after the holiday. The first round of the CFP could then begin the second weekend of December, which would give college football exclusivity on that Saturday. The NFL does not begin Saturday play each year until the third week of December, and commissioners are concerned about putting too many of college football’s biggest games up against the ratings behemoth that is the NFL.
Another potential option? Playing CFP games one week after conference championship weekend, though that hasn’t received as much attention. The 12-team proposal approved by the presidents who make up the CFP Board of Managers back in September specifically stated that there would be at least 12 days between conference title games and CFP first-round games.
So that leaves the likelier option of moving the season up to Week 0, which has mostly served to whet the appetite for opening weekend in recent years. Eleven FBS games kicked off in Week 0 this past season; Nebraska and Northwestern faced off in Ireland in the only all-Power 5 matchup.
“It would give just a little more space,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said earlier this month in Las Vegas. “We’re going to have to talk about that. I don’t think you can ignore the idea of starting a week early, and then you get a jump-start on the NFL. We’ve enjoyed that on Labor Day, and this way we’d get two weeks (before the NFL kicks off its season).”
CFP executive director Bill Hancock said he, too, expects conversations about Week 0 to continue and that “no one is very far down the road on that.” He added that such a major decision would need to be made among all of college football’s leadership in a setting outside of the CFP. It is a sport issue, not a postseason-specific issue. The broader calendar has been a topic of conversation among administrators throughout the FBS; Phillips spearheaded a collaborative effort among all 10 leagues that turned into the FBS 365-Day Football Calendar Working Group.
There was not enough lead time to make a drastic change like this in time for the 2024 season. But it appears doable for 2026.
New media partner(s)
We won’t know who will bid on the media rights to the expanded CFP until there is actually something to bid on. But we know that prominent commissioners — most notably, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren — have been outspoken about wanting the CFP to have multiple broadcast partners, as the NFL does for its postseason. We also know that Fox, CBS and NBC just agreed to spend more than a billion dollars per year combined for rights to Big Ten games. And that Fox and ESPN just re-upped with the Big 12. And that the streaming services (Amazon, Apple) have been pursuing more and more rights to live sports.
It will depend on the price point and how the deals are structured, but it feels possible if not likely that the CFP could sell individual games or entire postseason rounds to different partners. The NFL works with every major American sports broadcaster, and they each promote the sport year-round because they’re financially tied to the success of its postseason.
Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff has specifically mentioned that he wants to take the games to the open market, where multiple bidders might drive up the overall price. More partners serving as rightsholders would also increase investment from a staffing and coverage standpoint.
“There is nothing more valuable in media than live sports, and the more partners that are invested in distributing and promoting college sports, the better for the industry,” Kliavkoff said last summer.
Revenue distribution
Expect quite a fight here with so much money and influence at stake. As it stands now, each Power 5 league earns roughly the same payout each year, regardless of how many teams it sends to the CFP or how far those teams advance. And not every Power 5 league has performed equally well during the CFP era, to say the least.
An expanded field, with six at-large spots, means the imbalance between the power conferences will only become more striking. If the SEC and Big Ten are sending the most teams and dominating the final rounds, should they really make the same money as, say, a Pac-12 without USC and UCLA?
The expanding SEC and Big Ten, set to grow to 16 members apiece, are expected to push for a payout formula similar to that of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, in which leagues receive payouts proportional to the number of teams they put in the field and how far those teams advance in the tournament. In September, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick said it “seems a little unlikely” that the revenue distribution formula will remain the same as it’s been.
As it stands now, the Power 5 leagues receive about 80 percent of the CFP revenue and the Group of 5 leagues get 20 percent. For the 2021-22 season, Power 5 leagues received approximately $74 million each from the CFP, with the five Group of 5 leagues splitting a total of $95 million.
Under the current revenue distribution model, for example, Alabama, a team that has participated in the CFP almost every year of its existence, would receive a smaller payout per year than Washington State, which has never come all that close to participating, because a 16-team SEC will be dividing its revenue among more members than a 10- or 12-team Pac-12 will. CFP leaders have agreed to tweak the revenue distribution format for 2024 and ’25 in an attempt to reduce disparity and make the Power 5’s per-school payouts more even, regardless of the varying membership sizes of conferences.
But that tweak is only in place for 2024 and ’25. With the new contract comes an entirely new negotiation among commissioners. It could result in revenue distributions that allow the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 to keep steady in a world increasingly dominated by the SEC and the Big Ten — or it could lead to a financial model that further stratifies the haves and the have-nots. American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco has taken to using the term “Power 2” to describe the SEC and the Big Ten, and this negotiating arena could offer a chance for those two to throw their weight around.
Meanwhile, what will the CFP do for athletes directly? There’s going to be more money than ever paid out for a larger postseason event, but it will not be going into the pockets of the college football players playing in the game. Hancock and others have talked about doing “more” for athletes, including previously approved benefits such as paying for family members to travel to games. Hancock has said commissioners are not discussing sharing revenue with athletes directly, but there will undoubtedly be pressure to do something more substantial as the collegiate sports model is under attack from various lawsuits, the NLRB and Congress. Some administrators believe there is a real opportunity for the CFP to work proactively on this front with its new media contract, whether that comes in the form of the NIL deals lower-level bowls already make with players, extending medical coverage or some other benefit.
Location of quarterfinal games
The Board of Managers initially agreed on a model in which first-round games are played on campus, and that’s it. Quarterfinals and semifinals would be played at bowl sites, and the national championship game would be played at neutral sites throughout the country determined through a bidding process like the one that exists now.
We haven’t had a single on-campus CFP game played yet, but the calls to add more are already growing. A number of prominent athletic directors have voiced support for on-campus quarterfinals so that the top four seeds get the opportunity to play home games.
“We’re effectively starting a new tradition of having Playoff games on campuses,” Clemson AD Graham Neff told The Athletic last month. “And, gosh, the top four seeds to not have that opportunity, effectively, I know that’s something that would be missed. So the five- to eight-seeds get them. And then if you do the quarterfinals for the top four seeds, you have teams that have earned a bye and the right to have that experience on their campus.
“You know, we’re changing traditions here all the way around. So how do we look at a macro view of the staples of college football?”
On-campus quarterfinals would also create a more reasonable December for the fan bases of top teams, which will be asked to travel three times in three weeks across the country if the quarters, semis and title game are all at neutral sites.
Bowl executives continue to push for meaningful games to take place at bowl sites because they insist they’re better equipped to handle quick turnarounds, block off enough hotel rooms and handle other logistical concerns. Some have even used the recent winter storm and its freezing temperatures as a reason to avoid on-campus games in, say, Big Ten country — even though the NFL played several regular-season games outdoors in cold temperatures, as did the FCS playoffs. (Each school that earns the right to host a game on campus will also have the option to move it to an available stadium not on campus if it chooses, so cold-weather schools may opt for domes anyway.)
The location of quarterfinal games and the role of bowls both feel more up in the air than initially expected. But when the four-team CFP was first formed in 2012, the bowls were much more powerful and influential. There were no star players opting out of non-CFP semifinal Rose Bowls back then.
One major benefit? Time is on the organizers’ side. The CFP will experience on-campus games and all of the logistical challenges that go into them for two seasons before locking in anything for the new contract. It’s almost like the 2024 and 2025 postseasons can serve as trial runs.
“We will learn a lot in ’24 and ’25, there’s no doubt about that,” Hancock said. “With sites, we’re going to learn a lot. … I say, let’s get into this (with games played) on the sites and see what happens.”
The Rose Bowl issue
A more specific subset of the above issue: What happens to the Rose Bowl? The game has a long history in the sport, but it has also been the thorn in everyone’s side during previous attempts to modernize college football’s postseason. It directly delayed the formation of the four-team Playoff, and it nearly stymied efforts from commissioners and presidents to expand to 12 earlier than 2026. The Rose Bowl eventually backed down, amended its existing contracts and paved the way for early expansion.
“In our negotiations, we initially asked for an exclusive window around the Rose Bowl’s historic time slot, 2 p.m. Jan. 1,” Rose Bowl management committee chair Laura Farber told The Athletic earlier this month. “While we relinquished that ask, the Tournament of Roses is going to continue to work with the CFP Board of Managers on how we will fit into the CFP Playoff rotation, and it is our intent to keep the Rose Bowl Game on Jan 1. But we’re going to remain flexible as needed.”
Hancock said earlier this month that “there are no guarantees for 2026 and beyond. Nothing is locked in.” So the CFP did not make any promises or concessions on its side, either — which is important to note considering how frustrated many commissioners and presidents were with the Rose Bowl’s hardline stance, which it held until the 11th hour.
“It would be in everyone’s best interest for any CFP games that the Rose Bowl host to happen on New Year’s Day and their traditional window,” Hancock said.
That makes sense, especially if the entire season moves up a week and the CFP games that fall around New Year’s are semifinal games. Both games could easily be played on New Year’s Day, a day fans annually plan to spend on their couches watching college football.
But note how carefully Hancock chose his words, referring specifically to Rose Bowls that help determine the national champion — whether that is as a quarterfinal or semifinal, however the calendar falls for Jan. 1. The question will be, of course, what happens to years in which the Rose Bowl is not hosting a CFP game on that day. Will it still receive special treatment and that exclusive time slot, even as its standing in the sport has diminished when it’s not part of the CFP? As with every other issue mentioned above, the wait-and-see drama is building even before the 2022 Playoff begins.
LikeLike
I am watching one of the worst football telecasts unfold. ESNHD lost the feed from the announcers’ booth at the beginning of the TCU/UM game. They are reduced to using the stadium announcer.
Also, the producers keep inserting secondary miniscreen views that provide no new information, and actually reduce the visual information available by overwriting the main screen.
Towards the end of the first half, and so far Michigan is getting stomped flat.
LikeLike
bob sykes: “Towards the end of the first half, and so far Michigan is getting stomped flat.”
True but they were flat-out screwed on one TD.
LikeLike
Me: “True but they were flat-out screwed on one TD.”
I’m the last guy on earth to root for Michigan but they were flat-out screwed on TWO calls. One obvious TD was disallowed and a booth-called clearly targeting call was not allowed. Those refs should never officiate a Big Ten game again, ever.
LikeLike
It was an SEC crew and they got it right on the field. It was the replay official who overturned the call and I assume he was an SEC official too. SEC wins again!!!
LikeLike
I am generally not a believer in blaming the refs, unless their mistake is just about the entire reason your team lost—and I say this as a Michigan partisan. Michigan made as many uncharacteristic and unforced mistakes in this game as they did the entire season. Make just a few less of those, and they are not depending on the refs calling targeting in the final seconds.
(The odds were against them even if that call had been made—though granted, I am sure they would have been happy to have one more shot after they had already blown many. They would’ve had 1st & 10 at their own 40 with 25 seconds left and no time-0uts.)
LikeLike
My bad. ESPN is running 4 different broadcasts. I finally found the right one. The other three are s**t.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35372595/ncaa-recommendations-call-bigger-championship-events
The NCAA Division I transformation committee’s report is out.
They suggest making room for 25% of all teams in the postseason if more than 200 schools have the sport, which would mean 90 in MBB/WBB (so maybe 96 to fit a bracket).
The report also pushed for more sport-by-sport governance in Division I and enhanced expectations for Division I schools to create a more uniform experience for athletes.
…
No schools will be getting booted from Division I, and the committee recommended giving schools approximately two years to meet enhanced membership expectations.
The committee also said NCAA revenue could be used to subsidize schools in need of help meeting the new expectations for membership.
Among the notable recommendations:
• Require schools to create a “direct pathway for full-time clinical services of a licensed mental health professional exclusively dedicated to serving student-athletes.”
• Schools and conferences should create student-athlete advisory committees, similar to those used by the NCAA to allow athletes to be more involved in decisions.
• Require more accountability, training and certification for coaches.
The committee has also recommended expanding permissible benefits to athletes to include more pay for travel, elite training away from the school, educational incidentals and more money toward housing and meals.
The committee also recommended a review of membership requirements to the top tier of Division I football, known as the Bowl Subdivision. Those requirements are now mostly tied to attendance minimums.
LikeLike
Why can’t the NIT count toward post season participation? Or conference tourneys? NCAA really knows how to screw up a good thing.
LikeLike
The NCAA banned athletes’ only dormitories. But athletes only mental health services are required? Is there any reason to believe athletes are more at risk than typical students? I would think the opposite would be true.
LikeLike
Well, you have latched onto the inherent contradiction that the NCAA never acknowledges, but everyone knows is there.
The NCAA wants to us believe that athletes are primarily students and amateur athletes who just so happen to play sports as an extra-curricular activity — like joining the debating team or the school newspaper. If there were athletes-only dorms, inevitably they would not be treated like other students: as the Supreme Court said, “separate is inherently not equal.”
Never mind that athletes already get boatloads of benefits that regular students don’t get. However, the NCAA wants to maintain its fiction. The reality is, no extra-curricular activity places such demands on a student’s time, and certainly in the NIL era they are professionals in all but name. I could well imagine that they have mental health stressors that most regular students do not have. I don’t think the committee plucked mental health out of the air: they probably have access to facts and data that they do not want to publicize.
LikeLike
Why can’t the NIT count toward post season participation?
It already does. Whether preserving the NIT is better than expanding the far more popular NCAA tournament is a separate question, but the latter has been growing at the expense of the former for decades. It’s not like it only happened just now.
I am pretty sure that, if given the choice of an NIT bid or a bigger NCAA tourney that they could get into, most schools would prefer the NCAA. Granted, nearly all NIT teams would lose in the NCAA’s early rounds, but the chance of chaos is something nobody would want to pass up.
Or conference tourneys?
Conference tournaments are the regular season. If you re-define them to be part of the post-season, it would mean 100% of teams make the post-season, which makes no sense.
LikeLike
Here in Indiana, every high school participates in the state high school tourney. It doesn’t matter if they’re 0-22 for the season.
LikeLike
You sorta make my point. They are effectively “play-in” tourneys with 100% participation. We don’t need to set an arbitrary participation level for another tournament. It’s already there
LikeLike
Well, the proposal is to expand the NCAA so that 25% of teams get in. That is still quite selective, in that 75% would be rejected. That is a far cry from a regular-season tournament that rejects nobody.
Whether one agrees with it or not, the idea of expanding the NCAA tournament is a serious proposal. Redefining the conference tournaments to be part of the post-season would be a joke.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmockery.com/chicago-bears/it-seems-the-kevin-warren-to-bears-buzz-started-months-ago/
A little more about Warren to the Bears.
However, it doesn’t appear as if this is a recent development. Some saw it coming months ago. Dan Wiederer of the Chicago Tribune spoke with a top NFL source about the Bears’ team president position. The person immediately pointed out Warren as an obvious candidate they’d gravitate to. It was only because of his qualifications but also his natural fit.
“IT WOULD MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE,” THE SOURCE SAID. “IF THE BEARS ARE REALLY DOING THIS WITH AN EYE ON REASON AND SEARCHING FOR A LEADER TO OVERSEE THEIR FOOTBALL TEAM AND ALSO AID IN THEIR PURSUIT OF A NEW STADIUM, YOU’VE GOT TO FIND SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE ALL THAT. YOU DON’T GIVE THIS TO SOMEONE WHO WAS RUNNING FORD. IT SHOULD BE A PERSON WITH A DEEP FOOTBALL BACKGROUND. IT SHOULD BE A PERSON WITH AN ARRAY OF EXPERIENCE. IT SHOULD BE A PERSON WHO HAS WORKED INSIDE THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. KEVIN CHECKS A LOT OF THOSE BOXES. AND HE’S IN YOUR BACKYARD RIGHT THERE IN ILLINOIS WITH THE BIG TEN.”
WITHIN LEAGUE CIRCLES, THERE HAS BEEN BUZZ THAT WARREN IS EAGER TO RETURN TO THE NFL AND THAT HIS EXPECTED STAY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BIG TEN COULD BE SHORT.
LikeLike
[video src="https://c3n7e3u2.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/What-Kevin-Warren-could-bring-to-the-Bears-with-Matt-Fortuna-Hoge-Jahns.mp4" /]
Some more on Warren’s future plans in this short clip from a podcast.
LikeLike
Eh….. I thought Warren did a good job but his heart is obviously not in the Big Ten nor in college sports. Good luck to him and let’s move on.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ranking-the-41-college-football-bowl-games-for-2022-23-playoff-matchups-deliver-as-orange-sugar-disappoint/
Dennis Dodd on the death of the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
I wonder if Pat Craft, the PSU AD, was aware of the irony when he told CBS Sports that he vowed never to set foot in the stadium unless his team was playing there: “No, it’s too special. Gotta earn it.”
He kept his word, if by “earning it” he means coming in 3rd.
LikeLike
No shame in coming in 3rd to 2 legitimate playoff contenders (as the two CFP games showed the committee got it right).
And they did beat the Pac-12 champ and will likely finish #7 overall.
A lot of former Big Ten participants in that game have done much worse (or been lower quality teams).
LikeLike
Obviously I do understand that the Nittany Lions “earned” their place under the rules today, and I am sure they were happy to be there.
But that wasn’t what “earning it” meant when he said that originally. It used to be that the Rose Bowl was a prize for the best. Now, you get there by coming in second or third.
LikeLike
But it’s been like that a lot since the BCS started. We all know it hasn’t been the #1 Big Ten team in a lot of years since…
LikeLike
And I get that he didn’t mean that by “earn” it.
But to me, bowls are more about proving that a team belongs there. Some teams end up in bowls they probably don’t deserve. Question is whether they prove they belong there.
Penn State winning that game and finishing #7 overall proves they belonged.
I think proving is more important than earning. The same thing can be said about Ohio State in the CFP. Of all 4 participants, they were arguably least worthy. But they proved they belonged with their performance.
We’ve had Big Ten champs in the CFP that completely faceplanted despite being more worthy from an “earning” their place standpoint.
Same is true of the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
For the season, Amazon’s NFL Thursday Night Football ratings are 41% worse than a year ago, and the worst since the package began in 2014. On the plus side, the median age for the NFL package was seven years younger than on Fox.
These figures are likely to inform any streaming deal that the Pac-12 agrees to. Everyone knows that distribution will be lower on a streaming platform. But maybe they didn’t expect it to be quite this bad.
On the other hand, the Big Ten’s decision to go mostly with traditional OTA broadcasts is looking pretty good. The Pac-12 might need to do something desperate. The Big Ten didn’t have to, and accordingly did not.
LikeLike
For the P12, it’s important to remember that while they do okay OTA, the P12N gets essentially zero viewers. Any net movement of games off of the P12N is a win in terms of viewership for them. And these NFL numbers might be leverage to get Amazon to pay a little more.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-college-football-playoff-expansion-could-push-out-to-16-teams-sooner-than-you-may-think/
The push is already on to expand the CFP to 16, driven primarily by the G5 (shocking, I know).
You’d think having an NFL player almost die on the field might give people just a bit of pause when looking to add games to CFB, but I doubt any concern lasts for long.
LikeLike
It was reasonably predictable that 12 would become 16 at some point. It’s always tempting to expand by eliminating byes.
You’d think having an NFL player almost die on the field might give people just a bit of pause when looking to add games to CFB, but I doubt any concern lasts for long.
I don’t want to minimize what happened on Monday. With that said, there are a lot of facts not yet known. Of the thousands of games played every year at all levels, how often does that happen? Did football cause this, or did he have a latent undiagnosed health issue where this was bound to happen regardless?
LikeLike
Marc,
Of course it’s a fluke outcome of a typical football play. Similar things have happened in baseball when a pitch hits a batter in the chest. But fluke events will happen more times when you have more games.
As for going to 16, I just find it humorous that they haven’t even gotten to 12 yet but it has already been determined to be insufficient. While eliminating byes is tempting, they are a key part of this plan.
First, we’ve already seen the difficulties they are having trying to schedule 4 first round games due to the NFL playing on Saturdays. How do you fit in 8 games? You can’t overlap them like hoops does if you want a much bigger payout, and it is late in the semester/finals week for many schools so weeknights are a problem. And how much (if any) does whatever solution hurt the average ratings per game?
Second, the whole point of the byes was to reward the top 4 conference champs for the risk they face in a CCG. If 16 teams get in, do you still give the top 4 seeds to champs or do you treat everyone (including independents) the same? ND doesn’t face the risk of losing a CCG like the conference teams do, and just getting a slightly higher seed for being a champ isn’t much reward.
Take this year:
1. UGA – champ
2. MI – champ
3. TCU – champ
4. OSU – no CCG
5. AL – no CCG
6. TN – no CCG
7. Clemson – champ
8. UU – champ
Are those the CFP seedings, or do champs like Clemson and UU move up? If you move champs up, does that just punish the top seeds because they’ll face tougher competition in the 2nd round? If you don’t move them up, what is the reward for being a champ?
Plus with every expansion, you reduce the value of making the playoff. How much are the 4 extra games worth? Viewership increases about 25% each round according to Navigate’s estimate. The CFP semis have averaged about 20.5M viewers so far, and the NCG 26.0M. The B10 CCG averages 10.0, just for comparison.
CCGs – 10.0M (will probably drop a bit as they have less impact on CFP)
1st round – 13.1M
Qtrs – 16.4M
Semis – 20.5M
NCG – 26.0M
So how much are the 4 worst 1st round games worth (1 vs 16, … 4 vs 13)? CCGs have so much value because the conference owns them. Assuming a decent fraction of the CFP value is split equally, how much value do those games bring, especially when considering the scheduling issues mentioned above? How much are CCG ratings and ticket sales hurt by the expansion? The games do add home games for the top 4, which has value.
LikeLike
My email sent out earlier today . . .
Commissioner Robin Harris and Ivy League Presidents:
“In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt – an avowed football fan – summoned coaches and athletic advisers from Harvard University, Yale University and Princeton University to the White House to discuss how to improve the game of football, “especially by reducing the element of brutality in play,” The Washington Post wrote in an Oct. 10, 1905 article.
“The changes inspired in part by Roosevelt were the first steps in a long line of reforms to make football safer. Football at the time was particularly dangerous and violent….According to the Washington Post, at least 45 football players died from 1900 to October 1905, many from internal injuries, broken necks, concussions or broken backs.” (quoted from “How Teddy Roosevelt helped save football”, Washington Post, May 29, 2014).
Like President Roosevelt, I too am a longstanding football fan who is nonetheless distressed about the continuing tide of injuries to the athletes. My experience with the game began as a youngster who played four years of high school football with full equipment plus countless hours of sandlot football without cleats, helmets, or pads. Over the next few years later I also officiated a good number of high school football games plus several intrasquad scrimmages at Purdue University during their spring football practices. We officials dispassionately observe the play on the field a good deal more closely than coaches or spectators. Accordingly, I have a considerable insight into of the type of hitting that causes trauma.
I believe that two readily achievable and easily enforceable changes to the rules would prevent virtually all serious football injuries. As I discuss them, please note that these modifications would be virtually imperceivable to fans with regard to the engagement and flow of the game by today’s standards.
(1) Take the cleats off the shoes. A football player simply cannot work up a head of steam and wallop an opponent without using cleats to anchor his feet to the turf. If football players did not wear cleats, the game would become somewhat similar to ice hockey in which players hit each other and maintaining footing is an integral part of the sport. The impacts of blocking and tackling in football would be diminished because of the increased difficulty of maintaining traction and balance would reduce the inertia of blockers, tacklers and ball carriers.
(2) Defensive players must attempt to wrap arms when tackling. Wrapping of arms has been a rule in the game of rugby for decades and for a good reason: Rugby players don’t wear helmets and arm wrapping prevents tacklers from leading with their heads. If you wrap your arms when tackling an opponent, you must maintain a more upright position and lead with your chest compared to a football “ramrod” tackle with initial contact by the head and shoulders. The upright posture inherently reduces the risk of head and neck injury to both tackler and ball carrier. In recent years this type of projectile tackling has been ruled illegal as “targeting” if the crown of the helmet is involved but nonetheless there are many circumstances in which the targeting rule does not apply and this type of tackle is not a violation.
I propose a grand venture to evaluate the feasibility of integrating these rules into college football and whether they are efficacious. I propose that the Ivy League adopt both rules for the 2023 season for all conference games. That would provide a substantial data base by which to compare the number and severity of injuries with, for example, the past 2022 season. In addition to the potential player safety benefits, I imagine that Ivy League football would attain unpreceded viewership as the NFL, the NCAA and every high school athletic association in the nation would be focused on the effect upon the play of the game in addition to the reduction of injuries. Call it a continuation of the Teddy Roosevelt challenge – which it actually is.
Colin Meyer, DVM, PhD
Colonel, US Army (ret.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/29/teddy-roosevelt-helped-save-football-with-a-white-house-meeting-in-1905/
LikeLike
Definitely an interesting thought. The emphasis on safety does likely mean that at some point, there will be a further look into ways to make collisions more safe (beyond just changes to the helmet).
I wouldn’t be surprised if tackling techniques come into play, though it’s hard to really regulate that as much (beyond cancelling out head leading tackling plays).
LikeLike
Z33k: “Definitely an interesting thought. The emphasis on safety does likely mean that at some point, there will be a further look into ways to make collisions more safe (beyond just changes to the helmet).
“I wouldn’t be surprised if tackling techniques come into play, though it’s hard to really regulate that as much (beyond cancelling out head leading tackling plays).”
Here is a ‘concise’ version of rugby’s tackling rules. The official rules are more elaborate. These guidelines protect the tackler and ball carrier better than our current targeting rules. Bear in mind that rugby is a different game in that they have ‘scrums’ and that the ball remains in play after a carrier is tackled.
https://atroxrugby.com/rugby-tackle-rules/
LikeLike
NBC’s Big Ten broadcast crew will be Noah Eagle and Todd Blackledge, with Maria Taylor as studio lead.
Blackledge is currently the color analyst on ESPN’s #2 CFB crew (with Sean McDonough). Eagle currently calls CFB and NFL games for Fox. His father, Ian Eagle, calls NFL games on CBS.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/01/pac-12-football-strategy-with-playoff-expansion-secure-conference-to-revisit-divisions-champ-game-format-and-schedule-model/
The P12 is reconsidering their scheduling and CCG selection process for 2024 and beyond. All things are being weighed: 8 vs 9 games, divisions or not
“Whether to play eight or nine (conference games), changing the championship game and the divisions — we’ll look at all that,” commissioner George Kliavkoff told the Hotline recently.
“The goal is the same: to optimize for playoff berths and championships.”
…
“Now that we know the proposed 12-team format will be in place, we have 18 months to revisit who’s in the championship game and 12 months to revisit the 2024 schedule,” Kliavkoff said. “And we’ll do both.”
The Pac-12 announced last May that it would change the championship game qualification process. Instead of matching division winners, the teams with the best winning percentage in conference play would meet for the title. Later, the conference officially eliminated divisions as a means of recording results.
…
Merton Hanks, the Pac-12 Senior Associate Commissioner for Football Operations, is skeptical of the need for a policy reversal.
“I could make an argument that structurally, going back to divisions makes no sense if we want the highest-rated teams in the championship game,” Hanks said.
“The setup still serves us well. I don’t see the value in going back to divisions in (a playoff) expansion scenario.”
Kliavkoff and Hanks were also exploring at least two long-term changes to the conference schedule:
— Playing eight league games instead of nine.
— Using regionality, not divisions, as the basis for the rotations.
Then USC and UCLA announced their departures for the Big Ten (starting in 2024), and the conference had to scrap plans for the altered schedule model.
Kliavkoff is currently focused on securing a media-rights deal and whether to add membership. He’s expected to present a deal to the schools for approval in early 2023.
Once those issues are solved — and assuming the 10 remaining schools stick together — the long-haul football strategy will be formalized to match the expanded playoff.
I’d think they would stay with 9 games for the same reason they originally went to 9 – the fans weren’t interested in their weaker OOC games.
I also think dropping divisions for the CCG makes sense. Use geography for scheduling, but have the top 2 teams play in the CCG. That maximizes their chances to get a top 4 champ and a bye in the CFP. They can’t afford a CCG upset that gives them an 8-4 champ.
I don’t think expansion back to 12 changes either of those things for them.
LikeLike
The Amazon ratings (9.6 million, down 41%) in my opinion were only a minor disappointment in the grand scheme of things. I think they were hoping for 10 million average at a minimum with a more likely target of 11 million (down around 25%).
But it does show how difficult the transition to streaming is; the question is does that audience grow in year 2?
Obviously the Pac-12 and Amazon will sign their likely deal before then, but I’d imagine that Pac-12 games will see a much larger decline in any shift than the NFL did.
That has to be the major concern here for Oregon/Washington and the rest of the schools hoping to get ratings exposure.
If Pac-12 games see 50+% (possibly up to 60-70%) declines from comparable broadcasts, that’s a huge detriment in terms of exposure, especially given the direct competition for eyeballs with the rest of games on Saturday (an issue that TNF didn’t have with its exclusive NFL day).
It’s just hard to see how this works out well for the Pac-12; their only games getting big exposure would be the 1-2 games that go to their broadcast deal with ESPN and/or FOX.
LikeLike
z33k,
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/09/amazon-nfl-ratings-predictions-prime-video-tnf-viewership-what-to-expect/
Amazon promised advertisers 12.5M viewers on average (vs 16.4M last year on real TV).
As has been reported, Amazon is guaranteeing advertisers 12.5 million viewers per game for its Thursday night schedule. Amazon’s previous regular season game, in Week 16 two years ago, is said to have averaged 4.8 million (that estimate not coming from Nielsen). More recently, Amazon’s preseason game last month — which admittedly had little promotion and faced head-to-head competition on NFL Network — averaged just half a million viewers for the national livestream (local over-the-air simulcasts on the home markets attracted about the same number of viewers).
It is hard to imagine Amazon will go from that level of performance to averaging three-quarters of last year’s Thursday Night Football audience (16.4 million). For a more realistic expectation of how Amazon will fare, perhaps one should look at the original Thursday night broadcaster.
As for whether that audience will grow in future years, it’s hard to know. Were this year’s games typical for TNF? Better games will always help the ratings. You’d think more people will slowly move to Amazon as streaming grows, but maybe others gave it a try this year and didn’t like it so they won’t watch next year when it isn’t a novelty that got lots of extra attention for being new. I’ve seen mixed reviews of their coverage.
I think the continued splintering of the TV audience even impacts the NFL, and having their games on 4 different days and 6 (more?) networks hurts them a bit. Fans can still watch the NFL 3 days a week and almost the entire playoffs without Amazon.
As for the P12, it depends what games you are talking about. Their P12N games should gain in exposure by moving to Amazon. Their national games will certainly take a hit, but the NFL is helping them out by creating a group of football fans used to streaming on Amazon. There will likely be a lot of cross-promotion, so the P12 may gain some fans that were NFL-only before. It may also help them with younger fans (and maybe internationally).
Well, they can also play some high-profile OOC games on the road to get national exposure. The B10 will help them with that (esp. USC and UCLA). Maybe Amazon would buy a lot of ad time during those games to drive Prime viewership.
LikeLike
Ah didn’t see that 12.5 million number promised.
Yeah, then the numbers are a fair bit worse than they expected financially.
Still, I do think it can grow towards that as streaming becomes more prominent given the NFL’s overall audience levels. Ratings wise, NFL is the only thing mostly holding serve even as overall ratings have declined substantially across the board elsewhere.
They’re producing plenty of games in the 20+ million camp, so it’s just a matter of whether overexposure is hurting the Thursday window.
LikeLike
I can understand the reticence to sign a GoR if Amazon gets 100% of the content, but broadcaster pay more for a conference with a GoR than they will without one.
Besides, I hate to break it to UO but the B10 isn’t going to come knocking until the B10’s current deal is ending so there’s really no downside.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/jim-harbaugh-nfl-rumors-michigan-coach-talked-with-panthers-but-owner-david-tepper-didnt-initiate-call/
For someone who says he plans to return to MI, Harbaugh sure dabbles with the NFL a lot.
Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper did indeed have a phone conversation recently with Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh. But the Panthers owner didn’t initiate the call.
Sources tell CBS Sports that Harbaugh — or his representation — had been calling Tepper with some regularity in recent weeks. Tepper eventually held a conversation with Harbaugh, but it was never characterized as a job interview for the permanent head coaching job in Carolina.
https://www.nfl.com/news/broncos-plan-to-interview-jim-harbaugh-this-week-could-new-big-money-extension-k
The Denver Broncos plan to interview University of Michigan head coach Jim Harbaugh for their head coaching job early this week, per sources.
…
This isn’t the first time Harbaugh has considered a return to the NFL. He interviewed last year with the Vikings, who ended up hiring Kevin O’Connell. Harbaugh returned to Michigan and said at the time he wouldn’t consider returning to the NFL again. The Wolverines were 13-0 this season before falling to TCU in the College Football Playoff semifinal on New Year’s Eve.
Amidst recent reports of NFL interest, Harbaugh released a statement on Thursday saying in part: “As I stated in December, while no one knows what the future holds, I expect that I will be enthusiastically coaching Michigan in 2023.”
If you were MI’s AD, would you offer him a big raise and extension? He said just last year he would never consider the NFL again, and here he is calling teams and interviewing for jobs. Add in the possible NCAA infractions, and I don’t know if it’s worth it.
LikeLike
The Michigan AD can do something we can’t: to look Harbaugh in the eye and ask what the f*ck is going on. At this point, in my view, Harbaugh is on strike 2: the NCAA violations and the lack of credibility when he said last year was his final NFL flirtation. It could even be strike 2½, depending on how many lies you count.
The irony about the NCAA violations is that the substantive infractions were minor, including one where the rule itself is now likely to be abolished. However, you must follow the rules in place at the time, so this is no defense. Whatever the infractions were, he evidently lied about them, which is more serious. Exactly what he said has not been publicized, as far as I can find.
Telling a coach that just went 25–3 to take a hike is a ballsy move for an AD, but maybe Harbaugh will just take one of those NFL jobs, and he won’t have to.
LikeLike
His record is why I didn’t mention firing him. But would you give him 10 years and $100M+ right now if you were the AD?
LikeLike
It’s hard to attract top talent when there are doubts that the coach is sticking around. Harbaugh’s NFL interview last year was widely cited as one of the reasons for a relatively unimpressive recruiting class.
So I am not sure the middle ground is sustainable. You either have to go or to sign a long-term commitment that people will believe.
If Harbaugh stays, I wonder what his explanation will be “I’m done with the NFL” doesn’t sound convincing when he said that last year.
LikeLike
https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/infrastructure/3807694-people-in-these-cities-lose-the-most-time-in-traffic-congestion/
Chicago is now #1 in the US for time wasted in traffic while commuting.
Lucky you, Frank.
Chicagoans wasted the most amount of time in traffic last year out of all drivers in the United States, according to new data from transportation analytic company INRIX.
…
Chicago drivers spent an average of 155 hours in congestion in 2022, according to the data, marking a 50 percent increase from 2021 numbers and a seven percent increase compared to pre-pandemic averages.
…
The typical driver in the U.S. spent 51 hours in traffic last year, 15 hours more than in 2021. Fuel costs for the average U.S. driver tallied $134 more in 2022 than the year before.
INRIX analysts found that Los Angeles commuters spent $315 more last year on gas than in 2021, while fuel cost New York drivers an extra $213 in 2022.
…
Here are the 10 cities and highways where drivers spent the most amount of time in traffic in 2022:
1. Chicago, Ill-155
2. Boston, Mass-134
3. New York, N.Y.-117
4. Philadelphia, Pa-114
5. Miami, Fla-105
6. Los Angeles, Calif-95
7. San Francisco, Calif-97
8. Washington, D.C.-83
9. Houston, Texas-74
10. Atlanta, Ga-74
If you wondered, London was #1 internationally with 156 hours.
Doubling up Atlanta and Houston is pretty impressive. Topping LA by more than 50% is what really surprised me.
LikeLike
Surprised Philly is so high.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-council-votes-to-limit-eligibility-for-second-time-transfers-to-curb-ballooning-portal-usage/
NCAA votes to limit 2nd time transfer portal use. It’s about time. The JT Daniels of the world are abusing the system.
The NCAA Division I Council approved legislation on Wednesday to limit waivers for second-time transfers. Now, undergraduate players who transfer will have specific guidelines they must meet in order to be eligible for immediate playing time starting with the 2023-24 season or risk sitting out a year in between transfers.
First, a player can receive immediate eligibility if they have a physical injury or mental health condition that pushed them to transfer from a school. Additionally, the NCAA will consider “exigent circumstances” that could force a player to leave an institution — like sexual assault or abuse. No other factors will be considered, including academic considerations or playing time.
The new rules are an attempt to rein in the number of players using transfer portal, which has exploded since it launched four years ago. Nearly 2,000 players in FBS alone entered the portal in the first transfer window following the 2022 regular season. At least 120 quarterbacks alone have entered the portal, including a handful that were expected to enter the 2023 NFL Draft and opted for new starts at the college level instead.
LikeLike
Is the JT Daniels situation common?
LikeLike
Common? Not to his extreme (he’s moving to school #4), but he’s the poster child for it. A lot more players have moved twice.
There are roughly 11,000 I-A scholarship football players. Almost 2000 I-A players entered the portal in the early window this year alone. That’s 15-18% of all players, or about the same number as those who ran out of eligibility.
LikeLike
Why is it abuse that a student-athlete does the same thing regular students do?
JT got injured and never got the job back at USC. Same thing at UGA, but he was a big help on the sidelines. Lost his job at WVU. He has potential NFL level talent, but he needs to play to show that.
LikeLike
Every academic advisor everywhere would tell a student that transferring 3 times is a terrible way to get an education. Daniels is like a student transferring every time they get a B in a class. If he had NFL talent, he shouldn’t get beaten out by 3 separate college QBs in a row. Especially the WV QB, who nobody is claiming is an elite NFL prospect.
And this rule doesn’t prevent them from transferring at all, it just makes them not play for a year (they still get the scholarship). Regular students don’t play on the football team either.
LikeLike
Its official.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35431983/sources-chicago-bears-hire-kevin-warren-president-ceo
Warren leaving B1G to become Bears’ president & CEO.
LikeLike
Obviously a talented guy, but he was not a fit for the college game.
ESPN’s article says, “Warren has been with the Big Ten since June 2019 but recently was not given a contract extension by the conference, according to ESPN’s Pete Thamel.”
This makes it sounds like he was shown the door, not something I have heard before. Now that he’s gone, the stories will all come out, and I suspect some of them aren’t pretty.
LikeLike
Agreed. He hasn’t been given an extension that we know of, but also nobody seems to know when his original contract actually ends either. Maybe it just wasn’t time to discuss it yet.
If the presidents chose not to give him an extension (like if his deal ended this June), that’s very different from his deal ending in 2024 and it just not being time to discuss it yet.
If Thamel’s take is correct, maybe this was the result of pushback about expansion among other things.
LikeLike
I also noticed a complete lack of any comment from Warren about the B10. No thanks for the job, etc.
https://sports.yahoo.com/big-ten-commissioner-kevin-warren-leaving-conference-to-be-president-of-chicago-bears-153600968.html
Reports surfaced on Dec. 29 that Warren was a finalist for the Bears’ CEO and president position and had interviewed with the franchise multiple times, including an in-person interview. Since that news broke, the Big Ten “made no tangible push to keep” Warren, according to ESPN’s Pete Thamel.
Warren was reportedly not popular among the conference’s athletic directors and there had been no talks of extending his contract.
[Start excerpt from ESPN (Thamel’s article)]:
The Big Ten has made no tangible push to keep him since the news broke, as Warren’s approval rating with conference athletic directors remains low and the churn of Big Ten presidents and chancellors — a vast majority of the 14 have changed over since his hire in 2019 — have left him without a strong bloc of people invested in his success.
Some of the goodwill Warren had accumulated by leading the Big Ten through the additions of USC and UCLA and the record-setting television deal has been squandered. His pushes to keep expanding went against the wishes of the league’s most powerful universities and stakeholders, and his public statements about expansion were viewed internally as clumsy and tone-deaf.
[End excerpt – emphasis mine]
Thamel’s piece is behind a paywall: https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/35427153/michigan-jim-harbaugh-big-ten-commissioner-face-big-decisions
LikeLike
From Thamel’s piece, a few tidbits:
The Big Ten has made no tangible push to keep him since the news broke, as Warren’s approval rating with conference athletic directors remains low and the churn of Big Ten presidents and chancellors — a vast majority of the 14 have changed over since his hire in 2019 — have left him without a strong bloc of people invested in his success.
…
Warren has just 18 months left on his contract, and there has been no public discussion of any type of extension.
This is a lot different from how the previous quote made it sound.
No, the B10 didn’t try to outbid the Bears for him. Once he’s interviewing, you don’t want to keep him around anyway.
“Just 18 months” left. How early was he expecting an extension to come? It seems like this summer would’ve been a logical time to discuss it, not 2 years in advance and in the middle of TV negotiations.
LikeLike
Good riddance.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy tweeted a list of top candidates, but then deleted it:
Jim Phillips – ACC commish and former NW AD
Oliver Luck – WV AD, XFL CEO, ASUN-WAC exec (among other things in sports)
David Street – consulting firm CEO apparently
LikeLike
Complete Bowl TV rating are out.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
4m viewer club:
22.45m Peach (Semi) – Georgia v. Ohio St.
21.70m Fiesta (Semi) – TCU v. Michigan
17.22m CFP NCG – Georgia v. TCU
10.19m Rose – Penn State v. Utah
9.14m Sugar – Alabama v. K-State
8.59m Orange – Tennessee v. Clemson
6.94m Army-Navy Game
5.77m Gator – Notre Dame v. South Carolina
5.40m Cheez-It – Florida State v. Oklahoma
4.78m Alamo – Texas v. Washington
4.17m Cotton – USC v. Tulane
LikeLike
Read the NCG peaked at 22.3 million but went downhill from there as did TCU’s hopes. Interesting how poorly the Cotton did.
LikeLike
If people didn’t watch the Cotton Bowl, they missed the best game of the year. My law school alma mater never gave up and won the most improbable game over the Heisman trophy winner.
From ESPN’s article about the Cotton Bowl:
“The Green Wave (12-2) scored 16 points in the final 4:07, the game-winning touchdown coming after they got the ball back following a safety.
Over the past five seasons, teams had been 1-1,692 when trailing by 15 or more points with five minutes or less remaining in the fourth quarter, according to ESPN Stats & Information research.”
The Cotton also did not have an exclusive window, going up against the LSU-Purdue Citrus Bowl on ABC (3.33m) and the Illinois-Miss State Reliaquest Bowl on ESPN2 (2.18m).
My Greenies, along with Navy (Army/Navy game), were the AAC schools to play in a 4m+ viewer game.
Congrats to Purdue only having the record for the worst beat down in bowl history for one week, thanks to TCU’s melt-down.
LikeLike
From The Athletic. Bernie and I pick Tim Pernetti. Blackball to ND groveler Jim Phillips.
Who will replace Kevin Warren? A list of Big Ten commissioner candidates
Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren is off to the Chicago Bears after spending fewer than 30 months in Rosemont, Ill. It was a short but eventful tenure — from facing a pandemic just months into the job and canceling the Big Ten’s college football season before restarting it, to adding USC and UCLA and signing a record-setting seven-year, $8 billion media rights deal.
The open Big Ten job is one of the two most powerful positions in all of college sports, alongside SEC commissioner Greg Sankey. The two leagues bring in significantly more money than their peers on an annual basis, with the gap only widening in the coming years.
So, where does the Big Ten look? Almost the entire Council of Presidents and Chancellors has turned over since Warren was hired, which makes it harder to predict — and presidents tend to be an unpredictable group in the first place. Do they opt for another outsider like Warren, who had no college sports experience when he was hired? The Big 12, Pac-12 and even the NCAA just opted for outside hires for their biggest jobs. The potential remains for the Big Ten to go outside of college sports once again.
Or the league may go in the opposite direction, trying to avoid some of the pitfalls and friction that stemmed from hiring someone who did not have an innate feel for college sports or preexisting relationships with athletic directors or others on campuses.
The Athletic spent the last couple of weeks discussing the opening with administrators, agents and those who work at search firms to get a sense of the potential candidate pool. Some are viewed more as short-term solutions; others would be in it for the long haul. With the media rights deal done, USC and UCLA coming in 2024 and the 12-team College Football Playoff set to begin the same year, there is no major pressing project for the next commissioner. But he or she will walk into a period of great instability and uncertainty, with the collegiate sports model under attack from outside forces. Still, the position is one of unprecedented strength, power and finances. And the next commissioner will lead the first college sports conference that stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic.
“Every AD in the country would take it,” said an industry source.
Current commissioner candidates
Jim Phillips, ACC. A commissioner moving from one Power 5 conference to another would be darn near unprecedented. But Phillips was widely believed to be the frontrunner to land this job in 2019, before Warren came out of nowhere to ultimately win the presidents over. Can Phillips come back nearly four years later? For what it’s worth, 12 of the 14 school presidents in the conference have turned over since Warren was hired, including at Northwestern, where Phillips served as AD for 14 years. Could that change in decision-making power work for or against Phillips’ candidacy? Hard to say.
Phillips is a Chicago native who was a men’s basketball manager at Illinois and spent much of his administrative career at Notre Dame, Northern Illinois and Northwestern before he was hired as John Swofford’s successor in December of 2021. His family still lives in the Chicago suburbs, as Phillips is in the process of relocating the ACC’s offices from Greensboro to Charlotte. He has served on more NCAA committees than one could count, but more importantly, he has the respect of all of his AD peers in both the Big Ten and the ACC. If the Big Ten ADs were in charge of this search, Phillips would be the guy, period. And there is no mistaking that the Big Ten is far better-positioned than the ACC is for the future of college athletics.
But is Phillips ready for whatever changes come? He is very much a purist who believes in the collegiate model the way it has always worked, to the point that sometimes his commentary on the issues of the day feels a bit outdated. Can he be proactive in a changing environment, one in which paying athletes directly and/or revenue sharing may be coming?
Jennifer Heppel, Patriot League: Heppel has served as the commissioner of the FCS Patriot League since 2015, where she negotiated media and marketing rights deals while improving the visibility of the conference. She came to the Patriot League following her second stint in the Big Ten office; most recently, she served as the associate commissioner for governance from 2010 to 2015. Heppel has served on a number of national governance committees and is one of the most forward-thinking commissioners in the country. She was a finalist for this role the last time it opened.
Sitting athletic director candidates
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith: Smith has been the Big Ten’s most powerful voice this side of Warren. (Some would say even more powerful than Warren, at least in the commissioner’s early days.) Does he want to take on this challenge at this stage of his career? Smith is 67, eight years older than Warren. He signed an extension with the Buckeyes in 2021 that will keep him in Columbus through 2026, which would mark 21 years at the school. Smith would be a popular hire and a stabilizing one with all of the good things the Big Ten has going for it. But the conference may want someone younger and more innovative, as most of its pressing business concerns matters that will take place in 2030 (the last year of the new TV deal) and beyond.
Stanford athletic director Bernard Muir: Muir’s predecessor at Stanford was Bob Bowlsby, who left the Farm to become the Big 12 commissioner a little over a decade ago. Could Muir do the same, but for the Big Ten? He has overseen the most successful stretch in school history, with 28 NCAA championships won and 37 national titles overall. Stanford has won the Learfield Directors’ Cup seven times during Muir’s 11-year tenure, which would likely impress the presidents and chancellors in a conference that prides itself on sponsoring and succeeding in a wide variety of Olympic sports.
UCLA athletic director Martin Jarmond: The 43-year-old Jarmond would add some youth and energy to a conference that, for all of its financial success, has never been mistaken for being on the cutting edge. He spent the bulk of his career in the Michigan State and Ohio State athletic departments, so he was already intimately familiar with the Big Ten before he helped his current employer land in the conference and out of the financial abyss of the Pac-12. Would presidents balk at ceding power to the leader of a school that’s only just joining the conference?
Jarmond has worked at two current Big Ten members and now runs the athletic department of a future member.
Non-campus candidates
Mark Silverman, President and COO of Fox Sports: It’s no secret that Fox had a heavy hand in the Big Ten’s acquisitions of USC and UCLA last summer, as well as the conference’s blockbuster media rights deals. In a highly unusual move, Fox essentially served as the Big Ten’s media consultant … even with its competitors making their pitches. That’s a lot of influence. Silverman, who launched the Big Ten Network and worked at BTN before jumping to Fox in 2018, understands the collegiate sports landscape well. He has also pushed all of the right buttons as Fox has shifted its overall college football strategy, ushering in a “Big Noon Kickoff” pregame show that has competed admirably with ESPN’s “College GameDay” and the wildly successful Big Noon Saturday game, which has leaned hard on its top Big Ten brands. We’ve seen other Power 5 conferences make out-of-the-box hires because of the candidates’ business and media backgrounds, and if the Big Ten opts to go this way, Silverman could be a prime option.
Ted Carter, University of Nebraska System president: Carter has presided over the University of Nebraska System since the beginning of 2020, which means he has led through arguably the most challenging stretch for higher education ever. He also understands the value of football to Big Ten schools and what needs to be done when that football product isn’t performing at a high enough level. Carter’s military background makes him an unflappable leader, and it’s always worth remembering who ultimately gets to make these hiring decisions: presidents and chancellors. Might they want to elevate one of their own?
Kerry Kenny, Senior Vice President, Television, Media Analytics & Emerging Platforms at the Big Ten: Kenny could be a strong internal candidate for the job, if Big Ten presidents and chancellors want to look within the office. He has been with the league for 15 years, so he’s worked closely with both Delany and Warren as he’s grown in his career. His experience with the league’s media rights negotiations should be a big plus, even though he’s not yet 40 and far greener than others on this list. Kenny is a great relationship-builder and a rising star in the industry. Another potential internal candidate could be personable chief legal officer and general counsel Anil Gollahalli, who spent 14 years in a similar role in Norman and helped move Oklahoma to the SEC before joining the Big Ten.
Cathy Engelbert, WNBA commissioner: Another nontraditional candidate, Engelbert has served as the WNBA’s commissioner since the summer of 2019, with experience negotiating a collective bargaining agreement, managing the 2020 COVID-19 season in the Wubble and announcing plans to extend the length of the WNBA season and intentions to add expansion teams. The WNBA’s impressive growth trajectory can be seen in increasing TV viewership but also in increased player visibility/marketing campaigns and sports wagering.
Engelbert, who worked at Deloitte for 33 years and became the first female CEO at a Big Four firm, played college basketball at Lehigh University under Hall of Fame coach Muffet McGraw. The Big Ten has seen the growth potential in women’s basketball as well, hiring Megan Kahn as its first-ever vice president of women’s basketball in 2021, and if leaders want to lean into someone who understands how to grow sports like that, Engelbert would be an inspired choice. Big East commissioner Val Ackerman, who launched the WNBA back in 1997, could be another intriguing candidate if Big Ten presidents and chancellors are willing to consider those without football backgrounds.
Tim Pernetti, IMG Academy president: Pernetti was last in a front-facing role as the AD at Rutgers, which he helped get into the Big Ten from the crumbling Big East in 2012. A former Scarlet Knights tight end, Pernetti became one of the public fall guys in the aftermath of the Mike Rice player abuse scandal with the Rutgers men’s basketball team, resigning in 2013. But that was almost a decade ago, and Pernetti has kept a large enough presence in the college sports space that he ended up becoming one of three finalists for the Big 12 commissioner job that went to Brett Yormark this past summer. Pernetti had a long and distinguished career as a TV executive before taking over at Rutgers. Since then, he has been chief business officer for MLS club NYCFC, president of IMG College and worked briefly at Endeavor before joining IMG Academy in Bradenton, Fla., in 2020.
Chris Howard, ASU Public Enterprise executive VP/COO: Howard is a popular name for big searches because, quite simply, his resume is unmatched: He is a former college athlete (Air Force running back) and has been a college president (Robert Morris University). He is a Rhodes Scholar with an MBA from Harvard who was awarded a Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan. He has been on the College Football Playoff selection committee, too. Howard, like Pernetti, was an early candidate for the NCAA president job, but he pulled himself out. Could this job — one that carries much more influence — be enough to attract him?
LikeLike
A lot of these people I don’t know enough about to have a strong opinion.
Typical candidates (number is just the order they were listed):
1. Jim Phillips – a known quantity and highly respected, plus has P5 commish experience
2. Jennifer Heppel – qualified, but is the Patriot League the right training ground?
3. Gene Smith – terrible idea. People already think the league favors OSU, plus he’s too old and lacks conference-level experience.
4. Bernard Muir – they tout his 7 Director’s Cups, but Stanford won it every year for a decade before he arrived and UT beat them the past 2 years – that’s the worst they’ve ever done. I’m not sure you want someone from a place that handles NIL and the transfer portal so poorly.
5. Martin Jarmond – another bad idea, with OSU ties and no conference-level experience.
Why not put Oliver Luck on the list? He was the hot name for everything a few years ago.
Other candidates:
1. Mark Silverman – he’s a TV person only
2. Ted Carter – the president of the worst school in the conference? I don’t think so.
3. Kerry Kenny – not ready yet, plus I think you want some fresh ideas
4. Anil Gollahalli – ?
5. Cathy Engelbert – qualified, but lacking in college conference-level experience
6. Tim Pernetti – lacking conference-level experience, didn’t even run a real P5 AD
7. Chris Howard – lacks relevant experience
LikeLike
Brian – I know nothing about her, but don’t write off a smaller conference commissioner like Heppel. The SEC did alright with a former C-USA commissioner in Mike Slive.
LikeLike
Alan,
I was very intentional about saying she was qualified first. But with the direction college sports are headed ($100M TV deals, CFP expansion, NIL, transfer portal, pay for play, unions, …), how much does the Patriot League (and I-AA football) prepare her for the B10’s future?
Slive dealt with a much simpler landscape when he started, and had an easier job.
LikeLike
Brian said, “Slive dealt with a much simpler landscape when he started, and had an easier job.”
When Slive took over the SEC, the was no SEC Network, A&M and Mizzou were still in the B-12, and the SEC was far behind the B1G in TV revenue.
Whoever takes over the B1G does so after USC & UCLA have already committed to joining the conference, the B1G massive three-OTA tv package has been negotiated; and many of the details have been resolved regarding the 12-team playoff format.
I know you hate the outgoing commish, but he really did all the heavy lifting. Sure, the new commish will have to deal USC/UCLA integration, possible Congressional NIL legislation, ever-changing transfer rules, and future expansion, but in comparison to what Slive’s “to do” list was when he took over the SEC, this is a walk in the park.
I may apply.
LikeLike
Alan,
“When Slive took over the SEC, the was no SEC Network, A&M and Mizzou were still in the B-12, and the SEC was far behind the B1G in TV revenue.”
Yes, a simpler landscape and an easier job.
As for revenue, I found this article from 2004 (Slive started in 2002, and the numbers are for 2002-03 revenue).
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-2004-05-30-0405300316-story.html
For almost every year in recent memory, the Southeastern Conference has gathered for its annual spring meetings and had its commissioner proclaim the league, in subtle language, the king of cash.
Not this year. This week in Destin, SEC Commissioner Mike Slive can give another strong state-of-the-SEC speech, pointing to more than $103 million in disbursements to his conference members last year. It was the second year in a row the league has paid out at least $100 million to its members.
…
Bolstered by sending two teams to the BCS for the 2002 season (Ohio State and Iowa), the Big Ten paid out more than $109 million to its 11 conference members, the largest total payout of the country’s 11 Division I-A conferences. …
Over the same period, the ACC paid out $97.6 million to its members, just behind the total of the Big Ten and SEC.
…
Between them, the six large conferences pulled in more than $280 million in TV rights fees revenues in 2002-03, filings show. For their schools, that’s an average of $4.5 million each.
The SEC was not far behind the B10 in revenue when he started, plus the SEC had its CCG, plus it was already dominant in FB and only getting more so.
https://www.al.com/sports/2012/12/conference_realignment_follow.html
And from this article, the SEC led in total revenue in 2000. B10 schools got a bit more per school ($0.6M difference).
“Whoever takes over the B1G does so after USC & UCLA have already committed to joining the conference, the B1G massive three-OTA tv package has been negotiated; and many of the details have been resolved regarding the 12-team playoff format.
I know you hate the outgoing commish, but he really did all the heavy lifting. ”
1. They came to the B10 and asked to join. Warren gets no credit for saying yes. The money convinced them, not anything Warren did.
2. Fox basically negotiated the TV deal for the B10. About all Warren did was say no to Amazon, and get the B10 dropped from the most important network in sports coverage, ending a 30+ year relationship.
3. Again, what did Warren have to do with that? He stopped expansion (on orders from the presidents presumably) originally, then it only happened because the CFP presidents (including OSU’s president) forced it to happen.
“Sure, the new commish will have to deal USC/UCLA integration, possible Congressional NIL legislation, ever-changing transfer rules, and future expansion, but in comparison to what Slive’s “to do” list was when he took over the SEC, this is a walk in the park.”
Slive told his schools to be better at cheating so they wouldn’t keep getting caught, and then counted the money rolling in. Where’s the difficulty? Your argument would make more sense if you were talking about Kramer.
“I may apply.”
Why not? You’re at least as qualified as Warren, and you know more about college athletics. You might not like the Chicago winters, though. Maybe run the conference via Zoom meetings from New Orleans in winter?
LikeLike
My money is on Heppel. Then you keep Kerry Kenny around with a nice deal and he’s the commissioner after Heppel.
LikeLike
Conference commissioners tend to stick around for quite a while, unless they fail. That’s not something I’d expect Kerry Kenny to wait around for.
LikeLike
“Conference commissioners tend to stick around for quite a while, unless they fail. That’s not something I’d expect Kerry Kenny to wait around for.”
Let’s face it, the next B1G commish has an easy row to hoe. TV contracts done for six years, further expansion essentially on hold until 2036 and any further COVID-like epidemics referred to the CDC. Simply stifle about trans athletes and let the NCAA figure it out.
LikeLike
Tim Pernetti got Rutgers from the lowly Big East into the Big Ten. What other AD climbed a mountain that high?
LikeLike
Did Tim Pernetti actually do something crucial that was non-obvious, or was he simply the beneficiary who happened to be there at the time?
LikeLike
TCU’s or Utah’s ADs.
Pernetti had basically nothing to do with Rutgers getting into the B1G. Rutgers athletic department was a disaster and the B1G invite was assuming they’d get it straightened out at some point. They are massively in debt, massively subsidized by the school, and hire crap coach after crap coach. Plus the connections to the player abuse scandal.
Personally I’m dying at the suggestion that the B1G presidents would elevate the president of Nebraska, which is the worst school in the conference and kicked out of the AAU, as well as his military background further marking him as not an academic.
LikeLike
Scout, you said it yourself: “Rutgers athletic department was a disaster . . . They are massively in debt, massively subsidized by the school, and hire crap coach after crap coach.”
Yet Pernetti got ’em from the Big East to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
But you didn’t answer the question. What about Rutgers’ move to the Big Ten was particularly due to Pernetti’s wisdom or acumen?
LikeLike
Marc: “But you didn’t answer the question. What about Rutgers’ move to the Big Ten was particularly due to Pernetti’s wisdom or acumen?”
Pernetti has experienced, first hand, what the LGBTQ freak show is trying to do to college athletics. You have no inkling of this.
LikeLike
For what it was worth, Pernetti was an excellent AD at RU, which does not qualify him as a P5 league commissioner (though though he would certainly be better than Kliavloff at the PAC).
Scout, actually you are wrong about RU. They were in that mess, but coaches haired in recent years have quite good and competitive in the B1G and nationally.
Other than football thing are significantly better. Amazing what money can do. They are still behind the financial eight ball, but with the huge B1G money in the next few years, that can stabilize.
Football and lack of NIL could be a long term issue, but basketball, soccer, baseball, etc. seem to be doing OK. For a moment men’s bball was looking really strong and there is exactly one player on the RU team who was ranked in the top 100 in high school, so the coach does OK with what he gets
LikeLike
The toughest issue going forward for the next B1G commish, and for college athletics, is trans women playing women’s sports. That one trans swimmer at Penn is a prelude of things to come. Just wait until they get into basketball, volleyball and softball.
LikeLike
Right, a huuuge problem.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/sport/ncaa-lia-thomas-transgender-policy/index.html
Harper, who is transgender, estimated that about 50 of the roughly 200,000 athletes competing in women’s sports at the collegiate level in the US are transgender.
That number could balloon to 100 or even 200 (0.1% of all female athletes), and (unlike Lia Thomas) most of them won’t be that great at their sport.
Oh, the humanity!
LikeLike
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/22/sport/ncaa-lia-thomas-transgender-policy/index.html
This article is hilarious. Obviously written by one of the woke.
“It is important that NCAA member schools, conferences and college athletes compete in an inclusive, fair, safe and respectful environment and can move forward with a clear understanding of the new policy.”
So what is the new policy that we now clearly understand? Here it is, here’s the clear policy: “Transgender participation for each sport will be determined by the policy for the sport’s national governing body. In the absence of a national governing body, the policy of a sport’s international federation would apply. And if there is no international federation policy, “previously established IOC policy criteria would be followed.”
Comments from within the article about the clear policy:
“ . . . the new NCAA policy is “not a solution” and a “missed opportunity to lead” in a “thorough, thoughtful, and scientific discussion about the balance of inclusion and fairness.”
“USA Swimming, the national governing body for the sport in the US, expressed support for “inclusivity” and “competitive equity.” In the statement, the organization vowed “to learn and educate ourselves on the appropriate balance in this space.”
Chris Mosier, a transgender athlete and advocate, via Twitter said the NCAA has “whipped up a ridiculously complex policy that will prove impossible for them to follow.”
LikeLike
UVA saying no got RU into the B10.
Being close to NYC got RU into the B10.
Academics got RU into the B10.
Having a MLAX team helped get RU into the B10.
Delany being from NJ may even have helped.
LikeLike
Two big dominoes fell in Rutgers’ favor, both out of its control. The first was that Maryland and the B10 wanted each other. The second was that UVA said no.
Once those two things happened, there was no better 14th school realistically available. The factors that made it the best choice were not the result of anything Pernetti did. I hope Pernetti sent the UVA administration a nice Christmas gift.
Pernetti might have been a good AD, but you wouldn’t choose him for Big Ten commissioner because of it.
LikeLike
Marc: “Pernetti might have been a good AD, but you wouldn’t choose him for Big Ten commissioner because of it.”
Pernetti played college football and has a solid background in TV sports programming. From Wikipedia:
From 1994 to 2003, Pernetti worked in various television programming positions for ABC Sports. By 1996, he oversaw the day-to-day college football business for ABC Sports, managing relationships with college football bowl games. He left ABC Sports in 2003 and joined CSTV as Vice President of Programming & Talent. Pernetti managed the agreement between the Mountain West Conference and CSTV that produced the MTN network. In 2006, CSTV was acquired by CBS Television Pernetti was promoted to oversee the content strategy, rights acquisitions, and relationships for CBS College Sports Network. He was named a recipient of the Sports Business Journal’s “40 Under 40” Award recognizing the most powerful and influential people in the sports business under the age of 40 in 2008 and a recipient of the MultiChannel News 40 under 40 recognizing the most influential people in cable Television also in 2008.[citation needed] From 2001 to 2009, Pernetti also worked as a football analyst for Rutgers Football and Sports USA Radio network’s coverage of the NFL. He also was a regular TV contributor as a college football analyst on SNY in 2006 and 2007, and performed TV game analyst duties on FSN and ESPN Regional Television from 2002 to 2005.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2023/01/12/kevin-warren-big-ten-legacy-leaves-chicago-bears/11041613002/
Warren’s B10 legacy isn’t written yet, and this article gives both views.
I think his “optimistic” view is a pie in the sky dream, especially the first 2 points. The B10 will never have the most CFP leverage because the SEC will always be better on the field and it just means more to their fanbase. Fox will also never surpass ESPN because Disney is much, much more powerful and has more revenue stream options. Get back to me when FS1 gets $10/month on cable, or gets bundled with the Disney channel and Marvel movies in streaming.
His third point in the optimistic view is already true – the B10 is financially better placed to survive pay-to-play than most of its competitors. I just don’t give Warren credit for that. It was already true under Delany, thanks to expansion and BTN and good schools with large alumni bases in major cities.
I don’t completely subscribe to his pessimistic view either. Pay-for-play will wipe out much of the big media deal, but that isn’t Warren’s fault and it’s exactly why you get those big deals in the first place – so you can spend it. We already know LA was a windfall, we just don’t know if the schools will thrive in the B10 or not. I’m actually hopeful USC football will prosper (UCLA hoops has been up and down since Wooden). Leaving ESPN is the thing most likely to hurt his legacy, as they have power and hold a grudge.
Now, Warren heads back to the NFL. After three tumultuous years in the hot seat in Park Ridge, Illinois, Warren will move across town to run the Bears. Behind him, he’ll leave a complicated legacy, one by no means decided yet.
“The Council of Presidents and Chancellors (COP/C) for the Big Ten conference is grateful to Commissioner Kevin Warren for his valuable service to the conference and its member institutions over the past three years,” a conference statement released around 1 p.m. Thursday read in part. “Commissioner Warren was pivotal in the expansion from 14 to 16 academic and athletic member institutions and leading the media rights negotiations for the conference. He has been dedicated to building inclusion and equity in the conference while championing mental health and wellness. We thank him for his service and wish him the very best in his new endeavor.”
…
That is how the Big Ten will frame Warren’s tenure. It’s fair and understandable. It’s also an incomplete story.
Warren will be rightly praised for some secondary strengths, like his aggressively forward positions on diversity and inclusion, and student-athletes’ rights. He’ll rightly be criticized for the conference’s missteps around the COVID season, and the perception that the Big Ten office could be at times aloof to sports beyond football.
Warren’s enduring impact on the Big Ten will be the delivery of a 16-team, coast-to-coast league and a media rights package to match it. Toss in Playoff expansion — something Warren ensured the league remained at the heart of — and he’s cleared the decks on virtually every major issue on his desk when he started in this job in January 2020. To do all that while navigating the unexpected chaos of a global pandemic deserves some credit.
If his remit was simply to navigate those big issues and keep the conference strong, on his way out the door, Warren can point to the future and the bottom line, and say job well done.
What if the Los Angeles move isn’t the windfall we expect? What if the decision to break free of ESPN and lump the conference’s fortunes in with Fox turns out to be misguided? What if revenue sharing, the next logical step in athlete compensation, wipes out a big chunk of that media rights deal?
That’s the pessimistic view. The optimistic one would be the opposite: Expanding to the West Coast gives the Big Ten the greatest leverage in future CFP expansion (or replacement), Fox possesses more than enough juice to wedge its way past ESPN and when revenue sharing does arrive, the Big Ten can manage the financial fallout better than most competitors because Warren ensured the conference remained so well-heeled.
LikeLike
Brian: “He’ll rightly be criticized for the conference’s missteps around the COVID season . . .”
Is their any person of entity that handled COVID correctly? If so, who is it? We blame Trump for the way the pandemic was handled, We blame Trump for the way the pandemic was handled, we blame Warren for the way the pandemic was handled, we blame Dr. Fauci for the way the pandemic was handled, we blame the CDC for the way the pandemic was handled. We blame everyone except the Chinese who actually released the virus. That would be xenophobic and racist.
LikeLike
Colin,
The author wrote that, I didn’t say it.
I actually supported Warren’s initial handling of COVID in terms of cancelling the season based on what he knew at the time. But I think he did mishandle the media, especially as the B10 changed their stance. The B10 seems to have mishandled the media every time under Warren.
LikeLike
I suspect there’s a lot we aren’t hearing yet. The COP/C apparently made little or no effort to keep him, which means there must’ve been significant issues the article doesn’t mention. Usually, this is not the type of job that one leaves after just three years.
Much of the story isn’t written yet. Will leaving ESPN prove to be brilliant or a blunder? I am in the latter camp, but without evidence.
Is their any person of entity that handled COVID correctly? If so, who is it?
It might be that no one got it perfect. Still, you could surely agree that some handled it better than others.
LikeLike
Colin: “Is their any person of entity that handled COVID correctly? If so, who is it?”
Marc: “It might be that no one got it perfect. Still, you could surely agree that some handled it better than others.”
In hindsight, yes. But at the time it was happening, who knew the best course of action? Here is the information that the World Health Organization released on Jan 14, 2020: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳.”
LikeLike
When you are the leader, you tend to get the blame for failure, even if you acted reasonably based on the facts known at the time.
LikeLike
Marc: “When you are the leader, you tend to get the blame for failure, even if you acted reasonably based on the facts known at the time.”
Yes, of course. Cripe, every local school board in the nation was criticized for the way that they handled the pandemic, no matter what they did.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I suspect there’s a lot we aren’t hearing yet. The COP/C apparently made little or no effort to keep him, which means there must’ve been significant issues the article doesn’t mention. Usually, this is not the type of job that one leaves after just three years.”
Thamel’s piece is behind a paywall: https://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/35427153/michigan-jim-harbaugh-big-ten-commissioner-face-big-decisions
From Thamel’s piece, a few tidbits:
The Big Ten has made no tangible push to keep him since the news broke, as Warren’s approval rating with conference athletic directors remains low and the churn of Big Ten presidents and chancellors — a vast majority of the 14 have changed over since his hire in 2019 — have left him without a strong bloc of people invested in his success.
…
Warren has just 18 months left on his contract, and there has been no public discussion of any type of extension.
I posted the above yesterday, but Thamel’s comments provide some new context. He was saying they hadn’t made a push to extend Warren since the news broke about his interviewing with the Bears. Why would they, at that point? You aren’t going to outbid an NFL team for him anyway. Thamel also mentioned Warren’s contract has another 18 months left. It seems a little early to freak out about not extending him at that stage – he was in the middle of expansion and TV negotiations. Summer 2023 would have been a natural time to discuss an extension.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/35434317/sources-all-aaa-parks-use-electronic-strike-zone-23
AAA will use roboumps for all games from now on. Half the stadiums will have all pitches called electronically, the other half will use it as a challenge system. Expect this to be in MLB in a couple of years.
Why? Because human umps are bad at their jobs.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/mlb-umpires-strike-zone-accuracy/
In 2018 the best umps get 7% of calls wrong, the worst get 14% wrong. And they get about 30% wrong when there are 2 strikes on the batter. Umps have been improving, and maybe more so now that roboumps can point out their errors,
How long until the ball tracking technology from soccer (used to check goals in World Cup) comes into football for goal line calls, and maybe key 1st down calls?
LikeLike
How long until the ball tracking technology from soccer (used to check goals in World Cup) comes into football for goal line calls, and maybe key 1st down calls?
I’ve never seen data on this, but my sense is that down-to-down spots in football are a lot less accurate than a machine could do, and bad spots are seldom changed.
Goal line calls are arguably less of an issue, because every scoring play that’s at all close is reviewed. The number of goal line plays called called incorrectly and not fixed on review is probably pretty small.
LikeLike
Marc,
How often is there no clear view of the ball and the goal line? There’s just a giant pile of people, and someone 25 yards away comes running in and then decides if they crossed or not.
I agree bad spots are rarely changed, but they should be. Especially after 3rd downs (4th and 1 vs 1st and 10 is a big difference) and 4th downs.
LikeLike
Batters are even worse. The very best of them only hit about 10% of the balls thrown, and most hit closer to 5% of the balls thrown.
Yeah, I’ve heard of balls and wild pitches and even pitchouts.
But I also know that the long standing tradition was that batters are required to learn each umpire’s strike zone.
Once this abomination reaches the Bigs the game is dead. Never again we will a manager like Ear Weavers, who must hold the record for ejections, and who was famously ejected from Game 4 of the 1969 World Series.
…………….
Three umpires are drinking in bar, gettin ready for the game.
The umpires hammer down shots, and the youngest says, “I call like they are.”
They all three hammer down another round, and the middle aged umpire says, “I call them as I see ’em.”
Another round is swallowed, and the eldest umpire says, “They ain’t nothin’ ’till I call ’em.”
…………………..
In general, I am opposed to the use of replays or automation is any sport. Officials should never be allowed to use replays to call a play. NEVER. The replay officials, especially in foot ball, get the difficult calls wrong as often as the officials on the field. Replays serve no purpose other than riling up the fans (good) or setting up a record to judge the officials (also good) in the post season.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a damned commie and a Yankee fan.
And soccer is a sissy sport, and no one cares what they players do.
LikeLike
Batters are even worse. The very best of them only hit about 10% of the balls thrown, and most hit closer to 5% of the balls thrown.
Baseball is designed so that most at-bats make an out. That is not “worse” — it is an intrinsic feature of the sport. They have repeatedly made rule changes in the batters’ favor, and could make others if they wanted the ball hit more often.
LikeLike
Marc – it’s that old saying that’s as true as it ever was: “You know what you call a baseball player that fails 70% of the time? A Hall of Famer.”
LikeLike
bob,
But I also know that the long standing tradition was that batters are required to learn each umpire’s strike zone.
Officials shouldn’t have their own set of rules for the game. The strike zone is defined in the rule book.
It’d be like a ref just watching a kick and deciding for themselves if that should be a field goal or not, regardless of the goalposts.
If they don’t want to be replaced by robots, they should get better at their job:
https://www.sbnation.com/2012/6/21/3104898/the-worst-ball-call-of-the-season
LikeLike
Does anyone say the umpiring has gotten worse? Or is it merely that we now have the technology to quantify exactly how good they are?
LikeLike
Worse? Dunno. Bad? Yes, millions do say that.
LikeLike
CU’s AD says he never talked with the B12.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-rest-of-the-story-never-disappoints
Colorado AD Rick George spoke in a wide-ranging interview on “Canzano & Wilner: The Podcast” this week. The interview is worth your time. He had some strong comments on realignment and the unity of the 10 remaining members of the conference.
On whether Colorado ever spoke with the Big 12:
“The Four Corners have not talked to the Big 12 — at least this corner hasn’t. In our room, and I talk about our AD room, I think there’s a lot of commonality amongst the ADs in the room. We’re confident with the right media deal that we become a very attractive conference.”
On how expansion of the College Football Playoff factors in realignment thinking:
“Why would you want to be in a conference where there’s 16 to 18, when you can be in a conference that is 10 to 12? Your opportunity, particularly when the top six-rated conferences have automatic bids and the top-four have automatic byes, why would you leave?”
LikeLike
The last comment seems a bit disingenuous. I am sure most Pac-12 schools would be delighted to be in a 16 to 18-team conference, if that conference was the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I think he said it with the unspoken caveat of “if the money is the same.”
All else being equal, a smaller conference probably gives you more chances to win it.
LikeLike
The Big 12 felt like being at 10 with other bigger conferences put them at a disadvantage.
LikeLike
There was no 12-team CFP back then, now there is about to be. As the AD noted, the top 6 champs get autobids and the top 4 get byes. It’s easier to make the CFP from a small conference.
LikeLike
The CFP is only one factor among many that make 10 a disadvantage when the other conferences are much bigger. You get less coverage, less influence, a lower chance of a school having an outstanding season (16 chances vs. 10).
LikeLike
ND is a conference of 1 that gets tons of coverage and has massive influence.
Size is only one factor in coverage. Who has the media deal matters (Disney networks show 20+ games per week plus talk sports 24/7, NBC and CBS have 1 CFB game per week). How good your teams are matters. How big your fan bases are and where they are located matter. That last one was the B12’s problem (too many TX schools, not enough other large markets).
Influence comes with winning and money. Every P5 gets the same vote on CFP issues, so being small gives each school more power.
Also fewer chances of running into an opponent having a special season, or of being screwed by unequal scheduling.
LikeLike
I read that yesterday and thought ‘you’re forgetting about the money part’. Regarding CU, what is the over under on Prime? Is 3 years a push or an over? I can’t believe he will be there for 4.
LikeLike
largeR: “Regarding CU, what is the over under on Prime? Is 3 years a push or an over? I can’t believe he will be there for 4.”
I don’t think Sanders will lose. He was a great hire, He’s a fantastic recruiter and a smart bench coach plus a great salesman for his program. But he’s now in the M3, not the P2.
LikeLike
Colin M “I don’t think Sanders will lose. He was a great hire, He’s a fantastic recruiter and a smart bench coach plus a great salesman for his program. But he’s now in the M3, not the P2.”
You misread my thoughts. I am not questioning his recruiting or coaching ability, I am questioning how long before a power 2 program, or FSU or Miami throw lots more money and/or a better recruiting ground at him and he is gone.
LikeLike
Or maybe he wants an NFL job.
LikeLike
https://www.yahoo.com/now/realignment-looms-bill-seeks-keep-210406832.html
The WA legislature is at it again, with a bill the would force UW and WSU to be in the same conference. In addition, it would require the legislature to approve both of them moving together to a new conference.
MacEwen and Senate colleagues Jeff Holy, R-Spokane, and Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, have sponsored a bill that would require both UW and WSU to compete in the same conference. The boards of regents for both schools could jointly recommend participation in a different athletic conference, but a move would be subject to approval by the Legislature, the bill’s text states.
“I think that both of those schools have rich history in this state, and I don’t think that decision should be made without public input via the Legislature,” MacEwen said of his proposal in an interview with the Kitsap Sun. “The intent of that bill is to, one, keep UW and WSU together, so we don’t end up losing one to a different conference and the other one is left in a conference that is dwindling, that being the Pac-12, and then at the same time, having the Legislature have input and oversight and approval of any major conference realignments. Looking at it from the taxpayer’s viewpoint, I think we have every right to do that and make sure that we honor our rich tradition in this state of both those schools.”
“At the end of the day, the Legislature has got to approve it,” he added. “The intent of that is that we would keep the two schools together to preserve the traditions that have existed since statehood between the two schools. I look at it from that viewpoint that one can’t leave without the other.”
UW’s administration must be thrilled. If this passes, it would eliminate any chance of them ever getting a promotion. It also kills UO’s chances, so maybe Phil Knight better make some key donations to WA politicians to kill this.
On the other hand, folks in CA must be happy. If UW and UO are unavailable, Stanford and Cal move up the list. This might be Cal’s only shot to ever get a B10 offer (don’t think the B10 will forget how the UC regents acted), though I doubt they were ever likely to get an offer.
LikeLike
I think this is pretty important (at least seeing where it goes). I don’t think it’ll pass but who knows.
Depends on makeup of WSU/UW supporters in their government and I have no idea on something like that.
Washington in my mind is clearly the #1 option for the Big Ten out of the Pac-12 (best institutional fit/market/etc.), so if they’re off the table, Big Ten may just focus East and only add Stanford or Cal if ND comes.
Miami + Washington is one of the scenarios in play for the mid-2o30s and that’s obviously off the table if Washington is tied down.
LikeLike
z33k: “Washington in my mind is clearly the #1 option for the Big Ten out of the Pac-12 . . .”
Excluding ND, which is staying so-called independent, the Big Ten has no reason to further expand and I believe the 14 presidents have made that clear to Warren.
LikeLike
There are always reasons to expand. It doesn’t mean they always trump the reasons not to expand. I agree that further expansion without a high-value anchor (ND, FSU?) is unlikely to increase the per school payout under current conditions. But conditions may change, such that adding the SF market or the elite schools in it becomes worthwhile.
Presidents change rapidly. Only 2 remain that hired Warren. What they want can change. Johnson’s replacement could be an important voice on the issue, for example.
School – president, year they started
IL – Jones, 2016
IN – Whitten, 2021
IA – Wilson, 2021
UMD – Pines, 2020
MI – Ono, 2022
MSU – Woodruff*, 2022
MN – Gabel, 2019
NE – Green, 2016
NW – Schill, 2022
OSU – Johnson**, 2020
PSU – Bendapudi, 2022
PU – Chiang, 2023
RU – Holloway, 2020
WI – Mnookin, 2022
No official vote yet:
USC – Block, 2007
UCLA – Folt, 2019
* interim
** stepping down
LikeLike
Purdue’s Chiang has been on the job for only 14 days but has already made the Wall Street journal. Copied from a long article today about computer chip production:
“Still, TSMC told the Commerce Department in a public letter that despite excitement about its plans and local, state and potentially federal subsidies, costs were higher than if a similar operation were built at home. Morris Chang, TSMC’s founder, said in November that the differential could be 50%. TSMC said it sent more than 600 American engineers to Taiwan for training.
“Outside the U.S., Europe has its own plans to double its share of global production over about 10 years, while authorities in Taiwan, China and other Asian nations are pouring money into the sector. TSMC, in addition to its Arizona project, is building a chip plant in Japan and is looking at potential investments in Europe.
“The high cost and scarcity of qualified labor in the U.S. has hampered previous efforts to reshore electronics manufacturing. Mung Chiang, president of Purdue University in Indiana, said computer and engineering students are drawn to chip design or software, areas where American companies are leaders, rather than manufacturing.
“Even if they say, ‘Yes, semiconductor manufacturing sounds really good, I want to do it,’ well, where can they learn the real, live experience?”
“In response, Purdue has created a dedicated semiconductor program it hopes will award more than 1,000 certificates and degrees annually by 2030 in person and online. In July, SkyWater Technology, a Bloomington, Minn.-based foundry, said it would build a $1.8 billion fab on Purdue’s campus, prospectively supported by Chips funding.”
LikeLike
Intel is pumping $20B into their new facility in the Columbus suburbs. I suppose we’ll see if that changes what OSU students are interested in over the next few years. Intel is certainly pressuring OSU and the state and to produce the types of employees they need.
LikeLike
Excluding ND, which is staying so-called independent, the Big Ten has no reason to further expand and I believe the 14 presidents have made that clear to Warren.
The only thing they said to Warren is, “not now.” That doesn’t mean they would not consider expansion at a future date. The people deciding could change too: as others have noted, almost all of the presidents and chancellors have turned over since Warren joined.
LikeLike
I doubt it will pass either, but it does have bipartisan sponsors and at least 1 in both the house and the senate.
I don’t really get why they would want to have to approve both schools moving to a new conference. That would mean both boards of regents approved it, so it’s already been vetted by outside people (mostly appointed by the governor). The schools wouldn’t want to go if they didn’t see a benefit, and both would be going so nobody is left behind, the rivalry stays intact, etc. It almost sounds like they’re worried about preserving games against old P12 opponents.
LikeLike
Brian: “I don’t really get why they would want to have to approve both schools moving to a new conference.”
That isn’t the issue. This is being done to make double-damn sure that UW doesn’t run off to the Big Ten and leave Little Brother behind in the further emasculated Pac-12/10/8.
LikeLike
It must be the issue, because they made that a part of the bill. Part 1 is that UW and WSU would have to stay together. Part 2 is that if they both want to leave the P12 together, the legislature has to approve it.
LikeLike
Brian: “If UW and UO are unavailable, Stanford and Cal move up the list.”
There is no scenario in which Cal and Stanford would enhance the B1G’s per team revenue. They would just be two more mouths to feed.
LikeLike
All I said was they move up the list. That doesn’t mean they get invited to join, just that they trail fewer schools on the list (ND is and always will be #1 on that list).
If ND (or an odd number of ACC schools) asks to join at some point in the future and the B10 needs a #18, being high on the list is useful. If the landscape of college athletics changes to the point where a true P2 of 18-24 each is established, being high on the list matters. I don’t foresee either of those scenarios happening, but that doesn’t mean they won’t.
LikeLike
This is one of those DOA bills that politicians introduce to look like they are doing something. Washington is controlled by Democrats (59% in both houses) and this is a Republican bill. Western Washington (WSU location) is strongly Republican while the east (Seattle, UW home) is Democrat. UW is also much larger than WSU and is the only one of the 2 to have a law school. UW will not need any of Nike’s money to kill this bill.
Oregon is also unlikely to pass such a bill. Same East/West party split and Democratic control. OSU is larger than UO, but UO has a law school so probably has more legislators. UO can also call on Nike money if required. OSU chances of getting this type of law passed is not much better than WSU.
LikeLike
One of the sponsors is a democrat. It’s not that I think this has legs, just that it isn’t completely impossible.
And I think you swapped east and west there. WSU is in eastern WA, which leans R, and Seattle and UW are in western WA and lean D.
I didn’t say UW needed Uncle Phil’s money, I just suggested if he was looking to buy UO into a better conference he might find it useful to keep UW available as a partner.
UO and OrSU are only about 20 miles apart north/south, both in western OR (both about 20 miles from the coast, too).
LikeLike
Brian: “UO and OrSU are only about 20 miles apart north/south, both in western OR (both about 20 miles from the coast, too).”
I have visited both Eugene and Corvallis plus Albany, which is five miles from Corvallis. Albany is the home of Oregon Freeze Dry, the only company in the nation that makes freeze-dried components for military operational rations.
It’s flat-out crazy to have two large state campuses that close together in the middle of nowhere. Eastern Oregon has nothing.
LikeLike
Well, eastern OR has no people. Eastern WA has Spokane at least. OR only has about 4.3M people total, and 60% live in the Portland area. Eastern OR is just wilderness, with a few small towns. Boise is across the border, but the largest “city” is Hermiston (almost 20,000 people). There is an Eastern Oregon University, but there’s just no point in putting a large state school out there. OrSU just opened a regional campus in Bend (middle of the state), and wants to grow it to 5000 students.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/01/hotline-mailbag-peeking-at-the-23-schedules-expansion-timeline-buyers-remorse-in-l-a-and-loads-more/
Wilner continues to hold out a little hope.
Now that commissioner Kevin Warren is leaving the Big Ten, do you still think USC and UCLA will make the jump? — @MsMichelleYoung
What do you think the chances are of either the L.A. schools having buyer’s remorse in a few years and wanting to come back to the Pac-12? — @LondonUte
The L.A. schools are gone, regardless of Warren’s departure to the Bears and regardless of the Big Ten’s choice to succeed him.
They are entering the conference on Aug. 2, 2024 no matter what.
But buyer’s remorse is a distinct possibility, in our opinion, particularly for UCLA. The Bruins aren’t equipped financially to thrive in their early years in the Big Ten. They are entering the conference, as Maryland and Rutgers once did, with a mountain of debt.
The expected cash windfall from Big Ten media rights likely will be used to eat away at UCLA’s debt, for which the athletic department is fully responsible.
Meanwhile, the competition (USC, Michigan, Ohio State, etc.) will be reinvesting its cash.
We foresee the Bruins falling behind immediately and struggling to catch up. By the late 2020s, there could be a load of disgruntled UCLA fans.
I’d agree, except the bottom half of the B10 is weak enough for UCLA to stay competitive while paying off their debt. And they’ll still have more money than the P12 schools, so they should look good regionally. If they can recruit well locally because of that, they’ll be fine.
LikeLike
“The Bruins aren’t equipped financially to thrive in their early years in the Big Ten.”
OK, do we all understand that UCLA has been supporting varsity sports beach volleyball, sailing, water polo, rowing and rugby in addition to the traditional revenue losers soccer, softball, golf, swimming, volleyball, tennis, etc.?
LikeLike
UCLA being positioned at one of only 2 Power 2 programs in the western 2 time zones should be more than enough to overcome any financial issues they may have over the first couple of years as they work to reduce debt loads. That’s going to be a significant edge in recruiting if the Power 2 do pull away in terms of public attention (which is likely to occur once USC/UCLA and Texas/Oklahoma finish their moves).
And I agree in terms of competitive balance type of issues.
As the Big Ten will be with 16 teams:
Tier 1: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC
Tier 2: UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Nebraska, Iowa
Tier 3: Minnesota, Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Rutgers
They’re clearly in that upper middle tier of programs; above the 7 Tier 3 programs that don’t have anywhere near the recruiting that UCLA should be able to pull in based on location/brand/resources/etc.
Competitively, they should be on that Wisconsin/Michigan State/Nebraska/Iowa tier even if financially, they’re not quite as healthy as those other 4 programs (which obviously have much stronger fanbases and football attendance than UCLA).
LikeLike
Meant Indiana that 2nd time instead of Minnesota on Tier 3.
LikeLike
Z33k: “Tier 2: UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Nebraska, Iowa.
Tier 3: Minnesota, Maryland, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Rutgers”
Nebraska’s last six seasons: 4-8, 4-8, 5-7, 3-5, 3-9, 4-8
Purdue’s last six seasons: 7-6, 6-7 (beat Ohio St), 4-8, 2-4, 9-4 (beat Tennessee), 8-6 (Westrn Div Champ).
LikeLike
I think z33k is making the very plausible assumption that Nebraska will return to something approximating its historical strength. Even the best programs occasionally go through multi-year swoons (e.g., Michigan for 7 years under Rodriguez and Hoke).
LikeLike
It’s pretty much as Marc said: I’m just weighting the programs based on their available “resources”: brand value, historical record, fan base/football attendance, finances, etc.
If you look at it, there’s 3 pretty clear tiers in the soon-to-be 16 team Big Ten. The top tier has everything: huge fanbases, national brands, ability to recruit nationally and get 4-5 star players in large numbers, financial resources, etc. Those 4 schools can compete for and possibly win the national championship.
The next tier is the programs that aren’t quite at the level of the 4 national powers but have most other things in terms of recruiting, brand, historical success, fanbase size/attendance.
The 7 Tier 3 programs just aren’t on the same level as the other 9 for various reasons, most of them have attendance around 50-55k or below; tough recruiting grounds (though Maryland is probably a notable exception with its access to the Mid-Atlantic); historically not as success as the other 2 tiers. Financially, they also are likely to be a fair bit weaker because the lack of football attendance.
Obviously it’s not perfect, UCLA for example is much more similar to the Tier 3 schools in terms of attendance than the rest of Tier 2, but just 10-15 years ago their attendance was much more similar to Iowa or Michigan State. UCLA makes up for it with their recruiting grounds and potentially being 1 of 2 Power 2 schools west of Texas should be a huge theoretical edge for them.
If we’re looking at future additions, Oregon would potentially be the best Tier 2 school or worst Tier 1 school; Washington would be a Tier 2 school; FSU and Miami would be Tier 1 schools. Stanford and Cal probably Tier 3 schools (especially given Stanford struggles with transfers given their academic policies).
LikeLike
RU football is clearly tier 3 or maybe 4 (if it existed).
The recruiting availability there is almost the same as Maryland. RU also has been getting one of the top one or two NYC players, but NYC does not produce much football talent.
The problem is not a lack of high school football talent, it is that they do not stay home, which is pretty much the same for UMd.
For RU, football is about the only major sport left with that problem. The other sports are getting much better players now.
People have also called last season a rebuilding year for UMd, which is absolutely nut. Taulia Tagovialoa may be that best QB that UMd has ever had. (Maybe Boomer Esiason). Tagovialoa holds every single team season passing record. Hard to call it rebuilding when you have a star QB who you probably cannot replace.
LikeLike
From today’s Wall Street Journal:
The NCAA Needs New Revenue—but Likely Won’t Get It From College Football
Big-time college football is swimming in TV money, but the conferences that control the sport don’t have to share it with the NCAA—and don’t plan to start now
College football is one of the hottest properties in broadcasting. The Big Ten Conference recently made a deal for more than $1 billion a year with several networks, mostly to air its football games. The College Football Playoff is expected to grow substantially from its current $470 million-a-year deal when it expands to 12 teams after the 2024 season, and further increase the value under its next deal two years later.
So when the National Collegiate Athletic Association said last week that increasing its revenue is a top goal, it may not have seemed like a major challenge. But that’s not the way things work in big-time college football, whose leading conferences legally aren’t required to share a dime of their burgeoning riches with the NCAA.
Now, however, some voices in college sports are making more strident calls for football to devote some of its rapidly growing bounty to defraying the costs of running the NCAA.
Big East commissioner Val Ackerman said the NCAA uses some of its revenue—most of which comes from the sale of lucrative broadcast rights for its men’s basketball tournament—to pay for “tens of millions of dollars in national football expenses.” That money, she said, is spent in areas like legal defenses, enforcement services, health and safety research and minority leadership development.
“I and many others believe it would be fairer to pay these and other expenses out of [College Football Playoff] revenue, particularly as those revenues continue to escalate with playoff expansion,” Ackerman said. The Big East is part of the two-thirds of NCAA Division-I members who either don’t have football teams or whose teams play below the top-tier bowl subdivision.
The College Football Playoff, however, says its sole purpose is to conduct a national championship for the level of the game known as the bowl subdivision.
“All revenue generated goes to the participating conferences (and independent schools), allowing them to spend it on all their athletic programs, not just football,” Bill Hancock, executive director of the playoff, wrote in an email. “You would need to ask the conferences whether they believe CFP’s role should ever change.”
The idea of football sharing some of its revenue with the NCAA also has a powerful opponent in Greg Sankey, commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, winners of six of the nine College Football Playoff championships.
“There are those who advocate for it,” Sankey said. “That’s not something I support or consider.”
The hard stance taken by Sankey and others who oversee elite college football reflects a tough reality for the NCAA. Major-college football hasn’t shared broadcast-rights money with the association for nearly four decades. In 1984 the Supreme Court wrenched ownership of football broadcast rights from NCAA headquarters, ruling that the association had violated federal antitrust law, and effectively handed control to the conferences. Major-college football hasn’t shared broadcast-rights money with the association for nearly four decades.
Those conferences have maintained control as the value of football rights skyrocketed, and nine years ago launched the College Football Playoff. It’s the one championship the NCAA doesn’t control, and it could be on the way to becoming the most lucrative one.
The bulk of NCAA revenue, most of which it funnels back to member schools, comes from the men’s basketball tournament broadcast rights and NCAA sponsorship program. That entire package was sold to CBS and Turner for about $1 billion a year through 2032.
A major emphasis of the recently revealed recommendations from the NCAA’s transformation committee was for Division-I schools to boost their support of athletes. That includes improving travel, expanding the number of teams that play in postseason tournaments and having a full-time mental-health professional dedicated to varsity athletes at every college and university.
The NCAA hopes that new revenue will help support those efforts, especially at schools without access to top-tier football rights money to help fund their operations.
Tom McMillen, president and CEO of the Lead1 organization that represents directors of athletic departments in the football bowl subdivision, said the group’s members haven’t developed a position on whether the CFP or other college-football entities should share revenue with the NCAA.
But Lead1’s members “understand that there is a misalignment,” McMillen said. “The NCAA is putting up a lot of resources and lots of costs and yet they’re not getting compensated for this.”
The SEC’s Sankey, however, says the NCAA already gets ample benefits from the SEC and four other leading conferences: the Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and Pac-12.
“In any real analysis, who drives interest?” Sankey said. “These five conferences do.”
He added that the NCAA hasn’t fully exploited the assets it does control, pointing to an NCAA-commissioned report that found the organization had undervalued its women’s basketball tournament by tens of millions of dollars.
The bulk of NCAA revenue comes from the men’s basketball tournament broadcast rights and NCAA sponsorship program.
PHOTO: DAVID J. PHILLIP/ASSOCIATED PRESS
The NCAA bundled and sold the rights to ESPN for that championship and 28 others—including baseball, gymnastics and wrestling—for a total of $34 million a year, but has indicated it might sell one or more of them separately when the deal expires in 2024.
“I’m not one who looks and says, ‘They’re really not maximizing things based on their own admission—we should give them more,’” Sankey said.
Sankey spoke not only as an influential football voice, but one who has sway at NCAA headquarters. He co-chaired the NCAA transformation committee with Ohio University athletic director Julie Cromer. That’s the group that recommended the NCAA seek new sources of revenue.
LikeLike
There is a case to be made for football at least directly paying for the expenses the NCAA incurs for it – enforcement, etc. But that’s only a few million a year.
The CFP already spreads a little revenue to I-AA, in addition to how much the I-A schools generate in March Madness which gets shared with the rest of D-I and below.
If the CFP wants to throw a few million more to the NCAA for good PR, it might make sense.
LikeLike
The NCAA had over a century to start up a college football playoff, just as they did with the NCAA basketball tourney aka March Madness. They did nothing. They hired Myles Brand to lead them into the darkness.
LikeLike
How ESPN ruined college football
LikeLike
College sports is more than football, and it needs a regulatory agency with teeth. The NCAA is best positioned to do that, but it needs money, much more staffing, and regulatory and investigatory authority. It needs to be able to ban coaches and players and shut down rogue college programs. College football and the football playoffs are the main revenue sources, so they should be the main funders of the NCAA.
The advent of NIL, an expanded, loosely regulated portal, and possible direct college payments to athletes demands a strong NCAA. The opportunity for rampant corruption, including point shaving, thrown games, bribing field officials, and even the direct involvement of crime families is becoming a serious issue.
If the college conferences cannot themselves put together a strong regulator, then the federal government will do it for them, and they will have no control over whatever agency the feds create.
LikeLike
College sports is more than football, and it needs a regulatory agency with teeth. The NCAA is best positioned to do that….
To expand on something Colin M said above, the NCAA had a hundred years to figure that out. Instead, it became bloated, corrupt, and incompetent. The last thing we need is more of that. No wonder the major conferences have taken away much of its authority and will probably take away more.
The advent of NIL, an expanded, loosely regulated portal, and possible direct college payments to athletes demands a strong NCAA.
The NCAA opposed NIL for decades. The NCAA’s position, like much that it does, was immoral, inflexible, self-promoting, and backward-looking. It had the chance to lead, failed, and had the decision largely made for it by outside circumstances. Now that the cat’s out of the bag, you think this organization will fix it?
If the college conferences cannot themselves put together a strong regulator, then the federal government will do it for them, and they will have no control over whatever agency the feds create.
Why should the federal government regulate an extra-curricular activity played by college students? Both pro sports and high school sports do just fine without a government agency telling them how. Just because you or I do not entirely like the current state of college athletics does not mean we need the government. Like the NCAA, the feds have a long history of screwing up many of the things they touch.
LikeLike
Marc,
“To expand on something Colin M said above, the NCAA had a hundred years to figure that out. Instead, it became bloated, corrupt, and incompetent.”
Yes, it’s a regulatory body. That’s what they do – from the US government down to local levels.
“The last thing we need is more of that.”
As long as people are involved, that is what will happen. Replacing the NCAA will just get you a new name and the same results.
“No wonder the major conferences have taken away much of its authority and will probably take away more.”
That’s pure greed, nothing else. The P5 don’t want to be responsible for all the regulatory functions of the NCAA, they just want to keep their CFB money and get to do what they want.
“The NCAA opposed NIL for decades.”
As it should. NIL violates the NCAA model and has proven to be a complete cluster ****, just as was predicted.
“The NCAA’s position, like much that it does, was immoral, inflexible, self-promoting, and backward-looking.”
That’s a funny way to spell “correct.” It was the position their members told them to take.
“It had the chance to lead,”
No, it didn’t. It’s members didn’t want NIL supported, because they knew it was a bad idea.
“and had the decision largely made for it by outside circumstances.”
It always is. The NCAA can’t control activist judges, or politicians.
“Now that the cat’s out of the bag, you think this organization will fix it?”
There is no legal fix beyond eliminating varsity sports, just the ruination of amateur sports and the creation of minor league sports.
They don’t agree on what they want, and the legal system won’t let them make any decisions anyway. No matter what they do, they’ll just end up in court. The only safe answer is to end varsity sports.
“Why should the federal government regulate an extra-curricular activity played by college students?”
It won’t. They aren’t able to tie their own shoes, let alone do actual productive work. If it doesn’t involve investigating the opposite party or helping them get re-elected, they don’t do it. Maybe the NCAA can start a super PAC and bribe Congress to do something (the same path business takes to get things done).
They won’t create anything. They’ll let the status quo remain and let the judges do all the dirty work that angers their constituents.
“Both pro sports and high school sports do just fine without a government agency telling them how.”
No, they don’t do just fine. They survive, and the NFL does fine financially.
“Just because you or I do not entirely like the current state of college athletics does not mean we need the government.”
Need has nothing to do with it. The government interferes where it wants to and can convince the courts it has permission to.
“Like the NCAA, the feds have a long history of screwing up many of the things they touch.”
As with any regulatory body, that’s because everyone ignores the vast majority of things they do so well and so smoothly that we take them for granted.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35469311/reports-florida-qb-commit-asks-nil-deal-falls-apart
UF QB commit wants out of his letter of intent because his $13M over 4 years NIL deal fell apart.
Too bad. Maybe you should’ve picked a school you actually wanted to attend instead, with the money as a bonus. Your NIL deal wasn’t with UF, it’s with an outside group. Sue them for breach of contract if you can, but it’s not UF’s problem. You’ll just jump in the portal ASAP anyway, so why should they bother to release you? It only helps another school.
LikeLike
The NCAA does indeed face many challenges but I continue to believe that participation of transgender athletes in sports inconsistent with their XX or XY genotype will be a huge problem going forward. Currently 18 states ban these transgender athletes, mostly at the high school level but some state also prohibit college athletes. We will soon see a test case wherein some trans woman athlete (hoops, volleyball, whatever) will show up to compete in a state where “she” is illegal.
https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/sports_participation_bans
LikeLike
Perhaps 1.5% of the population is transgender. This is a miniscule problem.
LikeLike
Far less than 1.5% of the population is transgender, though among early teen girls that is suddenly jumping up,
The percentage is not relevant at all. It is an enormous problem to female athletes, such as the girl in Connecticut who went from being the fastest girl in state to third place behind two boys. By the way, she sued and lost in D.Ct. of CT and at the 2nd Circuit.
This situation will reach the US Ct.
This is a time bomb waiting to go off.
LikeLike
Bernie: “This is a time bomb waiting to go off.”
Of course it is. Bear in mind we have not had a Title IX opinion on this from the NCAA. Marc doesn’t get it.
IMHO the solution is to abandon men’s teams and women’s teams and replace them with genotype XX teams and genotype XY teams. Tests are now available that can determine genotype in seconds.
If your genotype is XX, you play on the XX team. Period. You can call yourself he or she or them or trans or gay or lesbian, whatever you want. If your genotype is XY, same same.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“Far less than 1.5% of the population is transgender, though among early teen girls that is suddenly jumping up,”
Is it actually jumping up, or are people just starting to recognize and name something that existed long before?
“The percentage is not relevant at all.”
It actually is relevant. This is a small number of people total.
“It is an enormous problem to female athletes, such as the girl in Connecticut who went from being the fastest girl in state to third place behind two boys.”
1. No, she became the third fastest girl. Just as if 2 better athletes moved into CT from NY.
2. How is being 3rd in state an enormous problem? Any future competitive swimming options are based on her times, not her place in a meet, and at higher levels she would face the same issue.
“By the way, she sued and lost in D.Ct. of CT and at the 2nd Circuit.”
As she should. Nobody has a right to win swim meets, just to be allowed to compete in them.
“This situation will reach the US Ct.”
Maybe, but they have many more important legal issues to settle than a spoiled kid mad because she lost a swim meet.
“This is a time bomb waiting to go off.”
How is it a bomb? What massive damage will be done? What’s the worst case? Different people win some swim meets, maybe get a handful of scholarships. Where’s the harm?
LikeLike
Colin,
“Of course it is. Bear in mind we have not had a Title IX opinion on this from the NCAA.”
Opinion on what? The NCAA treats people as male or female, then you calculate the numbers. Nothing has changed.
“Marc doesn’t get it.”
He’s not the only one who has no idea what you and Bernie are talking about. As to who “doesn’t get it,” that’s a different conversation.
“IMHO the solution is to abandon men’s teams and women’s teams and replace them with genotype XX teams and genotype XY teams. Tests are now available that can determine genotype in seconds.
If your genotype is XX, you play on the XX team. Period. You can call yourself he or she or them or trans or gay or lesbian, whatever you want. If your genotype is XY, same same.”
That’s basically what the NCAA did, but they took an even easier approach and said that whatever the international rules for that sport are in terms of who competes as male vs female is what applies. So however the Olympics would classify you, so does the NCAA. That leaves them responsible for just a handful of non-Olympic sports like football (where this isn’t really an issue so far).
LikeLike
Brian, the NCAA only recently matched the international standards on a sport by sport basis. Previously they were more lenient. It was basically up to the athlete. They won’t follow international rules until the 2024-2025 school year.
LikeLike
Sure, but they made a decision and are implementing it with a reasonable transition period so schools and athletes can learn what the international rules are and adapt to them. Isn’t that the sort of thing people here are blaming them for not doing on other issues?
More to the point, it’s basically what Colin was saying they should do anyway, but with more legal cover because the international bodies are making the rules.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s a regulatory body. That’s what they do – from the US government down to local levels.
Largely true, but some survive and thrive because they meet the needs of their most powerful constituents. The NCAA no longer did, or does.
Replacing the NCAA will just get you a new name and the same results.
Which is a good argument for not having it.
That’s pure greed, nothing else.
“Greed” being just a synonym for the subset of things a given speaker does not like. College sports has been a moneymaker since before you and I were born. Wherever there is money to be had, people will want more of it.
It was the position their members told them to take.
That may have been true at one time. The more powerful institutions are gradually stripping away the NCAA’s authority because it is no longer capable of making the decisions they want.
NIL violates the NCAA model and has proven to be a complete cluster ****, just as was predicted.
NIL became the Wild West overnight because the NCAA missed its opportunity to to control it when it could have been controlled.
But what is “the NCAA model” anyway? Remember when the NCAA said, apparently with a straight face, that to preserve amateurism, they could not allow cream cheese to be served with bagels? The purported amateurism rules have been a sham for years. Why would you believe anything they say?
No, they don’t do just fine. They survive, and the NFL does fine financially.
I am not clear what you think is wrong with high school sports that the government could fix. The NFL is a business. It exists to make money by providing entertainment, and and is successful at it.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Largely true, but some survive and thrive because they meet the needs of their most powerful constituents. The NCAA no longer did, or does.”
Name one that thrives that doesn’t have total control. The most powerful constituents run the NCAA, so it meets their needs exactly as much as they want it to.
“Which is a good argument for not having it.”
No, it’s an argument for not re-creating the wheel. Some group has to be the regulatory body and they all end up the same.
““Greed” being just a synonym for the subset of things a given speaker does not like.”
No, greed being greed (intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food).
The P5 want to keep more power and more money, and it is an intense and selfish desire. It is the definition of greed, literally.
“Wherever there is money to be had, people will want more of it.”
So? It doesn’t make it not greed.
“That may have been true at one time. The more powerful institutions are gradually stripping away the NCAA’s authority because it is no longer capable of making the decisions they want.”
You have it backwards. The NCAA has only the power the members give it. They weren’t stripped of authority for failure, the P5 refused to keep giving them authority because the little guys would get too much say over their money.
“NIL became the Wild West overnight because the NCAA missed its opportunity to to control it when it could have been controlled.”
Because their members told it to resist it.
“Remember when the NCAA said, apparently with a straight face, that to preserve amateurism, they could not allow cream cheese to be served with bagels?”
No, because that isn’t what happened. They determined that it changed from a snack to a meal, so it couldn’t be provided for free in all the same situations. And again, the schools approve the rules.
“Why would you believe anything they say?”
Say about what? And who else am I supposed to believe instead?
“I am not clear what you think is wrong with high school sports that the government could fix.”
I never said government was the solution to any of this (outside of an antitrust exemption for college sports, which could fix many issues for the NCAA – but I didn’t say that above). I’m saying blame the schools, not the NCAA. The NCAA did what it was told and will absorb the lawsuits so the schools don’t have to.
“The NFL is a business. It exists to make money by providing entertainment, and and is successful at it.”
I said they made lots of money. That isn’t the same as “doing fine” in my book, when you consider the domestic violence issues (Ray Rice, etc.), sexism (how many settlements by owners recently for lawsuits?), racism (still can’t enforce the Rooney rule effectively, took decades to change a team name), CTE, and other issues.
LikeLike
https://csnbbs.com/thread-963599-post-18730347.html#pid18730347
Congratulations Frank. You’ve been nominated to be the next B10 commissioner. What’s your platform?
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/OpEds/2023/01/17-Carter.aspx
SBJ just started an NIL column, “NIL Corner.”
In this first edition of NIL Corner, we look at seven key data points that challenge our assumptions about the direction of NIL in 2023.
1. During 2022, about 17% of student athletes at Division I institutions participated in NIL activities. But that number seems to be growing, and is higher at P5s.
2. According to the NCAA, 58% of DI student athletes receive some athletic aid. Mostly those are partial scholarships. According to Ohio State’s AD Gene Smith: “Olympic sport athletes are benefiting the most from NIL.”
3. In 2022, local NIL deals far surpassed deals with national brands. Despite the emphasis on local versus national deals, the industry categories leading NIL activity are relatively similar to the sports industry as a whole. The leading category in 2022 was apparel/footwear, which accounted for 20% of all NIL activity. Restaurants accounted for 14% of NIL deals
4. Collectives are here to stay and the NCAA and its members are adapting to this reality. …
There are 201 NIL collectives operating today, according to Andy Wittry at On3. This number is also growing.
5. According to the NIL marketplace Opendorse, the average compensation for student athletes on their platform was about $1,300 per deal in Year 1 of NIL. It should be clear that averages can be inflated due to very large deals by a handful of student athletes when analyzing data like this.
I like to also consider the median compensation too. (As a reminder, the median is the middle number in a sorted list of numbers and can often be a better representation of the data than the average.) In numerous 2022 surveys I conducted, the median compensation for DI student athletes was about $65 per NIL activity.
6. Social media represents nearly three-quarters of all NIL activity. It’s 72%, and includes being an influencer, self-promotion, and selling things.
7. Over 1,000 football players entered the portal in its first week, but in the big picture that is all of college sports, the number of student athletes in the transfer portal seems less dramatic.
Historically, 30%-35% of the general college student population transfers each year. In comparison, last year’s portal had about 9,500 student athletes in it or 5.4% of the 176,000 DI athletes. Those numbers will no doubt be bigger this year (2022-2023) — we don’t know how much bigger yet.
1. Nobody is worried about the portal outside of revenue sports (transferring for the wrong reasons), so it’s misleading to lump in all the Olympic sports.
2. This is apples and oranges. That number includes everyone going from a community college to a 4-year school, or from regional campuses to the main campus. Cal and UCLA tout that roughly 1/3 of their incoming students are transfers. It’s a smaller value at UM (16%), but still high. But all have much lower numbers for transferring out, which is the more relevant number.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/35468085/uconn-athletics-deficit-climbed-53-million-2022
UConn’s AD deficit rose to $53M last year. Part of that was due to paying off Kevin Ollie, but it was $47.2M the year before.
It was covered by $46.5 million in direct support from the school and another $6.5 million in student fees, according to the report.
…
Discounting those payments [to Ollie], the actual operational institutional support to athletics decreased by $7.3 million to $33.2 million in fiscal 2022. The school also said it saw philanthropic donations rise to $23.6 million, which was the third-highest total in the athletic department’s history, up 12% from the previous year..
How long can UConn sustain this? No P5 invitation is forthcoming, and being independent doesn’t pay nearly enough to cover the cost of football despite their improvement this year.
RU went this route but got the B10 invitation to slowly bail them out.
LikeLike
UConn is in a major financial trap, with no apparent way out.
Football was upgraded at significant cost, but makes minimal income with no chance of improvement. For reasons that I will never understand, UConn actually believed that it would get B1G invitation. If one read the UConn sources after RU got the B1G offer, there was a total lack of understanding how that happened, since obviously UConn was a key to the NY market.
UConn actually put up bill boards in Manhattan declaring that it was in the 6th borough of NYC. Kind of interesting since Storrs is nearly 150 miles from NYC and is a total afterthought in NYC. Even when UConn basketball was winning national basketball championships, no one particularly cared.
Once there was no where else to go, UConn wound up in the AAC for a couple of years before becoming a football independent and rejoining the Big East. The payouts from the Big East will be well less than $10 million per year.
Here is an analysis from Rivals. https://connecticut.rivals.com/news/financial-breakdown-of-uconn-s-move-to-the-big-east
A couple of years ago, the UConn Board decided to give football a few more years and then they would consider seriously downgrading the sport.
LikeLike
Bernie, it all goes back to the Big East forming a conference without inviting Penn State. Commish Mike Tranghese told them at the time it was a huge blunder but they ignored him.
LikeLike
@Bernie: I know you despise UConn, as you’ve made clear over the years, but any statement that “no one cared” is easily disproven as long as I find one person who cares. In a city with NYC’s population, this is easily done. By the way, I have never found anyone in NYC who cared about Rutgers either, though I am sure they exist.
But yeah, I agree that this is unsustainable. The real hit for UConn was not the failure to get into the Big Ten, which was never going to happen. The big hit was not getting into the ACC, where they had a real shot before Louisville squeaked by after FSU and Clemson objected to adding another basketball school.
Of course, Colin is right that the world would’ve been different if the Big East had added Penn State, but that was so long ago that nobody can say for sure what the subsequent moves would have been. While the Big East would obviously have been better off, ultimately they were never going to match the top conferences in revenue, which means the Nittany Lions would’ve eventually been in the Big Ten anyway.
LikeLike
Speaking of pedantic (which we were not), by your reasoning, if we can find 5 UConn fans in a single sports bar, that makes UConn a major story in NYC.
I do not now and never have hated UConn, Syracuse maybe, but not UConn. There has never been bad blood between UConn and RU fans. RU and Syracuse could get nasty. Cuse and RU fans got at it regularly, not so much with UConn. I think that BC v UConn was much worse.
I have had a twisted sense of sympathy with the element that “there but the graces go I”. Without the B1G, RU would probably be in worse shape than UConn is now.
If you can show me one posting to substantiate that I hate UConn, please do so. Their situation is catastrophic. Reporting on that is not hate.
Just like reporting on RU football NIL money for the moment is terrible. That is not hate, it is a fact of life. The difference is that eventually RU will get a full share in 2027 and B1G money may help RU problems big time. UConn has no likely bail out.
UConn got screwed when they are left out of the ACC, There was a widely accepted believe that FSU and Clemson demanded a football school, Louisville, rather than another basketball school.
There was a second widely believed rumor that BC blackballed UConn. There was truly bad blood there. The State of CT tried to sue BC over their move to the ACC.
After that however, UConn sort of cracked with attempts sort of at the Big 12 and mostly the B1G. It was fully understandable but kind of sad. Again, I do now know how much you read the CT Post or NH Register at the time, or UConn fan sites, but it was really over the top. They simply could not imagine that they had been left behind.
If it is not that no one cared (other than the 5 in the sports bar in NYC), can you explain billboards in Manhattan claiming that UConn was in the 6th Borough of NYC, from a distance of nearly 150 miles and totally unrelated football markets? It was a not inexpensive attempt to prove relevance in NYC.
I lived in North Jersey when UConn was winning its basketball titles, when the Big East was building and exploding. When the football and bball schools split.
The NY newspapers covered UConn champhionships the say way as Kentucky winning, since KY basketball had the same rooting base in NYC. (Actually I think that the KY sports bar had 8 fans, not 5). No one cared other than those five UConn fans that you found in some sports bar.
As far as what RU fans you have found, that is kind of interesting since the NY Times survey ranked RU football as first in college interest in the market, by a major margin, well ahead of ND, PSU and Michigan (in that order).
Rutgers has well more that 300,000 alumni and 40,ooo students in the NYC TV market. I bet that if you tried really hard you could find one or two of that 400,00 who followed RU football.
By the way, how much time did you spend driving in NYC or NJ when RU joined the B1G? I lived there and there was a huge explosion in number of cars with Rutgers stickers. It was a very big deal.
LikeLike
…can you explain billboards in Manhattan claiming that UConn was in the 6th Borough of NYC, from a distance of nearly 150 miles and totally unrelated football markets?
I take it as an attempt to make the best of a bad draw. I don’t think that particular marketing idea worked, but I can see why they tried it. UConn’s Stamford campus has been growing.
LikeLike
Stamford is 100 miles from the football stadium in Storrs.
Again no one (other than the five guys in the sports bar) would argue that Stamford makes UConn a NY market school of consequences. There are dozen of colleges without football that size just as close to NYC, or closer, and none of them are considered sports powers – with the exception of the major basketball schools. St. Johns, Seton Hall, Fordham, et.
LikeLike
Marc: “Colin is right that the world would’ve been different if the Big East had added Penn State,”
It’s not only Penn State. The Big East formed in 1979 and the ACC didn’t expand until 2004. Thus is 1979 the Big East could have invited Penn State, West Virginia, Virginny Tech, South Carolina, FSU and Miami. All were independent then.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-2023-pac-12-conference-football
The P12 schedule for 2023 will be released today, but Canzano has already seen it.
One notable thing:
USC gets a bye the final week of the season. Can you imagine the uproar in the B10 if a power school gets that final week off before the CCG? This is a consequence of the ND rivalry and USC getting a Week 0 OOC game, but the B10 better get this worked out.
Right now, ND still shows final week games at USC in 2024 and 2026 on their schedules, with October games in South Bend in 2023 and 2025. Will UCLA get a bye the final week in 2024 and 2026? Will the ND @ USC games move out of the final weekend?
It’s a nine-game conference schedule once again for the Pac-12. There’s been talk about the Pac-12 dropping to eight conference games, but some members have expressed mild opposition. Mostly because they don’t believe finding a fourth non-conference game would be affordable and easy without more planning. A potential move to eight conference games in 2024 is still on the table, per a source.
On relatively short notice, I don’t see how dropping to 8 games helps them. It will be hard to schedule good games OOC, though I suppose it will make up for some of the lost inventory with USC and UCLA leaving.
LikeLike
According to Canzano, the Pac-12 ADs were presented with three options. A majority of the ADs apparently felt that the schedule ending with a bye for USC was the “least bad”. He didn’t say what the rejected options were.
LikeLike
Not to change the subject…… Only the Big 12 has not yet released their 2023 schedule, which is promised by the end of January. I found noteworthy the new ACC 2023-26 scheduling model at the link below; here is the Reader’s Digest version, showing the three “primary [every year] opponents”:
Boston College: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State
Duke: North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest
Florida State: Clemson, Miami, Syracuse
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Louisville, Wake Forest
Louisville: Georgia Tech, Miami, Virginia
Miami: Boston College, Florida State, Louisville
North Carolina: Duke, NC State, Virginia
NC State: Clemson, Duke, North Carolina
Pitt: Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia Tech
Syracuse: Boston College, Florida State, Pitt
Virginia: Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech: Pitt, Virginia, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech
This 3-5-5 concept allows for a home-and-home with every non-primary opponent in the four-year cycle. Notre Dame is mentioned nowhere. Clemson seems to have it easier relative to FSU; perhaps they will play ND more. No one here thinks there will be any realignment for some time, but I am interested in the apparent resurgence of FSU, as many here think they are a possible target for the B1G. The new model does away with divisions.
https://theacc.com/news/2022/6/28/acc-announces-football-schedule-model-for-2023-26.aspx
LikeLike
The ACC wanted to eliminate divisions for years. In the mid-2010s, they made a big push to abolish the division requirement, and almost got it passed before Jim Delany jumped in and screwed them at the last minute.
Instead, the NCAA passed an incoherent amendment that surgically helped the Big XII but no one else. It allowed leagues with fewer than 12 teams to stage a CCG without divisions, but left the original rule in place for those with 12 or more.
Finally, the ACC’s original proposal passed last year, just as it should have in 2016. No surprise that they are taking advantage.
LikeLike
Welcome Gary.
The 3-5-5 plan makes sense for the ACC if they are sticking with 8 games, and 8 games makes some sense since they also have 5 ND games and 4 in-state rivalries OOC. I thought they might go to 9, but apparently ESPN won’t pay them enough extra to justify it.
“Clemson seems to have it easier relative to FSU; perhaps they will play ND more.”
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State
Florida State: Clemson, Miami, Syracuse
Do they? Over the past 10 years, Miami has been above the ACC average and SU has been the worst ACC team. GT and NCSU have been in the middle. Miami has a high ceiling, but NCSU has been improving.
Combined ACC W% over past 5 years:
Miami + SU = 0.953
NCSU + GT = 0.985
Combined ACC W% over past 10 years:
Miami + SU = 0.943
NCSU + GT = 0.909
Combined ACC W% over past 20 years:
Miami + SU = 0.893
NCSU + GT = 0.978
I think it’s been close enough not to worry about. There will always be fluctuations in SOS anyway.
https://accsports.com/teams/notre-dame/schedule-ahead-how-far-out-are-future-acc-matchups-for-notre-dame-football/
ND has a fixed ACC schedule for quite a while (through 2037 already set except 1 game in 2024).
LikeLike
There will always be fluctuations in SOS anyway.
And it’s only 3 out of 8 games, not counting the randomness of who plays Notre Dame in a given year. (I know the ND games don’t count towards the conference championship.)
LikeLike
Correct. When you crunch the numbers, the bigger impact is if one of Clemson and FSU is much better than the other (since they can never play themselves). The rest mostly averages out.
LikeLike
Can’t think of anything on those 3 rivals that I would do better. You get the Flutie game (Miami-BC), FSU-SU gives both exposure in the other’s region. There are benefits over FSU-GT with SU taking UL off GT’s list.
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2023/california-ncaa-pay-for-play-bill-chris-holden-1234706713/
CA is at it again. For the 3rd time, a state legislator has introduced a bill that would force schools to pay players 50% of the revenue their team generates.
Holden’s new bill (Assembly Bill 252), christened the College Athlete Protection Act, requires that each Division I institution in the state establish a “degree completion fund” as a means of paying their head-count scholarship athletes their “fair market value,” which the bill defines as an equal share of half their team’s annual revenue, minus the cost of the athlete’s grant-in-aid.
…
It would also create a state government agency called the College Athlete Protection Program, which would be tasked with making sure schools don’t fudge their revenue numbers and, if they do, issuing punishment.
…
Holden’s bill, however, attempts to sidestep the labor question entirely, stipulating that its provisions do not, one way or the other, “serve as evidence of an employment relationship.”
…
Based on EADA data, in the pre-pandemic academic year of 2019, the legislation would have paved the way for UCLA to pay each of its men’s basketball players $389,000, football players $185,000, women gymnasts $5,500 and volleyball players $871, assuming the school availed itself of the NCAA’s maximum scholarship limits for those sports. No other sport, including women’s basketball, would have triggered payments under the formula.
If a school chooses this revenue-sharing approach, it would be required to distribute the aggregate sum of these distributions, though it would have discretion in how it divides it up. For example, the school could decide that because of Title IX, it would have to give the money in equal shares across all sports.
For schools unwilling to split their pies in this manner, AB 252 offers them a far cheaper alternative: They can instead agree to split whatever surplus revenue their athletic department earns in a given year with each of their athletes earning below their fair market value. Thus, if no new athletic department revenue is reported—as is often the case—a school would not owe any athletes payments that academic year.
…
Whichever revenue-sharing path a school takes, eligible athletes would be entitled to receive the first $25,000 of their monies within the year they were deposited, with the balance of the earnings only made available—as the fund’s name indicates—upon their graduation. Barring a “severe medical condition,” an athlete would have six years from their initial full-time enrollment to earn their diploma, before their title to remaining funds would lapse.
Whether the bill would comply with federal law is likely to spark heated debate and potential court challenges.
…
Beyond Title IX, Holden’s bill could impact how athletic departments qualify for federal tax exemptions. Universities rely on education requirements found in the Internal Revenue Code to avoid classifying revenue as taxable income. Paying athletes to play sports could pose questions about the practice.
Further, the bill’s attempt to fend off employee recognition may not work. A court or labor agency could find that, despite the bill’s language to the contrary, the pay mechanisms create an employment relationship.
Distribution of payments among athletes is also a possible tension point. For example, should the starting quarterback be paid the same as the backup punter?
…
Huma acknowledges that, more immediately, the bill could incentivize some in Congress to push forward with creating federal NIL legislation that may seek to bar direct compensation. In a Sportico guest column earlier this month, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), the chair of the pivotal House Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee, said he plans to introduce a bill with a “preemptive standard” that would supersede any individual state’s college athlete compensation bills.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35483573/new-california-bill-pushes-college-sports-revenue-sharing
This ESPN article explains it better.
The revenue-sharing portion of the bill seeks to create “fair market value compensation” for athletes. To do so, Holden’s bill includes a formula designed to ensure that half of the revenue generated by each college team is dedicated to its athletes either through grant-in-aid scholarship dollars or in revenue-sharing payments.
For example, if the San Diego State basketball team generates roughly $6 million in revenue and spends roughly $500,000 on scholarships for its players, the school would have to set aside $2.5 million at the end of the year (half of the total revenue minus the cost of scholarships) for the players if the new bill becomes law.
Players would be eligible to receive up to $25,000 in annual payments at the end of their season, and any additional money would be held in a trust until they graduate. For the most profitable college teams in California, this formula could lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to players who get their degrees.
The bill allows schools to reallocate funds, if necessary, to make sure they are not violating Title IX rules that require schools to provide equal benefits to men’s and women’s teams.
…
The new bill also contains several provisions aimed at funding for the health and well-being of athletes that the NCPA has tried to get passed by other legislators at the state and federal levels. Those proposed rules would be monitored and enforced by a 21-member College Athlete Protection panel appointed by state politicians.
Other items in the bill include:
* Requirements for schools to cover medical costs for sports-related injuries and insurance plans. The requirements vary based on how much annual revenue an athletic department generates;
* A subcommittee of the College Athlete Protection panel that would establish regulations about when athletes can return to play after an injury along with other health and safety rules;
* A subcommittee to certify agents who work with college athletes on endorsement deals;
* Guaranteed scholarships for six years (or until the athlete earns their degree) for athletes who remain as full-time students in good academic standing;
* Requirements that schools publicly share information about their current compliance with Title IX law and information about what benefits they provide to their athletes designed to increase transparency for prospects in the recruiting process;
* A prohibition that prevents any school from cutting one of its varsity sports if the athletic director at the school makes more than $500,000 per year.
A 21-member state government panel? Yeah, that’ll work seamlessly. No way politics bogs that down at all.
A subset of that panel sets rules for when players can return from injuries? Are they all doctors with relevant specialties? People and injuries vary so much, what sort of rules can you set other than a qualified doctor has to say they are ready and maybe they need to pass a specific test?
Another subset will certify agents? What qualifies them to do that? There are already agent certification groups out there (the NCAA has one).
Schools already have to share information about Title IX compliance, but it is too complicated for many to understand since there are multiple ways to comply (3-prong test) and many different court precedents. What D-I schools don’t already tout the benefits they provide to their athletes as part of recruiting?
The last is a stupid rule. Why shouldn’t a school be able to change which sports it offers? Maybe one sport is losing interest and another is gaining interest. Or maybe you are ordered to come into Title IX compliance and don’t have the ability to add anything else – cutting the AD’s salary won’t automatically pay for a whole women’s team. Or what if the student demographics shift? And why $500,000? It’s singling out the P12 schools.
Not only is it a bad rule, it is easy to circumvent. Lower the AD’s salary for a year, then cut the sport(s) before giving them a raise and a bonus. Or have the boosters start paying some of the AD’s real salary.
From the start this is a bad rule since it it limited to D-I. If the principles of it are valid, then why would you limit it to only certain schools? No other schools would likely qualify for it anyway, so why write in D-I as a limiter? If D-III schools started to make big revenue from CFB, why shouldn’t they also have to share it?
LikeLike
It’s hard to say which provision is the dumbest in a bill that is full of them. But what about: “Guaranteed scholarships for six years (or until the athlete earns their degree) for athletes who remain as full-time students in good academic standing”.
Almost everyone should be capable of finishing in five years, and in fact there are plenty who finish in three or four. Someone who needs six years probably was not serious about an education or did not belong at that school. The exceptions don’t justify giving six years to everybody.
LikeLike
A lot of P5 schools already guarantee 4-year scholarships, so this isn’t a big step.
Some players take 6 years to use up their eligibility (redshirt + injury year + 4 yrs), but usually they graduate before then. The NCAA forces academic progress to stay eligible, so I’m not sure how this would happen unless they start off way behind (perhaps not uncommon among athletes), or they change majors or transfer and they lose credits.
Schools often report 6-year graduation rates, so it isn’t uncommon for regular students to take that long. An engineering degree can often take 5 years, for example. If that student co-op’s along the way, then 6 years is reasonable. At OSU, about 2.2% of students take 6 years (6.8% of black men).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35482471/source-jim-harbaugh-refusal-delays-ncaa-case-michigan
UM’s NCAA infractions case may drag out because Harbaugh won’t admit he lied to investigators.
Michigan’s NCAA infractions case projects a prolonged path to resolution after football coach Jim Harbaugh’s refusal during multiple meetings with the NCAA this week to acknowledge that he had lied to NCAA investigators, a source confirmed to ESPN on Thursday.
During an attempt to expedite the case and achieve a “negotiated resolution,” Harbaugh refused to acknowledge that he had lied to NCAA investigators, a source confirmed. He has maintained that he doesn’t remember the incident in question, which has led to a standstill in the case.
…
An admission that Harbaugh had lied likely would have led to him accepting a multiple-game suspension, as he faces a potential Level I NCAA violation.
…
This presents an interesting standoff between Harbaugh and the NCAA, one that could potentially drag out for nearly a year, per the typical NCAA enforcement and appeals timeline. For now, there appears to be little chance for a negotiated resolution, a source told ESPN.
He’s at odds with his AD, an assistant is being investigated for “computer access” crimes, and he looked into the NFL again after saying he would never consider the NFL again. He said he’s returning but there’s no news of a new/extended contract. I don’t think this is the off-season fans were hoping for.
LikeLike
UM’s NCAA infractions case may drag out because Harbaugh won’t admit he lied to investigators.
Well…perhaps he didn’t. Lying is one of the more difficult infractions to prove, unless you have contemporaneous evidence, such as an email or a tape-recorded conversation.
As I understand, Harbaugh says he sincerely did not recall the matters he was asked about, which are themselves infractions the NCAA admits are minor.
It is also possible that Harbaugh did lie, but is taking the calculated bet that the NCAA cannot develop the proof. Indeed, the fact they are asking him to admit it is a pretty clear indication that they don’t have the goods.
So far, the administration is supporting him fairly unequivocally.
I don’t think this is the off-season fans were hoping for.
I certainly agree with that. However, Harbaugh seems to have agreed to return directly with the new university president, bypassing the AD. Most of the Michigan faithful are siding with the president and the coach, and against the AD (who has a number of Kevin Warren-esque screw-ups to his name).
LikeLike
Marc,
“As I understand, Harbaugh says he sincerely did not recall the matters he was asked about, which are themselves infractions the NCAA admits are minor.”
I doubt his sincerity (though we both might be biased on that topic). The “I don’t recall” defense rings just as hollow for Harbaugh as it does for everyone else, like people in congressional hearings who say it over and over.
My understanding is that what he claims not to recall is about his interactions with the NCAA investigators where the alleged lying occurred, not the underlying incidents. He must have had lawyer(s) advising him on this topic from the moment the NCAA first reached out to investigate. You don’t forget that in less than a year, unless you were advised to forget and to intentionally keep no notes. The NCAA wouldn’t bother with a charge like that for something borderline and trivial, because (like you said) lying is hard to prove. They have to feel he materially misled the investigators in a clear and obvious manner.
If he had a contract extension that said he wouldn’t be punished financially for the violation, and/or if the NCAA let’s him plea it down to a level 2 violation and a slap on the wrist punishment (like some extra rules training), I’m guessing his memory would improve.
“So far, the administration is supporting him fairly unequivocally.”
The AD is? I have only see the president out front on Harbaugh.
LikeLike
“So far, the administration is supporting him fairly unequivocally.”
They really have no choice.
LikeLike
“So far, the administration is supporting him fairly unequivocally.”
The AD is? I have only see the president out front on Harbaugh.
The AD has been silent. I am referring to the president. After I posted, an insider reported that Harbaugh and the AD had not spoken in eight months.
I agree that “I do not recall” is often a lie. But even in the Kangaroo Court that passes for NCAA infractions, they’ve got to have proof.
“So far, the administration is supporting him fairly unequivocally.”
They really have no choice.
Of course they have a choice. Schools part company with troublesome coaches all the time. Upthread from here, Brian himself offered compelling reasons — which I agreed with — that Michigan could plausibly decide to cut ties with Harbaugh.
LikeLike
Marc: “Of course they have a choice. Schools part company with troublesome coaches all the time. Upthread from here, Brian himself offered compelling reasons — which I agreed with — that Michigan could plausibly decide to cut ties with Harbaugh.”
Needless to say, I was speaking as Harbaugh remaining UM’s coach. If they keep him, they have no choice other than to support him. They can’t say “He’s a lying jerk but we’re gonna keep him as our coach.”
LikeLike
I was speaking as Harbaugh remaining UM’s coach. If they keep him, they have no choice other than to support him. They can’t say “He’s a lying jerk but we’re gonna keep him as our coach.”
We agree on that, but the exuberant support and announcement that he would stay came after the NCAA allegations were known. This suggests the new president does not think the eventual outcome will make him look like a fool. (He might turn out to be wrong about that, but I’m assuming he is competent until shown otherwise.)
The announcement (earlier this week) was one of the more peculiar ones you’ll ever read:
This certainly makes it sounds like the AD is twisting in the wind, since the last 10 words of it were unnecessary. He could have ended on “fantastic news,” and nobody would have had a second thought about it.
LikeLike
Does anyone know what the issues is with Harbaugh and Manuel? The president must dislike the AD as well, or he wouldn’t allow Harbaugh to bypass him. That’s not a sustainable arrangement with the HC able to just not speak to his boss.
LikeLike
The only reason cited in any source I can find, is that Manuel cut Harbaugh’s salary after the COVID year, when the Wolverines went 2–4. That doesn’t add up: the pay cut was more than fair, given Harbaugh’s performance up to that point. Heck, there were plenty of fans that wanted him fired outright. Even by the standards of a notoriously fickle fan base, they might have had a point. And Harbaugh got a lot of that money back after the rebound season in 2021.
The general feeling now is that Manuel will not last the year. The only thing missing from the announcement was the tire tracks from the bus he was just thrown under.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35490627/michigan-fires-matt-weiss-amid-computer-access-crimes-investigation
Update: UM has now fired Matt Weiss, the co-OC.
LikeLike
People in the P12 are getting impatient with the delay in getting a TV deal done.
A report from Jon Wilner of The Mercury News details conference sources growing in worry about the unresolved rights deals.
“The Pac-12 cannot get overconfident,” one source told Wilner. “If we know anything about college sports, it’s that you can’t assume the status quo will last.”
…
The Pac-12 is the only Power 5 conference with remaining football inventory until 2031, giving it a position of strength. Wilner posits if Turner, Amazon, or Apple want Power 5 television rights, “there’s only one place to turn”.
However, sources inside the conference are worried about overplaying its hand.
“If you slow-play it,” the source told Wilner, “you become vulnerable to the unknowns.”
…
In the past, Kliavkoff has believed the conference’s women’s basketball schedule is an important factor in the television rights negotiations.
“I think women’s basketball is our fastest-growing television sport,” Kliavkoff said in November. “Ratings are increasing faster than any other sport. And I think it’s one of the sports that has been undervalued traditionally, in media rights. I think that provides a great opportunity.”
I think Kliavkoff is correct in that the status quo will last for a while. The P12 getting a final offer is actually one of the few pieces that could disturb the status quo in the short term, with a lowball offer perhaps pushing some schools to leave. The B10 never had any intention of adding a western wing (they evaluated it and only Warren continued to push for it), and they won’t be looking for more schools while integrating USC and UCLA. Until the new TV deals near their end (2029ish), there really isn’t anything likely to happen.
I suppose you can argue an economic downturn could hurt the offers they get, but major corporations think longer term than that generally. Amazon could buy the P12 schools out of petty cash, let alone the media deal for them. Sure they just laid off 10,000 workers, but I doubt it significantly impacts there programming decisions for Amazon Prime video.
It is odd that the deal is taking so long, though. The odds of UCLA staying in the P12 were always slim, so they must have had detailed discussions of the options without UCLA. They’ve also had plenty of time to get numbers on SDSU, SMU and other candidates. Kliavkoff says the TV deal comes first, then expansion anyway. No new bidders are going to magically appear, so all sides should have all the info they need by now.
I’m not convinced going last is a position of strength in this case. Others intentionally came available earlier to get a first shot at the networks, and now most of the networks are full of content and low on free cash. And the B12’s deal set a pretty low comp value, undoing the bump the B10’s deal might have suggested. If companies needed their product, then it would be a position of strength. CBS and NBC don’t want or need the P12. Fox only wants a little, and doesn’t need it (they have MWC). Apple doesn’t need anything. ESPN and Amazon both made low offers, and neither absolutely need the inventory.
As for WBB, the P12 is in huge trouble if Kliavkoff is counting on that to bolster the TV deal. It’s growing fast because it’s coming from zero. CFB is normally about 80% of a deal with MBB the other 20% and all other sports essentially worthless. WBB growth will come slightly at the expense of MBB, not CFB, due to overlapping seasons though it can largely grow on its own as a separate audience. I’d still be surprised if it was worth 5% of the P12’s next deal. It should factor into the streaming portion (ESPN+ or Amazon) more than any linear distribution.
LikeLike
“People in the P12 are getting impatient with the delay in getting a TV deal done.”
I don’t think they’re impatient. I think they’re worried. And they should be.
LikeLike
Opening paragraph:
Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff has been unwavering in his timeline for finalizing the conference’s television rights deals. However, many inside the conference are growing impatient.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff is an abomination. Instead of working the remaining teams, he spent months trying to stop UCLA and not shoring up the league. Granted the attempts by Kevin Warren to increase B1G expansion did not help the PAC.
In my opinion, floating those rumors without no apparent support of the schools was terrible thing for Warren to do. No benefit to the B1G and gratuitous damage to the PAC, Yes Warren had no obligation to the PAC schools, but why harm the league for no reason?
There is no reason to believe that his strategy of waiting has been helpful. It is at least possible the PAC could wind up with totally (or nearly) streaming. If that is the cases, why should Amazon or Apple cut a big check. The fact that they have the money does not mean that they will pay more than they need to.
I also do not this insistence on a new deal before expansion. Won’t any new carrier want to know the identity of new schools before paying for them? Surely Kliavkoff should be negotiating on the basis of identified potential partners.
LikeLike
Pop quiz: What was the dumbest decision by a conference in the entire history of the NCAA?
1. Big East forms without inviting Penn State.
2. Pac-12 Network starts up without a Sugar Daddy (Fox, ESPN, etc.) and no broadcast deal with DirecTV.
3. ACC schools sign, in blood, a 20-year grant of rights.
4. Big XII allows unequal revenue distribution followed by the Longhorn Network.
5. Big Ten expands with Rutgers and Maryland instead of Mizzou and Colorado.
LikeLike
5 was a good decision. 4 wasn’t a decision. It was a continuation of current policy. And may have contributed to the Big 12 staying together longer.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I’d argue Warren also hurt the B10 (its reputation, anyway) with his comments.
I don’t know why Kliavkoff is insistent on finalizing the deal first either. Maybe it’s to assure the current members that they aren’t taking a haircut so new members can make more. Then when (if?) they expand, the newbies will get whatever TV says they are worth for one contract – probably ramping up each year as they become seen as P5 schools over time. In the next deal, everyone gets equal pay.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Pop quiz: What was the dumbest decision by a conference in the entire history of the NCAA?
1. Big East forms without inviting Penn State.
2. Pac-12 Network starts up without a Sugar Daddy (Fox, ESPN, etc.) and no broadcast deal with DirecTV.
3. ACC schools sign, in blood, a 20-year grant of rights.
4. Big XII allows unequal revenue distribution followed by the Longhorn Network.
5. Big Ten expands with Rutgers and Maryland instead of Mizzou and Colorado.”
6. None of the above, if we’re just going by how bad the decision was. The B10 repeatedly rejecting ND pre-WWII was probably the worst for the major conferences. There’s also the B10 and P12 rejecting overtures from Texas at different times.
Which decision had the worst consequences? Then your first 3 options enter the discussion.
As to those choices:
1. Even if the BE had included PSU initially, it would have outgrown it by now. The money wouldn’t have kept up.
2. Some thought it was a bold gamble. It had defenders on this site who insisted it would be proven to be a good choice over time. I also think you’re lumping in 2 separate decisions. The satellite TV issue was a separate problem, and then the presidents rejected an offer from Directv a few years ago.
3. The ACC wanted a network, and that was the price. I think many members of the ACC are thrilled with the GoR because it keeps the most valuable schools from leaving. The bigger problem for the ACC was their long TV deal which was undervalued and helped Raycom more than them.
4. The B12 had long had unequal revenue distribution, and everyone seemed fine with it. The LHN angered some people, but the B12 had no right to prevent it. The conference didn’t have a GoR or a network at that point, and UT had looked for partners on it before going it alone.
5. That was a great financial decision, and also for future student and athlete recruiting. NJ = 9.3M people, MD = 6.2M + DC/NoVA. MO = 6.2M + KC, CO = 5.8M. RU and UMD offered access to tens of thousands of B10 alumni on the east coast and brought eastern partners for PSU. They were never thought to be great football additions, but UMD has been generally strong in the other sports with lots of B10 titles and even RU has turned around many of their sports besides football.
CU never wanted to join the B10, they always wanted the P12 due to all their alumni in CA. And MO wasn’t available with a viable partner at the times the B10 was looking. NE made 12, so MO needed a #13 to justify taking them as #14 but there was nobody at that time. Then MO joined the SEC before the B10 was looking for a #14 to partner with UMD.
LikeLike
The ACC wanted a network, and that was the price. I think many members of the ACC are thrilled with the GoR because it keeps the most valuable schools from leaving. The bigger problem for the ACC was their long TV deal which was undervalued and helped Raycom more than them.
I think they got swindled. In most businesses, payback on an investment is about 7–10 years, because beyond that any predictions are just about useless. But I agree it’s only a handful of ACC schools, not the entire league, that was harmed by the 20-year GoR.
LikeLike
@Colin M: You would also have to include the ESPN TV deal the former Big East turned down in 20121 that would have paid $11m per school. A couple of years later, the best they could get was about $2m per school.
LikeLike
That was 2011 when they turned it down.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I think they got swindled. In most businesses, payback on an investment is about 7–10 years, because beyond that any predictions are just about useless.”
The ACC and its members have too many lawyers to get swindled in a deal. They could have said no to ESPN’s offer, but they really wanted that ACCN money (and exposure). Like I said, I don’t think the GoR itself was all that bad. It was the TV deal that they extended another decade that was terrible. New deals often increase 50-100% over the old one, and they gave up multiple rounds of that process via the extension. The part of Raycom in that deal was almost criminal, too.
LikeLike
The ACC and its members have too many lawyers to get swindled in a deal. They could have said no to ESPN’s offer, but they really wanted that ACCN money (and exposure). Like I said, I don’t think the GoR itself was all that bad. It was the TV deal that they extended another decade that was terrible.
I am not sure how you distinguish the two, as the Grants of Rights and the TV deal were co-terminus. Schools and conferences have made financially ruinous decisions fairly often. I expect lawyers would recognize legal errors, but not necessarily economic ones.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I am not sure how you distinguish the two, as the Grants of Rights and the TV deal were co-terminus. Schools and conferences have made financially ruinous decisions fairly often. I expect lawyers would recognize legal errors, but not necessarily economic ones.”
Plenty of deals happen together but are separate. They TV deal required them to sign the GoR, but signing a GoR at all is a separate deal. The members committing their rights to the ACC for a long time isn’t an inherently bad thing. The B10 did the same thing in 2006, and that turned out well.
The 2013 ACC GoR (based on the 2012 deal with ESPN) lasted until 2027. In 2016 they extended the GoR through 2036 in order to get the ACCN, but the bad part was that also meant a 20-year TV deal. The B10 has been doing short (6 year) deals, so the ACC passed on 2-3 rounds of new deals.
I don’t consider making a potentially bad decision being swindled. To me swindled means they were somehow deceived by ESPN and didn’t get what they were promised. ESPN did exactly what they said they would do.
LikeLike
“Swindled” is, perhaps, a provocative word. I think ESPN knew up front that it was getting a steal. To the extent it claimed that the ACCN was not financially viable without a 20-year commitment, that was a lie. I don’t have the secret memo where they admit they knew this, but it just doesn’t make sense otherwise. Nobody in broadcasting makes programming decisions that take two decades to pay back.
Every GoR is co-terminus with a linked financial deal, because nobody signs a grant for nothing. It is not uncommon to have deals with multiple contracts, stipulating that none are valid unless all are signed. The ACC’s ESPN deal was a physically separate document, but it would have been void unless accompanied by the grant.
The Big Ten has a different structure unlike any other conference. But their agreement was not fundamentally about preventing schools from leaving. Even if it had that effect, that wasn’t why they did it.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I think ESPN knew up front that it was getting a steal.”
Probably, but the ACC could’ve negotiated a better deal if they thought that and had any leverage.
“To the extent it claimed that the ACCN was not financially viable without a 20-year commitment, that was a lie. I don’t have the secret memo where they admit they knew this, but it just doesn’t make sense otherwise. Nobody in broadcasting makes programming decisions that take two decades to pay back.”
ESPN was/is concerned about cord cutters. If they can’t get everyone in the footprint to pay for the ACCN, they can’t afford to run it and pay the ACC much for it. They didn’t have a plan for streaming at that point.
“Every GoR is co-terminus with a linked financial deal, because nobody signs a grant for nothing. It is not uncommon to have deals with multiple contracts, stipulating that none are valid unless all are signed. The ACC’s ESPN deal was a physically separate document, but it would have been void unless accompanied by the grant.”
Yes, but my point is that the GoR itself wasn’t a bad deal. If the ACC was getting paid $50M per year from their deal, nobody would be complaining about the GoR. It’s the 20 year deal paying $27M that is a problem, making certain schools want to leave and then disliking the GoR.
“The Big Ten has a different structure unlike any other conference. But their agreement was not fundamentally about preventing schools from leaving. Even if it had that effect, that wasn’t why they did it.”
From Fox’s POV it was at least in part about making sure OSU, UM, PSU and NE couldn’t leave, not that they were likely to go anywhere. And probably some of the smaller schools also wanted the security.
LikeLike
Brian: “Probably, but the ACC could’ve negotiated a better deal if they thought that and had any leverage.”
ACC Commish didn’t try to negotiate a better deal. He was “negotiating” with his son Chad Swofford, Director of New Media & Marketing at Raycom.
LikeLike
Colin,
That’s the part that baffles me. Why did all the presidents approve it rather than point out the crappy deal and nepotism? It’s why I say the GoR wasn’t the problem.
LikeLike
Brian, here’s some insight from an old article written back in the day when the ACC still though everything was hunky-dorey. Clearly it was John Swofford who wanted to keep Raycom involved.
https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2010/10/04/daily3.html
LikeLike
Why did all the presidents approve it rather than point out the crappy deal and nepotism? It’s why I say the GoR wasn’t the problem.
I think you are functionally correct about the GoR. The document is just an empty shell — the accompanying TV deal has the real juice. But because both were signed at the same time, and neither could exist without the other, people “blame” the GoR, because that’s simpler to understand. If the league had the TV deal without the GoR, schools could leave, and that would perhaps give the ACC leverage to renegotiate. The GoR is what gives ESPN all of the leverage.
Why did they sign? University presidents rely on their conference commissioners to get the details right. Sports are just a small sliver of what presidents think about, and most of them have no background in sports, other than maybe as fans (and sometimes not even that). Commissioners are full-time sports professionals. They should be a lot better at this.
Now, that’s not to say the presidents are a rubber stamp, but commissioners will always have the information advantage and can often steer things their way. I wonder where the two leagues would have been, if the Big Ten had had John Swofford and the ACC had had Jim Delany.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree the presidents are busy with other things and often lack knowledge, but they do employ athletic directors who only think about sports, plus a lot of lawyers. For a 15 years deal, you’d think someone would do some comparison shopping and see the problem.
And how did no lawyers spot a conflict of interest with Swofford negotiating with his son? It doesn’t take an expert to flag that as something to double check.
LikeLike
Brian: “And how did no lawyers spot a conflict of interest with Swofford negotiating with his son?”
It’s an obvious conflict of interest, but how many ACC presidents knew about it? Did the Big Ten presidents check out the credentials of the Fox underlings before they signed into the BTN? Realistically, Swofford sold this package the best deal that the ACC was gonna get and his son happened become a multimillionaire as a result.
LikeLike
I am also skeptical that the P12 benefits by going last. The Pac-12’s is not a plausible tentpole property — inventory that you build a season on. It’s more of a fill-in for networks that already have a tentpole deal with someone else. No network really needs the P12, except maybe ESPN for the 4th window, which has the P12’s least valuable content.
A streamer might have overpaid just to get its foot in the door with CFB, but we already know that Amazon is not writing a blank check, especially after their NFL ratings were well below what Fox had for the identical window.
LikeLike
https://pac-12.com/article/2023/01/20/pac-12-statement-january-20-2023
When it rains, it pours for the P12. Apparently a distributor overpaid the P12N for years, and 2 P12 execs knew about it and said nothing. The P12 just found out about this in October, and has now fired the 2 execs. The distributor wants their $50M back (so about $4M per school).
Maybe this explains the delay in the P12 media deal.
LikeLike
Sounds like criminal charges could be forthcoming.
LikeLike
They didn’t steal the money. They just didn’t return it.
LikeLike
When you knowingly keep that money and don’t tell anyone, at some point that may be criminal.
LikeLike
If people went to prison for cheating on the SAT, you’d have to think a prosecutor will be looking at this.
LikeLike
The issue seems to be why the two execs did not disclose the overpayment. If they got no personal benefit, but did it to help the perception of the PAC, that might be a tough crime to prove.
If the execs got bonuses or other benefits due to higher revenues to the PAC, that looks like a criminal act of some sort.
In any event they both have personal liability to the PAC for damages caused by their actions. What that might be I have no clue.
This mess belongs to Larry Scott, not the incompetent Kliavkoff.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-fs1-remote-broadcast-rankles
The P12 is angry with Fox for using remote broadcasts for some fairly good games. ESPN also does some remote broadcasts, and this looks to be the future. Fox is pinching pennies, and the new B10 deal won’t ease that. Sure, the big noon game will keep having in-person broadcasters (for a while, at least), but what about other games they cover? By 2030 will all games get remote coverage?
FOX Sports has a business to run. Amid cord cutting and regional sports networks teetering on bankruptcy, the network is under increasing pressure to reduce expenses.
FOX did not respond to multiple requests for comment on this piece. But one network insider told me that there’s an internal push to save money in a way that doesn’t “materially affect the broadcast.”
At the center of it: Brad Zager.
The executive who was once dubbed the “Doogie Howser” of sports production by The Los Angeles Daily News was promoted to president of operations for FOX Sports in late 2021. Zager has decades of experience in event production and FOX employees speak favorably about his leadership.
Zager pushed for a massive investment in remote-production technology, a dozen new production trucks, and new studios in Los Angeles designed specifically for remote broadcasting.
“We’ve gone all-in on the remote front,” said one FOX production staff member. “Truth is, we’ve streamlined it. We don’t have a lot of broadcasters on the payroll and they don’t want a lot of broadcasters on the payroll.
“The investment is all in the technology.”
Industry experts will tell you that remote sports broadcasts have been going on for far longer than the public knows in a variety of college and professional events. Also, that being off site reduces the toll of travel for employees with families. It also allows broadcasters to call two games in the same day (or even pull off what would be an impossible Friday-Saturday two-game combination) during the college football season.
Some of the FOX analysts and play-by-play broadcasters call the games from the new FOX studios in Los Angeles. A few others with special arrangements work from home studios. Goldsmith, who was on the broadcast call for the UCLA-ASU game, has a studio at his home in Seattle but occasionally flies to Los Angeles to call a game.
“It’s a misnomer that we’re the only network that does this,” said a FOX production team member.
A second network source echoed: “ESPN broadcasts often feature announcers in the booth with a backdrop behind them instead of the traditional look with their backs to the field.
“When it’s remote, no one can tell.”
…
It was a back-breaking shot. Jaquez scored only nine points in the game. But his big bucket and the ensuing call of it was underscored by a larger question. Not only for the Pac-12, which is currently negotiating a new media rights agreement. But for the sports-media industry itself.
How far off are we from all broadcasts being remote?
The Pac-12 Networks currently broadcasts all of its basketball and football games with in-person crews. The conference’s frustration with FS1’s remote broadcasts reared its head during last college football season and is now apparent in basketball season.
Before Thursday’s game, ASU trailed UCLA by one game in the Pac-12 men’s basketball standings. Sun Devils’ coach Bobby Hurley had his team on a four-game conference winning streak. The Bruins stopped it cold with a 74-62 victory.
…
Hurley did not conduct an in-person television interview with the FS1 crew after the game. Nor did Cronin, who met with reporters down the hallway, outside the Bruins’ locker room. Both head coaches visited with the FS1 broadcasters via Zoom video conference, however, before the game.
Tammaro, ASU’s associate AD, told me that FS1 requested 18 media credentials for Thursday’s event. He lamented that the network still had to hire staff to lay wire, operate cameras, and produce the event.
Why not send the broadcasters, too?
“I don’t know how much money they save,” Tammaro said. “But I think we’re getting too comfortable with it. We’re losing something when they’re not in the house, especially for a game like that.”
The Pac-12 complained to the highest levels of FOX about the remote broadcast. Arizona State wasn’t happy that FS1 didn’t care to show up. Tammaro stuck two giddy student-radio broadcasters — Dominic Stearn and Cavan Malayter — in the seats that Goldsmith and Jacobsen would have called the game from.
LikeLike
It sounds a bit like airline travel. It used to be that most flights over 2–2½ hours had a meal service. Airlines dropped many of the meals and instituted a bunch of extra fees in bad times, and never went back.
LikeLike
I don’t know why its that big a deal if the announcers are off site.
LikeLike
Most of the value the announcers add (to many folks, anyway), is that they see more of the play and the players and the environment than we do as viewers. They can gauge the crowd noise, the attitudes of the players on the bench/sideline, and see the entire play develop.
If they only see and hear what we see and hear, then they don’t add much. You could just show the game without them talking non-stop through it at that point. Maybe go back to the old days of just a play-by-play person and drop the “color commentator”. I could do without the Gus Johnsons of the world yelling all the time if they’re just watching the game on TV like me anyway.
LikeLike
Interseting tidbits . . .
SBJ College: Skipper, Swofford defend ESPN-ACC deal
By Michael Smith
August 2, 2022
With the $67.5 million settlement UCLA collected from Under Armour for attempting to break their apparel contract, the Bruins might have enough money now to buy their way back into the Pac-12.
ACC’s long-term media deal was the cost of doing business
Former ESPN President John Skipper and former ACC Commissioner John Swofford, in separate conversations, defended the media-rights deal they struck six years ago. The length of the agreement, which goes out to 2036, has been scrutinized in recent months as the ACC attempts to close the revenue deficit behind the SEC and Big Ten.
The Pac-12 and Big 12 are in similar financial straits trailing the Power Two conferences, but they both go back to the negotiating table over the next year or two. The ACC, meanwhile, is locked into its deal for 14 more years, creating a source of anxiety among many of its members who are concerned about falling further behind financially.
The point Skipper and Swofford make is that without such a long-term commitment, ACC Network would not exist. In their negotiations for a contract extension and a new cable channel, Skipper and Swofford went back and forth on the length of the deal. ESPN wanted a longer term, originally asking for 2039. Swofford was able to work that term down to 2036, which still made it a 20-year extension at the time.
That was the “exchange of value” required to get the deal done, Skipper said. Now that the network is fully distributed after just three years, Swofford feels the deal has “exceeded expectations.”
I cover that story and more in SBJ’s Champions profile of Swofford, which runs in the magazine next week.
ACC’s Jim Phillips has his own style in effort to maintain collegiate model
ESPN’s Paul Finebaum on “McElroy & Cubelic in the Morning” called ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips delusional and out of touch during his ACC Kickoff address. The consensus among Finebaum’s sources: “He’s not ready for prime time.”
I was in the room for Phillips’ address in Charlotte and, yes, he sounded different than his peer commissioners in the Power Five who have been firing haymakers across the airwaves. One media member called Phillips “old-fashioned” at ACC Kickoff because of his steadfast belief in the collegiate model and his reluctance to become “NFL Lite.”
“If we take a path in college athletics that it’s only going to be about football and basketball, then shame on us,” Phillips said.
Phillips didn’t take the commissioner’s job so that he could lead college sports toward a professionalized model. I can also tell you that Phillips is not going to change. He’s in that chair because of those beliefs. That’s what sold the ACC presidents on him. That’s what made him one of the most influential and successful ADs while at Northwestern.
Phillips said of the collegiate model: “This is no time to be waving the white flag.”
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/08/02.aspx
LikeLike
A reminder about likely B10 expansion candidates:
UO is not the same as UW, Stanford and Cal. Even FSU and Miami triple them up in NSF funding. It also shows a problem for KU (and MO) as candidates. On the bright side, GT looks really good.
LikeLike
The headline in the tweet is somewhat unfair. Going by these numbers, Cincy and UCF raise the Big XII’s academic profile significantly, and Houston is roughly at parity. Only BYU is a laggard. Taking the four together, I would say the Big XII improved itself academically, even with the demerit for BYU.
As of next year, the three cellar dwellers in NSF funding will all be in the Big XII: TCU, BYU, and Baylor.
Perhaps the school that surprises me the most is Alabama. I would not have guessed that they have less than half as much science research as Louisville.
LikeLike
marc – I hate to take up for the state of or university of Alabama on any topic, but I would think any real research in that state would be conducted at Alabama-Huntsville or Alabama-Birmingham. I believe Alabama-Tuscaloosa is mainly a liberal (HA!) arts and business school.
LikeLike
Marc,
I don’t think the intent was to mock the B12 newbies, but the B12 overall.
Nine of the B12’s 12 are below the entire B10, 9 of the P10. 10 of the ACC’s 15, and 12 of the SEC’s 16.
The B10 has 15 AAU members, the P10 has 7, the ACC has 5, the SEC has 5, and the B12 has 1.
As for AL, their state system puts the research-heavy majors on other campuses (Auburn, UAB, UAH). Wouldn’t want those football players to accidentally enroll in a difficult course.
LikeLike
Hard to imagine that Nebraska got kicked out of the AAU at $320 million while Oregon is still in at $112 million.
LikeLike
Pure research dollars doesn’t tell you much. TCU is probably the strongest undergrad school in the Big 12 despite being last in research. Wake Forest may well be the next school admitted to the AAU even though they are pretty low in research.
LikeLike
Well, it does tell you how much research they do. But it isn’t normalized by size, and the AAU does factor that in.
LikeLike
With Alabama 65th out of 69 in research $ there does not seem to be much correlation between that metric and football success. Oregon still being in the AAU shows how politics affects their membership choices since they knocked out Nebraska and ISU.
LikeLike
Little8,
UO is near the bottom of the existing AAU members on the metrics and is vulnerable for what happened to NE.
When NE got the boot, it was #109 on the AAU metrics. The next members were #105, 94, 87, 83, 81. Since then Syracuse dropped out (likely #105), NE got voted out, and ISU dropped out (#94?). Next in line are probably UO and KU in some order (at least 2 of the bottom 3 remaining). MO used to be low on the list but has improved in the past decade.
NE had been warned at least a decade before the vote that they needed to improve, so I wouldn’t call it politics. The AAU’s criteria have changed over the years, and having a large ag faculty hurts you now because competitive research funds count more than formula funds like ag research, but all faculty count the same when normalizing for size. NE also has a separate med school, so they couldn’t count that. The midwestern schools benefitted from land grants and growing to get into the AAU originally, but now the pendulum is swinging the other direction. There may also be some desire for geographical representation, and UW is the only other PNW school in the AAU.
LikeLike
Well they are abandoning the Great Plains-NU, ISU with KU and MU perhaps on the bubble.
LikeLike
bullet: “Well they are abandoning the Great Plains-NU, ISU with KU and MU perhaps on the bubble.”
The rules are made by small Eastern schools with medical schools who want to maintain their “elite” status.
Purdue is now building a huge hypersonic missile lab funded by the USAF and another $1.8 billion facility dedicated to computer chip production and largely funded by Congress’ CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. But they don’t have a medical school so they don’t score very high by AAU standards.
LikeLike
MO isn’t on the bubble anymore, and UIowa, Washington U (St. Louis) and CU are safely in as well. And there are 3 members in TX. There just aren’t that many people, and thus elite schools, in the plains. Or in the mountains, where UU is the only other member. Or in the southwest where UAz is the only one.
The coasts and midwest dominate the membership, just as they did the population decades ago. You’ll see more additions in the south and southwest over time as their populations (and thus schools) have grown and improved over time.
The AAU can’t just accept everyone, or it becomes pointless and unfocused. There are other groups, like the APLU (Assoc. of Public and Lang-Grant Universities), that serve a similar purpose and include all the public AAU members plus those you’re concerned about.
https://www.aplu.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Public_and_Land-grant_Universities
The association has more than 250 members including: all land-grant institutions; R1 and R2 public research universities; state university systems; and affiliated organizations. These institutions include 79 U.S. land-grant institutions, 19 of which are among the 23 historically black colleges and universities that are APLU members. There are also eight Canadian and five Mexican public research universities.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/01/pac-12-networks-financial-mess-the-partner-in-question-annual-revenue-numbers-scott-lays-low-and-more-on-the-timeline/
Jon Wilner says Comcast is the distributor who overpaid the P12N.
He also gave some details, including this:
An examination of Pac-12 Networks finances since the year after their launch (taken from the conference’s annual tax filings) shows the following annual revenue:
FY14: $106.8 million
FY15: $116.6 million
FY16: $128.2 million
FY17: $127.9 million
FY18: $127.4 million
FY19: $116.9 million
FY20: $112.8 million
FY21: $37.7 million
That’s a big COVID hit – $75M or $6.26M per school.
LikeLike
The Covid hit is notable as is the declines in 2019 and 2020.
Every network has taken hits in distribution, but many have compensated with much higher fees to close the gap. Yet Pac-12 probably performed worse on that front than other networks.
Either way, this Comcast debacle just adds further justification to the moves that we’ve seen from USC and UCLA. Astonishing how poorly managed the Pac-12 has been over the past decade.
Beyond just being unable to effectively monetize their TV rights through choices made around the Pac-12 Networks (both lack of partner and decision to make 7 networks), you have the extreme overhead costs (placing HQ in SF) and now this Comcast disaster.
Of course, the other 10 schools may not really have alternatives at the moment which is why they’re all sort of just stuck together until/unless something changes in 10 years…
LikeLike
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-football/bringing-some-clarity-to-pac-12s-financial-issues-with-comcast/
More from Wilner, and it makes it sound less nefarious:
The full story might never become public, but multiple sources offered the same assessment of the terminated executives, Willman and Shuken: There was no malice involved in their handling of the situation.
“They were not willfully hiding money,” one source said.
From the Hotline’s perspective, this is a clear case of mismanagement. By whom? That’s where it gets murky.
In the spring of 2017, the Pac-12 Networks asked an outside auditing firm — a firm described by the Pac-12 as an industry leader — to examine the payments Comcast was making to the Pac-12 Networks.
This is not an unusual step in the media distribution business. Companies regularly seek audits to make sure monthly or annual payments are accurate.
And Pac-12 Networks executives did not think Comcast’s payments were accurate, according to sources. They thought Comcast was underpaying.
They were surprised by the audit’s conclusion that Comcast was, in fact, paying too much.
“Nobody thought it was credible,” one source said.
“There was disbelief,’” the other source said.
How much was too much? About $5 million annually, according to sources.
…
At that point, the logical step would have been to cross-check the audit results with the Pac-12’s internal data and examine invoices sent to Comcast for the year in question (2016).
Except the Pac-12 had none of that, because Comcast didn’t share its subscriber data. The situation wasn’t unusual in the media distribution business.
“You have to take the distributor at their word,” one source said. “You don’t know what their (subscriber) data is. And if the payments seem light, you ask for an audit.”
“The situation wasn’t built on something the Pac-12 could check,” the second source said, “because the payments were being made based on Comcast’s internal data. They couldn’t correct it, because it was all on Comcast.”
The only way to gain visibility into the accuracy of payments is to request an audit. It’s standard practice in the media distribution game.
Sources believe Comcast was double-paying the Pac-12 for a portion of its subscriber base — likely for the customers who received both the Pac-12 Networks’ national feed and one of the regional feeds.
…
It’s logical to conclude that Shuken, who reported directly to Scott, would have told the commissioner — and perhaps Dixon, as well.
Or, as multiple sources wondered: What motivation did Shuken and Willman have to keep the issue from Scott?
Neither executive benefited personally from the overpayments. The amount ($5 million) likely wasn’t enough to boost Pac-12 Networks revenue into a threshold that would trigger performance bonuses for either of them.
Meanwhile, executives remained miffed at the results of the audit and convinced that Comcast was, in fact, underpaying the Pac-12, according to sources.
Because the Pac-12 commissioned the audit and Comcast was solely responsible for the payment amount based on its proprietary subscriber data, a source said, the Pac-12 was not obligated to act on the results.
“They thought, ‘That can’t be right,’” a source said. “The results were so different from what they expected that they didn’t close the audit. So Comcast was never informed.”
And the overpayments continued — by about $5 million annually, according to one of the sources.
That amount makes sense in this respect: There have been 10 fiscal years since the launch of the Pac-12 Networks.
If Comcast, a founding partner, overpaid the Pac-12 by about $5 million annually for 10 years, that’s $50 million — the amount cited in the claim filed by Comcast in October.
…
Sources believe the company will simply withhold payments totaling $50 million (approximately) over the remaining two years of the carriage contract — about $2 million per school per year.
LikeLike
Canzano: Latest fiasco clouds Pac-12’s path
I’d sure like to talk with Larry Scott… one last time.
JOHN CANZANO JAN 25
I’d rather be writing about basketball, football, and the potential expansion of the Pac-12 Conference today. But our old friend, Larry Scott, just won’t let me.
I’d sure like to talk with the former Pac-12 commissioner.
One last time.
Just a couple of questions.
Turns out the conference’s network may be on the hook for $50 million in overpayments by a television partner. On Tuesday, Jon Wilner of The San Jose Mercury News identified Comcast as the entity making the claim and provided some important framework for the fiasco. But there’s still something not quite right here.
I spoke to a number of current and past employees of the Pac-12 this week.
My thoughts:
• Chief Financial Officer Brent Willman and Pac-12 Networks president Mark Shuken were terminated by the conference last Friday. The prevailing thought among my sources is that they are scapegoats.
Willman and Shuken had no reason to keep the news of an overpayment to themselves. Neither would benefit directly from doing so. Everyone I spoke with believed it was more probable that they informed Scott and the Pac-12’s general counsel, Woodie Dixon.
Said one former high-ranking Pac-12 employee: “Brent and Mark were sacrificial lambs.”
• Scott is long gone. His contract expired last summer, but Scott was informed by the Pac-12 CEO Group that he wouldn’t be retained in January of 2021. He’s kept his head down since leaving. Scott was, however, interviewed by the law firm that conducted the conference’s investigation into the looming $50 million question.
• The Pac-12 conducted an audit that was finalized in December 2017. It revealed that the conference may have received an overpayment to the tune of $5 million a year. There was some internal confusion about that.
A former employee with knowledge of the inner-workings told me: “Pac-12 is the one who chose to do the audit. They thought we weren’t getting paid enough so they did an audit. To find out they were getting overpaid, it was probably curious. That should have been met with ‘We need to look into this’ from Larry Scott. For whatever reason nobody looked into it.”
• Also, nobody bothered to tell the presidents and chancellors who make up the Pac-12 CEO Group. They were left in the dark.
• Maybe delivering that news didn’t feel like a high priority. If you’re giving Scott the benefit of the doubt, you’d start the argument there. The last thing the Pac-12 wanted to deal with at that time was having to give back millions in revenue. It’s possible Scott didn’t trust the audit and, therefore, decided he had no duty to share the results with his bosses until he knew for certain. But it certainly should have been revisited.
• It’s also possible he hoped the whole thing would just go away. Comcast wasn’t asking questions at the time. That would happen later. Additionally, in early 2018 Scott was amid growing pressure to increase revenue and enhance the distributions to Pac-12 members. He also wanted another contract extension. There was a lot going on.
• In 2018, Scott hatched an idea to sell a stake in the Pac-12’s media rights to private-equity investors. He tried to find investors, but a deal never came to fruition. During the early college football bowl season, I broke the news that the Pac-12 was seeking $500 million in exchange for a 10 percent investment in its media rights.
• After I learned about the Pac-12’s proposed private-equity Hail Mary, I reached out to Mark Cuban — one of the stars of the television show “Shark Tank.” Cuban told me he was “intrigued” by the thought of owning a slice of the media rights of a college conference.
“What they would value at, I don’t know,” Cuban said. “But Disney selling all the Fox Sports regionals will help determine the value.”
• I wonder how much pressure the conference was under in 2018 and early 2019 to make the Pac-12 Networks look like a thriving, viable, drama-free, profitable entity.
• Current Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff inherited this mess. I can’t think he’s happy with dealing with the firing of employees and lousy optics while trying to negotiate the Pac-12’s new media rights deal. It’s been a hell of ride for Kliavkoff so far, hasn’t it?
• If the Pac-12 Networks is going to be sold during this negotiation cycle, this mini-drama isn’t helpful. It may cause Amazon or whoever is bidding to audit the Pac-12 Networks and make a downward adjustment on its valuation.
• The Pac-12’s media rights negotiations are moving slowly. Industry insiders are leaning into the idea that this accounting fiasco is causing a delay. The whole thing clouds the path of a conference that needs clarity and focus right now.
• Kliavkoff needed a show of strength to his bosses. Also, he had to send a message, internally, about the importance of ethics and protocols. Kliavkoff fired Shuken and Willman for their roles last week. But the bigger questions are for Scott and Dixon.
• It doesn’t seem smart that Scott and Dixon wouldn’t think about the audit someday coming back to be a problem for them both. Did they tell investigators: “I don’t recall”? Or did they just throw Willman and Shuken under the bus? Something else? I don’t know… yet. Given the fallout, whatever they told investigators apparently didn’t help Shuken and Willman.
• Cooley is the Palo Alto-based law firm hired by the Pac-12 last fall to investigate the situation. We’re told the firm interviewed Scott, among others. Cooley has provided counsel to the Pac-12’s governing board for years.
• Michael Sheetz is a partner at Cooley. Said one former high-ranking Pac-12 employee: “Mike Sheetz and Larry are buddies.”
That makes sense to me. Sheetz and Scott worked together in their respective roles over the years. Scott has a law degree from Harvard. The commissioner was often awkward and uncomfortable fraternizing with staffers at headquarters. It wouldn’t be unusual for him to gravitate toward other lawyers.
I spent a few days last week in Tempe, Ariz., and posted a column on the FS1 broadcasters who didn’t show up in person to call the ASU-UCLA basketball game. I have a pile of fun columns and some interesting and deep dives that I want to take in print. But I can’t quite get there.
Larry Scott won’t let me.
I’d sure like to talk with the old commissioner… one last time.
LikeLike
Apparently the GoR is what’s holding up the P12 TV deal. ESPN won’t pay them enough to keep everyone happy, and being on Amazon scares some of the schools so they don’t want to sign a GoR for it in case it doesn’t work out.
LikeLike
We often think of a GoR as the what prevents an institution from leaving. But Oregon is probably not leaving during the term of this deal, no matter how the deal turns out. By refusing to sign, all they are really saying is that they don’t think this is the best deal the Pac-12 can get.
LikeLike
There is some reasonable concern some P12 schools might leave for the B12 if the deal is too bad, so the GoR serves that function still. UO knows they aren’t joining the B10 anytime soon, though, so what’s wrong with a short GoR from their perspective? The networks will pay a few million more per team to get the GoR, so by holding out UO is guaranteeing it’s not the best deal they can get.
They don’t have to literally sign the GoR until the deal is finalized, they just have to indicate their willingness to do so.
LikeLike
The networks will pay a few million more per team to get the GoR, so by holding out UO is guaranteeing it’s not the best deal they can get.
UO knows that any deal they’ve seen assumes a GOR is signed. By saying “we won’t sign,” it basically means they are telling Kliavkoff he needs to do better. Whether that’s actually possible I have no idea.
LikeLike
Fox is holding out for more compensation to let UT and OU join the SEC early.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2023/01/23/big-12-schedule-oklahoma-texas-sec.aspx
A Big 12 source has noted the “holdup on the release of the 2023 schedule has nothing to do with the schedule itself,” but instead has to do with continued Oklahoma and Texas “negotiations over leaving the conference early.” The television networks are involved, and it “seems natural to assume ESPN wants” OU and UT moved into the SEC as early as possible, while Fox wants the schools to stay in the Big 12 as long as possible. The Big 12 source said that “most of the haggling is centered around leaving in summer 2024,” but there is a “smidgen of a chance the move could be immediate” — by this summer. Meanwhile, the SEC “released its 2023 schedule months ago,” and a redo would be “quite inconvenient for 14 universities minding their own business” (OKLAHOMAN, 1/22).
LikeLike
Fox should extract a king’s ransom for granting the release of Texas/OU to leave a year early…
More a question of whether ESPN wants to pay that when they get those 2 in the clear a year later.
I still lean to the side that a deal doesn’t get done because of lack of incentives. FOX already is getting USC/UCLA to the Big Ten in 2024, why allow a competitor to beef up their offering at that same time?
LikeLike
I cannot think of a single reason for Fox to settle for a penny less than what those two are worth. This would mean ESPN pays about twice what they are worth (for one year), and it’s hard to see how that makes sense for them.
LikeLike
B = intrinsic value of Longhorns/Sooners in 2023/4 Big 12 to conference and Fox.
S = intrinsic value of Longhorns/Sooners in 2023/4 SEC to conference and ESPN.
F = intangible value to Big 12/Fox of keeping both in 14 school Big 12 2023/4.
E = intangible value to SEC/ESPN of early move.
(S + E) – (B + F) = Value of early move.
What’s a fair percentage of V for Fox to demand?
LikeLike
Fair? At least 120%. The move hurts them and helps their competition long term, so they should want to maximize their return on allowing it to happen early.
LikeLike
I fully agree. Fox has zero incentive to give up anything and help ESPN.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie said “I fully agree. Fox has zero incentive to give up anything and help ESPN.”
If OU and UTx agree to a few home and home series with B12 schools over the next B12 contract, FOX would have an incentive to allow an early exit for the Sooners and the Longhorns.
Let’s say that Oklahoma agrees to play OK State for the 25-28 seasons, FOX gets two Bedlams for the price of one. Same with Texas and any of Texas Tech, TCU or Baylor.
Remember, only two Longhorn conference games broke 4m viewers last season, TCU (5.03m) and OK State (4.46m). No Oklahoma conference games broke 4m viewers.
LikeLike
Alan,
“If OU and UTx agree to a few home and home series with B12 schools over the next B12 contract, FOX would have an incentive to allow an early exit for the Sooners and the Longhorns.”
Would they? What’s the net present value of a game played 5 years from now? Are 2 games per year for 5 years the same value as 10 games in 1 year?
2022:
UT – 1 Fox, 3 FS1
OU – 3 Fox, 3 FS1
UT vs OU was on ABC, so there’s no double-counting.
I don’t think they equate. And what is Fox’s protection from them dropping out of those OOC games, or from them scheduling crappy games? It would have to be a giant financial penalty, because otherwise the schools would just buy out of the deal. And that puts us right back at Fox asking them for money.
On top of that. ESPN and other TV partners would have to allow the games to slide to Fox. If UT and OU are playing B10 teams, CBS and NBC might have an issue with that. ESPN could agree to let games against ACC, P12 or SEC teams go to Fox, but I don’t think they want to give up SEC games. Well, UT/OU vs most of the ACC and P12 aren’t super valuable games for Fox.
So how many games would they promise, against which teams, and how do you guarantee Fox the schools won’t back out and the other networks won’t take the games?
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2023/01/26/longtime-college-basketball-analyst-billy-packer-dies-82/11131373002/
RIP Billy Packer. Modern announcers tend to be much less blunt about poor play and mistakes by coaches or players. Everyone was convinced Packer hated their team.
LikeLike
https://www.nexttv.com/news/its-on-bally-sports-rsns-headed-for-bankruptcy
Bally Sports is bankrupt, as the RSN market is dying.
Culminating perhaps the biggest financial disaster in sports media history, Diamond Sports Group, the heavily indebted subsidiary that manages Sinclair Broadcast Group’s 19 Bally Sports-branded regional sports networks, is headed for bankruptcy.
Bloomberg was first to report Wednesday that Diamond will probably skip a mid-February $140 million interest-only payment servicing around $8.6 billion in debt as it prepares for a Chapter 11 restructuring that will roil the $55 billion U.S. sports media business.
…
During its third-quarter earnings report in November, Sinclair said that it hired advisers LionTree and Moelis & Co. to “talk to parties about deleveraging, strategic partnerships and things of that nature.”
At that time, the consensus belief was that either one or all of Diamond’s pro league partners from the NBA, NHL or Major League Baseball would either have to step in and assume an ownership stake, or the RSN operator would have to restructure in early 2023.
The latter appears to be happening.
According to Bloomberg, under a restructuring plan described by unnamed inside sources, debt would be turned into equity, and Diamond’s largest creditors — Prudential Financial, Fidelity, Hein Park Capital Management and Mudrick Capital Management — would become owners of the Bally Sports RSNs.
Diamond’s $630-million first-lien loan is trading at 92 cents on the dollar, Bloomberg reports, while nearly $5 billion in “lower-ranked bonds” will trade at under 10 cents on the dollar.
This signals “a near-total wipeout for subordinated creditors,” the news service said.
Meanwhile, pro teams relying on TV rights revenue from their deals with the 19 Bally Sports RSNs will face severe belt-tightening, since rights deals with them can be terminated amid the restructuring.
…
This mess all started back in 2019, when Sinclair paid around $10 billion to acquire the Fox Sports RSNs amid Disney’s purchase of select Fox entertainment assets. At that time, the channels were spinning off around $1.9 billion of EBITDA.
Since then, cord-cutting and other erosive forces within the technical-media-telecom business have rendered the associated debt nearly impossible to service.
LikeLike
I’ve thought this for years, and now it’s finally played out, but Disney dodged a huge bullet when they were forced to divest the Fox Sports RSNs by government regulators.
That would have been an absolute albatross on the whole company (and especially ESPN) the way they’re bleeding.
The fact that they got $10 billion for it is mindboggling in retrospect given how fast the business was declining. I get that it was paying off $1.9 billion in EBITDA, but the decline in the business was so obvious even at that time.
The calls for Disney to divest ESPN+Fox Sports RSNs would be coming from every corner if they still had the RSNs…, so they’re very fortunate that they were forced to sell them off.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
TV changes
Last year, 25 Big Ten games generated at least 3.5 million viewers, second to the SEC’s 32. It was down from 32 Big Ten games hitting that number in 2021.
Only two telecasts hitting that mark did not include Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State: the Week 0 matchup between Northwestern and Nebraska in Ireland and a nonconference game between Wisconsin and Washington State. The West Division woes were a factor, as was BTN selecting the Black Friday game between Iowa-Nebraska.
This year, the Big Ten vacates ESPN and picks up major platforms in CBS (seven games, usually at midday) and NBC (15 games, usually at night) while keeping its relationship with Fox. It’s likely more games reach that 3.5 million number, but there are weeks when the Big Ten might not have a spotlight game for one of those three networks.
In Week 2, for instance, the network selections include Indiana State at Indiana, Charlotte at Maryland, UNLV at Michigan, Richmond at Michigan State, Eastern Michigan at Minnesota, UTEP at Northwestern, Youngstown State at Ohio State, Delaware at Penn State and Temple at Rutgers. All of the Power 5 matchups (Iowa-Iowa State, Nebraska-Colorado, Wisconsin-Washington State, Illinois-Kansas, Purdue-Virginia Tech) are on the road. Get ready for some potshots that week.
LikeLike
The West Division woes were a factor, as was BTN selecting the Black Friday game between Iowa-Nebraska.
This one is a head-scratcher. As I understand, each team is guaranteed to appear on BTN twice, including at least one conference game. Both Iowa and Nebraska had met that requirement before Black Friday, so I am not sure why one of the other partners didn’t have first dibs. Maybe it simply wasn’t that desirable, due to the kind of season those two teams had.
It’s likely more games [this year] reach that 3.5 million number, but there are weeks when the Big Ten might not have a spotlight game for one of those three networks.
Hmm….I am not sure how likely that is. Some of it is just luck — teams that are unexpectedly good or bad, have a Heisman candidate, etc. So, ratings could improve (or get worse) for reasons having nothing to do with the TV package.
But the Big Ten won’t have the promotional tie-in with ESPN’s weekly preview shows anymore. And games will be spread out on more platforms, possibly making them harder to find. I don’t think it’s bleedingly obvious that the new format necessarily makes the ratings go up.
If the decision to abandon Disney/ESPN does not work out, it could be one of the dumbest unforced errors by a conference since Larry Scott launched the Pac-12 Networks without a broadcast partner.
LikeLike
This one is a head-scratcher. As I understand, each team is guaranteed to appear on BTN twice, including at least one conference game. Both Iowa and Nebraska had met that requirement before Black Friday, so I am not sure why one of the other partners didn’t have first dibs. Maybe it simply wasn’t that desirable, due to the kind of season those two teams had.
Because the BTN is a corporation that is trying to get good ratings, not just accepting whatever falls to them. I’ve seen other articles about them angling to land the Black Friday game, this one is from 2019.
https://theathletic.com/1003543/2019/05/30/iowa-nebraska-black-friday-rivalry-big-ten-network-broadcast-2019/
The Iowa-Nebraska rivalry is enticing, and the Big Ten Network wants to be a part of it
FOX and its family of networks own first-tier rights covering Big Ten football, which gives it the first choice every Saturday. For the second year in the Big Ten’s selection process, Black Friday is considered its own viewing weekend. FOX owns 51 percent of BTN with the league owning the other 49 percent. That places BTN in the FOX orbit when choosing games.
Once or twice a year, BTN moves up the priority list where it drafts second on a specific weekend. Last year, BTN put in for Nebraska-Wisconsin and aired the game in primetime. In 2016, the network sought and acquired the Wisconsin-Michigan State game, and both teams were ranked in the top 15.
Solid ratings, two passionate fan bases, a budding rivalry and game with divisional title implications attracted BTN to Iowa-Nebraska. Nonconference games featuring Purdue against TCU and Vanderbilt also were on the network’s wish list.
“You never know how it’s going to shake out because different people have different priorities,” said BTN spokesman Pat Kenny. “But those were the two or three games that we thought, ‘Go in early, make those a priority and if you get them, great. If not, you can’t control it.’ Those were the ones we were going for.
“We’re obviously thrilled to have it.”
The game marks BTN’s first telecast on Black Friday and could provide the network with rare exposure out of its regional footprint.
“It’s something new and different, and that’s an opportunity,” Kenny said. “It falls over a holiday weekend. Overall, it made a lot of sense for us. It’s a very, very appealing game.”
LikeLike
No, I’m pretty sure it’s the opposite (for the Iowa-Nebraska game).
That game is very desirable as far as West division matchups go (maybe there’s 2 or 3 others that are comparable like those 2 teams against Wisconsin, or Wisconsin-Minnesota which also draws good ratings if it’s in a good window and either team is good).
BTN took that game in 2021 and drew a record 1.94 million viewers, so they probably pushed hard for that game in 2022 knowing the 2021 record-breaking result.
I believe (not 100% sure) that BTN does get 1 “premium” pick per year and has now used that on Iowa-Nebraska for 2 straight years.
The primary reason BTN uses its “premium” pick on that game is because of the lack of competition on that day; knowing that they’re only going up against 1 game on CBS means that they have a chance to guarantee a solid viewership number with the only Big Ten matchup and only alternative matchup to the CBS’ SEC matchup. Using their pick there is pretty wise given those factors and the viewership that game can generate even on just the conference network.
Obviously, things will change as we get to the new TV deal given that Iowa-Nebraska may itself end up being the CBS game…
LikeLike
Thanks. I didn’t realize that they have an allotment of premium picks beyond their two guarantees per team. That makes sense now.
FOX and its family of networks own first-tier rights covering Big Ten football, which gives it the first choice every Saturday.
I am pretty sure this was not how it worked. Rather, Fox and Disney/ESPN had alternating draft picks, with Fox choosing first — which in practice they always used for Michigan–OSU. Half the time, the first choice went to Disney.
For instance, if Fox had had the first choice every single Saturday, they obviously would have wanted OSU–Notre Dame last year, but that game was on ABC.
LikeLike
The draft is far more complicated than saying FOX picks first every weekend.
Some weekends ESPN does get better games, so that leads to the obvious conclusion that they’re getting the chance to pick weekends where they get the first pick of games.
I believe the draft is set up with networks first picking weekends then games.
FOX picks first and always takes Ohio State-Michigan weekend first pick with that game as the target.
ABC/ESPN then chooses a weekend (typically the Ohio State-Penn State weekend where they’ll get that game but obviously this past year they went for Ohio State-ND weekend as their top pick).
Then other weeks get picked like Michigan-Michigan State weekend, etc.
Somewhere in there BTN gets a premium pick and it’s probably very late in the process, so they target Iowa-Nebraska’s Black Friday game depending on how that day is counted.
LikeLike
I believe the draft is set up with networks first picking weekends then games.
Just a note that this is describing the deal that just ended. There’s a new process for 2023 that now involves three network partners instead of two, plus a streaming partner (Peacock). It will be interesting to see how that all works out.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-dogfight-forming-in-the-basketball
Remote announcers have been put on hold by Fox – apparently they didn’t like the PR when people found out.
The Pac-12 Conference got some relief this week. Its frustration with FOX’s remote broadcasts has been met with a change.
FS1 is shifting its stance.
For the remainder of the Pac-12 basketball season, the network will feature on-site broadcast crews. I wrote in depth about the FS1 broadcast issue last week. Also, Jamie Zaninovich, the Pac-12’s deputy commissioner, has been in ongoing conversations with FOX executives.
“They get it,” he said on Friday. “The rest of the games will have on-site broadcasters.”
LikeLike
https://www.nfl.com/news/broncos-had-second-meeting-with-jim-harbaugh-about-head-coaching-job
Despite saying he was staying at MI a few weeks ago, Harbaugh met with the Broncos’ owner just this past week.
LikeLike
https://csnbbs.com/thread-964202-post-18750179.html#pid18750179
CFB reporter Matt Brown posted the following online when discussing UW and UO signing (or not) a GoR for the next P12 TV deal:
A few notes here that might be helpful…
1) Big Ten leaders got TV numbers from two leading media consulting firms on Oregon and Washington back in 2022. Individuals who saw those numbers told me that adding both schools *would* net each Big Ten school a revenue increase, but a relatively modest one. The current Big Ten presidents crop decided that TV money from UO/UW was not worth the political, administrative and logistical costs.
Now, over the next six years, how likely is it that the TV math changes dramatically? I don’t think that’s especially likely. Is it possible that the political calculus could change, especially as the Big Ten hires a new commissioner, almost entirely new senior staff, and turns over a third of their university presidents? That’s entirely possible…and something for all parties to think about as they do their negotiations.
An increase above what they’ll make in the new deal after adding USC and UCLA (questionable to me), an increase over the old deal (reasonable), or an increase over projections (maybe)? We don’t know exactly when these numbers were garnered. If Brown means an increase over the final numbers with the LA schools, then it differs significantly from what Bob Thompson suggested.
If it is true, but just a small increase like $2-3M per year per school, would it be worth it? Travel would use up most of that for all but USC and UCLA. Schools would play each other less often, and it is a lot more western travel for the 14 current members so bad for athletes.
I think this just reinforces how little desire the presidents have to expand beyond 16 without a game-changer like ND to justify it. They never wanted a western wing, and neither did the LA schools.
LikeLike
Brian: “I think this just reinforces how little desire the presidents have to expand beyond 16 without a game-changer like ND to justify it. They never wanted a western wing, and neither did the LA schools.”
I agree. Also, do they want an eastern wing or a southern wing? I see no reason for the Big Ten presidents to add FSU/Miami/Clemson. Little or no financial advantage and the B1G gets slammed as a “conference killer”.
I’ll say it again: The Big Ten and the SEC will not expand again in our lifetimes.
LikeLike
Colin,
The B10 clearly at least used to want a mid-atlantic and/or southern wing, because they wanted UVA to partner with UMD. They likely still want UVA and UNC, but maybe not as much as they did before. They might consider more southern ACC schools as well (GT, FSU, Miami), and maybe Duke.
Reasons to invite schools from FL:
* Future out-of-state students for schools in slowly growing and rapidly aging states (keep enrollment up, and pay OOS tuition)
* BTN households – FL is huge
* Adds FL to the OTA footprint, including several large markets (Miami, Tampa, Orlando)
* Access to tens of thousands of B10 alumni (helps with donations)
* Athletic recruiting
Similar reasons apply to UVA and UNC (and GT).
The financial bump will not be huge, but the bigger you are the smaller any bump can be since it’s split over more schools. If 2 schools are added pro rata + $100M overall, that’s only a $5.6M bump per current school. But it might also mean more CFP and hoops tournament money, plus more negotiating power with networks.
The ACC FL schools may only be breakeven additions, and that means a loss when you consider travel. But there are other reasons to want them.
I’m by no means advocating adding them, but one can certainly explain the reasons why it would be considered.
“Our lifetimes” is an unknown period. That could be tomorrow, or 100 years from now, or anywhere in between. B10 membership changed in 1899, 1907, 1912, 1917, 1946, 1950, 1990, 2011, 2014, and 2024. It seems likely there will be some sort of change in the future as well. It could be more expansion, or contraction, or sports breaking away from the schools and forming something new, or something else. There are decent chances something changes in the 2030s and nobody can accurately predict the 2040s and beyond.
LikeLike
This is good analysis and why I think there’s critical differences between the positions of the Big Ten and SEC.
The SEC doesn’t really have as much of a reason to expand as the Big Ten might, but then Big Ten expansion may lead to SEC expansion as a defensive move.
Population center of the US is shifting towards the south and the SEC’s brand has full coverage over that region.
The Big Ten still may have interest in reaching into the South in some fashion given the heft that region has, and maybe the Pacific Northwest as well.
We’re close to the endgame, but there’s still pieces to move around. I think the next round in the mid-2030s will get us to “final” configurations.
LikeLike
If Brown means an increase over the final numbers with the LA schools, then it differs significantly from what Bob Thompson suggested.
Thompson is certainly competent, but he is practically the only one with such expertise who is regularly quoted on the record. He must be off sometimes, since nobody gets every call right. But another good reason NOT to expand for a “modest increase” is that the person who came up with it could very well be wrong.
Little or no financial advantage and the B1G gets slammed as a “conference killer”.
No conference has ever turned down an addition it would otherwise make because it would kill a competitor. But no conference expands for “little or no financial advantage,” so if you are right about that, no other reason is needed. However, you are very likely wrong about that.
We’re close to the endgame, but there’s still pieces to move around. I think the next round in the mid-2030s will get us to “final” configurations.
A few months ago, I tried to find a 10-year period within the past century when there were no changes to the memberships of the major conferences — and I couldn’t find one. Maybe it happened once, but even a decade of stability is very rare. So I would confidently predict that the endgame is nonexistent. There will always be changes.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but I mean in terms of the current configuration of Big Ten/SEC; I think further changes to those 2 beyond the 2030s would require a major paradigm shift from the way expansion has occurred in the past.
The past ways that those 2 conferences expanded will be done once we hit the 2030s beyond just ND’s availability (if still outside those 2), I doubt there’s anybody else that could justify further expansion of those 2 based on the way finances currently work, and few teams would have the TV draw/fanbase to justify it.
Other than a major brand split-off or something else, it’s hard to see why those 2 would change beyond that.
I think there’s just a point at which expansion becomes extremely difficult to justify, and we’re near that point with Texas/OU and USC/UCLA off the table.
Can see it in professional sports that 30-32 teams seems to be the maximum for the top leagues after which they’ve reached national coverage and just shift around teams.
The NFL for example hit 32 teams in 2002 and hasn’t changed since despite growing in every decade except the 80s before that.
LikeLike
Other than a major brand split-off or something else, it’s hard to see why those 2 would change beyond that.
The thing is, when you get past a 10-year horizon, it becomes exceedingly difficult to imagine what the landscape will be. How many people 20 years ago were saying that UCLA and USC would abandon the Pac-12?
While all of your points are logical in themselves, the fact that it’s “hard to see” is precisely the reason why we should be skeptical of our ability to predict the chess moves so far into the future.
The NFL for example hit 32 teams in 2002 and hasn’t changed since despite growing in every decade except the 80s before that.
NFL expansion might not be the right analogy. When the NFL expands, it doesn’t poach an existing team from another league — it creates a new team that never existed before.
LikeLike
There are differences, but in terms of TV market structure/brand value, it’s not all that different.
Regardless of paradigm, which teams outside of Big TEN/SEC and ND/FSU and maybe Miami/Washington/Oregon (and a tiny number of others) would justify being added to the Big Ten or SEC in terms of bringing $100+ million in TV value to a 2030s TV deal when combined with new markets/demographics etc.
At a certain point, you’re just done expanding under the previous paradigm.
Maybe the US professional leagues try to add teams in Europe, that would break their previous paradigm and might justify moving past 32.
But for the Big Ten/SEC, you’re really just stuck once you get to 18-20 with the right teams. Everything else looks dilutive under the past paradigm.
Now I agree that paradigms can shift, and that can indeed happen, but I don’t think it’ll happen in any kind of short term. It’d be something that happens way down the road and so you could get a period of relative peace at the Power 2 level (outside of ND which may choose to hold out past 2030s).
LikeLike
Marc: “Maybe it happened once, but even a decade of stability is very rare. So I would confidently predict that the endgame is nonexistent.”
There are considerations other than what has transpired in the past.
– 16 is a nice round number for a conference, ditto 3-6-6 scheduling.
– There are no other gets like USC/UCLA/UT/OU out there other than ND, and they are staying “independent”.
– The Big Ten presidents truly do not want to be known as conference killers, and I imagine the SEC presidents feel the same way. Collectively these two conferences have poached from the Big XII, Big East, the Big XII, the ACC, the Big XII, the Pac-12 and the Big XII. And don’t forget the Big XII.
– Further expansion will result in only marginal increases in revenue, perhaps none.
– I doubt that South Carolina, Georgia and Florida want Clemson, FSU or Miami in the SEC. And does the Big Ten want more extreme outliers?
– Global warming is real and the Swift Boat Kerry agenda will do nothing to stop it. The population migration to the south will stop and reverse direction. Agronomists at Purdue are predicting “double cropping” in Indiana by 2050. Seed companies is the western provinces of Carada are planning a switch from wheat to corn in as little as five years. There will be a 40% increase in arable land in Canada and Siberia by 2050. For the first time, crop farming will begin in Alaska by 2050.
The continuing influx of illegal immigrants will make many southern cities and universities indesirable. It’s already happening at the University of Texas.
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/there-are-used-needles-used-condoms-west-campus-homeless-encampment-draws-concerns/
LikeLike
16 is a nice round number for a conference, ditto 3-6-6 scheduling
I remember when many folks posting on this board said that “16-member conferences don’t work,” and it wasn’t all that long ago. We should all be very hesitant to believe we can predict what people will be thinking 10–20 years from now. The track record suggests we would very likely be wrong.
The Big Ten presidents truly do not want to be known as conference killers, and I imagine the SEC presidents feel the same way.
I don’t recall when or where the current presidents said this — it appears to be an unvalidated assumption. But anyhow, by the next time there’s a decision to make, a completely different set of presidents with their own ideas will probably be in charge.
Certainly the ACC didn’t mind killing off the Big East, and a bunch of university presidents didn’t mind killing off the SWC. So, precedent says that like-minded people will do that if the right deal comes their way.
(But if the finances don’t make sense, that fact alone would kill the deal, not any altruistic desire to keep a competitor alive.)
LikeLike
Colin,
“– Global warming is real and the Swift Boat Kerry agenda will do nothing to stop it. The population migration to the south will stop and reverse direction. Agronomists at Purdue are predicting “double cropping” in Indiana by 2050. Seed companies is the western provinces of Carada are planning a switch from wheat to corn in as little as five years. There will be a 40% increase in arable land in Canada and Siberia by 2050. For the first time, crop farming will begin in Alaska by 2050.”
I certainly agree global warming is real, but I don’t know that your conclusions follow from that. People don’t like winter weather, and global warming has raised the average temperature but has also increased the number of brutally cold snaps in the north. As long as air conditioning exists, people will move to warmer locations. Also, southern states have attracted more manufacturing jobs due to non-union workers. This trend may be slowly changing, but in general southern labor is cheaper. People will move to where the jobs are.
Of course, at some point those trends reach their end. Jobs will reach an equilibrium and reduce the net flow of people. And once the baby boomers finish moving south and west in retirement, the numbers may change as well.
We keep thinking the lack of water will start to slow western development, but it hasn’t happened yet. The south doesn’t lack water, though Atlanta has struggled to maintain sufficient access. Maybe as farming moves north, we can stop watering the desert and plains to grow crops where the rain and aquifers can’t support it.
LikeLike
Brian: “As long as air conditioning exists, people will move to warmer locations.”
That has been true in the past but in the future, there will be a northward migration to a Midwest where winters no longer exist.
https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
The other half of the story is that the South is depleting its aquifers at an unsustainable rate.
LikeLike
A lot of hyperbolic alarmism in that paper. Hopefully I live long enough to enjoy no winter in the upper Midwest.
>
LikeLike
Kevin: “A lot of hyperbolic alarmism in that paper. Hopefully I live long enough to enjoy no winter in the upper Midwest.”
There is no question that the Midwest is getting warmer and the Corn Belt has been moving north for decades. If you Google “Corn Belt moving north” you can find many articles about it. By 2046, Wisconsin may replace Iowa and Illinois as the heart of the Corn Belt. There is even talk of the Canadian Corn Belt, in which most of North American corn production shifts into Canada by 2100.
https://www.farmprogress.com/corn/heart-of-corn-belt-moving-north
https://phys.org/news/2022-05-climate-corn-belt-hard.html#:~:text=The%20results%20suggest%20that%20even,cultivation%20of%20corn%20by%202100.
LikeLike
Here are some other maps that plot the earth’s “suitability for habitation” in the future. The third of the three maps below uses colors to indicate the change in suitability with red being negative and green being positive. The entire SEC is red. Excluding southern California, the entire Big Ten footprint is green.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1910114117
LikeLike
Colin,
“That has been true in the past but in the future, there will be a northward migration to a Midwest where winters no longer exist.”
They haven’t gone away yet, and the freak cold snaps have gotten worse.
And most predictions don’t account for technological advances like cost effective desalination. The south has plenty of water to access it salt isn’t an issue.
“https://projects.propublica.org/climate-migration/
The other half of the story is that the South is depleting its aquifers at an unsustainable rate.”
According to that site, essentially all of the current B10 (except MD) is outside the ideal human niche for living over the past 6000 years. Yet that’s where humanity chose to populate first and most heavily.
People keep claiming heat will drive people out, but living in the southwest is more popular than ever. Phoenix has always been miserably hot, and it just keeps on growing.
As I said, I do think the current trends will slow and then maybe reverse until an equilibrium is reached. But there are still too many factors pushing people to move south and west right now.
LikeLike
Brian “They haven’t gone away yet, and the freak cold snaps have gotten worse.”
“Research suggests that climate change is altering the jet stream, pushing frigid air down to southern climes more frequently. But the scientific jury is still out.”
“But understanding any link between planetary warming and extreme cold remains a work in progress. Many climate scientists still emphasize that even if frigid air escapes the Arctic more often, that air will nonetheless become milder over time.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/23/climate-change-impact-cold-weather/
LikeLike
Marc,
“Thompson is certainly competent, but he is practically the only one with such expertise who is regularly quoted on the record.”
Yes, because he is the only one who will speak on the record. I’m sure others disagree with him sometimes, but they don’t ever say so publicly or give their own estimates. We work with the quotes we have.
“He must be off sometimes, since nobody gets every call right.”
Nobody expects him to be exactly right, but he should be reasonably close since he did this for a living for years and years. He didn’t have UW + UO anywhere near breakeven for the B10.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/01/the-pac-12-top-10-key-news-developments-from-the-week-include-dickerts-deal-pac-12-network-future-coaches-contract-lined-up-more/
Some tibits from Jon Wilner:
3. Pac-12 Networks: The endgame
The Hotline reported Thursday that the conference won’t replace Mark Shuken, the president of the Pac-12 Networks who was terminated for his involvement in the Comcast overpayment saga.
That tells us the networks will cease to exist in their current form, as a linear television media company, when the current distribution contracts (with Comcast and others) expire in the summer of 2024.
Instead, the Pac-12 will own and operate a cutting-edge production studio, located in the East Bay city of San Ramon, that likely develops Olympic sports content for streaming platforms but definitely doesn’t require a president.
4. Big Ten makes a move
Because what happens in the Big Ten seems to have an everlasting impact on the Pac-12, for better or worse, the latest development is worth noting: The conference has settled on a search firm, Turnkey ZRG, to help find a new commissioner.
(Turnkey also assisted the Pac-12 in the search that led to George Kliavkoff being named commissioner in the spring of 2021.)
The timeline is key: The Big Ten search is expected to last deep into the spring, further calming the realignment waters as the Pac-12 works through its existential crisis.
Search firms are all the rage, but they don’t demonstrably do a better job than the old days of a search committee. They may find some candidates you wouldn’t have thought of, but they also don’t really understand your environment and often find poor matches who don’t stay long after taking the job.
LikeLike
Search firms are cop-outs. College presidents say: “We didn’t choose this turkey. Search firm did.”
LikeLike
If Turnkey found Kliavkoff, that should be a disqualifier for any future recommendations.
LikeLike
Search firms are all the rage, but they don’t demonstrably do a better job than the old days of a search committee..
Search firms have been around for decades; they aren’t a new idea. Most external executive hires are, and long have been, identified by search firms, except when there is an obvious candidate (e.g., Sankey was Slive’s deputy). I mean, this isn’t the type of job you advertise on Indeed.
Search firms don’t replace a search committee; they identify candidates that the committee then considers. There was probably a search firm when Warren was hired.
…they also don’t really understand your environment and often find poor matches who don’t stay long after taking the job.
I have never heard that short tenures are correlated with the use of search firms. That’s a new one. Of course, as in most fields, there is specialization in search firms. I see from their website that this firm specializes in sports.
My comment is neither pro- nor anti-search firm, but where exactly would a committee of university presidents find a sports executive without help? They are smart people, but this is a subject about which they know very little.
If Turnkey found Kliavkoff, that should be a disqualifier for any future recommendations.
The search firm doesn’t make the hire. The Pac-12 presidents have their fingerprints on this, and on his even worse predecessor.
LikeLike
“If Turnkey found Kliavkoff, that should be a disqualifier for any future recommendations.”
Compared to Larry Scott, Kliavkoff was a peach.
LikeLike
It is extraordinary that a league could hire two such commissioners back to back. I wonder if that might be relevant to the belief that the PAC may be in serious trouble.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I think it says the P10 (now P12) has been disadvantaged as TV money grew and the pacific time zone issue hit them harder. They suffered financially for a long time under Hansen who was a very old school administrator and didn’t push their TV value, and were looking to make a change and get on par with the B10.
That pushed them to consider outside-of-the-box candidates, and they settled on Scott. He had reasonable credentials for the job, and sold them on his vision. Unfortunately, their interviews didn’t detect that he was a spendthrift diva who valued image over everything, or that he didn’t have a viable plan to implement his grand vision (7 profitable channels, sports in Asia, etc.).
Kliavkoff was another outsider to college sports, but he was dealt a weak hand so I don’t blame him too much. He couldn’t prevent USC and UCLA from leaving, he can’t make the public want to watch the P12N or the P12 in general, and he can’t change the way time zones work. He has made some public statements that were unwise, but I don’t think that’s hurt the P12 much.
The presidents really need to take more of the blame, though. They were the ones who chose to emphasize exposure for the Olympic sports on the P12N over pushing the revenue sports to make money and get carriage. They originally said they weren’t looking for big profits, then later came back upset that the P12N wasn’t matching BTN and SECN. They also signed off on hiring Scott and backed his vision for the P12. On top of that, they continued to support him even after the evidence showed the problems with his regime.
LikeLike
Extraordinary that a league could pick those two back to back. Wonder if that is relevant to the current troubles of the league.
LikeLike
Most of the troubles are due to Larry Scott, or at least they built up during his tenure. Kliavkoff has so far been totally unequal to the emergency, but I don’t think he created it.
The league lost USC/UCLA exactly one year into his tenure, but I think most of the reasons they left were due to things he couldn’t control. One article mentioned the boneheaded decision initially to halt playoff expansion. While this was a mistake, a different strategy from Kliavkoff wouldn’t have mattered unless the ACC and Big Ten had changed too.
I noticed that when Kliavkoff was hired, the UO president described him as “the new prototype for a sports commissioner.” I might have thought that after they made an unconventional pick with Larry Scott and flamed out spectacularly, they would have gone back to basics.
LikeLike
My big problem with Kliavkoff is that once UCLA announced that it was leaving, it seems that Kliavkoff spent months trying to force them to stay, as opposed to trying to move the PAC forward.
The idea of getting a new deal before considering expansion also makes no sense. If he is saying that he wants to discuss everything with new TV partners, fine, but that is not what he has said. The PAC pretty much HAS TO invite SDSU to keep the foothold in So CA. What is the point in delaying that? Is any TV contract really going to punish the PAC for adding the one remaining school in CA?
Commr Warren did the PAC no favors by pushing the WA/OR thing with no support from the teams in the B1G. I think that was wrong and it has made the Kliavkoff job harder. Kliavkoff was dealt a lousy hand, but there is no sign that he is playing well.
LikeLike
Bernie; ” My big problem with Kliavkoff is that once UCLA announced that it was leaving, it seems that Kliavkoff spent months trying to force them to stay, as opposed to trying to move the PAC forward. ”
Look, what should Kliavkoff have done? It was a lose-lose situation for him. He either fights it or he says “Oh, OK, bye bye UCLA and USC. Happy tidings. May the wind fill your sails and the breeze cool your brows. Take care now.”
LikeLike
Look, what should Kliavkoff have done? It was a lose-lose situation for him. He either fights it or he says “Oh, OK, bye bye UCLA and USC. Happy tidings. May the wind fill your sails and the breeze cool your brows. Take care now.”
Most commissioners have done precisely that, albeit without your colorful choice of words. While no commissioner wants to lose teams, most have recognized that these moves are almost always unstoppable.
Here and in the media, almost everyone recognized immediately the likely futility of trying to prevent UCLA from moving. But Kliavkoff wasted his time on it anyway, accomplishing nothing by doing so.
LikeLike
The idea of getting a new deal before considering expansion also makes no sense. If he is saying that he wants to discuss everything with new TV partners, fine, but that is not what he has said. The PAC pretty much HAS TO invite SDSU to keep the foothold in So CA. What is the point in delaying that?
I don’t quite understand it either. Bob Thompson has said (on Twitter) that the Pac-12 is for sure discussing the value of expansion candidates with potential media partners. The only thing I can think of, is that there is some uncertainty over exactly what the financials will look like.
At this point, I would not classify it as a “mistake.” In practical terms, the Pac-12 will know exactly what the expansion is worth to them before they sign a deal. The invitation to SDSU and one more school will come a short time later.
LikeLike
Marc,
‘I have never heard that short tenures are correlated with the use of search firms. ”
It’s being talked about in academic circles, as the use of search firms is relatively new and often the resulting choices have not lasted long.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2022/12/01/osu-president-kristina-johnson-failed-ohio-state-presidency-expensive-search/69690146007/
OSU spent about $420,000 on the search firm to replace Drake, and Johnson barely lasted 2 years.
Johnson announced Monday — just over two years into her five-year contract — that she would be resigning from her post. And with that she became the latest example of a “failed presidency,” said higher education experts Judith Wilde and James Finkelstein.
The two experts, both at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University in Virginia, have studied university president contracts and searches for more than two decades. Together, they’ve amassed a database of more than 300 contracts and at least 100 presidential searches.
….
Using search firms to find university presidents has become almost ubiquitous in higher education, Wilde said.
In 1975, only about 2% of colleges and universities used search firms, with almost all of them recruited to private institutions. Forty years later, that skyrocketed to at least 92% of all presidential searches utilizing a search firm, Wilde said.
That rise in search-firm use has led to an increase in the number of failed presidencies, Wilde and Finkelstein said. With search-firm fees, salaries, bonuses, travel, retirement and other expenses, the cost of these presidencies adds up.
“These are big purchases that carry future liability,” Wilde said. “The failed presidency is expensive, not just in dollars but in the reputation of the university.”
LikeLike
Ah, I see. You are referring specifically to the hiring of university presidents, not saying that all search firms are categorically bad.
LikeLike
Yes, I was thinking that perhaps the factors that make search firms fail with presidents might also carry over to conference commissioners. College sports is a unique environment balancing politics, business, athletics and academics, and few people are able to succeed in it without experience.
LikeLike
The P12 execs met today to discuss key issues, including the TV deal.
Pac-12 presidents, athletic directors and conference executives will gather Monday at Arizona State for a quarterly meeting that is anything but routine.
Momentous topics are on the agenda, including what a source called an “important update” on the media rights negotiations that will help define the future of the conference.
Commissioner George Kliavkoff has been working with potential broadcast partners for months to construct an agreement that satisfies the desire for both revenue and visibility.
Negotiations are expected to conclude in the next four-to-six weeks. But if talks with ESPN, Amazon, Fox and other media companies extend deep into the spring, campus officials could become anxious, lose faith in the process and explore alternatives.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2023/01/30/ncaa-enforcement-name-image-likeness-more-room-investigations
The NCAA may actually start enforcing NIL rules.
The NCAA and enforcement staff will no longer be hamstrung by uncooperative witnesses when it comes to potential name, image and likeness (NIL) violations, thanks to a new bylaw that went into effect Jan. 1.
Investigators can now use circumstantial evidence (like a tip or news story) instead of on-record sourcing to presume a school violated NCAA rules. Schools can disprove the allegation or else be potentially charged. The move strengthens the enforcement staff’s ability to charge schools and allows more leeway for investigators.
“If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck,” Duncan said. “Instead of putting the burden on the enforcement staff to always come up with a smoking gun, which we don’t always have, there is a presumption. It puts the burden on the school. It’s a really powerful tool.”
…
Duncan told the crowd that, despite all of their doubts and the absence of announced penalties, NCAA officials have opened investigations into programs around NIL-related matters, some of which have been closed (without penalties) and others that remain active. He declined to identify the schools the NCAA has opened inquiries or full-scale investigations into and would not even reveal the number of schools involved, though it is believed to be more than a dozen.
…
“It’s no secret that it’s been tough to prove NIL or NIL-adjacent cases. You all see the same [NIL] stories,” Duncan said. “We have all the same information plus a lot more: facts, circumstances that look really suspect, timing, communication, commitments, flips, transfers.
“[In the past], we’d hold our nose and move on because without documentary information and evidence to confront witnesses with, they tend to lie to you. So we were stuck with cases that smelled to high heaven but could not substantiate them under the procedures that we had.”
…
“We’ve now got legislative authority to bring that allegation and put that burden on the institution to prove that it’s not [a violation],” he said.
…
Figures vary greatly but, at the Power 5 level, most elite collectives say they are distributing $3 million to $5 million annually to athletes in their schools’ athletic departments. A small group of elite players, mostly elite returning quarterbacks or high-level QB recruits, are making seven figures, while another portion of high-level starters are pulling in low six figures. Experts say the vast majority of Power 5 football players are earning less than $100,000, and a baseline of $25,000 to $75,000 has emerged.
High-level administrators have been quite blunt about what is transpiring.
“I don’t know why we’re calling it NIL anymore,” AAC commissioner Mike Aresco says. “It’s pay to play. It’s pay to recruit. It’s pay to retain.”
LikeLike
The NCAA may actually start enforcing NIL rules.
What are the NIL rules? As far as I know, the scho0l cannot pay NIL money itself. But other than that, I have not seen an explanation of precisely what they are not allowed to do.
Instead of putting the burden on the enforcement staff to always come up with a smoking gun, which we don’t always have, there is a presumption. It puts the burden on the school. It’s a really powerful tool.
It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out. A rule that assumes guilt sounds like something out of the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch trials. It may be that in most of these cases the suspect is indeed guilty. But such a rule could also be used to sweep up innocent people. That is why the presumption of innocence exists.
LikeLike
It sounds to me like they’d end up in court a lot for presuming guilt, but maybe it’s more like the civil standard of the preponderance of the evidence rather than proving beyond a reasonable doubt. That would make some sense as they lack subpoena power.
Also, their new punishments say the athletes won’t suffer for NIL violations, the schools will. So things like fines and being separated from boosters who broke the rules. Maybe losing recruiting visits and similar things as well.
As for the NIL rules:
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/34883738/ncaa-provides-updated-nil-rules-guidance-member-schools
Broadly, the NCAA said schools cannot be involved in sourcing, negotiating or facilitating NIL deals for their athletes. Services related to NIL deals, such as legal review of contracts, can only be provided if those same services are available to the entire student body.
“The only services that schools are really allowed to provide for athletes under this new guidance are educational services: How to build your brand. How to handle finances, taxes and stuff like that,” sports law attorney Mit Winter said. “But [schools] can’t be providing any service that’s going out and helping the athletes actually find deals unless that service is available to all students.”
The NCAA’s interim NIL policy falls back on existing rules and makes it impermissible for NIL deals to be used as recruiting inducements or pay-for-play or performance-based compensation.
The bolded part is what the NCAA is looking to start enforcing.
LikeLike
Hey Bernie – The ” . . . very close runner-up . . . ” for Big XII commish last summer was Tim Pernetti.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/07/12.aspx
LikeLike
Holy Cow, not only was Tim Pernetti a finalist for Big XII Commish, the Big XII used the same headhunter firm that the Big Ten is using, Turnkey.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-College/2022/07/12.aspx
Another candidate also emerges from nowhere, retiring Purdue President Mitch Daniels. Cited by one blog as a “candidate”, Just yesterday Daniels announced he would NOT be running for the US Senate seat opening up in Indiana in 2024. If familiarity with the other conference presidents carries any weight, he may have an inside track if he’s interested. Former Governor of Indiana and former Director of OMB in Wash DC, 70 years old.
https://kearneyhub.com/sports/college/eleven-candidates-to-replace-big-ten-commissioner-kevin-warren/article_6a583631-6cb4-5a30-b01f-509660fc4aa2.html
LikeLike
That assumes familiarity doesn’t breed contempt. There are mixed opinions in academia about Daniels’ time at PU, and who knows how the other presidents actually feel about him. By the time of a vote, many of the presidents wouldn’t really know him anyway due to all the turnover lately.
I doubt they want to hire a 70-year old and have to look for a replacement again relatively soon, though. They’ll want someone with a longer term plan and vision.
LikeLike
The Big XII used the same headhunter firm that the Big Ten is using, Turnkey.
Turnkey says on their website that they specialize in sports (among other things), and there cannot be too many search firms who do. You’d expect the same name to turn up a lot.
Brett Yormark is yet another P5 commissioner who came from a non-collegiate athletics background. He is, in other words, a candidate that only a search firm would likely have thought of. Unlike Kliavkoff, he seems to be doing the job competently so far.
LikeLike
The term “P5 commissioner” is highly misleading. The B12 is a loser conference on an neverending downward sqiral, losing half of its top schools in just a few years with nothing to show for it other than the Longhorn Network.
The next Big Ten Commish will be guiding the nation’s premier academic/athletic conference into Valhalla.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Unlike Kliavkoff, he seems to be doing the job competently so far.”
Does he? Other than running his mouth, what has he done to justify that statement? He rushed to get a new TV deal early, and it was significantly below the values for the SEC and B10. That was the market for his schools, but it’s nothing that really demonstrates competence (nor incompetence). Would the deal have been worse if they waited until after the P12, or better, or the same? Who knows?
LikeLike
the term “P5 commissioner” is highly misleading.
“P5” is simply a well understood term for a set of conferences. Less bulky than writing “P2+M3”. We all understand that the P5 are no longer equals. I don’t think it needs to be spelled out every time.
The B12 is a loser conference on an neverending downward sqiral, losing half of its top schools in just a few years with nothing to show for it other than the Longhorn Network.
Actually, I think the downward spiral very likely has ended, because there are no remaining teams likely to be poached by conferences higher in the food chain. (Kliavkoff would need to work many miracles before any B12 team would consider the Pac-12 a step up.)
@Brian: All I meant is that Yormark appears to be performing at par. He appears to be doing the expected things in an average way and not noticeably screwing any of them up. To call him “competent” is not any kind of huge compliment.
LikeLike
As has been discussed here, Pernetti lost his job as AD at RU because a female member of the Rutgers Board openly wanted a lesbian AD. Everyone agreed that Pernetti was doing a fine job as AD>
Using the excuse of the basketball coach Tim Rice player abuse fiasco, she managed to get Pernetti fired. At the time, it was not disputed that Pernetti did everything properly, reported the Rice issue properly, etc.
Julie Hermann was an absolute disaster and clearly hurt all RU athletic programs for the first several years in the B1G.
LikeLike
That’s exactly why Pernetti would be a good choice for commish, He’s experienced trial by LGBTQ fire and anticipates the forthcoming trans gender upheavel in college athletics. Pernetti understand that a guy who has Frankensteinian surgery on his genitals, gets injected with girly hormones, changes his pronouns and starts calling himself Shirley is still not a woman,
LikeLike
Oh lord, not this crap again. The sky is falling because of one swimmer.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/
Transgender youth have much higher rates of suicide (over 56% have tried it) and suicidality (86% have considered it).
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transgender-teens-7-6-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide#Why-a-population-based-study?
That’s 7.6 times higher than the suicide rate for cisgender teenagers.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
They are also more than 4 times as likely to be victims of violent crime (murder, rape, sexual assault, aggravated/regular assault).
Transgender youth aren’t faking a condition so they can get an athletic scholarship more easily, or so they can win some races. They are facing a mental and physical medical condition and dealing with it in a variety of ways. If a few transgender people happen to be athletic and want to compete in sports, that’s the least of society’s problems right now.
LikeLike
Bernie,
This is revisionist history. It wasn’t nearly as clear cut in favor of Pernetti as you make it sound. There was a national and local uproar once the video of Rice came out and the public found out that Pernetti knew about it for months and had only suspended and fined the coach. Faculty were calling for his firing, and the NJ governor and other state politicians supported his firing.
Pernetti blamed his bosses, saying they made a decision to go with the lighter punishment despite his wishes to fire the coach, but his bosses tell a different story. Some of the higher ups (including BoR members) agreed with Pernetti, but others didn’t even see the video.
https://www.espn.com/new-york/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9137089/tim-pernetti-rutgers-scarlet-knights-athletic-director
“My continued tenure as Athletic Director is no longer sustainable for the University which I attended and where a piece of me will always remain,” Pernetti said in his resignation letter. “In connection with the incidents involving former basketball Coach Mike Rice, as was the case with all other matters which I handled on behalf of the University, I always tried my best to do what is right.”
In the letter, Pernetti went on to say that his position was to fire Rice — although earlier this week he had said he was intent on rehabilitating the coach’s behavior, in part through counseling — but that he apparently didn’t have the support of his superiors. Pernetti, with the approval of Rutgers president Robert L. Barchi, initially suspended Rice three games in December and fined him $50,000 when Rice’s mistreatment of players was brought to the AD’s attention.
“I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on the events which led to today,” Pernetti said. “As you know, my first instincts when I saw the videotape of Coach Rice’s behavior was to fire him immediately. However, Rutgers decided to follow a process involving university lawyers, human resources professionals, and outside counsel. Following review of the independent investigative report, the consensus was that university policy would not justify dismissal. I have admitted my role in, and regret for, that decision, and wish that I had the opportunity to go back and override it for the sake of everyone involved.”
But a Jan. 21 report by outside counsel hired by Rutgers — John Lacey of Connell Foley LLP — states that Rice could have been fired then: ” … due to the intensity with which Coach Rice engaged in some of the misconduct, we believe AD Pernetti could reasonably determine that Coach Rice’s action tended to embarrass and bring shame or disgrace to Rutgers in violation of Coach Rice’s employment contract with Rutgers.”
…
“At the end of the day, he has to run this place, day in and day out,” said Ralph Izzo, chairman of the school’s board of governors. “And I think he is the right person to run this place for many years to come.
“Dr. Barchi was brought on here eight months ago with two primary objectives: No. 1 was to build a strategic plan for this university for 10 years, going forward, to lead us to academic success and academic greatness; and No. 2, an enormous challenge of integrating a medical school with this university. Being on the job two months, hearing from a general counsel and the athletic director that there was a serious problem, I think he did the right thing by acquiescing to that advice at the time.”
Barchi reiterated Friday that he had not seen the videotape until this week. Had he seen it in November, he said, he would have recommended that Rice be fired. He said Pernetti gave him a summary of what was on the Rice video at the time. When pressed, he said that in retrospect, he should have asked to view the tapes. Sources told ESPN that at least three Rutgers board members did witness the video of Rice last year and agreed with the suspension and fine as punishment.
…
Based on the summary he received from Pernetti, Barchi said he “agreed with and supported his recommendation to suspend, rather than fire, Coach Rice at that time. It was not until Tuesday evening of this week, when I watched the video, that I had the opportunity to witness personally for the first time what Tim had seen last fall.
“I was deeply disturbed by the behavior that the video revealed, which was much more abusive and pervasive than I had understood it to be. As Tim acknowledged on Wednesday, his decision to rehabilitate, rather than fire, Coach Rice was wrong.”
[RU’s interim senior vice president and general counsel, who also resigned over this, John] Wolf is believed to have recommended against firing Rice in December.
There was plenty of blame to go around. Lots of people screwed up here, including Pernetti. You can blame it all on one board member if that makes you feel better, but that wasn’t how it happened.
That board member may have forced the hiring of Hermann, but that’s a separate issue. I know she pushed for women to be included in the candidate pool, and supported Hermann in particular throughout the process. Beyond that, you obviously follow the RU news more closely than I do. I don’t recall stories that she specifically wanted a lesbian to be hired, but I won’t say you’re wrong.
And to tie into another recent conversation here, an executive search firm vetted and suggested Hermann for the job.
LikeLike
Here is a more objective analysis from USA Today. It includes the video which shows the horrific physical and verbal abuse that Rice inflicted upon his players. Judge for yourself, but I’d say he wasn’t as bad as Bobby Knight.
Also, there seems to be quite an issue that university president Robert Barchi didn’t see the video in December. The reason that he didn’t see it was because AD Pernetti hand-carried it to Barchi’s office but Barchi refused to look at it. Barchi agreed with Pernetti’s suggestion that Rice should be suspended but not fired. Four months later, the openly lesbian chair of Rutgers’ BOR led the charge for Pernetti to be fired and then she also led the search committee that hired Pernetti’s openly lesbian replacement as AD.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/04/03/rutgers-tim-pernetti-mike-rice/2051533/
LikeLike
I have and had no direct inside info from Rutgers sources, but at the time that it was going on, I read every single comment made in every newspaper that covered the story. I read statements, etc. and I think that it was pretty clear cut at the time. I spoke to people who had info, even if second or third hand.
Pernetti was wrong about one thing and that was Pres Barchi’s priorities. Barchi was brought in primarily to deal with the merger of the medical schools (which I note that years earlier had been part of RU but were removed since graft was easier with independent med schools. The med schools were reintegrated after the stink of too many no show $200,000 per year jobs became public. It is NJ politics after all).
If I had been told by someone who was directly involved in the inside story (which I was not) that Barchi did not even know what level of sports RU played at, I would not have been surprised. He simply did not know nor care what went on with sports. Honestly it was not an important part of his mission.
That is short of a shame, since Barchi came started in 2012, just as RU was about to enter the B1G in 2014.
By the way, Barchi, by all accounts did an excellent job at the med school integration, which took several years. He was a very successful president in dealing with the primary reason for which he was hired.
As far as the Connell Foley report, I had friends who were partners there at that time. They were just a fairly big firm (by NJ standards) with some political connections. (After all they did this RU report and that required connections.) This is not a slur on the firm or the guy who wrote the report (whom I do not know), but the facts were sufficiently muddled so that he could easily write a legitimate report that would please those who hired him (the Board) and fire Pernetti.
It is easy to read reports now and reach a conclusion. At the time, the entire story revolved around the single board member. As far Hermann being a lesbian, that was a well known part of the deal, even if the papers did not put it that way.
This story really nothing to do with the idea of a lesbian AD, as there might have been a wonderful candidate out there somewhere, but the search honestly started and ended with Hermann, who was assistant AD at Louisville.
I was involved in a couple of gubernatorial elections in NJ and that gives access to certain not quite public info. Some things much more interesting than third hand info about the Rutgers AD. One just hears things, rumors or truths, that are never published anywhere. That includes this mess. Of course, nothing that I heard or knew about this was not floating around in public, even if not in newspapers.
I also assume that the current searches listing Pernetti as a leading candidate for commissioner jobs have thoroughly investigated and used lots of info that will not be found in a news report.
LikeLike
The real punchline about Julie Herrmann has nothing to do with her sexual orientation. After Rutgers hired her, it comes out that her former players had accused her of the same type of abuse for which Mike Rice was fired, plus a sex discrimination complaint from an asst coach. From the NY Times:
“In the weeks since Rutgers hired Julie Hermann to forge a new path for the university’s athletics program, which was still reeling from the fallout of a coaching abuse scandal, Rutgers officials have unexpectedly had to defend their selection of Hermann against accusations of her misconduct dating to a coaching job she held in the 1990s.”
“Hermann was also at the center of a 2008 sex discrimination lawsuit at Louisville, where she was a senior athletics administrator. In that case, an assistant track and field coach said she went to Hermann to complain of what she considered sexist behavior and “discriminatory treatment” by the head coach. Within three weeks of her taking her concerns to Louisville’s human resources department, the assistant coach, Mary Banker, was fired.”
Later in the article:
“State legislators and other critics have said that Rutgers should not have hired Hermann based on accounts that she was harsh to players on the volleyball team she coached at Tennessee in the mid-1990s. On Tuesday, some lawmakers and Rutgers donors called on Hermann to step down, and they said the athletic department had become an embarrassment for the university and its president, Robert L. Barchi.”
LikeLike
Colin,
“Here is a more objective analysis from USA Today.”
Is there some reason to expect USA Today to be more objective than ESPN on this subject? I just went with the first reputable national source that came up in Google.
“It includes the video which shows the horrific physical and verbal abuse that Rice inflicted upon his players. Judge for yourself, but I’d say he wasn’t as bad as Bobby Knight.”
Talk about a low bar. Knight committed many fireable offenses at IU, and only his NCs kept him there as long as he was. Rice’s behavior was unacceptable in a coach and worthy of firing. He was committing what would be a crime if done on a public street. And lots of people let RU know that as soon as the video became public.
Barchi and others also screwed up, but that doesn’t exonerate Pernetti.
“Four months later, the openly lesbian chair of Rutgers’ BOR led the charge for Pernetti to be fired and then she also led the search committee that hired Pernetti’s openly lesbian replacement as AD.”
The public and several members of the state government also demanded his firing. It wasn’t just this one person acting out a personal vendetta. She then co-chaired the search committee, not quite the same as leading it. I know you are all hung up that she is not only lesbian, but dared to be open about it, but I fail to see the relevance to whether or not Pernetti should have been fired.
None of this is me saying Pernetti is a bad person or was a bad AD overall. He screwed up in this instance, though, and some errors are too large for your boss to overlook.
LikeLike
Brian: “It wasn’t just this one person acting out a personal vendetta. She then co-chaired the search committee, not quite the same as leading it. I know you are all hung up that she is not only lesbian, but dared to be open about it, but I fail to see the relevance to whether or not Pernetti should have been fired.”
Brian, you are reading this back-asswards. Tim Pernetti was not fired because he failed to fire Mike Rice. Just think about it a moment. It makes no sense. Tim and the Rutgers president mutually agreed that Rice should be suspended not, fired, and that was a very reasonable decision.
Tim Pernetti was fired to create an opening to hire a lesbian. Read this, the LGBTQs were virtually squealing with joy . . .
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2013/05/we_did_it_rutgers_alumna_kate.html
LikeLike
I agree there is no defense for Hermann as RU’s AD. She was improperly vetted, and when the allegations against her came out she shouldn’t have been hired.
There was nothing inherently wrong with wanting to give a qualified woman a chance at being a P5 AD, she just wasn’t the right person. As of 2021, there were only 5 female ADs in the P5 out of 65 spots. In all of D-I there are only 15% of schools with female ADs, so even non-CFB schools tend not to hire women. It’s a little better at the lower levels (D-II: 21%, D-III: 32%), but still unbalanced.
Stats from https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/05/10/ncaa-title-ix-equity-women-athletic-director-power-schools/4989933001/
I can see why a female former college athlete on RU’s board might push for women in the AD candidate pool, and champion the leading female candidate.
Unfortunately, she picked the wrong person and the rest of the board didn’t stop her.
LikeLike
Colin,
“Brian, you are reading this back-asswards.”
I know your old, straight, white man paranoia is telling you that, but it doesn’t make it true. The whole world isn’t out to get you and people like you.
“Tim Pernetti was not fired because he failed to fire Mike Rice.”
Yes, he was. Pernetti’s inaction gave them an excuse to fire him. The public reaction showed this wasn’t a made up incident. Millions of people found Rice’s behavior unacceptable. This board member may have been looking for reasons to fire him, but he gave her the justification.
“Tim and the Rutgers president mutually agreed that Rice should be suspended not, fired, and that was a very reasonable decision.”
It was sniveling coward’s decision, hidden behind lawyers who faint at the thought of getting sued over a firing. Either you think Rice should be fired or not. Pernetti claims he thought that immediately, then acquiesced to the lesser punishment despite knowing the president hadn’t even seen the video, then said he wanted to rehabilitate Rice. He could have taken a stand, but he didn’t. He could’ve spoken up publicly, but he didn’t.
The VP and legal counsel also resigned over this, and Barchi was getting heat about it. Barchi was too important to the med school integration to let go, but the others weren’t.
“Tim Pernetti was fired to create an opening to hire a lesbian.”
No, he wasn’t. He was fired for not firing Rice, and that created an opportunity to hire a female AD. It’s your obsession to focus on Hermann being lesbian. Nothing in your article hints that was a factor in her selection.
Patti Phillips was in her office at the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators last month when the call came in from an alumna of Rutgers University.
The caller had one request: A list of names of women who could be Rutgers’ first-ever female athletic director.
“She was looking for a diverse pool,” said Phillips, chief executive director of the association. “She did say the president was open to hiring a woman.”
The caller was Kate Sweeney, a Rutgers graduate, former college athlete and co-chair of the search committee looking for the university’s new athletic director in the wake of its recent basketball scandal.
Phillips said she gave Sweeney the names of several women — including University of Louisville athletics administrator Julie Hermann — and later spoke with the search firm hired to help Rutgers with the hunt.
…
Rutgers officials were eager to tap her expertise when they appointed Sweeney to co-chair the 28-person search committee to find a replacement for Tim Pernetti, the athletic director who resigned for his part in failing to fire basketball coach Mike Rice last year after video emerged of the coach manhandling and shouting gay slurs at players.
Sweeney took it upon herself to make sure women were among the candidates for the job, according to those close to the search.
Phillips, head of the National Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators, said several of the women she suggested to Sweeney made it to the first round of interviews for the Rutgers job along with Hermann.
At the Rutgers press conference announcing Hermann’s appointment, several top women in college sports traveled to Piscataway to celebrate the history-making announcement. Sweeney was in the middle of the celebration, sharing in some of the credit for getting Hermann hired.
“Read this, the LGBTQs were virtually squealing with joy . . .”
You may not have noticed, but underrepresented groups often celebrate when one of their own succeeds. Many women in athletics were happy when a women was named AD at a P5 school. There is nothing in there about any LGBTQ people other than Sweeney.
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2013/05/we_did_it_rutgers_alumna_kate.html
Literally the only mentions of anything about LGBTQ in that article:
She has also handed out student scholarships as co-founder of the Rutgers University Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Alumni/ae Association, known as RU Bi-GLATA.
LikeLike
Brian, you are in woke denial. Pernetti’s firing was a result of a witch hunt by the LGBTQs at Rutgers. The sole reason Pernetti was fared was to create a vacancy for a lesbian AD.
Do you understand what transpired? AD Pernetti hand-carried the video to Barchi’s office but Barchi refused to look at it. Barchi agreed with Pernetti’s suggestion that Rice should be suspended but not fired. Four months later, the openly lesbian chair of Rutgers’ BOR led the charge for Rice AND Pernetti to be fired. So why wasn’t Barchi also fired? Barchi and Pernetti both agreed with Rice’s discipline.
Bernie understands what happened far better than you do. He read it day by day in the local papers. You are reading a third-hand account, ten years later, and you think you understand it better than he does?
LikeLike
Colin,
“Pernetti’s firing was a result of a witch hunt by the LGBTQs at Rutgers.”
That is a complete load of crap, generated by a scared old man who is afraid of a world where people like him don’t have all the power.
None of this happens if Pernetti just fires Rice immediately.
“The sole reason Pernetti was fared was to create a vacancy for a lesbian AD.”
No, it’s because he enabled an abusive coach to keep his job. He created the conditions that allowed him to be fired.
“Do you understand what transpired?”
Do you? It sure doesn’t sound like it. You seem to see a giant lesbian conspiracy, presumably supported by the transgender cabal, trying to destroy the sports world.
“AD Pernetti hand-carried the video to Barchi’s office but Barchi refused to look at it.”
Didn’t look at it is not the same as refused to look at it. And I didn’t defend Barchi in this at all. Pernetti didn’t insist that he watch it, either. He accepted it.
“Barchi agreed with Pernetti’s suggestion that Rice should be suspended but not fired.”
And that’s why Pernetti deserved to be fired.
“Four months later, the openly lesbian chair of Rutgers’ BOR led the charge for Rice AND Pernetti to be fired.”
Try to get over the fact she’s a gay woman. It’s a brave new world where people other than straight white men are allowed to have positions of power. That doesn’t make everything they do a conspiracy.
“So why wasn’t Barchi also fired?”
Both Bernie and I answered this above, and in the exact same way: because he was considered too important to the integration of the med school.
“Barchi and Pernetti both agreed with Rice’s discipline.”
And they were both wrong. Being AD, Pernetti (and the VP who also agreed) lost his job. Being in charge of sports was his sole responsibility. Barchi had many other, more important duties, so he survived despite taking some heat.
“Bernie understands what happened far better than you do. He read it day by day in the local papers. ”
And it was discussed here back then, as it was happening, too.
“Bernie understands what happened far better than you do. He read it day by day in the local papers.”
Being closer to a story doesn’t always make you more objective about it. And it doesn’t make the local papers more objective. The story got regular national coverage and it wasn’t nearly as favorable towards Pernetti. RU fans loved Pernetti, and that influences their view of him and this incident.
“You are reading a third-hand account, ten years later, and you think you understand it better than he does?”
1. Are there any first-hand accounts to read?
2. Sure it’s 10 years later now. But I also read them back then. The topic was discussed here quite a bit back then.
3. I think there’s a chance I am more objective about a controversial subject that involves RU than a RU fan might be. But you also seem to be ignoring that I said this:
“That board member may have forced the hiring of Hermann, but that’s a separate issue. I know she pushed for women to be included in the candidate pool, and supported Hermann in particular throughout the process. Beyond that, you obviously follow the RU news more closely than I do. I don’t recall stories that she specifically wanted a lesbian to be hired, but I won’t say you’re wrong.”
LikeLike
Brian, you completely and totally do not understand what happened or why, apparently based on old newspaper articles.
Forget the fact that I was there and watched it very very closely.
What about the search firm or firms and the consideration of Pernetti as a conference AD, Don’t you think that they turned over every stone related to Pernetti’s firing? Further, don’t you think that the search committee had access to sources that your newspaper articles did not? Is it even possible that the people promoting Pernetti did not turn over every rock and search out every rumor?
If Pernetti was legitimately fired for mishandling the Rice situation, how could any conference even consider him for AD? That would have been a massive mistake and terrible judgment. How could he even be in a conversation to be an AD? When you can explain that in a way that is consistent with your interpretation of the facts, it will be interesting to hear.
Back to Hermann and the lesbian issue. At the time that this happened everyone knew exactly what was happening and why. Revisionist history years later does not change that.
What do the search committees and conferences know that you do not know? Quite a bit I am sure.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“Brian, you completely and totally do not understand what happened or why, apparently based on old newspaper articles.”
No, I view it through a different lens than you do. Pernetti made himself vulnerable to be fired and it cost him. He was not some innocent victim.
“Forget the fact that I was there and watched it very very closely.”
Okay. It’s forgotten.
“What about the search firm or firms and the consideration of Pernetti as a conference AD,”
What about them? Search firms often are terrible at vetting, as shown with Hermann.
Just because he got fired doesn’t mean he isn’t hirable. Ex-cons get jobs, so there’s no reason Pernetti would be untouchable. He’s had multiple good jobs since RU, and that plus time make him eligible for more jobs.
“Don’t you think that they turned over every stone related to Pernetti’s firing?”
No, I don’t. Because they can’t. They don’t have subpoena power and everyone involved tells a different story of what happened. Plus it was 10 years ago and he has a track record since then that carries more weight.
“Further, don’t you think that the search committee had access to sources that your newspaper articles did not?”
1. Sure. But there was no relevant search committee in 2013 so I don’t know why that would matter.
2. It was ESPN, not a newspaper.
3. They weren’t “my” articles, just the first search result.
“Is it even possible that the people promoting Pernetti did not turn over every rock and search out every rumor?”
Yes. people do it all the time. They ignore things about people they like, like the RU board member campaigning for Hermann after the allegations at UL came out. People see what they want to see sometimes.
“If Pernetti was legitimately fired for mishandling the Rice situation, how could any conference even consider him for AD?”
People hire those who were fired for cause quite often. Coaches get hired elsewhere after NCAA violations, ADs get hired at other schools, etc. Usually it just takes some time. It’s been a decade and he has worked some important jobs since then. Why would 1 fireable mistake disqualify him forever? Talk about reactionary.
“That would have been a massive mistake and terrible judgment.”
He was a TV guy, then RU, then MLS, then IMG College. Lots of other experiences people could lean on if they wanted to hire him. Combine that with all the people who supported Pernetti, and I could see him getting hired somewhere.
“How could he even be in a conversation to be an AD?”
Who’s looking to hire him as an AD? A lower tier school? A conference commissioner is a different role without direct responsibility for how coaches treat players, so his one mistake wouldn’t be directly relevant.
“When you can explain that in a way that is consistent with your interpretation of the facts, it will be interesting to hear.”
Bobby Knight got hired to coach hoops after getting fired for choking a player. Art Briles got hired. Hugh Freeze got hired. Dave Bliss got hired. Sports will forgive anything if you can win. Pernetti’s screw up was nowhere near theirs in magnitude, and they got hired.
“Back to Hermann and the lesbian issue. At the time that this happened everyone knew exactly what was happening and why.”
Everyone thought they knew, anyway.
“Revisionist history years later does not change that.”
Yes, like claiming everyone supported Pernetti and he did nothing wrong. That’s clearly untrue and doesn’t change what happened.
“What do the search committees and conferences know that you do not know?”
1. What they care about in their hires.
2. All the details of people’s resumes.
3. What they pay.
4. Lots of other things
I’ll note that no school or conference has hired him since he left RU, so maybe they ended up where I did. He was mostly good at the job, but he screwed up once. I never said he was untouchable.
But what conference is considering him now, and what commissioner jobs is he considering? A few articles suggested him as a possible candidate for the B10 job. That doesn’t mean the B10 is considering him, nor that he would apply for it. The B12 considered him, but hired a complete outsider instead. Why? We’ll never know.
“Quite a bit I am sure.”
I’d certainly hope so. If they got paid to know as little as I do about their candidates, it’s pure theft.
But I’ll return to the fact that I never said or implied he shouldn’t get hired somewhere. You created that strawman.
LikeLike
Bobby Knight was not fired for choking a player. For that offense Knight would serve a three-game suspension and have $30,000 withheld from his salary.
He was fired for grabbing a non-player student by the arm and scolding him, then refusing to meet with President Myles Brand to discuss the incident. Knight infamously told Brand “I’m going fishing.”
https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2020/09/09/20-years-later-story-bob-knights-firing-iu-basketball-20-years-later-story-bob-knights-firing-iu-bas/5750680002/
LikeLike
Big XII schedule is finally out.
Neither UTx nor OU got screwed as all their fans thought they would.
Sooners: @ Cincy, Kansas, OK State and BYU
Longhorns: @ Baylor, Houston, TCY and Iowa State
LikeLike
Alan,
It’s probably a fair schedule (the adults in the room usually prevail in these scenarios), but UT fans aren’t thrilled with their home schedule: KU, KSU, BYU and TT (rivalry week) + Rice and WY OOC.
Their only big games are @AL and vs OU in Dallas. They miss OkSU, WV, UCF and UC entirely, but probably only care about OkSU at all.
I’m guessing they’ll play UCF and UC in 2024 if UT is still in the B12 then (OU plays those 2 this year).
I’m a little surprised they gave UH a home game vs UT and UC a home game vs OU. I would’ve thought they’d try to get all the old members one last home game against those two to sell tickets. Let the newbies go to UT and OU to see the stadiums once.
LikeLike
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/nebraskas-roster-retention-rate-compared-to-its-big-ten-peers-and-why-it-matters/article_aa7dcecf-5b38-56e1-a655-cf1c6d2ed5e1.html
Does roster retention rate matter? And why does NE maintain such a large roster to compared to the rest of the B10?
LikeLike
And why does NE maintain such a large roster to compared to the rest of the B10?
Nebraska fans really love of walk-ons. Frost expanded the program and if I remember right wanted to carry 150 players. The theory is, if you have enough walk-ons you eventually will find a late bloomer or two a year who end up being scholarship level players. The more you carry, the more you’ll find. It works to a point, small school under recruited players sometimes do turn out to be good players and sometimes All-Americans.
Like most things with Frost, it didn’t work out like he thought.
LikeLike
This story looked at the past 4 years and averaged the roster size.
Average roster size:
NE – 156
MI – 141
IA – 129.5
The rest: 110-125, with most in the 117-125 range (NW, IL and PU were the only ones in the 110-117 range).
That’s a lot of extra players to deal with. Equipment, lockers, food, coaches, etc.
LikeLike
That’s a lot of extra players to deal with. Equipment, lockers, food, coaches, etc.
It really is. The Devaney-Osborne-Solich teams had rosters that size. Pre-Rivals era, you could probably stash several under the radar kids as walk-ons with academic or need based scholarships until they played in a game. Now that everyone’s film is on the internet, its much harder to do and the total quality of the 65+ is lower.
Rosters of that size also have issues with getting everyone enough reps. If they let analysts coach then it might not be that big of a deal, but 10 coaches for 150 players doesn’t work well, IMO.
LikeLike
The article doesn’t say how many of those walk-ons eventually won meaningful playing time. At Michigan, there are perhaps a couple per year who do — better than nothing, but it’s not what wins the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The article doesn’t say how many of those walk-ons eventually won meaningful playing time.
Just a quick look at the participation report, I counted 17* current walk-ons among the 83 who appeared in a game in 2022. That doesn’t include the 4 former walk-ons on scholarship. I would say quite a few played significant snaps.
Frost continued the trend started by Bo Pelini of not properly managing the roster (neglecting position groups, not opening fall camp at 85 scholarship players) which resulted in a lot of walk-ons playing when they ordinarily wouldn’t.
*That number is likely off by one or two as I went by memory
LikeLike
The participation report includes everybody who played so much as one snap. I suspect most of those were not “significant.”
LikeLike
The participation report includes everybody who played so much as one snap. I suspect most of those were not “significant.”
Fully aware of that. I don’t have snap counts and I was just trying to do something quick. Some illustrations:
1. LB Luke Reimer, former walk-on: leading tackler.
2. DT Colton Feist, walk-on: 8th in tackles
3. TE Chancellor Brewington, walk-on: 11 rec, 1 TD
4. WR Zach Weinmaster, walk-on: 5 KO returns
5. DB Phalan Sanford, walk-on: 12 tackles
6. WR Nate Boerkircher, walk-on: 6 rec, 1 TD.
7. WR Brody Belt, walk-on: 2 carries, 7 rec 1 TD
8. WR Oliver Martin, former walk-on: 11 rec 1 TD
9. C Trent Hixon, former walk-on: multi-year starter
10. OG Nourendin Nouili, former walk-on: starter
11. Jacquez Yant, former walk-on: 6 carries, 2 TDs
I just grabbed the first 11 names that jumped out at me that I knew played “significant” snaps but I am sure I a few. I didn’t include the two LS or other exclusive special teamers or players who only played in one game or two. It would be nice if they would list letter winners, but unfortunately they don’t.
LikeLike
Forgot Nourendin Nouili didn’t play this year. He was supposed to start but failed a drug test.
LikeLike
The following is copied and redacted from today’s Wall Street Journal. We are experiencing a sea change in American migration, overwhelming into the Midwest instead of the South. Text begins:
Trio of Indiana Cities Tops WSJ/Realtor.com Housing Index
Index identifies top metro areas for home buyers seeking appreciating housing market
Three Indiana cities led the Wall Street Journal/Realtor.com Emerging Housing Market Index in the fourth quarter, when affordable markets continued to dominate the rankings.
Lafayette, Ind., a metro area of about 225,000 people, was the top-ranked emerging housing market in the quarter, followed by Fort Wayne, Ind.; Elkhart, Ind.; Topeka, Kan.; and Johnson City, Tenn.
The index identifies the top metro areas for home buyers seeking an appreciating housing market, a strong local economy and appealing lifestyle amenities. News Corp, parent of the Journal, operates Realtor.com.
Pricier Florida markets that were highly ranked in the third quarter fell in the fourth-quarter rankings, including Tampa, North Port, Orlando, Cape Coral and Naples.
End of copied text. Long dominated by Florida real estate markets, here are the top 30 for the fourth qtr of 2022:
1 ▲ Lafayette-West Lafayette IN
2 ▲ Fort Wayne IN
3 Elkhart-Goshen IN
4 ▲ Topeka KS
5 ▼ Johnson City TN
6 ▲ Columbia MO
7 ▲ Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol TN-VA
8 ▲ Savannah GA
9 ▲ Columbus OH
10 ▲ La Crosse-Onalaska WI-MN
11 ▲ Manchester-Nashua NH
12 ▲ Burlington NC
13 ▲ Portland-South Portland ME
14 ▲ Knoxville TN
15 ▲ South Bend-Mishawaka IN-MI
16 ▲ Sioux City IA-NE-SD
17 ▲ Springfield IL
18 ▲ Springfield MO
19 ▲ Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis WI
20 ▲ Rapid City SD
21 ▲ Concord NH
22 ▲ Racine WI
23 ▼ Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL
24 ▲ Louisville/Jefferson County KY-IN
25 ▲ Fort Collins CO
26 ▲ Burlington-South Burlington VT
27 ▲ Waterloo-Cedar Falls IA
28 ▲ Billings MT
29 ▲ Dayton OH
30 ▼ Boston-Cambridge-Newton MA-NH
LikeLike
https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/fastest-growing-places
In the last couple of days I saw an article saying the growth was overwhelmingly South and away from the coasts. The above was the first article I found and the top growing markets were almost all in the south.
Wonder what criteria your WSJ article used. It is very different than any others I have seen.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/01/pac-12-media-rights-strategy-the-market-has-spoken-time-to-cut-a-deal/
Jon Wilner on the P12 TV deal.
For all the focus on the media rights themselves — that is, the underlying value of Pac-12 football and basketball — not enough attention has been placed on the third word in that oft-repeated phrase: negotiations.
Those are occurring on several levels.
— Kliavkoff has regular discussions with representatives from ESPN, Fox, Amazon and other media companies about valuations, packages of games, the weekly selection order and kickoff days and times.
— Within the conference, there are negotiations (in a loose, informal sense) about the type of media deal that works best. How much emphasis should be placed on chasing revenue? How much on maximum visibility? The ideal media contract for one school might not sit perfectly with another.
— Even inside the Pac-12 boardroom, there is a hierarchy that must be managed and navigated: The presidents’ highly influential executive committee, featuring Stanford’s Marc Tessiere-Lavigne, Washington State’s Kirk Schulz and Washington’s Ana Mari Cauce (the chair), steers the agenda and works closely with Kliavkoff on strategy.
…
As the realignment waters settled and it became clear the Big Ten wasn’t adding more schools, the Hotline pegged valuation ranges for the Pac-12 and Big 12 as the following:
— Pac-12: $35 million to $40 million per school per year
— Big 12: $38 million to $42 million per school per year
But then the landscape changed, dramatically. The Big 12 prioritized security over cash, opting to renew its partnerships with ESPN and Fox instead of waiting a year to hit the open market.
The resulting seven-year deal, reportedly worth $31.7 million per school per year, made sense given the league’s tumultuous past. But it undercut the Pac-12’s negotiating position.
Whereas the Big Ten’s deal had served as a valuation North Star for the conference, the Big 12’s agreement became its Southern Cross to bear.
ESPN, Fox, Amazon and the other media companies with varying degrees of interest in partnering with the Pac-12 could use the Big 12’s deal as the relevant comparison, thereby driving down the price.
Whether that price is $2 million more annually (per school) or $2 million less doesn’t matter. The difference isn’t transformative either way.
(By renewing its deal with the Big 12, ESPN positioned itself to get two conferences on the cheap. The house always wins.)
…
Admittedly, the Hotline erroneously presumed a deal was close at that point — that once the regents sent UCLA on its merry way to the Big Ten, the Pac-12 would finalize its media partnerships in the window before Christmas or the first half of January.
It’s now late January, and there is no deal.
Which brings us back to the art of negotiating and risk recognition.
Waiting creates a void, a standing invitation for the unknown to alter the trajectory of the negotiations and the future of the conference.
Perhaps the marketplace will shift in favor of higher valuations — after all, the Pac-12 is the only Power Five conference with inventory available. (Everyone else is locked up until the 2030s.) Perhaps new suitors will enter the fray.
Or, maybe, the economy will deteriorate. Maybe current bidders will grow weary of the Pac-12’s stance and either reduce their offers substantially or walk away altogether.
Had ESPN, Amazon, Fox, Apple, CBS — or a combination therein — made a killer offer, the Pac-12 board would have authorized Kliavkoff to accept.
The Pac-12 could keep pushing, it could keep attempting to draft off the Big Ten’s deal, but the Big 12’s valuation is the reality.
The market is set.
Any maneuverability is on the margins.
We expect the process to conclude by the middle of March. If that window comes and goes with no deal imminent, our outlook will take a turn for the worse.
Interesting that both Stanford and UW are among the troika in charge. Might that lean their guidance in favor of what’s good for the higher value, bigger market, elite academic schools (Stanford, Cal, UW) with B10 aspirations?
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/college/2023/02/02/ohio-states-gene-smith-not-interested-in-big-ten-commissioner-job-osu-buckeye/69868462007/
Gene Smith is not interested in being the B10 commissioner, so people can scratch one name of the imaginary list.
“I’m not interested in that commissioner’s job,” Smith told The Dispatch. “You can throw that in (your article) too. People keep asking me that and I’m like, ‘Why?’ ”
LikeLike
https://www.thegazette.com/iowa-hawkeyes/iowa-ad-gary-barta-wants-next-big-ten-commissioner-to-have-a-lot-of-direct-experience-in-college-at/
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-and-washington-not
UW and UO aren’t holding up the P12 negotiations over a GoR.
* A Pac-12 Conference source told me this week that Oregon and Washington are NOT holding up the conference’s media rights negotiations. The process is moving slowly, but I’m told that’s not due to the Ducks and Huskies.
Said one involved party: “No deal has even been presented for us to sign a grant of rights.”
* I asked Bob Thompson — the retired FOX Sports Networks president, how the conference’s “grant of rights” works in conjunction with the media rights deal. He’s been on the inside of these negotiations. He explained that the TV deal gets done first, then the schools sign a fresh grant of rights.
Said Thompson: “If the schools approve the TV deal they will certainly approve a concurrent grant of rights.”
…
* I drilled a little deeper with sources close to Oregon and Washington. The Ducks and Huskies do have some leverage. But would either school decide to wield it? Meaning, would UW or Oregon throw a wrench into the negotiation by asking for a larger distribution or ask for a shorter term to allow themselves maximum flexibility? Are Oregon and Washington making demands?
Said a high-level campus source at one of those two schools: “Oregon and Washington are highly motivated to see a deal done. Our schools have not slowed that down.”
…
* The Trojans and Bruins officially depart for the Big Ten Conference on June 30, 2024. If the Pac-12 closes on a sale of the Pac-12 Networks prior to that date, the Trojans and Bruins would each receive 1/12 of the proceeds. On July 1, however, USC and UCLA relinquish their rights.
* I suspect the remaining 10 conference members would vote to make any sale or deal involving the Pac-12 Networks “effective July 1, 2024.”
…
[stats on availability of different TV options in homes]
* I bring all this up because the Pac-12 is considering a blend of traditional networks and a streaming service (Amazon). The temptation might be to beat the other major conferences to the finish line in the emerging streaming market.
By 2027, it won’t look bad. But industry insiders I know and trust think it’s too soon for the Pac-12 to go all-in. Especially given that the glow of ESPN’s platforms plays an important role in the College Football Playoff ecosystem.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Kevin Warren’s departure won’t delay Big Ten’s plans to change football scheduling, Iowa AD Gary Barta says
By Scott Dochterman
Feb 2, 2023
Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren’s departure won’t delay the conference’s plans to change its football scheduling alignment for the 2024 season, Iowa athletic director Gary Barta said Thursday.
For multiple years, conference and school officials have discussed altering or ending the East-West alignment in part to have a more equitable championship matchup. There was momentum to enact changes for the 2023 season to coincide with a new media rights agreement until USC and UCLA accepted Big Ten invitations beginning Aug. 2, 2024. Conference officials decided in October to delay any structural football changes until USC and UCLA participate in league play.
Warren, who was hired earlier this month as the Chicago Bears’ team president and chief executive officer, still participates in conference meetings, but school officials have no interest in waiting for a new Big Ten commissioner before finalizing the structure.
“We’ve had enough conversation,” Barta said. “I think we’re far enough along in the concept. And, really, we can’t wait much longer. It’s really important to lay out ’24 and beyond. We’ve talked about different versions of it. We’ve also talked about a range from ’24 to some other number out aways so we can all plan. Maybe it’s a four- or five-, six-year window that we lock in, so that we can put together our non-conference schedules.”
Big Ten officials have their winter meetings scheduled for Feb. 20-21 in Rosemont, Ill. “It might get finalized this month,” Barta said. “We’ll certainly talk about it. It’s on the agenda.”
What makes the most sense when USC, UCLA join the Big Ten?
How it might look
The conference will continue to play nine conference games, especially after signing new television and streaming agreements with CBS and NBC plus extending its deal with Fox through 2029. A competitive imbalance between the East and West divisions — especially in the conference title game — has drawn criticism. East Division teams have won all nine conference championships between the geographic divisions and own a 90-77 lead in cross-divisional games since the structure was enacted in 2014.
Multiple times the conference’s second-best team resided in the East Division, especially the past two seasons. But the hangup is how to secure important rivalry games while maintaining consistent scheduling. Some schools would prefer to protect three rivals annually while others have no preference.
The established priorities are to maximize College Football Playoff participation and ensure every player competes at every road venue at least once during a four-year period.
“We’ve talked about divisions/no divisions,” Barta said. “We’ve talked about protected rivals, and either everybody has the same or the concept of some schools having more, some schools having less.”
The easiest scheduling model includes every team protecting three opponents annually and cycling through the others twice in a four-year period. The protected opponents could rotate after a four-year block or remain permanent. The Big Ten has that now with Indiana–Purdue as a protected rivalry while the other East-West games change every six years.
“That will all get decided here soon, maybe as soon as this next meeting,” Barta said. “Those are the kinds of creative conversations we’ve had.”
LikeLike
Hey, do you guys remember my proposal for unequal annual rivalries that I posted last October? I sent that suggestion to all 16 Big Ten ADs. This is from The Athletic, Dec 13, 2022. Extremely long article, much redacted.
Big Ten schedules, divisions: What makes sense when USC, UCLA join the conference?
By Scott Dochterman Dec 13, 2022
As college football conferences weigh changes to their scheduling structures before College Football Playoff expansion, the Big Ten will incorporate a methodical approach to 2024.
The Big Ten will keep its East and West divisions through the 2023 season, and then USC and UCLA are slated to become official members on Aug. 2, 2024. It’s a near certainty the conference will then switch to a single-conference layout for scheduling and championship game qualification. But there are a few details to discuss before making it official, largely the number of protected rivals and opponent frequency. The topic has generated significant discussion but likely will wait until the league’s winter meetings in mid-February or perhaps as late as the spring meetings in May before it concludes.
“The goal is to have it done soon,” said Iowa athletics director Gary Barta, who ranks second in tenure among Big Ten ADs behind Ohio State’s Gene Smith. “I don’t know what soon is, but at this point, it’ll be into the next year. But the sooner the better because we’re all trying to make plans.
“I think most of us anticipate where it’s headed, but we need to finalize it.”
Other issues have taken precedence over the future scheduling model, especially after the Big Ten accepted USC and UCLA on June 30. The conference had to finalize a future media rights deal, which it did in mid-August. Commissioner Kevin Warren then focused on the intricacies and negotiations associated with Playoff expansion, which was approved for 12 teams and will begin in 2024.
In October, league and school officials debated about playing division-less in 2023, but some athletic directors preferred to unveil a new system when USC and UCLA became members. With pressure on the league to release a 2023 schedule, officials chose the status quo.
What’s likely to happen?
Other Power 5 conferences have considered or enacted changes to their formats since the NCAA Division I Council eliminated divisional play as a requirement for holding a championship game. Beginning next year, the ACC shifts to a single-conference format in which every team plays three permanent foes annually and the other 10 teams twice during a four-year period. The Pac-12 eliminated divisions in 2022. The Big 12 has yet to determine its scheduling formulas, which includes 14 teams this year and then 12 in either 2024 or 2025 onward.
The SEC has focused on two scheduling options for when Texas and Oklahoma join the league in 2024 or 2025. As a 16-team league, it either will stay at eight league games and every program has one permanent opponent, or it will shift to nine games and every program will have three permanent foes. Every program will face the others at least twice during a four-year period.
That model is a possibility for the Big Ten, or it could involve a wrinkle. There’s a lot of discussion about an uneven number of permanent rivals. Michigan could have two: Ohio State and Michigan State. Iowa could have three: Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska. USC and UCLA might protect only each other, and Penn State might not clamor for any single opponent.
“We’ve talked about, ‘What are our principles?’” Barta said. “A lot of them will be the same that they’ve been. Then some of the others might be, ‘Could we have differing numbers of rivals?’ We’re looking at that. Obviously, right away I said, ‘Here’s who I’d like to have,’ and it’s probably not hard to figure out who they are, the trophy games. But that hasn’t been decided.
“One of the principles we want is that if a player is here for four years, he gets to go to every stadium at least once so that we don’t have those seven-year gaps. So can we accomplish that and different (numbers of) rivals?”
Unequal-protected opponents could create complicated scheduling scenarios unless that is packaged within a 3-6-6 format, similar to the SEC’s proposal. Within that structure, there could be 24 “permanent” series with 10 or so written in stone and 14 rotating every four years. It’s not that dissimilar to the league’s current East-West arrangement, with Purdue-Indiana deemed permanent and the other non-divisional teams rotating annual opponents every six years.
But it must be done carefully because competitive equity matters, as do historical rivalries. So do the high-profile games the league’s media partners would like to air.
“We want to walk through that and just to make sure that we want this process to be collaborative,” Warren told The Athletic’s Nicole Auerbach. “And then on top of that, overlay all of this with our new TV partners and having three windows and Big Ten Saturday night with NBC and how all those different selection processes will work. So, it’s a lot of moving parts. But I think once we can get some of the cornerstones, as far as what the construct of our conference looks like, then we can start putting some of these pieces in place.”
In nine years of geographic divisions, the East leads 90-78 in crossover games but, more prominently, has won every championship. A competitive divide has widened during the past five years, which makes changes essential. During the first four years of geographic championship games, the point spread was four points or fewer in each one, and three of the contests were one-score outcomes. During the past five years, the spread has exceeded double digits, as has every final score.
Only two teams from the West (Iowa, 15-9; Wisconsin, 14-10) have winning records in crossover play, and only Iowa has beaten every East team during the past nine years. The East won 13 of the 21 crossover matchups this year, tied for the largest annual imbalance in the East-West alignment.
But swapping geographic divisions for a system that ensures balanced scheduling and a more equitable championship matchup has its challenges, which is why the league has navigated this transition slowly. There are 10-15 rivalries that stretch from the late 1800s through the present day, which the schools hold dear. Along with the series with at least 115 games — Minnesota-Wisconsin, Indiana–Purdue, Minnesota-Iowa, Illinois–Northwestern, Michigan-Michigan State and, of course, Ohio State-Michigan — others have regional significance.
Ohio State-Penn State annually ranks No. 2 or No. 3 in viewership among Big Ten-only games.
Among league teams, the Buckeyes have won the most games during the nine-year period, and Penn State is tied for fourth. Wisconsin and Iowa ranked second and tied for fourth, respectively, in wins during the same time frame, and their series often impacts the West race. Illinois-Purdue determined the West champion this year, and the schools are located 90 miles apart. Nebraska and Iowa have faced off on Black Friday every season since the Cornhuskers joined the conference in 2011.
Then there are those with historical importance but that have cycled off with rigid scheduling, such as Michigan-Minnesota (104 meetings) and Illinois-Ohio State (103). The Wolverines and Gophers play for the nation’s oldest traveling trophy, the Little Brown Jug (1909). The Buckeyes and Illini face off for the Illibuck (1925), and that series was played every year from 1914 through 2003.
LikeLike
Hey, do you guys remember my proposal for unequal annual rivalries that I posted last October? I sent that suggestion to all 16 Big Ten ADs.
Clearly your letter was instrumental!!
(For what it’s worth, I have favored such a format since before you joined this forum. However, I spared the Big Ten ADs the benefit of my wisdom.)
LikeLike
Marc: “I spared the Big Ten ADs the benefit of my wisdom.”
Actually, comments made by Iowa AD Gary Barta indicate that the Big Ten ADs do have some uncertainty about the concept of schools having unequal annual rivals. Here is the email that I sent to Barta this morning.
Dear Mr. Barta:
In The Athletic article of Feb 2, 2023 you are quoted, “We’ve talked about protected rivals, and either everybody has the same or the concept of some schools having more, some schools having less.”
And in The Athletic article of Dec 13, 2022 you are quoted, “Then some of the others might be, ‘Could we have differing numbers of rivals?’ We’re looking at that. Obviously, right away I said, ‘Here’s who I’d like to have,’ and it’s probably not hard to figure out who they are, the trophy games. But that hasn’t been decided.
“One of the principles we want is that if a player is here for four years, he gets to go to every stadium at least once so that we don’t have those seven-year gaps. So can we accomplish that and different (numbers of) rivals?”
The answer to that question is yes, in fact it happens automatically if none of the 16 schools in the conference has more than three locked rivalries and all non-rival conference games are played Round Robin. Last October I sent to you a proposal for Big Ten scheduling with unequal annual rivalries. All teams in the conference had three or fewer annual opponents except Penn State, for which I proposed four: Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio St and Michigan St. If we reduce Penn St to two or three annual rivalries, all four-year players on every team will visit every Big Ten stadium in a four year period. Here is a tweaked version of the format that I sent to you in October:
3 annual rivalry games:
Penn St – Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan St
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana
Purdue – Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern
Minnesota– Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
Iowa – Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
2 annual rivalry games:
Ohio St – Michigan, Penn St
Michigan – Ohio St, Michigan St
Rutgers – Penn St, Maryland
Indiana – Purdue, Illinois
Nebraska – Iowa, Minnesota
Maryland – Rutgers, Penn St
Michigan St – Michigan, Penn St
1 annual rivalry game:
Ohio St – Michigan
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
All other conference games would simply be played Round Robin. An additional benefit, it could easily be arranged for all 14 Eastern school to play at least one California school each year, either home or away. And if desired, we could schedule such that no team (other than Michigan State) plays both Ohio State and Michigan in the same year.
Also note how easily this format can be changed. If Purdue and Northwestern decide they don’t want to be annual rivals, then they simply cancel the annual series and the game goes into Round Robin rotation. There is no disruption to the rest of the conference scheduling.
Please consider this suggested format as the foremost option for the Big Ten moving forward. Sincerely, blah blah blah
LikeLike
https://mobile.twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1621499861756526592
I’ve been saying since the very beginning that there’s no way FOX would agree to this without real compensation which ESPN wouldn’t offer.
Doesn’t matter how much the Big 12 needs extra cash or Texas/OU want to leave, the problem is that FOX had real leverage to hold this off and without an overpayment (of content) from ESPN was unlikely to budge.
I never thought the odds of Texas/OU leaving early was anywhere near 50+% likelihood. Was always a low probability scenario given all the different needs here.
LikeLike
And Michigan might even have played a role in this: that Michigan-Texas schedule tweak a few years ago shifted the Michigan @ Texas game to 2024 which added another valuable piece to the 2024 Texas schedule.
Just hard to resolve that kind of content loss for FOX.
LikeLike
Zeek- I’ve read too many articles this morning to link them all, but a CBS Sports article intimated that FOX is set to lose 7 games in 2024, if OU and UT leave a year early. Also, as you pointed out, Michigan is playing in Austin in 2024. I’m sure FOX wants that game. I’m guessing FOX isn’t that interested in the OU-Temple or OU-Tulane games though.
So FOX wants 7 games. Why wouldn’t Disney agree?
If OU & UT stay in the B12 for 2024, Disney gets half the inventory under the current B12 agreement. If OU & UT go to the SEC in 2024, Disney gets it all, but they’ll have to pay a lot more. In the B12, UT & OU are worth $40m ($20m for Disney’s half), but in the SEC Disney will pay OU & UT ~$70m+. So Disney is being asked to pay $100m+ AND give up 7 games to get UT & OU into the SEC a year early.
Here’s my compromise:
1. OU & UT agree to take $40m each in 2024 from Disney, rather than the $70m+ the other schools will get.
2. B12 agrees to waive GoR penalty of ~$40m in exchange 4 home and home series with the remaining 8. UT – TCU, Baylor, Tech & W VA; OU – OK State, Kansas, K-State & Iowa State. If UT & OU back out, they pay $10m rather than the customary $1m to cancel a H&H.
3. Disney agrees that FOX can show these future OOC games at B12 campuses, even though the B12’s new deal is 2/3’s Disney & 1/3 FOX.
4. OU & UT each pay their full $80m exit fee to the B12 remaining 8.
5. If necessary, give FOX the Michigan-UT game in 2024.
Everybody wins!
LikeLike
Alan,
I think the problem is that there are too many moving parts for everyone to be happy. ESPN doesn’t want to pay Fox (in money or games), and Fox doesn’t want to help ESPN or the SEC.
2024
* OU and UT move to SEC
* B12 back to 12 teams, losing 14 games of inventory and the two biggest brands by far
* SEC to 16 teams, gaining 14 games of inventory
* ESPN and Fox split the B12 deal, so each lose 7 big brand games
* ESPN owns the SEC deal, so they gain 14 big brand games (+7 games net)
So Fox loses 7 games and 2 of the biggest brands in CFB to ESPN, and their B12 inventory is less valuable than before because lesser games now move up the selection list. Why would Fox want to help that happen a year early?
In your plan OU and UT take less from Disney than they could, and they both agree to pay the full exit fee, but the B12 allows it (waives GoR) and they both commit to 4 H&H OOC series against teams that despise them and don’t necessarily bring value. They move a year early which is a plus, but they compete against schools getting paid a lot more for the same games. How is that a win for them?
The 8 H&H series are nice for the remaining 8 B12 schools and give Fox back some OU and UT games, but they aren’t the same value as what Fox lost. Fox lost B12 conference games featuring UT and OU, and would get back future OOC games. Those would tend to be in September only, and spread over many years. Do you think Fox wants to be promoting 2 SEC teams in 2027 because they happen to have some games left in this deal?
LikeLike
Brian – not all seven game that FOX says they will lose in 2024 will be good or great games. For instance, in 2022, two Oklahoma games were televised on FOX (week 1 v UTEP – 1.22m & week 3 @ Nebraska – 3.41m) and one Texas game on FOX. It was a big one with Alabama in week 2 (10.6m). Each had three games on FS1 that drew anywhere from 1.25m to 711k.
Based, on last season, FOX loses one great and one good game.
Brain said “So Fox loses 7 games and 2 of the biggest brands in CFB to ESPN, and their B12 inventory is less valuable than before because lesser games now move up the selection list. Why would Fox want to help that happen a year early?”
Assuming UT & OU aren’t both elite teams in 2024, the odds say an OOC game between OU/UT and one of the remaining 8 over the next several years will include more good-to-great games over a 6-8 year period than in one year when there’s a 50% chance ABC gets the good game(s). FOX & ABC could agree that future SEC/B12 games on B12 campuses go to FOX.
Brain said “In your plan OU and UT take less from Disney than they could, and they both agree to pay the full exit fee, but the B12 allows it (waives GoR) and they both commit to 4 H&H OOC series against teams that despise them and don’t necessarily bring value. They move a year early which is a plus, but they compete against schools getting paid a lot more for the same games. How is that a win for them?”
FOX gets no part of UT & OU after 2024 under the current deal. If they allow UT & OU to leave a year early, they get years of OU/UT in hate/rivalry games, which is what TV values.
Brian said “Do you think Fox wants to be promoting 2 SEC teams in 2027 because they happen to have some games left in this deal?”
FOX will promoting the SEC by making UT & OU stay in 2024.
Here’s a great synopsis of where things stand right now.
https://www.si.com/college/2023/02/03/big-12-sec-texas-longhorns-oklahoma-sooners-split-explainer
* * *
“Since December—when Big 12 ADs met in Las Vegas—the two SEC-bound schools, as well as the eight legacy Big 12 universities, agreed to go their separate ways. There was a sense from both sides that the sooner they split, the better.
Take, for instance, this recent comment from a Big 12 administrator: “They want to go, and we want them to go.””
* * *
“Under their current Big 12 agreement, Fox broadcasts, say, four games a year each from Texas and Oklahoma. The network would need to be compensated for the loss of those eight games, says Bob Thompson, who was president of Fox for a decade until he stepped away in 2009.”
* * *
“Everybody, conceptually, is pretty close to a deal,” says one Big 12 source. “The hangup is Fox wants some inventory. If they get that figured out, they’re on the one-yard line.”
Something that has been discussed: Texas and Oklahoma playing road games at legacy Big 12 programs that, in theory, Fox would broadcast. Would that solve the inventory issue?
“I could see that happening and I could see Fox agreeing with that,” says Thompson.
* * *
“On Friday morning in Dallas, Big 12 athletic directors and schools presidents met for annual winter meetings. Texas’s and OU’s exits were expected to be a discussion point.
“It’s time to move on,” says one Big 12 administrator. “Best for everybody is just to move on.””
LikeLike
Alan,
So far, the results say those offered OOC games are not sufficient compensation, and I don’t blame Fox for feeling that way.
“Brian – not all seven game that FOX says they will lose in 2024 will be good or great games.”
They will lose 7 games if 2 teams leave. Teams like OU and UT generally play 7 home games (including the UT/OU game as a home game for one of them) every year. When those schools leave, the inventory is reduced by 14 games. Fox gets half of the B12 games, so they lose 7. Fox has the same slots to fill, but 0 UT or OU games available to fill them.
No, they won’t all be good or great games. But they all will be UT or OU games, and thus have the potential to be good or great for ratings.
“For instance, in 2022, two Oklahoma games were televised on FOX (week 1 v UTEP – 1.22m & week 3 @ Nebraska – 3.41m) and one Texas game on FOX. It was a big one with Alabama in week 2 (10.6m). Each had three games on FS1 that drew anywhere from 1.25m to 711k.”
And what would any other B12 team vs UTEP have drawn? Or anyone else vs NE? Anyone else vs AL probably drops that game by several million viewers. FS1 is a ratings killer, but the brands of OU and UT draw more eyeballs there for bad games than any other B12 team would have for the same bad game.
“Based, on last season, FOX loses one great and one good game.”
And millions of viewers, and the ability to advertise 2 huge brands, and to advertise to 2 huge fan bases.
“Assuming UT & OU aren’t both elite teams in 2024, the odds say an OOC game between OU/UT and one of the remaining 8 over the next several years will include more good-to-great games over a 6-8 year period than in one year when there’s a 50% chance ABC gets the good game(s).”
But those are apples and oranges:
1. OOC games are almost entirely in September, while Fox is losing games with potentially highly rated teams late in the season.
2. OOC games do not care the same weight of fan interest as late season conference games
3. Future OOC games don’t help Fox advertise “Big 12 Football on Fox” this year
4. Future OOC games force Fox to advertise SEC teams and indirectly help drive ratings for ESPN (like a Ford dealer having to sell Corvettes)
5. Future games don’t pay Fox this year, so they lose money waiting for compensation
6. 8 games in one season has more value than 8 games starting years from now and spread over 4+ years (many are saying not until 2027-30 or so).
7. Fox has no guarantee UT and OU won’t back out of the future games.
8. Fox has no guarantee how the other B12 teams (or UT and OU) will be viewed nationally in the future. They know what they have now.
9. Fox has no guarantee any of those future games will be good.
10. Fox would lose out on UT and OU games helping to build the perception of the B12 newbies as P5 teams. That can’t be repaid with future games.
“FOX & ABC could agree that future SEC/B12 games on B12 campuses go to FOX.”
Or ESPN could decide not to agree to that. We don’t know what they wanted or were willing to give in this deal.
“FOX gets no part of UT & OU after 2024 under the current deal. If they allow UT & OU to leave a year early, they get years of OU/UT in hate/rivalry games, which is what TV values.”
I was asking how it was a win for UT and OU there.
Years of games, sure, but maybe with no rivalry value anymore and diminished fan interest, and maybe less casual fan interest. Worse for Fox is that they’d be asked to promote 2 of ESPN’s biggest brands to build hype for the games.
“FOX will promoting the SEC by making UT & OU stay in 2024.”
No, they’ll still be promoting B12 teams.
I just don’t see an 8 for 7 trade being equal value in this scenario, and apparently neither does Fox.
LikeLike
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
LikeLike
They have another 8-10 months to come up with an agreement at most.
But sometimes, the best deal is no deal. No deal works out fine for FOX and ESPN so I don’t get the impetus for them to make a deal.
Big 12 and Texas/OU may be desperate for a deal (Big 12 to get extra cash and Texas/OU to bolt), but FOX and ESPN don’t have the urgency imo.
LikeLike
Adding the non-mobile link so it shows.
LikeLike
So far, grants of rights are undefeated. Not one has been broken before its end date.
LikeLike
The talks are only mostly dead.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I think the Thamel tweet earlier today was leaked to kick start negotiations and create a sense of urgency. I feel better about the deal getting done now than I did prior to the Thamel tweet.
LikeLike
It sounds as if everything’s in place except the compensation to FOX, which is the main thing that can break up the whole party.
The problem is that it’s not clear there’s a good deal for FOX out of all of this that’s as clean or simple as the games they’re getting in 2024.
This is different from a situation like CFP expansion where everybody knew that trying to get it done ASAP would be in everybody’s financial interests so a deal was always there to be had.
This isn’t an “everyone’s slice of the pie gets bigger” kind of situation. Taking Texas/OU out of the TV deal makes the entire slate worth considerably less.
Now maybe they do pull it off, but I’m still very skeptical that FOX wants to make a deal where they’re getting speculative games in 2025 and beyond versus what they have in 2024 in hand.
LikeLike
I cannot think of a reason for Fox to take a deal, unless the compensation offered is very obviously better than what they’d otherwise get in 2024. If it’s worse or a push, they should just say no — as they evidently have.
LikeLike
That’s the thing I always come back to: FOX has a major share of the 2 conferences that are getting the most focus the next 2 years.
Big 12 getting its 4 new members will be of interest to CFB world at large, especially while Texas/OU are still there the next 2 years.
The moment you pull Texas/OU out of that conference, interest will dim significantly.
And then you have USC/UCLA to the Big Ten in 2024; so in 2024 you have the expanded Big Ten and Big 12 (with Texas/OU).
For FOX to shift Texas/OU to the SEC (which will bring a huge portion of the attention to a non-FOX property and away from the Big 12 in 2024) they had better be getting a King’s ransom.
Why not enjoy 2024 with the Big Ten and Big 12 getting all of the attention before 2025 and having a head start on ESPN/SEC? They’d better be getting an incredible package to give that up given the attention we know the SEC will get with Texas/OU.
LikeLike
Not to mention that these speculated OOC game at B12 schools would need to fit within the current B12 TV deal (through 2030-31) to guarantee Fox can show them.
UT doesn’t have any openings until 2027 (and have OSU and MI in 2024-26 so Fox doesn’t want those to go away). UT already has a game @MI set for 2027 (presumably the OOC series with UGA and UF in 2028-2031 will come off their schedule), meaning they would have to play 2 P5 OOC games one year. It’s certainly possible they are willing to double up when the team is someone like KU.
OU has MI in 2025-26 and NE in 2029-30, so they only have 2024, 2027 and 2028 open unless they double up on P5s one season. As with UT, I could see them being willing to double up once if they get the right opponent.
That’s all just to make the games possible, and assuming the B12 schools would agree on dates and locations.
Then Fox has to worry about UT and OU cancelling the games rather than playing them. And even if they do get played, they have less value both because they are all in September and because OOC games carry less impact. And on top of those games having less value, they are future games so their net present value is less. For 2024, Fox would get 7 less valuable games than they normally would and they wouldn’t get games against UT and OU to showcase the new B12 members and help the national perception of the newbies as being P5 schools.
As a kicker, there is some chance UT and OU would play some OOC games against B12 schools anyway, so Fox may be getting “compensated” with games they would’ve gotten anyway.
Fox may be asking for UT and OU SEC games as compensation. ESPN presumably doesn’t want to give those up, nor do they want to give up more than 8 OOC games most likely.
There is a price that would get Fox to say yes, but I’m not sure ESPN (or UT and OU) is willing to pay it.
LikeLike
McMurphy said on a podcast that all 5-ESPN, Fox, UT, OU and the Big 12 wanted a deal. Just that they hadn’t been able to reach agreement as of yet.
Apparently Fox is the primary holdup. They aren’t satisfied with the deals offered.
LikeLike
FOX should realize that they aren’t the only ones with leverage. If FOX doesn’t agree to let this divorce take place, UT & OU can just cancel their future home and homes with Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska.
It’s not like OU & UT need those B1G schools to supplement their crappy B12 home schedules anymore, with Bama, LSU, UGA, Florida, Auburn & Tennessee all coming to town on a regular basis.
So FOX can lose three potential 6m+ viewer games and one 3m+ game over the next few years to keep a Texas/Kansas and OU/Cincy game on FS1 in 2024.
Maybe the future SEC only schedules ACC & Pac OOC games in the future.
LikeLike
Alan,
Fox gets less than half of the B12’s games in the future, so they may not get any of those 3 games anyway. And the schools may cancel those series anyway (as you threaten), meaning there are no big games to get.
That would just be UT and OU screwing the B10 schools (who have nothing to do with any of this). It would also mean penalties for cancelling those series and a scramble to find replacements.
None of us know exactly what has been offered. Everyone can want a deal but they have to agree on fair compensation, and fair tends to look different from every point of view. The B12 has about 80M reasons to want them to leave early. OU and UT want to be done with it. ESPN benefits from the move, so of course they want it. Fox is the only party who unequivocally loses if the schools move early, so of course Fox will be the hardest one to satisfy.
Every proposal I see from SEC fans is not fair compensation. Eight future OOC games, which may even get cancelled and would be hard to schedule based on existing schedules anyway, are not financially equivalent to what Fox would lose.
Just for argument’s sake, let’s assume the 2024 B12 schedule would mirror 2023 with swapped locations.
UT: CSU, MI, UTSA, Baylor, @KU, vs OU, bye, UH, @BYU, @KSU, TCU, ISU, @TT
OU: Temple, open, Tulane, UC, @ISU, vs UT, bye, @UCF, KSU, OkSU, @WV, BYU, @TCU
Potential UT & OU games Fox could get in 2024:
1. CSU, Temple
2. MI, ?
3. UTSA, Tulane
4. Baylor, UC
5. KU, ISU
6. UT vs OU
7. none
8. UH, UCF
9. BYU, KSU
10. KSU, OkSU
11. TCU, WV
12. ISU, BYU
13. TT, TCU
That’s 23 high value games that disappear from the inventory, reducing the value of all the games Fox does end up showing plus 8 king games (including at least 1 king-king game) they don’t get to show.
Eight potential future OOC games (as you note, the schools could cancel them) in Septembers only, spread over several years (have to finish by 2030 when the TV deal ends) do not provide anywhere near equal value. OU and UT don’t have room for more than 4 games apiece in their future schedules through 2030, and games after 2031 don’t help because Fox may not have the B12 rights by then.
How do OOC games replace content Fox loses in October and November? How do OOC games replace conference games? How does any OOC game replace the RRR? How do future games replace value lost now?
Disney has other ways it could compensate Fox. It could give Fox higher picks, or even a CCG. It could give some other UT and OU OOC games. It could give some SEC games. It could give a flat bunch of cash, or cash dependent on viewership and ad revenue numbers.
We don’t know what Disney has offered, but Fox has the right to want to be made whole plus some (for the risk that the compensation isn’t as valuable as expected). Everyone else gets what they want, so why shouldn’t Fox be well compensated for that?
LikeLike
According to the Orangebloods Rivals site owner, FOX is asking for $45m in cash, which equates to the average gross ad revenue for seven FOX college football games. Considering that’s not their profit and seven OU/UT games likely won’t be aired on FOX, that amount sounds way high. Maybe $20m and agree to keep the currently scheduled B1G home & homes could do the deal.
LikeLike
I’m not necessarily defending Fox, as we didn’t know what they were asking for either. I have no idea if that site is credible on this, as they have an obvious reason to potentially be biased. Is that $45M Fox’s starting point (always ask high to start, right?), or as low as they came down? What was Disney/others counterproposal? OOC games? $10M? $30M? I prefer not to read too much into a leak like this without the full picture.
If Fox prefers cash to potential future OOC games, that’s perfectly reasonable. Then it just comes down to how much, and it takes experts to know what might make them whole but we can do some very rough math.
First, let’s use 2022 as a proxy. Last year, Fox had 9 B12 games on Fox itself with 18 on FS1 for a total of 27. 3 of the 9 involved OU or UT, as did 6 of the 18. So Fox should lose 9 OU/UT games, not 7.
1. Let’s say $45M is the average gross ad revenue for 7 CFB games on Fox. I’m going to assume that covers Fox and FS1 based on the split of actual games. That’s $6.43M per game and $57.9M for 9 games.
2. Can we agree that UT and OU games (on average) are probably above the average of other B12 schools? Let’s say they are worth $8M per game on average (basically +25%). That makes the gross revenue for 9 games $72M.
3. UT and OU are 33% of the B12 inventory that Fox shows, so if their games are worth +25% above the average, the rest are worth $5.6M per game, or $50.6M for 9.
4. The newbies are presumably worth less than existing P5 members, as they lack existing rivalries and have smaller fan bases. Let’s say they are worth -25% compared to the previous average ($4.2M per game). They would now be 33% of the B12 inventory. That brings the new B12 average down to $5.2M per game, or $46.4M for 9 games.
5. So that makes a direct loss of 72-46.4 = $25.6M in gross revenue on just those 9 games.
6. What about the overall schedule? Is there an overall negative impact on the B12 from the loss of UT and OU? Is there a general loss of interest in them, especially in TX which has most of the B12’s markets, because they lack those 2 kings? Let’s say that’s a -10% effect. That brings the per game average to $4.6M per game. Over 27 total games, that’s another $13.9M.
7. So a really rough total loss estimate is $25.6M + $13.9M = $39.5M
8. But that is gross revenue, as you point out, not profit. But all of Fox’s expenses should be roughly the same, with perhaps an increase in travel costs due to the larger footprint and an increase in costs to sell ads for less valuable games. They still have to show the same number of games, so a reduction in gross revenue is a direct loss of profit.
My point is, that $45M number might not be ridiculous. I made all sorts of guesses and assumptions, and I’m not claiming they are accurate. But the experts should be able to generate more accurate numbers and perform this same set of calculations. I’m assuming Fox’s people made the most pessimistic assumptions possible while ESPN’s are making the most optimistic assumptions. Somewhere in the middle is a reasonable prediction.
And note that doesn’t include any extra Fox wants for essentially doing ESPN a favor. That has a definite value as well.
As to the B10 OOC games, how is agreeing to keep already scheduled games compensation? First, UT and OU could cancel them anyway. Second, they are already scheduled so it’s a threat to cut Fox’s revenue even more, not an offer of compensation. Besides, they would have to pay the B10 schools for cancelling the games so it would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
LikeLike
FOX should realize that they aren’t the only ones with leverage. If FOX doesn’t agree to let this divorce take place, UT & OU can just cancel their future home and homes with Michigan, Ohio State and Nebraska.
All of those games have buyout costs, so it’s a threat that would cost them some money. We don’t know if they have issued such a threat.
According to the Orangebloods Rivals site owner, FOX is asking for $45m in cash, which equates to the average gross ad revenue for seven FOX college football games. Considering that’s not their profit and seven OU/UT games likely won’t be aired on FOX, that amount sounds way high.
Sometimes you make a high offer because it’s a deal you really don’t want. FOX has no reason to do those teams any favors.
LikeLike
“Apparently Fox is the primary holdup. They aren’t satisfied with the deals offered.”
The usual solution to that is to improve your offer. They all want Fox to do them a favor, and they want Fox to lose money on top of it. Shockingly, Fox doesn’t seem inclined to agree.
LikeLike
Fox isn’t going to “lose” any money. They are paying the nBig 12 more than they are paying the old Big 12 with Texas and OU. What they are asking in compensation for giving up a piece of their very profitable deal is more than UT and OU are willing to pay right now.
LikeLike
They would be losing money in 2024 compared to what they would make if UT and OU were still there.
New TV deals always go up a lot. It would’ve gone up a lot more if UT and OU were still there. But that’s in 2025. 2024 is the old deal, and deals are designed to start high (so it looks good in the announcement and schools are happy) then become undervalued by the end (look at ACC deal).
I don’t know who is unwilling pay. It could be Disney, or the 2 schools, or all 3.
LikeLike
I wish to introduce the concept of “schedule pairs” in the Big Ten. This has nothing to do with designating annual rivals or whether to go with fixed 3-6-6 or variable annual rivals. It concerns filling out the rest of the conference schedule in an equitable, geographically balanced manner.
I have formulated eight innate pairs of Big Ten teams for scheduling. They are located in proximity to each other and have had ballpark equivalent football success over the years. The reasoning for these pairs is that if you schedule one, you don’t schedule the other. Each team should square off against one opponent of an innate pair each year, but not both. That means if Illinois plays Ohio State, optimal scheduling dictates they shouldn’t play Michigan the same year. Likewise, if Illinois plays UCLA, optimal scheduling dictates they wouldn’t play USC the same year. Ditto Rutgers & Maryland. Ditto Indiana and Purdue.
Here are the innate pairs:
Rutgers-Maryland
Mich St-Penn St
Ohio St-Michigan
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Northwestern
Wisconsin-Minnesota
Iowa-Nebraska
USC-UCLA
Here’s how this works. Let’s say the Big Ten decides upon some format in which Iowa has three annual opponents: Wisky Minny Nebby. The rest of Iowa’s schedule would then fill out like this using inate pairs:
2024 2025 2026 2027
Wisky Wisky Wisky Wisky
Minny Minny Minny Minny
Nebby Nebby Nebby Nebby
Ohio St Michigan Ohio St Michigan
Rutgers Maryland Rutgers Maryland
Mich St Penn St Mich St Penn St
Illinois Northwestn Illinois Northwestern
USC UCLA USC UCLA
Indiana Purdue Indiana Purdue
Of course, the 2024 games would swap home-away with the 2026 games, ditto 2025 games and 2027 games. Guys, don’t worry about hurting my feelings. Tell me what you really think.
LikeLike
Schedules didn’t post clearly. I’ll try again.
2024——–2025——–2026——–2027
Wisky______Wisky______Wisky_____Wisky
Minny______Minny_____Minny_____Minny
Nebby______Nebby_____Nebby_____Nebby
Ohio St_____Michigan___Ohio St____Michigan
Rutgers_____Maryland___Rutgers___Maryland
Mich St_____Penn St____Mich St____Penn St
Illinois_____Northwestn__Illinois____Northwestern
USC_______UCLA______USC______UCLA
Indiana_____Purdue_____Indiana___Purdue
LikeLike
This could be a reasonable way to do it, except that you’ve got the rotation happening annually. Historically, the Big Ten usually rotated bi-annually, so that you get a home-and-home in consecutive years against the non-protected opponents. This means, for example, that if Iowa loses to Michigan State, they get a chance at revenge the following year before the Spartans rotate off the schedule.
LikeLike
Marc: “This could be a reasonable way to do it, except that you’ve got the rotation happening annually. Historically, the Big Ten usually rotated bi-annually, so that you get a home-and-home in consecutive years against the non-protected opponents.”
Well, that’s an easy fix . . .
2024———-–2025———–2026———2027
Wisky______Wisky______Wisky_____Wisky
Minny______Minny_____Minny_____Minny
Nebby______Nebby_____Nebby_____Nebby
Ohio St_____Ohio St____Michigan___Michigan
Rutgers_____Rutgers____Maryland__Maryland
Mich St_____Mich St____Penn St____Penn St
Illinois_____Illinois_____Northwestn_Northwestern
USC_______USC_______UCLA______UCLA
Indiana____Indiana_____Purdue_____Purdue
LikeLike
Colin,
The concept isn’t new. I used it when discussing scheduling up above, suggesting zipper scheduling.
It applies to a 3-6-6 in football, but also for pairs to schedule for long hoops trips. One locked game would be your partner school, and the other two were either a pair themselves or halves of 2 separate pairs. If they were from separate pairs, their respective partners became paired for your zipper schedule.
I came up with a very similar set of pairs:
USC/UCLA
NE/IA
WI/MN
NW/IL
PU/IN
UM/MSU
OSU/PSU
UMD/RU
I paired the MI schools for recruiting and proximity. OH and PA are similar size and important recruiting grounds for the B10, with each state dominated by 1 king program so I felt they were a good pair. Almost everyone agrees these 8 games would be locked
The fancier version would also alternate the stronger and weaker program in each pair so you get 3 of each plus your locked 3, You could even pre-group the pairs for that:
UMD/RU
USC/UCLA
Play USC + RU or UCLA + UMD
NE/IA
WI/MN
Play NE + MN or WI + IA (assumes NE returns to a top 20 program)
NW/IL
PU/IN
Play NW + IN or PU + IL
UM/MSU
OSU/PSU
Play UM + PSU or OSU + MSU
LikeLike
Free link from today’s Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/charlie-baker-can-save-womens-sports-swimming-ncaa-competition-collegiate-athletics-hormone-therapy-11675691915?st=r48ci4ueazeb4fx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Yes, and maybe then we can segregate sports again too, to “protect” certain athletes from being beaten by better athletes. After all, everyone has the right to always win their events.
LikeLike
Brian, I’m starting to think that you may be rabid woke. Do you favor gender dysphoria training for 5-yr-olds in public schools?
LikeLike
Oh no! A scared old bigot may have negative opinions about me (and almost everyone else in the world). Please don’t tell all your goose-stepping friends. I’ll rush right out to buy the stars and bars to fly at home.
How dare I suggest women be allowed to compete as women? After all, there tens of examples of minor inconveniences it has caused someone. That completely outweighs that thousands of suicides, rapes and murders that happen in the transgender community due to people like you. After all, a spoiled white girl didn’t get to win a gold medal – that’s a national tragedy.
It’s obviously such a major problem, with all the world records and Olympic medals going to trans athletes. Clearly this should be the NCAA’s top concern, not NIL, the transfer portal, athletes as employees, Title IX, or anything else.
LikeLike
Brian: “How dare I suggest women be allowed to compete as women?”
That’s where we disagree, Brian. Not only scared old bigots, but most normal folks believe that a guy who has Frankensteinian surgery on his genitals, injects himself with girly hormones, changes his pronouns and starts calling himself Lisa does not become a woman.
The solution is to abolish men’s and women’s teams and replace them with Genotype XY and Genotype XX teams. A person’s genotype can be quickly and easily determined with testing kits that are available today.
If a swimmer tests genotype XY, he/she swims on the XY team. That person is free to call himself/herself, male, female, transwoman, pronouns she/her, Steve, Sally, inject estrogen, whatever. A genotype XY competes on the XY team. Period.
Likewise, only genotype XX swimmers compete on the Genotype XX team. They too may use whatever pronouns they wish.
LikeLike
The solution is to abolish men’s and women’s teams and replace them with Genotype XY and Genotype XX teams.
Why stop there? I am sure your next battleground will be athletes on the XX team who’ve gained an unfair advantage by injecting male hormones.
LikeLike
Marc: “I am sure your next battleground will be athletes on the XX team who’ve gained an unfair advantage by injecting male hormones.”
My next battleground? Performance-enhancing horomones have been banned for decades.
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/6/10/ncaa-banned-substances.aspx
LikeLike
Colin,
You continue to display every characteristic I’ve come to expect from an Aggie, including being uninformed.
* I don’t care what bigots like you think, doctors disagree that they aren’t women (and so did the NY Supreme Court almost 50 years ago).
* Not all trans athletes have gender-affirming surgery, and not all athletes who have genital surgery are trans.
* Not all trans athletes take hormones, and not all athletes who take hormones are trans.
* People outside of the transgender community also change their pronouns.
* You seem to be unaware of the fact that humans exist on a spectrum. What about people who aren’t XX or XY? What about XX women with much higher than normal testosterone levels? What about people with both sets of genitalia? Neither set? Will there be breast size measurements to make sure athletes are woman enough to compete?
* Who is going to check every athlete, starting at what level, and who is going to pay for it? Who is going to certify that doctors aren’t cheating? In a world where doctors keep getting arrested for molesting hundreds of patients, who is going to force hundreds of thousands of girls to get a genitalia check?
* Maybe you want to force public IQ tests for Special Olympics athletes, too?
* Put disabled athletes in life-threatening situations without assistive technology to see if they are physically impaired enough to satisfy you?
LikeLike
Brian, your “questions” are woke gibberish and I’ve already answered all of them. Listen up this time, OK?
Athletes with the XY genotype play on the XY genotype team. Period.
Athletes with the XX genotype play on the XX genotype team. Period.
LikeLike
I can see it now: Jim Nantz announcing with great excitement the “NCAA XY Basketball Championship on CBS.” I am sure that will be a big hit.
The XX Championship will be very confusing, as some people will think it’s a new porn channel. Oh, I forgot to add. “Period.” Always more impressive when you include that.
LikeLike
Marc, can you visualize the NCAA women’s basketball championship game with Fresno State having three trans freaks in the starting lineup?
LikeLike
Bigot,
Typical Aggie bigot reading comprehension.
One of my questions: “What about people who aren’t XX or XY?”
Bigot:
“Brian, your “questions” are woke gibberish and I’ve already answered all of them. Listen up this time, OK?
Athletes with the XY genotype play on the XY genotype team. Period.
Athletes with the XX genotype play on the XX genotype team. Period.”
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/klinefelter/conditioninfo/risk
Where is the answer to my question? It is a scientific fact that not all people are XX or XY. That darn woke science, with it’s pesky details that get in the way of your discrimination. 1 in 500 “boys” are born with XXY chromosomes. That’s almost as common as being trans. More rare is XXXY and even rarer is XXXXY. There are also conditions up to XYYYYY and XXXXX. Look out, they’ll be taking over sports any second now. We’re going to need a lot of different teams.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24060-aneuploidy
And you’re fine with intersex people (genitalia and body form don’t match gender chromosomes) on each team? A high testosterone XX athlete with big muscles and a penis is fine on the XX team? What if a child was declared male at birth based on appearance (the normal method for assigning gender), raised male, is attracted to women, and only later is determined to be XX. After years on boys teams they should move to the girls team?
But of course bigots like you are incapable of nuance. The world must be black and white because gray scares you. You don’t understand anything different from what you know, so it must not exist.
LikeLike
Typical tantrum of the rabid woke. Genotyping resolves virtually all problems that have been created by these Nancyboys who identify as women but you’re obsessing about some rare medical exceptions.
Brian, trans women are still free to identify as women and use pronouns she/her. They can change their names from George to Lisa. They can mutilate their God-given genitals. They can inject girly hormones and grow boobs. But they play on the team that corresponds with their genotype, not the team that they chose to play on.
Regarding your hissyfit about those with Klinefelter syndrome, the Mayo Clinic states “Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition affecting males”. There you have it. Those with Klinefelter syndrome play on the XY teams. Problem solved.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/klinefelter-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20353949
LikeLike
Brian: “Bigot, Typical Aggie bigot reading comprehension.”
Hey Brian, your trans buddy is now showing his junk to the female members of the swim team in the women’s locker room>
https://www.foxnews.com/media/lia-thomas-exposed-male-genitalia-womens-locker-room-after-meet-riley-gaines-dropped-pants
LikeLike
Marc, can you visualize the NCAA women’s basketball championship game with Fresno State having three trans freaks in the starting lineup?
Besides the fact that your “solution” doesn’t work as a matter of science (see Brian’s reply), how many trans athletes are there anyway? How many NCAA women’s basketball teams have reached the Final Four with even one trans athlete, to say nothing of three? It seems to be a “solution” looking for a problem.
And how sad it is that you call them “freaks.” I understand the concerns where athletes with seemingly male biology compete, and have a purported advantage, against those with mostly female biology. Exactly where you draw that line is a legitimate question. But they are human beings, not freaks.
LikeLike
Marc: “Besides the fact that your “solution” doesn’t work as a matter of science (see Brian’s reply),”
I readily provided the scientific response to Brian’s childish tantrum. If you want an “official” modification, teams will be either genotype XX or XY+. See how easy that was?
LikeLike
Newsflash!
Swimmer changes clothes in dressing room!
More at 11!
LikeLike
Hard to believe that this is the biggest problem that Charlie Baker’s got to solve, nor even in the top 10.
LikeLike
Marc: “Hard to believe that this is the biggest problem that Charlie Baker’s got to solve, nor even in the top 10.”
It made the front page of the WSJ. Try finding ten other NCAA issues that have done that.
LikeLike
It was an op-ed that one of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers accepted for publication. While I do not question that the writer sincerely believed what she wrote, that would hardly be the way that Baker decides what to spend his time on.
I am sure I could find many op-eds sympathetic to trans women that have appeared on the opinion pages of liberal papers. Would you agree that those views deserve equal weight?
(I am not sure it was on the front page of the printed WSJ. The website always links that day’s opinion pieces on the landing page. This does not mean any human has decided that this is the top issue in collegiate sports, just that it was one of the many op-eds they published that particular day.)
LikeLike
This is from The Athletic. I believe anyone can fill out the survey if you use the link at the end of the article and enter your own email address.
Big Ten football survey: Who should each team play when USC, UCLA join conference?
By Scott Dochterman
In 2024, the Big Ten will add USC and UCLA and increase its membership to 16 teams. The conference also plans to scuttle divisional play in favor of a singular scheduling unit.
What remains undetermined is how Big Ten and school officials plan to set future scheduling beyond a nine-game annual slate. There is a desire to protect historic rivalries while ensuring every football player competes on each campus at least once every four years.
The easiest scheduling system is 3-6-6, where each school competes against three opponents annually and then faces the other 12 twice over a four-year period. Although many rivalries would extend for the next 100 years, the conference could shuffle some of the series every four years based on competitive reasons or prominence.
Before Big Ten and school officials meet later this month to potentially decide, we are asking readers to rank three annual opponents for each school (1 for most important, 3 for third-most important). Voting lasts until 6 p.m. ET on Friday, and the results will publish next week along with analysis from The Athletic staff.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1JJOYgUzM-oBLYD981J3xhYEuOkiwmr-hC_s-0tbkq-k/viewform?edit_requested=true
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35603611/iowa-amends-oc-brian-ferentz-deal-incentives-points-wins
IA is really getting serious about their offense. Brian Fernetz took a tiny pay cut and needs to improve the offense from abysmal to bad to get it all back plus some.
In the new contract, Ferentz will make a base salary of $850,000 and will be able to have his contract reinstated to a two-year rolling agreement with a bonus and salary adjustment if the team meets certain requirements. The team needs to score at least 25 points per game and win a minimum of seven games in 2023 for Ferentz to hit his goals.
Ferentz was previously making $900,000. He’ll receive up to $112,500 in bonus money if he hits all the incentives. His current contract ends on June 30, 2024.
The incentive marks are relatively low, as 25 points per game would have placed Iowa at tied for 85th among 131 FBS teams. This past season, the Hawkeyes ranked 123rd, averaging just 17.69 total points scored per game. The offense ranked second to last in yards per game, third to last in yards per play, averaged under 100 yards rushing per game and 156.7 passing yards per game, which was good for No. 123 overall.
They won 8 games with their horrendous offense last year, so winning 7 with an improved offense seems trivial. Of course, this makes him responsible for the defense not falling apart too which is a theoretical risk.
I would be happy to coach just as bad of an offense as Ferentz for a lot less money, say just $500,000.
LikeLike
On top of all that, the target of 25 ppg includes points scored by the defense. All defenses score points, and Iowa’s defense scores more than average, so the actual target that Ferentz needs to hit is even easier than it seems.
LikeLike
The P12 is at least semi-serious about SMU as an expansion candidate. I don’t think it’s the right choice for them to have 1 school on an island in TX despite the access to the Dallas market, TX recruiting and central time.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 will do fine — at most one game per year in Texas. The big losers would be the SMU athletes, who’d face a steady diet of long road trips and late game times. But for the kind of money the Pac-12 can offer, my guess is they’d take it.
LikeLike
I agree the P12 would be fine, I just don’t think it helps them much if at all. It may be the only #12 they can agree on due to academics, but I just don’t think they are worth it.
From SMU’s POV, it isn’t ideal but no other P5 conference will make them an offer. The extra money will cover the extra expenses and travel won’t be all that bad (see UCLA’s report).
LikeLike
The P12 would be far better off with BYU than SMU. BYU is three times larger than SMU, SMU is in a TV market dominated by the Cowboys, Longhorns and Aggies, Their fan base is miniscule. BYU would keep the B12 out of the P12 footprint and BYU has a long rivalry with Utah (95 football games).
The P12 would be a lot better off to pay the BYU exit fee from the B12 and bring the Cougars in.
LikeLike
“While each school seems to be at least somewhat popular statewide, each team is most popular in the region the program is located, the analysis shows. The Texas Longhorns are beloved in Austin, the capital region and South Texas, TAMU is a top choice in East Texas, Texas Tech dominates the popularity contest throughout West Texas and the Panhandle, Baylor is the favorite in Central Texas, the Houston Cougars are most popular in Houston and the surrounding area and TCU is the favorite in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.”
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/most-popular-college-football-team-Beaumont-Texas-17405250.php#:~:text=The%20Texas%20Longhorns%20are%20beloved,and%20the%20surrounding%20area%20and
LikeLike
The P12 would be far better off with BYU than SMU.
Yes, of course they would. But it is highly unlikely that BYU is available at any reasonable price. Even if the Pac-12 pays the exit fee, the media rights payout looks to be at best equal to what they’d get in the big XII, and possibly not even that. Add to that the Pac-12’s many other drawbacks, there is no way BYU accepts.
This is why every believable expansion candidate is a G5 school. Whether SMU deserves to be one of them I don’t know. There is no clear no-brainer once you get past SDSU.
LikeLike
Marc: “There is no clear no-brainer once you get past SDSU.”
True, but there are nonetheless several choices that are clearly better than SMU: Fresno, UNLV, Boise, AFA.
LikeLike
…there are nonetheless several choices that are clearly better than SMU: Fresno, UNLV, Boise, AFA.
A number of sources have written pro-con articles on most of these schools. I have not seen any analysis that was clear-cut once you get past SDSU. Fresno, UNLV, and Boise have significant drawbacks as well. I have not seen a source that wrote up AFA, as they are not usually considered a believable candidate for reasons that have been much discussed in this forum.
LikeLike
Marc: “I have not seen a source that wrote up AFA, as they are not usually considered a believable candidate for reasons that have been much discussed in this forum.”
They were offered by the Big XII in 2011.
https://www.mwcconnection.com/2011/10/9/2478729/big-east-expansion-air-force-to-big-east
LikeLike
AFA did not want to play against that level of competition. The Pac-12 minus USC & UCLA is still a big step up from the schedules they play now. That was over 10 years ago, but I haven’t seen the slightest hint that they have changed their minds. Since everyone knows the Pac-12 is going to expand, I am sure the AFA would have been in touch if they were interested.
LikeLike
The idea of Air force joining the Pac-12 still has some traction.
https://superwestsports.com/mclaughlin-the-case-for-air-force-joining-the-pac-12/
LikeLike
Colin,
Athletically, I agree that BYU is a much better option. Athletic success, fan base, regionality, brand value – BYU is better in all of them. But there is one humongous problem that outweighs all of the upside: academics. The church controls BYU and limits their academic freedom. That is a bright red line for the P12. There is no chance the P12 would accept them. This is where institutional fit becomes the only thing that matters.
Other possible concerns:
1. No new market. UU already brings SLC, so while BYU has fans everywhere they don’t add to the footprint. They do add TV eyeballs nationally (mostly in the west), but not a lot in any one location.
2. UU doesn’t want to see BYU on their level. They like being academically above them and probably don’t want to see BYU in their conference.
3. The B12 exit fee. If you have to pay $80M to get BYU, how long does it take for that to pay off? Where do they get the money from?
4. Do you bring BYU in at a full share? UU didn’t get a full share at first. Does the P12 top the B12’s offer to BYU, or just offer them a better location?
5. Does BYU want to be in the P12? Might the church prefer the more national spread of the new B12, getting games from Utah to Texas to Ohio to Florida?
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-expansion-with-san-diego-state-smu-may-be-necessary-before-league-inks-new-media-rights-deal/
Dennis Dodd’s sources think the P12 may need to expand to 12 to get the media deal they want. How does that fit with Kliavkoff’s plan to sign a deal and then expand? Do networks really care which happens first if composition clauses are in the contract?
The Pac-12 may need to commit to conference expansion first before achieving its compensation target in a new media rights deal, sources with knowledge of the situation tell CBS Sports. In an effort to return to 12 members following the departures of USC and UCLA, the Pac-12 has focused its efforts on evaluating San Diego State and SMU.
Pac-12 commissioner Georgia Kliavkoff has already toured San Diego State, CBS Sports previously learned. He is planning to visit SMU on Wednesday, according to Brett McMurphy.
The Pac-12’s next media rights deal will be heavily reliant on a digital streaming partner. Significantly more than half of each season’s Pac-12 football games will be primarily available via streaming as part of the conference’s next rights deal, sources tell CBS Sports.
Such a ratio is unprecedented for a Power Five conference and for whichever streaming giant becomes the first to more fully embrace college sports. The move would likely upset Pac-12 coaches, athletic directors and administrators who rely on widespread visibility for their games via linear (cable) and network platforms for everything from athletic recruitment to university enrollment.
…
The next Pac-12 deal is expected to be split between a streaming service and ESPN. With the Pac-12 seemingly unable to reach its compensation target — believed to be approximately $30 million to $35 million per program annually — it appears to be urgent for the conference to expand as a condition of completing a deal in the monetary range it seeks.
Conferences that find themselves in this situation typically negotiate a new rights deal prior to completing a separate deal for expansion. That order establishes value for existing conference members prior to adding new members.
…
It is not known whether San Diego State or SMU — two Group of Five schools — would receive full media rights shares if the Pac-12 chooses them for expansion. Adding the programs would increase annual Pac-12 game inventory 20% from 75 games per season to 90.
Which streaming giant is in the lead to ultimately carry Pac-12 games is unknown. Amazon was successful last season with its NFL “Thursday Night Football” package. Apple recently signed a 10-year contract with MLS. However, neither platform has shown much interest in college sports to this point. (Industry experts project most major sports will be viewed on streaming in coming years.)
LikeLike
Canzano just now put up a good read on the Pac.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGrcXkXbSMHxprKQKsHtjrkpnNv
LikeLike
I think you meant this link:
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-expansion-ramps-up
• Adding San Diego State would get the Pac-12 back into Southern California and regain 1.13 million television households.
…
• Adding SMU would bring the Dallas TV market with it. That’s 2.96 million TV homes.
• SMU + San Diego State = 4.1 million combined TV households. That will be attractive to media partners. But after the dust settles, the Pac-12 would still have ~2.6 million fewer television homes than it did before the departures of USC/UCLA.
• The Big Ten will have 33.9 million TV homes after USC and UCLA join. The ACC has 28.3 million and the SEC’s looming expansion will raise that conference to 22.4 million TV homes. The Big 12 will swell to 15.1 million homes after its oncoming expansion.
…
• Would the Pac-12 expand beyond 12 members? It’s possible, depending on how motivated the conference is to add extra inventory and TV homes. The problem becomes finding no-brainer candidates who fit the geography and the conference’s academic profile.
• I’m told, per a source, that one of the media-rights partners the Pac-12 is engaged with is looking for “some tonnage.” The unnamed entity would like to beef up the inventory. This sounds a lot like Amazon, which needs content for the sports app it floated a while ago.
• ESPN and Amazon are the likely Pac-12 media-rights partners. FOX is out. I think that the ramp-up in expansion talk this week signals that the conference is wrapping up the media-rights negotiation. I expect the Pac-12 to have something to talk about before the conference basketball tournaments in Las Vegas next month.
…
• Academic profile will be a consideration for any addition. The presidents and chancellors in the Pac-12 have never viewed UNLV, Fresno State and Boise State as academic peers. Would they start now? This feels like an obstacle for all three. SMU and San Diego State fit much better.
…
• There has been a lot of speculation about where Gonzaga basketball might fit. Would the Pac-12 add Gonzaga in men’s and women’s basketball? Would the school leave the safety and comfort of the WCC, where it enjoys a clear path to the NCAA Tournament? I don’t see it.
Football drives expansion, not basketball. But Gonzaga is worth considering. The only reason to add Gonzaga is to replace the lost NCAA Tournament units in men’s basketball caused by UCLA’s departure. But the dollars have to work.
LikeLike
“Adding SMU would bring the Dallas TV market with it. That’s 2.96 million TV homes.”
I don’t believe it. Remember, this is the same conference that couldn’t get UW into Seattle, U Colorado into Denver and U Utah into Salt Lake.
LikeLike
Your skepticism about SMU warranted. With that said, take note that they refer to every addition the same way: the number of households in its market area. Notice the comment that SDSU allows them to “regain 1.13 million households.” This is obviously a gross simplification, since not everyone they lost is going to watch SDSU football, just because they formerly watched USC or UCLA.
However, if Kliavkoff is taking a trip to Dallas, I can guarantee that TV partners have told him it’s worthwhile.
LikeLike
Here is the latest from The Athletic’s reporters.
Pac-12 media rights
Last July, shortly after USC and UCLA’s defections, the Pac-12 opened negotiations for its next media rights contract, which would take effect with the 2024 football season. Seven months later, there’s still no deal — and people are getting antsy. With good reason.
Three people with knowledge of the discussions said commissioner George Kliavkoff is struggling to find partners willing to pay close to what the league is seeking. Two of those sources said Kliavkoff overpromised his members on how many bidders there would be and what dollar amount they could command — a target north of $40 million per school, according to one league athletic director. Today, it’s uncertain whether the Pac-12 will even be able to exceed the $31.6 million average the Big 12 reportedly landed in a six-year extension with ESPN and Fox it reached last fall.
“(We) don’t have a deal because it hasn’t been good,” said the AD.
Kliavkoff made some key miscalculations. At last summer’s Pac-12 media day, he suggested the Big Ten’s pending jackpot — which wound up being for $8.1 billion over seven years — would have a ripple effect on the Pac-12. But the Big Ten is a much more watched conference that garnered interest from nearly every major linear and digital media company. The Pac-12, by contrast, has found fewer bidders since going to the open market. Fox, for one, has expressed little interest now that the Los Angeles schools are part of its prized Big Ten package. And CBS (Big Ten and Mountain West) and NBC (Big Ten and Notre Dame) are set in college football for the next several years. However, one Pac-12 administrator did indicate a new player emerged shortly after the new year.
Kliavkoff also sounded certain last summer that his league would be next in line after the Big Ten because its deal was up a year earlier than the Big 12’s (which runs through 2025). But Big 12 counterpart Brett Yormark outflanked him, convincing existing partners ESPN and Fox to open up negotiations a year early. Whereas Kliavkoff drew out the process by taking his rights to market, Yormark reached an extension of the current contract within a couple of months. And the Big 12’s agreement may have provided its own ripple effect on negotiations by unofficially setting a ceiling.
“It’s tough when your neighbor across the street sells his house for a low price,” said the Pac-12 administrator.
ESPN remains interested in the Pac-12, particularly in the league’s 10:30 p.m. ET games, but New York Post sports media writer Andrew Marchand reported last fall that the Pac-12 and ESPN were “hundreds of millions apart.” Which may explain why the Pac-12 is looking at possibly putting the majority of its games on a streaming platform. Sports Business Journal’s John Ourand predicted in December the league will “sell almost its entire media package to Amazon for a price that is slightly higher than what the Big 12 gets from ESPN and Fox.”
Which brings us back to expansion. Adding schools like San Diego State and SMU would not add significant value in a traditional TV deal, but a streaming service like Amazon or ESPN+ could be interested in volume. Inviting two more schools would add an extra 15 or so football games a year, which would raise the overall dollar amount (say, from $270 million a year to $300 million a year). Two sources believe the new schools would initially receive less than a full share — not unusual in these situations — which would up the existing schools’ slice of the pie.
While those sources still believe the media deal will be completed before any expansion becomes official, they also understand there could be pressure from media partners to swap the order of events so they know exactly what that inventory will be.
SMU and San Diego State in focus
SMU’s home basketball game on Wednesday night was supposed to serve as a secret pitch meeting, but it became a public demonstration. Multiple promotions and honors were scheduled heading into the matchup with Temple, including football players being told to attend the game. Several people in the athletic department weren’t sure why. The reason for the emphasis became clear when The Action Network first reported that Kliavkoff would visit SMU on Wednesday and On3 reported he would be at the game.
After a cold and rainy day in Dallas, Kliavkoff indeed attended. He tried to stay inconspicuous, wearing a black NBA Finals hat and a black quarter-zip. But The Athletic and the Dallas Morning News spotted him in a suite at the top of Moody Coliseum. He was flanked by two men who appeared to be Pac-12 deputy commissioner/COO Jamie Zaninovich and senior vice president of strategy Erik Hardenbergh. Throughout the game, the trio met with SMU president R. Gerald Turner, board of trustees chair and megadonor David B. Miller, athletic director Rick Hart and executive deputy AD/COO Kurt Pottkotter. Kliavkoff and Turner spoke for most of the second half, which saw SMU win on a free throw with three seconds left. The commissioner left the arena out of the view of media.
SMU did not want this visit to become public, as conferences and schools prefer to keep realignment workings behind closed doors. Even after the news leaked, many SMU officials wouldn’t say a word on or off the record and wouldn’t confirm Kliavkoff’s appearance at the game. Many had found out he was coming only when the news broke.
But the suddenly public nature of the visit provided an opportunity. SMU’s student section was packed and scattered with signs with Pac-12 references. One fan, Jack Joyce, wrote “Pac” on the back of an SMU club baseball jersey with the No. 12. Dallas mayor Eric Johnson tweeted his support before tipoff.
After the win, Mustangs basketball coach Rob Lanier was asked whether he knew the Pac-12 commissioner was there and replied, “I read that, yep.”
SMU’s Pac-12 case is centered on its location in Dallas, which would bring the Pac-12 into Texas and the Central time zone, along with solid academics (it is a top-75 national university per U.S. News & World Report and is working to become a R1 research school) and a lot of money (a $2 billion endowment and many active big-money donors). It’s a private school, with an enrollment of more than 12,000, and is nonsectarian, having split from the United Methodist Church in 2019. The Pac-12 has avoided schools with religious ties in the past.
The school has had conversations with the Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC dating back to at least last summer, a school official told The Athletic last year. Turner had a call scheduled with University of Washington president Ana Mari Cauce on Aug. 1 of last year, according to an email obtained by The Athletic in a public records request. Kliavkoff’s visit on Wednesday was a big step toward a possible transformative moment for a school slowly working its way back to a major conference since the Southwest Conference dissolved in 1996.
San Diego State, which hosted Kliavkoff in December according to multiple reports, is confident about its position for Pac-12 expansion. The Aztecs’ case: a presence in Southern California, a new $310 million football stadium, an expanding campus and a combined football/men’s basketball record second only to Ohio State among FBS programs since 2010. The school put together a strategic operations plan to help prepare a possible move to the Pac-12, an idea SDSU took from Utah.
“We’re competitive in all of our sports, we invest in our programs, and we’re a rising star from an academic standpoint,” athletic director JD Wicker said last month, adding separately, “If an opportunity comes to anyone to elevate, no one is going to say no. We’ll continue to be the best San Diego State we can be, and see where that leads up. We’ll work with (commissioner Gloria Nevarez) and the Mountain West to make sure we’re being the best partner to everyone we can be.”
Leaders around college sports believe San Diego State is the No. 1 football option for the Pac-12 if it expands, but the longer the media deal negotiations drag out, the harder it is to predict what will happen.
LikeLike
Where the Big 12 stands
The Big 12 is now well-positioned to benefit from any Pac-12 chaos. But first, it needs to finalize its divorce from Oklahoma and Texas.
Conversations continue about an early exit for the two departing schools, which are contractually bound to the Big 12 through the 2024-25 academic year. Talks that would allow the Sooners and Longhorns to move on to the SEC ahead of the 2024 football season hit a snag last week, but they are not dead, two people with knowledge of the negotiations said.
Because of the number of parties — the Big 12 and its remaining schools, Oklahoma, Texas and television partners ESPN and Fox — the discussions are complex. While it remains possible the talks stall and Oklahoma and Texas are forced to stay through June 2025, neither side feels as if the discussions are close to a drop-dead deadline.
“Everybody wants to get it done,” one high-ranking official at a Big 12 school said. “It comes down to ESPN and Fox working their deal out. Fox doesn’t want to give up too much content for 2024.”
ESPN will become the exclusive home of the SEC starting in 2024-25, so adding the incoming members at that time would be ideal. But Fox must be made whole in some way if it’s going to agree to surrender its rights to 2024 games featuring the Big 12’s two biggest ratings-drivers. As one conference source close to the situation put it, “Fox doesn’t feel they need to give away something that they already have.”
Even if the Fox-ESPN dynamic is truly the missing piece in these negotiations, leaders at Oklahoma and Texas would also need to be satisfied with the other critical detail — the expensive exit penalties — needed for settling on an early split.
First-year Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark has a lot of bold ideas for the future of the Big 12 and plenty he is determined to accomplish, but he can’t move forward with many of those ambitions until this early exit gets resolved.
Yormark quickly delivered on a new media rights deal for the conference last October, agreeing to a six-year extension with ESPN and Fox through 2030-31 that will pay an average of $380 million per year. That maneuver to effectively leapfrog the Pac-12 when it had the advantage of being next to market is looking wiser by the day.
The Big 12 has been eyeing the four remaining Pac-12 South schools — Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah — since last summer but certainly also views Oregon and Washington as prized targets. Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren’s departure makes it tough for those two schools to assess whether they fit into that conference’s future plans. The longer the Pac-12’s hunt for an acceptable TV deal drags on and stirs doubts about the conference’s financial future, the easier it becomes for Yormark to make his pitch to those schools.
That’s not his only option. The Big 12 continues to talk with Gonzaga, one high-ranking source at the school confirmed. They described the Big 12’s approach as much more forward-thinking than the Pac-12. Yormark’s background is in basketball, and he sees serious potential in the idea of making the best men’s basketball conference even stronger. Gonzaga is determined to only make a move to either conference if it is for all sports.
When the Big 12 went through its last round of expansion in 2021, SMU was considered but wasn’t viewed as a serious contender. The concern was and has long been that SMU wouldn’t add value for the Big 12. But would the Pac-12 inviting SMU and entering the Dallas-Fort Worth market be detrimental for the Big 12? How will Yormark and his board assess that threat?
LikeLike
Marc,
Correct. He is describing it purely from a footprint perspective. Dallas would become part of the P12 footprint, just like all of WA, OR, CA, AZ, UT and CO are. The real question is how much of TX gets included if there is a regional broadcast (ABC/ESPN2 mirror for example), if they even do that anymore.
LikeLike
@Brian
“I think you meant this link:” Yes, and thanks.
I too find the possible SMU add to be pretty much a ‘meh’ addition.
Somewhere above Marc mentioned SMU athletes playing a lot of late games with long road trips. I would add that I hope PacX football players like 9am Pacific kickoffs for the SMU home games that will hit the noon Eastern window. For the individual PacX schools, it would be less than once every other year, but for SMU football, I could see the majority of their conference home games being played at 11am Central.
Too bad the Pac didn’t listen to Wilner back in 2020 when he advocated for Houston. Houston and SMU would be a very good add today. (Maybe with Alan’s and long-lost Loki’s help we can get the Rice and Tulane wagon rolling into the Pac14.)
LikeLike
Ourand and Marchand podcast has Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks as the guest.
Topics
* Super Bowl
* From Buck & Aikman to Burkhardt & Olsen
* Tom Brady
* Fox’s streaming strategy
* Why Fox got out of the RSN business
* Potential rights deals with CFP and Pac-12
* Fox Sports’ role selling Big Ten rights
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/02/08/disney-cut-7000-jobs-bob-iger/11214661002/
Disney is cutting 7000 jobs (about 3%) despite good revenue growth. This doesn’t bode well for those wanting ESPN to spend more on sports rights.
It also looks bad for the P12 going all streaming. Streaming may be the future for sports, but it’ll be slower getting here than many have predicted.
The Walt Disney Co. said Wednesday it will cut about 7,000 jobs as part of a “significant transformation” announced by CEO Bob Iger.
…
In its latest results, solid growth at Disney’s theme parks helped offset tepid performance in its video streaming and movie business.
…
In a statement, Iger said the company is embarking on a “significant transformation” that management believes will lead to improved profitability at the company’s streaming business.
The company said Disney+ ended the quarter with 161.8 million subscribers, down 1% from since Oct. 1. Hulu and ESPN+ each posted a 2% increase in paid subscribers during the quarter.
LikeLike
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/08/disney-reorganization.html
More on the Disney cuts.
On Wednesday, during its quarterly earnings call with investors, Disney also announced it would be cutting $5.5 billion in costs, which will be made up of $3 billion from content, excluding sports, and the remaining $2.5 billion from non-content cuts. Disney executives said about $1 billion in cost cutting was already underway since last quarter.
…
Iger did note that he and Pitaro would be more selective on what it spends on sports rights, noting the upcoming negotiations for NBA rights.
The P12 delaying their negotiations due to the UC board may really come back to bite them. The financial issues may be limiting what ESPN is willing to offer them. Perhaps a better deal was available in October, before Iger came back.
Frank, any thoughts on what this means for NBA coverage? I don’t watch it, so I don’t know how big of a player ESPN is vs other networks.
LikeLike
Following on my point about the P12’s delay hurting them:
LikeLike
I ran across this twitter feed the other day. If you’re into random sports visualizations I think you’ll enjoy it. I’ll post some samples below that you might find interesting.
LikeLike
https://big12sports.com/news/2023/2/9/conference-big-12-announces-agreement-for-withdrawal-of-oklahoma-and-texas.aspx
Its done. Texas and OU head to the SEC in 2024.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35625879/oklahoma-texas-exit-big-12-conference-2023-24-season
So maybe those who were instantly blaming Fox for being unreasonable should rethink their stance. As I speculated, maybe they wanted cash rather than future games of lesser value that help advertise their competition. Finally UT/OU/ESPN agreed to pony up the cold hard cash, and just swapped one OOC series in terms of years.
Now MI will have 3 OOC home games in 2024, to go along with an expected 5 B10 home games (if the recent pattern continues). 2027 should bring them 5 B10 road games plus the game @UT. I wonder how happy MI was with the swap. I’m guessing Fox was persuasive, and MI will get something for it from someone.
Two sources told ESPN that instead of multiple games and pick swaps, which were a big part of the initial negations, the agreement came down to cash. A portion of the more than $100 million in exit fees will go to Fox to compensate for the equivalent of seven lost Texas and Oklahoma games.
A key part of the deal to let the two schools out early was a game flip of a non-conference matchup between Michigan and Texas, sources told ESPN. Texas will now visit Michigan in 2024 in Ann Arbor and Michigan will return the game in Austin in 2027, according to sources. That game had been scheduled to play out the opposite way. The flip was a key driver in Fox agreeing to the deal, per sources.
LikeLike
Credit to Alan who was right on this one getting done.
It does sound as if FOX got enough cash to make them whole.
LikeLike
Thanks z33k.
LikeLike
I wonder how happy MI was with the swap. I’m guessing Fox was persuasive, and MI will get something for it from someone.
Good catch. I would also like to know what was promised. Michigan has been adamant about having 7 home games every year. It’s not immediately clear why they’d gum up their 2027 schedule to do Texas and Oklahoma a favor.
LikeLike
I’d wager the B1G will adjust the 2024 and beyond schedule so it’s 4 home conference games for Michigan in 2024 and 5 in 2025, etc.
It’s probably better for Michigan this way anyway, since The Game is in Ann Arbor in odd years so 2024-2027 was looking something like this before the swap:
2024 – @OSU, @Texas
2025 – OSU, @Oklahoma
2026 – @OSU, Oklahoma
2027 – OSU, Texas
and now after the swap it’s got one home and one away in each year:
2024 – @OSU, Texas
2025 – OSU, @Oklahoma
2026 – @OSU, Oklahoma
2027 – OSU, @Texas
2028 kind of screws that up with @Washington (the COVID cancelled return game) but it wouldn’t surprise me to see Michigan @ Texas moved back to 2029 and Michigan @ Washington moved up to 2027.
LikeLike
Michigan had maximum leverage before Texas to SEC in 2024 was announced. If Michigan wanted to move the return game to 2029 that would have been the time. Michigan may make additional schedule changes but I doubt they will involve the Texas games.
LikeLike
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/02/09/pac-12-commissioner-overpromised-members-on-tv-bidders-revenue-report/
According to a recent article from The Athletic, commissioner George Kliavkoff has, “overpromised his members on how many bidders there would be and what dollar amount they could command — a target north of $40 million per school, according to one league athletic director.”
“(We) don’t have a deal because it hasn’t been good,” the AD told The Athletic.
The article also stated that Kliavkoff made several miscalculations, most notably that the Big Ten’s new monster media rights deal (worth $8.1B over seven years) would have a positive affect on the Pac-12’s numbers when it came time to sit at the negotiating table. Since it lost the major market in its footprint (Los Angeles), fewer television companies are interested in the Pac-12 product, and as a result a lower number is being offered.
The other issue that Kliavkoff ran into was the Big 12’s aggressive play at getting a media rights deal for the future secured. When Brett Yormark and the Big 12 reached an extension just a few months after opening up negotiations, it threw a wrench into the Pac-12’s plans. Kliavkoff assumed that his conference was next in line to follow the Big Ten’s monster deal, but had the rug swept out from under him when Yormark made things happen so quickly. Not only did that hurt the optics of the Pac-12’s situation, but it also inadvertently (or strategically) set a ceiling for what the Pac-12 would make in its next deal.
…
Each Big 12 school is set to make an average of $31.6 million per year as part of the new six-year agreement, a number that the Pac-12 isn’t certain to hit. That is concerning, especially when one league athletic director claimed the original target number was north of $40 million.
The Pac-12’s only viable route seems to be going all-in on a streaming platform, as SBJ’s John Ourand predicted in December:
“ESPN will be prepared to split the Pac-12’s media rights with Amazon, but will not offer the conference significantly more than it pays for the Big 12. That will lead the Pac-12 to sell almost its entire media package to Amazon for a price that is slightly higher than what the Big 12 gets from ESPN and Fox. The Pac-12 will carve out a handful of prime-time football games that it then will sell to CBS.”
LikeLike
This makes sense to me. A weekly CBS game is a pretty good deal for the PAC12, since the ACC will get 1 OTA game a week at best, same with the Big XII. And once you’re not talking broadcast, Prime is available in more households than FS1/FS2 or ESPNU. Sucks for channel flipping but the percentage of people that are going to randomly watch FS2 or ESPNU is so small as to be meaningless.
LikeLike
I’m a little surprised CBS would want more games. They’ve been happy with their weekly SEC game (with a couple of double headers) and some military academy games for a long time. Do they really want to compete with the B10 on NBC, SEC and ACC on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2, and the B12 on Fox? I don’t see a lot of value in that.
I’d also be surprised if ESPN doesn’t still get a package of P12 games. They’ll pay the same as they do the B12, and Amazon will offer an additional 10-15% over what the B12 gets.
Perhaps this push for a 3rd package is helping drive the P12 expansion because they need the inventory.
LikeLike
I want to point out here that I think Texas/OU being able to find an agreement so easily with the Big 12 on just forfeiting $50 million in distributions each makes me feel that an FSU exit in 2034-2036 is a near certainty.
The reality is that the GoR is a powerful tool but only really when it has a lot of years left or continually gets rolled forward with a lot of years remaining. Nobody’s leaving a conference with a GoR of 10+ years remaining.
But with 1-2 years remaining? The holdup here was FOX demanding a very full payment for letting them out, the holdup wasn’t the Big 12 or Texas/OU. Sounds like they came to an agreement very quickly.
If schools want to leave, then they can: just wait for the GoR to get to <4 years then start talking to target conferences and working on an exit strategy.
I feel like I'm up to 95+% certainty that FSU is gone from the ACC in the mid-2030s. (Sorry Colin). As to who follows with them, it depends on where they go.
If they go to the SEC, then most likely Clemson would be an obvious partner. If they go Big Ten, then most likely with Miami.
Big Ten will likely take Miami and another (maybe Washington to create a national conference) in the mid-2030s either way; Florida will be approaching 30 million in population (with roughly 45% in South Florida). Hard to ignore a state of that heft.
I think the USC/UCLA and Texas/OU exits being relatively "easy" near end of GoR period shows that GoRs can hold things together for most of the time frame, but then when there's <4 years left, that's when things get dicey for the conference trying to hold onto its marquee names if/when Big Ten/SEC come calling.
LikeLike
…when there’s <4 years left, that's when things get dicey for the conference trying to hold onto its marquee names if/when Big Ten/SEC come calling.
This might be over-stating it. So far, the TX/OU move is the only case in history that a conference GoR has been broken. So now we know there is some price at which it can be done. But it accelerated their move by only one year.
We already knew that ACC schools would start looking around in the early-to-mid 2030s. The TX/OU news does not change that one bit. The only new information is that, perhaps, they might be able to shave a year, or at most two, off their potential move date.
LikeLike
Yeah that’s fair to see it like that, I think it puts more pressure though on the ACC (a little) knowing that the exit fees are not going to be as daunting though.
LikeLike
z33k,
“I want to point out here that I think Texas/OU being able to find an agreement so easily with the Big 12 on just forfeiting $50 million in distributions each makes me feel that an FSU exit in 2034-2036 is a near certainty.
The reality is that the GoR is a powerful tool but only really when it has a lot of years left or continually gets rolled forward with a lot of years remaining. Nobody’s leaving a conference with a GoR of 10+ years remaining.
But with 1-2 years remaining? The holdup here was FOX demanding a very full payment for letting them out, the holdup wasn’t the Big 12 or Texas/OU. Sounds like they came to an agreement very quickly.”
That assumes that almost everyone wants to see the move happen. Obviously UT and OU wanted to move for the right price. ESPN and the SEC wanted them to move, but at no cost to themselves. The remaining B12 members wanted to get to their new status with 12 members, but also at the right price. That left just Fox who didn’t want this move to happen, but they’re a business so everything is possible for the right price.
I don’t see the ACC situation necessarily going the same way, especially since some schools may prefer the B10 and others the SEC. That makes ESPN less likely to be onboard. I also doubt all the ACC schools will be as amenable to being left behind, depending on who wants to leave. Their are deeper ties in the ACC than the B12, and likely more hurt feelings.
“Big Ten will likely take Miami and another (maybe Washington to create a national conference) in the mid-2030s either way; Florida will be approaching 30 million in population (with roughly 45% in South Florida). Hard to ignore a state of that heft.”
Yeah, I’m not convinced. All the expansion fans who keep saying the B10 and SEC will got to 20-24 teams ignore all the downsides of being that large. That’s a league, not a conference. It would take more than 2 years to play everyone once in football with a 9 game schedule. At 24 you couldn’t even play everyone in hoops. The travel would explode adding Miami and UW, and the money wouldn’t change all that much over not adding them. At some point you have to also consider the downsides of expansion, as we’ve seen the presidents do. Why will UW be more valuable in a few years than they are now?
I agree getting into FL has many temptations (future students, athletic recruiting, proximity to alumni) now, but in 30 years if global warming gets really bad will that population be 30M? Who knows? So I could see Miami and/or FSU, but I struggle to see the value in UW. They’d be a good institutional fit, they’re just in a poor location for the B10.
LikeLike
The thing about travel though is that it won’t really ever be that bad for the “original 14”; it’s more a strain on the outliers in this case. Whether that’s 2 (USC/UCLA) or 4 (add another 2), I don’t think it’s significant.
Question for me is more whether Miami and Washington would want to be in that situation, and I can see both jumping at the opportunity. They’re the ones that would have to bear the burden of travel (along with USC/UCLA) more than the “original 14”.
As far as a partner for Miami would go, it could be UVA or Ga Tech as well, I just think Washington probably has the most upside as a partner.
UW is sort of like Rutgers was, it’s a +1, but you need somebody else that you really want to have move with them.
Both UW and Miami are in major cities so that’s a benefit in terms of travel; Oregon and FSU are both much tougher given some teams may have to bus from further away cities. (We’ve already heard from I believe it was Swarbrick complaining about teams traveling to FSU).
LikeLike
Also I’d point out that I’m also coming around to a belief that 20 is the likely upper limit of either conference.
I agree 22-24 feels too unwieldy (and also feels like there’s too many mouths to feed without enough extra schools out there that bring additive value).
I think 18 isn’t that much of a stretch when you’re at 16.
LikeLike
There are other issues to consider in the ACC circa 2036:
-Do Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Florida really want Clemson and FSU in the SEC?
-Do Miami, Clemson and FSU want to walk away from a near certain spot in the CFP for a much harder row to hoe in the SEC or Big Ten?
-When the 20-yr GOR expires, the ACC can anticipate a much better TV deal from ESPN than the Swofford nightmare that they’re stuck in right now.
-16 is a nice round number for a conference and makes for easy football scheduling, but everything gets awkward as you add more schools.
-With increasing temperatures, more migrants coming in and rising sea levels, the South will indeed become less desirable to live.
-Clemson, FSU and Miami are not AAU.
Z33k, you may be 95% certain that Miami/FSU/Clemson will be moving to the SEC or Big Ten when the GOR nears expiration, but it will be a different world at that time and I continue to believe that the Big Ten and SEC are set at 16.
LikeLike
16 is a nice round number for a conference and makes for easy football scheduling, but everything gets awkward as you add more schools
Herewith your periodic reminder that, not that long ago, most people who posted on this forum thought that 16 was unworkable. Then the SEC expanded to 16, and since the SEC never makes a mistake*, suddenly 14 felt small. It goes to show how attitudes change over time. And it should make us hesitant to be so sure of what they’ll be thinking in 2035.
* irony alert
LikeLike
z33k,
“The thing about travel though is that it won’t really ever be that bad for the “original 14”; it’s more a strain on the outliers in this case. Whether that’s 2 (USC/UCLA) or 4 (add another 2), I don’t think it’s significant.”
Yes, the strain is worse for the geographical outliers. But once you go beyond 16, it gets much worse for the other 14. The advantage of adding USC and UCLA was that 1 trip got you 2 road games in hoops, baseball and WVB.
But that doesn’t help for softball, W lacrosse or other sports only 1 of the schools offer. Nor does it help in football, but that is at least weekend travel. Most other sports are regional meets then a championship, but not all.
Now you want to add another Pacific outlier as well as a deep south outlier. There are no 2 for 1 trips to be had with them, just long trips and late nights for athletes. In addition, 4 out of 18 being outliers increases how many of them everyone else needs to play. In football it was roughly 1 trip west every 2 years. With 18, it would be closer to 1 long road trip every year. It would be more than 1 per year for hoops. I consider doubling travel significant.
It also means playing traditional rivals less frequently.
With 9 games and 18 teams:
9 = 1+ 8/8
9 = 3*100% + 8*50% + 6*33%
9 = 3*100% + 6*67% + 8*25%
And if teams aren’t playing frequently, it is harder to integrate new members and maintain a cohesive conference. That sets you up to splinter in the future.
“Question for me is more whether Miami and Washington would want to be in that situation, and I can see both jumping at the opportunity. They’re the ones that would have to bear the burden of travel (along with USC/UCLA) more than the “original 14”.”
UW’s only other alternative would be the P12, so if the financial gap remains large and the move seems to work out for USC and UCLA then of course they’d be interested. Miami might have an SEC option, plus they’ll have an ACC option (which already has a lot of travel for them). The current ACC deal is below market value because it is so long. They are in for a huge jump in 2036 when the deal finally ends. So will that financial gap be large enough to entice them? I don’t know.
The other huge unknown is how the expanded CFP revenue sharing will work. That volume of money could have a huge impact on what schools want to do.
“As far as a partner for Miami would go, it could be UVA or Ga Tech as well, I just think Washington probably has the most upside as a partner.”
On paper, UW has the most value. I don’t see UVA leaving UNC voluntarily. GT would prefer the SEC (or probably the ACC), but the money may be too much to turn down. GT is roughly halfway between Miami and Columbus (~ 600 miles each way). That is not a trivial trip.
“UW is sort of like Rutgers was, it’s a +1, but you need somebody else that you really want to have move with them.”
Yes, and other than ND I question if there really is anyone like that left.
“Both UW and Miami are in major cities so that’s a benefit in terms of travel; Oregon and FSU are both much tougher given some teams may have to bus from further away cities. (We’ve already heard from I believe it was Swarbrick complaining about teams traveling to FSU).”
I have no belief UO is a likely addition unless something changes drastically to make UW + UO worth adding. FSU isn’t that hard to get to since you can fly into Tallahassee on a charter. All Delta flights to the southeast go through Atlanta, which is on the way, and Delta has a bunch of daily flights to Tallahassee (for the smaller sports forced to fly commercial.
LikeLike
Brian, you also need to consider the preference of the Big Ten members. Will adding FSU or Miami raise revenue or break even? Does Purdue and Indiana really want to play FSU and Miami in addition to the current line-up? Do they want two more non-AAU members. Do they want more in-conference competition for at-large berths? This circa 2035 expansion is far from a done deal.
LikeLike
Will adding FSU or Miami raise revenue or break even?
No conference expands to lose money or to break even. If it does not raise revenue substantially, it will not happen. My guess is that FSU absolutely would be a revenue winner, given that the Seminoles have a TV value that is well above the Big Ten average.
Does Purdue and Indiana really want to play FSU and Miami in addition to the current line-up?
The conference subsidizes Purdue and Indiana, and those two schools know it. Football is about 75% of the value, and they have not carried their weight in football for most of the last generation. If the conference’s big guns want FSU, Purdue and Indiana are unlikely to be the ones to torpedo it.
Do they want more in-conference competition for at-large berths?
Frank-the-Tank has suggested that university presidents favor predictable revenue over playoff berths that might come once in a blue moon. That seems right to me. Even with the conference’s current composition, how often would Purdue and Indiana expect to make the playoff? Maybe once in a quarter-century?
Again, this presupposes that the revenue would be a net positive. If it is not, then you throw all of the other reasons out the window. Nobody expands to lose money.
LikeLike
OK, I’ll rephrase the question: “Does Purdue and Indiana and Rutgers and Maryland and Michigan State and Illinois and Northwestern and Iowa and Wisconsin and Minnesota and Nebraska and UCLA really want to play FSU and Miami in addition to the current line-up?”
LikeLike
And I’ll rephrase the answer: if the money is compelling, I think they do. A growing and predictable revenue stream is better than uneven playoff revenues that depend on the athletic performances of college students.
If the money is not compelling, then that ends the discussion right there.
LikeLike
You are correct about a charter flight to Tallahassee. The airport is only about 15 minutes from the football stadium, which is on campus. So if a football team charters a flight either direct to TLH or through a major hub (see below) it is manageable. Obviously the financial considerations for non revenue sports with fewer players may make it tougher to justify a charter.
The problem is that there were many more regularly scheduled flights to TLH, which seem to have stopped and then not started again. That was when United moved out of TLH in late 2021. Years ago, there were direct flights from TLH to Newark and JFK, but they are long gone.
At the moment it seems that Delta and American area the only major airlines serving TLH.
Delta has its hub in Atlanta. American has hubs in Charlotte, Dallas, and Reagan in DC, as well as Miami.
The closest major airport to Tallahassee is Jacksonville, and, while I have not looked, I would imagine that it has direct flights to any major airport, including LAX.
Jacksonville (JAX) airport is about 175 miles from Tallahassee, so that is a pretty healthy bus ride. Atlanta and Orlando are both about 250 to 260 miles, and Tampa is little bit further.
LikeLike
I think all those schools might be interested for the chance to recruit in FL better than they do now. It’s also where a lot of their alumni live (UCLA is an exception to both points).
LikeLike
Bernie,
“The problem is that there were many more regularly scheduled flights to TLH, which seem to have stopped and then not started again. That was when United moved out of TLH in late 2021. Years ago, there were direct flights from TLH to Newark and JFK, but they are long gone.
At the moment it seems that Delta and American area the only major airlines serving TLH.
Delta has its hub in Atlanta. American has hubs in Charlotte, Dallas, and Reagan in DC, as well as Miami.
The closest major airport to Tallahassee is Jacksonville, and, while I have not looked, I would imagine that it has direct flights to any major airport, including LAX.
Jacksonville (JAX) airport is about 175 miles from Tallahassee, so that is a pretty healthy bus ride. Atlanta and Orlando are both about 250 to 260 miles, and Tampa is little bit further.”
For teams that have to fly commercial, Delta flies direct from Atlanta to essentially every B10 school (NYC, DC, Columbus, Detroit, Indy, Chicago, Bloomington IL, Madison, MSP, Cedar Rapids, Omaha, LA), with PSU the lone exception (Pittsburgh is as close as it gets). It’s a pretty direct flight path, with multiple flights to Tallahassee so the flight time isn’t that long with a 1-stopper.
LikeLike
Just because I agree that conferences will go to 16 or 18 or 20 doesn’t mean I have changed my mind that it is an unstable structure.
LikeLike
I have a really difficult time imagining the circumstances that would cause the SEC or the Big Ten to lose any of their 16 schools. None of their members is a believable candidate to flip to the other, and the money gap if they move anywhere else is humungous.
Perhaps you could imagine that USC/UCLA someday decide that a Midwest schedule isn’t working, and they go back to the Pac-X for less money. But in that unlikely event, they’d move for geography, not because there was something unstable about 16.
If the Big XII or ACC goes to 16, the instability would not be due to that number, but because every one of their members covets the golden ticket to the next level up in the conference hierarchy.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think the potential instability in the B10 or SEC would be the possibility of the elites leaving for a smaller league that pays even more, or even the formation of a superleague. At some point the SEC would be large enough that the top half could decide to become their own entity that earns a lot more. I think being too top heavy wouldn’t work well, but the money might be so large that they can’t resist. The B10 has more financial lightweight schools, but is a less cutthroat conference so I think it’s less likely to split that way.
LikeLike
Right Brian. Think of the MWC/WAC split. ACC/Southern Conference split. SEC/Southern Conference split. Big 6/7/8/MVC split. AAWU/Pac split. Metro,etc./MVC split. SWC exodus to Big 12.
It has happened before. It will happen again.
LikeLike
@bullet: Not all of these splits occurred because of a mythic instability of 16+ members that does not occur if you have 14. That is simply a list of conferences that fell apart, for different reasons.
Since that has happened many times, I agree it will happen again.
LikeLike
They all fell apart because as they got larger, the members became more and more different.
LikeLike
They all fell apart because as they got larger, the members became more and more different.
Certainly not true of the Big Eight / SWC.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-bill-to-marry-washington
The bill to give the state legislature control over UW and WSU changing conferences is dead.
SB 5206 aimed to give lawmakers approval authority over conference realignment decisions involving Washington and Washington State. It was sponsored by three state senators who didn’t want WSU to get left behind should Washington decide to leave for the Big Ten Conference or someplace else.
The bill won’t be pushed forward.
Per a source at the state capitol in Washington: “The 12-team playoff and apparent lack of deep Big Ten interest in adding more teams makes it moot.”
…
The Big Ten snatched USC and UCLA from the Pac-12. The university presidents and chancellors must have hated the instability. Because they took matters into their own hands and quickly approved a proposal that expanded the playoff to 12 teams in 2024.
Oregon and Washington must have realized they were better off staying in the Pac-12 if they wanted to make the football playoff. A line of Big Ten members pushed back against then-commissioner Kevin Warren’s wish to expand further. There was nowhere for the Ducks and Huskies to go, even if they were willing to take a reduced media-rights distribution.
One Big Ten AD told me last July: “Oregon and Washington don’t pencil out.”
UO and UW don’t pencil out. That won’t change over time. The western wing isn’t going to happen without other structural changes.
LikeLike
Oregon and Washington must have realized they were better off staying in the Pac-12
This sounds like a post hoc rationalization. If you know there isn’t an offer, try to convince the fans that you didn’t want it anyway.
LikeLike
I don’t know if he meant it that way, or if he’s saying it like he thinks it’s so obvious they’re better off staying that he can’t imagine they haven’t figured it out, too. Read it to yourself with emphasis on the “must” and it reads the second way.
I haven’t seen any evidence to indicate that either UO or UW stopped being interested in a B10 offer. I do think they’ve long since realized one wasn’t forthcoming and they have accepted that.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/35632115/sources-browns-owners-haslams-talks-buy-25-stake-bucks
The Browns’ owners want to buy 25% of the Milwaukee Bucks. Why would you sell to people who do nothing but lose and can’t build any sort of sustainable culture of success?
NBA, block this sale for your own good. The Haslam taint will spread across then entire league.
LikeLike
I don’t know any insiders, but if I did, they’d say:
Oregon, Washington, Arizona St, and Arizona to the Big 12, announced before July 4th.
Yormark likely gets it done with the B12 modifying their GOR/contracts that allows former Pac (or maybe all B12 schools) a manageable out around 2031 if the B1G or SEC (but not ACC) offers them. No hard long-term commitment, otherwise WA/OR might settle for less money and wait things out short term in the Pac for another invite chance near the next B1G contract negotiations.
Possibly 2 more of Colorado, Utah, or Stanford join. Mostly depends on who applies first and/or if WA/OR desire more teams out west for travel reasons. If 3 of the 4 corners accept first, then WA/OR have no choice but to follow. B1G appears pretty clear now that they won’t be considering west schools until near the next contract or if ND wants any of them. ACC adding members would supposedly open up the GOR in a way that would allow current members to possibly escape early. Most of the ACC and certainly ESPN don’t want that, so they’ll stand pat for at least the next several years.
However, 16 schools provides the most payout per school for the B12. However, however, 18 could fill ESPN’s late night slot with just 2 games each from 6 ex-Pacs + BYU.
Helpful hint: Anyone who is still posting Greg Swaim or MHver tweets is a tool without a clue and should be ignored on all things realignment.
Odds of my prediction proving correct? I have no idea, so let’s go with 94%….
LikeLike
Odds of my prediction proving correct? I have no idea, so let’s go with 94%….
I will go with 34%, since about 2/3rds of conference expansion rumors turn out to be wrong, regardless of the source. Kliavkoff’s media deal will need to be really terrible for this to happen.
LikeLike
Marc: “I will go with 34%”
I’ll go with 0.34%. Notice that is zero point three four.
LikeLike
What if the Big 12 were to invite SDSU? Do they bring enough value to make a standalone invite (and gamble) worthwhile? Is that a viable strategy to ruin the PAC 12’s expansion efforts? Could that force UW and UO (perhaps others) to at least consider a move?
LikeLike
If anything, they are close enough to appropriate standalone value (good football, very good BB, sizable market, new stadium in line w/ M3 capacity, SoCal recruiting) that undermining the Pac12’s expansion possibilities is a worthwhile gamble, even if they don’t tempt the Arizona schools immediately. They’re far and away the best standalone G5 expansion option west of Memphis. UO/UW are a pipedream for the Big 12 unless if a) Big 12 grabs 4Cs and b) the Big 12 allows an out for UO/UW should the Big 10/SEC come calling.
LikeLike
I don’t know any either, but I doubt it. I just don’t see UW and UO being interested in the B12. They wouldn’t care all that much about losing UA and ASU, though they would care about the replacements. Also the giant B12 exit fee is still on the books, which makes leaving potentially expensive.
If 3 of the 4 corners school join, then either the B12 would get the 4th one (UU presumably), or would want just one of UW/UO.
The B10 now is searching for a new commissioner. After that, I believe they still don’t want to expand without ND. But if the P12 starts to crumble, the B10 presidents may re-evaluate. The networks might also have different thoughts on value in a P4 world than a P5 world.
ACC fans keep hoping that somehow expansion would re-open the GOR, but there is zero evidence to support that. They would’ve added schools years ago if that was the case. The ACC rules require schools to join the GoR to become part of the ACC.
There is no set number of schools that maximizes the payout per school. It depends which schools they have. I guarantee they could make more by adding ND as the 17th school, for example. Are there available schools who could increase the B12 payout beyond 16? Maybe. Who are the 4 that get them to 16?
LikeLike
Brian: “The B10 now is searching for a new commissioner. After that, I believe they still don’t want to expand without ND.”
Circa 2036 when the ACC GOR expires, it would be interesting if the ACC acquired a pair of balls and told ND: “Enough is enough. Join us whole hog or hit the road.”
If that happened, I believe ND would remain so-called independent in football and try to hook up with some other conference (Big East?) in other sports. Or maybe the B12 or P12. Irish programs in men’s and women’s hoops are in decline and no one really seems to care.
LikeLike
The ACC has no incentive to do that because they know ND will say no. They risk driving ND into another conference and losing all the extra revenue they bring (those 5 football games every year matter).
LikeLike
I wish I had a dollar every time an opposing fan says, “I’ve got a great idea. Let’s try to put the screws to Notre Dame.” It never happens because it would never work.
If that happened, I believe ND would remain so-called independent in football and try to hook up with some other conference (Big East?) in other sports.
If you know this, so does the ACC. Which is why they accepted ND as a non-football member to begin with. If ND were compelled to join a conference in football, it would most likely be the Big Ten — which is the last thing the ACC wants.
LikeLike
Oh, I’m not trying to put the screws to ND. They will remain independent in football. Period. They have other options if the ACC gave them an ultimatum: Big East, AAC, cut a deal with Big XII, whatever.
My point is that the ACC has kinda painted itself into a corner with their current arrangement with ND. If they broke it off, their pitiful TV revenue would drop even further.
LikeLike
My point is that the ACC has kinda painted itself into a corner with their current arrangement with ND. If they broke it off, their pitiful TV revenue would drop even further.
In what sense is the ACC “painted into a corner”? If ND would never join a conference, “period,” then the ACC has the best imaginable deal. They get five desirable non-conference games with the Irish, which is more than anyone else gets — and more than the Irish ever gave to any other conference they belonged to.
It is only a negative to ACC fanboys who fantasize that if they played their cards correctly the Irish could be forced to join in football. Given that that can never happen, what is there to complain about?
LikeLike
Marc: “It is only a negative to ACC fanboys who fantasize that if they played their cards correctly the Irish could be forced to join in football.”
Marc, you said it yourself. And it’s not just some ACC fanboys living in that fantasy world . . .
https://www.ibj.com/articles/new-acc-commissioner-wants-notre-dame-as-football-member#:~:text=New%20Atlantic%20Coast%20Conference%20Commissioner,largely%20up%20to%20Notre%20Dame.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure the ACC Commissioner never said anything about forcing ND’s hand so that they are compelled to join. Fans are that dumb, but not the commissioner. He simply made generic statements that “we value our partnership, and we hope to continue the partnership in football too.” Nothing objectionable about that.
LikeLike
Marc: “Fans are that dumb, but not the commissioner. He simply made generic statements that “we value our partnership, and we hope to continue the partnership in football too.”
Marc, you are wrong. Commish Jim Phillips has been running off at the mouth about ND joining the ACC in football for years. Cripe, he talks about it all the time. You and I know ND won’t but Phillips continues to perpetuate this fantasy.
“Why ACC commissioner Jim Phillips feels ‘really good’ about Notre Dame football joining ACC”
https://www.on3.com/teams/notre-dame-fighting-irish/news/notre-dame-football-acc-conference-realignment-acc-commissioner-jim-phillips/
“ACC commissioner ‘feels good about’ Notre Dame picking ACC if it joins a conference”
https://saturdayroad.com/notre-dame-fighting-irish/acc-commissioner-feels-good-about-notre-dame-picking-acc-if-it-joins-a-conference/
“ACC commissioner Jim Phillips weighs in on Notre Dame possibly joining ACC as full-time member”
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/notre-dame-fighting-irish/acc-commissioner-jim-phillips-weighs-in-on-notre-dame-possibly-joining-acc-as-full-time-member/
LikeLike
The ACC commissioner is just making statements for the fans. I expect all of the P5 commissioners would like Notre Dame to join their conference. That does not mean they believe it will happen. It is not like the ACC is threating to throw Notre Dame out if it does not join for football.
LikeLike
The key quotes from the links:
“If there comes a time that Notre Dame would consider moving to a conference away from independence, I feel really good about it being the ACC,” Phillips said.
…
“If there comes a time that Notre Dame would consider moving to a conference and away from independence, I feel really good about it being he ACC,” Phillips said.
…
When asked if Notre Dame should join the ACC, commissioner Jim Phillips said this:
“Notre Dame got a chance to see what the ACC was all about last year. … I’ll leave it at that,” he said. “I think it was a mutually beneficial relationship.”
“Commish Jim Phillips has been running off at the mouth about ND joining the ACC in football for years. Cripe, he talks about it all the time. You and I know ND won’t but Phillips continues to perpetuate this fantasy.”
1. 2 of the links repeated the same quote. That’s not Phillips saying it multiple times.
2. The first quote starts with “If” so it’s hardly declarative.
3. Phillips has only been ACC commish since 2/121. How many years has been talking about it?
4. The ACC commish gets asked about ND joining the ACC dozens of times every year, and has ever since ND first partially joined. Inevitably he will talk about it vaguely every so often.
5. The ACC fans fantasize about it online daily. That makes reporters care about it, so they keep asking the question. What is he supposed to say?
LikeLike
It’s not only Phillips. Former commish Swofford and the ACC members share this delusion.
https://www.si.com/college/clemson/football/swofford-swings-and-misses-with-notre-dame
https://rubbingtherock.com/2020/07/25/john-swofford-acc/
https://www.on3.com/college/notre-dame-fighting-irish/news/acc-commissioner-on-conference-interest-in-notre-dame-its-been-less-than-bashful-not-interested-in-joining/
LikeLike
@Colin: We were discussing delusional fans who dream about “forcing” Notre Dame to join a conference. The ACC commissioner said no such thing.
He said: “If there comes a time that Notre Dame would consider moving to a conference away from independence, I feel really good about it being the ACC.”
That, I think, is a perfectly noncommittal and reasonable statement. I believe this was a press conference answer. It was precisely the “saying something while saying nothing” type of response that you expect in such situations.
LikeLike
From The Athletic – probable SEC schedule format
Permanent opponents
The SEC long has been focused on two formats: eight games with one permanent rival or nine games with three permanent rivals. The eight-game schedule is not the preferred option, as it would be less television inventory. It would create more chances for tiebreaking headaches (more on that shortly) and also would prevent many annual rivalries.
In a nine-game schedule, each team would have three permanent opponents, then rotate everyone else. The identity of those three permanent opponents hasn’t been revealed publicly, but a plan exists and was passed around last year at spring meetings. Texas A&M head coach Jimbo Fisher let slip that his program’s three permanent opponents would be Texas, LSU and Mississippi State.
Yes, Texas vs. Texas A&M will be back, assuming it’s a nine-game schedule.
Here’s an educated look at what each team’s three permanent rivals would be:
Possible permanent SEC opponents
Alabama
Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Arkansas
Ole Miss, Missouri, Texas
Auburn
Georgia, Florida, Alabama
Florida
Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina
Georgia
Auburn, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, South Carolina
LSU
Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Oklahoma
Mississippi State
Ole Miss, Alabama, Texas A&M
Missouri
Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Texas, Missouri, LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State, Arkansas, LSU
South Carolina
Georgia, Kentucky, Florida
Tennessee
Alabama, Kentucky, Vanderbilt
Texas
Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
Texas A&M
Texas, LSU, Mississippi State
Vanderbilt
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri
LikeLike
A lot of those look fine, but I’d imagine the folks at Auburn will raise a stink.
Auburn being stuck with Alabama, Georgia, and Florida is by far the toughest trio any of them gets.
3 of the 6 highest resourced programs in the SEC.
LikeLike
z33k: “Auburn being stuck with Alabama, Georgia, and Florida is by far the toughest trio any of them gets.”
I would change this:
Texas A&M – Texas, LSU, Mississippi State
Oklahoma – Texas, Missouri, LSU
LSU – Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Oklahoma
Mississippi State – Ole Miss, Alabama, Texas A&M
To this:
Texas A&M – Texas, LSU, Oklahoma
Oklahoma – Texas, Missouri, Texas A&M
LSU – Ole Miss, Texas A&M, Miss State
Mississippi State – Ole Miss, Alabama, LSU
LikeLike
z33k,
But those are also AU’s three most valued rivalries. They certainly would want AL and UGA regardless of difficulty. Their other old rivalries were TN and MsSU, but I think they’d prefer UF.
I’ve run the math before for the B10, and harder locked games really don’t change the overall SOS all that much. Plus programs rise and fall, plus the SEC has a lot of other elite or potentially elite programs (OU, UT, LSU, TAMU). As a fellow top program, AU should expect to get some of them locked.
LikeLike
I’ve seen considerable worse lists. But I’m inclined to think Auburn gets Mississippi St. instead of Florida. LSU does not get Oklahoma, more likely Alabama. And a few others get changed around.
LikeLike
From today’s WaPo, narrative omitted. Warmest January ever for entire New England.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YLQITE5PLNDDHI5JNSAEPDBO6A.png&w=916
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/02/pac-12-expansion-process-moves-forward-with-smu-and-san-diego-state-as-top-targets/
Wilner on P12 expansion. If the main goal is to increase inventory and enable the Friday night and late Saturday windows, SMU is an odd choice. Another western school that can host 7:30pm PT game regularly would seem more useful.
Speaking of which, might that be part of how the newbies earn their worth? Will SDSU and SMU get more F night and late Saturday games than the remaining 10 for a few years?
The Pac-12 is inching closer toward remaining a 12-school conference following the departures of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten in the summer of 2024.
The university presidents discussed SMU and San Diego State as expansion candidates during a meeting last week and approved commissioner George Kliavkoff taking the next step in the complicated process of adding membership, according to sources with knowledge of the meeting.
Sources emphasized that the approval was informal in nature — the presidents did not vote to add specific schools — but expansion is viewed as highly likely.
…
It is not known if other schools were discussed last week during the Pac-12 presidents’ quarterly meeting, held at Arizona State.
…
Under Pac-12 bylaws, expansion requires a three-fourths vote of the presidents, meaning eight of the 10 schools would have to approve any new members. (USC and UCLA will not participate in expansion proceedings during their final 18 months in the conference.)
SMU and San Diego State have been obvious candidates all along. Neither would be offered full revenue shares, at least initially, according to sources. Each school is attractive to the Pac-12 for a variety of reasons, including the inventory of games they would add.
As a 10-team conference, the Pac-12 would have approximately 65 football games available to its media partners, assuming each team played nine conference games and two non-conference home games every season.
As a 12-team league, the Pac-12 would have approximately 78 games available (assuming two non-conference home games per team).
Those additional 13 games provide valuable inventory, especially if media partners are interested in weekly programming for Friday nights. (With 10 members, each team would have to play more often on Fridays.)
LikeLike
Not sure I understand what Wilner’s point there is:
Wouldn’t Amazon want a more comprehensive package, i.e. some earlier games at SMU?
If Amazon is handling the streaming component, then they probably want to offer a bigger slate of games. Adding Friday is one element, but earlier Saturday games would be another.
Not sure why he mentions late Saturday window for SMU, they already have 10 teams that can play in that window.
And ESPN just needs one game for that window…
LikeLike
I don’t think we have any idea what Amazon might want. I don’t think many reporters have sources in Amazon. Do you want 11 am CT games regularly? SMU might tolerate it, but it would stink for the other teams since they are mostly on PT. I think Amazon might just want more games total, and maybe F night for a window with less competition. ESPN wants the late Saturday window. More games means the P12 can satisfy both.
LikeLike
According to Greg Fluagar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G5eARNyI9k) (starts around 16 minutes) Arizona State is a NO on SMU. Obviously, I have zero knowledge of the accuracy of his report.
Fluagar reports that there is a letter from a major financial supporter of AZ State showing their frustration and anger with the PAC. The letter which Flugar read in part indicates that UCal tried very hard to convince the B1G to take Cal, Stanford, Or and WA in addition to UCLA and USC.
AZ State feels (accurately) that Cal was effectively trying to screw AZ State and the other remaining teams (UU, CO, AZ, WaState and OrState). (I am not suggesting that if the B1g 12 offered the so called four corners that AZ State would refuse out of concern for Cal).
AZ State feels sort of helpless, which adds to their frustrations. AZ State cannot (or will not) do anything without AZ and AZ wants to stay in the PAC.
The reason for a “no” on SMU is their belief that the day that SMU becomes a PAC member, Cal and others will view SMU as superior to AZ State. It appears that AZ State seriously feels the academic snobbery in the PAC,
The PAC is really teetering of the edge of some type of disaster.
And as usual, I give Commissioner Kliavkoff a good share of the blame. Promising your league $40 million plus and now hoping to get $25 million to $30 million is not a good look.
LikeLike
I agree with AZ State. Adding SMU is a goofy idea. MY hunch is that Kliavkoff oversold the TV revenue that he said he could get and that his attempt to save face is by claiming the Dallas market. If SMU then gets blocked, then Kliavkoff can say, “Well, you didn’t comply with my plan.”
UNLV makes far more sense. New indoor NFL stadium, solid TV market, quasi-partner for SDS, great venue for fans for away games. Plus, look at a map.
LikeLike
Many people have suggested UNLV as an alternative, but like all the candidates they also have plenty of downsides. UNLV academics are weak, their market is actually smaller than many think, their athletic history is terrible outside of Tark’s years, and their attendance is terrible. Las Vegas is a city of imports, so they don’t have loyalty to the school. Visitors aren’t looking to attend their games either.
SDSU is the one fairly clear choice. SMU vs Fresno vs UNLV vs Boise vs … comes down to which factors you value most.
LikeLike
AZ State feels (accurately) that Cal was effectively trying to screw AZ State and the other remaining teams (UU, CO, AZ, WaState and OrState).
That would be silliness. AZ State knows that any Pac school would have accepted a Big Ten offer if it were forthcoming. Cal was absolutely entitled to fend for itself.
AZ State feels sort of helpless, which adds to their frustrations.
This is a typical situation for the “second school” in a state. No doubt Oregon State and Washington State were sweating it out too.
The reason for a “no” on SMU is their belief that the day that SMU becomes a PAC member, Cal and others will view SMU as superior to AZ State.
I am sorry for their hurt feelings, but if SMU is the best 12th program out there, then they really need to take SMU. This is not the time to be petty. Anyhow, if AZ State intends to vote no on SMU, it is meaningless unless at least two others agree.
MY hunch is that Kliavkoff oversold the TV revenue that he said he could get and that his attempt to save face is by claiming the Dallas market. If SMU then gets blocked, then Kliavkoff can say, “Well, you didn’t comply with my plan.”
Kliavkoff overplayed his hand, for sure. But there is no face-saving here. I guarantee that TV partners have opined on every expansion candidate. If SMU is in line for the 12th slot, that means TV values the Mustangs over UNLV. I could easily guess the reasons why, but TV partners don’t have to guess: they have data.
Plus, look at a map.
The history of modern conference expansion is that geography barely matters anymore.
LikeLike
An idea even dumber than SMU – – – Tulane.
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/four-potential-pac-12-expansion-candidates-aside-from-smu-and-san-diego-state#gid=ci02b7982200082694&pid=fresno-state
LikeLike
Bernie,
I’ve heard that ASU is angry with the P12, but it seems like they should be angry at the individual schools, especially Cal (the delay in letting UCLA go may have cost them all millions in the TV deal). But maybe that’s what people mean when they say ASU is mad at the P12.
I don’t think it’s fair to say Cal was trying to screw ASU. Cal was looking to what is best for Cal, just like everyone else in the P12 is. That’s why USC and UCLA left, and as you note ASU would do the same thing if the B12 offered them $75M per year. They can be disappointed Cal’s plan was for the NW4, but that is who the B10 has shown interest in.
Despite Colin’s wishes, the B10 has never wanted to add CU nor any of the other mountain or AZ schools. ASU is not AAU but is in Phoenix and is close to AAU status. I think they are more upset that UA still look down on them academically. They may also be disappointed the B10 doesn’t value them more highly, but their TV ratings help explain that. I also don’t believe the B10 (other than Warren) was ever that serious about expanding more, but if they did then the academics of Cal and Stanford and UW were bound to be of more interest than the 4C schools.
As to SMU, ASU is already a much better research school than them. SMU’s
value would be in its location (for recruiting and CT games). ASU was already higher ranked by the AAU than NE back when NE got voted out. So the P12 might value SMU more for other reasons, but it wouldn’t be academics. That said, ASU’s recent push on online learning might not be popular in the P12.
I would note that any feelings of insecurity on ASU’s part greatly predate Kliavkoff’s hiring. That’s been building for decades.
I totally agree that Kliavkoff overestimated the deal he could get and that has caused issues. I don’t know if he was uninformed, misinformed, or things changed quicker than he could get a deal. The delay over UCLA didn’t help. Then the B12 cut in line and signed first, and I do believe that undermined the P12 a bit. Suddenly a price had been set that was well below expectations.
LikeLike
So the P12 released this:
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-punches-back-with
Even Canzano thinks the press release is stupid.
The quickest, best way to change the narrative and prove that the 10 remaining members really are unified is to cut a deal that glues the conference together. Issuing a peculiar statement doesn’t come close to accomplishing that.
Monday’s statement was met with raised eyebrows. I found the release to be downright strange. It was the first joint statement from Pac-12 members since last July. Commissioner George Kliavkoff spoke at football media day in Los Angeles later that same month. He’s popped up a couple of times since, including a podcast interview he did with myself and Jon Wilner.
Last week, the Pac-12 commissioner visited SMU’s home basketball game, presumably to explore expansion. A few Pac-12 sources I spoke with were surprised Kliavkoff went through with the visit after it was publicly reported. It must have been important to the overall mission.
I’m also told Kliavkoff also met with officials at San Diego State in late December and that the conference has talked intermittently with a couple of others.
…
I’ve had a good time flipping over rocks, back-channeling, and exploring the underbelly of things since last summer, but I’d like to get back to talking about football and basketball if everyone else is good with that.
That can’t happen until the Pac-12 cuts a media deal. Also, until the CEO Group decides how many schools it wants to add. What does the Pac-12 want to be in 2024 and beyond? A 10-team conference? 12 or 14? Does it make sense to capture geography that extends the footprint into Texas?
How about Louisiana?
Does the Pac-12 look small-time (or opportunistic?) if it grabs SMU, San Diego State, UNLV and one other school?
My predictions, based on sourced conversations:
The Pac-12 will soon cut a media deal. It will likely expand by two members. Oregon and Washington aren’t going anywhere. Neither are the “four corners” schools. Then, we’ll all move on to talking about the next college football season.
Over the weekend, I reached out to an involved source at one of the “four corners” schools. I asked the person if he/she wanted to make a public statement and address the rumors of Pac-12 instability. Was the conference really threatening to unravel? Were members antsy?
Certainly the ongoing uncertainty is unsettling for fans.
The source said: “Invest your energy elsewhere.”
LikeLike
Any time you have to put out a statement like that, it invokes the meme of the dog in the burning house with the cup of coffee saying “This is fine.”
Better to not put out a statement and just get a deal done whenever that happens. Not sure who this is supposed to convince…
Fans don’t really matter at all for this equation one bit; just get your deal done. If you have to say this kind of thing publicly, it can mean things aren’t particularly close to settled.
But who knows, maybe they add SDSU and SMU next week and sign a media deal as well.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/02/14/ncaa-incoming-president-charlie-baker-wont-relocate-indianapolis/11255437002/
The new NCAA president (Charlie Baker) won’t move to Indy and work in the NCAA offices. He’ll continue to live in MA instead, and travel from there.
One longtime Power Five athletics director, who spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because they hadn’t previously heard about Baker’s residency plans, said they would expect a new NCAA president to be spending more time on the road than at headquarters anyway in the first couple of years on the job.
But that athletics director and a separate conference commissioner who requested anonymity noted a potential concern in Baker maintaining connectivity to the NCAA staff of more than 500 employees in Indianapolis who provide a range of resources and services to member schools and are tasked with carrying out NCAA policy.
I can see that not necessarily going over well with the NCAA staff, having a new boss who can’t be bothered to come to the office to supervise (or even meet) them in person. But it makes plenty of sense for the rest of his job (meeting with school officials, lobbying congress, etc.).
LikeLike
What a complete dickhead. This guy is going on a nonstop vacation while hiding from the critical issues back at the office. Shame on the NCAA for not mandating presence at NCAA HQ and shame on the college presidents who approved this turkey.
LikeLike
Yeah, for the travel side of the job you could be based anywhere (though Indy is more central). For the managerial side of the job it’s a bad look.
LikeLike
Marc, “the travel side of the job” is complete bull droppings. How often does the NCAA president need to fly somewhere? You may be naive enough to buy into that BS but I am not.
LikeLike
From the article:
In addition to the quote above about spending time on the road, there was all this:
With Congress yet to act on the NCAA’s pleas for national legislation governing a host of issues including name, image and likeness, the presumption around the industry is that Baker will spend a significant portion of his time in front of lawmakers in Washington, D.C., which is viewed as far more important to the future of college sports than being a day-to-day presence in Indianapolis.
“I don’t think that’s a bad strategic decision to focus more attention and resources on Washington,” said Tom McMillen, a former congressman who now runs the LEAD1 Association that represents the 133 athletics directors in the Football Bowl Subdivision. “As long as you have a myriad of states passing conflicting legislation, I don’t think you have much choice other than to have an activist Washington presence. That was sort of a premise of the search.”
…
But they were not necessarily critical of that decision given what they view the primary role of NCAA president should be going forward.
“While I think you have to be really present and active, 90 percent of what you do is going to be serving the membership and getting out,” said Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez, who transitioned the West Coast Conference into a fully remote work environment in her previous job. “I think culture is a concern and being visible and accessible is definitely a concern, but being deliberate about that, prioritizing it, is doable with technology.”
Apparently everyone but you expects being on the road to be a large part of his job.
LikeLike
Brian: “Apparently everyone but you expects being on the road to be a large part of his job.”
EVERYONE but me? You mean the female commish of the mighty Mountain West Conference who works remotely? Brian, the NCAA has 500 employees in Indianapolis.
LikeLike
This guy isn’t a sports administrator. It’s obvious he was hired to be a roving politician, not to manage the career bureaucrats in Indy. If they’d wanted a sports administrator, he would not have been the pick.
This is not to say I am in favor of this guy: my solution would be to fire about 400 out of the 500 useless employees they have, which would solve 80% of the problem. But with that said, this is more about bad optics than substance. His job is to manage the problems outside of Indy, not in it.
LikeLike
“You mean the female commish of the mighty Mountain West Conference who works remotely?”
You really should learn to read at some point, Colin.
Quotes/comments came from:
“One longtime Power Five athletics director”
“the presumption around the industry”
“Tom McMillen, a former congressman who now runs the LEAD1 Association that represents the 133 athletics directors in the Football Bowl Subdivision”
and longtime conference administrator (WCC, P12, WCC, then MWC) Gloria Nevarez.
I get that you can’t comprehend that anyone but an old straight white male can be competent at anything or have opinions with any value. But I’ll go ahead and listen to people in the industry who actually work with the NCAA on what the role of that job actually is.
Nevarez’s brief bio:
Gloria Nevarez is the second Commissioner of the Mountain West Conference (MW), having assumed that position from retiring MW commissioner Craig Thompson on January 1, 2023. Before joining the MW, she had been the fourth full-time commissioner of the West Coast Conference (WCC). Nevarez is the first Hispanic American to become a Commissioner of an NCAA Division I Conference. Prior to her duties as WCC commissioner, Nevarez served as a senior level administrator at the Pac-12 Conference, University of Oklahoma, WCC, University of California, Berkeley, and San Jose State University.
And she was a practicing lawyer before that.
As for her working remotely, I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Everything I see indicates she moved to Colorado Springs. She’s spending a lot of her time visiting the schools to learn about them, but every new commissioner does that.
LikeLike
Well Brian, we’ll see how Baker works out. With zero background in sports administration and opting to work out of his home instead of NCAA HQ, it seems like the proverbial train wreck in the making. From the NY Times:
“Baker has been the governor of Massachusetts since 2015, with his second term ending in January. He will take over as president of the N.C.A.A. in March, the same month the organization stages its signature Division I men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. Baker will replace Mark Emmert, who will serve as a consultant to the N.C.A.A. until June.
“Baker, 66, has some familiarity with college sports. He played basketball at Harvard, including a season with the varsity team in 1977-78. His wife, Lauren, was a gymnast at Northwestern and their two sons played Division III football.
“But Baker has not worked in sports in any capacity; he has worked in government and the health industry for all of his professional life. Still, the N.C.A.A. needed “a leader with a different set of skills,” said Mary-Beth A. Cooper, the president of Springfield College in Massachusetts, who served on the search committee.
“I must say that when I was first approached about this, my initial reaction was that I was not exactly what you would call a traditional candidate,” Baker said in a news conference Thursday. He added that “the enormous transition associated with policy and government and rules and regulations” made him believe he could handle the role.
“While he was an unexpected and untraditional choice for the job, his experience in government could help the N.C.A.A. navigate a time when its power in Washington and U.S. statehouses has seemingly diminished and as its pleas for federal legislation to protect its business model from legal challenges have at times been unsuccessful.”
LikeLike
The guy was a two-term Republican governor in one of the most Democratic states in the Union and was more popular in his state than just about any other governor in their respective state.
The guy has skill. Don’t underestimate him.
Maybe the NCAA needs a breath of fresh air. The practice of hiring university presidents has worked out so well for them in the past.
LikeLike
Alan: “Maybe the NCAA needs a breath of fresh air.”
Perhaps. But since he’s a politician, what is his platform? IMHO the three biggest issues facing the NCAA right now are NIL, transgender athletes and conference expansion/poaching. Baker has no experience or background in any of them.
LikeLike
Colin – since those are all relatively new issues, I doubt anyone meets your criteria for experience.
LikeLike
Well, it’s not a matter of “experience”. What is Baker’s position on these issues? We have 18 states that, using LGBTQ terminology, ban transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity. Indiana, home of NCAA HQ, is one of these states. Massachusetts is not. What does Baker think the NCAA should do?
https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/sports_participation_bans
LikeLike
Unconventional candidates often don’t work out. Surprise, surprise: subject matter experience matters!
IMHO the three biggest issues facing the NCAA right now are NIL, transgender athletes and conference expansion/poaching. Baker has no experience or background in any of them.
It would be interesting to know what the hiring committee thought were the most important issues. I am sure NIL was one of them. I am not sure about the other two. Those just seem to be Colin’s personal bug-a-boos.
I am quite dubious that the NCAA can do anything about conference expansion. This is not a topic they have regulated in the past. I would be surprised if the members want to cede control on that subject.
LikeLike
Marc – I’m not saying you’re wrong, but there probably wasn’t a more qualified “establishment” candidate than Mark Emmert as the president/chancellor at UConn, LSU & Washington.
My experience with Emmert, during his time at LSU, was that he was a big thinker, big idea guy who wasn’t afraid to ruffle feathers. While an academic, he was a leader with enough political sense to bring people along to support his vision. He even had enough humility to let the good ole boys think it was their idea.
In the early 2000s, LSU was ready for some bold leadership and wanted to be led into the 21st century. Some organizations don’t want to be led or are ungovernable. I think the NCAA falls into both categories. The membership is made up of super smart people that may be bold leaders on their respective campuses, but get them in a room, and groupthink sets in.
I can’t think of a single big ticket issue the NCAA was right or forward thinking on in the last 60 years. So, Baker may not be the “guy” to actually lead an ungovernable mess, but I salute the NCAA for doing something different and taking a chance.
The NCAA beat down Emmert because they weren’t ready to change. Maybe, after losing on so many fronts by trying to preserve the status quo, the NCAA is ready to have a leader drag them into the 21st century.
LikeLike
And it sounds like they have actually established a position on transgender athletes. They are following the International standards, instead of winging it.
Delegating gets them out of the issue. Conference realignment always happens. NIL and professionalism are issues. Restructuring the organization (or not) is an issue. The head of the NCAA’s role is to herd cats on those two issues and try to get a united front.
LikeLike
bullet: “And it sounds like they (the NCAA) have actually established a position on transgender athletes. They are following the International standards, instead of winging it.”
I do not understand why this is being dismissed as a done deal. It clearly is becoming a increasingly contentious. The following is dated FEB. 12, 2023.
“State lawmakers passed legislation in 2021 that restricted transgender student athletes from playing on K-12 school sports teams that align with their gender. . . .
Republican lawmakers have already filed two bills — Senate Bill 649 and House Bill 23 — this legislative session that would target transgender students’ sports participation at colleges and universities.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/12/transgender-college-athletes/
“Even as an increasing share of Americans report familiarity with and tolerance for transgender people, most oppose allowing transgender female athletes to compete against other women at the professional, college and high school level, according to a Washington Post-University of Maryland poll.
“The poll, conducted May 4 through 17 among 1,503 people across the United States, finds 55 percent of Americans opposed to allowing transgender women and girls to compete with other women and girls in high school sports and 58 percent opposed to it for college and professional sports.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/13/washington-post-umd-poll-most-americans-oppose-transgender-athletes-female-sports/
LikeLike
I’m not sure government isn’t about as close to the NCAA as anything else. It’s all about bureaucracy, regulation, and trying to please disparate stakeholders with almost nothing in common. That said, I was the first to concur with the concerns about him working remotely.
His primary job is to convince the US government to help the NCAA out, with national NIL legislation, and amateur player status and/or an antitrust exemption. Those are by far the NCAA’s biggest concerns right now. He also has to direct the legal team on how best to defend against all the CTE lawsuits and anything else that’s a liability.
The transfer portal can be managed internally, and conference realignment is outside their mandate. They could try to assert control over the CFP, but the P5 won’t allow it. They can work to maximize the value of the MBB and WBB tourneys and re-evaluate how to split the revenue, plus they can reconsider the rules for being D-I.
The NCAA has deferred to the international governing bodies on transgender athletes, which is probably the best compromise they can reach for now. Once a bunch of the reactionary bigots die off, they’ll catch their rules up to where most of the US is on it. It is a minor issues to the NCAA at this point, with only a handful of athletes involved.
LikeLike
Anyone think there’s an outside chance of the PAC expansion including Hawaii? Why not Hawaii + SDSU?
LikeLike
I just don’t see HI. HI brings the chance for a 13th game in football, and a willing team to play in the 4th Saturday TV window but the travel burden is huge. Especially if you add them in all sports. It’s also a much smaller market than Dallas, and lesser recruiting grounds. SMU has a better athletic and academic brand, bigger athletic budget, richer donors, and more TV viewers.
I’ve heard others mentions HI in football only + Gonzaga in all sports. I don’t think UW and WSU would support Gonzaga, and maybe not UO and OrSU either, but I suppose it has an outside chance of happening.
LikeLike
If they are considering Hawaii, it is a very well kept secret.
LikeLike
Taking the Fighting Rainbow Warriors does create an additional TV viewing window for insomniacs.
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2023/02/15/4-things-to-know-about-osu-president-kristina-johnsons-departure/69904816007/
More is coming out about why Pres. Johnson is leaving OSU. There are 2 main stories:
1. A power struggle with the Board of Trustees, especially our billionaire donor Les Wexner, over control over the medical center.
2. Complaints by her staff about her management style.
Sources close to the president said Johnson decided she could no longer work with Les Wexner and certain trustees who are loyal to him and who push for his interests. The apparent power struggle culminated last year, when Wexner and Certain members of the board sought to wrestle some control of the Ohio State University Medical Center away from the president, sources close to Johnson told The Dispatch.
But community sources defending Wexner said Johnson’s resignation centered on complaints made by her executive team in the course of her annual review about the president’s hostility and lack of transparency. The sources said some trustees were upset with Johnson over a number of different issues in the past two years, none of which were the sole reason for her resignation.
An article for subscribers only goes into much greater detail:
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2023/02/15/sources-differ-on-clash-between-ohio-states-kristina-johnson-and-les-wexner/69851310007/
Based on that article, I’m inclined to believe the power struggle was the real issue and everything else were justifications.
Two interesting tidbits that came out in that article:
* Johnson was a candidate to be the NCAA president, but the reports about her management style being an issue caused the NCAA to drop her from the process.
* Another “prestigious” university tried to hire her away from OSU but she said no because she was assured she was in good standing with the board.
LikeLike
Wow, what a difference from Gordon Gee.
Currently serving for a second time as president of West Virginia University, Dr. E. Gordon Gee has been a leader in higher education for more than three decades. In 2009 Time magazine named him one of the top 10 university presidents in the United States. Recently, the website Great Value Colleges named him the nation’s top university president. In addition to his service at West Virginia University, Gee served as president of The Ohio State University (twice), Vanderbilt University, Brown University, and the University of Colorado.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Gordon_Gee
LikeLike
Gordon Gee has left a trail of complaints and mistakes everywhere he goes. I am sure there are positives too, but any balanced assessment of him needs to acknowledge the negatives.
LikeLike
Agreed. He probably got along with Les Wexner very well, though. Gee is a very outgoing person, where Johnson may have a more typical engineering personality. Her defenders say she set very high standards for herself and everyone else, and she demanded a very high work rate. That doesn’t always go over well, and there were reports of her subordinates going around her on issues and talking directly to trustees.
LikeLike
Some of us (faculty) liked Gee quite a bit. In person he is charismatic.
Wexner is another cat entirely. His Epstein connections will blow up in tOSU’s face some day.
LikeLike
As a student and alumnus, I always felt he came across like a used car salesman in person but I know others liked him.
LikeLike
Per John Ourand from SBJ in the Marchand and Ourand podcast:
“Amazon only wants a one-game package, like a game a week. Amazon only wants the top game. They [the P12] are not going to skim and give Amazon that game. That’s what’s valuable about this package. They’re trying to keep that and make the second, third, maybe even the fourth game available.”
More from Ourand:
“(Bob) Iger has been very clear about must-have programming and paying for that … the nice to have programming they’re not gonna pay that much. The problem with the Pac-12 is if ESPN carries it, (then) it does not add a cent to what cable operators and satellite distributors pay for ESPN. If ESPN doesn’t carry it, they still make the same amount of money.”
LikeLike
If the above is true, it sounds like the Pac-12 is about to take a big hit.
LikeLike
Marc: “If the above is true, it sounds like the Pac-12 is about to take a big hit.”
I heartily agree on that assessment. George Kliavkoff got hired by promising the moon. He is delivering a Chinese weather balloon.
The suggestion that SMU is going to “deliver” the Dallas TV market, or a chunk of Texas, is absurd. The Pac-12 is going to end up with a pitiful TV deal, a remote outlier member with no fan base or marketability, and a conference TV network that makes Larry Scott look like another Jim Delany.
LikeLike
Oops, meant to say “another John Swofford”.
LikeLike
“George Kliavkoff got hired by promising the moon.”
I doubt that. I think he promised the moon after he was hired, much like Larry Scott did. Before hiring he probably had a grandiose plan, but I doubt he attached specific numbers since he didn’t have the detailed info that networks and conferences keep hidden.
Why do you insist on misunderstanding the term “deliver” in reference to markets for this? The goal would be for SMU to deliver Dallas just like RU delivers NYC and UMD delivers DC. It makes the new market part of the footprint for the conference as far as TV is concerned. That matters for things like conference networks and regional telecasts (might ESPN do ACC/P12 split broadcasts on ABC/ESPN2?). More importantly for the P12, though, it would get them access to TX for recruiting and for some CT games. Besides, SMU will gain market share if it is back in a major conference. TCU is certainly more popular now in DFW than they were 20 years ago.
I think the P12N in its current form will go away. That will likely end up as streaming content on Amazon, Apple or ESPN+. The other option is if ESPN will agree to a new PACC Network (replaces the ACCN) that combines content from the ACC and P12 but is on systems nationally, or does a regional split with P12 content in the west and ACC content in the east. The ACC keeps the money they’ve been making (with a certain growth rate), and the P12 gets the rest. CA and TX would add a lot if in-footprint homes to bill for that network (and they already have FL and NY).
LikeLike
Marc,
It also contrasts with previous reports that someone told the P12 they needed tonnage of inventory, and many assumed that meant Amazon. If Amazon only wants the top weekly game, it is either Apple or ESPN that asked for more inventory.
If ESPN isn’t going to pay well anyway, does the P12 need to expand for that?
Or is ESPN demanding a lot of games to even offer the low payout?
Would Apple want a lot of games? Would they pay for it?
Might the P12 end up on Amazon, Apple, and ESPN late night?
LikeLike
Brian
You have just made an assumption regarding the accuracy of the reports of the need for “tonnage”. Why believe that such reports mean anything at all – or ever did?
Has there been one concrete sign of any type that there was such demand for PAC football?
There were certainly plenty of reports from highly reliable sources that OR/WA would be in the B1G immediately, with Stanford and Cal right behind. In fact, I believe that Brett McMurphy is still expecting in imminent addition of OR/WA. I did not read his article but it was referenced at length in a Greg Fluguar video today.
I expressed in the comments that McMurphy’s credibility must be in serious doubt.
There is also a large difference between SMU in Dallas and RU in NYC and UMd in DC. Both RU and UMd are the only teams in the markets. Yes, there are other fans for other schools, but both schools are still number 1 in their markets. IF, yes it is a huge IF, RU or UMd were actually very good, they would dominate the markets as opposed to just having the most bodies there.
How realistic is it to think that SMU will ever dominate Dallas? From what I read (and I have no independent knowledge or info), UT and OU dominate in Dallas, with A&M, Baylor, TCU and Texas Tech also being significant in the market.
It is just a very crowded college football market.
How likely is it that the PAC will really disappear? Even if a couple of schools leave, the remainders will back fill one way or another and have a very weak conference, but still hold onto P5 status.
LikeLike
I expressed in the comments that McMurphy’s credibility must be in serious doubt.
Even the better journalists are wrong about conference realignment more than half the time. I think we know now that Kevin Warren and/or his staff were responsible for spreading the Washington/Oregon rumors before the Big Ten presidents slammed on the brakes.
LikeLike
Marc, my issue with McMurphy is that this week he again said that the addition of OR/WA was imminent. In the next couple of months. I am not discussing the predictions of months ago caused by Warren.
I have not directly seen his report, but am citing Greg Flugaur. While I frequently disagree with his opinions, I have found that his assertions when quoting third parties are quite accurate. If Flugaur claims that McMurphy reaffirmed the upcoming expansion of the B1G, I believe that the reaffirmation did happen.
LikeLike
McMurphy interview on a podcast. His comments about UW and UO to the B10 start at about 21:00. He says that he still thinks the B10 wants to add UW and UO as travel partners for USC and UCLA, and that they want them by 2024 so it would have to happen quickly. He doesn’t claim it will happen or that he is reporting it based on sources, it’s just his opinion based on what he knows.
So I disagree with Flugaur’s characterization of it. Listen for yourself and you decide.
LikeLike
McMurphy’s position does not make sense. UO and UW would accept offers today. If the Big Ten wants them in 2024, what is it waiting for?
The term “travel partner” is a misnomer. While UW and UO are in the same time zone as USC/UCLA, they are still long trips. (The plane ride from LA to Seattle is only about 85 minutes shorter than the trip from LA to Detroit.) Adding UW and UO would mean perhaps a bit less travel and body clock adjustments for the California athletes, at the expense of far more of it for the rest of the Big Ten.
Anytime I have seen the phrase “travel partner” as the justification for an expansion, it usually does not happen. In fact, I cannot recall a case where it did.
LikeLike
Marc,
There are a block of people convinced the B10 really wants a western wing, and no counterargument will sway them. They just cannot believe the B10 would only add 2 western schools. As you note, UW and UO are not short trips from LA, but they are familiar foes and in the same time zone.
The only arguments I can think of:
* The B10 is waiting for a streamer to agree to pay enough for a 4th package of B10 rights
* The B10 is waiting for an agreement on the revenue distribution from the expanded CFP
* The B10 is waiting on the P12 TV deal (perhaps so they can offer a ramp up from a lesser share)
* The B10 is waiting to see if the B12 expands further, or the P12 disintegrates
* The B10 is waiting to hear if ND’s TV deal is finalized
LikeLike
How realistic is it to think that SMU will ever dominate Dallas?
No one thinks they will. I assume the theory is that a sliver of the Texas market is better than any other option for the 12th school. These days, no conference expands without consulting TV partners, who of course have access to much more data than we do.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I’m not saying any of the reports are correct, I’m just pointing out the common interpretation of the previous report conflicts with this report. Both could be wrong for all we know.
Well, we have a lot of reports that say multiple media companies have been in talks with the P12. I think that shows broad interest. The question is at what price are they interested.
I agree SMU is about 7th among the colleges in Dallas, but that’s why I used it is a comparison to RU or UMD. Dallas is a big CFB city, while NYC and DC are not. The Cowboys will always be #1 in Dallas, but CFB gets good ratings there so even #7 draws decent numbers. And by moving up to a P5 conference, they will grow their viewership. NYC and DC are much more focused on pro sports, so even being the #1 school there is a limited draw. I’m sure an elite RU team would be different, but that isn’t what the B10 added. They added a low ratings school that would get the major market into the footprint, just like SMU in Dallas. Both could grow into stronger draws, but they do their job just by location.
I agree the P12 won’t disappear as a brand, even if it is basically the MWC + OrSU and WSU. But they could lose power status depending on how that is defined. Some already say the B10 and SEC have separated due to money, forming a power 2 and middle 3 (ACC, B12, P12).
LikeLike
Given the conflicting reports, I would sooner believe that Amazon wants one great P12 game per week, not “tonnage.” (Maybe the “tonnage” comment came from another provider, or was just wrong — I don’t know.)
The Pac-12 is surely the least desired of the so-called Power Five. I can’t see bidding on a “ton” of that, when you haven’t even proven you can attract viewers for the best of it. Ratings for the NFL on Amazon were well below Fox the year before.
Once you get into “tonnage,” you’re talking about a bunch of games with very little interest beyond fans of the two schools. Every game is worth something, but not the kind of big bucks the Pac-12 wants.
LikeLike
From The Athletic, results of their SEC survey. Very long article, all narrative omitted
Alabama
Choice 1: Auburn 1,458, Tennessee 67, Georgia 38, LSU 29
Choice 2: Tennessee 720, LSU 506, Georgia 149, Auburn 84
Choice 3: LSU 517, Tennessee 375, Mississippi State 160, Ole Miss 153, Georgia 97
Arkansas
Choice 1: Texas 464, LSU 316, Missouri 275, Texas A&M 124, Oklahoma 105, Ole Miss 64
Choice 2: Oklahoma 284, Texas 277, Texas A&M 274, Missouri 239, LSU 131
Choice 3: Missouri 270, Texas A&M 245, Oklahoma 242, Texas 237, LSU 155
Auburn
Choice 1: Alabama 1,413, Georgia 43
Choice 2: Georgia 1,045, Florida 123, LSU 93, Ole Miss 60
Choice 3: Florida 331, LSU 254, Ole Miss 214, Mississippi State 208
Florida
Choice 1: Georgia 1,305, Tennessee 55, Auburn 35, Alabama 34
Choice 2: Tennessee 534, LSU 311, Auburn 170, South Carolina 148
Choice 3: South Carolina 330, Tennessee 325, LSU 225, Kentucky 153, Auburn 135
Georgia
Choice 1: Florida 1,105, Auburn 283, Alabama 134
Choice 2: Auburn 781, Florida 321, Tennessee 154, South Carolina 112, Alabama 89
Choice 3: South Carolina 641, Tennessee 396, Auburn 113, Alabama 82, Kentucky 61
Kentucky
Choice 1: Tennessee 738, Vanderbilt 129, Florida 114, South Carolina 94, Missouri 87
Choice 2: Vanderbilt 415, South Carolina 209, Tennessee 184, Missouri 166, Florida 97
Choice 3: Vanderbilt 276, Missouri 267, South Carolina 226, Tennessee 106, Florida 86
LSU
Choice 1: Alabama 684, Ole Miss 184, Texas A&M 176, Arkansas 154, Florida 85
Choice 2: Texas A&M 246, Ole Miss 212, Arkansas 188, Florida 181, Alabama 174
Choice 3: Texas A&M 286, Ole Miss 202, Florida 154, Arkansas 144, Texas 144
Ole Miss
Choice 1: Mississippi State 1,218, LSU 58, Alabama 32, Arkansas 20
Choice 2: LSU 541, Alabama 161, Arkansas 109, Mississippi State 79
Choice 3: Arkansas 170, Alabama 153, LSU 152, Auburn 125, Oklahoma 69
Mississippi State
Choice 1: Ole Miss 1,176, Alabama 13, Arkansas 11
Choice 2: LSU 275, Alabama 168, Arkansas 129, Auburn 112, Missouri 108
Choice 3: Arkansas 148, Texas A&M 148, Vanderbilt 132, Auburn 131, LSU
Missouri
Choice 1: Arkansas 648, Oklahoma 220, Kentucky 141
Choice 2: Oklahoma 380, Kentucky 189, Arkansas 151, Texas 142
Choice 3: Oklahoma 228, Texas 170, Vanderbilt 156, Texas A&M 154, Kentucky 147
Oklahoma
Choice 1: Texas 1,237, Arkansas 57, Alabama 18, Missouri 16
Choice 2: Texas A&M 697, Missouri 237, Arkansas 232
Choice 3: Missouri 431, Arkansas 379, Texas A&M 200, LSU 84
South Carolina
Choice 1: Georgia 625, Florida 194, Kentucky 130, Tennessee 102, Vanderbilt 66
Choice 2: Florida 307, Kentucky 254, Georgia 203, Tennessee 164, Vanderbilt 96
Choice 3: Vanderbilt 239, Kentucky 225, Tennessee 224, Florida 151
Tennessee
Choice 1: Alabama 734, Florida 174, Vanderbilt 173, Georgia 94, Kentucky 85
Choice 2: Florida 323, Georgia 241, Kentucky 221, Alabama 200, Vanderbilt 186
Choice 3: Vanderbilt 383, Kentucky 259, Georgia 171, Florida 166
Texas
Choice 1: Oklahoma 841, Texas A&M 448, Arkansas 63
Choice 2: Texas A&M 740, Oklahoma 467, Arkansas 79
Choice 3: Arkansas 687, LSU 200, Missouri 139
Texas A&M
Choice 1: Texas 1,115, LSU 102, Arkansas 57
Choice 2: Oklahoma 572, LSU 337, Arkansas 148, Texas 133
Choice 3: Arkansas 364, LSU 287, Oklahoma 201, Missouri 154
Vanderbilt
Choice 1: Tennessee 863, Kentucky 149, South Carolina 37, Missouri 36, Ole Miss 35
Choice 2: Kentucky 451, South Carolina 262, Missouri 120, Tennessee 103
Choice 3: Kentucky 260, Missouri 232, South Carolina 206, Ole Miss 147
LikeLike
From The Athletic, a very sad commentary on where college football is headed. The Texas A&M 12th Man Foundation has raised $96.3 million for NIL. Text much redacted:
The 12th Man+ Fund pushes the NIL envelope. Will Texas A&M opponents push back or join in?
By Andy Staples Feb 15, 2023
The wording of the press release looked like something that might have come from any collective that has sprung up since name, image and likeness deals became part of college sports in 2021. Athletes, the release said, “will receive fair market value compensation to promote the organization’s mission through marketing services such as social media posts, appearances at events and speaking engagements.”
The difference? This didn’t come from a few-months-old NIL collective. It came from a 73-year-old booster club that in the 2021-22 school year raised $96.3 million through straight donations and donations tied to season-ticket packages for the athletic department it supports. Texas A&M’s 12th Man Foundation announced Wednesday that it has entered the NIL business, and this feels like yet another significant domino as the landscape of college sports remakes itself.
The foundation, which is affiliated with Texas A&M but not officially part of either the university or the athletic department, has created a marketing fund called the 12th Man+ Fund that would pay athletes to promote the mission of the foundation, which is to raise money to give to Texas A&M’s athletic department. So, theoretically, the 12th Man+ Fund could pay Aggies quarterback Conner Weigman or receiver Ainias Smith to promote the 12th Man Foundation.
https://theathletic.com/4207307/2023/02/15/texas-am-nil-12th-man-foundation/?source=freedailyemail&campaign=601983
LikeLike
$96 million? Yikes. If that does not draw the attention and ire of the politicians who thought that NIL money was necessary. There is no doubt that TAMU can raise tens of millions more every year. So if they can spend $50 million plus per year, that should buy lots of football and basketball players. At that level, it seems that they really are semi-pro.
If there is a tie-in to season ticket passes, it sounds a lot like the school is directly involved.
Is this so much money that even Jimbo Fisher can not mess it up?
Not surprisingly, Bama coach Nick Saban was on the mark when he accused TAMU of buying a recruiting class.
I also think that if the B1G would have considered TAMU if it suddenly became available from the SEC, to me this raises huge red flags. Yes, it is legal, but?
I think that tOSU head coach Ryan Day said that they needed $13 million in NIL money to stay competitive. Sounds like chump change.
LikeLike
This is the price we are paying for the NCAA’s former no-tolerance policy on athlete compensation. As has been the case on so many things, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern era. Had the NCAA legislated progressively, there might be guardrails in place today. Instead, it has become the Wild West.
Alan said it well upthread: there literally was not “a single big ticket issue the NCAA was right or forward thinking on in the last 60 years.”
LikeLike
Couldn’t disagree more. They were right on some of them, but the courts and Congress are wrong on them and that trumps the NCAA.
LikeLike
I think Marc’s point is more that there were chances where the NCAA could have gotten in front of some of these issues and possibly shifted the contours of the debate in a way that provided for meaningful restraints.
I’ve long advocated on my school’s Rivals forums for the NCAA supporting a method by which schools could fund (with outside help) escrow accounts that could be provided to athletes as additional compensation alongside their scholarship + stipend.
Every football player and basketball player could receive up to at least $75k (with future inflation adjustments) per year in an escrow fund to be given at graduation or after 6 years if they never graduate (would move with them if they transfer) and other sports would possibly be able to provide these to athletes depending on revenue generation for schools.
Something like that could have put meaningful caps/restraints in place while enabling for a method of payment to players.
Schools (especially Power 2 and most Power 5) would be able to provide that to athletes fairly easily even in the maximum number was in the $100k+ annual range for 100+ athletes per year ($10 million+ per year, not that difficult for most Power 5 to manage); even numbers like $150-250k per year wouldn’t be too scary for Big Ten/SEC schools with the TV money they’ll be in line for…
That kind of scenario would have been much more favorable to what we have now. Just would have required the schools/conferences/NCAA to have some foresight as to what a disaster things would be if the courts overruled them on restraining player pay and forced them to allow players to get paid in the current Wild Wild West fashion.
Football + men’s basketball players bring in $100+ million (up to $200+ million at the top) annually; just giving them scholarships worth <$10 million is completely inadequate.
Pro athletes get around 40-50% of revenue they generate; the NCAA's position was never going to fly forever.
LikeLike
z33k,
I don’t think anything the NCAA did would have changed anything. The courts and state laws would still have us in this same stupid situation. Only Congress can fix the problem, and they choose not to.
LikeLike
Even if you believe the courts, the states, and Congress were wrong, those institutions are what we have. When you repeatedly litigate up to the Supreme Court and keep losing, common sense would suggest changing your strategy.
Would we be in a better place if the NCAA had gotten out in front of these issues, instead of waiting and losing? I cannot say that for sure. But we know that their do-nothing strategy produced the chaotic world we are in now.
I recall a minor-sport athlete who was also a musician. It was only a few years ago. The NCAA wouldn’t let him sell CDs, because it could be a back door to pay-for-play. I believe no one suggested that he was selling the CDs to boosters for ridiculously above-market prices. But the NCAA believed that that could happen, so they were a hard no. Ah, those were the days.
LikeLike
Sometimes you have to stand up for what you think is right, even if you know you will lose. It is better to be forced to do/allow something you think is wrong than to do it voluntarily. And eventually, you might even win.
“I believe no one suggested that he was selling the CDs to boosters for ridiculously above-market prices. But the NCAA believed that that could happen, so they were a hard no. ”
That’s because they are realists about it. That would happen sooner or later – see NIL at Miami, TAMU, etc. If the NCAA gives an inch in even one instance, a bunch of people take a mile and claim the one instance as precedent that what they did was permissible.
LikeLike
Sometimes you have to stand up for what you think is right, even if you know you will lose.
Except there is no “sometimes” for the NCAA. Given how dizzyingly often they are forced to change, it’s hard to know exactly what their true beliefs are. Now, I will grant you that pay-for-play used to be as bright a line in the sand as they had.
Bagels without cream cheese were once a bright line in the sand too.
They litigated football TV rights up to the Supreme Court too. Naturally, their briefs back then were all gloom-and-doom (the only kind they know). Is there anybody now who wants to go back to the days when your team could only be on TV five times every two years?
While I personally don’t like where we are today with NIL, I have to admit some humility about what’s truly bad for the sport, vs. merely “not what I have always known.”
LikeLike
Marc,
“Is there anybody now who wants to go back to the days when your team could only be on TV five times every two years?”
If I had to choose between college sports pre-1984 and now, I’ll take the old days. Neither was the peak time for my enjoyment of it, but if forced to choose I’d take less exposure and less money and the old bowl system over today’s version. It would take some time to get used to not having every game available again, but that’s coming back anyway with the move to streaming. I’m not going to pay for a streaming subscription just to watch OSU play a game.
LikeLike
Brian: “If I had to choose between college sports pre-1984 and now, I’ll take the old days.”
Anyone remember the “ABC Game of the Week?” That’s what it was back then in the 1960s. ABC had one college football game on TV every week and that was it. One game, on ABC, every week.
LikeLike
From The Athletic, here are the results of their Big Ten survey of annual opponents. I have a little confession here. I submitted about a dozen responses to the survey, and in each of them I listed Purdue as UCLA’s #1 rival, and I also listed UCLA as Purdue’s #1 rival. That appears to have been enough to skew the results.
Big Ten divisional rival projections
Note: CAPITOL rivalries are considered permanent; others could rotate every 4 years
Nebraska – IOWA minnesota ucla
Iowa – NEBRASKA WISCONSIN MINNESOTA
Minnesota – WISCONSIN IOWA nebraska
Wisconsin – MINNESOTA IOWA northwestern
Northwestern – ILLINOIS wisconsin michigan state
Illinois – NORTHWESTERN purdue usc
Purdue – INDIANA illinois ucla
Indiana – PURDUE michigan state maryland
Ohio State – MICHIGAN PENN STATE maryland
Michigan – OHIO ST MICHIGAN ST rutgers
Michigan State – MICHIGAN indiana northwestern
Penn State – OHIO ST usc rutgers
Maryland – RUTGERS ohio state indiana
Rutgers – MARYLAND michigan penn state
USC – UCLA penn state illinois
UCLA – USC nebraska purdue
LikeLike
Also from The Athletic, here is a breakdown of the survey results for each team. It was a very long article and all narrative has been omitted.
Who should Big Ten football teams face on their schedule? Our experts break down the votes
Michigan
Top vote totals: Ohio State 1,674; Michigan State 1,504; Penn State 505; Minnesota 417
Choice 1: Ohio State 1,438; Michigan State 210; Illinois 20
Choice 2: Michigan State 1,184; Ohio State 208; Penn State 115; Minnesota 53
Choice 3: Penn State 390; Minnesota 364; USC 318; UCLA 165
Rutgers
Top vote totals: Maryland 1,609; Penn State 1,239; UCLA 370; Indiana 339
Choice 1: Maryland 1,334; Penn State 213
Choice 2: Penn State 866; Maryland 219; Indiana 130; Northwestern 93; UCLA 90
Choice 3: UCLA 365; Indiana 187; Northwestern 175; Penn State 160; Michigan State 160
Penn State
Top vote totals: Ohio State 1,288; Maryland 868; Michigan State 707; Rutgers 701; Michigan 598
Choice 1: Ohio State 630; Maryland 307; Michigan State 305; Michigan 197;
Rutgers 127
Choice 2: Ohio State 410; Rutgers 278; Michigan 264; Maryland 259; Michigan State 227
Choice 3: Maryland 302; Rutgers 296; Ohio State 248; USC 223; Michigan State 175
Ohio State
Top vote totals: Michigan 1,657; Penn State 1,378; USC 834; Michigan State 402; Illinois 227
Choice 1: Michigan 1,623; Penn State 22
Choice 2: Penn State 962; USC 276; Michigan State 225; Illinois 84
Choice 3: USC 558; Penn State 374; Michigan State 177; Illinois 127
Maryland
Top vote totals: Rutgers 1,624; Penn State 1,463; Ohio State 437; UCLA 302; Indiana 279
Choice 1: Rutgers 1,077; Penn State 495
Choice 2: Penn State 877; Rutgers 485; Indiana 69; UCLA 66
Choice 3: Ohio State 379; Michigan State 238; UCLA 219; Indiana 186
Michigan State
Top vote totals: Michigan 1,587; Penn State 1,082; Ohio State 621; Indiana 379
Choice 1: Michigan 1,489; Penn State 89; Indiana 25
Choice 2: Penn State 646; Ohio State 351; Indiana 153
Choice 3: Penn State 347; Ohio State 248; Indiana 201
Indiana
Top vote totals: Purdue 1,607; Illinois 1,171; Michigan State 473; Northwestern 451
Choice 1: Purdue 1,385; Illinois 228
Choice 2: Illinois 650; Michigan State 222; Northwestern 175; Ohio State 126; Purdue 111; Iowa 111
Choice 3: Illinois 293; Northwestern 258; Michigan State 235; Maryland 156; Ohio State 150
Wisconsin
Top vote totals: Minnesota 1,531; Iowa 1,391; Nebraska 690; Illinois 351
Choice 1: Minnesota 1,101; Iowa 389; Illinois 59
Choice 2: Iowa 785; Minnesota 340; Nebraska 161; Illinois 99
Choice 3: Nebraska 483; Iowa 217; Illinois 193; Northwestern 174
Illinois
Top vote totals: Northwestern 1,526; Indiana 982; Purdue 721; Iowa 592
Choice 1: Northwestern 1,232; Indiana 232; Iowa 95
Choice 2: Indiana 420; Purdue 355; Iowa 250; Northwestern 194
Choice 3: Indiana 330; Purdue 325; Iowa 247; Wisconsin 228
Minnesota
Top vote totals: Wisconsin 1,547; Iowa 1,475; Nebraska 761; Michigan 496
Choice 1: Wisconsin 1,081; Iowa 418; Michigan 66
Choice 2: Iowa 835; Wisconsin 335; Nebraska 170; Michigan 121
Choice 3: Nebraska 547; Michigan 309; Iowa 222; Illinois 139; Wisconsin 131
Nebraska
Top vote totals: Iowa 1,580; Minnesota 825; Wisconsin 763; USC 557; UCLA 508
Choice 1: Iowa 1,379; Wisconsin 63; Minnesota 61; USC 56
Choice 2: Minnesota 519; Wisconsin 339; UCLA 225; USC 166
Choice 3: Wisconsin 361; USC 335; UCLA 256; Minnesota 245
Iowa
Top vote totals: Nebraska 1,445; Minnesota 1,391; Wisconsin 1,349; Illinois 365
Choice 1: Nebraska 607; Minnesota 592; Wisconsin 334; Illinois 108
Choice 2: Wisconsin 531; Minnesota 526; Nebraska 407; Illinois 80
Choice 3: Wisconsin 484; Nebraska 431; Minnesota 273; Illinois 185
Northwestern
Top vote totals: Illinois 1,650; Indiana 713; Purdue 652; Wisconsin 505; Iowa 308
Choice 1: Illinois 1,557; Indiana 28
Choice 2: Indiana 524; Purdue 286; Wisconsin 252; Iowa 107; Michigan State 101
Choice 3: Purdue 351; Wisconsin 232; Iowa 186; Indiana 161; UCLA 132
Purdue
Top vote totals: Indiana 1,654; Illinois 1,158; Northwestern 706; Iowa 306; Michigan State 254
Choice 1: Indiana 1,515; Illinois 110
Choice 2: Illinois 828; Northwestern 245; Indiana 113; Michigan State 111
Choice 3: Northwestern 456; Illinois 220; Iowa 189; Michigan State 143
USC
Top vote totals: UCLA 1,535; Ohio State 1,046; Michigan 630; Nebraska 427
Choice 1: UCLA 1,393; Ohio State 108; Michigan 90; Nebraska 29
Choice 2: Ohio State 681; Nebraska 227; Michigan 213; Penn State 176
Choice 3: Michigan 327; Ohio State 257; Penn State 241; Nebraska 221
UCLA
Top vote totals: USC 1,585; Nebraska 712; Michigan 547; Ohio State 370; Penn State 328
Choice 1: USC 1,468; Michigan 46; Nebraska 38; Iowa 27
Choice 2: Nebraska 432; Michigan 258; Ohio State 212; Penn State 158
Choice 3: Michigan 243; Nebraska 242; Penn State 153; Ohio State 141
LikeLike
“Big Ten divisional rival projections
Note: CAPITOL rivalries are considered permanent; others could rotate every 4 years
Nebraska – IOWA minnesota ucla
Iowa – NEBRASKA WISCONSIN MINNESOTA
Minnesota – WISCONSIN IOWA nebraska
Wisconsin – MINNESOTA IOWA northwestern
Northwestern – ILLINOIS wisconsin michigan state
Illinois – NORTHWESTERN purdue usc
Purdue – INDIANA illinois ucla
Indiana – PURDUE michigan state maryland
Ohio State – MICHIGAN PENN STATE maryland
Michigan – OHIO ST MICHIGAN ST rutgers
Michigan State – MICHIGAN indiana northwestern
Penn State – OHIO ST usc rutgers
Maryland – RUTGERS ohio state indiana
Rutgers – MARYLAND michigan penn state
USC – UCLA penn state illinois
UCLA – USC nebraska purdue”
They wouldn’t be my choices, and they don’t align with the votes. I don’t think fans put themselves in the shoes of the B10 when voting either, but some are common sense. The locked ones are obvious. I think almost everyone agrees on those, even if they aren’t really rivalries (RU/UMD).
The numbers also show there are clear tiers of rivalry, and then lots of roughly equal choices. Also some oddities (IL came in 3rd in votes for UM’s #1 rival, but not in the top 4 for #2 or #3).
UMD – RU, PSU, OSU
RU – UMD, PSU, UCLA
PSU – OSU, UMD, RU/MSU
OSU – UM, PSU, USC
UM – OSU, MSU, PSU/MN
MSU – UM, PSU, OSU
IU – PU, UIUC, MSU/NW
PU – IU, UIUC, NW
UIUC – NW, IU, PU
NW – UIUC, IU, PU
WI – MN, IA, NE
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, MN, WI
NE – IA,
USC – UCLA, OSU, UM
UCLA – USC, NE, UM
Fans basically formed geographic pods (RU/UMD, UM/MSU/OSU/PSU, IU/PU/UIUC/NW, WI/MN/IA/NE and USC/UCLA), then put the coastal schools against the big brands for lack of any better choice. Many of those games will be locked, but I don’t think the B10 wants to be quite that insular with locked games.
There were several inconsistent votes, (EX. OSU and USC paired for OSU, but also OSU with MSU for MSU).
It might have been interesting to have a “Nobody else” option for choices #2 and #3, choosing to leave more free games to rotate instead of “forcing” rivalries.
It generally shows that there is broad agreement on most of the games to lock:
UMD – RU, PSU,
RU – UMD, PSU,
PSU – OSU, UMD, RU
OSU – UM, PSU, USC
UM – OSU, MSU,
MSU – UM,
IU – PU, UIUC,
PU – IU, UIUC,
UIUC – NW, IU, PU
NW – UIUC,
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA,
IA – NE, MN, WI
NE – IA, UCLA
USC – UCLA, OSU
UCLA – USC, NE
That’s 34 out of 48 (I’m double counting them all), or just over 70%. The real debates are how to fill out the rest, or if you leave them blank. And as I have said and others have noted, series could be locked for say 4-10 years and then rotated.
Assuming they lock 3 each, I think you likely add these:
MSU – IU
IU – MSU
PU – NW
NW – PU
MN – NE
NE – MN
That gets you to 40 games.
Those with 1 game remaining: UMD. RU, UM, MSU, NW, WI, USC, UCLA
It makes no sense to lock the coastal teams from east and west, so it’d be the middle four paired with the coasts.
RU – NW (NYC/Chicago, NW has a decent number of alumni in NYC)
UMD – MSU (maybe hoops rivalry can carry over)
USC – UM (big brands, and keeps SOS for UM on par with OSU’s)
UCLA – WI (they have history from the Rose Bowls)
As always, there is some flexibility in these choices and I rarely make the same list twice in a row. That hints at rotating some of the rivalries every so often.
LikeLike
You lock one (1) game, all the others are assigned randomly each year.
You might want to modify those assignments by doing the NFL and FIFA thing and matching up strong vs. strong and weak vs. weak teams.
The bigger conferences get, the more a random assignment of opponents is needed for parity sakes. The current geographical system produces grotesqueries like the East division.
LikeLike
You lock one (1) game, all the others are assigned randomly each year.
A lot of proposals have floated around, and to my knowledge that isn’t one of them.
OSU-PSU has been the Big Ten’s second most popular conference game (after you-know-what). I think it’s pretty unlikely they would let that one lapse.
LikeLike
Returning to this, as I think it’s interesting:
All rivalries where both teams voted 1349 or above for the other team became protected rivalries. So it seems that the B10 schools (mostly) listened to the fans (or were generally aligned with the fanbase).
In 2 cases that were close, OSU voted 1378 for PSU and UMD voted 1463 for PSU but PSU did not reciprocate as strongly (1288 votes for OSU and only 868 for UMD).
The only protected rivalry that at least 1 side didn’t care very strongly about was the Purdue Cannon, where PU voted 1158 for UIUC but UIUC voted only 721 for PU. It is a trophy game, however, and those 2 schools are close to each other. MSU-IU is the only other trophy game between schools in adjacent states that wasn’t protected, but MSU and IU are farther apart and their fanbases care even less about that game.
LikeLike
Schools closest to each other in the Big Ten:
USC-UCLA: 12 miles
UM-MSU: 65 miles
Illinois-Purdue: 90 miles
LikeLike
Please read this article about the potential of the Illinois-Purdue rivalry:
https://www.thechampaignroom.com/2023/8/15/23830411/illinois-football-needs-a-new-rival-purdue-has-serious-potential-boilmakers-season-bielema-walters
LikeLike
https://frontofficesports.com/pac-12-still-looking-media-rights-deal/
Amazon is being a tough negotiator with the P12, according to sources. Not really any news, but it reinforces Amazon isn’t willing to pay a premium just because they are a streamer.
Amazon is “playing hardball” in media rights negotiations with the hapless college conference, sources told Front Office Sports.
The tech giant is holding out for the best game matchups and best financial terms, sources said.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports has an article, Will the Pac-12 break up? Where each team would go if league disintegrates over media rights deal.
To be clear, he does not think this is the most likely scenario. The fact it is being discussed at all is still remarkable. All of the suggested destinations are the obvious ones.
LikeLike
Marc,
Obvious maybe, but also probably not correct. He presumes the 4 corners schools would leave first, but I don’t see it. UU wants to ask BYU for permission to join its conference? CU wants to abandon all their alumni and out-of-state students in CA and come crawling back to the B12 that it rejected when the B12 still had all its brands? I’m not sure the money difference could be enough for either of them to do this. And if they don’t go, neither will UA and ASU. I think ASU is the only school seriously interested in the move, and it won’t leave UA.
If they were all forced out of the P12 somehow, they would all first ask the B10 and SEC about an offer. I don’t think either would invite them, but they won’t know if they don’t ask. Only then would they ask the B12. So it might be where they would end up, but the scenario to get them there doesn’t make sense. I note that he doesn’t even consider the B10 as a possibility, for those who keep supporting a “bridge” to USC/UCLA.
Assuming those 4 left, Dodd then has UW and UO to the B10. I agree that would be their preference, but it takes two to tango and I see no signs the B01 wants them.
Assuming the Four Corners bolt first, that creates a decision for what would become the two biggest available brands in the country. Keyword “available” because, with the league crumbling around it, Oregon and Washington would have options. And their best option would likely be the Big Ten.
The schools align academically with the Big Ten. They would join USC and UCLA, mitigating travel issues in the Big Ten for all four schools with more games closer to home.
Even if the Pac-12 stays together, how long until Oregon and Washington have wandering eyes? Nike founder and Oregon benefactor Phil Knight has been looking out for the Ducks since early in the process. CBS Sports confirmed Washington’s interest in the Big Ten last fall, which was termed significant at the time, if the Pac-12 didn’t work out.
It is known outgoing Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren wanted further conference expansion seeking to add those two schools as well as Stanford and California. There was much pushback from Big Ten presidents and athletic directors, but with the Pac-12 potentially decided its own fate, the Big Ten wouldn’t be perceived as breaking up the league this time around, avoiding a possible costly legal challenge. (This time, however, the Big Ten would likely want no part of Stanford and Cal.)
An 18-team league would make the Big Ten the biggest in the history of major-college football. It would create significant scheduling issues and result in balking from existing rightsholders, who will be asked to pay more. Perhaps a streaming service would get involved to defer costs.
Best guess: Oregon and Washington would take less than a full Big Ten share (estimated $75 million per school starting in 2024) at least initially to be part of the richest conference in the land.
I don’t think the B10 was ever worried about a legal challenge over expansion. Schools choose their conference affiliation, and the B10 didn’t reach out to them. It’s interesting that he claims the B10 wouldn’t want Stanford and Cal this time. I don’t think anyone but Warren ever really wanted them, but they are still elite universities in a huge media market. I don’t think the whole UC BoR fiasco would stop the B10 from accepting Cal. Fans hold grudges more than administrators do over things like that (other things maybe not).
If UW and UO came in on partial shares, it would have to be part of a ramp up so by the next TV deal they are full shares (the current 16 take a a bit less growth each year to let them catch up).
Average is roughly $72M/year/school over 7 years, so let’s call that the year 4 value. For simple math, I’ll just change the payout $3M per year (about 4.5% annual growth).
2023 – 63
2024 – 66
2025 – 69
2026 – 72
2027 – 75
2028 – 78
2029 – 81
A decent plan for 2 teams at partial shares, assuming TV only offers 50% value:
2023 – 63/31.5
2024 – 65.7/35
2025 – 68.3/40
2026 – 70.9/45
2027 – 73.4/50
2028 – 75.9/56
2029 – 78.1/64
3030 (next deal) – equal for everyone.
That costs the 16 members $8.7M each over 7 years. Traditionally the B10 has let newbies in at the rate their old TV deal would have paid them, so maybe they’d really keep them at a half share for up to 7 years.
But if you’re willing to do that for UW and UO, would the B10 stop at 2 and not also add the SF market? That’s more helpful in terms of reducing the travel for USC and UCLA than UW and UO are anyway.
The SF schools could truly get a half share the whole time, showing UW and UO that their greater value is recognized, or maybe they all ramp up together.
I don’t see this happening, I just don’t see why Dodd thinks the B10 would stop at adding 2 when 4 makes more sense for reducing travel for USC and UCLA. I wonder why he believes the B10 cares about the travel for USC and UCLA. Other than saying they were working on ways to schedule and travel to reduce it, they have never stated anything like looking for more western partners. Only Warren pushed that agenda, and I don’t think travel was his reason.
Besides, I’m not convinced that doubling travel for the eastern 14 (everyone gets 1 western trip per year in football (assuming just +2 schools), and probably in the other sports that travel (MBB, WBB, WVB), helps that much. Adding 4 would mean 1.5 western trips per year, a tripling of travel for the 14. Meanwhile, for the LA schools half of all conference games are at home and all OOC games can be western. That leaves 4 true road football trips since USC/UCLA is always local. Every pair of schools added is one road trip north versus east, but still long trips. That also still leaves them with 2 or 3 eastern trips. USC plays at ND every other year currently, so those trips don’t seem to concern them too much.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the money difference could be enough for either of them [UU or CU] to do this.
I have to think there is some large number that simply cannot be ignored, however much pride they have to swallow. I have no idea if the actual disparity will be enough; it probably will not be.
I note that he doesn’t even consider the B10 as a possibility, for those who keep supporting a “bridge” to USC/UCLA.
The “bridge” idea is largely a fanboy fantasy. Real-life expansion logic seldom works that way. I mean, no plausible media report ever suggested that the Big Ten was interested in the four corners.
It’s interesting that he claims the B10 wouldn’t want Stanford and Cal this time. I don’t think anyone but Warren ever really wanted them, but they are still elite universities in a huge media market… I just don’t see why Dodd thinks the B10 would stop at adding 2 when 4 makes more sense for reducing travel for USC and UCLA.
If nobody but Warren was ever seriously interested in Stanford and Cal, that is probably why Dodd does not think the answer would change now that he is gone.
Washington and Oregon are the two best remaining football brands in the Pac-12. If they are available at a fire sale price, perhaps there is a scenario where they make sense. It is harder to believe Stanford and Cal could ever pay for themselves. They’re academically elite, but no conference expands for academics if the TV numbers don’t work.
Beyond that, we all agree there is a point where conferences are too big (even if we don’t agree exactly where that happens). This means that every pair of schools you add precludes other, possibly more desirable, options that might be available in the future. And the Big Ten probably does not want to get almost 50% bigger in one big gulp.
But I agree with you it’s no sure thing the league would want to help Washington and Oregon, just because they are in dire straits.
I don’t think the B10 was ever worried about a legal challenge over expansion.
I agree with you there. You do see the occasional report that “Big Ten presidents didn’t want to be seen as conference killers.” I am not sure I buy that, but it’s out there. Now, if the Pac-12 loses the four corners, then arguably it’s practically dead already, so if the presidents ever had that concern, it would no longer matter.
LikeLike
Marc,
I’m not sure the money difference could be enough for either of them [UU or CU] to do this.
“I have to think there is some large number that simply cannot be ignored, however much pride they have to swallow.”
I agree that there is some number that would force it, but it would be very large.
“I have no idea if the actual disparity will be enough; it probably will not be.”
I don’t think it’s possible to be. Even if the P12 only gets $20M/school it wouldn’t be enough of a gap.
“If nobody but Warren was ever seriously interested in Stanford and Cal, that is probably why Dodd does not think the answer would change now that he is gone.”
But he does think they’d add UW and UO, who also weren’t of interest to anyone but Warren.
“Washington and Oregon are the two best remaining football brands in the Pac-12. If they are available at a fire sale price, perhaps there is a scenario where they make sense. It is harder to believe Stanford and Cal could ever pay for themselves. They’re academically elite, but no conference expands for academics if the TV numbers don’t work.”
If expansion was just about acquiring brands, then sure. But the opportunity cost of expanding beyond 16 is large. Fewer games against longtime rivals, more travel for athletes, less alignment of the members, less room for adding eastern schools. We also don’t know if USC and UCLA want more western schools or if they are actively against it – there were rumors they didn’t want others. So is all of that worth a tiny bit more money/no more money/slightly less money (depending on what you believe about their valuation and any other effects (more CFP spots, synergistic value increase, etc.)?
By that same argument, why wouldn’t a fire sale price for Stanford and Cal merit consideration? The B10 highly values adding TV markets. Calford would bring SF and all of NorCal. They have a small chunk of a large market, like RU in NYC or SMU in Dallas, plus we know Stanford alumni are everywhere nationally. The old NYTime blog about fan base size had Cal #3 in the P12 after USC and UCLA at 949k, with Stanford at 344k. Combined they’d average over 650k, which is quite decent for the B10. I’m not saying the B10 would add them just for academics, but that would definitely be a deal-sweetener for the presidents. If the SF/NorCal market had enough value, and the schools would take a smaller share, they’d at least think about it (assuming conference size wasn’t an overriding concern).
He bases his case on reducing travel for USC and UCLA. Adding 4 helps them more than adding 2.
“Beyond that, we all agree there is a point where conferences are too big (even if we don’t agree exactly where that happens).”
It happens at about 11, maybe 12. Then it’s just how much you’re willing to tolerate.
“This means that every pair of schools you add precludes other, possibly more desirable, options that might be available in the future.”
It would be interesting to know how the presidents really rank the options. Obviously ND is #1 on the list. But how do UW/UO/Cal/Stanford rank vs UVA/UNC/GT/FSU/Miami? If it was up to them, do they want to stop at 16, 18 (ND+1), or 20-24? Would they rather expand east or west? Do they see much value difference between many of the schools?
“And the Big Ten probably does not want to get almost 50% bigger in one big gulp.”
They never have before, and I don’t think they do now either. But Dodd and many fans don’t worry about the integration part of expansion.
“But I agree with you it’s no sure thing the league would want to help Washington and Oregon, just because they are in dire straits.”
Yes, the B10 isn’t a charity. You only add them if you actually want to add them. ND is the only school I am 100% sure the B10 would add (ignoring all SEC members current and future).
“You do see the occasional report that “Big Ten presidents didn’t want to be seen as conference killers.” I am not sure I buy that, but it’s out there.”
I do think they worry about appearances, but we have to remember that fans and ADs are at these schools much longer than most presidents are. They often don’t have the deep B10 ties and old loyalties.
“Now, if the Pac-12 loses the four corners, then arguably it’s practically dead already, so if the presidents ever had that concern, it would no longer matter.”
I think that is the relationship keeping the P12 together. The 4 corners schools won’t leave unless some/all of the NW4 do, and those schools don’t have B10 offers so they won’t leave unless the P12 collapses because the 4C schools leave. So nobody leaves.
LikeLike
Brian: “By that same argument, why wouldn’t a fire sale price for Stanford and Cal merit consideration? The B10 highly values adding TV markets. Calford would bring SF and all of NorCal.”
Brian, I’m not sure what it takes to get something into your head. The B10 already owns the NorCal TV markets. They came right along with USC and UCLA. Stanford and Cal add very little to that. Stanford has a small fan base and Cal has no fan base.
LikeLike
The 4 corners to the B12 occurred when many assumed that WA/OR were headed to the B10. Even a $40M media deal has no effect on PAC to B10 movement. The only thing holding up more PAC to B10 moves is the lack of invites. I do not see that changing just because the PAC cannot get a good media deal (that just confirms they will not pay for themselves). The assumption that B12 will offer the 4 corners and leave WA/OR in the wind is not realistic. The B10 rescuing WA/OR is also unrealistic. What he got right is that it will take a very bad media deal for any movement to the B12, probably close to $20M per year.
Yormark said, “I’ve been pretty transparent and intentional that we’d like that fourth time zone to create more value for our media partners… would I like to be a national conference in all the different time zones from a geography standpoint have the Big 12 flag all over the country? 100 percent.” UT and CO are MTZ schools like BYU. Even the AZ schools are in MTZ half of the year.
LikeLike
Another Canzano rant: He’s now talking SMU and Rice (RICE!) for the Pac-12. I’m not making this up.
Big 12 talks with Fresno State while Pac-12 plots
A few things for your Friday… JOHN CANZANO FEB 17
• The Pac-12 Conference has gone stealth in the last few days. My spider senses are tingling. There’s a lot of outside noise, but the conference has tightened the inner circle.
• It could be that the conference wants Monday’s joint statement of unity to do the talking. The Pac-12 was annoyed at some erroneous reports and misinformation that was clouding the space.
• A consultant who works closely behind the scenes with schools and conferences all over the country told me this week that “only about 50 percent” of what we see reported is accurate.
Regardless of whether it’s the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC or Big 12… “that 50 percent figure holds up across the board,” per the source. It’s why you have to be careful with what you read and why I’m committed to giving you sourced, in-depth reporting and commentary that you can’t get anywhere else here.
• The Pac-12 men’s basketball tournament is set for March 8-11 in Las Vegas. The conference has to have something to talk about on the media rights front when that tournament begins. It’s crunch time.
• Big 12 Conference commissioner Brett Yormark told Jon Wilner and me this week in our podcast that his conference was still looking to add members. Boise State sits in the Mountain Time Zone and hasn’t been afraid to kickoff football games at night.
Would the Big 12 consider Boise State?
Yormark said, “I’ve been pretty transparent and intentional that we’d like that fourth time zone to create more value for our media partners… would I like to be a national conference in all the different time zones from a geography standpoint have the Big 12 flag all over the country? 100 percent.”
• Keep an eye on Fresno State as an addition to the Big 12 Conference. I’m told the Pac-12 has only had “intermittent” contact with the Bulldogs. No visit. Nothing planned. I don’t think the presidents and chancellors — especially the ones a few hours away in the Bay Area — in the Pac-12 view Fresno as a “must have.”
• Fresno State and the Big 12 are talking, though. Yormark and Fresno State President Saúl Jiménez-Sandoval have had “multiple conversations” a source said. The Bulldogs would love to join a Power Five conference.
• Keep an eye on Gonzaga as a basketball-only addition for some conference, too. It has a great life in the WCC but appears restless. Would the Pac-12 add Gonzaga? Or the Big 12? It’s why I asked Yormark about the media rights value of basketball in our conversation this week.
Yormark said: “When you think about basketball specifically, I do feel that basketball is undervalued in this industry… I just think it has been undervalued and it has been bundled with football. I think at some point in time that value proposition needs to change.”
• The Pac-12 has kept Boise State at “arm’s length” in recent months, per a source. Pac-12 has had very limited contact with the school. The Pac-12 appears far more interested in SMU, San Diego State, and some others.
• There are only 517,000 TV households in all of Idaho. Boise State also competes vs. a few Pac-12 schools for recruits and the academic profile doesn’t fit the Pac-12’s research-driven mission.
• For the Pac-12, the expansion decision will be driven by media value. The conference needs to add TV households and inventory to replace the loss of USC and UCLA. San Diego’s TV market would add 1.13 million households. DFW would add nearly 3 million TV households. Yes, I know that neither school traditionally brings huge ratings, but again, expansion is about adding media markets.
• The Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland once upon a time. Not because either had knockout football programs or huge ratings, but because they brought the New York and DC television markets.
• On that note, Houston has 2.45 million television households. It’s why I keep thinking about Rice University as a possible Pac-12 addition. The academic profile of Rice fits. If the Pac-12 is serious about SMU, I wonder if Rice becomes the travel partner.
• UNLV? There are fewer than 1 million TV households in Las Vegas, but the Pac-12 may covet the market’s sponsorship dollars. Also, it’s a rapidly growing region that wants to be the “Sports Capital of the World.” If the conference decides to add a fourth school, I expect the Rebels to get consideration.
• I saw multiple media reports this week that announced CBS and Turner were “no longer involved” in Pac-12 media rights negotiations. I had to stop and check whether I’d missed something. It was strange to see the CBS/Turner development reported as if it were breaking news. I’ve been told for months that neither network was ever seriously involved. I expect ESPN/Amazon to end up with the Pac-12’s media rights.
One high-level industry source said: “I don’t know that CBS and Turner were ever actually in.”
• Telemundo, PBS and HGTV are also not involved, in case anyone is wondering.
LikeLike
How is any of that a rant?
He is far from the first person to suggest Rice as a #13/14 addition. It would give a scheduling partner for SMU (play both SMU and Rice on the road in MBB in one trip, etc.), access to the Houston market, and keep SMU from being isolated. People are worried about USC/UCLA being on an island, but it would be worse for SMU. I think Rice is highly unlikely.
Others have also brought up Freson, Boise, UNLV, and Tulane. He’s just addressing what fans are already proposing.
LikeLike
It is nonsense. SMU doesn’t bring the Dallas market and Rice doesn’t bring the Houston market.
LikeLike
1. You disagreeing doesn’t it make it a rant. Your comment is a perfect example of a rant.
2. He doesn’t say they “bring” the markets, he just says they are in them. If you want to whine about it, at least pick the schools he actually claimed brought their markets: RU and UMD. Then you’ll just prove that you are either too dumb to understand how the word “bring” is used in this context, or that you are willfully obtuse on the subject.
3. By all accounts the P12 is very interested in SMU, so they must think SMU will bring the Dallas market enough to justify being added. And if the P12 is that interested, it means the media companies also believe SMU brings that market enough to pay for them.
LikeLike
Brian, your insults are meaningless to me. You believe that a guy with a penis and testes and XY chromosomes who injects himself with girly hormones, starts using she/her pronouns and calls himself Lisa actually becomes a woman. Your opinions on any other issues are equally absurd.
LikeLike
Colin, it is Lia not Lisa. There are also some questions regarding whether Lia actually suffered from gender dysphoria, or simply liked looking at women, while he was dressed as a woman. These questions arise from an on line account of Thomas.
Thomas has a private instagram account. The “story” starts at about 2 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaeBl5E9yaA
LikeLike
Lia, Lisa, it’s a Nancyboy either way. Wokester Brian thinks this creature is a woman.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian…Canzano’s latest post isn’t a rant. It’s a post.
@Colin: Everyone gets, and nobody disputes, that when you add a school in Market X, you are not necessarily attracting every CFB household in that market as a fan. It’s not like you know this and the rest of us do not. Canzano is certainly not suggesting that.
Rice strikes me as a plausible candidate, especially if they add more than two. Do I think it’s their most likely move? No, but it’s not crazy either. Certainly not as wild as some of the far less likely additions you have suggested.
LikeLike
Marc, you think that UNLV, Boise, BYU or Air Force are “wild” additions to the Pac-12 compared to SMU and Rice?
LikeLike
BYU is “wild” because there is no chance the Cougars would do it. Nobody now is suggesting that the Pac-12 will get a better media deal than the Big XII, so what would be in it for BYU to pay an exit fee and move?
(Besides that, BYU’s religious mission is likely incompatible with the Pac-12, even if such a move would be financially beneficial for them, which to be clear it is not. In contrast, although SMU has “Methodist” in its name for historical reasons, the school today is largely secular in its outlook and behavior.)
Air Force is “wild” because the academy has made it clear in the past it does not want to be in a “power five” (however you define that) league. There are no serious media reports of interest on either side.
UNLV and Boise are flawed (meaning not very likely), but realistic potential additions the way Rice is. While most analysts put UNLV and Boise lower down on the Pac-12’s list of candidates, they probably have been seriously considered the way Rice might be.
I will reiterate that if Kliavkoff visited SMU, it means that TV partners have told him to. It means that most of the remaining schools, if not all of them, are open to SMU as a candidate.
LikeLike
Pac-12 expansion with SMU is absurd. SMU will NOT bring the Dallas TV market. The Pac-12 will end up with a lousy TV deal PLUS an outlying nothingburger member that all of the coastal schools will be forced to fly thousands of miles to get to.
If the Pac adds SMU and Rice, they will end with a lousy TV deal plus TWO outlying nothingburger members that all of the coastal schools will be forced to fly thousands of miles to get to.
Kliavkoff visiting SMU does not mean that TV partners have told him to. In case you haven’t noticed, TV partners are backing off in herds. Kliavkoff visiting SMU is an act of desperation by Kliavkoff to try to dupe the Pac-12 presidents into thinking that he can deliver on the top dollar TV deal that he overpromised.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff visiting SMU does not mean that TV partners have told him to. In case you haven’t noticed, TV partners are backing off in herds.
The two media partners who are definitely still interested are the ones we predicted all along, Amazon and ESPN. It is a dead certainty, and not open to rational argument, that Kliavkoff has discussed and received feedback on potential expansion candidates from media partners, actual or prospective.
LikeLike
Marc: ” It is a dead certainty, and not open to rational argument, that Kliavkoff has discussed and received feedback on potential expansion candidates from media partners, actual or prospective.”
“SMU brings Dallas TV market” is Kliavkoff’s canard. He oversold his ability to negotiate a lucrative TV contract and this SMU/Dallas/TV/market myth is how he going to try to weasel his way out of it. If the Pac-12 presidents veto SMU, he’ll say it’s their fault for rejecting his deal. If they are dumb enough to bring in SMU, the TV deal will still bottom out and Kliavkoff will say the networks stabbed him in the back.
LikeLike
SMU brings Dallas TV market” is Kliavkoff’s canard.
You know this…how?
When Kevin Warren started to pursue additional Pac schools, multiple Big Ten presidents and ADs came out publicly and dumped cold water on the idea. If Kliavkoff were freelancing, he’d get the same kind of smackdown.
That is why I am positive the Pac-12 has given a green light to SMU as a potential 12th school. Kliavkoff is not known to have visited any others except San Diego State.
Could they all be wrong? Sure, especially for a league with a long history of screwing up the big decisions. But you have not demonstrated any expertise in this field either.
LikeLike
More on SMU:
“But Kliavkoff’s trip last week to scope out SMU, which became public when he was spotted at a basketball game, is a head-scratcher. SMU is a terrific university and a solid athletic program that happens to be located in a great market.
“Realistically, though, SMU is a private school with a relatively small fan base that doesn’t move the needle much in Dallas or anywhere else. Going so far outside the Pacific or Mountain time zones just to add SMU smells like a desperate dart throw in hopes that the theoretical “Dallas market” adds some dollars to a streaming deal.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/02/16/pac-12-looks-weak-no-one-pay-broadcast-rights-deal/11273933002/
LikeLike
Here’s the problem (and why I tend to lean towards Marc’s argument above as opposed to Colin’s):
The Pac-12 isn’t adding a school to try to bring in a big market. Why? Because none of those schools are available.
Every school that can bring an important market is already in the other 4 Power 5 conferences (really just 3 conferences now hold the biggest of those cards: Big Ten, SEC, ACC, but the Big 12 has some schools with good followings that aren’t primary state schools).
The Pac-12’s expansion decision is being looked at like how the others were, but it’s just not in the same range. Theirs is sort of like a discount version of the Big 12’s search.
There are no obvious programs to add to the Pac-12 beyond just SDSU to get them back into South California.
They’re literally adding a 12th school for inventory. At that point, you try to find the best fit in the best location (for recruiting/TV/etc).
Nobody thinks SMU is going to bring any sliver of the Dallas market.
Amazon probably doesn’t care who the Pac-12 adds if they’re trying to get just a best game/T1 package because we all know that package is going to feature mostly Washington, Oregon, and depending on season maybe Utah and some others.
I don’t think it really matters who the Pac-12 adds whether it’s SMU, UNLV, Rice, or whoever.
They get a slot in the central time zone (which enables noon starts if a media partner wants that); Texas is the best recruiting grounds in the country (so schools like Washington/Oregon get to visit that).
Beyond that, it’s a warm body that adds inventory; there’s nobody left in the Central/East time zones that measurably moves the football needle outside of the Power 5.
LikeLike
I cannot imagine SMU in the PAC12. Setting aside its “death penalty” in 1987, can we find a school that is less academically and culturally compatible with the PAC12? Surely, its admission to the PAC12 would be grounds enough for Cal and Stanford to run away as fast as they could.
As to Rice, while it is academically prestigious, it is tiny, which only 4,000 or so undeRgraduates. It is currently in Conference USA (FBS).
The PAC12 already has all the schools that are compatible academically and athletically, and none of the remaining available schools are. The only way the PAC avoids becoming G6 is by cutting some sort of deal with the B1G. Failing that, the PAC will simply fall apart, and the pieces will end up in the Big12, MWC, et al. Maybe C-USA will take them.
LikeLike
What kind of deal with the B1G?
As others have said, the PAC really needs a footprint in Southern Cal, so I do not know how they ignore SDSU. As others (including you) have said that there are not other decent options. So what choices does the PAC have, why should the B1G get involved, and how?
LikeLike
The B1G has already cut a deal with the PAC (at least USC & UCLA). It was one-sided in the B1Gs favor and further deals are likely to be negative for the PAC as a whole even if one or two members benefit.
The consideration of SMU looks like the PAC is desperate. However, I disageee that SMU is quantitively worse than other schools mentioned for PAC membership like SDSU, UNLV, Fresno State, Boise State, or Tulane. The best path forward for the PAC may be staying at 10 like the B12 did after A&M/MO left. The PAC can always reload from the Mountain West if they lose additional schools. It is not like the current list of candidate schools has anywhere else to go.
In reference to SMUs 1987 death penalty: Isn’t pretty much all of what SMU was penalized for now legal? Times change, not always for the better.
LikeLike
Well I believe SMU is tied for first with Arizona St. for most major NCAA infractions, so that sounds compatible! And its a strong undergraduate institution. At least with USA Today its ranked #72 which is better than 7 of the Pac 10.
LikeLike
Setting aside its “death penalty” in 1987, can we find a school that is less academically and culturally compatible with the PAC12?
Well, I can think of two frequently mentioned ones that are worse fits: Boise State and UNLV. Indeed, the only obvious addition is San Diego State. But odd numbers are awkward, so you need a 12th school that will be, inevitably, one that in the past they never would have sniffed at. All of the candidates are bad.
SMU, at least, is academically comparable to the remaining schools, is in very good recruiting territory, and would give the Pac games in the noon time slot when it would otherwise be off the air. I agree with z33k that this is strictly about inventory.
Unfortunately, the Pac-12’s list of candidates is already constrained by geography, and the best of the mid-majors have already been snapped up by other leagues. Bear in mind, when the Big XII had to replace Texas and Oklahoma, they rejected several of the schools that the Pac is now forced to consider because the great ones are gone.
In reference to SMUs 1987 death penalty: Isn’t pretty much all of what SMU was penalized for now legal? Times change, not always for the better.
Yeah, I think we are past the point of relevance for infractions penalized 35 years ago. However, what SMU did is still illegal, at least formally. They were paying the players directly, which for now remains against the rules.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“I cannot imagine SMU in the PAC12. Setting aside its “death penalty” in 1987, can we find a school that is less academically and culturally compatible with the PAC12? Surely, its admission to the PAC12 would be grounds enough for Cal and Stanford to run away as fast as they could.”
SMU is a highly regarded school for undergraduate education with a history of major conference athletics and a relatively large athletic budget for a G5 school. The ACC works with a mix of elite undergrad-focused private schools (WF, Duke, BC), elite state schools (UVA, UNC), and larger state schools (VT, NCSU). SMU is #72 in the USNWR rankings, and is secular (not a BYU issue). It is a reasonable academic fit for the P12.
Are there any better academic fits that bring value? You dismiss Rice as well, so what options are left? Fresno, Boise and UNLV are worse academic fits. Utah and TCU have grown into P5 schools, so why can’t SMU?
“The PAC12 already has all the schools that are compatible academically and athletically, and none of the remaining available schools are.”
But if they feel the need for 12 members, then they have to broaden their search until the find them. They seem to have settled on SDSU and SMU as the bets options, even if they aren’t perfect fits. Unless you have a better alternative to offer, why criticize their selection?
“The only way the PAC avoids becoming G6 is by cutting some sort of deal with the B1G.”
What do they have that the B10 wants? And how would that keep them P5? The B12 has lost UT, OU, NE, TAMU, CU and MO and is still P5. Why can’t the P12 survive losing USC and UCLA?
“Failing that, the PAC will simply fall apart, and the pieces will end up in the Big12, MWC, et al. Maybe C-USA will take them.”
Why would schools leave for the MWC or other G5s when the top G5s could get invited to the P12 instead? The brand has more value than any G5 conference name.
LikeLike
Brian: “Are there any better academic fits that bring value?”
SMU – USNWR ranking #72, average football attendance 20,894, location SEC
Air Force Academy USNWR ranking #18, average football attendance 27,271, location Pac-12
LikeLike
Air Force has to want to be in the Pac-12. When they could have had a Big XII invite, the AFA said they couldn’t take that level of competition. If they have changed their minds, when are they planning to let the word out?
LikeLike
Marc: “Air Force has to want to be in the Pac-12. When they could have had a Big XII invite, the AFA said they couldn’t take that level of competition.”
What the Air Force AD actually said was “I can’t recruit against Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State.” Obviously, playing in a Pac-12 minus USC and UCLA wouldn’t be that intimidating. This is the AFA record against all P-5 opponents (SDSU included too) over the past four years.
Colorado W 41-10
San Diego State W 13-3
Baylor W 30-15
San Diego State L 14-20
Louisville W 31-28
Colorado W 30-23
Washington State W 31-21
https://www.mwcconnection.com/2011/10/9/2478729/big-east-expansion-air-force-to-big-east
LikeLike
Schools that want to step up to the P5 have been very vocal about their desires. In most cases it is the school, not the conference, that makes the first phone call. If the AFA reached out to the Pac-12 and was spurned, you might have a valid point. But there is no evidence that they did.
Indeed, for political reasons, it would be extremely stupid for any conference to summarily dismiss a service academy that wanted to join. If AFA had contacted the Pac-12, they’d get a serious look, and we would all know about it.
While the AFA has been successful in the P5 games it accepts, there is a big difference between playing one or two per season and a full schedule. The Falcons play an option attack that is hard to prepare for. But if Pac-12 teams had to face that offense every year, they would figure out how to beat it. I would guess this is why the AFA has not asked to be considered.
LikeLike
Marc, these little scenarios that you fabricate are not logical. “If the AFA reached out to the Pac-12 and was spurned, you might have a valid point.” Did the AFA ‘reach out’ to the Big XII when they were invited? No. The Big XII had lost some members and they needed to fill some vacancies. Sound familiar with the current Pac-12 situation?
The SMU invitation is an act of desperation by George Kliavkoff. It makes no sense for TV revenue, traditional rivalries, culture or geography. Kliavkoff isn’t looking out for the best interests of the Pac-12 members, he is trying to salvage himself. He has failed to resolve the Pac-12 Network train wreck, he was clueless that USC and UCLA were leaving and it has become obvious that he will be waaaaay short on the TV revenue package that he promised.
SMU is a both red herring and an escape hatch for Kliavkoff. If the Pac-12 rejects them, he’ll blame the members for not following his plan. If the Pac-12 accepts SMU, he’ll claim the networks stabbed him in the back when the TV revenue bottoms out. Problem with the latter is that the Pac-12 will be stuck with this SMU turkey until the end of time.
LikeLike
Did the AFA ‘reach out’ to the Big XII when they were invited? No. The Big XII had lost some members and they needed to fill some vacancies. Sound familiar with the current Pac-12 situation?
Kindly re-read my post. What I said, was that schools desiring a move are proactive. AFA was not proactive because it had no desire to move. The Big XII decided to ask them anyway, just in case, and got the “no” that you would expect in such a situation.
I and others have already patiently explained why SMU is one of the better realistically available moves (AFA not being available), so I won’t explain it again.
LikeLike
Marc: “I and others have already patiently explained why SMU is one of the better realistically available moves (AFA not being available), so I won’t explain it again.”
Actually we won’t know if AFA is available until they’re asked the question. And if any other poster on this forum believes that SMU is one of the better realistically available choices, who is it? Seems like the concensus here is that SMU is an act of despiration on George Kliavkoff’s behalf and that we’re virtually unanimous that SMU will not capture the Dallas TV market.
LikeLike
Actually we won’t know if AFA is available until they’re asked the question.
That is not how conference realignment works, but if it did work that way, how do you know what they have been asked?
(I cannot recall a major conference realignment that occurred without the school actively pushing for it. Schools that want to move don’t stand against the wall waiting to be asked to dance. Maybe Rutgers was an exception, since they could not have known that Maryland was coming to the Big Ten, and without Maryland there is no Rutgers.)
And if any other poster on this forum believes that SMU is one of the better realistically available choices, who is it?
I am not going to itemize them because you know how to read. Indeed, it is not clear to me who you would pick once your obviously unavailable (BYU, AFA) and/or obviously worse (Boise, UNLV) candidates are eliminated, as they clearly have been.
Seems like the consensus here is that SMU is an act of desperation on George Kliavkoff’s behalf and that we’re virtually unanimous that SMU will not capture the Dallas TV market.
I think there is consensus that the Pac-12 is in a heap of trouble. The idea that Kliavkoff is freelancing seems to be your idea alone.
Yes, we all agree that SMU will not capture the Dallas TV market. You might as well throw in that the earth is round, in case any flat-earthers are lurking here.
LikeLike
Marc; “That is not how conference realignment works, but if it did work that way, how do you know what they have been asked?”
I didn’t say that AF has been asked. Marc, you’re making up little stories again.
LikeLike
Umm…your exact words were, we won’t know if AFA is available until they’re asked the question.
The word “until” means it has not happened yet. So I am wondering how you know it has not.
LikeLike
Marc, it has been reported Rutgers AD at the time, Tim Pernetti, was working with Delany for years trying to get into the B1G. Obviously the opportunity arose with UMd coming on board.
Though it was not at all public, this was a culmination of years of behind the scenes discussions.
A lengthy analysis was written by Steve Politi behind a paywall at NJ.com.
LikeLike
The deal with USC/UCLA is that they became full members of one of two dominant conferences. The B1G got a national footprint from NYC to Chicago to LA. They (particularly USC) were two significant schools in the number two market (numerically) in the country.
The two LA schools have more travel, but they seem to be happy with that for an extra $50 million more per year.
Why was that one sided either way?
I still do not see any deal that the PAC can make with the B1G. There will not be any lifeline to the PAC. That is unless ESPN or Amazon come up with lots of extra money.
Obviously if the B1G wanted schools from the PAC, they could get them – with the still possible exception of Stanford which might not leave without Cal. Taking Cal would be quite the price if the B1G wanted Stanford.
LikeLike
Congrats guys, I like your reboot pitch! Realignment Odd Couple (Odd-School-Out Couple?) Staring Colin as Oscar Madison and Brian as Felix Unger! ‘They may not see eye to eye on school invites or grant-of-rights, but when it comes to the Huskies and Ducks in the Big Ten, they’re camaraderie as Frank’s Cranks comes shinning through!’ – Sorry guys, Pac12 is in trouble. O/WA are invited into the B1G (at a value based discount) before new deal kicks off. Stanford likely has to wait. I expect the walk backs to be the main storyline for season 2 so make ’em good! 😂
LikeLike
The P12 could be in all kinds of trouble, but it doesn’t change how the B10 votes. The new deal starts this summer. OSU may not even have a new president by then, and I struggle to see the B10 rushing to force expansion on OSU rather than waiting to try to convince a new president to agree. I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the other “No” votes have changed their minds either.
If the B10 wanted to offer partial shares to UW/UO, they would’ve done it already and it would’ve leaked. The B10 doesn’t want to expand unless it will make noticeably more per school than it does without expanding. As always, they will reconsider expansion as the end of the upcoming deal approaches.
I think for now they are waiting to see how the expanded CFP revenues are split and how that seems to be working out for the B10.
LikeLike
..Ðo you want to end up on Tubi? -Keep talkin’!
LikeLike
They have already decided on the CFP money. Its basically the same % to the P5 with the allocation done by school not by conference. So the Big 10 will get 16 shares, SEC 16, ACC 14, Big 12 12 and Pac 10 10 (at least with today’s membership).
LikeLike
bullet,
As I recall, that was only for the expansion under the current deal (2024 and 2025), not the next one.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/en/Daily/Morning-Buzz/2022/11/17/CFP-board-resolves-revenue-distribution
The CFP Board of Managers met virtually on Wednesday and was “able to resolve issues tied to revenue distribution” for the 2024 and 2025 seasons, if the CFP is to expand from four to 12 teams before the end of its current contract. The revenue distribution model “will make payouts more even per Power 5 school.” The compromise “reduces disparity and allows the focus to be on per-school payouts instead of per-league payouts.” Payouts to the Group of 5 leagues “remain unchanged.” Such an agreement “would only be in place for the 2024 and 2025 seasons,” were the CFP to expand early. The CFP will sign an entirely new contract for 2026 and beyond, and “those involved anticipate that many issues will be on the table again then” (THE ATHLETIC, 11/16).
People are expecting a lot more money to be available from 2026 on, and the split has not been decided. Will there be earned shares to reward winning, like in hoops? It seems unlikely to me that the G5 will get the same percentage of the new deal as even more of their best schools have joined the P5 and they are now guaranteed a spot in the CFP.
LikeLike
Agreed Brian. 2026 is still open.
LikeLike
Although I think the only thing that might change from the interim deal is how much money is paid for participation. Right now, its pretty minimal. Most of the money is fixed. They will be looking closely at that number and the Big 10 and SEC are likely to want a higher % amount to participation than now.
LikeLike
bullet,
Yes, and that’s why I said people may be waiting to see what is decided.
They could decide to basically maintain the current payouts for champs (with a 5% escalator), and put all the new money into rewards for at-larges and winning. Or maybe just for participation. Or maybe they decide on lots of guaranteed money.
But until the B10 knows, they can’t fully calculate the value of new additions. Nor can the P12 schools evaluate the value in moving.
LikeLike
“This is not a done deal, because there are high ranking members of current Pac-12 schools that are unsure if the combination of SMU and San Diego State are good adds and add value to the league.”
https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/mac-engel/article272515410.html
LikeLike
I would love to know what those high ranking members think the alternatives are.
LikeLike
Presumably the alternatives are:
1. Staying at 10
2. Going to 11 with SDSU only
3. Going to 12 with SDSU + someone else they personally prefer to SMU
LikeLike
Here’s a novel idea . . .
https://superwestsports.com/mclaughlin-the-case-for-air-force-joining-the-pac-12/
LikeLike
365sports did a lengthy interview with a radio sports commentator from Seattle, who is very in tune with UWashington.
He said that he thought SMU should not be brought on. Whether that accurately reflects UW thought, I obviously do not know.
He also stated in no uncertain terms that he was sure that UCLA/USC want no further west coast schools. They can say to all of the CA recruits that if they want to play in a top conference, they are the places to go. The LA schools expect a recruiting bonanza leaving behind the PAC schools and going to the B1G.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I could see UW feeling that way. They would have the longest trips to play SMU and probably are the least likely (after WSU and OrSU) to benefit from recruiting in TX. Unless SMU gets them more money, what positives are there for UW in adding them?
I suppose it’s possible that they prefer a closer school geographically instead, but my guess is they’d rather just add SDSU and stay as a pacific conference.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“He also stated in no uncertain terms that he was sure that UCLA/USC want no further west coast schools. They can say to all of the CA recruits that if they want to play in a top conference, they are the places to go. The LA schools expect a recruiting bonanza leaving behind the PAC schools and going to the B1G.”
We all saw those rumors months ago, so I suppose this is more evidence for that stance. It’s one more reason why the B10 isn’t likely to add more P12 teams right now. Maybe in a few years the LA schools will feel differently about it, but why go against their wishes now if you aren’t getting a significant financial gain from it?
LikeLike
ESPN’s Pete Thamel has a new think piece on expansion with a few tidbits I had not seen before.
Herewith your reminder that quoting from an article does not mean I am endorsing the idea. Thamel is one of the better writers on conference expansion, which only means he is wrong at least half the time, as opposed to the average writer who is wrong almost all of the time.
LikeLike
Marc,
What’s changed? Why would Fox, CBS or NBC yield any good games to Amazon? The B10 has agreed to this deal, so it can’t change it’s mind and move Amazon to 3rd in the rotation or anything. I think Amazon would have to pay one of the networks for the right to swap picks that week, plus the B10 would have to agree (and get paid for it).
In 2023 I could see CBS agreeing to do that, and maybe NBC would in certain weeks, but I don’t see 14 weeks worth of games coming from that. But Amazon could get some of the same games much cheaper from the P12 right now.
To me, Warren leaving makes this less likely, not more. Who’s pushing for expansion now? There may not even be a commissioner for several months.
LikeLike
That’s exactly why I said that posting does not constitute agreement. I don’t see a way those things would work, either.
LikeLike
Provided for those who thought gender identity in women’s sports was going to be a trivial issue for the next NCAA president:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/groups-urge-biden-support-womens-sports-fight-bidens-unlawful-title-ix-reg
LikeLike
Today marks the 20th anniversary of the release of Old School, the film that introduced the character who served as the namesake for our own Frank the Tank! So happy birthday Old School. (And yes, I feel incredibly old knowing a movie that came out when I was in high school is now 20).
LikeLike
SI’s Ross Dellinger reports on likely rule changes to shorten college football games. The sport’s leaders have been trying to do this for years, as the length of the games kept inching upwards. It has become more urgent, given the extra games that will be added after the playoff expands in 2024.
Two changes are considered noncontroversial: banning consecutive time-outs (usually employed to ice kickers) and eliminating the untimed down if the 1st or 3rd quarter ends with a defensive penalty. But these things don’t happen in every game and would have a relatively minor impact. Another change said to have broad support is a running clock after first downs, except when there are less than two minutes remaining in a half.
All of the above would bring the CFB rules more into line with the NFL. (Not all the way, as the NFL never stops the clock after a first down.) A more controversial proposal is a running clock after incomplete passes, which would go farther than anything the NFL has done. I assume that rule would also have an end-of-half exception to allow quarterbacks to spike the ball.
There is currently a considerable disparity between CFB, where games average 3’21” and 180 plays; and the NFL, which averages 3’10: and 155 plays. Besides different clock rules and a shorter halftime, the NFL has a lower incidence of incomplete passes. There are always some college games every year that are as long as four hours, something that almost never happens in the NFL.
LikeLike
What if each team wants to take a time out? Is that also banned? I don’t see a need for 2 TO’s in a row no matter who calls them. If you’re going to get a penalty (delay of game, illegal substitution, etc.) after a TO, too bad. How about no TO after a TV TO either? But as you noted, double TOs are fairly uncommon.
Eliminating untimed downs is fine, but those are also rare.
I hate rule changes for the final 2 minutes. The rules should be the rules. CFB has no 2:00 warning, so there’s no reason to change the rules. That said, there is no reason anymore why the clock needs to stop for a 1st down. One purpose of the rule was because CFB officials were slower at moving the chains and getting setup for the next play, and teams felt their time was being wasted. It was also a reward to the offense. Keep it running all the time.
I see no problem with having a running clock after an incompletion. They put in the rule to have time to fetch the ball and place it. Nowadays that takes a few seconds at most.
If they really want to save time, they should go to a purely running clock like in soccer. 40 minute quarters plus 20 minutes for halftime gets you a 3 hour game every time.
LikeLike
If they implement the same rule as the NFL, then the prohibition is against consecutive TO’s by the same team, not by opposing teams. It really is a tiny improvement, given how rarely that is done.
There are already different rules in the final minutes. One is the rule requiring a 10-second runoff in certain situations. Another is stopping the clock if the ball carrier (or the ball itself) goes out of bounds. There could be more; those are just the two I thought of.
I think they are trying to tighten the timing for the bulk of the game, where no one would notice very much, while keeping the rules we’ve always known in the high leverage situations at the ends of halves. That was certainly the thinking when they changed the out-of-bounds rule 10 or 15 years ago.
If you do not stop the clock on first downs late in the game, I think you would see a lot more mistakes by officials and chain crews in the frenetic final moments. The NFL risks that too, but they have far fewer crews to monitor and train.
Keeping the clock running after incomplete passes is a more radical change, even though I agree that the original reason for it no longer makes sense. But none of us have ever known a time when it did not work that way. I’m reminded of the rule a few years ago that started the clock on kickoffs when the ball was ready for play. It was so poorly received that they rescinded it after a season or two.
The article mentioned that they’ve looked at replay reviews, but apparently no change is being considered this year. They’ve discussed moving to an NFL model where the coach must request the review (and forfeit a timeout if he is wrong), as opposed to the current system where most of the reviews are initiated in the booth. The article said there’s an average of 2.3 replay stoppages per game. Somehow it feels like more than that.
I’d like to see a running clock in runaway games. When the Buckeyes lead the Hoosiers 42–7 after three quarters, I think you can just run the clock for the fourth.
LikeLike
https://nypost.com/2023/02/21/apple-emerges-as-potential-landing-spot-for-pac-12-football/
Andrew Marchand from the NY Post is reporting Apple TV may be in the mix for P12 rights.
Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff could present Apple as a possibility to his schools soon, according to sources. Whether the universities would be interested in a potential all-streaming deal and whether the terms would end up being good enough to prevent schools from departing to other conferences has yet to be determined.
I suppose it’s better than having no other competition, but I can’t imagine ESPN or Amazon are all that concerned about Apple getting the rights. They have to be tempted to basically dare the P12 to put their games on Apple TV with its 12 subscribers.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Streaming won’t save college football as we know it because it’s not saving TV
By Chris Vannini
When a headline about a potential broadcaster for your games draws a negative reaction, you’re not in a good place.
The Pac-12 is nearing dire straits right now. There’s no other way to put it. The New York Post’s report Tuesday that Apple TV+ is a potential landing spot for Pac-12 sports landed like a lead balloon among fans, and for understandable reasons.
It doesn’t mean the league is about to fall apart or that it can’t still secure a good enough TV deal for the short-term future. It will probably be OK. But the Pac-12 may be the canary in the coal mine for college conferences outside what is becoming the Power 2 of the Big Ten and SEC.
Streaming won’t be the answer to saving college football as we know it. We know this because streaming isn’t saving TV.
You can’t completely blame Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff. He needs to find some other interested bidders to gain some sort of leverage in negotiations with ESPN after he inherited an incredibly difficult situation from former commissioner Larry Scott. Fox, a current Pac-12 media partner, has expressed little interest in the league with USC and UCLA on their way out. NBC and CBS also appear set when it comes to college football. The Big 12’s decision to renegotiate early with ESPN and Fox and take a larger-but-under-market deal for the sake of security was a smart move to outflank the Pac-12 that also highlighted how far it, too, is from the Big Ten and SEC.
The Pac-12 needs leverage, but Amazon and Apple aren’t that. A move to heavy streaming would dramatically decrease game viewership and threaten to speed the conference into irrelevancy. In a sport based around recruiting and donors, people need to find your games easily. ESPN knows this. It’s why Conference USA rushed back to ESPN as part of its new TV deal and away from streaming places like Stadium. Even if Amazon and Apple, which have been more prudent with streaming spending than other places, overpay for the sake of content on a potential sports-only app, it’s an incredible risk for a conference. This isn’t Major League Soccer.
For years, forecasters predicted the sports TV money bubble was about to pop. They said there would be a limit to how far broadcasters would pay for live sports as cable subscribers went down. “TV Sports a Spectacular Bubble” read a Forbes headline in 2013. But as cable subscribers began to slump, it became clear that live sports were the only thing saving television from dropping even further, increasing their value. The NFL had 75 of the 100 most-watched broadcasts in 2021, so the NFL has continued to get more and more money from the networks. The Big Ten and SEC, with their large audiences, are about to take another financial jump up with their new TV deals. The 12-team College Football Playoff will be another boost, with Fox expressing interest in joining ESPN as a potential broadcaster.
Amazon is paying more than $1 billion per year for Thursday Night Football because it’s the NFL. It made a play for the Big Ten because it was the Big Ten. Even Apple, the most valuable company in the world, reportedly let the NFL take Sunday Ticket to YouTube TV in part because Apple didn’t want to increase its price for customers.
If you’re not the NFL, Big Ten, SEC, NBA, CFP, World Series or the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, your negotiating leverage may begin to fade as the biggest leagues take up more.
Take it from returning Disney CEO Bob Iger, who on a recent earnings call expressed a desire to keep NBA rights but said: “ESPN has been selective in the rights that they bought. I’ve had long conversations about this with (ESPN president) Jimmy Pitaro. And we’ve got some decisions that we have to make coming up — not anything particularly large, but on a few things, and we’re simply going to have to get more selective.”
ESPN used to own college football. Now it lost the Big Ten and does not see the Pac-12 as such a priority as to overpay. Iger also said that while ESPN+ has grown nicely, he does not want to commit to an all-streaming ESPN or spin the company off unless it makes financial sense.
And that’s the dirty not-so-secret about streaming: It’s not actually working. The boom is over.
Disney’s direct-to-consumer business — which includes Disney+, ESPN+ and Hulu — lost more than $4 billion in 2022. The financial losses continue to climb even as subscribers grow. It’s a big reason Disney stock is down 31 percent over the past year. NBCUniversal’s Peacock lost around $2.5 billion for the year, and CBS’ Paramount Plus also lost around $1.8 billion. These companies planned to lose lots of money aimed for profitability by 2024 or 2025, but there is little sign of that yet. Dramatic cuts have come across the board.
Fox’s decision not to jump into the standalone streaming game and instead focus on the biggest live sports like the NFL, college football and the World Cup, has proven to be a more successful strategy thus far. It has increased its market share in college football, and despite the loss of cable subscribers, this year’s Super Bowl on Fox was the third-most-watched game ever and the highest in six years. As Fox Sports CEO Eric Shanks put it on a Sports Business Journal podcast, speeding up into streaming also speeds up the decline of linear TV, your actual money-maker.
What does it say when Netflix, the rare profitable streaming success, has opted against jumping into sports bidding wars, even after a recent decrease in subscribers? It has instead focused on sports documentaries and made smaller runs at sports like Formula 1 racing or the World Surfing League, showing no interest in major sports.
“We’re not in the business of live sports rights. We’re not in the business of renting,” Netflix vice president of nonfiction series Brandon Riegg told the New York Times.
While more games than ever are available to watch — a certain positive for fans — all of this doesn’t even touch on how cumbersome it is to watch live sports on streaming. Broadcast delays lag behind social media and betting sites. Some can’t pause or rewind. Switching between games can be a hassle and an even more frustrating process if you have to switch to another app.
On a busy college football Saturday, will casual fans who use one screen flip back and forth to Prime Video or Apple TV+ for one Pac-12 game if their favorite team isn’t involved? If conferences move into different streaming apps, the sport will be even more fractured.
“No one streaming sports service can fulfill what a sports fan needs,” Shanks said.
The Pac-12 may still come out of this OK. It might sign a good enough deal with ESPN and a streamer and provide schools with money similar to the Big 12. Linear TV for sports is still in a good place. But the next round of college media deals in six or seven years is the moment when industry leaders believe major change will truly come. I dread the future of conference realignment, but if you’re not in the Power 2, it’s impossible to predict where you’ll be as the top conferences take an even larger market share.
Vannini: It’s the end of college football as we know it (and I don’t feel fine)
Live sports, particularly football, have kept linear TV alive, but there is no sign that streaming will save college football in the form we currently know it.
Season 3 of Ted Lasso should be good, though.
LikeLike
And that’s the dirty not-so-secret about streaming: It’s not actually working.
This article might be a bit too gloomy about streaming-in-general. I remember the early years of the Internet, when a bunch of high-flying companies went bankrupt before they figured out what worked. We are still in the early innings of streaming, and it feels much the same.
But with that said, none of this helps the Pac-12, which needs a deal yesterday. The Big XII’s decision to jump the queue is looking like a masterstroke.
LikeLike
Marc: “But with that said, none of this helps the Pac-12, which needs a deal yesterday. The Big XII’s decision to jump the queue is looking like a masterstroke.”
Yep, and the Pac-12 seems to dig itself into a deeper hole every day. They have no good options for expansion. They have bad candidates and worse candidates.
LikeLike
Marc,
You can see what solutions are likely right now. Streaming is following the cable model into bundling, making lots of money off of people who don’t watch their “channel” at all. Watch the legacy cable companies lump broadband internet into that bundle and recreate the cable model completely.
They’ll also offer more expensive individual “channel” options, like buying the NFL Sunday Ticket, plus very expensive a la carte options. So you can get just ESPN, but for $29.95 per month.
LikeLike
Apple TV has only 30 million subscribers. If the PAC signs with them, the PAC essentially has no TV coverage. That’s the problem. Fluguar nailed it.
LikeLike
Peacock has similar numbers, and the Big Ten is putting games there. I’ve no idea if Apple will be in the deal, but I am sure they won’t be the main provider.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-time-for-big-bosses-in-pac
An interesting tidbit from Canzano. The P12 couldn’t get a partner to help launch the P12N, that’s why they did it on their own:
It helps explain both the unusually wide berth the ex-commissioner enjoyed and the misfire that was the Pac-12 Network. Remember, in August of 2012, the Pac-12 announced it was launching its own media company. This was sold to the public as a bold and innovative move.
The SEC and Big Ten both had their own networks with dedicated programming, but their networks were owned and operated by ESPN and FOX, respectively. The Pac-12 planned to make its network as a side hustle. What the presidents and chancellors didn’t publicly say at the time was that they were going on their own because they had no other choice.
ESPN declined to partner with the Pac-12 on the launch of the network in 2012, I’m told. FOX and CBS also turned Scott’s conference down. So did the Discovery Channel, per a source involved in the negotiations.
“We weren’t wanted,” said the source. “The only option the Pac-12 had if it wanted its own network was to do it ourselves. I don’t think anyone who was sitting in the room — the presidents, chancellors, and consultants — nobody had launched a network. Nobody knew what it would take.”
…
A long-time Pac-12 staffer with knowledge told me that Scott sometimes slid the salaries of a handful of “conference” employees to the “network” side of the books.
“None of them had media experience in their background,” the source said. “Why were they on the Pac-12 Network payroll?”
That sounds like cooking the books to shift salaries to other entities. It seems odd to do it to make the network look worse, though.
LikeLike
To that last part, simply because the books of the Pac-12N are more opaque.
It’s a lot easier for ADs to parse the salaries coming directly from the conference revenue given the conference is mostly just receiving payouts from the networks that were determined in advance and then additional revenue from football/basketball postseasons.
Everyone was complaining about Pac-12N distributions being low, but it’s a lot harder to understand how the money for the network was coming in and being spent at the network given overhead, advertising revenue, subscription revenue, etc.
The revenues at the network are a lot more variable than the conference revenues.
LikeLike
If they were forced to go it alone without network support, it made the decision to create 7 P12 channels rather than just one P12 channel even more absurd.
LikeLike
2010-2012 was the absolute peak of the cable bundle.
Random channels nobody watched were getting paid handsomely for just being tossed in back then and everyone was trying to capitalize.
By 2015-16, it was clear the Pac-12’s strategies (going alone and with 7 channels) was clearly starting to look like a trainwreck.
LikeLike
greg,
Agreed. We don’t know anything about running a TV channel, so let’s start 7 at once. Nobody in the industry thinks a P12N can be profitable, so let’s start 7 at once when everyone else only has 1.
I think timing hurt them. A few years later, they would’ve put much of the content on streaming instead and realized that 1 linear channel was plenty.
I think the SEC might’ve been able to pull off the multiple channel approach for a few years due to the fanaticism of their fanbases (until cord cutting made it nonviable), but I don’t know if anyone else could’ve. Only some parts of the B10 could’ve done it.
LikeLike
If ESPN, FOX, CBS, and Discovery all turned down a Pac-12 network, it probably means it made no sense. It’s peak hubris to create a network yourself, when the experts at creating networks have all said no. And if one network made no financial sense to the media experts, then why do you create seven of them? And why do you put its headquarters in some of the most expensive real estate on earth?
Canzano doesn’t say, and perhaps doesn’t know, exactly what ESPN et al said “no” to. There is probably a price at which they would have done it. We know the steep price that the ACC paid. Scott might have asked for too much, perhaps because he over-valued it, or running the network himself was the endgame he wanted anyway.
C. points out that the Pac-12 leaders gave Larry Scott a wide berth, but I think that’s true in most conferences. University presidents have a lot on their plates and are not sports experts. If the professionals put a plausible-looking idea in front of them, they’ll ask their questions but will probably approve. When you hire a bad commissioner, you could be far down the road before you realize how bad he is.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree it seems doubtful that everyone flatly refused the concept of a P12N. Most likely Scott wanted too much in return.
We know ESPN came back later with an offer to distribute the P12N and the P12 said no.
https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networks/pac-12-reportedly-turned-down-an-offer-from-espn-to-distribute-pac-12-networks-in-exchange-for-rights-extension.html
As reported by Sports Business Journal’s John Ourand and Michael Smith, the Pac-12 turned down an offer from ESPN to distribute their networks in exchange for an extension of their rights agreement that would have given ESPN the Pac-12’s rights “well into the 2030s”.
How much are they regretting turning down that offer now?
LikeLike
Brian: ” . . . an extension of their rights agreement that would have given ESPN the Pac-12’s rights “well into the 2030s”. How much are they regretting turning down that offer now?
That GOR would have kept USC and UCLA in the Pac-12 just like the ACC GOR keeps FSU and Clemson from wandering.
LikeLike
That’s right. It probably would have been below market, the way the ACC’s deal is now, but as a group the schools (except UCLA and USC) would have been better off.
Now, would the two L.A. schools have taken such a deal? I recall reading that they were unwilling to tie up their rights for so long — the very mistake that Florida State now regrets. What’s good for the Kings is not necessarily what’s good for the Paupers.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/02/pac-12-expansion-gonzagas-sitting-there-but-do-the-zags-make-the-math-work-and-would-the-washington-schools-approve/
Wilner doesn’t think Gonzaga will get invited to the P12. The money bump under the current system would be too small, Gonzaga may not remain elite after Few retires, UW and WSU might object, and some might object to a Jesuit school.
Our hunch, and it’s nothing more: Because there’s no consensus, because there are complications, because the accretion piece is unclear, the Pac-12 is unlikely to extend a membership invitation.
Based purely on the financial concerns, is Gonzaga worth it to the B12? Would it be if the financial model of MBB changes?
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/02/pac-12-media-rights-nobody-spiraling-off-into-places-of-despair-as-process-nears-resolution-wsu-president-says/
WSU’s president doesn’t think the P12 will splinter. He says the media deal is almost done and expects word by mid-March.
The Pac-12’s pursuit of a media rights contract, which began more than eight months ago in the middle of a roiling summer, is “close to being resolved,’’ according to a university president who sits on the Pac-12 Board of Directors’ executive committee.
And Washington State’s Kirk Schulz has a timeframe in mind.
“My sense is we need to get it done in March — in mid-March, hopefully,” Schulz told the Hotline on Monday. “The longer it goes, the more noise there will be.”
…
“Some schools have a little trepidation about what (the media deal) will look like. But I don’t feel at all like anyone is spiraling off into places of despair.”
Schulz didn’t discuss specific schools or details of the Pac-12’s negotiations, but he emphasized that university presidents take a different view of realignment finances than fans.
Unless the increase in revenue is overwhelming — as will be the case for USC and UCLA upon entering the Big Ten — there are other considerations for conference affiliation. Those include the location of the alumni base, the region from which schools draw applicants for admissions, rivalries and opportunities for competitive success.
…
The CFP’s decision to expand, he said, was based partly on the belief that automatic bids for Power Five champions would add a calming element to the realignment tumult.
“It’s easier for a school to go through a 12-team conference and get to the playoff than it is to go through a 16-, 18- or 20-team conference,” he said.
LikeLike
As the Air Force Falcons are often mentioned here, I thought I would mention that they do not have a P5 opponent scheduled in 2023, the sixth time in the last ten years they have done that. Despite beating P5 opponents with reasonable frequency when they do play them, this does not appear to be a program that is trying to toughen up its schedule.
LikeLike
Well, a conference schedule in the Pac-12 minus USC and UCLA isn’t really going to be much tougher than a conference schedule in the Mountain West. And the P5 games that AF has scheduled over the past few years have been pretty respectable:
2022 – Colorado
2020 – Purdue (cancelled due to COVID)
2019 – Colorado
2017 – Michigan
2015 – Michigan State
2013 – Notre Dame
2012 – Michigan
Within the last four years the Falcons are also 3-0 vs P5 schools in bowl games – Baylor, Louisville and Washington State.
LikeLike
As a point of reference, SMU scheduled twelve P5 opponents betwee 2022 and 2012: Maryland, Michigan, Baylor x 4, Texas A&M x 2, TCU x 3 and Texas Tech. SMU lost all twelve games.
LikeLike
Well, a conference schedule in the Pac-12 minus USC and UCLA isn’t really going to be much tougher than a conference schedule in the Mountain West.
Yeah, it will. Strength-of-schedule data is easily obtainable. It would be a substantial step up for the AFA. And in their actual scheduling practices, the AFA shows no signs of trying to get tougher.
I mean, in the non-conference games they control, they aren’t even aiming for the top end of the G5. This season, for instance, they’ve got Robert Morris and Sam Houston State. Last year, they played FCS Northern Iowa and probably the worst team in the P5, Colorado.
This is not what teams do when they are thinking of stepping up to a stronger conference. SMU might not be winning their P5 games, but they have scheduled aggressively and have been vocal about wanting to move up — something AFA has not done, unless you have access to inside information you are not sharing.
LikeLike
The Athletic’s Andy Staples has his take on the Pac-12’s dillema.
An industry source recently explained to me that the main reason the Big 12 was able to skip the Pac-12 is that the Big 12 came with a much more realistic view of its earning potential…
Part of me wonders if Apple’s interest — and particularly the specific details of Apple’s interest — were leaked as a bit of pre-deal market research to see how consumers might react to the idea of a conference living exclusively on one streaming service….
Streaming isn’t about the pure number of viewers. It’s about how many people are willing to pay a set price per month to watch something. Raise the price point and you don’t need as many people as long as you have a core audience willing to pay the higher price… But because college sports require recruiting instead of drafting, college coaches and administrators still want to reach the most people possible.
This is where the Pac-12 is in a unique position. The other Power 5 leagues have fairly similar levels of visibility with games mixed across over-the-air networks and cable channels. The Pac-12 doesn’t because of the myriad distribution issues for the Pac-12 Network. Since that network launched, there have been plenty of Pac-12 football games each year that most Americans couldn’t watch unless they were willing to change cable system or streaming bundle. If those games were broadcast by Amazon Prime or Apple TV+, they’d be easier for most viewers to get than they are now. But the catch in the Apple scenario is that there would be no games on ABC, Fox or ESPN. That’s where the Pac-12’s best games air now, and nearly everyone in America has easy access to those channels.
…we as television consumers are living in a “no man’s land” between the eras of the cable bundle and fully a la carte streaming. Networks want us to pay for their streaming services, but they also expect us to pay for the old bundle. If you’ve cut the cord but still pay for Hulu with live TV, YouTube TV, Sling or a similar service, you’re still paying for the bundle. That’s a lot to ask of consumers.
Also, the technology has yet to progress to where the streaming experience can equal the bundle experience. While lag time has come way down, it’s still too difficult to channel surf away from a game on a dedicated streaming service. For example, if I want to flip between a college game on ESPN and the NFL game on Amazon Prime on a Thursday night, I have to exit one app, enter another and then find my game. My solution this past fall was to relegate the less interesting game to a second screen. That’s not what the network paying the rights fee wants.
On a busy college football Saturday, I doubt many viewers will be willing to dedicate their television to a streamed game at the expense of being able to bounce around among three or four other games.
LikeLike
Apple TV advertises itself as an arty, upclass channel. How many of its subscribers are sports fans?
And then there is the issue of only 30 million subscribers.
LikeLike
As mentioned above, 30 million is about how many subscribers Peacock has, and the Big Ten is putting games there. Peacock wasn’t a sports network—until it was.
One of the reasons to bid on a package like this, is to attract more subscribers — otherwise, there is no point. Apple isn’t in business to waste money. I would guess they have a pretty good idea of the type of subscribers they’ve got, or believe they can attract.
(This assumes Apple submits a bid that wins, which they might not.)
LikeLike
Brian, so you have someone talking like a college president, which he is, rather than a well known talking head with good inside sources. I think I trust the college president’s opinion more than the great sources.
LikeLike
A bit more skepticism is warranted. On the one hand, he’s an insider, so he has access to information the journalists don’t. On the other hand, he’s a politician who’s obligated to put the best possible spin on the situation.
At the end of the day, he didn’t really say much: “My sense is we need to get it done in March — in mid-March, hopefully,” Schulz told the Hotline on Monday. “The longer it goes, the more noise there will be.”
So, he has a “sense” that it “needs to get done…hopefully”. Is that much different than what the journalists are saying?
Schulz senses some “trepidation” about the specifics of the media rights deal but doesn’t expect anyone to flee.
Saying you don’t expect anyone to flee is not quite an ironclad guarantee, and what do you expect a Pac-12 president to say? Here too, it is not much different than what most of the journalist have said.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree, though I also acknowledge Marc’s point. I posted the quotes for a reason, because all the media coverage seems to have swung to anti-P12.
LikeLike
The president of Washington State better be optimistic. WA State and OR State are the two most vulnerable schools in the PAC.
I do not know if Cal can find a home if the PAC collapses, but WA State and OR State could really be dead meat. Either they could get together with over left over P5 schools – BC, Wake, (Cal?), etc., and form some crazy league to try to keep P5 status, or they will be in the MWC, with an annual payout of less that $10 million per team.
LikeLike
Andy Staples and company select the locked rivals for the B10’S 3/6/6 schedule during a podcast, so you can listen to their reasoning.
RU – UMD, NW, IN
UMD – RU, IN, IL
PSU – OSU, MSU, USC
OSU – MI, PSU, USC
MI – OSU, MSU, WI
MSU – MI, PSU, UCLA
IN – PU, RU, UMD
PU – IN, IL, NW
IL – NW, PU, UMD
NW – IL, PU, RU
WI – MN, IA, MI
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – WI, MN, NE
NE – IA, UCLA, MN
UCLA – USC, MSU, NE
USC – UCLA, OSU, PSU
Staples said they’d pick more balanced games if it was still a 4-team playoff, but with 12 teams you can risk having more top programs play each other. So they went for all the top matchups and the lesser 6 (RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL, NW) were mixed as needed to fill the schedule.
LikeLike
Andy Staples and company have it perfectly back-assward. The problem with Big Ten football scheduling is that our heavyweights all play each other while the western schools seldom play them. So now we add another heavyweight and set USC up with annual games against Ohio State and Penn State?
If our new commish has more sense than a sportswriter, the schedule will look something like this:
USC: UCLA, IO, WI
UCLA: USC, MN, NE
Then after four years they could swap out IO, WI, MN and NE with NW, IL, PU and IN
LikeLike
Kindly forgive me for responding to my own post but I wish to elaborate. In the past the focus of Big Ten football scheduling has been to maximize TV viewers, and I understand that. But with the new 12-team playoff, our new focus should be to maximize the number of Big Ten schools that get at-large slots. Obviously, the Big Ten and SEC plus ND are going to get most or all of them.
I believe that a reasonable target for the Big Ten is two at-large slots and hopefully three. The SEC will want the same, or more. But if we have USC/Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St all beating up each other every year and ending up 9-3, then a group of 10-2 SEC teams that do not cannibalize each other will be walking away with most of the at-large slots. The Big Ten needs to disperse it’s heavyweight games, not concentrate them.
LikeLike
If our new commish has more sense than a sportswriter, the schedule will look something like this…
I suspect the new commish will not be the one deciding. The Big Ten ADs have been debating this for months, and sources say they will likely decide on a model at the spring meetings. The new commish, if even in place by then, is not going to override them.
LikeLike
If our new commish has more sense than a sportswriter, the schedule will look something like this:
USC: UCLA, IO, WI
UCLA: USC, MN, NE
Then after four years they could swap out IO, WI, MN and NE with NW, IL, PU and IN.
If you swap them out after four years, then they are not locked rivals. This is in contrast to games that any sane schedule would lock “forever”, like USC–UCLA, UM–OSU, Indiana–Purdue, and so forth.
In most proposals, people have suggested 3-6-6, with the 3’s locked permanently and the 6’s rotating (probably every 2 years). This means you play 3 teams all the time and 12 teams half the time. This was the model that Staples was assuming.
I am pretty sure Staples’ model would be DOA at the Big Ten office. He’s got USC locked with OSU and PSU. That means, in half the seasons, they’d play Michigan too. That’s just not fair.
What you are proposing, in essence, is a middle category of “half-locks” that you play 3/4ths of the time. Big Ten leaders have acknowledged that they are looking at other options where only the real rivalries are locked, which gives you an unequal number of locks per team. I have no idea if your system is one of the options they are looking at. It only works for schools with one permanent lock, not those with two or three.
LikeLike
Marc, the idea of “half-locks” isn’t original to me. I believe Brian discussed the concept on this forum and it appears in various sports commentaries (link). The foremost consideration is that USC and UCLA shouldn’t be locked with OSU, Michigan or Penn State. They’ve got enough on their plates already.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-football-schedule-projecting-permanent-rivals-for-each-team-once-league-adds-usc-ucla-in-2024/
LikeLike
The cbssports.com writer did not propose half-locks. He said that the Big Ten should “reassess things” every four years.
He suffers from the same geographic illiteracy that some other folks do: “I didn’t want to overload either with more travel than they’ll already face, so for their other two rivals, I wanted to lean on teams that were more in the western half of the league. Hence, UCLA gets Nebraska and Illinois, while USC gets Northwestern and Michigan State.
Once you’ve gotten on a plane to Illinois or Michigan, you could pretty much travel to any school in the league in about the same amount of time, excepting PSU, Maryland, and Rutgers. The difference in air time between Nebraska and Chicago is only 30 minutes.
LikeLike
Put whatever spin you want on it but here’s what he said:
“While some rivalries must be played yearly (hello, Ohio State/Michigan), the Big Ten would be wise to reassess things every few years. Rivalries can develop at any point due to where a program is at a given time. If it were up to me, I’d work in a window every four years that allows the conference to change things up for the next cycle to ensure I’m getting the best possible games.”
LikeLike
Marc,
It’s true, most proposals are pure 3/6/6 plans with permanent locked rivals. But Staples did say he was thinking about this as a plan for the first few years, and then might make changes. I’ve also mentioned the option of rotating some of the “locked” rivals (after 4 or 8 or more years).
Most people agree on the rivalries that absolutely must be locked:
RU – UMD
UMD – RU
PSU – OSU
OSU – UM, PSU
UM – OSU, MSU
MSU – UM
IN – PU
PU – IN
IL – NW
NW – IL
WI – MN, IA
MN – WI, IA
IA – NE, WI, MN (3)
NE – IA
UCLA – USC
USC – UCLA
Then you get to the ones based on serving B10 interests (preserving local rivalries, keeping certain schools engaged and happy, big games for TV, etc.). These are more debatable, but here’s my set:
RU – PSU (2)
UMD – PSU (2)
PSU – RU, UMD (3)
OSU – USC (3)
UM – USC (3)
MSU – NW, IN (3)
IN – MSU (2)
PU – IL (2)
IL – PU (2)
NW – MSU (2)
WI – UCLA (3)
MN – NE (3)
NE – UCLA, MN (3)
UCLA – NE, WI (3)
USC – OSU. UM (3)
Then finally you get to the last handful of games that just fill in the remaining slots (often involving the newer members who lack many rivalries, and the central programs of lesser CFB brand – IN, PU, IL, NW).
RU – NW (3)
UMD – PU (3)
IN – IL (3)
PU – UMD (3)
IL – IN (3)
NW – RU (3)
I could easily see that last set being rotated every so often since they were basically random pairings. Maybe the second group would get rotated as well, especially as needs change. As USC and UCLA develop some rivalries organically, the B10 would want to shift the schedule to lock those games in for example (and also to balance the SOS after getting the initial bump of big TV games from USC).
No matter what, any locked plan should be re-evaluated every 10-12 years anyway.
I don’t think fans mind the concept of changing which games are locked every so often nearly as much as they would the idea of some teams only having 1 or 2 locked games while others have 3. Stick to a 3/6/6, but the 3 can change over time.
LikeLike
Good analysis with one exception: I question that OSU and PSU absolutely must be locked. Prior to PSU joining the Big Ten, they had scheduled each other only six times in the previous century. I realize the game gets good TV ratings but consider the added flexibility and parity in scheduling if OSU-PSU is unlocked. As an example, we could have:
OSU – Michigan, Purdue, Illinois
PSU – Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana
Michigan – OSU, MSU, Minnesota
As I mentioned previously, we don’t want our heavyweights knocking each other out of at-large slots in the CFP and allowing the SEC to gobble ‘em up.
LikeLike
I question that OSU and PSU absolutely must be locked. Prior to PSU joining the Big Ten, they had scheduled each other only six times in the previous century.
Well, if that is your standard, then why have you proposed locking USC with Iowa and Wisconsin? Those aren’t longstanding rivalries either. Rutgers and Maryland, which are locked in almost everyone’s models, played just four times before they were both in the Big Ten.
I realize the game gets good TV ratings…
Not merely “good”. It is consistently the Big Ten’s second highest-rated game of the year, after OSU/Michigan. I would not be surprised if TV partners were already promised that it would continue annually. Giving that game up would be a significant sacrifice, whereas OSU–Purdue would probably be the noon game on the Big Ten network.
As I mentioned previously, we don’t want our heavyweights knocking each other out of at-large slots in the CFP…
That has not been a problem for Ohio State up to now. They have five playoff appearances in eight years, and that was with only four teams qualifying. Under the 12-team model they would have been in every year.
LikeLike
Yesterday, FTT posted to twitter his “best case scenario for the Pac-12 media rights.”
1. #1 football game-of-the-week to ESPN
2. #2 football GOTW to Amazon
3. Rest of football and all of basketball to ESPN
4. All other Pac-12 network content to Apple
Since this is a best case scenario, it is not a prediction. Frank argues that the Pac-12’s best football game simply has to be on linear TV, which I agree with. Frank didn’t guess at the price the Pac-12 would get for the above.
I am not sure that Apple would be much interested in a package that has none of the sexy content. And it’s asking a lot of Pac-12 junkies to have a cable or internet package, plus two streaming packages. (The average household does have at least two premium services, but not necessarily those two.)
LikeLike
Maybe the CW would be willing to consider carrying P12 games. They don’t pay for sports (see LIV golf), but they do offer OTA exposure.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2023/02/23/detroit-mercy-antoine-davis-chasing-pete-maravich-scoring-record/11313209002/
Pete Maravich’s all-time scoring record is on the verge of being broken (but not really). Davis has at least 3 games left, so with a run in his conference tournament he might get there.
What [Detroit Mercy’s Antoine] Davis has accomplished in his five seasons is nothing short of remarkable.
Davis is the second all-time NCAA Division I career scorer, entering Thursday with 3,543 points – just 125 points from surpassing LSU phenom Pete Maravich’s record of 3,667 career points. He is already the Division I career record holder with 569 3-point field goals and has scored double figures in each of his 140 career games. He is one of two players in NCAA history with at least 3,000 points and 500 assists.
(Maravich set his record in 83 games over three seasons because freshmen were ineligible when he played and he still holds the best NCAA career average at 44.2 points a game. There was also no shot clock or 3-point line.)
This season, Davis is the national leader in points (809), points per game (27.9), 3-pointers (140) and 3-pointers per game (4.83).
…
In today’s sometimes high-flying, above-the-rim game of hoops, not one of his 3,543 points has come via a dunk. Davis acknowledges that Maravich did things no one else has and if he gets the record that has stood for 53 years since Maravich completed his college career in 1970, he is going to embrace it.
“It would be nice to get the record. It’s something I will think about. But at this point, I can’t avoid it. It’s in my face every day,” Davis said. “We have a (scoring) tracker at every home game, so it’s always in front of me. But other than that, I try not to think about it and just go out to help this team win.”
140 (and counting) games vs 83. 5 years (thanks to COVID) vs 3. 3-point line and a shot clock vs neither of those. Davis may get the higher total, but the Pistol is still the greatest scorer ever. It’s a different game now.
LikeLike
It’s an issue with records in every sport. Some people thought Roger Maris’s single-season home run record was tainted, because he played in a longer season than Babe Ruth did.
With that said, the difference between Maravich and Davis is off the charts.
LikeLike
With no three-point line and freshman ineligibility for The Pistol, there’s really no comparison. With a three-point line, Pete might have finished with 4,500 points. If he could have played on the varsity his freshman year and with a three-point line, Pete could have broken 6,000 points.
Congrats to the kid IF he gets the record, BUT LSU’s Pistol Pete Maravich IS and will ALWAYS be the greatest college scorer of ALL TIME!
GEAUX TIGERS!
LikeLike
It’s really a shame how much he (and other greats from the 70s and before, like OSU’s Jerry Lucas) has been forgotten. It’s like college hoops started in 1979 with Larry vs Magic. Granted, Pete retired early and died young (only 40).
He never averaged fewer than 43.8 ppg in a college season (over 1100 points) or took fewer than 37.5 FGA per game, so a 4th year would get him over 6000 points. He shot 0.438 in college, similar to JJ Redick. Redick shot 0.406 from 3 and tried 1126 3’s to 780 2’s. If we assume Pete would shoot 40% from 3 and 50% of his shots were from 3,
3166 career shots * (140/83 to match games) = 5340 shots
50% from 2 at 0.44 = 2350 pts (slightly higher % because long shots are now 3’s)
50% from 3 at 0.40 = 3204 pts
Total = 5554 pts
He actually scored 3667.
And if he played on a team that made the NCAA every year, he’d get even more games in 5 seasons (Redick played in 139 games in 4 seasons).
LikeLike
And Pistol Pete did it without much of a supporting cast.
Everybody knew he would shoot.
He was just amazing to watch. Shooters like him disappeared in the 90s in college and the NBA. There are some shooters again, but nothing like Pistol Pete.
LikeLike
And lest we forget, he was also a wizard with the ball in his hands. He was a master of the no-look pass, especially when you consider he was a shooting guard.
LikeLike
There will never be another Pistol.
During his senior year at LSU, the Harlem Globetrotters offered Pete $1million per year to play for them.
“It was as if you melted down all twelve of the Harlem Globetrotters and poured them into a white boy.”
“The ball was like a yo-yo to Pete.”
Dale Brown charted all of Maravich’s shots and calculated that Pete would have averaged 57 points per game for his college career.
Fun fact: for a football school, LSU has three players on the all-time NBA 75 best players list: Pistol, Shaq, and Bob Pettit.
LikeLike
Rudy Tomjanovich, Michigan great, Houston Rocket and the coach at Houston who broke up the Jordan streak, was the best shooting big man I ever saw (6’10”). He was another of those pure shooters. He was at Michigan when Pete was at LSU.
There wasn’t as much athleticism in those days, but the fundamentals were so much better.
LikeLike
So Brett McMurphy is reporting that ION (!) is apparently a potential landing spot for the PAC TV rights. If true, the PAC is even more desperate than we thought.
LikeLike
Selected questions from The Athletic: Mandel’s Mailbag, By Stewart Mandel Feb 23, 2023
Should the Pac-12 pursue San Diego State, SMU?
Going all the way back to the Great Realignment Wave of 2010-11 (Nebraska to the Big Ten, Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC, etc.), I’ve held one guiding principle to covering these stories: “Believe everything and nothing.”
With the current Pac-12 situation, though, I’m kind of at … “believe nothing?”
There have been some increasingly dire stories out there painting the Pac-12’s down-to-the-wire TV negotiations as catastrophic and the conference sitting on the brink of impending extinction.
That doesn’t match what I’ve been told from people across the league. As we reported a couple of weeks ago, the dollar figures are expected to fall short of what commissioner George Kliavkoff was targeting, but folks seemed confident it’d be enough to stave off an exodus to the Big 12.
But these situations are fluid. And also, the number of people who actually know what’s going on can probably be counted on one hand. Maybe I’m getting bad intel. Maybe others are getting bad intel.
Or maybe there’s no real intel to be had. So we wait. And speculate. In a few weeks, the Pac-12 could be newly fortified and financially stable. Or it could cease to exist past 2024. Believe everything and nothing.
Stew, what are your thoughts about the Pac-12 pursuing San Diego State and SMU? While the former seems logical, the latter seems an odd fit. Should they go after anyone else? With college realignment, I lean towards quality, not quantity. You? — Rob W., Columbia, S.C.
Neither seems like a no-brainer value add. The fact is, the Big 12 already snapped up the four most attractive Group of 5/independent options when it added BYU, Cincinnati, UCF and Houston.
I know much of the case for San Diego State is that it maintains a presence in Southern California, but let’s not pretend the Aztecs would remotely replace the number of fans and TV sets that USC and UCLA bring. And while I can see the appeal for the Pac-12 in wanting to get into Texas and play some games in the Central time zone, SMU has been only modestly successful of late in the revenue sports. Since joining the AAC in 2013, it’s had as many losing seasons as winning ones.
But if the conference is truly moving to a majority-streaming service TV package — the New York Post reported Tuesday that Apple+ is a possible landing spot — there’s logic in simply adding more inventory in football and basketball, so long as the economics work. The two newbies would likely have to start by receiving a lower share so the current 10 don’t see theirs go down.
I wonder how much of the discussion is rooted in fear over being the smallest Power 5 conference. The Big 12 adamantly stayed at 10 teams for a decade but always carried a perception that the smaller league was vulnerable to another raid. I don’t believe OU and Texas would still be there if they’d added, say, Houston and Cincinnati five years earlier, but maybe I wouldn’t have received 10 years of emails wondering how long the Big 12 was going to survive.
Two things to keep in mind here. First, while we know Kliavkoff has met with San Diego State and SMU, we don’t know whether there’s enough consensus among his presidents to extend invites. Second, there’s no golden rule that says a conference must have an even number of teams, especially with no divisions. The Big Ten had 11 teams from 1993 (when Penn State joined) through 2010 (the year before Nebraska joined). The AAC has been at 11 since UConn left in 2020. Don’t rule out the Pac-12 adding San Diego State and San Diego State only.
What is happening in the Big Ten commissioner search? It feels like Kevin Warren going to the Bears blindsided the conference and left it scrambling to get a search in place. Early speculation that Ohio State AD Gene Smith was a candidate seems to be untrue. Who do you see as viable candidates, and do you see the Big Ten doing similar to the Pac-12 and Big 12 and going outside college sports for a candidate? — Mark F.
I’d be surprised if it blindsided them, given how obvious it was to those of us in the media nearly from the beginning how uncomfortable he seemed in that job. I suspected for some time he would stay just long enough to get the media deal done, then find a suitable exit. And commissioner searches always take many months.
What’s made this unusual, though, is that it happened so abruptly. We’re so used to a commissioner announcing a year ahead of time he’s retiring, giving the league ample time to ramp up its search. Even when the Pac-12 fired Larry Scott, he stayed on for another five months. Warren got the Bears job in January, and he’ll be gone by the end of April. No time to waste.
Remember, Warren was a college sports outsider, having come from the Minnesota Vikings. I would be highly surprised if the Big Ten’s presidents do that again.
While Warren deserves undeniable credit for landing the L.A. schools and negotiating an $8 billion TV contract, his brief tenure was rocky. He alienated a lot of his constituents with how he handled the 2020 drama, he alienated his fellow commissioners by needlessly holding up CFP expansion, and from what I’ve been told, he really stepped in it with his post-USC/UCLA victory lap. In talking to various people, I’ve gotten the sense his constant hints at more expansion — the secret meetings with Oregon and Washington — were mostly a reflection of his ego. His constituents were never aggressively looking to add more, more, more.
With expansion and the media deal behind it, the conference doesn’t need another bold, brash outsider — it needs someone who can maintain harmony among such a large, geographically massive conference. Someone whom the members know and respect. ACC commissioner Jim Phillips, the runner-up last time, is an obvious candidate if he’s willing to jump so soon, but don’t rule out a current Big Ten president or an outside college administrator with Big Ten ties.
LikeLike
Second, there’s no golden rule that says a conference must have an even number of teams, especially with no divisions. The Big Ten had 11 teams from 1993 (when Penn State joined) through 2010 (the year before Nebraska joined). The AAC has been at 11 since UConn left in 2020. Don’t rule out the Pac-12 adding San Diego State and San Diego State only.
I wouldn’t rule it out either, but odd numbers are awkward. It means one team will have a bye the last weekend of the season. That’s a bummer for fans — nobody wants to be idle in the most exciting week of the season. And if the idle team happens to be in the top two, they get an extra week to prepare (and get rested up for) for the CCG. The Big Ten didn’t have a CCG when it had 11 teams. And the AAC certainly did not ask to lose UConn.
LikeLike
Marc: “It means one team will have a bye the last weekend of the season. That’s a bummer for fans — nobody wants to be idle in the most exciting week of the season.”
Speaking if this, I wonder how the Big Ten will handle USC alternating UCLA and Notre Dame as their last game? The Pac-12 Conference always made allowances for ND-USC when they set up the Pac-12 conference schedule. Will the Big Ten do the same? If the B1G does, who will become UCLA’s end-of-year opponent on the years when the Bruins don’t play USC?
LikeLike
No reason they can’t have a bye. Big 10 mostly used to end the week before Thanksgiving.
LikeLike
bullet: “No reason they can’t have a bye. Big 10 mostly used to end the week before Thanksgiving.”
So UCLA would play twelve straight weeks without a bye and take their bye on the last week of the season . . . . to accommodate USC-ND? What makes more sense is for ND and USC to play their rivalry game in mid-October – which they do every other year right now – and set USC-UCLA as an annual end-of-year game.
LikeLike
So UCLA would play twelve straight weeks without a bye and take their bye on the last week of the season . . . . to accommodate USC-ND?
The Pac-12 and its predecessors have accommodated USC-ND for decades. The Big Ten could spread the final-week byes around; perhaps give it to Rutgers or Maryland sometimes. Another option is that UCLA plays a non-conference game that week, if they could find one, which would free them up for a bye earlier in the season.
What makes more sense is for ND and USC to play their rivalry game in mid-October – which they do every other year right now.
The dates of those games are almost certainly contractual, which means the Irish would have to agree to move them, which they are not likely to do. Now, it appears the last scheduled game of the series is in 2026. I suspect both parties want to renew the series, but the Big Ten is probably stuck with the contractual dates until then.
LikeLike
Marc: “The dates of those games are almost certainly contractual, which means the Irish would have to agree to move them, which they are not likely to do.”
Actually, none of the ND – USC games are scheduled beyond 2026.
https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/
LikeLike
Isn’t that precisely what I said? Now, it appears the last scheduled game of the series is in 2026.
LikeLike
Marc: “Isn’t that precisely what I said? Now, it appears the last scheduled game of the series is in 2026.”
Right. So after 2026, Big Ten scheduling takes precedence and ND-USC becomes regular OOC scheduling after the conference scheduling is set.
LikeLike
Marc,
“The Pac-12 and its predecessors have accommodated USC-ND for decades.”
Sure.
1. In part, that’s because it’s USC
2. In part, that’s because it’s ND
3. For 35 years, ND also played Stanford annually (essentially) so they had a second team to balance the schedule.
The P12 makes a lot of money from having that game every other year, and USC was their only king program in CFB.
“The Big Ten could spread the final-week byes around;”
How about moving ND/USC to the penultimate week? The game hasn’t always been over Thanksgiving.
“perhaps give it to Rutgers or Maryland sometimes.”
If you want to go that route, try this:
RU/UConn or RU/Army play that week every other year. An independent make it easier to schedule. UMD can play UCLA instead those years.
“Another option is that UCLA plays a non-conference game that week, if they could find one, which would free them up for a bye earlier in the season.”
Finding one is the problem. It’d probably have to be a MWC team or one of the independents, and the indies are all in the east except NMSU. It seems better for RU to play one of their local indies, especially since Army is an old rival for them (and UConn is nearby, and UMass is desperate for games).
“The dates of those games are almost certainly contractual, which means the Irish would have to agree to move them, which they are not likely to do. Now, it appears the last scheduled game of the series is in 2026. I suspect both parties want to renew the series, but the Big Ten is probably stuck with the contractual dates until then.”
I’d guess USC brought this topic up with the B10 long ago. Presumably they have a proposal to suggest. Or maybe being in the B10, playing ND annually doesn’t seem as special. They can get OSU or UM or PSU or NE (or all 4 with luck of the draw). It’s not luck USC absolutely needs that series (nor does ND), but nobody wants to see it end.
LikeLike
I’d guess USC brought this topic up with the B10 long ago. Presumably they have a proposal to suggest. Or maybe being in the B10, playing ND annually doesn’t seem as special.
I suspect ND–USC now becomes one of the Big Ten’s most valuable games. They might even have promised TV partners that they would try to continue it. If they don’t renew, the median replacement game would very likely be worse (for TV). That certainly has been true for Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue, all of whom used to have annual or near-annual games with the Irish.
ND probably wants that game too, as they need to give NBC a reason to renew at a price that makes their independence financially viable. Without USC, that date in even-numbered years becomes very problematic for the Irish. Probably not the reason in itself to join a conference, but another thorn in their side.
The Big Ten generally has been happy to get ND on their schedule whenever they could. A few years ago, the Big Ten even moved a conference game so that Michigan could play them in the middle of the season.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I suspect ND–USC now becomes one of the Big Ten’s most valuable games.”
Certainly. But it is currently only scheduled through 2026. There’s plenty of time to renew the series contract, but at the moment they haven’t.
“They might even have promised TV partners that they would try to continue it.”
Nobody can promise that except USC and ND. The B10 doesn’t interfere in OOC scheduling, but both schools have to want the series.
“If they don’t renew, the median replacement game would very likely be worse (for TV). That certainly has been true for Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue, all of whom used to have annual or near-annual games with the Irish.”
Worse for TV, sure. But worse for USC? It depends what they want (and don’t want) from their OOC schedule:
* National geographic exposure
It used to be 1 trip every other year to the midwest/Chicago. Now they will face 3-4 such trips every year in conference play, so they will already get that exposure. Plus USC will be losing some of their west coast exposure so they might want that OOC game to play UW/UO/Stanford.
* National game exposure
It was a guaranteed blueblood game every year to get them national exposure. Now they will face at least 2 bluebloods in conference play every year, so they will already get that exposure (not that more exposure of that sort is ever a bad thing).
* National unique exposure
It was a guaranteed NBC game every other year, a unique TV outlet and method of promotion that only ND got regularly (and the ACC through ND). Now they can expect annual games on NBC in conference.
* Tougher SOS
It was always a good to great OOC game to help boost USC’s SOS. With the move to the B10, they may feel their SOS is tough enough without playing ND and want an easier game.
* Travel
It used to be 1 trip every other year to the midwest/Chicago. Now they will face 3-4 such trips every year in conference play. They may not want yet another long trip.
“ND probably wants that game too, as they need to give NBC a reason to renew at a price that makes their independence financially viable.”
I agree ND likely wants to keep it. But they cancelled the UM series which also had big TV value, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented. I think ND is confident that NBC will always want them and pay a premium price regardless of exactly who they schedule. If they drop USC, they could pick up another big name.
“Without USC, that date in even-numbered years becomes very problematic for the Irish.”
Does it? Who says no when ND calls and asks about scheduling games? I’m sure other P12 schools would willingly fill that void (UW/Seattle, ASU/Phoenix, UO/Nike, Cal/SF, …) if ND insists on playing on the west coast that final weekend. Certainly the conference has shown it will work with ND on scheduling those games.
“Probably not the reason in itself to join a conference, but another thorn in their side.”
Only inability to access the CFP (which won’t happen) or a huge money gap (which won’t happen) would get ND to join a conference. The only slightly likely path to ND becoming like everyone else is if a CFB superleague forms, where only those 24-32 schools can compete for the title. That is the one thing that would force ND to give up being “special,” and it would only be for CFB.
“The Big Ten generally has been happy to get ND on their schedule whenever they could. A few years ago, the Big Ten even moved a conference game so that Michigan could play them in the middle of the season.”
I agree the B10 wouldn’t try to end the series. But asking them to move it up a week is different from ending it. It was easier for the P12 to handle it because ND played 2 P12 teams so they could alternate the final game. But unless ND wants to start playing UCLA annually instead of Stanford, that isn’t an easy option in the B10. There are solutions to it, but none are as neat.
To be clear, my suspicion is that USC and ND and the B10 all want the series to continue. I think they have been and will continue to talk about how to schedule to make it happen. This may be one reason why the 2024 schedule is so slow to come out.
Some options:
* Give USC & someone else a bye the final week every other year – possible but highly unlikely with the CCG (also no USC game during rivalry week)
* ND starts playing UCLA annually – possible but highly unlikely
* ND starts playing another B10 school annually – possible
A fun idea is ND/PSU for the eastern bluebloods. They did play all through the 1980s. Whichever isn’t playing ND plays UCLA.
* Move ND @ USC out of the last week – possible
* Someone else plays an OOC rivalry week game every other year – possible
I mentioned before RU/Army (or UConn, UMass) as options. UMD/indy? UCLA/NMSU? UCLA/HI?
But first everyone has to decide how much they want they game vs what compromises they are willing to make to keep it. I’m pretty sure NBC will pressure all sides to figure it out.
LikeLike
Brian: “To be clear, my suspicion is that USC and ND and the B10 all want the series to continue. . . .and . . . Move ND @ USC out of the last week.”
Isn’t that the best solution? It’s only in the last week half the time right now, and then it competes with all the other end-of-season rivalries for viewers. But in mid-season, it’s like the Red River Rivalry: the flat-out best game of the week and there is nothing else that most viewers will be watching.
LikeLike
Nobody can promise that except USC and ND. The B10 doesn’t interfere in OOC scheduling, but both schools have to want the series.
Right, but since ND almost certainly wants that game, it’s liikely to be renewed if USC and the Big Ten want it. I agree that it would solve a lot of problems if it were moved a few weeks earlier.
I agree ND likely wants to keep it. But they cancelled the UM series which also had big TV value, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented.
After ND committed 5 games to the ACC, they had to decide which of their rivalries to drop. Swarbrick said they dropped the midwestern schools because they didn’t really need those games to recruit the Midwest.
I think ND is confident that NBC will always want them and pay a premium price regardless of exactly who they schedule. If they drop USC, they could pick up another big name.
We were discussing that on a past FTT thread. NBC is not showing ND games out of generosity. Swarbrick knows that he has to give NBC value for money. Tennessee State and Central Michigan don’t move the needle. The big names often have other commitments, since everyone wants to play them. If he loses USC, can he replace it with another king–king game every year? Probably not.
I’m sure other P12 schools would willingly fill that void (UW/Seattle, ASU/Phoenix, UO/Nike, Cal/SF, …) if ND insists on playing on the west coast that final weekend.
Most of those are inferior opponents (for TV value). Oregon might be roughly comparable, but would it be willing to shift the date of the Oregon State game to help out Notre Dame?
LikeLike
Marc,
“Right, but since ND almost certainly wants that game, it’s likely to be renewed if USC and the Big Ten want it.”
That’s 3 ifs. I agree it’s the most likely outcome, but there are potential reasons why it wouldn’t.
“After ND committed 5 games to the ACC, they had to decide which of their rivalries to drop. Swarbrick said they dropped the midwestern schools because they didn’t really need those games to recruit the Midwest.”
And they need to play Navy to recruit where exactly? Playing UM didn’t get them more eyeballs?
They already play another CA school, and could add others if USC becomes inconvenient. Maybe he wants to play in FL or GA or TX more to recruit there.
“NBC is not showing ND games out of generosity. Swarbrick knows that he has to give NBC value for money.”
Maybe for the next contract. NBC is getting ND on the cheap right now.
But as for value, ND can easily find other big names to play. Not the final week of the year every other season, but Swarbrick claims nobody has ever turned him down when asks for a series.
“The big names often have other commitments, since everyone wants to play them. If he loses USC, can he replace it with another king–king game every year? Probably not.”
At worst he just needs to ask UM. But I’m guessing PSU, UT, OU, AL, UF, UGA, etc. would also say yes.
“Most of those are inferior opponents (for TV value). Oregon might be roughly comparable, but would it be willing to shift the date of the Oregon State game to help out Notre Dame?”
I didn’t say they would all play the final week, but half the time ND finishes with Stanford anyway. I don’t think they particularly care if the big game is the final week or not.
LikeLike
The biggest problem with an odd number is that you can’t have an odd number of conference games. You can’t play a 9 game schedule. You would have to go to 8 or 10. (yes, you could have a “designated conference game” that was ooc or make SDSU play 10 with one random one not counting, but that just isn’t going to happen).
LikeLike
I agree they won’t do it, but they could count Stanford/ND as a conference game. I don’t think anyone would argue that ND isn’t at least as good as the median of the P12 on average.
Or have 1 team play @HI and use their 13th game to play a 10th P12 game. You could rotate that through everyone, plus they all get trips to HI.
LikeLike
https://edsource.org/2023/key-lawmaker-endorses-transfer-admissions-guarantee-across-university-of-california/685841
CA politicians are really trying to mess with the UC system. They really wouldn’t be helping students with this in my opinion. Students with an associates degree may do fine at the CSUs, but that doesn’t automatically mean they will thrive at the UC’s. Especially in the more competitive majors and at the more competitive campuses.
And if they make transfer acceptance automatic, how will any new students get accepted? UCLA and Cal reject about 85% of applicants already. Now everyone from a CC can get in? The problem is that CA lacks enough schools. UCLA and Cal can’t just absorb everyone who wants to attend.
Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, said Tuesday that it’s “way too hard for community college students” to transfer to UC and suggested that UC follow CSU’s lead and participate in the ADT [Associates Degree for Transfer Program].
“We have a way to simplify it for everybody. Why would we not do that?” he added during a hearing of the Assembly’s budget subcommittee on education finance, which he chairs.
…
In his January budget, Newsom proposed requiring UCLA to create a transfer guarantee program, which would make it the seventh UC campus with one. Newsom also proposed requiring UCLA to participate in the ADT program. McCarty on Tuesday called that a “good idea” but questioned why UCLA was singled out.
“If we should do it for one campus, we should do it for the other eight,” McCarty said.
…
Newsom’s proposal was also criticized by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan office of the Legislature that provides fiscal and policy advice. In a report published last week analyzing Newsom’s budget proposals for UC, the LAO said there is “no compelling justification for singling out UCLA” with a new transfer guarantee requirement.
Currently, UCLA is one of three UC campuses — along with San Diego and Berkeley — that do not offer a transfer admissions guarantee for community college students. The other six campuses do offer them, but the guarantees are limited to certain majors, and each campus has different grade requirements.
UC leaders have previously resisted calls to adopt a more uniform and systemwide guarantee. At a board of regents meeting last month, UC President Michael Drake said that just because the ADT program works at CSU, it may not work for UC.
…
In its report last week, the LAO suggested lawmakers reject Newsom’s proposal to require UCLA to create a transfer admissions guarantee and instead consider “whether it would like to require all UC campuses to participate” in transfer admissions guarantee programs and the ADT.
“If the Legislature is interested in pursuing these new requirements, we encourage it to coordinate with UC on how best to navigate the associated transitions. In the case of both the TAG and ADT programs, affected UC campuses would need to make important changes to their admission requirements,” the Legislative Analyst’s Office stated in its report.
LikeLike
I cannot say that I am shocked, because this is CA. If Berkeley and UCLA are REQUIRED to take large numbers of transferring community college students, that would by definition have to lower overall university standards. In fact, that may be precisely the motivation. Admission standards for new frosh would have to rise, but overall the student standards would drop.
As a strategy some bright kid who did very well in a CA high school, but not quite well enough for UC or UCLA, would not accept admission anywhere else, but go to community college. The kid might be a super star in that environment and then easily transfer to UC or UCLA to get their bachelor’s degree.
By the way, this is almost exactly the opposite of what FL is doing. Some time ago, the state declared that UF and FSU were the state flagship institutions. Admissions there are limited, in that the numbers will not increase even as FL grows rapidly. This has created a situation where UF and FSU both climb in national academic rankings. That has happened.
The other ten major Florida university system schools, UCF, USF, and the other eight universities in the state system will grow as required to absorb the extra students.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35728303/florida-state-ad-says-lagging-acc-revenue-change
FSU’s AD spoke out about the revenue gap from the ACC to the P2. His statement was an indirect threat to the rest of the ACC to authorize unequal revenue distribution.
Florida State athletic director Michael Alford told his board of trustees on Friday that “something has to change” when it comes to closing the growing revenue gap with other conferences — a sign that one of the biggest brands in the league is unhappy with the current structure.
In a phone interview with ESPN later Friday, Alford said he decided to make his comments after recent ACC winter meetings in which athletic directors and presidents discussed an uneven revenue sharing model at length without any consensus moving forward about what to do.
At issue: The ACC will fall behind both the SEC and Big Ten in revenue by about $30 million per year when their respective new television contracts kick in (Big Ten in 2023, SEC in 2024).
“Something has to change because we cannot compete nationally being $30 million behind every year,” Alford said. “It’s not one year. We’re talking about $30 million compounded year after year.”
…
Based on a market valuation that he had commissioned, Alford told board members on Friday that FSU contributes roughly 15% of the value in the ACC’s media rights deal but the school only gets 7% of the distributions as one of 14 full members of the conference.
Currently, the ACC distributes its revenues equally among all 14 full-time members. But the conference decided to look at different uneven revenue distribution models after recent conference realignment had Oklahoma and Texas leave for the SEC, and USC and UCLA join the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Brian: “His statement was an indirect threat to the rest of the ACC to authorize unequal revenue distribution.”
Unequal revenue distribution will work just as well in the ACC as it did in the Big XII with DeLoss Dodds calling the shots.
LikeLike
Unequal revenue distribution will work just as well in the ACC as it did in the Big XII with DeLoss Dodds calling the shots.
Would the original Big XII have lasted any longer with equal revenue distribution?
LikeLike
No.
And as for Colin’s Aggie nonsense, there were 7 schools totally aligned on uneven revenue. KU, UT and OU, who all had the most in at least one year and MU, NU, CU and A&M, the 7 have schools.
And the uneven revenue distribution was far more egalitarian than that of the Pac 12 or Big East of the time.
With their new post 2010 contracts, both the Big 12 and Pac 12 went to even revenue allocation.
LikeLike
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/seminoles/2023/02/24/fsu-football-florida-state-acc-conference-realignment/
A trustee asked about a buyout for leaving the ACC, and legal counsel was allowed to answer.
Egan said the ACC’s exit fee is three times its annual operating budget. That equals about $120 million.
If FSU could make up $30 million per year, a trustee asked, does that mean the Seminoles would break even in about four years?
“Hypothetically,” FSU athletic director Alford said.
The full answer hinges on the grant of rights. ACC schools have granted the TV rights for their home games to the conference until 2036. The ACC then distributes that revenue back to teams. If FSU can’t find a legal escape valve, the Seminoles stand to lose out hundreds of millions of dollars.
The grant of rights itself was not discussed during the meeting, and it’s unclear how, or if, FSU would challenge it.
LikeLike
The whole thing is nonsense without considering the grant of rights, which as the article noted is hundreds of millions of dollars. That makes the buyout look like chump change.
LikeLike
Look at the bright side. Chad Swofford is now Vice President at Raycom Sports.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/chadswofford
LikeLike
FWIW, Brett McMurphy is saying that ION is now interested in getting the P12 rights.
ION is similar to the CW (who will air LIV golf for $0) but smaller, with 61 OTA stations. But they draw more viewers than TNT or TBS, so it might not be terrible. I think the money would be the problem.
https://tvnewscheck.com/business/article/talking-tv-scripps-sports-looks-to-edge-out-rsns-for-rights/
This article talks about the plans of ION’s owners (Scripps) to go after sports rights.
LikeLike
https://saturdayoutwest.com/pac-12/hayes-sources-convinced-big-ten-isnt-finished-raiding-the-pac-12/
Matt Hayes says “sources” tell him the B10 will expand at some point in the future. The piece is mostly fluff and opinion, but with some interesting tidbits.
“If anyone thinks the Big Ten isn’t coming back for more, they’re not following along,” an industry source told Saturday Out West this week.
The official end of the wildly underrated Pac-12 arrives when the Big Ten finds a media rights partner — network or cable television, and/or a streaming service — to foot the bill for the conference to add more schools from the Pac-12.
Because the Big Ten isn’t leaving USC and UCLA alone on the West coast. It must protect its investment. The Big Ten won’t force student-athletes from 2 of its top 5 brands to play all road conference games from 1,500 (Lincoln, Neb.) to 2,800 miles (Piscataway, N.J.) from campus. When USC and UCLA begin Big Ten play in 2024, the top 5 pecking order of Big Ten brand recognition is Ohio State, Michigan, USC, UCLA and Penn State.
1. Note a complete lack of time frame.
2. That 2nd paragraph should at least say “if” not “when.” All the companies have had plenty of time to offer to pay for it, but none has matched a price the B10 will accept.
3. The top 5 brands include UCLA? UCLA is a hoops blueblood, but I think CFB trumps that in the public consciousness. I think at worst NE, WI and MSU are on par with UCLA’s brand.
4. We have reports that USC and UCLA didn’t want more P12 schools. Is ignoring them what counts as protecting them?
5. Both schools would play some of their road games across town already. Plus LA to Seattle is 1135 miles, so it’s not a great time savings. Then 25-40% of the schedule is OOC games which can all be on the west coast. And as we saw from UCLA’s report, most teams would face little or no impact due to how they schedule (many sports don’t play at single schools but in group meets) or how they travel (already charter airplanes). Both schools knew what they were signing up for.
Just to be clear: If the UCLA women’s volleyball team is playing a game at Rutgers, that’s a round trip of 5,600 miles — or about 6.5 hours each way on a plane. That can’t be done without 2 nights in a hotel, and 3 days away from campus.
Those numbers are similar for every sport, every road trip, taken by USC and UCLA. (And every road trip taken to USC and UCLA.)
That parenthetical point is why his argument makes no sense. Adding more western schools doubles the travel for the current 14 while making less difference to the western schools due to how separated they are.
The Big Ten, which holds itself as a conference of elite academia, isn’t going make college life more difficult for student-athletes just for media rights billions.
Did they not add NE for money? RU and UMD? USC and UCLA?
TV timeouts? Friday night games? TV control of kickoffs?
Another industry source told Saturday Out West they still believe the 4 Pac-12 schools that last year told Kliavkoff they weren’t signing extended grant of media rights deals without an unfettered out to join the Big Ten — Washington, Oregon, Stanford and California — are the dream addition for the Big Ten if it can find the funding.
If it can only find funding for 2, Washington and Oregon are the preferred additions. The Action Network reported in November that Washington and Oregon held “preliminary discussions” about joining the Big Ten.
“I’m not sure it has to be an equal (Big Ten) share, either,” a second source said. “It just has to be more than what (the Pac-12) can provide. If you’re asked to accept less to survive, the choice is easy.”
If you’re trying to cut travel distance, then Cal and Stanford should be the two. This only shows one side of the equation. The quote says what the P12 schools would accept, but not what the B10 wants. Does the B10 have any interest in expansion out west right now? Do they want partial share members? Do they want to face revenue dilution in the future?
As much as we’d like to think of the next round of expansion as academia related, let’s not be shortsighted: the move is also about strengthening a football conference that lags behind the SEC.
The Playoff moves to 12 teams for its final 2 years of the original contract, and will then be renegotiated for the following deal. The payout of the estimated $1.2 billion annually for the Playoff likely will be similar to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament model of “units” of money per game played.
Translation: the more games played by each conference team, the more money each conference earns.
This is an entirely different argument. Here he says the B10 wants to expand for the CFP money. That’s at least more believable than concern for the LA schools.
He states as fact that the CFP will move to a “shares” method of payout like March Madness, but there are no details agreed upon. What portion of the revenue is split that way vs equally? How frequently would UW or UO need to make the CFP for each B10 member to actually make more money? What if the B10 doesn’t split CFP money equally?
ESPN is the likely media rights partner for the Pac-12, but whenever a deal is complete, it won’t be enough to keep Washington and Oregon in the fold. It won’t be enough to keep the Big Ten from protecting its investment in USC and UCLA.
ESPN may be a partner of the P12, but I don’t think it’s clear they will likely be the partner. I think there’s a good chance a streamer is involved.
LikeLike
I do not recall that Matt Hayes has any bona fides as a conference realignment expert. He provides an interesting read, but it’s just another rumor. The biggest unanswered question is, if the Big Ten wanted Washington and Oregon, why hasn’t it added them already?
4. We have reports that USC and UCLA didn’t want more P12 schools. Is ignoring them what counts as protecting them?
True, but those reports are no more credible than those that say the opposite. Most off-the-record reports about conference realignment are false. Kevin Warren continued to pursue Pac-12 schools, so I suspect that USC/UCLA made no such demand, or if they did it was not honored.
Adding two more west coast schools would provide some travel relief for USC and UCLA, so I would not expect them to oppose it if the money made sense. It’s true that the flight time to the Pacific Northwest is not that much shorter than to the Midwest. However, your body clock doesn’t need to adjust, which makes the trip feel a lot less tiring.
He states as fact that the CFP will move to a “shares” method of payout like March Madness, but there are no details agreed upon.
Granted, but it sounds plausible. However, the following might be the article’s biggest howler:
Washington and Oregon’s odds to win the N.C. are as members of the Pac-12. Their odds go down if you put them in the Big Ten. I cannot believe that the Big Ten would add them based on projected playoff shares, even assuming a financial model similar to basketball. The main TV deal would need to provide most of the lift.
LikeLike
Marc,
“True, but those reports are no more credible than those that say the opposite.”
Do we have any reports to the contrary? I recall two different reports about USC and UCLA not wanting more P12 schools, but I don’t recall any claiming they do want more. I’ve seen lots of supposition that they want more, but has anyone reported that they do? I’m honestly asking, as I can’t keep track anymore of all the different things that have been reported.
“Kevin Warren continued to pursue Pac-12 schools, so I suspect that USC/UCLA made no such demand, or if they did it was not honored.”
1. I don’t recall the reports saying USC and UCLA demanded no other P12 schools be invited, but only that they didn’t want any more. Those are similar but different things.
2. The B10 essentially fired Warren for his actions around expansion and their fundamental agreement over the future of the conference. It’s possible Warren was ignoring what USC and UCLA wanted while the presidents were not.
“Adding two more west coast schools would provide some travel relief for USC and UCLA, so I would not expect them to oppose it if the money made sense.”
Some, yes, but it also makes those schools more equal when they come to recruit in LA. I could see USC and UCLA wanting to protect their recruiting grounds, especially when they can still play those schools OOC.
“It’s true that the flight time to the Pacific Northwest is not that much shorter than to the Midwest. However, your body clock doesn’t need to adjust, which makes the trip feel a lot less tiring.”
Very true, but we also know that many sports only do group meets, and others travel on weekends and only a limited amount. Plus 18-22 year-olds deal with jet lag better than older people. The missing of class time is a bigger concern to me than fatigue, and online/remote teaching makes that a lesser concern too.
“Granted, but it sounds plausible.”
Of course going to shares for the CFP is possible, but he didn’t state it as an option. He also neglected to discuss that what % of money is split into shares has a large impact.
“Washington and Oregon’s odds to win the N.C. are as members of the Pac-12. Their odds go down if you put them in the Big Ten. I cannot believe that the Big Ten would add them based on projected playoff shares, even assuming a financial model similar to basketball. The main TV deal would need to provide most of the lift.”
I agree, adding them for CFP money makes very limited sense. Especially since the CFP revenue split model hasn’t even been decided. You can make a case based on UO’s success in the BCS era (#7 in W% which would be 2nd in the B10 just ahead of WI), but UW was #57 and trails UCLA and barely leads MN.
LikeLike
It’s possible Warren was ignoring what USC and UCLA wanted while the presidents were not.
Yes, it is possible. I just do not consider it probable, because just about anything reported about realignment without an on-the-record quote is false more often than true. So I put this in the same category.
LikeLike
Let’s be honest, even thing with quotes are often wrong. Just because someone openly says something doesn’t mean they are correct about what they say. They could be telling lies (Nick Saban said he would never leave the Dolphins for AL) or they could just sincerely believe something that isn’t true.
LikeLike
The odds of USC, UCLA, UW or UO getting to the playoffs, may be less in the B1G than in the PAC, but they are not zero. Moreover, the payouts in the B1G might be as much as $50 million more per year than the PAC, and almost certainly will be twice whatever the PAC can offer, even if they get partial shares. That extra money would be essential if they are to keep up with the B1G and SEC in football and basketball, and if they want to keep their Olympic and other sports. So UW and UO will jump at just about any decent offer from the B1G.
So would FSU, and for the same reasons.
Whether the B1G wants them is a totally different story. The B1G presidents would be fools not to take them. Whatever their dollar value is in the PAC, it will be much larger in the B1G. For one thing, the B1G brings many more eyes, and it has a deeper tradition, and much more dedicated, interested fans. There are 250 million Americans east of the Mississippi.
LikeLike
Most of us feel that if UW and UO join, they have to eventually reach full shares, as it would be toxic to have two permanent classes of citizenship. So the Big Ten presidents need to believe that UW and UO in the long term can pay for themselves, and then some.
I say “then some” because nobody expands to break even. Expansion has a lot of drawbacks, such as the risks of a poor fit, more travel, and old rivalries get played less often. Also, since expansion can’t be infinite, every school you add now might preclude others later. So it has to be really c0mpelling.
Three TV networks just agreed to pay a record amount in exchange for exclusive broadcast windows: FOX at noon, CBS in the late afternoon, and NBC at night. You can sell additional games to a streamer, but those games will generally be no better than the 4th pick every week, since FOX, CBS, and NBC already bought the top three. Oh, and on top of that FS1, BTN, and Peacock have dibs too. Is ESPN or a streamer going to pay enough when so many of the best games are already off the table?
LikeLike
bob sykes: “The odds of USC, UCLA, UW or UO getting to the playoffs, may be less in the B1G than in the PAC . . .”
Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC will expand again during our lifetimes.
LikeLike
bob,
“Moreover, the payouts in the B1G might be as much as $50 million more per year than the PAC, and almost certainly will be twice whatever the PAC can offer, even if they get partial shares.”
https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimates-12-team-cfp-expansion/
The Navigate estimates for 2029 have the gap as $38.2M, but that was done before USC and UCLA left. The gap from the SEC to P12 was projected as $55M, so the B10 with 16 schools should be $50M or more with the B10 doing better and the P12 doing worse than projected. The P12 was projected at $62.8M and the SEC at $117.8M, with the B10 at $101.1M. The B10 being double the P12 would fit with the LA schools moving.
But that’s full shares. If UW and UO are offered half shares, that’s essentially breakeven for them. They could start at 50% and ramp up, but they couldn’t stay at a partial share. The extra costs (travel, etc.) would make it a net loss.
“That extra money would be essential if they are to keep up with the B1G and SEC in football and basketball, and if they want to keep their Olympic and other sports.”
It’s easier to compete at a financial disadvantage from outside the P2 than from inside. Being at a partial share would make it even tougher. At least in the P12 their conference foes are at financial parity.
“So UW and UO will jump at just about any decent offer from the B1G.”
I think many/most agree with that. But it requires an offer, and nobody is making a compelling case for that other than the supposition that USC and UCLA must want them. But if reduced travel was the driving issue, then the NorCal schools are much better options. They’d also jump at an offer presumably. So the only reason for UW and UO would have to be financial, and the most optimistic estimate I’ve seen is that they wouldn’t lower the payout. Nobody projects them to significantly raise the B10 payout, so why would the B10 incur the costs (financial and otherwise) of adding them?
“So would FSU, and for the same reasons.”
Maybe in a decade when the GoR is ending, but they’d likely prefer the SEC anyway.
“Whether the B1G wants them is a totally different story.”
Agreed. And it’s a very important story.
“The B1G presidents would be fools not to take them. Whatever their dollar value is in the PAC, it will be much larger in the B1G.”
The presidents don’t have to be fools to decide they aren’t worth the hassles.
They’ve been projected to be about breakeven (or less) in the B10. Meanwhile there are real costs to expanding with them: travel, dilution of rivalries, them taking up spots so other schools can’t be added, potential interference with a plan to try to expand in the east, forming a political bloc that may never fully integrate into the B10, etc.
Also the B10 has 2 interim/outgoing presidents (MSU, OSU) and no commissioner, so they might want to wait until everyone is in place to make such a decision. They also need to integrate the LA schools which is non-trivial, so perhaps they want to wait and see how that goes, what the travel is like, and any other issues. Then there is the TV concern. The only TV windows left for the B10 to fill are Saturday late night and Friday night. Most of the B10 hates Friday nights and none want to play in the late window. That window is part of why the LA schools left. And you’re asking ESPN or a streamer to pay over $140M to get a weekly 4th choice at best game (maybe worse, depending on what’s in the current deals), or maybe a lot more to move up in the rotation. The B10 grudgingly accepted some Peacock games, but no fanbase is happy about it. They certainly aren’t clamoring for Amazon or Apple games.
“For one thing, the B1G brings many more eyes, and it has a deeper tradition, and much more dedicated, interested fans.”
Bringing more eyes is why the B10 already gets paid more. If you fill the B10 with P12 teams, then you reduce the average eyes watching and the B10 gets paid less.
“There are 250 million Americans east of the Mississippi.”
And how many are clamoring to watch UW and UO? Every game against them is a game not against a current B10 school whose fans are in the 250M.
LikeLike
From the FSU regents meeting, there’s this slide about the current/upcoming TV deals for each conference. It’s not apples to apples and I can’t vouch for all the numbers, but it’s good to see everything in one place. Conference networks are not included in the numbers, perhaps intentionally to make the ACC’s deal look as bad as possible vs the new SEC and B10 deals.
LikeLike
Or rather obviously because the conference networks don’t have defined revenue but are variable. And the ACC would look worse relative to the Big 10 and SEC as their networks do much better than the ACCN.
The numbers shown for the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12 are those generally reported. SEC looks like an assumption for what it will be with UT an OU. It seems to be a pro rata from what was projected for the 14 team new contract. The ACC deal is the original deal after SU and Pitt joined, but doesn’t include a $20 million a year bump after Notre Dame joined. It was projected to be $260 million split among the 14 + a partial for ND.
LikeLike
There’s a bunch of other things not counted, such as merchandising, NCAA tournament credits, bowl payouts, CFB playoff money, etc. The slide says “Television Contract Review,” so it is not false to omit those things, but it’s not a full revenue picture either.
LikeLike
I am still not clear what leverage FSU and Clemson have. (Those are the two who are the most unhappy.) There are vague comments on Twitter about breaking the grant of rights without clarifying how they’d do that.
As FTT has often pointed out, it’s a huge risk when your case depends on an unproven legal theory, and your liability is catastrophic if you lose. Besides that, FSU does not have anywhere else to go yet. It just might be (irony alert) that neither the SEC nor the Big Ten wants to expand again right now.
LikeLike
Bob Thompson says USC and UCLA will likely each play 1 7:30pm PT game per year already on the new B10 deal. Fox can mix those in with MWC and some BYU B12 games to fill their late window. It also means the LA schools will have no interest in helping to fill the 4th window for another media deal. So unless UW and UO want to always play home games at night and the rest of the B10 is willing to play road games that late regularly, it’s hard to see how an Amazon or ESPN deal could work.
LikeLike
Tom Shatel from the Omaha World Herald tweeted this today:
Spoke to Ted Carter and Trev Alberts yesterday about league appetite for expansion and didn’t get the sense anything is imminent. Door is open because in this climate that’s smart. Several years down the line, you never know. But right now more important issues on the table.
Just in case the link doesn’t work.
LikeLike
Regarding FSU, the B1G, and the SEC. Do not assume that FSU would prefer the SEC, despite the geography and culture similarities.
The fans are split, but seem to lean to the SEC, while the academics, including top decision maker may prefer the B1G. First, there is a fear that if FSU goes to the SEC, they will always be the little brother to UF. Even if FSU wins a national championship, there will be the UF factor. If UF returns to glory before FSU, the Seminoles would really be behind a large shadow.
I do have sources at FSU. I do not have a read on FSU major donors and their positions.
In addition, the already very spicy rivalry between FSU and UF might get even hotter if it were a battle of the big 2 conferences. In a year when both teams are good, the TV ratings could go through the roof for that one.
Then there is the 800 pound gorilla hiding around the corner. Academic standards. No one will ever accuse the SEC of prioritizing academics, even with a few very good schools. On the other hand no one will accuse the B1G of not worrying about academics.
FSU academic types, again including people in decision making positions, really like the idea of being associated with the B1G schools. They think that it will help recruit students and even top faculty and may help getting more research dollars. Whether or not the latter is true, it is clear that research money dwarfs AD money in pretty much ever major research university.
What will happen assuming both offer? I am not sure if anyone has a clue, and if they do, they are not sharing it.
Another subject, ND and the ACC. Many people still think that if ND finally joins the ACC, it will be a financial salvation. How much of a bump would ESPN give to the ACC if ND joins (which I think has virtually zero chance of happening if ND keeps a decent TV deal).
Will the ACC get another extra $75 million (which I think is a lot)? How much is that per team, $5 million? Perhaps ND would keep most of the extra money itself, but then what has it done for other teams?
Maybe the ACC would give most of the extra $75 to keep FSU and Clemson. Nah. So that would mean that ND would have to give up its independence and make less money than on its own TV deal to pay FSU and Clemson.
The only reason for ND to join a conference now is to be able to get home playoff games starting in a couple of years. Is that really enough? I doubt it.
Finally, I find it fascinating that PAC writers keep coming out with the same stuff. The B1G has to add PAC schools to deal with the huge issue that the LA schools on an island, etc. etc. They never seem to comment on adverse impact on the other 14 B1G teams in adding more PAC schools. These west coast writers essentially do not see how the B1G will survive without WA/OR and probably Stanford/Cal also.
On the other hand, unless I missed it, comparable B1G writers, with B1G sources, are not writing about the need for WA/OR or the terrible LA island.
LikeLike
I tend to think that if FSU moves and both conferences offer (huge assumptions), it’s better to be the #1 Florida school in the Big Ten than perennially the #2 Florida school in the SEC. But we are a long way from there. By the time FSU could realistically move (if it ever does), a different set of people could be making the decision.
Many people still think that if ND finally joins the ACC, it will be a financial salvation. How much of a bump would ESPN give to the ACC if ND joins (which I think has virtually zero chance of happening if ND keeps a decent TV deal).
It doesn’t add up. The only reason ND is in the ACC is because no other major conference would allow them to join while keeping football independent. If they fully join a conference (not that I am predicting this), they might as well join the best paying one, which would be the Big Ten.
Of course the ACC payout would go up if ND joins fully, but ACC money will never be as good as Big Ten money. So there is just no reason for ND to join them.
The only reason for ND to join a conference now is to be able to get home playoff games starting in a couple of years. Is that really enough? I doubt it.
I think you have misunderstood the format. In the 12-team playoff, the top four conference champs get byes, while seeds 5–8 host seeds 9–12 at home. This means ND can host a playoff game. What it cannot get is a first-round bye.
Jack Swarbrick, who was on the subcommittee that designed the playoff, said he was fine with that. When it’s seeded in the middle four, ND gets to host a very lucrative home game. And there’s a decent chance that they host a team that just lost a very emotional CCG, which they don’t have to play. It’s not such a bad deal for them.
Finally, I find it fascinating that PAC writers keep coming out with the same stuff. The B1G has to add PAC schools to deal with the huge issue that the LA schools on an island, etc. etc.
Most local sportswriters are telling fans what they want to hear. Sure, there are a few good ones that are able to rise above that, but they’re few and far between.
LikeLike
Marc. You are correct, I knew that that issue was first round bye, not a second round home game. Screwed it up. My bad.
LikeLike
Here’s a blast from the past . . . .
https://frankthetank.org/tag/florida-state-to-the-big-ten/
LikeLike
Bernie,
I default to thinking FSU would choose the SEC because that what history suggests is most common. The academics often want to join a certain conference (ND to the B10, etc.), but the fans/donors want something else and they always win out. Perhaps that’s because the trustees are often fans and major donors themselves.
If there wasn’t a huge geographic and cultural difference, then I’d give the B10 a much better chance (if the B10 footprint was the ACC’s footprint, for example).
LikeLike
https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/clemson/clemson-ad-graham-neff-unequal-distribution-of-acc-revenue-a-need/article_2d4e716e-b451-11ed-b2fb-f794bd00582b.html
Clemson’s AD is also pushing for unequal revenue distribution. They have no leverage to get it, but maybe with postseason money.
When asked if unequal distribution was a “want” or a “need,” Clemson athletic director Graham Neff chose the stronger of the two words.
“In all candor, I put it as a need,” Neff said in an interview with The Post and Courier. “We certainly recognize the investment that we’ve continued to make as an institution, in our community, in athletics, namely in football, which certainly drives a lot of value that is important from a television and revenue-generation standpoint.
“Is it time revenue distribution within conferences, or at least the ACC, is done differently? Yeah, I’ve been very active in those conversations within the league and continue to expect to take a leadership role in our desire for that to be a changed circumstance. Urgently.”
…
Of course, the prospect of fewer dollars for less successful ACC schools might be a hard sell. But in a landscape where stability is a cherished resource, keeping bigger brands like Clemson, FSU, and Miami (Fla.) in the fold could be beneficial for all. Neff also argues that uneven distribution incentivizes athletic departments to invest more and earn their cut.
Stability only happens if the ACC powers sign a GOR extension. Otherwise, why should the bottom half give up money to schools that will leave in 13 years anyway?
LikeLike
Fewer dollars for the less successful programs traps those programs into second class status. It permanently freezes the hierarchy. Will the lesser schools be satisfied with that status? Might some of them seek more money in another conference.
LikeLike
Will the lesser schools be satisfied with that status? Might some of them seek more money in another conference.
Which conference would that be? The programs most likely to suffer under unequal revenue sharing are the ones least desired by the other conferences.
They could get into the AAC or Conference USA any day of the week, but that is not a step up.
LikeLike
True enough, but unequal payments is pure poison for any conference that kills any kind of cooperative feeling. And the effective relegation of the lesser powers closes off any possibility of their improvement. Unequal shares is simply impossible.
PS. The unequal shares given out to recent B1G additions was a buy-in for the existing BTN, and not a permanent condition.
LikeLike
Rationalization. If it was really a buy-in, why did Nebraska take a bigger % cut than Maryland? Why did Maryland pay less than Rutgers? Why did USC/UCLA have no cut? Nobody ever paid anywhere near the $200 million + buy-in Rutgers paid. They did it because they could. It was about power.
No matter how high and mighty you try to make it sound, the Big 10 is motivated just like everyone else. And because of their power, their greed is probably more than anyone else. They certainly have been more destructive to the existing college landscape for their own benefit. And that’s ok. Its the total bs pretending the Big 10 is holier than thou that is ridiculous.
LikeLike
bob,
Agreed, permanent unequal shares for all-sports members is unhealthy. The likely ACC plan will be to split post-season money unequally, with those who earn it getting more. I don’t think that is as unhealthy, depending on how much is split that way. The NCAA gives conferences some money just for each school meeting academic standards, and other money based on tournament shares. If only the shares money is split unequally, that’s probably acceptable to many schools (and the same concept for the CFP). But it will annoy some schools who are strong in other sports or in academics and feel they bring a lot of value to the conference in those ways but don’t get paid for that. That’s especially true in football, where only 12 teams make the CFP.
LikeLike
bob sykes: “True enough, but unequal payments is pure poison for any conference that kills any kind of cooperative feeling.”
I agree but let’s face it, the ACC is already screwed by FSU and Clemson merely talking, pouting and sulking about unequal revenue sharing. The Dukes and the Wakes will not want to give up part of their pitiful revenue shares to the two schools that wallop them every year, plus they now know that FSU and Clemson will be looking to get out in 2036 anyway.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Rationalization.”
Will you ever tire of this BS reflexive answer? Bob didn’t differentiate between the B10 doing this and the B12 or anyone else who did it. He only pointed out that temporary gaps are not the same as permanent ones.
“If it was really a buy-in, why did Nebraska take a bigger % cut than Maryland?”
Because NE was buying 1/12th of BTN while UMD (and RU) were buying 1/14th.
“Why did Maryland pay less than Rutgers?”
Because UMD was already a P5 school and brought a comparable brand awareness to the B10. RU needed time to build their brand, so they didn’t get paid like a full B10 member.
And the most direct reason is because the B10’s terms were that the new schools get paid what they would’ve made in their prior conference’s TV deal at the time they joined, because they joined in the middle of an existing TV contract. So NE got paid what the existing B12’s deal was (it went up after they left), UMD got what the ACC was paying, and RU got what the AAC deal was. UMD and RU then chose to shift money around over time. The schools all agreed to those terms.
“Why did USC/UCLA have no cut?”
Because they bought 1/16th of BTN after the B10 had sold another 10% of it back to Fox, or the equivalent of buying 1/20th. And when you do the math, they raised the overall B10 payout sufficiently to more than cover that buy-in. We’ve done the math here before. They also joined before the new TV deal was negotiated, so their value was factored into that.
“Nobody ever paid anywhere near the $200 million + buy-in Rutgers paid.”
So? Nobody else came from a G5 conference to the B10, and nobody else with as poor an athletic history as RU joined a P5.
“No matter how high and mighty you try to make it sound,”
He didn’t try at all. He just said they were temporary, as opposed to a permanent difference. You’re the one getting your panties in a bunch.
“the Big 10 is motivated just like everyone else.”
He didn’t say they weren’t.
“And because of their power, their greed is probably more than anyone else.”
Bull*&!%. The SEC is worse and always has been. Always. The B10 has frequently not chased every dollar when they could have. Look how long they stayed at 11 members when they could’ve added a CCG with #12.
“They certainly have been more destructive to the existing college landscape for their own benefit.”
Who did all of these first for their own benefit?
CCGs, buying recruits via NIL, getting huge numbers of non-coach staff in football, expanding to 12, expanding to 14, expanding to 16 by decapitating a conference,
“Its the total bs pretending the Big 10 is holier than thou that is ridiculous.”
If he had done that, you might have a point. But he didn’t, so you don’t.
LikeLike
Rutgers also borrowed quite a bit from the B1G. I believe that it at least $50 million. So did Maryland.
The people at RU deny that they were not given an equal share, though they did not get as much money to start. The B1G denies it also. At the time that RU and UMd joined the B1G, the BTN was hugely valuable.
Now with the new $8 billion or so contracts coming, the BTN is a much smaller part of B1G revenues, compared to the new contracts.
LikeLike
No matter how high and mighty you try to make it sound, the Big 10 is motivated just like everyone else. And because of their power, their greed is probably more than anyone else.
The Big Ten is a business. You expect any well run business to maximize returns, and that is all the Big Ten did.
The agreements bringing Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, USC, and UCLA into the Big Ten were between savvy and well-lawyered parties. I therefore assume they were fair deals for all concerned.
Indeed, Rutgers might have gotten the best deal in conference realignment history. No conference switcher in the past quarter-century at least, or maybe ever, has improved their standing more than Rutgers — relative to where they’d otherwise be.
If the president of UVA is a whiskey drinker, I hope the president of Rutgers sent a lifetime supply of Johnnie Walker Blue. It’s the least they could do.
LikeLike
One clarification to my comment:
New members started at where their prior TV deal was, but then were ramped up over 6 years.
Using NE as an example:
https://www.dailynebraskan.com/nse/unl-to-receive-full-big-ten-benefits-after-six-years/article_4c48981c-38e0-11e7-a20e-4f245739bd5d.html
When Nebraska joined the Big Ten in 2011, it received $14 million. From there, it increased to $15.4 million in the second year, then $16.9 million, $18.7 million and $22 million last year, according to the Omaha World-Herald.
Finally, Nebraska will see the full benefits of leaving the Big 12 Conference, but those initial payouts were still an improvement over the Big 12’s $9 million in 2010.
Next year, the money from the conference could easily exceed $40 million.
LikeLike
The ACC is already screwed by FSU and Clemson merely talking… plus they now know that FSU and Clemson will be looking to get out in 2036 anyway.
I don’t think it was actually a secret up to now! But @Colin, you have said that the Big Ten won’t expand again in our lifetimes, and it’s no sure thing the SEC will either. So they might be stuck.
If FSU/Clemson eventually get invitations to move, no imaginable revenue sharing will prevent it. The most common model discussed is to let each team keep bowl payouts, tourney credits, etc., that they earn on the field. While better than the status quo, it’s not enough to come remotely close to what they’d earn in the Big Ten or the SEC.
I suppose that if unequal sharing can’t prevent the top teams from leaving, then maybe the bottom feeders of the ACC should just say, dammit, we’re keeping our full shares.
LikeLike
Sorry, HTML error. Only the first paragraph should have been italicized. The rest is me.
LikeLike
Marc, just to be clear on this: Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC will expand again within our lifetimes. Period.
LikeLike
Assurances ending in “Period.” are almost always wrong. Strange how that works. People who have the facts on their side never seem to need that extra superfluous “period”.
Of course, we do not know what lifetimes you are assuming.
LikeLike
The B12 and PAC have proved that unequal revenue sharing is not effective in getting the high payout schools to remain in a conference. The P10 had 3 teams that supported unequal revenue sharing with 2 headed to the B10. Washington was the third and they would leave if they could get an invite. Bullet listed 7 B12 teams that supported unequal revenue sharing. Among those 7 only Kansas has not found a ticket out. All 5 of the original 12 that were shorted are still there with nowhere to go. If FSU and Clemson getting less $$ results in fewer playoff berths over the next decade, they may have no place to go when the ACC grant of rights expires.
The threshold for a team to provide significant money to either the SEC or B1G may be too high for any team not named Notre Dame by 2035. If FSU and Clemson want more media money their only option may to create a new conference with the best of what is left in the ACC, B12, and PAC.
LikeLike
Another day, another column on the Pac-12’s media woes, this one from The Athletic’s media reporter, Richard Deitsch.
Bottom line:
Amazon would like a Friday night game that they could tout on their Thursday-night NFL coverage, but there isn’t an open checkbook: Amazon and the Pac-12 were far apart earlier this month regarding any kind of a deal.
ESPN is interested mainly for the 10:30pm window, but there’s only so much they’ll pay for the least-watched time slot. Deitsch doesn’t say where the bulk of the games would go in this scenario. They need to have some afternoon and early evening games too. Who wants them?
LikeLike
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/no-dont-think-acc-going-fall-apart-tomorrow
Matt Brown has some thoughts on future realignment. In short, he doesn’t see anything happening soon on the P5 level.
Hale’s back-of-the-napkin math shows that if that GOR is legally enforcible, Florida State is looking at a fee closer to $350 million than $120 million. That’s a massive number, one that is almost certainly too large for a school like FSU to finance right this second. It’s too large for a single broadcaster to finance either (if they’d even be legally allowed to, which I don’t believe is a given).
…
My best read on the situation is that the ACC is not in danger of falling apart tomorrow. It is too expensive and too disruptive to legally challenge the GOR agreement immediately, and ESPN, Fox and other broadcasters aren’t exactly itching at the prospect to throw even more rights fee money around right now (just ask the Pac-12).
But my educated guess is that some level of unequal revenue sharing is coming. My assumption is that allowing schools to “eat what they kill” to some extent, earning more money due to success on the field and court rather than just by pure broadcast eyeballs, would be less distruptive than hardcoding bonus payouts to the Florida States and Clemsons of the world, but that is just a guess. I’m sure even that would be opposed by the Boston Colleges of the conference.
This has all the makings of becoming a major problem in 2027, especially if schools are directly paying athletes by then. But I don’t have reason to believe that this revenue disparity existentially threatens the league today.
…
I’m not going to sit here and say that the Big Ten will never add Oregon or Washington (or some other combination of other schools), because I don’t know the future. But here is what I do know right now.
* The Big Ten does not have a commissioner. Sure, Kevin Warren doesn’t technically start his new gig with the Chicago Bears until April 17, but nobody is going to try and execute an industry-changing initiative with six weeks on the clock, especially given a) how busy March is for the industry and b) that such a massive change would impact the candidate pool to replace Warren. Or at least, they’re not going to do if if they don’t absolutely have to.
* Kristina M. Johnson, the president at Ohio State, is stepping down at the end of this term. Michigan State also currently has an interim president. So does Oregon. Stanford’s president is potentially in deep doo-doo. Presidents at other critically important schools in the league, like Michigan, have been there less than a year. University presidents, and not athletic directors, are the ones who actually sign off on realignment decisions, and with so many seats either empty or newly filled, massive action is unlikely in the short term.
* The math is still the math. The Big Ten had the opportunity to get TV numbers on Oregon and Washington in 2022, even going so far as to take a meeting with representatives from those schools…and elected to take no action. At that time, I was told that there was far from a consensus on whether relatively modest TV increases were worth the political and logistical headaches of expanding beyond 16 teams. I have yet to personally hear anything, or read any sourced reporting, to indicate this has changed.
* The idea that adding additional west coast schools as travel partners is a requirement for the Big Ten feels like it needs additional reporting. Washington is about as close to LA as Rutgers is to Minnesota. UW and OU are early 2+ hour direct flights from either LA school, and north of 800 miles away. They’re not close by any stretch of the imagination. The only advantage is that those flights do not require any time zone changes. That’s not for nothing, as those flights are even more disruptive to athletes, but let’s not pretend sprinkling in trips to Seattle and Eugene dramatically alleviates athlete burdens.
Now, at some point over the next several years, could that thinking change? Sure. And sure, maybe the Pac-12 totally falls apart by not signing any sort of broadcast deal, and Big Ten presidents have to make a decision sooner than they originally anticipated. But I don’t have reason to think that is likely right now. Even the Pac-12 thing, to be honest.
The Big Ten will have its hands full trying to build a new football scheduling model, fully onboarding USC and UCLA, and hiring a new commissioner (and with that, almost certainly new senior conference staffers). Unless the Pac-12 is reduced to a smoldering crater before Tax Day, I believe it’s pretty unlikely the Big Ten makes a big membership move in the immediate future.
LikeLike
Speaking of new Big Ten presidents, former Purdue president retired on Jan 1st after ten years on the job. He is also the former governor of Indiana and former director of OMB for the Bush administration. Georgetown law school degree. The link below mentions him as a candidate for Big Ten commish. I don’t know if that rumor has any traction but most of the Big Ten presidents know him quite well.
https://huskerextra.com/news/big-ten/eleven-candidates-to-replace-big-ten-commissioner-kevin-warren/article_54194b1e-92d4-11ed-9415-6bdef9ff99a8.html
LikeLike
Mitch Daniels is also considering a run for the Senate in 2024.
LikeLike
Alan: “Mitch Daniels is also considering a run for the Senate in 2024.”
Nope, he cancelled that.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitch-daniels-2024-senate-run-indiana-republican-primary-purdue-university/
LikeLike
Daniels is 73, so at best he would be keeping the seat warm until a permanent commissioner is named. Mind you, someone to settle it down for a year or two might be what the Big Ten needs, but it would only be kicking the can down the road. And this assumes he is not running for Senate.
LikeLike
He wouldn’t settle anything down. He is disliked by a significant portion of academia, which likely includes several of the presidents. I don’t see them accepting him as commissioner.
I believe he dropped his senate run after a wing of the GOP decided he wasn’t acceptable.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-daniels-indiana-republicans-banks-holcomb-2024-senate-trump-2023-2
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-state-president-sounds
Canzano interviewed OrSU’s president. It’s one opinion out of 10, and from perhaps the weakest position in the group, but she is one of the decision makers.
Murthy said: “There’s lots of reasons for us to hold together. The different members of the Pac-12 understand it. All this talk about people running off and joining the Big Ten and Big 12 or whatever is just talk. I see a very different picture when I sit with the CEO Group. It’s a group that does want to work together and does value the Pac-12.”
…
“There have been discussion about unequal shares, unequal media rights or the CFP monies,” she said. “We have had those discussions. They’re fair discussions to have. But nevertheless, I know that what sits underneath is a commitment to the Pac-12. We want to hang together. We find a lot of value to each other, so we work out what needs to be worked out.”
…
“We’re all looking for a good, strong deal,” she said. “There’s obviously all the linear stuff, the streaming, we’re looking for a mix of those things.”
• If you’re looking for a hint on the expansion front, Murthy said of the current Pac-12 members: “We understand that we share geography, we share culture, we share a culture of academics.”
…
She said: “There’s money in football. There’s some money in men’s basketball, but athletics is more than these two things.”
LikeLike
https://www.nj.com/rutgers/2022/08/heres-how-much-money-rutgers-will-get-from-big-ten-and-when-following-1-billion-media-rights-deal.html
Have we heard any more about this, Bernie?
In a 2018 internal report, Rutgers projected the Big Ten’s annual distribution to range between $58 million and $69.2 million between 2023 and 2029. It also noted that Rutgers wouldn’t receive the same distribution as most of the other Big Ten schools because the athletics department secured two separate loans totaling $48 million five years ago.
At the time, Rutgers officials told NJ Advance Media the loans were necessary in order to trim its growing deficit as well as to keep the Scarlet Knights competitive in their initial seasons in the Big Ten. It also meant Rutgers would need to pay back between $7 and $9 million annually over the next four years.
But in a wide-ranging interview Friday with NJ Advance Media, Hobbs said discussions are underway to potentially adjust the revenue streams for Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska. Upon joining the conference a decade ago, the three schools needed to go through a six-year integration that saw their conference-distribution checks pale in comparison to their Big Ten rivals.
The Big Ten didn’t make UCLA and USC go through the same integration, announcing the Southern California schools would join the league as full financial partners in 2024.
Hobbs told NJ Advance Media top officials at Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska are working with the Big Ten in order to address the previous financial inequities going forward.
“We’re actually looking at all of that right now,” he said. “Obviously the conference, in the financial integration for USC and UCLA, made the decision that it was in the best interest of the conference to bring them in as full-share members. Ourselves, Maryland and Nebraska came in under a financial integration model and there were things done then in order to try to make sure that we could be competitive. In the interest of fairness and equity, the conference, along with the presidents and chancellors, are taking a look at Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska specifically to make sure that in this new (16-team) world that we have that some level of fairness and equity gets returned to Rutgers and those two schools.”
Documents obtained by NJ Advance Media show Rutgers already has paid back $10 million from the $48 million loan over the past two years.
Asked whether he sees the potential for the Big Ten to forgive the remainder of the loan, Hobbs said: “That I would not see.”
Still, he said there’s potential for Rutgers to receive a larger percentage of the Big Ten’s annual revenue stream in the next four years.
“Obviously those loans were real both for ourselves and for Maryland,” Hobbs said. “There’s going to be an examination of that in the context of this new agreement and the new revenue flows. I wouldn’t want to speculate on the amount of that adjustment. (The Big Ten presidents) recognize that there is an equity and fairness component to it.”
LikeLike
I have not seen a thing. I do look at NJ.com every day and obviously still could have missed it. Further if it is buried behind a paywall, I missed it, since as a matter of principle, I will not pay NJ.com ten cents for a subscription. (By the way, for at least 30 years, I had home delivery of the Star-Ledger, which is their largest paper, Then I cancelled that about 10 years ago.)
LikeLike
Bernie, I read the Star-Ledger every day during the notorious Tim Pernetti-Julie Hermann soap opera. Online was free back then. One sports writer – can’t remember his name – had this story nailed and he wasn’t afraid to make his disgust known.
LikeLike
Since I cannot amend my prior comment, here is a follow up.
I see absolutely nothing unfair in the way that RU or UMd were treated. No one forced either to accept the deal with the B1G. And if you ask either school whether they would prefer to go back to their old conferences, the best that would happen is that you would get a stare implying that your question was nuts. At worst, someone would throw a chair at you for asking such a dumb question.
With regard to RU in particular, I believe that it almost universally accepted that they have probably been the biggest winner ever in the realignment lottery. From the AAC to the B1G.
USC/UCLA is entirely different and not just because USC was and should again be an undisputed football king, while UCLA brings its basketball. Both LA schools have special athletics. I will not get into the NY/NJ and MD/DC TV markets compared to LA, since that is a very different conversation.
In addition, at the time that RU and UMd came, the BTN was a huge deal. Now with the huge new three network deal, BTN simply does not mean as much to the B1G.
Hey if the two schools want to ask the B1G for financial relief, they can ask. If the B1G says forget about it, then they forget about it. Not complicated. If the B1G actually give them money, then they win B1G time, again.
LikeLike
Nebraska paid $59 million cumulative in entrance fees. As best as I can tell (trying to weed out the loans), Rutgers paid $205 million. I have only found Maryland’s distributions for 3 of their buy-in years, 14-15 $24.5, 17-18 $26.1 and 19-20.$27.6 million. I think I separated the loans. For those 3 years their buy-in was $63 million while Rutgers was $109 million for those 3 years.
Texas A&M and Missouri paid none to the SEC. TCU and WVU paid around $23 million to Big 12.
LikeLike
What you call an “entrance fee” was the buy-in to the Big Ten Network, of which the conference was 49% owner at the time. If you move into my house and I add you to the title deed, you must buy your share of it. Neither the SEC nor the Big XII had networks to buy into.
As I mentioned upthread, Rutgers got perhaps the best conference realignment deal in the history of conferences. I doubt that Maryland or Nebraska have any regrets either, given what has happened to the conferences they came from.
LikeLike
So they paid some money and acquired a share of an asset as well as moving to a conference they preferred. What’s the problem? TCU and WVU paid just for the conference upgrade. NE, UMD and RU also got BTN shares, plus RU got the all-time realignment golden ticket.
LikeLike
From The Athletic Feb 26, 2023
Big Ten football scheduling format: What’s the latest after conference meetings?
By Scott Dochterman
Big Ten administrators, school officials and conference football coaches left their meeting at the conference headquarters last week without finalizing a new scheduling model for 2024 and beyond. But it was far from a wasted trip.
College Football Playoff qualification was established as the core tenet, and any future alignment must serve that greater good. Two other common-sense principles were established, too. One, that scheduling should be fair and equitable. Two, that every four-year player should compete at least once on every Big Ten campus. Illinois, for instance, no longer will have to wait nine years before competing three hours southeast at Indiana.
With the CFP and balanced scheduling established as priorities, it leaves only settling annual opponents and scheduling terms as the major hurdles in making an announcement. But rivalry status is touchy and ambiguous, especially in a conference with nine schools in place for more than 100 years and seven others with service ranging from 70 years ago (Michigan State) to starting next August (USC, UCLA).
“We’ve talked about it a couple of different ways,” said Iowa athletics director Gary Barta, CFP chairman in 2020-21. “The flex protect (varies by school), and then we’ve looked at one, we’ve looked at two, but nothing’s been definitive yet.
“I don’t know where we’ll end up. But it’ll follow those principles. What’s the most fair? What’s going to give us the most teams in the new playoff? And we don’t want to go — I don’t want to go, and I don’t think the Big Ten has interest in going seven years until you play somebody. So, getting into a better rotation.”
All those plans lead to divisional elimination, which Barta acknowledged as “it’s kind of looked like that might be where we end up.” Although it appears an easy decision, the East-West structure has served the Big Ten well. While divisional play provided disproportionate championship results, it ensured the correct outcome with the most qualified East Division participant securing the highest possible status. But the growing imbalance between the divisions, coupled with USC’s and UCLA’s arrival and CFP expansion from four to 12 teams in 2024, makes eliminating divisions not only inevitable but also absolutely the correct move.
USC and UCLA are set to join the Big Ten in 2024. (Sean M. Haffey / Getty Images)
In the first four East-West title games, the spread ranged from three to four points. Outside of Ohio State’s shocking 59-0 win against Wisconsin in 2014, the next three games were competitive and decided in the final moments. In 2015 and 2017, West Division champions Iowa and Wisconsin were undefeated with chances to win the title. Michigan State beat Iowa 16-13 with a 22-play drive that culminated in a touchdown with 27 seconds left. Wisconsin had the ball in Ohio State territory inside of three minutes, but an interception thwarted the Badgers in a 27-21 loss. But those teams marked the end of the West seriously challenging the East in Indianapolis.
What makes the most sense when USC, UCLA join the Big Ten?
During the past five years, the East champ was a double-digit favorite, and all five times the final score justified the lopsided betting line. The West had moments — Wisconsin and Northwestern led Ohio State at halftime in 2019 and 2020, respectively — but each time the East champ had too much for the West. Inarguably, the conference’s second-best team competed in the East in 2016, 2018, 2021 and 2022.
That trend is likely to continue indefinitely. In nine years, the East leads the West 90-78 in crossover games. Last fall showed the greatest disparity between the divisions with the East winning 13 of 21 matchups. Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State each went 3-0 against the West. Only Iowa (15-9) and Wisconsin (14-10) have winning records against East Division teams during the East-West era, and Iowa is the only West team to have beaten every East squad during the past nine seasons.
In a four-team CFP era, the divisional alignment sufficed with only one Big Ten team usually qualifying for the tournament. The 2022 season was the exception with Michigan and Ohio State earning entry, and without a championship rematch, it might have secured both of their berths. But with an expanded CFP, the conference’s two best teams playing each other likely won’t force out the loser and will solidify a first-round bye for the champion. An uneven matchup producing a major upset could have a ripple effect that limits the playoff entrants. Competitively, there’s even a case for cutting off the championship game altogether.
“You can debate whether or not the championship game is better or worse, but we haven’t had any serious discussions about eliminating it,” Barta said. “First of all, we just got it going. It’s been selling out. It has financial ramifications if we were to decide that. But we haven’t had strong, serious conversations about that.”
Although keeping divisions has generated conversation, there’s little appetite for it. A geographic alignment with USC and UCLA joining the West Division and pushing Purdue to the East might limit some competitive inequality — especially if USC re-emerges as a national power — but it would limit regular-season games featuring USC against Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. Big Ten media partners Fox, CBS and NBC will want as many highly rated matchups as possible, and that includes more frequent games among the Big Ten’s biggest brands, which currently reside in the East Division.
Of the 36 Big Ten-only games with 3.5 million viewers during the past two years, only four did not involve Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State. The conference cannot ignore that. But four of the 10 nonconference regular-season games hitting 3.5 million viewers also involved West Division teams. So, it’s not so one-sided that current West Division schools don’t bring value. But USC competing regularly against the East Division’s big three will produce titanic ratings. That cannot be guaranteed against West Division foes.
There are other topics, such as the challenges associated with Saturday prime-time games in November, selection order among Fox, CBS and NBC and Friday game designations. Those will be resolved soon, perhaps in early March when leadership meets again at the Big Ten men’s basketball tournament. Or, the 2024 decision could extend into mid-spring or later.
“On the one hand, there’s really no deadline,” Barta said. “We don’t have to have it done imminently by a certain date right now because it’s two years out. That’s on the side that says there’s not a huge pressure point. On the flip side, just from a planning standpoint, I’d love to have it done sooner than later. There’s not, like, a moment in time that if we don’t decide by this day, we’re in trouble. So, there’s not that kind of pressure.
“If it goes the best it can go, we’ll announce everything at once. I think that makes more sense. I’m not going to predict it, but I think that’s the desire is to have it all come out at once so everybody can plan ahead.”
LikeLike
More Big Ten format speculation:
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/the-b1g-10/
LikeLike
Not very smart speculation. It doesn’t lock Nebraska–Iowa, which is both schools’ preferred Rivalry Week opponent. It locks Rutgers to both Michigan and Ohio State, which is awfully unfair to Rutgers. It also yokes two of the league’s most valuable schools for TV to one of its least valuable.
No one is going to be happy, but understand this: USC and UCLA each must get at least 1 of the 2 closest (geographically) rivals to alleviate travel issues.
Yet another travel-illiterate writer. There is not much difference in travel time from L.A. to any of the Big Ten’s Midwestern schools. They are all within about 30 minutes’ airtime of each other. (Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland are farther.)
LikeLike
Yeah, there are two schools of thought on the Big Ten schedule format. After must-have rivalries, then (1) make annual rivals of top brands to maximize TV viewers or (2) spread out the top brands for optimal parity. Obviously, we can’t have it both ways.
The SEC really doesn’t have this problem. Their long-standing rivalries fall into place so readily that matching them up is quite easy.
LikeLike
Pretty good situation summary from Cal website:
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/big-ten-expansion-cal-stanford-oregon-washington
LikeLike
This simply relies heavily on the Matt Hayes piece. Hayes pretty much implied that the B1G needs, not wants, needs more PAC schools. LA cannot possibly be left on an island.
He totally ignores whether the LA schools are happy with their island. He also give no thought to the difficulties presented to the other 14 schools if more PAC schools are added. Traditional B1G rivalries are irrelevant, so that the group from the PAC can stay together.
Hayes article was poorly thought out since he did not seem to give any consideration whatsoever to what the 14 schools might want.
As an aside, why should anyone believe that by 2030 the remaining PAC schools would add value to the B1G? Why not wait and find out?
In addition, unless the Big 12 wants to go to more than 20 schools and to reach Seattle, where else can those schools go in 2030.
LikeLike
Many people (media, fans) keep insisting that the B10 wants to 2 or 4 P12 schools. They cite not wanting to leave the LA schools on an island, and some mention it’s just a matter of getting a media company to pay enough. I’m having trouble with their logic. Where is the value to the networks?
CBS and NBC signed up for 1 game per week each. UO would be the #5 or 6 brand in the B10 (OSU, UM, USC, PSU, NE), with UW and Stanford closer to the median (similar to IA, UCLA) and Cal lower. I don’t see how CBS or NBC gain much from those additions, certainly not over $70M x2 or x4.
Fox has limited windows to air games, and like the others their Big Noon game won’t game value. BTN and FS1 would get more games and/or better games, so there’s some value there. But the real value for Fox would have to come from adding a TV window (the 4th Saturday window or non-holiday weekend Friday nights). Unfortunately the B10 doesn’t like F night games so they limit them, and none of the current 14 want to kickoff at 10:30 ET and have their fans asleep before the game starts. USC and UCLA left the P12 in part to avoid those TV windows, so they don’t want many of them either. Even with 4 new P12 teams, it would be hard to fill those windows.
That leaves adding a 4th media partner. Disney is basically full in the 3 main windows already with the SEC and ACC and B12, and the same issues apply to the other 2 windows as for Fox. So that leaves a pure streamer (ignoring the CW, Ion and any other minor OTA outlet) or TBS. How much would they pay for the 4th (or worse) pick each week, and how many games is the B10 willing to relegate to streaming (Peacock already has some)? I can’t see getting over $70M per school this way either.
That leaves partial shares as the solution, but we know that can’t be a permanent solution. Schools like PU and RU don’t want to set that precedent. Would the next media deal increase enough to bump everyone up significantly including the extra members? I don’t know.
LikeLike
I can’t get the math to work either. However, a few points about this…
I think Disney still has room. They are taking over the SEC package from CBS, which on most weekends was only 1 game. However, they are losing the B10 package, which was always >1 game. So they should have room. Of course, they formerly had the #1 or #2 pick. Now they’d have at best the #4 pick.
Most reports said that ESPN remained in the running for a Big Ten package until Kevin Warren bumped up the price beyond what they were willing to commit. So I think they could take some games. Any Disney games probably couldn’t be on ABC, because I think the other three partners were guaranteed exclusive broadcast windows. It would be cable only. This is just a guess, since we haven’t seen the fine print.
Of course, giving ESPN the #4 package diminishes the value for whoever would have gotten the #4 game before, so that has to be considered somehow.
LikeLike
Why would ESPN want anything to do with the B1G? The report is ESPN dropped out when the B1G demanded a premium from them compared to other networks; however, it is hard to say what happened. What would ESPN do with the 4th best B1G game when it already has the top 4 SEC and ACC games? ESPN also picked up a game from the B12 (going from 3:3 to a 4:2 split with Fox). ESPN can fill a late night window from the PAC at less cost than the B1G, and so far ESPN has not even been willing to pay the PAC.
The people who say that the B1G wants two teams from the PAC are correct and those teams are USC & UCLA.
LikeLike
Why would ESPN want anything to do with the B1G?
ESPN would certainly listen if the Big Ten had another package to sell. The Big Ten is still the #2 conference. Its #4 game (most weeks) is better than the ACC’s #4 or the Big XII’s #4.
I think Kevin Warren’s offer to them was a “screw you” offer: Warren did not expect them to take it. At a fair price ESPN would be interested. I don’t think it pays for Washington and Oregon, though.
LikeLike
Little8,
“Why would ESPN want anything to do with the B1G?”
Money? It’s the only reason they do anything.
“The report is ESPN dropped out when the B1G demanded a premium from them compared to other networks; however, it is hard to say what happened.”
My recollection was that the B10 wanted an exclusive TV window (as from Fox, CBS and NBC) and Disney couldn’t offer that due to their pre-existing commitments. The B10 also wanted more money than Disney was willing to pay to be the 4th choice.
“What would ESPN do with the 4th best B1G game when it already has the top 4 SEC and ACC games? ESPN also picked up a game from the B12 (going from 3:3 to a 4:2 split with Fox). ESPN can fill a late night window from the PAC at less cost than the B1G, and so far ESPN has not even been willing to pay the PAC.”
My thoughts exactly. There isn’t much value there for Disney.
LikeLike
I believe the reporting. I believe there are a lot of strategic reasons for the Big 10 to take UW and Oregon. But your analysis has good points Brian. The 3 networks have exclusive time slots. So any new inventory has to go on FS1, 10:30 ET or Th/F nights. Those aren’t as valuable as Saturday OTA slots. So the new members have to be good programs to help make the existing games more valuable. Really makes it hard to see Stanford and Cal being added or to go to 20 w/o Notre Dame.
LikeLike
And I’m not claiming the people reporting are making it up, I believe the legitimate media have sources telling them these things, but I’m not convinced those sources are the decision makers or know what the decision makers are actually thinking. It sure looks like a lot of the previous reporting were leaks from Warren’s people. We know several schools were against expansion before, and I don’t see what has changed since then that would change their opinion.
Iowa wants to play WI, MN, NE, OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, etc. They and their fans aren’t clamoring for more UW and UO games or road trips to the west coast. They certainly don’t want to dilute those rivalries and add travel costs for little or no financial gain. The same is true of most other B10 schools.
I think the B10 would need to have a strategic plan where controlling the northern half of the US was key to some bigger plan to justify adding the NW4 schools. That may happen some day, but I don’t see how it makes sense in today’s world. If the B10 could somehow monetize that better (like if streaming became wildly profitable), then it would make sense.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2023/03/01/mlb-new-rules-pitch-clock-game-time-spring-training/11367858002/
MLB’s new rules are working to shorten games so far.
After four full days of Cactus and Grapefruit league games, MLB is ecstatic over an average game time of 2 hours, 39 minutes. That’s nearly 20 minutes off the 2:57 required to play a game through a similar sample through four days of 2022 spring training. By spring’s end, average time of game was 3 hours, a prelude to a 3:03 nine-inning regular season average.
Getting regular season games to fit into a 3 hour window on average would be big for MLB.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35754068/ncaa-panel-eyes-shorter-football-games-cites-player-safety
CFB is hoping to shave 7-8 minutes from games with their rule changes, and 8 plays.
Steve Shaw, NCAA football secretary rules-editor and officials coordinator, told ESPN on Tuesday that the combined changes are estimated to shorten average length of games by seven to eight minutes and eight plays.
According to Shaw, college football games have averaged 180 plays per game over the past three regular seasons and typically last three hours, 21 minutes.
Shorter is better as long as that time doesn’t just turn into more ads. Getting games to below 3:15 would allow for a quick studio update before moving to the next game and reduce the number of times games overlap in the neighboring windows.
LikeLike
I don’t watch MLB except for the postseason (and even then not all of it). But the changes they’ve made really do feel like they fundamentally alter the character of the game. This is not to say they won’t work, but the changes are pretty significant.
The CFB changes are pretty minor. Most games do not have even one instance of a defensive foul at the end of a quarter or two consecutive time-outs by the same team. The rule stopping the clock for a first down only began in 1968, and it’s really only noticeable at the ends of halves, when it is being kept as-is.
The difference, of course, is that MLB is facing an existential crisis, with fan support having fallen dramatically over the past half-century. CFB does not have the same problem.
LikeLike
Marc,
“The rule stopping the clock for a first down only began in 1968,”
Only? That is 55 years ago, and before what many consider the modern era of CFB (B10 still had it’s 1 bowl policy, integration hadn’t hit the SEC, the FL schools were nothing, etc.).
LikeLike
The points you mentioned, important though they are, are outside of the game rule book. The actual rules by which the game is played have not changed all that much. When you read the history of the sport, nobody singles out 1968 as a year of great change because they stopped the clock on first downs.
LikeLike
Even some rules have changed:
https://www.collegefootballpoll.com/news/introduction-a-brief-history-of-college-football/
A 1988 rule gave the defensive team 2 points for returning a blocked kick or an intercepted pass to the opponent’s end zone during a conversion attempt. In 1992 this was extended to include a fumble return from any spot outside the end zone.
…
Because of a proliferation of successful field goals over the next three decades, the rule makers in 1988 disallowed the kicking tee for field goal and conversion attempts, and in 1991 returned the goal post width to 18 feet, 6 inches.
…
The tied game was eliminated in Division I-A under rules that went into effect with the 1996 regular season.
But also major things things like the I-A/I-AA split in 1978 and the implementation of scholarships limits (105 in 1973, 95 in 1978, 85 in 1992).
LikeLike
Good CFB current issues analysis by ND AD Jack Swarbrick including upcoming NBC TV negotiation and having Big Ten involved with NBC.
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/football/jack-swarbrick-talks-notre-dame-tv-deal-nil-marcus-freeman-and-more
LikeLike
Swarbrick on the NBC deal. Seems pretty clear to me that NBC might not yet be quite where he wants them to be. Words like, “the goal is…” and “we need…”
LikeLike
Marc: “Swarbrick on the NBC deal. Seems pretty clear to me that NBC might not yet be quite where he wants them to be. Words like, “the goal is…” and “we need…”
Why should NBC pony up more money? They’ve been paying only $15 million/yr for seven ND football games, some of which are pretty lame – Toledo, Nevada, Navy. ND doesn’t have a Plan B. There is a big difference between Fox getting first pick of eight to sixteen Big Ten games for 15 weeks and NBC getting whoever shows up in South Bend for seven weeks.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is under market. If the Big XII is worth >$30m per school, ND is worth more than $15m, even allowing for the lame home schedule they have played in recent years. However, rumors last year had ND seeking anywhere between $60–75m, and I don’t know if that’s possible.
Notre Dame controls the majority of their schedule and could improve it if TV partners insist. They have a lot of open dates in future years.
I have read different figures for ND’s income from NBC. I think $15m might have been the average over the life of the deal, which like all such deals started lower and increases annually. As of this year, I think they are at $25 or $26m, which is still beneath what they are worth.
LikeLike
Marc: “Notre Dame is under market. If the Big XII is worth >$30m per school, ND is worth more than $15m, even allowing for the lame home schedule they have played in recent years.”
That really isn’t a valid comparison. The Big Ten is getting $75 million/school for its top three games each week for 15 weeks = 45 games – and the lousy games aren’t going to be chosen. NBC is paying ND for seven games and that includes the turkeys. Here’s ND’s 2023 home schedule:
2 blockbusters – USC and Ohio State
2 mediocre – Pitt and Wake
3 turkeys – Central Michigan, Tennessee State and Navy
Additionally, ND plays at Purdue in 2024, 2026 and 2028, at Wisconsin in 2026 and it appears that half of the ND-USC games will become part of the Big Ten inventory after 2024. All of those games will be part of the Big Ten package.
So when you consider the volume of games and the quality of the matchups throughout the entire season, it’s hard to see how ND is worth much more than they’re getting right now. They have by far the best TV deal of any college in terms of brand promotion and maintaining their legacy but that doesn’t translate into dollars.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is getting $75 million/school for its top three games each week for 15 weeks = 45 games – and the lousy games aren’t going to be chosen.
The Big Ten payout is for the entire inventory, not just the best 3 games. There isn’t some other deal for the rest of them. The Big Ten’s deal also includes conference championship games that Notre Dame chooses not to play in. And it includes basketball too, for which ND gets a separate check from the ACC.
But anyhow, that is not the right comparison. The Big XII just got >$30m per school, and remember that includes a bunch of crappy games. Anyone who buys the Big XII gets Kansas and Iowa State football too.
How many Big XII teams have two home games this year that are as good as USC and Ohio State? You’re right that Tennessee State and Central Michigan are pretty bad, but take a look at most Big XII teams’ non-conference slates. They’re getting $30m for that.
Additionally, ND plays at Purdue in 2024, 2026 and 2028, at Wisconsin in 2026 and it appears that half of the ND-USC games will become part of the Big Ten inventory after 2024.
The Wisconsin game is a Notre Dame home game for TV purposes. The others are road games that NBC would never have had at any point.
LikeLike
Marc: “How many Big XII teams have two home games this year that are as good as USC and Ohio State?”
How often does ND have two home games as good as USC and Ohio State?
LikeLike
@Colin: You’re right: ND doesn’t usually have two kings at home in the same year. That’d be pretty hard to do, given the scarcity of kings. Still, look at the median ND home schedule vs. the median schedule that Big XII members are about to get paid >$30m for. Those schedules are not better than ND’s.
Just one illustrative data point. One article I found said that the Big XII was averaging 1.78m viewers per game last year—and that included TX and OK, which aren’t in the new deal. Every single ND game on NBC last year was over 2m except Boston College, with an average of 2.43m.
That is why ND is worth more than the Big XII.
LikeLike
Marc, ND doesn’t want Big XII caliber revenue. They want Big Ten caliber revenue.
“That would put the Irish over $70 million per year if the report is accurate.”
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/football/notre-dame-football-report-to-get-big-tv-deal-remain-independent
LikeLike
Marc, ND doesn’t want Big XII caliber revenue. They want Big Ten caliber revenue.
Correct, but I was replying to your comment that they are not worth much more than they’re getting now. That is untrue: they’re clearly worth more than the Big XII, which is north of $30m per school. How much more is the question.
I personally don’t see them matching the Big Ten. Reading between the lines of Swarbrick’s interview, it sounds like NBC is not seeing it that way either. But we don’t know how far apart they are. ND doesn’t need Big Ten money, but they can’t survive competitively on what they make now.
LikeLike
Marc,
“The Big Ten payout is for the entire inventory, not just the best 3 games. There isn’t some other deal for the rest of them. The Big Ten’s deal also includes conference championship games that Notre Dame chooses not to play in. And it includes basketball too, for which ND gets a separate check from the ACC.”
Let’s make a better comparison: just NBC’s deal
https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/ncaa/big-ten-announces-media-rights-deal-nbc-peacock-and-additional-outlets
NBC is paying $350M for 14 primetime games plus 8 Peacock games plus a bunch of MBB and WBB games annually, and 1 CCG in 7 year. Let’s say $275M of that is for annual CFB games (about 82% after subtracting $15M per year for the 1 CCG).
NBC will add a marquee Saturday night football game to pair with Sunday Night Football. The Saturday night game will be called Big Ten Saturday Night. Each Big Ten game on NBC will also be simulcast on Peacock – NBCUniversal’s direct-to-consumer streaming package..
Peacock will contain eight regular-season football games and potentially up to 47 regular-season men’s basketball games (32 conference and 15 non-conference) and 30 regular-season women’s basketball games (20 conference and 10 non-conference).
ND gets them 6 afternoon games plus 1 Peacock game. That’s 43% as many TV games and 12.5% as many Peacock games. Say that’s 35% of the value (Peacock isn’t worth much), and you’re at $96M.
Now you compare quality of games and time slots. I’d say afternoons and prime time are close enough to equal – the game and other games at the same time matter more than the TV window. As for games, the opponents vary but every game has ND in it. NBC’s B10 games may not always have a king, certainly not OSU all the time, and the opponent will be a lesser brand many times. NBC knows ND has at least 7 P5 games every year + Navy. With just 1 team there is greater risk of a bad season, which hurts the value but now their is synergy with the B10 deal. NBC can use ND as a lead in to B10 football, use B10 football to draw more casual fans to NBC on Saturdays, and can cross-promote with NFL football as well, That’s part of why the B10 got paid so well. And ND is playing games at B10 schools that NBC might also get. NBC might pay them a bit more in exchange for them continuing that trend and playing at least 2 per season on average (USC + someone).
Saying ND might be worth $60-70M isn’t ridiculous. ND has long been willing to lag the highest paid schools by a decent amount, but they don’t need to. Add in their ACC money and they’ll be close enough.
LikeLike
NBC knows ND has at least 7 P5 games every year + Navy.
Not that it changes your analysis, which I largely agree with, but ND has FCS Tennessee State on its home slate this year. They don’t play an FCS opponent every year, but until until recently they never did. It’s one of the tangible ways the ND schedule is clearly not what it used to be.
That’s why I really have to wonder about this comment from Swarbrick: Finally, the question of whether we can build the schedules we need to build. That has never been an issue, and it’s not now. I’ve yet to place a phone call to a colleague and asked if they were interested in playing, where they didn’t say yes.
If everyone he calls wants to play Notre Dame, then it’s hard to square with having Tennessee State on the schedule. Hard to believe that was his first call. I don’t expect a P5 opponent every week, but you’d think he could do better than that.
The ND schedule is not filled out past 2024, which I think is also the last year of the current NBC deal. There is plenty of room to toughen it up if they have to.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Not that it changes your analysis, which I largely agree with, but ND has FCS Tennessee State on its home slate this year.”
That’s the Peacock game. Why waste a good game on streaming?
“They don’t play an FCS opponent every year, but until until recently they never did. It’s one of the tangible ways the ND schedule is clearly not what it used to be.”
https://www.on3.com/teams/notre-dame-fighting-irish/news/notre-dame-football-tennessee-state-fcs-hbcu-brady-quinn/
The programs’ head coaches, Eddie George of Tennessee State and Marcus Freeman of Notre Dame, held a press conference Wednesday to officially announce the game. They discussed the importance of breaking barriers and giving HBCUs a platform on a stage as grand as Notre Dame Stadium.
Speaking on FOX Sports Radio podcast “2 Pros and a Cup of Joe” Wednesday, Quinn wasn’t having any of that. He said college football scheduling “is not about equity.”
“I absolutely hate this,” Quinn said. “Look, there are probably some woke idiots out there like, ‘Oh, but it’s an HBCU!’ It has nothing to do with that. This is the first time in the history of the Notre Dame football program they’ve played a non-FBS opponent. That’s what I’m ticked off about. I hate this.”
Quinn views the move as “watering down the schedule” and “one less thing to tout” in terms of not being able to say Notre Dame is one of less than a handful of programs that have never played an FCS opponent.
Two black coaches (both former Buckeyes) and ND’s first game against an HBCU may explain why this game is being played. Not everyone at ND is pleased about it.
LikeLike
Seems pretty clear to me that NBC might not yet be quite where he wants them to be.
I wonder if Notre Dame will run into the same OTA “window crunch” the PAC12 is. I’m sure ESPN is interested in ND, but I don’t think ESPN has 7/8 OTA windows available. Will ND be ok with more ND games on ESPN/2/U/+ with their “big game” OTA start times only at Noon or 8 ET (SEC is at 3:30)? CBS has room, but again every ND home game would be Noon or 8 because of the Big Ten at 3:30. NBC has the preferred window available, but is NBC willing to pay what ND wants? ND hasn’t exactly “won” the 3:30 timeslot recently.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s home day games historically start at 1:30pm ET, lying astride the 12:00 and 3:30 windows on every other network. I’m sure ESPN would be willing to discuss the ND home package, but not at 1:30pm. The Irish would need to move to noon or 3:30.
LikeLike
Right. My point was ESPN would love ND. 3:30 OTA is SEC. One other OTA window will likely be SEC too. That leaves one OTA window for ACC, Big 12, AAC, etc. I don’t think they can slide in all 7 ND games with their other commitments. Will ND want to regulate everything but their big games to cable? Will ESPN pay a premium to ND to do that?
CBS OTA can do noon or prime time. Does ND even want those start times? Will CBS pay a premium for ND at noon knowing its going up against Big Noon and the #2 SEC or Best ACC (or Big 12 etc). game? Will they pay a premium for ND at night knowing its going up against #2 SEC or Best ACC (or Big 12 etc). game (which ever wasn’t at noon) and the NBC Football Night Big Ten game.
NBC OTA has the afternoon window open. My guess is ND prefers that. Will NBC pay a premium knowing the ND games are going up against the best SEC game and the CBS Big Ten game?
Can ND get $60-70 million a year for 10 years for (looking ahead*) 5 vs USC, 1 vs Michigan St, 1 vs Arkansas, 2 vs Clemson, 2 vs Miami, 1 vs Alabama, 3 vs Florida St, 1 vs Florida, and 1 vs Michigan,
*IMO OTA level games 2026-2036. Assuming ND extends the USC series past 2026.
LikeLike
Marc – the 3;30p window on ABC is already promised to the SEC.
LikeLike
I am well aware of that. It would need to be other times on ABC, or on ESPN.
LikeLike
From The Athletic March 2, 2023
ACC revenue sharing: Discussing the league’s model and leverage for change
By Nicole Auerbach and Andy Staples
Florida State athletic director Michael Alford’s update to his school’s board of trustees Friday was part informative, part performative.
In a talk that generated headlines across ACC country, Alford pointed out the dire difference in projected conference revenue distributions between the ACC and the Big Ten and SEC once those leagues’ new media rights deals begin.
“At the end of the day, for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change moving forward,” Alford told the board.
The focus was on a $120 million exit fee that doesn’t take into account the possibility that a school trying to leave the ACC also might not be able to sell the rights to its home games until 2036 — a factor that could be worth hundreds of millions more. ACC schools, even those quite unhappy with the state of the league’s revenues, are not exactly ready to challenge the grant of rights that binds each school’s media rights to the ACC until the end of the 2035-36 school year.
But some of those schools are pushing for a change in the way the league distributes revenue. Talking exit fees might be sexier, but this was the meatiest thing Alford said:
“We’re working with the conference right now. We’re talking to them about how to create a revenue distribution model that takes in factors of who you are, how you produce, how you play, what your brand is. We’re working with other athletic directors on that. The president and I have sat in on some meetings on it. We’re working with the conference. Don’t know if we’re going to get there.”
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips told The Athletic that concerns about the league’s revenue generation are not new and the ACC has been looking for ways to innovate and find new revenue streams to enhance its business. He added that he’s had conversations with Disney/ESPN about “charting their course forward” and has sought new sponsorship opportunities, as well.
“I completely understand that there’s some frustration among member institutions, and that is why we’re working together to address these concerns,” Phillips said.
Asked specifically about discussions regarding unequal revenue sharing, Phillips said the ACC will continue to talk about it. The league’s spring meetings are in May.
“We talked a lot about it in the fall and in the winter, and we’ll continue to make that a topic of emphasis,” he said.
So what do the schools that fancy themselves as the biggest brands want? What do the other schools think about it? And what might actually happen?
Jim Phillips took over as ACC commissioner in 2021. (Jim Dedmon / USA Today)
What’s the genesis of the unequal revenue sharing proposal? Which schools are leading the charge?
Staples: This stems from a presentation given in early 2022 by Miami AD Dan Radakovich and Clemson athletic director Graham Neff — who worked together when Radakovich was Clemson’s AD — in which they laid out a plan that would produce an uneven distribution of revenue in the league instead of the one that splits revenues equally among the 14 full members and gives a smaller share to non-football member Notre Dame.
The ADs discussed the possibility of dividing new money such as the increased College Football Playoff payout that begins in 2024 a different way. Perhaps, they suggested, the schools that produced more successful teams could receive bonuses. That way, the schools that put teams in the CFP, major bowls or the NCAA basketball tournament might be rewarded for investing in their programs. This would incentivize investment rather than handing more money to certain schools based on a somewhat nebulous concept such as brand value. A school like Wake Forest, for example, might not have the strongest brand but might reap financial benefits because its investment in football (facilities and the retention of coach Dave Clawson) led directly to on-field success.
This presentation got a pretty tepid response from the ACC’s presidents when it was broached, but since then:
The Big Ten has locked down deals that will pay the league more than $1 billion a year.
Oklahoma and Texas have cut a deal with the Big 12 that will allow them to join the SEC in 2024.
The Big 12 reached a new deal with Fox and ESPN that will begin in 2025.
The world continues to change around the ACC, and that has fueled the desire of certain schools to find ways to narrow what will be a fairly large gap between the ACC’s revenue distribution and distributions that the Big Ten and SEC — which also share revenues equally — will send to their schools.
Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina are the most eager about a change. This makes sense. If ACC schools could shop themselves on the open market, these likely would be the most sought-after brands.
How do the others feel about this issue?
Auerbach: It might be underselling it a bit to say the presidents had a “tepid” response. I’ve been reminded a few times this week by folks in this league that the presidents are the ones who make this type of decision, not the ADs. And as recently as the league’s winter meetings a few weeks ago, the presidents do not seem to have any appetite for this. Even schools that have ADs supportive of change don’t necessarily have presidents with the same stance.
I don’t think anyone wants to take in less money than they’re making now just because. The question, really, is one of leverage. Do Florida State, Clemson and others have actual leverage right now? They’re locked into a deal with the ACC through 2036 that could cost more than $300 million (!) to get out of between the exit fees and the grant of rights. If those schools do not have offers in hand to join the Big Ten or the SEC, can they really force the rest of the conference to acquiesce on this?
For what it’s worth, I’m not sure shuffling around a few million dollars per year actually closes the revenue gaps Alford was talking about with his board. If FSU gets, say, $5 million more per year than it does now, does that actually close the gap it’s staring down with Florida or Georgia? Or is this more of a philosophical conversation?
If left unresolved, could member schools end up leaving the ACC?
Staples: Based on conversations with people in the league, it feels as if the gesture is considered more important than the actual money. There is an interesting bit of history here that traces back to the round of realignment that swept college sports a decade ago, combined with some far more recent consequences.
The Pac-10 had an uneven revenue-sharing arrangement based on television appearances that ended when Colorado and Utah joined and the league became the Pac-12. The launch of the Pac-12 Network also ushered in an age of even revenue sharing. This did not sit well with USC, which had benefited from the previous arrangement. USC leaders and donors agitated behind the scenes for a more beneficial deal and warned that continuing down the same path could lead the school to look elsewhere, but those warnings weren’t heeded. In June 2022, USC and UCLA announced they’d leave the Pac-12 for the Big Ten when the Pac-12 grant of rights expires in June 2024.
Texas and Oklahoma also once benefitted from an uneven revenue-sharing agreement in the Big 12. That league agreed on an equal sharing agreement as leaders fended off a raid from the Pac-10 and then-commissioner Larry Scott. Texas and Oklahoma didn’t begin to seriously consider jumping conferences until after Fox and ESPN declined to reopen negotiations for the Big 12 media rights deal in early 2021 (four years early). By July 2021, those schools had decided they’d leave for the SEC when the Big 12’s grant of rights expired. (After making a deal, they’ll be leaving a year early.)
Auerbach: Well, that’s an interesting and timely example! This era of college sports is very much focused on self-preservation, whether that’s jumping from one conference to another under the cover of darkness or asking for more money where you are. I get why it’s happening — everyone needs money to maintain the ability to compete at the highest level and also, dare I say it, they’ll need money to pay athletes directly if the business model changes. But it definitely leads to decisions made about what’s best for an individual school, not the bigger picture of what’s best for that school’s conference or college sports nationally as a whole.
Staples: The point of all this, in the minds of those at the schools pushing for a bigger share, is that if something isn’t done to accommodate them, they could leave for another conference. That may not be until 10 or 13 years from now, but they will point out that 2023 felt an eternity away from 2012. And if they were to leave, the other schools wouldn’t enjoy the same level of prestige and income they do now.
It should be noted: An idea that originated with a former chair of Florida State’s board of trustees directly contributed to the grant of rights that has the Seminoles and the other unhappy programs locked in with the ACC until 2036.
In May 2012, then-Florida State board chair Andy Haggard told Warchant.com that the school should consider joining the Big 12.
“How do you not look into that option?” Haggard told the site. “On behalf of the board of trustees, I can say that unanimously we would be in favor of seeing what the Big 12 might have to offer. We have to do what is in Florida State’s best interest.”
Those comments sounded alarm bells throughout the league. Five months later, ACC charter member Maryland decided to leave for the Big Ten. That pushed the situation to DEFCON 1. Louisville was chosen shortly after to replace Maryland. At that point, the vast majority of members wanted to ensure the ACC stayed together as long as possible. So in early 2013, they made a deal to add Notre Dame’s non-football sports and schedule five football games against the Fighting Irish every season. Then all 15 members agreed to a grant of rights that would run concurrent to the ACC’s media rights deal. That grant of rights was later extended to the end of the 2035-36 academic year in the deal with Disney/ESPN that created the ACC Network.
Then-commissioner John Swofford was asked in 2013 to make a deal that provided long-term security, and boy did he deliver. But the long-term consequences were that the ACC can’t put its rights on the open market while other leagues get multiple bites at the apple. And that is the primary source of frustration for the schools that want an uneven share.
How should the schools that want change pitch revenue distribution to the conference?
Auerbach: I do think revenue distribution tied to the upcoming expanded CFP is different and perhaps an easier battle to fight. It’s a new revenue source, so you aren’t asking the Boston Colleges of the world to take less money than they make right now. And it incentivizes those programs that invest in football at the highest level. It reminds me of the arrangement the Gonzaga men’s basketball program has had with the West Coast Conference since 2018. Basically, the Zags get to eat what they kill; they retain more of the revenue they earn for the deep runs in the NCAA Tournament as opposed to evenly splitting tourney money with all WCC members. You could certainly do something similar with the ACC and the CFP, but again I’m not sure it solves the underlying issue of a $30 million annual revenue difference between ACC schools and those in the leagues we’re already calling the Power 2. That’s going to pile up year over year.
If you’re just telling others to admit that they are less valuable than you are and accept a smaller slice of the pie, it’s not going to work. You’d be asking university presidents and athletic directors to come back to their campuses and admit they agreed to take less money, which puts their school in a worse position in the present and future. They won’t do that, especially if it’s just to keep a few peers satisfied. I’m also not really sure that acquiescing to the demands of FSU and Clemson would stop them from leaving you a decade-plus from now anyway.
So … how do the schools that want more incentivize the others to go along with their plan? Or, I guess more accurately, one of their plans?
Staples: This is where I struggle. A threat to leave in 2034, or some year close to the end of the grant of rights, should feel like a real consequence. There is a potential future where the Big Ten or SEC wants to add more quality brands, and Clemson, Florida State, Miami and North Carolina would be candidates for one or both. (So might NC State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Louisville and Virginia, for that matter.)
For schools such as Boston College, Duke and Syracuse, this is considered a fight for survival at this level of college sports. But it will be the people at those schools who make those decisions. What is the average length of an athletic director’s tenure? Of a university president’s tenure? Should any of these people reasonably expect to be in their positions in 2034? And if not, how incentivized would they be to care about the long-term health of the league? Also, what if the schools pushing for uneven distribution get what they want now and just leave anyway when the time comes? Then, if you are still in that role, you’re an AD or university president who gave away money for nothing.
Phillips, who did nothing to cause this but is getting paid to manage it, probably worries deeply about the long-term health of the league. He certainly wouldn’t want to be the commissioner who presided over the league’s breakup. Nor does he want to have to deal for the next decade with dug-in factions who fundamentally disagree on a major issue.
What is the end game?
Auerbach: I’m not entirely sure. Maybe it’s just keeping this issue top of mind — so that it continues to be discussed in ACC meeting rooms and outside of ’em? I can understand the pressure that an AD at FSU or Clemson may feel from their board or from prominent boosters to get this type of message out there publicly.
Andy, you and I see the anxiety and hear the chatter from fan bases across the country every day. Everyone’s worried about revenue, stratification and falling behind. So it may help fans to hear your leaders fighting for more. But I’m also not sure there’s going to be enough of an impetus here to force change.
Of course, another potential outcome is that someone actually decides to challenge the grant of rights in court.
Staples: If that happens, things could get very messy. But I don’t think anyone is ready to take that leap quite yet.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Staples: How would a school challenge a grant of rights? We asked a lawyer (who happens to have ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 copies)
By Andy Staples Jul 1, 2022
When he learned this week that he was one of only a few people in possession of a copy of the ACC’s original grant of rights agreement, Mark Wilhelm took another look at it. He also examined copies of the Big 12 and Pac-12’s agreements, which he obtained around the same time period as a Villanova law student authoring an article on conference grant of rights agreements that would appear in 2014 in the Harvard Law School Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law.
“If you came to me in my normal practice, and you said, ‘Mark, I want to draft an agreement that does this sort of thing. Can you put something together?’ My gut reaction is that we’re looking at a 20-, 40-, 50-page document,” said Wilhelm, who earned his law degree in 2015 and now handles corporate mergers and acquisitions cases at Philadelphia firm Troutman Pepper. “Because there are a lot of terms, a lot of situations we want to consider — a lot of exceptions we want to include. That’s not what these documents are. These documents are a couple pages.”
Those few pages — especially the ones that make up the ACC’s agreement — could hold the key to this most recent round of college sports realignment. When USC and UCLA announced their move to the Big Ten on Thursday, it pulled the pin on what could be the most chaotic, transformative period in the history of college sports. Geography truly no longer matters. There are two leagues (the Big Ten and the SEC) that everyone wants to join, and in the next income bracket down, there is a mad scramble to either find a ladder to the two big-money conferences or to create the most lucrative next best thing. On Friday, the Pac-12’s presidents authorized an exploration of expansion. More movement is coming, and it’s coming fast.
How that movement happens — and who moves where — depends in large part on whether the ACC’s agreement holds. Unlike the other two, which end when their respective leagues’ media rights deals expire in 2024* and 2025, the ACC’s grant of rights lasts until June 30, 2036.
What’s a grant of rights? In the world of college sports, it’s an agreement in which schools agree to transfer their media rights to their conference for a set period of time. For example, Baylor’s agreement to be part of the Big 12’s grant of rights means that the rights fee for any televised sporting event emanating from Baylor’s campus is owned by the Big 12 until the grant expires. Replace “Baylor” and “Big 12” with “North Carolina” and “ACC” or “Oregon State” and “Pac-12.” These agreements purport to be irrevocable, and for years the general consensus among college sports administrators is that challenging such an agreement would be too risky a proposition. But one such agreement stands between powerful Oklahoma and Texas and an earlier entry into their new home in the SEC. Meanwhile, leaders at some ACC members stare at 14 more years of an ever-widening income gap with schools that once received similar television money and wonder if they can afford to wait.
*It’s no accident that UCLA and USC will join the Big Ten in 2024. That is exactly when the Pac-12 grant of rights expires.
The ACC agreement Wilhelm had — which is linked below in this story — is the original grant of rights. He obtained it in 2014 through an open records request to the University of North Carolina while writing that journal article. The agreement he received appears to be the copy that then-UNC chancellor Holden Thorp signed and sent back to the conference. The document contained signature pages for each school’s CEO, which would allow the signed pages to be combined into one fully executed document. The agreement was drafted in 2013 just after Louisville announced it would join the league and Notre Dame joined in all sports except football. Members were nervous after the Big Ten poached charter member Maryland, and at the time, their desire to keep the league intact superseded any interest in future flexibility. They were scared of the league being pillaged, and they wanted stability. That original agreement ran through June 30, 2027. It was amended in 2016 when the ACC extended its media rights deal with Disney/ESPN. That most recent deal allowed for the creation of the ACC Network. Multiple sources who have seen both said the language in the agreements is similar.
What’s also similar is the language in the original ACC agreement compared to the language in the Big 12 agreement forged a year earlier. Several passages appear to be copied verbatim. This includes a key section titled “Miscellaneous” in each that likely would be of particular interest to anyone wishing to break the agreement.
“This agreement may not be modified or amended other than by an agreement in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Conference and each of the Member Institutions that are then members of the Conference,” reads the first sentence of that section in the Big 12 grant of rights and in the original ACC grant of rights.
How many schools would have to agree to amend the agreement in writing is the key question, but it’s safe to assume that it would take something fairly catastrophic to convince a majority of schools in any league to move to dissolve their grant of rights.
So if a school wanted to challenge a grant of rights, it likely would assume considerable financial risk. For Texas or Oklahoma, it could mean a year or two of forfeited television money if either challenged the Big 12’s deal and failed. For an ACC school that tried and failed, the forfeited TV revenue would run into the hundreds of millions. But the current financial stakes may have changed the math. The Big Ten’s next media rights deal, which will begin a year from Friday, could ultimately allow the league to pay out as much as $100 million per school per year. It’s safe to assume that the SEC and Big Ten will each soon be able to pay out at least $70 million per school per year. The ACC distributed an average of $36.1 million per school for the 2020-21 school year.
So how would a school challenge a grant of rights? Wilhelm offered some general guidance. His firm wouldn’t allow him to comment on any league’s specific deal, but since these agreements are similar to ones he sees in his practice, he had a few ideas.
Wilhelm said there are four ways to challenge such a deal.
The first would be for the school to simply leave the conference and leave its rights behind. This is likely a non-starter because without its rights, that school is of considerably less value to another league. The new league wouldn’t be allowed to sell that school’s rights to a network, which likely would put an end to any potential marriage.
The second option is for the school to sue to try to get the rights back. This also would be exceptionally risky. “That’s going to be incredibly expensive,” Wilhelm said, “and there is not a lot of certainty that a school is going to win.”
If a school was willing to take the risk, it might claim the grant of rights isn’t a valid contract. That may sound silly. You can read three such contracts here. But it’s more complicated than that.
For something to be a contract, it must have three components: an offer, an acceptance and consideration. If I walk into a store and buy a pack of gum, my receipt is a valid contract. The store has offered me gum at a specific price. I have accepted those terms. I have given the store that amount of money, and the store has given me the pack of gum.
In the grant of rights, the school has given the conference something of value — its media rights. But what has the conference given the school? It’s not the money for those media rights. That comes from one or several networks based on the terms of the conference’s deal with the network(s). The school’s attorneys could argue that an entirely separate contract covers that consideration.
Meanwhile, the attorneys for the conference and the remaining schools could argue that the consideration the school received was stability in an unstable time.
But first, Wilhelm pointed out, any school challenging any of the grant of rights deals would have to figure out where to sue. This goes back to the brevity of the contracts themselves. “There’s nothing inherently wrong with that,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it’s a bad contract or that it’s unenforceable or anything like that. But what you have is a situation where you’re tying up potentially billions of dollars of rights in three or four pages. That leaves a lot of questions about what everybody was agreeing to at the time.”
One key question: Which state’s law governs the deal? If I look at my employment agreement with The Athletic, it tells me that it is governed by the laws of the state of California. There is no such clause in any of these deals. This, to Wilhelm, is a feature rather than a bug. It adds another layer of complexity for any entity wishing to challenge the deal. “So before we even get to the arguing about ‘Is this a contract’ or ‘Is this enforceable,’ we have to first figure out what court we’re supposed to be in,” Wilhelm said. “And lawyers will spend months arguing about what court you’re going to be in and — even when you’re in the court — what law applies.”
See why even Oklahoma and Texas — with all their fancy lawyers — haven’t challenged the Big 12’s grant of rights? It’s a lot of (expensive) work with no guarantee of success and a steep price for failure. Of course, if the schools could get the cases tried in their states, they might have a better chance of winning. This is especially true if they have friends in the state legislature who can help adjust the state’s contract laws. But again, that is no guarantee.
A much less risky (but probably still expensive) option is to try to negotiate a deal with the conference and the remaining members for an exit fee that is less than the full amount that would be forfeited. That exit fee would allow a school to leave with its rights intact.
While ACC members would be unlikely to agree to such a deal if a few of their schools wished to leave, this seems like the logical route for Oklahoma and Texas should they wish to join the SEC when that league’s new media rights deal begins in 2024. The Sooners and Longhorns could offer a payment that would allow the remaining Big 12 members to receive either an equal amount or more than they would have received had Oklahoma and Texas stayed until 2025, then it would seem reasonable that the other schools would let them leave with their rights. (Unless they really want to be spiteful, which is their right.)
The fourth option? Hope the league dissolves and the grant of rights dissolves with it. In the ACC, that would require the majority of the members to want to leave. That seems unlikely. But what about the Big 12 and Oklahoma and Texas? The Pac-12 could respond to the loss of USC and UCLA by trying to scoop up Big 12 members. The leagues could merge and form an entirely new entity. If that happened, the Sooners and Longhorns could be free to go.
Meanwhile, the grant of rights concept could prove useful elsewhere. If Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff wants to know if any more schools are attempting to leave his conference, he can make a request that the 10 remaining schools sign a new grant of rights agreement that extends to some point in the distant future. The schools that want to stay will jump at the chance to sign. If, say, Oregon or Washington or Utah or Cal or Stanford were exploring whether they might be candidates to join the Big Ten, they’d ask to hold off on signing such a document.
Because if they did, they’d be signing a very short contract with some very long repercussions.
LikeLike
A pretty good summary that shows the GoR is effectively unbreakable. It provides four options, but all are risky, unappealing, or obvious non-starters.
If Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff wants to know if any more schools are attempting to leave his conference, he can make a request that the 10 remaining schools sign a new grant of rights agreement that extends to some point in the distant future. The schools that want to stay will jump at the chance to sign.
I am guessing Kliavkoff does not need to request a GoR, to know that several of his schools would leave for the right offer. I think he also knows that he won’t get a “distant” GoR. Why would any conference repeat the ACC’s mistake?
Rumors are that UW and UO want an explicit out that permits them to join the B10 at any time. Even without that, I don’t see them going farther than 7 years from now, to align with the B10’s new deal.
LikeLike
Additionally, wouldn’t an “out option” for, say, Washington and Oregon defeat the purpose of a GOR? The GOR says that the conference offers a specific package of games for a specific length of time. That’s what a TV network bids on. But if couple of top brands can opt out after a couple of years, that would obviously dilute the value of the package.
LikeLike
If there is an out clause in the GOR any media company bidding will insist on a reduction in payout or right to cancel if the conference membership changed during the duration of the deal.
LikeLike
Grants of rights are fairly recent: many TV deals have been signed without a GoR, and not all conferences have them. Instead, the deal would contain a clause allowing either party to re-open if the composition of the conference changes. In fact, that was how these deals used to work all the time.
LikeLike
This is interesting. John Skipper (former ESPN Pres) thinks the ACC should expand with 8 PAC teams. He says the expansion should force a relegation with ESPN and would automatically expand the ACCN’s revenue. Additional discussion on Florida St/ ACC/GOR and comparing CFB economics to MLB and the Premier League.
LikeLike
*relegation = renegotiation (autocorrect)
LikeLike
The NCAA Needs to Fix Its Own Athlete-Compensation Problems, Its New President Says
Former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker said the NCAA can’t count on Congress to establish rules to govern the chaotic world of endorsements for college athletes
By Laine Higgins Wall Street Journal
March 1, 2023 9:00 am ET
The National Collegiate Athletic Association needs to make its own rules to govern the chaotic landscape that has developed around athlete compensation, incoming president Charlie Baker said in an interview—regardless of whether Congress establishes a national standard for paying athletes, as his predecessor long urged.
Baker, the former governor of Massachusetts, is taking over the NCAA less than two years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NCAA had violated antitrust law by capping education-related benefits available to athletes. The case, along with pressure from athletes and state legislatures, kicked the door open to a new era in which college athletes for the first time could cash in on their name, image and likeness.
Baker’s predecessor, Mark Emmert, claimed that the association was effectively powerless to write its own rules in this new era, insisting that congressional action was necessary to standardize the patchwork of state laws governing sponsorship deals for athletes.
At the same time, the NCAA was reluctant to enforce what few parameters it had set for athlete compensation. The result was increasingly brazen deal making in which boosters offered the lure of endorsements to attract top athletes, with no one regulating the space.
But Baker, who took over on March 1, indicated that the NCAA can’t count on Congress to act and needs to make a concerted effort to fix its own problems.
“I’ve heard enough from the membership during my runway here that I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people in the membership at the NCAA who would like to see us take a run at that,” Baker said.
Baker’s stance is something of a surprise given the reasons he was hired in the first place. When his appointment was announced last December, Baylor University President and NCAA Board of Directors Chairwoman Linda Livingstone cited Baker’s political background as being “invaluable as we work with policy makers to build a sustainable model for the future of college athletics.”
One explanation for his stance is how clear it has been that Congress is unlikely to come to the NCAA’s rescue. In a divided Congress, even legislation that both parties agree to prioritize faces an uphill climb. Many key lawmakers have signaled they do not believe college sports legislation is a priority, that they are skeptical of the NCAA’s arguments on a variety of issues, and that there is little consensus around any particular policy that they would pursue. Amy Perko—chief executive of the Knight Commission for Intercollegiate Athletics, an advocacy group that aims to reform inequities in college sports—called relying on Congress a “Hail Mary strategy” for addressing the NCAA’s problems.
For now, Baker will try to establish a better relationship with Congress even if he knows it’s unlikely to provide an immediate solution. Baker last month informed the association that he did not plan to relocate to NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis and would remain instead in Massachusetts and travel frequently. On Monday, he said that he planned to “spend a lot of time” on Capitol Hill. Baker also hired his former chief of staff Tim Buckley as NCAA senior vice president of external affairs to oversee government relations at the state and federal level.
Baker said that he believed he could succeed where Emmert failed in rallying the NCAA’s member schools because the context around athlete compensation had changed.
“Politics is partly about an idea, but it’s also partly about timing,” Baker said. He added that setting rules for name, image and likeness “would have been a hard issue for the NCAA to figure out at a membership level until they actually saw what it looked like.”
The NCAA is also ensnared in a debate over whether athletes should become employees of the institutions for which they compete, a move that might allow them to share in the billions of dollars in revenue they help generate for their universities.
In a lawsuit in the Philadelphia-based Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Johnson v. NCAA, the plaintiffs argue that college athletes should be considered employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and should be paid an hourly wage for their time in practice and competition. At a hearing in February, judges appeared skeptical of the NCAA’s arguments.
The National Labor Relations Board is also pursuing charges of unfair labor practices in a complaint brought by athlete advocacy group the National College Players Association against the University of Southern California, the Pac-12 Conference and the NCAA.
Yet Baker didn’t cite the employment question as a top priority or say whether he supports or opposes reclassifying athletes in some or all sports as employees. He acknowledged that the topic came up frequently in the months after his appointment.
“I had a lot of athletes tell me they don’t want to be employees,” he said. “I think there are real consequences to turning a student athlete at any level into an employee and I think people should think real hard about that. Which is not to say I don’t think student athletes, particularly those in revenue-positive sports, shouldn’t be supported with additional benefits. That is a different issue in my mind.”
Baker, who has an extensive background in the public health sector, said that he is committed to making progress in providing improved medical and mental-health support for athletes, and cited both areas as major priorities. He supported the proposals put forth by the NCAA transformation committee in January that seek to broaden medical coverage for former athletes after graduation and beef up mental health resources on campus.
“The transformation committee did a lot of work on this. The board voted for it. We need to make sure that it actually happens,” Baker said.
LikeLike
Former Fox Sports exec Pat Crake says a superleague is coming, realignment just delayed it. He also talks about the P12 deal, the ACC, realignment, unequal revenue sharing, and other issues.
LikeLike
Really good comments early on about the casual viewer (ie most viewers) viewing habits and why cable works much better than streaming for attracting those.
LikeLike
https://www.solidverbal.com/episodes/the-pac-12s-existential-crisis/
Brett McMurphy on the Solid Verbal podcast about all things P12 and more realignment.
LikeLike
Tomorrow’s news today. Premature news release from Purdue University. I continue to believe that Mitch Daniels is a strong contender for Big Ten commish.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2023/Q1/purdues-next-big-move-the-mitchell-e.-daniels,-jr.-school-of-business.html
LikeLike
Purdue is renaming the Krannert School. The story does not indicate a new job for Daniels.
LikeLike
bob sykes: “Purdue is renaming the Krannert School. The story does not indicate a new job for Daniels.”
I didn’t say that it did. But Daniels is currently unemployed, he knows all of the Big Ten presidents, he’s politically connected, he’s been cited as a commish candidate and he’s a budget wonk.
Actually my personal choice it Tim Pernetti. He was a tight end at Rutgers, former AD at Rutgers, has a lot of background with TV and firsthand experience with the zealots promoting the LGBTQ agenda.
LikeLike
ESPN looking to help users find sports streams – even on its rivals.
ESPN has reportedly held talks with big sports leagues and media partners about offering a digital feature that will link its users directly to where a live event is streaming – whether or not that streamer is an ESPN competitor.
That could address a lingering pain point for live sports viewers: trying to figure out where exactly they need to be to see a given event, in an age when sports rights regularly change hands in big-dollar deals.
The sports network could send visitors to ESPN.com or its free ESPN app over to national/global streamers making increasing inroads into sports, such as Apple TV+ (AAPL) or Amazon Prime Video (AMZN), or to regional sports networks such as Bally Sports+ (SBGI) or MSG+ (MSGE), CNBC reported.
They’re early talks meant to gauge enthusiasm from the leagues and media companies, according to the report. But one model under consideration would send ESPN a cut of subscription revenue for users who sign up for another streaming service via ESPN.
And alerting users to events airing in linear TV could create a comprehensive TV guide to live sports.
LikeLike
That issue is the one that triggered my comment above about the interview with the Fox exec.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35762510/college-football-realignment-acc-big-money-battle
More on the ACC and unequal revenue distribution.
Over the past two years, a number of schools have sent teams of lawyers to examine the official grant of rights document, either looking for a potential pathway out or assurances that the biggest brands can’t leave without a serious fight.
As one administrator told ESPN, those reviews have established several potentially compelling arguments for breaking the agreement but have uncovered no obvious loophole that would provide a pathway out without engaging in protracted litigation.
“Is it worth the paper it’s written on?” one AD said. “If one school starts to leave, then another, how strong is it? It would involve a major legal battle.”
And as one athletic director pointed out, it would also require another conference to extend an invitation to join before knowing whether it would have rights to broadcast that team’s games. It’s a legal Catch-22.
But for all the bluster — and at least one ACC athletic director considered Alford’s comments little more than playing to his fan base — the public statements were intended more as a warning than a threat.
…
Several other administrators who spoke to ESPN quibbled with Alford’s exact numbers, but mostly agreed with his larger point: The teams serious about football deserve more because they’re bringing in more.
“I think the schools who are helping create the revenue should have an opportunity to participate in the revenue more than they are right now, rather than just slicing the pie the way it is in equal shares.” Miami athletic director Dan Radakovich said. “Rewarding success is a great motivator.”
…
Yet, after lengthy discussions at the ACC’s winter meetings, ADs emerged without anything approaching consensus on a new distribution plan, something that would require a two-thirds majority vote. Indeed, they can’t even agree on what to call the plan — “weighted distribution,” as one AD said, “alternative revenue,” as the league called it or “unequal” as most administrators opposing the plan have said.
“I truly believe we have made progress,” Phillips said. “It’s a primary discussion point every time we get together. Not everybody liked all of the discussion or agreed with everything said, but we left there agreeing to continue to put together options to consider as a league. We went from never discussing it to having subcommittees to help drive the conversation.”
During conversations about revising the revenue distribution plan, the league has run the numbers on a number of potential options, according to multiple sources involved in the talks, most of which involve a complicated formula that includes items like total scholarships offered, brand power, academic success and on-field success.
As one administrator at a smaller ACC school noted, however, revenue is a problem everywhere.
…
Estimates shared by sources with knowledge of the discussions suggest a net shift of between $250,000 and $3 million annually — “pocket change,” as one AD called it — leading some administrators to wonder if it’s worth all the trouble.
“Philosophically, I believe that what’s good for one should be good for everyone,” one athletic director said. “Otherwise, you get a lot of disparity. The big thing is, if you’re making an extra $2 million because you went to the College Football Playoff, if you get asked to be in another league, like UCLA and USC did, it doesn’t matter. That’s not going to change your decision. They’re gone. So it’s not preventing what people are kind of concerned about, which is, if there was continued super expansion, people are gone.
“If you start creating those types of models within your own conference, are you really looking out for what’s best for the Big Ten or the ACC or fill in the blank? Or are you looking out for what’s best for you?”
…
And yet, as another AD noted, a change to revenue distribution is less about solving the big-picture problem and more about the principle — about getting every school on board with the idea that the status quo isn’t sustainable. As it stands, the ACC is holding steady — the No. 3 league in the Power 5, as Phillips has noted routinely — and too many of the league’s members seem content with that.
“In the last two years, we’ve seen two of our neighbors’ houses catch fire,” the AD lamented, “and we keep thinking ours won’t be next.”
Last year, the ACC hired a consulting firm, FishBait Solutions, to address the bigger-picture revenue concerns, but several ACC power brokers who spoke with ESPN lamented the incremental steps forward — hosting concerts or other events at school-owned venues or working to activate new multimedia content options — might provide tens of thousands, when the gap with the SEC and Big Ten is tens of millions.
The revenue distribution changes could open the door to expansion, too — allowing the ACC to potentially pay newer members a smaller share of the total — but those talks have largely fallen flat, according to multiple sources. While the league has run numbers on what several potential expansion options might add to the pie, none looked like a financial bonanza, and several ADs were reluctant to see the league grow amidst so much turmoil both inside and outside the ACC.
LikeLike
“I truly believe we have made progress,” (ACC Commish Jim) Phillips said.”
Is that a joke?
“Last year, the ACC hired a consulting firm, FishBait Solutions, to address the bigger-picture revenue concerns . . .”
Is THAT a joke?
LikeLike
What I have not seen discussed is an attempt by one or more schools to get a judgment that the GOR is not valid, without actually leaving the conference. There must be a problem with this, since schools with access to the agreement have not even mentioned it, to the best of my limited knowledge.
It seems that the schools could argue that they are harmed by the GOR, but should not be forced to face total disaster if the GOR is upheld.
One other factor is that in any litigation, it would not necessarily only be funded by one school. In theory, FSU, Clemson, Miami and anyone else interested could put together a litigation pot. Of course, they would need to be very certain that they have places to land.
An overlying issue remains to be what will be left of these schools in 2034 or so if nothing changes. Can Clemson and FSU really pretend to be national powers if they are $30 million plus per year behind their competition? Do either of them have donor pools so big that they can make up a good bit of the difference?
We know that Texas A&M does with its $96 million NIL fund, but how many other schools could survive that long?
That may be a factor that brings ESPN to the table at least a few years early. If lack of money means that there are no longer any top ACC teams, how much is the TV contract worth?
LikeLike
Bernie,
“What I have not seen discussed is an attempt by one or more schools to get a judgment that the GOR is not valid, without actually leaving the conference. There must be a problem with this, since schools with access to the agreement have not even mentioned it, to the best of my limited knowledge.”
Would the act of challenging it count as demonstrating an intention to leave the conference, and thus cost them their status as a member that gets paid from the TV rights? I’ve seen that said here and elsewhere.
“It seems that the schools could argue that they are harmed by the GOR, but should not be forced to face total disaster if the GOR is upheld.”
The GOR got them the ACCN, so they’ve been helped by it. None of the schools have offers to go anywhere else, so how do they show harm? They are getting paid more than some P5 conferences.
“One other factor is that in any litigation, it would not necessarily only be funded by one school. In theory, FSU, Clemson, Miami and anyone else interested could put together a litigation pot. Of course, they would need to be very certain that they have places to land.”
But again, they risk not getting paid for 13 years if they lose. And winning could cost so much in legal fees that they can’t afford it.
“|An overlying issue remains to be what will be left of these schools in 2034 or so if nothing changes. Can Clemson and FSU really pretend to be national powers if they are $30 million plus per year behind their competition?”
Money doesn’t buy you success, or else IU would also be a football power. Top G5 schools manage to make the CFP or NY6 with a lot less money than the top programs. The right coach can definitely win at FSU or Clemson despite trailing in money. Also, let’s not forget that as of now Clemson spends more on football than OSU does despite the financial gap. Those schools will make all the non-revenue sports suffer to keep their football teams competitive.
Clemson and FSU only have 20 sports (Clemson adds #20 in 2023-24). OSU has 36. Those extra 16 teams will eat up much of the gap. It’s the SEC schools that have the chance to pull away.
“Do either of them have donor pools so big that they can make up a good bit of the difference?”
I don’t think so, but you never know when a billionaire will make a big donation. Miami has one. Duke has some. UNC probably does.
“We know that Texas A&M does with its $96 million NIL fund, but how many other schools could survive that long?”
And look at how much success TAMU has had with all their money.
“That may be a factor that brings ESPN to the table at least a few years early. If lack of money means that there are no longer any top ACC teams, how much is the TV contract worth?”
Every penny. They still get games against ND and SEC teams, plus the ACC teams can be competitive with the B12 and P12 as well as each other. That means they’ll have multiple ranked teams.
LikeLike
Brian, my basic point was an attempt to get a declaratory judgement saying that they could get a ruling on the enforceability of the GOR, without actually breaching.
IF they could get that type of judgment the risk drops dramatically.
Declaratory orders determining what would happen under certain circumstances are hard to get, but they do exist. I am not saying that the teams would win, but I have not seen it discussed, and there may be a good reason for that. They might be sure that the argument is a loser. I am not saying that this works for sure and probably doesn’t, but I have to believe that it has been discussed.
Brian, the risk is, of court, that challenging could be viewed as an anticipatory breach of contract and open the flood gates of damages. My question is whether that could be avoided and I certainly do not know the answer.
And yes, any team that tried that would need to be very comfortable about a place to land.
My argument was not that there was no consideration to FSU, etc., though I have seen that analysis. That is why in this scenario, the value of the ACCN or GOR are not at issue.
The harm comes in the length of the contract. Right now only the SEC and B1G are way ahead. In a few years, the Big 12 could get much more. No one knows what happens to the PAC. If the contract ended in 2030, rather than 2036, totally different situation (maybe).
LikeLike
When it gets into the legal weeds, I leave it to you lawyers to hash out. I have no idea what may or may not be an option. A few lawyers have written articles on the subject, but there doesn’t seem to be any consensus. Frank contends that’s intentional – the unknown is what make a GoR so scary to everyone.
“The harm comes in the length of the contract.”
That’s only harm if they are underpaid, plus both sides agreed in advance and had good legal counsel when they did so. It was known at the time that media rights go up in value. Plus the ACC was explicitly compensated for the extra length (extension got them the ACCN and the revenue it generates). If they want out early, they should at least have to give back the money and the exposure of the ACCN and reimburse ESPN for the expense of running it.
LikeLike
Bernie, everyone has access to the GOR’s of the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12. They are listed below. You may not be able to open those links, but I can.
Click to access ACC-Grant-of-Rights-1.pdf
Click to access Big-12-Grant-of-Rights-1.pdf
Click to access Pac-12-Grant-of-Rights.pdf
LikeLike
In theory, FSU, Clemson, Miami and anyone else interested could put together a litigation pot. Of course, they would need to be very certain that they have places to land.
There’s the fatal flaw. It is entirely possible (in fact, likely) that neither the SEC nor the Big Ten wants to expand again right now. But they certainly won’t expand with a GOR hanging over their heads, since those schools are worthless without their media rights.
So it’s a Catch-22. The schools won’t get an invitation with their media rights in limbo. But if you don’t have an invitation, what exactly do you gain by suing, even assuming you could win? Maybe you get the right to move at a later date, but if the invitation doesn’t come, then you’ve sued for nothing.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/03/wilner-pac-12-media-rights-our-final-predictions-for-the-revenue-media-partners-expansion-decisions-and-more/
Wilner’s predictions for the P12:
In October, we set a valuation range of $38 million to $42 million per school for the reconfigured Big 12 and $35 million to $40 million per school for the Pac-12. The former had a slight advantage because of its tremendous basketball product.
Then the Big 12 renewed its agreement with ESPN and Fox instead of taking its rights to the market — a smart play by commissioner Brett Yormark because of the security it provided with the conference’s longtime network partners.
It also reset (i.e., lowered) the market for the Pac-12.
The midpoints of our October estimates were $37.5 million for the Pac-12 and $40 million for the Big 12. Put another way, we valued the former at 94 percent of the latter.
If we apply that comparative value using the Big 12’s actual average annual value ($31.7 million per school), we arrive at $29.7 million per school for the Pac-12.
And look what we have here: The Pac-12’s current deal with Fox and ESPN averages $20.8 million per school while the Big 12’s current agreement averages $22 million — the former is about 94 percent of the latter.
…
Our sense is the presidents don’t look at the streaming giants with the wariness that might exist in other conferences. They would view partnerships as enhancing deeper connections than mere broadcast agreements.
That said, the conference needs its best football games on linear platforms (either broadcast or cable networks) in order to maximize reach to mainstream fans.
As a result, the Hotline expects a media deal with ESPN and either Apple or Amazon, and we wouldn’t rule out the possibility for both companies to be involved.
…
Multiple sources believe the Pac-12 is considering three options for membership structure: add four schools, add two schools or don’t add any schools.
The final decision depends on the media deal and the relationship between inventory and valuation — whether the ability to play more games (e.g., a weekly Friday night kickoff) will increase revenue for the existing members.
Our view of the outcomes:
— Two schools: 50 percent
— Zero schools: 45 percent
— Four schools 5 percent
LikeLike
If Wilner’s estimates are correct, the Pac-12 will likely remain together. If they get to within 94% of the Big XII payout, it’s not enough of a disparity for schools to move. But we have to take that with a grain of salt, because his previous estimate was way off base.
The Pac-12 currently is getting about 94% of the Big XII (per school), so it’s not crazy to think they could do it again. But the Big XII has added new programs that are way better than any the Pac-12 could add, so they might not be that close anymore. To do it, they’ll probably have to accept a lot of late-night games, Friday nights, and have more inventory on streaming platforms than any other P5 league.
At this point, I think the Pac-12 would be pretty happy with Wilner’s number. The fact there’s no such deal yet is pretty telling. Kliavkoff still has some work to do.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes he was off before, but he also overestimated the B12 deal. And many people felt the B12 took less to sign quickly, so his guess might have been decent if the B12 had gone to market.
The B12’s additions are better than those the P12 could add, but their losses were also worse. Losing UT and OU was a much bigger blow than USC and UCLA in terms of viewership and value losses.
I agree that if they had an offer for Wilner’s number, they’d have signed it already. I think part of the delay is dealing with all new potential partners like Apple and Amazon. The lawyers have a lot of new issues to discuss, and then there is the separate question of streaming vs linear coverage.
LikeLike
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/02/espn-live-sports-streaming-hub.html
ESPN has another plan for how to further dominate the sports world and crush the competition, this time by becoming the hub of sports streaming. I hope their competitors don’t believe ESPN is in this to help them out.
Disney’s ESPN wants to be the hub for all live sports streaming — even for its competition.
The sports network has held conversations with major sports leagues and media partners about launching a feature on ESPN.com and its free ESPN app that will link users directly to where a live sporting event is streaming, according to people familiar with the matter.
That could include national or global streaming services, such as Apple
TV+ and Amazon Prime Video, or a regional sports service such as Sinclair’s
Bally Sports+ or Madison Square Garden Entertainment’s MSG+.
The actual media partners haven’t yet been determined, and there’s no timeline on when such a feature would launch, said the people, who asked not to be named because the discussions are private. Still, ESPN has broached the idea to the major sports leagues and media companies to gauge their enthusiasm, the people said.
While the business terms of the concept could still change, ESPN has considered a model in which it would take a cut of subscription revenue from a user who signed up for a streaming service through the ESPN app or website, two of the people said. If a customer already subscribes to a given service, ESPN would collect no money and just provide the link as a courtesy, people familiar with the matter said.
ESPN may also alert users to games that air on linear TV, cementing its new role as the TV guide of live sports, the people said.
…
Several owners of regional sports networks have expressed particular optimism about the idea as they try to boost subscription revenue while leagues question the larger industry’s business prospects in a streaming-dominated ecosystem, two of the people said.
…
ESPN wants to use its self-proclaimed status as “the worldwide leader in sports” to become the de facto first stop for all consumers looking where to watch live sports, the people said. Currently, ESPN only links users to ESPN-licensed content. That amounts to almost 30% of all televised or streamed U.S. sports, according to people familiar with the matter.
ESPN’s willingness to promote other streaming services suggests a strategic shift in the streaming wars. Disney is less focused on gaining streaming subscribers — and eyeballs — at all costs. Company executives have emphasized they want investors to prioritize revenue and profit rather than subscriber growth, a trend started by other media companies, including Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery.
Media companies have also begun trading in lockstep as streaming growth has slowed. That’s limited competitive pressures and promoted working together. Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery are also emphasizing licensing content to rival streaming services to increase revenue rather than keep the content exclusive.
Of course, this would also mean all of these people are using ESPN’s app all the time and seeing built in ads/promotions that benefit ESPN only. Monopolies always work out well for the customer.
LikeLike
As you’ve noted before, the games get harder to find as they spread out to a larger number of platforms. ESPN is recommending what I imagine you’d do if you were running it yourself.
As it is now, the ESPN app, which I regularly use to check scores, tells you where to find a game, even if it’s not on one of their networks. Making it a clickable link is fairly obvious and logical. I don’t see how it’s better for the customer if the link is unclickable (as it is now).
LikeLike
If ESPN thinks it’s in their own best interests, then you know it isn’t in anyone else’s long term interests.
At first this would be a convenience, but that’s what people said about cable bundles too. Then we got stuck with local monopolies by Comcast and Charter and $200 bills for 1000 channels we don’t want. ESPN will find a way to profit from this at the expense of the consumer, guaranteed.
LikeLike
Welcome to capitalism — for there to be winners, there must be losers too. But I know of no economic law that says when a business is successful, it comes at the customer’s expense.
Consumers have more choices now than they ever did, partly because cable became too inflexible. A lot of consumers are still buying bundles, which suggests there’s real value to that, but some are throwing out cable and going back to rabbit ears. The market decides.
LikeLike
Marc,
“But I know of no economic law that says when a business is successful, it comes at the customer’s expense.”
Antitrust law is all about this. But in this case I was saying ESPN is luring its competitors into a trap, then the customers will eventually get screwed like they did in prior cases. In the end the people always get screwed. Then a new option comes along, seems better for a while, then it starts screwing the customer, …
LikeLike
Antitrust does not target all successful businesses, only particular ones that engage in specific types of unfair anticompetitive behavior.
LikeLike
I didn’t say it did apply to all businesses, but it is a relevant economic law.
And ESPN becoming a monopoly sports streamer would push up against it, especially when some of its current competition is under threat of being broken up by the government.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2023/03/02/detroit-mercy-antoine-davis-ncaa-basketball-scoring-record/11372819002/
Pistol Pete’s record may be safe. Antoine Davis shot 7/26 for 22 points to finish 4 points shy of the record. Detroit Mercy finished at 14-19 for the season, so there is a small chance the CBI might invite them.
“I would love to play in the CBI, NIT, something,” Davis said. “Not even for the record, just to go out on a better note.”
His father, Detroit Mercy coach Mike Davis, said an offer from one of those tournaments would be accepted if the team wanted to play in it.
“If they want to play, we’ll play,” Mike Davis said, via ESPN. “If they don’t want to play and it’s time to move on, we won’t play.”
Right, like any non-senior player would vote to not let the coach’s son get 1 more game and set an NCAA record. That would do wonders for their playing time next year.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel and Max Olson of The Athletic report that the Big XII is talking to the Four Corners schools:
Of course, all this purports to show is that Yormark and the Pac-12 schools are talking. They might as well. Taking Yormark’s phone call is cheap. No one knows how bad Kliavkoff’s deal has to be before they’d consider leaving.
LikeLike
I believe that in order to avoid tortious interference with a contract, the schools have to contact the new conference first. Of course, there can be all sorts of background signaling, but most likely the Four Corners asked the Big 12 for terms first.
LikeLike
Bob Sykes, Yup. That is why the schools always make the initial contacts.
LikeLike
I think that might be a myth. One obvious example is when Rutgers joined the Big Ten. They were only invited because Maryland wanted to join and Virginia, the league’s first choice for #14, said no. RU could not have known this was going on. The Big Ten surely initiated it.
It’s not a tort if Conference X merely asks School Y if they might be interested in talking about a switch. I am not aware of a case that says otherwise. The law seems to require something more malicious than merely an inquiry. Of course, schools seeking a better conference often do make their wandering wishes known.
LikeLike
Marc, that is simply incorrect. There is an article behind a pay wall at NJ.com reporting at length the several years that RU AD Tim Pernetti worked with Jim Delany trying to get RU into the B1G.
RU had a standing request to be invited, but the opportunity arose when Maryland was accepted. RU did not know the timing or circumstances, but an application for entry had been sitting in B1G offices for quite a while.
From the outside, we never know when those things happen, but the school has to move first. If not the league is inducing a breach of contract, which would be actionable.
If party A is in a “binding contract” with party B, how could it not be a tort if party C comes along and says forget about your current contract and bring your business existing contractually bound business to us?
That is a major part of the issue with the ACC GOR. If FSU or Clemson found a reasonably inexpensive way out, they would still need to have a new home. Neither the SEC nor B1G want to get into he middle of that mess. First, become a fee imminent free agent, then we can talk.
LikeLike
Very short additional comment. Syracuse and Pitt left the Big East in 2011. At that point it was clear that the league was doomed. Everyone was probably looking for a lifeboat from that moment on.
I am pretty sure that several remaining football teams in the BE, including, for example UConn, applied to the B1G. While RU was sort of behind the scenes, UConn was very open about it.
LikeLike
Making an inquiry to a conference is easy and low cost. Rutgers and most of the BE football members probably inquired about membership to the B1G, ACC, and B12. The B1G was the moonshot, ACC a realistic landing spot, and B12 since anywhere was better than the BE. There were reports that the B12 was considering Pitt, WV, and Louisville after TX A&M and Missouri were leaving for the SEC.
When the TX/OK to SEC news hit most B12 schools contacted the PAC. Most of the PAC schools contacted the B1G after the USC/UCLA announcement.
LikeLike
Bernie: “There is an article behind a pay wall at NJ.com reporting at length the several years that RU AD Tim Pernetti worked with Jim Delany trying to get RU into the B1G.”
No question that Pernetti orchestrated the Big Ten bid for Rutgers.
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/dyer-tim-pernetti-delivers-for-rutgers-again/
LikeLike
I will take your word for it that Pernetti orchestrated the bid, although no story I can find says so. (The public article that Colin linked says no such thing.) However, I will stand by the statement that there is no actionable tort—and you have provided none—if Conference X merely asks School Y if they are interested. Every case I could find of “tortious interference” had more to it than a mere passive inquiry. To say otherwise seems to be nonsense. There hasn’t been a case I have heard about that involved a collegiate athletics conference.
LikeLike
It was reported at the time that the Big 10, after Notre Dame turned down their offer in the 90s, was studying moving to 12 or 14 with Kansas, Missouri and Rutgers. Presumably, Rutgers was #14.
LikeLike
Marc, I would suggest that you subscribe to NJ.com and get past the paywall. The article was written by Jay Politi. Why does the fact that you have not heard of it make it less likely to be true? Really?
So you think that I invented it? Why exactly would I do that?
As far as the tortious interference, the fact that you have not heard of it among college teams is equally irrelevant. Maybe no conferences have approached schools to break contracts since they know that they will lose the subsequent litigation. Sort of like no teams have broken a GOR.
If that litigation were not a danger, why wouldn’t the SEC or B1G give FSU, for example, an open invitation to join as soon as they could? The SEC almost certainly wants Clemson, so why not publicly say so and invite Clemson ?
Why would it be a big issue for FSU, Clemson, etc., to take a move regarding the GOR while not knowing if they have a landing spot? That should be a non-issue. Certainly the SEC or B1G will invite FSU and yet neither has.
I assume that you are a lawyer and I am somewhat surprised that you would dismiss the tortious interference so easily. Personally, I have been involved in cases with that issue.
Oh my, NJ.com has taken the RU B1G story from behind the paywall. The story says that there was years of lobbying. Of course, you can also reject the story, which claims to be based on dozens of interviews. You presumably are not aware of the interviews either.
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2022/11/how-rutgers-crashed-the-big-ten.html
LikeLike
Bernie – while I’ve never handled a tortious interference case, how can tortious inference with a contract occur is the school and conference are discussing membership after the expiration of the current grant of rights?
Also, I think the strength of a GoR may be exaggerated based on OU & UT getting out of the B12 a year early. The retail price on a one year early exit was ~$120m each ($80m exit fee & $40m GoR penalty). They got for less than 1/2 of retail ($50m each and moving one game).
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Big 12 looking west, Pac-12 looking for a TV deal: What we’re hearing on realignment
By Max Olson and Stewart Mandel Mar 3, 2023
Last July, weeks after USC and UCLA’s stunning Big Ten announcement, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff made a bold realignment prediction: “No Pac-12 school is going to the Big 12.” Eight months later, we may finally learn whether his confidence was justified or false bravado.
Kliavkoff is facing pressure to deliver a new media rights deal to his members by the end of the month. If the dollar figures or the details are underwhelming, March may be the moment when the Big 12 finally strikes. Sources briefed on the discussions say the conference has been in recent contact with the so-called Four Corners schools — Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah — which has renewed optimism that convincing them to join is possible.
Brett Yormark has eyed westward expansion since the day he was hired as the Big 12’s new commissioner last summer. Yormark has never been shy about his interest in expanding the Big 12 into the “fourth time zone” to establish a truly national conference and boost the value of his league’s media rights. The arrival of BYU this summer will get the Big 12 into the Mountain Time Zone. Yormark wants more, though he has always said any additions need to be additive and not dilutive.
“I don’t think any of us are trying to dismantle the Pac-12,” Baylor athletic director Mack Rhoades told SicEm365 on Tuesday. “If there’s opportunity, and whenever their TV media deal comes to fruition and if those institutions decide that it’s not good for them, then the Big 12 will be ready. And that probably is as simple as I can say it.”
Yormark is also deep in discussions with Gonzaga, but sources involved in the process indicated he wants clarity on the Pac-12’s situation before making that move.
Since these expansion courtships began last summer, Yormark has been confident he can convince his targets that the future is brighter in the Big 12. He ramped up the pressure by jumping the Pac-12 in line and reaching an early extension with ESPN and Fox in October that will make his members more money than they do now with Oklahoma or Texas. That agreement will bring in a reported $31.7 million annually for each Big 12 member, setting a measuring stick for the Pac-12’s deal.
As The Athletic reported last month, Kliavkoff has been met with lukewarm interest in the marketplace. ESPN, Amazon and Apple are the only known suitors, and any deal will likely put the majority of the league’s events on an over-the-top streaming service. The Athletic’s Richard Deitsch reported there’s interest from Amazon in a weekly Friday night Pac-12 game but that the two sides were “far apart” in February. And the Pac-12’s timing couldn’t be worse. Just since last summer, networks have committed billions in future rights fees to the Big Ten and Big 12, and Disney’s cost-cutting CEO Bob Iger said in February that “we’re simply going to have to get more selective” in sports bidding.
Still, the sports consulting firm Navigate’s modeling projects the Pac-12’s average annual value at $31 million per school, barely less than the Big 12’s new deal. Although the Big 12 has larger fan bases, Pac-12 games on ABC, Fox, NBC and CBS averaged 20 percent higher ratings than comparable Big 12 games (excluding both leagues’ departing members) from 2014 to 2021, according to data provided to The Athletic.
Multiple people familiar with the Pac-12’s board members expressed doubt that their schools would switch conferences unless it’s for a substantially better deal. School presidents, not ADs, authorize realignment decisions, and the Pac-12’s prioritize academic and cultural fits more than most. Washington State president Kirk Schultz and Oregon State president Jayathi Murthy have both attempted to defuse the various rumors in recent interviews.
“There’s lots of reasons for us to hold together. The different members of the Pac-12 understand it,” Murthy told John Canzano. “All this talk about people running off and joining the Big Ten and Big 12 or whatever is just talk.”
Motivating those presidents to expand the Pac-12 has also been a challenge. They have not yet reached a consensus about inviting San Diego State, SMU or other expansion candidates, sources briefed on the discussions said. Two summers ago, in the wake of the SEC adding Oklahoma and Texas, the Pac-12 board had a chance to welcome any number of current Big 12 schools — and passed on all of them.
But circumstances have changed. Those sources believe if Yormark can convince the leadership at two Pac-12 schools to join the Big 12, that might be all it takes to land all four and pull the conference apart.
Yormark would need to get Fox to be an equal share partner in expansion. CBS Sports previously reported that the Big 12’s new rights contract includes an agreement with ESPN on a pro rata clause but that Fox has not committed to one. ESPN got 63 percent of the new TV deal with the Big 12, sources briefed on the agreement confirmed. Fox would have to sign off on the Big 12 adding Pac-12 schools as full-share members.
Yormark strongly believes basketball is undervalued in these TV rights talks. He has dropped hints about an interest in unbundling it from football and selling those rights separately when the Big 12 next hits the market in 2030-31. That’s one motivation behind the Big 12’s continued talks with hoops powerhouse Gonzaga. Joining as a non-football member would mean a smaller revenue share for the Bulldogs, but they’d be an inarguably valuable addition. Arizona, a top-10 program with more Pac-12 titles than every school but Big Ten-bound UCLA, would similarly boost the best conference in men’s college basketball and its long-term ambitions.
“I think we have an opportunity to monetize basketball in a way that hasn’t been done before,” Yormark said in an appearance on the Wilner & Canzano podcast last month. “It’s certainly something I’m thinking about. So if the opportunity ever exists where, within the construct of what makes sense for expansion, as part of that, we could double down on basketball and further cement our leadership position, it’s certainly something that I’m willing to consider.”
On the Pac-12 side, a critical moment in this process could come next week, at the conference’s men’s and women’s basketball tournaments in Las Vegas. The ADs in attendance are going to want clarity and hard numbers. Kliavkoff took these rights to the open market in October. Nearly five months have passed. On Feb. 13, Pac-12 presidents released a joint statement emphasizing their unity and vowing a deal would be consummated “in the very near future.”
There’s no official deadline, but each day this negotiation process drags on cranks up anxiety and, perhaps, vulnerability. As the adage goes in the sales world: Time kills all deals. What ultimately matters is the deal Kliavkoff can deliver for his members in the weeks ahead. If it’s inadequate, Yormark and the Big 12 are poised to pounce.
LikeLike
Alan, of course there would be no tortious interference if a college is approached once there is no contract with which to interfere. Once a contract is over, all of the teams are free agents.
A conference approaching FSU, Clemson or others saying that they will have a home in the future is still very dangerous for the conference. Suppose that the SEC sent a letter to FSU tomorrow saying that they were welcome when the GOR ended. Is there not a danger there that if FSU ever attacked the GOR that the SEC would be blamed and sued? You are a lawyer, don’t you see the claim that the invitation was the precipitating factor leading to the breach of the GOR by FSU?
If FSU waited until the GOR and ESPN contract ended in 2036, there would be no interference by the SEC. Did anyone threaten to sue the SEC or the B1G because schools were leaving after their contracts ended? Of course not. That, however, is not the issue with a contract lasting more than 10 more years.
In any event, this would all be unneeded since the school can approach the league. Why would anyone want to get into that mess for no reason?
I repeat my prior question. If leagues could even tell teams that approach them that they have a home, why has that not happened with FSU and Clemson. Why does everyone say that they do not have guaranteed homes? The reason is that if the schools actually received an offer and the GOR were then challenged, the leagues would be in the middle of the litigation, even if they did not initiate the original contact.
The issue remains the same, conferences do not and will not approach schools that are under a GOR. The schools approach the conferences expressing an interest to join. In the end that has the same result with no danger of litigation against the league.
I would guess that pretty much every G5 school has approached a P5 league, whether the Big 12 or the PAC, or maybe the ACC. And when other leagues dissolved in the past, I could virtually guarantee that teams like Pitt, Louisville, and others contacted the B1G before going to the ACC. We know that UConn and Syracuse both tried to make the argument that they were the NYC team, which was ridiculous, but the basis for an attempt to get into the B1G.
LikeLike
@Bernie: Wow!
So you think that I invented it? Why exactly would I do that?
Quite the opposite. I said “I take your word for it.”
As far as the tortious interference, the fact that you have not heard of it among college teams is equally irrelevant. Maybe no conferences have approached schools to break contracts since they know that they will lose the subsequent litigation. Sort of like no teams have broken a GOR.
I was merely questioning the statement that the schools “have to” approach the conferences, “to avoid tortious interference.” That seems to be a myth with no factual support.
Your reply above is that “Maybe” no conferences have approached schools for this reason. On the other hand, maybe they have. “Maybe” is not law. You seem to be assuming that we are aware of every contact that occurs.
If that litigation were not a danger, why wouldn’t the SEC or B1G give FSU, for example, an open invitation to join as soon as they could? The SEC almost certainly wants Clemson, so why not publicly say so and invite Clemson ?
A couple of reasons. For starters, these discussions are always in private. Even if you were correct that the school invariably initiates it, most invitations are not public knowledge until after they are accepted.
Beyond that, FSU and Clemson have over a decade to run in a grant of rights that they can’t escape from. There is simply no point in issuing an invitation that wouldn’t be acted on until the mid-2030s.
Why would it be a big issue for FSU, Clemson, etc., to take a move regarding the GOR while not knowing if they have a landing spot? That should be a non-issue. Certainly the SEC or B1G will invite FSU and yet neither has.
A red herring. All we are talking about is the myth that the school must always make the first call. Obviously, either school could call the SEC or Big Ten, and ask, “If we could escape our GOR, would you be interested in us?” Heck, they might have already made that call. Why do you assume we’d know if they did?
But even if the SEC or Big Ten said yes, the schools still have to litigate the GOR, which would be expensive and difficult to predict, since nobody has tried it before.
I assume that you are a lawyer and I am somewhat surprised that you would dismiss the tortious interference so easily. Personally, I have been involved in cases with that issue.
OK, without naming the client, tell me of a tortious interference case where the defendant was found liable because they merely inquired about somebody’s interest. The only cases I could find required more than that.
LikeLike
RU had a standing request to be invited, but the opportunity arose when Maryland was accepted. RU did not know the timing or circumstances, but an application for entry had been sitting in B1G offices for quite a while.
First of all, thanks for the link. It has a ton of background I’ve never seen before. Notably, it attributes the first suggestion that Rutgers join to Joe Paterno.
Then it says, Months after the Big Ten added Penn State, Rutgers sent what was described in newspaper accounts as “an extensive report” to the league in late 1990 seeking consideration as its 12th member.
We don’t know for sure, and the article doesn’t say, but it implies Paterno put the bug in their ear. Would it have been tortious interference if Paterno did?
LikeLike
Everybody knows everybody in this business. Former Texas president Bill Cunningham says the Georgia president contacted him at a conference in 1989 and suggested UT consider the SEC. That is one way for a “conference” to contact a school. We know UT president Bill Powers was talking to the Ohio St. president some years later as the “Tech” problem is mentioned.
It all starts very informally. The ADs are always talking. They wouldn’t be doing their job if they weren’t.
LikeLike
Colorado bolting the Big 12 only a decade ago only to return to the same conference? Now that’s goofy. And haven’t checked, but unprecedented for a major school?
LikeLike
While I am not predicting that CU will move, we are in an era when many previously unthinkable things are already happening in collegiate athletics. Ultimately, most decisions are about money. Neither conference is what it was when CU switched.
LikeLike
Almost all conference moves are to make more money. The exception is when a conference implodes such as the Southwest conference. CT went back to the Big East. I expect both GT and Tulane would like to go back to the SEC, but that will never happen. If CU goes back to the B12 it will be because half of the new PAC members were in the MW or some other G5 conferences in 2022.
LikeLike
Almost all conference moves are to make more money. The exception is when a conference implodes such as the Southwest conference.
All voluntary moves are to make more money, and that includes the 4 schools who blew up the SWC so that they could join the Big XII. The other four SWC schools might have lost money, but their moves were involuntary.
LikeLike
Cantzano’s latest:
Canzano: Pac-12 officially exploring four expansion schools
Oregon remains “way on board” with Pac-12, per source.
JOHN CANZANO MAR 3
LAS VEGAS — The Pac-12 Conference CEO Group voted to approve “further exploration” of four universities for possible conference expansion, I have learned.
SMU and San Diego State are in the quartet, according to one of the conference presidents. Colorado State may also be among the candidates. I’m still working to confirm that and the fourth school.
• This does not mean the Pac-12 will definitely add four schools via expansion. It just means that the board gave the “green light” to kick the tires on four possible additions. The Pac-12 CEO Group will ultimately vote to add zero, one, two, three or four new members.
• I think it’s most likely the Pac-12 adds only two members. Could be zero. I would be surprised at four additions, but I’ve been surprised before.
• Academic fit and culture are high among the Pac-12’s expansion criteria. But conference expansion is really about adding media value. If the Pac-12’s potential media partners don’t view expansion candidates as adding monetary value, the conference will stay at 10 members.
• San Diego State has been in “regular contact” with the Pac-12, per a conference source.
• Colorado State would be a curious possible addition. It has a new football stadium and is a research university, but the Pac-12 already captures the Denver television market with Colorado. For that reason, I believe any interest in Colorado State might just be that — exploration.
• No, I don’t expect Colorado to leave the Pac-12. Athletic director Rick George is on record on that front.
• UNLV is not among the expansion candidates, a university source confirmed on Friday. The academic profile of the university apparently does not fit the objectives of the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors.
• Fresno State and Boise State are unlikely to be Pac-12 expansion candidates as well. Sources at both schools have told me they’ve had only limited contact with the conference in recent months. They’re better potential fits for the Big 12.
• Several Pac-12 sources say they’re confident the conference will match or beat the Big 12’s announced $31.6 million annual media-rights distribution figure. On Friday, one well-placed conference source called being in the vicinity of that number “a layup.”
• One athletic director in Las Vegas this week for the women’s tournament told me he won’t be surprised when the Pac-12 beats the Big 12’s number. Said the AD: “We have better schools, better markets and better ratings.”
• I am regularly reminded that the Pac-12 also owns its own “Tier 2” rights. Biggest question: Will the conference be able to monetize the Pac-12 Networks in a lucrative way? If so, they’ll get into the $30 million-plus distribution range. If not, they won’t.
• The University of Oregon is “way on board” with its commitment to the Pac-12, per a source with knowledge. That makes sense to me. The Big Ten isn’t offering membership. The Big 12 makes zero sense for UO. The Ducks primary objective is to make the College Football Playoff and, frankly, winning an automatic berth is easier in the Pac-12.
• I’ve had a number of athletic directors tell me they remain confident that the Pac-12 is going to get a favorable deal done and the 10 current members will remain intact. Still, it’s taking time and there are some interesting forces at work trying to undermine the effort. Be careful with what you see reported, particularly from non-sourced entities.
• Keep in mind, the votes of the presidents and chancellors are the only ones that count. The ADs are key stakeholders. But the academics that comprise the Pac-12 CEO Group ultimately hold the votes.
• We all might be tired of talking/fretting about the ongoing Pac-12 saga, but the decision-makers themselves don’t appear antsy. The board members are far more focused on cutting a shrewd, smart, sensible deal for the most revenue possible.
• Washington State president Kirk Schulz told Jon Wilner he hoped something would get done in mid-March. Oregon State president Jayathi Murthy told me earlier this week that a deal could get done by the end of March — or not. “We’re all looking for a good, strong deal,” she said.
• I think Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff needs something to talk about next week to pacify the public. I wrote a column about it earlier Friday. When I offered that thought to a conference source on Friday, I got some pushback. “That’s a media-driven narrative,” the source said. “Who says George has to have something to say? Not his bosses.”
• One of the hold-ups on the Pac-12’s media rights deal apparently relates to the involvement of Amazon and Apple as bidders, per multiple sources. One — or both — is in play for a piece of the Pac-12’s rights. The entities are relatively new in the space and I’m told the negotiation has moved slower than expected because of that.
• The Pac-12 CEO Group has a board meeting scheduled for next Tuesday. After that, it has subsequent meetings on the schedule for every other week.
LikeLike
From the ridiculous lies, I’m becoming convinced the Pac is on the verge of disintegrating. Even Wilner expects them to be below the Big 12 revenues. And the Pac has worse TV ratings. Better academics, well what are the Ivy League ratings?
LikeLike
bullet,
“From the ridiculous lies, I’m becoming convinced the Pac is on the verge of disintegrating.”
What lies, specifically? Are you saying Canzano is lying about what he claims he has sources telling him, or are you saying his sources are lying? And are you drawing a distinction between potentially being incorrect and lying?
I’m guessing it’s something about the comparisons to the B12 revenue number, or about the P10 sticking together.
• Several Pac-12 sources say they’re confident the conference will match or beat the Big 12’s announced $31.6 million annual media-rights distribution figure. On Friday, one well-placed conference source called being in the vicinity of that number “a layup.”
Being confident doesn’t make them right. Maybe they are just wearing rose-colored glasses and can’t believe the negotiations are going as poorly as the media is making it seem. We don’t know what sort of updates the P12 is giving them about progress and numbers.
Being “in the vicinity” is a meaningless term. Is that $1M, $5M, or $10M? I think most people agree they’ll be within $5-10M.
• One athletic director in Las Vegas this week for the women’s tournament told me he won’t be surprised when the Pac-12 beats the Big 12’s number. Said the AD: “We have better schools, better markets and better ratings.”
His opinion carries no weight. He may think that way, but the media companies decide on value and they may look at fan bases differently. I can buy the line about better schools, though I don’t see why a TV network would care about that. But people in academia often cannot be convinced that nobody else cares about that stuff – it is so important to them that they insist it must matter.
Better markets are in the eye of the beholder – is he only talking size, or does interest in CFB matter? I don’t know what he is basing his better ratings comment on. There are a lot of different ratings analyses out there in public, but they also have access to internal data that we don’t see. Generally the numbers are pretty similar.
• I’ve had a number of athletic directors tell me they remain confident that the Pac-12 is going to get a favorable deal done and the 10 current members will remain intact. Still, it’s taking time and there are some interesting forces at work trying to undermine the effort. Be careful with what you see reported, particularly from non-sourced entities.
A favorable deal isn’t necessarily a great deal, just one that is good enough to satisfy people.
“Even Wilner expects them to be below the Big 12 revenues.”
He gave ranges that could potentially overlap. His target is 94% of the B12 number, but a media member could easily be off by 10%. But people are often more optimistic because they think they are more valuable than they are (or maybe they’ll end up being correct – we don’t know yet).
“And the Pac has worse TV ratings.”
That depends how you analyze them, and what metrics you value. They can point to analyses like Stewart Mandel’s that make the P12 look better, you can point to the Baylor guy’s analysis that makes the B12 look better. The real answer is that nobody knows for sure due to the upcoming membership changes and differences in TV deals.
LikeLike
Repeating something that is obviously ridiculous makes you a liar too. The “layup” comment was the one that was really ridiculous when even pro-Pac 12 media like Wilner and Mandel are questioning how well they will do. This is the first claim in months that the Pac will easily do better. In fact, knowledgeable sources like the Athletic have gotten pessimistic in recent days. Maybe the Pac will do a little better, but even that prediction is pretty rare these days.
LikeLike
Semantics. A lie is a statement you know is false. This might be a belief sincerely held, however delusional it might turn out to be.
The fact that many media reports are pessimistic about the Pac-12’s future doesn’t mean they are true either. Almost all of these reports cite unnamed sources whose agenda we cannot evaluate, since we don’t know who they are. One guy might speak to 5 journalists, and you think those reports are independent when it’s really the same source with an axe to grind. I am not saying this happened, only that it could.
As Brian noted, although Wilner predicted that the Pac-12 will get slightly less than the Big XII, he gave a range that’s not inconsistent with the Pac-12 doing better than that.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Repeating something that is obviously ridiculous makes you a liar too.”
Not if you’re a reporter, or if you believe it to be true. Lying requires intent to deceive.
“The “layup” comment was the one that was really ridiculous when even pro-Pac 12 media like Wilner and Mandel are questioning how well they will do. This is the first claim in months that the Pac will easily do better.”
Re-read the quote. It said being in the vicinity of that number “a layup.” There is no claim that the P12 will get more than the B12, just that they will be fairly close. And as I said above, “in the vicinity” is a meaningless term. The gap could be $5M or more and still count. Other people predicted the P12 would make more, but not the person calling it a layup to get close.
But why does this get you so upset? What do you care what P12 ADs think? They’re supposed to be optimistic about stuff like this, just like they think all of their teams can compete for titles every year. Eventually a deal will get signed, and nobodies predictions will mean anything.
LikeLike
There are a lot of stories comparing Big XII and Pac-12 TV ratings. They are really difficult to compare, as it depends on what assumptions you make. But if a Pac-12 homer like Wilner says that the Pac-12 is worth less, I am inclined to believe him.
The thing is, it’s practically certain that a big chunk of the Pac-12 is going to be on a streamer, likely Amazon and/or Apple. There are no historical numbers for that. But we know that the NFL on Amazon got worse ratings than when Fox had the same package. So whatever the Pac-12’s ratings were before, they are going down.
LikeLike
I know we all focus on football for the most part, but as the hoops season is ending we should talk a bit about the major changes new TV deals will bring to hoops. Frank has made mention how the B10 deal will likely send many hoops games to Peacock and FS1, which is a major loss in exposure. The P12 could virtually disappear from linear TV.
But the current B10 deal already makes for bad schedules. OSU had 2 Saturday home games all season, one OOC and one in B10 play. They also had one Saturday neutral site game and one road B10 game. OSU had 7 Sunday games – 5 of them on the road. 6 of OSU’s B10 home games were on Thursdays, with 1 on a Wednesday.
Weekend home games: 12/3, 1/21, 2/12, 2/26 (avoided in November due to football). Not all of that is the TV deal’s fault, some is OSU’s scheduling choices. But it makes it really tough on fan bases to attend when only 4 of 31 games are weekend home games.
What will the new deal do to schedules? CBS will have 15 MBB games, FOX/FS1 45+ games, Peacock 47 games, BTN 126 games. So the schedules may suck and the games will be hard to find. Will it matter?
LikeLike
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/hayes-b1g-drama-trying-to-figure-out-permanent-opponents-for-16-team-super-conference/
Matt Hayes on the the B10’s 3/6/6 plans.
“You’ll hear (conference) commissioners say television partners don’t run the show, but let’s not kid each other; those billions talk,” an industry source told Saturday Tradition. “There’s an expectation of big games — and not every 4 years.”
…
The Big Ten can’t ask Fox, CBS and NBC to pay significant media rights fees and not receive mega games annually — games that translate to ratings (and advertising) gold. In other words, don’t expect USC’s permanent opponents to be UCLA and 2 middle of the road Big Ten properties.
One Big Ten athletic director told Saturday Tradition that 1 model proposal includes Ohio State with UCLA as a permanent opponent, and Michigan with USC.
…
There are other models with Penn State as a permanent opponent, and the goal for the media partners is getting the Big Ten’s biggest television properties playing annually. And don’t forget, that’s what conference expansion is all about.
…
Again, the Big Ten is trying to be as fair as possible to everyone in the league, and trying to avoid loading up its marquee properties. Not everyone is going to be happy, but the idea of Ohio State playing Michigan, USC and Penn State as permanent opponents isn’t going to happen.
But it’s certainly an option for Ohio State to play Michigan, USC and Indiana.
“There will be a handful of choices, in both the Big Ten and SEC, that some teams just aren’t going to like,” the industry source said. “That’s the pushback right now. The 9 games isn’t an issue, nor are the 3 permanent opponents. It’s which teams are permanent rivals?”
The idea of rotating permanent rivals isn’t an option. The classic rivalry games are the fabric of the sport and the respective leagues — and are the games media partners desperately want.
“Our rivalry games are who we are, and the goal is to build more of those,” the Big Ten athletic director said. “But honestly, we’re fighting over the 3 (permanent games) right now.”
People tend to overestimate the difference in SOS from locking rivalry games.
Based on conference W%, OSU locking UM, PSU and USC would give a SOS of 0.507. Replacing USC with UCLA would make it 0.498. Under my plan, UM would have the toughest schedule at 0.520. Of the top teams, WI would have it easiest at 0.487 with PSU at 0.490. The annual fluctuation in team strength trumps that.
By SOS, pairing UM with UCLA would make more sense than OSU (if they won’t give USC both). Then make UCLA’s 3rd team WI and USC’s 3rd team NE.
LikeLike
All that said, it’s not a big deal if they choose OSU vs UM, PSU and UCLA. OSU has much more history with USC (more than anyone else in the B10 but UCLA has), while UM has a little more history with UCLA than OSU does (11 vs 9 games).
Games against B10 schools
USC:
OSU – 24
IL – 13
UM, PSU, IA – 10
UCLA:
NE – 13
IL – 12
UM, WI – 11
OSU, IA – 9
So if your concern is rivalries (and that’s what ESPN’s Magnus said matters to them), OSU vs USC is the one clear game for the LA schools beyond keeping their in-town rivalry. Of course that burdens OSU with 3 king matchups locked, but that also means rotating through NE, MSU, WI, IA and UCLA and a bunch of lesser brands. If you assume OSU will get at least 2 of those kings locked, the difference in SOS of locking the third one isn’t that much unless you would lock someone terrible like IN. That doesn’t make a lot of financial sense for the B10 to me, though I suppose Gen Smith feels honor-bound to fight for the easiest schedule he can get for OSU. Maybe this is where you lock it for 4 years to help integrate USC, then consider rotating in other schools so OSU gets only 2 kings locked from then on.
NE vs UCLA makes a lot of sense in terms of history and geography. UCLA vs UM would get them lots of prime exposure to help integrate them, but clearly that could be rotated every 4 years as well (UM/WI/IA/OSU/PSU/MSU)
If your top concern is schedule parity, you can do something similar to the SEC’s 2 tiered plan (top tier gets 2 hard and 1 easier game, bottom tier gets 1 hard and 2 easier games).
OSU – UM, PSU, IL
UM – OSU, MSU, UMD
PSU – OSU, USC, RU
USC – UCLA, PSU, NW
NE – IA, UCLA, MN
MSU – UM, WI, IN
WI – IA, MSU, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
UCLA – USC, NE, PU
MN – WI, IA, NE
NW – IL, RU, USC
IL – NW, PU, OSU
PU – IN, IL, UCLA
IN – PU, MSU, UMD
RU – UMD, PSU, NW
UMD – RU, UM, IN
I considered PSU/MSU and USC/WI instead (or PSU/MSU, USC/NE & UCLA/WI). It’s about a tossup to me, but I think USC/PSU has more national value and WI/MSU is a great midwestern battle of similar programs.
LikeLike
https://csnbbs.com/thread-966512-post-18823212.html#pid18823212
CFB reporter Matt Brown posted this on an online discussion board:
What happens with Ohio State-Penn State is going to be fascinating. It’s been one of the biggest TV draws for the league over the last decade, and Ohio State is probably the program that Penn State fans would consider the closest thing to a “rival” in the conference.
But I’ve also heard the same thing….that Ohio State was very likely to get either USC or UCLA as an annual rival, and that they wouldn’t give Ohio State Michigan/Penn State/an LA school. At 16 teams, and with SO many Big Ten rivalry games, you simply can’t make all of them annual games. Some stuff just won’t get to happen every year. Right now, I’d bet money that Penn State doesn’t get Ohio State OR Michigan as an annual opponent.
I would be pretty surprised if Nebraska doesn’t get an annual game against one of the LA schools as well. They historically recruit SoCal in a way most other Big Ten teams don’t, their fans travel, and it’s the (lmao) closest flight for any LA team.
I’d be surprised if the B10 drops OSU/PSU, but as an OSU fan I wouldn’t mind. That game means much more to PSU (which is one reason I think they’d keep it). I also don’t see UCLA as a tough opponent so I’m not sure why UM/PSU/UCLA would be considered too difficult.
I can see why USC may not want OSU and UM both since they also have ND, but I’d guess they do want at least 1 of them to help sell tickets. In the long run, I think it would be great if PSU vs USC became a true rivalry and maybe UCLA vs NE could become one.
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting concept for 3-6-6 scheduling – what if the conference allowed each member to state up their own three preferred annual rivals? “Maryland, who do you want for three annual opponents in football?”
Ask that question to all 16 members and see what the results are. For those pairs in which threre is mutual agreement, say both Purdue and Illinois want each other, that’s a lock. It would certainly be interesting to see who USC and UCLA preferred. I also imagine there would be a good deal of discussion behind closed doors.
LikeLike
@Colin: Why would you think they have not already stated what they want? I am sure they have.
LikeLike
Marc; “Why would you think they have not already stated what they want? I am sure they have.”
Judging from comments by Iowa AD Barta, they haven’t yet decided on 3-6-6 and or unequal numbers of annual rivals. He said Iowa might have three while Penn State might have none. So no, I doubt that they’ve decided a format and probably won’t until we have a new commish.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree they have not fully decided yet. I was replying to your suggestion that they ought to ask each member which three locked rivals they prefer. I am sure that has been done already.
LikeLike
Flugaur has a better scheme.If Washington and Oregon are added, then the West Coast schools are natural fixed rivals, and the other 14 schools can go with their local preferences. He also sees a 10 game in-conference schedule.
Details at his PATC site.
LikeLike
bob,
I wouldn’t call it better since it assumes adding UW and UO. To me, that’s worse than stopping at 16 no matter what. It also means a different scheduling plan (3/7/7?). You didn’t link it, and I’m not watching all his videos to find it.
Assuming a 3/7/7, of course the west is simple. So is the next group of 4. The eastern 10 are a bit tougher if you want 3 for each:
UW – UO, USC, UCLA
UO – UW, USC, UCLA
USC – UW, UO, UCLA
UCLA – UW, UO, USC
NE – IA, WI, MN
MN – NE, WI, IA
WI – MN, IA, NE
IA – NE, MN, WI
NW – IL, MSU, RU
IL – NW, OSU, PU
PU – IN, IL, UM
IN – PU, MSU, UMD
UM – MSU, OSU, PU
MSU – UM, NW, IN
OSU – UM, PSU, IL
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
RU – PSU, UMD, NW
UMD – PSU, RU. IN
But the bigger question is if you want 18 members.
LikeLike
Brian: “But the bigger question is if you want 18 members.”
Yep, and here’s another bigger question: Do the Big Ten presidents want to be conference killers? Because the B1G expanding with UO and UW is a dagger in the heart to the Pac-12.
LikeLike
I don’t think they want to be conference killers so I would think the PAC would have to die first with the four corner schools leaving for the Big 12.
As far as scheduling an 18 team conference, they can just keep it simple without expanding to a 10 game schedule while having one designated rival to play each season and the other 8 games rotate between the other 16 schools. So everyone plays each other home and away in a four year period. The only schools really screwed in such a scenario is Michigan State and Penn State being forced to be each other’s rival. Plus the one rival system would work with a 20 team conference and 10 conference games if the Big Ten wants to expand again in the future.
LikeLike
psuhockey,
“As far as scheduling an 18 team conference, they can just keep it simple without expanding to a 10 game schedule while having one designated rival to play each season and the other 8 games rotate between the other 16 schools. So everyone plays each other home and away in a four year period.”
You can, certainly. But the schools have said playing frequently and preserving rivalries are both important to them.
These sorts of tradeoffs are why the B10 shouldn’t expand to 18 lightly. What are the upsides that justify these downsides?
Presumed set:
UW/UO, USC/UCLA, NE/IA, WI/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN, OSU/UM, MSU/PSU, RU/UMD
That will end some pretty big/important rivalries:
MN/IA, WI/IA, OSU/PSU, UM/MSU, PU/IL (not big nationally but they’ve played 98 times), PSU/RU (important to RU), PSU/UMD (important to UMD)
“The only schools really screwed in such a scenario is Michigan State and Penn State being forced to be each other’s rival.”
I think IA, WI, MN, UM, RU and UMD would disagree. If 8 of 18 are pretty unhappy, that’s not a good plan. It seems like PSU fans would be fairly upset, and MSU fans would revolt at losing the annual UM game (and rightly so).
Other options with 18:
9 = 3*100% + 8*50% + 6*33%
9 = 3*100% + 6*67% + 8*25%
9 = 3*100% + 4*75% + 2*50% + 8*25%
9 = 2*100% + 6*67% + 9*33%
9 = 2*100% + 12*50% + 3*33%
None of them are simple patterns, but they might better fit the desires of schools than 1 locked and 16 at 50%.
“Plus the one rival system would work with a 20 team conference and 10 conference games if the Big Ten wants to expand again in the future.”
It could, but it still loses those rivalries.
LikeLike
Or simply 3 @100% and 14@42.9% (6 times in 14 years).
LikeLike
bullet,
“Or simply 3 @100% and 14@42.9% (6 times in 14 years).”
Yes, that’s clearly the simplest approach. I was trying to stay within his constraint of playing twice in 4 years for more rivals (8-14 depending on the plan), plus having tiers of rivals may better match fan interest. Having less frequently played teams would also let the coastal schools not have to travel all the way across the country as frequently.
LikeLike
https://www.turnkeyzrg.com/big-ten-commissioner
Just in case anyone is looking for a job, that’s the B10 commissioner job posting. It’s about 3500 words, but a lot of that is background bragging about how great the B10 is.
In totality, the sheer force of the conference is unmatched: academic preeminence, athletic supremacy and “first mover” legacy, all impact the world and have no peer.
…
Partnering closely with the Board, the Athletics Directors, the Senior Woman Administrators, the Faculty Athletic Representatives, the coaches, and the student-athletes, we seek an inclusive, collaborative, multidimensional leader who will continue to enhance the Big Ten’s leadership position.
…
The Big Ten ranks first in the nation, leading all conferences with 6.4 million alumni and nearly 580,000 students. Each year more than 11 million patrons attend Big Ten home contests, the first in the nation.
…
Intercollegiate athletics is undergoing unprecedented challenges and change. College sports are transforming in new and uncertain ways, and the Big Ten intends to continue to lead in shaping the future. Student-athlete health & wellness, time management, and overall experience are being re-evaluated. Student-athletes are seeking to have their voices heard relating to social injustice and empowerment matters, economic rights, in addition to several other issues. Financial pressures on college sports have always been present. Legacy media and marketing partners who have helped sustain college sports are also experiencing paradigm shifts in economic trends, technological advances, and consumer preferences. Expansion of conferences, including the Big Ten, is an ever-present opportunity to be evaluated. NCAA governance, state-by-state legislative actions (NIL, sports betting, etc.), legal challenges and other public policy shifts are further changing intercollegiate athletics. The Big Ten and our next Commissioner shall have substantial and enduring impact driving toward the future. This role is a calling for a visionary, generational leader who derives satisfaction from an impactful, purpose driven life.
…
Change Agent: Thought leader who can execute. Ability to anticipate and discern trends which portend change; ability to lead change, embrace uncertainty and disruption, and envision a future for the Big Ten which is NOT winner take all, but holistic, nurturing and sustaining for all intercollegiate athletics, while preserving our primacy.
…
The Commissioner shall be fully committed to maintaining the equal treatment of all races, genders, religions and cultures, making sure to prioritize & advance equity at the conference office, at the Big Ten member institutions, and throughout all aspects of the Big Ten.
…
Representative Qualifications, Skills & Education (not exhaustive):
* Experience as a college student-athlete, college coach and/or athletics administrator a plus, but not required.
* Preference for individuals who are knowledgeable and experienced in the quickly evolving business and legal landscape of sports, sports media, sports marketing, sports performance, etc. Experience in intercollegiate sports is not technically “required,” but, at this point in time, shall be given preference.
* A strong understanding of the differences between professional sports and college sports, and continually balance competing concerns.
…
* Prior experience assisting a Board or serving on a Board strongly preferred.
…
* Bachelor’s degree required; Master’s or other post-graduate degree in athletic administration, education, business, law, medicine, public policy or related field preferred; an intellectual curiosity and commitment to lifelong learning; demonstrated commitment to academic integrity, student athlete graduation rates and student-athlete wellness.
Some of those points seem aimed at Warren’s perceived weaknesses from their POV.
LikeLike
Colin Cowherd is the latest to call Oregon and Washington the Big Ten:
Note how he worded it. He’ll be right either way. If the schools join, he can say, “Just as I told you.” If they do not join, he can say, “Well, I only reported they were considering it.”
LikeLike
I’m sure they have considered it. I doubt they are actively doing much considering while there is no commissioner and 2 schools (including OSU) have interim/leaving presidents. They already discussed them last summer and fall. The only thing that may have changed is UW and UO’s willingness to take a partial share, but the B10 would have already discussed if they want them under those terms. There was never any reporting that the only thing preventing the move was UW and UO being willing to take less money.
Why expand to 18 for no more money? Until someone has a good answer for that question, I don’t know why anything would change.
LikeLike
Three things:
1) Control of the west coast;
2) capturing the last 2 serious football contenders outside the ACC;
3) Enough inventory to fill a late night slot.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Three things:
1) Control of the west coast;”
The P12 had that and fell apart because it fell behind financially. How is that a reason to add more teams from a failing league with weak fan bases? Controlling the west coast doesn’t make money in CFB.
“2) capturing the last 2 serious football contenders outside the ACC;”
To what purpose? What does having more “contenders” do for the B10? It’s never going to be as good on the field as the SEC because of their fundamentally different philosophies about broad athletic departments vs winning at all costs and the concentration of recruits and rabid fans in the south. Besides, every P12 team added is one less spot available for ACC teams. That’s another opportunity cost. And more P12 teams means a lot more cross-country travel for the current 14 schools, yet another cost of adding them.
Will the actual revenue go up, or will the losses just get shifted around and some borderline contenders will drop down and the extra money will just get spread over more mouths? The B10 is really interested in only 1 contender – ND.
“3) Enough inventory to fill a late night slot.”
That most of the fans can’t/won’t stay up to watch? Again, what purpose does that serve? If those teams playing in that slot were valuable, the P12 wouldn’t be in trouble. USC and UCLA don’t want to play in that window, that’s one reason they left. UW and UO feel the same way.
LikeLike
Pac 12 is doing that with 12 schools. Big 10 would be dominating the coast with the best 4.
Contenders and CFP playoff spots are always good. 13 of the 20 schools who have dominated the top of the rankings over the last half century are already in the P2. Notre Dame, FSU, Miami and Clemson are in the ACC. Colorado is in a serious down period and probably has been “Minnesota-ed,” irrelevant. The other two are Washington and Oregon. The ACC schools probably aren’t available for a dozen years and may prefer independence or the SEC.
Controlling the late night slot is another source of revenue and exposure. And having 4 schools mean nobody has to spend a lot of time in that slot.
All of those things have value. Do they have enough? Time will tell. But I suspect the answer will be yes in the next decade, if not the next year.
LikeLike
Contenders and CFP playoff spots are always good.
True, but it’s not as if Washington and Oregon, between them, are going to soak up one more bid that the Big Ten wouldn’t otherwise get. The math doesn’t support that.
In the playoff era, six Big Ten programs have made the 4-team field, or had records good enough to make a 12-team field if it had existed: OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Let’s throw in USC, making seven.
(Am I missing anyone who had a great year that I forgot? I am not counting UCLA, which would never have made a 12-team field in the playoff era. I am not saying they never will, but I see no evidence that they are a consistent contender.)
So let’s call it seven programs that are regular or occasional contenders. If you add two more, giving nine, you do not get more bids. The years Washington and/or Oregon are good enough, they’d need to get quality wins by knocking off the others mentioned, knocking them lower down the pecking order.
After all, six of the 12 bids are auto-bids for champs, and the Big Ten can only get one of those. The remaining six are shared among all the conferences plus Notre Dame. To think the Big Ten is getting more than two at-large bids in a typical year would be fantasy-land.
LikeLike
“Contenders and CFP playoff spots are always good.”
UW and UO have a far better chance of making the CFP as a Pac-12 conference champ than they would as at-large bids in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Pac 12 is doing that with 12 schools. Big 10 would be dominating the coast with the best 4.”
To be fair, the P12 is dominating more than just the coast. They also have the mountain states and SW (CO, UT, AZ, probably MT, WY, ID, NM). Plus they have NorCal (20M people roughly) which the B10 wouldn’t. Also, dominating the west coast has no proven intrinsic value. They are casual fans with minimal support for their teams. It’s like dominating Europe for CFB – who cares?
Besides, the financial numbers say UW and UO are on par to below average of the new B10 deal. That means no extra money to cover all the extra travel costs for the current 14. So again, what’s the upside? The upside needs to trump all the downsides, including opportunity costs.
“Contenders and CFP playoff spots are always good.”
In theory. But who are they good for? If UW and UO come in a take spots from IA, WI, MSU, NW, MN, NE, PSU and UCLA, that’s not a net win for the B10. It only helps if they take them from everyone else (esp. the SEC).
“13 of the 20 schools who have dominated the top of the rankings over the last half century are already in the P2. Notre Dame, FSU, Miami and Clemson are in the ACC. Colorado is in a serious down period and probably has been “Minnesota-ed,” irrelevant. The other two are Washington and Oregon. The ACC schools probably aren’t available for a dozen years and may prefer independence or the SEC.”
They may prefer other options. But does that make it worthwhile to close the door on the opportunity to add them? Where else are UW and UO going to go? UW was a power under Don James, but is 0.526 W% in the BCS and CFP era (since 1998), #57 nationally. They could be another MN (0.520 over the same period, #61). All-time UW is #18 at 0.613, but they haven’t been consistently strong for a while.
“Controlling the late night slot is another source of revenue and exposure. And having 4 schools mean nobody has to spend a lot of time in that slot.”
The late slot is worth less revenue than any other because viewership is so limited. It is less exposure than having your games on at any other time even with competition. It is probably not sufficient to pay for adding schools at over $70M each. None of the 4 schools P12 want to spend any time in that slot, let alone the 14 current members. 4 western teams means 6 games amongst themselves at most, meaning at least 8 games involving eastern teams. And that’s if you bury every intra-P12 game in that time slot, which would be stupid. USC/UW and USC/UO would draw much better numbers when America is still awake.
“All of those things have value.”
Everything has some value.
“Do they have enough?”
No, or the P12 would have a good TV deal signed already or the B10 would’ve already added UW and UO.
“Time will tell. But I suspect the answer will be yes in the next decade, if not the next year.”
The next decade is a different discussion, since we don’t know what the media environment will look like. Cowherd (and many fans) is talking about adding them right now, and that’s where I say nobody has shown a value calculation that makes sense.
I can’t definitively say the B10 won’t add them now, but I’ve seen no indication that they will and no answers to justify why they would.
LikeLike
UW and UO have a far better chance of making the CFP as a Pac-12 conference champ than they would as at-large bids in the Big Ten.
This is entirely correct, but university presidents prefer consistent repeatable revenue over numbers that fluctuate depending on the athletic performance of teenagers.
A half-share of the Big Ten regular-season contract is worth way more than a full share of the Pac-12. Maybe it’s a push if both UW and UO make the playoff every single year and get to keep 100% of the playoff money to themselves with no sharing. But you know that’s not happening.
LikeLike
Good summary by LA Times:
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2023-03-07/pac-12-really-dying-five-things
LikeLike
Given Cowherd gets wind of these things in advance (from his bosses at FOX), it’s interesting to see him say this.
He’s one of the more credible people to talk about that scenario.
But it still doesn’t make much sense right now given where the Big Ten is.
I still think the next domino is FSU and the Big Ten/SEC stay pat until FSU starts rumbling.
LikeLike
z33k,
Cowherd is from WA, worked in Vegas and Portland and now LA. He has a lot of connections out west, not all from Fox.
He could be hearing this from the UW/UO side, but that doesn’t mean the B10 is actively doing anything. He’s never been known to have inside info about the B10 that I can recall.
That said, he is a hot take machine and I never take anything he says seriously. His job is ratings, not truth. He’s not a reporter.
Look at the Dan Patrick hot takes on expansion. Have any of those come true? Talking heads are not the people to trust for this sort of stuff.
LikeLike
He’s a huge USC fan though (at least he plays that role on his radio show).
And he did say he was told about USC/UCLA moving before it happened but he couldn’t reveal it; I think he posted a short take on it when it happened that he knew about it beforehand.
That’s pretty much all I was referring to; whoever told him about USC/UCLA might’ve been high up at USC (given that he’s such a pro-USC radio guy, would make sense if they were going to leak, to leak it to him).
So yeah he might not really know anything outside that small space. Doubt he has insider info to UW/UO.
LikeLike
He’s a huge fan of the flavor of the month. Before Lincoln Riley had USC winning again, Cowherd wasn’t so loud about them. As he readily admits, he roots for storylines and headlines, not teams.
I was just saying he’s made lots of contacts over the years out west and while at ESPN, including athletes and others who may know people at UW, UO, USC, etc. It doesn’t have to be Fox leaking it to him.
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/usc-ucla-move-could-solve-college-footballs-big-game-problem
As for Cowherd knowing in advance, here’s what he said the Monday after it was announced:
On Monday’s “The Herd,” Colin Cowherd broke down what USC and UCLA’s move to the Big Ten means for college football and why it doesn’t come as a shock, considering recent moves from other schools.
“I was not surprised [that] USC joined the Big Ten — I was surprised UCLA went for it,” Cowherd said. “USC has been unhappy for years. The Pac-12 does not create the revenue they need. When they got Lincoln Riley, they sold him on, ‘Big things are happening.’ … They’ve thought about going independent. … They felt they were treated no better than Washington State … and USC and UCLA are almost half the TV revenue for the conference.”
He was surprised about UCLA, so clearly he didn’t know that part in advance. And I see no claim that he knew USC would move, just that it didn’t surprise him after all their complaining over the years.
LikeLike
It seems to me that the PAC is not getting Big 12 dollar offers, and for football it would be for ESPN after dark Saturday night Pacific time, a Friday night stream game and then 2 of the 3 other conference games streamed Saturday after noon Pacific time against the other conferences.
LikeLike
I think that the comment about saving space for ACC teams (and ND) is the key. I cannot see the B1G ever going beyond 20 teams, and only getting to 20 for very specific reasons.
Other than money, it appears that the most important thing to many B1G teams, particularly the original 10, is keeping rivalries which go back many decades. That is almost certainly a major point to alums and fans.
As long as the alums and fans are happy with the games – the rivalries – there will be big TV ratings. As long as there are big TV ratings, there will be plenty of money. I do not think that the fan bases of most schools want more outliers, just to have more teams.
Honestly at this point, with the huge new contract, I do not think that most schools would accept an extra $5 or even $10 million per year, if it messed up rivalries.
Yes UMd and RU were added strictly for money, and controlling the NY to DC market, but that is done and it worked. (And yes RU has been very disappointing, but the NY/NJ TV market, with all of its B1G alums, has done just fine, though they would be enormous if RU did not suck).
With the TX/OU and USC/UCLA chips off the table, Texas and Southern Cal are no longer in play. (Unless something really weird happens with TA&M). The states of WA and OR simply are not comparable to Texas, Southern Cal, or certainly not NY to DC. Both states are at least partially split with two teams and neither is exactly a recruiting hotbed.
I believe that B1G fans will not be happy with further disruptions of rivalries, unless it is a really big deal. ND would obviously fit in perfectly as an existing long term rival. An FSU returned to its glory days would be attractive. There are maybe a couple of others, but not many.
LikeLike
I do not think that most schools would accept an extra $5 or even $10 million per year, if it messed up rivalries.
The fans would not love it, that is for sure. Heck, many fans of the original ten have still not gotten over Maryland and Rutgers.
For an extra $10m per member, the presidents would very likely do it. The thing is, nobody suggests that Washington and Oregon can bring in an extra $10m per school. If they could, I suspect it would’ve happened already. Heck, the talk about them taking half-shares is probably because at full shares they are dilutive.
LikeLike
Actually, I do. Any school is worth more as a member of the B1G than as a member of almost any other conference. It’s basically the much larger fan bases the B1G has. I have not doubt Washington and Oregon will cover their costs, or nearly so, and that means an extra $10 M per B1G school. If it doesn’t happen Year One, it will by Year Five.
LikeLike
You do realize that an extra $10 million per school means that in a few years the new school has to bring in $160 million, beyond paying for itself. Even split by WA and OR so they are each only contributing $5 million per current member, do you really believe that either of them is worth $190 million in a few years, which means it pays for its own $110 million and an extra $80 million.
Even conservatively based on $70 million (which is the low end estimate of just TV money), the school would need to be worth at least $150 million immediately – and that only gives each of the 16 members $5 million from either WA or OR.
While is it true that a school is worth more in the B1G (or SEC), the entire PAC will be lucky if they get $300 million for the 10 schools. You are evaluating WA and OR as being worth at least $300 million between them right now simply by upgrading their conference..
LikeLike
Bernie: “While is it true that a school is worth more in the B1G (or SEC), the entire PAC will be lucky if they get $300 million for the 10 schools. You are evaluating WA and OR as being worth at least $300 million between them right now simply by upgrading their conference.”
Right. Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC will expand again during our lifetimes.
LikeLike
bob,
Marc said:
For an extra $10m per member, the presidents would very likely do it. The thing is, nobody suggests that Washington and Oregon can bring in an extra $10m per school.
You replied:
“Actually, I do.”
I think there is a miscommunication here.
“Any school is worth more as a member of the B1G than as a member of almost any other conference. It’s basically the much larger fan bases the B1G has.”
Agreed. Also the markets, the fervor of the fans, and the big brands built up over decades (OSU, UM, PSU, …).
“I have not doubt Washington and Oregon will cover their costs, or nearly so, and that means an extra $10 M per B1G school.”
This is where you lose me. If they will barely cover their own costs, how will they add $10M per school per year to the other 16 schools? That’s $160M extra plus their own $140M, or $300M per year from the 2 schools. If they were worth that much in the B10 they’d already be in, and ESPN would’ve offered the P12 more for their TV deal.
“If it doesn’t happen Year One, it will by Year Five.”
Could they get up to being worth a full share per year (~$80M each) by the end of the new TV deal? Sure, that’s possible. Would they move the needle so the deal becomes $90M per school by the end? No.
This is why every additional expansion is harder to justify. ND + 1 would make financial sense. Few other pairs would.
LikeLike
The Colorado Board of Regents have a special session scheduled for tomorrow on the subject: “Legal advice on a specific matter — athletics update on PAC 12.”
Conspiracy theorists, start your engines.
LikeLike
Cripe, I’m glad that at lest one Pac-12 board of regents has enough sense to meet in a special (panic) session. This George Kliavkoff creature is actually talking about expansion with the likes of SMU, Tulane and Rice. His conference TV deal is obviously going to be a shameful pittance, and UW and UO are nearly frantic to get out. The Buffalos should be getting ready to stampede.
LikeLike
Colin – don’t throw my law school alma mater Tulane in with the likes of the scrubs at Rice and SMU. Unlike those two losers, Tulane has qualified for a NY-6 bowl, beating the Heisman trophy winner and future B1G standard bearer in USC. It may have been Tulane’s first trip to a major bowl since 1939, but who’s counting?
As I’ve written here many times, Tulane would make a fine addition to the Pac-1?.
Tulane is located in the recruiting hotbed of New Orleans.
Tulane is AAU with a nationally respected medical school and business school. And Tulane has a prestigious world-renowned law school, in spite of the admissions department making at least one critical error in the mid-90s by letting me in.
While not located near the Pacific, Tulane is close to a coast (the Gulf Coast).
And unless the Cotton Bowl victory starts a trend never before seen at Tulane, my Greenies share the same local ambivalence and general lack of fan support that many Pac-1? schools experience.
The Green Wave would fit right in.
LikeLike
Alan,
USC as the standard bearer of the B10? At least you didn’t say UCLA, but still.
And now you’ve got Derek Carr in New Orleans to provide a bridge to the west coast. The second coming of Drew Brees, or of Jameis Winston?
Tulane may edge Rice in football (though Rice last went to a major bowl in 1960 so they have time to catch up), but I’m pretty sure Rice has the edge in baseball and that counts down in the south.
The real question is which school has a worse mosquito problem.
LikeLike
I was looking at it today. If you go back to 1986, only 4 schools not in the 2023 P5 have finished in the final top 10. Boise 3 times, Marshall once, Miami once (the latter two both as MAC members) and now Tulane twice!
For that matter you can go all the way back to 1968 and the only schools that get added to that list are SMU (3 times), Air Force once and Miami for a second time.
LikeLike
Alan, must concur. This is from The Athletic’s mailbag today:
Now that the defensive coordinator musical chairs seems to have stopped, did Tulane somehow come out better in the end? With retention and the new influx of talent, is it an inside track to a New Year’s Six bowl? (I can’t believe I just typed that…) — Christian W.
Can we say Tulane has become a Group of 5 destination? I think we have to. It started with head coach Willie Fritz sticking with the Green Wave despite strong interest from Georgia Tech. As for the staff, defensive coordinator Chris Hampton took the Green Wave defense from No. 114 in points allowed per game in 2021 to No. 32 last year, and he got hired away by Oregon for his work. Fritz then hired Guidry, who produced the No. 6 scoring defense at Marshall a year ago (he is also a Louisiana native with deep ties to the state). Guidry left for the Miami DC job not long after that, and Fritz replaced him with Shiel Wood, who helped Troy produce the No. 8 scoring defense on a top-25 team.
So yeah, coaches want to come to Tulane right now. So do players. The Green Wave signed the No. 5 Group of 5 recruiting class (including transfers), and quarterback Michael Pratt opted to return despite Power 5 transfer interest.
Athletic director Troy Dannen said in January that the football locker room will be renovated this spring, and he anticipates having an on-campus practice bubble by 2024. Tulane knows it needs to fundraise coming off the Cotton Bowl, and this is the moment to enact some changes. There’s more money available, the Fear The Wave Collective is among the best in the G5, and it’s all starting to pay off.
LikeLike
As Pete Thamel tweeted, by law they can’t vote on anything in private session, so most likely this will just be an update and discussion on the TV deal and CU’s options.
They also have these meetings regularly (about 10 since last November), so don’t read too much into it.
LikeLike
“Ohio State’s three proposed permanent rivals would be Michigan, Penn State and Purdue.”
https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/news/ohio-state-buckeyes-with-permanent-rivals-after-big-ten-expansion-michigan-wolverines-the-game-penn-state-nittany-lions-purdue-boilermakers
The interesting aspect of that is the winning percentage of each of those three teams vs Ohio State since 2000:
Michigan 5-17 22.7%
Penn State 5-17 22.7%
Purdue 5-9 35.7%
LikeLike
This is merely one sportswriter’s guess, and not a particularly good guess, among the many that have been published.
Over time, no team will be equally motivated for every game. If talent were the only variable, Purdue should not beat OSU more often than Michigan and Penn State do. But even great teams are going to look past opponents sometimes. Purdue is occasionally the beneficiary of that.
LikeLike
I would say Purdue is among the least likely teams to be Ohio St.’s 3rd. So its a really bad guess.
LikeLike
Agreed. If the B10- wanted to give OSU a locked lower-tier team it would be either IL (Illibuck), IN (proximity), or UMD (has to play someone).
I’d be very surprised if OSU and UM don’t both get locked with an LA school.
LikeLike
Brian: “I’d be very surprised if OSU and UM don’t both get locked with an LA school.”
As I’ve mentioned before, there are two schools of thought on that. Either we can lock all of our heavyweights playing each other for maximum TV vratings and maximum at-large berths for the SEC & ND in the CFP, or we could seek maximum parity in conference scheduling and maximum at-large berths for the Big Ten in the CFP.
LikeLike
@Colin: You are certainly right about two schools of thought. But conferences have consistently prioritized high recurring revenue that they control over lumpy unpredictable revenue that they have to share with others. The Big Ten didn’t add the California schools to have more games against Rutgers and Indiana.
Besides, you haven’t seen the new SEC schedule yet.
LikeLike
No, I haven’t seen the new SEC schedule but I’ve got a good idea what it will look like. Texas will be locked with A&M, OU and Arkansas, not Bama and Georgia.
Florida will be locked with Auburn, Georgia and USCe, not Oklahoma and LSU.
LikeLike
Texas will be locked with A&M, OU and Arkansas, not Bama and Georgia.
Florida will be locked with Auburn, Georgia and USCe, not Oklahoma and LSU.
Let’s say Texas is indeed locked with A&M, OU, and Arkansas. That means they are not locked with Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, or LSU (etc.). But in a 3-6-6 model they still have to play half of these each year.
So Texas in Year 1 might face A&M, OU, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Vandy, Kentucky. In year 2, they might have A&M, OU, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina.
That’s not exactly a pushover schedule. Even with what you are considering to be 3 “easy locks,” they cannot avoid the tough teams. That’s a tougher lineup than any Big Ten school would play, regardless of who is locked to whom.
LikeLike
Marc, you said it yourself: “But in a 3-6-6 model they still have to play half of these (heavyweights) each year.”
Exactly right, and the same will happen in the Big Ten. We don’t need to load up Ohio State with Michigan, Penn State and USC as annual rivals. If OSU was locked with, for example, Michigan, Purdue and Illinois in a 3-6-6 scheme, one year they would play:
Michigan, Purdue, Illinois, Penn State, UCLA, Rutgers, Minnesota, Iowa & Indiana.
The alternate schedule would be:
Michigan, Purdue, Illinois, USC, Michigan State, Maryland, Wisconsin, Nebraska & Northwestern.
LikeLike
The point is that Texas will get rivals and gets tied in pretty easily. Purdue is one of the least of Ohio St.’s rivals. And the California schools have no natural rivals in the Big 10+1+1+2. So Ohio St. and Michigan would be the schools to help tie them into the conference as well as being TV friendly.
LikeLike
bullet, if we have OSU, Michigan, Penn State and USC all playing each other annually, we’ll end up with a bunch of 9-3 teams that will watch 10-2 SEC schools and ND going off to the CFP every year.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Let’s say Texas is indeed locked with A&M, OU, and Arkansas.”
How is this significantly different from OSU vs UM, PSU and UCLA?
OU has been stronger than UM until recently, but in general they are similar rivalries. PSU has been better than TAMU historically, but not over the last decade or so. And UCLA is on par with AR – decent but not a power most years.
Any locked rival system is going to have OSU locked with at least 2 big name programs – UM and at least 1 of PSU/USC. And if it doesn’t get USC, then UCLA is highly likely because the newbies need to have the prominent brands to help build their B10 ties. Their fans think of OSU and UM when they think of the B10, and those schools also have large alumni bases that will attend those games.
If more than half the B10 is big brands (OSU, UM, PSU, NE, USC, WI, MSU, IA, UCLA), OSU isn’t going to get locked with two of the lesser brands. That wouldn’t make sense from any rational person’s perspective. The top teams will get at least 2 tough locked rivals, and the lower tier teams will get at least 2 easier rivals.
LikeLike
If we have OSU, Michigan, Penn State and USC all playing each other annually, we’ll end up with a bunch of 9-3 teams that will watch 10-2 SEC schools and ND going off to the CFP every year.
No, it doesn’t work that way. Even with the supposedly easy schedule they play, I estimate that ND would have made the 12-team field only about 7 of the past 15 years, or roughly half the time.
LikeLike
Marc: “No, it doesn’t work that way. Even with the supposedly easy schedule they play, I estimate that ND would have made the 12-team field only about 7 of the past 15 years, or roughly half the time.”
Marc, it DOES work that way. ND is playing 5 ACC cupcakes + Navy and you want Big Ten schools to pile up OSU + Michigan + Penn State + USC on top of each other? When the CFP committee gets together, their mentality is 11-1 is better than 9-3.
LikeLike
Marc, it DOES work that way. ND is playing 5 ACC cupcakes + Navy…
Yes, and they went 8–4 last year, with losses to Marshall and a Stanford team that went 1–8 in the Pac-12. The Irish would not have made a 12-team playoff with that record, or even a 16-team playoff.
LikeLike
For the past ten years ND was, regular season: 9-4; 8-4; 11-1; 10-0; 11-2; 12-0; 10-2; 4-8; 10-2; 7-5. With the 12-team playoff they would have made it six times.
LikeLike
For the past ten years ND was, regular season: 9-4; 8-4; 11-1; 10-0; 11-2; 12-0; 10-2; 4-8; 10-2; 7-5. With the 12-team playoff they would have made it six times.
In other words, you agree with me that despite their (purportedly) cupcake schedule they would make it about half the time. But interestingly, that calculation has nothing to do with the strength of schedule of other leagues’ best teams.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-readies-to-pounce-on-four-corners-schools-as-doubt-creeps-in-about-pac-12s-viability/
There’s lots of B12 speculation in this piece, but I thought something else was more interesting.
The future of the Ducks and Huskies as members of the Pac-12 may be tied to outgoing Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren. There are indications at least one Big Ten media rights holder won’t engage in expansion talks until Warren officially leaves the conference for the Chicago Bears on April 17.
Why would a media company care whether Warren was gone or not? It’s the B10 you’re dealing with, and you know he’ll be gone soon.
And why would the B10 have a lame duck commissioner negotiate for them? Send someone who will still be around come football season.
Also this:
The Pac-12 cannot suffer the loss of “even two” teams and remain a viable Power Five conference, veteran media consult Neil Pilson told CBS Sports recently. “I don’t think they can afford to lose even two more schools. I think if they end up back as the Pac-8 or Pac-10, [it will not be good],” Pilson said.
…
There have been recent rumblings that the Pac-12 could have received the same deal the Big 12 did in October ($31.66 million per team) had it acted more aggressively in renewing its media rights. That probably would have solidified the league for years. However, Yormark jumped in front of the Big 12 with an October deal that was at first criticized for being below market. Well, there is below market and staying viable as a conference.
…
“It’s not black and white,” Pilson said. “The market can force you into difficult decisions. If it was an easy choice, [the Pac-12] probably would have made it months ago. If they really had a good deal, they probably would have taken it.”
LikeLike
Dodd’s article has a bit more specificity than I have seen before, leading me to think there could be some truth to it. Of course, all he is basically saying is that the four corners are talking to the Big XII. Which of course they are. Why wouldn’t they?
There have been recent rumblings that the Pac-12 could have received the same deal the Big 12 did in October ($31.66 million per team) had it acted more aggressively in renewing its media rights.
Kliavkoff still thought he could get $40mm. I suspect they are now struggling even to get $30m, or it would be announced already.
Why would a media company care whether Warren was gone or not? It’s the B10 you’re dealing with, and you know he’ll be gone soon.
That part of the story is incomprehensible. I cannot imagine that Warren has negotiating authority now, even if there were something to negotiate. Has the Big Ten had a change-of-heart after it already told Warren no on this exact issue?
LikeLike
Utah’s AD responded to Dodd’s piece on Twitter:
LikeLike
It’s one thing to become a living, breathing conspiracy theory’ like my friend K-Brod (#Big12Karen Whoo-Hoo!!) but when Bob Thompson goes full fledged Kanon (or is it 12anon?) you know you’re over the target. I guess that 1000 bot army of hers is on the march ! lol. I, personally, would rather have the P12 survive. I have a lot of familial ties to it, but market forces predetermined its demise long ago. “But the Presidents!!” Hilarious. I see you guys are STILL in denial. Oregon and Washington will be in the B1G by the time the new contract kicks off next year. Bank on it. It’s going to be an interesting couple weeks.
LikeLike
What are you even talking about? It reads like maybe you’re responding to something on Twitter, but it’s complete gibberish without some sort of reference.
“I, personally, would rather have the P12 survive. I have a lot of familial ties to it, but market forces predetermined its demise long ago.”
That’s clearly BS, since it was plausible for them to add UT and OU and other schools just over a decade ago. Would market forces be killing the P16 today? The P12 has some inherent disadvantages, but they also made some choices that didn’t turn out well for them (P12N, rejecting UT, etc.). They could’ve signed a TV deal before the B12 did, and they wouldn’t be in their current position.
““But the Presidents!!” ”
Yes, the people that have to actually agree to any realignment.
“Oregon and Washington will be in the B1G by the time the new contract kicks off next year.”
It starts July 1, not next year. That doesn’t leave much time for the B10 to get a new commissioner, get the presidents to approve it, get the schools to give notice to the P12 and join the B10. There was talk of USC and UCLA needing to give notice by June 30 last year to join the B10 this year. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but it’s getting more difficult.
LikeLike
Yes, that last bit is important. USC/UCLA had to announce they were leaving before June 30, 2022 in order to not trigger any exit penalties with the Pac-12.
That’s another problem for anybody that tries to leave now; obviously not insurmountable, but just another issue.
And with the Big Ten’s TV deal starting in a few months, hard to see any renegotiation working on a short time table.
I’d never say never, but UW/UO are likely to be in the Pac-12 through the next Pac-12 TV deal.
LikeLike
z33k – those are just points for negotiation. UT & OU were supposed to give formal notice by January 30, 2023, pay $80m each in exit fees, and $40m each to buy their way out of the B-12 GoR. They gave notice after the deadline and “only” paid $50m each, rather than the retail price of $120m each.
LikeLike
Alan,
Yes, but there are also practical issues with leaving 5 months before fall sports seasons start. That would be a lot of rescheduling to force on the P12 on very short notice, and a lot of rescheduling and change for UW and UO on very short notice. A person can move that quickly, but it’s hard for a university to do so.
LikeLike
And with the Big Ten’s TV deal starting in a few months, hard to see any renegotiation working on a short time table.
I think there is a bit of confusion here. I am not predicting any departures, but IF they do, it would be for the season starting in Fall 2024, not this year. The Pac-12 still has a TV deal in force for this season.
LikeLike
Marc,
This chain wasn’t in reply to you, it was in reply to EndeavorWMEDani’s comment:
Oregon and Washington will be in the B1G by the time the new contract kicks off next year.
I pointed out the TV deal starts this year, so that timeline seemed very short.
LikeLike
Brian, you are confused. USC and UCLA are joining in 2024. So there is still 18 months for UW and Oregon. Missouri announced for the SEC in November, 10 months ahead. It caused headaches, but was done.
LikeLike
bullet,
No, I’m not confused but I did mistype (June 30, 2022 was a deadline for the LA schools to leave the P12 to join in 2024) and we can’t edit comments. Thanks for pointing it out.
The LA schools join in 2024 but the TV deal starts in 2023, which was the main point. EndeavorWMEDani said UW and UO would be in when the new TV deal starts, and that’s 7/1/2023. And that’s the very tight deadline I don’t see as plausible.
LikeLike
From a Q&A in The Athletic:
LikeLike
“Naked Skate” of female hockey players at Harvard? Maybe woke Brian would look the other way, but I wouldn’t. Partial post from today’s The Athletic:
Harvard’s ‘mental-health Hunger Games’
Katey Stone has been Harvard’s women’s hockey coach for 27 seasons. She has the accolades to back up such a long career. But, according to a distressing report today from The Athletic’s Hailey Salvian and Katie Strang, she also created a program that consistently pushed boundaries of acceptable treatment.
Salvian and Strang spoke with more than 30 people for the story and reviewed audio recordings, videos and email correspondence. A pattern of hazing, insensitivity and mental abuse emerged. A few troubling details:
There have been multiple racially insensitive comments from Stone and her staff. In 2022, she said the team had “too many chiefs and not enough Indians” in a team meeting, which included two players of Indigenous descent. Both players eventually left the team.
There’s been an annual “Initiation Week” that includes various hazing rituals, and a “Naked Skate” that’s made players uncomfortable.
LikeLike
For those who care, Flugaur provided some supposed follow-up info to Dodd’s article. It was summarized here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-966748-post-18832184.html#pid18832184
14:45-36:30 – Discusses Dodd article with his thoughts
37:30-42:07 – B1G Expansion Door about to kick open (summarized below)
Quote:
Flugaur was told Fox Sports won’t engage in B1G expansion talks until Warren leaves and is not interested at this time in Northern Cali (California and Stanford). Based on their valuation, Fox Sports doesn’t think B1G expansion happens where they can’t sell or get much support for BTN. Fox Sports own a 61% share of BTN.
There is an opening for Oregon and Washington expansion to the B1G, but the money has to be there, and the money won’t come from Fox Sports (likely joining at a discounted rate). Oregon and Washington can wait and take their time, both previously had preliminary discussions with B1G. Arizona schools have a different deadline compared to Oregon & Washington (AZ schools needed to see PAC deal numbers this week and appears they didn’t get them), has nothing on Colorado and Utah. Oregon and Washington will keep swinging to join the B1G. B1G knows Oregon and Washington’s value. BTN would sell in Oregon and Washington. Fox Sports is willing to play with that expansion route. B1G expansion happens if the money is there, if they get the B1G votes, and when Warren leaves. Oregon and Washington’s ability to wait applies pressure on 4C schools.
I still don’t understand why Fox would be waiting on Warren to leave. He starts at the Bears on 4/17, so he must be leaving the B10 soon. Would he be in the negotiations for any future deal changes? I wouldn’t think so.
Fox Sports may not think NorCal expansion happens due to BTN sales, but they aren’t the ones making the decision (not that I think the B10 wants to add the NorCal schools).
As even Flugaur notes, B10 expansion happens only if some schools get the votes. There is still no evidence any president has changed their mind since they declined to invite anyone else from the west coast.
LikeLike
AZ schools needed to see PAC deal numbers this week and appears they didn’t get them.
That sounds like an artificial deadline. But a couple of weeks ago the Washington State president said: My sense is we need to get it done in March — in mid-March, hopefully… The longer it goes, the more noise there will be.
A week from today, that’s exactly where we will be, if there is no deal by then.
LikeLike
Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC will expand again during our lifetimes.
LikeLike
It’s not so much Warren as the lack of a new Commissioner. The networks want to know who they have to deal with and if he’s staying around. They don’t want to cut a deal with Warren and have the new guy want changes.
LikeLike
I think the death of cable is being overblown but I really doubt the BTN is driving these decisions anymore. Local sports networks are dying. I doubt there are more fans of college sports especially niche ones than that of the professional teams these local sports networks broadcast.
Now since athletics are just the marketing arm of the universities, there is value to including new territory for prospective students but is the pacific northwest a better recruiting ground for high value students and athletes than the mid Atlantic or Florida? Future spots are limited. I have a tough time believing the Big Ten is going to rush in Oregon and Washington while trying to onboard USC and UCLA with schools like Florida State and UNC publically complaining about the revenue from the ACC. The conference can wait out the next 7 years and see what’s going on with the ACC and still circle back to Oregon and Washington if they want.
LikeLike
https://kslsports.com/499432/opinion-making-sense-of-the-latest-pac-12-media-rights-rumors/
A Utah columnist chimes in with her opinion based on her sources locally and nationally.
Is The Pac-12 Doomed?
I don’t believe so. At least not this go-around. Talk to me again when media negotiations open up in five to six years and I may have a different opinion, but we’ll have to wait and see what the landscape gives us at that time.
…
Why Are These Negotiations Taking So Long? Is The Money That Bad?
…
In fact, it’s sounding like the Pac-12 has found some mixture between ESPN, Amazon, and Apple that they like and are just busy hammering out the details.
…
So where is the hold up? I’ve been told the Pac-12 is currently negotiating with both Amazon and Apple TV on the streaming end and because it’s new territory the process takes longer and involves more lawyers than simply negotiating with one of the classic TV powers. There is a general precedent in contracts with classic TV powers such as ESPN, Fox Sports, etc. and the various athletic conferences, there isn’t one with streaming services and that makes drawing up a contract more complex and therefore more time-consuming.
Could Something Drastically Change With Conference Realignment And Media Rights?
Of course. Until all is said and done there is always room for something to change. What I just shared could easily change next week. I chose to report what did in this article because they have remained constant in my conversations over the past several months which leads me to believe that is where everything is ultimately heading.
LikeLike
With the talk of all the money available from an expanded CFP and if hoops was fully monetized, does anyone worry about the incentives for conferences to collude to maximize bids?
A conference could decide that extra NCAAT bids are so valuable that teams should let lower seeds win some games in the conference tourney to get bids (including letting a bad team win the autobid). A mid-major getting 2 bids vs 1 could make a big difference over time. Football teams could throw games late in the year to get more conference teams in consideration for the final 12 (SEC getting 4 vs 3 or 5 vs 4). Add in the legalization of sports gambling in many states, athletes getting paid (so who’d notice NIL from a gangster shell company?), and it just gets murkier. Maybe somebody really needs a certain team to make, or not make, the CFP.
LikeLike
Brian: “With the talk of all the money available from an expanded CFP and if hoops was fully monetized, does anyone worry about the incentives for conferences to collude to maximize bids?”
Brian, comparing NCAAT bids to CFP at-large berths is a lame analogy. First, the Big Ten would not be “colluding” maximize CFP at-large berths. They’d be setting up their conference football schedule based upon traditional rivals, geographical proximity and parity. Also, basketball teams in a conference all play each other anyway, so there is no way that a conference’s schedule could be rigged to provide a coyple of teams with some advantage. The selection committee would see right through it.
There will be six at-large berths in the CFP each year and there will be eyed by the runners-up of the Big Ten, SEC, Big XII, ACC and Pac-10 plus Notre Dame. The Number 3 team in the SEC and Big Ten might also be competitive. It certainly will make a difference if Number 3 in the Big Ten is 10-2 versus 9-3.
LikeLike
Also, basketball teams in a conference all play each other anyway, so there is no way that a conference’s schedule could be rigged to provide a couple of teams with some advantage.
In this era of large conferences, the regular season basketball is no longer balanced, since you play some opponents twice and others once. But anyhow Brian was talking about teams deliberately “flopping” in the conference tournament, which unlike the regular season is not pre-planned.
The selection committee would see right through it. Obviously they would not publicize that the games are rigged. The committee has always considered wins and losses on the assumption that the games were played honestly.
LikeLike
Marc,
“In this era of large conferences, the regular season basketball is no longer balanced, since you play some opponents twice and others once. But anyhow Brian was talking about teams deliberately “flopping” in the conference tournament, which unlike the regular season is not pre-planned.”
Exactly. There are people who claim (I think they’re wrong) that MBB could be making twice what it is now, with all the money going to the schools for winning (also something the schools don’t want – they want the steady paycheck) so an extra bid would be worth millions.
“The selection committee would see right through it. Obviously they would not publicize that the games are rigged. The committee has always considered wins and losses on the assumption that the games were played honestly.”
If you let a team win the tournament, it doesn’t matter if the committee sees through it. The winner gets an autobid. As for other teams, the committee would have to take the game results at face value. Otherwise they open Pandora’s box if they start choosing which game results they “trust” and which they don’t. Some teams already rest players in their conference tournament if they have a borderline injury and the team is assured of making the NCAA tournament. How far is it from that to sitting a healthy player and saying he sprained an ankle or has a sore knee or had personal issues? And there are limits to how much the committee could punish other teams from that conference in seeding without it becoming a blatantly biased process.
We’ve seen plenty of examples of tanking in the pros, and resting starters when a game doesn’t much matter. As they professionalize college sports, all these aspects of pro sports will also come in.
LikeLike
For the power conferences with a large number of bids it is easy enough for the committee to eliminate a bubble team if an upset occurs where a team won the autobid that would not otherwise get a bid. Most of the one bid conferences are not strong enough to get a second bid even if their best teams are upset. Will FAU throw its game to UAB with the risk of being shut out of the tournament? At a projected #10 seed I doubt it. Purdue will be in if it loses to Penn State but that will just knock out the last B1G team currently in.
LikeLike
The committees all claim they don’t pay attention to conferences when the seed the tournaments. So would they punish RU if PU had let OSU win today? Without evidence the B10 itself was involved, wouldn’t they be more likely to punish PU’s seeding rather than another team? And how far could they drop PU without their seedings being ridiculed publicly? After all, upsets do happen. There’s plausible deniability without a smoking gun.
LikeLike
The selection committee would see right through it.
(This was supposed to be italicized in the prior post.) Remember that the selection committee is populated with the same bureaucrats who, in Brian’s hypothetical, would purportedly be colluding to fix games.
It certainly will make a difference if Number 3 in the Big Ten is 10-2 versus 9-3.
And yet, you are suggesting that conferences deliberately give their best teams easier schedules, and that the committee would neither notice this nor take it into account.
LikeLike
Marc: “And yet, you are suggesting that conferences deliberately give their best teams easier schedules,”
I’m suggesting the polar opposite. The Big Ten schedule should be based upon traditional rivals, geographic proximity and parity, not TV ratings. Loading up Ohio State with annual rivals of Michigan, Penn State and USC while loading up USC with Ohio State, Michigan and UCLA will just about guarantee that the conference won’t get three at-large berths and it will make it a lot more difficult to get two.
LikeLike
I’m suggesting the polar opposite. The Big Ten schedule should be based upon traditional rivals, geographic proximity and parity, not TV ratings.
USC and UCLA are neither geographically proximate nor traditional rivals of anybody in the conference. However, USC has played Ohio State more than any other Big Ten member. UCLA has played Nebraska more than any other Big Ten member, and Lincoln also happens to be the closest member geographically (though not really that close).
Loading up Ohio State with annual rivals of Michigan, Penn State and USC while loading up USC with Ohio State, Michigan and UCLA will just about guarantee that the conference won’t get three at-large berths and it will make it a lot more difficult to get two.
I suspect that, for reasons of balance, OSU’s third locked game will be UCLA, assuming they lock three. OSU has been playing Michigan and PSU annually for years, and UCLA’s historical strength is like an average Big Ten team. OSU in that scenario would have the same playoff chances they usually do.
LikeLike
Marc, neither USC nor UCLA has anything that could remotely be considered a “rivalry” in the Big Ten. Cripe, Indiana has played Ohio State 91 times. Is that a rivalry?
Thus loading up USC and UCLA as annual rivals of OSU and Michigan would miss on all three counts: They are not traditional rivals, they are not in geographical proximity and it would be as far as you can get from parity.
I don’t think the Big Ten is going to screw the pooch on those three criteria simply to get a few more games with top TV ratings. If USC isn’t playing Michigan every year, the networks will still have plenty of good matchups to chose from every week: USC-Wisconsin, UCLA-MSU, Michigan-Iowa, OSU-Nebraska, Penn St-Illinois, etc.
LikeLike
Thus loading up USC and UCLA as annual rivals of OSU and Michigan would miss on all three counts: They are not traditional rivals, they are not in geographical proximity and it would be as far as you can get from parity.
You provided rivalries, geography, and parity as the criteria. But USC and UCLA would fail the first two against any opponent except each other. Those two criteria are therefore eliminated, since every choice would be equally good—or bad, if you prefer to be negative.
Would the Big Ten use parity as a scheduling criterion? Most of us think not. They did that (or tried) with “Leaders” and “Legends” and dropped it as soon as they could, for a system that had about the least amount of parity you could imagine.
LikeLike
Marc: “Would the Big Ten use parity as a scheduling criterion? Most of us think not.”
Frankly (no pun intended), I don’t think that you speak on behalf of “most of us” on this forum. If we had a poll of forum members and asked them if they favored “Ohio St: Michigan, Penn St, UCLA” and “Michigan: Ohio St, Mich St, USC” or a more equitable schedule of “USC: Nebraska, Wisconsin, UCLA” and “UCLA: Illinois, Purdue and USC”, most would choose the latter.
LikeLike
You are entirely correct that I don’t speak for “most of us,” but I believe you proposed those pairings before and they were met with general derision, especially the UCLA ones. Of course, our opinions matter for nothing. I have much better evidence, which is the actual past behavior of conferences, especially this one.
LikeLike
From Wilner’s Hotline yesterday:
“The Hotline has long thought the most likely future shape of college football featured the SEC and Big Ten with 20-to-24 members — after they pluck the premium remaining brands on the two coasts — and a third league of 24-to-26 teams that forms around the Big 12.
Key point: Only five football programs not committed to the SEC and Big Ten carry substantially above-average valuations: Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, Clemson and Florida State.”
Elsewhere in his article, Wilner notes the University of North Carolina as desirable to both the Big Ten and SEC.
Nothing really new but it does crystallize the 6 primary schools that the Big Ten and SEC would consider financially.
LikeLike
Mike,
Here’s a link for it:
https://sports360az.com/2023/03/wilner-merger-with-the-acc-now-or-later-the-pac-12s-radio-silence-friday-on-amazon-boise-states-future-as-the-mw-waits/
He also added an odd note after that, so I’ll quote the whole bit:
Key point: Only five football programs not committed to the SEC and Big Ten carry substantially above-average valuations: Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, Clemson and Florida State.
(Could that change by the end of the decade? Sure. Utah is the type of program that could raise its brand to the level necessary for an eventual move into the Big Ten or SEC.
(That’s one reason the Utes are better off in the Pac-12: The best way to enhance long-term value is through playoff appearances, which are far easier for Kyle Whittingham and Co. in a 10-or-12 team Pac-12 that doesn’t include USC than in a 16-team Big 12.)
Utah is who he picks as a team that could elevate itself?
First, the SEC has zero interest in adding Utah to its footprint. It is very intentionally a southern league, and the only (non-B10) school it might break that mold for is ND. The SEC would expand from the ACC schools if it expands at all.
While Utah is AAU and good enough academically for the B10, I don’t see the value in them. They don’t have a long history at the P5 level, they aren’t a MBB power, their state is small, SLC isn’t a huge market, and they’re not close to LA. They might need a Miami/FSU in the 80s/90s level of success to build their value.
You could make a better argument for UA, CU, ASU, Cal and Stanford from the P12, though they don’t have the recent CFB success of Utah. Others would be KU, UVA and GT (also all lacking that CFB success). But coaches retire, and there’s no reason to assume their high level of success lasts beyond Whittingham.
LikeLike
There are only 5 football programs according to him with an above valuation with a 6th school in University of North Carolina being desirable to both leagues yet he thinks the SEC and Big Ten will reach 20-24 schools. Who are the other average brands the Big Ten or SEC would take?
LikeLike
psuhockey: “There are only 5 football programs according to him with an above valuation with a 6th school in University of North Carolina being desirable to both leagues yet he thinks the SEC and Big Ten will reach 20-24 schools. Who are the other average brands the Big Ten or SEC would take?”
Ooops, don’t forget that at the same time that the Big Ten and SEC expand to 20-24 schools, the Big XII will expand to 24-26 schools. So we’re talking 4-8 to the B1G plus 4-8 to the SEC plus 12-14 to the Big XII. Total: 20-30 new schools to the B1G, SEC and Big XII.
LikeLike
The only way I can see it is if they add two by two, with lower-valued schools taking up the even-numbered slots, such as when the SEC took Missouri to go with Texas A&M, or when the Big Ten took UCLA to go with USC.
But this is not a very likely scenario, as there are not eight imaginable pairings of that kind, which is what you’d need for both the Big Ten and the SEC to reach 24. Washington and Oregon, for instance, are surely moving together if they ever move at all.
The Big XII is different. Their TV deal is worth less than half of the Power Two’s deals, so the list of potentially gettable schools that would improve their value is a lot longer, and mostly non-overlapping with the Big Ten and SEC list.
(I have been a skeptic of 24-team leagues, and I have not changed my mind. I am just trying to see how Wilner’s math could work.)
LikeLike
Some people think almost all the southern ACC schools will basically be merged into the SEC by ESPN as some strange act of charity, forcing the B10 to react by raiding the P12 (UW, UO, Cal, Stanford and maybe more) plus KU and maybe some northern ACC teams or ND.
Apparently this makes so much financial sense that Disney can’t not do it. And sometimes they include the B10 picking up almost all the other ACC schools because they need to have a landing spot to allow the GoR to be broken.
LikeLike
Uh, Brian, if almost all the southern ACC schools will basically be merged into the SEC by ESPN, how is the B10 “forced” to react by raiding the P12?
LikeLike
Uh, Brian, if almost all the southern ACC schools will basically be merged into the SEC by ESPN, how is the B10 “forced” to react by raiding the P12?
I think you missed the sarcasm alert.
LikeLike
psuhockey,
“There are only 5 football programs according to him with an above valuation with a 6th school in University of North Carolina being desirable to both leagues yet he thinks the SEC and Big Ten will reach 20-24 schools. Who are the other average brands the Big Ten or SEC would take?”
B10 and SEC to 20 takes 4 schools each, or 8 total.
Some possible options:
B10 – ND, UW, UO, Miami
SEC – FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA
B10 and SEC to 24 takes 8 schools each, or 16 total.
Some possible options I’ve seen mentioned (mix and match as preferred):
B10 – ND, UW, UO, Cal, Stanford, CU, ASU, KU
SEC – FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, NCSU, VT, GT, Miami
Others: UAz, Duke, Syracuse
LikeLike
Ultimately, I think the Pac 12 parts are worth more elsewhere than the whole, with the more media valuable schools being able to rotate through Central and Eastern Time zone live TV slots (4) in the Big 12 and Big Ten, instead of just Pacific and Mountain Time zone live slots (3) in the Pac 12.
If Notre Dame can stay independent, they can always schedule Stanford similar as they do for Navy.
The ACC could live on diminished in the 2030s without Florida State and Clemson, and maybe North Carolina, possibly picking off a Big 12 school(s) at that time.
I struggle to see the Big Ten and SEC keeping their per school revenue shares increasing any other way unless Notre Dame is in a conference expansion mix.
LikeLike
Mike,
I agree the P12 schools might have more value in better conferences, but I’m not sure the B12 would work. First, the P12 schools don’t want to be associated academically with many of those schools. It may be petty and shortsighted, but they’d rather take less money and stay in the P12. Second, I’m not convinced plains fans care about the P12 schools either. They’ll watch them when they play their team, but will they tune in for ASU vs UCF if they’re KU fans? Third, the national spread would make for some expensive travel in a conference getting paid a lot less than the B10 and SEC.
As to the B10, first the B10 would have to want to add them. We’ve discussed that topic into the ground. But at some point you’d have to consider partial shares if you want the B10 to add more than the top 2 brands from the P12. Does the B10 want to open that can of worms? Do RU/UMD/IN/PU/IL/NW/MN want to make a lower financial tier a reality?
ND can and will stay independent. They will never lose CFP access, someone will always be willing to schedule them, and someone will always be willing to pay them.
The ACC could do without the FL schools and Clemson, but I think UNC is their linchpin (especially culturally). The remaining core of the ACC is UVA + the 4 NC schools. If UNC leaves, the ACC will survive in name only. It will be the remnants nobody else wanted, plus whatever AAC schools they add to backfill.
LikeLike
I agree the P12 schools might have more value in better conferences, but I’m not sure the B12 would work. First, the P12 schools don’t want to be associated academically with many of those schools. It may be petty and shortsighted, but they’d rather take less money and stay in the P12.
There must be an amount where at least some of the Pac-12 schools swallow their pride and take the money. I know Cal, Stanford, and UW are academic snobs, but those are not the schools the Big XII is targeting.
If Yormark can pull away even two schools, it probably kicks off a chain reaction. I’m not saying he can, but that is the scenario. If their choice is joining the Big XII or replenishing their ranks from the Mountain West, then what do the the Pac-12 schools do?
I’m not convinced plains fans care about the P12 schools either. They’ll watch them when they play their team, but will they tune in for ASU vs UCF if they’re KU fans?
Here is a Big Ten analogy. I generally don’t watch Rutgers or Maryland. But maybe I channel surf in the 4th quarter if they’re in a close game, or if the result affects the standings in a way I care about. I can do that because they’re always on at hours I am awake. I’m not watching the 4th quarter of an ASU game that ends at 1:30am, no matter how exciting it is.
So, if ASU plays more games in the Central and Eastern time zones, they will almost certainly be visible to more of the country. Sure, ASU vs. UCF won’t be appointment TV for very many of us, but if it’s available at hours we’re awake, fans will take a look if the game is somewhat interesting. That doesn’t happen at 1:00 a.m.
LikeLike
Marc,
“There must be an amount where at least some of the Pac-12 schools swallow their pride and take the money.”
Sure there’s some amount, but I don’t know that the gap to the B12 can be big enough to reach that amount.
“I know Cal, Stanford, and UW are academic snobs, but those are not the schools the Big XII is targeting.”
CU left the B12 and would have to swallow it’s pride to return. Utah would have to ask BYU for permission to join their conference. ASU aspires to AAU status and the other 3 already have it. Do they want to leave Cal, Stanford, UW, and some of their compatriots to join the B12?
The schools that would least object on academic grounds are WSU and OrSU, and the B12 doesn’t want them.
“If Yormark can pull away even two schools, it probably kicks off a chain reaction.”
But all of them have reasons to stay unless someone else jumps first.
“If their choice is joining the Big XII or replenishing their ranks from the Mountain West, then what do the the Pac-12 schools do?”
Reach out to the ACC?
“Here is a Big Ten analogy. I generally don’t watch Rutgers or Maryland. But maybe I channel surf in the 4th quarter if they’re in a close game, or if the result affects the standings in a way I care about. I can do that because they’re always on at hours I am awake.”
And on linear networks. The B12 will have some streaming component in addition to their linear exposure, so these games may not be all that visible for channel surfers.
As a counterpoint, southwest fans aren’t watching a game at 9 am. Nor do they want their team to regularly play then.
“So, if ASU plays more games in the Central and Eastern time zones, they will almost certainly be visible to more of the country. Sure, ASU vs. UCF won’t be appointment TV for very many of us, but if it’s available at hours we’re awake, fans will take a look if the game is somewhat interesting. That doesn’t happen at 1:00 a.m.”
Some will watch that game, but many will reject it out of hand. The late night games lack competition so they regularly draw 1M viewers. That beats a lot of afternoon games.
LikeLike
I realize that Wilner is a respected writer, but I think that he is (and has been) out of his mind when it comes to the B1G. He consistently ignores the strong desire of the B1G schools to keep 100 year old rivalries. He also ignores the extra expenses, etc., of 14 schools visiting the PAC schools. And to do so while subsidizing those schools.
The idea of UW and OU coming for partial shares for a few years solves very little. Do we believe that in five or six years they will be worth more than the B1G is paying its members?
The only way that the B1G could go to 24 schools is be largely eliminating many rivalries and having the existing 16 subsidize the PAC schools. Why would the 16 schools do that? To Wilner that is not a factor at all.
So UW and OU are significantly above average in value. Compared to what? To SEC or B1G money? No. More than the Big 12 or ACC? OK, so what?
What motivation does the SEC have to add schools other than ND (not likely), FSU, and maybe a couple more (at the most) from the ACC.
LikeLike
Wilner has been spinning a PAC conference best case slant since USC and UCLA and Big Ten announced their move. He has made a living off of writing West Coast sports for years, decades, and doesn’t want that to merge off into the more populous, east half of the country.
I never bought in to his big 3 remaining, power-5 conference theory- only Big Ten and SEC, and then everyone else shakes out somewhere else. The automatic qualifier 6 went down to so-called Power 5 in the CFP4 era and is quickly going to just 2 big conferences money wise.
It will likely be Big Ten and SEC in the CFP12 era, and independent Notre Dame (if they can keep getting paid substantially), and then everyone else regrouping for best of the rest media rights.
LikeLike
Bernie,
“The idea of UW and OU coming for partial shares for a few years solves very little. Do we believe that in five or six years they will be worth more than the B1G is paying its members?”
I do believe they would be worth the average value of a B10 school (like II or MN). So they wouldn’t add anything, but they wouldn’t really hurt anything either on that front.
More importantly, say the new TV deal ends at $80M per school. The next TV deal should be at least $100M if the current trends continue. If it jumps to $97M instead of $100M because of UW and UO, nobody would know. That’s why if they were going to be added this round they should’ve come in with USC and UCLA – everyone would be getting a big bump and wouldn’t know what it might have been without those 2.
“The only way that the B1G could go to 24 schools is be largely eliminating many rivalries and having the existing 16 subsidize the PAC schools. Why would the 16 schools do that?”
The people that suggest 20+ often picture essentially 2-4 divisions. They also suspect a 10 game conference schedule (10 = 4 + 2/5 + 2/5 + 2/5).
“What motivation does the SEC have to add schools other than ND (not likely), FSU, and maybe a couple more (at the most) from the ACC.”
Some people think they (or more accurately ESPN) feel a need to completely dominate the south and southeast, so they’d do it to increase their control (and keep the B10 out).
LikeLike
I realize that Wilner is a respected writer, but I think that he is (and has been) out of his mind when it comes to the B1G. He consistently ignores the strong desire of the B1G schools to keep 100 year old rivalries.
Wilner’s projection of 24-team conferences is not reporting. It’s just a spitball guess of where the industry will be more than a decade from now. Go out that far, and nobody’s crystal ball is very good.
I am not sure the Big Ten really cares about rivalries that much. Every expansion since they added Penn State has meant that rivalries get played less. If the money supports expansion, they always find a way to do it.
But no conference expands to lose money. Then, of course, you can always tell the fans that “we preferred to keep our rivalries.”
LikeLike
Marc, what makes you conclude that the B1G does not care about rivalries. That seems to be contrary to any statements made by university presidents, ADs or coaches. Of course if there is lots of extra money, frayed rivalries become undesirable, but tolerable. Little or no extra money is another issue entirely.
The SEC, ACC, and PAC care about rivalries. I assume the Big 12 does, but they are a bit of a moving target.
Scott Dochterman reported in the Atlantic from the B1G meeting
What remains undetermined is how Big Ten and school officials plan to set future scheduling beyond a nine-game annual slate. There is a desire to protect historic rivalries while ensuring every football player competes on each campus at least once every four years.
The reported desire is consistent with everything that has come out of the B1G. If ND or FSU came along and disrupted rivalries, they would live with it. Much less is a question.
LikeLike
Marc, what makes you conclude that the B1G does not care about rivalries.
If you look at their actual behavior, rather than their words, it’s clear that when they can make more money by expanding, rivalries take a back seat.
Now, having expanded, obviously rivalries do figure into scheduling decisions. But the biggest rivalries are also good TV games, so it happens that you can do both.
There is a desire to protect historic rivalries while ensuring every football player competes on each campus at least once every four years.
The “see each campus” priority is a bit of a red herring. Relatively few players are with the same team and on the travel squad for four seasons.
LikeLike
Lots of people, including ADs have talked about the Big 10 and SEC and a 3rd conference all around 24 teams.
I don’t think it makes sense, especially given that there are only a handful of teams above the median value for the SEC and Big 10. But this idea is not new with Wilner.
LikeLike
Ever since Delany came in, the Big Ten’s modus operandi in expansion has been to showcase the new prominent schools playing one another in the next TV deals.
Penn State back in the 90s joined the Big Ten and got Michigan for 10 straight years uninterrupted. Penn State has played Ohio State every year since joining the Big Ten.
Nebraska got Penn State as its Leaders-Legends crossover and then Ohio State as its first 6 year crossover opponent under the East-West schedule. Nebraska got Michigan as its 2nd 6 year crossover opponent (supposedly that was decided by random chance though; interesting though that it ended up as one of the next best revenue match ups).
USC and UCLA will be treated the same way as Nebraska/Penn State. The reality is that as you expand past the original 10, most of the annual rivalries get tossed out, and you have to focus on creating matchups that maximize the TV value of your new additions (at least for the first 6-10 years).
Yes you can keep 1 or 2 rivals for your most prominent schools, but that’s about it; they need to be playing each other to maximize TV money.
USC-Michigan and UCLA-Ohio State as permanent (until next expansion) opponents would match the prior expansion scheduling results.
Ohio State would get Michigan, Penn State, and UCLA.
Michigan would get Ohio State, USC, and Michigan State.
USC might get something like UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin.
UCLA might get something like USC, Ohio State, Nebraska.
Admittedly that’s a rough draw for UCLA, so maybe those get tweaked a little. Either way, the “permanence” of these opponents doesn’t really matter much given that everyone (except Colin) is expecting more movement in the 2030s once ACC schools start moving after FSU figures out when/how to leave.
After the 2030s, that may be when we see more “permanent” setups arranged for the Big Ten and SEC schedules. For now, setting up a “made for TV” schedule that preserves 2-3 rivalries is good enough.
LikeLike
z33k: “Ever since Delany came in, the Big Ten’s modus operandi in expansion has been to showcase the new prominent schools playing one another in the next TV deals.”
That was in an era in which the conference was bogged down into divisions. If two heavyweights weren’t in the same division, or dedicated as cross-rivals, then they wouldn’t play but once in a blue moon.
Things will be entirely different with the 3-6-6 scheduling format. If neither USC nor UCLA are annual rivals for Ohio State, each of them will nonetheless be playing Ohio State with a frequency of 50%. Typically, OSU will play USC for two years, then they’ll play UCLA for the next two years. That’s why grotesque gerrymandering of annual rivals is no longer needed.
LikeLike
You still want to maximize the new markets.
How do you do that, by having them play prominent opponents annually:
Michigan/Ohio State playing Penn State for 10 straight years.
Maryland/Rutgers as part of the Big Ten East with Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State playing in Maryland/NJ as much as possible from 2014 to 2024.
Michigan and Ohio State playing LA teams annually makes sense until the next expansion round in the mid-2030s.
Michigan/Ohio State playing new schools to maximize the new markets is pretty much a tradition for the Big Ten at this point. If you want to maximize LA (just like the Big Ten previously maximized Philly/Pittsburgh and NYC/DC), then give 10-12 years of Michigan/Ohio State locked to USC and UCLA respectively.
And it’s only “permanent” until the next round of expansion in the 2030s. Once Washington joins, replace them with Washington as a protected opponent.
LikeLike
z33k: “Michigan/Ohio State playing Penn State for 10 straight years.”
Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State not only played each other for 10 straight years, all three played Indiana for 10 straight years. They were in the same division. Sorry to belabor this but the inequities of divisions will no longer exist. All of us are well aware of the imbalance that we’ve experienced in the Big Ten East/West. There will be far more robust and balanced scheduling throughout the conference when we switch to the 3-6-6 format.
LikeLike
I’m referring to when Penn State joined the Big Ten. Penn State played Michigan from 1993 to 2002. They’ve played Ohio State every year since 1993.
My point is that in the immediate ~10 years following expansion, the Big Ten has had Michigan/Ohio State playing the new members mostly. This is true since Delany came to the Big Ten.
Why change a strategy that worked?
Penn State playing Michigan and Ohio State annually from 1993 to 2002.
Nebraska playing Penn State as a crossover while in a division with Michigan, and then playing Ohio State as a 6 year crossover after East/West divisions formed.
Penn State/Ohio State/Michigan playing Maryland/Rutgers annually from 2014 to 2023.
The next iteration of that strategy is USC locked to Michigan and UCLA locked to Ohio State until the mid-2030s.
You want to maximize your new markets for the first 10 years.
LikeLike
z33k: “Why change a strategy that worked?”
Because we’re now in a new era: No more divisions, 12-team CFP with six at-large berths, USC and UCLA joining the conference will add two more high-viewer games to the network smorgasboard every weekend and it is in the long-term best interests of the Big Ten to get as many CFP at-large berths as possible rather than having them snarfed up by the other P5 runnerups and ND. I have no trouble at all imagining a 12-team playoff in which the SEC has three teams and the Big Ten has only two . . . or one.
LikeLike
I don’t think losses to good teams will hurt the SEC or Big Ten.
SEC will probably get a bit more leeway than Big Ten schools, but ultimately, both sets of schools will have way higher quality of opponent on the schedules.
Look at this year with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State all in the top 10 despite being in the same division.
When you add USC/UCLA to the equation, you’re already removing the annual Michigan-Penn State matchup.
It won’t hurt the Big Ten’s chances at getting 3 schools in regularly if USC is locked with Michigan and UCLA is locked with Ohio State.
Big Ten schools will benefit even more from brand bias going forwards.
LikeLike
That Big Ten #3 will be competing with the ACC runnerup (10-2 Clemson or FSU), the Big XII runnerup (10-2 TCU, OK State, Houston), the Pac-12 runnerup (10-2 Oregon, Utah or Washington) and Notre Dame. And don’t forget the four G5 conference champs that didn’t get conference champ berths.
It’s going to make a big difference if that Big Ten #3 is 10-2 or 9-3.
LikeLike
Nothing will be balanced and equitable when you only play 9 of the other 15 schools. That’s the way we are going, but its going to regularly bring teams to the top of the conference who simply got lucky with the schedule. That happened with 11 teams and an 8 game conference schedule.
You may like playing everyone more frequently, but don’t be delusional and pretend it is going to be anything like balanced schedules in a season.
LikeLike
bullet: “Nothing will be balanced and equitable when you only play 9 of the other 15 schools . . .”
No one said that the 3-6-6 is perfectly balanced and equitable. But it’s obviously far more balanced and equitable than the East-West divisions or the Legends-Leaders divisions.
LikeLike
I have no trouble at all imagining a 12-team playoff in which the SEC has three teams and the Big Ten has only two . . . or one.
This is what happens when you flunk basic math. The Big Ten’s new regular-season TV deal averages out at $1.1 billion per year, or $68.7 million per school.
We don’t have hard numbers for the new playoff yet, but the current system pays a $6 million bonus for each playoff team. Since the Big Ten shares revenue equally, that’s an incremental $375,000 per school (with 16 schools).
So there you have it: the marginal benefit of one more playoff team is roughly 1/20th of the regular-season TV deal. The new revenue distribution formula will be different, but not to the extent that you would rationally choose to optimize playoff berths over a TV deal that the Big Ten totally controls.
This is generously assuming that you are correct that the SEC will get three teams and the Big Ten only one. You are almost certainly wrong about that too. However, the point of the simple math above is to show that, even if you are right, it’s not the correct priority.
LikeLike
Marc: “This is what happens when you flunk basic math. The Big Ten’s new regular-season TV deal averages out at $1.1 billion per year, or $68.7 million per school.”
So let’s see who flunked math. Using your own numbers and assuming the 3-6-6 format: If Ohio State is set up with annual rivals Michigan, Purdue and Illinois, the payout to the conference will be $1.1 billion per year, or $68.7 million per school. But if Ohio State is set up with annual rivals Michigan, Penn State and USC, then the payout to the conference will be $1.1 billion per year, or $68.7 million per school.
LikeLike
By my rough math, CFP currently gives the Power 5 conferences roughly $70-80 million each a year (around a half from the NY6 bowl contract, other half for the extra 3 playoff games), around $6-7 million per Power 5 school.
The expansion (and new contract) will likely up that to around $15-17 million per Power 5 school as the new CFP total value (including all major bowls) is worth around $2 billion with the Power 5 distributing around 50-60% of that.
Certainly an important stream of money, but nobody is prioritizing that over the conference TV deals at the Power 5 level.
Conference TV deals for the Big Ten and SEC will dwarf the CFP payouts by around 400% towards the late 2020s.
This is obviously why “big time” football schools that may have paths to the Big Ten/SEC (Washington, Oregon, FSU, Clemson, Miami) prioritize the conference TV deals as opposed to “an easier path to the playoff”.
And it works the same way for the conferences.
The Big Ten has always maximized its TV reach with scheduling; that will continue.
Adding the LA market doesn’t mean much if you don’t try to maximize its value. How do you maximize the LA market and stamp it as a Big Ten market? Send Michigan/Ohio State there often. They fill the stadiums and generate local interest; that was a big part of the reasoning for creating an East/West split when Rutgers/Maryland joined. Sending the trio of Penn State/Michigan/Ohio State to NJ and Maryland regularly was important for those TV markets.
For UCLA in particular which needs a shot in the arm, getting Ohio State and Nebraska annually would be the best 2 opponents other than USC.
To me, it feels like almost a no-brainer to have Michigan-USC and Ohio State-UCLA as locked games until the next round of expansion in the 2030s.
As I said before, when another Pac-12 school like Washington joins, can scramble this again.
LikeLike
So let’s see who flunked math.
You fell into the booby trap that I expected, so I’ll explain that one too.
It’s only a 7-year deal, which means the next negotiation begins ~5 years from now. If they want the next deal to go up as much as this one did, they have to give media partners what they want.
Heck, they may already have made certain scheduling promises that we aren’t aware of. But even if they didn’t, they certainly know how the next negotiation will go if they overload on OSU–Purdue games.
LikeLike
Marc: “If they want the next deal to go up as much as this one did, they have to give media partners what they want.”
There seems to be an assumption that if Fox doesn’t have a USC-Michigan game to televise, then they’ll be forced to show Indiana-Maryland instead. It isn’t that way at all.
Let’s say on a given weekend, USC plays Michigan and Michigan State plays Wisconsin. Now USC-UM will be a big draw but MSU-UW will also draw a decent crowd. Let’s say USC-UM gets 6 million viewers and MSU-UW gets 3.5 million, total 9.5.
But what if the games were USC-MSU and UM-UW instead? What would the collective draw be? Probably something like 4.5 million and 5 million, total 9.5.
LikeLike
@Colin: Do you really believe that if TV partners could pick the locked games, they’d choose the ones you’re recommending?
LikeLike
Marc, I truly believe that your hara-kiri scheduling proposal is not in the long-term best interests of the conference. Do you think the SEC will set up annual games for Bama vs Georgia for big TV ratings? I guarantee that they’re not that dumb.
With USC and UCLA in the fold, the Big Ten will have Ohio State, Michigan, USC and Penn State playing someone every week (excluding byes). Yes, there will be doggy games when they play Indiana, Northwestern, Rutgers, and Maryland but of course that won’t all happen at the same time. As I have said before, there will be plenty of games each weekend in which OSU/UM/PSU/USC will be playing games against Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue and UCLA.
And if the networks don’t believe they’re getting their money’s worth out of the Big Ten,, who are they going to switch to? Iowa State vs Cincinnati in the Big XII?
LikeLike
@Colin
The problem with your assumptions is that you’re giving equal value by total number of viewers when it doesn’t necessarily work that way.
Creating USC-Michigan and UCLA-Ohio State matchups probably draws the most value out of USC and UCLA (and the LA market) on an annual basis.
Matching them with the 2 biggest draws of the original 14 maximizes the value of those 2 “locked” games and the LA market.
Since Penn State joined, the conference has scheduled this way in order to showcase the new members playing against the 2 biggest draws to maximize their market locally as well as any national interest in the newest members.
We went from maximizing Penn State with Philly/Pittsburgh to Nebraska matchups to Rutgers and Maryland with NYC/NJ to DC, and now the conference is attempting to maximize LA.
USC/UCLA will have a lot of residual viewership from outside of the Big Ten footprint; how do you maximize that? By showcasing them against Ohio State and Michigan.
I think those games will draw significant numbers: Michigan-USC probably draws 8+ million if it’s a top 5 matchup. A top 5 Ohio State against a top 25 UCLA probably draws at least 5 million but maybe up to 8+ million as well depending on the time slot.
TV wants those matchups probably just below the current set of marquee annual matchups like Ohio State-Michigan and Ohio State-Penn State. I’d put Michigan-USC above the matchup its replacing Michigan-Penn State and possibly above Ohio State-Penn State depending on the rankings of the teams.
A top 10 USC generates national viewership when matched against Michigan. Ohio State as the biggest draw in the sport can generate huge viewership nationally against UCLA. It just makes sense to maximize the LA schools and their market until the next round of expansion.
To me, until I see otherwise, Michigan-USC and Ohio State-UCLA are by far 2 of the most obvious locked matchup choices available for the next ~12-13 years.
LikeLike
z33k: “Since Penn State joined, the conference has scheduled this way in order to showcase the new members playing against the 2 biggest draws to maximize their market locally as well as any national interest in the newest members.”
OK, a germ of truth in that until Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland also joined. Since that time our scheduling has been dictated by neanderthal mentality divisions.
The overall stature of the Big Ten will be most enhanced by placing the most teams into the CFP. If the SEC is placing three in every year while the Big Ten is placing two in every year, then the message is clear. We are Number two and pun intended.
LikeLike
I truly believe that your hara-kiri scheduling proposal is not in the long-term best interests of the conference. Do you think the SEC will set up annual games for Bama vs Georgia for big TV ratings? I guarantee that they’re not that dumb.
We went through this in a prior post. The SEC will be optimizing their schedule for TV. They are not dumb. For instance, they won’t lock Alabama with Auburn, Ole Miss, and Vanderbilt, which is the equivalent of what you are suggesting.
Since that time our scheduling has been dictated by Neanderthal mentality divisions.
The NCAA required divisions until recently, or else you could not have a CCG. The Big Ten at first tried competitively balanced divisions along the lines you are suggesting. That idea flopped, and they abandoned it at the first opportunity.
The overall stature of the Big Ten will be most enhanced by placing the most teams into the CFP. If the SEC is placing three in every year while the Big Ten is placing two in every year, then the message is clear. We are Number two and pun intended.
The Big Ten is already number two in playoff appearances (tied with the ACC) and a very distant third in both winning percentage and championships. The SEC is #1 and that is not changing.
LikeLike
Marc: “The SEC will be optimizing their schedule for TV. They are not dumb. For instance, they won’t lock Alabama with Auburn, Ole Miss, and Vanderbilt, which is the equivalent of what you are suggesting.”
No, that is your distorted perception of what I am suggesting. The SEC will lock Bama with Tennessee, LSU and Auburn, their traditional rivals. They won’t lock Bama with Georgia, Florida and Texas for maximum TV ratings.
LikeLike
The SEC will lock Bama with Tennessee, LSU and Auburn, their traditional rivals.
Those are already blockbusters. Nationwide, just 16 games last season topped 6 million viewers, and including all three of the above. So it happens that Alabama’s traditional rivals are pretty much the ones you’d choose anyway if you were optimizing for TV. The SEC is just different, because they have so many combinations of opponents that will produce blockbuster ratings, and it’s mathematically impossible to play them all.
In contrast, the Big Ten ditched Ohio State–Illinois, even though it was the Buckeyes’ most-played rivalry until it lapsed after 2017. In that case, the TV value of a different alignment was too great to ignore.
LikeLike
z33k,
“Creating USC-Michigan and UCLA-Ohio State matchups probably draws the most value out of USC and UCLA (and the LA market) on an annual basis.”
More than USC-OSU and UCLA-UM? I don’t know the answer to that, and I’m biased anyway.
“I think those games will draw significant numbers: Michigan-USC probably draws 8+ million if it’s a top 5 matchup. A top 5 Ohio State against a top 25 UCLA probably draws at least 5 million but maybe up to 8+ million as well depending on the time slot.”
8M is a lot to ask. OSU-UM will draw that easily, but very few other games ever do. Last year the #1 game each weekend topped 8M most weekends, but that’s it. PSU-UM drew 6.5M for example.
1. OSU-ND
2. AL-UT
3-6. none
7. AL-TN
8. none
9. OSU-PSU
10. TN-UGA
11. AL-MS
12. none
13. OSU-UM (17.1M)
I don’t see OSU-UCLA getting there.
“TV wants those matchups probably just below the current set of marquee annual matchups like Ohio State-Michigan and Ohio State-Penn State. I’d put Michigan-USC above the matchup its replacing Michigan-Penn State and possibly above Ohio State-Penn State depending on the rankings of the teams.”
Agreed, assuming equal rankings. USC brings in a different part of the country. There is some geographic overlap between the others. But if USC isn’t ranked highly, they draw nobody.
“To me, until I see otherwise, Michigan-USC and Ohio State-UCLA are by far 2 of the most obvious locked matchup choices available for the next ~12-13 years.”
I think whatever plan they use will only last 10 years at most, and maybe just 4 before they start to rotate some of the less important locked games. After 10 years, it is fair to re-evaluate if you need to lock OSU and UM with the LA schools.
LikeLike
Bernie,
The national consensus seems to be that if anyone got screwed by the selection committee this year, it was probably RU. But some of the wounds were self-inflicted with a weak OOC schedule and blowing the MN game late in the season. Losing your starter to injury was bad luck, and it put RU on a bad streak to finish the season. which didn’t help.
Overall, how are RU fans reacting? Will the team do well in the NIT to prove they were snubbed, or will they continue their poor play?
OSU avoid this by completely cratering and not recovering until it was too late to possibly make the tournament. We have 2 starters out hurt and apparently some other nagging injuries, to the point that OSU pre-emptively said it wouldn’t play in any postseason tournament even if offered a spot.
LikeLike
I think that the overwhelming consensus, and I mean from sportswriters all over the country who have been quoted, is that Rutgers got screwed. Some service collects 200 projected brackets from “experts” and RU was included on 191, or 95.5%.
As you say to at least a meaningful extent it was as much hari-kari as murder. The out of conference schedule was an abomination.
Honestly as someone who watched moderately closely I was shocked by the impact of losing Magwot Mag, who was a solid starter, but certainly not the star of the team. Before his season ending injury, RU was tied for 4th in B1G and was briefly ranked in the top 25. They then proceeded to lose 7 of 9 games, including to some really bad B1G teams.
I thought all season that the team was not much more than seven players deep and that certainly proved true.
Of course, the future seems brighter. On this year’s years team, there is exactly one player was a high school top 100. That was junior center Cliff Omoruyi, who was about number 40. It is too early to learn if Omoruyi will stay or try to make some money. Right now he is a solid college player, but, in my opinion, has no shot at the NBA. Another year, who knows. He needs it.
For the class of 2023, the have signed a kid who is ranked in the top 40 by 247 and, I think, in the top 25 by Rivals. They have another kid who is ranked just above 100, which would make his the second highest ranked player on the current team, and in his recruiting class.
2024 gets interesting. They have a commitment from the number 5 or 6 player in the country and another top 100 player. The number 5, Airious Bailey, will for the moment be by far the highest ranked player in program history, but could wind up being the second highest in his recruiting class.
The number 2 player in the Class of 24 is Dylan Harper, from a North Jersey Catholic school. He is the younger brother of RU star Ron Harper, Jr. Right now the consensus is that it is between Rutgers and Duke.
When RU recruited Ron Harper, Jr., I think that he was a solid 3 star, who was not getting any recruiting attention. He was offered by RU, Nebraska, and maybe Seton Hall. That was it for P6 basketball. He wound up as an AP All American Honorable Mention. His father, former solid NBA player, Ron Harper, attributes his son’s success to coaching at RU.
The same coaches are there. Whether that will deliver his younger brother remains to be seen.
LikeLike
Bernie,
OSU can understand your plight. We were a ranked team until Zed Key hurt his shoulder in the loss to PU. That began the 1-14 streak that killed the season. But once he finally sat rather than trying to play through it, the team improved and went on the BTT run. Key is a good player, but he is not a star, so it was weird to see the impact on the team.
LikeLike
Bernie, I agree that Rutgers should have gotten in. They knocked off #1 ranked, undefeated Purdue in West Lafayette. That alone justifies an invite.
Other thoughts about the field – Iona gets invited, coached by filth Rick Pitino. That creep should have a lifetime ban from college basketball. Also, the Big Ten gets eight teams in, which is good, but they’re split up South 1, East 2, Midwest 3 and West 2. If we had two in the South and two in the Midwest, they wouldn’t be knocking each other out.
LikeLike
Once they are in the B1G, USC will be as big a TV draw as tOSU or Michigan, and UCLA will be as big as Penn State. They constitute a massive upgrade to the B1G’s TV draw in both football and men’s basketball.
U Washington and Oregon U will also upgrade interest in the B1G, and so would Utah.
The B1G needs to finish its west coast raid now, and get ready for the east coast raid.
LikeLike
Bob,
I think you overestimate UCLA. They might become on par with WI/MSU/IA at best, but they don’t have the history of success it takes to be a brand like PSU in football. The hoops brand doesn’t carry over, and LA fans only follow if the team is very successful.
UW and UO might slightly increase interest (UO more than UW), but not a ton. I doubt Utah would at all. If all these teams were such strong draws, their TV ratings would be higher now. I think fans in the midwest tend to overrate the value of P12 schools. Because of the Rose Bowl, we have paid more attention to the P12 than the rest of the country does. Nobody in the south cares about UW or UCLA. UO drew fans by being the Nike school, but that has faded as their success has dropped and other schools have adopted their schtick with ugly alternate uniforms.
LikeLike
USC will be as big a TV draw as tOSU or Michigan, and UCLA will be as big as Penn State.
In CFB TV ratings last year, #1, #2, and #9 were OSU, Michigan, and Penn State respectively. USC was #12, and that was with a pretty good season in which they were in playoff contention until their CCG loss. UCLA was 25th. I am not seeing the catalyst here that bumps UCLA from 25th to 9th or USC from 12th to 2nd or 3rd.
U Washington and Oregon U will also upgrade interest in the B1G, and so would Utah.
On the same list, Oregon was 12th (pretty good), but Washington was 34th, sandwiched between Illinois and Northwestern. Maybe they get an upgrade by joining, but how much of an upgrade?
LikeLike
Marc: “In CFB TV ratings last year, #1, #2, and #9 were OSU, Michigan, and Penn State respectively. USC was #12, and that was with a pretty good season in which they were in playoff contention until their CCG loss. UCLA was 25th. I am not seeing the catalyst here that bumps UCLA from 25th to 9th or USC from 12th to 2nd or 3rd.”
That list (link) confirms what we already knew: There isn’t as much interest in college football west of the Pecos. The list gives numbers for 2022 and Oregon was probably elevated by that huge game vs Georgia to kick-start the season.
For the same reason, I somewhat agree with bob sykes. When USC and UCLA start playing Eastern & Central Time Zone early games against the likes of Michigan State, Wisconsin and Illinois rather than late games vs Arizona State, Oregon State and Cal, I think there will be a good boost in total viewers, mostly from the Midwest.
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
That list (link) confirms what we already knew: There isn’t as much interest in college football west of the Pecos.
USC and UCLA’s TV ratings were 12th and 25th respectively in 2022, which is better than most of the Big Ten.
For the same reason, I somewhat agree with bob sykes.
Bob didn’t just say that they will get more viewers than they did in the Pac-12, which I would have agreed with. He said that USC will draw like Michigan/OSU, and UCLA will draw like Penn State, which is just not supportable.
LikeLike
Marc: “He said that USC will draw like Michigan/OSU, and UCLA will draw like Penn State, which is just not supportable.”
Well, that remains to be seem. There will be a lot more people watching USC-Iowa at noon ET versus USC-Arizona at 4:00 PT.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/35857163/house-hold-hearing-nil-rights-new-ncaa-president
Congress will hold a hearing on NIL in college athletics. Maybe the new NCAA president is doing his job.
A spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee told ESPN on Tuesday it plans to host a hearing to discuss the name, image and likeness (NIL) rights of college athletes on March 29.
…
“I think the conversation with Congress will inform the conversation with membership about this stuff, and vice versa,” Baker told ESPN last month. “I understand and appreciate the difficulties of working something through a legislative process. It’s incredibly complicated.”
…
The hearing will be led by a pair of Republicans: committee chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers from Washington and Florida’s Gus Bilirakis, who chairs the subcommittee of Innovation, Data and Commerce. In a statement, Rodgers and Bilirakis said their group wants to “create a clear set of rules for male and female athletes of every sport to benefit from their name, image and likeness — at both large and small schools in every state — to preserve the future of college athletics.
“Given that March Madness is upon us,” they said in their joint statement, “we look forward to holding this timely hearing and reigniting discussions on how we can protect the rights of young athletes across the country.”
NCAA board chair Linda Livingstone told member schools earlier this year that they hoped to ask Congress for a new law that would make it clear that college athletes aren’t employees of their schools, create a national standard for NIL rules and protect the organization from retroactive lawsuits from athletes who were denied the ability to make money from NIL opportunities in the past.
LikeLike
” . . . Congress for a new law that would . . . create a national standard for NIL rules . . .”
I flat-out don’t think this is feasible. I’d love to see a national standard regarding how much money lawyers can make, or baseball players, or social media influencers, but it seems unconstitutional.
LikeLike
The Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Given that almost all college sports athletes receiving NIL money cross state lines to play, I have no doubt that Congress could legislate in this field. There are many industries that cross state lines in which Congress has fixed prices.
I do not think it’s a good idea, and I don’t think it will pass in the current Congress. But could they do it? Sure.
LikeLike
Marc: “The Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Given that almost all college sports athletes receiving NIL money cross state lines to play . . .”
I very much doubt that athletes crossing state lines to play will be the legal standard here. It will be: Did the NIL money cross state lines? And of course the answer will be “No”. Those Aggies and Canes got their handouts right at home in College Station and Miami.
LikeLike
Read some interstate commerce case law and get back to us. If you think it’s “flat-out unconstitutional,” tell us which case you are relying on and on what legal theory.
By the way, the interstate commerce begins even before the kid plays a down. If the NIL collective solicits money from alumni who live out-of-state, it’s interstate commerce. If a Florida kid is recruited to cross state lines to get NIL money in Georgia, it’s interstate commerce.
However, I look forward to your legal argument.
LikeLike
Marc: “Read some interstate commerce case law and get back to us. If you think it’s “flat-out unconstitutional,” tell us which case you are relying on and on what legal theory.”
Look, this “interstate commerce” is a hobgoblin in your head, not mine. I don’t think there is any legal reason that a college athlete receiving money for his image in a car commercial is any different that a female college student being paid for wearing a bikini in a car commercial, same car dealer.
I’m not trying to be argumentative about this but what is the legal basis for a college athlete being paid for flipping burgers as McDonalds being OK but a college athlete being paid for saying in an ad that McDonalds tastes yummy is not OK?
LikeLike
@Colin: Personally, I do not want to see Congress act in this area. I think it would go badly. I was just providing the legal explanation of how they could do it. There is very obviously an interstate market for collegiate athletics, and the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
But Congress does not regulate every little thing that it can. You offered several hypotheticals, none of which posed a “problem” that Congress has felt it needed to solve. That doesn’t mean they won’t try to “solve” this one, though I hope they don’t.
LikeLike
Neither the athlete nor the NIL money has to cross state lines in order to be regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
LikeLike
bob sykes: “Neither the athlete nor the NIL money has to cross state lines in order to be regulated under the Interstate Commerce Clause”
I don’t think that we’re all on the same page here. The athlete is not being paid by the university to compete on its athletic teams. He/she is being paid for name, image and likeness in ads or other promotions on behalf of a private entity, e.g. a car dealer. Like female gymnast Olivia Dunne at LSU who is making $2 million/year on social media, the university has no involvement at all. LSU neither approves nor disapproves nor allows nor disallows. LSU has no say in the matter.
Decades ago, Congress did get into regulating college athletics with Title IX. However, that ruling applied only to colleges and universities that receive federal funding. Secondly, the law applied to the schools, not the individual athletes. If Congress wants to make it illegal for Olivia Dunne to cash in on her NIL, exactly how are they going to do that? Create a law that makes it illegal for an athlete on scholarship at a university that receives federal funding to receive outside income?
LikeLike
Colin – I wrote the NIL law in Louisiana. It is no dissimilar to other states, although many states have repealed their laws.
Here is the main prohibition. “An intercollegiate athlete shall not earn compensation for the use of the athlete’s name, image, or likeness for the endorsement of tobacco, alcohol, illegal substances or activities, banned athletic substances, or any form of gambling or gaming, including sports wagering.” The school may also prohibit NIL if that NIL deal conflicts with “existing institutional sponsorship agreements or contracts.” or “Institutional values as defined by the postsecondary education institution.”
So, yes, schools do have a say. At least in Louisiana.
The athlete is also required to report NIL deals to university, basically as a conflicts check, ie, athlete can’t represent Pepsi if university is a Coke school.
FYI – Livvy Dunn is the perfect example of what NIL was designed for. She already had a Tik Tok and Instagram following prior to enrolling at LSU and was prevented from monetizing her notoriety prior to NIL. She doesn’t even start for the #6 LSU gymnastics team, so her NIL deals are obviously not “pay for play”.
LikeLike
Alan, that Louisiana NIL law that you authored ignores the 900-lb gorilla in the room – using NIL for recruiting or to promote transfers. That’s the problem, not whether the athlete is promoting beer or gambling.
And it’s well underway. There are highly reported highest-bidder recruiting stories out of Texas A&M and Miami, plus Lou Sabin was complaining about the ‘demands” of some of his players in some kind of “pay-or-I-portal” extortion. One of Bama’s linemen not only wanted money, he also wanted a guarantee that his girlfriend would be accepted to Alabama’s Law School. And of course there must be hundreds or thousands of similar NIL shenanigans going that we don’t read about in the newspapers.
LikeLike
Colin – no one state is going to address your”900 pound gorilla” at the risk of being anti-competitive as they relate to schools in other states. That’s why there needs to be federal legislation to address NIL and preempt the field.
LikeLike
Alan: “That’s why there needs to be federal legislation to address NIL and preempt the field.”
Alan, we already have a US Supreme Court ruling that addressses NIL. Here’s a partial repeat of my earlier post:
“ In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the NCAA and its member schools violate antitrust law when they conspire to limit how much each can compensate athletes for academic-related costs. Alston ended decades of preferential treatment for the NCAA, whose members are now treated like other businesses when they conspire to restrain competition. They could face antitrust litigation if they agree to limit NIL. ”
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2022/ncaa-nil-policy-1234670422/
LikeLike
Alan said federal legislation was required for NIL, not federal court decisions. If Congress wanted hey could pass a law exempting the NCAA from anti-trust legislation. Congress could regulate or even abolish NIL in college sports. Since very little passes through Congress I doubt they will get involved.
LikeLike
Little8: “Alan said federal legislation was required for NIL, not federal court decisions.”
Understood, but that still doesn’t address the 900-lb gorilla. How does Congress pass a law that prevents private businesses or individuals from using NIL payouts for recruiting/transfers when it is paid under the guise of a promotional, an advertisement, charity support, etc.? As long as these NIL payouts are being made, how does a law stop that?
LikeLike
In 1942, in Wickard v Filburn. the Supreme Court held that a farmer growing wheat on his own farm to feed his own animals, was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. During the Depression, Congress tried to keep up the price of wheat by institution of crop size limits.
This farmer feeding his own animals violated the size limit and therefor the clause. His home grown wheat apparently disrupted the entire national plan.
To say that the Interstate Commerce Clause has been hugely and widely applied is an understatement.
Do I think that it is smart of helpful for politicians to get involved in these matters, about which they understand nothing? Of course not. Do I think that if they do, courts will go along? Of course I do.
LikeLike
I don’t think that we’re all on the same page here. The athlete is not being paid by the university to compete on its athletic teams. He/she is being paid for name, image and likeness in ads or other promotions on behalf of a private entity, e.g. a car dealer.
I think everyone here realizes that the university itself does not pay NIL money. It is still “interstate commerce,” regardless of who pays.
If Congress wants to make it illegal for Olivia Dunne to cash in on her NIL, exactly how are they going to do that?
While my hope and belief is that Congress will ultimately do nothing, my guess is that the proposal will be some type of limit, not to prohibit NIL payments entirely. Probably the rule would apply to the schools, not the athletes, which is precisely how it used to work under the NCAA, until a few years ago.
If you think about how NCAA rules functioned, the NCAA never told Olivia Dunne that she couldn’t collect NIL money. It merely said that she couldn’t be a student-athlete while doing it. The NCAA probably wants a law like that, except that the limit probably wouldn’t be zero anymore.
LikeLike
Marc: “It is still “interstate commerce,” regardless of who pays.”
Frankly, I don’t think this proposed legislation has much to do with interstate commerce. If we take a look at the legislation that has transpired about NIL to date, the focus has been antitrust litigation. They’re talking Lamborghinis, not growing wheat.
“The NCAA has declined that strategy partly because it lost NCAA v. Alston. In a 9-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the NCAA and its member schools violate antitrust law when they conspire to limit how much each can compensate athletes for academic-related costs. Alston ended decades of preferential treatment for the NCAA, whose members are now treated like other businesses when they conspire to restrain competition. They could face antitrust litigation if they agree to limit NIL.”
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2022/ncaa-nil-policy-1234670422/
LikeLike
Frank,
I’m sure your next post will be about either the P12’s new TV deal, or the offer they get that drives schools to flee.
But something to think about after that is a new B10 expansion index – where do all the ACC and P12 schools fit in, and in what order of preference (I accept as given that ND is #1 by a mile – you can probably skip them)?
LikeLike
https://www.statepress.com/article/2023/03/senior-reporter-crow-mtg-sports-response#
ASU’s president says the P12’s negotiations are almost done.
ASU President Michael Crow said Pac-12 media rights negotiations are in the final stages and that the school is committed to playing in the Pac-12 conference in a meeting Tuesday with The State Press.
…
“We’re close to knowing where we’re going to be, and I think we’re close to a deal,” Crow said. “I think that the Pac-12 media rights became more complicated with the departure of USC and UCLA. The media rights became more complicated also, as things always do because markets go like this. They’re up and down, up and down. But, we have fabulous sports teams and the remaining teams, we’re going to get a good offer. We’re in the final stages of that process.”
Discussions about ASU moving to the Big 12
CBS Sports reported last week the Big 12 “renewed contact” with ASU, Arizona, Colorado and Utah and that the four schools’ interest in leaving for the Big 12 has “picked up in recent weeks.”
“There have been no discussions with the Big 12 conference on moving,” Crow said. “I mean, there’s been discussions between everyone everywhere on all things related to where our conference is going and where stuff’s going to end up and what’s happening. We are committed to the Pac-12.”
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/teams/purdue-boilermakers/news/how-many-permanent-rivals-should-b1g-teams-have-league-coaches-dish/
B10 coaches are wusses who are scared of their own shadows.
The Big Ten is expected to stay at nine conference games. And there is a desire to have schools play everybody at least twice in a four-year period. But the big conundrum is deciding on how many protected rivals each school will have annually.
“They want to have permanent opponents,” a Big Ten head coach told On3.com
And there also is a desire for each school to have the same number of permanent foes.
“That was kind of the consensus,” said the head coach. “Whatever that number is, it just needs to be the same because the initial (model) they were talking about, some had one, some had two, some had three. It just didn’t really seem to make much sense (to have a varying number protected rivals) would affect the equity of the rest of the schedule for everybody else.”
A second Big Ten head coach told On3.com: “I think it will be two. I wanted one. But, even my athletic director is like, ‘Hey, if we do one, who’s our rival?,’ which we obviously know. If we have two permanent opponents, we know who they will be. If it’s three, who would it be?
“I figure they probably will meet in the middle and we’ll have two.”
…
Before any decision is made by the Big Ten, the league head coaches On.3 spoke to think the conference has to know its objective. Is it …
1 To generate revenue through the TV contract?
2 To compete for a national championship, and generate TV revenue?
“If the priority is to have as many teams competing for a national championship, then everything else goes back to that answer,” a third Big Ten head coach told On.3. “If it’s all about generating revenue, and then hopefully competing for a national championship, than it all goes back to that answer.
“But that’s going to be the first question we’re going to ask the new commissioner: What’s your priority? You can’t say both. It’s A or B.”
…
“Again, what is the goal?” said the third Big Ten head coach. “That’s where we were as coaches. You have to tell us what the priority is as a league so we can at least set our own personal expectations.
“TV wants the match-ups (for the regular season). But you also want the best teams in the College Football Playoff and not have some lesser of the Power Five conferences who might not be as good as us get more teams in (the playoff), or the SEC get four teams in there because their schedules are easier.”
One potential landmine for playoff teams is the league title games, where a loss can be a resume killer. The Big Ten coaches discussed dumping that event. But, it’s likely the commissioner and others wouldn’t allow it, given the revenue it generates. Plus, in a 12-team playoff, a defeat in a league championship game may not be as detrimental as it can be in a four-team model.
“Yeah, we talked about it,” said the third Big Ten head coach. “But TV is gonna want it. It’s a lot of money for the league. They just have to know that if they are going to keep the title games, people can’t be penalized for losing that game like they are now.”
It sounds like the flex plan Marc (and others) likes is out. Simplicity wins the day.
Compromising on 2 would be pointless to me. Either you need 3 and like the symmetry of 3/6/6, or you don’t and you lock 1. Just 2 would still leave several key games unlocked (esp. western rivalries), so it’s the worst option.
How could coaches even think dropping the CCG was an option? It’s a big check for the conference, and with a 12-team CFP it won’t hurt any more than it might help. Exactly what people do they think have been punished for losing the B10CG?
CCG losers
2011 – Dantonio (retired after 2019)
2012 – Pelini (fired in 2014 – not for losing this CCG)
2013 – Meyer (left for other reasons)
2014 – Andersen (was already leaving for OrSU)
2015, 21 – Ferentz
2016, 17, 19 – Chryst (fired in 2022 for other reasons)
2018, 20 – Fitzgerald
2022 – Brohm (left for UL)
LikeLike
I think that if flex is dead, they will almost certainly lock three. They can’t lock one, because in that scenario who would MSU’s lock be? They are not going to let UM–OSU lapse, and any lock for the Spartans other than Michigan would be met with great ridicule.
Locking two has many of the same drawbacks as locking three, i.e., that for many teams the second lock is bound to seem a bit random. And yet, locking two complicates the schedule format for seemingly no benefit.
LikeLike
Marc: “I think that if flex is dead, they will almost certainly lock three.”
Yep, I agree with your analysis. Another thought, it’s almost spooky how that article mirrors the debate that we’ve had on this forum over the past couple of months. Maybe the Big Ten ADs have been reading our stuff?
LikeLike
Exactly. Either you say we will lock 1 just to keep the most important games going (and picking OSU/UM over MSU/UM will anger MSU), or you go to 3 (needed for MN/IA/WI/NE, plus 3/6/6 works so well).
I do think the “locked” games won’t all be permanent. Like the old parity-based scheduling plan that rotated “locked” games every 6 years, I think non-essential locked games will be rotated every so often. The new TV deal runs 7 years, but the first year is before the LA schools join. That leaves 6 years, which might be a good time frame to consider rotation. If more expansion is coming, then you have to scrap the plan anyway. If it isn’t, then you assess whether priorities have changed. Maybe the LA schools feel well integrated by then so they don’t need to play OSU and UM every year anymore. If nothing else, some of the forced pairings can be rotated.
Truly locked games:
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
NE – IA, MN
IA – MN, WI, NE (3)
MN – WI, IA, NE (3)
WI – MN, IA
NW – IL
IL – NW
PU – IN
IN – PU
MSU – UM
UM – OSU, MSU
OSU – UM, PSU
PSU – OSU
RU – UMD
UMD – RU
I don’t see any of those games going away as long as 3 games are locked.
Close to locked:
UCLA – NE (2)
NE – UCLA (3)
IL – PU (2)
PU – IL (2)
PSU – RU (2)
RU – PSU (2)
These games seem highly likely to me to stick around. NE is the nearest school to LA (and the other western schools are mostly locked to each other) and has history recruiting in CA. They also have some history with UCLA, and have been down enough that linking them with USC might be unbalanced. If NE returns to elite status, then switching them to USC might make sense. RU needs PSU’s visits more than UMD does, and the NYC market is very important to the B10. The Purdue Cannon rivalry has history and the midwestern schools need some consideration as well.
Possible short term locks:
USC – UM, NW (3)
UCLA – OSU (3)
WI – MSU (3)
NW – USC (2)
IL – IN (3)
IN – IL, MSU (3)
MSU – WI, IN (3)
UM – USC (3)
OSU – UCLA (3)
PSU – UMD (3)
UMD – PSU (2)
These games might last a long time, or they might be seen as just short term pairings. Some seem more likely to be short term (USC/IL) than others.
Definite short term locks (if chosen):
PU – UMD
NW – RU
If nothing else changes, RU and UMD could be swapped every 2 years (so they play 3 out of 4 years against both NW and PU).
LikeLike
I did a similar exercise but didn’t get around to posting. It was similar. In lieu of the ones you’ve shown, I think I had USC-WI, MSU-PSU, MD-NW. But I am not saying mine is necessarily better.
LikeLike
I don’t have a specific list that I’ll defend beyond the “truly locked” set. I made up the list on the fly (as always), and it varies a little each time. I could see your set, and those are all within my short term lock set so we aren’t really disagreeing.
LikeLike
Re Nebraska…
Perhaps an annual visit to CA might provide a large boost to their chances of returning to elite status? Nebraska-USC certainly should draw well above average ratings. After several years UCLA could remain locked and USC dropped if Nebraska proves regularly overmatched.
LikeLike
It would be nice if it helped them. I think the new coach will help even more.
I’m not sure if NE wants both LA schools locked, as that would be 3 upper half programs locked with them (USC, UCLA, IA). I think 3 trips in 4 years is enough for any 1 school, plus the rest of the B10 might complain that NE is getting too much of an advantage. NE could always schedule Stanford or Cal OOC to get a 4th game in CA, and that would open up NorCal to them as well. Or maybe SDSU if it joins the P12, or even Fresno St.
LikeLike
In the one rival system MSU and Penn State will be forced together. If expansion continues and Notre Dame and one of the Florida Schools join like Miami or FSU, those schools could get a decent rival but other than that, those two are screwed going forward. The MSU-Michigan game means more to MSU than Michigan. Same with the Ohio State-Penn State game. Just what it is.
LikeLike
Yes, most likely they would be. The only other realistic option would be PSU/RU and MSU/UMD but that seems even worse.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the B10 teams come in fairly obvious pairs that would make for solid rivalries but OSU/UM trumps OSU/PSU and MSU/UM. The B10 couldn’t justify dropping the most valuable game in all of CFB.
As for other expansion pairs, I’m not sure most would fix the issue:
UW+UO = paired
UW+Stanford = paired
FSU+Miami = paired
UVA+UNC = paired
ND+FSU = ND/FSU + MSU/PSU (could do ND/MSU + FSU/PSU, or rotate equally)
ND+Miami = same as for FSU
ND+GT = same as for FSU
ND+Stanford = same as for FSU
ND+UW = same as for FSU
ND+UVA = UMD/UVA + PSU/RU + ND/MSU (or equally rotate ND/PSU/MSU/RU)
ND+UNC = same as for UVA
ND+Duke = same as for UVA
CU+Stanford = NE/CU + PSU/IA + MSU/Stanford (or equally rotate IA/PSU/MSU/Stanford)
CU+UW = same as for Stanford
The problem is that PSU/ND would have more TV value, but MSU/ND has history as a rivalry and ND would rather play fewer games in the midwest.
What PSU needs is for the B10 to add 2 non-midwestern schools who aren’t obvious rivals and don’t have clear ties to anyone in the B10, or that do have ties to PSU and MSU.
ND+Syracuse?
Miami (for PSU) + GT (for MSU)?
It’s a good reason not to stick with just 1 rival.
LikeLike
Take this for what it’s worth:
This guy claims to have a source that says Kliavkoff will present a deal to the P12 presidents Monday or Tuesday next week with a vote expected. He says his source is not inside the P12. Our long national nightmare might finally be ending.
https://twitter.com/TheBrandtofWV/status/1635545561532186627
LikeLike
This guy has historically been laughably inaccurate, but this story is pretty well correlated with what we’ve been hearing, so I’ll give it a thumbs-up. The three buyers are the ones we’ve expected, and Wilner had the Pac-12 at 94% of the Big XII, so it adds up.
We will see how excited the schools are about “heavy streaming,” but I don’t think this is the deal that pushes the four corners to move.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t vouch for the guy at all. But the tweet makes a clear prediction with a short time window, so at least we will know soon if he’s correct or not. It’s got none of the vague language the national reporters always use to cover themselves.
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/march-madness-bracket-expansion-57e1cde42df782eaf0883300a45901e1
AP’s Ralph Russo looks at the issues around expanding the NCAA tournament.
The mere suggestion of messing with March Madness, which generates hundreds of millions in revenue annually for the NCAA and its 1,100 member schools, is still met with skepticism by a lot of basketball fans and some within college sports.
Making significant changes in the near term will be difficult, if not impossible. There are logistical, financial and even political obstacles.
…
“That’s not to say we won’t give it it’s appropriate level of analysis and consideration, but there’s a lot of factors to be considered,” said Dan Gavitt, the NCAA vice president for basketball.
…
Committee co-chair Greg Sankey, the Southeastern Conference commissioner, has tried to avoid being seen as pushing for expansion while also pointing out some of the reasons to do so.
“You have teams that have been the 11-seed in the First Four, make it to the Final Four, the Elite Eight, the Sweet 16,” Sankey said in January. “We’re excluding highly competitive teams, because of the structure. Now what does that expansion or those opportunities look like? I have ideas, but I’m not going to throw them out now since I don’t want to make headlines.”
…
Current selection protocols provide an automatic berth to the champions of all 32 Division I conferences, plus 36 at-large bids. Those are mostly scooped up by the six strongest and richest conferences: the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern.
The Big Six secured 31 of 36 at-large bids on Sunday.
…
In 2023, a basketball unit will be worth approximately $2.04 million over the six-year period in which it is paid out. So if you’re the SEC or Big Ten, each with eight teams in the tourney, seeing all of them advance a round means more than $16 million.
…
Tom Burnett, the former Southland Conference commissioner who also served a stint as the head of the men’s basketball selection committee, said he was open-minded but cautious when the topic of tournament expansion would come up.
“If there were a practical expansion plan that addressed whatever needs to be addressed — except here’s where I draw the line: It can’t expand because my team didn’t get in,” Burnett said. There will always be teams that feel slighted if they don’t get in.
There is some concern outside the power conferences that expansion will result in even more at-large bids going to middle-of-the-pack teams from those leagues with strong mid-major teams still getting squeezed out.
“If you’ve got a seventh- or eighth-place team in over a regular-season champion in a conference, from our perspective, that’s not the way to expand,” said Northern Arizona athletic director Mike Marlow, whose team made an unlikely run to the Big Sky Tournament championship game before losing.
…
The calendar alone is likely to limit expansion options. Any plan that requires the NCAA Tournament to start earlier than it already does —- the First Four games tip-off Tuesday —- would also require conference tournaments to end sooner and maybe even the regular season.
“We already start the regular season in early November where historically some conferences have said it’s too early with all that’s going on with college football and the like,” Gavitt said.
Any expansion of the men’s tournament will almost certainly need to be done to the women’s tournament, too. The NCAA was slammed in 2021 for not providing a similar experience for the men’s and women’s teams.
…
The women’s field expanded from 64 to 68 last year. While the depth of competition in women’s basketball has unquestionably improved, has it done so enough to justify a large and costly expansion?
But the same thing can be said for the men’s tournament. More teams adds expenses for travel, lodging and possibly running additional sites.
Plus, it would almost certainly decrease the value of those performance units, money that is is often the main revenue source for mid-major conferences that don’t play major college football.
“Cutting that by 10 or 11%, or whatever the different calculation could be, that’s actually really important. And it’s vital to the stability of Division I,” Shaheen said.
When Shaheen led the last expansion effort, the NCAA was heading toward the end of a media rights deal with CBS. A new format was part of negotiations for the next deal.
That’s not the case now. The current $8.8 billion contract with CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery, part of an extension the NCAA signed in 2016, runs through 2032.
I think many assume the smaller conferences support expansion, but it seems they are divided on it. It hurts them if the big 6 get more bids, but helps them if more conferences can get a second bid (eliminate bid stealing via conference tournaments). Who really wants this are schools/conferences looking to move up into D-I, as they can run their ADs from the NCAAT money they get.
Other factors to consider:
* The NCAA also owns the NIT. If more teams make the NCAAT, it undermines the NIT. Is that a net win or loss for the NCAA?
* How much more (if any) would the networks pay for more NCAAT games? The deal has 9 more years and probably doesn’t require them to pay more.
* The logistics of when and where to play become troublesome. Does the NCAA force the season to end earlier so they can add another weekend? Do they add a full round of T and W games? How many host cities can have 6 days of availability?
* The women’s tournament already let’s in too many teams. With the lack of parity in WBB, the last thing they need is more teams in the postseason. No 10-seed or worse has ever made their final 4 (6 men’s teams have: 5 11-seeds and 1 10-seed). Only twice has a 3-seed won their tourney, and never anyone lower than that. Only 1 5-seed has made the finals. They have so many more blowouts in the women’s tourney that expansion would just dilute it more. If both tournaments must be the same size, then they should wait for WBB to gain some parity.
LikeLike
I think many assume the smaller conferences support expansion, but it seems they are divided on it. It hurts them if the big 6 get more bids, but helps them if more conferences can get a second bid (eliminate bid stealing via conference tournaments).
It’s a telling stat that 31 out of the 36 at-large bids went to the Big Six conferences. According to the Committee, the first four out were Oklahoma State, Rutgers, North Carolina, and Clemson — all Big Six schools. Expansion probably just means the rich get richer.
LikeLike
Frank,
There are lots of state school systems where one campus is D-I and another is D-III. How do you define when they are separate schools? I believe RU treats them all as one school, for example (used to have a provost running each campus with one president on the main campus, but recently renamed them as chancellors). Much of the difference may simply be due to size and physical proximity, not anything inherently different about the setup.
After all, the UC system is run by President Drake who was allowed to make the decision to permit UCLA’s athletics to move to the B10 while other campuses are at lower levels (Santa Cruz is D-III, Merced is NAIA, rest are D-I or I-A). The campuses have chancellors. But the UC system has 300k students vs 12k for FDU, so of course the administrative layers are a bit deeper.
LikeLike
With the massive reorganization of Rutgers a few years ago, Newark and Camden technically became campuses of the same university as New Brunswick, as opposed to being two other colleges in the Rutgers state system.
That was when the medical schools were reunited with Rutgers, reversing the split off years earlier. As I have stated many teams here, the split was to allow more political corruption using the “independent” medical schools. After one too many stories about $200,000 per year no show jobs, the stench got so great even NJ politicians had to react.
The split did hurt the academic standing of New Brunswick since the Newark and Camden branches were never highly rated and now are combined with New Brunswick. (The law schools and business school were always in Newark and Camden and not NB.)
As far as athletics, Newark and Camden each have their own DIII programs with sports like basketball, baseball, soccer, tennis, volleyball, golf and maybe a few others. Obviously these are split between men and women for Title IX,
LikeLike
Complete watch guide for today’s tourney games. Five Big Ten teams plus UCLA in action today.
Full schedule for Day 1 of the NCAA Tournament
Thursday’s Round (all times ET)
***No. 9 West Virginia vs. No. 8 Maryland | 12:15 p.m. | CBS
No. 13 Furman vs. No. 4 Virginia | 12:40 p.m. | truTV
No. 10 Utah St. vs. No. 7 Missouri |1:40 p.m. | TNT
No. 16 Howard vs. No. 1 Kansas | 2 p.m. | TBS
No. 16 Texas A&M CC vs. No. 1 Alabama | 2:45 p.m. | CBS
No. 12 College of Charleston vs. No. 5 San Diego St. | 3:10 p.m. | truTV
No. 15 Princeton vs. No. 2 Arizona | 4:10 p.m. | TNT
***No. 9 Illinois vs. No. 8 Arkansas | 4:30 p.m. | TBS
***No. 9 Auburn vs. No. 8 Iowa | 6:50 p.m. | TNT
No. 12 Oral Roberts vs. No. 5 Duke | 7:10 p.m. | CBS
No. 15 Colgate vs. No. 2 Texas | 7:25 p.m. | TBS
***No. 10 Boise St. vs. No. 7 Northwestern | 7:35 p.m. | truTV
No. 16 Northern Kentucky vs. No. 1 Houston | 9:20 p.m. | TNT
No. 13 Louisiana vs. No. 4 Tennessee | 9:40 p.m. | CBS
***No. 10 Penn State vs. No. 7 Texas A&M | 9:55 p.m. | TBS
No. 15 UNC Asheville vs. No. 2 UCLA | 10:05 p.m. | truTV
LikeLike
https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2023/03/oregon-house-bill-would-require-approval-of-state-legislature-for-public-universities-to-change-conferences.html
The OR state house has a bill that would require the legislature to approve any state university changing athletic affiliation. Presumably OrSU-linked people proposed this, and presumably UO-linked people will oppose it.
Of course, all of eastern OR is trying to secede from the state and become part of ID, so they may have more important issues to focus on.
House Bill 3427, proposed by Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, calls for public state universities that wish to “change the athletic association, conference or organization with authority over intercollegiate sports” to make the recommendation to “the appropriate legislative committees for review.”
The desired change in conferences “may not take effect unless it has first been submitted to the appropriate legislative committees … and has been approved by the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly may adopt, amend or reject the proposed change,” according to the proposed HB 3427.
A public hearing and possible work session for the bill has been called for March 28 at 3 p.m.
…
Based on how HB 3427 is written, even if the Pac-12 were to dissolve, Oregon and Oregon State would need approval of the Legislature before joining a new conference. The bill is not presently marked as emergency legislation, which would make it effective upon passage into law. That means even if passed and signed into law, the bill would become effective Jan. 1, 2024, well after the Pac-12′s future is expected to be determined.
LikeLike
https://news.usc.edu/206150/new-usc-capital-campus-washington-dc/
USC, DC’s B10 team? Now their move to the B10 makes sense.
Seriously, though, this could provide them with some resources on eastern time to help athletes on road trips. I’m impressed they have 6000 DC alumni, too.
USC announced on Wednesday the opening of its new Capital Campus in Washington, D.C., which will significantly increase the university’s reach by expanding its deep academic and research expertise, innovation and talent on the East Coast. As a leading research university, USC will convene high-level conversations with national and global opinion leaders on the most pressing issues of the day.
…
USC has maintained a thriving presence in Washington, D.C., for decades — and not just through the countless Trojan alumni who work at all levels of government, science, the military and the media in the capital.
The USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences offers a unique, semester-long program that sends students to study and work in the nation’s capital. As part of that program, students complete internships with government agencies, NGOs, advocacy groups, think tanks, consulting firms and congressional offices. Many students from the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism spend two-week Maymester sessions getting an insider’s view of the workings the country’s corridors of power.
The university will build upon the strong foundation created by these and many other Washington, D.C., programs with new expanded programming and collaborative learning opportunities.
The new campus also will enable USC to increase outreach to local high school and community college students and create a gathering place for prospective students and its 6,000 local-area alumni.
LikeLike
RU’s AD says the B10 commissioner search should be done by the end of May. So look to June as the earliest any further B10 expansion could possibly happen (not that it will).
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/news/paul-finebaum-details-big-ten-commissioner-needs-following-kevin-warren-leaving/
On a related note, Paul Finebaum describes what the B10 should be looking for in the new commish in his opinion.
“I suspect they will go old school because they don’t need the glitz, they don’t need the Brett Yormark from the entertainment world,” Finebaum said. “They don’t need what’s going on with (George) Kliavkoff in the west coast, I mean they need somebody who understands the minutia of college athletics.”
…
Finebaum may not be a fan of the job being done by the commissioners of the Big 12 and Pac-12 conferences, but does believe that the Big Ten’s man for the job can possibly be found in the ACC conference in Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner James Phillips.
“And even though at first I kind of shook my head when I heard his name, I think Jim Phillips might be the best choice,” Finebaum admitted. “Because he’s invested in the league, he went to school in the league, he’s been an AD at Northwestern, he nearly got the job last time.”
…
“And while some of his approaches have been criticized at the ACC, in terms of running the league from a day to day basis, he might fit their build better than anyone else,” Finebaum said.
Phillips has not been a commissioner for a very long time, but could be just what the Big Ten conference needs moving forward. Only time will tell who the conference tries to hire, but hopefully, the next Big Ten commissioner will be able to provide some longevity to the position and help continue to guide the conference upwardly during an ever changing college athletics landscape.
LikeLike
“Now, Jim Phillips and the ACC have opened up as being against expanding the Playoff right now. Jim Phillips has insisted that he and the ACC’s coaches and athletic directors are united on this front. They feel strongly that the model being debated isn’t the issue, but the timing itself. They feel that there is too much change happening at once.In total, the ACC has given three reasons that they don’t want expansion:
(1) Unanswered Questions about the health and safety of players in an expanded CFP
(2) Overall disruption in college athletics, as well as recent changes to the sport
(3) There should be a 365-day holistic review
“In other words, the ACC found reasons to not be in favor of expanding the Playoff right now. Only a couple of teams a season are going to be playing extra games, even in the 12-team model. So, the idea that player safety is a major issue, simply doesn’t hold weight. Especially when you consider that college teams are often criticized for already not caring about player safety.
“As for the other two points, they’re simply delay tactics. Phillips would argue that it’s to better understand the impact of NIL and the transfer portal. However, you have to then wonder why there is only one conference coming up with excuses to delay expansion.”
https://slapthesign.com/2022/01/15/jim-phillips-acc-force-notre-dame-football-join/
LikeLike
Yeah, Phillips was definitely on the wrong side of that issue, as were Warren and Kliavkoff — as shown by their 180-degree turn a few months later with no resolution of the alleged underlying issues.
But it can be hard to tease out what was his own position vs. channeling the views of his constituency. Commissioners do not have autocratic power. Kevin Warren showed what happens when a commissioner gets out too far ahead of his member schools.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Yeah, Phillips was definitely on the wrong side of that issue,”
No, he wasn’t. He said we would benefit from studying it in more detail. Show me that’s wrong. That year would’ve been done by the time they actually got around to deciding on expansion anyway.
“as were Warren and Kliavkoff”
Also incorrect. Kliavkoff simply wanted a financial model before signing a contract. That’s not wrong to want. It’s like reading the fine print before signing a contract – you should do it, even if most people don’t.
” — as shown by their 180-degree turn a few months later with no resolution of the alleged underlying issues.”
But there was resolution of probably the single most important underlying issue for the B10 – ESPN having sole rights to the CFP. The original proposal was to give ESPN an extension to their exclusive rights. The plan adopted a year later is to go to market once ESPN’s original deal ends. That’s a huge difference, and worth any perceived delay (they weren’t going to 12 in 2023 no matter what).
“But it can be hard to tease out what was his own position vs. channeling the views of his constituency. Commissioners do not have autocratic power. Kevin Warren showed what happens when a commissioner gets out too far ahead of his member schools.”
Being NW’s AD under Delany, many have said Phillips is from the more traditional mold of athletics administration. He actually believes academics matter and that these are student-athletes, not employees. He worries about student health and isn’t chasing every possible penny while also not letting too much money slip past.
LikeLike
[Phillips] said we would benefit from studying it in more detail. Show me that’s wrong.
Phillips raised three very specific reasons for voting no on expansion. A few months later, he flip-flopped with nothing having changed, except that he had been overruled. It’s not a good look when you switch your vote from no to yes, despite no progress on the issues that you said were so important at the time.
Kliavkoff simply wanted a financial model before signing a contract. That’s not wrong to want.
True, but he (like Phillips) flip-flopped with no resolution of that issue.
…there was resolution of probably the single most important underlying issue for the B10 – ESPN having sole rights to the CFP.
Right, but I was talking about Phillips. He raised a bunch of alleged problems having nothing to do with ESPN’s rights. So did Warren—he wanted P5 autobids. Like Phillips, he flip-flopped a few months later with no change to the underlying facts.
Anyone who wanted to limit ESPN’s hegemony was absolutely right to question it. But the original committee meetings were tripped up by issues unrelated to that, on which the three commissioners voting no had to be overruled by their bosses.
LikeLike
Marc,
“True, but he [Kliavkoff] (like Phillips) flip-flopped with no resolution of that issue.”
Perhaps he decided that it was naive on his part to think a plan could be developed in time (he was new to all this stuff), or perhaps he realized nobody else was willing to stand with the P12 against this so it was better to allow consensus, or perhaps he was told to say no originally and then was told to say yes.
“Right, but I was talking about Phillips.”
You were talking about Kliavkoff and Warren at that point.
“He raised a bunch of alleged problems having nothing to do with ESPN’s rights. So did Warren—he wanted P5 autobids. Like Phillips, he flip-flopped a few months later with no change to the underlying facts.”
That’s all true, but as you noted in another comment that may have perfectly reflected the orders they were given by their bosses. What reasoning they give publicly and why they actually do something don’t have to be the same – everyone does that all the time. You say the most altruistic reason you can think of, especially if it’s really all about money. Isn’t changing your mind after you learn more about something a sign of wisdom and maturity? Why mock it as a bad thing? Do you want everyone to always stick to their original opinion no matter how uninformed?
“Anyone who wanted to limit ESPN’s hegemony was absolutely right to question it. But the original committee meetings were tripped up by issues unrelated to that, on which the three commissioners voting no had to be overruled by their bosses.”
Did they have to be overruled, or did the bosses change their minds due to COVID financial losses? I do believe the commissioners got bogged down in trying to agree on the details of a plan first (while ignoring the most important aspect – the revenue split) and the presidents short-circuited the normal process by approving the concept without a plan and then ordering them to reach a plan by a deadline or they’d impose one.
That may prove to be a mistake in the long run, as only after that fact did they realize some of the logistical hurdles and by then the presidents had eliminated several options by declaring a window in which the games must be played.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/arizona-president-talks-keeping-pac-12-together-tv-deal-expectations-deadlines-big-12-interest-and-more/
The UAz president talked to CBS sports. Most of it has been seen elsewhere, but I highlighted a couple of tidbits below.
Robert Robbins is a man with an open mind. Arizona’s president wants it known that he believes a new TV rights deal acceptable to everyone in the Pac-12 will be completed in a couple of weeks.
“I think it’s very high,” Robbins said of the prospects of doing that deal. “Let’s just say more than 95% confidence limits on this.”
But as they in the business world, the entire enterprise is a “soft circle.” In other words, there is interest from Pac-12 schools in doing a deal if the money is right.
“A number don’t mean anything until it’s a written contract,” Robbins told CBS Sports. “In Mississippi, they would say, ‘They’re about to fixin’ to give me something.’ They haven’t quite done it yet. We have to get a real in-writing offer.”
…
Robbins said out loud what the industry has been whispering: Fox had a significant hand in luring USC and UCLA to the Big Ten. We learned that Arizona and Arizona State are basically a package deal with Robbins and ASU president Michael Crow in lockstep. If one leaves the conference, the other might follow.
“The value of us, president [Michael] Crow and I, is even though we could go our separate ways, we’re pretty locked in with each other,” Robbins said. “We don’t want to have a Texas-Texas A&M situation where one of us goes to one conference and one of us goes to the other. We’re pretty aligned in that regard. If you take us in a bundle, that’s a pretty attractive thing.”
We also learned that Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is on the clock with a soft deadline to get a TV deal done. Let’s break all of it down.
…
OK, then how much less is Arizona willing to accept before seriously considering the Big 12?
“For a couple of million, I don’t see people leaving,” Robbins said. “… I think our total will definitely be higher than the Big 12. If I’m wrong about that, is it $5 million [less per year that forces schools to consider leavig], is it $7 million, is it $8 million, is it $10 million?”
Big 12 athletic directors believe their “all-in” number — including revenue from the College Football Playoff, bowl games and the NCAA Tournament — will be around $50 million annually in the new deal.
“I still think our number is going to be more than 50,” said Robbins.
That might the first time that claim has been made in the Pac-12.
“I know what the Big 12’s number is,” Robbins added. “I just need to hear what the Pac-12’s number is. Then I can make a decision.”
…
Asked for a deadline for Kliavkoff to make a deal, Robbins settled on April 15, sort of …
“Back during the holidays when I was sitting around contemplating life, I said April 15. … I think that is a pretty good time frame for me. Everybody else does not see it that way. They think it should have been yesterday. A couple of weeks from now is certainly better than a month ago.”
…
Robbins says Big 12 media consultant Endeavor and its president, Mark Shapiro, have essentially orchestrated what he calls a “great PR campaign” alongside Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark.
“You got to give it to Endeavor,” Robbins said. “I get calls every day, even from my own people in the conference, other presidents [saying], ‘Are you really going? Are you going, going?’ It’s been Colorado and us that they said this about.”
He continued: “Mark Shapiro is a very savvy guy. Brett is a good guy. They’re in it to win it, I think. They’re in recruit mode.”
…
“If George came back and said, ‘This is the absolute best and final thing I’m going to get and it’s going to continue to get worse unless we do something,’ I think you have to consider, ‘What are we doing here?’ I don’t know what that number is,” Robbins said. “… I think we’re all locked together and committed to making it work and keeping the 10 of us together. Then, if we get a reasonable enough of deal and we convince everybody to sign the grant of rights, then we can have the discussion, ‘Should we go out looking for other people to add?'”
…
“We’ve got to have a deal before we think about expansion,” Robbins said. “What I would predict, I see the strategy by the Big 12: You can get the Four Corners to go over to the Big 12 and the thing blows up. The Big Ten would be foolish not to scavenge the Oregons and Washingtons that got left behind.”
…
“USC started this whole thing [to move to the Big Ten]. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But [USC] needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense,” Robbins explained. “If Oregon calls Washington up and says, ‘I can double the amount of money you’re getting; come with me to the Big Ten,’ Washington is going to say, ‘OK, I’m in.’ They would love to have gone.
“When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon [to the Big Ten]. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That’s where I would have started this thing off.
“I think Fox wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in [with USC-UCLA]. I think it’s brilliant. Well played.”
…
Why is a deal taking so long?
“We’re the only one out there. I think the media companies know we’re not going anywhere. We gotta have a deal,” Robbins said. “Normally, we would just be starting this process, but because the Big 12 jumped out in front, they took $31.6 million — which is what they were getting with Texas and Oklahoma — and declared victory.”
Editor’s note: The $31.6 million figure is actually significantly higher than what the Big 12 was getting with Texas and Oklahoma in its last deal.
Robbins continued: “That then put the pressure on us to start negotiating earlier. I’ve always said, ‘Let’s run this thing out. Let’s see how many horses we can get in this race.’ … I’m not sure anybody else wants to do that. They want to get a deal done and get this behind us so everybody will stop talking about us. I’m not sure that’s a good enough reason.”
…
What influence does the Pac-12 elite academic reputation have on Arizona’s decision? Nine of the 12 current Pac-12 schools are members of the American Association of Universities — top Tier I research schools. Kansas will be the only AAU school in the Big 12 once Texas leaves.
“That’s a big deal,” Robbins said. “It’s a big deal to the Big Ten, and it’s a big deal to us. But at the end of the day, this thing is getting unwieldy. The Big 12 has one AAU, Kansas. When I tried to take it back to the other presidents, that’s something we talked about. But it’s really about TV markets and how much media companies value your brand.”
…
CBS Sports has reported that more than 50% of Pac-12 football games could be exclusive to streaming.
Robbins said he has never heard that discussion within the conference. “No way. … [You hear talk of] it’s going to be all streaming. Nobody is going for that. Over 50%? No, I don’t think so. I think that’s too much. It’s OK if it’s 50-50. … You have to remember, guys our age, people that I went to high school with aren’t going to want to deal with streaming.
“I don’t think it will be more than 50%, but if it ended up 50%, I think it would be OK. But we are West Coast and we have to recruit the whole nation. If the football coaches come back and say, ‘Are you out of your mind?’ We’re the final decision makers without a question, but we’re going to heavily consult our ADs and coaches and all that stuff.”
The Gap
No matter what happens with a Pac-12 deal, the SEC and Big Ten will be at least $30 million annually ahead of everyone else on a per-school basis. That gulf is significant and will be difficult to overcome.
“That’s a big number. I’ve never tried in my life to win third place for anything. If we get a solid bronze medal in this thing, it’s the best we can do for right now. Most people have us dead. They have us completely … it’s like an airplane crashing … into the bay into a 1,000 pieces. I still think we’re going to get a solid bronze medal in this thing.”
What are the implications, though, of that difference?
“Woof, talk about money for facilities, coaching salaries, support of student-athletes, mental health, academic success, nutrition, training facilities, anything you want to talk about. They’re going to clearly be better than us. But they already are.”
LikeLike
USC-UO doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I suppose UO is the 2nd-biggest brand in P12 football, but it is so far from USC. That would make for miserable travel for everyone. Leaving behind UCLA would also really sting with many of USC’s alumni I’d think. Would UO willingly leave behind UW and OrSU? That’s a tough choice.
Plus, leaving UCLA in the P12 would leave LA up for grabs somewhat. You want to own the market if possible, especially when it’s an island compared to the rest of the conference.
If the B10 had approved USC+UO, even I think they would’ve also added UCLA+UW at the same time or very soon afterwards.
LikeLike
I cannot imagine UO turning that deal down if it was ever on the table. I suspect it was discussed but they never had (as we say in recruiting) a committable offer.
LikeLike
Agreed.
My impression was that he was saying that was USC’s initial plan, then they switched to UCLA after hearing from Fox. But I do think UO would’ve pushed hard to make it 4 schools and not 2 so they could bring along UW (and have 3 “local” road games).
LikeLike
If George came back and said, ‘This is the absolute best and final thing I’m going to get and it’s going to continue to get worse unless we do something,’ I think you have to consider, ‘What are we doing here?’
I would not exactly call that an iron-clad commitment to the Pac-12. The only thing he is committing to is evaluating whatever deal George presents.
He thinks the Pac-12 will wind up ahead of the Big XII, and if not, nobody would leave for a mere couple of million per year. But if it’s $5m per year? He doesn’t really say what the tipping point would be.
The other line in the sand for him is no more than 50% streaming (and ideally below 50%). We shall see how that works out.
LikeLike
Marc,
He did follow that up with this:
“… I think we’re all locked together and committed to making it work and keeping the 10 of us together. Then, if we get a reasonable enough of deal and we convince everybody to sign the grant of rights, then we can have the discussion, ‘Should we go out looking for other people to add?’”
It’s not ironclad, but it shouldn’t be until he sees the numbers. He did sound optimistic about it, though.
He expects their all-in number to top the B12. The B12 earns more from the NCAAT, gets equal CFP money, and probably gets similar or better bowl money. He’s saying that the P12’s money split 10 ways will top the B12 splitting similar money 12 ways, and make up for a slightly smaller TV deal. That’s possible.
Last year the P12 earned $38.4M in shares from the NCAAT while the B12 earned $32.4M, but usually the B12 earns more. P5 conferences get about $75M from the CFP before appearance fees. Then there’s all the other revenue streams. For the B12, they paid out $42.6M with about $28M coming from their TV deal. So that’s about 1/3 of the money coming from non-TV sources (~$146M).
$150M/12 = $12.5M per team in the future B12
$150M/10 = $15M per team in the future P10
That’s an extra $2.5M per school for being smaller (the argument against expanding).
With the B12’s new TV deal at $31.7M per year average, the P12 could match the total number with $29.2M from their TV deal. Then add in the buffer of $2M, and they only need $27.2M. And that wasn’t his cutoff, that was a guaranteed safe value. So it seems like even $25M each should be okay.
LikeLike
This was probably not a great time for 2-seed UAZ to get upset by 15-seed Princeton. The P12 needs those NCAAT dollars.
That said, go Tigers. And way to go Furman, too.
UAZ is the first school to ever lose to a 15-seed twice, and UVA added to their list of being upset in the tourney. Good times.
LikeLike
Big Ten 3-2 after the first day, Maryland, Northwestern and Penn State advance, as does UCLA. Illinois and Iowa drop out. Three Big Ten teams play today, plus USC.
TIME ET GAME TV
12:15p 10 USC – 7 Michigan State CBS, Paramount+
6:50p 16 Fairleigh Dickinson – 1 Purdue TNT
9:55p 13 Kent State – 4 Indiana TBS
LikeLike
It’s time for the annual B10 domination of college wrestling. The tournament started yesterday and is aired on ESPN (evening sessions) and ESPNU (morning sessions). PSU is a huge favorite to win the national title yet again. There are both morning and afternoon sessions today, then it wraps up on Saturday with 2 more sessions.
Standings after day 1:
1. PSU – 26.5
2. IA – 21.5
3. MO – 17.5
4. MN, NCSU – 16.5
6. NE, Cornell – 15.5
8. OSU, UM – 14.5
10. WI, ASU, VT – 13
13t. NW
17t. IL
25t. UMD
31t. IN, PU
35. MSU
36t. RU
Max points possible:
1. IA – 264
2. MO – 235
3. OSU – 233.5
4. PSU – 218.5
5. NCSU – 211.5
6. UM – 209
7. NW, ISU – 207
14 teams have already been eliminated from the title race (have at most 1 wrestler left, and 1 or fewer points).
Most wrestlers still in the championship side of the bracket:
PSU – 7
MO – 6
IA, NE, VT – 5
Most wrestlers (out of 10 possible) still in tournament (it’s double elimination):
IA – 10
MO, OSU – 9
PSU, NCSU, UM, VT, ISU – 8
LikeLike
And now the separation is becoming apparent. Going into tonight’s semifinals:
Standings after today’s first session:
1. PSU – 78
2. IA – 48
3. Cornell – 45.5
4. NE – 44
5. MI – 39
6. MO – 34
7. OSU – 31
8. NCSU – 29
9. ISU – 29
10. ASU – 28
17. NW
18t. MN
21. WI
25. PU
26. IL
32. RU
33t. UMD
35t. IN
37t. MSU
Max points possible:
1. PSU – 202.5
2. OSU – 163
3. IA – 151.5
4. Cornell – 149
5. MO – 142
6. VT – 133.5
7. UM – 127.5
8. NE – 123.5
9. ISU – 121
10. NCSU – 101.5
Only 13 teams have not already been eliminated from the title race, though it’s a foregone conclusion that PSU will win at this point.
Wrestlers still in the championship side of the bracket (in the semis):
PSU – 7
NE – 4
IA, Cornell – 3
MI, MO, ASU, Princeton – 2
15 schools – 1
Most wrestlers (out of 10 possible) still in tournament (it’s double elimination):
PSU – 8
OSU – 7
IA, Cornell, MO, VT – 6
NE, MI, ISU – 5
LikeLike
Huge upset in the semifinals. Perhaps the most dominant wrestler this year, Spencer Lee from IA who was aiming for his 4th national title (would become 5th person to ever do it), got pinned in his semifinal. He had won 58 matches in a row.
The B10 has finalists, with at least 1 in 8 of 10 matches, and both finalists at HWT.
Standings after today:
1. PSU – 116.5
2. IA – 77
3. Cornell – 64
4. OSU – 62
5. MO – 55
6t. MI, NE – 51
8. ISU – 44
9. NCSU – 41.5
10. VT – 40.5
13. MN
14t. WI
17. PU
19. NW
Only 2 teams have not already been eliminated from the title race, though it’s a foregone conclusion that PSU will win at this point.
Wrestlers in the championship matches:
PSU – 5
Cornell – 2
13 schools – 1 (including IA, OSU, MI, NE, PU)
Most wrestlers (out of 10 possible) still in tournament (it’s double elimination):
PSU – 8
IA – 6
OSU, MO, VT – 5
Cornell, NE, ASU – 4
LikeLike
Heading into the championship matches, it’s all about how much PSU will win the national title by. They already have locked up the title.
The B10 has finalists, with at least 1 in 8 of 10 matches, and both finalists at HWT.
Standings after the early session:
1. PSU – 127.5
2. IA – 82.5
3. OSU – 70.5
4. Cornell – 68.5
5. MO – 60.5
6. ASU – 55
7. MI – 54.5
8. NE – 54
9. VT – 49
10. NCSU – 48
PSU and IA have their spots locked. Cornell could pass OSU, NE and MI might move a bit, and ISU could finish 10th.
Wrestlers in the championship matches:
PSU – 5
Cornell – 2
13 schools – 1 (including IA, OSU, MI, NE, PU)
All-American (top 8 out of 33 at each weight) wrestlers (out of 10 possible):
PSU – 8
IA – 6
OSU, MO, VT – 5
Cornell, NE, ASU – 4
The finals are on ESPN starting at 7pm ET.
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2023/3/18/general-penn-state-wins-2023-ncaa-wrestling-championship.aspx
The Nittany Lions’ title marked the 16th straight year that a Big Ten school has claimed the NCAA Championship.
Penn State amassed 137.5 points, while fellow Big Ten member Iowa came in second (82.5). That margin of victory between first and second is the largest in Penn State history (breaking the old record of 41.0 set in 2019) and the fifth largest in NCAA history for any title winner.
Final results:
1. PSU – 137.5
2. IA – 82.5
3. Cornell – 76.5
4. OSU – 70.5
5. MO – 64.5
6. MI – 58.5
7. ASU – 55
8. NE – 54
9. VT – 49
10. NCSU – 48
B10 finishes 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 16t, 20t, 25, 31, 34t, 36t, 38t, 40
National champions:
PSU, Cornell – 2
Princeton, N CO, UNC, MO, Pitt, MI – 1
B10 – 3 (both finalists were from the B10 at 2 weights)
Ivy League – 3
ACC – 2
B12* – 2
* MO and Northern CO both wrestle in the B12 along with 7 other affiliates + the 4 actual B12 schools that wrestle – ISU, OU, OkSU, WV.
All-American (top 8 out of 33 at each weight) wrestlers (out of 10 possible):
PSU – 8
IA – 6
OSU, MO, VT – 5
Cornell, NE, ASU – 4
The B10 ended up with 33 of the 80 All-Americans
LikeLike
At The Athletic, Nicole Auerbach and Scott Dochterman have a deep dive on the new schedule format after USC and UCLA join.
They say there are three models under consideration: Protect 3, Protect 2, and Flex Protect. In any of the models, the Big Ten would eliminate divisions. As mentioned in an earlier article, the coaches were not enthusiastic about Flex Protect, though it’s still under consideration.
In fact, there is very little competitive difference among the three models. In four years, a team plays 36 games. No matter what, each team will play every other team at least twice over four years, which soaks up 30 of the 36. The only argument is what to do about the last six.
A lot of the competitive inequities even out. If Rutgers is one of your locked opponents, then the average difficulty of the remaining games goes up. If OSU is one of your locked opponents, then the average difficulty of your remaining games goes down.
A few other points mentioned:
1) They’ll try not to ask any team to fly to L.A. twice in the same season.
2) They’ll try to give teams a bye week after a 10:30pm ET start time in L.A.
3) They’ll try to avoid asking USC or UCLA to fly the longest distances in back-to-back road games.
The Protect Two and Flex Protect schemes give the league a bit more wiggle room to achieve all of these objectives. It will warm Colin’s heart that: “At this point, it doesn’t look like USC or UCLA will have Ohio State or Michigan as a protected game.”
LikeLike
“It will warm Colin’s heart that: “At this point, it doesn’t look like USC or UCLA will have Ohio State or Michigan as a protected game.”
Well, I’m not squealing “I told you so” and I don’t feel that way. As I said, there are two schools of thought on this. If it was an obvious no-brainer decision, there would be no debate.
It seems to me that it is in the long-term best interests of the conference to beef up the schedules of the western schools and try to achieve more parity for all. Looks like we’re headed that way.
LikeLike
Marc,
“In fact, there is very little competitive difference among the three models. In four years, a team plays 36 games. No matter what, each team will play every other team at least twice over four years, which soaks up 30 of the 36. The only argument is what to do about the last six.
A lot of the competitive inequities even out. If Rutgers is one of your locked opponents, then the average difficulty of the remaining games goes up. If OSU is one of your locked opponents, then the average difficulty of your remaining games goes down.”
Exactly, which is why only 3/6/6 makes sense. You don’t have to lock the games forever.
“1) They’ll try not to ask any team to fly to L.A. twice in the same season.”
Try not to? It’s really not that hard to avoid.
“2) They’ll try to give teams a bye week after a 10:30pm ET start time in L.A.”
Better yet, don’t waste games on that window. I’m not sure starting 3 hours later is worth always getting a bye.
“3) They’ll try to avoid asking USC or UCLA to fly the longest distances in back-to-back road games.”
Again, obvious. That’s really just RU, UMD and maybe PSU. It should be easy to not schedule them as back to back road games.
“The Protect Two and Flex Protect schemes give the league a bit more wiggle room to achieve all of these objectives.”
Not really. Any of the three schemes will have a set rotation of the schools. #1 is about choosing locations wisely, and 3/6/6 makes it easiest to do that. #2 is about game time, so independent of scheduling. #3 is about the order opponents appear on the schedule, not who the opponents are. The LA schools should only be playing 1 of RU/UMD each year anyway, so just make sure that if they also play PSU both aren’t road games. It’s simple, especially with 3/6/6.
“At this point, it doesn’t look like USC or UCLA will have Ohio State or Michigan as a protected game.”
That will be a stupid decision if they make, so typical B10. None of their priorities explain not having either LA school play either B10 blueblood. I’m surprised Fox/CBS/NBC hasn’t straightened them out about this – I’m sure Disney is thrilled to hear it. It guarantees nobody will be paying for more western expansion, though, so perhaps I should be happy about it. Let’s have them both play IA a lot and see if we can put the whole nation to sleep every week. I can see USC asking for this since they presumably will keep ND locked. But who (outside of UCLA) will their fans be excited to see as locked rivals?
LikeLike
So what might their ridiculously stupid plan look like? Let’s basically look at top tier teams play 2 other top tiers and 1 lower tier, and vice versa.
USC – UCLA, WI, PU
UCLA – USC, NE, NW
NE – IA, MN, UCLA
IA – MN, WI, NE
MN – WI, IA, NE
WI – MN, IA, USC
NW – IL, RU, UCLA
IL – NW, PU, OSU
PU – IN, IL, UCLA
IN – PU, UMD, MSU
MSU – UM, PSU, IN
UM – OSU, MSU, UMD
OSU – UM, PSU, IL
PSU – OSU, RU, MSU
RU – UMD, PSU, NW
UMD – RU, UM, IN
Guess what? The SOS of the hardest (MN) and easiest (PU) schedules remained unchanged from my original plan.
I know this won’t format properly. These are the average opponent’s W% for my original plan, divisions, and this new plan.
Team: My plan 1, Divisions, Plan 2
OSU: 0.513, 0.500, 0.492
USC: 0.524, N/A, 0.499
MI: 0.527, 0.517, 0.509
WI: 0.494, 0.462, 0.503
PSU: 0.496, 0.522, 0.506
NE: 0.495, 0.466, 0.495
IA: 0.509, 0.472, 0.509
MSU: 0.496, 0.531, 0.506
UCLA: 0.529, N/A, 0.518
NW: 0.486, 0.484, 0.484
PU: 0.478, 0.495, 0.478
MN: 0.530, 0.501, 0.530
UMD: 0.501, 0.563, 0.496
IL: 0.495, 0.510, 0.527
RU: 0.515, 0.578, 0.515
IN: 0.505, 0.533, 0.509
Ave: 0.506, 0.510, 0.505
Max: 0.530, 0.578, 0.530
Min: 0.478, 0.462, 0.478
Either 3/6/6 plan fixes the problems of divisions for the most part. This plan just gives you a worse set of locked games to avoid the LA pair playing OSU and UM.
LikeLike
^ Aggh, errors. I swapped to have USC vs PU.
That should be:
PU – IN, IL, USC
PU: 0.478, 0.495, 0.496
Min: 0.478, 0.462, 0.484
So the easiest schedule got slightly harder and shifted to NW, but they also have both a NYC and an LA school locked so they get more travel than others.
Who suffers from this plan? IL, getting locked with OSU, has a schedule almost as hard as MN’s. UCLA’s is also a bit tough, but that’s a little biased by NE’s success 20 years ago. If I use NE’s more recent W% they become a lot less scary.
11 of the 16 schedules have an average opponent’s W% between 0.490 and 0.510, which is about as equal as is possible. NW is the only low one, with MN, IL, and RU high. It was 8 of 16 in my original plan, with a couple close to the cutoff.
LikeLike
Brian, you format is broken. You have . . .
USC – UCLA, WI, PU and
UCLA – USC, NE, NW and
PU – IN, IL, UCLA
LikeLike
Either 3/6/6 plan fixes the problems of divisions for the most part. This plan just gives you a worse set of locked games to avoid the LA pair playing OSU and UM.
It sounds like coaches are being selfish, and the Big Ten is indulging them. The coaches are not scheduling scholars, and I am not sure how much of a say they ultimately have. Over time there is very little competitive difference between the stupid plan and the smart one, so they might as well do the smart one.
Articles like this one are usually a “plant”, either to provoke a reaction or because somebody has an agenda. It was only a few days ago that another journalist reported that they were likely to lock UM/OSU with USC/UCLA. I doubt that they have really changed their minds that fast. It’s just different sources leaking their POV.
I agree that some of the stated goals are trivial to achieve (e.g., no one travels to L.A. twice in the same season). I just included them only because the article did.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/4316576/2023/03/17/big-ten-football-schedule-format-opponents/
According to The Athletic, the B10 is still considering 3 scheduling models:
1. 3 locked
2. 2 locked
3. Flex locking (1-3 locked)
and should decide by summer.
The Big Ten continues to mull its future football scheduling options, with key stakeholders still split on their preferred formats for 2024 and beyond once USC and UCLA join the league.
Three models remain under consideration after last week’s athletic directors’ meeting in Chicago, league sources involved in the process told The Athletic:
…
None of the models involve the continuation of divisions; the league is expected to switch to a single-conference layout for scheduling and championship game qualification when USC and UCLA arrive.
The goals of the remodeled schedule are three-fold: to take into account historical and current competitive balance, to play leaguemates more frequently and to create pathways to the College Football Playoff for more teams in the 12-team CFP era. Better schedule balance should enhance resumes for teams that have historically had weaker league schedules while not unduly burdening the best teams in the league.
Their stated goals are largely pointless and don’t mention a key factor – TV.
1. “to take into account historical and current competitive balance”
You can’t always consider both historical and current competitive balance. Is NW the terrible team of the 70s and 80s, or the one that wins the West lately? The same could be asked of WI and IA, or in reverse for NE and PU and IL. Add in how USC and UCLA might perform in a new conference. It’s a guessing game, so you can’ only give this so much weight.
2. “to play leaguemates more frequently ”
Any of these plans essentially means playing the other teams twice in 4 years. You may play a few 3 times. It’s not enough of a difference to decide on a plan.
3. “to create pathways to the College Football Playoff for more teams in the 12-team CFP era”
What does a pathway to the 12-team CFP even look like? We don’t know. Does that mean giving the good not great teams easy schedules so they win more? How do you know in any given year which teams will fit those descriptions?
“Better schedule balance should enhance resumes for teams that have historically had weaker league schedules while not unduly burdening the best teams in the league.”
Stats based on average conference W% since 1998 (BCS+CFP era):
Current divisions:
Average opponent’s W% = 0.510
Max = 0.578 (RU)
Min = 0.462 (WI)
My set of 3 locked rivals (OSU has UM, PSU and USC):
Average opponent’s W% = 0.506
Max = 0.530 (MN)
Min = 0.478 (PU)
Note: the numbers don’t add up to a 0.500 average due to games in other conferences
3 locked rivals (rather than 6 with divisions) makes for much more equal schedules anyway.
Here are all the numbers, sorted by conference W% of the team:
OSU 0.513
USC 0.524
MI 0.527
WI 0.494
PSU 0.496
NE 0.495
IA 0.509
MSU 0.496
UCLA 0.529
NW 0.486
PU 0.478
MN 0.530
UMD 0.501
IL 0.495
RU 0.515
IN 0.505
LikeLike
Frank tweeted that Farleigh Dickenson (which is playing Purdue tonight) has a “full slate” of Div I and Div III sports, depending on the campus of the same university. He asked whether any other schools did that.
It might be a NJ thing, since as I posted above, Rutgers does that also. The Camden and Newark campuses have their D III sports, while the main campus in New Brunswick (actually mostly on the Piscataway side of the Raritan River) has D I. There are those who might argue that Rutgers football may not really be D I, but for this purpose, it is.
LikeLike
The networks did not bring in USC and UCLA to have them play Northwestern and Purdue every year. They want their shiny new toys to drive ratings in big matchups.
There are four teams in the Big Ten that drive ratings: OSU, UM, PSU. and USC. The networks already have UM -OSU and OSU-PSU. To drive ratings, they will also want PSU-USC and USC-UM (they probably would want UM-PSU and USC-OSU, too, but a 3-6-6 format won’t oblige). UM has to play MSU, so UM’s three games are fixed; and USC has to play UCLA, so its three games are also fixed. One of the reasons for adding RU and MD was to help PSU’s ties to its eastern fans, so PSU’s last fixed game should be one of these eastern teams (probably RU, for the NYC access, although PSU has played MD more). That leaves OSU with one more fixed game, and I think that the networks would prefer matching UCLA, rather than the remaining eastern team, or an original Big Ten team. OSU might like it as well, for recruiting purposes (although that’s just a guess on my part). That leaves one remaining team for UCLA, and for reasons already discussed, the “name” draw would be NE.
Once you do that, the west becomes easy: Along with UCLA, NE gets Iowa and MN; Iowa gets NE, MN and WI; MN gets NE, Iowa and WI; and WI gets MN and Iowa and one more. The most appealing ratings match for WI would probably be MSU.
At this point, the remaining games aren’t great for ratings purposes, so we’re down to rivalries and leftovers. ILL gets locked with NW; IU gets locked with PU; and MD gets locked with RU. PU gets locked with ILL, and MSU with IU. And because IU wanted to play in the east for student recruiting purposes and has already been playing MD and RU for 8 years, one of its locked games should probably be either MD or RU (my thought would be MD, if PSU and RU are locked). If you lock PU with NW, the remaining two locks would be ILL and NW in the west with either MD and RU in the east. This would be a truly arbitrary lock (as if the some of these others aren’t!)
So, we get:
OSU – UM, PSU, UCLA
UM – OSU, USC, MSU
PSU – OSU, USC, RU
USC – UM, PSU, UCLA
UCLA – USC, OSU, NE
NE – UCLA, Iowa, MN
Iowa – NE, MN, WI
MN – NE, Iowa, WI
WI – MN, Iowa, MSU
MSU – UM, WI, IU
IU – PU, MSU, MD
PU – IU, ILL, NW
NW – ILL, PU, and MD or RU
ILL – NW, PU, and MD or RU
RU – PSU, MD, and NW or ILL’
MD – RU, IU, and ILL or NW
And we haven’t even talked about the “6-6” part of the 3-6-6 schedule or the uneven home and away schedule. Frankly, I think that those are going to much more contentious issues than deciding the locked 3, because the networks won’t be as much involved, and it will be the AD’s fighting it out.
Just my two cents.
LikeLike
Unproductive: “The networks did not bring in USC and UCLA to have them play Northwestern and Purdue every year.”
Perhaps that is the source of your confusion. The networks didn’t bring in USC and UCLA. The Big Ten Conference did that.
LikeLike
Unproductive,
“And we haven’t even talked about the “6-6” part of the 3-6-6 schedule or the uneven home and away schedule. Frankly, I think that those are going to much more contentious issues than deciding the locked 3, because the networks won’t be as much involved, and it will be the AD’s fighting it out.”
I think those could be simple to pick, though the B10 will probably find a way to make it difficult. Pair all schools geographically, and you play 1 of each pair first, then the other one. Match up any unpaired partners of your locked rivals to make the other pair.
USC/UCLA
NE/IA
WI/MN
NW/IL
PU/IN
UM/MSU
OSU/PSU
RU/UMD
So if OSU has UM, PSU and UCLA locked, MSU/USC becomes the other pair to split.
LikeLike
Brian: UM/MSU and OSU/PSU
You need to pair Ohio St with Michigan so that teams don’t get both in the same year: UM/OSU and MSU/PSU
LikeLike
I was being cynical. Yep, the Big Ten added USC and UCLA. But it wouldn’t have done so, if the teams didn’t pay for themselves (which is why there is still a debate about adding Stanford, Cal, Oregon and/or Washington). And the source of that payment is from … the networks.
The Big Ten had no issue with getting rid of UM-MN and OSU-ILL (the oldest traveling trophy game in the conference, and the second oldest, I think), in order to get UM and OSU into its new eastern territories when RU and MD were added. I think that the same thing will happen with USC and UCLA.
But, hey – I’m wrong about lots of things, so maybe I’ll be wrong, here too.
LikeLike
Naw, it makes a ton of sense. Reality is that Ohio State and Michigan are 2 of the very strongest brands in the country and carry well everywhere.
Delany masterminded the strategy of putting them in new territories to expand the reach/strength of the Big Ten in the new markets.
As I said above, we saw it with Penn State being locked to both for 10 straight years after joining the Big Ten. We saw it with Nebraska getting Penn State (while in same division as Michigan) then Ohio State as its locked crossovers.
We saw it with Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State being put with Rutgers/Maryland in a division so Michigan/Ohio State would be visiting the new markets regularly.
The reasonable expectation then is that after 30 years of using that strategy, the Big Ten will again use it to integrate the LA market into the Big Ten by locking Michigan-USC and Ohio State-UCLA.
LikeLike
z33k: “the Big Ten will again use it to integrate the LA market into the Big Ten by locking Michigan-USC and Ohio State-UCLA.”
So many of you guys were promoting that counterproductive agenda that it now seems you cannot let it go. It isn’t happening. If we go 3-6-6, USC and UCLA will be hooked up with schools like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois and Purdue.
LikeLike
I was being cynical. Yep, the Big Ten added USC and UCLA. But it wouldn’t have done so, if the teams didn’t pay for themselves (which is why there is still a debate about adding Stanford, Cal, Oregon and/or Washington).
Actually, you weren’t being cynical; you were totally accurate. While the presidents have the final word, no conference expands without confirming the value with their TV partners.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/35883961/16-seed-fairleigh-dickinson-stuns-no-1-purdue-ncaa-tournament
How about those Boilermakers?
I bet the UAZ Wildcats are thankful for someone taking the spotlight from them.
The biggest upset (23.5 pt favorite) in NCAAT history since expanding to 64 teams (and thus probably ever), and only the second 1-seed to lose to a 16-seed.
The third straight embarrassing loss in the NCAAT (to 15-seed St. Peter’s as a 3-seed last time, and to 13-seed North Texas as a 4-seed in 2021).
The 6th loss to a double digit seed in the opening round (most of any B10 team), with 2 more in the 2nd round.
LikeLike
An odd part about that game is that the FDU coach was saying for days that they match up really well with Purdue and should win the game. Yes, bravado, but he got it.
LikeLike
Purdue needs to stop playing threeball and start playing basketball. Team probably missed twenty threes last night.
Michigan State and Indiana advanced, so the Big Ten is now 5-3 for the tourney. For today’s conference games, the Big Ten teams are underdogs in all three matchups:
No. 2 Texas vs. No. 10 Penn State | 7:45 p.m. | CBS
No. 2 UCLA vs. No. 7 Northwestern | 8:40 p.m. | TNT
No. 1 Alabama vs. No. 8 Maryland | 9:40 p.m. | TBS
LikeLike
Purdue was 5 for 26 from 3 range along with 16 turnovers to FDU’s 9. Bad day for Purdue-the B1G’s bell cow! It looked awful,
LikeLike
Matt Painter needs to change something about how he prepares for the postseason. His team thrives in the regular season, but struggles a bit in the BTT and NCAAT. Especially recently, with some of his better teams. PU hasn’t made a final four since 1980 (neither Keady nor Painter has gotten them there despite 4 #1 seeds and 3 #2 seeds). PU fans have to be frustrated.
LikeLike
Big Ten 0-3 in Saturday’s NCAA tourney. Maryland, Northwestern and Penn State lost. Conference now 5-6. Today’s games:
(2) Marquette vs. (7) Michigan State Sunday, 5:15 p.m. | CBS
(4) Indiana vs. (5) Miami Sunday, 8:40 p.m. | TNT
LikeLike
Michigan State wins, Indiana loses. Big Ten now 6-7 for the tournament. Only MSU advances to the Sweet 16:
TIME ET GAME TV
6:30p Thurs, Mar 23 7 Michigan State – 3 Kansas State
East regional semifinal (New York) TBS
LikeLike
An odd part about that game is that the FDU coach was saying for days that they match up really well with Purdue and should win the game. Yes, bravado, but he got it.
I wonder how often underdogs win when the coach says that?
LikeLike
https://www.750thegame.com/canzano-pac-12-dominos-will-start-falling-on-tuesday/
Jon Canzano was interviewed on radio in Portland, and they wrote an article about it which includes a link to the audio.
2 main nuggets:
* The P12 CEOs meet T 3/21, so there may be news then
* SDSU and SMU may be told about their status before the media deal is announced (so they could apply and be accepted and get it all announced together), so it may leak first
If you’re a fan of a Pac-12 school, circle next Tuesday, March 21st, on your calendar.
That is when the Pac-12 CEO group meets next. They will not meet again until April 10th.
Media rights remains at the top of the agenda, and John Canzano says the finish line is in sight.
“I think this meeting that’s coming up next Tuesday is really important,” Canzano said Wednesday on 750 The Game. “I do think there’s some motivation from the presidents and chancellors to wrap this.”
Canzano says he expects new players like Amazon and Apple to be part of the media deal in addition to ESPN.
“I do think what’s going to happen is I think the Pac-12 is going to end up with ESPN for its tier-1 rights, I think you’re going to see Apple and Amazon come in with a streaming service for the tier-two rights – the Pac-12 Networks games – I think it will be blended together.”
Canzano also says there could be news on conference expansion with the Pac-12 even before a media rights deal is finalized, and that San Diego State and SMU are the leaders in the clubhouse to be invited.
“I think we might get that [expansion news] before we get the media rights news,” Canzano said. “What I’m thinking is SMU and San Diego State will probably be informed by the Pac-12, ‘hey, we’re extending an invitation’, or, ‘we’re not’, prior to the announcement of the deal. Because they’re not going to want to be left going, ‘hey, we have a deal’, and a day later, ‘oh, we’re announcing SMU and San Diego State’. So I almost expect we’re going to get a leak on the expansion front first.”
LikeLike
Free link to Wall St Journal about new NCAA President.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-ncaa-president-charlie-baker-37e90bd3?st=yxfjuej73uq6qoo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
SBJ’s John Ourand joined the Canzano & Wilner podcast to discuss the future of sports media rights (2030+: big games OTA, the rest streaming), the potential resurgence of bundles, and the P12 deal.
LikeLike
In a positive sign that the SEC will adopt a nine-game conference for the 2024 season, LSU and Rice have announced that their 2024 game in Tiger Stadium has been rescheduled for the 2029 season. That leaves LSU with three non-conference games: USC at Las Vegas on 9/1; and home games against UCLA (9/21) and South Alabama (9/28). OK, now you can all start whining about how weak LSU’s nonconference shcedule is… Oh wait… USC and UCLA will be in the B1G in 2024. Seriously, this might be the toughest regular season schedule since 2011 when LSU beat Alabama (BSC champ but never should have been selected), Pac-12 champ Oregon, and Big East Champ West Virginia.
LSU will be USC’s first opponent when the Trojans wear the B1G patch for the first time.
LikeLike
Speaking of tough non-conference games, Texas plays at Bama on Sept 9, 2023.
LikeLike
tough for Texas…
LikeLike
You don’t remember how Alabama slipped by last year 20-19?
LikeLike
Yeah, but Texas will have once-in-a-generation six-Star quarterback Arch Manning
from New Orleans, LA, running the offense this time.
LikeLike
Colin – I think Quinn Ewers will start that game and Manning redshirts this season. I don’t think the Manning Kabal will let him play this season.
Looking at the OOC games I cited above with use of the ESPN Way-too-early preseason rankings, here are the ranked-on-ranked OOC games to look forward to:
#2 Ohio State at #14 Notre Dame
#4 Florida State v #8 LSU in Orlando
#5 Alabama v. #16 Texas
#9 Oregon at #23 Texas Tech
#14 Notre Dame at #15 Clemson
#19 Tulane v. #20 Ole Miss
LikeLike
I do. Texas will be a better team this year and Alabama lost a lot from last season. But I have a lot of first-hand experience with Nick Saban. The master will destroy the apprentice in Tuscaloosa. That said, I’m pulling for Texas to beat them. As always, I hope Alabama loses every game.
LikeLike
Alan,
No #7 USC at #14 ND?
LikeLike
Alan,
All those SEC fans keep telling us how easy B10 games are, so LSU’s schedule should be easy. It is odd to see both USC and UCLA on the same schedule OOC.
LikeLike
Brian – the UCLA game is a return game for the 2021 season opener and the effective end of Coach O’s coaching career.
The USC game was announced the week after the Alliance’s solidarity statement against big ole mean SEC and is a straight made-for-TV money game.
Regardless of whether USC and UCLA are good or not, 11 P5 games is going to be rough. I’m thinking they are both trending up (in spite of my Tulane Greenie’s beat-down of USC in the Cotton Bowl) and am looking forward to it!
LikeLike
Alan,
USC will be looking at 11 P5 games as well, with 9 B10 games + ND + LSU. Depending on what games the B10 gives them, there’s a chance they may want to reschedule it.
LikeLike
Brian – it’s possible, but I doubt it. Disney made a big deal of announcing the channel (ABC), the date (Sunday 9/1), and the time (7:30 EDT) 18 months ahead of time. Why would they have done that if the participants had not signed off?
Regarding not listing ND/USC, I was working off of FBSchedules list of OOC games they are looking forward to watching. While it’s a great matchup it’s an annual matchup.
LikeLike
Alan,
I know it wasn’t your list. I just thought a top 15 matchup should be noted, annual or not, if UC vs Pitt is worth mentioning.
Yes, I was just saying it’s possible not likely. Maybe it’s motivating USC to try to get an easier B10 schedule for at least 2024. USC has MS in 2025-26, but maybe that’s less worrisome to them.
LikeLike
Here’s a list of the top non-conference games for 2023.
https://fbschedules.com/16-non-conference-college-football-games-to-get-excited-about-in-2023/
Week #1: Colorado at TCU: UNC v South Carolina in Charlotte; West Virginia at Penn State; and Florida State v LSU in Orlando
Week #2: Texas at Alabama; A&M at Miami; Oregon at Texas Tech; Cincy at Pitt; Utah at Baylor; and Ole Miss at Tulane
Week #4: Ohio State at Notre Dame
Week #10: Notre Dame at Clemson
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/03/20/st-francis-college-brooklyn-eliminates-entire-athletic-program/11510364002/
St. Francis College in Brooklyn is dropping all sports after this semester. It’s a D-I school in the NEC. This certainly bucks the trend of small schools moving up to D-I for the NCAAT payday.
As part of a restructuring program announced Monday, St. Francis College (N.Y.) will eliminate its entire Division I athletics program, effective at the conclusion of the 2023 spring semester.
In a statement published to the St. Francis athletic website, the college said the decision came after a “strategic realignment plan” was recently approved by the college’s Board of Trustees. The college cited an increase of operating expenses, flatter revenue streams and plateauing enrollment in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We want to acknowledge that SFC has a rich legacy in competitive athletics, and are proud of our Terriers today and in all years past,” the school said in the statement. “This difficult decision was guided by a commitment to preserving the College’s 164-year Franciscan mission to provide a high quality and affordable education to working-class and first-generation students.”
…
St. Francis, a private, four-year college in downtown Brooklyn, was founded in 1859 by a group of Franciscan brothers and became the first private school in the diocese of Brooklyn. In September 2022, the college relocated its entire campus to a new location, to The Wheeler Building in Brooklyn. In the May 2021 announcement of the campus relocation, the college said the new location “does not include a gym or pool on site” but that the college was “developing partnerships with nearby institutions to share indoor spaces for practice sessions and competitions. St. Francis College will continue to use various off-site playing fields and other spaces for its outdoor sports.”
St. Francis lists an enrollment of 2,600 and 20,000 alumni.
LikeLike
In an article hidden behind a paywall, Andrew Marchand of the New York Post reported on the Pac-12/ESPN negotiation that they are “not close” (quoted at outkick.com):
In another article, Marchand mentioned that ESPN is trying to reduce its expenses for on-air talent, and negotiations with Chris Fowler are moving slowly. Marchand says that they’d like to keep Fowler for a slight bump over his current ~$3m salary, but but they’re not willing to pay anything like the $12m they gave Joe Buck.
LikeLike
But they have plenty of money for Stephen A. Smith and are in the running to pay Pat McAfee a boatload to leave his current job.
LikeLike
The article mentioned that they are paying up for a select few people whom they consider tentpole talents, and Stephen A. Smith is one of these. Likewise Buck and Troy Aikman.
LikeLike
As much as I like Chris Fowler, I don’t think there’s any situation in which ESPN uses him, outside of tennis, that you couldn’t plug in Rece Davis and not miss a beat. And Rece is funnier too.
LikeLike
Ultimately, I think Fowler swallows his pride and re-ups with ESPN without getting into Joe Buck’s ZIP code.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t give him a big raise either, but keeping Fowler is a better use of their money than hiring McAfee would be (or SAS).
I’m amazed they think Buck or Aikman affect viewership. Fans watch football despite the announcers, not because of them. Plenty of people hate Buck, and Aikman is nothing special.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s hard to figure. Buck got a substantial raise to move from Fox to ESPN, where he calls fewer games and no longer has baseball.
LikeLike
Plenty of people hate Buck
My mother who doesn’t like sports and has no idea who Joe Buck is, can not stand the way he calls games. If he’s calling a game in the background while she’s around, she will ask to have it turned down. Only announcer she’s ever done that for.
Buck got a substantial raise to move from Fox to ESPN, where he calls fewer games and no longer has baseball.
Some ESPN exec just doing everyone a favor I guess.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/35906224/antoine-davis-feels-cheated-breaking-pete-maravich-ncaa-scoring-record
Antoine Davis feels “cheated” out of a chance to break Pistol Pete’s scoring record. His 14-19 team didn’t get invited to a postseason tournament, and he blames people who emailed the tournaments asking them not to invite Detroit Mercy. As if anyone pays attention to random fan emails.
“I’m upset about it,” Davis said in a phone interview with The Associated Press. “I feel like I got cheated out of something that they can’t ever give back to me. I think it’s selfish — and weird — that people emailed or called the CBI to say we shouldn’t be in the tournament because they didn’t want me to break the record.
“But there’s nothing to hold my head down about. I still feel like I’m the best scorer in my generation, especially finishing No. 2 behind him.”
The CBI, which started Saturday, posted pictures on its Twitter account of Maravich and Davis shortly after Detroit Mercy lost at Youngstown State and had talks with the school about a potential invitation. Ultimately, the CBI decided not to give the Titans (14-19) an opportunity to pay $27,500 to play in the 16-team tournament.
“We did receive unsolicited emails and voicemails about Detroit Mercy and some said we don’t ever want Pete Maravich’s record broken,” said Rick Giles, president of the Gazelle Group that runs the CBI. “The decision we made wasn’t based purely on whether we wanted him to break the record or not.”
Jaeson Maravich said he did not have a personal problem with Davis, but he wasn’t happy that his father’s record had a chance to be broken in a lower-tier, pay-to-play college basketball postseason tournament.
“I think it’s a terrible look,” Jaeson Maravich told the AP. “Your season should be over if you’re 14-19.
“This situation is very personal and sensitive to me. But to be clear, I’m not mad at Antoine Davis and I have nothing bad to say about Antoine Davis. My beef is with these tournaments.”
LikeLike
I do not have a lot of sympathy for Davis. In his final game he scored well below his season average. And with a few seconds remaining, he missed a makeable three that would have tied the record. I would dare say the pressure got to him. This seems to be a fair outcome.
LikeLike
From TheAthletic
Pac-12 has ‘solidarity’ between remaining members, Utah president Taylor Randall says
By Chris Vannini Mar 20, 2023
University of Utah president Taylor Randall spoke to ESPN 700 radio in Salt Lake City on Monday about the future of the Pac-12 and its media deal. Here’s what you need to know:
Randall said there is “solidarity” between presidents in the conference.
He added, “We’ve still got a ways to go” on the media deal but said he is encouraged by what he’s heard from commissioner George Kliavkoff’s office. Randall is the third “four corners” school president to speak out and express solidarity with the league recently, joining Arizona’s and Arizona State’s presidents last week.
What does this mean for the Pac-12? After months of Big 12 leaders pushing the idea that the conference could add Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah amid Pac-12 silence, Pac-12 leaders are finally speaking publicly. Whether that’s out of support or frustration is not clear, but it’s been a united front publicly for the first time.
“I think we’re in a good spot,” Randall said. “I like what I’m hearing coming out of our commissioner’s office and where the negotiations are. We’ve still got a ways to go. But I think you’ve got some solidarity with the remaining schools and in the presidents room in particular.”
As for the doom and gloom image being painted about the league, Randall said, “It runs contrary to the discussions I have with our presidents. We love the set of schools and values we bring. … I don’t think we see a dire scenario.”
But, as always, this isn’t done until it’s done, and we still don’t know what the final media deal will look like — how much is on linear TV, how much is on streaming and, most importantly, how much it’s worth.
What about expansion? Arizona president Robert C. Robbins spoke about the value of San Diego State and SMU to The Athletic last week. Randall wouldn’t get as specific.
“It could happen together, it could happen separately,” he said, referring to expansion and the media deal. “Conferences are always talking about expansion. We’ve got a way to go before we make public announcements or think seriously about it. We’re gathering information.”
LikeLike
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/2023/03/21/will-amazon-or-apple-tv–offer-the-pac-12-deal-they-cant-say-no-to/?sh=4508863e3454
Forbes carries a piece on the P12 TV deal.
When I sat down to write this article it was to point out how hard it would be to say no to Amazon or Apple because a great deal of research and develop money flows into member schools not to mention the alumni base who work in the tech industry based less than an hour from the Pac-12 offices. But things have changed very quickly to the point where the hard part might be saying yes. Indications point to Apple TV as the front-runner and attempts are being made by Kliavkoff, to carve out a package to include ESPN and Amazon.
(As is the case with all that has gone on with this deal who the front-runner could change.)
A note to the athletic directors who want exposure saying no to Apple and Amazon because of their preference for a liner partner. Perhaps they haven’t been paying attention the only possibility for that to happen is to take a low-ball deal from ESPN that would get a few games on the network but likely a huge package on their streamer ESPN +.
…
In 2019 less than one month after the launch of Apple TV+ Cook made it clear he wanted the Pac-12 rights and sent some of his senior staff over to meet then-commissioner Larry Scott to find out what it would take to land the rights that were not up till 2024.
During an interview in 2019 with the San Francisco Examiner former Pac-12 Networks President Mark Shuken said that Apple is “very interested in learning more about the rights and learning more about the business to determine whether they’d be a viable partner in 2024.” Shuken closed with. “They said that, on the surface, we look like a good partner to investigate. Apple wants the Pac-12 conference’s “primary media rights package, not a digital one.”
Even with USC and UCLA gone Cook never took his eve off his goal to land the Pac-12 media rights. Now four years later a yes answer might come not because he was the first choice but likely because he kept his focus on landing the prize.
…
We are told that commissioner Kliavkoff who has been part of the witness relocation program for the past month is nearing a deal, he more than anyone knows the importance of the package he will present. If Apple TV+ turns out to be the top bidder if he needs him Tim Cook is a hell of a salesman and calmed the fears of the MLS owners in a conference call just before the deal was inked.
Kliavkoff will also have access to Cook’s right-hand man Eddy Cue, Senior Vice President of Services of Apple, who masterminded the tech giant’s deal to stream every MLS game through a joint platform between them and the league. It was also Cue who met with Fox Sports President Eric Shanks to set up a package of 15 games that Apple will produce and stream but air on the liner network.
…
Here are some of the possible options on how the deals could work.
Let’s begin with Apple TV+ they find a liner partner to sublease some games I still think Fox, CBS, or even the CW would be willing to listen to package for the right price. There could still be place for ESPN to have their Pac-12 After Dark package.
Amazon gets a Friday Night Game of the week meanwhile ESPN airs two Saturday with the rest airing on ESPN+ that would solve the liner issue but would the Worldwide Leader in Sports put up the cash to make everyone happy remains the issue.
Apple TV+ gets the whole package and ESPN gets two games one Friday and the other Saturday.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/03/pac-12-media-rights-kliavkoff-under-pressure-as-saga-nears-conclusion-and-presidents-express-optimism/
Wilner tweeted that the P12 board meeting didn’t happen today. No word on why.
The Pac-12 appointed George Kliavkoff as commissioner in the spring of 2021 for a bevy of reasons, perhaps none more significant than his ability “to see where the hockey puck was going to go,” according to former Oregon president Michael Schill.
One puck zoomed past unexpectedly last summer, when USC and UCLA declared their intentions to flee to the Big Ten.
Now here comes another, in the form of the Pac-12’s media rights negotiations. Kliavkoff must do more than identify its direction; he must redirect a gilded puck into the back of the net.
…
We could find out this week, when the Pac-12 Board of Directors gathers (remotely) for its latest meeting. Or perhaps the momentous votes will be cast next week. Or the first week of April.
Whatever the exact timing, resolution is close.
We know this because two presidents recently suggested as much.
…
We found their comments instructive when cast against the backdrop of the past nine months.
Throughout this saga, the Pac-12 has remained remarkably disciplined in its messaging — disciplined to a fault, some would say.
As rumors of low-ball offers and mass defections dominated both traditional and social media, Kliavkoff stayed mum, an approach his negotiating partners undoubtedly appreciated.
But last week, those sounds of silence morphed into the Robert Robbins 2023 Media Tour — a series of on-the-record interviews by Arizona’s president with both regional and national outlets.
Robbins’ overall tone was optimistic: He needed to see the final offer before making a decision on Arizona’s conference affiliation but expressed confidence in the outcome.
…
Which tells us that Kliavkoff is deep enough into the process to have a sense for the numbers and was confident enough in what he’s heard from Apple, Amazon and ESPN to pass that sentiment along to Robbins.
There is no chance — none, zero, zip — that Robbins would go public if the situation appeared bleak behind the scenes.
Does that mean the Pac-12’s future is safe and secure? Only if Kliavkoff has seen the final offers and knows that even the worst proposal will be good enough. But that’s an assumption the Hotline isn’t prepared to make.
…
And if derailment occurs, if a wrench gets heaved from the other side of the negotiating table, it would constitute a colossal gaffe on Kliavkoff’s part — one that could spark the disintegration of the conference.
Could he misread the direction of the puck that badly? Given the advanced state of the negotiations, it seems unlikely.
Not impossible, but unlikely.
LikeLike
Tony Altimore tweeted that the board meeting was delayed until today.
LikeLike
And here is Wilner’s update:
And from a later tweet:
The only thing I know for certain – and have been told by multiple sources for weeks – is the negotiations w Apple & Amazon take *much longer* than with ESPN bc they don’t have contractual templates for CFB deals. So every step goes back to the lawyers for review.
It’s sounding more and more like a streamer is heavily involved, which is slowing the process down.
Canzano tweeted that he has heard Fox is back in the mix. Perhaps they will sublicense from Apple/Amazon, or maybe they want some Friday night games.
LikeLike
Brian: “Canzano tweeted that he has heard Fox is back in the mix.”
In all candor I’m been wondering about this for weeks. We all know that the West doesn’t have the interest in college football that the Midwest and South have, plus the Mountain/Pacific Time Zones stink. But there are nonetheless millions of people out there who would watch Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado. Seems like Fox or ESPN could come in with a low-ball offer for some quality late night programming.
LikeLike
Even relatively crappy sports are worth something. Heck, UMass and UCon have independent TV deals. I suspect Fox bowed out initially because Kliavkoff was trying to get $40m per school, which was just not realistic in this market. Now that he has adjusted his expectations, it would make sense that Fox wants back in.
LikeLike
Dodd, McMurphy and Marchand all say Fox is not talking to the Pac after Canzano’s comments. Think it was McMurphy said they hadn’t talked in months.
Canzano repeats anything he is told. And he said “Fox is in play.” Does that simply mean Kliavcoff has them on speed dial?
LikeLike
All any of them do is repeat what they’re told, and they’ve all been shown to be incorrect multiple times. Canzano has sources at UO and OrSU, so he passes on what they tell him. Bob Thompson tweeted that it was possible Fox was talking to the streamers (Apple/Amazon) about potentially sublicensing games, and not talking to the P12 itself. The truth is that none of us actually know who is talking to whom, and those having discussions might lie about not having them if they think that secrecy helps them.
McMurphy makes lots of predictions, but couches them in terms that let him cover his butt every time they are wrong. Lots of “probably” and “likely” but never anything definitive. If/when it happens, then he gets credit for being some brilliant expansion reporter, but every time something doesn’t happen people give him the excuse that he didn’t say 100% that X would happen.
Back in August told he everyone the B10 was about to add UO and UW as those meetings with their representatives were the first step in the process. Over 7 months later, no more steps have been taken. He also said the B10 wanted to get to 20, probably by the time USC and UCLA joined in 2024. How’s that looking right about now? Remember, the B10 was “targeting” those schools for expansion.
LikeLike
https://www.thelantern.com/2023/03/big-ten-academic-alliance-courseshare-to-expand-language-studies-beyond-ohio-state/
Just a reminder of some of the academic value of the BTAA. It also allows for sharing specialized research facilities, library resources, and high power computing. It’s not just about saving money on purchases.
LikeLike
https://collegefootballnews.com/news/college-football-expansion-predictions-conference-realignment-whats-new-in-2023
Pete Fiutak at College Football News starts his pre-season 23 CFB thoughts for 2023 with status updates plus some realignment predictions.
23. Where is everybody? Who’s in each college football conference for 2023, and what’s going to happen next?
So we start the 23 for 2023 with more of a procedural topic before we have some fun previewing the college football season.
Do you know where all your college football teams are? Do you know how many schools are playing 2023 college football? How quickly is this all going to change for 2024?
Answers: You don’t – that’s what this is for – 133, and very quickly.
Trying to make sense of it all, here’s the breakdown of what’s happening and who the members are in every conference going into the 2023 college football season.
ACC
What’s Next for 2024: Nothing … for now. The ACC member schools are stuck in a horrible media deal that locks them all in until 2036, and no one can seem to figure out how to get out of it. The Big Ten and SEC would LOVE to go shopping here, but the buyouts are too massive and the legal issues too sticky.
However, something will likely change within the conference with the bigger schools griping that the competitive balance money-wise is about to be too massive.
ACC Expansion Prediction: The ACC reconfigures its media deal – or at least makes a very loud statement saying changes are in the works – to bump up the payouts per school to bridge some of the gap. It won’t be at a Big Ten or SEC level, but the yelling will be too loud is everything stays status quo.
…
Big Ten
What’s New in 2023: Nothing in terms of members. Same teams, same divisions. However, the Big Ten is looking for a new commissioner with Kevin Warren off to the Chicago Bears, and the gigantic $7 billion media deal with FOX, CBS, and NBC kicks in on July 1.
What’s Next for 2024: UCLA and USC are on the way in 2024. It isn’t set in stone yet, but the Big Ten will almost certainly ditch the divisions and either reconfigure them or go to a 16-team all-in format.
Big Ten Expansion Prediction: If – and it’s one gigantic IF at this point – the Pac-12 doesn’t have its schools locked down with a new media deal by, say, August, the expansion rumors will be off the charts. The Big Ten will stay dead silent, but the buzzing about Oregon and Washington will be deafening.
Big 12
What’s Next for 2024: Oklahoma and Texas are off to the SEC. There will actually be 12 teams in a conference called the Big 12, but …
Big 12 Expansion Prediction: The Big 12 will keep on expanding, though probably not the way it wants to. It’s still a guess that the Pac-12 will generate a media deal that comes close to what the Big 12 can offer, but for now, assume the four corner schools – Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah – all stay put. Also assume Memphis, Tulane, and USF will be thrown into the Big 12 rumor mill.
…
Pac-12
What’s New in 2023: Nothing, and that includes a new media deal.
What’s Next for 2024: UCLA and USC will be a part of the Big Ten. Outside of that …
Pac-12 Expansion Prediction: This is a total throw-at-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks prediction, mainly because it all hinges on whether or not the Pac-12 can get any sort of a decent media deal that pays its members close to what the Big 12 could offer. Three different best-guess scenarios.
1) Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkov can’t pull it off. The media deal not only isn’t lucrative enough, but what’s on the table is laughable enough to force the main members to pack up and move. Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah go to the Big 12, the Big Ten figures it out with Oregon and Washington, and outside of raiding the Mountain West, the Pac-12 is a shell of its former self. OR …
2) This takes too long. Everything drags out, everyone starts to get antsy, and worst of all, the Big Ten gets back up to speed with a new commissioner in time to figure out ways to make Oregon and Washington a part of the puzzle. In a doomsday scenario, the Big Ten decides it wants San Francisco and Phoenix, too, grabs Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, and Stanford, and goodnight. World domination is complete. But … nah. That’s a reach, so …
3) Here’s my best guess. The media deal is fine. It’s not amazing, but it’s decent enough to swat away the annoying Big 12 gnat that keeps buzzing around. The ten remaining members band together, and San Diego State, SMU, Fresno State, and UNLV are brought in.
SEC
What’s Next for 2024: Texas and Oklahoma. The fun all starts up in 2024, the schedules will get crazy, everyone will be mad that they play and/or rival misses Bama, and away we go.
SEC Expansion Prediction: I’m just a simple college football writer who drinks too much coffee, but I do know this … the SEC is absolutely insane to not push everyone aside and go swallow up Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah before the Pac-12 finally stops flopping around looking for a media deal, and maybe it thinks about finding something to offer Oregon and Washington. The Big Ten is coast-to-coast starting in 2024, and the SEC is going to be a very, very distant second in terms of reach and markets. And …
That’s not going to happen. The SEC will spend all of 2023 pumping up and promoting the new-look 2024 version at every possible turn.
LikeLike
Redacted from TheAthletic:
Notre Dame hiring former Penn State basketball coach Micah Shrewsberry: Source
By The Athletic Staff Mar 22, 2023
By Dana O’Neil, Brian Hamilton and Matt Fortuna
Notre Dame is set to hire former Penn State men’s basketball coach Micah Shrewsberry for the same role, a source with direct knowledge of the decision told The Athletic on Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:
Shrewsberry was 37-31 over two seasons in State College, leading the Nittany Lions to the NCAA Tournament this season. He is an Indianapolis native and played collegiately at Hanover College in Hanover, Ind. Notre Dame had a coaching vacancy following Mike Brey’s retirement after 27 years. He led the Irish to 13 NCAA Tournament appearances, including back-to-back Elite Eights in 2015 and 2016.
Before taking over as the Nittany Lions head coach in March 2021, Shrewsberry served as an assistant at Purdue, Butler, DePauw and Wabash. He also spent six seasons with the Boston Celtics as an assistant, and his first head coaching position was at IU South Bend, where he compiled a 15-48 record over two seasons.
“This afternoon, Penn State head men’s basketball coach Micah Shrewsberry called to inform me that he was leaving the University to accept a position at another institution,” Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Dr. Patrick Kraft said in a statement. “We thank Micah for his contributions to the Penn State community and wish him the very best. We are already moving forward in a search for a new head coach and will identify and appoint a tremendous coach, teacher and person, who will take us to unprecedented heights.
“We are so proud of our amazingly talented student-athletes and all they accomplished this year and will in the future. We are also so appreciative of our student body and our passionate fans who support our basketball program.”
How big a hire is this for Notre Dame?
This is pretty much an ideal version of how the school’s coaching search would end. There were other coaches who, at least theoretically, would be a fit and qualify as a knocked-out-of-the-park hire. Shrewsberry is at the top of that list. It’s not only the right move to hire a coach who should be able to develop talent over time — Notre Dame isn’t going to live in the transfer portal, ever — but it’s a sign that the school remains committed to putting a high-level men’s basketball product on the floor.
How bad are things at Notre Dame?
Well, that’s the thing. It’s really bad. Even if the program can squeeze another year out of one or two of the veterans on the roster, through whatever technicality they can find…those veterans haven’t done much of anything impressive lately. One player Shrewsberry might’ve been able to build around — former five-star recruit J.J. Starling — already transferred to Syracuse.
But sources close to the negotiations with Shrewsberry said Kraft put together a serious counter package in the hopes of convincing his head coach to stay. Presumably, he’ll make the same sort of offer to a new coach and might be able to lure a coach who can help continue the Lions’ trajectory. Otherwise, the churn will continue. — O’Neil
LikeLike
From TheAthletic
This question may be a year early: In the first four years of the expanded College Football Playoff, how many slots will be taken by each of the Power 5 conferences? — Tom
It’s never too early to talk about one-bid leagues and bid thieves — at least when it’s March. Those terms that we’ve come to associate with college basketball likely will make their way into the college football lexicon starting in 2024.
One of the great fears as the College Football Playoff expands to 12 is that the Big Ten and SEC are going to swallow up most of the available space and leave the other leagues with one participant apiece. But a look back at the nine-season history of the College Football Playoff rankings suggests that shouldn’t be the case in most years.
With apologies to American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco, I’m going to honor Tom’s question and examine what might happen in the conferences that we now call the Power 5. Aresco is correct that the term is antiquated, but only because it’s really the Power 2 going forward. But not necessarily in the bracket. There, every league currently known as a Power 5 member should enter each season with a reasonable hope of getting multiple teams in the tournament.
Let’s get this out of the way first. Yes, the Big Ten and SEC will get the most spots. Had the 12-team CFP — with the selection procedures that will be in place starting in 2024 — been around since the start of the CFP in 2014, the Big Ten would have produced 26 of the 108 participants and the SEC would have produced 25. Add in the schools that will be members of those leagues beginning in 2024 and that number jumps to 29 for the Big Ten and 31 for the SEC. So it’s reasonable to assume that for the purposes of answering Tom’s question, the Big Ten and SEC will take up a little less than half of the 48 spots available in the first four years. At least four more spots will be taken by champions of the American, Conference USA, the MAC, the Mountain West or the Sun Belt. But that still leaves an awful lot of space.
The league that should be happiest about this is the Big 12 because it responded to losing schools by taking schools capable of making a 12-team CFP. Taking away Oklahoma’s six CFP appearances, the eight remaining Big 12 members would have produced 10 appearances. The best single year for that group would have been 2014 when Baylor, TCU and Kansas State all would have made the field. And while 10 would be the lowest number of appearances among the Power 5 leagues, the Big 12 has added four schools that among them would have made the field five times during that span. Cincinnati (2021, 2020), Houston (2015) and UCF (2017, 2018) all would have made the field as members of the American. So the league has essentially replaced Oklahoma’s CFP output — Texas wouldn’t have produced any appearances — by choosing programs that punched above their weight previously and look capable of quickly getting up to speed after making the jump in conference competition. (BYU, the fourth new member, also has a history that suggests it can be competitive in the league.) In five of the nine years, multiple members of the next iteration of the Big 12 would have made the CFP. So it’s reasonable to expect that the Big 12 produces at least six CFP participants and probably more in those first four years.
We’ve spent a lot of time lamenting the Pac-12’s inability to put a team in the four-team CFP, and losing USC takes away a program that made three of the league’s 14 would-be appearances from 2014-23. But the sport is cyclical, and assuming the Pac-12 media rights deal is satisfying to the current members and they stay together, the league might enter the era of the 12-team CFP on the upswing. Utah and USC would have made a 12-team field in 2022. Washington also would have made the 2022 field if not for Tulane having to jump the Huskies to provide a sixth conference champ. Oregon State just missed the cut at No. 14, and Oregon ranked No. 15. The Pac-12 will go into 2023 as deep as it has been in years, and if that trend continues into 2024, then it’s reasonable to believe the Pac-12 could produce two participants even after UCLA and USC have left.
Had the league not improved so dramatically this past year, I might predict that it could fall into a regular one-bid scenario. But given the trajectory of several programs, it’s reasonable to expect six or more bids in those first four seasons.
The ACC is the league that has suffered the most from one team dominating while the others remain mediocre. Yes, Notre Dame made the four-team CFP as an ACC member in 2020. But had that been a normal season with a 12-team CFP at the end, that Fighting Irish team probably would easily have made the field as an independent. Otherwise, the champ (Clemson in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2022 and Pittsburgh in 2021) would have been the league’s only rep in those years. Early in the CFP, the ACC would have been well represented. Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina would have made the field in 2015. Clemson and Florida State would have made it in 2016. Clemson and Miami would have made it in 2017.
The league needs Florida State to keep getting better and needs North Carolina’s improvement to continue. Wake Forest has been good under coach Dave Clawson but needs to take one more step to enter this echelon. Pittsburgh needs to be more consistent. NC State and Virginia Tech should be in this mix every year but can’t seem to get there. One program to watch is Louisville, which could be due for a renaissance under alum Jeff Brohm, who just took Purdue to the Big Ten title game.
But we need to see that happen on the field. At this point, the ACC looks to be in most danger of being a one-bid league the most frequently. But all it takes is an incremental improvement from Florida State or a Brohm-fueled surge at Louisville to allay those fears. (Clemson will be just fine.)
If you’re a fan of one of the teams I’ve mentioned and reading this made you excited about watching your team in the CFP, then now you understand why they expanded the format and why they expanded it in the way they did. They want a lot of fan bases across the country brimming with optimism every year because that keeps them engaged. And if the rankings in the 12-team format resemble the ones from the four-team format, there will be a good reason for a lot of different fan bases to be excited.
LikeLike
From the Wall St Journal
World Track and Field Bans Transgender Athletes From Women’s Events
The sport’s international governing body, World Athletics, will exclude athletes who’ve undergone male puberty from female categories
World Athletics announced that it would bar any athlete who had gone through male puberty from female competition categories.
By Louise Radnofsky and Rachel Bachman
March 23, 2023 4:03 pm ET
Track and field’s international governing body will enact a ban on transgender female athletes competing in women’s events, becoming the most prominent sports federation yet to significantly tighten its eligibility criteria for elite competitors.
World Athletics announced Thursday that it would bar any athlete who had gone through male puberty from female competition categories. The ban came as the federation also unveiled new restrictions for female competitors with differences in sex developments that will apply across all running distances and throwing events.
“The World Athletics Council has today taken the decisive action to protect the female category in our sport, and to do so by restricting the participation of transgender and DSD athletes,” said the federation’s president Sebastian Coe.
World Athletics said it based its limits on transgender female athletes around male puberty, rather than testosterone levels, after “it became apparent that there was little support within the sport” for using testosterone levels as a marker.
A World Athletics spokeswoman, asked how many athletes would be affected by the stricter policy, replied that there are no transgender athletes competing internationally.
Track is following swimming in determining that male puberty provides an unacceptable competitive advantage that undermines the rationale behind creating female event categories. The swimming federation announced its bar on athletes who had gone through the very earliest stages of male puberty last year, not long after a furor over the participation of a transgender woman, Lia Thomas, in female events at the NCAA championships.
Sports governing bodies have been wrangling for months over the conditions of transgender athletes’ participation in the wake of a November 2021 International Olympic Committee statement that effectively kicked the decision to them. The IOC indicated at the time that the physical attributes required for success across all of the sports in the Games varied too much for there to be a viable blanket policy.
Other large federations for sports such as cycling and rowing have also imposed stricter rules on transgender girls and women who want to compete in female events at the elite level, while stopping short of a full ban for athletes who have gone through male puberty.
Both cycling and rowing will potentially allow transgender female competitors into the women’s categories only if they can demonstrate testosterone serum concentration levels below 2.5 nanomole per liter for at least 24 months before their participation. Most women have a testosterone serum concentration below 2.5 nanomole per liter.
Both cycling and rowing had previously allowed higher levels of testosterone serum concentration, measured over a period of 12 months.
Separately on Thursday, World Athletics also issued stricter eligibility criteria for female athletes with differences in sex development, the term for people born with atypical sex chromosomes or ambiguous genitalia. Track and swimming are among a handful of federations that have also sought to address differences in sex development.
In track, the move follows years of fighting over athletes such as Caster Semenya, a South African runner with a DSD who won two Olympic gold medals in the 800 meters. The track body subsequently sought to require competitors in women’s mid-distance races to suppress their blood testosterone levels below 5 nanomole per liter.
Semenya has confirmed that she has a difference in sex development of the 46 XY variety, meaning that she has female features and male chromosomes. Infants born without DSDs have two X chromosomes as females and XY chromosomes as males.
The new World Athletics policy on DSD athletes is stricter because it now applies to all events, and requires athletes with differences in sex development to suppress their testosterone serum concentration levels below 2.5 nanomole per liter.
Swimming’s policy uses the same testosterone threshold. In addition, the policy applied by the swimming governing body now known as World Aquatics requires all athletes to certify their chromosomal sex in order to participate in any elite events. That policy requirement could potentially identify more female athletes with differences in sex development.
Plenty of sports bodies are struggling to develop their policies on transgender participation—with no clear target date for completing their reviews.
Badminton, basketball, gymnastics, hockey and soccer are among the federations that have acknowledged a review is under way but have given no indication of when it will be finished.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/category/blogs/
Former Fox Sports exec says SMU probably adds value to the P12’s TV deal.
Does SMU fit academically? Could its football program eventually clear the competitive bar? And does the school, based in Dallas, add media value for the 10 remaining Pac-12 campuses?
To answer the financial piece, the Hotline sought context from a sports media expert.
Patrick Crakes negotiated media deals during his tenure as Fox Sports’ senior vice president for programming, research and content strategy. Crakes now runs his own firm, Crakes Media. He isn’t affiliated with the Pac-12 or SMU but remains well-versed in the college sports landscape.
We have separated the issue of SMU’s valuation into three sections.
*** The fit
First, the Pac-12 must determine whether SMU fits institutionally.
…
The Mustangs appear suitable on numerous levels:
…
“The Pac-12 has to figure out what the conference is all about,” Crakes said. “It has a lot of big research universities; it does a lot of what the Big Ten does. And SMU fits into that.
“You have to think about how the schools work together. Does it look inappropriate for a school to be next to Stanford, for instance. In SMU’s case, I don’t think so in the context of some of the other PAC-12 schools.”
But the Mustangs, a member of the American Conference, have just one 10-win season this century and are of “questionable competitive strength,” Crakes added.
As a result, the Pac-12’s evaluation would have to cast an eye to the future: What could the Mustangs become if they joined the conference?
(In that regard, the calculation with SMU is similar to the decision to partner with a streaming company on the media rights deal.)
As a private school, SMU would have unfettered ability to plow resources into the football program.
And with a wealthy donor base that could be energized by the move into the Power Five, the school’s potential to generate an effective NIL collective — an essential piece to recruiting — would be significant.
As one source told the Hotline: “Besides USC and Oregon, nobody in the conference could beat SMU’s resources.”
*** The calculation
In determining a school’s media value, the Pac-12 and its potential broadcast partners would assess the power of a school’s football brand and its placement within the local media market.
…
“UCLA football is way down the L.A. market, just like Rutgers is way down the New York market,” Crakes said. “But the Big Ten Network is on well-distributed tiers in Manhattan.
“(Networks) value what their most important customers want. And SMU is worth something going into a major conference.”
…
“SMU would probably generate a case for some kind of increases to current retransmission fees in Texas. But how much?”
…
“How much is it worth to a pay-TV distributor to make SMU part of the Pac-12? It’s probably worth something,” Crakes said. “The Pac-12 gains a market, but it’s third in the pecking order with the SEC and then the Big 12.
“It comes down to whether they think SMU is accretive. You’re gaining a time zone. You’d get six games in the Central Time Zone. It’s not strategically earthshaking, but it’s incremental.
“Adding SMU is as fine an idea as any I’ve heard.”
*** The value
Every valuation calculation ends with the same question: Is the school accretive? In other words, would the addition of SMU create more media value for the Pac-12’s remaining schools?
“Does SMU create value for the Pac-12? I think it probably helps,” Crakes said.
At $3 million per school per year?
“I’m not sure about that,” he added. “Being conservatively optimistic, maybe adding SMU is worth $1.5 million for the other schools. That’s $99 million (over six years).
“Then in the next deal, they become an incremental chip on the table.”
The next deal.
That’s a critical point in the Pac-12’s expansion strategy. The conference must consider SMU’s value when the next media rights cycle comes to an end (in the late 2020s or early 2030s), and it starts the negotiating process all over again.
“They need to get better in football,” Crakes said.
“But if you end up doing something like merging with the ACC down the road, you have the Dallas market, which is nice.”
LikeLike
Brian – it’s amazing how the arguments for SMU to the Pac are the same arguments made during the Summer of 2021 for TCU, Texas Tech, OK State and Kansas (I’m assuming Baylor was always a nonstarter) to the Pac but were summarily dismissed as not adding “value.” I made them at the time. Many on this board thought it was stupid for the PAC to add those schools from the “little 8”. Hindsight.
Granted, the Pac still had USC & UCLA, but with that expansion, the Pac could have had a regular noon window, added some basketball heft, destroyed the Big 12, and secured the 3rd best TV deal. The muckedy-mucks in the PAC had to know USC had wondering eyes back in 2021 after the OU-UTx news broke. Just another example of how really smart people can make really dumb decisions.
I’m sure Kliavkoff would much rather be selling TCU, Texas Tech, OK State and Kansas (maybe add K-State and Iowa State to get to 16) to go along with the remaining Pac schools. I’m guessing that deal would be done already and land around $40m per school.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 has gotten almost every big decision wrong for years, so why would this one be any different?
It would’ve been a very complex decision matrix. Kliavkoff has just landed, and since he didn’t come from a college sports background, he would not have been in a position to make this recommendation.
While USC’s unhappiness might’ve been common knowledge, in the summer of ’21 they were still a member with no announced plan to leave. So the remaining presidents would’ve needed two sets of numbers, one if USC stays, and another if it leaves. (Contingent on them staying, it is a lot less clear that those schools add sufficient value.)
USC itself might have been opposed, and nobody would’ve wanted to push them out the door by overruling them. Granted, they wound up leaving anyway, but this was not known at the time.
So, a very tough decision for them to have made at that point.
LikeLike
Marc – I agree that the Pac has chosen poorly every time they’ve had a choice.
Starting a Pac-16 including UTx & OU – Pass.
Inviting Colorado and Utah – zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Establish multiple Pac-12 Networks with no distribution – Let’s do it!
Absorbing the best of the remaining 8 after UTx & OU go to the SEC – nahh, we’re good.
I said so at the time and have been proven correct now that the Pac should extended invitations to TCU, TX Tech, OK State and Kansas when the little 8 was on the brink. Sure, it might have been a tough decision, but leaders are supposed to make those tough decisions. If I could see that further consolidation is inevitable and the only plausible conference to take members from was the little 8, a bunch of eggheads that do this stuff for living should have seen it as well.
LikeLike
If I could see that further consolidation is inevitable and the only plausible conference to take members from was the little 8, a bunch of eggheads that do this stuff for living should have seen it as well.
The Pac-12 presidents don’t manage sports for a living. That’s what they have a commissioner for. Except Kliavkoff was brand new at the time and came from a non-college background.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Marc – I agree that the Pac has chosen poorly every time they’ve had a choice.
Starting a Pac-16 including UTx & OU – Pass.”
That’s not fair. They wanted it, they just didn’t want the LHN. And what we’ve heard since is that UT wasn’t really serious about joining anyway, it was about leverage.
“Inviting Colorado and Utah – zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”
Who were they supposed to add? You just mocked them for not taking B12 schools, but they were the first to take a B12 school. They also took perhaps the top G5 school, and got to add a CCG.
The rest of the B12 is not a geographical fit for the P12. Look how they responded to LA schools in the B10 – do you think they all wanted regular trips to TX and OK? It might make sense for the AZ schools, but not so much for the PNW or NorCal schools.
“Establish multiple Pac-12 Networks with no distribution – Let’s do it!”
I still struggle to explain this except for Scott’s ego overriding all input from media experts. I can sort of understand wanting to own 100%, but they aren’t TV producers (well, outside of their TV/film schools anyway) and nobody else tried 7 networks. Why think the P12 can do what the B10 and SEC aren’t/can’t?
“Absorbing the best of the remaining 8 after UTx & OU go to the SEC – nahh, we’re good.”
Again, I don’t think this is fair criticism. USC led the charge against expansion, and with the LA schools there was no value add by expanding with these schools. That’s a lot of travel (and student impact) for less money.
“I said so at the time and have been proven correct now that the Pac should extended invitations to TCU, TX Tech, OK State and Kansas when the little 8 was on the brink.”
I disagree. We have no idea what would’ve happened if they had done that. What would their deal be? Would that conference splinter again soon? Would the B10 have taken more schools?
“Sure, it might have been a tough decision, but leaders are supposed to make those tough decisions.”
And Larry Scott got fired for not being a good leader, and the P12 had a brand new commish when this all was going on.
“If I could see that further consolidation is inevitable and the only plausible conference to take members from was the little 8, a bunch of eggheads that do this stuff for living should have seen it as well.”
1. Inevitability is a myth. All it takes is one unforeseen change (legal framework, etc.) and the future of conferences could turn on a dime.
2. Presidents do NOT do this for a living. They run universities, teach courses. and do research for a living. Conference commissioners do this for a living, they aren’t eggheads, and the P12 fired Scott and had just hired Kliavkoff when this happened. It’s hard for the new guy to jump into a new industry and have the buy-in to suggest such a radical policy on day one.
LikeLike
Well Texas was on their way in 1990 but Stanford did a last minute veto stopping the planned moves of Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC. And in 1994 they weren’t interested in Texas Tech, otherwise they could have added Texas and Texas Tech then..
LikeLike
bullet, what really screwed the pooch was DeLoss Dodd’s Longhorn Network in 2011, And you know that.
LikeLike
Brian, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. had board meetings scheduled the next day. They were very serious. LHN didn’t exist at the time. Texas people didn’t even mention it when saying why they backed out. It was simple. ESPN and Fox didn’t want it and convinced the Big 12 schools they could make as much staying in place without having to navigate a 3 time zone conference.
People keep referencing things people outside Texas wrote several years later when the Texas president and AD explained it themselves at the time. You couldn’t have watched that press conference and think they were making things up.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Well Texas was on their way in 1990 but Stanford did a last minute veto stopping the planned moves of Texas to Pac and A&M to SEC. And in 1994 they weren’t interested in Texas Tech, otherwise they could have added Texas and Texas Tech then..”
He very specifically talked about the P16 attempt under Scott’s watch, not moves from the 90s. Saying they should have known 30+ years ago is asking a bit much of anyone.
“Brian, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. had board meetings scheduled the next day. They were very serious.”
Having meetings scheduled doesn’t mean UT was prepared to go. I didn’t say the rest weren’t ready to go.
“LHN didn’t exist at the time.”
Right, UT had no concept whatsoever of LHN. It just magically appeared one day and they had never considered it, discussed it, planned for it, or anything else. The conference network fairy just created it one day and gave it to them.
“Texas people didn’t even mention it when saying why they backed out.”
And of course people always give all the real reasons for their decisions in press conferences. And see below for UT telling the P10 it was a reason.
“People keep referencing things people outside Texas wrote several years later when the Texas president and AD explained it themselves at the time. You couldn’t have watched that press conference and think they were making things up.”
Why would any rational non-UT fan take the word of the UT AD and president on this topic? It’s like assuming politicians always tell the truth.
Of course I could think they were not telling the whole truth. If their lips are moving, they’re telling partial truth at best.
Article from 6/14/2010
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/rip-pac-16-a-done-deal-comes-undone-in-short-order/
Don’t blame Scott for attempting the spectacular. He went after the biggest prize in this latest round of conference realignment — Texas — and came amazingly close to making it happen and clinching his Pac-10 legacy during his first year on the job.
He had to take Colorado to start the process, and he was also willing to take Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M and Texas Tech just to get mighty Texas to come along.
But the Buffaloes’ defection, along with Nebraska’s to the Big Ten, didn’t doom the Big 12. What did? Money, of course. That’s what this was always about, and in the end, the detonator wasn’t pushed on college athletics as we know it because Texas figured out a way to get its cash while avoiding a cumbersome conference switch.
The Dallas Morning News reported the cable TV deal that saves the Big 12 is with Fox Sports, which also is the Pac-10’s TV partner. Throw in Texas’ desire to create its own network and pocket the money, and the Longhorns have a sweet deal that could generate up to $25 million for its athletic department.
The Pac-10 projected about $20 million for each team in its proposed superconference, but Texas wouldn’t have been able to do its own thing. Give the Longhorns credit for understanding their worth and being the shrewdest negotiator of all.
It was fitting that Scott announced the official death of the Pac-16 on Monday by referencing only Texas in his statement.
And this one:
https://www.denverpost.com/2010/06/14/texas-ou-osu-staying-in-big-12/
The once-battered Big 12 is back after Texas spurned the Pac-10 on Monday, triggering a chain reaction that also brought Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M back in the fold.
Texas Tech, the other Big 12 South school on the Pac-10’s target list, is expected to announce after their regents meeting today its intentions of remaining.
A source close to the Pac-10’s expansion negotiations told The Denver Post that Texas insisted on better revenue sharing and its own network, which essentially killed the deal.
“In the 11th hour, after months of telling us they understand the TV rights, they’re trying to pull a fast one on the verge of sealing the deal in the regents meeting,” the source said. “They want a better revenue sharing deal and their own network. Those were points of principle. (The Pac-10) wants to treat everyone fairly. It’s been that way for months of discussions.”
Funny how people knew about a non-existent LHN that UT hadn’t even considered yet in your distorted history.
LikeLike
As I posted several times before, DeLoss Dodds Longhorn Network was the deal-breaker. Dodds was obsessed with it and the irony is that it ended up being worth nothing at all.
LikeLike
No matter how many times you tell that Aggie tall tale, its still not true.
Texas explained why they weren’t going and the internet keeps trying to make up stuff told by other people years later to explain it. Usually involving some total lie about Texas knowing they were going to get huge $$s for the LHN. They had no idea it would be anything but a minor money maker until 5 months after the Pac 16 fell through.
If you watched the Powers/Dodds/Plonsky press conference the day they decided not to go and came out of it thinking they were lying, fine. But none of you seemed to have seen it. None of you will address it. So you all have Greg Swaim credibility on this issue. Actually, less than Greg Swaim.
LikeLike
Brian;
Don’t talk to me like you do Colin when he talks about transgender athletes.
You look like a complete idiot.
You know exactly what I am saying and you aren’t an idiot.
Why would the Texas president lie to the Texas press? Why would he make something up when he looked like he hadn’t slept in days? Now its quite likely the Pac would make up stuff t make themselves look better. And they weren’t mind readers.
It was simple. Why move when Fox and ESPN said the Big 12 would get the same money?
Why would USC and UCLA move to the Big 10 for the same money? They wouldn’t.
Its called KISS. Someone explains why. It makes sense to anybody with a brain. Yet the internet makes up convoluted conspiracy theories that don’t make sense.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Don’t talk to me like you do Colin when he talks about transgender athletes.”
Then stop telling this same tale about UT having no inkling of the LHN and it having nothing to do with what happened. Nobody but UT fans believes it.
“You know exactly what I am saying and you aren’t an idiot.”
Yes, you keep claiming the network wasn’t an issue despite everyone else at the time saying it was.
“Why would the Texas president lie to the Texas press?”
Why would anyone? Because they think the lie sounds better than the truth, or they want/need to keep the truth hidden for some reason. People lie to the press all the time.
“Why would he make something up when he looked like he hadn’t slept in days?”
People get paid to make up fake explanations all the time. Spin doctors, damage control experts, speech writers, etc. Just because he was tired when he said it doesn’t mean the story wasn’t written well in advance just in case.
“Now its quite likely the Pac would make up stuff t make themselves look better.”
Yes, it’s only the other side that might lie to look better. Keep telling yourself that.
“And they weren’t mind readers.”
No, but one of my links had a source that said UT people directly told the P12 it was, in part, about the network. Listening isn’t mind reading. But if this many people at the time were citing the network as an issue, it shows that the knowledge of the plans for a UT network were out there. Otherwise how would they know to tell that specific “lie” about the cause?
“It was simple. Why move when Fox and ESPN said the Big 12 would get the same money?”
As well as their own network, which the P12 wouldn’t allow. Which meant more exposure and more money.
“Its called KISS.”
It’s called gullibility.
“Someone explains why.”
Or lies about why.
“It makes sense to anybody with a brain.”
And yet almost nobody but UT fans believe the story at the time or ever since.
“Yet the internet makes up convoluted conspiracy theories that don’t make sense.”
Those were newspaper articles written within days of it happening, and it’s not convoluted at all.
LikeLike
Excellent essay, Brian, and I fully concur. However, I’d like to return to your opening sentence: “bullet, “Don’t talk to me like you do Colin when he talks about transgender athletes.”
I’m really not that passionate about the issue, but I think that you waaay underestimate the coming storm. The NCAA policy is that we’ll simply comply with international rules in each individual sport: No more than 20 nanoliters of serum testerone over the past 24 months, crap like that. That’s fine but the real problem is that 19 states have already banned transwomen from competing in women’s sports and there is little doubt that more will do so.
https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/sports_participation_bans
LikeLike
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/03/1920/1080/2-032723.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – it’s amazing how the arguments for SMU to the Pac are the same arguments made during the Summer of 2021 for TCU, Texas Tech, OK State and Kansas (I’m assuming Baylor was always a nonstarter) to the Pac but were summarily dismissed as not adding “value.” I made them at the time. Many on this board thought it was stupid for the PAC to add those schools from the “little 8”. Hindsight.”
Personally, I doubt SMU actually would add any noticeable value to the P12 deal unless they just need more inventory to make a deal acceptable to a network/streamer. 6 CT games with a small brand aren’t worth all that much. Access to DFW for recruiting has intangible value, but not monetary value.
“Granted, the Pac still had USC & UCLA, but with that expansion, the Pac could have had a regular noon window, added some basketball heft, destroyed the Big 12, and secured the 3rd best TV deal. The muckedy-mucks in the PAC had to know USC had wondering eyes back in 2021 after the OU-UTx news broke. Just another example of how really smart people can make really dumb decisions.”
That’s a huge caveat. I don’t think the B12 schools would’ve added value if USC and UCLA were still in the P12. Nobody expands to lose money and lower their academic average.
A noon window is nice, but the P10 thrived for decades without one. It cuts out many of their own fans to try to grab eastern fans. Hoops strength ebbs and flows, and the P12 could improve by focusing on it more (look at UA). Unlike fans, I don’t think presidents actually aim for destroying other conferences or think it ‘s a good thing.
Maybe the P12 should have known, but that doesn’t mean they did. USC people made some statements about the conference (Scott) not bothering to seek input/feedback when they made major changes like going to equal revenue sharing, so I wouldn’t be shocked if the conference wasn’t in touch with USC’s feelings. Also, by all accounts the USC president was telling everyone USC was happy in the P12 up until they left. And remember, USC’s president was one of the people who stopped expansion with B12 schools in 2021.
“I’m sure Kliavkoff would much rather be selling TCU, Texas Tech, OK State and Kansas (maybe add K-State and Iowa State to get to 16) to go along with the remaining Pac schools. I’m guessing that deal would be done already and land around $40m per school.”
I’m guessing he’d rather be selling the P12 with USC and UCLA, so he wouldn’t have lost any schools. And maybe with UT and OU (with TT and OkSU if necessary). Since the B12 only got $31.7M, I don’t see how the P14 would get $40M. If the P12 had just completed a deal before the B12, they’d have $30M+ and the B12 would be concerned right now instead.
LikeLike
The major gap in this article is that it considers SMU in isolation. Since expansion will be by even numbers, you really need to consider the value of SDSU + SMU as a pair.
Taking SMU in isolation, it does not come across as a slam dunk. It appears to be modestly accretive, but in part it depends on SMU football getting better than they have been.
LikeLike
I think SMU is an act of extreme desperation by George Kliavkoff and that there is no way that they will “bring the Dallas TV market” as is assumed by some. The Mustangs will be waaaay behind the Cowboys, Longhorns, Aggies, Tech and TCU, and probably behind Baylor and Oklahoma as well.
The Pac-12 is going to end up with a remote outlier to feed and a bad TV contract.
LikeLike
…there is no way that they will “bring the Dallas TV market” as is assumed by some.
Who assumes that? Every time you post this red herring, we all point out that nobody is assuming any such thing.
LikeLike
In addition to being a really good secular (in spite of its name) undergraduate school, all SMU brings to the table is a warm body, an occasional trip to the Metroplex, and a Noon kickoff to the TV deal.
LikeLike
Marc: “Who assumes that? Every time you post this red herring, we all point out that nobody is assuming any such thing.”
I wasn’t referring to posters on FTT. I meant sports writers like Canzano and some Pac-12 ADs.
LikeLike
Has any Pac-12 AD ever said that? Not that I recall.
I think even Canzano is citing the addressable market, but not assuming that every Dallas household will actually watch SMU football. His literal words could be interpreted the other way, but that would be presuming a very high level of stupidity.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“In addition to being a really good secular (in spite of its name) undergraduate school,”
So at least they replace USC in that way. Maybe the P12 needs a formerly-Methodist private school to feel comfortable. Add in another CA state school that is the best in its system (SDSU), and UCLA is also replaced.
LikeLike
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/icehockey-men/d1/2023
Maybe B10 hockey is turning out okay. This year 4 B10 teams made the men’s bracket of 16, with MN as the overall #1 seed, UM as the overall #3 seed, and PSU and OSU in unseeded (hockey only seeds the top 4).
Round 1 has already started, with MN advancing to the quarterfinals and OSU leading 4-0 against Harvard.
By PairWise ranking (mimics how the NCAA selects teams):
1. MN
3. UM
8. PSU
9. OSU
16. MSU
17. ND
34. WI
A B10 team hasn’t won the title since 2007, but they have made the title games 4 times in that span. The big 4 (MN, UM, WI, MSU) have a combined 23 national titles, though, so we’re probably due.
LikeLike
Props to Penn St for getting to #8 in hockey after being in D1 for only ten years. They also made the NCAA tourney in hoops with an abysmal history in basketball.
LikeLike
First round so far:
Non B10 games:
St. Cloud St beat MN St 4-0
#2 Quinnipiac beat Merrimack 5-0
Cornell beat #4 Denver 2-0
Boston U beat WMU 5-1
B10 games:
#1 MN 9-2 Canisius (MN will face St. Cloud St)
OSU 8-1 Harvard (OSU will face #2 Quinnipiac)
PSU 8-0 MI Tech (PSU will face UM/Colgate winner)
#3 UM 1-0 Colgate after 1st period (winner will face PSU)
26-3 is a pretty good goal advantage in 4 games. It’s unfortunate they didn’t split the B10 teams up with 1 in each region.
LikeLike
Update:
8-0 UM after 2 periods, so it looks like a UM vs PSU rematch to reach the Frozen Four. UM won 3 of 4 in the regular season.
That puts the B10 at 33-3 for goal advantage in round 1 so far. We really need to get multiple teams into the Frozen Four (1 is guaranteed with PSU vs UM) and win the title this year. Ideally it will be MN vs UM for the title based on how good they both were all season, though personally I’d love it to be OSU vs MN.
LikeLike
Final score: 11-1
That means the B10 won it’s 4 first round games 36-4.
LikeLike
MN (4-1) and Boston (2-1) advanced to the Frozen Four today. UM/PSU and OSU/Quinnipiac play tomorrow.
LikeLike
#3 UM (2-1 in OT) and #2 Quinnipiac (4-1) also advanced to the Frozen Four.
Hopefully MN and UM advanced to the title game.
LikeLike
We have history, folks. This is the first time there will be no #1 seeds in the Elite 8.
On average, 3 #1 seeds make the Elite 8. We know that won’t happen this year, as PU got embarrassed early, KU got clipped in round 2, and tonight Murder Incorporated (AL) lost to future P12 power SDSU, and Phi Slama Jama Jr (UH) lost to Miami.
There have been no #1 seeds in the Final 4 only 3 times – 1980, 2006 and 2011.
The highest seeds remaining:
S – #5 SDSU
M – #2 UT/#3 Xavier winner
E – #3 Gonzaga
W – #3 KSU
Nothing but bluebloods, as always.
LikeLike
And while the B10 men have extended their streak of not winning the national title yet again, 3 B10 women’s teams made the Elite Eight. OSU knocked out UConn to end their run at 16 straight Elite Eights and 14 straight Final Fours. It’s OSU’s 4th elite 8, but first since Katie Smith in 1993. With teams in 3 different regional finals (2 underdogs vs #1 seeds), the B10 should get someone in the Final Four. It’s hard to picture them beating SC for the title though.
LikeLike
Greg Fluguar read from a letter he received from “an Arizona (St?) Money Perch” yesterday. The letter was a cry of despair. Even with additions, the old PAC is dead and buried. Whatever goes forward under the PAC banner will not be the Pacific Athletic Conference.
It’s not merely a loss of status for the PAC, a drop into G5. The PAC might cease to exist as a conference, and its schools might be dispersed into multiple conferences, all G-level.
At this point, it would seem that the best outcome for the PAC 12 would be merger with the B1G on the B1G’s terms, whatever that might be. A half share? For a merger to occur, Fox or someone would have to pony up some more money, probably around $300 million per year. However, in the longer run, such a deal would benefit everyone.
The benefits to the B1G, which would have to be renamed, is to be a continental conference of 26 teams, with the potential to become a true national conference of 32 teams, if more ACC teams can be gotten in 12 years.
LikeLike
What exactly is the advantage to the B1G of that scenario? It is contrary to everything that B1G schools have said that they wanted.
LikeLike
bob,
“The letter was a cry of despair.”
And an overreaction. (I’m responding to what they said, not you with this)
“Even with additions, the old PAC is dead and buried.”
Yes, it is. It will never be the same without USC and UCLA. But the old PAC didn’t have UA and ASU either. I bet if you could find letters to the editor from back then, Pac-8 fans were bemoaning the end of the Pac-8 as UA and ASU were added. Conferences (except the Ivy League) change.
“Whatever goes forward under the PAC banner will not be the Pacific Athletic Conference.”
If it’s under that banner, then by definition it is the PAC.
“It’s not merely a loss of status for the PAC, a drop into G5.”
The P10 as currently constructed would remain a P5 conference. Adding 2 more schools wouldn’t change that.
“The PAC might cease to exist as a conference, and its schools might be dispersed into multiple conferences, all G-level.”
1. No, the PAC will continue because it’s brand has more value than the MWC or WAC. No matter how many teams leave, the remainder will backfill from other conferences and keep the name (and the NCAAT credits that come with it).
2. Many of the teams might end up in the B10, B12, or even ACC. None of those are G-level. Only WSU and OrSU need to be deeply concerned about that (maybe the NorCal pair, too).
“At this point, it would seem that the best outcome for the PAC 12 would be merger with the B1G on the B1G’s terms, whatever that might be.”
The B10’s current terms are “thanks, but no thanks.” Why would the B10 want to expand to 26 with the entire P12? It would basically just be two separate conferences under 1 banner at that point, and we already know the P12 half of that wouldn’t be worth half as much money.
“A half share?”
$35.5M per year would be better than what they’re being offered, and ahead of the B12. But I don’t see why TV would pay for it or why the B10 would want it.
“For a merger to occur, Fox or someone would have to pony up some more money, probably around $300 million per year. However, in the longer run, such a deal would benefit everyone.”
How would it benefit anyone but the P12? If they were worth $300M to Fox or anyone else right now, they’d have a deal signed. And if you add 12 schools, they won’t play the B10 brands enough to have any synergy so they won’t gain in value. Meanwhile, the B10 would either be killing all its rivalries, or essentially have 2 divisions that never play each other.
“The benefits to the B1G, which would have to be renamed, is to be a continental conference of 26 teams, with the potential to become a true national conference of 32 teams, if more ACC teams can be gotten in 12 years.”
How is having 26 teams a benefit? 32? Are there national titles for conference size? Are TV companies offering a premium for adding less valuable schools?
LikeLike
Free link to Wall St Journal article about NIL at Miami:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/miami-hurricanes-nil-sweet-16-cavinder-twins-50303507?st=4akc34ya2d2u0wc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
LifeWallet is paying a college basketball player $800,000 for his NIL. College athletes are to be able to earn income like other college students.
LifeWallet is in the business of “using data and analytics” to recover improper payments made by Medicare, Medicaid and commercial insurers “from responsible parties”. https://www.lifewallet.com
How could any college student in the entire country be worth $800,000 to LifeWallet, unless that student is an absolutely brilliant programmer who has developed or can develop new software that significantly improves the data analysis?
This is absolutely contrary to the idea of allowing college athletes to be treated equally to other students.
LikeLike
If you read the imbedded link in that article (gift link below), it quotes new NCAA president Charlie Baker saying that the NCAA can’t count on Congress to act and the NCAA needs to make a concerted effort to fix its own problems. Yet at the same time the NCAA says that it cannot make rules that can comply with 50 different state laws and that’s why federal oversight is needed. It’s a classic Catch 22.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-ncaa-president-charlie-baker-37e90bd3?st=g95lz5kx4cjru7k&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
This crowd will probably enjoy this.
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/heres-big-ten-actually-considered-adding-penn-state-back-early-1990s
LikeLike
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/heres-big-ten-actually-considered-adding-penn-state-back-early-1990s
Mike, the article is blocked by a paywall.
LikeLike
It is. He’s an independent journalist, so I don’t want give away his hard work for free.
LikeLike
Mike: “He’s an independent journalist, so I don’t want give away his hard work for free.”
That isn’t the point. Why post a link when none of us can read it?
LikeLike
@Colin M – Sorry. I post lots (not as much as I used to) of links, its not feasible for me to know who has subscribed to what. Given your interest in topics discussed here, I would recommend subscribing (he has a free tier) . I do think you will enjoy it .
LikeLike
Mike,
Good for you.
It’s annoying when thieves steal IP and post it here. I’m sure several people here are already subscribers, and maybe others will consider subscribing based on Matt Brown’s work.
It’s the same principle with The Athletic (or WSJ or NYT or SBJ or …). Just because not everyone subscribes isn’t a reason to violate a paywall. We’re adults and we can pay if we want access.
LikeLike
As he tweeted, he had to pay $100 to get the information (and thanks to OSU librarians for pointing him to this info), so he deserves to recoup those costs.
But he tweeted this, so it’s fair game:
According to B1G expansion memos around 1990, it appeared that league presidents considered adding Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers all the way back then (along with SEVERAL other schools)
NE was a frequent applicant to join the B10 in the early 20th century. They tried to join from day 1, and every time the B10 expanded up through MSU. I’m not surprised they were considered in 1990 as they were a powerhouse. It is interesting to see RU and UMD mentioned, as it clearly wouldn’t be for BTN money or TV ratings.
He also put in the article (before the paywall) that UT was considered in addition to the unanimous #1 option, ND.
LikeLike
“Mike, It’s the same principle with The Athletic (or WSJ or NYT . . .”
Mike, it’s not the same principle with The Athletic or WSJ or NYT or WaPo. Those newspapers allow subscribers to send free or “gift” articles to others who are not subscribers. The NYT aka The Athletic allows ten gift articles per month. I am a subscriber and all I need to do with any article is click a tab for “Gift Article” and it immediately provides a URL that can be opened by non-subscribers.
The WSJ and WaPo don’t have a numerical limit but only some articles are earmarked for gifting. You must be a subscriber to get into them. If the article has a tab on the side that designates “Gift”, I can click on it and and it then provides a URL that can be opened by non-subscribers.
LikeLike
https://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/2020/09/how-penn-state-nearly-ended-up-in-acc-of-bo-and-knight-and-which-big-ten-schools-voted-no-in-1990.html
From Matt Brown’s twitter feed came this article from 2020 about how PSU barely joined the B10 and almost joined the ACC instead.
The problem: Bo and Bobby Knight and their egos
Also, the trip from IN to PSU was just too long and difficult. To be fair, the local airport hadn’t been expanded yet and large charters couldn’t fly in so teams bused from places like Pittsburgh.
“When the presidents went home, that’s when they talked to their athletic directors and all hell broke loose. Instead of having 10 votes in favor, I had a split-vote scenario where the best case was, I had six or seven votes and maybe I only had five.”
In fact, he had just discovered that day in a straw poll at the home of Iowa president Sandy Boyd that it was 5-to-5. The yeas: Ohio State, Illinois, Iowa, Purdue and Wisconsin. The nays: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Minnesota and Northwestern.
Just the past December, all 10 had seemed onboard. What happened?
…
“I think it’s OK to confirm now that the negative votes were Michigan and Indiana, where you had two power coaches, one in football, one in basketball, and were uncontrollable by their presidents. And, for whatever reasons I never quite understood, Michigan State, was the third.”
…
“They [Bo and Bobby Knight] were both absolutely in character,” said Ikenberry “They were used to controlling everything that touched them. And the fact that the presidents went off and did something and announced it without clearing it with them first I think really did tick them off.”
…
More important, Ikenberry thought the egotistic coaches bossed around their respective presidents, Michigan’s Jim Duderstadt and Indiana’s Ehrlich:
“Tom Ehrlich was a very refined, easygoing kind of a guy, but absolutely did not have control over Bobby Knight. I’m not certain why Knight inserted himself into this to begin with, but Ehrlich was not able to control him and never attempted to. So, Indiana went negative simply because Ehrlich wasn’t able to face up to him.
“Duderstadt was the same way. He was an engineer, a big guy, congenial person. But obviously not able to control Schembechler.
“And [then-MSU president] John DiBiaggio, who I knew extremely well, was simply out-to-lunch on this particular issue, for reasons I never really understood. I don’t know whether it was his football coach [George Perles] or his trustees. I always thought the latter. He was a great guy, a great human being. But he was not a fighter, not someone inclined to take this on as a struggle.”
…
“But after that, for the next six years, Knight behaved himself while I was president. So, the notion that I [voted ‘no’ on Penn State] because Knight told me to is just not true. Jim Duderstadt and I did talk. But [the ‘no’ vote] wasn’t because I knuckled under to Knight.
“Knight was a bully and a loudmouth, no doubt about that. But that’s just not why I did that or other things.
“I voted ‘no’ because I felt that our teams traveling to Penn State was just too long a trip. I listened to the benefits as far as money from TV. But I thought the primary thing was supporting our intercollegiate athletes. And to schlep to State College, well, it’s not easy to get there.”
…
So, Indiana, Michigan and Michigan State looked intractable.
But they weren’t the only trouble for Ikenberry. Minnesota president Hasselmo was getting considerable negative blowback from his athletic director Rick Bay who had been very publicly dead-set against PSU’s membership. And Northwestern president Arnold Weber had absorbed fears from many on his board of trustees that PSU’s inclusion could well mean NU’s banishment.
Shalala, a good friend of Weber’s, understood his sentiments perhaps better than any of the others. Wisconsin was just two hours up the road in Madison. During an Aug. 31 phone conversation, she related Northwestern’s trepidation:
“In many ways, even though they had decent sports, they did not then have competitive football. And he was afraid we were going to throw them out and just have nothing but public universities. Northwestern was the only private university.”
…
Shalala was his most important ally. She strongly believed in bringing Penn State aboard. And critically, she had no real resistance from her board of trustees, her new AD Pat Richter or her new football coach Barry Alvarez:
“My board, while they weren’t enthusiastic, they left [the decision] to me.
“Barry and Pat were there by then. They were fine with it. Remember, Barry was a Pennsylvania guy.
“But we were trying to move the Big Ten into the big time and Penn State was a big-time institution. And Barry was not nervous about ever playing Penn State or about the competition of the future.
“So, my people were fine. But we had a very nervous group once they went back and talked to their boards. I was shocked that Michigan State pulled out. They have elected boards in Michigan. One of the reasons I didn’t take the Michigan job was, they have elected political boards.”
…
But unlike rookie commissioner Kevin Warren today with the Big Ten’s cancellation of fall sports, the Big Ten’s rookie commish in 1990 by all accounts managed to help build, if not a consensus, then at least a grudging acceptance of PSU’s eventual confirmation. As Shalala put it:
“Delany handled it pretty well. He’s a pro. And Stan. There were a bunch of us who were grown-ups. This was important. This was the beginning of the consolidation movement and we had to respond to the future.
“It had been a very parochial Big Ten. And by bringing in Delany, we knew we were moving into the big time.”
…
“He was a guy who anticipated the future. And he was going to be a player in college athletics and we knew that when we hired him. It put us on the cutting edge. And Penn State was an important piece of that.”
Why?
“Because it broadened us from the narrow Midwest. I actually wanted to talk to Nebraska at the same time. Barry had played at Nebraska. But we could only do one at a time.”
During those six months, how would she describe Delany’s role in the process?
“I think he did keep it together. But I think those of us who really wanted to do it – the problem was, I never did trust the Michigan people. Once the University of Michigan said no, we were going to have to maneuver to get it done, to get the votes.”
…
Ikenberry knew Weber’s issue with PSU: “Northwestern was paranoid because they thought Penn State was being brought in to the Big Ten in order to kick them out. Arnie’s trustees I’m sure were telling him: ‘Don’t mess with this. It’s not going to be good for us.’”
…
“Donna said: ‘Let’s not vote on this yet. Let’s adjourn. Let’s take a break for 15 minutes and then come back and vote.’
“And during that 15 minutes she got Arnie Weber and me together. We’re off to the side while everybody’s having a cup of coffee and chatting. Donna said: ‘Arnie, I know you’ve got a hard time with this. But if you will vote yes on this, I will precede it with a motion that says the Big Ten will not reconsider its structure, including adding or removing members from the Big Ten Conference for a number of years.’”
…
“We cut a deal. We would guarantee [Northwestern] that we would not allow another school in after Penn State – for I don’t remember exactly how many years.
“But Arnie was a good friend of mine. We had to assure him that we would not take another school in. He was worried about Notre Dame, too.
“Tell you the truth, no one was thinking about throwing Northwestern out. We simply wanted to add Penn State to get the Eastern media market. And because Penn State looked like us. It was a big public [university] with lots of sports, nationally competitive.”
…
“We reconvened. And Donna made her motion to not consider [the expansion] issue for another three years. And then she also presented the motion to permit Penn State into the Big Ten and proceed with a study on that over the next year. That was approved, 7-3. Michigan, Michigan State and Indiana were the ‘no’s.
…
“And I think it has turned out to be a good fit. I think the verdict is still out on this second round that brought the Big Ten from 11 to 14. I think that’s still a work in progress. Those decisions were made at a different time by different people.
“But the Penn State addition turned out to be a very good economic decision for the universities involved. It absolutely was not made on financial grounds. It was made on academic grounds.
“Once we concluded it was a good cultural, academic and athletic fit, that was what really mattered. The financial implications were that we simply didn’t want to create a financial negative. And we were convinced it wouldn’t be. But we didn’t have anything to suggest it would be as positive as it turned out to be.”
And so now maybe we know why the B10 said no to UT. The promise to NW meant the B10 couldn’t talk to them about it when they asked.
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/1-in-4-prospective-students-ruled-out-colleges-due-to-their-states-political-climates
State politics are having a large impact on student enrollment. More than 1 in 4 students eliminated in-state schools due to politics. People like DeSantis may be having a large negative impact.
The results were consistent across the ideological spectrum — conservative students (28 percent) indicated they were about as likely as liberal students (31 percent) to reject an institution based on the political climate of a state. And while conservative-leaning students said they were more likely to avoid institutions in California and New York, liberal-leaning students said they were more likely to avoid schools in the South or Midwest.
“We’ve been struck by the observation that liberals seem to be reacting mostly to very particular policies,” Strauss said. “Conservative students seem to be reacting a little bit to particular issues, but more to a general sense of a state being democratic or too liberal in a kind of generalized sense.”
The states most likely to be ruled out overall included Alabama (38 percent), Texas (29 percent), Louisiana, and Florida (21 percent for each). The most common policy issues cited by students were a lack of concern about racial equity and conservative restrictions on abortion and reproductive rights.
A third of students said they had declined considering institutions in their home state because of a political or legal situation they deemed unacceptable. Self-identified Republican students were more likely to have done so than Democrats.
LikeLike
A state’s abortion policy isn’t a valid reason to avoid living in a state. Any woman in America can get an abortion far more easily than in 1970. She doesn’t even need to leave her home. We now have medication abortion and the internet.
Any woman in can get a medical consultation online and abortion pills delivered in a few days from either of the websites below. The consulting physicians and pill pharmacies are located out of country (England and Netherlands) therefore state laws are powerless to stop it. These doctors have shipped tens of thousands of abortion pill packets to the US over the past ten years.
https://www.msichoices.org.uk/abortion-services/online-medical-abortion/
https://aidaccess.org/en/
“Medication abortion is a safe and highly effective method of pregnancy termination if the pills are administered at 9 weeks’ gestation or less, the pregnancy is terminated successfully 99.6% of the time, with a 0.4% risk of major complications, and an associated mortality rate of less than 0.001 percent (0.00064%).”
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/the-availability-and-use-of-medication-abortion/#:~:text=Medication%20abortion%20is%20a%20safe,than%200.001%20percent%20(0.00064%25)
LikeLike
A state’s abortion policy isn’t a valid reason to avoid living in a state. Any woman in America can get an abortion far more easily than in 1970.
Over the past 20–30 years, people have been relocating into locales where the politics are more to their liking. This always existed to an extent, but it has accelerated in recent decades. Political scientists call this “self-sorting.” It isn’t due to one particular issue, because liberal and/or conservative policies tend to be correlated. If a state is leaning right or left on one particular thing, they are probably doing it on many things.
LikeLike
California is losing people due to high taxes, high home prices, disgust with the explosian and coddling of homeless losers and the endless invasion of illegal immigrants. You are correct Brian, it’s politics.
LikeLike
Gift article from the NY Times about the weight that coolege-age kids attribute to various factors when choosing a school
LikeLike
Free link from today’s Wall Street Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tell-the-ncaa-to-buzz-off-academic-standards-degrees-nil-student-athlete-march-madness-591e0a3a?st=sn6tn8s7y7mhbip&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Brian, do you seriously believe that DeSantis is having a negative impact on anything in FL? His approval ratings are sky high, even among Democrats. The state is growing by leaps and bounds and both UF and FSU are constantly moving up in academic rankings.
Those are hard facts, not the opinions of the writer.
FL may have been left out by 21% of students, but was probably upgraded by double that. By the same token, UT Austin keeps going up in ranking and selectivity also.
A poll of his “controversial Don’t Say Gay” bill showed that it had support by about 75% of parents despite all of the lies and propaganda. I have 6 grandchildren and really did not need teachers explaining sexuality when any of them were 8 years old.
Even today, there are constant lies about DeSantis, but people in FL know better. AOC announces that a book about Rosa Parks is not in FL schools. Meanwhile DeSantis points out that there are 14 books about her that are in schools.
Love DeSantis or hate him, jut be honest.
LikeLike
Bernie: “I have 6 grandchildren and really did not need teachers explaining sexuality when any of them were 8 years old.”
Interesting letter regarding that issue in the Wash Post this week. A liberal mother had a 9-yr-old daughter who had been subjected to gender identity “training” by woke teachers at her grade school. The mother knew this and had approved. Then a TikTok buddy of the girl came out as binary. So her daughter decided she was also binary. Shaved half her head and wanted new pronouns. Mommy is suddenly a lot less woke than she was previously.
LikeLike
On students choosing to leave FL for college over politics? Yes, I believe it’s possible he is. I quoted the part of the article stating that FL was in the top 4 most affected states. I have other thoughts on DeSantis, but they aren’t relevant here which is why I didn’t include them in the first place. The article about where students are/aren’t willing to stay in-state seems relevant here since we discuss B10 schools, their demographics, and the need to find future students out of state. Perhaps this is a path to get liberals from the south and conservatives from the coasts to come to certain B10 schools.
LikeLike
Free link from the Wall St Journal concerning the NIL cesspool:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nil-deals-international-college-athletes-81898b6?st=5naywrj858m6v66&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
The pre-NIL regime was a cesspool too, just a different kind. The NCAA, as they do in almost everything they touch, failed to recognize the problem, led from behind, and eventually lost control.
But if you serve too much cream cheese with brunch, they are all over it.
LikeLike
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/the-b1g-10-jim-harbaugh-poised-to-finally-hit-the-elite-level-in-recruiting-at-michigan/
More on B01 scheduling, from Matt Hayes.
4. The slog schedule process
The further Big Ten officials delve into a new schedule format, the more exposed is the reality of USC and UCLA alone on the West Coast.
Officials continue to work through format proposals — 3 permanent opponents and 6 rotating is still the likely choice — even though it could all be scrapped once a new commissioner is hired and if expansion is revisited.
Multiple Big Ten officials expressed concern about travel logistics with USC and UCLA, and earlier this month told Saturday Tradition that athletic scheduling/travel and academic “stress” for all student athletes at all member institutions (not just football players) must be addressed — and that USC and UCLA can’t be left “on a geographic island.”
The Big Ten and the SEC both will likely announce in May new schedule formats for their 16-team leagues in 2024. The Big Ten schedule could be reworked — and allow more flexibility for USC and UCLA — should the conference add 2 (Oregon, Washington) or more teams (Stanford, Cal) in expansion.
As usual, they are making this harder than it needs to be.
Typical USC schedule now:
8 games in CA (UCLA, Cal, Stanford, UA/ASU, CU/UU, 1 PNW, 2 OOC)
1 game each in AZ, CO/UT, PNW, IN/other
Typical USC schedule in the B10:
7 games in CA (UCLA, 2 OOC)
4.5 games in NE-MD (1 locked school, 3 rotating, 0.5 ND)
0.5 games in other OOC
Alternate weeks of CA and road B10 games for them and they’ll be fine. They choose to make a trip to IN every other year, plus perhaps another OOC school in the other years. They could add a P12 school to pair with ND and have 8 western games.
Typical USC schedule in the B10 with UO and UW, assuming UCLA/UW/UO are locked:
7 games in CA (UCLA, 4 B10, 2 OOC)
1 game in PNW
3.5 games in NE-MD (3 rotating schools, 0.5 ND)
0.5 games in other OOC
That’s not much difference in travel, though they could get to 9 western games.
LikeLike
I really don’t understand what this discussion on travel is attempting to achieve.
Adding more schools out West generally adds more travel for the 14 Eastern schools which providing minor benefits to USC/UCLA unless it’s too many to provide financial benefits to the rest.
And UW/UO aren’t exactly easy trips from LA…; yes the time zone doesn’t change but that’s about the only benefit in a general basis.
Oregon may one day end up being in the Big Ten, but that’s never going to be an easy trip outside of charter flights.
LikeLike
I feel like 99% of the travel concern that I’ve seen outside of the UC regents board has come from schools outside the Big Ten/USC/UCLA talking about how difficult the travel will be for those two.
A lot of those comments are obviously self-serving.
LikeLike
z33k,
Agreed, a lot of it is uninformed. I think that’s true even for the B10 officials. They are thinking about what travel was like 10,20, 30 years ago, not what it is now. What they should be focused on is combining trips where possible (1 trip = 2 road games like @UM, @MSU in hoops), traveling on weekends, having USC and UCLA travel as a pair when possible (give them the same road games in hoops, etc.), and providing access for virtual classes/studying as well as athletic training facilities (rehab, etc.).
Many athletes already are taking online courses for scheduling purposes and to avoid being mobbed by students. That’s stuff they can do on a long flight with free wifi, and at a hotel or on the other school’s campus if space is made available.
Then provide space for athletic trainers and others to work on players at the other campuses in privacy (so no insight on injuries of the opponents). That’s something B10 schools could afford to do.
LikeLike
Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head.
Bluntly, if MLB could make SF and LA work in 1958 coming from a similar footprint to the 14 member Big Ten, then we should be able to handle this easily in 2024 and beyond with modern air travel and the enormous resources at the disposal of Big Ten universities in the new TV deal and with playoff expansion.
Smart scheduling and using remote resources are a must.
Personally, I think there’s huge value to the Big Ten and the original 14 members as well as USC/UCLA and potentially others in the Pac-12/ACC from forging a national conference of 18-20.
It’s why I’ve been so pro expansion since Texas/OU left the Big 12.
Just a matter of properly using resources at hand.
LikeLike
Bluntly, if MLB could make SF and LA work in 1958 coming from a similar footprint to the 14 member Big Ten, then we should be able to handle this easily in 2024 and beyond with modern air travel and the enormous resources at the disposal of Big Ten universities in the new TV deal and with playoff expansion.
Before we over-react, bear in mind this is another unsourced article about expansion, which means there the reporting is very likely out-of-context or just plain wrong. Most articles about expansion are misleading or untrue.
It’s probably an exaggeration to say that the travel is “easy.” Although solvable, I am sure there are a ton of logistical issues that nobody had worked out in detail. Every sport has its own nuances. MLB in 1958 was just one sport, played by professionals already accustomed to regular long road trips throughout the season.
LikeLike
An aside: In 1958, MLB wouldn’t have interleague play for another 39 years, so the only franchises affected by having teams in San Francisco and Los Angeles were their six National League rivals. In fact, until the NL expanded to Houston and New York in 1962, scheduling concerns from ’58 to ’61 forced the Giants and Dodgers to play each other in back-to-back series – something they rarely did back east.)
LikeLike
And I say all of this as somebody that’s an active proponent of the next 2 schools being potentially Miami and Washington (which is maximum added travel for the 16 other schools…).
Travel really shouldn’t matter at this point. This is a national league now; do schools add to the pie or not? Do the presidents want them?
LikeLike
How long were the train rides from Columbus to Ann Arbor in the early 20th Century?
LikeLike
Long enough to write “Carmen, Ohio.” More seriously, probably something like 5 or more hours, depending on how direct the rail lines were.
Somewhat relevant:
https://www.footballarchaeology.com/p/trains-planes-and-football-conferences
LikeLike
The further Big Ten officials delve into a new schedule format, the more exposed is the reality of USC and UCLA alone on the West Coast.
They only just noticed this now??? How do you add two California schools and only realize a year later how far away they are?
Alternate weeks of CA and road B10 games for them and they’ll be fine.
Consecutive road games are pretty common in a typical Big Ten schedule. I assume no team volunteers for this, so it must be hard to avoid. They could declare that the CA schools will never have consecutive road games, but that probably means other teams will have that situation more often.
In years they play in South Bend, USC’s game against ND is historically in October, so it’s another long-distance trip in the midst of the conference schedule. The ND series is not scheduled past 2026. If it matters that much, USC could choose not to renew it, or they could negotiate better dates.
I agree with Brian and z33k that adding two PNW schools makes USC/UCLA’s travel burden only marginally better, at the expense of making almost everyone else’s a little worse. That is certainly no reason to expand. USC and UCLA knew they were joining a predominantly Midwest league.
LikeLike
“In years they play in South Bend, USC’s game against ND is historically in October, so it’s another long-distance trip in the midst of the conference schedule.”
Those USC-ND games had special status in the Pac-12. The dates were set before the conference schedule was made, then all the conference games were scheduled around the USC-ND game, and last of all each school set up their OOC schedule.
So it will be interesting to see if the Big Ten will do the same to accommodate this game (assuming the rivalry continues) or whether it will be relegated status as just another OOC game. And if the end-of-season game continues to take place in LA every other year, who does UCLA play that Saturday? Penn State?
LikeLike
There’s been crickets renewing that rivalry past 2026, so it’s not at all clear whether USC intends to continue it at all, much less on the same dates. I would think that TV partners would like to see it on the schedule.
And if the end-of-season game continues to take place in LA every other year, who does UCLA play that Saturday? Penn State?
Regardless of whom UCLA plays, one Big Ten team would have a bye or would need to find a non-conference foe for that weekend, neither of which is ideal.
LikeLike
Notre Dame’s future schedules currently cite ND at USC on Nov 30, 2024, USC at South Bend on Oct 18, 2025 and ND at USC on Nov 28, 2026. Unless those dates get changed, that’s the same format as the status quo in the Pac-12. You are correct, that would be a big TV game for the Big Ten when played in LA.
https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/
LikeLike
Those dates are surely not changing. They were contractually agreed years ago. The question is whether they will renew past 2026, and if so on what terms.
LikeLike
Marc,
“There’s been crickets renewing that rivalry past 2026, so it’s not at all clear whether USC intends to continue it at all, much less on the same dates. I would think that TV partners would like to see it on the schedule.”
I’m sure that game was part of the realignment discussions (USC probably wanted assurances about it) and it will be discussed further once the B10 settles on a scheduling model. Until the B10 picks a model, they can’t focus on details like USC’s rivalry.
“Regardless of whom UCLA plays, one Big Ten team would have a bye or would need to find a non-conference foe for that weekend, neither of which is ideal.”
We’ve discussed this before:
Even years: ND @ USC & UCLA vs Cal (that’s the current P12 matchup)
Cal refuses to play Stanford in the final game. This would keep a game that’s important to the P12 and help them balance ND vs Stanford.
Odd years: USC @ UCLA
Other options:
UCLA vs another P12 school
RU vs a northeastern independent (UConn, UMass, Army)
UMD vs an independent
PSU vs Pitt
Move ND @ USC up 1 week
LikeLike
The best scenario for the Big Ten would be to move the USC-ND game at LA from end-of-season to mid-October like the South Bend game currently is. That would provide a blockbuster in the middle of the season like the Red River Rivalry. At the end of the season, it will be competing with all the other big rivalries.
LikeLike
The best scenario for the Big Ten would be to move the USC-ND game at LA from end-of-season to mid-October like the South Bend game currently is. That would provide a blockbuster in the middle of the season like the Red River Rivalry. At the end of the season, it will be competing with all the other big rivalries.
That seems to be a sensible solution. According to Notre Dame lore, the L.A. game was played in late November so that Knute Rockne’s wife could get an escape from the cold weather and get an early start on Christmas shopping. Some sources dispute this explanation, but at any rate it’s no reason to keep playing on that date.
LikeLike
Marc,
“They only just noticed this now??? How do you add two California schools and only realize a year later how far away they are?”
Blinded by the dollar signs. Really, this is typical expansion – decided by the big picture, then later resolve all the details. See the CFP expansion, where the presidents said “do it” and then left the commissioners and ADs to figure it all out.
“Consecutive road games are pretty common in a typical Big Ten schedule. I assume no team volunteers for this, so it must be hard to avoid.”
Not really, especially for just 2 of 16 teams. Schedules are software generated to fit certain criteria, and then the ADs vote on the bets option. Back to back road games isn’t against the rules, probably because it wasn’t much concern for the midwestern schools, so they don’t try to avoid it. Every added constraint makes scheduling tougher. But they could make it aa rule just for USC and UCLA as a counterbalance to their extra travel.
“They could declare that the CA schools will never have consecutive road games, but that probably means other teams will have that situation more often.”
It beats more trips to the west coast.
“In years they play in South Bend, USC’s game against ND is historically in October, so it’s another long-distance trip in the midst of the conference schedule.”
That’s their problem.
“The ND series is not scheduled past 2026. If it matters that much, USC could choose not to renew it, or they could negotiate better dates.”
I’m sure NBC is pressuring both sides to agree to extend it now that they air ND and B10 games. Expect USC to bitch and moan and try to leverage that game for concessions from the B10 in scheduling, then agree to extend the series.
“I agree with Brian and z33k that adding two PNW schools makes USC/UCLA’s travel burden only marginally better, at the expense of making almost everyone else’s a little worse. That is certainly no reason to expand. USC and UCLA knew they were joining a predominantly Midwest league.”
A little worse? That’s in the eye of the beholder.
Assuming all PT teams play each other annually:
2 PT teams = 8 trips west/14 teams annually (9 games = 1 + 8 of 14)
3 PT teams (+ND) = 10.5 trips west/15 teams annually (9 = 2 + 7 of 15)
4 PT teams = 12 trips west/14 teams annually (9 = 3 + 6 of 14)
6 PT teams = 12 trips west/14 teams annually (9 = 5 + 4 of 14)
8 PT teams = 8 trips west/14 teams annually (9 = 7 + 2 of 14)
Adding 2 more teams increases travel by 50% for the other 14 teams (to almost an annual trip – still no big deal) and everyone would still play almost 50% of the time. But adding 4 more (or 6+) starts to feel like 2 divisions of unequal size unless you only let them play 3 western teams each every year which instead increases travel a lot.
6 PT teams = 18 trips west/14 teams annually (9 = 3 + 6 of 14)
8 PT teams = 24 trips west/14 teams annually (9 = 3 + 6 of 14)
LikeLike
UCLA’s future schedules are interesting. The Bruins have a home and away with Wisconsin in 2029 and 2030 and a home and away with Northwestern all the way out to 2033 and 2034. That may provide some insight into who UCLA gets paired with in a 3/6/6 format.
https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/ucla/
LikeLike
I do not expect those games to figure at all into the Big Ten’s future scheduling decisions. Those were simply non-conference games that the teams agreed to when they had no inkling of UCLA joining the Big Ten. If played, those will be conference games, and those teams now have a few schedule gaps that they need to fill. That shouldn’t pose much difficulty, as the dates are far enough in the future, especially the 2033–34 series with Northwestern.
LikeLike
Marc, you expected USC and UCLA to be locked as annual rivals with Ohio State and Michigan – I believe your comment was to the effect that Kevin Warren would need a lobotomy not to do it – and you also think that Penn State will be locked with Ohio State as an annual rival. I don’t think any of those things are going to happen. So we’ll see what happens.
LikeLike
What I said (above) is that non-conference games that UCLA scheduled when they were in the Pac-12 would not be a factor in deciding the conference schedule. The Northwestern series is more than 10 years away, and I doubt that they are even trying to plan that far out.
On a prior FTT thread, you said that the locked rivals of both CA teams would be Big Ten teams now in the Western division. I replied that Kevin Warren would never do that unless he’s had a lobotomy. I have already been proven right: Warren is now gone, so he cannot implement such a schedule, even if he wanted to.
While I still think your proposal is unlikely, I would not make such an extreme statement about Warren’s successor, since that person doesn’t exist yet. The Big Ten has made it clear that they’re looking for “not-Warren.” I am sure that person will do a few non-Warren things, and this could be one of them.
LikeLike
WWE CEO Nick Khan has been in the professional wrestling world since 2020 but before that he was already a major player in the world of sports media, having launched ICM’s sports media department and heading CAA’s television department, where he negotiated media deals for some of the biggest names in the industry.
Khan made an appearance on The Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast on Wednesday and he had a lot to say about WWE, the NBA, the Pac-12, and more.
https://awfulannouncing.com/wwe/nick-khan-pac-12-nba-media-deals-mergers-espn-wbd-turner.html
Haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but article is full of great insight.
LikeLike
,i>Khan was asked what his advice would be to the Pac-12 in their negotiations and he felt like a short-term deal might be in their best interest at this point.
“I would go short-term and you gotta make sure you’re not just taking the biggest money,” said Khan. “You gotta make sure you keep attention on the schools. So if there’s a streamer that doesn’t have a big audience yet and you go exclusive with them, you gotta be a little careful of that. Because coming out of the deal, what’s the relevancy of your program?
“And again, love the streaming world, but on an exclusive basis for one conference or one league to do it, it’s still a big leap right now. So if they do it, it’s partly for the money. What’s the relevancy on that? Tricky.”
LikeLike
Although I believe that near-term expansion of the Big Ten is highly unlikely, anything is possible so here are how various candidates would stack up academically using the current Wall Street Journal’s rankings. Surprising to me that Miami was that high and that Oregon and Nebraska were so low.
2. *****Stanford
9. Northwestern
19. USC
24. Michigan
27. UCLA
28. *****Notre Dame
36. *****Cal-Berkeley
45. Illinois
45. *****(tie) Washington
48. Purdue
49. *****Miami
58. Wisconsin
80. Maryland
81. Michigan State
85. Minnesota
97. Indiana
99. Ohio State
136. Rutgers
141. Penn State
169. Iowa
173. *****FSU
182. *****Clemson
182. *****(tie) Colorado
241. *****Oregon
363. Nebraska
LikeLike
Looking at the WSJ rankings for public schools only, the Big Ten looks pretty solid.
1. Michigan
2. UCLA
7. Illinois
9. *****Army
10. Purdue
13. Wisconsin
16. *****Navy
20. Maryland
21. Michigan State
23. Minnesota
26. Indiana
27. Ohio State
35. Rutgers
37. Penn State
43. Iowa
124. Nebraska
LikeLike
Considering the large number of academic and political scandals at all the service academies, we can delete them from the ranking. Or put them below Nebraska.
You forgot USC at number 19. I am very surprised by USC’s rank. I had thought it was a football school/diploma mill.
That explains why Lori Loughlin went to jail.
LikeLike
bob, I didn’t forget USC. The second list was public schools only.
LikeLike
Gift article from NY Time. The title says it all.
LikeLike
This could get interesting…
https://swimswam.com/lawsuit-challenges-ivy-leagues-ban-on-athletic-scholarships/
Current Brown junior Grace Kirk (women’s basketball) and recent graduate Tamenang Choh (men’s basketball) argue that the eight members of the Ivy League — Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, and Yale — have unlawfully conspired to deny athletes any compensation or reimbursement for education-related expenses in exchange for their athletic services. They are seeking class certification to represent at least 10,000 Ivy League athletes recruited since 2019.
LikeLike
I am just wondering what the obligation us by those Ivy athletes have to do go those schools. Surely, they can just go somewhere else and get those athletic scholarships. The jerks bringing this action will almost certainly make life harder for the current athletes and worse for the future, not better.
LikeLike
I am just wondering what the obligation us by those Ivy athletes have to do go those schools. Surely, they can just go somewhere else and get those athletic scholarships. The jerks bringing this action will almost certainly make life harder for the current athletes and worse for the future, not better.
The sky is not falling. The Ivies technically do not grant athletic scholarships, but most of the players are receiving some kind of aid. However, the aid is (again, technically) awarded based on “need,” rather than being automatic up to the NCAA scholarship limit, as it is at every other Division I school.
Since the Ivy League schools are already providing substantial assistance anyway, the actual financial impact of awarding full athletic scholarships would be minimal. It would mainly be a blow to their brand, as they could no longer claim to be unique in this regard.
As you’ve noted, the plaintiffs probably could get regular athletic scholarships elsewhere, but the whole point is that an Ivy League education is in a category unto itself.
LikeLike
I do not see what obligation the Ivies have to pay scholarships, though a letter from Dartmouth saying the grant is contingent on football is certainly problematic. If there are a bunch of letters like that, it would create a very different fact pattern, such those are clearly athletic scholarships.
I would not be surprised if the Ivy League decided to downgrade football rather than give the athletic scholarships. Of course the money should be irrelevant to all of them. I think that every Ivy has at least a $6 to $7 billion endowment.
The unique reputation is the only thing that matters.
LikeLike
I am not an anti-trust expert, but I think the argument is that the schools have illegally colluded to restrict the market for athletic scholarships in their league. I am not predicting that it will work, but it is not a ridiculous argument either, as I believe similar cases have succeeded.
I do not expect the Ivy League to downgrade if they lose. It is mostly a matter of symbolism rather than substance, as they are already providing aid to most of these athletes anyway. The aid is just not couched as an “athletic scholarship.” Note that the lawsuit is not limited to football: the two primary plaintiffs are basketball players.
LikeLike
If the Ivy League cannot restrict athletic scholarships what legal basis does the NCAA have for doing the same? It is just a larger association of schools. In many of the Olympic sports schools cannot provide full scholarships to the starting team. Baseball has 12 scholarships for a 35 man roster. The limits on scholarships mean most athletics go without full rides. Seems to be the same argument being made in this lawsuit. If the plaintiffs win it will generate a lot more litigation.
LikeLike
Well, this is really about the hypocrisy of the Ivy schools pretending that they don’t give athletic scholarships. They do, of course, but they don’t call it that.
Years ago when I was in veterinary school at Purdue, I had a classmate who had been offered a free ride to Dartmouth. He showed me the letter that he had received from the school. It explained that he would have all tuition, room and board paid by the school and went on to explain that Ivy League colleges do not provide athletic scholarships. Then near the end of the letter it said “However, if you accept this grant-in-aid, you must play football.”
LikeLike
Marc, I am not an anti-trust expert either, but as Little8 said, the vast majority of athletes playing at the college level do not get scholarships. Most schools give no athletic scholarships and other schools will have lots of players on partial or no scholarship.
LikeLike
The anti-trust argument is that the schools have colluded to restrict the market. This is quite different from a school making its own decision to be in Division III (no scholarships) rather than Division II or I.
The NCAA scholarship limits are partly due to Title IX, which is an Act of Congress, so I think the schools operating within that system have a valid defense. The Ivies have elected not to be part of that system, so they are on their own.
LikeLike
The Ivies are not restricting the market in any way.
8 colleges have zero control over where college athletes go to play, with hundreds of choices. None. Any pressure on those athletes to come to an Ivy is not because they have spent their entire lives wanting to play in the Harvard – Yale game.
They come to the Ivies to get the pieces of paper and prestige. That and pressure from their parents.
LikeLike
I have no dog in this fight, but eight-member cartels who conspire to fix prices have been found liable for anti-trust violations in the past. It’s not a frivolous argument.
The plaintiffs will argue that although there are hundreds of colleges, an Ivy League education is in a category all by itself. The Ivy League schools would be hard pressed to deny this, since they have spent decades cultivating that very idea.
LikeLike
Congrats to Alan’s Tigers on the WBB National Championship. Little known fact about Alan, he is also a fashion designer and own’s the only women’s clothing boutique Kim Mulkey will shop at.
LikeLike
I had no dog in that fight but the game again confirmed that women cannot officiate basketball. I don’t think it decided the outcome but they were flat-out awful.
LikeLike
Mike – thanks and I wish! For those of you – like Mike – who care, here’s an article that ran a while back about Mulkey’s closet of crazy clothes.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/inside-lsu-coach-kim-mulkeys-closet/article_37269320-a7c6-11ed-8ab3-8b70a010dd73.html
Whether she’s channeling Liberace’, or Elvis or a Mardi Gras Indian Chief, it’s working!
With this championship, LSU now has 50 NCAA-recognized championships, along with a mythical pre-tournament men’s title in 1935.
Geaux Tigers!
LikeLike
The LSU-Iowa WBB championship game yesterday was the highest rated women’s basketball game of all time.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/lsu/espn-lsu-iowa-drew-all-time-high-womens-basketball-ratings/article_ad131dac-6d5a-5221-bd9e-b503a7136bdb.html
LSU’s 102-85 victory over Iowa on Sunday was the most-viewed women’s college basketball game of all time, drawing 9.9 million viewers across all ESPN and ABC platforms, according to a company release.
The numbers blow away averages for NBA regular-season games (1.6 million last season) and were within shouting distance of the ratings for last year’s NBA Finals.
The finals between Golden State and Boston averaged 12.4 million viewers per game, and the deciding Game 6 drew nearly 14 million viewers.
Sunday’s LSU-Iowa game peaked at 12.6 million viewers, according to ESPN.
Ratings for Friday night’s NCAA semifinal games were also up from the previous year.
According to ESPN, across its platforms, the semifinal games averaged 4.5 million viewers, up 66% from last season’s Final Four games.
LikeLike
The Women’s Gymnastics version of the Elite Eight is set with the top four advancing to the finals two days later. Finals are in Fort Worth April 13-15.
Mostly chalk for the participants.
#1 Oklahoma
#2 Florida
#4 UCLA
#5 Utah
#6 LSU
#7 Cal
#9 Kentucky
#14 Denver
LikeLike
While Iowa didn’t capture the NCAA women’s basketball title, it ended a strong 2022-2023 season for the Big Ten. According to the final poll from the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association (WBCA), four of the nation’s top seven teams are from the B1G: Iowa (2nd), Maryland (5th), Ohio State (6th) and Indiana (7th). A far cry from when the Terrapins entered the conference in the fall of 2014 and blasted all competition.
LikeLike
UConn is now tied with Duke for the most MBB championships since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985. Not bad for a team that the rest of the Big East used to just treat as two free wins a year until they hired Jim Calhoun.
(Also makes you wonder what would have happened if BC had hired Calhoun in ’86 instead of Jim O’Brien)
LikeLike
From The Athletic – very long article, almost all text deleted. My personal pick for #1 is Kentucky, to which three of the nation’s top four recruits have committed.
NCAA men’s basketball way-too-early Top 25 for 2023-24: Marquette, Purdue on top Seth Davis Apr 4, 2023
“The 2022-23 season has been over for several hours now. It’s not just really early to look ahead to next season. It’s way too early. But let’s look anyway. Yes, it takes a fool to perform a fool’s errand, and I’m sure you’ll agree that I am well-qualified.”
1. Marquette
2. Purdue
3. Creighton
4. Miami
5. Florida Atlantic
6. Michigan State
7. UCLA
8. Arizona
9. Kentucky
10. Duke
11. Texas A&M
12. UConn
13. Kansas
14. Baylor
15. Houston
16. Alabama
17. Arkansas
18. North Carolina
19. Tennessee
20. Saint Mary’s
21. Auburn
22. Ohio State
23. USC
24. Texas
25. Rutgers
LikeLike
Let’s bring this up: Is Connecticut now a serious candidate for Big 12 expansion? We know Yormark loves basketball, and bringing the Huskies into the B12 would give the conference two elite hoops programs. Moreover, it would escalate it into a true transcontinental league, a poor man’s Big Ten.
But there are major questions regarding UConn:
* Is it willing to make a serious big-time commitment to P5 football? Two decades ago the program’s youth in what then was I-A was a major reason the ACC chose Boston College as its New England representative – and as we all know, building an FBS program is glacial. The Huskies’ mediocre performance in the AAC understandably breeds skepticism, and football drives the financial bus.
* Are Big 12 presidents truly convinced Connecticut wants to be a legit big-time athletic program? Yormark can argue for UConn till the cows come home (perhaps alongside Arizona State, Arizona and Colorado in a 16-member league come 2024-2025), but if the presidents are skeptical, forget it.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/36069565/simon-fraser-canada-only-ncaa-member-drops-football-program
Simon Fraser is dropping football since it can’t find a conference to play in.
LikeLike
Gift article from WaPo. Interesting that the Big Ten has only one remaining public university that still requires the SAT or ACT scores for admission.
https://wapo.st/3U90Xqt
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-timing-is-everything-for
Canzano has more info on the P12 negotiation timeline. Tweets from Pete Thamel and Stewart Mandel agree – the new deadline is late spring/early summer for a deal. Dealing with streamers is slowing everything down as the lawyers have to go back and forth on every detail because live college sports are all new to them.
The Pac-12 Conference continues to negotiate its media rights deal and explore expansion. I was told on Wednesday by a CEO Group member that “the board likes the deal” that is taking shape, but the conference presidents and chancellors don’t seem to be in a hurry.
…
A few other things I’ve learned this week:
• The Pac-12 is working right now to manage and re-frame the expectations on the timing of its media-rights deal. The conference hasn’t made a public comment on the matter (and likely won’t), but the tone of the conversations I’m having feels measured. The CEO Group meets next week, but I’m skeptical the conference will vote to finalize its media rights deal this month.
• The presidents and chancellors don’t seem concerned about the delay. They continue to express solidarity. The hold up appears to be due mostly to media partners that are new to the live-sports programming space (Read: Apple/Amazon).
• Some of the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors contributed to increased public expectations by mentioning March and April media-rights timelines during interviews in the last six weeks. As one conference source told me on Wednesday, “I realize we played a role in that.”
• A Pac-12 source reminded me on Wednesday that the Big Ten Conference didn’t finalize its new media rights agreement until last August — only 11 months before the expiration of its deal. The Pac-12’s current media-rights contract doesn’t expire until July 1, 2024. Keep that in mind while we wait.
• ESPN remains the Pac-12’s likely Tier 1 partner. The Pac-12 Networks content (Tier 2) feels destined for a streaming service. I wonder if long-time conference fans will mind that content landing on Apple/Amazon. You tell me. Currently, if I want to get the conference’s network, I have to use Sling. It’s cumbersome. I’d welcome Apple/Amazon, but I may not be representative of the typical Pac-12 viewer.
• I continue to be told by a source with direct knowledge that Fox is definitely “in the mix” for the Pac-12 media rights. That is not likely to result in an “A” package that would include a massive number of football games, but Fox is involved. FS1 needs to fill inventory. I won’t be surprised if Fox ends up with a “B” package that includes a handful of regular-season Pac-12 football games on FS1.
• Pac-12 sources remain confident the conference will eclipse the annual $31.6 million media rights distribution the Big 12 negotiated for its members. I’m not sure that distribution benchmark matters as long as the Pac-12 lands in range of that figure, but that’s what I’m being told by those in the room.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/04/hotline-mailbag-the-problem-with-partial-shares-for-oregon-and-uw-in-the-big-ten-pondering-tulane-and-rice-a-pac-8-and-more/
Wilner mailbag discusses UW/UO and P12 media negotiations.
How low would Oregon and Washington go, in terms of partial revenue shares, if the Big Ten comes a-calling? Why be a beta site for streaming college sporting events when you can be a ‘junior member’ of the Big Ten? — Jon Joseph
Your phrasing cuts right to the heart of the issue: Would Oregon and Washington accept being “junior members” of any conference?
We are highly skeptical, especially given that UCLA would have full membership despite possessing a lesser football program than the Pacific Northwest powers.
But there’s another piece to the discussion. And to be honest, the Hotline often feels like we’re in the wilderness on this matter while the public narrative focuses on the media revenue: The expanded College Football Playoff matters immensely in strategic decisions at the campus level.
Let’s say Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff presents a media deal to the schools worth $30 million per campus.
Now, we have seen zero indication that Big Ten presidents are willing to expand again, unless Notre Dame is involved (By and large, the campuses were never on board with adding more West Coast teams. That was commissioner Kevin Warren’s personal aim, and his public pronouncements on the matter were one reason he had so little internal support.)
But for the sake of this exercise, we’ll presume the Big Ten comes to Oregon and Washington and offers partial shares at $35 million or $40 million per year.
Is that enough to counteract the competitive disadvantage that would come from switching conferences?
…
We believe the playoff matters a great deal to the Huskies and Ducks, particularly to a certain 85-year-old Oregon benefactor. Phil Knight wants to win a national championship.
…
Combine the psychological weight that comes with being a “junior member” in the Big Ten with greater playoff access in the Pac-12, and there’s a strong case to be made for the Ducks and Huskies staying right where they are.
Especially if the Pac-12 makes the smart move and creates a performance-based (i.e., unequal share) distribution model for postseason revenue.
…
Is Apple the leader right now in buying the Pac-12 media rights? If so, which linear providers are they most likely to partner with? — @flintaeroinc
I cannot confirm Apple’s position as the theoretical “leader” with any more certainty than I could confirm ESPN or Amazon.
But the ongoing narrative on social media and in media reports about the Pac-12 opting for an all-streaming deal is wholly misguided, in our opinion.
There is zero indication the conference will place all its football games on a streaming service; there will be a linear component, likely on ESPN/ABC.
Even if Apple or Amazon purchased everything, the agreement would undoubtedly be a sub-licensing deal that placed football games on a linear platform.
…
Hypothetical situation: Tulane is seen as Team 13 by the Pac-12. Who do you think is best fit for Team 14? Fresno State, Colorado State, or anyone else? — @OS_Beaver
In that situation, Rice would be the clear frontrunner as No. 14. If you add Dallas (SMU) and New Orleans (Tulane), it only makes sense to include Houston (Rice) in the expansion.
…
Academically, they are no-brainers. But are they financially additive? They would add inventory in the Central Time Zone, but that’s only part of the valuation calculation.
And do they clear the bar competitively? You could make the case for Tulane, perhaps, but Rice is a stretch.
Adding campuses in Dallas, Houston and New Orleans massively expands the footprint of the conference, and I’m not convinced the presidents are interested in that strategic outcome.
So while it’s fascinating to contemplate, we are extremely skeptical that the Pac-12 would add more than two members.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/06/supreme-court-transgender-girls-sports/11509293002/
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a 12-year-old transgender girl who is challenging a West Virginia ban on transgender athletes joining girls sports teams, temporarily blocking the state from enforcing the prohibition.
…
The Supreme Court denied the state’s request to temporarily revive the ban while the underlying litigation continues without explanation, as it often does in emergency cases. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from that decision.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in college level women’s sports.
LikeLike
It would certainly help if the courts at least establish a common set of rules nationally rather than a patchwork of local rules. A family moving shouldn’t change what team their child plays on.
LikeLike
For better or worse, a “patchwork of local rules” is the American system. We already endure different laws on many subjects because our system does not invest the federal government with the power to regulate every issue.
LikeLike
They often do have the power but are completely incapable of focusing on their actual jobs long enough to do so responsibly.
A least federal courts could set some level of agreement on what is constitutional.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/36093591/no-wholesale-ban-transgender-athletes-us-department-education-proposes
Under proposed federal regulations issued Thursday, schools are not allowed to adopt wholesale bans on transgender athletes that keep them from participating on teams that align with their gender identity.
Instead, the U.S. Department of Education has given schools flexibility to adopt policies based on grade, sport, and level of competition in order to give opportunities to transgender students while recognizing the need to ensure fairness and prevent sports-related injuries.
“One-size-fits-all policies that categorically ban transgender students from participating in athletics consistent with their gender identity across all sports, age groups, and levels of competition would not satisfy the proposed regulation,” according to a release issued by the department Thursday.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/36097009/gophers-score-4-goals-3rd-advance-bu-frozen-four
#1 MN advanced to the hockey title game 6-2. They’ll face the winner of #2 Quinnipiac vs #3 UM (game in progress now: 2-1 Quinnipiac after 1st period).
LikeLike
UM lost 5-2 after giving up 3 goals in the 3rd.
So it’s #1 vs #2 for the title.
LikeLike
And in a very B10 performance, MN had a late lead but gave up the tying goal just as a power play against them was ending late in the 3rd period. Then they gave up the winning goal 10 seconds into OT.
There is no major sport championship game the B10 can’t choke in.
LikeLike
I’ll believe it if both Terp lacrosse teams fail to win NCAA titles this spring. (And in College Park, each are considered major sports, just as are both Maryland basketball teams.)
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/quinnipiac-college-hockey-national-championship-951036?st=stihwy83jib4451&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
From TheAthletic:
The Pac-12 is having a bad time
Now to another mess out west, but not the fun, playoff-qualifying kind. Stewart Mandel and Max Olson spoke to seven industry insiders about the state of the conference’s media rights negotiations, and no one seems to know what’s really happening. Multiple Pac-12 presidents have said over the past two months that they expected to get a deal done in March. We’re in April with no deal. People are interested: ESPN, Apple, Amazon and even the CW. But it remains to be seen if the conference can secure a similar package to the Big 12’s deal with ESPN, which pays each member school $31.7 million per season. If the Pac-12 can’t get close, expect more realignment chatter to leak out.
LikeLike
It’s not quite clear how “bad” a time they are having. The optics aren’t great, because several presidents said they expected to be done by March or April, and that clearly isn’t happening. But that was largely a self-imposed and unnecessary deadline.
The Big Ten’s current deal expires June 30, and they did not announce their new deal until last August. So the Pac-12 is not necessarily behind, just because they do not have a deal yet in March or April. Their current package expires a year later than the Big Ten’s.
Multiple Pac-12 presidents have said they’re satisfied with how the negotiations appear to be going. None have said they are worried. The negotiations have been remarkably leak-free. We know which media partners are in the mix, but not for what content or how much they’d pay.
Now, it is still possible that schools will leave after they see the deal. But the fact no deal is done yet is no indication of that.
LikeLike
Frankly, I believe George Kliavkoff is bluffing. He promised the moon and cannot deliver. I think the suggestion of SMU capturing the Dallas TV market is complete nonsense, the dysfunctional Pac-12 Network is worth even less with the LA schools leaving and no one is bidding above the Big XII’s $31MM/school because they all know they can get it for less.
The delay in the TV contract is not due to any type of back-and-forth bargaining or bidding war like the Big Ten and SEC enjoyed. The delay is due to a receiving nothing but lowball offers and Kliavkoff is dragging it out as long as he can.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-unlikely-to-reach-media-rights-deal-with-more-than-50-of-games-airing-on-tv-long-time-consultant-says/
Dennis Dodd’s media consultant mentioned the CW as a reasonable option to get the P12 at least 50% of their games on TV. As another newbie to CFB, yet another reason negotiations may take longer.
“I’m at an absolute loss how NBC, CBS, ESPN, ABC or Fox gets [the Pac-12] to 50 [percent],” said Williams, a Washington D.C.-based, seven-time Emmy Award-winning producer who helped develop five different regional sports networks throughout a career that began in 1977.
“I don’t know how anybody could sit there and assure you that, ‘We’re going to have that much on linear,'” he added. “I don’t see how they get there.”
…
Short of a major linear carrier, Williams sees value in both ION and the CW networks. ION, owned by Scripps Co., is a general entertainment network that is in 37 of the top 50 markets, and was mentioned early in the process by Action Network as having conversations with the Pac-12.
The CW is majority owned by Nexstar Media Group. The group of stations reportedly reaches 100% of U.S. television markets, providing 14 hours of primetime programming per week. Its most notable sports property currently is LIV Golf.
“They could get there with ION or get there with CW,” Williams said of the Pac-12. “Personally, if I were talking to one of these presidents, I would have zero problem with CW. They’ve got legacy television stations all over the country.”
The list includes superstations WPIX in New York and KTLA in Los Angeles.
“I’ve said it five or six times,” Williams added. “If they want to prove me wrong, I’m happy. I’ve been proved wrong before. I’ll be proved wrong in the future. … Both of those two are legit broadcasters.”
LikeLike
As Frank tweeted, WPIX in NYC was a legitimate big deal.
When NY TV went from three stations (ABC, CBS and NBC) to seven and added four more over the air stations, WPIX was one of those four. WPIX carried the Yankees from 1951 to 1998 and broadcast many major moments in Yankees history. https://www.pinstripealley.com/2015/1/25/7878091/yankees-history-broadcasts-wpix-rizzuto
Of course, I am not too sure how much of a draw the PAC would be on a NYC TV station. I doubt that there are huge numbers of PAC alums in the City, though obviously there are some. I could see Stanford or Cal alumni working in the financial sector or perhaps some of the major law firms.
So, even though WPIX is in the number one market in the country it is very unclear what that will do for PAC audience. Certainly PAC after dark will not draw much viewership along the east coast, where there are almost no PAC students or alumni who will stay up that late, unless maybe it is a truly momentous game.
LikeLike
WPIX (a station initially owned by the tabloid New York Daily News, hence its call letters) also carried New York Giants home games from 1951 to 1957.
KTLA is the oldest TV station in Los Angeles, dating back to 1947. Pioneer reporter Stan Chambers worked there from 1947 to 2010; he died in 2015 at age 91 and has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/stan-chambers-longtime-ktla-reporter-dead-at-91/
LikeLike
Bernie, imagine the dynamic draw of SMU in the DFW market behind the Cowboys, Texans, Longhorns, Aggies, Tech and TCU.
LikeLike
I agree that the unfortunate part is not even the pro teams, it is that SMU might well be fifth among college teams. I think that you may have omitted the OK Sooners in that list ahead of SMU.
Sort of like GaTech is behind Alabama and probably LSU, Auburn and maybe FSU in Atlanta. Which ignores the fact that the GA Bulldogs are a mile ahead of all of them combined in Atlanta, especially now.
LikeLike
Yes, it is a shame that SMU might well be fifth or so among college teams in a city which also has a huge pro presence. I think that you may have left out the OK Sooners ahead of SMU in Dallas.
Kind of similar to GaTech in Atlanta. They are in a pro town, but behind Alabama, and probably Auburn and maybe LSU and FSU. That ignores the fact that in Atlanta UGA is more popular than all of the others put together – by a lot.
LikeLike
A realistic assessment of the Pac-12 Goat Rope and Pony Show . . . .
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/04/08/the-circus-out-west-the-pac-12-and-its-media-allies-have-been-wrong-at-every-turn/
LikeLike
“Realistic” is not synonymous with “the one I like.”
The writer, Derek Duke, is correct that there have been many bad predictions and conflicting reports. Mostly, the article is just anti-Canzano—which, I admit, does seem justified. But that doesn’t mean Duke is any better at it than the columnists he is criticizing.
Since almost every imaginable prediction has already been made, there will surely be someone in the end who will be able to say they got it right, which doesn’t mean they actually knew anything.
LikeLike
Well, there is really nothing that I “like” about the Pac-12 situation. I simply do not believe George Kliavkoff’s projections on expansion and TV contracts. SMU capturing the Dallas TV market is preposterous and I can’t imagine that anyone is naïve enough to believe it could actually happen. The Pac-12 Network is obviously even more of a train wreck now than it was with the LA schools intact. The repeated delays in TV contract negotiations are due to lowball offers and Kliavkoff stalling.
The only expansion candidate that makes sense is SDS. That would help regain the southern California market. The conference doesn’t need a 12th member if they no longer have divisions. The Pac-12 Network should be sold to a sugar daddy like Fox or ABC, even if for only one dollar. That way the content could be bundled with other programming. And Kliavkoff should simply eat crow on his forecasts of a lucrative contract for Tier One. It ain’t gonna happen.
LikeLike
SMU capturing the Dallas TV market is preposterous and I can’t imagine that anyone is naïve enough to believe it could actually happen.
We’ve all patiently explained to you that this is a strawman. Almost no one thinks that you “capture” a market just because you add one of the smallest players in that market. You could probably find someone who carelessly or stupidly said that, but it is not a commonly held view, and there is no evidence the Pac-12 or Kliavkoff believes it.
The repeated delays in TV contract negotiations are due to lowball offers and Kliavkoff stalling.
Multiple writers have mentioned that Kliavkoff is negotiating with parties that do not currently broadcast college sports. This is taking time because they have no history in the space. That seems plausible to me.
The only expansion candidate that makes sense is SDS. That would help regain the southern California market.
San Diego State does not recapture the Southern California market any more than SMU delivers Dallas. Los Angeles TV viewers don’t much care about San Diego State — heck, at times they barely cared about UCLA. However, SDS is by far the best realistically available expansion candidate, so the Aztecs are in unless the Pac-12 doesn’t expand at all.
The conference doesn’t need a 12th member if they no longer have divisions.
Odd numbers are problematic for a bunch of reasons. Among other things, it means all the members cannot play 9 conference games in football. No conference wants odd numbers. If they expand at all, they will add two or four, not one or three.
LikeLike
Marc: “We’ve all patiently explained to you that this is a strawman. Almost no one thinks that you “capture” a market just because you add one of the smallest players in that market.”
Marc, I understand the situation quite clearly. You do not. That ‘strawman’ is exactly the snake oil that George Kliavkoff is trying to sell to the Pac-12 presidents and ADs.
“SMU’s appeal to the Pac-12 is that it would allow the conference to expand its television footprint into the Central time zone and potentially deliver millions of viewers in Dallas, if not the entire state of Texas.”
https://www.texasmonthly.com/arts-entertainment/ncaa-smu-joining-pac-12/
LikeLike
I should have mentioned…the other complexity for the Pac-12 is that they’re almost certainly going to have multiple media partners, and all of the pieces have to fit together. Kevin Warren said that the Big Ten media package was the toughest deal he ever did.
The Pac-12 Network should be sold to a sugar daddy like Fox or ABC, even if for only one dollar.
Most forecasters expect that the Pac-12 Network will be the content producers for a streaming partner (or two). Maybe The CW as well, if they are in the mix. Everyone agrees that the P12N was was good at that; it just lacked distribution, which obviously this next deal has to fix.
Neither Amazon nor Apple has production facilities for college sports. They probably don’t want to recreate it for themselves — then they are stuck with it if the relationship doesn’t last. For similar reasons, they might not want to buy it either, not even for a dollar.
In contrast, Fox and Disney already have ample production facilities — more than enough for the relatively few Pac-12 events they’d cover. The P12N would be surplus to them, regardless of the price.
LikeLike
Marc, I understand the situation quite clearly. You do not. That ‘strawman’ is exactly the snake oil that George Kliavkoff is trying to sell to the Pac-12 presidents and ADs.
You know this…how? Canzano has REAL sources, however flawed they might be. You have none.
“SMU’s appeal to the Pac-12 is that it would allow the conference to expand its television footprint into the Central time zone and potentially deliver millions of viewers in Dallas, if not the entire state of Texas.”
This is the Internet. For every imaginable dumb idea, you can always find someone who has uttered it. That doesn’t make it the conventional wisdom. I don’t think Texas Monthly is the place that Pac-12 presidents go for information about their conference.
LikeLike
Marc, google “smu delivers dallas tv market pac-12”. You’ll find dozens of links with the same message. As I have repeatedly said, I scoff at the idea but it is indeed the snake oil that George Kliavkoff is peddling.
LikeLike
I scoff at the idea but it is indeed the snake oil that George Kliavkoff is peddling.
You know this…how?
LikeLike
Marc: “You know this…how?”
Well, I don’t think that George Kliavkoff would go to the Pac-12 presidents and ADs and say “We could bring in SMU. Of course we have no hope of cracking into the Dallas TV market but that would get us into the central time zone.”
LikeLike
I don’t think that George Kliavkoff would go to the Pac-12 presidents and ADs and say “We could bring in SMU. Of course we have no hope of cracking into the Dallas TV market but that would get us into the central time zone.”
A number of sensible writers have offered intelligent reasons for adding SMU as #12 that do not rely on the misguided idea that the Pac-12 would capture the Dallas market. Why don’t you spend your Google time reading the intelligent opinions, rather than the stupid ones?
LikeLike
Marc: “Why don’t you spend your Google time reading the intelligent opinions, rather than the stupid ones?”
Marc, please post some examples of these ‘intelligent opinions’.
LikeLike
For instance, this one:
Pac-12 expansion: Does SMU create media value? “I think it probably helps,” sports media analyst says.
You will note that the case made does not depend on capturing the Dallas TV market. Indeed, it correctly says: ” in the Dallas media market, the Mustangs are far down the pecking order.”
Note that this article does not conclusively determine that the Pac-12 ought to expand with SMU — it notes pros and cons.
If you don’t like that article, there are 10 more. I can’t link them all. Since you have a computer too, you can Google the next one for yourself.
LikeLike
Marc, did you actually read the article that you linked?
““It comes down to whether they think SMU is accretive. You’re gaining a time zone. You’d get six games in the Central Time Zone. It’s not strategically earthshaking, but it’s incremental.
“Adding SMU is as fine an idea as any I’ve heard.”
LikeLike
John Ourand confirms that the CW did take a look and kick the P-12’s tires, but a deal looks very unlikely. Sounds like ION is out as well. He also says a deal may not get done until August.
https://awfulannouncing.com/college-football/the-cw-pac-12-rights-little-chance.html
It looks like the Pac is back to some combination of Disney/Amazon/Apple with most of the games on a streaming service.
LikeLike
Marc, did you actually read the article that you linked?
Yes, of course. I see nothing wrong with it.
It’s not strategically earthshaking, but it’s incremental.
“not earthshaking, but incremental” seems pretty accurate to me. What would you call it?
Adding SMU is as fine an idea as any I’ve heard.
If you read the quote in context, the consultant that Wilner interviewed is not totally sold on SMU. He’s just saying there’s no better candidate, assuming they choose to expand. I think that’s accurate. It’s not that SMU is great, but the other options are worse (or not realistically available).
Bear in mind, this article was part of a series in which SDSU was already assumed as #11.
LikeLike
Short of merging with the ACC or B-12, there really aren’t any great options for the P-1?.
Best option – stay at 10 unless networks are willing to pay more for more inventory.
Two ABC games for the season, weekly ESPN late night slot, weekly ESPN Friday primetime, weekly ESPN2 3;30p Eastern time slot, and two weekly games (and OOC rent-a-wins) on ESPN+/Apple/Amazon.
Next best option (assuming money is right) – 12 with San Diego State plus one of SMU, Fresno State, or UNLV.
Big push into the Central Time Zone (opening noon eastern window) – 14 with SD State, SMU, Rice & Tulane.
My crazy idea – SD State (all sports) with Boise State (football only) and Gonzaga (everything else).
Again, The Pac smart guys should have taken TCU, Texas Tech, OK State and Kansas when they had the chance, regardless of what USC thought.
LikeLike
“It’s not that SMU is great, but the other options are worse (or not realistically available).”
Best option available is Gonzaga + Hawaii football only. That is the current status of the Rainbow Warriers in the Mountain West Conference.
LikeLike
Hawaii is a long trip, its home games are never on at convenient times for TV, it is not a great recruiting territory, and the school is not an academic powerhouse. In football, they’ve finished ranked just twice in their history, the most recent being over 15 years ago.
And you wonder why the Pac-12 has not seriously considered them?
LikeLike
Gonzaga + Hawaii football-only will be far less total team travel than SMU all-sports. The Pac-12 teams will be taking only 4-5 trips out there every year for football games. Hawaii has never had the Death Penalty and there would be far more Pac-12 alumni attending away games in Hawaii than in Dallas.
My niece lives in Chicagoland but she works full-time for the State of Hawaii as a convention coordinator. Her job is to communicate with organizations, e.g. the AMA, that have conventions and try to get them to schedule with Hawaii. Yesterday, I sent this email to her:
Howdy A: I’m writing with a somewhat hare-brained idea for you to convey to your tourism folks in Hawaii. The objective is to get more visitors to Hawaii. This may sound rambling as l try to condense a series of recent events.
UCLA and USC have quit the Pacific-12 Conference and will be joining the Big Ten in 2024. This creates two “vacancies” in the Pac-12. San Diego State will get one spot but there has been a good deal of controversy about the second school. Right now the leading candidate appears to be SMU in Dallas, Texas, a rather poor choice geographically and athletically with a very small fan base.
Gonzaga has been mentioned as a candidate due to their strong basketball program, strong academics and location – Seattle. However, they don’t play football. The University of Hawaii is currently a football-only member of the Mountain West Conference, which is considered the little brother of the Pac-12. And so my proposal is this: the University of Hawaii administration should hook up with the Gonzaga administration and jointly apply for the Pac-12’s twelfth spot, with Hawaii again being a football-only member.
That’s it in a nutshell. Let me know if you have any questions . . . .Colin
LikeLike
Marc & colin – as I wrote earlier, Boise State is the play if the Pac goes for a “football only” school, rather than Hawaii. The Broncos have had much more sustained success and at a higher level, and they draw more eyeballs. The only upsides for the Fighting Rainbow Warriors is a new (East Coast insomniac) time zone, an additional game, and a nice vacation excuse for mainland fans.
LikeLike
Alan: “The only upsides for the Fighting Rainbow Warriors is a new (East Coast insomniac) time zone, an additional game, and a nice vacation excuse for mainland fans.”
Well, there’s more than that. Would Boise grovel to accept a “football-only” invitation? We already know that Hawaii would. They’ve already done it.
Plus Hawaii is indeed a nice vacation excuse for mainland fans. How many AZ St fans are going to plan mini-vacations to away games in Boise?
Also bear in mind that SMU is something like #13 in the pecking order in Dallas, behind Cowboys, Horns, TCU, etc etc. U of H is the only show in town in Hawaii. If they played their cards right, they could become the Asian-American Notre Dame. There are huge numbers of Asian-Americans on the West Coast.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
Short of merging with the ACC or B-12, there really aren’t any great options for the P-1?.
Agreed. They may need SDSU to fill the SoCal hole in their footprint, but #12 is a search for the least objectionable option. They may also need 12 to satisfy the networks. I don’t see 14 making sense.
My crazy idea – SD State (all sports) with Boise State (football only) and Gonzaga (everything else).
Where is Boise going to park their other sports? They might demand all sports get in, and why not do that? They can add Gonzaga to go to 13 in the other sports, where odd numbers aren’t such a problem.
Again, The Pac smart guys should have taken TCU, Texas Tech, OK State and Kansas when they had the chance, regardless of what USC thought.
1. It wasn’t just USC. I read somewhere that the vote was 7-3 against.
2. Overriding USC would’ve just driven them out faster. Placating USC would’ve been wise.
3. Would those schools really have gone? I’m not so sure, at least until OU and UT are gone.
4. If the P12 still had USC, would anyone think expanding with those 4 made much sense?
5. It wouldn’t add much money. I think that grouping would splinter fairly quickly as they realize how little they have in common.
LikeLike
Gift article from NY Times.
LikeLike
Happy Easter and Happy middle of Passover.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/04/10/rutgers-strike-professors-faculty/11633979002/
RU’s faculty are on strike, cancelling all classes.
Some 94% of faculty members belonging to three unions voted to authorize a strike last month, effectively warning the university that they were serious about carrying out their intentions after negotiations failed to produce substantive counter proposals addressing their core demands – to raise wages for graduate workers and secure longer contracts with benefits for part-time professors.
This is a growing issue nationwide, as fewer and fewer faculty are tenure-track (less than 50% overall).
LikeLike
My biggest fear with college sports. Athletes unionize, go on strike and destroy the game, much like labor battles seriously hurt baseball. Basketball and football have managed to avoid the repeated work stoppages.
California strikers apparently got much of what they wanted.
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/university-of-michigan-graduate-students-strike-c4d6a047880be17de154338cd0ae2960
Grad students are striking at UM, and a judge refused to stop it.
LikeLike
Jim Phillips will not be the next B10 commissioner.
LikeLike
“Jim Phillips will not be the next B10 commissioner.”
Thank God. He is a Notre Dame groveler and anus-sniffer. Keep him in the ACC with Louisville. That’s where he belongs.
LikeLike
Pete Thamel is reporting that the Big Ten will hire Tony Pettiti. Many of us expected someone with a college sports administration background (like a Jim Phillips), which Pettiti does not have. He might still be great, but I didn’t expect a hire like that after Warren.
LikeLike
All about his media background. Says quite a bit about what is important for the Big 10.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is expected to hire former MLB and television executive Tony Petitti as the conference’s next commissioner, sources told ESPN. An announcement is expected in the upcoming days.
Petitti emerged from a group of finalists who interviewed in the past 48 hours and was selected Tuesday after a vote of the league’s presidents and chancellors, sources said. Petitti brings a diverse background in both sports and media. He is the former COO of Major League Baseball, where he succeeded current MLB commissioner Rob Manfred in that role in 2015.
His media experience comes from working for ABC Sports, CBS and the MLB Network. His work with college sports includes helping create the Bowl Championship Series back when he was with ABC and working with the NCAA tournament while at CBS. He also worked extensively with the NFL while at CBS.
Petitti also oversaw the day-to-day operations of CSTV, the network that would eventually become CBS Sports Network, for a four-month stint in 2008. He left soon after to become the head of the MLB Network, charting his path to become one of MLB’s top executives.
He does have some college sports background, but only from the media side. Taking someone from the one of the most boring sports in the world isn’t predisposing me to like the hire. With no TV deal to negotiate for 4-5 years, that’s a long time to pay an otherwise useless commissioner.
Petitti is currently the co-CEO of the 33rd Team, a football think tank and nascent media organization founded by former NFL executive and current ESPN analyst Mike Tannenbaum. He has worked for the 33rd Team for the past year.
Petitti takes over the Big Ten at a time when the league is seeking stability and a consensus builder. Warren’s tenure was uneven, as he had difficulty with the set up of college athletics as a clunky and non-linear business where commissioners mostly lack unilateral power of professional commissioners.
Why is Pettiti likely to be any better about dealing with college sports?
I think the B10 will regret this hire just like they will Warren. They need a long term commissioner, not another ladder climber from the pros or a media exec looking to get back to that world.
LikeLike
At least this will quickly prove/disprove those who claim that further B10 expansion was just awaiting a new B10 commissioner.
LikeLike
Actually the responses that I have seen argue that since Pettiti has a TV background and the B1G has no contract to negotiate, that proves that they are looking to add OR/WA.
I think very little of that logic, but here it goes. Why hire someone with a TV background if the purpose is not to renegotiate existing deals?
My response to that the logic only works if one assumes that the only thing holding the B1G back from expansion was a new commissioner to sign the new deals.
I agree, Brian, assuming that there is no total earth shattering boom, maybe, just maybe in a couple of months the expansion is coming any minute now crowd will be quiet. Finally.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to know who was in that group of finalists who interviewed in the past 48 hours.
LikeLike
TV deals do not run themselves. There are a lot of complex scheduling decisions that the league controls, and that have a big impact on ratings. If scheduling is the commissioner’s main job when there’s no TV deal to negotiate, then perhaps someone with a background like Pettiti’s is what you want.
This is not an endorsement, but it’s the best I’ve got if you assume he was not hired to get Washington and Oregon into the league. Warren was (supposedly) pushed out the door because he was lobbying hard to add more western schools, which the presidents were not yet willing to do. So it would be very odd if they hired Pettiti to do exactly that.
I think the only scenario where Washington and Oregon join in this cycle is if the Pac-12 falls apart—still a possibility, but it would not have been the primary assumption of this hire.
LikeLike
Marc,
“TV deals do not run themselves.”
Yes, they do. Networks pay for certain rights and they then get what they paid for.
“There are a lot of complex scheduling decisions that the league controls, and that have a big impact on ratings.”
The conference hires a scheduler to have software generate several options that satisfy the parameters they were given, then the ADs vote on which one to pick. That’s it. TV controls most of the starting times.
“If scheduling is the commissioner’s main job when there’s no TV deal to negotiate, then perhaps someone with a background like Pettiti’s is what you want.”
Scheduling should NEVER be the commissioner’s job at all, let alone their main job. Scheduling is a specialist role, not the boss’s job.
“This is not an endorsement, but it’s the best I’ve got if you assume he was not hired to get Washington and Oregon into the league.”
Well, we don’t know who else applied so maybe he was the best option of the bunch. Maybe nobody with a true college sports administrative background applied.
Or maybe Pettiti demonstrated a deep understanding of NIL, the transfer portal, and all of the NCAA’s legal issues and had a good plan for how the B10 should approach them. Just because that’s not his work background doesn’t make it impossible for him to be good at it.
LikeLike
Well, it appears Pettiti’s foremost challenge will be to integrate UCLA and USC into the conference, decide upon a scheduling format (3-6-6 or whatever) and then decide who plays who as annual rivals. Here in FTTS we have kicked this around for months and there is no obvious solution.
Other prominent issues such as NIL and transgenders will need to be resolved at the NCAA level, not the conference level. It seems like all of the heavy lifting has already been done on the Big Ten TV contracts.
LikeLike
Networks pay for certain rights and they then get what they paid for.
Incorrect because any sentient commissioner is always looking towards the next deal. The better this one turns out, the more you make the next time.
Suppose a league took your approach, on the theory that since the deal was signed already, the networks get what they get — schedule away, and pretend they don’t exist for the next 5 years. How do you predict the next negotiation would go?
Scheduling should NEVER be the commissioner’s job at all, let alone their main job. Scheduling is a specialist role, not the boss’s job.
You believe Jim Delany never had any input on that? Sure, there is a specialist who does the detail work, but who do you think tells the specialist what to do?
Maybe nobody with a true college sports administrative background applied.
Pretty unlikely. The commissioner of almost every collegiate conference but the SEC would view the Big Ten job as a step up. It is hard to imagine that none of them threw their hat in the ring.
I think there is close to zero chance that Phillips did not at least speak to the Big Ten, whether or not he was a formal candidate. Otherwise, the timing of his extension with the ACC is a remarkable coincidence.
LikeLike
“But the hire of an outsider should not be such a surprise. TurnkeyZRG, a search firm the Big Ten used, also helped in the hires of George Kliavkoff (Pac-12), Brett Yormark (Big 12) and Charlie Baker (NCAA)—all of them outsiders in the industry.”
https://www.si.com/college/2023/04/12/tony-petitti-big-ten-new-commissioner
Would you consider any one of those three to be a “good hire”? Kliavkoff is engineering a train wreck TV contract for the P-12, Yorkman is a loose cannon and Baker won’t move from Connecticut to Indianapolis where the NCAA HQ is located.
LikeLike
But the hire of an outsider should not be such a surprise. TurnkeyZRG, a search firm the Big Ten used, also helped in the hires of George Kliavkoff (Pac-12), Brett Yormark (Big 12) and Charlie Baker (NCAA)—all of them outsiders in the industry.
I consider it a silly comment, because the search firm generates candidates according to the parameters of the hiring organization. There are not a lot of search firms that specialize in conference commissioners, so if you hire such a firm at all, there are not a lot of choices.
Would you consider any one of those three to be a “good hire”? Kliavkoff is engineering a train wreck TV contract for the P-12, Yorkman is a loose cannon and Baker won’t move from Connecticut to Indianapolis where the NCAA HQ is located.
Yormark has not just been good; he has been great. If I were a Big XII president, I’d be ecstatic right now. Kliavkoff looks like a disaster so far, though ultimately he will be judged mainly by one thing: a TV deal that does not exist yet. There is still at least a chance that he will pull it off, however unlikely that might be. In fairness to him, he inherited a train wreck.
Baker gets a grade of “incomplete.” I cannot think of a single concrete thing that he has gotten either right or wrong yet. His decision not to relocate was almost certainly agreed with the NCAA before they hired him. If this is a bad decision, I would put it on the hiring committee, not on the search firm.
LikeLike
“However, Pac-12 insider John Canzano was able to get a comment from an anonymous Pac-12 Athletic Director in the aforementioned “four corners” and they did not seem to appreciate Yormark’s comments saying:
“I have no idea what he’s talking about. He just continues to throw stuff out to disrupt. Seems like some level of desperation.”
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/big-12-commissioner-brett-yormark-says-big-12-wants-to-expand-out-west
LikeLike
You just linked an article the other day that mentioned all the times Canzano has been wrong. But anyhow, I feel very certain that Yormark was not hired to please the Pac-12. If any of the Big XII leaders were griping to the media, that would be more interesting.
LikeLike
I said Yorkman was a loose cannon, and he is. It appears you think that a “great job” is digging up replacements like Cincinnati and UCF after the departure of schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzou and A&M.
When a conference commish says something like “We’re going after the Four Corners universities” then that puts those schools on the spot to either confirm or deny. Even a response of “No comment” raises eyebrows. Conference expansion is something that should be done behind closed doors, like USC-UCLA-UT-OU.
LikeLike
Marc,
Networks pay for certain rights and they then get what they paid for.
“Incorrect because any sentient commissioner is always looking towards the next deal.”
No, it’s not incorrect. They pay for X games on certain days/times and negotiated all sorts of details for quality of games, draft order, etc. Once a schedule is settled on that meets the deal’s criteria, there’s nothing to do until the next year (for that sport). The networks can suggest changes for the next time, but the schedule isn’t going to get changed mid-season.
“The better this one turns out, the more you make the next time.”
Team quality matters more to TV value than generic scheduling. But TV already has up front input on scheduling so their preferences are largely factored into whatever schedule is made.
“Suppose a league took your approach, on the theory that since the deal was signed already, the networks get what they get — schedule away, and pretend they don’t exist for the next 5 years.”
Except that’s not what I said. I said the deal runs itself, because it’s just a contract: money for game rights.
“How do you predict the next negotiation would go?”
Exactly as TV viewership numbers dictate.
“You believe Jim Delany never had any input on that?”
Did I say that? No, I didn’t. I said it wasn’t his job. Bosses don’t waste their time doing the scut work, they make decisions about the end result.
“Sure, there is a specialist who does the detail work, but who do you think tells the specialist what to do?”
Doing the detail work in this case is called scheduling. You’re the one who claimed scheduling was the commissioner’s job.
Who tells them what to do? Lots of people. The B10 has a set of scheduling rules (things that can’t happen, dates certain stadiums are not available, etc.) that the league and the ADs agree on. Then the vote on the various schedule options presented to them, or send the scheduler back to try again.
“I think there is close to zero chance that Phillips did not at least speak to the Big Ten, whether or not he was a formal candidate. Otherwise, the timing of his extension with the ACC is a remarkable coincidence.”
But was he serious about the B10 (and vice versa), or just using it as leverage?
LikeLike
I said Yorkman was a loose cannon, and he is.
I see no evidence that the people who count — the Big XII presidents — feel that way. The fact that that Yormark is still talking is a pretty good indication that his clients don’t mind. In contrast, when Kevin Warren got out too far over his skis, Big Ten presidents reeled him in pretty quickly.
It appears you think that a “great job” is digging up replacements like Cincinnati and UCF after the departure of schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzou and A&M.
The departures and the new additions all happened before Yormark was hired. The most you could ask is that he play the best cards with the hand he’s been dealt, and so far he’s done that.
LikeLike
They pay for X games on certain days/times and negotiated all sorts of details for quality of games, draft order, etc.
Warren said there’s a lot yet to be decided. No contract that I have ever seen memorializes every single decision. In fact, we know that the league’s scheduling format for 2024 and beyond has not yet been settled.
Now, you could choose to optimize that schedule for TV. Or, you could say, “As long as we don’t violate the contract, we can do anything we want.” What will they do? I think it’s probably going to be more of the former than the latter.
I am guessing that this new commissioner is going to put himself in the middle of that. The fact they picked someone with this background is a pretty clear indication. Sure, it’s possible he doesn’t care about that at all, and they actually hired him to obsess over trans-gender athlete eligibility and NIL collectives. I just don’t think so.
LikeLike
“The search for the seventh Big Ten Conference commissioner was led by the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors’ Executive Search Committee. University of Maryland President Darryll J. Pines served as chair alongside University of Minnesota President Joan Gabel, The Ohio State University President Kristina M. Johnson, and Chair of the Council of Presidents and Chancellors and University of Illinois Chancellor Robert Jones.”
https://bigten.org/news/2023/4/12/general-tony-petitti-named-seventh-commissioner-of-the-big-ten-conference.aspx
Now I get it! Diversity, equity and inclusion! The Big Ten’s Executive Search Committee for a new commish was two black guys and two women!
LikeLike
And they hired a older white guy. Presumably, on merit.
Who did you want them to hire as the B1G commish?
LikeLike
Scout: “And they hired a older white guy. Presumably, on merit. Who did you want them to hire as the B1G commish?”
No no no. They didn’t hire anyone except a headhunter, TurnkeyZRG. As for my personal preference, I would have opted for someone who knows whether a football is filled with helium or stuffed with feathers.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Warren said there’s a lot yet to be decided.”
But we don’t know what that means. We know the schedule isn’t set, but TV deals always precede schedules. TV has made it clear what they want/expect.
“No contract that I have ever seen memorializes every single decision.”
No, but what’s written covers all the key points – how many games on what days at what times, exceptions to any rules (like certain schools won’t host F night games except on holiday weekends), the window to decide start times, and the money.
“In fact, we know that the league’s scheduling format for 2024 and beyond has not yet been settled.”
It will be 9 games. That’s what TV cares about. They have never had control over individual matchup selection. I’m sure TV has mentioned some preferred annual games, and maybe even gotten them in writing, but conferences have always controlled the schedule and the games aren’t all set before TV deals have been signed.
“Now, you could choose to optimize that schedule for TV.”
The B01 tried that (parity-based scheduling) then reversed it, and it made no difference financially. Both sides need to be happy, and the B10 has figured it out for about 40+ years (since TV freedom). I’m not worried it will suddenly spin off the rails now.
Some people want to do that now, and others don’t (look at locked rival discussions). TV will be fine with whatever solution is reached because there will still be a lot of good games to choose from.
“Or, you could say, “As long as we don’t violate the contract, we can do anything we want.””
That’s the point of a contract. And the B10 has done that for 40+ years. They consider what TV wants, but the B10 makes the decisions based on what they think is best for the B10 overall (short and long term).
“What will they do? I think it’s probably going to be more of the former than the latter.”
I think they’ll compromise like always.
“I am guessing that this new commissioner is going to put himself in the middle of that.”
I think the ADs are going to listen to his input then decide it and basically tell the newbie to be quiet while adults get the work done. Once he learns about college sport and the conference and the teams and the TV deal, then they’ll listen to him more. They’re only scheduling 1 year at a time anyway, so they can change course based on feedback. He doesn’t even start until 5/15.
“The fact they picked someone with this background is a pretty clear indication.”
Is it? Or were they thinking about the next media deal and the media landscape that will exist in 2030? Or were they thinking he will build consensus and do what he’s told? Or were they thinking any of a million other things? OSU’s president was on the hiring committee and she’s gone in a month. What was she factoring in?
“Sure, it’s possible he doesn’t care about that at all, and they actually hired him to obsess over trans-gender athlete eligibility and NIL collectives. I just don’t think so.”
The SBJ said this about him:
As one college sports insider describes it, Petitti is a safe and solid hire who needs to only “keep the [Big Ten] train running on time.”
LikeLike
Brian: “I think the ADs are going to listen to his input then decide it and basically tell the newbie to be quiet while adults get the work done.”
Exactly right. This guy doesn’t know dick about college football. I would have picked Frank, Brian or Marc ahead of this baseball groupie.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4922969/premier-league-clubs-to-drop-gambling-sponsors-from-shirts
Interesting. The EPL is dropping gambling sponsors from the front of their shirts (the main sponsor). With the rise in sports gambling in the US, it’s interesting to see the UK take a step back when they have long had all types of sports gambling.
England’s top flight becomes the first league to make this call voluntarily — Serie A clubs have not been permitted to have gambling companies as their main shirt sponsor since fresh government laws in 2019, while LaLiga sides had the same restrictions ahead of the 2021-22 campaign.
Eight Premier League clubs have gambling companies as front-shirt sponsors this season, valued at around £60 million per year. But they will have until the end of the 2025-26 campaign to phase these out, while there are no restrictions on clubs tying up new betting sponsors in the interim up until that enforced deadline.
Clubs will continue to be able to have gambling companies on the shirt sleeves of the kit and on LED advertising around on the stadiums, just not as the prominent sponsor on the front of the shirt.
The Premier League will work with other sports to develop a new code for what they call “responsible gambling sponsorship.”
LikeLike
I think folks are looking at the Petitti hire too specifically as it may relate to issues. He was hired for his overall approach/reputation as a consensus builder and being able to work with many different parties from different angles in the sports/media landscape.
He’s a tv/sports exec that’s worked on college rights deals and was supposedly a key part to helping convince Delany and the Big Ten to join the BCS.
Here’s the thing, the next iteration of Big Ten expansion is likely to be contentious. There is no “obvious” next pair of schools to join the Big Ten unless ND changes its mind and joins with Stanford.
There’s no USC+UCLA sitting out there; 2 AAU schools with sterling academic reputations and terrific sports brands sitting close together in a gigantic market.
The next expansion decision is very difficult. I’m of the opinion that the next 2 the Big Ten should choose should either be FSU + Miami or Miami + Washington.
Neither of those is anywhere in the same time zone as obvious as USC + UCLA; FSU and Miami aren’t AAU (though Miami maybe somewhat close based on old leaked metrics), and they add a big travel burden for USC/UCLA. Neither is any other expansion option like Washington + Oregon or UNC + UVA going to be an easy lift (Oregon has questionmarks in my mind, UNC+UVA may not be additive and UNC may have a lot of tagalongs that it can’t leave)…
The reality is that there’s only difficult decisions to be made now as far as future expansion goes. Travel will get more difficult for everyone (or marginally easier) in the move to 18 or 20.
So Petitti makes a ton of sense to me; he has 6-7 years to catch up to speed while advocating for the Big Ten in the new CFP landscape; he’ll likely oversee the transition to professionalization of college athletics as more lanes for pay become open to players including potential distributions from conferences to players (on behalf of schools).
LikeLike
FSU and Miami aren’t AAU (though Miami maybe somewhat close based on old leaked metrics), and they add a big travel burden for USC/UCLA.
The travel burden is overstated. L.A. to Detroit is 4’20”. L.A. to Miami is 4’55”. That extra 35 minutes—which they wouldn’t face very year—isn’t the sort of burden that nullifies an expansion you’d otherwise make. I agree with the rest of your points: there is no “Duh! Of course!!” expansion left unless it includes Notre Dame.
The more that I have read about Petitti, I see he is not the college sports neophyte that he at first appeared to be. But the selection is consistent with my hypothesis that the presidents see the management of TV deals (and the revenues that come with them) as the commissioner’s primary job. It is hard to imagine that he comes out on top if that isn’t the case.
I am flattered that Colin thinks I’d be a better commissioner than this guy. But no, I would not be.
LikeLike
Marc: “I am flattered that Colin thinks I’d be a better commissioner than this guy. But no, I would not be.”
Marc, that remains to be seen. He may come up with a scheduling format that’s even more befuddled than your scheme of making annual opponents of USC and UCLA with Michigan and Ohio State, and Penn State with Ohio State.
Actually, I’m curiously awaiting an opening statement from this guy. It might be chock full of wokeness, diversity, equity, inclusion and bless the transgenders. That’s when we should start to worry.
LikeLike
He may come up with a scheduling format that’s even more befuddled than your scheme of making annual opponents of USC and UCLA with Michigan and Ohio State, and Penn State with Ohio State.
He’s not going to impose that without the ADs’ agreement. If it happens, I wouldn’t blame him. If it doesn’t happen, I wouldn’t give him the credit either.
I can see your arguments for not locking USC/UCLA with UM/OSU. But OSU–PSU has been a constant for decades and is in the substantial majority of proposals I’ve seen. Leaving it out would be a big surprise.
I’m curiously awaiting an opening statement from this guy. It might be chock full of wokeness, diversity, equity, inclusion and bless the transgenders. That’s when we should start to worry.
Your position on this is well known, but just remember who hired this guy — university presidents for whom these issues are front and center. I don’t know if it’ll be in his opening statement, but by your standards he’s gonna be “woke.” He couldn’t be hired if he wasn’t. That is the world we live in.
LikeLike
Right. Wokeness is a priority with college presidents. The former Texas president now at Emory was interviewed and talked about his time at Texas. What was he proudest of? Removing statues with confederate connections. Seriously!!! He actually did have some real accomplishments with actual impact on the university and students, but that is what he talked about.
LikeLike
Maybe he considers that a real accomplishment in a state like TX, and maybe that did have actual impact on a bunch of Black students (and others).
As for presidents being “woke,” you need to recognize that there is outside pressure from the federal government, accreditation bodies, and industry for DEI in universities. The students, staff and faculty are often pushing for some of it, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marc,
FSU and Miami aren’t AAU (though Miami maybe somewhat close based on old leaked metrics), and they add a big travel burden for USC/UCLA.
“The travel burden is overstated. L.A. to Detroit is 4’20”. L.A. to Miami is 4’55”. That extra 35 minutes—which they wouldn’t face very year—isn’t the sort of burden that nullifies an expansion you’d otherwise make.”
It isn’t a burden for the LA schools so much as for the current 14. It would guarantee a trip to LA or FL every year for all the current members, and often both trips. And that’s just football.
“The more that I have read about Petitti, I see he is not the college sports neophyte that he at first appeared to be. But the selection is consistent with my hypothesis that the presidents see the management of TV deals (and the revenues that come with them) as the commissioner’s primary job. It is hard to imagine that he comes out on top if that isn’t the case.”
It depends who the other serious candidates were. It could be all about his management style (consensus building), rather than anything specific about his background, after Warren.
“I am flattered that Colin thinks I’d be a better commissioner than this guy. But no, I would not be.”
I volunteer to do a crappy job of it for 1/4 of Pettiti’s salary.
LikeLike
It isn’t a burden for the LA schools so much as for the current 14. It would guarantee a trip to LA or FL every year for all the current members, and often both trips. And that’s just football.
A Midwestern conference that just added two California schools probably wouldn’t consider the trip to Florida too onerous, assuming all of the other expansion criteria are met.
And who knows what those criteria will be, other than “make more money”? By the time they could think about adding ACC schools, different people will be deciding, as the Big Ten presidencies turn over with some regularity.
LikeLike
Marc,
“A Midwestern conference that just added two California schools probably wouldn’t consider the trip to Florida too onerous, assuming all of the other expansion criteria are met.”
Omaha to Miami is about the same flight length as Omaha to LA, but with +1 time change vs -2.
It’s not that the trip is worse than going to LA, or even as bad. It’s that you would now have yet another really long road trip. Sports like basketball are going to pay a physical price for that much travel every year.
“And who knows what those criteria will be, other than “make more money”?”
We don’t even know if that’s a criterion.
“By the time they could think about adding ACC schools, different people will be deciding, as the Big Ten presidencies turn over with some regularity.”
Well, they could/should be thinking about it already. But yes, the presidents churn frequently and so do commissioners apparently.
LikeLike
“And who knows what those criteria will be, other than “make more money”?”
We don’t even know if that’s a criterion.
Nobody expands to lose money, so yes, that is an automatic criterion.
LikeLike
Losing money probably not, though many here suggested they should add UW and UO even if it cost them a few million per year.
Breaking even while gaining something else of value to the B10? That’s possible. If the B10 valued access to FL highly, for example, they could consider adding FSU and Miami pro rata.
LikeLike
z33k,
“He’s a tv/sports exec”
Strike 1 in my book (against him, not you).
“that’s worked on college rights deals”
Something the B10 doesn’t need for 5 years, by which time he may be ready to retire.
“and was supposedly a key part to helping convince Delany and the Big Ten to join the BCS.”
Strike 2, as the BCS was the beginning of the end.
“Here’s the thing, the next iteration of Big Ten expansion is likely to be contentious.”
Every iteration has been contentious, and it should be. There is a price to be paid every time the B10 grows, and more money can’t always make up for what’s lost.
“There is no “obvious” next pair of schools to join the Big Ten unless ND changes its mind and joins with Stanford.”
Which is a good sign not to expand. Most prior additions were fairly obvious choices if you knew the schools were available. But even some of those were contentious.
“There’s no USC+UCLA sitting out there; 2 AAU schools with sterling academic reputations and terrific sports brands sitting close together in a gigantic market.”
And there’s no need to expand just to expand.
“The next expansion decision is very difficult.”
Not really. Just say no.
“I’m of the opinion that the next 2 the Big Ten should choose should either be FSU + Miami or Miami + Washington.”
What we don’t know is how the B10 is looking at the future for student recruitment as demographics change. That could give more value to adding distant schools (in FL, CA, GA, NC, …) than we know to give them now.
“The reality is that there’s only difficult decisions to be made now as far as future expansion goes. Travel will get more difficult for everyone (or marginally easier) in the move to 18 or 20.”
A good reason not to go to 18 or 20.
“So Petitti makes a ton of sense to me; he has 6-7 years to catch up to speed while advocating for the Big Ten in the new CFP landscape;”
He’s 62. Who says he’ll still be here for the next TV negotiation?
LikeLike
He’s 62. Who says he’ll still be here for the next TV negotiation?
There are no guarantees, but I don’t think someone with his background signs up if he does not hope to be around for the next deal.
LikeLike
I’m with Marc on this; given he’s only a little younger than Manfred, I don’t see him as much of a flight risk to MLB, and I’d expect him to stick around through at least the next TV contract and round of expansion. He has plenty of time to get up to speed before those become the main focus.
Next TV contract negotiations will start around late-2028 to early 2019, so that’s just a bit more than 5 years away.
He’ll also be around for start of next expansion round which we’d expect to kick off around then as well since ACC schools will be agitating even more heavily to leave as early as 2028-29 when the differences between their distributions and Big Ten/SEC become $40-50 million per year even though they’d have to wait until closer to 2035-2036 to fully exit.
Delany retired at 70, so who knows but I do think he can at least serve through end of this decade.
LikeLike
In fact, it’s somewhat likely that we end up with a similar handoff as we saw from Warren to Petitti.
If Petitti invites ACC schools to join, he may not be around to see them actually join the conference around 2035-2036 (assuming they can shave off at most 1 year of the GoR as Texas/OU did).
So his exit plan may end up similar: create a new TV deal for 2030 and beyond, invite 2-4 schools to join the conference. Then retire. Next commissioner would deal with getting the schools out of the ACC and integrating them.
LikeLike
If Petitti invites ACC schools to join, he may not be around to see them actually join the conference around 2035-2036 (assuming they can shave off at most 1 year of the GoR as Texas/OU did).
The late 2020s is possibly a bit early for ACC schools to announce they are joining the Big Ten in the mid-2030s. That puts them in limbo for 6–7 years, and I don’t think there is any precedent for that.
LikeLike
Agreed that there’s no precedent for schools being lame ducks that long (4 years appears to be the most), but now that Texas/OU were able to shave a year off their GoR at minimal extra cost, there might be an impetuous for a push.
And the differences between TV deals will be upwards to $50-60 million per year by then, so that’s the point at which you would really expect to see FSU and co. saying: “look we’re going to be out of here anyways in 2036, just let us out earlier and end this drama early”.
Obviously may not work, but I think we really do see significant agitation to exit when the next Big Ten TV deal is in the works, even if they’re lame ducks for an extended period.
And given he might be considering retiring, it’d be an easy way for Petitti to go out on a high note (similar to Warren).
LikeLike
Totally different scenario with UT/OU leaving the B12 and FSU/Miami/Clemson leaving the ACC. Texas and Oklahoma were able to shave a year off because they were already gone and the remaining schools opted to milk as much cash as they could. That analogy isn’t valid for the ACC. As the expiration date of the ACC GOR draws closer, the date of a new, better ACC contract also draws closer. No one is “already gone” from the ACC.
The differences between TV deals will indeed be upwards to $50-60 million per year by 2016 but after that, the difference is greatly reduced. The ACC isn’t going to make another idiotic 20-yr deal for peanuts. And as I have said before, I really don’t see schools like FSU and Miami really increasing the revenue of the Big Ten schools. Yeah, they might increase the payout enough to for everyone to break even, but what is the point of that?
LikeLike
And given he might be considering retiring, it’d be an easy way for Petitti to go out on a high note (similar to Warren).
This is the first I’ve seen anyone describing Warren’s departure a high note. The Big Ten presidents declined to renew his contract. He was all-but fired.
LikeLike
The differences between TV deals will indeed be upwards to $50-60 million per year by 2016 but after that, the difference is greatly reduced. The ACC isn’t going to make another idiotic 20-yr deal for peanuts.
They get swindled twice, but the ACC is still going to be significantly behind. Far too many of their members are basketball schools, and yet football pays most of the bills. I’d estimate that a new ACC contract at fair market value would probably put each school at least $15–20 million behind the Big Ten and SEC — certainly enough for those schools to desire a move to the Big Two if they could get an invitation.
And as I have said before, I really don’t see schools like FSU and Miami really increasing the revenue of the Big Ten schools.
Let’s see…you are getting the 3rd-most populous state in the nation — close to double the population of the Big Ten’s most populous legacy state, PA. In 2022, FSU had TV ratings higher than 11 out of 14 Big Ten teams. It is hard to believe they do not raise the average—and significantly. As the cherry on top, you also get one of the top states for high school football talent (typically in the top three).
The better argument for FSU not joining the Big Ten is the lack of cultural fit, and that could be a deal-breaker. But as far as the money goes, the Seminoles are slam-dunk obvious, almost no matter who #18 is.
LikeLike
Marc: “In 2022, FSU had TV ratings higher than 11 out of 14 Big Ten teams. It is hard to believe they do not raise the average—and significantly.”
Well, that is true but misleading. Ohio State averages 5.8 million viewers, Michigan 4.4 M, Penn State 3.0 M and there is a small herd at approximately 2 million: USC, FSU, Nebraska, Michigan State and Maryland. FSU is behind Florida in viewers and if FSU’s partner to the Big Ten is Miami, they rank # 59 in the nation between # 58 Rutgers and # 60 Wake Forest. Adding a FSU-Miami combination would probably decrease the per-school payout to Big Ten schools. A quick calculation:
# 14 USC 2.1 M + # 25 UCLA 1.6 M = 3.7 M viewers
# 15 FSU 2.0 M + # 59 Miami 0.6 M = 2.6 M viewers
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
Sorry, meant to say, “They won’t get swindled twice.”
LikeLike
That’s also plenty of time for dealing with 16 college presidents, the other conference commissioners, the NCAA, the courts, and the federal government to drive him nuts and make him want out.
LikeLike
Gift article from WaPo about Petitti. It perpetuates the myth about future Big Ten expansion.
https://wapo.st/3L3Mh8Y
LikeLike
It perpetuates the myth about future Big Ten expansion.
I am not sure what you consider mythical about it. All the article says is that future expansion “reportedly remains on the table.” Such a feeble statement merely means others have “reported” that, and it’s true—people have.
And “on the table” merely means they are open to considering it, which I am sure they are. People “consider” lots of things without doing them.
LikeLike
Marc, you should like this article. It’s chock full of expansion rumors.
https://collegefootballnews.com/news/college-football-expansion-predictions-conference-realignment-whats-new-in-2023
LikeLike
Marc, you should like this article. It’s chock full of expansion rumors.
I saw that when it appeared a couple of weeks ago. Such articles come out all the time. I have stopped posting them here — they have so little value.
LikeLike
Selected items from The Athletic:
Prospects no longer restricted to 5 official visits, limited to 1 official visit per school
The NCAA announced Thursday afternoon that its Division I council has created new rules for official and unofficial visits. Here’s what you need to know:
-The main change is that prospects will no longer be restricted to five official visits but will be limited to one official visit per school.
-If there is a coaching change, a second official visit can be taken.
-The rules will take place this August.
-College programs still have a limit of 56 total official visits per year.
From NIL to … WWE?
Following Miami’s Elite Eight trip, Haley and Hanna Cavinder are foregoing their fifth year. The twins are social media stars who’ve turned their millions of followers into (roughly) millions of dollars, thanks to the NIL revolution. They’re also among a couple dozen athletes who’ve signed WWE deals while in college, part of the company’s Next In Line program. Smart to industrialize the collegian-to-wrestler pipeline, whether the Cavinders decide to hit the ropes or not.
LikeLike
That college football viewer ranking actually gives us a pretty good metric on which teams would be the best additions to the Big Ten, if we were dumb enough to expand again. As I posted previously:
# 15 FSU 2.0 M + # 59 Miami 0.6 M = 2.6 M viewers
However if we look at Oregon and Washington:
#12 Oregon 2.2 M + #34 Washington 1.1 M = 3.3 M viewers
Plus OU and UW are state flagships, both are AAU, they’d provide “local” rivals for USC and UCLA, both are available right now and both are reportedly willing to join the Big Ten for a 50% TV payout. FSU and Miami are none of those things.
In fact, adding UO and UW at 50% payouts would be the same as adding one college with 3.3 M viewers, in other words the same viewer impact increase as adding # 6 Notre Dame.
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
The biggest flaw in this analysis is that a 50% payout needs to be 100% eventually, for a bunch of reasons that have been explained here previously. Thus, to add those schools you need to believe they can eventually pay for themselves as full partners, even if they accept less to start.
I’ve no position on whether they eventually pay for themselves. Kevin Warren evidently thought they would, but thanks (in part) to that “analysis” he is no longer commissioner, so I don’t know how good it was.
Also, UW/UO are not “local” to USC and UCLA. The travel benefit to them is not that substantial. It helps them a little bit, but makes the travel worse for everyone else. You would not add those schools for travel.
LikeLike
Well, the travel benefit to the LA schools would be a heck of a lot better with UO and UW than with FSU and Miami. And you are correct, we don’t know whether UO and UW would eventually pay for themselves, but we know for sure that FSU and Miami would not.
LikeLike
And you are correct, we don’t know whether UO and UW would eventually pay for themselves, but we know for sure that FSU and Miami would not.
FSU pays for itself for sure. It then comes down to who is #18. Oregon is golden, since you are adding the #12 + #15 overall schools by ratings. (That’s 2022 data only—obviously a more sophisticated analysis would take a longer term view and would break out ratings by cohorts.)
FSU is so obviously desirable that you’d probably take Miami to get them, although I agree with you that Oregon is better if TV ratings are the only thing that matters, then you take Oregon.
LikeLike
Well, Dennis Dodd seems to think the Big Ten has doubled down on Warner’s vision, that Pettiti will be an agent of change and innovation. “Disruptive” is the word used by some who have worked with him, disruptive in the sense of creatively doing away with old methods and habits.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-tony-petitti-is-the-perfect-fit-for-big-ten-commissioner-from-those-who-know-him-best/
LikeLike
From this FSU and Oregon are about the same. Adding Miami to FSU effectively brings down the TV value of FSU. Why should Miami and FSU be a package?
Tallahassee is nearly 500 miles from Miami. They are not exactly natural travel partners.
FSU is also in the eastern time zone, which inherently makes travel from the Central or Eastern time zones a bit easier. There are only a few of the 14 current B1G schools closer to OR or WA than to FSU. Miami is an extra hour of flight time compared to FSU.
FSU opens up the State of FL to easier recruiting. Neither Oregon nor Washington do much (anything?) on the recruiting front.
The one-half share deal is inherently dangerous. As Marc said, will that be permanent and, if not, what indication is that they will ever pay for themselves?
FSU will certainly not be required to take a half-share, since the SEC would certainly offer them more.
As far as academic ranking, FSU is just outside the top 50 and rising. Both FSU and UF continue to rise since they are the two flag ships of the State of FL. The state has made it clear that admissions will not be increased as the state grows in size. There are a number of other universities in the FL system with no such restriction.
That is causing UF and FSU to be more academically competitive. UF has really jumped in rankings and FSU is coming along.
This is similar to U Texas, A number of years ago, UT guaranteed admission to any high school student finishing in the top 10% of a Texas high school class. UT Austin in now down to the top 6%, as the state has grown in population.
Personally I just do not see why the B1G would ever take Oregon or Washington. ND with Stanford as a plus one might work. That assumes ND requires Stanford and that Stanford would come without Berkeley.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“From this FSU and Oregon are about the same. Adding Miami to FSU effectively brings down the TV value of FSU. Why should Miami and FSU be a package?”
You give some valid reasons not to pair them. Here are some counterpoints:
1. There are more B10 alumni in south FL, so Miami is valuable to the B10
2. While not near each other, FSU is on the way to/from Miami for the B10. You could still play both over a weekend.
3. The B10 needs both to counter the pull of the SEC, with UF, UGA, UAl, etc. The B10 doesn’t want to be a distant second in its own footprint.
4. FSU might require Miami as a partner to preserve a rivalry (nobody in the B10 is close to them).
5. Miami is the more northern school, and could be a cultural bridge.
6. Miami is a better TV market
7. Miami is the better school academically (may not always be true)
8. Miami is the best recruiting ground
“The one-half share deal is inherently dangerous. As Marc said, will that be permanent and, if not, what indication is that they will ever pay for themselves?”
Say they’re actually worth 85% but start at 75%. You can ramp them up over time by moving some money to future years. That gives you 6 years to rebuild their value by playing lots of high visibility games in the B10. Being on when the east coast will see them, and against teams fans will watch nationally, would add to their value. So by the next TV deal, they’re at least average for the B10 and don’t noticeably reduce the payout.
“FSU will certainly not be required to take a half-share, since the SEC would certainly offer them more.”
Correct. FSU has leverage, and better TV ratings, a larger state, and better recruiting grounds. It’s more valuable, and there is potentially competition to add them.
“As far as academic ranking, FSU is just outside the top 50 and rising. Both FSU and UF continue to rise since they are the two flag ships of the State of FL. The state has made it clear that admissions will not be increased as the state grows in size. There are a number of other universities in the FL system with no such restriction.
That is causing UF and FSU to be more academically competitive. UF has really jumped in rankings and FSU is coming along.”
That only takes you so far. The schools above them get harder and harder to pass. It’s not like the best schools are standing still.
“Personally I just do not see why the B1G would ever take Oregon or Washington. ND with Stanford as a plus one might work. That assumes ND requires Stanford and that Stanford would come without Berkeley.”
You know I’m not big on it either. Some theoretical reasons:
1. The B10 leadership feels controlling the west is more valuable than splitting a piece of the southeast where they’ll always be #2
2. The B10 decides they need more western schools to maximize the return on adding the LA schools.
3. The SEC takes all the valuable schools in the ACC and the B10 feels a need to respond beyond asking ND politely yet again.
4. UO is really the odd school out to me. I could see UW + a NoCal school to add 2 more major west coast markets as a more valuable pairing.
LikeLike
The Wall St Journal rankings have 13 of 14 (incl UCLA) ranked among the top 50 public schools and 12 of 14 among the top 40 public schools:
1. Michigan
2. UCLA
7. Illinois
10. Purdue
13. Wisconsin
20. Maryland
21. Michigan State
23. Minnesota
26. Indiana
27. Ohio State
35. Rutgers
37. Penn State
43. Iowa
For the SEC, only 4 among the top 50 public schools, and two of those are newcomers:
11. Florida
14. Texas
19. A&M
38. Georgia
New US News rankings have 13 of 14 Big Ten schools ranked the top 100. If you add in #20 UCLA and #25 USC, that’s 15 of 16.
https://sports.yahoo.com/big-ten-schools-ranked-academically-025601384.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
LikeLike
By the way, in case anyone is interested, here are the WSJ rankings of other, only public schools (list does not include private schools):
UNC – 3
UC, Berkley – 4
Washington – tied for 7 (with Illinois)
UVA – 12
Georgia Tech – 15
Pitt – 22
UConn – 28
Virginia Tech – 29
NC State – 30
Arizona – 33
Utah – 34
FSU – 44
Colorado and Clemson – tied for 47
ASU – 56
Miami – 60
Oregon – 63
I was unable to find Nebraska in the top 100
According to the article: “The Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education College Rankings, based on 15 performance indicators, is designed to answer the questions that matter most to students and their families: How likely am I to graduate, pay off my loans and get a good job? Does the college have plenty of resources to teach me properly? Will I be engaged and stretched in the classroom and get good access to my teachers? Is there a diverse campus community?”
LikeLike
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65318654
How might Fox agreeing to pay $867M to Dominion impact college sports? This is only the first of several lawsuits for Fox. They face an even larger one from Smartmatic ($2.7B – Dominion wanted $1.6B). I assume insurance will cover some or all of this, but the stock is likely to take a hit in the short term at least.
Could it be a reason for them not to pay the P12? Will it slow them in future negotiations? Will they push the B10 harder to make decisions that help Fox make a larger profit? The new, smaller Fox can’t as easily afford this sort of thing as Disney can.
LikeLike
According to the Washington Post:
“The $787.5 million price tag for Fox’s settlement with Dominion Voting Systems amounts to almost one-fifth of the company’s cash on hand, a sizable hit to the company’s bottom line. Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch told analysts in February during an earnings call that the company had about $4 billion in cash on hand.”
Brian – I haven’t done any insurance defense work in a long time, but insurers typically don’t cover intentional acts and it’s impossible to defame someone on accident. Maybe they have a Lloyds of London type of policy that covers it.
LikeLike
Alan,
Sorry about my typo on the money amount.
I just assume a big corporation will find a way to wiggle out from actually paying all of it, they always do. My limited understanding of insurance is that normally an intentional act like this wouldn’t be covered, but the law always seems to work differently for big companies. As you say maybe they have some special type of policy for this since they are a media company and that field creates a different type of risk. Certainly the Fox empire has experience with these sorts of lawsuits, since their British tabloids regularly lose cases.
If they have to pay it, that’s more than 2 years worth of the B10’s new TV deal to them. It makes it seem even less likely they want to fund further B10 expansion right now.
LikeLike
I doubt any insurance will pay for Fox. The typical defamation is a few million or less. If Fox has a Lloyds policy, they can get in line behind all the aircraft leasers Lloyds has refused to pay. Lloyds is being sued for invoking the war clause to refuse payment while the plaintiffs allege there is no war, just a “Special Military Operation”.
Fox is probably more concerned about the $2.6 billion defamation suit that has not made it to court yet (same allegations, different company) than in spending more money on B1G football.
LikeLike
SEC has approved all 16 team formats except for volleyball, football and the baseball postseason tourney.
https://www.secsports.com/article/34032021/six-sec-sports-future-scheduling-formats-approved
https://www.secsports.com/article/35857432/seven-sec-sports-future-scheduling-formats-approved
LikeLike
As a future SEC fan, what are your thoughts on them? Mostly obvious options, or controversial? Why are WVB, and BB’s postseason, taking longer? Why do women’s sports rivalries not merit locking but men’s sports do?
Notable things:
MBB – 18 games including 2 HaH rivals and 1 rotating HaH (still not 20)
WBB – 16 games with 1 rotating HaH (why not 18 like MBB?)
Soccer – 2 divisions (why?)
Softball – 24 games = 3 game series vs 8 rotating schools (why not more games/schools?)
M&W Tennis – full round robin
BB – 30 games = 3 game series vs 2 locked rivals and 8 rotating schools (why more than softball?)
LikeLike
All looks pretty good but I am surprised there are only 2 locked rivals in baseball. Of course, with the number of games you can schedule teams ooc.
Don’t understand WBB being different. Maybe to reduce travel?
Don’t think there is anything controversial. That’s why football is last!
I think volleyball probably has issues with scheduling during the week so they are trying to work that out. Not that basketball doesn’t have the same issues, but there is probably less revenue in vb.
LikeLike
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/sec-commissioner-greg-sankey-elaborates-on-potential-football-schedule-changes/ar-AA19YHiW
Sankey does his best not to say anything in this interview, but it looks like SEC football scheduling will be decided mid-May in the meetings in Destin and a 9 game schedule with 3 rivals is a slight favorite but there are a number of options. Interestingly he never mentions a 2 rival model. He makes it sound like divisions are extremely unlikely. They are currently running models to try to have balanced scheduling and divisions don’t do that well. He says that fixed rivals don’t hamper balanced scheduling that much.
LikeLike
Longstanding rivalries make the SEC well suited for the 3-6-6 format and this includes the traditional rivalries of newcomers Texas and Oklahoma. That isn’t true in the Big Ten. The only Big Ten school with three obvious annual rivals is Iowa. Several others have two, some have only one and you can make a reasonable argument that some have none.
LikeLike
“What we have learned through our analysis is we can narrow the competitive bandwidth compared to our two-division format currently where, depending on the ebb and flow of divisional strength, some team’s schedule is much more challenging than others within the conference. That’s the type of information we’ve developed over time and will be used as we make a decision.”
…
Sankey doubled-down that the schedule format will be rotated between eight or nine opponents, with one permanent rival also being part of the mix. Another option brought up by Sankey was the potential to get rid of the annual non-conference Power Five game, but the conditions of that potential rule change were not elaborated on.
Sankey was blunt when asked on if he believes the required non-conference Power Five game will be removed with the updated schedule.
“I don’t assume that, nor do I believe it will remain,” Sankey said. “But that’s part of the conversation. We’re talking about change, and as I said last year — probably right at this very gathering — we were poised to make a decision, decided the opportunity to gather more information was important and relevant. New information can change people’s perspectives, so we have a fully-developed conversation to this point, provided a lot of information individually, in small groups and in full-membership groups and we’ll continue to do that as we advance with the idea that Destin is a decision point.”
One of the larger concerns among fans with the potential three permanent opponents model has been the scheduling balance. Alabama, for example, would likely face Auburn, LSU and Tennessee on an annual basis — a permanent group of three tough teams. Meanwhile, another team might have a much easier rotation, depending on their rivals.
Sankey noted that the analytics point to a larger body of rotating opponents rather than a small field of permanent ones tends to make power disparity more equally spread out.
“There will not be a three-game conference schedule,” Sankey said. “There will be a nine-game conference schedule or an eight-game conference schedule, and one has to look at the entire spectrum of opponents over time to understand the competitive realities.
“If you run some analytics and you look at the differential and schedule strengths in our divisional format, there’s a greater disparity than there would be for an eight-game or nine-game schedule. The more you play, the more you narrow that competitive disparity across the board.”
It sounds like the price for going to 9 games may be eliminating the 1 P5 OOC game rule, but that hurts those with in-state OOC rivalries (UK, SC, UGA, UF).
I highlighted a key thing some people can’t seem to grasp. In all these scheduling discussions we focus on which games will be locked, but the other 6-8 games have more impact on the overall SOS disparity. And SOS shouldn’t be exactly equal anyway – AL never has to play themselves, and that will skew the SOS (same with UGA, OSU in the B10, etc.).
LikeLike
Long article chock full of interesting data . . .
https://espn960sports.com/news/why-the-pac10-is-struggling-to-make-a-media-deal-2/
LikeLike
Gift article from WaPo:
https://wapo.st/43I01xI
LikeLike
Gift article from WaPo. Herbie Husker goes from “OK” to “The Finger”.
https://wapo.st/3AduS7F
LikeLike
ESPN FPI Strength of Schedule.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi/_/view/resume/sort/resume.sosremainingrank/dir/asc
SEC – 12: (1) Ole Miss, (3) UF, (5) Auburn, (6) Ark, (8) Tenn, (11) South Car., (13) UK, (15) LSU, (16) A&M, (18) Bama, (20) Mizzou, (24) Miss State
B1G – 10: (2) Minn, (4) Maryland, (7) Mich State, (9) Rutgers, (10) Indiana, (14) Penn State, (17) Purdue, (21) Michigan, (23) Ohio State, (25) Wisconsin
B-12: (12) Texas
IND: (19) Notre Dame
ACC: (22) GA Tech
What’s it going to look like when/if the SEC adopts a 9-game conference schedule?
LikeLike
Alan,
The FPI is guesswork at best, but it’s the offseason.
First, how about 22 of 25 from the B10 and SEC? And in 2024 UT would be in the SEC as well.
GT makes the list for playing UGA, Clemson and UNC. UT makes it for playing AL and OU + TCU/TT/BU (all near #25 in FPI). ND makes it for playing OSU, Clemson and USC (all top 10). So top B10 and SEC schools are how these others make the list (or place so high).
If they go to 9 games, it depends on what OOC games they drop. AL/UT becoming a conference game changes nothing for either one. AL giving up a big OOC game to play another SEC game is neutral or a slight negative. AL giving up a cupcake for another SEC game would be a step up.
My guess is limited change overall, because the lesser SEC teams are more likely to keep the cupcakes and drop the tough OOC game. And maybe as they lose more conference games, some SEC teams slide in the FPI allowing others to catch up. The ACC and P12 are down cyclically right now, but that can change.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/36241520/oakland-agree-purchase-land-las-vegas-strip
The Bay area is losing another pro team, as the A’s have a deal to buy land in Las Vegas and hope to move by 2027. The A’s fans have put up with a lot with a terrible stadium and team for a long time. Does this influence the value of Stanford/Cal at all? Does it deepen doubts of the fans in the SF market except for the 49ers?
LikeLike
Oakland was a situation where that ancillary market doesn’t provide full team value like SF teams do.
SF is still a top 5-ish market in the US in terms of valuation for sports teams:
49ers are ranked in the top 10 for NFL valuations.
Warriors are ranked #1 in the NBA (have typically been top 5 with Knicks, Lakers, etc. but new stadium with JPMorgan Chase name deal put them at #1). They had deals in place for at least $2 billion in naming+sales+sponsorships before it opened which catapulted them up to the top 2-3 in NBA valuation along with the championships and ticket prices those brought).
Giants are ranked in the top 10 for MLB valuations.
Sharks (San Jose) are in the NHL (but don’t get full valuation that a SF team would have and don’t have the history/ties to the market of the other 3 teams).
Earthquakes (San Jose) are in MLS (similar situation as Sharks).
So they do have teams in all 5 leagues, and their primary 3 are powerhouse teams in terms of fanbases and sponsorships.
The problem is that it’s a market where the top 3 pro teams have such strong fan presence and deep ties to the region that it’s hard for others to break through, and the people in the primary market don’t really associate with Oakland.
Also given the area, it’s probably more to do with the fact that Oakland is sort of a distressed market/region that is very detached from San Francisco/San Jose and the wealthy tech-related areas.
Cal/Stanford sort of have the problem that the area has so many transplants that only the pro teams break through.
San Francisco is sort of one of those places where it’s really hard to breakthrough for Cal/Stanford in the modern day. Cal might be able to if it was successful, but without success it’s sort of like Illinois. The pro teams in Chicago suck up all the oxygen.
Stanford doesn’t have the city-association that a private school like USC or Miami has so they don’t have the t-shirt fans those would have. Decades of NC success brought that so it’s hard to replicate for a smaller private school where grads may leave the market.
LikeLike
Everything I said is why I’m very skeptical that the Big Ten would take both Cal and Stanford.
I could see Stanford getting an invite alongside ND to add a presence in that market for Big Ten school (ND, USC, UCLA, etc.) visitation, but I’m really struggling with the concept of both entering the Big Ten and being a profitable pairing.
SF is a gigantic market in terms of the money present there and the # of people in the market, but it seems fairly clear that only the top 3 pro teams (49ers, Warriors, Giants) have been able to tap into that.
LikeLike
The ultimate issue as always is success.
Cal needs to have a number of 9+ or 10+ win seasons to build a real fan following in the area.
How likely is that for them in an expanded Big Ten where everybody is already spending at a much higher rate and most without their debt issues?
They’ve had one good stretch of 8 years under Tedford in the 00s in the last 40-50 years.
Not much to build off of, and it’s not likely they’d be more successful in the Big Ten.
Stanford has more football history (especially recently under Harbaugh/Shaw), but institutionally not clear they want to go big into pay for play.
Stanford is by far the Power 5 program that would be least affected if they de-emphasized sports. Not that they would do that because many prominent alums there have ties to their athletics programs, but they don’t have to try to win big in football to stay in the game.
LikeLike
I used the / to mean either or there, not both. I agree that 1 of the 2 seems much more likely than both, unless the B10 is hellbent on making a full scale move into the west.
LikeLike
The GS Warriors have only been high on that list recently. Pre-Curry and the run of success, they weren’t a hot ticket. After this group retires they will probably fall back some. The 49ers and Giants will stay valuable and dominate the market.
https://www.forbes.com/legacy/forbes/2000/1211/6615132tab2_table.shtml
The GSW were #22 in the NBA in 2000 for value.
LikeLike
Agree Warriors will fall back some (won’t be as hot a ticket and lower local TV ratings) but likely to be a permanent top 5 or at worst top 10 NBA fixture now.
I think only Lakers and Knicks are more valuable than them in the long run due to the new arena/location.
They were typically outside top half of NBA before 2019 but that’s also because their arena was in Oakland on the wrong side of the bay.
Now that they’re actually in SF with that arena, they’re getting full value out of the arena in the way that Lakers, Knicks, and rest of the NBA teams generally get with prime locations in terms of sponsorships and concerts and the like and as a destination for fans from the wealthier areas that avoided Oakland.
Every rich tech guy that wants to be seen goes to a Warriors game.
Same way rich guys in LA or Miami or NY go to Lakers or Heat or Knicks games.
With that arena location, Warriors are absolutely on the same level as SF Giants at least.
LikeLike
New stadiums often don’t age well. What’s great now in 20 years will need $1B in renovations or need to be torn down (or so the owners will claim).
LikeLike
Oakland made a huge investment to renovate the stadium so that the Raiders would stay. They are still paying for it, and the Raiders are gone.
LikeLike
“Oakland made a huge investment to renovate the stadium so that the Raiders would stay. They are still paying for it, and the Raiders are gone.”
If only Indiana had been as lucky as Oakland. Indy had the Colts playing in a domed stadium, the Hoosierdome, tore it down completely and built a $1 Billion+ new domed stadium with state taxpayer money on a different site, Lucas Oil Stadium, and this stadium is leased to the Colts for $250,000/year. That is not a typo.
In order to fund the huge mortgage on Lucas, Marion County (Indianapolis) and all of the “donut” counties around Marion County imposed a 1% restaurant tax which includes fast food like McDonalds.
LikeLike
Oakland Coliseum is a 58 year old dump. The A’s have been trying to get a new stadium since 2005. The current local site where the A’s want to build was proposed in 2018. Most of Oakland’s debt connected to the stadium comes from the 1996 renovation to bring the Raiders back from LA. Oakland has had over 25 years to pay down this debt. The A’s bought out the 50% ownership of the county a few years back allowing the county to retire its debt. The A’s made the same $$$ offer to Oakland. The prime movers in any A’s relocation to Vegas will be the Oakland politicians that have not approve a better place for the A’s to play for more than 15 years.
LikeLike
Ohio State’s stadium is 101 years old and seems to work just fine.
LikeLike
I had season tickets there from 1972 to 2010. Except for B Deck, it generally has great sight lines. Mine were on C Deck a few rows up from the rail on the 45 yard line.
Another great stadium is Fenway Park, now 111 years old. And no, the left field wall does not generate home runs. It converts home runs and outs into doubles. The power alley is down the right field line. Almost all the great Sox power hitters pulled to right. Dick “Dr. Strange Glove” Stuart being an exception.
Most seasons Fenway and KC produce fewer home runs than almost any other ball park.
LikeLike
Emphasis should be placed on Dump, not age. Between 1964 and 1973 there were at least 12 cookie-cutter combo stadiums with both MLB baseball and NFL football tenants. The only one of these 24 teams left in one of these stadiums is the Oakland A’s. Ten of these stadiums have been demolished. The Astrodome still stands but was declared a fire hazard and lost its occupancy permit in 2008. These stadiums were already being replaced in the mid-1990s when Oakland threw more money in with a renovation when they should have started over.
These stadiums became obsolete due to the rise of the NFL as the premier pro sport and the luxury suite introduced in the Astrodome. In the 1960s Almost all NFL teams were still playing in baseball stadiums including Wrigley, Tiger, Yankee, and Fenway. The Cowboys moved from the Cotton Bowl to their own stadium in 1971 with a ton of luxury box revenue and every NFL owner wanted their own stadium. California is resistant to using public money for stadiums, so replacements in San Francisco, San Diego, and Oakland are the tail end of the separation.
LikeLike
Little8, it appears you are clueless about the royal corn-holing that the taxpayers are getting on these stadiums. The public should pay NOTHING for these stadiums or ballparks. The pro teams are private companies and they should provide their own venues.
LikeLike
Oakland stadium is such a dump that MLB several years back gave the A’s a deadline of January 2024 to have a stadium deal or have their revenue sharing withheld. MLB did not require the stadium to be in Oakland. The Raiders fulfilled their contractual obligation to Oakland and moved on. Now it looks like the A’s will also. After all these are private organizations and they will go where the money is.
Corporate welfare occurs all over with most (if not all) deals bad for the taxpayer. If Amazon can get the NY taxpayers to front 1.8 billion (the amount NY offered) why should they spend their own money? The NY taxpayers were lucky this deal got cancelled primarily due to neighbors’ NIMBY concerns about traffic, etc.
Pro franchise owners have leveraged the threat of relocation to get subsidized stadium deals. Only 4 (including NY & LA) of 30 current NFL stadiums claim to be unsubsidized. However, even these 4 may be getting tax breaks. As long as there are more cities that want these teams than franchises there will be more bad deals for taxpayers. As long as the owners can get the public to give them a few $100M they are going to take it.
LikeLike
Little8,
Don’t forget that even within their home markets, various suburbs battle with the main city to steal the team away (like the Bears recently, and the Braves). The teams use the competing areas as leverage to extort more tax breaks or public funding.
LikeLike
And it doesn’t even need to be a direct threat. When Indy Colts’ Führer Jim Irsay was negotiating a new stadium for his team, he never threatened to move the team to LA. Now, every sentence out of his mouth was something about Los Angeles. This was back when LA didn’t have a team. Irsay compared the Indy market to LA and the number of fans to LA and he often mentioned that his daughter lived in LA. But he never directly threatened to move the team to LA.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/36294295/titans-get-760m-city-bonds-part-record-stadium-funding
Speaking of public funding, Nashville and the state of TN are putting $1.2B of bonds into a new stadium for the Titans. A Super Bowl in Nashville? Might be a bit chilly, but the stadium will have a roof.
The stadium’s total cost is estimated at $2.1 billion. The Titans, with help from the NFL and personal seat licenses, will provide the remaining $840 million. The new stadium will feature a translucent roof with a capacity of approximately 60,000.
…
A new 1% hotel/motel tax, all of in-stadium sales tax and 50% of sales taxes from 130 acres around the stadium will pay off the bonds. The Titans and city officials announced an agreement in December that includes a new 30-year lease. The team agreed not to leave Nashville during that lease.
So in 30 years, they’ll extort more public funds.
LikeLike
” Indy had the Colts playing in a domed stadium, the Hoosierdome, tore it down completely and built a $1 Billion+ new domed stadium with state taxpayer money on a different site, ”
Think of all the jobs, contracts and influence peddling opportunities that brought to the politicians involved… as with the situation in Oakland the politicians got what they wanted even if team owners benefited most.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/36255797/ncaa-approves-rule-change-run-clock-first-downs
A running clock after 1st down has been approved for all but D-III.
The clock will continue to stop during the final two minutes of each half, maintaining at least part of a rule that long helped differentiate college football from the NFL.
“That’s important,” said Steve Shaw, NCAA secretary rules-editor and officials coordinator, “because the beauty of the difference in our game, and it allows a team late in the game, even without timeouts, to have a chance to advance the ball and come back and that sort of thing. So we’re still going to stop it in the last two minutes.”
LikeLike
The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel actually announced three rule changes: The changes are as follows:
Running the clock after first downs (like the NFL), except for the last two minutes of each half.
Banning the use of consecutive timeouts by a team.
Carrying over a foul to the second or fourth quarter rather than playing an untimed down.
LikeLike
Correct, but only the first one will have a noticeable impact on every game. The other two are niche situations that do not happen in most games.
LikeLike
Jim Williams (media consultant) says Apple wants all the P12’s tier 1 games, but would simulcast with a linear partner for a couple of years. He thinks we might hear something in early May.
LikeLike
It sounds as if the main hold up on the Pac-12 deal is ESPN not offering enough for the Saturday night game and lack of other offers for that.
Not really sure what else the Pac-12 can do in the general sense that the schools probably want to be on ESPN or FOX for at least a full window Saturday night game if the rest is going to Apple and Amazon.
But ESPN doesn’t have much incentive to offer more than any sort of minimum if the alternatives are CW or Ion or non-traditional channels.
Also sort of makes me think that there really isn’t much money in that 4th window.
LikeLike
z33k,
If you read his follow-up tweets, he’s saying Apple finding a linear partner (like they have with Fox for MLS) is the holdup.
But sure, in general the holdup is the linear exposure vs money offered to the P12. If ESPN was offering $40M per year for everything, they’d have signed the deal months ago.
LikeLike
Here’s what I find curious. If AppleTVPlus uses the Pac12Network as their ‘production arm’ does that mean the Pac12Network would no longer exist as a separate entity?
LikeLike
If AppleTVPlus uses the Pac12Network as their ‘production arm’ does that mean the Pac12Network would no longer exist as a separate entity?
As I’ve understood it, P12N will still exist but only as a provider of services to AppleTV, Amazon, or whomever. It might be renamed “Pac-12 Studios,” or something like that.
By all accounts, P12N has excellent facilities and production values—they just lack distribution. Apple does not have those facilities, and it would be silly to recreate them: P12N is already there, and is exactly what they need.
LikeLike
Gift article from Wall St Jouranl about Colorado football. 2023 season tickets already sold out and 45,000+ expected for the Buffs’ spring game today.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/deion-sanders-college-football-colorado-coach-prime-28b7022d?st=m1e6qkncrhn1cmp&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Colorado sold out Folsom Field for the first time ever for a spring game despite Boulder getting more than three inches of snow overnight and temperatures being below freezing.
LikeLike
Canzano:
• Colorado wide receiver Montana Lemonious-Craig had a monster spring game, catching three passes for 154 yards and two touchdowns on Saturday. A day later, he thanked the coaching staff in a social media post and jumped in the transfer portal.
• Buffaloes quarterback Shedeur Sanders was not pleased with the Lemonious-Craig defection. In a TikTok post on Sunday night, the QB encouraged his followers to ask the receiver why he’s leaving Colorado.
Said Sanders: “It’s a crooked world, nowadays.”
A day later, Sanders later backed off the comments made live on TikTok, and Tweeted: “Why would I get mad at him for doing what’s best for him. I be playing around on live.”
• It looks to me like Lemonious-Craig is simply taking advantage of the same transfer-portal system that Colorado is using to build its roster. Also, I can’t really blame the receiver for capitalizing on the ESPN broadcast that allowed him to showcase his talent.
• Colorado linebacker Shakaun Bowser also entered the transfer portal after the spring game. So did DB Tyrin Taylor, a 10-game starter for the Buffaloes last season, along with receiver Chase Sowell, cornerback Jason Oliver and offensive lineman Jackson Anderson. Remember, the Colorado coaching staff hinted it might add as many as 25 transfers before the spring April 30 window closes.
• Only 32 scholarship players from last season remain on Colorado’s roster.
LikeLike
From TheAthletic, redacted:
Colorado’s transfer portal exodus: The numbers behind Deion Sanders’ extreme roster purge
BOULDER, COLORADO – By Max Olson Apr 24, 2023
At Colorado, Monday morning began with second-year linebacker Shakaun Bowser entering the NCAA transfer portal at 8:14 a.m. local time.
Wide receiver Montana Lemonious-Craig, one of the breakout stars of the Buffaloes’ spring game on Saturday, entered a few minutes later. Backup offensive lineman Jackson Anderson was next. And then safety Tyrin Taylor, a 10-game starter last year.
At noon, it was time for the big roster purge: 11 scholarship players became available in the transfer portal in less than an hour.
By the end of the day, 18 players were in the portal.
Deion Sanders is pursuing the most dramatic Year 1 roster flip we’ve ever seen in the transfer portal era, and he made that perfectly clear on Monday. Since his hiring in December, Sanders has never been shy about his plans to radically overhaul his roster. After a 1-11 season, the program needs all the help it can get. The new staff has imported more than 40 newcomers from Jackson State, Sanders’ previous school, and from all over the country. And they’re far from finished.
‘Something to behold’: Sights and sounds from Coach Prime’s snowy, sold-out Colorado debut
“You all know that we’re gonna move on from some of the team members and we’re gonna reload and get some kids that we really identify with,” Sanders said after the spring game. “So this process is gonna be quick, it’s gonna be fast, but we’re gonna get it done.”
No school has put more players in the portal than Colorado. After Monday’s departures, Colorado has now seen 46 scholarship football players enter the transfer portal in 2022-23, with 41 exiting since Sanders took over. No other Power 5 program has lost more than 29 in this cycle.
Colorado had 83 scholarship players at the start of the 2022 season. Only 20 are still on the roster as of Monday night.
LikeLike
Gift link from WSJ. More on the Colorado upheavel.
https://wapo.st/3HhEIJQ
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2023/04/23/deion-sanders-colorado-buffaloes-chancellor-phil-distefano/11718144002/
CU’s chancellor gave an interview.
In short, DiStefano says he wants the Pac-12 to expand back to 12 schools after UCLA and Southern California leave for the Big Ten next year. He pooh-poohed the notion of joining the Big 12.
…
He also said he’d like to see the Pac-12 go for a five-year contract in its new media rights negotiations instead of the much longer deal that it had in the past.
…
But DiStefano said “there’s a very good possibility” the next deal will bring in per-school revenues ranking third among the Power 5 conferences, ahead of the Big 12 and Atlantic Coast conferences. He also hopes it’s a five- to seven-year deal instead of being locked into a longer contract like the 12-year deal that ends next year and once was touted as the most valuable in college sports.
“Everyone passed us up” in revenue during that 12-year period after, he said.
…
“I think in five years we’ll get a much better feel for streaming services,” said DiStefano, Colorado’s chancellor since 2009. “That’s changing so much, and it’s going to put us in a position to pick up some things that maybe we’re not going to get at this point.”
…
Without a new media deal in place for the Pac-12, rumors have swirled that Colorado might go back to its old league, the Big 12, for the sake of stability.
Is that a backup plan for Colorado?
“Nobody’s asked us – I shouldn’t even say that. We’re committed to the Pac-12,” he said. “What I’ve said along with the other presidents and chancellors is we’re not going to even think about going anywhere, none of us, until we see what kind of offer we get, and that’s still being worked out. And I’m confident it’s going to be fine.”
He noted how the Big 12 has only one school in the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU) – Kansas – unlike the Pac-12, which has several, including Colorado. He also said Colorado has had far more alumni engagement at football games in California cities than it ever had in Big 12 cities.
…
With USC and UCLA departing the Pac-12, the league has considered adding schools to replace them. San Diego State and Southern Methodist in Dallas are considered the prime candidates.
DiStefano would vote on any expansion proposal.
“I’d like to have 12 schools,” DiStefano said.
A big issue, he said, would be whether those schools would bring enough revenue and other benefits to the league to justify their getting an equal cut of the revenue pie.
He noted that neither SDSU nor SMU are AAU schools, which is important to the league presidents and chancellors in charge. On the other hand, SDSU “did really well in basketball,” DiStefano said. “They have a new stadium in football, a good Southern California market. Dallas is a good area for recruiting.”
He said expansion depends on the new media deal, which is “getting close,” he said.
…
Then when Sanders was introduced as his new coach Dec. 4, DiStefano announced a new “pilot program” that would ease academic restrictions for all students (not just athletes) seeking to transfer to CU from other four-year colleges. Five months later, Sanders has at least 28 transfers coming in for 2023, with more on the way.
The perception was that this transfer issue held back the football program.
“Yes,” DiStefano said. “I know it’s been in the press that former coach (Karl) Dorrell talked to us about it. Seriously, he never talked to me about it.”
Previously, it would take three to four weeks to evaluate whether course credits from a student’s previous school would apply toward graduation at Colorado. Now it takes 24 to 48 hours to evaluate under the new program, DiStefano said. Unlike before, it’s also easier to transfer course credits from other schools as electives even if CU doesn’t offer those courses.
“There are certain things that even now we don’t accept (academically),” DiStefano said. “So a course has to be a C-minus or better, and it can’t be remedial. It has to be from a four-year accredited institution. So I would talk in those terms of what (those) criteria are, which are the same criteria we have today. I never got into electives or non-electives because I didn’t know what the issue was to be honest.”
LikeLike
“What I’ve said along with the other presidents and chancellors is we’re not going to even think about going anywhere, none of us, until we see what kind of offer we get, and that’s still being worked out. And I’m confident it’s going to be fine.
The statement “not…going anywhere…until we see what kind of offer we get” is not exactly a full-throated commitment to the league. He says he’s “confident,” but with a hedge that indicates less than 100% certainty.
LikeLike
He wouldn’t be doing his job if he gave an unqualified endorsement of the P12. He has a duty to at least honestly consider what is the best path forward for CU given all the facts. But this does refute all the talk that the 4 Corners schools already have 1 foot out the door.
LikeLike
Free link from WSJ. Law schools ranked by salary of graduates.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stanford-berkeley-top-colleges-for-high-paying-jobs-in-law-457cc225?st=17uj11lxcoxf2uo&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Sort of an odd listing. It is not based on salary of law schools grads from the listed schools, since many of them, such as Princeton, do not have law schools.
It looks at the undergrads from each of the listed schools who went to law school and got legal jobs, so it is a small percentage of grads from each school.
LikeLike
Test. Please respond if you can see this comment. I suspect that Frank’s spam filter is blocking posts again.
LikeLike
@Colin – I can see it.
LikeLike
I C U
LikeLike
After much deliberation and in consideration of input from FTTS regulars, I have formulated the optimal annual rivals for each Big Ten school assuming that we go to the 3-6-6 scheduling format.
UCLA – USC, Nebraska & Northwestern
USC – UCLA, Nebraska & Wisconsin
Nebraska – USC, Iowa & UCLA
Iowa – Wisconsin, Nebraska, & Minnesota
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa & Michigan
Wisconsin – USC, Minnesota & Iowa
Northwestern – Illinois, UCLA & Michigan State
Illinois – Northwestern, Purdue & Ohio State
Purdue – Ohio State, Indiana & Illinois
Indiana – Purdue, Penn State & Maryland
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State & Minnesota
Michigan State – Michigan, Rutgers & Northwestern
Ohio State – Michigan, Purdue & Illinois
Penn State – Indiana, Rutgers & Maryland
Rutgers – Penn State, Maryland & Michigan State
Maryland – Penn State, Rutgers & Indiana
LikeLike
I’m so glad you cleared it up. There’s a few real laughers in there, but coming from the league that gave us “Leaders” and “Legends” anything is possible.
LikeLike
https://www.footballzebras.com/2023/04/pac-12-football-officiating-is-in-crisis-again-after-a-mass-exodus-of-referees/
Interesting story. The B10 has hired away several referees (aka crew chiefs) away from the P12. That makes some sense for the future with 2 teams in LA but they’ll have to travel a lot, especially this season. Also, the P12 officiating wasn’t exactly renowned the past few years. Hopefully Bill Carollo headhunted the best ones.
If P12 officiating was already bad, and they only had 7 crews, losing 3 crew chiefs and a part-time one has to hurt.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/36304982/cfp-committee-confirms-dates-first-year-expanded-playoff
The first expanded CFP games have been scheduled:
F 12/20/24 – 1 game
Sa 12/21/24 – 3 games
Then expect 3 games on W 1/1/25 with the 4th on 12/31 (T) or 1/2 (Th) to avoid the NFL playoffs.
“We want to preserve as much prep time between the rounds as we possibly can,” Hancock said. “I wouldn’t want to share any details about our conversations with the NFL, but we have a good relationship with them.”
…
The CFP’s management committee continued to discuss ticket allotments for on-campus games, but Hancock said that in general, the host school will sell the tickets and the season-ticket holders will have an opportunity to buy playoff tickets the same way. Visiting teams will also have an allotment, but the CFP hasn’t determined how many or where they will sit in the stadium.
“Our charge is going to be to make what we do fit the same in Knoxville as it does in Ann Arbor as it does in Eugene,” Hancock said. “It will be a home game in many ways with pageantry, but there will also be visiting team pageantry, similar to what happens in bowl games.”
…
The commissioners also continued to explore the possibility of starting the season at Week 0, but there was a consensus that if that change were agreed upon, it wouldn’t be feasible until at least 2026.
“There are many conflicting interests and opinions about starting the season a week earlier,” Hancock said. ” … but absolutely they talked about it. I don’t believe the CFP is the group to make that decision.”
LikeLike
Petitti’s introductory press conference just ended.
LikeLike
And this from the chancellor at IL:
https://theathletic.com/4465400/2023/04/28/big-ten-conference-expansion-realignment-petitti/
Conference expansion is “not really at the top of our list at the moment,” University of Illinois chancellor Robert J. Jones told The Athletic on Friday.
“Our first priority is to successfully integrate UCLA and USC,” he said. “At the same time, we know that the landscape is shifting and, for us, it’s a time to be very thoughtful and analytical. … Are we thinking about (realignment)? Of course. We’re doing analysis, the cost, the benefits of staying at 16 or moving up. It’s not something we’re going to do just to react to what other conferences may choose to do. We’re only going to do what’s best for our current membership, and there has to be some value added for expanding beyond.”
Emphasis mine.
Those predicting imminent expansion with UW and UO should prepare to be disappointed.
LikeLike
How many times to you need to be told? Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC will expand again during our lifetimes. Period. Those of you in puppy love with FSU, Miami, Clemson, Stanford, Oregon or Washington will be very disappointed.
And Notre Dame will cling to this quasi-induhpendunce nonsense until the TV money becomes chump change.
LikeLike
LikeLike
You are totally crazed. Within 10 years, the B1G will be at 32 schools spread into every nook and corner of the country. Pure economics will drive the expansion. There will be at least 6 schools on the west coast and at least another 6 on the east coast. The PAC and ACC will disappear, leaving only the B1G, SEC, and Big 12++. Notre Dame will either be in the B1G, or it will drop big time athletics.
LikeLike
Please explain how 6 teams on the west coast can possibly improve the situation of the existing 16 team league. The remaining 10 teams in the PAC will probably be getting a contract not much higher than $300 million. Even if the four teams that you are excluding were worth exactly zero, that only leaves an average value of $50 million for the remaining 6. How does that add to the B1G? By the way, which are the 6?
Which are the six on the east coast? They have to come from the dissolution of the ACC. The SEC will definitely pick off at least two ACC schools, and possibly more. Which are the 8 ACC schools that would be financially attractive to the SEC or B1G?
Numerous B1G schools have made it clear that new members cannot dilute the finances of the new 16. Are there really anywhere close to 16 more schools that do that?
B1G teams value their traditional rivalries. Your suggestion smashes those. Another major factor for B1G universities is the academic relationship. Could that exist with another 16 schools? No,
LikeLike
Bernie, those are the questions that need to be answered before the Big Ten or SEC expands again. Why add schools if the payout per school decreases? Why dilute the academic brand? Does the Big Ten want to be responsible for disemboweling the Pac-12 and the ACC? Does the Big Ten want more competition for at-large berths in the CFP while making a much easier path for the Pac-12 and ACC champs.
And why would the SEC want FSU or Clemson? They already have the flagships of FL, GA and SC. FSU and Clemson would be two more mouths to feed and more competition for at-large berths in the CFP
LikeLike
Does the Big Ten want to be responsible for disemboweling the Pac-12 and the ACC?
No conference yet has declined an expansion it would otherwise have made, out of a desire to see a rival conference survive.
Your real argument is that you do not think there are any further additions that would add value. If true, that ends the discussion right there, since nobody expands unless they make a lot more money.
Does the Big Ten want more competition for at-large berths in the CFP while making a much easier path for the Pac-12 and ACC champs.
That is not how it would work. You are thinking of the new playoff format, which guarantees bids to the top six conference champs. But this format is not eternal. When it was proposed, the Power Five were still peers. The sixth autobid guarantees that at least one G5 team would always make the 12-team field. This gave every conference a clear incentive to vote for the new format, which remember, required unanimous approval to tear up the existing contracts.
But if ACC and Pac-12 are decimated, the Big Ten and SEC will no longer sign up for a format that gives an autobid to the dregs of those dead conferences. Heck, the current system of six autobids might not last forever anyway. But it certainly wouldn’t if Bob Sykes’s doomsday scenario comes to pass. (Which, to be clear, I am not expecting.)
LikeLike
Yet another factor that will keep the Big Ten and SEC at 16 teams is the Goldilocks Principle. The Ideal number for a conference is 16. It works out very nicely with a 3-6-6 format for scheduling. It’s not too many, it’s not too few, it’s just right.
LikeLike
Yet another factor that will keep the Big Ten and SEC at 16 teams is the Goldilocks Principle. The Ideal number for a conference is 16.
This is hindsight bias. Years ago — before you were a contributor here — there were many people on this forum who said the Big Ten wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) expand past 14, because “16-team conferences historically have never worked.”
The flaw of this argument is that there have been very few 16-team conferences: the history is too skimpy to justify such a simplistic generalization. And of course, many smaller conferences have flopped too. But anyhow this is what many people on this forum thought at the time.
Then the SEC went to 16, and suddenly it was cool. Of course, there were many good arguments for why 10 was cool when there were 10, and then many arguments for why 12 was cool, and so on. (I think nobody ever thought 11 was ideal, even though it lasted for 23 years.)
LikeLike
Marc,
Years ago — before you were a contributor here — there were many people on this forum who said the Big Ten wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) expand past 14, because “16-team conferences historically have never worked.”
They shouldn’t have expanded to 11, let alone 12, 14 or 16, regardless of the history of conferences (but 16-team ones have always failed so far in I-A – SoCon, WAC). And nobody else should’ve expanded either.
14 was never any sort of special number. Neither was 11. There were reasons to think 12 might be a sticking point (back when 8-game schedules were the thing to do, and 12 were needed for a CCG), and that 16 might be (trying to maintain rivalries). 18+ aren’t impossible, but they do bring more difficulties that make the cost/benefit analysis trickier for justifying further expansion.
LikeLike
Those predicting imminent expansion with UW and UO should prepare to be disappointed.
I read that statement a little differently. If they are “thinking about” realignment and “doing analysis,” then a significant number of the presidents must be at least open to the idea — it’s not a hard no. That does not mean they’ll do it either, but they could.
The statement you highlighted in bold italics was just boilerplate — probably the least meaningful sentence in the whole interview. Why, of course they’re going to do what’s best for the current membership — who else would they do it for? And of course there has to be value, since nobody expands to lose money.
But if further expansion now were a clear money-loser, they’d have stopped analyzing it already. Personally, I still think they are unlikely to expand again in the life of the current media deal unless there are market events that change the landscape from what it is now. Unlike Colin, I do not make rash predictions that will last the rest of my life.
LikeLike
Marc,
I read that statement a little differently. If they are “thinking about” realignment and “doing analysis,” then a significant number of the presidents must be at least open to the idea — it’s not a hard no. That does not mean they’ll do it either, but they could.
The key word in my sentence was “imminent.” If it is not currently a top priority, then it isn’t about to happen this summer as some here and elsewhere have predicted.
And of course they can’t say it’s a hard no – Notre Dame still exists, plus the P12 doesn’t have a media deal and some ACC members are looking for ways to escape their GoR. If ND asked to join, the B10 wouldn’t say no so there will never be a hard no.
The statement you highlighted in bold italics was just boilerplate — probably the least meaningful sentence in the whole interview. Why, of course they’re going to do what’s best for the current membership — who else would they do it for? And of course there has to be value, since nobody expands to lose money.
Many people have advocated for expanding (out west, or from the ACC) for no financial gain, or even a slight haircut. The statement directly refutes that.
Personally, I still think they are unlikely to expand again in the life of the current media deal unless there are market events that change the landscape from what it is now. Unlike Colin, I do not make rash predictions that will last the rest of my life.
Agreed.
He may be close to death, so it’s not much of a risk for him.
LikeLike
Gift article from NY Times. Build Your Own College Rankings. It’s quite interesting.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/draft/2023/04/28/nfl-draft-sec-big-ten-conferences/11763433002/
The SEC will end up with the most draft picks as always, but the B10 is doing better than they have in a while. For the first time since 2011, the B10 had more picks in the first 2 rounds of the NFL draft than the SEC did. The B10 set a common draft era record with 20 picks in the first two rounds.
For the first time since 2011, per ESPN Stats and Information, the Big Ten had the most prospects drafted in the first two rounds (with a conference record 20). But it wasn’t long until the Southeastern Conference regained its status as the primary producer of prospects in the NFL draft.
Both conferences left Thursday’s first round with nine selections apiece. The even pace carried into Day 2, when four of the final six picks in the second round hailed from Big Ten schools, leaving the SEC trailing by three.
The third round brought things back into equilibrium, with four of the first five picks being from SEC schools. When the Las Vegas Raiders took Alabama defensive tackle Byron Young with the 70th overall pick, the SEC went in front for good.
Last year, the SEC boasted 65 draftees, compared to the Big Ten’s 48.
NFL Draft picks by conference, Rounds 1-3:
• 31: SEC
• 25: Big Ten
• 13: Big 12
• 12: ACC
• 10: Pac-12
• 5: AAC
• 2: FBS Independent, MVFC
• 1: Big Sky, C-USA
By school:
• 8: AL
• 5: UGA, TN
• 4: OSU, PSU, MI, IA
• 3: Clemson, UF, IL, OU, TCU, USC
• 2: 11 schools
• 1: 32 schools
LikeLike
Final tally. Kind of looks like a P2, M3 and G5. Maybe the money difference is translating, or maybe it’s just 1 year.
62: SEC
55: Big Ten
33: ACC
29: Big 12
27: Pac-12
10: AAC
9: Sun Belt
7: MAC, Indy
5: MWC
3: CUSA
10: FCS
2: DII
LikeLike
For what it’s worth:
LikeLike
I think that sort of makes sense. Big Ten is fine at 16 through this next TV contract. The money is there, there’s no need to add anybody else…
Big Ten would only re-evaluate their position of “no expansion in the near-term” if something materially changes.
I still think we don’t see any Big Ten expansion until ACC schools are actually on the table, but that may also require the Pac-12 to hold together.
Even if it doesn’t quite hold together, I don’t know if the Big Ten has to move on Oregon/Washington based on anybody else’s timetable.
So what if they go to the Big 12 for a decades? They’ll still take a Big Ten invite at the end of that…
LikeLike
I think a lot of folks forget that Rutgers did play a season in the Big East.
The Big Ten did want Rutgers at some point, but it was really waiting for Maryland as the #13 target.
The same may be true for the Pac-12 remaining schools that are Big Ten targets.
Washington would be a great #16 with Miami at #15 for example in my opinion, but if they spend a couple years in the Big 12 it doesn’t change anything for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Whoops was making a point about Rutgers playing a season in the AAC (after the Big East collapsed).
Even if the Pac-12 collapses, it won’t be anywhere near the situation that happened to Rutgers where they were facing long-term relegation in a sense.
Washington/Oregon would be locks for the Big 12. Big Ten would be fine taking them from there.
LikeLike
The Big Ten did want Rutgers at some point, but it was really waiting for Maryland as the #13 target.
I am not so sure the Big Ten truly “wanted” Rutgers, given that they received an invite only after UVA said no. Rutgers was the best available 14th school, but not the preferred one. Given the opposite answer by UVA, they would still be in the American.
It’s like when your team signs a three-star linebacker because the four-star they offered went to Oklahoma instead. The coach will never admit that the player they signed was a second choice, even though we know he was.
LikeLike
Marc: “Rutgers was the best available 14th school”
Mizzou was the best available 14th school and were it not for some constipated quibbling about the Tigers buying into the BTN, they’d be in the Big Ten right now.
LikeLike
Mizzou was the best available 14th school and were it not for some constipated quibbling about the Tigers buying into the BTN, they’d be in the Big Ten right now.
No, they weren’t. By the time the Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers, Missouri had already joined the SEC. I assume you are not making the outrageous suggestion that Missouri (or any school) would have left the SEC at that point.
LikeLike
Circa 2010, Mizzou was in play for membership but the conference went with Nebraska instead. With regard to academics, Midwest culture, football brand and AAU status, I’d say Mizzou ranks ahead of Nebraska, Rutgers and Mayland.
LikeLike
Circa 2010, Mizzou was in play for membership but the conference went with Nebraska instead.
I agree, there’s a reasonable case that Missouri would’ve been a better choice than Nebraska for #12. However, what I said was that Rutgers was the best available #14 school after Maryland was picked for #13. By then, Missouri was no longer available.
LikeLike
Marc,
Circa 2010, Mizzou was in play for membership but the conference went with Nebraska instead.
“I agree, there’s a reasonable case that Missouri would’ve been a better choice than Nebraska for #12.”
Not even in hindsight, despite NE stinking in football since joining. Expansion was all about TV money, and thus football, and the Husker brand dwarfs Mizzou’s. NE still brings in more eyeballs, and has a higher ceiling. With the move to 3 OTA networks in the new TV deal, NE is much more valuable than MO.
View at Medium.com
In 2022, NE was #16 in average viewers (1.98M) while MO was #50 (793k). It’s only one year’s data, but you get the idea.
View at Medium.com
From 2015-19, NE was #22 (1.51M) vs #57 MO (611k).
Imagine if NE ever finds a coach that gets them winning again.
Obviously MO is better academically, but that’s not why the B10 added NE. They decided NE was acceptable academically, which is the end of considering academics.
The case to be made is that the B10 should’ve gone to 14 back then, adding NE, MO and KU (or maybe someone else instead of KU). It would’ve made geographic and cultural sense, been okay academically (all 3 were AAU at the time), and brought a CFB king and a MBB blueblood. Many people here did argue for exactly that.
However, what I said was that Rutgers was the best available #14 school after Maryland was picked for #13. By then, Missouri was no longer available.
LikeLike
Brian, your analysis of TV ratings for Nebraska and Mizzou is highly misleading. In 2022, Nebraska had a far more attractive TV schedule than Mizzou and accordingly had a lot more viewers. Nebraska also had twice as many gmes on OTA networks.
Nebraska had the “Kickoff Classic” vs Northwestern in Dublin on Fox and #6 Oklahoma on Fox, plus #17 Illinois and # 3 Michigan on ABC.
Mizzou had only unranked Tennessee and unranked Arkansas on CBS. They played #1 Georgia but that game ended up on the SEC Network.
LikeLike
Brian, your analysis of TV ratings for Nebraska and Mizzou is highly misleading.
Find data that’s better, if you can. Granted, in any given year the vagaries of scheduling can skew the results, but I suspect Nebraska has almost always outdrawn Mizzou on TV—no matter what year.
LikeLike
Marc, I don’t need ‘better’ data, I’ll use the same data that Brian provided (link). That list has the most watched college football teams on TV with Michigan State #17, Maryland #19 and Indiana # 31. Does anyone believe that the fan bases of those teams are that popular?
Of course not. All three of them have annual games with Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. That’s why their ratings are so high. All of those games end up on OTA networks.
Of course, Rutgers also plays all three behemoths every year but the conference requires that each team have two games per year on the BTN, and that’s where the Rutgers games end up. Rutgers leads the conference in BTN appearances.
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
Marc
“Find data that’s better, if you can. Granted, in any given year the vagaries of scheduling can skew the results, but I suspect Nebraska has almost always outdrawn Mizzou on TV—no matter what year.”
https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-viewers-did-your-ncaa-team-attract
Better is in the eye of the beholder, but here’s about the most detailed analysis out there (it’s the last of a series of articles). It looks at 2013-2021, but comes to the same basic conclusion.
MO:
* 12th in SEC at 3.05M average in their top 18 games
* If you ignore games against AL (inflates SEC West), 11th of 13 in SEC at 3.01M average in their top 17 games
SEC order:
AL, AU, LSU, UGA, TAMU, UF, TN, MsSU, MS, AR, SC, MO, UK, VU
Without AL games: UGA, AU, UF, LSU, TAMU, TN, MS, MsSU, AR, SC, MO, UK, VU
NE:
* 6th in B10 at 3.95M average in their top 27 games
* If you ignore games against OSU and MI (inflates B10 East and NE), 4th of 12 in B10 at 3.32M average in their top 22 games
B10 order:
All: OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, WI, NE, IA, IN, MN, NW, PU. UMD, IL, RU
Without OSU or MI games: PSU, IA, WI, NE, IA, MSU, MN, NW, IN PU. IL, UMD, RU
But maybe the SEC vs B10 TV deals are still too unfair for comparison, though I’d say relative position within the conference is a decent comparison. NE is at the lower end of the B10’s top tier, while MO is in the middle of the SEC’s bottom tier. MO being in the B10 wouldn’t change that – they’d be on par with MN/NW/etc., and a clear level below where NE has been despite NE’s worst run of seasons in decades.
Here’s a rank based on their top 36 games (top 4 per season) if one prefers that:
19. NE ave = 3.86M
32. MO ave = 2.89M
LikeLike
Yeah, but we’ve still got academic rankings . . .
Mizzou: WSJ – 276, US News – 121, AAU – Yes
Nebraska: WSJ – 363, US News – 151, AAU – No
LikeLike
Yeah, but we’ve still got academic rankings . . .
This is true, but it clearly did not matter to the Big Ten presidents. They knew perfectly well that Missouri was better academically, and they invited Nebraska anyway.
I think, as Brian put it, that there was a minimum bar to clear, and in the presidents’ opinion both schools cleared it. That settled, academic rankings were laid aside and other factors determined which school got invited.
LikeLike
z33k,
It reads like the B10 presidents definitely don’t want to be the ones to destroy the P12. They’ll consider saving some schools of interest, but otherwise are on pause while integrating USC and UCLA. Barring structural changes (P12 collapses, legal changes, etc.) or ND wanting to join, I don’t think the B10 seriously considers expansion again until the new TV deal is about to end. They might “save” 2-4 P12 schools with partial shares until then, but I think they’d prefer to wait.
Until they see how it goes with USC and UCLA, I don’t think there is much interest in adding more western schools. Once they see how the travel and scheduling works, they’ll have solid information to plan from. I think the loss of game frequency will be an important opportunity cost (on top of the extra travel) they consider before going past 16.
LikeLike
Yeah, I also think the Big Ten wants to wait and see what happens to the national landscape.
In some sense the USC/UCLA move was a reaction on their part (and the Big Ten’s part) to Texas/OU going to the SEC.
The Big Ten doesn’t have to make any further move just to make a move.
But if there are schools available that the Big Ten leadership is interested in… then obviously things can change.
I really don’t see any urgency to further expansion until at least 5-6 years from now when we may see some sort of push from FSU (and others) to bolt the ACC.
As many of us have said, Washington and Oregon will always be available to the Big Ten; it’s the only landing Power 2 landing spot for them.
Thus, there really isn’t urgency there like there would be for the ACC schools that may have a choice of the Big Ten or SEC.
LikeLike
Very carefully worded — it only says the Big Ten would consider adding Washington and Oregon if the Pac-12 collapses, not that they will actually do it.
Right after this tweet, someone replied that if those two schools really believe they could get a Big Ten invite, they should refuse to sign the grant of rights. Of course, that’s a dangerous game because the Big Ten could still say, “no thanks.”
I agree with @z33k that there is no need to rush into anything. Washington and Oregon will always be there. If they’re stuck playing in a glorified Mountain West for a few years — or forever — that’s not the Big Ten’s problem.
LikeLike
Yeah, fair point about UVa above.
Regardless, I don’t see how anything changes for the Big Ten with respect to Washington/Oregon/Stanford (or Cal if they’re being considered) even if the Pac-12 implodes and they end up in some different configuration for a decade.
Very little difference to the Big Ten whether those schools are in the Big 12 or Pac-12. Wouldn’t really change how they’re valued by the Big Ten. They will always be there to take Big Ten invites if the Big Ten wants them at the end of GoRs with whatever conference they’re attached to…
I think historically we’ve seen, the conferences that can choose (Big Ten and SEC primarily) focus on getting the schools they actually want without much regard for the impact on the rest of the landscape. And it typically aligns with the availability of the most valuable schools in question.
Most of us (if not all) around here have ND and FSU as clearly the 2 most valuable schools available outside the Big Ten/SEC (even with overlap of UF, FSU is probably still #2 for the SEC as well given the sheer size of Florida and FSU’s following there).
After that, it seems clear that the high growth/large population markets/territories of the southern ACC schools is considerably more valuable than the Pac-12 regions outside of California. The question is whether the schools draw the value out of the markets (similar to the questions we all consider about Stanford and Cal). I think of UNC and Miami as likely more valuable than Washington and Oregon, but these are obviously debatable concepts. The question is what Big Ten presidents (and the new commissioner) think.
Regardless, the Big Ten is under no pressure to make any move on anybody else’s timetable until the ACC schools are closer to the point of accepting invites even if there’s some years left on their GoR.
LikeLike
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/learned-tony-petitti-big-tens-new-commissioner
Matt Brown column on Petitti’s introductory press conference. It’s worth reading in full.
When I hear Petitti and other high level administrators say that their focus is primarily on integrating USC and UCLA…I honestly believe them. I know, from looking at Big Ten memos and meeting agendas from the early 1990s, that adding Penn State required months of meetings about intellectual property, financial obligations, scheduling formats, and more. The Big Ten hasn’t yet produced any future athletic schedules that include the LA schools, hasn’t decided on what real estate presence the league (or BTN) needs out west, and has loads and loads of contracts that haven’t been executed.
…
As for the Big Ten’s future plans, Jones also told The Athletic that the league didn’t have a position yet on whether any other hypothetical future member would be added as a “full” member from go, like USC and UCLA were, and that any hypothetical expansion would be a “data-driven decision that aligns with the vision of where we want to see the conference in the next decade and the decades beyond.”
…
I also know that the decision to potentially add other programs, be that Oregon, Washington, or anybody else, is not simply a cold-hearted calculation to see which brands add the most media dollars. Big Ten presidents also have to consider other financial costs (travel, missed class time), competitive balance, and political and reputational costs…in Olympia, Salem, Washington D.C, and on the boards of the various foundations and committees that university presidents across the country share.
If the data from the summer showed conclusively that adding Oregon and Washington provided benefits that outstripped all of those costs, it would have happened already.
…
The early priorities according to Petitti, beyond USC/UCLA issues, are to participate in the College Football Expansion (and the CFP’s next media rights deal), advocate for a federal NIL bill, and actually executing the Big Ten’s huge new media deal with FOX, CBS and NBC.
It doesn’t need to be explicitly stated that Petitti’s job also includes leading in the conversation about where college sports is going next.
…
In their introductory remarks, and in chatting with me once the cameras were off, both Jones and Pines were quick to praise Petitti’s ability to collaborate and build consensus. That’s a major reason the Big Ten hired him.
Whether it’s building College Sports 3.0, navigating the next version of the College Football Playoff, crafting the next NCAA Championships TV package, working to shape legislation in D.C. and in across the country, and more, the Big Ten’s presidents want somebody who can build some coalitions.
LikeLike
While most talk of expansion and TV contracts is focused upon the Pac-12, and rightfully so, bear in mind that Notre Dames new TV deal with NBC has not been finalized so far as we know. A few weeks ago ND AD Swarbrick said that they were still working on it and that ND wasn’t yet where he wanted to be.
This may get interesting. Look at ND’s home schedule for 2023 and 2024:
2023 Blockbusters – Ohio State and USC
2023 Mediocre – Pitt, Wake Forest
2023 Turkeys – Tennessee State, Navy, Central Michigan
2024 Quasi-Blockbuster – FSU
2024 Major Matchups – Miami (FL), Stanford
2024 Mediocre – Louisville, Virginia
2024 Turkeys – Miami (OH), Northern Illinois
You look at those collective schedules and wonder just how much that is worth to NBC. Another factor, ND really doesn’t have a Plan B.
LikeLike
Freedom is nothing left to lose.
LikeLike
@bob sykes
‘Freedom is nothing left to lose.’
That is probably the first-time anything Janis was associated with Notre Dame football!
Here is a link to a nice read on the hypocrisy of Neon and his HBCU concern,
https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-the-problem-with-deion-sanders-acting-like-a-hero-for-hbcu-athletes-201732560.html
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/education/2023/05/02/ohio-state-trustees-arent-appointing-an-interim-president-after-johnson/70154823007/
For those who think the B10 is eager to expand, I want to point out that OSU will not have a president starting on Monday. The BoT has decided not to appoint an interim president, instead having the cabinet report directly to the relevant BoT committees. This will continue until a new president is hired (maybe by mid-August, but maybe later). While someone will speak for OSU at B10 presidents meetings, they won’t have the normal authority so they are more likely to be conservative.
LikeLike
Also, Purdue has a new president who is literally Asian, Dr. Mung Chiang, born and raised in South Korea. A world-class expert in computer chip production, he has already proclaimed that Purdue will be graduating a thousand chip pdn graduates per year in five years.
Now, that type of insight into computer technology is way above my head but I do get the feeling that Dr. Chiang doesn’t know if the football is filled with helium or stuffed with feathers. It’s hard to imagine him being proactive on conference expansion.
LikeLike
I don’t know if you realize this, but Frank the Tank is also “literally Asian.” I have never heard that this trait makes one incapable of understanding sports.
Now, if sports aren’t his top priority, that would put him in good company with many university presidents, even the ones that are not “literally Asian.” The recently departed University of Michigan president was non-Asian and he didn’t care about sports. The current UofM president is Japanese, and he has been the opposite.
Whatever might be Dr. Mung’s limitations, I am sure he can count money, which means he has the primary skill needed to evaluate conference expansion. Of course, no president is an expert on every issue that requires a decision. That is why they have advisers.
LikeLike
Marc, instead of playing the race card perhaps you should undeerstand my intent. When I said “literally Asian” I was referring to his continent of origin, not ethnicity.
Non-Americans do not grow up exposed to a continuous culture of American football like you and I did. I attended Purdue for ten years and was on the faculty at Texas A&M for five years. I knew quite a few international students and faculty at both campuses but I don’t believe a single one of them ever attended the football games.
LikeLike
Canzano and Wilner had Oliver Luck on their podcast. He talked about the NCAA, the future of college sports, NIL, and the transfer portal among other things.
LikeLike
From TheAthletic:
The Big 12 is nearing a deal to play football and men’s basketball games in Mexico beginning as soon as 2024, a person with knowledge of the situation confirmed to The Athletic. The Houston Chronicle first reported the news.
The agreement, not yet complete, would last for multiple years and is not meant as a one-off experience. Football games likely would take place in Monterrey and men’s basketball in Mexico City, with the potential for more sports in the future.
LikeLike
Gift article from WSJ which contains an 8th Grade Sample Test for Civics and U.S. History.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/american-eighth-graders-dont-know-much-about-history-test-scores-show-56ef367c?st=qtn2f4r8drk68wz&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Tony Altimore made an 18 tweet thread about college athletics finances and realignment, comparing conferences in many ways. #4 is very interesting – athletic budget as a % of total academic budget (high = SEC and Sun Belt, low = B10, P12, AAC). #5 is also – athletic revenue as a % of total revenue (high = SEC, low = MAC, AAC). #7 & 8 show that the ACC and B12 are different from the other P5 conferences.
LikeLike
Brian thanks for sharing this. Lots of really interesting stuff in this thread, the fact that the so-called four corner schools in the Pac 12 have very little in common with the Big 12 schools. The two Pac 12 schools that look the most like the Big 12 schools are WSU and OSU, Also, Nebraska’ still looks a lot more like the old Big 8 schools than does most Big 10 schools.
LikeLike
Patrick,
Yes, UNE is an outlier in the B10. I think part of that is geographical. NE just doesn’t have the population or population density to support a school as large as the other B10 schools. And as a plains state school, it has a large agricultural focus in research. That makes it similar to ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, OU and WVU. It also makes them similar to many SEC schools (MS, MsSU, AR, Auburn, UK, etc.).
Also of note from those infographics:
* UW is very similar to UCLA
* UO is very similar to NE
* UT, TAMU and UF are outliers in the SEC – but OU fits well
* Cal, UU, ASU and UA are better financial fits than CU for the B10
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian – Yes I find it amusing that Washington and Oregon are linked together even though they are very different schools. Washington would fit much better in the Big 10 than Oregon, even though Oregon has a large athletic budget. The fact that the CU Med school is separate, unlike at UA and UU, likely accounts for some of the difference there. The lack of a med school also probably contributes to why Cal’s Academic Budget lags behind UCLA’s,
LikeLike
Why did NE, RU and UMD ask to join the B10? This sure didn’t hurt:
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1652327056330350593/photo/1
LikeLike
Note that Johns Hopkins receives more than twice the research money of any other school. JHU is home to the Applied Physics Lab, the primary R&D facility of DOD and NASA.
https://www.jhuapl.edu/
LikeLike
It is more accurate to say the Hopkins faculty compete and receive more than twice the research dollars as do faculty at other schools.
Every penny of research monies at every school comes from research grants that individual faculty win from external granting agencies. Faculty at every university are hired, promoted, tenured, and paid based on their success at getting grants.
The universities do get overhead costs included in the grants, most of which is legitimate (lights, heat, building maintenance, telephones…), but some of it is siphoned off to support unfunded research in the humanities etc. The point is, these monies are restricted to a few contractually specified activities, and they are not generally available.
A similar problem exists with endowments. The monies are almost always restricted to specified purposes, like an endowed chair in some discipline or a scholarship in some department. The endowment monies are not available for other purposes, certainly not sports.
I know the vast majority of students graduate from college without the dimmest awareness of what was going on around them, certainly not what their faculties were up to. They suffer from what the Church calls “invincible ignorance.” Hence all the references to the general budget, and the vast sums of money in research, endowments, tuition, fees. The biggest source of revenue and spending at a school like Ohio State is its medical complex, and none of that money goes to any other activity at tOSU.
LikeLike
The APL is not analogous to research done at other universities. JHU has 3,856 faculty members. The APL has 8,000 employees. The R&D done at the APL is contracted directly to the APL by DoD and NASA on a non-competitive basis for security reasons. I was a faculty member at Texas A&M for several years and spent most of my time writing grant proposals. Research funding at APL isn’t like other universities which compete for funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_Physics_Laboratory
The APL is similar to the Pet Propolsion Lab at CalTech. They too get research funding on non-competitive contracts from the government.
LikeLike
UO and UW isn’t happening anytime soon. Add this to what Jones said in The Athletic (the B10 did not consider adding more than the 2 LA schools last summer, and expansion isn’t at the top of their list right now either), and it’s pretty clear expansion is on pause unless ND asks to join.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12s-murky-future-finds-shred-of-clarity-with-espn-appearing-out-as-option-for-primary-media-rights/
Dennis Dodds says ESPN is out of the running for the P12’s top tier games. Maybe USA Network will air them.
What has long been assumed throughout the industry became a reality this week as ESPN appears to be out as an option to take the Pac-12’s primary media rights as the conference continues to seek a new deal, multiple sources tell CBS Sports.
The situation developed at the Fiesta Summit spring meetings this week when Big 12 officials were told by ESPN executives its league was one of three conferences the network would be airing in the future. ESPN currently has Power Five agreements with the Big 12 (new deal begins in 2025), SEC (new deal in 2024) and ACC (existing deal running through 2036).
The Pac-12’s current media rights deal with Fox and ESPN expires July 1, 2024.
“[This is the] first time publicly [ESPN] said, ‘We’re not doing anything with the Pac-12,'” a Big 12 administrator aware of the exchange told CBS Sports under the condition of anonymity.
…
If ESPN is not interested in the Pac-12’s Tier I games — the most-desirable, likely highest-rated contests — there doesn’t appear to be an obvious brand-name suitor for the league. Other major linear platforms, including Fox, appear not to be interested in primary Pac-12 rights that would provide the bulk of income in a new media deal.
It was reiterated during the conference’s spring meetings that the Pac-12 remains confident it will land TV media rights deal with a major carrier for its Tier 1 content, sources tell CBS Sports. There has been speculation lately that NBCUniversal (specifically USA Network) could be involved.
…
According to sources who have speculated on what a form a Pac-12 deal could find, the league’s Tier I content would likely be categorized as a minimum of two games a week for a rightsholder across a typical 14-week season. Those 28 games may be valued at approximately $200 million, an average of $7 million per game.
It has been assumed that an approximate $300 million rights deal might be needed to keep some Pac-12 schools from jumping to the Big 12. If a Tier I deal is closed at that valuation, the league would need to seek at least $100 million for the estimated 47-50 remaining games in the Pac-12 inventory (based on the league remaining at 10 teams.)
LikeLike
Several reports after Dodd’s say ESPN is still in it. Looks like Dodd is being fed information by someone in the Big 12, who wants to keep public pressure on the PAC. I understand why the “12 anon” partisans act like they do, but its really beneath Dodd’s sources to do so.
LikeLike
Canzano says its not true.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-disinformation-campaign-vs
LikeLike
Canzano says its not true.
I’m not sure whom to believe — Canzano has been wrong plenty of times as well.
LikeLike
https://www.wenatcheeworld.com/arena/the_spun/look-big-ten-football-stadium-getting-a-heated-field/article_765ee1e0-64ec-5815-8458-ca057e8727bd.html
WI is installing a heated field before the 2024 season. Estimated cost is $5.5M. It will replace an almost brand new field, so write off another few million for wasted money there.
“What pushed this over the edge for us was the potential of hosting Playoff games in Camp Randall in December,” said Wisconsin’s senior associate athletic director Jason King.
“I think this will make the surface safer because we’re not going to have a frozen field like we had in the past. We just think overall it’s going to be a good benefit to the program.”
King says the new field is estimated to cost around $5.5 million to install, and it will replace the FieldTurf surface that was just installed one year ago.
OSU has estimated just winterizing Ohio Stadium could cost that much. Because the field is now below the water table (literally right next to a river), trying to heat it may be an engineering challenge as well. There are also concerns about snow removal and traffic management.
LikeLike
Hopefully it won’t be a slit-film surface, which the NFLPA has specifically asked the NFL to ban due to the elevated risk of injury in comparison to other surfaces.
(The NFL disputes the injury data cited by the NFLPA .)
Shame the Badgers won’t be installing natural grass.
LikeLike
The data is split on that – as always, you can make the stats say what you want. The NFL says there’s evidence it reduces certain types of major injuries (like ACL tears) while increasing rates of lesser injuries (ankle sprains).
Bad grass fields also cause injuries. Northern stadiums can struggle maintaining grass fields into January.
And as always, people blame the surface but the shoes matter just as much. Maybe they need to adjust cleats for a slit-film surface.
OSU put in a new slit-film field about 1.5 years ago and the players are very positive about it.
LikeLike
WaPo gift article regarding expanded college playoffs knocking heads with NFL. IMHO the bestsolution would be for colleges to start the season in so-called Week Zero.
https://wapo.st/3paFgen
LikeLike
IMHO the best solution would be for colleges to start the season in so-called Week Zero.
That’s what the article suggests they will ultimately do. In the first two years, apparently they feel that there isn’t enough time to get the rules changed and all of the contracted non-conference games rescheduled.
LikeLike
WSU’s president talks about the P12’s future.
LikeLike
From the interview, Awful Announcing pulled the following tidbit:
I know at least one of the partners we were talking to said, ‘We’re ready to sign today, but the optics of us announcing that we’re laying off X number of people and we signed a multimillion-dollar deal with the Pac-12 are just not the best, so we’re going to have to wait six weeks.’ Clearly, the optics are something those folks are really worried about.
Among the major partners the Pac-12 is rumored to be talking to, this could only refer to Disney or Amazon (more likely the former), as Apple has not laid anyone off.
I think there’s a lot of confusion over which rights Disney might want. What exactly is “Tier 1” for this league? I do not envision Disney taking a “game of the week” in a fixed time slot on one of their two major properties (ESPN or ABC), the way the SEC and the Big Ten have. There are not enough big games in the Pac-12 to justify that. This does not preclude them sharing Tier 1 with another provider.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes, that could describe Disney quite well. ESPN could want a 4th window game of the week, but they probably don’t have a slot a week in the other windows (beyond their SEC, ACC, B12 and other commitments) that they need to fill.
I don’t know if Amazon would worry about the optics as much, because these would be different divisions. But ESPN is laying off a bunch of people, so having them turn around and throw money at the P12 might look worse.
LikeLike
Gift article from the WSJ. Free speech at the Ohio State U.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ohio-legislature-salmon-p-chase-school-ohio-state-university-free-speech-university-of-toledo-568261f9?st=u5izdzowpkanyzu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
M&W lacrosse brackets are out. Men’s field has 17 teams (top 8 seeded), women’s field has 29 (top 8 seeded). I know some people were concerned that B10 lacrosse wouldn’t really work out, and UMD and JHU were especially nervous.
Men’s: https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/lacrosse-men/d1/2023
B10 has 4 teams in the field of 17 – #4 UMD, #5 PSU, #6 JHU, unseeded MI
Women’s: https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/lacrosse-women/d1/2023
B10 has 5 teams in the field of 29 – #1 NW, unseeded UMD, MI, PSU, JHU
Unfortunately the 5 teams are grouped in only 2 of the quadrants of the bracket.
Future B10 member USC also made the women’s field.
LikeLike
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/lacrosse-men/d1/2023
On the men’s side, MI advanced to face #1 Duke in the quarterfinals, #5 PSU won to face unseeded Army (who beat UMD), and #6 JHU won to face #3 Notre Dame.
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/lacrosse-women/d1/2023
For the women, #1 NW advanced to the quarterfinals to face #8 Loyola (MD).
LikeLike
https://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcats/football/pac-12-mailbag-why-covering-leagues-media-rights-story-is-a-challenge-for-the-media/article_0008b42a-ec3d-11ed-94db-2f4afa6654dd.html
Wilner gives a reality check on realignment reporting. Elsewhere Matt Brown seconded many of his points.
What is your take on all of the Pac-12 media rights “reporting” out there, including from supposedly reputable outlets and reporters? — @Cargoman0363
Wilner: The Hotline has not commented on specific reporters or reports since this saga began and has no plans to start now.
If an outlet breaks news that we believe is accurate and relevant to the Pac-12, we’ll make sure fans are aware of the development.
Yes, there has been a huge amount of erroneous information published over the past 10 months — much of it fueled by social media and some of it courtesy of fans portraying themselves as “insiders” or operators of regional or local websites.
(When it comes to realignment, everybody’s an expert. Everybody has a source.)
In other instances, respected media outlets have published information that we knew to be inaccurate or lacking crucial context.
For example, the barrage of reports about the Big Ten preparing to add more schools back in the fall — that was all fueled by former commissioner Kevin Warren and the folks handling his messaging. In reality, the Big Ten presidents and media partners were never on the verge of another West Coast raid.
Keep in mind that realignment is the most difficult topic in college sports for the media to cover for two reasons:
Most media members have limited experience with and poor sourcing within the areas that drive realignment strategy, especially media rights. It’s not the same as covering a coaching search or a recruiting issue.
Because the Pac-12 created its own media company, and because that company (the Pac-12 Networks) went sideways quickly, the Hotline has covered media matters for more than a decade and developed sources within that space.
We have leaned heavily on those sources over the past 10 months — to a much greater degree than we have relied on sources within the Pac-12 itself — and believe that has resulted in a fair and reasonable assessment of a complicated, highly fluid issue.
The realignment decision-makers are university presidents whose perspectives and processes aren’t the same as those of coaches and athletic directors. And because the crucial conversations take place at the presidential level, accurate information is scarce.
Realignment is like another language. If you haven’t been properly exposed, it’s difficult to differentiate smoke from fire. To understand who knows what. To identify where agendas lie. To see how all the pieces fit together.
We want to believe everyone is doing his or her best to report fair and accurate information even if, occasionally, the reality appears quite different.
LikeLike
What do you call a fake Native American squaw? No, not “Pocahontas”. She’s a “Pretendian”.
LikeLike
CBS wanting the P12 in primetime? I suppose anything is possible for the right price. It would be a major change in CBS’s commitment to CFB.
LikeLike
No idea if it’s true, but all of the other broadcast networks have night games. I’ve long wondered why CBS never tried to compete in that time slot.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/09/ncaa-president-charlie-baker-continues-to-push-for-nil-legislation-with-lawmakers
Possible good news for the NCAA, congress seems interested in NIL legislation at the moment.
Amid NCAA president Charlie Baker’s latest visit with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, there is growing movement to hurriedly produce federal legislation over college athlete compensation before the nation enters another presidential election cycle this fall.
…
Baker’s visit comes at a time in which at least some congressional lawmakers are seriously gearing up to move on a college athlete bill. Several lawmakers and Congressional aides spoke to Sports Illustrated about the latest movement on the issue:
* Senate Commerce Committee leaders are working to schedule another hearing on the issue.
* An early draft of a bill from Senators Tommy Tuberville (R., Ala.) and Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) is complete and has been reviewed by several executives within college athletics.
* A narrow NIL-based bill is expected soon from Representative Gus Bilirakis (R., Fla.), the chair of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which likely controls legislation around college athletics within the House of Representatives.
…
“I think there is a greater interest in it, and Charlie Baker has been well received, but I’m not sure it’s at the level of a must-pass bill,” McMillen says. “How do you get this in front of members? I think they’ve got to do it the old-fashioned way. The 1,200 schools have to start calling their reps and tying up the phone lines and emailing them and making a lot of noise here to get this on the docket.”
A deadline of sorts seems to be this fall or winter, when the presidential election season truly begins. “If you get too much into next year, it gets caught up in the election mode,” McMillen says.
In a statement released to SI, an NCAA spokesperson said, “The NCAA, under President Baker’s leadership, last week moved to require Division I schools to provide several new benefits to support student-athletes’ academic success, health and well-being. As members continue to modernize college sports, working with Congress is necessary. With more than 30 different laws in 30 different states affecting college sports, the Association lacks the legal clarity necessary to put in place consumer protections for student-athletes and other important functions of a national governing body for sports.”
…
The NCAA is seeking a college athlete bill that (1) provides a national name, image and likeness standard, preempting state NIL laws; (2) deems college athletes as students and not employees; and (3) offers protections from legal challenges so the NCAA can create more rules around NIL.
“The engagement under Emmert was not really productive,” says Sherrill, who with Representative Maria Salazar (R., Fla.) introduced a bipartisan bill earlier this year to address and promote fairness and equity in women’s sports called the Women in NCAA Sports (WINS) Act. “This felt like there was far more interest and engagement in coming to solutions. I came away impressed.”
…
“You don’t need to create a federal NIL standard if you empower the NCAA to create its own rules through a safe harbor,” a congressional staff member says.
Meanwhile, two bills are in the final stretch of completion. Tuberville and Manchin are finalizing their draft in the Senate, while Bilirakis is readying his proposal in the House, aides say. However, will either have a chance of passing as the next presidential election season approaches? The question lingers.
“There are so many other issues, but it has grown in intensity and there is more interest,” says McMillen. “Time is of the essence.”
LikeLike
IMHO, Charlie Baker is simply trying to pass the buck on this very thorny NIL issue from his NCAA to Congress. We all know our Congress is dysfunctional on many issues for which they have Constitutional authority. By what twisted logic would they claim to have legal oversight over Ford dealers lending free Mustangs to defensive tackles?
Quoting from the link: “The NCAA is seeking a college athlete bill that (1) provides a national name, image and likeness standard . . .” OK, what is it? What’s the standard? It’s easy to say “Set a standard” but when you get down in the weeds about how much, when, do volleyball players get the same payouts as football players, can NIL be offered to someone in the transfer portal, etc, etc, can you imagine a bipartisan Congress agreeing on all of this?
Additionally, did you see what Congress did to the recently passed CHIPS Act? Subcontractors must use union labor. They must provide day care for their employees’ kids. All kinds of diversity, equity and inclusion crap. All kinds of environmental requirements including greenhouse gases, carbon credits, etc.
Further, if NIL payouts are limited by federal law instead of NCAA regulation, who enforces it? The FBI? Will cheaters go to jail?
LikeLike
When Congress legislates, they just as likely screw it up as improve it. But that has never stopped them before. You might call it twisted logic for Congress to try to regulate NIL, but they’ve regulated plenty of things already where they probably should have stayed out. It’s what they do.
LikeLike
https://california.asu.edu/
The internet is full of rumors about the 4 corners schools considering joining the B12. This link tells you how deeply tied to CA ASU is. They have a CA campus, they have arrangements with community colleges in CA for students to transfer to ASU, they have 62k alumni in CA, 20k current students in/from CA, and 13% of their alumni work in CA. That would be a lot to sacrifice by moving to the B12.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://theamerican.org/news/2023/5/9/football-an-open-letter-on-power-5-group-of-5-branding.aspx
The AAC’s Mike Aresco posted a 260 word screed about the P5 label.
Back on March 9, I issued a statement calling for the elimination of the Power 5, or P5, label from the collegiate nomenclature and the public forum. The use of P5 has created a divide in Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football that is not healthy and that is often not supported by competitive results on the field and court. The recent realignment in college athletics has further eroded the P5 concept.
…
Power 5 is a media-created term. The so-called P5 group also has an autonomy status in the NCAA that officially sets them apart in certain respects, but which does not confer competitive superiority per se. The autonomy status was conferred as part of the NCAA Governance Redesign of 2014, which afforded those five conferences the ability to enact legislation in certain areas, legislation that could be adopted by non-autonomy conferences if they so chose. With so much authority devolving to the conferences in the current NCAA governance landscape, it can be argued that the autonomy concept may eventually become unnecessary. Practically speaking, very little autonomy legislation has been passed in recent years.
…
If the autonomy construct continues to exist, it should be treated as just that, an “inside baseball” NCAA-created legislative structure that does not confer “power” status in the competitive arena, and that is also exclusionary. The written in stone nature of that structure is another primary reason why it should not determine power status in the public conversation.
The compelling issue at hand is the manufactured P5 label and the attendant fallout that is damaging to college athletics. There is no question that if the autonomy protocol is finally abandoned, the P5 designation and the P5-G5 divide would have a harder time surviving, but there should be a conscious effort to discard the P5 and G5 labels regardless, an effort that should be supported by the NCAA and by the autonomy conferences themselves.
…
But as someone who shares with my conference colleagues a deep concern for the greater good of college football and college athletics, I support doing away with the P5 and G5 labels and focusing on the ten FBS conferences. The G5 label is almost certain to go away officially in the new CFP agreement and structure, and I implore the media also to discard it and to refer to the FBS conferences simply by their names and their FBS status. The media should also abandon the practice of separating its coverage into P5 and G5 categories, and of often ignoring the G5 altogether. It would not be difficult to consider all ten FBS conferences in media coverage, and to include whichever of the ten deserve coverage based on competitive merit. The P5 and G5 labels, and the damage they inflict, should once and for all be consigned to a bygone chapter of college sports history.
It’s in the best interests of the P5 to eliminate the term? The P5 label is a media creation, but it shouldn’t be used despite the fact that it accurately captures an actual distinction within NCAA rules? The media and the public should abandon the term because it hurts the AAC’s feelings?
And even worse, he makes the argument as UC, UCF and UH are leaving for the P5.
LikeLike
As he acknowledges, the P5 distinction is part of NCAA rules. Those rules could change again, but so far they haven’t. The NCAA uses a different term — autonomy. Good luck getting the media and fans to adopt that.
I believe someone looked at the champions of all NCAA sports, not just football, and found that the so-called P5 win the overwhelming majority of them. It’s a real distinction, even if there is some overlap.
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo. BTN shuts down UMD streaming platrorm.
https://wapo.st/3Mctnxu
LikeLike
Very interesting! I don’t follow what other schools do, but Michigan has its own media department and a vibrant ecosystem of content similar to what was described here — except they don’t charge for it.
UMD expected to collect $8 per month, so it probably would have had to be a lot more than what Michigan gives out for free. But still, it has to make one wonder where the lines are drawn.
The UMD service would have provided “behind-the-scenes videos, interviews and film breakdowns,” obviously with a homer slant. While BTN could do that too, they surely never will. I don’t think the UMD service would have siphoned off any revenue from the Big Ten, because anyone obsessive enough to pay $8 to the school probably has BTN anyway.
LikeLike
I think the BTN concern was if Maryland is allowed to break the rules what is to stop Michigan, PSU, OSU, USC from doing the same? This just saved you from paying $8 per month for that Michigan feed. It is clear that schools can provide free content on their own website which is what Michigan is doing.
LikeLike
Well, these streaming platforms have the potential to be mini-Longhorn Networks but without all of the absurd excesses of former Texas Athletic Führer DeLoss Dodds. It’s good the BTN nipped it in the bud. I can’t imagine Maryland making much money from it but a powerhouse like Ohio State probablt could.
LikeLike
The LNH showed actual games. UMD was not planning to do that.
LikeLike
You are correct that the LHN showed two football games per year against the likes of Tulsa and UTEP. However, the remainder of their programming was volleyball, keekeeng sokkar bool and women’s track.
LikeLike
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/big-ten-considering-removing-nonconference-power-5-schedule-requirement
According to Brett McMurphy, the B10 is seriously considering removing the requirement to play a P5 OOC game in football. I guess this could be part of maximizing playoff appearances, though more likely it is a way to get lesser teams bowl eligible.
Could this be a tradeoff so the B10 can get support from certain schools for locking the B10’s preferred set of conference games?
The Big Ten is “strongly considering” removing its requirement for league teams to play a Power 5 nonconference team, starting in 2024, sources told Action Network. Big Ten teams also would be allowed to continue scheduling Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) opponents, sources said.
…
This season, Michigan is the only Big Ten school that did not schedule a Power 5 nonconference opponent (the second consecutive season UM didn’t schedule a Power 5 nonconference team). Only three programs — Northwestern, Ohio State and Rutgers — scheduled an FCS opponent in 2023.
After Notre Dame plays an FCS opponent this fall, future Big Ten member USC will become the only Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) school that has never played an FCS opponent.
Even though the Big Ten is expected to remove its Power 5 nonconference opponent requirement starting in 2024, each Big Ten school already has scheduled a Power 5 nonconference opponent in at least three of the four seasons between 2024-27.
What’s unknown is whether or not those Big Ten schools will keep those future Power 5 nonconference opponents or adjust their future schedules by playing fewer Power 5 teams out of conference.
LikeLike
Brian: “According to Brett McMurphy, the B10 is seriously considering removing the requirement to play a P5 OOC game in football.”
OK, the B1G is greasing the skids for an expansion to 18 teams. If the Pac-12 dissolves and Wash and Oregon join, the best and logical scheduling format is 3-7-7, meaning each school plays ten conference opponents. This would further enhance the value of the B1G TV package to Fox, NBC, etc and improve the odds of B1G schools getting CFP at-large berths.
This does not mean that I am abandoning my forecast of no B1G expansion during our lifetimes. I am not. The scenario described above probably won’t happen.
LikeLike
The main problem with 3-7-7 is that every school wants at least 7 home games. That demand could change, but it has been the rule up to now.
If you are locked into 5 conference road games, it means your entire non-conference schedule must be at home. That means no Iowa–Iowa State, USC–ND, Purdue–ND, or any other non-conference opponent that requires a home-and-home.
LikeLike
Marc: “That means no Iowa–Iowa State, USC–ND, Purdue–ND, or any other non-conference opponent that requires a home-and-home.”
True, but just how important is it to have seven home games? Purdue-ND is no longer an annual rivalry. Iowa-ISU and USC-ND are longstanding but try naming another rivalry in the conference that compares to those two – there isn’t any. So Iowa and USC might have to get by with six home games while the other 14 schools have seven.
LikeLike
True, but just how important is it to have seven home games?
I can’t evaluate that. I only know that this has historically been a priority for the schools, and none have ever mentioned that they’d be willing to give that up. You haven’t really given a reason why they would, other than the symmetric mathematical beauty of 3-7-7.
Of course, if you add a 10th conference game you create more losses, because the average conference foe is a stronger opponent than the average non-conference foe that it would replace. As a whole the Big Ten is way over .500 in non-con games, but in conference games they are exactly .500.
Purdue-ND is no longer an annual rivalry.
Not annual, but they do schedule each other frequently (playing every year from 2024–2028), and historically both sides value that game. The Boilers remain ND’s most often-scheduled Big Ten opponent. After ND initially dropped Purdue (upon committing to 5 annual ACC games), Purdue worked hard to get ND back on the schedule. I think they’d still like to play the Irish every year if the Irish were available.
LikeLike
Marc: “As a whole the Big Ten is way over .500 in non-con games . . .”
Obviously true, but how does the B1G do against P5 opponents? A quick check of 2022, B1G vs P5:
5 wins – OSU, PSU, Rutgers, IL, Minn
6 loses – MSU, Iowa, NE, NW, Purdue, Wisc
No P5 played – IN, MD, Mich
Also, Purdue’s AD is a domer. He went to ND on a baseball scholly. He was probably instrumental in restarting the Purdue-ND series and my hunch is that he’s prepping himself for Swarbrick’s job when the ND AD retires.
LikeLike
Marc,
I can’t evaluate that. I only know that this has historically been a priority for the schools, and none have ever mentioned that they’d be willing to give that up. You haven’t really given a reason why they would, other than the symmetric mathematical beauty of 3-7-7.
A home game is worth about $10M to OSU (and probably UM and PSU as well) when you add in ticket sales, merchandise, vending, parking, donations, etc. Plus the value to the city for restaurants, hotels and shops. That’s tremendously important to the schools, and they won’t give it up easily.
A 3-7-7 also eliminates all big time OOC games (OSU won’t play UT or UGA or ND on top of 10 B10 games). It would force USC to make a tough choice about the ND series. I think IA would ask for permission to drop the ISU series. The smaller programs are willing to play a 6 game home schedule because they don’t make nearly as much from each game, but the top 9 B10 schools won’t feel that way.
Of course, if you add a 10th conference game you create more losses, because the average conference foe is a stronger opponent than the average non-conference foe that it would replace. As a whole the Big Ten is way over .500 in non-con games, but in conference games they are exactly .500.
Correct. It’s good for maintaining game frequency, but there are 9 game scheduling plans that fit 18 teams. Here are a few:
9 = 1*100% + 16*50% (aka 1-8-8)
9 = 2*100% + 6*67% + 9*33%
9 = 2*100% + 12*50% + 3*33%
9 = 3*100% + 8*50% + 6*33%
LikeLike
I realize that you are not predicting the WA/OR addition, but I do not see what value it adds to the existing 14 schools, or for that matter to the LA schools.
Does anyone really think that WA and OR will each be worth well north of $75 million in 2024 and then increase significantly? A lot of B1G schools have stated that they are totally against any further expansion for now. Several have publicly said that any new addition has to increase the payout to the existing schools and that would be particularly true with the added burden of two schools in the Pacific Northwest. That would have to increase the base payout for each other school, plus pay for the extra expenses and inconvenience of going to the West coast.
Is it realistic to add “junior partners” who might never increase the per team value of the league, but will eventually need to be paid full shares?
With new PAC schools, what happens when the ACC actually splits? How big does the B1G really want to go.
To me McMurtry is one of these guys who has been saying since last July that the B1G MUST add more PAC schools and will do so.
Further, adding those two would eliminate more games between the original 10 by now adding 4 new schools into the mix rather than two. We all know how much the original 10 value games against each other.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
I realize that you are not predicting the WA/OR addition, but I do not see what value it adds to the existing 14 schools, or for that matter to the LA schools.
Does anyone really think that WA and OR will each be worth well north of $75 million in 2024 and then increase significantly? A lot of B1G schools have stated that they are totally against any further expansion for now. Several have publicly said that any new addition has to increase the payout to the existing schools and that would be particularly true with the added burden of two schools in the Pacific Northwest. That would have to increase the base payout for each other school, plus pay for the extra expenses and inconvenience of going to the West coast.
I agree, but we haven’t seen the numbers and the B10 has. One source said they were slightly revenue positive, another said they weren’t. Likely they are about revenue neutral, which doesn’t justify expansion. But if you can get them for a discount for a few years, that could change the math. I do believe their value would increase with more exposure, but they also would add a lot of travel costs.
Also, we need to remember that we only roughly know the average value of the B10 deal. It will start lower and escalate. Stories at the time said it wouldn’t be a huge jump in year 1.
Rough example math:
$8.05B over 7 years = $1.15B per year = $71.875M per year
Let’s call $72M the rough average, with $2.5M growth per year (about 3.5%)
Year – Value (in $M)
1 – 64.5
2 – 67
3 – 69.5
4 – 72
5 – 74.5
6 – 77
7 – 79.5
So the question is if UW and UO could be worth $64.5M right now. Let’s say they’re only worth $60M, but because the P12 is struggling they will agree to start at a 50% share (more than the P12 will pay) and grow to full share over the contract.
Year – Value (in $M)
1 – 32.25 vs 64.5 (B10 adds 120-64.5 = 55.5, or $3.5M per school)
2 – 40.1 vs 67 ($2.9M)
3 – 48.0 vs 69.5 ($2.3M)
4 – 55.9 vs 72 ($1.7M)
5 – 63.7 vs 74.5 ($1.2M)
6 – 71.6 vs 77 ($0.6M)
7 – 79.5
Each of the 16 schools would gain about $12.2M over the contract ($1.7M per year on average). That should cover the extra travel expenses, more or less. It would require UW and UO to grow in value by $3.25M per year (vs $2.5M per year for everyone else, so just gaining $1M per year relatively). It’s not a tremendous pay off, but it might be enough to switch some votes if money was the only concern.
Is it realistic to add “junior partners” who might never increase the per team value of the league, but will eventually need to be paid full shares?
I think there is a good chance UW and UO could be average for a B10 of 18 teams. Seattle is a big market and UW has a strong history. UO is the bigger concern to me. They just need to equal the value of schools like IA and WI.
With new PAC schools, what happens when the ACC actually splits? How big does the B1G really want to go.
I think that is a big strategic question for the B10. How big are they willing to go? Who do they want (and in what rank order)? Who do they feel confident they could get (vs the SEC or independence)?
Further, adding those two would eliminate more games between the original 10 by now adding 4 new schools into the mix rather than two. We all know how much the original 10 value games against each other.
Yes, there are definitely opportunity costs involved, both with future expansion and with games. McMurphy’s rumor is that Fox wants this, so the TV money may be there for it. And if the B10 doesn’t want blood on its hands, might that also mean “rescuing” P12 schools if the P12 starts to fall apart? And if so, would that extend beyond UW and UO? Stanford/Cal have a large market too, and great academics. UA is AAU and ASU is close (with Phoenix full of B10 alumni). UU and CU are AAU. And if they’re still adding at that point, KU is no worse than those P12 options.
Where does the B10 draw the line? My guess is either at 0 or wherever TV says.
LikeLike
Brian: “Where does the B10 draw the line?”
Revenue is not the only consideration for expansion. There is also Snob Factor. The bigger we get, the more the brand is diluted. The Ivy League could obviously expand if they wanted to do so but they don’t. They want to look down there noses at other schools, not share the glory.
The ACC is in the same academic ballpark as the B1G but not in football. The SEC is in the same football ballpark as the B1G but not in academics. Among the P5, we’re the conference that everyone is trying to get into.
LikeLike
Revenue is not the only consideration for expansion. There is also Snob Factor.
When the money is there, conferences generally do expand — all other factors be damned. The most compelling reason I’ve heard for not adding Oregon and Washington is quite simply that they don’t seem to offer a significant revenue boost.
It’s not, “We would have loved to invite them, but their academics aren’t good enough.”
The Ivy League could obviously expand if they wanted to do so but they don’t. They want to look down there noses at other schools, not share the glory.
The Ivy League just might be the one conference in Division I that does not chase the money, and never has. I think they are also the only league whose composition has never changed. It has been those same 8 schools the whole way.
The ACC is in the same academic ballpark as the B1G…
No, it isn’t. Their top schools are academic peers of the Big Ten, but the league as a whole is not.
The SEC is in the same football ballpark as the B1G but not in academics. Among the P5, we’re the conference that everyone is trying to get into.
Not really — the two leagues attract mostly non-overlapping schools. I think Missouri is the only SEC member that would have preferred the Big Ten if they could have gotten in. From that one exception you cannot generalize to the whole country.
Up above, Brian summarized the likely reasons the Big Ten chose Nebraska over Missouri—and it was due to athletics, not academics. Indeed, the Big Ten almost certainly knew they were taking a school on the verge of probable expulsion from the AAU, over one that is still (comfortably) in it.
LikeLike
Marc: “The most compelling reason I’ve heard for not adding Oregon and Washington is quite simply that they don’t seem to offer a significant revenue boost.”
Well, another “compelling” reason is that the Big Ten doesn’t want to be responsible for breaking up the Pac-12. We’ve done enough damage already and it’s well understood that nothing is happening unless the Four Corners bolts to the B12.
LikeLike
Well, another “compelling” reason is that the Big Ten doesn’t want to be responsible for breaking up the Pac-12. We’ve done enough damage already and it’s well understood that nothing is happening unless the Four Corners bolts to the B12.
Nobody has shown a financially compelling analysis that justifies adding those two schools. Every analysis I’ve seen indicates that Washington and Oregon are either dilutive or just mildly accretive. In other words: not an addition they’d make, even if the Pac-12 were guaranteed to survive it.
Of course, if you are a Big Ten president you want to seem collegial. So instead of saying that it’s all about the money — which it is — you say that you’d rather not have the Pac-12’s blood on your hands. (Even though you happily added USC and UCLA, knowing full well you were cutting off the Pac-12 at the knees.)
No conference yet has turned down a lucrative deal out of an altruistic desire to keep a competitor alive. But if the deal simply is not that great, you might as well claim to be an altruist because it doesn’t cost you anything.
LikeLike
The line is drawn at 32 schools, with a half dozen on each coast, and the rest in the middle. A professional sports model is coming to college football. The various so-called economic analyses out there, which focus on the marginal value of single schools, are entirely wrong-headed. You have to look at the value of the whole product.
PS. Washington and Oregon will be in the B1G sooner than you think.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
The line is drawn at 32 schools, with a half dozen on each coast, and the rest in the middle. A professional sports model is coming to college football. The various so-called economic analyses out there, which focus on the marginal value of single schools, are entirely wrong-headed. You have to look at the value of the whole product.
The B10 at 32? I don’t think so. If that pro model comes in, I think CFB will be beyond having conferences in the traditional college sense. You couldn’t even play 1/2 of the teams in a season currently. And since the B10 + SEC will already be 32 teams next year, I think any superleague would need to be larger than that to accommodate the missing teams (ND, UW, FSU, etc.). It’s possible the lesser programs are left behind (RU, Vandy, etc.) in the final product, but I think that would have to be a fully professional model and separate from all other college sports.
PS. Washington and Oregon will be in the B1G sooner than you think.
People have been saying that for over 10 months. I’m not saying they’ll never join, but I haven’t seen a compelling reason to add them before 2028 (or maybe 2034ish). Legal decisions, federal law, or major changes in the media world could change that.
LikeLike
This season, Michigan is the only Big Ten school that did not schedule a Power 5 nonconference opponent (the second consecutive season UM didn’t schedule a Power 5 nonconference team).
Before reading this, I thought the rule was already repealed — else, how was Michigan able to do what it did the last 2 years?
As I recall, there was a pretty generous list of exceptions, and I think UConn (which UM played last year) might’ve been one of them—a relic from when UConn used to be good. But I am pretty sure none of this year’s UM non-conference opponents (East Carolina, Bowling Green, UNLV) was ever a permitted exception.
LikeLike
Marc,
UM had a HaH series with UCLA scheduled for 2022-23, but then you cancelled it in 2019 to add HI and ECU instead. Maybe that was too close to 2022 to find a P5 replacement?
https://fbschedules.com/michigan-cancels-ucla-series-adds-games-hawaii-east-carolina/
Michigan and UCLA were scheduled to play a home-and-home football series with contests slated for Sept. 10, 2022 in Ann Arbor and Sept. 2, 2023 in Los Angeles. Michigan informed UCLA that it was terminating the series “…in order to balance the schedule with a seven-game home slate in both seasons.”
UM had 8 home games in 2022 so that excuse doesn’t work. But maybe they couldn’t find someone who would play vs UM in 2022 and @UM in 2023.
LikeLike
I was aware that Michigan cancelled a UCLA series that would’ve fulfilled the P5 non-conference scheduling requirement.
I just never found an explanation of why the Big Ten allowed that. Sure, maybe they’d prefer to balance out the schedule, but most rules have to be followed even when they are inconvenient.
LikeLike
As you noted, UConn counted in 2022. I think they always had an exception for if a series fell through and you couldn’t find a replacement. With COVID, it may have been hard to find a willing partner when they needed one.
I’m pretty sure OSU would’ve complained if UM was getting away with something. OSU was allowed to cancel the UW series to avoid 2 trips to the west coast in 2024.
LikeLike
McMurphy gave a radio interview on this.
* Dropping the P5 OOC game was to help the little guys
* B10 is staying at 9 games
* The B10 doesn’t want blood on their hands (destroying the P12), so they won’t expand with P12 schools unless some schools go to the B12 first. But if others leave first, then the B10 would consider (not definitive, just would think about it again) adding UW and UO.
* Fox also doesn’t want to be responsible for killing off the P12
* IA and OSU are against expansion right now
LikeLike
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-10/apple-s-pete-distad-who-oversaw-tv-and-sports-businesses-to-depart
Is this relevant for the P12 deal? Could this explain the slow pace of negotiations?
Apple Inc.’s top executive in charge of its video and sports businesses is departing, according to people familiar with the matter, reshuffling a services division that has fueled much of the company’s growth in recent years.
The executive, Pete Distad, plans to leave Apple this month, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the move hasn’t been announced.
…
In his current role, Distad oversees the business and operations side of the Apple TV app and the TV+ streaming service, leading the company’s ambitious push into television shows, Hollywood movies and sporting events. His division negotiated deals with Major League Soccer and Major League Baseball and turned the Apple TV set-top box into a hub for video content — both from inside and outside the company.
…
The move is at least the third major exit from Apple’s services organization, following the departures earlier this year of vice presidents Peter Stern and Michael Abbott. Stern ran many of Apple’s services businesses and was formerly Distad’s boss.
…
Distad, a senior director at Apple, reports to Oliver Schusser, whose boss is services chief Eddy Cue. Before his latest job, Distad was a company vice president in charge of marketing for the Apple TV set-top box.
Apple will be elevating sports content executive Jim DeLorenzo to replace Distad on the sports side, and it’s now seeking a replacement for the TV business duties. The content arm of Apple TV+ is run by worldwide video heads Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg. They remain in their roles, reporting to Cue.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s all that relevant. There is a lot of bureaucracy at any big media business with enough people tasked on these things that one executive leaving means that deals will still get signed off by whoever assumes the oversight of the exiting individual’s portfolio. Not a good reason for a holdup on the Apple side of things.
It’s hard to know what the exact holdup is here. Apple (and Amazon) are less experienced with sports rights deals, especially college, but have been in the space with big deals recently like MLS on Apple TV+ and TNF on Prime.
Could also be Pac-12 is trying their best to get others to bid like Youtube or whoever else.
I tend to lean towards the notion that any delay is Pac-12 scrambling to try to get others to push Apple higher.
LikeLike
z33k,
It’s probably only relevant if it indicates a change in philosophy. Maybe the bosses want to do go a different direction, or are unhappy with how this was being handled.
The media experts say college sports deals are different from pro sports deals. It must be the detailed clauses, and the streamers learning what the conferences consider to be standard. With the P12, you might be having 3 or 4 media companies involved, and they’d have to work out things like how picks rotate, what are the limits for showing teams on certain networks or on certain days, etc.
The B10 media deal took a long time and it was with 3 longtime CFB networks.
I doubt the P12 is trying to find new bidders at this point, but they do have to evaluate various combinations of companies in terms of money vs exposure. The “What ifs?” could go very slowly with multiple streamers in the conversation.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/big12/2023/05/11/kansas-transfer-hunter-dickinson-got-less-than-6-figures-at-michigan/70206618007/
Hunter Dickinson is transferring from UM to KU purely for NIL reasons.
Former Michigan star Hunter Dickinson had a simple explanation for why he left the Wolverines and decided to transfer to Kansas for his final season of college basketball eligibility.
“I did have a legacy there and I basically gave that up to try to be selfish and do what’s best for me and my career, not what’s best for anybody else’s career,” the 7-foot-1 center said on Barstool’s Roundball Podcast.
First of all, the Jayhawks — who were a No. 1 seed in last year’s NCAA Tournament — are expected to be one of the nation’s top teams this season. In addition, there’s a greater potential for him to strike lucrative deals for his name, image and likeness.
“The people hating on me would leave their job right now for a $10,000 increase,” Dickinson said. “I got, at Michigan, less than six figures. I got less than six figures at Michigan for the year.”
…
“I won’t say anything bad about that program because I still do love Michigan, I do love the program and everything,” he said. “That’s why it was so hard to leave. I really didn’t want to leave, I didn’t, but I just felt like, man, it was the best decision for me. It took a lot of courage, I don’t think people realize how much courage it took for a guy who was there for three years, an All-American for the team.”
Yeah, poor baby. It took soooo much courage to chase the money. You’re a hero.
This is exactly what is driving a chunk of the audience away from college sports.
LikeLike
Yeah, poor baby. It took soooo much courage to chase the money. You’re a hero.
While I think I know what he meant, I agree it comes across very badly. Perhaps the best thing is that he said out loud what hundreds of others are doubtless saying privately.
This is exactly what is driving a chunk of the audience away from college sports.
Well, the flipside is that many players were paid under the table for years, and fans kept watching. At least this now legitimizes the money and makes it available to everyone, not just the biggest stars at programs that were willing to look the other way.
LikeLike
Hunter Dickinson is a good example why Congress cannot possibly come up with some sort of national “standard” for NIL. Charlie Baker punted to Congress because he knew it cannot be done. You’ve got five-star quarterbacks and three-star linebackers and walk-ons and long snappers and Ohio State and Tennessee State and volleyball and swimming and gymnastics. Men and women and trans.
Try it yourself. Just try to sketch out, in broad terms, a NIL “standard” that could apply to all college athletes that would not violate their constitutional rights and would also be equitable. It’s like Congress mandating that all cars and trucks must get the same milage.
LikeLike
I don’t favor federal NIL legislation. With that said, Congress could easily do it. You are not using your imagination. Obviously it would be some kind of upper limit— a “guardrail” as some are putting it. The Tennessee State women’s volleyball team would probably be happy, because they are not getting a ton of NIL anyway. The 5* QBs are the ones who’d take the hit.
Members of both parties are supportive, and I am guessing they have access to better legal advice than you do. To be clear, just because they are looking at it does not mean they will reach agreement—and personally, I hope they don’t.
LikeLike
Marc: “Obviously it would be some kind of upper limit— a “guardrail” as some are putting it.”
We have a female gymnast at LSU who is making over $2 million/yr on Instagram right now. You think that Congress is going to pass a law that limits her to $50,000 or thereabouts? You mention that some members of both parties are supportive but that doesn’t mean that the majority will want to act on this. As I mentioned previously, any legislation will be chock full of diversity, equity and inclusion.
LikeLike
I’m all for him being honest about why he treated his teammates like garbage. But wanting sympathy for not making at least $100k+ on top of full cost of attendance, free tutoring, elite coaching and training, etc.? Or for the “courage” it takes to transfer to chase NIL money?
I’m guessing UM fans would be more upset if the QB left to chase NIL money than a basketball player, but it still doesn’t look great. Why can’t UM supporters pay as much as KU? You guys have plenty of rich donors.
Well, the flipside is that many players were paid under the table for years, and fans kept watching. At least this now legitimizes the money and makes it available to everyone, not just the biggest stars at programs that were willing to look the other way.
I’d rather it be under the table than have a spoiled brat ask for sympathy for not making at least $100k per year while in college on a full ride. At least then I didn’t have to hear about it.
There’s still no transparency into who is making what or from whom. In theory it is being reported to the IRS, but I’ll bet that plenty of “NIL” money is still cash in bags. And buying recruits is no more legitimate now than it was before. It was always available to all – boosters could pay anyone they wanted then and now.
LikeLike
Back to conference realignment news:
Western Illinois is leaving the Missouri Valley Football Conference and Summit League to join the Ohio Valley Conference
https://goleathernecks.com/news/2023/5/12/athletics-department-leatherneck-athletics-moving-to-ohio-valley-conference-for-all-sports.aspx
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/05/wilner-hotline-mailbag-renewing-with-espn-and-fox-the-four-corners-factor-selection-windows-and-more/
A Wilner mailbag mostly about the P12 media deal.
Should we expect a Pac-12 media deal to be announced soon? Many, including the Hotline, reported that March was the targeted time frame. — @aka_branderson
Yes, the Hotline reported March or early April as the likely window for resolution, largely because that’s what the university presidents were saying publicly and conference sources were discussing privately.
So why the delay? We see three possibilities:
1. The conference was unable to land the deal it expected and had to start the process all over again.
2. The negotiations progressed significantly, but the final steps are proving elusive.
3. The framework of a deal is set, but at least one media partner needed time for other reasons. (WSU president Kirk Schulz alluded to this possibility in remarks last week.)
Our best guess: No. 2.
Personally, I think it may well be a combo of all 3. The final steps are proving elusive because the numbers aren’t what the P12 wants so they keep looking at different models (streaming vs linear). It’s also possible a media company asked for some extra time.
LikeLike
4. Commish George Kliavkoff cannot land a TV deal even remotely close to what he has promised to the Pac-12 and he is now bluffing and stalling as long as he can until the his entire farce collapses.
LikeLike
Brock Huard (former Washington QB and current Fox CFB analyst) had this to say. He is not an expert on conference realignment, but he’s a Pac-12 insider, so it might be relevant:
I was in Arizona on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. I got to see Kyle [Whittingham] and his wife on Monday night at dinner,” said Huard to the KSL Sports Zone’s Hans & Scotty G. “I got to mingle with a lot of the coaches and the ADs and the Commissioner (George Kliavkoff), and then we did the same the next night with the Big 12. And I will tell you, you could not have had two different environments.
The Tuesday night get-together and shindig with the Big 12, there was so much momentum, so much energy. You know, the first-year Commissioner (Brett Yormark) is a driver. He is an expansionist … aggressive, and you feel it. The conference is following that lead as they got their TV deal, and they’re not done.
On the flip side, the night before with the Pac-12, I’m not going to say survivalist, but it was not a lot of vision cast,” Huard said. “And how could it be with so much unknown in a media deal that, as one AD told me, ‘It’s close.’ But close is good for horseshoes and that’s not good in this business because we’ve got to get this deal done.
Well, it was hard for me to listen to George Kliavkoff. I’ve been around him probably half a dozen times, and I sit on their alumni council. I’ve actually really appreciated much of his tone and tenor. I thought last year at Media Days he was bold, borderline gruff. … Showed his disappointment in USC and UCLA leaving, and all of that. I thought he handled it really well. This is the first time Monday night, where I’m like, ‘I don’t like the sound of that.’ I don’t need to hear about the water polo team and that you guys went 19-2 out of conference.
What they need to hear is the direction; what they need to hear is that we’re close to a deal. And now, obviously, [Kliavkoff] can’t do that publicly and you don’t negotiate through the public and all of that. My gut and my hunch, Scotty, is that there is a deal there. But it’s not at the numbers anywhere near the number they want. It’s likely a deal that’s going to be spliced amongst a bunch of the networks. I thought the company that I worked with at Fox was out. I got a sense over this week that they’re not because right now, I think a lot of these networks are feeling some blood in the water that there may be a number now that, at first, the Pac-12 scoffed at. But now may have to live with and it may be a number that doesn’t compete with the Big 12 but is a number that at least keeps this group together.
LikeLike
https://realdawghuskies.com/exclusive-washington-oregon-set-to-announce-departure-from-pac-12/
The article is behind a paywall at this UW fan site, but it claims that an announcement will come out “around Memorial Day” saying UW and OU will join the B10, with the actual move happening in 2024 or 2025.
Google’s description of the article:
RealDawg.com has learned that a time “Around Memorial Day” is when there will be an official announcement that both the University of Washington and the University of Oregon are leaving the Pac-12 Conference for the B1G Conference. The move won’t occur until 2024 or 2025.
LikeLike
I’ll tell you what this is. Some Husky fan is trying to spook the Four Corners into a panic bolt to the B12 with the bogus belief that Wash and Oregon are gone. If the FC then indeed get spooked and go, Wash and Oregon would then be “free” to join the B1G.
LikeLike
Some Husky fan is trying to spook the Four Corners into a panic bolt to the B12.
An unsourced rumor on a rival homer site is not the source university presidents rely upon to decide whether to switch conferences.
LikeLike
Marc: “An unsourced rumor on a rival homer site is not the source university presidents rely upon to decide whether to switch conferences.”
I understand that. Nonetheless this rumor is picking up traction as the Pac-12 TV deal continues to sputter.
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/05/14/oregon-washington-vetted-and-cleared-to-join-big-ten-brett-mcmurphy/
LikeLike
When you see the same exact rumor on several news sites within days of each other, they’re frequently not independent. Rather, it’s the same source talking to multiple reporters. This creates the illusion of a bandwagon when it’s just one guy talking.
It is possible that this rumor has legs — if you read enough of them, eventually one will be true. But I’ve seen this scenario over and over again, where the identical rumor is picked up in multiple outlets, which makes it seem more reliable, and yet it’s not.
LikeLike
The Demise of the Conference of Champions Was Inevitable Thanks to Larry Scott.
The above link is from the same site but is not paywalled. Like everyone else does, the writer blames the conference’s woes mostly on Larry Scott. The article says the beginning of the end was when the Pac-12 chose not to take Texas and Oklahoma, which it blames on Scott. I am not sure it was all him, but that’s what they say.
LikeLike
I think the presidents don’t receive enough blame. After all, they hired and extended Scott. They accepted many of his decisions that have since been panned. They were also the ones to reject expansion, not Scott. He brought the idea to them and they said no.
LikeLike
Gift link WaPo. Defending NCAA lacrosse champ Maryland beaten in tourney. Big Ten’s Michigan, Penn State and Johns Hopkins all play today.
https://wapo.st/3MquQ3g
LikeLike
Recommended reading.
LikeLike
Notes:
Notre Dame:
“The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us?” asks Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “Or, does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception and if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”
The ACC:
A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation.
1. Seek additional revenue from ESPN. This is a long shot given the network’s current situation… …ACC presidents met recently with the network over this issue, no significant cash infusion appears imminent.
2. Secede from the league. Some of the schools, possibly the most frustrated lot such as FSU and Clemson, could pay the $120 million exit fee and hope they can break a grant-of-rights agreement that most attorneys – though maybe not their own – say is airtight.
3. Create another league. If the seven agree to dissolve the current grant-of-rights agreement (we don’t know yet if this is a possibility), they may add a couple of more schools and begin their own association in hopes of it being more lucrative.
[4.] changing the revenue distribution model to a more merit-based system… …It has divided a conference that is less like-minded than most leagues in the country… …FSU athletic director Michael Alford seemed to publicly fire a warning shot at the rest of the conference: Change the revenue distribution model or else.
PAC12:
The Pac-12 plans to expand by adding San Diego State and maybe SMU coinciding with its completion of a new TV deal…
…One athletic administrator offers his own prediction on the outcome: “I think the highest odds – and it may not be more than 50% – is that the Pac-12 salvages something in the short term to keep it together and it is Dead Man Walking for four years, with the Big Ten and Big 12 sitting there.”
Big 12:
Brett Yormark is aggressively pursuing expansion targets in an attempt to reach 14 or 16 members. Top priority are the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, but there are plenty of other potential replacements if the Pac-12 programs choose to stay.
Big Ten:
This past winter, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren made a push to expand again, this time targeting Washington and Oregon as a pair of West Coast neighbors to go along with new additions USC and UCLA… …“It was ‘Show me the money!’ and there wasn’t any money,” says one Big Ten administrator.
Money aside, many of the league’s athletic directors and presidents did not have the appetite for further expansion—and still do not. As one recently told SI, “We are done.”
LikeLike
As usual, the former LSU Tiger beat writer for the Baton Rouge Advocate, Ross Dellenger, hits it out of the park.
The question I have is who are the seven ACC schools referenced but not named other than Florida State and Clemson? I’m guessing newcomers with some football success like Miami, VA Tech & Louisville are in that group and Wake Forest, Duke, BC, Syracuse & Pitt are not.
Where do UNC, NC State, UVA & GA Tech fall?
LikeLike
McMurphy says its these seven
LikeLike
It’s still not clear what actual leverage they have. Nobody has suggested a credible way to break the grant of rights. I assume disbanding the league requires a super-majority, and this is only 50% of them — less than that if Notre Dame is counted.
LikeLike
This jumped out to me:
In one corner was the Pac-12, an array of broad-based universities, betrayed by their Los Angeles defectors and now at the mercy of media networks to prevent further departures.
Betrayed? At the mercy of? That’s a bit over the top. USC and UCLA were part of a contract and simply opted not to renew their membership when the current deal expired. That’s not betrayal. There is no mercy involved in this from the networks, it’s all business.
LikeLike
From TheAthletic5/15 much redacted:
Where the Big Ten’s football schedule debate stands as ADs, officials meet this week
Big Ten officials continue to discuss three scheduling formats that would end the current two-division format beginning in 2024, but it’s still not clear which option will win out. Athletic directors and league officials will meet on Monday and Tuesday at Big Ten headquarters in Rosemont, Ill., and the league’s 2024 scheduling model will receive plenty of discussion. Although some officials are optimistic they’ll find clarity this week, it’s possible the decision gets kicked down the road yet again.
“We’ve been talking about this for some time,” Illinois athletics director Josh Whitman said last week. “There’s been a lot of different iterations. There’s been a lot of back and forth. I’m not sure what the timeline will be. We know that we’ve got to make some decisions here at some point, but I don’t know if that’ll happen this next week or in subsequent weeks.
USC and UCLA join the Big Ten in the summer of 2024, and there appears to be very little appetite within the league for the continuation of a two-division structure. As The Athletic first detailed in March, the three scheduling formats under consideration are the following:
• Protect 3: Three permanent protected matchups, with games against six of the remaining 12 Big Ten opponents one year and the other six the next. Every four years, each team would play three teams four times and the remaining 12 teams twice.
• Protect 2: Two permanent protected matchups, played four times over four years. Over the course of four years, each Big Ten team would play the remaining league opponents at least twice and two of those teams three times.
• Flex Protect: A hybrid model in which each Big Ten team has one, two or three protected opponents. This format allows schedule-makers the most flexibility in terms of competitive balance, home-and-away rotations and the specific challenges around West Coast travel for teams playing USC or UCLA.
The Protect 3 model would be the easiest solution for fans, coaches and administrators to understand. The ACC is using a similar model for its division-less scheduling structure, which it is referring to as a 3-5-5 model. The SEC is discussing a similar three-protected-rivals model for its 16-team conference scheduling. But those involved in Big Ten scheduling decisions are confident that any of these three models would achieve their three main goals: To take into account historical and current competitive balance, to play leaguemates more frequently and to create pathways to the College Football Playoff for more teams in the 12-team CFP era. Improved schedule balance should enhance the resumes of teams that have historically had weaker league schedules while not unduly burdening the best teams in the league. To some administrators, that’s the crux of the Flex Protect model — it allows for more flexibility and adjustment if an individual program rises or falls.
New Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti, who officially took over for Kevin Warren two weeks ago, will be present at this week’s meetings and is expected to provide his input on the scheduling decision. If the final decision on the future scheduling model is not reached this week, it would likely come at some point this summer.
Rivalries are an important component of the decision. Michigan has two signature rivalries with Ohio State and Michigan State. Iowa has three with Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska. Others vary in intensity from school to school. But newcomers Maryland, Rutgers, UCLA and USC don’t require more than perhaps one protected foe. Plus, the league wants to limit all of its football programs to only one West Coast trip per year. If USC and UCLA were each other’s only fixed opponent, that would help with scheduling and sequencing everyone else — a big benefit of that Flex Protect option.
LikeLike
Same article from TheAthletic, different scheduling issue:
At least a couple of league athletic directors expect — and hope — that nonconference scheduling remains up to each individual school, as is the case now. Despite a report to the contrary last week, the Big Ten has not operated under a system that required each institution to play at least one Power 5 opponent per year. Michigan, for example, did not play any Power 5 nonconference opponents in 2022 and will not this coming fall, either.
Back in 2015, former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany unveiled a league scheduling ethos he called “Strength of Schedule 1910.” The numbers stood for one annual Power 5 nonconference opponent, nine Big Ten contests, one league championship game and zero games against FCS competition. Delany highlighted the scholarship difference between FBS and FCS programs as a primary reason to avoid those matchups.
Two years later, Delany voided the FCS requirement for years when teams played host to only four Big Ten opponents. Guaranteed payouts for Group of 5 opponents cost roughly $1 million more than for FCS opponents. Plus, FCS opponents in the league’s western footprint such as North Dakota State, South Dakota State and Northern Iowa brought thousands of fans and often offered more competitive games than many nearby Group of 5 opponents. So, that was an easy loophole.
Although it didn’t attract as much attention as the no-FCS edict, Big Ten schools also shrugged off the call for 10 Power 5 opponents, treating it as a suggestion rather than a mandate. In every season since “Strength of Schedule 1910” went into effect, at least one Big Ten team has played a nonconference slate without a Power 5 opponent in it. In 2018, five teams didn’t have one. This year, Michigan is the only program who doesn’t face a major nonconference opponent.
Athletic directors and coaches of rebuilding programs may want a lighter nonconference slate to help with bowl eligibility. CFP contenders may already be scheduling Power 5 opponents to beef up their resumes. Multiple ADs would like the option to schedule as they see fit, and others have pointed out that nonconference games are often scheduled as far as a decade out — so it’s hard to make any sweeping mandates in that area, anyway.
LikeLike
Two years later, Delany voided the FCS requirement for years when teams played host to only four Big Ten opponents.
This is yet another article vesting a commissioner with powers he didn’t have. Delany couldn’t unilaterally prohibit FCS matchups, and then allow them again. The members decided the scheduling rules, not him. Granted, he surely had an outsize influence, but he wasn’t an emperor.
LikeLike
https://sportstalkflorida.com/featured/the-pac-12-is-confident-they-will-be-together-for-a-long-time-into-the-future/
Jim Williams has some quotes about the P12 TV deal, from an Apple exec and P12 rep. I’ll skip the P12 rep’s quotes, as it’s all the usual stuff.
Over the past month or so writers and pundits – myself included – have taken to ponder the future of the Pac-12. So, as your faithful seeker of the truth or at least how it is being seen I spoke to a couple of my most trusted sources to see if anything what had changed as Pac 12 attempts to strike a new media deal that will keep everyone where they are for the next five or six years.
DISCLAIMER – THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWED IN THIS STORY WISH TO SEE THE PAC 12 SURVIVE. HOWEVER, THERE VIEWS ARE IMPORTANT AND I TRUST TO TRUST THEM BE HONEST.
Contact number one is an executive with Apple who clearly spoke with as an unnamed source. This person has intimate knowledge of the present talks as they are as of today.
JW: Where are you in the talks for the new media rights deal?
A: Apple TV+ remains comfortable that we remain the strongest option for all of the Pac-12 rights. We have spent a great deal of time working speaking not only to the conference but to possible partners as well.
JW: So you are willing to work with whatever partners that the conference feel it will take to get a deal done?
A.We have made it clear that we understand that linear is a very important part of any deal that is done. We have spoken to I think nine potential partners and we continue to talk with some of them as we all try to get a deal crafted and I feel that we are close to making it happen.
JW: Is it possible that you won’t be a partner?
A.Sure this is a business and despite how we feel that we have done in the interest of showing our ability to be a good partners in the end it is up to the conference. That said I remain confident we will be there in the end.
Apple talking with 9 different potential partners could certainly explain why this is going so slow. That’s a lot of possible combinations and different splits of rights.
LikeLike
Michael Alford, Florida State AD:
“If you look at the revenue projections, they (UXF) should have a better agreement than we have by going out to market,” he said. “That means there’s going to be another school in the state that’s going to have a better agreement than Miami and us. And that’s just not acceptable to us.”
https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/florida-state-intends-to-turn-up-heat-for-greater-revenue-at-acc-spring-meetings-this-week/
LikeLike
There’s a lot of BS in that article.
FSU’s AD:
“I make no bones about it that we’re the top brand in the conference,” Alford said. “And when you look at how they measure media contracts, with households, viewership and championships, we’re driving that viewership for our conference at a high rate.
“There are a couple schools that are really driving that media contract.”
Maybe in the past, but Clemson is the top dog right now. When did FSU last challenge for a championship in football? That’s been part of the ACC’s problem.
Florida State officials have been unhappy with the ACC’s television contracts for more than a decade, but the issue reached critical mass this past year when industry projections showed that SEC schools will soon receive about $72 million per year — per school — and Big Ten schools will receive about $80 million.
Unhappy for more than a decade? They signed their deal in 2013, then extended it in 2016 in exchange for the ACCN. So they were disappointed with their TV deals before even signing them? Then why did they sign such a long GoR? They only have themselves to blame.
LikeLike
From TheAthletic
ACC realignment rumblings: 7 schools are examining the grant of rights. But can they leave?
By Nicole Auerbach May 15, 2023
The ACC’s annual spring meetings are underway in Amelia Island, Fla., and are expected to end by midday Wednesday. It’s the first time the league’s top administrators will gather in person since Florida State athletic director Michael Alford publicly lambasted the ACC’s current equal revenue sharing model and said “something has to change,” because FSU could not compete nationally if it falls $30 million behind its peers in the SEC and Big Ten on an annual basis.
Those comments, made in front of his board of trustees back in February, made waves nationally and were followed up by similar calls for consideration of uneven revenue sharing from his counterparts at Clemson, Miami and North Carolina.
Could the ACC ever adopt an unequal revenue sharing model?
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips has acknowledged the league’s position relative to the SEC and the Big Ten and has hired outside help to find new revenue streams for a conference locked in to its media rights deal through 2036. What it would cost to try to get out of the ACC before that time is unclear; the exit fee alone is $120 million and there is also the issue of breaking the ACC’s grant of rights, which has not been challenged to date and is presumed to be airtight by most.
Lawyers for a subset of schools have been thoroughly examining the document. One industry source said he was told that seven ACC schools are interested in exploring ways to leave the ACC.“If it were simple, everybody would have done it already,” an ACC source pointed out.
The GOR piece is important because the ACC would continue to own the broadcast rights of all of its teams’ home games, even if that team were to pay the exit fee and leave. Is there a dollar figure that a school could pay to get its rights back? Even if it is exorbitant, it could be worth paying to get to a league that will bring in $30 million more per member annually.
The ACC source said his expectation for this week’s meetings was to “advance the ball on revenue distribution changes,” though he acknowledged it wouldn’t close the gap for schools like Clemson and Florida State compared to schools in the Big Ten and SEC. It’s about incremental change and moving toward a system that rewards on-field (or on-court) success, he said. Some of the schools’ presidents are expected to be in Florida in person for their portion of the meetings; others will video conference in.
Tension among ACC schools has been a hot topic both inside and out of the league this offseason. The question has come up in nearly every conversation with any administrator in any league for weeks: When is one or more ACC schools going to challenge the ACC’s grant of rights? Could it be this summer? Next year? Or much closer to the end of the contract that runs through 2036? Everyone knows there are disgruntled members, led by Florida State and Clemson, but it’s not quite clear what would be required, legally and financially, to attempt to exit the ACC prior to 2036.
“There’s a big difference between saying you want to do something like that and actually executing it,” one league source said.
What was perhaps most interesting was the amount of attention paid to the ACC at another set of spring meetings — those that took place earlier this month in Scottsdale, Ariz. The Big 12 and Pac-12 formally met there, as they always do, and a good amount of Big Ten football coaches and athletic directors came out for a few days for the Fiesta Bowl-sponsored events (and vacation). There were agents, search firm representatives and other industry leaders networking there as well as reporters.
There was much speculation about the future of the ACC and what it could mean for the rest of major college athletics. Most of the administrators who spoke to The Athletic in Scottsdale were much more interested in the possibility of ACC floodgates being open — and what that could mean for the Big Ten and SEC, which will both be at 16 members as of 2024 — than they were about discussing the current standoff between the Pac-12 and the Big 12 over schools such as Colorado and Arizona.
If Florida State, Clemson, Virginia, North Carolina and Miami were to become available, that’s a real and major domino to fall in conference realignment. As one Big Ten source put it, “Those schools are where the real value is.”
That person was particularly interested in Virginia and North Carolina as new states and/or markets for the Big Ten to extend down the East Coast. This Big Ten source believes expansion out East makes far more sense than expanding into the Pacific Northwest, which has not had nearly enough support internally or among the league’s media partners since the idea was first broached.
University of Illinois chancellor Robert J. Jones told The Athletic last month that “there was no sense of urgency” for the league to expand beyond USC and UCLA.
“Are we thinking about (realignment)? Of course,” said Jones, the chair of the Big Ten’s Council of Presidents and Chancellors. “We’re doing analysis, the cost, the benefits of staying at 16 or moving up. It’s not something we’re going to do just to react to what other conferences may choose to do. We’re only going to do what’s best for our current membership, and there has to be some value added for expanding beyond.”
The SEC does not appear interested in going beyond 16 members anytime soon (though that could change if certain ACC schools became available), and the Big Ten, with new commissioner Tony Petitti, has said its main priority right now is determining how to integrate its two Los Angeles schools into the league. The Big Ten’s new media rights deals expire at the end of the decade, so perhaps the topic is tabled for a few years as the dust settles out west and the industry watches what happens with the ACC.
But someone (or someones) will have to challenge the ACC grant of rights to get out, and they wouldn’t want to do that unless they knew they had a landing spot in one of the two richest leagues. But they also can’t commit to one of those leagues without knowing for sure they can get out of the GOR. It’s a chicken-or-the-egg situation. As of now, the ACC schools are not available. Will it stay that way?
LikeLike
Maybe in the past, but Clemson is the top dog right now. When did FSU last challenge for a championship in football? That’s been part of the ACC’s problem.
If FSU and Clemson each revert to their historical strength — as college sports programs tend to do — then FSU is the brand you’d rather have. If you believe the current hierarchy is likely to persist, then Clemson is the brand you’d rather have. Obviously the FSU AD is thinking the former will happen.
Unhappy for more than a decade? They signed their deal in 2013, then extended it in 2016 in exchange for the ACCN. So they were disappointed with their TV deals before even signing them? Then why did they sign such a long GoR? They only have themselves to blame.
You could say that about all seven schools that are now agitating to get out of the GoR. I’ve said many times here that I think the ACC was swindled. But a bunch of sophisticated people with access to the best legal and business advice apparently fell for it, so I agree they’ve only themselves to blame.
The “unhappy for more than a decade” comment does not make sense at first. But perhaps it was hotly disputed within the FSU administration before they eventually signed, and the ones speaking up now are those who realized from the get-go that it was a bad deal.
It is hard to believe that nobody at these schools ever raised the possibility that locking up your rights for >20 years might not be the best idea. You see this in business all the time: when a deal goes bad, the naysayers are not shy about pointing out that they never agreed with it. The FSU people who agreed to sign in 2016 are probably not there anymore, or are keeping a very low profile.
LikeLike
Marc: “It is hard to believe that nobody at these schools ever raised the possibility that locking up your rights for >20 years might not be the best idea.”
That’s obviously true in retrospect but at the time, in 2016, the ACC schools were nearly hysterical to launch a conference network like the BTN. Their focus was on Keeping Up With The Joneses and Lookin’ Good Right Now. The consequences ten or twenty years later were secondary considerations at best.
LikeLike
Marc,
If FSU and Clemson each revert to their historical strength — as college sports programs tend to do — then FSU is the brand you’d rather have. If you believe the current hierarchy is likely to persist, then Clemson is the brand you’d rather have. Obviously the FSU AD is thinking the former will happen.
Sure, if/when they revert. I also agree I’d rather have FSU long term.
But that isn’t what the FSU AD said, he said they are currently the top brand. Not one of the top brands, but the top brand. That’s BS.
And if you add MBB to the equation, then it gets even trickier.
LikeLike
This frenzy of realignment hysteria by Wash, Oregon, FSU, Clemson etc is based solely upon how badly these schools want to get out of their pitiful TV media deals in the ACC and, when snake oil salesman George K finally gets exposed, the Pac-12.
Expansion frenzy is not reciprocal. As we all know, the Big Ten and SEC haven’t even winked about further expansion and this in itself speaks volumes. If an addition can’t be justified by an increase in revenue, the SEC and Big Ten have no incentive to dilute their brands.
LikeLike
UCF
LikeLike
NC State being involved in this is fascinating to me; it makes sense of course.
UNC and NC State having the same board makes me think that they may be as tied together as UCLA/Cal would have been if the UC board had prior notice of what was about to happen.
Feels like NC State is being a lot more proactive here (wisely).
Only landing spot that makes sense if both UNC and NC State are moving together is the SEC though…
LikeLike
I don’t think they have to go together so much as one shouldn’t get left behind and the rivalry must be continued. I doubt their board would object to one in the SEC and one in the B10 from a financial perspective, for example.
The B10 seems unlikely to add NCSU, but their academics are probably better than NE’s. If it’s the price to add UNC, the B10 might consider it. Personally, I don’t think the B10 will ever stretch into NC. Maybe UVA (and would they consider VT to get UVA?), but NC is too southern.
LikeLike
North Carolina isn’t as southern as you think. Northern transplants have been flooding there for the better part of 3 decades and the local population has much more distain for the gulf states then it does for the north and midwest.
Just looking at those 7 schools, it makes some sense that Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech and NC State head to the SEC and UNC, UVA and Miami head to the Big Ten with the Big Ten hoping Notre Dame is the 20th. If Notre Dame still baulks, then the Big Ten can just grab Duke or Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
Just looking at those 7 schools, it makes some sense that Clemson, FSU, Virginia Tech and NC State head to the SEC and UNC, UVA and Miami head to the Big Ten with the Big Ten hoping Notre Dame is the 20th. If Notre Dame still baulks, then the Big Ten can just grab Duke or Georgia Tech.
How does that make sense? You are suggesting the SEC and B1G would each add four more schools, which would almost certainly be financially dilutive. While there is probably some combination of those schools that the two leagues would be interested in, I don’t think there are 8 or 10 of them.
LikeLike
Outside of Notre Dame, just about every other school is going to be dilutive so expansion will be for demographics. North Carolina and Virginia are states with big populations not in either the SEC or the Big Ten footprint. The Big Ten doesn’t want to get locked out of Florida like they did Texas. If anything you may be right that FSU and Clemson may have little value to the SEC except maybe keeping the Big Ten out of those states.
College athletics are the marketing department for universities. They bring is donations and attract prospective students for whom the university can turn into future donors. The ACC brands will dilute the TV money payout but it would be worth it to the conferences to get their product in front of future students/donors.
LikeLike
Old Andy Staples column Jul 7, 2022 Some cherry-picked comments of interest of which I was previously unaware.
So let’s say that some highly paid attorney at one of the schools found a magic bullet that would disable the grant of rights. Who would be in demand?
North Carolina is the largest state by population that doesn’t contain a Big Ten or SEC team, and the state continues to grow fast.
What, you ask, is the next-largest state that doesn’t contain a Big Ten or SEC school? It’s Virginia.. Virginia isn’t as big a TV draw as in-state rival Virginia Tech, but like most of the Big Ten schools and recent SEC addition Texas, it’s an academically prestigious flagship school in a large state.
Miami, meanwhile, is another academically strong school with a bankable football brand. Historically, the Hurricanes have done that when they’re good. When they aren’t, the ratings are pretty average.
The Big Ten put out feelers to Georgia Tech before the expansion that wound up with the addition of Nebraska, and it’s conceivable the league might want to plant a flag in Atlanta.
Clemson, meanwhile, is an SEC school in every way except conference affiliation.
Florida State turned down the SEC in the 1990s when that league added Arkansas and South Carolina.
I mentioned Virginia Tech earlier, and while smarter people than me keep telling me the SEC would want Virginia, the Hokies feel like a better cultural fit.
What if North Carolina were blocked from leaving NC State behind and joining the Big Ten? Would the SEC be willing to offer membership to both?
LikeLike
psuhockey,
“North Carolina isn’t as southern as you think.”
I’ll agree to disagree. The state is still very southern.
“Northern transplants have been flooding there for the better part of 3 decades and the local population has much more distain for the gulf states then it does for the north and midwest.”
Yes, that’s one reason why UNC would prefer the ACC to survive. But if forced to choose, a lot of rich old boosters (those who can pressure the president) will lean to the south. The transplants tend to be younger, and have less influence.
LikeLike
“Yes, that’s one reason why UNC would prefer the ACC to survive. But if forced to choose, a lot of rich old boosters (those who can pressure the president) will lean to the south. The transplants tend to be younger, and have less influence.”
I agree that UNC would prefer the ACC to survive but what is your argument for old rich boosters choosing the SEC over the Big Ten? Is it the southern roots? Because that’s really the only thing the SEC has over the Big Ten as far as UNC is concerned. UNC sponsors 28 varsity sports many of which the SEC does not that are very important to boosters such as Mens Soccer and Lacrosse. Then there is the superior academic reputation of the Big Ten versus the SEC. This isn’t the case where Texas is a football school and wanting to be the best football conference against their long standing rivals. UNC is a basketball school and if anything its a wash between the SEC and Big Ten in mens basketball. Does southern identity trump academic prestige and finding a home for their important nonrevenue sports?
LikeLike
psuhockey,
“I agree that UNC would prefer the ACC to survive but what is your argument for old rich boosters choosing the SEC over the Big Ten? Is it the southern roots? Because that’s really the only thing the SEC has over the Big Ten as far as UNC is concerned.”
It’s primarily the southern roots, but that encompasses many things. Culture, sure, but also geographic proximity (less travel) and importance of certain sports (like baseball). It’s also school size (UNC is 30.1k – above average in the ACC, close to the median in the SEC, near the bottom of the B10).
“UNC sponsors 28 varsity sports many of which the SEC does not that are very important to boosters such as Mens Soccer and Lacrosse.”
SEC schools compete in outside conferences in several sports which the SEC itself doesn’t sponsor, and the B10 doesn’t sponsor all the same sports as NC either. Only 5 ACC schools play men’s lacrosse (10 women’s teams), and we both agree they are happy there.
“Then there is the superior academic reputation of the Big Ten versus the SEC.”
Yes, but the SEC has added UT, TAMU and MO recently to improve that. UF is already a strong school, and others like UGA are improving. The ACC includes the like of UL, and UNC is happy there. If UNC and some other strong ACC schools join the SEC, the boosters will be fine with that. The academics will prefer the B10, but they don’t have the sway that the donors do.
“This isn’t the case where Texas is a football school and wanting to be the best football conference against their long standing rivals. UNC is a basketball school and if anything its a wash between the SEC and Big Ten in mens basketball.”
B12, here they come.
“Does southern identity trump academic prestige and finding a home for their important nonrevenue sports?”
For many donors, yes. They can always find a lacrosse conference. The ACC doesn’t even have an autobid to the NCAA tournament for MLAX, so it’s really just a scheduling arrangement. There are plenty of landing spots for them. The same is true for soccer. Hoops is the sport that really matters, and they’d rather be in the ACC than anywhere else. But playing UK would go over well.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37657287/peacock-exclusively-carry-nfl-playoff-game
The NFL is putting a playoff game solely on Peacock, with NBC paying $110M for it. The CFP should play the NCG on top of it instead of on the prior Monday.
The Peacock exclusive game Jan. 13 will start at 8:15 or 8:30 p.m. ET. The game will be broadcast on NBC stations in the markets of the two teams. It will also be available on mobile devices through the NFL+ package. It will be preceded by a late afternoon playoff game on NBC and Peacock that will kick off at 4:30 p.m. ET.
LikeLike
An ASU beat reporter has some quotes from the AD:
* AD expects the new TV deal in July or August
* Expansion could happen quickly after that
* ASU has not considered joining any other conferences
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/4521787/2023/05/15/acc-realignment-grant-of-rights/?source=emp_shared_article
With all the current ACC turmoil, it puts future B10 expansion in a slightly different light. Nicole Auerbach has a B10 source saying the B10 would rather expand east than west if it expands again.
If Florida State, Clemson, Virginia, North Carolina and Miami were to become available, that’s a real and major domino to fall in conference realignment. As one Big Ten source put it, “Those schools are where the real value is.”
That person was particularly interested in Virginia and North Carolina as new states and/or markets for the Big Ten to extend down the East Coast. This Big Ten source believes expansion out East makes far more sense than expanding into the Pacific Northwest, which has not had nearly enough support internally or among the league’s media partners since the idea was first broached.
I agree there is more potential money available from adding FL, NC or even VA compared to WA and OR.
2. FL – 22.2M residents
9, NC – 10.7M
12. VA – 8.7M
13. WA – 7.8M
27. OR – 4.2M
The strength of UW’s and UO’s brands in their states compared to UNC’s and UVA’s in their states helps reduce the gap, but there are still more eyeballs available in the east. Then add in the easier travel for most of the B10 and chance to add part of FL and it seems clear.
But if the GOR holds and the P12 falls apart, that could shift focus back to getting UW and UO at a discount for a few years.
LikeLike
Brian, it is internet forum fantasy. There is no incentive for either the B1G nor the SEC to expand. How badly these ACC/Pac schools want out of their conferences is no indication of if the B1G and SEC want them in.
LikeLike
It is internet forum fantasy. There is no incentive for either the B1G nor the SEC to expand.
You seem to be randomly selective about which rumors you deem fantasy and which ones you uncritically repeat as if they were true.
LikeLike
Marc, you are confused. I am posting these internet fantasy realignment rumors for the mutual interest of FTT Tankers. Lord only knows what the M3 will do, especially the B12.
My longtime position remains steadfast and clear. One more time: Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC will expand again during our lifetimes. PERIOD.
LikeLike
Two-thirds of Americans live east of the Mississippi. But the PAC play most of their games on the west coast and late at night when people in the east are in bed. This means the PAC schools have substantially less value to TV networks. But if a PAC school is in an eastern conference, especially the B1G or SEC, as USC and Ucla will be, it gets almost the same TV exposure and audience as does any eastern school. So PAC schools are worth a lot more in the B1G/ SEC than they are in the PAC, maybe as much as $60 M per school vs $25 M.
ThE discount doesn’t have to be all that much to justify UW and UO membership, and it will be temporary.
LikeLike
bob,
Yes the increased exposure boosts the P12 schools’ value. But that’s also true for the ACC schools, who have a lot more games against large brands than they do in the ACC. And the ACC schools can play in the noon slot more easily, while the P12 schools add the partial-value 4th window.
Competing rumors average out to UW and UO being roughly revenue neutral for the B10. But they definitely increase travel costs and time lost for athletes traveling, in addition to their opportunity costs. The B10 has only expanded to make significantly more money so far, so the discount would need to be substantial to justify this. The ACC schools have similar opportunity costs, but offer less travel and better demographics.
The B10 would have to have a specific desire that the P12 schools fill to justify them – adding western rivals at the request of USC & UCLA, appeasing TV partners, better access to key alumni, making more money than other options, etc.
LikeLike
David Hale, a sports reporter from NC, has an ACC AD saying this is all crap, and also that they are close to an unequal revenue split for postseason money.
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/article/florida-state-staying-in-acc-new-revenue-distribution-model-210347859/
FSU’s AD also says the news has been blown out of proportion.
The ACC is progressing toward adopting a new weighted revenue distribution model that is expected to keep its largest football powers happy and committed as members of the conference.
Conference administrators identified several workable models Tuesday during its spring meetings at the Ritz-Carlton in Amelia Island, Florida. The models are centered on merit-based rewards that would provide programs a bigger share of the conference’s annual revenue based on their postseason success, particularly in football and basketball. Top-tier members could earn an additional $10 million or more in revenue, Florida State athletics director Michael Alford told 247Sports. (note by me: I think this is assuming the new CFP bringing in a lot of extra money, or else +$10M would be hard to find)
The ACC paid an average of $36.1 million to each team in the 2021 fiscal year. The baseline share for programs would not drop year to year in a new model.
…
“I think some of that — a lot of that is overblown,” Alford said. “The future of the ACC, in that room, we’re together, and we’re coming up with a lot of solutions with one another.”
Alford termed the exploratory treks to the ACC’s headquarters as “due diligence” in the wake of the massive realignment waves made over the last two summers in the other four Power Five conferences. Nearly every program in the ACC has studied the league’s grant of rights over the last two years, sources tell 247Sports.
Alford reiterated Tuesday FSU is “very thrilled to be in this league and we want to stay.”
…
Alford believes the ACC’s weighted distribution model could evolve year to year.” We’re going to continue to tweak it and look at what we can do to grow it,” he said.
Additional money in a merit-based system would come from payouts from the NCAA Tournament and College Football Playoff. The CFP pays conferences $6 million for each team selected in the four-team playoff and $4 million for each team in the New Year’s Six. That money is currently evenly distributed to all teams in the ACC. New financial details when the playoff expands to 12 teams have not yet been finalized.
The NCAA’s basketball fund sets aside money from its massive March Madness television deal, and rewards units to conferences based on postseason success. The ACC learned in 2022 it would be paid roughly $36.4 million over the next six years, which it would distribute evenly to all members, according to Sportico.
One idea is to provide more television revenue to teams that drive viewership in the conference, though that idea has not gained traction. “One bridge at a time,” he said.
So how long before the top earners try to cross that bridge, too?
LikeLike
ACC Spring Meetings – HILARIOUS!
https://fansided.com/2023/05/16/acc-spring-meeting-drama-jim-phillips/
https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs-football/sec-acc-greg-sankey-carolina-clemson-virginia-miami-florida-realignment-razorbacks
https://www.si.com/college/pittsburgh/news/acc-uneven-revenue-sharing-spring-meetings
LikeLike
https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel-babcock-says-vt-moving-forward-with-acc-but-has-explored-potential-options/article_81175fea-f416-11ed-b385-d3c7ffcc2fc4.html
David Teel interviewed the VT AD.
Babcock confirmed that he and colleagues from the six other schools McMurphy mentioned have discussed possible options.
“I would classify it as a number of conversations,” Babcock told The Times-Dispatch, “usually in small groups, on interpretations of grant of rights, of bylaws of the league, of options that may be out there. But as you know, the grant of rights has been looked at a lot of times by a lot of people.”
Virginia AD Carla Williams politely declined an interview request, joking that “Whit speaks for both us.”
Babcock said the conversations weren’t as organized as many interpreted Monday and that several included subsets of the seven. Topics included not only the grant of rights, but also ACC bylaws to ascertain what is required to change the revenue-sharing formula — at least 10 of 15 presidents must approve.
Realignment chatter “does make everybody paranoid and jumpy and consider trust,” Babcock said. “I absolutely feel for my colleagues (Monday) that were blindsided, and if the commissioner (Jim Phillips) was, him as well. These jobs are hard enough without something knocking you upside the head. …
“There was probably a number of things said yesterday that needed to be said. I think the commissioner did a great job with it. You’ve got 15 schools and 15 different approaches. After the initial shock of some of the news reported, I think it was productive after that.
“I think it was less than ideal that it came out, but it’s been a catalyst for some real conversation and maybe getting to things a little faster that we’ve been working on as the ACC.”
…
The AD room now hones in on straying from the ACC’s decades-old policy of equal revenue distributions. The most likely model would earmark new television dollars from the expanded College Football Playoff for the conference’s leading football and men’s basketball programs.
That metric would be based on success moving forward and not at all on television ratings, which fluctuate wildly based on network designation, kickoff time and opponent.
“Do we think that will close the gap that everyone incessantly talks about?” Babcock said. “Not all the way, but making strides toward that, keeping in contact financially with the Big Ten and SEC and hopefully become a clear-cut third (among the Power Five) and separate out from the (Pac-12 and Big 12).”
Babcock professed confidence in the revenue consultants from Fishbait Solutions hired by the ACC to further monetize the ACC Network, and in Phillips’ ability to navigate a minefield he couldn’t have envisioned when he succeeded John Swofford two-plus years ago.
LikeLike
Stunning announcement. Gift article from WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/espn-lays-plans-to-stream-flagship-channel-
eyeing-cable-tvs-demise-ad0fb727?st=mo4wc2cydqqs419&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://www.wsj.com/articles/espn-lays-plans-to-stream-flagship-channel-eyeing-cable-tvs-demise-ad0fb727?st=u8k6xh4odu3w62b&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37677043/pac-12-provide-enhanced-access-college-football-broadcasts
This may be a way for the P12 to get a little more money – they will provide increased in-game access. The B12 is also looking to do this, and probably the ACC will follow.
The Pac-12 will provide enhanced in-game and pregame access during broadcasts of college football games this fall, including in-game head coach interviews and having select coaches and players wear mics during pregame activities, ESPN learned Thursday.
With the support of the conference’s head coaches, the Pac-12 board of directors developed the initiatives alongside ESPN and Fox Sports and approved them during the league’s recent Spring Council meetings. An announcement is expected later Thursday.
The conference will also allow for cameras in the coaches’ booth without sound, extended handheld camera permission, and pregame and halftime locker room camera access. The additional content will be implemented throughout Pac-12 games on ESPN, Fox Sports and Pac-12 Networks.
LikeLike
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/college-football-enquirer/id1423417914?i=1000613123488
The College Football Enquirer podcast (Dan Wetzel, Pat Forde, Ross Dellenger) discusses the recent news relevant to realignment.
Some tidbits:
* FOX doesn’t want to blow up the Pac-12
* It would’ve taken at least $200M annually to add UW and UO
* USC wants themselves and UCLA to be the only schools out west
LikeLike
Two paragraphs about the Pac-12 media deal. It appears the SMU lunatics have been returned to their cages. From a long article in TheAthletic:
The league still plans to finish its media rights negotiations before adding any members. It is highly unlikely the Pac-12 would add more than two schools to backfill after USC and UCLA depart for the Big Ten in 2024, Pac-12 sources said. It is also possible the league opts to stay at 10 members (assuming it fends off overtures from the Big 12) or adds just one new member and operates as an 11-team league, much like the Big Ten did after it added Penn State.
Tne important date — not exactly a deadline per se, but a key marker — is June 30, 2023. If San Diego State were to try to leave the Mountain West after that date to join the Pac-12 for the summer of 2024, its exit fee (of about $17 million) would triple. So either the Pac-12 will make its long-awaited decision on the Aztecs by June 30, or the earliest San Diego State could compete in the Pac-12 would be fall 2025.
LikeLike
It appears the SMU lunatics have been returned to their cages.
I didn’t glean that from this article. Specifically, it did not say that any better candidate than SMU has emerged as a good 12th school. So the only way SMU doesn’t get added is if they don’t go to 12.
The article mentioned 11 as a possibility, though I would be very surprised if they did that — there are so many problems with 11 that you don’t have with 10 or 12. I am pretty sure no league has voluntarily expanded to odd numbers in the CCG era. In a few cases, leagues have taken an obviously less desirable member to get back to even, which is what SMU would be.
I’d sooner believe they stay at 10 than believe they add SDSU alone.
LikeLike
Brian, do not tell anyone about those last two points.
The story that USC/UCLA do not want any additional west coast teams has been there since day 1. They love the recruiting advantage it will give them when any PAC schools comes to Southern CA to recruit.
Of course, the hot rumors continue to be that the B1G has to add at least two more and probably four more PAC schools so that the LA two will not be on an island. What if they like their island?
Another thing that I have never seen any of those PAC expansions stories is the extra travel for the 14 existing B1G schools. It is odd how this seems to be irrelevant to those who are signing up WA/OR any day now.
As far as the $200 million, it is not clear if the entire 10 team league will get $300 million, so how do 2 schools come even close to $200
LikeLike
The story that USC/UCLA do not want any additional west coast teams has been there since day 1.
Yes it has, but so has the story that the Big Ten was actively evaluating WA and OR. I don’t give either rumor much credibility. For one thing, it’s not clear if they much new information or are just repeating what was said originally. Repeating the same old thing doesn’t make it more true.
As far as the $200 million, it is not clear if the entire 10 team league will get $300 million, so how do 2 schools come even close to $200.
Since this is another unsourced rumor, I don’t believe the number. If that number ever was floated, it was by someone who didn’t want to expand. One of the best ways to stop something is to quote a price that you know cannot be met.
LikeLike
There was truth to the add WA/OR story under Commissioner Warren. Of course, the schools in the B1G did not agree.
I believe that all of the rumors since that time have their genesis from the Warren attempt. That includes the statement that WA/OR have been vetted. It was very public that OR was travelling to meet with B1G people. WA was probably doing it quietly. They probably have both been fully vetted – and rejected.
Numerous schools have come out strongly against any expansion until at least after USC/UCLA have been fully “digested”. Others have even been more strongly against expansion unless the new school immediately not only pays for itself, but is additive to the rest of the league.
For a while, the B1G was just waiting for a new commissioner to add PAC schools. Maybe not.
Several years from now, things could be different.
LikeLike
https://www.thehour.com/sports/uconn/article/david-benedict-big-east-big-12-18104155.php
Would UConn accept an offer to join the B12? Maybe, maybe not says their AD.
“That’s a complicated question because it’s not as clear for various reasons,” Benedict said Wednesday afternoon. “There’s no one that can argue that the decision to go to the Big East has not played out in a very positive way, and not just with respect to our men’s basketball program. It’s been a great move for us in many, many ways.”
…
“So would you consider giving that up?” Benedict said. “And, if so, why would you give that up? The dialogue and the commentary out there, I totally appreciate and understand people’s opinions. Where they’re emotionally tied is probably evident when you see what people say and what their opinions are. But, obviously, we look at it with a different lens, internally, and there are a lot of factors you have to consider.”
…
“At this point in time, I’m not aware of a decision in front of me that I have to make,” Benedict said. “So what’s going to happen two days from now, two weeks from now, a month from now, six months from now, is anyone’s guess. There’s a lot of posturing that’s going on around the country. There are a lot of conversations. But, ultimately, until you have to make a decision, you don’t know and that’s not where we currently are.”
…
“I don’t think money guarantees success,” Benedict said. “I think you can look around the country and identify programs in those conferences that aren’t winning national championships or are competitive at that level. In some cases, members of [Power Five] conferences are still losing a lot of money on an annual basis, even though they’re getting five times more than we are. So it is not a direct or the only correlative factor in demonstrated success or future success. It certainly can help offset the financial piece. But I would have no interest in going into a situation — this is me, personally, speaking — where you’re going to get more money but you’re not going to be competitive in anything. That is not attractive to me, at all. And that certainly was a factor in making the move back to the Big East.”
…
“It’s complicated,” Benedict said. “There are no guarantees. Everyone can play Monday morning quarterback and say, ‘Has this really worked out for this school that left that conference and is now in another conference?’ Is it really about the conference? Is it about the coaches? Is it a combination of things? I think it’s very dynamic and complex. And I don’t think it’s ever going to change. While there’s a lot of conversation around things right now, it doesn’t mean that next year or the year after or five years from now there won’t continue to be.”
…
“Re-alignment is going to continue to be constant,” Benedict said. “It always has, going back however long you want to go. It seems like there’s always an institution or two that are moving around. Obviously, this seems to be more significant, what’s being discussed right now relative to multiple conferences at the power level, if you want to refer to it that way, that are having serious conversations about their own conference makeup and just how they’re managing trying to keep up with the Big Ten and the SEC.
“So that’s creating challenges. How we fit into it, long term, I couldn’t tell you. Certainly if you take a step back, the fact that we’re in the conversation only means that we would be a desirable member for a potential conference. So I think that’s all positive. The alternative is, no one is talking about you, which means you’re really not desirable for any reason.”
LikeLike
He does a very good job of NOT tipping which way they’d go. Ultimately, it’s hard for me to believe they’d turn down Big XII money, but it’s possible. UConn is the only FBS school I know of that made a re-alignment decision primarily for basketball, which makes them conceivably the only school that’d consider turning down a P5 invitation for the same reason.
LikeLike
The UConn athletic program is and has been in financial trouble for a while. It was reported that the UConn Board of trustees (or whatever) said a couple of years ago that football would be given 5 years before a decision was made whether to continue to accept the financial cost.
When they moved from the AAC to the Big East, their payout for basketball alone was more than the AAC was paying to full members.
A move to the Big 12 would mean about a $30 million or more annual increase. Obviously offset by geographic issues, since UConn is literally a fairly short drive (less than 3 hours or so) from several Big East schools. UConn really does fit in the BE, except for the financial issues with football.
I agree that it is not clear whether they would accept an offer from a bunch of schools with which they have no connection at all – except that WVa and Cincy were opponents in the old BE. Neither of those schools have any cultural connection with UConn, though they did play.
I have not looked at UConn or State of CT newspapers or sources, but I would imagine most fans would still like to wind up in a P5 conference. They have been desperate for years to get into the ACC or the B1G. The Big 12 did not seem to fit.
LikeLike
It would be an odd fit to travel that much, but the extra money would more than cover it. The question may be how much the state interferes in the decision. CT owns the football stadium and forces UConn to play all their games there rather than renovate their old on-campus stadium, so its clear the state is willing to interfere in athletics decisions.
LikeLike
I think the stadium situation was different. As I recall, UConn wanted to move up to FBS, but their old stadium would’ve been inadequate. They gladly accepted state help, but the state wanted the new stadium in Hartford, as UConn’s primary campus town of Storrs is an out-of-the-way backwater.
UConn was formerly in the habit of moving certain home games to neutral sites because its old stadium in Storrs was so tiny. The state said, “if we’re going to build you an FBS-size stadium, you have to actually play there. You can’t move your best home games out-of-state.” UConn didn’t have to take the deal, but there was no better option out there.
I don’t think this tells us much about what the state would do if UConn were considering a Big XII offer.
LikeLike
Marc,
The state was trying to get the Patriots to share a stadium with UConn in Hartford itself, but that fell through and they built a smaller stadium in East Hartford instead. UConn needed something larger to play I-A, so they needed state help.
But the new place only holds 40k, so of course they’d want to move a big game to a larger stadium and sell more tickets. But their lease doesn’t allow it. UConn is losing $40M per year on sports, and the state is charging them a lot of rent. They could make up some of that by moving a game. And now the stadium needs millions in renovations, which the state has to pay for but only approved some of the funds.
You say UConn didn’t have to say yes, but they are run by the state and funded by the state. Did they really have a choice?
I’m not saying the government will intervene, but they might. And that could be in either direction – they could push UConn to say yes, or they could push UConn to say no.
https://www.ctinsider.com/sports/article/UConn-football-home-Rentschler-Field-needs-17446504.php
UConn leases the field through the Office of Policy and Management, which owns the building. The school pays $172,000 in rent per game along with a $3 surcharge per ticket and is obligated to pay the first $250,000 of operating losses each year. The remainder of losses are covered by the state’s general fund.
The CRDA estimates UConn needs to draw 20,000 people or so each game for the stadium to break even. That’s 20,000 through the turnstiles and not simply the tickets distributed and sold, because so much revenue is based on parking fees, along with food and concession sales.
LikeLike
From TheAthletic
National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against NCAA, Pac-12 and USC
By Chris Vannini May 18, 2023
The National Labor Relations Board issued a formal complaint against the NCAA, Pac-12 Conference and USC over unfair labor practices Thursday, an expected but formal step toward the possibility of some college athletes being deemed employees. A hearing on Nov. 7 will put lawyers for the three parties and the NLRB before an administrative law judge.
In February, the National College Players Association filed an unfair labor practice charge to the NLRB against the NCAA, Pac-12 and USC as joint employers of FBS football players, men’s basketball players and women’s basketball players. The NCPA is an advocacy group led by former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma, who previously helped Northwestern players push to form a union in 2015. That was eventually dismissed by the NLRB. The NCPA also pushed for NIL state laws, which began in California.
“This process will prove that these athletes are employees under labor law and are entitled to all rights and protections afforded to other employees in America,” Huma said in a statement Thursday. “The NCPA will continue to fight to ensure college athletes have equal rights.”
The NCAA continues to state that athletes should not be employees and has been lobbying Congress for a federal law that designates them as non-employees.
The NLRB only holds jurisdiction over the private sector — hence USC without UCLA — but NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s decision to pursue the NCAA and conferences as joint employers could open the possibility that public school players are granted the right to unionize as well.
In a statement later Thursday, the Pac-12 said it “strongly disagrees with the complaint issued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, which alleges that the students at the University of Southern California who play football and basketball should be treated as employees, and not students.”
“The General Counsel’s allegations are completely at odds with decades of established law and, more importantly, if accepted by the NLRB and the courts, would have a profound and negative impact on college sports and the many student-athletes in our Conference,” the conference added.
The next step is November’s hearing. If an administrative law judge determines that the NCAA, Pac-12 and USC violated labor practices, it would likely lead to an appeal, requiring the NLRB board to determine if those football and basketball players are employees. A resolution remains many months away.
LikeLike
David Hale with a long thread on the ACC’s options. Its worth your time.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this Mike.
A few highlights from the 37 tweets:
Based on my reporting, there are 5 options:
1) everyone waits until 2036-ish
2) ND joins or other expansion
3) ESPN renegotiates
4) The league is dissolved
5) School(s) fight GoR in court
…
What about other expansion options? ACC has looked at a few, including Oregon, Washington, SMU and West Virginia. From what I’ve been told, the $$ just aren’t there. I can explain why but honestly, you don’t want to hear the TV minutiae.
…
But let’s indulge the idea. As noted, the B12 isn’t more $ and no more than maybe 5 schools are likely to have an SEC/B1G invite (and maybe not that many). So why would they blow up the ACC now? Answer: They wouldn’t. An AD from The 7 on this plan: “Completely absurd.”
…
I’ve talked to a few folks w/firsthand knowledge who feel they could put together a “compelling” legal case… but if they thought it was an easy winner, it’d have happened already & to leave w/o legal release from the GoR would be impossible for an ACC team.
…
So now what? Options 1-4 have a close to 0% chance of happening & Option 5 is expensive & risky. All this should help explain why a) schools are considering absolutely anything and b) nothing has happened yet. But maybe there’s another option, too…
(his other option = a bunch of small things adding up to maybe +$10M)
…
Best guess is we’ll get to Option 5 & a court case eventually. Maybe in a couple years when the pinch of revenue gap is really felt. Maybe if courts rule players = employees. Maybe approaching NEXT round of TV in 2029/30. But as I said at the start: There is NO EASY ANSWER.
…
One last thing I’ll add here for context: Coaches and ADs don’t make decisions on things like realignment. School presidents and chancellors do. And many of them are not a fraction as invested in athletics as fans on Twitter are.
…
The bottom line here is there is ZERO incentive — NONE, NADA, ZERO — for any ACC schools to make someone else’s path to more money easier by leaving for the Big 12 or any other non-SEC/B1G school. And also, the schools left behind would sue, sue, sue (sudio).
LikeLike
Brian: “Best guess is we’ll get to Option 5 & a court case eventually.”
My best guess is that the ACC will stay at Option 1 and wait until the GOR expires in 2036. Former U of Oklahoma David Boren conveyed it best when he dangled handcuffs in response to questions about the B12 GOR.
LikeLike
My guess is they will agree on some kind of unequal revenue sharing that will come out of the increased playoff money. This means no school will get less than they’re getting now, but those that reach the playoff will get more. This is the easiest proposal for the “have-nots” to swallow because it doesn’t take anything away from them. Getting the bottom feeders to accept less than they get today would be a really tough sell.
Beyond that I agree with Colin…the best guess is that nothing else happens until the mid-2030s. The David Hale tweetstorm did a pretty good job of illustrating why all of the other options are worse.
Hale suggests there’ll ultimately be a lawsuit trying to invalidate the GoR. But this legal strategy has never been tried before and carries a lot of risks. No lawyer I’ve heard of has mapped out a clear path to victory. If there were an obvious way to do it, it would’ve been done already.
LikeLike
The ACC is an ESPN asset, and it behooves the netwoek to protect that asset and invest in it. It does ESPN no good to allow ACC football and basketball to waste away, because the schools don’t have enough income to compete with the B1G/SEC for talent.
All the drama goes away and the ACC survives, if ESPN renegotiates the deal, as they should and most likely will. But why the delay?
LikeLike
All the drama goes away and the ACC survives, if ESPN renegotiates the deal, as they should and most likely will. But why the delay?
Multiple reports recently have stated that negotiations have so far been fruitless. Why is that?
Well for one thing, as the lengthy tweetstorm showed, the ACC has trailed the SEC in revenue for years. Despite that, they have still won championships and had more playoff success than even the Big Ten. So perhaps there isn’t any great urgency to start throwing money at them, especially as they have no other good options.
If you are ESPN, you’re clearly not going to give them SEC money. So how much do you give, exactly, and how do you demonstrate return on that investment? After it gets split 14 ways, how much of a competitive difference would that make? If the ACC wins more championships, it likely comes at the SEC’s expense—and the SEC is an ESPN property too. Or, are you just giving money away that hurts your bottom line and just makes Syracuse and Boston College happier?
This was a deal that two sophisticated and well lawyered parties thought was fair at the time. Maybe in hindsight ESPN got the better end of it, but deals usually can’t be amended just because one side has remorse. And once that precedent has been set, how do they say “no” when the SEC and/or the Big XII want the same thing?
LikeLike
Because the ACC is getting fair market value right now, and the long deal was the price they agreed to pay to get a network? Disney told them they needed 20 years to justify the upfront costs.
Look at the FY22 revenue numbers below. The ACC is #3 in total revenue, #4 per school, and are only $10M (20%) behind the SEC per school. All their protestations of doom and gloom are based on looking forward at once the B10 and SEC are on their new deals. But while the B10’s new deal may average over $70M/year, it will start in the low to mid-60s so the gap will slowly grow rather than jumping to $30M/year.
LikeLike
Matt Brown on UConn’s Options. (FreeArticle)
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/uconn-interesting-program-country
LikeLike
Lots of talk about UConn’s options; less talk about the Big XII’s.
If the Big XII could get the Four Corners today — I’m not saying they can — they’d surely take them and call it a day. They’d have 16 members, eight of whom would be new. That’s as much as any sane conference can absorb at once. And relative to the 4C’s, UConn is almost certainly dilutive.
But if the 4C’s re-up with the Pac-12, does the Big XII wait it out for the next cycle, or do they take the two or four best expansion candidates available today? The Big XII is faced with the same law of large numbers as the Big Ten: grabbing more schools immediately precludes potentially better options that might be available in a few years.
Most of the value in the Big XII’s deal (like every other P5 conference) is in football, and UConn football adds very little. UConn has not had a 10-win season since they joined FBS. They haven’t had a winning season since 2010. Last year, they eked out a 6-6 regular season, but that was on a schedule with just four P5 opponents, against whom they went 1-3 (the lone victory coming against the hapless BC Eagles).
In the Big XII they’d likely have the kind of “success” Rutgers has had in the Big Ten. Or perhaps not even that good.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/highschool/2023/05/17/high-school-basketball-eliminates-1-and-1-free-throws/70227867007/
The 1 and 1 (free throws) is going away from HS hoops, like it apparently has everywhere else but men’s college hoops.
According to a release posted Monday on the National Federation of State High School Associations website, the basketball rules committee approved changes to the “bonus” rules at its annual meeting last month. “The recommendations were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors,” the release said.
Teams will now shoot two free throws for common fouls when in the “bonus,” and will reach the bonus when their opponent commits five fouls in a quarter, the release said. Team fouls will reset each quarter instead of each half.
Previously, teams shot one-and-one free throws when their opponents committed seven fouls in a half, and two free throws when 10 fouls were committed each half.
“The rules committee studied data that showed higher injury rates on rebounding situations and saw this as an opportunity to reduce opportunities for rough play during rebounds,” Lindsey Atkinson, NFHS Director of Sports and liaison to the basketball rules committee said in the release. “Additionally, resetting the fouls each quarter will improve game flow and allow teams to adjust their play by not carrying foul totals to quarters two and four.”
The high school basketball bonus rules now match the rules used in the NBA, WNBA and NCAA women’s basketball. NCAA men’s college basketball still uses the rules previously used in high school basketball.
LikeLike
All basketball fouls should result in one free throw and an uncontested in-bounds for the team that was fouled. That would immediately stop all of the intentional foul nonsense that we see at the end of games.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/05/19/power-5-conferences-earnings-billions-2022/70235450007/
P5 revenue in FY22.
The Power Five conferences combined for more than $3.3 billion in revenue during their 2022 fiscal years, their new federal tax records show. That represents an expected recovery from a pandemic-related decrease in 2021, but it also leaves the conferences short of where they would have been had their revenues kept increasing at an average annual rate that they had established before the COVID-19 pandemic.
…
In fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019, the Power Five conferences’ combined revenues increased by an annual average of about 8.4%. Had they maintained that for 2020, 2021 and 2022, the fiscal 2022 figure projected to be just over $3.7 billion.
…
B10 – $845.6M = $58.8M/school*
SEC – $802M = $49.9M/school (down from 2021 due to an advance)
ACC – $617M = $37.9-41.3M/school
B12 – $480.6M = $42-44.9M/school
P12 – $580.9M = $37M/school**
* Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers … each received several million less, the conference said, because of distribution of revenue from the Big Ten Network that was earned before they became entitled to full shares.
Also, UMD and RU moved some money around in time so that also impacts their numbers.
** This is before they amend their filings to reflect the $50M overpayment by Comcast
About the B10:
The conference said in a statement that under its existing TV deals, revenue has been designed to increase by 2% to 3% each year, so it seems safe to anticipate that its revenue for fiscal 2023 will be at least $870 million and that per-school payouts will be at least $60 million.
But new television agreements with Fox, NBC and CBS begin July 1. Southern California and UCLA are set to join the conference for the 2024-25 school year. While the SEC’s revenue also likely will take off with Texas and Oklahoma joining that year, figure the Big Ten’s to do the same.
LikeLike
In 2 years we’ll start to see the interesting numbers, as the new B10 deal shows up in FY24 and the B12 +4. Then the B10 with 16 and the SEC with 16 will show up in FY25, plus the expanded CFP. Then we’ll really see how various conferences will stack up financially.
LikeLike
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/acc-sets-record-for-revenue-again-distributes-more-than-40m-to-members/20869926/
This article gives a useful revenue breakdown for the ACC.
The ACC’s total revenue was up 8.3% from its previous high of $579.3 million in 2020-21. Of the $617 million, more than $443.7 million came from television rights, a 12% increase from the previous year’s TV rights of $397.4 million. The ACC expected an increase, in part, due to full distribution of the ACC Network as of December 2021.
Another $90 million in revenue came from postseason football bowls, $65 million from the NCAA, including the men’s basketball tournament, and $15 million from conference championships.
TV = $444M (72%)
Bowls = $90M (15%)
NCAA = $65M (11%)
ACCC = $15M (2.5%)
Total = $617M
We also know that FB is 80% of the ACC media deals with MBB most of the other 20%. With the expanded CFP, the postseason revenue will likely show a similar 4:1 ratio.
Why is this relevant? The ACC is worried about falling $30M behind other conferences, and is currently $10-20M behind the B10 and SEC. But they mostly complain about their media deal, and we know the B10 and SEC are about to see jumps in their deals.
While we don’t have the revenue sharing model for the expanded CFP yet, that should be another concern for the ACC. Navigate made projections for how it might work. They showed the SEC getting more than double the money per school that the ACC would get (about $30M vs $13M) based on the SEC averaging 3.8 teams per year and the ACC 1.4. That assumes equal revenue distribution, however, so you can see why the ACC schools are pushing for unequal revenue.
https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimates-12-team-cfp-expansion/
Note – UT and OU are included in the SEC, but USC and UCLA were not known to be joining the B10 yet so the numbers are skewed a bit.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37685864/all-great-running-back-jim-brown-dies-87
The NFL’s (and lacrosse’s) true GOAT died. RIP Jim Brown, a rare great Cleveland Brown.
LikeLike
NCAA championships update for this weekend:
Women’s golf – MSU, NW, Isabella McCauley from MN
Softball regionals – 12-seed NW hosting, IN, MN, NE
Women’s tennis – nobody (MI lost in quarterfinals)
Men’s lacrosse – #5 PSU vs Army, #6 JHU vs #3ND, MI vs #1 Duke in quarters
Men’s tennis – 3-seed OSU vs 2-seed TCU in semifinal (1. UT vs 5. UVA in other semi)
Baseball season ends this weekend (UMD, IN and IA all in the hunt for the title) with the B10 tournament starting Tuesday.
LikeLike
Update:
Men’s tennis:
3-seed OSU vs 5-seed UVA in the final after OSU swept 2-seed TCU 4-0, and UVA beat 1-seed UT 4-1
OSU is 3-3 all-time in the semifinals, but 0-2 in the finals. OSU has beaten UVA twice this year, but both are on long winning streaks (OSU – 19 straight, UVA – 21 straight).
LikeLike
And OSU chokes again, as we do in so many championship rounds in so many sports.
LikeLike
NCAA championships update after this weekend:
Women’s golf – nobody remains
Softball regionals – #12 NW advances to the superregional against #5 AL (#2 UCLA, #10 LSU, and #11 AR were eliminated)
Women’s rowing – MI, OSU, IN and RU advance to NCAA championship
Men’s lacrosse – #5 PSU advances to face #1 Duke in the semis
Men’s tennis – 3-seed OSU choked in the finals, singles and doubles championships ongoing this week
UMD won the B10 baseball title. The B10 tournament starts Tuesday. The B10 is projected to get 3 teams into the NCAA (UMD, IN, IA) with RU among the last 4 out.
Men’s golf – OSU, IL + Drew Salyers (IN) advance to the NCAA championship
LikeLike
WaPo gift article . . .
https://wapo.st/3OsDjEn
LikeLike
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/shatel-unl-president-ted-carter-big-changes-more-realignment-coming-to-college-football/article_8166d8e6-7e2e-5199-a3f5-c0abb9c97412.html
NE’s president spoke about realignment and other relevant topics.
Listen to University of Nebraska President Ted Carter:
“I’m on (several) national boards and I get to sit with a lot of top tier presidents,” Carter said. “And I can just tell you, [realignment] is the conversation that is happening now.”
…
But for this week, I wanted to share his thoughts on Big Ten football, scheduling and potential realignment.
Potential? Carter says he expects “a lot of big things” are going to happen in the next year.
…
Who gets to play the LA schools and how many times? The results will be telling on how the Big Ten’s three TV partners, commissioner and league presidents see the image of Big Ten football going forward.
Everything is about to change.
“I think Big Ten football, through the chancellors and presidents, has made the decision to try to be national,” Carter said.
“I applaud the move. For Nebraska, to show our brand in California, is a valuable thing. When and if we go play in the Rose Bowl, we’re going to get exposure in California. We’re going to inspire some athletes to come to Nebraska.
“That’s one of the reasons I wanted to see expansion. For our league to have national exposure in four time zones is fantastic.
“How big should it be? I don’t have the answer to that. Do we need four more Pac-12 teams that want to join? Time is going to tell.”
…
[ACC troubles]
Where there’s a lawyer, there’s a way. Meanwhile, the Big Ten will be most interested in ACC dramas. Certain ACC schools — specifically the state of Florida — would bring huge value to the Big Ten TV kitty.
Is that a matter of time?
“I don’t know,” Carter said. “I think the ACC has some work to do. Make sure they understand what their media rights are, what the penalties are. You’re talking $110 million to walk out the door. That’s a big price tag.”
Carter added: “I think we have another year or two of the status quo, with a few minor changes. But I think over the next year there’s going to be a lot of big changes that are going to happen.”
Like?
“Two teams that move from one of the power five conferences that cause things to unravel,” Carter said. “There’s a domino effect. One team leaves (ACC) it has a domino effect. Same with the Pac-12.
“But they (Pac-12) are talking about adding somebody so it may not have the same effect.”
…
Is one giant division inevitable?
“I don’t know,” Carter said. “It’s too early. The NCAA president is going to have to really wrestle with that.”
Carter on the new Big Ten Commissioner: “I have not met him. Trev (Alberts) knows him and thinks it was a good pick. My experience is that someone who understands the intricacies of TV, the linear (big networks) and non-linear, is a good thing. The non-linear is where a lot of this is going. It’s all about getting that platform to the fan. Big screen TV’s are such that you can have a college game day experience in your house. We’re fortunate at Nebraska there’s a population that wants to go to the game and experience it there.”
On Big Ten football scheduling and the two or three rival game format: “As long as we have two teams on the west coast, they’re going to have to manage that very carefully. Trev Alberts is a strong voice in those discussions. At the end of the day, whatever you get, go play your schedule.”
On where Big Ten presidents are philosophically: “Here’s the deal. I don’t know. Who are the Big Ten presidents? Eight have turned over in the last year. I don’t know what they’re thinking right now. There’s going to be some really interesting Big Ten meetings in the future.”
LikeLike
He is certainly not dousing the rumors of future expansion.
LikeLike
Agreed. And just like when Warren kept doing it, I think it was unnecessary. But he was talking the big picture as well, not just the B10, so I think it is less problematic. And some of his answers came across as raw truth, like not knowing how the president’s feel since 8 of them are (or are about to be) new.
LikeLike
That article also mentions ND’s financial situation:
“ND’s deal with NBC ends in 2024. The Irish currently make $22 million annually from NBC and reportedly are seeking $75 million.”
Now, that’s a huge gap and it has not yet been resolved after many months of negotiation. What is ND home football actually worth to NBC? Home games for 2023:
Navy, Tennessee State, Central Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Pitt and Wake Forest.
Home games for 2024:
Northern Illinois, Miami of Ohio, Louisville, Stanford, FSU, Virginia, Miami of FL.
Needless to say, 4-5 of those games will be huge attractions but I can’t imagine that millions will be tuned in for Northern Illinois when they can flip channels and see Ohio State, Bama, Texas, Penn State, Georgia, etc. I’m not bashing ND’s schedule, the point is what is this programming actually worth to NBC, in dollars? I can’t imagine $75 million/yr, especially now that NBC will also have payouts to the Big Ten for weekly games.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine $75 million/yr, especially now that NBC will also have payouts to the Big Ten for weekly games.
NBC is paying $350m a year for 14–16 Big Ten regular-season games per season plus one CCG over the life of the deal. The other thing is, they never get worse than the third pick of the week, which means they’ll always have a decent game. With ND, there are roughly half as many games, no CCG, and NBC has to take whatever opponents ND puts on the schedule.
Let’s say the Big Ten CCG (the one year NBC has it) is worth $25m, divide the rest by two and round down. We could therefore suggest that the ND package would be worth $150m if ND could play good opponents every week — at least as good as the typical Big Ten night game.
But since ND can’t (or won’t) schedule good opponents every week, cut it in half again, and you get to $75m,the amount ND is asking for. Now, I don’t know what they’ll eventually settle for, probably less than that, but ND isn’t way out of line in their bargaining position.
Of course, it wasn’t an accident that NBC only bid on the night game package. They want and expect to still have Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Marc: “Now, I don’t know what they’ll eventually settle for, probably less than that, but ND isn’t way out of line in their bargaining position.”
Your math is kinda fuzzy but I won’t quibble about that. However, I will take exception to ND’s “bargaining position”. ND is in no position to bargain. They have no Plan B. Why should NBC pay $75 million? They could simply say “Our final offer is $35 million, take it or leave it.”
LikeLike
Four-letter answer: ESPN.
Disney is picking up the SEC, but they’ve lost the Big Ten and have not yet committed to the Pac-12. Could they find room on their networks for 7 Notre Dame home games per season? There’s no question. I don’t know what Disney would pay for that, but I guarantee it’s well north of $35m.
There’d be drawbacks to leaving NBC. They’d have to give up their cherished 1:30pm Central kickoff times, and the ESPN announcers probably wouldn’t openly root for the Irish the way NBC does. But a lot of the Irish faithful are fed up with the NBC announcers anyway.
I know it’s fashionable to beat up on Notre Dame, and I am no fan of theirs, but they are still one of the most valuable properties in sports. There’d be other bidders if NBC drops out.
LikeLike
ESPN is laying off people, their college football plate is full – SEC and ACC – and if they get into the Pac-12 it will be late-night in the East. Plus ND does not want to give up that extra-special-kissy-huggy 2:30 ET kickoff and exclusive NBC programming.
LikeLike
Colin – ESPN also just agreed to pay Pat McAfee $120m. They will pay for personnel or games they think will make the Mouse more money. If Notre Dame is on the market, ESPN could squeeze them in in the noon ABC slot for the good games, ESPN or ESPN2 for the sucky games, and primetime ABC for the USC game.
I don’t know if the Irish would take that deal unless its for significantly more money than NBC. I’ll guess that NBC keeps the Irish for somewhere between $50-60m per year. Keep in mind that the Irish received $17m for the ACC last fiscal year.
LikeLike
Alan, that might well happen but we already know that NBC didn’t gobble up the hook/line/sinker at $70 million/yr or it would be a done deal right now. Plus you mention the ACC/ACCN revenue. Don’t you think there might be some resentment among ND’s good ACC buddies if the Irish are making double/triple the FSU/Clemson revenue?
LikeLike
ESPN is laying off people, their college football plate is full – SEC and ACC.
What Alan said. ESPN is still in the market for live sports, and we are talking about 7 games a year. The number of games they lost and would lose from the Big Ten and Pac-12 is more than the 7 ND games they’d be contracting for. They absolutely could fit in ND, though obviously it would entail some sacrifices by the Irish.
ND does not want to give up that extra-special-kissy-huggy 2:30 ET kickoff and exclusive NBC programming.
I agree. I was only replying to your suggestion that ND has no other options if NBC low-balls them. Swarbrick has repeatedly stated the conditions to remain independent in football. The 2:30 kickoff is not one of them.
We already know that NBC didn’t gobble up the hook/line/sinker at $70 million/yr or it would be a done deal right now.
The Big Ten’s deal, which starts this fall, wasn’t announced until August of last year. I wouldn’t assume ND is in trouble, just because there’s no deal yet in May.
Don’t you think there might be some resentment among ND’s good ACC buddies if the Irish are making double/triple the FSU/Clemson revenue?
They didn’t have to admit ND as a partial member, and they didn’t have to lock up their own rights until 2036. They made those decisions and are stuck with the consequences, both bad and good. Anyhow, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. The ACC shares revenue equally, which means Boston College gets the same as Clemson. Notre Dame doesn’t share with anyone, and they’re one of the top brands in the sport.
LikeLike
Marc,
But since ND can’t (or won’t) schedule good opponents every week, cut it in half again, and you get to $75m,the amount ND is asking for. Now, I don’t know what they’ll eventually settle for, probably less than that, but ND isn’t way out of line in their bargaining position.
Of course, it wasn’t an accident that NBC only bid on the night game package. They want and expect to still have Notre Dame.
I think people misunderstand ND’s asking price. They want their total media payout to be competitive with the B10 and SEC, so around $70-75M. But remember that ND gets a full share of the ACCN revenue plus a partial share of the ACC deal. That’s something like $15M. So ND really only needs $60M from NBC to be on par, and in the past they’ve been willing to be a few million behind. They may ask for $75M up front, but that’s not where they need to end up.
And if ND agrees to play more B10 teams (at least 2/year on average), NBC benefits on both ends of that. The B10 deal should also increase ratings for ND due to the cross-promotion and more people getting used to watching CFB on NBC.
I think this deal is a matter of when not if.
LikeLike
Sadly, I think that he put another dagger into the already damaged heart of the PAC. Everyone on the internet seems to be reading this as saying that WA/OR are imminent or nearly imminent.
Will that cause them to refuse any reasonable GOR? If WA/OR will not sign a GOR and do not get the B1G invite (which I believe that they will not), it will seriously hurt them and the remaining PAC schools. What happens if a couple of four corners schools go to the Big 12 and WA/OR are stuck in what is left of the PAC?
LikeLike
Bernie, it ain’t gonna happen. WA and OR aren’t going anywhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bernie,
I don’t think they’ll refuse to sign a GOR. If a B10 offer doesn’t come their way, they know they’ll earn more by signing a GOR. It will only be as long as the TV deal, probably 5-7 years. They can continue to lobby for a B10 invitation, and if they get one they can negotiate an early exit or just stick it out.
What they’d refuse is to sign a long GOR like the ACC has.
LikeLike
Sadly, I think that he put another dagger into the already damaged heart of the PAC. Everyone on the internet seems to be reading this as saying that WA/OR are imminent or nearly imminent.
If WA/OR want to know if a Big Ten invitation is available, they don’t need to rely on interviews with sportswriters. They can apply directly to the league. If the answer is no, as most of us expect, they would sign a GOR the length of the TV deal, because it’s the best offer they’ve got.
The biggest risk to them is not what the Nebraska president says, but the possibility that Kliavkoff comes back with an underwhelming deal, pushing the four corners into the Big XII. This would leave the Pac’s best two programs in a Zombie league that would need a merger with the Mountain West to stay alive.
LikeLike
Larry Scott has made more than $50 million from the Pac-12.
Of course he is hardly the first sports executive to have been overpaid for doing a terrible job, and he won’t be the last. But what’s remarkable is that he was apparently paid more than Jim Delany or Greg Sankey, who unlike him excelled at their jobs.
Scott argued that he was no mere commissioner — he was also a media executive, since the Pac-12 owned its own networks. This was how he justified his high pay, but his bosses had to buy that argument, and they did.
LikeLike
Big article in ESPN by Pete Thamel about the mess that Kevin Warren left behind in the new contracts. The deal with NBC is not done. Do not have time to discuss article. Here is link. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty
LikeLike
Shocker, Warren was a bad commissioner. He got his TV deal headlines and then pouted when the presidents wouldn’t grant him more expansion, so he stopped doing his job.
Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details. Instead, Petitti is engaged in significant “horse trading,” according to multiple sources, to get the NBC primetime deal finished and figure out what the network calls “outstanding issues” in order to uphold as much value as possible.
“These deals aren’t done, and they aren’t what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime,” said an industry source.
Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.
As a result, there’s a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren’t communicated to them.
…
On campus, it’s a bit more muddled. Big Ten schools have seen potential revenue disappear the past few months from a contract that was announced back in August as being worth an average of nearly $1 billion per year through the 2029 football season. More than $70 million in total is suddenly in flux — nearly $5 million per school — and it has left administrators around the league seeking answers and calling for financial accountability.
Recently, schools have found out:
* They are going to have to pay back nearly $40 million to Fox because, according to sources, Warren delivered NBC the Big Ten football title game in 2026 without the full authority to do so. This all has unfolded under the complicated backdrop of the Big Ten conference not actually controlling the rights to the inventory of this latest deal — the Big Ten Network does, which is majority owned by Fox. (More on that below.)
* They are going to have to pay $25 million total for a deal to pay Fox back for lost 2020 football game inventory. This came after an arrangement between Fox and the conference that was unable to muster the lost revenue from the COVID-19 season.
* There’s tens of millions of dollars of value of the NBC primetime deal in flux, as Petitti has been racing to ensure it keeps as much of its original value as possible. Historically in the Big Ten, after the first weekend in November, schools were not required to play night games for myriad reasons — health, recovery and campus logistics among them. These were known in league circles as “tolerances,” and prior television contracts accounted for them.
Multiple sources told ESPN there’s been pushback from a number of schools, including Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, to play those late-November night games under the new contract. That leaves Petitti to figure out how to uphold a deal for hundreds of millions of dollars for primetime games without cooperation from some of the league’s marquee teams for part of the regular season’s most important month.
Athletic departments and coaches around the Big Ten say they were surprised November night games would be part of the deal. They weren’t asked for permission to play them prior to the deal or informed of the change ahead of the deal, according to sources. At the same time, NBC wasn’t aware until well after the initial contract was signed this summer that these big-brand schools had historic tolerances that were part of the prior television arrangements and would resist being available.
“NBC was surprised, and I was surprised,” said Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel. “We had not discussed, and I had not discussed with anyone in the league to change the tolerances we had agreed upon years ago.”
Within the industry, though, there was an expectation that, considering the scope of the deal, all schools would play in prime time.
“The fault here is with the administrators on campus,” said another industry source. “How did the presidents, chancellors and athletic directors not know this? The universities all signed off on the deal.”
While this is being worked through, Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan State recently agreed to concessions to make short-term sacrifices to help the league make up for some lost revenue from the NBC deal.
Penn State will play on the road in a short week on Black Friday against Michigan State, a game that was scheduled before Penn State agreed to it. Ohio State will host Michigan State on Nov. 11, the latest-ever home night game in Ohio State history, which is viewed as another concession to help the league through this moment.
“This is what he’s walking into right now,” another industry source said of Petitti. “Tony is trying to save it, and what Penn State and Ohio State are doing is actually trying to minimize the losses.”
Warren did not return requests for comment.
“We’re excited to start our Big Ten deal this fall,” an NBC Sports spokesman told ESPN. “We had a great relationship with Kevin Warren, and same with Tony Petitti. We’re confident that any and all outstanding issues are well on their way to being resolved.”
USC may host ND every other year in the final week, and that can be at night. So could a UCLA home game or another USC home game. I don’t see a huge problem here. Let USC and UCLA host November night games a lot.
Also, why does the source assume the campus people were made aware of details like this? As the story points out, the final details were not agreed upon yet. They may have just approved it in principle, assuming Warren was working these details out.
Warren probably couldn’t be bothered to know that the schools didn’t want night games in late November, though any CFB fan would know. This is one more reason why hiring an NFL guy was a bad choice.
And now we all know why Fox was in the room for the negotiations: they own the B10’s TV rights, not the B10.
A full understanding of the deal Warren helped negotiate with NBC, CBS and Fox begins with a bizarre twist — the Big Ten didn’t technically own the rights. (Hence the tension over Warren using the Big Ten title game without Fox’s permission.)
In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn’t include all the details. One of the things that didn’t get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league’s programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.
…
What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.
“It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks,” said an industry source. “They both needed each other to do the deals.”
That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners — NBC and CBS — attempting to work out their longform deals. There’s a familiar partner, Fox, that’s riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission.
Hold it. Fox was in the room. Why were they upset with the NBC deal including a CCG if they were part of the negotiations? They could have stopped that immediately.
The league and Fox had also been in talks with Amazon about the deal that ultimately went to NBC, but according to sources, there was late pushback by key campus stakeholders that some of the biggest brands weren’t ready for part of a marquee package to only be available on streaming. That set up the push to get as much money as possible from NBC.
I don’t really care about the coaches being upset – they always think they should have more input, but they’re wrong. Their route for input is through their AD, not the commissioner directly asking them. The job of coaches is to coach. They should stop thinking they get to run the conference. Their ADs should know their concerns, and seek their input on relevant issues.
LikeLike
Both Penn State and Wisconsin are preparing their stadiums for cold weather games.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-schools-eye-stadium-improvements-in-anticipation-of-hosting-future-college-football-playoff-games/
LikeLike
PSU and Wisconsin both have reasonable expectations of hosting such a game. It’ll be really interesting when an unprepared northern school hosts.
LikeLike
Fox was in the room. Why were they upset with the NBC deal including a CCG if they were part of the negotiations? They could have stopped that immediately.
Most likely they were not “upset,” but they told Warren there’d need to be an adjustment. Warren apparently never mentioned that to the rest of the league before waltzing out the door.
LikeLike
Thamel said they were upset. And why did Fox sign the deal if Warren didn’t have the right to give away a CCG? Seems like their lawyers should have prevented that, or else gotten an adjustment in price.
LikeLike
I view most of the article as a nothingburger. The deal is mostly fine, but it does sound as if Warren didn’t clear some details with the rest of the Big Ten.
ESPN is overhyping this in part because they lost out on the rights and so it’s a juicy story to portray the Big Ten a place where everything is perfect.
There is no way in my mind that FOX didn’t know that Warren offered a championship game to NBC. Maybe left untold to the rest of the conference was that it would entail some giveback to FOX financially.
Either way, it sounds like a good thing Petitti came in; he’ll smooth out the details, and the Big Ten’s giant stadiums need to prepare for winter CFP games anyhow. If this just moves that process along faster, not a big deal to me.
I view most of the issues raised in the article as not a big deal in the grand scheme of a $7-8 billion/7 year deal.
LikeLike
z33k,
Even if/when all the big stadiums are winterized, not all of the small ones will be. I think people forget that the objections of OSU (and probably the others) are only partially about the stadium and field.
The bigger issue is traffic, snow removal, and the sheer number of police and emergency workers required to host a game. If a bad storm blows across Ohio, you can’t have 100,000 people trying to drive to/from Columbus at night with dozens to hundreds of police involved in traffic control all while trying to salt and plow hundreds of miles of roads (especially in rural Ohio). That’s the big concern. Drunk fans, icy roads and driving through a storm at night is a recipe for accidents and deaths.
USC and UCLA can easily host games in late November at 5pm local time, though. That covers the last 2 weeks (or even 3-4), and maybe some of the smaller schools are willing to host (NW vs a big brand?).
LikeLike
Northwestern will be a logical choice for some of those late November NBC games as host to the bigger brands once their stadium rebuild is completed. And yeah USC/UCLA are always a factor. That also must have been part of why Warren was pushing for Washington and Oregon as well to make filling that window easy late in the season.
Biggest problem with Warren was the lack of communication as we all know.
The financial details and TV specifics are not too surprising. (regardless of ESPN trying to stir controversy). There was always going to be hard tradeoffs made to get the deal up to $7+bn over 7 years as a headline figure.
LikeLike
Among the current 14 schools. the best locations for late November games are (1) Maryland, (2) Rutgers and judging from the average temp in Philly. (3) Penn State.
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-city-temperatures-in-november.php
LikeLike
Among the current 14 schools. the best locations for late November games are (1) Maryland, (2) Rutgers and judging from the average temp in Philly. (3) Penn State.
I suspect that a steady diet of Rutgers and Maryland at the end of the season is not what NBC thought it was getting for the next 7 years.
LikeLike
Marc,
Among the current 14 schools. the best locations for late November games are (1) Maryland, (2) Rutgers and judging from the average temp in Philly. (3) Penn State.
“I suspect that a steady diet of Rutgers and Maryland at the end of the season is not what NBC thought it was getting for the next 7 years.”
Why not? They wouldn’t be in the #1 game, but they may be in the #3 game of the week (something like 10-0 top 5 UM vs 6-4 UMD the week before facing OSU). And if NBC always wants ND vs USC (and in the final week every other year), they’ll have to make some concessions too.
Also, Columbus is slightly warmer than State College, PA on average in late November (not sure why one would use Philly as a comparison since it’s on the coast and State College is 1250 ft elevation in the middle of the state). That said, the record low in Columbus on 11/22 is -5 (+10 in State College) so it could be dangerously cold. The record for snow is 7.5″ on 11/25. There was as much as 4.7″ on 11/2, so all of November is theoretically risky.
LikeLike
Perhaps this map would be more useful. Seems like Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue and Illinois could all expect reasonably warm weather for November night games. Plus we’ll also have USC and UCLA in 2024. Another factor, for years Purdue has been trying to move the Old Oaken Bucket game to Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy rather than play at empty campuses over the Thanksgiving weekend. So far Indiana has refused but maybe that could change.
I don’t think November night games will be a problem for half of the Big Ten. I’ve lived in southern Indiana for 15 years and we haven’t had snow or freezing weather in November since I’ve been here.
https://i0.wp.com/whatsanswer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Average-High-Temperature-of-the-US-November.jpg?fit=1280%2C720&ssl=1
LikeLike
Big Ten night game in November – from The Athletic:
Michigan State to host Penn State at Ford Field in Land Grant Trophy game
By Audrey Snyder 1h ago
Michigan State will host Penn State at Ford Field on Black Friday, the school announced Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:
The Land Grant Trophy game has been moved from Spartan Stadium to Detroit’s Ford Field where it will kick at 7:30 p.m. on Nov. 24 and air on NBC.
It’s the second Big Ten football game being played on Black Friday, joining Iowa at Nebraska.
Michigan State season ticket holders will have the opportunity to buy tickets for the game at Ford Field as a standalone contest. The on-sale date will be announced later, according to the university’s news release.
The Michigan high school football state championship games, also hosted at Ford Field, will be moved from Friday and Saturday to Saturday and Sunday to accommodate the Big Ten’s Black Friday game.
Backstory
This is one way for Big Ten teams to play a night game in November. The Land Grant Trophy game will get primetime treatment one day after the Detroit Lions host their annual Thanksgiving day game and one day before Ohio State plays Michigan in Ann Arbor.
LikeLike
WaPo gift article. U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit will rule whether student-athletes should get hourly pay for their labor.
https://wapo.st/3Mp8bDq
LikeLike
Gift article WSJ re Disney/ABC/ESPN
https://www.wsj.com/articles/disneys-abc-espn-weakness-adds-pressure-to-make-streaming-profitable-196055c7?st=5ooko2b3qh8ha09&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://cordcuttersnews.com/the-cw-maybe-the-new-home-of-the-pac-12-motorsports-events/
The CW is looking to add CFB and motor sports to their weekend lineup.
Despite a slew of controversies surrounding that acquisition and low viewership, Nexstar said it is looking for a Power 5 college conferences and motorsports groups to its broadcasting lineup, ideally this fall.
They could be a linear partner for a streamer, or just the home market broadcaster for otherwise streaming-only games (the way the NFL does it). They could also sublicense some games. I’d actually expect them to start with some G5 games to build their credibility before they can get a P5 deal.
LikeLike
WSU’s AD is under a hiring freeze and other cost cutting measures due to the Comcast overpayment and other financial issues. It’s only short term, presumably, but it’s that much more pressure on the new TV deal.
LikeLike
https://from.wsu.edu/president/2023/athletics-budget-update/email.html?fbclid=IwAR0oBIZ12NRADBpImnZ5kci5XQ_Ok3kVY6vyz_LdLNWfO8qB5HnzMWwWc2A
WSU’s statement about it. Basically, they had built up a lot of debt, and these new issues are screwing up their plan to pay it back on time.
WSU has made steady progress toward balancing the athletics budget the past several years. Unfortunately, though, we are facing tremendous headwinds that will make closing out fiscal year 2023 more challenging than expected.
…
Under the close guidance of Leslie Brunelli, executive vice president of finance and administration, WSU is conducting a thorough review to determine the full extent of the most recent deficit and its root cause. Cougar Athletics will partner with the Office of Finance and Administration to ensure a detailed reporting of FY23 and a balanced budget for FY24. This information will be presented during June’s Board of Regents meeting.
My fiscal expectations for Cougar Athletics remain the same — an annual balanced operating budget, the development of appropriate reserve funds, and a repayment plan to pay down internal debt. As planned, we will also continue to engage in conversations with the Athletics Council in the fall around repayment of accumulated debt.
LikeLike
Canzano: Thanks for nothing, Larry Scott
Every Pac-12 member facing a $5.7 hangover.
JOHN CANZANO MAY 23
Former Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott left some surprises for his conference.
The tenants have moved out, but the building located at 360 3rd Street in downtown San Francisco continues to be a money pit for the Pac-12 Conference.
Conference members paid more than $92 million in rent to Kilroy Realty over 11 years. That expense became an ongoing source of frustration. But the Pac-12 got 113,000 square feet of prime office space in return.
Also, it got a hangover.
At ex-Commissioner Larry Scott’s direction, the conference completely rebuilt two floors of the headquarters. It constructed a state-of-the-art television studio, production bays, meeting rooms, offices and even installed the conference’s infamous Instant-Replay Command Center, complete with etched-glass doors and hardwood floors.
Not only did that install cost a small fortune a decade ago, but per the lease agreement the office space now needs to be returned to its original condition. The expense of that is $10 million per a Pac-12 source and it’s now part of a financial migraine for members.
The conference was also overpaid by $50 million over 10 years by Comcast under Scott’s leadership. The story of that accounting fiasco and the subsequent cover-up is just beginning to become clear. But Pac-12 presidents and chancellors were presented with the bill for it at last week’s meeting of the conference’s board.
We’re just starting to hear how each Pac-12 campus is going to manage absorbing those unexpected expenses. On Monday, Washington State president Kirk Schulz issued a statement in which he announced a temporary freeze on current and future positions, non-essential travel and new professional development.
In the statement, Schulz said the Cougar athletic department exceeded its expenditures for the year due to “inadequate documentation of revenues and expenses.”
Basically, the ‘Champagne Larry’ tax.
Scott flew in a charter jet. He stayed in five-star hotels and soaked in marble tubs. When it came to picking the corporate headquarters the ex-commissioner insisted on a building that cost the conference $696,000 a month in rent. He also double-dipped on his salary, claiming to be a media executive as well as a commissioner, earning $50 million in salary for himself over the years.
It’s ridiculous that Scott negotiated the lease for the headquarters to expire one year in front of the conference’s media-rights deal. A total misfire there. It’s almost as if Scott was thinking more about himself than the campuses he was charged with serving.
What do I make of WSU’s announcement?
Officials in Pullman declined further comment. But it’s pretty simple. WSU and the University of Washington are both bound by a state law that requires them to present a public budget. Schulz was signaling to state lawmakers and citizens that his athletic department is going to show a deficit.
The president didn’t want anyone surprised.
It’s more than Scott did for his old conference. I’ve talked with a number of frustrated conference athletic directors in recent weeks. They’ll be charged with making ends meet in their departments. One Pac-12 AD told me, “We’re basically turning over rocks these days and finding disasters Larry left for us.”
It’s a costly reminder about the importance of leadership, isn’t it?
The college conferences hire executives, pay them millions in salary and expect they’ll put the entity first. Scott failed the Pac-12. I wouldn’t blame the conference if it sued him for it. I’d love to hear his explanation. And we’re finding out this week that former Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren left $70 million in broken TV promises behind when he fled to the NFL. His old conference is dealing with that hiccup this week.
The hangover from Scott? $5.7 million per Pac-12 school.
The accounting blunder, it turns out, was $50 million over 10 years. But there are two additional years on the deal where the revenue expectations have to be reset. Basically, it amounts to a 12-year problem, that must now be accounted for over just two years.
The $10 million cost to return the downtown San Francisco palace back into a regular office space is being absorbed by the conference. The Pac-12 reported an uptick in revenues in its most recent fiscal filing. It also implemented a series of cost-saving measures to help mitigate the shortfall. It also has a “rainy day” fund at its disposal.
Be sure, it’s drizzling out there.
Some of the Pac-12 members may be able to easily absorb the hit. Others will have to freeze jobs, cut corners, and endure some ridicule from the academics who don’t like seeing athletics operate in the red.
Thanks for nothing, Larry.
LikeLike
More grim news from the Pac-12:
ESPN Unlikely to Renew Pac-12 Media Rights Deal
https://frontofficesports.com/espn-unlikely-to-re-sign-with-the-pac-12/
LikeLike
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2023/05/23/campus/schill-nu-administrators-talk-collegiate-athletics-at-faculty-assembly/
NW’s president, AD and others discussed realignment and other things relevant to athletics with the faculty.
Derrick Gragg, NU’s athletic director, said the NLRB situation makes him “very nervous.” He said NU believes in “broad-based sports programming,” but supporting 19 sports programs becomes more complicated if student athletes get paid wages.
Gragg also questioned whether NU athletes would be required to attend class if they were classified as employees instead of student athletes.
“I’m kind of distressed by this and just hope that we can continue to say that our student athletes are students,” he said.
…
At the assembly, [NW President] Schill and the panelists also discussed UCLA and USC joining the Big Ten Conference. The two schools will enter the Big Ten in August 2024.
Schill said he is “not really thrilled” with the inclusion of UCLA and USC in the Big Ten. While he remains “skeptical about the initial decision,” he believes adding more West Coast teams to the Big Ten, in addition to UCLA and USC, could result in less overall travel time for all teams in the conference.
I think his math is exaggerated/wrong. First, we know many teams will be unaffected because they do group meets and then a conference championship. Others won’t be affected because the P12 schools host some different sports from the B10 (water polo vs wrestling, etc.). So that mostly leaves sports like football and basketball.
Football:
* Everyone controls where they play their 3 OOC games
* Everyone gets 4.5 home B10 games per year
* All that’s left is where the 4.5 B10 road games are
With 2 P12 teams and a 3/6/6 schedule, 10 of the current 14 get 1 trip to CA per year (4 will have 1.5 because they are locked with an LA school). The LA schools get 0.5 of a road trip in town, so they have 4 road trips to the east.
With 4 P12 teams and a 3/6 schedule (western pod of 4 all play each other – best case scenario to minimize travel), no east/west games are locked. The current 14 all play (6/14)*4 = 1.7 western teams, with 0.86 trips west (6 trips in 7 years). The western schools get 0.5 close road games, 1 other western road game, and 3 trips east each.
Total western trips for the current 14 combined:
2 P12 teams: 10*1+4*1.5=16
4 P12 teams: 14*0.86=12
One trip every 7 years is a small difference, especially since the travel is on weekends.
Total eastern trips per P12 school:
2 P12 teams: 4 each
4 P12 teams: 3 each + 1 almost as long but north/south
A very small difference (fewer time zone changes, but no flight time saved).
Basketball:
* Everyone controls where they play their ~10 OOC games
* Everyone gets 10 home B10 games per year
* All that’s left is where the 10 B10 road games are
With 2 P12 teams and a 5*2/10*1 schedule, 8 of the current 14 get 1.5 games in CA per year (play one LA team home and away) while the other 6 will have 1. Of course those with 1.5 games will play both schools on 1 road trip, so it’s still 1 trip. The LA schools get 1 road trip in town, so they have 9 road games in the east. That’s 4.5 trips (call it 5).
With 4 P12 teams and a 3*2/14*1 schedule (western pod of 4 all play each other home and away – best case scenario to minimize travel), no east/west games are locked. The current 14 all play 2 western games, so 1 trip west. The western schools get 1 close road game, 2 other western road games (1 trip), and 7 eastern games each (call it 4 trips).
Total western trips for the current 14 combined:
2 P12 teams: 14*1=14
4 P12 teams: 14*1=14
Literally no difference.
Total eastern trips per P12 school:
2 P12 teams: 5 each
4 P12 teams: 4 each + 1 almost as long but north/south
A very small difference (fewer time zone changes, but no flight time saved).
Some teams would save a little flight time. That’s about all that would change. It’s certainly not every team traveling less. And that’s assuming best case scenarios for scheduling to reduce travel. I can see why the LA schools might want it, but I don’t think it’s a big difference for the current 14. Most other sports play fewer games/series, so the travel wouldn’t be bad. It may even be good for a sport like baseball, playing in CA early in the season rather than the midwest.
LikeLike
“Minor said an athlete on NU’s field hockey team holds the record for having the highest-valued individual NIL deal at the University.”
Something is badly out of focus here. How many Big Ten alumni are even remotely aware whether or not their alma maters have a field hockey team?
LikeLike
Math correction:
Football:
Total western trips for the current 14 combined:
2 P12 teams: 10*0.5+4*0.75=8 (not 16 as written originally – forgot to /2)
4 P12 teams: 14*0.86=12
That’s 4 more western trips every year, not less travel.
Total eastern trips per P12 school:
2 P12 teams: 4 each
4 P12 teams: 3 each + 1 almost as long but north/south
A very small difference (fewer time zone changes, but no flight time saved).
That’s more total travel.
If you extend to even larger groups, it turns out that you’d have to add almost the entire P12 to reduce the westward travel and that’s assuming all western teams play each other annually. So basically, you’d need to form a western division that never plays the east. That format already exists and is struggling to get a TV deal. Adding P12 teams only helps the western teams with travel, and doesn’t reduce distance traveled much at that.
2 P12 teams = 8 western trips for the current 14
4 P12 teams = 12 western trips for the current 14
6 P12 teams = 12 western trips for the current 14
8 P12 teams = 8 western trips for the current 14
10 P12 teams = 0 western trips for the current 14
2 P12 teams = 4 eastern trips each
4 P12 teams = 3 eastern trips each + 1 N/S
6 P12 teams = 2 eastern trips each + 2 N/S
8 P12 teams = 1 eastern trips each + 3 N/S
10 P12 teams = 0 eastern trips each + 4 N/S
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/05/22/college-sports-nil-bill-big-changes-expected/70246101007/
The House is working on a college athletics bill to cover NIL, athletes as not employees, and liability protection among other things.
Pfluger says in the letter, which was dated Friday, that while the House does not yet have the bill’s text, he is “prepared to offer a synopsis of what the bill will entail.”
That includes:
* Safeguards “from retaliation by an institution of higher education for student-athletes who have signed a NIL deal.”
* The creation of a “new regulatory body tasked with establishing and enforcing rules pertaining to collectives, boosters, and student-athlete endorsement contracts. Student-athletes who enter into a contract will be required to report their agreement to this new body and their university within a specified period.” Collectives are booster- and business-driven groups that have formed to pool resources and provide NIL opportunities for athletes at schools since the NCAA has made rule changes substantially enhancing athletes’ ability to make money not only from endorsements, but also from personal appearances, autograph signings and other activities.
* A provision “clarifying that student-athletes are not eligible for employee status.”
* Language “providing liability protection to protect institutions from frivolous litigation.”
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/teams/nebraska-cornhuskers/news/ad-trev-alberts-nebraska-has-built-their-brand-playing-against-great-opponents-in-primetime/
NE is happy to play November night games. Add them to the LA schools, and this is really a non-issue. It’s okay if OSU, UM and PSU won’t host them.
“I would just say amid all the details and the granular things that frankly still need to be worked through, and I don’t mean to minimize those,” [NE AD Trev] Alberts said. “But think about this at the core of what makes it challenging is we are talking about three elite linear television networks. You are talking about this was always the vision all along to do our best and try to own Saturday in college football with the Big Ten.
“The Big Noon kickoff on Fox has been a great addition. The 2:30 p.m. Central window on CBS. You look at CBS, while that was probably an undervalued deal for the SEC, that television partnership with CBS was massively important in building the SEC brand and recognition. Then you go to primetime on NBC. If you watch the NFL window in primetime on NBC, it’s delivered like a mini Super Bowl every Sunday night.”
While some Big Ten schools might be against playing November primetime games on NBC, Alberts said Nebraska shares a different view.
“I can only tell you from a University standpoint, as this is a part of our history and DNA. We’ve built our brand on being willing to play primetime games against great opponents,” Alberts said. “So if you are asking if Nebraska will be willing to play primetime games, I’ve got my hand up every day, twice on Saturday.
“We think the University of Nebraska in primetime is a great opportunity to showcase everything that’s great about the state of Nebraska, the University of Nebraska, and more importantly, the football program.”
LikeLike
Jim Williams talked to NBC about the B10 deal.
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Bubba-Cunningham-UNC-North-Carolina-Tar-heels-ACC-Spring-Meetings-210598756/amp/
UNC’s AD spoke with Sirius XM at the ACC meetings.
Highlights below:
1. The long GOR seemed like a good idea at the time.
2. UNC and NCSU aren’t tied at the hip.
ON UNC BEING LISTED IN THE “MAGNIFICENT SEVEN” GROUP OF ACC SCHOOLS THAT MET TO DISCUSS THE GRANT OF RIGHTS
“I don’t know how (reporter) Brett (McMurphy) came up with that word. There were seven, there were a bunch of schools. Every school in the country is talking about, ‘How do we get better? How do we generate more revenue?’ And it happened to be that a group of us were together. Now labeling it that way certainly set off the firestorm. The activity, I don’t think anybody thought much about that, because that’s what we’re all doing. But the label certainly created a lot of controversy. Again, we’re trying to figure out how are we gonna move forward collectively? I think ESPN has been a great partner of ours and we’re continuing to work with them to figure out how do we continue to enhance the brand and the revenue opportunities for all the schools?”
ON THE OUTSIDE PERCEPTION THAT COMES WITH SEVEN SCHOOLS MEETING “OFFLINE”
“Yeah, you can look at it either way. If you and I have a conversation, then you and I and Jim (Phillips) have a conversation, and you continue to build. What you’re trying to do is gain consensus on a particular position. So the one thing that we talked about very publicly is a different payout, differential revenue sharing. And so those things, you do have to garner support for stuff like that. You do have to kind of build a coalition of decision makers. We talked about with eight games versus nine games. Division play vs non-division play. And so those little groups of activities have happened all the time.
“And one thing I think we all learned from that is, if we’re going to have a conversation, let’s make sure everybody is included. And it may be an uncomfortable conversation, but we’ve decided we’re better off having uncomfortable conversations as a group than trying to have a smaller group have one then try to bring in a couple more and a couple more and a couple more.”
WHEN THE TV RIGHTS DEAL WAS SIGNED THROUGH 2036, DID YOU SEE IT AS PROHIBITIVE AT THE TIME?
“It really didn’t seem that way. When the grant of rights was signed, we were getting a network. Big 10 had a network, SEC had a network, no one else had a network. ESPN really didn’t have an interest in having a network. And so as we said, ‘we really want a network and we really want to be on ESPN.’ They said, ‘Okay, but here’s what we’re going to do. And we’re going to extend it out. We need your commitment, a long-term commitment from you, because it’s a big investment on our end.’ And all of us at the time said, ‘Yeah, that’s a good thing to do.’
“There was an escalation of the fees over time. I don’t think anyone anticipated that the market would change as much as it did in a short period of time. And I don’t think people really thought about how often, between the time we sign it and the end, should we have looking periods. And maybe that was something that was missed in the negotiation. We want to be on ESPN, we want to have a network. I think what we’re saying now is, ‘We’d like to be paid more money.’ But if you make a bad business decision, you end up living with it. I’m not saying it’s a bad business decision, either.
“But it looks, financially, it’s gonna put us behind others as the market matures in the next few years. So how to close that gap, that’s really what our discussion is right now.”
ARE UNC AND N.C. STATE TIED TOGETHER LEGALLY IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA?
“Not that I know of, but there’s great communication within our system, great communication with the ADs, with the chancellors. So we communicate a lot. I don’t think we’re tied together. We’ve never really explored that to say ‘Okay, what happens if?’ As best I can tell, both schools make decisions that are in their interest, but we want to make sure that the system is informed of what we’re thinking about.”
LikeLike
From TheAthletic:
ACC endorses plan for increased payouts based on schools’ performance in postseason play
The ACC will launch a “success incentive initiative” starting in the 2024-25 academic year that will distribute additional league payouts to schools based on teams’ performances in revenue-generating postseason play, the ACC Board of Directors announced Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:
Unequal revenue sharing has been a hot topic around the conference since earlier this year, when administrators at Florida State, Miami, Clemson and North Carolina expressed grievances over the ACC’s revenue gap to the SEC and Big Ten. League and school officials expressed unity on the issue after discussion at ACC spring meetings in Amelia Island, Fla., last week.
Details of how the incentives will be determined were not released but “will be solidified in the coming months,” the ACC said.
“The ACC Board of Directors continues to be committed to exploring all potential opportunities that will result in additional revenues and resources for the conference,” said Duke president Vincent E. Price, who chairs the ACC Board of Directors. “Today’s decision provides a path to reward athletic success while also distributing additional revenue to the full membership.”
LikeLike
https://theacc.com/news/2023/5/24/general-acc-board-of-directors-announces-endorsement-of-success-incentives.aspx
The ACC endorses the concept of unequal revenue distribution for NCAAT and CFP money. They have no actual plans for how they’ll do it yet.
The specifics of the plan are in progress and will be solidified in the coming months. Under this initiative, the implementation of the success incentives will come solely from the performance of teams in revenue generating postseason competition. All other revenues will continue to be equally shared as currently outlined.
LikeLike
Regardless of the actual plan, the benefit is really at the margins. There are supposedly 7 complaining schools, but in most years they’ll get very little or nothing. For example, Miami would perhaps have made a 12-team playoff once in the past 15 years.
LikeLike
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/michigan-state-university/2023/05/24/msu-football-moves-penn-st-game-to-ford-field-high-school-championships-move-to-weekend/70252447007/
Some details on some of the “horse trading” the B10 has done for this year. OSU agreed to host PSU at night on 11/11, and MSU is playing at night on Black Friday – but at Ford Field. That required shifting the state HS championships to the weekend. Having UW ooc and the UM game on the home schedule also makes this an easier sell to their fans since they are losing a true home game.
MSU has played OOC games at EMU/CMU/WMU, so this isn’t totally new for them. It’s a holiday so the students don’t turn out well, and more MSU fans live in Detroit than anywhere else. They also have similar size stadiums (MSU – 75k, Lions – 65k). It’s also exciting for their players, and provides better weather for their fans.
Thanksgiving means football in Detroit, and this fall, Michigan State will be part of creating four straight days of football at Ford Field.
The university announced on Wednesday that its regular-season finale against Penn State will shift from Spartan Stadium and will be played at 7:30 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 24 in Detroit. It comes the day after the Detroit Lions host their annual Thanksgiving Day game and precedes two days of high school state championships that will be played on Saturday and Sunday, a shift from the typical Friday-Saturday schedule.
“This is a unique opportunity, for both our football program and our fan base, to play a Black Friday game at Ford Field,” Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller said in a statement. “Southeast Michigan is home to 100,000 alums, nearly 50% of our student body and countless more Spartan fans. Our men’s basketball team has experienced tremendous support in Detroit, both at Ford Field and Little Caesars Arena, and we’re excited to bring Spartan Football to our fans in the Motor City. The city is important to our mission not only as an athletic department, but our entire University. We anticipate that the experience will be so much more than a football game for our Spartan faithful.”
Added Michigan State coach Mel Tucker, “This is an exciting opportunity for our program to play in prime time on a holiday weekend. Our players will be able to compete in an NFL environment while being showcased in the national spotlight. I’m looking forward to our fans creating a loud atmosphere and giving us a home-field advantage at Ford Field.”
The Big Ten approached Michigan State with the idea of moving the game to a national-television window on Friday night — the game will air on NBC and stream on the Peacock Network — along with the potential of moving the game from Spartan Stadium to Ford Field. Once the Lions and Ford Field were on board as well as the MHSAA, the plan came together.
…
“The decision to move a home game out of Spartan Stadium was given careful consideration, as we understand the impact it will have on some fans,” Haller said. “As a community partner, we recognize home football brings benefits to the entire Mid-Michigan area. The fact that this game falls on a holiday weekend Friday increased our willingness make the move. I believe our season ticket holders still have a strong collection of home games highlighted by Michigan and a premier non-conference game against Washington, with a total of six home games just as we had in 2021.”
LikeLike
https://sicem365.com/s/15070/realignment-tv-data-questions-answers
A detailed look at the value and commitments of various TV windows, leading to an estimated P12 content value of $26.1M per year per school (if they had the same windows as in their old deal) + whatever value they can get for their P12N content. This is from a Baylor fan.
LikeLike
If correct, this is probably right at the edge of survival for the Pac-12. It is certainly not high enough for the members to be happy. Any lower than this, and I have to think some schools would seriously consider leaving. But perhaps this is just barely enough to induce them to stay.
LikeLike
The key is what they can get for the P12N content. The BTN, SECN and ACCN all are making millions per school. If the P12 can get even $2M per year (on par with what the P12N was making), that gets them to about $28M per year, which should be fine.
LikeLike
From TheAthletic
As SEC meetings near, chances for 8-game football schedule, or not voting, have gone up
A smirk went across the face of Georgia president Jere Morehead this week as he overheard a question: Will the SEC schedule be finalized next week at the conference’s spring meetings? It was the knowing smirk of a man who has been dealing with the subject for much longer than he ever expected.
“I am ready for it to be done,” Morehead said. “We’ve talked about it and talked about it. I’m not sure it will get completed (next week). We’ll see. There’s just a lot of dynamics still playing around on that issue.”
Or perhaps just one dynamic, as Morehead bluntly acknowledged: Whether the SEC gets more money from ESPN.
“I may be saying more than Commissioner (Greg) Sankey would want me to say, but obviously if you go to a nine-game schedule, you have to be compensated for going to a nine-game schedule,” Morehead said. “There’s still some dynamics that have to play out with our media partners.”
Georgia is among the schools that in the past has favored going to nine games, and those schools were long believed to be in the majority. But during the past few months, support has wavered, and there is now a real chance that keeping an eight-game format will win out. That could make next week’s meetings dramatic, with a vote that could go either way.
Georgia remains solidly in the pro-nine-game camp. (Dale Zanine / USA Today)
Or the vote could be punted, yet again. But time is running out.
If the SEC does adopt a nine-game schedule, schools have to cancel at least one nonconference game in the 2024 season, and many have their schedules full for seasons beyond that. That, and just being tired of debating the subject, may spur a decision next week.
Oklahoma and Texas officials will be in Destin next week and will have a voice in the decision. But they will not have an official vote until July 1, 2024. So the decision could come down to a simple vote. The best way to look at it: There are more schools hard in favor of going to nine games than there are those hard in favor of staying at eight. But there are enough schools close enough to the fence that staying at eight games could win out, especially if ESPN doesn’t increase its financial commitment to the league.
Right now the SEC is operating under the pre-expansion agreement that was set to bring the conference about $811 million annually, and per the standard pro rata clause in most contracts, that would go up to around $926 million by adding two schools. The SEC has hoped that because those two schools are Texas and Oklahoma and that a nine-game schedule would mean more marquee games, ESPN would offer more money.
The nine-game format would include three annual opponents for each school, then rotate everyone else. The eight-game format would include only one annual opponent while rotating everyone else. The result being that some secondary rivalries — Auburn-Georgia, Alabama–Tennessee, Texas-Texas A&M, for example — would not be played annually. The SEC probably has made the case to ESPN that having those games every year, rather than twice every four years, is worth more money, as is having a total of eight more conference games every year.
ESPN has made no financial commitments yet. (Side note: This would seem to confirm that ESPN was not behind Oklahoma and Texas joining the conference.)
But there still could be something new to sway the vote in Destin, if there is a vote. ESPN could let the SEC people know that, for instance, it would be amenable to paying a certain amount more if the league went to a nine-game schedule. Or it could just be pointed out that since ESPN and the SEC share SEC Network revenues, more SEC games — and more quality games — will result in more revenue anyway.
Failing that help from ESPN, however, more than a few SEC schools are unwilling to give up the attendance money they get from extra home games. And yes, bowl eligibility is a factor too. So in essence it becomes a divide between the schools already scheduling 10 or more power conference games per year, and those that haven’t been.
Here’s the best guess at where things stand now:
The nine-game camp
Texas A&M athletic director Ross Bjork has been perhaps the most outspoken advocate, and Aggies officials actually helped craft the original plan for a nine-game format.
Georgia, Florida, Alabama and LSU are also in the category of major programs that have already been punching up their schedule with Power 5 teams. However, Alabama coach Nick Saban has been wavering on the nine-game model, not liking the three permanent opponents his team would draw (LSU in addition to Auburn and Tennessee). So Alabama may not be a hard yes, and Morehead makes it sound as though Georgia’s vote is fungible too.
Texas and Oklahoma had already scheduled SEC schools (Georgia in both cases, Alabama and Tennessee in others) before deciding to join the SEC. So they could use their voice and unofficial vote in favor of nine games.
Missouri, while not an elite football power, has also expressed support for the nine-game format, according to an SEC source.
The eight-game camp
Kentucky athletic director Mitch Barnhart has been outspoken in favor of staying at eight, saying last summer that it worked for his school, pointing to the annual rivalry game with Louisville as a ninth power conference game.
Mississippi State and Ole Miss are also believed to prefer having only eight conference games plus one mandated nonconference game against a Power 5 team. Bowl eligibility plus more home gate receipts are driving factors.
Mystery (five)
Tennessee, which wasn’t afraid to schedule Oklahoma for a nonconference series, would seem more likely to favor nine. Auburn also sees itself in the elite category. But both schools, along with Arkansas, also like having more home games and the gate receipts that come with it. Vanderbilt, meanwhile, has also been quiet on its preference.
South Carolina is one of those in a supports-either-option camp. The Gamecocks do already have the annual rivalry with Clemson, so a nine-game schedule would give them at least 10 power-conference games per year. But athletic director Ray Tanner, speaking with The Athletic in March, said he would do what’s in the best interests of the SEC.
What happens if there is a vote, and it’s 7-7? It’s not clear if Sankey or the SEC office would simply break the tie. The only thing that’s clear is Sankey is seeking a consensus, or something close to it. He learned under predecessor Mike Slive, who liked to say of the conference’s private deliberations: “The First Amendment is alive and well in the SEC.” And Slive could smile and say that because he knew eventually the league would settle it and not announce the actual vote.
Could there be some give-and-take on permanent opponents, as in could it be a trading chip to get wavering teams to support a nine-game schedule? Nothing can be ruled out, but all along the permanent opponent and the format have been on a separate track. Each team’s three permanent opponents in a nine-game format have been known to each school — though not publicly confirmed — since last year’s meetings and have not changed.
Could the commissioner put his weight on the scale for one of the options?Perhaps, but Sankey is more likely to stand back and let his presidents take the lead. That’s why next week could look like this: Coaches talk about it publicly Tuesday and Wednesday, athletic directors lay the groundwork for a final decision, then presidents come in Thursday, hash things out, and vote Friday.
But not voting is also an option. Not a desirable option. But an option.
LikeLike
A nice visual of how popular the B10 and SEC are. In a follow-up tweet he notes it actually does include 202o, which skews it in favor of the SEC a tiny bit.
Of particular interest are where the 4 new additions appear:
5. OU (#3 in SEC, on par with LSU)
10. UT (#7 in SEC, just ahead of WI and behind UF)
15. USC (#6 in B10, just behind TAMU and ahead of NE)
21. UCLA (#10 in B10, behind IN and ahead of NW)
His question is when do the P2 start feeling pressure to either “trim the tail” or so to unequal revenue sharing. I think that may be a very long time, but the networks may push for unequal scheduling.
LikeLike
Also, I should note that the LA schools are likely to move up just from not having games buried on the P12N. All the OTA windows should help them a lot in this metric, as will the increase in high profile games for them.
The SEC’s better deal will help UT and OU some as well, as will the increase in high profile games for them.
Speaking of the B12, here’s why P5 conferences don’t want to add most G5 schools. Of the remaining G5’s, only Army, Navy, Boise and Memphis draw any sort of viewership.
LikeLike
Interesting that Fresno St out-rates SDSU, and by a considerable amount: not a result I would’ve expected. Also unexpected is that SDSU and UConn rate just about the same. UConn’s numbers are pretty impressive for their bad TV deal and worse schedule.)
Assuming the Big XII is aware of these numbers (and how could they not be?) it’s clear that ratings are not the only factor. Otherwise they’d be throwing a lot more love at Boise and Memphis.
LikeLike
Boise had their special ESPN TV deal, giving them a leg up on the rest of their conference. Also, their numbers have dropped the past few years I believe.
Memphis is widely considered the likely next school up for the B12, but it’s a clearly a step below the recent B12 additions. Boise’s location has held it back a bit. Both suffer from poor academic reputations, too.
Memphis just got state funding to renovate the Liberty Bowl, which should help them.
LikeLike
How do the ACC schools compare to the B10? This is one reason they are frustrated. It also shows why UVA may be a tough sell (and even UNC), though better TV exposure may help their numbers.
Even with their weak schedule and isolation on NBC, ND is a strong #3 (ahead of PSU). Other rough equivalents:
Clemson ~ PSU
FSU ~ USC, NE (halfway between the 2)
Miami ~ IA, IN (halfway between the 2)
VT = UNC ~ PU, MN (halfway between the 2)
GT = NCSU ~ UMD, IL (halfway between the 2)
UVA ~ IL
Duke ~ RU
LikeLike
Apparently the P12 presidents are asking the B10 presidents to leave them alone. But isn’t that exactly what has been happening, with the B10 not inviting UW and UO (or the NorCal pair)? Maybe they want Petitti to come out and clearly state it (for P12 PR reasons).
LikeLike
The number of contacts could be way more than we’ve heard, since you only hear about what someone is willing to leak.
LikeLike
It could be, but half the presidents are brand new or non-existent right now. Are they likely to be reaching out just after the semester ended to discuss realignment? And of the older ones, how many are anti-expansion? Plus we know the B10 already met with representatives of UW and UO, so there shouldn’t be much left to discuss.
I think they’re referring to things like the interview that NE’s president gave. They’d love for Petitti to come out and make a blanket statement that the B10 will not expand again until the new TV deal ends. That buys the P12 several years to solidify its position.
LikeLike
Back to the topic of Frank’s post. I don’t vouch for this person’s information, but she claims the B10 is leaning towards the “flex” scheduling model with schools having different numbers of locked rivals. She lists some possible locks, but doesn’t claim that is from a source. I disagree with her list – PSU/MSU is locked, but PSU/OSU isn’t? Why not just leave PSU unlocked in that case?
LikeLike
Brian: “I disagree with her list – PSU/MSU is locked, but PSU/OSU isn’t?”
I also disagree but for different reasons.
(1) PSU should clearly be locked with Maryland and Rutgers.
(2) It is unfair to saddle MSU with two annual heavyweights.
(3) This obsession with OSU-PSU being annual rivals, honestly, what are you and Marc thinking? Loading up OSU, Michigan, PSU and USC with annual games against each other will obviously reduce their chances of getting into the CFP. OSU and PSU is not a rivalry, they scheduled each other only six times in the century before PSU joined the Big Ten.
LikeLike
PSU should clearly be locked with Maryland and Rutgers.
You and I have different definitions of “clear.” I mean…if it’s unfair to saddle MSU with two heavyweights, then why isn’t it unfair to gift PSU with two lightweights? For what it’s worth, I distinctly recall the PSU AD saying that he didn’t see a need to lock those two games. Of course, the math says they’ll have at least one on the schedule every year anyway, and some years both.
It is unfair to saddle MSU with two annual heavyweights.
Perhaps, but those were MSU’s two locks before Nebraska joined, so there is a precedent for it.
This obsession with OSU-PSU being annual rivals, honestly, what are you and Marc thinking? Loading up OSU, Michigan, PSU and USC with annual games against each other will obviously reduce their chances of getting into the CFP. OSU and PSU is not a rivalry, they scheduled each other only six times in the century before PSU joined the Big Ten.
OSU–PSU is the Big Ten’s highest-rated TV game every year, other than OSU–Michigan. They’d be fools to throw that away. OSU has been 1st or t-1st in the league or in its division 16 of the past 18 seasons. Playing both UM and PSU annually has not really been a problem for them.
PSU and OSU have met annually for the past 30 years. It’s the only team PSU has never missed playing since they joined the league. They now have more total meetings than PSU has with Rutgers.
LikeLike
I’d point out that my objection was a comparison of the 2 games. If PSU/MSU is important enough to lock when neither side considers it a rivalry and it hasn’t gotten particularly great ratings, then how is PSU/OSU not locked when PSU does consider it a rivalry and it pulls great ratings and OSU is closer to PSU than MSU is?
If she had only locked MI for MSU, then it would at least be consistent. I’d still disagree, but I could see the logic to her list. PSU/MSU completely undermines that.
But what the list would do, is result in more games between OSU, PSU and NE vs USC and UCLA anyway. As teams with only 1 locked rival, they have to play 8 of the remaining 14 schools. Teams with 2 or 3 locked rivals have fewer games available, so the 1-lock teams would play each other more.
LikeLike
The supposed full list from that same source. Basically, it’s 1 game for everyone who wasn’t listed before. I struggle to believe the B10 would have 1 school with 3 locked games, 4 with 2, and 11 with 1.
When asked if this is confirmed, she replies:
It’s not voted on yet so it could change but that is currently what will be voted on whenever it happens.
When asked about OSU/PSU because of it being #2 in B10 ratings and has always been an annual game, she replies:
OSU vs PSU can be flexed to be scheduled every year. Under the Flex there will be some teams you play more often than others. This creates more big games every year because of the flex.
How is a game “flexed” to be played every year not a locked game? By definition, that’s the same thing but with more effort required because they have to vote on it every year.
LikeLike
Brian, this is the “variable” format that I proposed several months ago. Scroll up and read it for yourself. I also sent an email to each Big Ten AD plus USC and UCLA with my proposal.
Now, my roster of rivals was a bit different – I had Purdue with IU and IL and similar variations – but nonetheless it is obviously the preferred methodology, while you were squealing for PSU and OSU as annual rivals.
I do hope the Big Ten Conference acknowledges my innovation but that probably won’t happen.
LikeLike
Fun with the Knight Commission’s database (more recent than the tax form data discussed recently):
https://knightnewhousedata.org/fbs
2022 revenue for FBS: $9.79B
NCAA/Conference Distributions, Media Rights, and Post-Season Football: 30%
Donor Contributions: 20%
Ticket Sales: 16%
Institutional/Government Support: 11%
Corporate Sponsorship, Advertising, Licensing: 8%
Student Fees: 6%
Competition Guarantees: 1%
Other: 7%
By comparison, here are the same numbers for the B10:
2022 revenue for FBS: $2.04B (20.8% of total)
NCAA/Conference Distributions, Media Rights, and Post-Season Football: 39%
Donor Contributions: 20%
Ticket Sales: 19%
Corporate Sponsorship, Advertising, Licensing: 10%
Institutional/Government Support: 2%
Student Fees: 1%
Competition Guarantees: 0%
Other: 8%
And here are the same numbers for the SEC:
2022 revenue for FBS: $2.17B (22.2% of total)
NCAA/Conference Distributions, Media Rights, and Post-Season Football: 37%
Donor Contributions: 26%
Ticket Sales: 21%
Corporate Sponsorship, Advertising, Licensing: 7%
Institutional/Government Support: 2%
Student Fees: 1%
Competition Guarantees: 0%
Other: 7%
Just looking at 2022 NCAA/Conference Distributions, Media Rights, and Post-Season Football in millions of dollars:
SEC: Alabama 75.6
SEC: Kentucky 75.2
Big Ten: Ohio State 71.9
SEC: Auburn 67.8
SEC: Florida 65.1
Big Ten: Michigan State 64.9
Big Ten: Iowa 64.6
Big Ten: Illinois 64.0
Big Ten: Indiana 63.9
Big Ten: Minnesota 63.4
Big Ten: Michigan 63.0
Big Ten: Wisconsin 62.8
Big Ten: Purdue 62.3
SEC: LSU 61.6
SEC: Mississippi State 59.9
SEC: Ole Miss 59.93
SEC: Georgia 58.6
Big Ten: Penn State 56.6
Big Ten: Nebraska 56.5
SEC: Arkansas 56.2
SEC: Tennessee 55.2
SEC: South Carolina 54.6
SEC: Missouri 53.6
Big Ten: Maryland 52.3
SEC: Texas A&M 51.1
Big 12: Oklahoma State 50.1
p5 Median: 49.8
Big 12: Oklahoma 49.5
Big 12: Iowa State 49.5
Big 12: Kansas State 49.4
Big Ten: Rutgers 49.2
ACC: N.C. State 49.2
Big 12: Kansas 48.8
Big 12: West Virginia 45.7
Pac-12: Utah 44.4
ACC: North Carolina 43.3
Big 12: Texas Tech 42.6
Pac-12: Oregon State 42.4
Big 12: Texas 42.2
ACC: Virginia 42.0
ACC: Florida State 41.4
ACC: Virginia Tech 41.1
Pac-12: Oregon 40.7
Pac-12: UCLA 40.7
Pac-12: Washington State 40.6
ACC: Clemson 40.2
Pac-12: Arizona State 40.2
Pac-12: Washington 39.9
ACC: Louisville 39.3
Pac-12: California 38.0
ACC: Georgia Tech 37.5
Pac-12: Colorado 36.7
Pac-12: Arizona 36.3
This is what’s driving realignment, and more media revenue may lead to more winning which leads to more donations and more ticket sales.
LikeLike
I thought the Big Ten shared media rights and bowl payouts equally. Why then is there such a big disparity between Ohio State (71.9) and Penn State (56.6)? I am clearly not understanding what these numbers purport to be.
LikeLike
Marc,
This includes things like expenses paid for bowl games and NCAAT trips and bowl tickets sold, too. Those obviously aren’t shared. It is also for all sports, so OSU may have had lots of little expenses for minor sports going to NCAA championships that got reimbursed. Also, having the most teams and athletes probably means larger academic success payments from the NCAA.
LikeLike
If the numbers include reimbursements, I would suggest these numbers are distorted. I mean: if you go on a business trip that that your employer reimburses, you wouldn’t say that your income was higher by the amount of the trip.
LikeLike
Marc,
I don’t know if it’s reimbursement or a preset amount to cover expenses. But that is revenue (since those expenses count on the boo9ks as well). The B10 gives all bowl teams some money for expenses, and probably also for NCAAT teams and CCG teams.
But that was just my guess at what might be making up the extra money. Here’s a report from the NCAA explaining what all they give out:
Click to access 2022D1Fin_RevenueDistributionPlan.pdf
The broad-based distribution is sent to all active Division I institutions
based on the number of varsity sports sponsored (weighted one-third)
and athletic grants-in-aid awarded (weighted two-thirds)
OSU will get more from that than anyone else. It may be a bunch of smaller amounts adding up to make the difference.
LikeLike
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/college/sooners/2023/05/25/conference-realignment-ou-texas-could-have-bested-usc-ucla-in-big-ten/70257984007/
A look at whether OU and UT would’ve helped the B10, starting from the recent kerfuffle over November night games. Nothing really new here, just a look from the OU perspective.
Did the Big Ten ever seek out OU and Texas? Did OU and Texas ever seek out the Big Ten?
Would OU and Texas be better off in the Big Ten than in the SEC? Would the Big Ten be better off with OU/Texas than USC/UCLA?
On the first two, I have no idea. In the same way that football coaches at a cocktail party end up talking about the viability of the single wing on the 21st-century gridiron, administrators probably talk about all kinds of wild ideas, from Star Trek transporters to paying coaches in crypto currency.
I’d be stunned if Joe Castiglione and Chris Del Conte (or Del Conte’s predecessors as Texas athletic director) didn’t at least discuss among themselves the value of Big Ten vs. SEC membership.
My view?
The Big Ten would have been much better off with OU and Texas, than with USC and UCLA.
But OU and Texas will be marginally better off with the SEC than with the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Is Kirk Ferentz about to be on thin ice? What about Brian Ferentz? Iowa’s AD is going to “retire” and it’s hard to believe the next one will be so tolerant.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/37734005/sources-iowa-ad-gary-barta-expected-announce-retirement
Off the field, Barta’s tenure featured multiple high-profile lawsuits, which saw Iowa pay out more than $10 million since 2017. Those included a settlement of over $4 million to a group of Black former Iowa football players who sued the university for discrimination. There was also a $6.5 million payout in 2017 over the firing of a former field hockey coach. A former senior athletic director also won $1.4 million in damages in 2017 for a discrimination lawsuit.
Additionally, the school announced this month that it is fully cooperating in a sports wagering investigation and that the school “has received information about 111 individuals,” although only 26 are current athletes.
Barta’s retirement does not come as much of a surprise within the college athletics industry. In September 2022, the school hired Beth Goetz, who was the sitting athletic director at Ball State, to become the deputy athletic director and chief operating officer.
Because Goetz stepped down from a sitting athletic director’s job, that hire led to a belief that Goetz could end up replacing Barta in the near future. She’ll be the favorite for the job. The school said an interim AD will be announced next week.
LikeLike
I’ve often said that the vast majority of realignment rumors and predictions are wrong. Thus, I did not bother posting here when Barry Tramel of The Oklahoman wrote the other day that, ” A Big 12 source told me last week that Colorado is ready to commit to joining the Big 12 “soon.”
But today we’ve got that rare beast, a sourced quote on realignment from someone in authority. Rick George, the Colorado AD, was asked about a potential move to the Big XII, and he did not exactly pour cold water on the idea:
We’re members of the Pac-12, we’re proud members of the Pac-12 and we’ve got to see where our media rights deal lands and where our conference goes. In a perfect world, we’d love to be in the Pac-12, but we also have to do what’s right for Colorado at the end of the day. We’ll evaluate things as we move forward.
To say “we’ll evaluate things” sounds a lot less sure of their future in the league than we’ve heard from the other Four Corners. I still think the odds favor the Pac-12 staying together. However, it’s worth noting that the Pac-12 is only as strong as the least committed member, since if they lose even one, they will surely lose others.
LikeLike
The Big XII doesn’t really need Colorado nor the Four Corners to wreak havoc in the Pac-12. They’ve already got BYU and any combination of four that takes them to 16, for example, San Diego St, Colorado State, SMU, AFA, Fresno, Boise, UNLV, will compete for viewers in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones in the Big XII’s TV package.
LikeLike
San Diego St, Colorado State, SMU, AFA, Fresno, Boise, and UNLV compete in the Mountain and Pacific time zones today, and they do not hold a candle to the Four Corners. Any sentient commissioner would rather have Colorado, Utah, and the two Arizona schools.
Now, if the Pac-12 holds together for this cycle, then the Big XII will be at a crossroads. Go to 14 or 16 with the best two or four available? Or wait for the next cycle? That will be Yormark’s dilemma.
The Four Corners, if available, is a move they obviously would make. Aside from that, maybe they’d be better off digesting their four new additions before grabbing more. I am not sure any of the others are so compelling that they must be added now, other than AFA which they probably can’t get.
LikeLike
Marc, the issue isn’t what time zone that San Diego St, Colorado State, etc, are playing in. The point is that that will be moving up to a P5 conference instead of G5. And as the Pac-12 TV deal seems to be looking more dismal with each passing day. it could well be that a school like SDS would make more revenue in the Big XII than in the Pac-12.
LikeLike
A school like SDS would make more revenue in the Big XII than in the Pac-12.
This is likely true, but realignment requires two parties to agree. Is it seriously your contention that the Big XII would rather have, for instance, Colorado State over Colorado?
LikeLike
Marc: ” Is it seriously your contention that the Big XII would rather have, for instance, Colorado State over Colorado?”
No, that’s not what I said at all. Of course the Big XII would prefer the Four Corners. But if they stay in the Pac-12, the Big XII could considerably expand their VT market with additions like SDS, Fresno, UNLV since they’ve already brought in BYU. Since the Pac-12 already has a big hole where the LA schools used to be, losing other TV markets in the West isn’t going to enhance their TV package.
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/os/news/big-ten-expansion-usc-ucla-conference-realignment-college-football-scheduling-2024-2025/
Since we’ve been talking scheduling again, I’ll link this article from January (I don’t think any of us posted it back then). On3 use a public information request to get a document the B10 sent to UCLA about possible ways to minimize travel concerns.
The document states, “The conference will work strategically with both UCLA and USC to determine a maximum/minimum preference of away trips on a sport-by-sport basis.” The Big Ten plans to sequence schedules to allow for schools to play multiple road games on the same trip.
An email UCLA assistant athletic director of travel operations Akemi Kitagawa Nishida sent to director of travel operations Gina Goryoka and executive senior associate athletic director and chief financial officer Christopher Iacoi said the commercial travel time to Champaign, Illinois, is nine hours, when factoring in rental cars from Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. It’s 8.75 hours to fly commercially to Rutgers, according to the email.
A trip to Michigan was calculated to be 7.75 hours and Wisconsin is 9.5 hours via commercial air travel. For reference, Kitagawa listed Oregon State as a 7.5-hour trip via commercial air travel and Washington State at 9.75 hours. The latter two trips don’t include changes in time zones, obviously.
…
The conference also plans to allow for multiple programs from the same school, or even competing schools, to share charter flights, if they so desire. One example listed is scheduling competitions in women’s volleyball and men’s and women’s soccer at the same two schools on the same weekend.
The Big Ten could also schedule programs at UCLA and USC to travel to the same region of the country if the two schools are willing to share charter flights. According to the document, the conference will explore using travel partners “where competition schedules permit.”
…
One idea included in the info sheet is multiple-team events at the same location. Those events could be held on campus or at neutral sites near major airports, such as Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis and Minneapolis.
The potential for on-campus events could include identifying “one or two campuses per year (rotating year-over-year) to allow multiple teams in the same sport to compete in multiple games at the same location on a single trip,” according to the info sheet. “This could apply across the conference, not just to UCLA/USC.”
It states that campus sites are the “preferred option” versus neutral sites.
The potential multiple-team events could be part of regular-season schedule rotations or “as mini in-season tournaments that would be created to drive additional exposure and competition.”
Lastly, the Big Ten could hold seasonal championships or tournaments at the same campus. The conference cited the 2021-22 academic year, when Rutgers hosted the women’s soccer and field hockey championships on the same day.
I think the multi-team events are an interesting idea if schools have sufficient facilities to handle them.
I found the actual travel time information interesting as well. They can get to RU faster than to WSU, and MI and OrSU are basically the same time.
LikeLike
O’Hare Airport is on the northwest side of Chicago. To get to U of I from O’Hare is 148 miles and 2 hours, 13 minutes if there is no traffic jam and there is always a traffic jam driving through Chicago.
Indianapolis’ Airport is on the west side of Indy. To get to U of I from the airport to U of I is 125 miles and 1 hour, 52 minutes and there is never a traffic jam because there is nothing in between except cornfields. The Indy Airport runs shuttle buses to Purdue, Indiana University and the University of Illinois.
LikeLike
According to B10 ADs from eastern schools, it’ll be at least 2 years before B10 expands again and the preference is ACC schools (apparently NBC favors them for viewership in the primetime slot, and ND also prefers them). Western B10 schools might have different preferences (VA and NC are a long way from NE and IA). And of course presidents make the decisions, not the ADs.
LikeLike
I have to wonder if something was lost in translation, because if they want ACC schools it’ll be more like 10+ years, not two.
Western B10 schools might have different preferences (VA and NC are a long way from NE and IA).
Flight time from Lincoln to Charlotte is about an hour less than Lincoln to Seattle. Also, a difference of one time zone rather than two.
LikeLike
Marc,
I doubt B10 ADs are 100% certain about whether the ACC’s GOR holds up or not. Schools could buy out, or challenge in court and win, or find a loophole. But I think they were saying 2 things:
1. The B10 wants at least 2 years to digest the addition of USC and UCLA. They won’t expand again before that happens successfully. They weren’t putting any thought to when expansion might happen in terms of available schools.
2. Eastern ADs prefer ACC schools. Well, of course UMD would with UVA and UNC as the prime targets. RU and PSU also have mid-Atlantic ties that would make that their preference.
My point was that the western B10 schools might be more ambivalent. They will have more alumni out west than the eastern schools have, and the travel difference is less for them (1 time zone vs 3 for the east; hundreds of miles less distance). They might feel the eastern schools would get even more advantages by adding ACC schools (good recruiting grounds, but will those athletes want to play for NE or IA when UMD and PSU are so close?), while western schools might favor them.
LikeLike
Athletic expenses vary by conference. These numbers correlate somewhat with on the field/court/whatever success.
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1662466134086496256/photo/1
LikeLike
TV ratings show why the SEC should drop cupcake Saturday and play a 9th conference game. G5 vs G5 games draw better (on average) than P5 vs cupcake games.
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1662477709488926720/photo/1
LikeLike
Olympic sports update:
https://www.ncaa.com/live-updates/tennis-men/d1/virginia-wins-2023-di-mens-tennis-championship
OSU choked in the men’s tennis team championship, but an OSU pair did win the men’s doubles title. A MI player lost in the finals of the men’s singles.
https://www.ncaa.com/video/lacrosse-men/2023-05-27/ot-finish-duke-penn-state-ncaa-lacrosse-semifinals
PSU got screwed by the refs in the semifinals of MLAX. #1 Duke scored an illegal goal (scorer’s foot was in the crease) in sudden death OT to win, because the refs missed the call and it is not a reviewable play despite the NCAA having review available in the tournament (only timing issues can be reviewed). The announcers on ESPN pointed out how terrible that rule is – why wouldn’t a binary call like whether a foot is on the line or not be reviewable if you already have the technology in place?
Tonight, #12 NW tries to eliminate #5 AL in softball after winning the first game in a best of 3 series.
Tomorrow, #1 NW plays for WLAX title against BC. Also 1-seed UMD faces 3-seed IA for the B10 baseball tournament title.
LikeLike
AL beat NW in softball in game 2, with the deciding game going on now.
NW crushed BC 18-6 o win their 8th national title in WLAX.
LikeLike
NW lost another close game to AL in softball, and got eliminated.
UMD won the B10 baseball tournament for the first time.
LikeLike
Several good articles are out there regarding the SEC meetings and the future conference schedule. The Athletic and SI.com are doing a great job from a national perspective on covering the story, but I’m linking a local piece from The Baton Rouge Advocate that discusses a “bridge” schedule promoted by LSU’s Brian Kelly.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/sports/lsu/football-scheduling-likely-up-for-vote-at-sec-meeting/article_fc83da19-e852-540e-9b03-f11ccc8d309b.html
Here’s the pertinent part of the article dealing with the bridge schedlue.
“The Kelly compromise
Reportedly one of the sticking points in the eight games versus nine games debate is whether ESPN will pay the SEC more money for its new TV deal that goes into effect in 2024 now that Texas and Oklahoma are in the mix. The SEC and ESPN/ABC/Disney signed their 10-year, $3 billion deal in 2020 long before the Longhorns and Sooners decided to join the SEC.
The media giant isn’t contractually obligated to pay more, and with several rounds of belt tightening within the House of Mouse this year, layoffs throughout the company aimed to trim 7,000 jobs and save Disney $5.5 billion per year, the question is whether ESPN has more money to commit to SEC TV rights anyway. If not, the schools in the eight-game camp apparently say why give Disney more inventory if there isn’t more cash coming the SEC’s way?
For that reason, second-year LSU coach Brian Kelly recently raised the possibility that the SEC doesn’t have to pick a long-term football schedule format that would last the length of the new TV deal, but could opt for a shorter “bridge format” until Disney sees its finances improve.
“I think the major issue is the contractual agreement with ESPN moving forward,” Kelly told The Advocate earlier this month. “If you go to nine games, the beneficiary of that is ESPN. My guess is that there’s a monetary caveat to that that needs to be negotiated. If you (ESPN) go to the table and you complain about layoffs and Disney squeezing you and things of that nature, the other side of the table (the SEC) goes, ‘We don’t have to go to nine games. We’ll wait until you get your house in order.’
“My point is I think everything is negotiable. While putting in a ninth game makes sense, I don’t know that we’re going to give you a ninth game if it doesn’t make sense financially. This is speculative, but you could have a bridge schedule. It doesn’t mean we vote on a schedule that goes for the next 10 years.”
Kelly’s speculation is intriguing, and leaves one to think he’s more than just guessing. As entrenched as the SEC’s scheduling factions seem to be, perhaps the only solution will be a compromised one.”
LikeLike
Going to 9 games doesn’t add inventory, if anything it reduces it slightly. ESPN gets 8 more SEC games while losing 8-10 SEC OOC games. What ESPN gains is quality. And what the SEC gains is maintaining rivalries and connections between schools. The other P5’s went to 9 mid-contract for no immediate financial bump, but higher ratings now mean higher payouts on the next TV deal.
Dellenger’s piece says the SEC may pass a 1-year 8-game model to buy time to convince ESPN to pay more. They’re making clearly false claims, like this is not about money and is about player safety (it’s still a 12-game season, and you just approved a vast CFP expansion).
Sankey favors 9 games and seems willing to finally put his foot down if the schools won’t do the right things on their own.
LikeLike
Brian – I agree. It’s all about the money. then it’s about preserving rivalries and providing a more attractive home schedule for the fans.
The increased inventory from a 9-game conference schedule will benefit ABC and ESPN, while the loss of games will be felt by the SECN alternate channel, ESPNU, ESPNews & ESPN+.
LikeLike
Headline story in The Athletic:
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey on advantages of 9-game football schedule format
DESTIN, Fla. — SEC commissioner Greg Sankey privately has made his preference for a football schedule format clear to his members. And if his schools can’t reach a consensus this week at the SEC meetings, Sankey could step in to try to push the decision toward what he personally thinks is in the conference’s best interest.
What that would be — going to nine games or staying at eight — Sankey would not say on the eve of the SEC meetings. But as he spoke to a small group of reporters on Monday night, one could come away thinking the commissioner favored going to nine games.
“The league at the forefront of college athletics does not stand still. And this is the league at the forefront of college athletics,” Sankey said. “Now whether change happens immediately is part of the careful consideration. And a deep consideration.”
The focus of the debate is two options: a nine-game schedule with each team having three annual opponents, then rotating the other six games; an eight-game schedule with one annual opponent and rotating the other seven games. Each option would allow every team to play every other team at least twice every four years. Each option also eliminates divisions.
Georgia president Jere Morehead, whose school is seen as favoring nine games, said last week that getting more “compensation” from the conference’s media partner — ESPN — was needed if it would add a ninth conference game. But Sankey downplayed that Monday, at least saying it should not be a guiding factor.
“Money follows, it doesn’t lead. … If all you do is chase money, then you make really bad decisions,” Sankey said, adding later: “The money doesn’t just come from one source. If all we do is one source of revenue, then we’re at great risk. Ticket sales are an enormous source of revenue. … The importance in the value and interest in conference versus conference competition, there’s money inherent there, without ever talking about media (compensation).”
Another consideration: preserving rivalries on an annual basis. In the eight-game format, Auburn and Georgia would not play every year, nor would Tennessee and Alabama or Texas and Texas A&M.
“They’re huge games. Huge games, on the scale of college football games. Huge games,” Sankey said. “And we have an opportunity to play them every year or every other year. It’s not like we’re going to play them every 12 years.”
Sankey, to be clear, was careful not to reveal his preference was nine. After the interview session, he pointed out that he wasn’t asked the benefit of staying at eight games, so he was, and he pointed to what Kentucky and other eight-game proponents have said: more home games and an easier path to bowl eligibility.
But during the session, Sankey also offered the counter-points.
“When we’ve run the numbers, it’s not like we’ve seen massive ineligibility coming from a nine-game schedule,” Sankey said. “And we also saw it in the COVID year when we played 10, the interest is high for our games. The viewership on our network that year was at a record level, because we weren’t playing the same kind of games that are drawing the same kind of passion.”
The SEC meetings begin Tuesday with coaches and athletic directors, who also will meet Wednesday. The presidents then arrive later in the week and hold votes Friday, which is when any vote on the schedule would happen. Oklahoma and Texas will be present and have a voice in the room but will not have a vote.
A simple majority is all that’s required, Sankey confirmed, and he said he would be comfortable with that. But it does have to be a majority; Sankey would not break a 7-7 vote.
That’s why a decision may not happen this week. There could also be a stopgap arrangement to at least settle the 2024 season: eight games, preserving the traditional rivalries while hoping for more clarity and a firm decision for 2025 and beyond. (A stopgap could extend into the 2025 season, because the new College Football Playoff contract, whenever it happens, would begin in 2026 and should be more lucrative.)
ADVERTISEMENT
One argument for a stopgap schedule is if the SEC went to nine games then every school would have to cancel at least one nonconference game in the 2024 season, and it’s getting late in the process to do that. Sankey called that “a big issue.”
Still, making a decision as soon as this week is the preferred option.
“I would prefer not to continue to circle the airport with the airplane and would prefer to land it,” Sankey said.
And if his schools remain divided, would Sankey just have to say that one option was in the best interests of the league?
“Maybe. Sure,” he said. “I’ve allowed, intentionally, the conversation to play out without taking a position (publicly). I have made clear what I think should happen eventually inside the room.”
LikeLike
Alan,
The strange thing is that the SEC recognized the value of the CBS GotW despite being vastly underpaid for it. Sure, they didn’t renew the deal, but just like ND they recognized that other forms of value are important and can lead to money later. Now they are being small-minded and focused on a relatively small amount of money? I understand that they don’t like the B10 getting paid more, but I thought they’d focus more on continuing their on-field domination and growing the gap to the M3. The B10 has proven that a few extra dollars won’t turn into them beating the SEC on the field/court – it will support non-revenue teams the SEC doesn’t care about. Besides, once the new CFP revenue sharing model kicks in I’m guessing the SEC will surpass the B10 for good.
LikeLike
The strange thing is that the SEC recognized the value of the CBS GotW despite being vastly underpaid for it.
Did they believe they were vastly underpaid when they signed it? I am pretty sure they didn’t. Much like the ACC situation—though not to the same degree—the value of live-game sports appreciated faster than they had anticipated.
…just like ND they recognized that other forms of value are important and can lead to money later.
ND is unique in the amount of money they knowingly leave on the table, because to them independence is existential — and it matters to their big donors. There’s nothing like that in the SEC.
LikeLike
Marc,
Of course they didn’t. But it was a 15 year deal that CBS refused to renegotiate after the SEC expanded to 14 (ESPN did renegotiate). The SEC was mad at CBS from then on and there was zero chance they would renew with CBS, but the SEC still realized the value of being the only ones on CBS and having a GotW. They made the most of it. They also realized that they succeeded on the field just fine without the extra money. The difference between 8 and 9 games should be a lot less than the bump they’re getting from leaving CBS ($55M/yr to $300M/yr = over $17M/yr. for 14 teams). It seems silly to potentially hurt the league in the big picture over a smaller amount of money.
LikeLike
Alan,
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37763351/as-sec-football-schedule-debate-unfolds-most-coaches-noncommittal
I think MO’s coach summed it up well:
“I’m a history teacher by trade,” Missouri coach Eli Drinkwitz told reporters. “And every time I come to one of these meetings I’m blown away that the 13 colonies actually formed a union, but we can’t agree on an eight- or nine-game schedule.”
The P12 can’t get a TV deal, the B10 can’t finalize a TV deal or decide on a scheduling model, and the SEC can’t decide on a scheduling model. As much as all these people get paid, you’d think they could be more productive on these fundamental parts of their jobs.
LikeLike
Sankey favors 9 games and seems willing to finally put his foot down if the schools won’t do the right things on their own.
Does he have the authority to impose a schedule? The commissioner’s recommendation carries a lot of weight, but I am not sure he can unilaterally decide it.
LikeLike
He can’t unilaterally impose that; that has to be voted on by the presidents… But he can make clear that he thinks they should vote for a 9 game schedule and he’s willing to take a public position that it should happen.
How many schools would be willing to make it messy by going against him?
Obviously, he’s trying to coax them to a 9 game schedule while not taking a public position at the moment.
LikeLike
Quote below from an earlier article in The Athletic by jeff Schultz. This is what the SEC is getting in 2023 instead of a ninth conference game.
“But there’s a flaw that permeates an SEC football schedule, and in 2023 it will look something like this: Alabama versus UT Chattanooga, Georgia versus UT Martin, Tennessee versus Austin Peay, Texas A&M versus New Mexico, Auburn versus UMass, Florida versus McNeese State, Ole Miss versus Mercer, Texas A&M versus Abilene Christian, Auburn versus New Mexico State, Tennessee versus UTSA, Georgia versus Ball State, Anybody versus Louisiana-Monroe (and, yes, I know about 2007).
“In defense of Georgia, it has been in favor of an expanded SEC schedule and it has attempted to strengthen its non-conference slate. The Bulldogs even booked a home-and-home series against Oklahoma. But when the Sooners and Texas bolted the Big 12 for the SEC, Georgia blew up the two-game deal, which was to start this season in Norman. We don’t know what happened behind the scenes. But if the Bulldogs attempted to negotiate a guarantee to go to Oklahoma this year or to move the game to a neutral site, it never said so publicly. Instead, Georgia replaced Oklahoma on the schedule with Ball State. It looks bad, especially given the overall weakness of the Dogs’ schedule. Criticism is understandable.”
LikeLike
As a fan, I would prefer to see the SEC go to 9 games because it is better for the sport. That would mean more good games and less gaps between teams of the same conference playing each other.
But I fully understand the SEC schools being reluctant to do so. the 8 game conference schedule has been great for them quite frankly. Since that extra game has largely been used for an extra cupcake (some SEC teams play a total of 10 P5 teams in a season, but most only play 9 so they play fewer Power 5 teams than a lot of other teams) which generally means an extra win compared to a conference games where one team has to lose. Those extra wins over time have helped to cement the SEC’s reputation – not that they need the help given their overall head to head performances, but the improved records up and down the standings is generally good. Lesser teams get another potential win for fans, perhaps closer to bowl eligibility, potentially more money from an extra home game. Better teams have the opportunity to get a “breather” play some backups or underclassmen; heck there is a joke about how SEC teams take the weekend off before Thanksgiving to play crappy OOC games.
This has also allowed SEC teams some scheduling flexibility to play those well paying neutral site games – often in SEC markets – while still playing 7 home games every season.
So, I get it, why should the SEC teams give that up? If they don’t get more money from ESPN, then basically the motivation would be to strengthen ties to the other schools by paying more often. And while I think that’s worthwhile, the ADs might not care that much.
LikeLike
The supposed first 3 weeks of the NBC primetime slate this year. We know week 4 is OSU @ ND.
It was known coming in that the B10 has a weak OOC slate this year for home games, especially in week 2. That same week, the B10 has IA @ ISU, NE @ CU, PU @ VT and WI @ WSU.
Week 3 has PSU @ IL, VT @ RU and UW @ MSU, so NBC must have a low pick (#3?).
LikeLike
Weeks 2 and 3 are real stinkers.
LikeLike
Click to access 2023_Composite_Schedule.pdf
We knew in advance that 2023 was a bad scheduling year. OSU’s best OOC game is a road game (so are IA’s, WI’s and NE’s) and MI plays nobody OOC. That only leaves WV @ PSU and UW @ MSU.
In 2024 OSU plays nobody (cancelled a series with UW), but MI hosts UT, NE hosts CU, IA hosts ISU and WI hosts AL. Also USC hosts ND.
LikeLike
On Sept 14, 2024, Purdue hosts Notre Dame, the first game of a five-game series.
LikeLike
There’s also this. The Week 3 UW @ MSU game will be a Peacock-only game and start at 5 pm. In theory I like the concept of having some games that bridge the normal windows, so you can switch over if everything is a blowout. But Comcast is undermining NBC’s primetime ratings in the 1st year of the new deal by having a better game streaming on Peacock than on NBC and with considerable overlap.
What a waste of a rare good B10 home OOC game in 2023.
Add this to the PSU game moving to Black Friday at For Field, and many MSU fans aren’t real happy right now.
An MSU official confirmed that there will be no local broadcast available either, unlike the NFL.
LikeLike
“Michigan State’s Sept. 16 home game against Washington will kick off at 5 p.m. and air exclusively on the Peacock streaming service, NBC announced.”
The Big Ten got in bed with the Devil when they agreed to NBC’s second fiddle kissy-huggy broadcast following ND home games. We are now reaping what we have sown.
LikeLike
Pure speculation from USC writers on how USC and UCLA may be scheduled in the B10.
Key points:
* They will host some late-night games, but UCLA more than USC
* USC will get more primetime slots
* Claims CBS gets the third pick
I agree with them that UCLA is likely to host more late-night games than USC, though I don’t know how many Fox wants for FS1.
NBC already has USC @ ND every other year, and I can see them wanting that game annually. Would they want to focus on just USC beyond that when they could have OSU and MI just as often? I doubt it. But they will choose USC more than UCLA.
I also think USC and UCLA have asked the B10 to limit how many noon ET games they play, since their fans won’t be up yet. I could see Fox picking USC @ OSU/MI/PSU for the big noon game, but more often I’d expect USC @ whomever to be a CBS or NBC game to maximize the west coast viewers.
I thought the first pick was by draft (Fox takes the final week to get OSU/MI, etc.) with them all getting basically equal selections overall. Maybe we’ll learn more once the details are worked out.
USC is going to be featured on NBC Sports, the network which will have the prime-time Big Ten game of the week under the new Big Ten football media deal. USC on NBC in the 7:30 p.m. Eastern (4:30 p.m. Pacific) window will be a frequent part of future college football Saturdays. When the Trojans visit an Eastern time zone Big Ten school such as Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or Michigan State, that will be the Fox Big Noon Saturday game. When USC visits Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, or another mid-tier Big Ten team, that will be a 3:30 Eastern (12:30 Pacific) CBS game, since CBS gets the Big Ten’s No. 3 selection under the new media rights deal.
…
If the Big Ten has 10 p.m. or 10:30 p.m. Eastern time conference games on TV, UCLA is going to play more of those than USC. You can be confident about that. We certainly are:
LikeLike
https://yorknewstimes.com/sports/college/shatel-nebraskas-ted-carter-talks-nil-big-ten-matt-rhule-and-top-gun/article_892220ef-9bf7-58d5-9761-75e574aebd67.html
NE’s president gave an interview. Lots of good stuff about him and his military background, NIL, and other athletics issues.
Q: How is Nebraska’s relationship with the Big Ten these days? And how tense were things during Covid?
A: “You can read in the blogs out there: there’s a Pac-12 team out there wondering if they could replace Nebraska. Let me be clear: that’s not happening.
“There’s a reason for that. There’s a reason that Nebraska has sold out every football game since 1962. There’s a reason that a Nebraska volleyball game or, even better, a bowling match was the most watched Big Ten show for the entire year.
“We have a fan base, a national brand. Our fan base and national brand give us watchability. I get notes from people from all corners about Nebraska all the time.
“The jump from the Big 12 to the Big Ten was a big decision, obviously well before I got here. Coach Osborne gave me a long talk about why it happened, what it took. It was more than just sports. It was a huge shot in the arm to be in arguably the number one academic conference. We should be proud we were invited to that. We have to continue to prove ourselves that way.
“We belong. Was there a period during Covid when there was talk about not playing? Yeah. I wasn’t happy about that. I was pretty public about that. In fact, Ronnie Green and I had a teleconference with Kevin Warren and kind of gave him the what-for about that. And he listened.”
Carter said tensions with the Big Ten were “overblown” because other Big Ten members voiced their opinions to play in 2020, also.
“I do think we made a difference,” Carter said. “I would argue Nebraska made a difference in how you could play football safely by being a little bit of a squeaky wheel, a little bit of a nuisance. At the end of the day, all the Big Ten presidents came along and said we should be able to do this.”
LikeLike
This person supposedly has inside sources, and works in the industry.
Key tidbits:
* B10 wants to expand in the east, including into FL
* More expansion is coming
* UW and UO are the only schools under consideration from the P12. Cal and Stanford are out.
The only options for any possible expansion for the Big Ten west of Dallas, Texas or west of Nebraska are Oregon and Washington. And neither a great rating adds either. The only reason either of those schools would be added is to have complete control of the entire western part of the United States. Since California and Stanford are no longer part of any conversations for Big Ten expansion targets, it leaves those two schools (OR, WA) or nobody.
* 1 SEC school would jump to the B10 (unnamed, but MO) and TAMU would consider it (1% chance).
* Top ACC targets are ND, Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT and NCSU. No mention of UNC (or GT), and says UVA doesn’t draw enough eyeballs.
* Says to watch for summer news from the ACC, and to watch ND and their TV deal
I say no way would TAMU leave the SEC, and I doubt MO would now (same money as B10 and got OU and UT games back).
I don’t buy Clemson or FSU as options, because they’d both prefer the SEC. NCSU and VT would both be 2nd choices, and I’m not sure either is worth it.
LikeLike
Do not be so sure about FSU and the SEC. Most students, fans, and alumni lean SEC. It is a strong lean, but not overwhelming. Obviously there are some people who think that a university is football team with a few other things attached and they are all in for the SEC. More thoughtful fans are split.
I can tell you as a fact, not speculation or reports that I have read, that people who count in the administration might ultimately want the B1G. It is the academics. They want FSU in the by far the best academic conference in the country. That is a very strong attraction to the FSU leadership.
Of course, where it goes is another question. I have no clue regarding the positions of Florida politicians who might be highly relevant to any final decision.
There is one more minor concern about going to the SEC. Would FSU wind up as the permanent little brother to UF, even if FSU has a much stronger football program? That is minor, but real, consideration.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I fully agree that the academics want the B10, but the big money boosters win out in these battles. The average university president lasts less than 6 years, but fans, alumni and boosters last a lifetime (and maybe generations). ND ignored their faculty about joining the B10. I know ND is a unique case with their commitment to independence, but my point is that the people easily won out over the academics. Frankly, never have academics carried less weight than they do now – especially in FL where they don’t even run their own schools anymore.
In addition, I think FSU would want to be in UF’s conference to help with recruiting. The SEC will have a lot more games close to home for a player from FL than the B10 would, and the SEC will always be better on the field. I think being in the B10 would be viewed as the little brother scenario.
Anyway, it’s just my opinion.
LikeLike
Frank, IL gets a primetime game (on FS1).
IA/NE on Black Friday at noon. The NFL game is at 3pm. PSU/MSU at 7:30 pm.
The SEC has a BF game at 4 pm. The ACC, B12 and P12 also each have 1 BF game. Which window will they compete in? At least one will play at noon. Will the P12 push UO vs OrSU to the late window?
LikeLike
From the Athletic:
Fox goes all in on Deion Sanders’ Colorado football team, at least in September
By Stewart Mandel 1h ago
Deion Sanders, aka Coach Prime, has done something that seemed unthinkable a year ago. He has made Colorado football Must-See TV — at least in September.
Fox Sports on Wednesday announced that Colorado — which went 1-11 last season — will appear in the network’s first two Big Noon Kickoff games this fall. The Buffs open Sept. 2 at TCU, which appeared in last season’s national championship game, then host old rival Nebraska the following week in a game that will kick off at 10 a.m. in Boulder.
ESPN, which also announced its early season schedule Wednesday, selected Colorado’s Week 3 game against Colorado State for its “Pac-12 After Dark” window at 10 p.m. ET, and it will air the Buffs’ Oct. 13 Friday night game against Stanford at 10 p.m. ET.
CU had two games on ESPN’s main network all of last season and none on Fox.
LikeLike
I think CU fans are in for a rude awakening. It’s not that I doubt what Sanders could do eventually. But there is only so much improvement you can expect from a 1–11 team, a new system, and an almost totally new roster. Given the near-daily hype, they’re not going to sneak up on anyone.
LikeLike
Marc, I fully agree with your analysis. Nonetheless when those games air in September, I imagine the viewer ratings for those Colorado games will dwarf everything else. I’ll be watching them and so will you.
LikeLike
As bad as they were, the all-new roster may be a good thing. The coaches are new so everyone has to learn the new system anyway, and now the talent is better. And there’s almost nowhere to go but up. I think fans would be happy with 4 wins and sign of progress heading into 2024. Their schedule isn’t easy, though.
All the free PR will help them recruit again. But look at their game times – 10 am local, 10 am local, late-night (8 pm local), and a F late-night (8 pm local). Fans will get tired of those sorts of windows pretty quick.
LikeLike
No, the Colorado fans will not get fed up with those TV windows. Previously, the Buffs weren’t in those windows. Now they are. Colorado was 1-11 last year. Right now it’s the Second Coming of Knute Rockne in Boulder.
LikeLike
The way you get out of those windows is to start winning.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
College football games on streaming burdens fans. Michigan State-Washington is just the start
By Chris Vannini May 31, 2023
We were the lucky ones, one afternoon during Week 1 of the 2007 college football season. As students at Michigan State, my friends and I had Big Ten Network in the dorm rooms. So, when we walked out of Spartan Stadium and heard Appalachian State was going down to the wire with Michigan, we ran to the nearest dorm and watched the stunning finish on BTN in the lobby. Many fans, even in Michigan, didn’t see it, because they didn’t have that brand-new BTN channel.
These days, we could just pull the game up on our phones to watch, even in the stadium. In many ways, it has never been easier to be a sports fan and watch what you want — as long as you’re willing to pay for it. Sixteen years ago, there were games you simply could not watch, and you had to catch ESPN highlight shows to see them. Now it’s all available, from Group of 5 college football to Indian cricket to Australian Rules Football.
But it’s clear the viewing experience for major American sports has peaked from its golden era of a few years ago when almost everything was on cable, and Wednesday’s reveal of early-season college football broadcasts emphasized the direction we’re heading. Why? Because there’s always a little more money to be made off of fans. Now, you’ll pay for games you didn’t have to pay for before.
Michigan State vs. Washington was an ABC prime-time game a year ago. This fall, it will be a streaming-only affair on Peacock as NBC’s new media rights deal with the Big Ten begins. It’s the highest-profile streaming-only game we’ve seen in this sport thus far. Washington is a College Football Playoff contender with a potential Heisman Trophy candidate in quarterback Michael Penix Jr. Michigan State won 11 games in 2021 and has one of the largest fan bases in the Big Ten.
What will the NBC TV channel show in its Big Ten prime-time window? Syracuse at Purdue.
This is the new world of sports viewership, where it has never been more expensive to watch your team. Your cable bill has gone up with more sports channels, and now you have to add streaming services, even for games that used to be on cable. It has crept into almost every sport, and the Big Ten is next.
Michigan State will take the early brunt of the Big Ten’s NBC requirements. Not only will its marquee nonconference home game be relegated to streaming, but the Spartans will play at Ohio State at night on NBC in November and their final home game against Penn State has been moved to Black Friday at Ford Field in Detroit as the Big Ten tries to convince its schools to accept November night games.
That urging is why the comments in ESPN’s story two weeks ago about the Big Ten television deal were so surprising. Football coaches and athletic directors are concerned about November night games, and basketball coaches are concerned about so many streaming-only games. The problem: None of this is new. It was all laid out in a press release last August, which The Athletic chronicled, too.
It’s not all at the feet of former commissioner Kevin Warren. The schools agreed to this. You can’t sign and tout a massive television deal and then act surprised that someone has to fill those NBC night games in November or play on Peacock. If it wasn’t NBC, it probably would have been Amazon. If you’re an upset coach, take it up with the school administrators.
The additions of USC and UCLA in 2024 will help fill night games, but those windows were never going to be stocked only with low-profile matchups. NBC is paying a reported $350 million per year for good games. The same goes for CBS. As Don Draper famously put it in “Mad Men”: “I give you money, you give me ideas. … That’s what the money is for.” In this case, “ideas” are games that draw bigger audiences than most other conferences.
This two-pronged move into streaming has taken place across all kinds of sports in recent years. Major League Baseball plays streaming-only games on Apple TV+, Amazon and Peacock. NBC has moved more English Premier League games to Peacock-only, especially after shuttering the NBC Sports Network channel. MLS plays the majority of its schedule on Apple TV+, and its cost is separate from your normal Apple TV+ fee.
It’s also not new to the highest levels of college sports. Oklahoma has played a streaming-only or pay-per-view football game for years. The Sooners’ matchup with potential AAC-favorite SMU this season will be on ESPN+. The SEC has put bottom-level nonconference football games on ESPN+ (with SEC Network+ digital availability through cable). A massive Kansas–Kansas State basketball game in January aired only on ESPN+, and we haven’t talked enough about how much streaming there is in that new Big 12 deal. Across the sport, there will be more big college football games kept exclusive to streaming in the future.
The NFL put Thursday Night Football on Amazon but still offered a local TV broadcast for the two cities involved. The league also announced recently that Peacock will get a wild-card playoff game on Jan. 13, 2024. That, too, will have a local NBC broadcast for the two cities. These college football games don’t have that option.
This is the future, and the future costs more.
I have Peacock. I like it. I regularly watch English soccer and WWE shows for $5 a month on the ad tier. My wife watches “Parks and Recreation”. They’ve worked out the live sports kinks, unlike some other streaming services. If it wasn’t football, Big Ten fans were going to have to sign up for Peacock anyway, with dozens of conference basketball games on the service as part of the deal.
But there’s no doubt moving a marquee football game like MSU-Washington (which got 2.79 million viewers last year on ABC) to a streaming service will draw less attention on a busy college football Saturday. It’s not standalone like those NFL games. You won’t scroll and come across it. Exiting out of one service and jumping into another is much more cumbersome than changing channels.
As cable subscribers continue to decline, sports are the only thing keeping the entire operation afloat. In turn, rights fees for the Big Ten and SEC continue to skyrocket. But there’s been no proof yet that streaming will save television. Most of these services, from Disney+ to Paramount+ to Peacock, are losing billions of dollars, and Netflix (which is profitable) doesn’t want to jump into live sports yet. That’s why there have been so many cuts and layoffs in that world. They’ve latched themselves to this uncertain future and sped up the decline of money-making linear TV because of it. (Reports that ESPN is considering making its entire offering available via streaming in a few years could speed up that decline … or send people back to the bundle.)
Fox is the one major broadcaster that hasn’t jumped into streaming. Two weeks ago, in response to a comment about the New York Yankees playing on several different channels and services in a single week, Fox Sports executive vice president of strategy and analytics Michael Mulvihill tweeted, “The harder we make it to find sports, the more the next generation of potential fans will punish us.”
The Big Ten will expand its reach like never before by playing so many games on network television, and it is the richest conference in the country. As a whole, TV ratings and attendance are up in all kinds of sports. Business is still, mostly, booming. The Pac-12 would love to have the Big Ten’s problems if it came with billions of dollars.
But each extra ask of fans adds up over time. Whether it’s holding game time announcements until the last minute, longer TV timeouts or playing on streaming services, fans are being asked to shoulder more and more burden in the name of television dollars.
It’s easier to watch games now than it was a generation ago. The next generation might not feel the same.
LikeLike
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/holiday-bowl-files-lawsuit-pac-12-ucla
The Holiday Bowl is suing the P12 and UCLA for $3M they lost in 2021 when UCLA cancelled 5 hours before kickoff due to COVID issues. The bowl withheld payment from the P12 in 2022 over this, and the P12 threatened to sue.
This seems to me like something that should’ve been covered by the bowl’s insurance. If not theirs, then the P12’s.
LikeLike
We shouldn’t read too much into this, but a good comparison of the exposure of the P5 this season. The B12 has lots of streaming (ESPN+) because they have no linear network. The B10 has a sizable edge in OTA games, though ESPN games aren’t much worse for viewership
LikeLike
B10’s official release about the football schedule and kickoff times and networks.
https://bigten.org/news/2023/5/31/football-big-ten-network-cbs-fox-and-nbc-announce-early-season-schedules.aspx
LikeLike
Michigan drew the short straw and gets the inaugural game on Peacock. Serves ’em right for scheduling East Carolina.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
SEC’s long-term decision on football schedule unlikely this week
By Seth Emerson May 31, 2023
DESTIN, Fla. — A long-term decision on the SEC football schedule appears unlikely this week, based on the comments of several athletic directors during Wednesday’s portion of SEC meetings.
There could be a short-term decision made to continue with an eight-game format when Oklahoma and Texas join in 2024. But one athletic director downplayed the need to announce anything this week.
LikeLike
Marc,
That’s just luck of the draw. MI also had the first BTN game. Coincidence? And will Peacock luck into getting one of the great games of all time as well?
We’re all going to take our turn wasting a game on Peacock. They get 9 games this year rather than their usual 8, and already have 1 each of the first 3 weeks (probably because there are so many extra games during the OOC season) – MI, PSU and MSU.
OSU won’t be week 4 (NBC already has our game @ ND). OSU has a bye in week 5 (perfect for Peacock – show OSU practice). Weeks 6 (UMD) or 7 (PU) seem likely.
LikeLike
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/polls/2023/05/would-you-purchase-a-subscription-to-peacock-if-ohio-state-exclusively-played-on-the-service-for-at-least-one-game#comments
While completely anecdotal and not at all scientific, here’s how Peacock games are going over with OSU fans. Eleven Warriors is probably the largest OSU fan site, and they have over 1000 responses to their poll:
WOULD YOU PURCHASE A SUBSCRIPTION TO PEACOCK IF OHIO STATE EXCLUSIVELY PLAYED ON THE SERVICE FOR AT LEAST ONE GAME?
Yes – 14%
No – 72%
Already have it – 13%
And this is before people get into the Peacock vs Peacock Premium discussion, and whether the ad-free version (Premium Plus) will be ad-free for games or not. The free version of Peacock is no longer available for new “subscribers,” but existing “subscribers” can still use it. Most people that already have it get it through Xfinity (included in the price).
LikeLike
That’s just luck of the draw. MI also had the first BTN game. Coincidence?
I obviously needed to add an irony alert. Yes, I realize it’s just luck. I’m not a fan of the Peacock deal, but given that it exists, it makes sense that they’d launch with a king game.
Even more remarkable is that Washington vs. MSU in Week 3 is a Peacock exclusive, while NBC over-the-air gets a much worse game the same day, Syracuse at Purdue. I had expected that only the worst inventory would go on Peacock.
Either NBC is deliberately sacrificing what would likely be a pretty good draw on its OTA network, or Peacock is higher in the selection order than anyone knew.
WOULD YOU PURCHASE A SUBSCRIPTION TO PEACOCK IF OHIO STATE EXCLUSIVELY PLAYED ON THE SERVICE FOR AT LEAST ONE GAME?
Yes – 14%
No – 72%
Already have it – 13%
I wonder what the results of such a survey would’ve been when BTN launched? There must’ve been some resentment at the time.
I now get BTN “for free” with my YouTube TV sub, but I used to pay extra for it. However, that got me 2 games a year that I’d otherwise miss. That’s 1/6th of the regular season, which is pretty significant. Peacock is a lot more to swallow for just one game—of course, I could subscribe and quickly drop it. There is currently nothing else on Peacock that I want.
LikeLike
I think Comcast is very deliberately sacrificing some NBC ratings to boost Peacock subscribers. They can get better NBC ratings later while sucking monthly fees from everyone who forgot to unsubscribe from Peacock.
As for OSU, this one comment summed it up well:
Wasn’t that One time, Add-On Purchase called the B10 Network?
People see no value in Peacock. But yes, BTN got a poor reception as well. But most people didn’t choose to get BTN, it was just bundled in for them. Peacock requires choosing to pay for it, and it’s a lot more than BTN per month for a lot less content that fans care about.
LikeLike
Berry Tramel think CU to the B12 is likely, but not certain.
LikeLike
The AAU announced six new members yesterday: Arizona State, George Washington, Cal Riverside, Miami, Notre Dame, and the University of South Florida.
I bet there are some people at FSU who are beside themselves that there are three AAU schools in the state, and they are not one of them. I didn’t see that coming.
LikeLike
Wow, talk about timing.
* ND was an obvious choice unless religious issues were keeping them out.
* ASU has been climbing the ranks for a while and deserved it.
* Miami and USF were borderline cases, but I think this is similar to what the AAU did with CA, when they started adding a bunch of the UC system schools to acknowledge the population was too big to only have UCLA and USC.
I did not see GW or UCR coming. Note that they kept their public/private balance by adding 3 of each.
Among the MUP’s top public research schools, the ones not in the AAU (before now):
1. NCSU
2. ASU
3. UGA
4. UAB – may be too specialized
5. VT
6. CU-Denver – may be too specialized
7. UMass
8t. Delaware, VCU
10. UK
11. USF
20t. UC Riverside (tied with UC Santa Cruz)
So the AAU took 2 of the top 11 (9?). Clearly other factors played a role in UCR over others (just like UCSC), and those same factors may have boosted USF. Do they consider population per school in the state at all? Are they looking for some MSIs? NCSU has to be wondering what they need to do. VT and UGA too.
Among the MUP’s top private research schools, the ones not in the AAU (before now):
1. Notre Dame
2. Miami
3. Georgetown
4. Drexel
5. Yeshiva
6t. GW, Northeastern, RPI
So the AAU took 3 of the top 6, and other factors like breadth may have played a role in GW over others.
Still, I will stand by the MUP list as the best proxy available for the AAU.
LikeLike
FSU was 3 spots lower on the top public schools list than USF, just FYI.
LikeLike
I do not know the ranking system to which you are referring, but here are the admission requirements for FSU and USF from the school websites. I did not see info for the USF fall of 2023
FSU 2023 admitted students profile: Academic Core GPA 4.3 to 4.6
SAT 1340 to 1440 and 29 – 33 ACT
USF For the fall of 2022, GPA: 4.00-4.50, SAT 1240 -1390, ACT 27 – 31
I therefore find any academic ranking with USF superior to FSU as interesting.
However for football value, TV viewership, etc., FSU is at least 50 schools higher than USF.
LikeLike
Bernie,
See my post below. I posted it and then Marc’s comment showed up for me.
LikeLike
FSU is clearly a harder school to gain admission as an undergraduate. However, the AAU does not give much weight to undergraduate status. It is all about research and graduate programs which naturally intersect with research. I am sure FSU is disappointed from missing out on an invite. They are really upset by USF getting in the AAU when they view themselves as superior. They may think the same about UCR, but that is far enough away to not hurt as much.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is no more Catholic than is Ohio State. Fr. Theodore Hesburgh saw to that back in the 60’s. There is no more religious influence on research at Notre Dame than at any other university. The Catholic League doesn’t think there is more than a few real Catholic schools left in the whole US. Certainly not Georgetown or Boston College.
LikeLike
That’s blatantly false.
https://stemcell.nd.edu/
That’s ND’s stem cell & regenerative health research center web site. They have 3 words/phrases in a large font on that page:
Innovative.
Catholic Faith.
Healing.
The Ethics page on that site is headlined: Catholic Church Teachings
They do not do embryonic stem cell research because of the church’s position. That’s the sort of religious impact I was referring to.
Feel free to point out all the web sites at osu.edu that detail Catholic teachings and why that leads them to avoid certain types of research. I’ll wait.
All that matters is what the voting presidents think. I was just suggesting a possible reason they bypassed ND until now.
LikeLike
So what might this mean for realignment? Personally, I doubt it really changes anything much. The presidents already know which schools are good enough to add to their conference. That said, this is a slight bump for Miami’s chances of going to the B10.
The interesting one is USF. Does this open some doors for them? Would the B12 consider them to add an AAU school and a rival for UCF? Does it open the door for USF as a B10 option in the future? People keep saying the B10 wants into FL, and the ACC schools are locked up until 2036 unless something changes. If FSU prefers the SEC, could the B10 pair Miami and USF?
I don’t think USF is established enough to get in the B10 right now, but after a decade in the AAU proving they’ll keep their metrics high? It’s not like their athletics are any worse than RU. But would the B10 want the #5 athletic program in the state (UF, FSU, Miami, UCF, USF)?
LikeLike
I suppose I should lump ASU in with Miami as getting a slight bump. Conversely, this undermines UA’s chances a bit since ASU is in the Phoenix metro area and larger. UA’s one advantage remaining is hoops.
Does anyone want to suggest UW and ASU as the new western pair? You get Seattle and Phoenix for markets, and there are lots of B10 alumni in Phoenix. UW, UO, Stanford and ASU? Own all the coastal states plus AZ.
Will the B10 reconsider ASU hockey as a partial member now? (No, they won’t)
LikeLike
So what might this mean for realignment? Personally, I doubt it really changes anything much.
I’m in the same camp.
We can assume two things. 1) There’s an academic standard below which they won’t go. 2) For anyone who might ever have doubted it, we now know that Miami, USF, and Arizona State likely exceed that standard. (Notre Dame was never in doubt.)
But that doesn’t mean they are getting invited. It only means they are in the mix to be possibly considered. So is Rice, but you know they aren’t getting in.
For what it’s worth, none of those three is known to have been seriously evaluated, but you’ll probably never know every candidate they looked at. I can’t see USF being a candidate. There are just too many schools ahead of them in the queue that are more desirable in all the other ways that matter.
LikeLike
I’m sure they’ve run rough numbers on ASU and Miami just as due diligence over the years.
I agree USF isn’t a candidate now, but in 10-20 years if their academics stay strong? RU got in for a market and solid academics. USF’s athletics can’t be any worse than RU’s, and FL is valuable to the B10. Rice is too small to get in, but USF is big enough to support a large athletic program. They’ve just been crappy lately. They are currently planning a new on-campus football stadium to open in 2026.
LikeLike
Actually both USF and RU have been terrible in football.
Other than football, the sports at RU really have been upgraded. Baseball, basketball, lacrosse, mens and womens soccer, and others have been competitive in the B1G. I am not sure that such a comment could be made about USF.
Beyond that anything with RU begins and ends with location, location, location. If RU were located 100 miles further south and out of the NYC area, they would still be in the AAC.
LikeLike
Bernie,
RU has improved their sports since joining. They were terrible in almost every sport when they joined (finished 13th or 14th in almost everything except WBB and wrestling). My point is that USF couldn’t be much worse than RU was when they joined. And like RU, they would improve as they started getting more money.
USF was ranked #2 in football less than 20 years ago. With all the talent available down there, the right coach could have them winning pretty quickly.
LikeLike
I’ve written it many times, but the B1G is sleeping on the state of Arizona generally, and Arizona State, specifically. Phoenix is #10 TV market in the country. Arizona is one of the fastest growing states over the last 20 years. ASU has a ga-zillion alums and the state of Arizona is full of Midwest transplants with disposable income. Now, the state has two AAU schools.
LikeLike
Alan,
There are several problems:
* AZ is a big travel problem (just like WA and OR, or CA).
* AZ is a split state without a dominant school (like VA, but smaller).
* AZ lacks a school with a big football brand. UA brings hoops, and ASU brings nothing.
Does either school on its own bring enough value and viewers? Do you have to add both?
The SEC is already in TX, so why aren’t y’all looking to AZ?
LikeLike
Not advocating here, but wouldn’t the Phoenix market provide a really solid boost to the LA market? No numbers in front of me, but I would have to believe there is some overlap.
LikeLike
Nick: “Not advocating here, but wouldn’t the Phoenix market provide a really solid boost to the LA market?”
Gift article from WaPo: https://wapo.st/43BisDb
LikeLike
Nick,
You mean in terms of USC and UCLA alumni in Phoenix, and ASU alumni in LA?
The thing is, won’t the USC and UCLA (and other B10) alumni watch anyway? The B10 games are OTA nationally. The only difference would be BTN availability in Phoenix for cable. It’s not like USC/ASU and UCLA/ASU games are known to pull great ratings, and traditional B10 vs ASU wouldn’t be a big draw either. The other side of that is ASU fans watching B10 games, but they aren’t a particularly strong fan base according to the TV ratings and they may watch the B10 games OTA anyway.
Is the money worth all those midwestern teams going to Phoenix every year? I haven’t seen any media experts point out ASU as a particularly valuable addition, especially in terms of the B10 (that may be due to a lack of AAU status previously). I don’t see the B10 payout per school increasing by adding ASU. We’d probably see a pro rata bump at most. UW and UO are much bigger brands, and they would apparently barely break even for the B10 at best.
If ASU was a bigger brand in football, or even if they had UA’s hoops brand, they’d be a better target. As is, I think AZ would need to physically trade places with MO or something to make it enticing.
LikeLike
If one believes that the Big ten will eventually add more western schools to ease travel for USC and UCLA, ASU has become incredibly attractive. Phoenix is a large TV market with a lot of Big Ten alums and is significantly closer to LA than Eugene and Seattle. If every school out west is dilutive and with travel in mind, adding ASU and say Stanford makes a lot more sense that Oregon and Washington.
LikeLike
> U of California now has 7 campuses in AAU (>10% of total).
> The B1G will not have to make an exception for Notre Dame.
LikeLike
They are getting a little unbalanced with their CA representation. CA has more AAU members (11) than all other states west of the Missouri River combined (UW, UO, UU, ASU, UA, CU, KU, Rice, TAMU, UT). It’s also as many as the entire southeast combined (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, KY, TN, AL, MS, LA). I get that they have lots of great schools and many states don’t focus on higher ed very much, but you need some balance.
CA – 11 (8 UC schools – Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, LA, Riverside, SD, SB, SC)
NY – 6
MA – 5
PA – 4
FL – 3
TX – 3
IL – 3
IN – 3
2 each – AZ, GA, MD, MI, MO, NJ, NC, OH, Canada
1 each – CO, CT, DC, IA, KS, LA, MN, NH, OR, RI, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI
LikeLike
The B1G will not have to make an exception for Notre Dame.
I would argue they made one already for Nebraska. Sure, the school was still in the AAU when they joined, but the review that led to their expulsion was already underway. The presidents would have been well aware that UNL was on the cusp of getting kicked out.
So I would argue the invitation of Nebraska basically meant that AAU membership was no longer an absolute requirement. Of course, it has been widely known for years that Notre Dame could have gotten an invitation whenever they wanted.
LikeLike
I think it’s interesting that they chose to expand so much after saying they wanted to stay a limited size. They were probably due to grow to fit their historical trend and keep up with population change.
Does this mean they won’t look to push out the bottom few for a while, or are schools like KU, UO, MO and IA on notice that things need to change? I think for political reasons they may look to stop losing members and add some for underrepresented regions instead.
1900: 76.2M/14 schools -> 61.5 schools for 335M people
1910: 92.2M/21 schools -> 76.3 schools for 335M people
1920: 106.2M/23 schools -> 72.7 schools for 335M people
Reverse order of membership changes:
2023 – 71 members (+6)
2022 – 65 (-ISU)
2021 – 66 (+Tufts)
2019 – 65 (+Dartmouth, UCSC, UU)
2012 – 62 (+Boston U)
2011 – 61 (-SU, UNL)
2010 – 63 (+GT)
2002 – 62 (-Catholic U)
2001 – 63 (+Stony Brook, TAMU)
1999 – 61 (-Clark)
1990s +4
1980s +8
1970s +2
1960s +6
1950s +6
1940s +1
1930s +4
1920s +5
1910s +2
1900s +7
1900 founded by 14 schools
LikeLike
Brian, the problem with the AAU is that they refuse to consider agricultural research. Now I may be biased because of two doctorates in Ag related disciplines, but there is a reasonable case that ag research is more important to the world than medical, computer science, AI and climate change combined. Here is the future of the world.
As we are facing a world with more drought problems and cattle incriminated as a source of greenhouse gases. The following provides some insight regarding the most efficient methods of producing animal protein from grains. The link won’t post but you can read the entire article if you googIe: “The Feed Conversion Ratio and Other Performance Indicators in Farmed Fish.”
“Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is the conventional measure of livestock production efficiency: the weight of feed intake divided by weight gained by the animal. Lower FCR values indicate higher efficiency. FCRs are typically 6.0–10.0 for beef, 2.7–5.0 for pigs, 1.7–2.0 for chicken and 1.0–2.4 for farmed fish and shrimp.”
Those findings need a lot more research but that is a lot more important to humanity than yet another failed attempt to treat Alzheimer’s disease.
LikeLike
Brian, the problem with the AAU is that they refuse to consider agricultural research….There is a reasonable case that ag research is more important to the world than medical, computer science, AI and climate change combined. Here is the future of the world.
We’ve discussed that many times here. It’s the reason why Nebraska and Iowa State aren’t in it anymore. I wouldn’t say Ag research is more important than the things you mentioned, but it certainly deserves to be at parity with them — and in AAU land it’s not.
With that said, many of the AAU schools have strong Ag research — Michigan State and Texas A&M, for example — so those disciplines have a voice in the AAU. For whatever reasons, the organization refuses to change its criteria. But those criteria are a little mysterious: even Brian was perplexed at how Cal Riverside got in.
LikeLike
Marc,
AAU Membership Principles
In its evaluation of institutions, the Membership Committee is guided by a set of Membership Principles and Membership Indicators, presented below. The Membership Principles specify the primary purpose of the association and the corresponding characteristics of its member institutions. The Membership Indicators are a two-phase set of quantitative measures used to assess the breadth and quality of university programs of research and graduate education.
In assessing potential new member universities, the evaluation of university profiles based on the Membership Indicators is the first stage of a two-stage process used to identify institutions that may be invited into membership. The second stage involves a more qualitative set of judgments about an institution’s mission, characteristics, and trajectory.
1. They do consider ag research, it’s just not valued as highly as competitive federal research funding.
AAU’s Phase 1 indicators:
Federal research
Federal research normalized by number of faculty
National Academies members (NAS, NAE, NAM)
National Academies members (NAS, NAE, NAM) normalized by number of faculty
Faculty awards
Faculty awards normalized by number of faculty
Citations
Citations normalized by number of faculty
They average the rankings of the normalized indicators to set the order of the schools.
Phase 2 indicators:
Ag research
Ag research normalized by number of faculty
# of PhDs awarded
# of PhDs awarded normalized by number of faculty
# of postdocs appointed
# of postdocs appointed normalized by number of faculty
All of those numbers are considered in the first stage of the process. Then they move to qualitative concerns. The problem for ag schools is that the ag faculty count for the normalization, so it further reduces the federal research ranking. If you don’t have a med school to counterbalance that, it can be difficult to keep good numbers. Most land-grant AAU members do have a med school. Those who don’t: MIT* (UMass does their ag research), PU, Cal, UCSB, UCSC (all UC campuses are officially land-grant, but most don’t do much ag research), UMD. ISU and UNL lacked med schools. Syracuse drifted from a research focus to more of a teaching focus.
As for UCR:
They recently (2013) opened a research-based med school, so their federal research numbers grew a lot in a short period of time. They were on par with the lower AAU members 15 years ago, it just seemed unlikely since so many UC schools are already members.
Why they don’t change their criteria:
They are a lobbying group for federal research funding. Ag funding is pre-allocated into the federal budget based on a formula. So they lobby for more competitive research funding, and thus have criteria focused on that. AAU members do 63% of that research (before the recent expansion, so maybe 64%+ now) and award 48% (maybe now 50%) of all research doctorates.
LikeLike
A topic that frequently comes up in realignment discussions, especially with regards to the B10, is academics. The shorthand version is saying schools need to be in the AAU (except ND), and then people start mentioning all the schools trying to get into the AAU. The problem is that the AAU doesn’t post a school ranking, so people turn to other academic rankings (ARWU, THE, USN&WR, …). We all know that every ranking system has its biases, so that never gets very far.
https://mup.umass.edu/
I want to make the case for The Center for Measuring University Performance (MUP) as the closest thing to an AAU ranking that exists. It has very similar criteria (total research, federal research, endowment, donations, National Academies members, faculty awards, # of postdocs, # of PhDs awarded, median SAT scores). The one main difference is that it does not normalize for size. It also doesn’t include Canada, though that’s unimportant for these purposes.
The MUP Center is based at UMass now, and is supported by UF and UBuffalo. They publish an annual report called The Top American Research Universities, and it lists the schools based on how many of those 9 factors are in the top 25 in the US, and then by how many are in the 26-50 range. You can also download all the data if you want.
When UNL got the boot from the AAU, they published an AAU ranked list of schools (only non-members were named, except for UNL itself) so we know the AAU criteria and dhow schools were ranked based on 2005-2007 data. For equivalence, I looked at the 2008 MUP report.
2008 MUP:
54 schools were in the top 25 in at least 1 criterion. 31 more ranked 26-50 in at least one criterion. I used these 85 schools to compare to the AAU list. The list includes some specialized schools (only a medical school, etc.) that are not eligible for the AAU.
The list included 53 of then 60 US AAU members. 3 of the missing were UNL, Syracuse and ISU which have all since left the AAU. Also missing were UO, KU and MO, 3 other schools expected to be near the cut line back then. The other missing school was Tulane, and that’s where the lack of normalization by size probably impacted the list.
Of the schools on the list but not in the AAU, 11 were too specialized to be eligible leaving just 74. Schools with at least 1 top 25 criterion and eligible for the AAU included 3 schools that have since joined the AAU (Dartmouth, Boston, Tufts). The only remaining eligible schools with a top 25 criterion are Notre Dame and UAB, and UAB may be too heavily medical to get in though they are technically eligible (GT’s lack of breadth kept them out for a while, for example).
The 2 other recent additions (GT, Utah) were among the schools with at least 1 criterion in the top 26-50 (GT had 7 of 9 and was the highest ranked school without any top 25 criteria).
2020 MUP:
They made some changes so most of the specialized schools no longer made the list (combining med schools with an actual campus, etc.). 48 schools were in the top 25 in at least 1 criterion. 29 more ranked 26-50 in at least one criterion. I used these 77 schools to compare to the AAU list. The list still includes some specialized schools that are not eligible for the AAU.
The list included 60 of the 63 current US AAU members. The 3 missing were all fairly recent additions (Brandeis, Stony Brook, UC Santa Cruz) and may be impacted by not normalizing for size. 4 of the lowest ranked schools are IA, KU, MO, and UO, which matches expectations.
Based on this, I think it is clear that the MUP rankings are a good proxy for the AAU’s preferred list of members.
So based on the 2020 report, who are the next schools up? Typically the AAU has waited until a school is near the 50th percentile of AAU members before adding them, just FYI.
1. Notre Dame is by far the highest (#31 on the list, above 30 AAU members). Religious issues (interference in certain types of research) may keep them out (they outranked all the recent additions back in 2008 and didn’t get in), but otherwise they are a clear AAU equivalent.
2. #38 ASU has 2 of 9 criteria in the top 25 (and 3 more in 26-50), but they would score lower after size normalization. Still, they are a candidate for membership.
3. #44t NCSU has 1 top 25 criterion, with 4 more in 26-50. They are on par with RU.
Those 3 are the only schools with any top 25 criterion. Of those with “just” top 26-50 criterion and I-A football:
57. VT
58t. UAB – still too specialized I think
61-77. All have 1 criterion in the 26-50 range:
FSU, UConn, UGA, UMass, Miami, SC, USF, ISU (just left to avoid getting the boot)
This is the same group as Oregon, Kansas, Mizzou and Iowa
So there aren’t any clear options right now. ASU and NCSU borderline. ASU was #63t in 2008, so they moved up a lot. NCSU was #58, so they’ve also improved. VT has improved a bit (3 top 50 vs 2 before) while FSU and Miami have held steady (1 top 50).
LikeLike
I feel 100% confident that Miami will be in the Big Ten by 2036. Maybe a year or two earlier depending on what happens around the ACC/Pac-12.
Big Ten should invite Miami by 2030-2032 or whenever FSU accepts an invite to the SEC or Big Ten.
FSU will likely get an invite, but with the SEC also likely to invite them, hard to see them coming imo.
Arizona State in my mind is a much better Big Ten fit than Cal or Oregon.
In fact, I’d put them 3rd after Washington and Stanford. Oregon 4th.
Oregon’s AAU is likely in jeopardy if they do try to trim membership by 2-4 schools over the next decade to make up for these new additions.
This makes things pretty easy for Big Ten decision makers imo. Don’t really have to worry about finding non-AAU schools.
Outside of maybe Virginia Tech, I don’t see any non-AAU schools that are athletically valuable enough to move the needle.
LikeLike
Forgot about FSU for the moment there.
FSU I had put in the “doesn’t have to be AAU category” like ND before this.
FSU has so much TV/market value and is solid academically by metrics that matter.
FSU is now the only obvious non-AAU I can see getting an invite.
LikeLike
100%? I’m not that confident the B10 will even exist in 2036.
Given B10 and SEC offers, where would these schools go? I think all FL schools (FSU, Miami and even USF) would lean to the SEC due to travel and recruiting concerns. I agree Miami would be the best B10 fit culturally of the FL options, but it’s still in FL.
I’ll agree that ASU is better fit than UO right now, but Cal would be a better fit in my mind (RU with better academics but a smaller market). Especially with UCLA on board. ASU might bring more value, but they’ve been so bad at the revenue sports lately that their ratings stink too. Travel from LA is about the same for Cal and ASU (much better than with UO), but neither partner well with UW. That’s where UO is useful.
I don’t see Stanford as a great fit due to being a private that is against NIL and pay for play (which is probably coming). It would fit well with ND, and probably NW and USC. But Stanford and NE/IA/MN/IL/PU/MSU/OSU? Not so much.
Non-AAUs with athletic value to the B10 (besides UNL and SEC members):
FSU, VT, NCSU, Clemson, UCF?, TCU?
LikeLike
100%? I’m not that confident the B10 will even exist in 2036.
I agree with Brian — there are no 100% probabilities in realignment, except that if Notre Dame wanted to join, the Big Ten would 100% say yes. That is the only one.
LikeLike
Biggest problem FSU probably had is the mix of research.
Miami and USF get a huge boost from having old medical schools that generate significant research.
FSU’s medical school was founded in 2000 and generated $12 million in research last year.
Miami was at $174 million and USF was at $90 million.
We don’t know the exact weights that AAU gives and how their metrics weigh specific research spending on a normalized basis, but that’s probably where FSU’s biggest issue is; in fact their medical school might be something of a negative because it doesn’t generate that much research as a young/smaller medical school.
LikeLike
z33k,
I posted it above, but we know what they do for the first cut. They average the normalized rankings of their 4 primary indicators (federal research, National Academies members, faculty awards, citations). They also look at normalized ag research, # of PhDs granted, and # of postdocs hired as a second quantitative analysis. Then they go to qualitative assessment.
A med school should help – 54 of the 71 AAU schools have one. Remember, they do look at trends so a young med school should be viewed as positive for growth.
Maybe the joint college of engineering with FAMU is hurting them. It’s a pretty small program, and I’m not sure how they are counting the faculty for that. FSU/FAMU has 2450 undergrad engineering students. The 50 largest engineering programs have at least 3900 undergrads. UF has 4800. USF has 5200. FIU has 6500. The top 50 in grad students have at least 1300. FSU has 450. UCF has 2000. UF has 2800.
More STEM research is what FSU needs to climb the AAU rankings.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37776202/sec-sans-divisions-going-8-game-conference-slate-24
The SEC proved to be chickenshit again, opting for the 1/7/7 model for 2024. They’ll probably try to make sure all the key rivalries that aren’t locked make it into the first 7 (so both UT/OU and UT/TAMU get played, for example), but then they have to make some changes for 2025.
I’ll guess that in-state rivalries get priority for 2024 except for TX:
MS/MsSU, AL/AU, TN/VU
As for everyone else, there are options. Here’s one:
UT/OU, TAMU/LSU, AR/MO, UGA/UF, SC/UK
The rest of CFB needs to stand up to them and stop playing them OOC and make the CFP committee value OOC SOS. I’m all for OSU cancelling upcoming series with UT, AL and UGA, and I encourage MI (UT, OU), USC, UCLA and others to follow suit. Let the ‘fraidy cats with their 8-game schedules play each other and the G5.
LikeLike
Isn’t the ACC still at 8 games as well?
LikeLike
Yes, and they and the SEC can play each other OOC to their heart’s content. It’s also one reason they don’t get much sympathy for not getting paid as much as they wish.
They also didn’t add any CFB bluebloods lately.
LikeLike
Brain – No ACC bluebloods? In the BCS/CFP era, the ACC has four national championships with two each being won by Clemson & Florida State. Clemson has also been the runner-up a couple of times.
If my math is right (which is no guarantee since I attended an inferior school in the SEC) the ACC has twice as many championships as does the B1G, with twice as many schools winning the championship.
LikeLike
Alan,
No, I said they didn’t add any bluebloods lately.
That’s different from the SEC adding UT and OU. It’s that addition that is getting the SEC more flak for sticking with 8 games.
LikeLike
Pieced together from various sources in The Athletic:
@SethWEmerson 5:33 PM · Jun 1, 2023
News: The SEC has approved an eight-game format for the 2024 season, plus a requirement that everyone play at least one Power 5 non-conference team.
@ScottDochterman
Teams playing 10 or more Power 5 opponents in 2023:
ACC: 10 of 15 (counting Notre Dame)
Big Ten: 13 of 14
Big 12: 11 of 14
Pac-12: 10 of 12
SEC: 2 of 14
And leading the way, so to speak, is the new conference standard-bearer, two-time champion Georgia, having a comically weak schedule in 2023. Georgia kicks off against an FCS program, Tennessee-Martin, and it only improves a little bit from there. Ball State and UAB are also in the first month.
LikeLike
Brian said, “The rest of CFB needs to stand up to them [the SEC] and stop playing them OOC and make the CFP committee value OOC SOS.”
Let’s see… in 2024, Ohio State’s OOC schedule includes the likes of Southern Miss, Western Michigan & Marshall, while LSU plays USC & UCLA.
I am disappointed that the SEC didn’t adopt a permanent 9-game schedule yesterday, but I certainly see the logic in a one or two year “bridge” schedule as Brian Kelley first suggested. With UT & OU coming in a year early, giving other schools a chance to work through future OOC schedules, and to allow time for Disney to get their house in order and come up with more money, it’s a reasonable response, even though I’d rather jump to a 9-game schedule immediately, if not sooner.
I do hope this is only a bridge, though.
Most disappointing in all of this scheduling discussion in my old coach Nick Saban. You remember, the guy that wanted to play a 10-game conference schedule and all p-5s OOC? At least in theory. Then, with Tennessee on the upswing, after the Tide beating the Vols every year since Saban had been at Alabama, and LSU with Kelley, he starts whining about how his annual opponents are too tough and how it’s not fair. Saban was all for a tougher schedule until he actually had a chance to approve it. Now, he’s standing with the likes of Kentucky.
Kelley, on the other hand, has emerged as a statesman, proposing a compromise that was adopted, while maintaining LSU’s preference for a 9-game schedule, and one that includes Alabama.
I am proud that my school was unequivocable in their support of the 9-game schedule.
LikeLike
Alan,
Let’s see… in 2024, Ohio State’s OOC schedule includes the likes of Southern Miss, Western Michigan & Marshall, while LSU plays USC & UCLA.
Yes, OSU’s OOC schedule is now terrible in 2024 (dropped a scheduled UW series for 24-25 after adding USC/UCLA, and because we had 2 P5 OOC games in 2025 – still play UT, and because we only have 6 home games this year and need 8 in 2024 to help payoff COVID losses) and should be punished by the committee, just like MI this year. You also know OSU usually has 1 major OOC game on top of their B10 schedule which always includes 2 kings (as we do for 2023, and 2025-2033 at the moment).
We’ll see if USC or UCLA cancel any series once the B10 figures out its 2024 schedule model. UCLA probably can’t afford to drop anything, but USC might with 9 B10 games (could include OSU, MI, PSU) + ND. But yes, congrats to LSU on 2 P5 OOC opponents. That looks to be an anomaly for LSU in future years, though you don’t schedule as far in advance as OSU does. 2023 certainly isn’t a murderer’s row for LSU – Grambling St., Army, GA St. and FSU. That’s 1 good game and the typical SEC November bye (aka SoCon week).
Also, every team playing a I-AA team should be punished. Every P5 team playing 8 conference games should be punished by the committee.
The only things that schools will pay attention to are money (from TV and/or the CFP) and CFP access, and TV deals are already set. So the committee needs to be forced to punish chickenshit scheduling, because all the old-school coaches won’t do it on their own – they just worship W/L records.
I am disappointed that the SEC didn’t adopt a permanent 9-game schedule yesterday, but I certainly see the logic in a one or two year “bridge” schedule as Brian Kelley first suggested. With UT & OU coming in a year early, giving other schools a chance to work through future OOC schedules, and to allow time for Disney to get their house in order and come up with more money, it’s a reasonable response, even though I’d rather jump to a 9-game schedule immediately, if not sooner.
I do hope this is only a bridge, though.
I don’t know why people think 1 year will make any real difference to Disney. They have plenty of money if they wanted to pay you more now. The SEC is just hoping to blackmail them by playing all the big games in this one year so the 2025 schedule will look terrible on paper, which the SEC will offer to fix by adding back in all these rivalries with a 9th SEC game for a chunk of money.
Also, why should Disney pay more for a 9th game? They didn’t for anyone else that went to 9. They will lose a bit of inventory (something like -10 OOC games, + 8 SEC games for a net -2 games), and there is no promise they will gain in game quality since most SEC schools are likely to drop a P5 OOC game if they go to 9 SEC games. See Saban saying they would drop from 2 P5 OOC games if they added the 9th game.
Most disappointing in all of this scheduling discussion in my old coach Nick Saban. You remember, the guy that wanted to play a 10-game conference schedule and all p-5s OOC? At least in theory. Then, with Tennessee on the upswing, after the Tide beating the Vols every year since Saban had been at Alabama, and LSU with Kelley, he starts whining about how his annual opponents are too tough and how it’s not fair. Saban was all for a tougher schedule until he actually had a chance to approve it. Now, he’s standing with the likes of Kentucky.
Very true, but we all know Saban is a terrible person and complete hypocrite. He is a mercenary who advocates for whatever will help him the most at that moment. At even the slightest hint of an advantage for someone else, he throws a fit (see TAMU NIL, etc.) and tries to use AL’s power to force a change.
I could understand Saban fighting against a particular set of locked rivals (AU, TN, LSU) and wanting a little relief – but that’s not dropping the 9th game. It’s replacing LSU with MsSU (based on proximity).
What’s really annoying is that Sankey has even said that they’ve run the numbers to show all of this makes very little difference in SOS. The year to year variability of a team is greater than the SOS differences from the schedule model.
I am proud that my school was unequivocable in their support of the 9-game schedule.
I believe the reporting says 5 schools were clearly in favor of 9 games, and they should be proud and more vocal. Shame schools like AL for being such ‘fraidy cats. Haven’t they won 90% of their SEC games in the past decade? What should their schedule matter?
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo about SEC scheduling: https://wapo.st/3Cchhyq
LikeLike
UF, UGA, LSU, TAMU and MO. Extra kudos to MO supporting 9 games as a non-power.
LikeLike
Purdue has the toughest OOC schedule in the Big Ten from 2023 through 2028, and possibly the toughest in the nation.
2023 Purdue Football Schedule
Sep. 2 Fresno State Bulldogs
Sep. 9 at Virginia Tech Hokies
Sep. 16 Syracuse Orange
2024 Purdue Football Schedule
Sep. 7 Indiana State Sycamores
Sep. 14 Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Sep. 21 at Oregon State Beavers
2025 Purdue Football Schedule
Aug. 30 Ball State Cardinals
Sep. 13 UConn Huskies
Sep. 20 at Notre Dame Fighting Irish
2026 Purdue Football Schedule
Sep. 12 Wake Forest Demon Deacons
Sep. 19 Indiana State Sycamores
Sep. 26 Notre Dame Fighting Irish
2027 Purdue Football Schedule
Sep. 4 at Notre Dame Fighting Irish Football
Sep. 11 North Carolina Tar Heels
Sep. 18 Miami (Ohio) RedHawks
2028 Purdue Football Schedule
Sep. 2 Western Illinois Leathernecks
Sep. 9 at Wake Forest Demon Deacons
Sep. 23 Notre Dame Fighting Irish
LikeLike
From The Athletic. University of Nebraska systems president Ted Carter says it best: “If (Congress) become(s) involved, we’ve lost.”
The NCAA’s hopes to control NIL laws hinge on Congress. Will it get what it wants?
By Nicole Auerbach Jun 2, 2023
It’s been a busy few weeks for college athletics on Capitol Hill, where multiple drafts of potential federal legislation governing the name, image and likeness industry now sit at various stages within the two chambers of Congress.
Depending on who you talk to, either federal help is necessary to combat the envelope-pushing legislation being passed by multiple state governments, or the call to Congress proves that the NCAA has given up on leading the next iteration of college athletics. But faster-moving governments at the state level have put the pressure on Washington.
Since July 1, 2021, the NCAA has deferred to NIL policies set by individual states. Some of the ensuing laws adopted, including those in Arkansas and Missouri, have taken an aggressive approach to innovating in the NIL market, allowing for more direct involvement by school officials in the negotiation of athletes’ NIL deals and going so far as to explicitly say that their state laws supersede NCAA rules.
That dynamic has been decried by coaches and administrators as a competitive advantage: The states testing legislative boundaries are increasing their schools’ chances of getting the best players. Maintaining the appearance of a level playing field is one of the (many) challenges that the NCAA and its allies face moving forward. But the competing bills at different stages of the legislative process have obscured how likely it is that the NCAA will get what it has asked for from Congress.
“There’s increasing interest and recognition of the need for Congressional engagement to resolve these issues,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said Monday. “What’s happening at the state level is exactly what we warned about. Our states are making a mess of college athletics. Our states are adopting laws that are not helpful to conduct conference competition and national competition. …
“It emphasizes the need for a national standard, so we can protect what’s special about college sports, at that national competition level. And we’ll have a conversation on how we can continue to engage with Congress. Will Congress continue to provide the opportunity for a national solution? It’s not necessarily what any of us would have preferred four or five years ago, but it’s our current reality.”
The NCAA hired former Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker to be its new president because it believes he can engage and motivate Congress to act to protect the NCAA’s ability to make rules, particularly around NIL activity. The NCAA also seeks a prohibition on revenue sharing with athletes and perhaps even protection against antitrust issues. And although there have been older bills re-introduced and new bills surfacing for the first time, no one is sure how motivated either chamber will be to fast-track anything even with more lobbying muscle behind it.
Still, no NIL bill has made it out of committee and onto the floor — yet. “We’re working towards that,” Sankey said.
“The volume (of interest) has increased — I just don’t know that it’s a must-do,” said Tom McMillen, a former Congressman and the current president and CEO of Lead1, an organization that lobbies on behalf of FBS athletic directors. “You’ve got states now, like Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas, who have basically declared independence. They like the fact that they can go out and do whatever they want on NIL and they’re not regulated. Would their members of Congress go along with a federal preemptive standard?”
In short, if those states think the schools under their purview have an advantage over their rivals in other states by setting their own boundary-pushing NIL laws, why would they put that aside to support a more restrictive national policy? It’s another wrinkle in a process full of them.
Breaking down the bills
There are no fewer than five NIL-adjacent bill proposals under discussion at various levels of the federal government, with all protecting the ability of athletes to enter into NIL deals. Here’s a quick look at why each of them might matter:
The Fairness, Accountability, and Integrity in Representation of College Sports Act, or the FAIR College Sports Act: A discussion draft of this bill is circulating among administrators for feedback right now. Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), the chair of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that conducted an NIL hearing back in March, included requirements that NIL deals be disclosed to a newly created federal regulatory body. This bill would also essentially replace the NCAA’s enforcement staff and Committee on Infractions with the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general. It would also preempt state NIL laws. This bill does not explicitly state that athletes are not employees.
The College Sports NIL Clearinghouse Act of 2023: The draft of the bill sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) would establish a clearinghouse to monitor compliance and establish and enforce penalties, according to On3. Schools would also be allowed to tell athletes which entities they cannot do business with. Civil suits brought against athletes or third parties could be brought in any district court of the United States. This bill does not explicitly state that athletes are not employees.
The Student Athlete Level Playing Field Act: Introduced by Representatives Mike Carey (R-Ohio) and Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) last week with the endorsement of Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith, this bill would establish a Federal Trade Commission clearinghouse for all NIL deals of more than $500. It would also ensure that student-athletes aren’t considered employees of universities.
An untitled Tuberville-Manchin bill: The former head football coach and the Democratic senator from West Virginia came together in 2022 to work toward bipartisan NIL legislation and expect to release a bill draft this spring. Tuberville told Sportico in December he did not expect Congress to include an antitrust exemption for the NCAA in any legislation it passed this session. The two senators put forth some of the feedback they’ve received from stakeholders last fall, and most of the comments had to do with prohibiting recruitment inducements, reining in collectives and seeking the disclosure of deals.
The College Athletes Bill of Rights: A 2020 bill reintroduced by five Democratic senators last fall, this would give athletes the ability to unionize and share revenue with their leagues and schools. This bill also includes broader topics such as long-term medical and healthcare. It is not expected to draw widespread Republican support but may be used as an opening negotiating stance toward bipartisan resolution.
If — and that’s a big if — any legislation eventually makes it to both chambers for a vote, it will need bipartisan support, which necessitates compromise. It will also require a sense of urgency.
Many of the Republican-backed efforts include provisions that the NCAA has specifically sought, specifically the preemption of state NIL laws and registries regarding the disclosure of deals. McMillen believes that the NCAA’s ideal path forward involves the eventual proposed bill from Bilirakis because of the committee from which it would have originated. The key, he said, is to get the bill through subcommittee and committee and then get it to the floor. Soon enough, it’ll be a new election cycle, and these issues could move to the backburner.
“The clock is ticking, and they know they’ve got to get a bill over to the Senate so they can start to negotiate,” McMillen said.
What the NCAA wants
It can be difficult to sift through all that proposed legislation and get a sense for how likely it is that NCAA will get the change it is seeking.
“If (Congress) become(s) involved, we’ve lost,” University of Nebraska systems president Ted Carter told the Omaha World-Herald recently. “I feel for those who serve at that level. They are thankless jobs. College athletics should not be part of their portfolio.”
Baker has pushed publicly for months for regulations he’s labeled as “consumer protections.” It’s been an effective strategy in his effort to attract lawmakers; of course, everyone who can would want to crack down on bad actors taking advantage of college athletes, whether they be boosters or agents.
“There’s a respect for protecting the breadth of opportunity and allowing young people to have continuing economic opportunity, but also have some level of consumer protection for them and set a national standard for this activity that supports championships, interconference play and conference play,” Sankey said.
Above all, the NCAA and its leaders want help setting a national standard because they want federal legislation to preempt state NIL laws. The NCAA also seeks a prohibition on revenue sharing with athletes and perhaps even protection against antitrust issues. They want these bills to guarantee that athletes can’t be deemed employees, even as the National Labor Relations Board and multiple lawsuits working their way through the court system are challenging that assertion.
The mainstream Democratic stance falls at the other end of the spectrum. Senators like Booker and Blumenthal want to support a bill that protects athletes’ ability to be classified as employees and the right for them to collectively bargain and receive significant post-graduate medical support. Those protections would be far from the “narrow” NIL bill characterization assigned to most Republican-backed legislation. If there’s progress in the federal legislative space, it’ll likely be something in between the two sides of the debate — or something that incorporates specific ideas from multiple bills into one.
As McMillen put it, “There’s a long way to go.”
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal. California wants college athletes to be employees.
https://www.wsj.com/sports/california-college-sports-revenue-sharing-athletes-2db5353c?st=e19okxesg1ivahg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/baseball/d1/2023
Plenty of upsets as usual in the baseball regionals.
Seeds eliminated so far: 4. Clemson, 6. Vandy, 9. Miami, 11. OkSU, 13. Auburn
Seeds at risk today: 2. UF, 3. AR, 5. LSU, 8. Stanford, 10. Coastal Carolina, 12. UK
Seeds advanced to superregional: 1, 7, 14 , 15, 16
Unseeded teams advancing to superregional so far: UT, ORU, UO, TN
At least 2 are guaranteed to advance
The B10 did okay considering it had no seeded teams. IN is still alive, playing #12 UK today to advance. IA went 2-2 before IN State won their regional. UMD won their first game before losing 2 straight in #1 seed WF’s regional.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Iowa Hawkeyes! The son of one of my high school classmates started and won their opener against UNC.
Five of today’s games are winner take all.
A&M at (8) Stanford
Indiana at (12) Kentucky
Texas Tech at (2) Florida
Duke at (10) Coastal Carolina
Penn v. Southern Miss at Auburn – How about those Quakers from the Ivy League?
(5) LSU and #2 TCU are still undefeated in their regionals, so #2 Oregon State and (3) Arkansas, respectively, will have to win twice today to advance.
9 teams have advanced to super regional play, so far.
(1) Wake Forest
(7) Virginia
(14) Indiana State
(15) South Carolina
(16) Alabama
#2 Oregon
#2 Texas
#2 Tennessee
#4 Oral Roberts
LikeLike
#2 UF, #5 LSU and #12 UK advanced. So did TCU, Duke and USM (too bad for Penn).
Add #3 AR to the eliminated seeds list.
All that’s left is #8 Stanford vs TAMU. That means at most 9 of 16 teams in the superregionals will be the regional hosts (and thus top 16 seeds).
LikeLike
Only one regional game left with (8) Stanford against Texas A&M in a winner advances game.
Super Regional are mostly set.
(1) Wake Forest hosts (16) Alabama
(2) Florida hosts (15) South Carolina
(5) LSU hosts (12) Kentucky
(7) Virginia hosts #2 Duke
(14) Indiana State hosts #2 TCU
#2 Oregon v. #4 Oral Roberts
#2 Tennessee v. #2 Southern Miss
#2 Texas v. winner of (8) Stanford v. #2 A&M
By Conference
SEC (7 or 6): UF, LSU, UK, South Car., Bama & Tenn and maybe A&M
ACC (3): Wake, UVA & Duke
B-12 (2): TCU & Texas
P-12 (2 or 1): Oregon and maybe Stanford
Sunbelt: So. Miss
Mo Valley: Ind. State
Summit: Oral Roberts
LikeLike
It is becoming increasingly obvious that new NCAA president Charlie Baker is a Larry-Scott-caliber charlatan. He refuses to move to Indianapolis and spends all of his time jet-setting around the nation on boondoggles. And the foremost issue facing college athletics, NIL, has pretty much been abandoned by Baker when he punted it to our dysfunctional Congress.
Baker’s talk of a “NIL standard” sounds somewhat reassuring but it is actually a unicorn. There ain’t no such animal. You cannot have a standard NIL package that can be applied equally to P2 quarterbacks and G5 walk-ons and female swimmers. It isn’t possible. And as stated in the article linked below, Baker has no “Plan B” for the NCAA after Congress kicks it around for a couple of years and bottoms out. Using Congress for a NIL resolution is nothing but a delaying tactic by Baker. We all know Congress will never reach concensus on this.
https://www.on3.com/nil/news/ncaa-must-come-up-with-plan-b-if-federal-nil-legislation-continues-to-fizzle/
LikeLike
“Can’t” and “won’t” are two very different words. You obviously could treat swimmers and QBs the same, because for years the NCAA did precisely that. Baker is channeling what his members want, and he is doing it better than Mark Emmert did. Admittedly that is a low bar to clear, but at least he is clearing it.
What happens if Congress fails to act? I have no idea, and I share your skepticism that it will. But in the meantime I would not expect Baker to have a Plan B, because nobody does.
LikeLike
Excellent article on NIL regulation from the perspective of antitrust law and why Congress isn’t the answer.
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/congress-nil-employment-debates-might-be-too-late-1234724281/
LikeLike
Marc: “You obviously could treat swimmers and QBs the same, because for years the NCAA did precisely that.”
In practice, that isn’t really possible. I flat-out challenge you, and all of the readers of this forum, to create a “NIL standard” that could actually be applied throughout the NCAA spectrum of sports. Charlie Baker has used the term “NIL standard” in his request for congressional action but it is nonetheless a pipedream. There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Congress, or the NCAA, will devise a ‘standard’ that everyone can live with.
We have a female gymnast at LSU who is making $2 million/yr in NIL on Instagram. The money isn’t coming from the NCAA or LSU or the federal government, it’s coming from Instagram, a private enterprise. How does the NCAA ot Congress get her to comply with a “NIL standard”?
LikeLike
There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Congress, or the NCAA, will devise a ‘standard’ that everyone can live with.
While I don’t expect it, there obviously are ways they could. What you can “live with” is relative. There are many subjects Congress regulates despite profound disagreements — healthcare, for example. Still, they do it.
We have a female gymnast at LSU who is making $2 million/yr in NIL on Instagram. The money isn’t coming from the NCAA or LSU or the federal government, it’s coming from Instagram, a private enterprise. How does the NCAA or Congress get her to comply with a “NIL standard”?
I practically guarantee the money is crossing state lines. It therefore is interstate commerce that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to regulate. Yell all you want that they shouldn’t or won’t, but clearly they can.
LikeLike
Colin: “There is no way on God’s Green Earth that Congress, or the NCAA, will devise a ‘standard’ that everyone can live with.”
Marc: “While I don’t expect it, there obviously are ways they could.”
Ok, then if there are obvious ways of doing so, then go ahead and do it. Propose a NIL standard. That is exactly the challenge that I made in my post above. Please give us an example of a NIL standard that will be acceptable to all. Just use the scenario that I suggested above: P2 QB, G5 walk-on and female swimmer.
LikeLike
Please give us an example of a NIL standard that will be acceptable to all.
There is practically no such thing as Congressional legislation that is acceptable to all. They might do it anyway, and someone is usually unhappy. There are several proposals out there, which I won’t type out because you can Google them yourself. Each of them make different trade-offs as to who they please and annoy the most.
I am not personally in favor of any of these. Mostly, I am reacting to your statement that there’s “no way.” Every one of these proposals is a potential way.
Just use the scenario that I suggested above: P2 QB, G5 walk-on and female swimmer.
I am guessing that if they do anything, it’ll be the P2 QB who is constrained the most. Why? Because when Charlie Baker goes to Washington, he doesn’t have swimmers on his mind. Nobody in Congress is saying, “What about the walk-ons!” They’re worried about the largest sums of money, which are overwhelmingly football and basketball players. Yes, I know there’s that gymnast, this is not where the angst is coming from.
LikeLike
If the NCAA wanted to be involved in NIL then they shouldn’t have made numerous worthless appeals and given the players the biggest trump card there is, a concise SCOTUS precedent. The NCAA has, probably, the biggest self own in the history of regulatory bodies. They made themselves worthless by sheer hubris.
LikeLike
NIL is an open door to widespread bribery of college athletes by gamblers and organized crime to shave points and lose games. Some sort of federal regulation is needed to rein in the bad guys.
LikeLike
NIL is an open door to widespread bribery of college athletes by gamblers and organized crime to shave points and lose games. Some sort of federal regulation is needed to rein in the bad guys.
I doubt gamblers and organized crime will be deterred by any federal legislation. At worst all NIL does is allow boosters to pay players “over the table” with out worrying about NCAA eligibility.
LikeLike
Gift article WSJ. Interesting court case in New York where four woman athletes claim transgenders participating in female sports is in violation of Title IX.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/transgender-sports-rules-face-court-test-3c5b1aca?st=tiywjgui1cgi37o&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2023/6/5/general-kerry-kenny-named-chief-operating-officer-of-the-big-ten-conference.aspx
The B10 promoted Kerry Kenny to COO. His duties are basically to negotiate the new TV deal (i.e. do Warren’s job), plus other standard administrative stuff.
As COO, Kenny will be responsible for all television/broadcast/media rights negotiations and execution, as well as oversight of content, digital and social media strategy. In addition, Kenny will oversee the conference’s finance, operational legal and human resources (HR) departments.
“Kerry is a veteran executive with deep experience in the Big Ten Conference and has demonstrated an established track record of providing extraordinary service to the conference, member institutions and external partners,” stated Commissioner Petitti. “I look forward to working with Kerry as he takes on significant new responsibilities within the conference office.”
Kenny has served the conference in a variety of roles – rules compliance, sport administration, public affairs, sport scheduling, and health and safety – since joining the Big Ten as an intern in August 2008. Most recently, he served as the senior vice president, television, media analytics and emerging platforms.
LikeLike
This is pretty clear – the SEC will only expand for more money, and wants to stay in their southeastern footprint.
LikeLike
By the way, his list of vetted Big Ten candidates is: Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Utah, and Miami. This does not mean they are all getting invitations. It only means they were serious enough to look at.
LikeLike
Is Jim Williams legit? At first pass he reminded me of a Swaim/Flugar clone.
LikeLike
Well, he works in the industry which puts him ahead of Flugaur. Swaim runs the Arizona 24/7 site, so he’s terribly biased.
Here’s his LinkedIn page:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jim-williams-washington-dc/
You decide if you think he’s legit. I don’t vouch for anyone.
LikeLike
Swaim runs the Arizona 24/7 site
That’s Scheer, right? The one with the huge Big 12 agenda?
Williams just strikes me as someone using realignment to build his audience by claiming to have sources everywhere. A whole lot of people willing to talk to him that don’t talk to “legitimate” reporters.
LikeLike
Yes, sorry. They all blur together for me. Swaim is the radio show/Twitter guy.
Well, his sources never seem to say anything all that outlandish at least, so they might be real. I don’t read him all the time, which is why I also won’t vouch for him.
LikeLike
https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/college/big-12/2023/06/05/big-12-conference-expansion-brett-yormark-faces-resistance-on-adding-gonzaga-uconn/70289562007/
The B12 membership is pushing back against Yormark’s desires to expand for hoops.
Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark still is pushing for expansion with basketball schools Gonzaga and Connecticut.
But Yormark still is getting pushback from his constituents.
Yormark held a Zoom conference with reporters Friday after the Big 12 spring meetings in White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and reiterated his desire to upgrade the league’s already-robust basketball pedigree.
“We do see the upside in basketball moving forward for all the right reasons,” Yormark said, referring in part to his desire to break out basketball from future television negotiations. “We think it’s undervalued, and there’s a chance for us to double down as the No. 1 basketball conference in America.
“But football is the driver, and we all know that.”
Campus decision-makers know it best of all. Which is why there seems to be little interest in adding Gonzaga, a West Coast Conference member that doesn’t field a football team, or UConn, a Big East member that is the defending NCAA men’s basketball champion but a woebegone football program.
“I don’t see any movement for a non-Power Five,” a Big 12 athletic director told me. “I do not think there’s enough support to get them across the finish line.”
…
Some basketball people are excited about the possibility of adding huge hoops brands.
“You have to,” a Big 12 basketball coach told me. “People just have to wrap their arms around it. We’re losing two stalwarts. People can say what they want to, but OU and Texas (headed to the Southeastern Conference) are icons. They are national brands. Anytime you lose a brand, you’re losing a little something.
“There’s not another Oklahoma football out there. There’s not another Texas brand out there. Our strength has to be in our numbers. What if we get Arizona basketball, Gonzaga?”
LikeLike
Canzano is dangling the fantasy that UCLA will return to the Pac-12 eventually. So much of it is so stupid that I have to wonder if he truly believes it, or is just throwing catnip to the fans.
Ex-Stanford coach David Shaw told me last summer he thought geography and Big Ten travel demands would become an issue for the conference defectors.
LOL, which is why there is NO Pac-12 school that would turn down a Big Ten offer if they could get it. (Maybe Stanford would?)
The travel is going to be a grind. Just ask Nebraska.
Actually, many people have asked Nebraska. They show no signs of regretting the move they made.
UCLA may also figure out the path to the College Football Playoff is brutal in the Big Ten.
He is not wrong about that, but in the CFP era I don’t think UCLA has had a single team that would’ve qualified for a 12-team playoff if it had existed. It is always better to have predictable recurring revenue than the occasional once-a-decade playoff team.
The Pac-12 could offer an increased distribution to UCLA in 2030.
Could be, assuming the Pac-12 still exists. But if the Pac-12’s distribution goes up, it’ll only be because sports rights fees are going up in general, and therefore the Big Ten’s will go up too. I don’t see anyone leaving that revenue on the table.
Also, far less travel for the soccer teams.
Let me know when a team switches conference for soccer. The next time will be the first time.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think the context of his article is key.
He starts by talking about the PGA Tour/LIV golf merger. A year ago the PGA commissioner played the 9/11 card and said PGA players never had to be embarrassed about where their money came from. Just this weekend Jack Nicklaus said he didn’t even consider the LIV players part of golf. And now they’ve merged.
He also talks about the A’s not getting their funding bill through the NV government, so maybe they aren’t moving to Las Vegas.
In that light, talking about UCLA going back makes some sense. He’s not saying it’s likely. There are people on the internet who still think UCLA will return without ever joining the B10. They came out of the woodwork when the B10 TV deal story broke. Canzano is simply saying that if LIV and the PGA can merge, then anything is possible in sports.
LikeLike
I listen to the Canzano and Wilner podcast and for the most part I enjoy it. However, they suggested this very strategy (offering UCLA in 2030) for the Pac 12. I know it’s just two media personalities talking but it seems like this fantasy thinking has taken root in the P12 leadership and it’s not serving them well.
As soon as USC and UCLA signaled their intent to head to the B1G, the P12 should have moved on, pursued expansion, and reupped their media deal. Instead, they went for the UCLA hail mary, begged the California regents to block the move, which may have gotten you UCLA but would have cost you Oregon and/or Washington. Almost one year later, they have not moved on, it doesn’t seem like they are expanding, I mean, SDSU is a no brainer at this point, what are they waiting for? And they are looking at a reduced media rights deal.
LikeLike
Startupsandheismans, I believe the foremost problem is that the Pac-12 TV deal that commissioner George Kliavkoff has been negotiating for months is so disappointing, pitiful and less than he promised that there is genuine concern that a small herd of schools will bolt to the Big XII as soon as the details of the TV deal are announced. And that might indeed happen.
LikeLike
Exceptionally well-written article about Illinois football from The Athletic:
Can Bret Bielema lead Illinois football out of its 30-year slumber?
Scott Dochterman Jun 6, 2023
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Outside of Memorial Stadium’s famed columns and brick exterior, a 12-foot bronze statue of Red Grange overlooks Grange Grove as the gateway to a century of Illinois football.
Inside the same vertically based stadium where “The Galloping Ghost” scored four touchdowns in 12 minutes against Michigan in 1924, a DJ stands over a laptop and a mixer under a navy-and-orange tent just beyond the north end zone. The fusion of modern hip-hop with a traditional football environment might seem like a strange pairing, but in this case, it perfectly encapsulates Illini football at its current intersection.
There’s athletics director Josh Whitman, who played tight end for Illinois from 1997 to 2000 and fist-bumps athletes of all sports before and after competitions. There’s Illinois native Bret Bielema, who played at Iowa and coached at Wisconsin and is trying to shift the Illini from occasional winners to consistent contenders. There are the longstanding Illini fans who revere but struggle to recall the program’s proud past, which consists of five national championships. Then there are the students who form the boisterous Orange Krush section for men’s basketball games but whose football involvement often mirrors the program’s on-field inconsistency.
In Illinois, there’s Chicago and there’s downstate. There’s northern Illinois, central Illinois and southern Illinois. Every area is different, which makes the state as diverse as any in the Midwest and perhaps the nation.
In the nation’s sixth-most-populous state with 12.7 million people, there are 13 Division I men’s basketball programs and two Power 5 football teams. But only Illinois can claim flagship status. Its campus is located within a three-hour drive of Chicago, Indianapolis and St. Louis along with midsized cities like Peoria, Springfield and Rock Island. There are hundreds of smaller communities capable of producing competitive talent.
Yet with those advantages, it’s fair to suggest no program within the Big Ten — or nationally — has underachieved like Illinois. Illinois went 10 years without a winning season before Bielema directed an 8-5 finish last year. Since 1979, the Illini are 219-287-5 with 11 head coaches, the second most among Big Ten programs. Rival neighbors Iowa (329-204-6) and Wisconsin (328-208-5) boast 100-plus victories during the same period and routinely raid the state of talent.
There’s really only a one-word question as to how Illinois became the Big Ten’s snoring giant: Why? The answer contains multiple layers. The next question: What can be done about it? That process is ongoing. Illinois went 10 years without a winning season before Bret Bielema directed an 8-5 finish last year.
Bielema and Whitman
Growing up in Prophetstown, which is located about 20 miles east of the Mississippi River, Bielema was a 180-pound defensive lineman who had to convince Iowa’s coaching staff he could bulk up just for a chance to walk on. Eventually, he developed into the starting nose guard, then a team captain. When his career ended, Bielema became a graduate assistant under Iowa coach Hayden Fry, then a full-time assistant. Bielema was one of two holdovers on Kirk Ferentz’s first staff and recruited several starters who helped flip the team from 0-8 in the Big Ten to 8-0 in four seasons.
But Bielema wasn’t there for the final phase. In 2002, he left for Kansas State to work under Bill Snyder. A year later as co-defensive coordinator, Bielema helped spring one of college football’s greatest upsets in helping the Wildcats beat No. 1 Oklahoma 35-7 for the Big 12 title. In 2004, Bielema left for Wisconsin and joined Barry Alvarez’s staff. In 2006 at age 36, he became Alvarez’s successor.
Bielema spent seven years leading Wisconsin, where he won three Big Ten titles and compiled a 68-24 record. He later moved to Arkansas, where he was 29-34 and was fired after five seasons. After three seasons as an NFL assistant, Bielema wanted back in the college game.
Whitman grew up in West Lafayette, Ind., but in the 1990s, he was captivated by what he saw 90 miles west. The Illini boasted one of college football’s greatest defenses throughout the decade with first-team All-Americans Moe Gardner, Dana Howard, Simeon Rice and Kevin Hardy. Whitman picked Illinois, where he became a two-time academic All-American and started 26 games at tight end.
After a stint in the NFL, Whitman graduated from Illinois law school, then became a law clerk. After serving as the athletic director at Washington University in St. Louis, Whitman was named Illinois’ athletic director in 2016. On his first day, Whitman fired Bill Cubit and hired Lovie Smith. But through five years, Smith posted a 17-39 record, and Whitman opted for a change. The program needed stability.
“Literally from the first conversation I had with Josh, we both talked about sustainable success,” Bielema said. “One of the things that excited him was every place I had been — Iowa, Kansas State, Wisconsin and then really in a Patriots organization — had sustained success for long periods of time, and each one of those places are uniquely different but also uniquely driven by one person.”
Bielema’s track record, coupled with his life experiences and recruiting prowess, helped convince Whitman he was right for the job.
“His ability to connect with every walk of life, every background, every experience, he’s just a very genuine, caring person,” Whitman said. “He’s lived a lot of life. He’s met a lot of different people. He’s been to a lot of different places. And because of that, he’s comfortable in just about any room that he walks into.”
A rough road
Illinois’ underachievement in the past three decades is caused in part by its inability to keep athletes from leaving the state. And it has struggled to attract quality head coaches. From 1981 to 1991, Illinois claimed two Big Ten titles and won 59 league games, fourth best among Big Ten teams. But coach John Mackovic left Illinois for Texas after the 1991 regular season, and the Illini have since lacked consistency.
In 1990, Howard Griffith scored a single-game FBS-record eight rushing touchdowns for Illinois, a mark that still stands. His Illini team was ranked in the top five and tied for the Big Ten title that year. But only once since Griffith played has Illinois won 10 games in a season, and that was in 2001.
Since Mackovic, Illinois is on its seventh coach. None of the previous six before Bielema won even 45 percent of their games.
“It really all is about the consistency at the head-coaching spot,” said Griffith, now a football analyst with BTN. “It’s really been about being able to sustain excellence for a long period of time. And it just hasn’t been there.
“Illinois, quite frankly, is a developmental program. I know people don’t like to hear that about their program. They want to say there’s no reason why we can’t be Wisconsin, can’t be Iowa, can’t be Minnesota. What people have a hard time understanding and wrapping their heads around is that it’s really hard to win. And if you’re not recruiting at a really high level and maximizing the players that are going to best fit your program, it’s hard to do.”
In 2001 under Ron Turner, quarterback Kurt Kittner led the Illini to a Big Ten championship. With the BCS title game at the Rose Bowl, Illinois competed in the Sugar Bowl. Turner didn’t have another winning Big Ten season. Ron Zook was Turner’s replacement and guided the 2007 squad to a second-place finish and a Rose Bowl berth. But even with the core of the team returning, Illinois finished 5-7 in 2008.
Only once since Mackovic have the Illini even qualified for bowl games in consecutive seasons, and that was after a pair of seven-win campaigns. The second of those bowl appearances came after Illinois lost six straight games following a 6-0 start and cost Zook his job.
“In terms of what some of the obstacles have been, I think we’re a little bit unique amongst what I would call kind of our peer group of programs,” Whitman said. “We’ve had these moments of success. We’ve been a part of BCS bowl games, and then we have these fairly precipitous drops, and we have failed to capitalize on these moments of success. We haven’t used them as a springboard to greater success the way that some of our peer schools have done. That’s really been our focus since I came here.”
It was even worse after Zook. Tim Beckman led Illinois from 2012 to 2014 and was best known for three embarrassing situations and one major scandal. Beckman was caught using chewing tobacco on the sideline during his first season — an NCAA violation — and sent assistants on a recruiting trip to Penn State to see players who were free to transfer in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal. Before the 2015 season, Beckman was accused of mistreating players and was fired.
Whitman’s predecessor, Mike Thomas, installed Cubit as an interim coach, then gave him a two-year extension. It was no way to build a program, which Whitman realized.
“It felt like we were in a very unstable environment,” Whitman said. “It’s no secret of the role that successful football plays in the ultimate success of the athletics department and how we’re viewed both locally and nationally. So we knew we needed to try and get football into a stronger position as quickly as we could.
“We were at a point in our program where we needed an adult in the room. We needed stability. We needed to bring credibility to a program that was teetering a bit at that moment. Of course, the results on the field weren’t what any of us wanted. But I think in a lot of ways we were able to breathe some credibility into the Illinois football program.”
No fences
In the 2019 recruiting class, there were 56 three- or four-star players from Illinois, according to the 247Sports Composite. The Illini’s top two signees were at No. 11 and No. 25. Thirteen players were signed by other Big Ten schools in the top 24.
Illinois’ borders were wide open, and it was self-inflicted. From not building relationships with Chicagoland’s elite programs to ignoring small-town prospects, Illinois saw its rivals and non-Big Ten programs raid the state. In perhaps the most egregious case, tight end Sam LaPorta was the state’s No. 19 prospect and grew up two hours southwest of Champaign. Illinois’ staff didn’t even call LaPorta’s coaches. LaPorta committed late to Iowa, became the Mackey Award finalist in 2022 and was a second-round NFL Draft selection.
It’s here where Bielema’s impact is felt the most. None of it is foreign to him. It’s home.
“I’ll never forget my first day on the job,” he said. “They gave me 10 high school coaches to call in the state that had premier players, and I knew exactly where those programs were at. I knew where Springfield was, but I also knew where the south side of Chicago was. I knew where a western suburb, northern suburb, a Chicago CPS school was at. I knew the western side of the state where I came from, as well as the southern part of the state and how important East St. Louis was.
“I walked into a ready-made situation here at Illinois.”
Big Ten foes and Notre Dame still will battle in Chicagoland, which remains the Midwest’s most important recruiting zone. But Illinois is now aggressive in building relationships with high school coaches throughout the state. Bielema’s staff set foot in every school within months of his hiring.
“A lot of coaches step into new situations and talk about wanting to put a fence around the state,” Whitman said. “He talks about what he wants to do, then he puts a plan in place and they execute the plan.
“He has made a commitment to this state, to his home state, that I know has really resonated with the high school coaches.”
Executing the plan
When Bielema was hired in December 2020, he received a major blessing and a challenge. The NCAA allowed football players to return for an extra season because of the pandemic. But the transfer portal allowed players to exit programs for immediate eligibility. He had the chance to retain some — or all — of Illinois’ holdovers, but he also could let them go and start fresh with new recruits.
“The first time I addressed the team, we were coming out of the COVID year. They had just gotten beaten by Penn State, their coach had been fired,” Bielema said. “I walked into the front of the room, in front of my team, and I said: ‘Listen, I’m the newest member of this family. I just walked in here. And I want you to know that for anybody that’s in here now, the doors are open for you to return.’ I extended everybody in that room that opportunity.
“I didn’t know at that point what I just created, but it really gave us the beginning phases of what we see today.”
The Illini returned 22 super-seniors in 2021. More importantly, Bielema’s invitation told the younger holdovers he was as invested in them as his future signings. Illinois was 5-7 that year, but Bielema’s pledge kept defensive backs Devon Witherspoon, Quan Martin and Sydney Brown and running back Chase Brown in Champaign. Witherspoon was the No. 5 pick in the 2023 draft, while Martin was a second-round pick and Sydney Brown was a third-rounder. Chase Brown, Sydney’s twin brother, was a fifth-round pick.
“If there was transition, those four guys had expressed to me at some point they were thinking about removing themselves from this program and looking for different opportunities,” Bielema said. “I’m glad that I opened the doors because it’s been the catalyst now of obviously them but also some of our returning players for next year.”
“They set a standard right away when Coach B came in the building,” Sydney Brown said. “The expectation is to be the best every single day, and if you’re giving nothing less than that, good things are gonna happen. You’ve got to give respect to the coaches. They’ve done a great job of getting us (to the NFL).”
Last fall, the Illini beat Wisconsin and Iowa in the same season for the first time since 1989, which also was the last time Illinois finished in the AP Top 10. But a late-season slide with three consecutive losses derailed a possible Big Ten title appearance.
In Bielema’s first year, the men’s basketball program generated more money in ticket sales ($8.3 million) than football ($6.9 million), according to numbers obtained by The Athletic via the state’s open-records law. Illinois earns nearly six times more from the league’s football portion of media rights than it does from football ticket sales.
Although Illinois’ attendance last year increased by nearly 8,000 fans per game over 2021, it still was the third lowest among Big Ten schools. For Illinois to take the next step as a program, it must include all stakeholders, Whitman said.
“Up until kind of the middle of last year, and Bret would say this, we were really teaching the guys how to win, what it feels like to win,” Whitman said. “Then all of a sudden, the latter portion of the season, we were then trying to teach the guys how to sustain success. How to live in success. So now I think, programmatically, that’s what we have to do.
“We have to teach not just our players but our coaches, our administration and then, perhaps most importantly, our fans, these are the things that successful programs do. You’ve seen a lot of effort during this spring to move tickets. We’ve got to get more people in our building. We’ve got to get to the place where we’re regularly selling out Memorial Stadium, where we’re seeing a significant uptick in attendance. If we want the environment to match what we’re seeing in some of our rival institutions, our players need to feel that energy. We need to start resetting the floor. We need to understand that just getting to a bowl game now may not be the expectation.”
Can it be done at Illinois, and is Bielema the right one to do it? Griffith, who may bleed navy and orange but evaluates Big Ten teams objectively, says yes.
“He’s shown that he can do it in other places,” Griffith said. “He has more resources to work with right now in Illinois than he probably had at Wisco. Now, there was a proven template that was in place, but there were also some restraints that were in place there that he doesn’t have at Illinois. So I think the resources are there now.
“So, to answer your question, I believe he can.”
LikeLike
Tony Petitti on the Rich Eisen show (about 7 minutes long).
“Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti and Rich Eisen discuss the intricacies of incorporating UCLA and USC into the conference.”
Integrating USC/UCLA
TV deal
CFP/other
Says the scheduling plan will be out in a few days.
LikeLike
The 2024 schedule model and opponents will be revealed tomorrow at 4:30pm live on BTN.
LikeLike
Click to access June-9-2023-Board-of-Regents-Meeting.pdf
WSU has a BOR meeting on 6/9, and 1 action item is delegation to the president of the right to make athletic media rights deals.
SUBJECT: Delegation of authority to President Schulz or designee to approve, amend, and execute contracts or other agreements related to the University’s
athletic media rights.
PROPOSED: That the Board of Regents approve a delegation of authority to President Schulz authorizing the President or his designee to approve, amend, and
execute contracts or other agreements related to the University’s athletic
media rights.
This suggests the P12 might sign a deal soon, and need to do so in a hurry. Perhaps to beat the 6/30 deadline so they can expand?
LikeLike
USF is getting a new stadium.
https://footballstadiumdigest.com/2023/06/committee-approves-new-usf-football-stadium/
LikeLike
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2023/06/139075/gene-smith-says-ohio-state-wont-play-home-night-games-past-first-week-of-november-after-2023
Gene Smith says OSU won’t host primetime games in November after the first weekend after this year when OSU hosts MSU on 11/11 to accommodate NBC and the new TV deal.
However, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told Eleven Warriors it won’t become a regularity. Moving forward, the Buckeyes will only entertain the prospect of a night game past the first weekend of November if it is on the road and under the right set of circumstances, Smith said.
“We will not do it in the future at home. We might do it away,” Smith said during an interview on this week’s edition of Real Pod Wednesdays. “If a colleague calls from another school and said, ‘Hey, would you be willing to play a night game at our place?’ We have to make that call. Both athletic directors have to agree on that. And so usually I would talk to Ryan (Day) and see if we’re interested in doing that and we will say yes or no. But it depends on who it is, where it is or what time our team might get back. That always plays a role into their plan. If there’s a second Saturday in November and we’re somewhere and our team doesn’t get back until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning, that might be a problem.”
Aside from the obvious climate concerns and potential issues with the health and recovery time for student-athletes late in the season, Smith said such contests also create conflicts for season-ticket holders who travel to Ohio State games from out of town.
“I always think about that couple in Canton, Ohio, who’s 70-something-years-old, season-ticket holders,” Smith said. “And we really create a problem for them already how we announce our game times. But for them to have to make a decision to come to a night game the Saturday before Thanksgiving, I just would prefer to take that burden off of them. And normally they can come to a noon game or a 3:30 kick and get back home as opposed to trying to get a hotel room. So that’s been our rationale, just one of them, our rationale for not doing that.”
LikeLike
This really sounds like Gene wants those “couples in Canton” to stop bugging him about November night games. First time NBC picks up a game, he say its a one off or he’s doing it for the good of the conference.
LikeLike
Mike,
As has been noted elsewhere, under the old deal B10 schools had the right of refusal for Friday night games and November night games after the 1st weekend and the conference agreed those are rights of the schools. Warren ignored that and made deals he shouldn’t have, so for 1 year schools are making accommodations for NBC (OSU night game on 11/11, MSU/PSU moving to Black Friday). The presumption is that once the LA schools are in, the issue will go away.
It’s not just those couple in Canton, by the way. A lot of police are out controlling traffic after games, and that is dangerous at night in cold weather – so they and their families complain. It also means they aren’t available to respond to crimes – so local mayors and police chiefs complain. You also risk getting black ice as people return home in rural Ohio, so they complain.
LikeLike
As has been noted elsewhere, under the old deal B10 schools had the right of refusal for Friday night games and November night games after the 1st weekend and the conference agreed those are rights of the schools. Warren ignored that and made deals he shouldn’t have,
I can’t imagine Warren announcing the deal with out running it by the leadership at Ohio St. I guarantee you they signed off on it. I think it was pretty clear to all of us what Big Ten Saturday Night meant, so it had to be clear to them too. IMO November night games are unpopular and Warren makes the perfect fall guy.
It’s not just those couple in Canton, by the way. A lot of police are out controlling traffic after games, and that is dangerous at night in cold weather – so they and their families complain. It also means they aren’t available to respond to crimes – so local mayors and police chiefs complain. You also risk getting black ice as people return home in rural Ohio, so they complain.
Of any city in the Big Ten, Columbus should be able to handle police and traffic. Cincinnati and Cleveland seem to for NFL games. I understand and get the complaints, I just think Smith doesn’t want hear them anymore and would rather focus the complainers energy elsewhere (at Warren).
LikeLike
Mike,
I can’t imagine Warren announcing the deal with out running it by the leadership at Ohio St. I guarantee you they signed off on it.
I ‘m pretty sure Gene Smith would remember having that discussion. He said OSU would make an exception this 1 year to help the conference, but that’s only after the issue became public and he became aware of it.
We know Warren sold NBC a CCG that he didn’t have the right to sell, so why would this be any different?
I think it was pretty clear to all of us what Big Ten Saturday Night meant, so it had to be clear to them too.
Yes, that somebody would play in primetime. Plenty of B10 schools have always been willing to do that. OSU and MI are 2 that have always said no.
IMO November night games are unpopular and Warren makes the perfect fall guy.
Of course they’re unpopular. Forcing schools to do things that they were explicitly told they didn’t have to do has that effect.
Of any city in the Big Ten, Columbus should be able to handle police and traffic.
No, that would be Chicago. Then maybe Newark and DC, followed by MSP.
Ohio Stadium becomes the 10th most populous city (5th if you only count incorporated cities not metro areas) in Ohio for games. They pull in police from all over central Ohio to handle traffic in town, and surrounding areas also have to have extra officers on duty.
Cincinnati and Cleveland seem to for NFL games.
They have about half the number of people in town for those games. Both NFL stadiums seat less than 70k people, not 105k, plus OSU has a lot of fans come without attending the actual game. Frequently families show up and only some go to the game. Many tailgate without having tickets, and the local bars and restaurants also get slammed by those lacking tickets. They also may have better roads for dealing with the traffic than Columbus does. There are a lot of city streets between some OSU fan parking and the highways. Paycor is right by I-71 and Browns Stadium is on OH-2.
I understand and get the complaints, I just think Smith doesn’t want hear them anymore and would rather focus the complainers energy elsewhere (at Warren).
Why bother to lie? He gets the complaints either way. It doesn’t stop him from doing alternate uniforms, raising prices, piping in music instead of having the band play, or any of the other major things he gets even more complaints about. Smith knows how to explain unpopular changes he makes without lying. We already know Warren overstepped on the CCG, so I see no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt on this either.
LikeLike
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2023/06/139093/gene-smith-doesn-t-anticipate-ohio-state-having-a-football-game-only-on-peacock-this-year-but
Gene Smith doesn’t expect an OSU football game on Peacock this year. But several hoops games might be.
Ohio State still has six conference games for which TV networks have yet to be announced (Maryland, Purdue, Penn State, Wisconsin, Rutgers and Minnesota), so the possibility of the Buckeyes playing a Peacock-only game this season still can’t be ruled out. But it would catch Ohio State’s athletic director by surprise if that happens at this point.
He does expect several of Ohio State’s men’s basketball games to be exclusive to Peacock this year, though, as the Big Ten’s new TV deal allows for up to 47 games each year (32 conference games and 15 non-conference games) to be broadcast exclusively on the streaming platform.
“Don’t anticipate it happening in football this year. Might it happen in basketball? Sure,” Smith told Eleven Warriors during an exclusive interview on this week’s Real Pod Wednesdays. “A large majority of our contests will be linear, but you know, we might end up with some Peacock games in basketball. So we have to be ready for that.”
…
The football Buckeyes being only available to watch via streaming will be a first – at least since all Ohio State football games have been broadcast live – when it eventually happens, presumably in 2024. Smith recognizes that will create challenges for Ohio State fans, particularly those who live in areas where high-speed Internet still isn’t readily available.
“I worry about it, like everyone,” Smith said. “There’s certain parts of Ohio, where Wi-Fi’s a challenge, where streaming’s a challenge. But at least people know that those games are coming and they can plan for them.”
Smith also felt, though, that the time was right for the Big Ten to incorporate a streaming package into its media rights. As more and more sports leagues begin to make at least some of their media rights streaming-exclusive – the NFL, for example, will have a Wild Card playoff game exclusive to Peacock this season as well as its weekly Thursday night regular-season games on Amazon Prime Video – Smith believes the Peacock deal will allow the Big Ten to dip its toes into streaming while still keeping the majority of its games on broadcast networks or cable television.
“We had to get into it to some degree. We were not going into it wholesale, but we have to get into it,” Smith said. “And so I think having a platform like NBC, for a linear partner, and then they control the Peacock part of it, gives us a chance to test the waters in that. And so I’m excited about it.”
…
“As we play across conferences, we need to be aware that there may be some conferences where that’s the majority of their television deal,” Smith said. “If you go out West, that might be it.”
LikeLike
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/real-pod-wednesdays/2023/06/139091/gene-smith-discusses-ohio-state-sports-the-state-of-college-athletics-and-the-big-ten-s-new-tv-deal
A podcast with Gene Smith. Most of it is OSU-specific, but he talks the bigger picture too.
11:09: Why Smith remains hopeful about federal NIL legislation
15:38: How Ohio State is preparing for possible changes to the college athletics model
18:06: Why Ohio State has no plans to change Ohio Stadium’s field back to grass
22:04: What the Big Ten’s new TV partners will bring to the conference
23:30: Why this will be the only year Ohio State plays a mid-November home night game
26:11: The impact of some Big Ten games being only on Peacock
27:45: Smith sees new commissioner Tony Pettiti as “outstanding leader” for Big Ten
28:32: The Big Ten’s criteria for expansion candidates and why B1G isn’t looking to expand again yet
LikeLike
AAU is nice but not required for the B10 (we already knew this – see ND)
LikeLike
B1G 24/25 conference matchups being announced tomorrow and the strong rumors are saying they went with the Flex Protect set up.
Now I’m curious if they actually read my post about it, since they happened to use the same “FLEX” language.
LikeLike
The flex language has been used in many places by many people for months. I have no idea who used it first or who copied it from whom.
Thoughts on the B10 schedule:
1. The B10 is renowned for bad decisions on things like this, so them choosing a flex model wouldn’t shock me.
2. It also wouldn’t shock me if those who argued for it quickly start arguing against it once they realize what it actually means for them – a little more travel (the new members with the fewest rivals are all coastal), and a few more more games against RU and UMD. It won’t actually change their SOS much.
3. It will be somewhat interesting to see whose whining gets listened to and whose doesn’t.
4. This is only for 2024-25. They probably will not say anything about 2026 and beyond, whether “locked” rivals are permanent or temporary. Remember how long it took to get all the details on parity-based scheduling?
5. The real question is how they want to integrate the newbies. In the past they always used extra games with OSU and MI in the first few years to help them.
6. Will they schedule home and home, or rotate opponents every year? You can make cases for either.
7. How much influence does/did TV have on the schedule? The number of locked brand/brand games may tell us about that.
8. Will they use a zipper plan for the rotating games?
9. How long are the planning for? Do they think short term, expecting possible expansion in 7 years?
10. I know we won’t have dates yet, but how will USC/ND be handled long term? Will it stay in the final week every other year?
Final predictions:
Guaranteed:
USC/UCLA
NE/IA
WI/MN
IA/WI
IA/MN
NW/IL
IN/PU
MI/MSU
OSU/MI
RU/UMD
Highly likely:
OSU/PSU
Probable:
PSU/RU
The rest depends on what they value and who gets listened to in the room.
LikeLike
Highly unlikely: OSU/PSU
LikeLike
The flex language has been used in many places by many people for months. I have no idea who used it first or who copied it from whom.
I never thought of the word “flex” until it came out in recent months, but I have favored such a plan for years. My definition of it was, “lock what needs to be locked, and no more.” Obviously “flex” is a better one-word explanation of it.
This is only for 2024-25. They probably will not say anything about 2026 and beyond, whether “locked” rivals are permanent or temporary.
That makes sense. I remember when one of our posters here came up with a 15 or 20-year rotation of games, which he quite seriously believed would endure. He looked smart for a while as they followed his pattern for 5–6 years or so, before abandoning it.
No combination of executives in a conference room can do this without making mistakes. Better to commit for a couple of years, and then see how it works in real life.
LikeLike
Marc,
“This is only for 2024-25. They probably will not say anything about 2026 and beyond, whether “locked” rivals are permanent or temporary.”
That makes sense. I remember when one of our posters here came up with a 15 or 20-year rotation of games, which he quite seriously believed would endure. He looked smart for a while as they followed his pattern for 5–6 years or so, before abandoning it.
I don’t think Richard believed they would run through the entire 36-year cycle, he just showed what the complete cycle would be if the B10 completed it.
No combination of executives in a conference room can do this without making mistakes. Better to commit for a couple of years, and then see how it works in real life.
A typo is a mistake. The B10 makes scheduling/alignment blunders (Leaders vs Legends, WI isolated from the west, parity-based scheduling).
LikeLike
That’s right, I thought the B10 would expand again before the 36 year cycle with divisions completed (remember that I thought the B10 would become the B20 before anyone else), but I showed how often teams would play each other under the (unlikely) scenario that that setup lasted all 36 years.
LikeLike
I said:
Final predictions:
Guaranteed:
USC/UCLA
NE/IA
WI/MN
IA/WI
IA/MN
NW/IL
IN/PU
MI/MSU
OSU/MI
RU/UMD
Highly likely:
OSU/PSU
Probable:
PSU/RU
The rest depends on what they value and who gets listened to in the room.
All the guaranteed locks were locked. They were also so obvious that even the B10 couldn’t screw up locking them.
The last 2 were based on faulty information. All the articles said every team would have 1-3 locked rivals under the flex plan. The last 2 predictions were based on PSU having to be locked with someone. I would’ve downgraded their likelihood if we had known 0 was an option.
I thought PU/IL had a decent chance, but it fell under the “The rest depends on what they value” part. It’s the most equal and valued of the minor trophy rivalries. OSU/IL, MI/MN and MSU/IN are too unequal. But they ignored other games with more value, so who knows what they were thinking?
I think RU may really suffer from not playing PSU annually. They have enough trouble building their program without eliminating that game and the ticket sales it brought.
LikeLike
I expect IL-Purdue got locked because both schools wanted it locked. Besides the historic reasons Colin mentioned if they play each other every year it is one less opportunity of getting OSU, MI, PSU, USC, etc. So a win all around for fans, coaches, and athletic directors.
I believe that PSU-OSU failed for the same reason. Both schools strongly objecting to having that game as a lock. Both already have a strong enough strength of schedule and they will play each other often enough in the rotation.
LikeLike
Little8,
I expect IL-Purdue got locked because both schools wanted it locked.
Presumably. But the others could’ve overruled them if they wanted. Neither team would claim that is their top rivalry, and nobody would say it is vital for the conference. But it does make sense to keep and I’m glad they did.
Conversely I think OSU/PSU is valuable to the B10, but (selfishly) I’m glad they didn’t lock that game.
Besides the historic reasons Colin mentioned if they play each other every year it is one less opportunity of getting OSU, MI, PSU, USC, etc. So a win all around for fans, coaches, and athletic directors.
It’s also fewer trips to LA, NYC and DC for them. They probably like that aspect. And the coastal schools also probably are happy to not travel to them as often.
I believe that PSU-OSU failed for the same reason. Both schools strongly objecting to having that game as a lock.
Did they? Gene Smith didn’t want MI, PSU and USC all as locked games. I don’t recall him specifically decrying the PSU game. PSU didn’t clamor to lock it, but I don’t recall them rejecting it. PSU pushed back on RU and UMD both being locked. Remember, PSU specifically demanded being locked with OSU as a condition for joining the B10 (and MI for the first 10 years).
Both already have a strong enough strength of schedule and they will play each other often enough in the rotation.
The locked games have a modest impact on the overall SOS. As you say, you still play everyone else 50% of the time (roughly). OSU’s SOS could vary from 0.514 to 0.450 under the most extreme 3 locked rivals. With 1 high, 1 medium and 1 low it would be around 0.486. It was 0.506 in the current divisions (adding USC and UCLA). That’s assuming everyone plays at their average over the past decade. The year-to-year fluctuations in team strength are often much bigger than that. Remember, OSU has won well over 80% of their games while playing MI and PSU (and WI or NE) every year. Eliminating the divisions was the bigger SOS factor, especially for IN, RU and UMD. Also the west division.
LikeLike
Little8: “I expect IL-Purdue got locked because both schools wanted it locked.”
I agree, and there is really some history in that game. Purdue and Illinois are closer to each other – 90 miles – than WL is to Bloomington or Cham-Urbana is to Evanston For decades, both Purdue and Illinois have considered their in-state “archrivals” unworthyin football (but not basketball). And it was always a big sellout game in nice weather while many Land of Lincoln and Old Oaken Bucket games were neither.
LikeLike
The dumbest thing I keep seeing is PSU/MSU being locked in a flex plan. If you only want necessary rivals locked, then why protect a game neither side cared about? At least 1 team would care if you locked PSU/RU. Or lock PSU/OSU for the TV ratings and border game.
LikeLike
Brian: “The dumbest thing I keep seeing is PSU/MSU being locked in a flex plan.”
I betcha you’re wrong on that one too. That’s being groomed as a night game on Thanksgiving weekend, with the MSU home games going to Ford Field.
LikeLike
I betcha you’re wrong on that one too. That’s being groomed as a night game on Thanksgiving weekend, with the MSU home games going to Ford Field.
MSU did agree to move their game this season to Ford Field. I would be surprised if they agree to it permanently.
PSU/MSU is not the craziest lock that I have seen, since those two were locked in the 11-team Big Ten era. Still, it would be a bit surprising: there were a lot of jokes about the hokey Land Grant Trophy that they invented to try to make that rivalry real. (The craziest lock proposal I saw was a tie between Ohio State–Purdue and UCLA–Northwestern, both of which Colin proposed.)
LikeLike
Marc: “(The craziest lock proposal I saw was a tie between Ohio State–Purdue and UCLA–Northwestern, both of which Colin proposed.)”
No no no. That was one of my groupings under the three-locked-rivals format, not the flex plan. If Ohio State must have three locked rivals. who would you choose? Similarly, if UCLA must have three locked rivals, who would you pick?
LikeLike
Marc: “Marc: “(The craziest lock proposal I saw was a tie between Ohio State–Purdue and UCLA–Northwestern, both of which Colin proposed.)”
Marc, I cannot really take credit for the UCLA-Northwestern lock. Frank beat me to it. If you scroll all the way up to the top of this forum and read Frank’s original post on Sept 20, 2022, this is his proposal for Big Ten locked rivals:
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Northwestern
LikeLike
My apologies…I would not want to misdirect the credit for a bad idea. Yes, Frank did indeed propose locking UCLA–NW, although he gave no explanation for it. Obviously, after locking what he felt was “mandatory,” UCLA–NW was among the dregs left in the coffee pot.
UCLA has only two rivals that make any sense in terms of geography and regular-season history: USC and Nebraska. The third was bound to seem a bit random. But if they had gone with 3-6-6, I think they would have wanted the third game to have some sex appeal, which puts the Wildcats pretty far down the list. Only Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, or Indiana would have made less sense.
Since the Big Ten did consider 3-6-6, I believe someone will leak the list of what the locks would have been. I would be quite surprised if UCLA–NW was included. I could more likely believe USC–NW, since at least it pairs the league’s only two private schools.
LikeLike
Marc: “My apologies…I would not want to misdirect the credit for a bad idea.”
Marc, there is no ‘good’ way to to use the three-lock format in the Big Ten. You’re going to force some non-rivalries that you may call dumb or silly because many schools do not have three traditional rivals. Some must be contrived. That’s probably why the Big Ten isn’t going to use the three-lock format
Three-lock would work well in the SEC. Most of us could fill out the schedule in a few minutes, e.g. TX – A&M, OK, Arkansas and FL – Auburn, Georga, USCe.
LikeLike
Marc, there is no ‘good’ way to to use the three-lock format in the Big Ten.
I agree, which is why I have favored “flex” on this forum for most of the last decade. Every version of 3-6-6 that I saw invariably included at least a few locks that looked totally random. But still, even if there’s no great way to do it, you try to find the least stupid.
LikeLike
Marc: ” I saw invariably included at least a few locks that looked totally random. But still, even if there’s no great way to do it, you try to find the least stupid.”
Ok, please explain why:
USC – UCLA, Nebraska, Northwestern
is less stupid than:
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Northwestern
LikeLike
Ok, please explain why:
USC – UCLA, Nebraska, Northwestern
is less stupid than:
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Northwestern
They probably would not have done either of these. But there is at least a rationale for USC–NW, as they are the league’s only two private schools. It might not be much of a reason, but at least it’s something. In contrast, UCLA–NW just looks like you ran out of ideas.
LikeLike
Marc: “But there is at least a rationale for USC–NW, as they are the league’s only two private schools.”
That’s the best rationale you’ve got? OK, if that’s a valid rationale consider this:
1. Both Northwestern and UCLA have animal mascots. USC does not.
2. Northwestern contains the direction ‘north’ and USC contains the direction ‘south’. Those are literally polar opposites!
3. Both Northwestern and UCLA have letters on their helmets. USC does not!
LikeLike
Remember, my prediction is that when the 3-6-6 locks eventually leak, which they likely will, neither of these would be on the list. And I don’t personally favor them either. So asking me to defend something I don’t favor and believe would never happen is maybe not the fairest question. Remember, I asked you for a reason and you had nothing, except that Frank had earlier made the same mistake.
But if they ever did it, the fact that both are private schools is something you could say without being laughed out of the room. “They both have letters on their helmets” would not cut it.
LikeLike
Marc: “But if they ever did it, the fact that both are private schools is something you could say without being laughed out of the room.”
Actually, I had a good belly laugh when I read your reasoning. Kneeslapper!
LikeLike
Brian: “The dumbest thing I keep seeing is PSU/MSU being locked in a flex plan. If you only want necessary rivals locked, then why protect a game neither side cared about? At least 1 team would care if you locked PSU/RU. Or lock PSU/OSU for the TV ratings and border game.”
Well, we were both right and we were both wrong. MSU/PSU isn’t locked and PSU/OSU isn’t locked.
LikeLike
Jack Swarbrick, the Notre Dame Athletic Director, will retire in early 2024. His replacement is Pete Bevacqua, the chairman of NBC Sports Group. Bevacqua is a Notre Dame alum and a former walk-on punter for Lou Holtz. He’ll start on July 1 as a special assistant, giving him a long runway to mentor under Swarbrick before he takes over next year.
Bevacqua continues the recent trend of hiring media executives in roles such as these. It reflects the outsize importance that the media contract has in the financial stability of a major conference or an independent like Notre Dame. The hiring of Bevacqua would certainly seem to signal that ND expects to renew its TV deal with NBC.
Swarbrick has been incredibly impactful, and I think most people at Notre Dame would view his tenure as a success. The school is portraying Swarbrick’s departure as entirely his own decision, which I’ve no reasons to doubt. He is 69, after all, and he has been in the job for 16 years. But he admits one regret: that the Irish did not win a football national championship on his watch.
LikeLike
One big question is what this means for the ND/NBC TV negotiations. Bevacqua has inside info on what NBC can/will pay for ND vs what their negotiating position will be. He knows all the data NBC has on ND. I’ve always thought they’d reach a deal, and this just makes it more likely. And for a very high payout, too.
How will he influence future scheduling? More B10 teams? Fewer? Other changes? What will he want for the USC schedule?
One of the most significant drivers of Notre Dame’s independent status is its relationship with NBC, which seemingly will grow even stronger in the future with Bevacqua coming onboard. Notre Dame’s contract with the network runs through 2025, which means negotiations for the next agreement are not yet within range.
“It has been an unbelievable, mutually beneficial relationship for both entities,” Bevacqua says. “I have a strong suspicion that both Notre Dame and NBC would love to see that going forward well into the future.”
Even before Bevacqua was named as Swarbrick’s successor, the belief has been that the school is positioned for a significant increase in its annual revenue payments from NBC. That would be an important element of continued football independence. “I’m a fan of independence, for sure,” he says. “It’s another element of what makes Notre Dame different. I think those differentiators for Notre Dame are more important and more valuable today than they’ve ever been.”
LikeLike
I was close it seems. https://frankthetank.org/2022/09/20/geography-or-trophy-games-proposed-annual-rivals-in-the-future-big-ten/#comment-381984
On protected rivals I said:
Penn State – Ohio State
Rutgers – Maryland
Maryland – Rutgers
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State
Michigan State – Michigan
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State
Purdue – Indiana
Indiana – Purdue
Illinois – Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois
Nebraska – Iowa
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
I was wrong about PSU-OSU and missed Illinois-Purdue, but got all the rest correct.
For two-plays (which I called [Open]/flex]) I said:
Penn State – [s]UCLA[/s], Michigan State
Ohio State – [s]USC[/s]
Michigan State – Penn State, [s]Wisconsin[/s]
Michigan – [s]USC[/s]
Nebraska – Minnesota, UCLA
Wisconsin – [s]Michigan State[/s]
Minnesota – Nebraska
USC – [s]Ohio State, Michigan[/s]
UCLA – Nebraska, [s]Penn State[/s]
that’s about half right. I struck where I was wrong.
They seem to have done a sort of zipper, but not really. It looks more like you play a zippered pair home and away then plan another zippered pair the next year. I assumed it would be more like playing one each from a zippered pair. Similar, but not really the same.
And, I’m taking a victory lap on this one, PSU does not have permanent rivals with Maryland or Rutgers, and only has Rutgers as 2-play. Can we finally let that settle how PSU feels about those schools?
LikeLike
Scout: “And, I’m taking a victory lap on this one, PSU does not have permanent rivals with Maryland or Rutgers, and only has Rutgers as 2-play. Can we finally let that settle how PSU feels about those schools?”
It turns out that Penn State is the only school in the conference with zero annual rivals. Most of us probably weren’t expecting that to be an option.
LikeLike
I agree with Colin: no one thought that zero protected rivals was an option! But I do recall the PSU AD saying that there was no school they especially needed to play every year. I guess they meant it.
And IIRC no one thought that Illinois–Purdue would be on the “must-have” list. They play annually for the Purdue Cannon, but there are plenty of comparable trophies that the league is not protecting. Fans of the Brass Spittoon will gently weep.
The two-play list seems to exist only for scheduling convenience — they last only two years and aren’t really predictive of anything.
LikeLike
Marc: “And IIRC no one thought that Illinois–Purdue would be on the “must-have” list.”
Well, I respectfully disagree. Before B1G divisions ended the annual series, that game was HUGE in West Lafayette. Busloads of fans, drinking all the way, made it to WL or C-U every year and both stadiums were packed. The only games that Purdue students could travel to and return in a single day were IU and UI.
And it wasn’t a hate game like the Old Oaken Bucket, it was just a good hearty rivalry for many decades. Speaking as a Boilermaker, I’m very happy to see it as an annual rivalry again. I imagine the old fart UI fans feel the same way.
LikeLike
I think the two-plays will be slightly predictive when we have more data. It’s easy to see a scenario where Minnesota’s two play rotates between Nebraska and Michigan, and Michigan’s two play is [someone]/Minnesota/Northwestern/Minnesota/[someone]/Minnesota/Northwestern/Minnesota
Meaning Minnesota gets Iowa and Wisky 100%, Nebraska/Michigan 75%, everyone else 50%. And Michigan gets OSU/MSU 100%, Minnesota 75%, Northwestern 62.5%, and everyone else basically 50%.
I don’t recall anyone ruling out having NO protected rivalries, we just assumed they’d exist. The only schools that potentially wouldn’t have them were RU/UMD/PSU, and everyone seemed to be pretty aligned that RU/UMD might as well be locked because even if it’s not really an active rivalry with a ton of history it seemed in both schools’ interest to play every year, is always the BTN game to put on at Noon when OSU/UM is on, and might as well. That left PSU, and we figured that OSU/PSU would be locked because they’ve played every year since PSU joined and also it’s TV ratings gold. Turns out PSU didn’t care that much, OSU probably prefers the better balance in not having UM & PSU locked, and it’s fine for TV since we get PSU/USC 2x and PSU/OSU 1x as opposed to the other way around.
LikeLike
Scout,
I don’t recall anyone ruling out having NO protected rivalries, we just assumed they’d exist.
The media told us they were ruled out. Here’s one recent example.
LikeLike
Oops. I accidentally submitted.
… The only schools that potentially wouldn’t have them were RU/UMD/PSU, and everyone seemed to be pretty aligned that RU/UMD might as well be locked because even if it’s not really an active rivalry with a ton of history it seemed in both schools’ interest to play every year, is always the BTN game to put on at Noon when OSU/UM is on, and might as well.
That argument makes no sense in this flex schedule, though. If PSU gets none because OSU/PSU isn’t a valuable rivalry, then why lock RU/UMD? They can rotate against MSU and PSU (and maybe USC or UCLA) the final week.
That left PSU, and we figured that OSU/PSU would be locked because they’ve played every year since PSU joined and also it’s TV ratings gold. Turns out PSU didn’t care that much, OSU probably prefers the better balance in not having UM & PSU locked, and it’s fine for TV since we get PSU/USC 2x and PSU/OSU 1x as opposed to the other way around.
You get that for 2 years. After that, who knows? All else being equal (rankings, game time, network), OSU/PSU outdraws PSU/USC so it’s not the same for TV.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree with Colin: no one thought that zero protected rivals was an option!
That’s because all the articles told us it wasn’t an option. They all said every team would have 1-3 locked rivals.
But I do recall the PSU AD saying that there was no school they especially needed to play every year. I guess they meant it.
That was mostly a way to avoid RU and UMD annually, and may be impacted by being 1-10 against OSU in the last 11 games.
And IIRC no one thought that Illinois–Purdue would be on the “must-have” list. They play annually for the Purdue Cannon, but there are plenty of comparable trophies that the league is not protecting. Fans of the Brass Spittoon will gently weep.
No, but it was on the nice to have list and was an obvious choice if a 3/6/6 plan was used. There aren’t many comparable trophy games, really. Illibuck, the Little Brown Jug, and the Brass Spittoon are lopsided, and the Land of Lincoln and Old Oaken Bucket are in-state. Others have much more history (the western trio rivalries).
The two-play list seems to exist only for scheduling convenience — they last only two years and aren’t really predictive of anything.
Yes. They wouldn’t want to actually explain themselves.
LikeLike
Scout,
They seem to have done a sort of zipper, but not really. It looks more like you play a zippered pair home and away then plan another zippered pair the next year. I assumed it would be more like playing one each from a zippered pair. Similar, but not really the same.
Yes, more poor decision making on their part. A zipper is simple, easy, and provides annual trips to all parts of the footprint (for recruiting/alumni access). Instead OSU hosts IL and NW in 2024, and plays @IL and @NW in 2025.
And if you want a flex schedule, why complicate it with 2 plays which will rotate? That’s just 3 locked rivals with the rivals being changed every 2 years – a concept I (and others) brought up as an option. Just do a pure flex if that’s what you think is best,
And, I’m taking a victory lap on this one, PSU does not have permanent rivals with Maryland or Rutgers, and only has Rutgers as 2-play. Can we finally let that settle how PSU feels about those schools?
Nobody has ever said PSU fans care one iota about RU or UMD games. Never.
PSU asked for eastern schools to be added and got what they asked for, then their fans bitched about having to actually play them ever since. What people have said is that RU and UMD care about those games because PSU fans live near them and will buy tickets. And PSU’s academic administration likes those games for reaching out to alumni.
Nobody thought those games would be locked because PSU wanted them locked. People suggested the B10 might lock them for RU’s and UMD’s sake and despite PSU’s wishes.
Now everyone else is stuck traveling even more and playing those crappy teams even more because PSU won’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And if you want a flex schedule, why complicate it with 2 plays which will rotate? That’s just 3 locked rivals with the rivals being changed every 2 years – a concept I (and others) brought up as an option. Just do a pure flex if that’s what you think is best,
I’m amused you think a simpler solution is saying that 3 rivals are locked but they change every two years. Like that isn’t going to be more confusing than what they did do. The whole point of saying “this is a locked rivalry” is giving fans confidence that those games will be played every year. Your proposal casts doubt on that and isn’t simpler.
Now everyone else is stuck traveling even more and playing those crappy teams even more because PSU won’t.
PSU is probably still playing them 75% of the time. And Michigan definitely has an interest in playing in NYC and DC, so do some of the other schools.
LikeLike
Scout,
I’m amused you think a simpler solution is saying that 3 rivals are locked but they change every two years. Like that isn’t going to be more confusing than what they did do.
Did I say that? No, I didn’t. I said if you think a flex is best, then just do it. Only lock those 11 games and rotate everything else the same way. Teams would play IA a little less and PSU a little more, and so be it. Just lock 11 games and say here are the first 2 years of the schedule.
The whole point of saying “this is a locked rivalry” is giving fans confidence that those games will be played every year.
We used the term locked rivalry as shorthand here when describing the plans. Nobody was crafting a press release.
PSU is probably still playing them 75% of the time.
You have no way to know that right now. We have some vague comments, that’s it. It could be 50%, 75%, 63%, or something else.
And Michigan definitely has an interest in playing in NYC and DC, so do some of the other schools.
Michigan meaning the admin, the athletic department, the team, or the fans? I don’t recall any of them clamoring for playing RU and UMD a lot. Some, yes. But they also know what those games do to home ticket sales. And it’s a lot longer trip for everyone but PSU.
LikeLike
And so, for the first two years, Michigan has a home and home with Maryland. Because …no-one really knows why.
LikeLike
I hear ya bro but it could have been a lot worse, e.g. forced rivalries with the 3-6-6 format. It appears folks at each school are happy with the new format, or at least satisfied.
As Brian pointed out, Penn State wanted eastern schools in the conference, we added them, and now the Nits refuse to play them. Dumb.
As a Boilermaker, I’m delighted the Purdue-Illinois annual game is back. I wish we could swap them as end-of-season rivals instead of those cow-belling, mooing, redneck hilljack Hoosiers that we’re stuck with. Do you know how they tailgate? Corndogs. I’m serious. Corndogs and beer. The Illini tailgate with wine and cheese. Classy folks.
It will be interesting to see how the night-game-in-November issue sorts out. Also, Purdue hosts ND in 2024, 2026 and 2028. Those games might get thrown under the bus as night games for NBC.
LikeLike
Unproductive,
And so, for the first two years, Michigan has a home and home with Maryland. Because …no-one really knows why.
For the same reason as OSU/NW, IN/UMD, RU/UCLA, USC/WI. Because.
At least some of them are minor rivalries or clearly made for TV value:
OSU/IL, IN/MSU, NE/MN, NE/UCLA, NW/PU, PSU/RU, PSU/USC
It’s a little disappointing OSU got both IL and NW. One of these triplets is not like the others:
OSU – MI, NW, IL
MI – OSU, MSU, UMD
PSU – USC, MSU, RU
USC – PSU, UCLA, WI
NE – IA, UCLA, MN
MSU – MI, PSU, IN
WI – IA, USC, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
UCLA – USC, NE, RU
Every “brand” school has 2 other brand schools except OSU. You can argue that NW is on par with or better than UCLA on the field, but not as a brand (same with NE).
With 9 brands, you certainly could pair them all:
USC – UCLA, PSU
UCLA – USC, NE
NE – IA, UCLA
IA – NE, WI
WI – IA, OSU
OSU – MI, WI
MI – OSU, MSU
MSU – MI, PSU
PSU – MSU, USC
That’s just 1 new game.
Perhaps a better option would be this:
USC – UCLA, PSU
UCLA – USC, NE
NE – IA, UCLA
IA – NE, WI
WI – IA, MSU
OSU – MI, PSU
MI – OSU, MSU
MSU – MI, WI
PSU – OSU, USC
LikeLike
And so, for the first two years, Michigan has a home and home with Maryland. Because …no-one really knows why.
In the 3-6-6 model that most people wanted, there would’ve been many random pairs locked permanently for no good reason. Look at every 3-6-6 proposal out there — nobody could come up with an alignment where every lock made sense. Brian came the closest of anyone I saw.
In the so-called “flex protect,” the only permanent locks are ones the members declared as must-haves. But among the unlocked games, teams were occasionally going to play each other in consecutive years before rotating off the schedule. That already happens today. You don’t need a specific reason for every one of these, other than they are both Big Ten members.
As Brian pointed out, Penn State wanted eastern schools in the conference, we added them, and now the Nits refuse to play them. Dumb.
Penn State has not refused to play them — they just said they don’t need both every year. I bet they’ll play at least one of them almost every year, and sometimes both. For example, they are playing Rutgers in 2024–25 and Maryland in ’25.
The additions of Maryland and Rutgers have been financial blockbusters, which is the reason for just about all expansion these days. If they were going to expand at all, those two schools made the most sense among those available at the time, even if Penn State had not lobbied for them.
(I think it has been occasionally misreported that the league added Maryland and Rutgers primarily so that Penn State would not leave for the ACC. While this possibility might have been in the back of the presidents’ minds, I am not aware that there was any imminent threat of losing PSU. I think the presidents believed that RU and MD were strong additions on their own merits.)
LikeLike
Marc,
In the 3-6-6 model that most people wanted, there would’ve been many random pairs locked permanently for no good reason. Look at every 3-6-6 proposal out there — nobody could come up with an alignment where every lock made sense. Brian came the closest of anyone I saw.
In the so-called “flex protect,” the only permanent locks are ones the members declared as must-haves. But among the unlocked games, teams were occasionally going to play each other in consecutive years before rotating off the schedule. That already happens today. You don’t need a specific reason for every one of these, other than they are both Big Ten members.
I think the point is that in this new model, you’d expect the B10 to put their best foot forward in the first 2 years as they try to get fans onboard. As I noted, many of the non-locked rivals do make sense and maintain some lesser rivalries. But others don’t make as much sense. If the main argument against the 3/6/6 is forcing games, then why flex and still force as many games? They basically made a worse version of a 3/6/6 plan. Then they’ll rotate to have other forced games. How is that an improvement?
Penn State has not refused to play them — they just said they don’t need both every year.
Well, they said they don’t need to play either of them regularly. As the 2 closest schools geographically (and all 3 well away from anyone else) that is bad for all involved.
I bet they’ll play at least one of them almost every year, and sometimes both. For example, they are playing Rutgers in 2024–25 and Maryland in ’25.
Sure, because those schools want the game even if PSU doesn’t. Not every decision can be made just because PSU is whining. Also, everyone but the LA schools and IA may end up playing them more than 50% of the time.
The additions of Maryland and Rutgers have been financial blockbusters, which is the reason for just about all expansion these days. If they were going to expand at all, those two schools made the most sense among those available at the time, even if Penn State had not lobbied for them.
I basically agree, but we don’t know really who all was available. If asked at the time, we probably wouldn’t have said UMD was available. I suppose the B12 schools count as available, plus the Big East/AAC schools. So KU, ISU, Pitt, SU, RU, UConn and UMD. We know the B10 wanted UVA and only turned to RU when UVA said no. While clearly ISU and Pitt didn’t make sense due to BTN, the others might have.
(I think it has been occasionally misreported that the league added Maryland and Rutgers primarily so that Penn State would not leave for the ACC. While this possibility might have been in the back of the presidents’ minds, I am not aware that there was any imminent threat of losing PSU. I think the presidents believed that RU and MD were strong additions on their own merits.)
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1332647-penn-state-football-now-is-the-time-for-psu-to-change-conferences-move-to-acc
The threat of PSU leaving was in the ether. People were writing about it. Many PSU people were upset after the Sandusky scandal, then when RU and UMD were added rather than Syracuse.
Even recently it has still been discussed amongst PSU fans.
https://nittanysportsnow.com/2021/07/penn-state-football-big-ten-acc-better-home-psu-nittany-lions-analysis-giger/
This 2021 Twitter poll split 50/50 on B10 vs ACC.
https://www.nunesmagician.com/2019/3/6/18253395/was-big-ten-right-to-fear-penn-state-leaving-acc-last-round-of-realignment-conference-syracuse
But more importantly, people that should know have said it. Gene Smith said this in 2019:
“Here’s one thing that people seem to forget about our move with Rutgers and Maryland. At the time, the ACC was looking to expand. Part of our move was to protect Penn State. Everyone forgets we had a teammate and partner institution that was on a (geographic) island, so what we did, beyond gaining exposure, is we further brought in a valued partner in Penn State. Had Penn State defected to the ACC, what would the conversation have been then?”
He may have been giving cover for the B10 chasing the money (as the article suggests), but why bother doing that so long after the fact? He didn’t have to say anything, or he could’ve blamed Fox.
LikeLike
In the 2014 NY Tines survey of college football fans in the NYC area, RU was first by a lot, then came ND, PSU and Michigan, in a fairly tight group, so there are a lot of Michigan fans (alumni?) in the NYC market.
UConn was also there between PSU and UM, but that was before UConn was a football independent.
LikeLike
If the main argument against the 3/6/6 is forcing games, then why flex and still force as many games? They basically made a worse version of a 3/6/6 plan. Then they’ll rotate to have other forced games. How is that an improvement?
In 3-6-6, every school gets 3 “permanently” locked games whether they like them or not. In flex-protect, the “permanently” locked games are the ones the schools mutually want. Every other game is on the schedule either one or two years before rotating off. If you don’t like Maryland two years in a row, they’ll be gone in the third.
I put “permanently” in quotes because, of course, no scheduling format is forever. But in 3-6-6 as most people envisioned it, the “3” would have been locked for many years, not just two.
If the main argument against the 3/6/6 is forcing games, then why flex and still force as many games? They basically made a worse version of a 3/6/6 plan.
If you don’t like some of the 2-plays, then wouldn’t it obviously be worse to lock them permanently rather than just for two years?
I basically agree, but we don’t know really who all was available. If asked at the time, we probably wouldn’t have said UMD was available.
I didn’t say it the right way. Maryland’s availability was fortuitous. Contingent upon wanting Maryland, Rutgers was the best #14 that they could get. If Maryland had stayed in the ACC, I assume the Big Ten would’ve remained at 12. Rutgers was clearly not going to be invited all by itself. There’s no other #13 school that they could’ve had and are known to have wanted at that time.
LikeLike
Marc: “Rutgers was the best #14 that they could get.”
I respectfully disagree. Syracuse, Pitt or Mizzou would have been better than Rutgers. I understand the BTN’s desire to capture the NYC TV market but there were certainly better football brands available.
LikeLike
Syracuse, Pitt or Mizzou would have been better than Rutgers. I understand the BTN’s desire to capture the NYC TV market but there were certainly better football brands available.
Au contraire, you apparently don’t understand the Big Ten’s desire to capture the NYC TV market, or else you would not be making such ridiculous suggestions.
Missouri had already joined the SEC at this point and were not going to move again. Even if available, they were probably not the better choice anyway — the New York market being so much more desirable than the St. Louis/KC market.
As for Syracuse and Pitt…I am not sure what you are thinking. Syracuse does not deliver the NY Metro TV market. In the years since RU joined the Big Ten, both teams have had the same number of bowl seasons: two. The Orange do have a better record over that time (against an easier schedule), but losing is still losing.
The Big Ten already had the overwhelmingly preferable Pennsylvania school for TV purposes. Pitt is obviously better at football than Rutgers or Syracuse, and they have a real rivalry with Penn State. But from a financial perspective — the only reason conferences expand — a new market was surely better than a second school in a state they’ve already got covered.
LikeLike
Marc, perhaps you do not understand the issue here. We are talking football brands, not TV markets, and Rutgers is about as bad as they get. Did you read what I said? Here it is again: “. . . there were certainly better football brands available. . . “ Brands. Football B*R*A*N*D*S. Unnerstans?
Marc: “Missouri had already joined the SEC at this point and were not going to move again.”
The SEC had no exit fee at that time and Mizzou is begging to get into the Big Ten right now, even with an exit penalty.
Marc: “Syracuse does not deliver the NY Metro TV market.” You don’t know whether they would or not. As for Pitt, you’ve already acknowledged that it would be a better football brand. Plus you unnerstans that the BTN revenue is now chump change in the grand scheme of TV revenue, right?
LikeLike
Marc, perhaps you do not understand the issue here. We are talking football brands, not TV markets, and Rutgers is about as bad as they get.
Brands have value only to the extent they convert into revenue. Otherwise, what is a “brand”? You can’t put it on the mantelpiece.
Despite being bad at football, Rutgers has delivered financially exactly as it was supposed to — which is the only reason conferences expand.
The SEC had no exit fee at that time and Mizzou is begging to get into the Big Ten right now, even with an exit penalty.
They would have been the inferior choice even if available, and there is no evidence whatsoever that they were willing to leave the SEC in 2014 (or ever).
Marc: “Syracuse does not deliver the NY Metro TV market.” You don’t know whether they would or not.
Actually, I do know that. But even assuming I am ignorant on that subject, so are you. Since we are both clueless, we might as well assume that Jim Delany had access to that data and used it to the Big Ten’s advantage. Syracuse is Penn State’s most-played rivalry other than Pitt, so if they were happy with Rutgers, they presumably would have been happy with Syracuse too if they’d been the overall better choice.
As I mentioned, competitively Syracuse would have been pretty much identical to Rutgers.
As for Pitt, you’ve already acknowledged that it would be a better football brand. Plus you understand that the BTN revenue is now chump change in the grand scheme of TV revenue, right?
BTN is still a significant and growing revenue stream. Now, remember this was 2014. But I’d bet you there is not a single person with access to the numbers who’d say, “Dang! If we knew then what we know now, we should’ve taken Pitt.”
LikeLike
Marc: “ . . . there is no evidence whatsoever that they (Mizzou) were willing to leave the SEC in 2014 (or ever).”
From The Athletic:
SEC football mailbag: Would Missouri ever consider switching conferences (again)?
By Seth Emerson Apr 5, 2023
“With a rejuvenated Big 12 looking to expand further, might it benefit Mizzou to consider returning there, since they seem unlikely to ever get near the top of the SEC? Or is the revenue difference worth their second-tier status?” Robert T.
Now this is a great curveball, because as much as Missouri still seems out of place in the SEC (at least to some people), it’s the Big Ten where those people think Mizzou is a more natural fit. In fact, it’s generally assumed the school was angling for the Big Ten during the 2010/2011 realignment wars, and that only when it didn’t look like an invitation was forthcoming did Missouri agree to accompany Texas A&M to the SEC. If Missouri had waited, would it have gotten the Big Ten’s invite in late 2012 instead of Maryland or Rutgers? That’s hard to say because at that point it was almost all about TV markets, and although Missouri could say it has a chunk of the St. Louis and Kansas City markets, the Big Ten was, rightly or wrongly, allured by the potential of the New York and Washington/Baltimore markets.
This time around, it’s more about brands. Missouri could go, but unless it went to the Big Ten — where an invite still does not seem forthcoming — then it would be giving up a lot of money to leave. How much money? If you use just the TV money, the SEC’s average payout is set to be around $58 million under the current parameters of the ESPN contract, while the Big 12’s average payout will only be around $28 million – and that was considered a good get by first-year commissioner Brett Yormark.
Suffice to say, that’s a lot of annual money to walk away from if you’re Missouri. How much would it recoup by presumably being more competitive in the Big 12? Perhaps some more visibility, which would lead to the benefits that programs like TCU are hoping to use to become sustained powers. That would be a calculated risk, with some justification: Missouri would be the second all-time winningest program in the new Big 12, behind only West Virginia, while it will rank 11th in the new SEC. But it’s hard to argue right now that Missouri isn’t also behind TCU, Oklahoma State and Baylor, as well as incoming Cincinnati and maybe BYU.
Certainly, Missouri would have an easier path, but not that much easier.
It still seems more about Missouri itself, and whether it can hire the right coach — maybe it already has in Eli Drinkwitz, I don’t know — commit enough resources and get some luck. This is a program that came one win away from making the BCS championship in 2007 and won the SEC East in 2013 and ’14. In the age of the 12-team College Football Playoff, you won’t have to be the best team in the conference to get in. You can sneak in with a very good year, then try to build on that. The exchange of rivalry games would also be a wash: Missouri would get Kansas back, but it would lose Arkansas, and it’s just about to get Oklahoma back.
One of the main reasons Missouri has felt out of place in the SEC is that it was out of place in the SEC East. But divisions are about to go away, and Mizzou’s schedule is about to make much more sense. Between that and the money, there just isn’t any reason for Missouri to walk away — unless the Big Ten came calling.
LikeLike
@Colin M: All you’ve got is a sportswriter spit-balling in response to a fan question. He cites no sources. All he says is that “some people” see Missouri as a more natural fit in the Big Ten, without disclosing who those people are.
LikeLike
Marc, I really don’t understand why you think this is a controversial issue. Back at the time that Big Ten expanded, Mizzou, Pitt, Cuse and Rutgers were clearly the foremost schools being considered. The Governor of Missouri was publicly campaigning for Mizzou to go to the Big Ten and managed to offend Texas Tech and OK State by referring to them as academic skanks in comparison. I’ve posted three links below and you can easily find a dozen more if you google it for yourself.
“An important consideration to admitting any new member, (Ohio St Prez Gordon) Gee said, would be academic credentials. All Big Ten members belong to the Association of American Universities, a consortium of the nation’s 62 leading research institutions. So are four universities being mentioned for potential Big Ten inclusion: Missouri of the Big 12, and Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse of the Big East.”
“It’s significant that we have institutions that meet the academic standing and reputation of institutions now in the Big Ten,” Gee said. “I don’t want to coin a phrase here, but we are sort of the public equivalent of the Ivy League in our quality.”
https://www.espn.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/8641/missouri-governor-takes-shot-at-tech-osu-academics
https://www.statesman.com/story/sports/2012/09/01/governor-missouri-should-consider-big-ten/9821829007/
LikeLike
Marc,
Missouri had already joined the SEC at this point and were not going to move again. Even if available, they were probably not the better choice anyway — the New York market being so much more desirable than the St. Louis/KC market.
Agreed, MO wasn’t available. But while RU presumably made more money for BTN, we don’t know by how much. In addition, there are other types of value. RU has been a point of ridicule in the media and with fans nationally. MO won their division in the SEC twice. They’ve been bad since then, but still significantly better than UMD or RU.
As for Syracuse and Pitt…I am not sure what you are thinking. Syracuse does not deliver the NY Metro TV market. In the years since RU joined the Big Ten, both teams have had the same number of bowl seasons: two. The Orange do have a better record over that time (against an easier schedule), but losing is still losing.
What we don’t know is what all SU would have brought to BTN. The ACCN apparently gets the whole state counted as in-market for every ACC school, which (if true) would mean SU could have brought NYC to BTN. Even if it didn’t, how much of NY state would it bring?
The Big Ten already had the overwhelmingly preferable Pennsylvania school for TV purposes. Pitt is obviously better at football than Rutgers or Syracuse, and they have a real rivalry with Penn State. But from a financial perspective — the only reason conferences expand — a new market was surely better than a second school in a state they’ve already got covered.
ESPN’s head said they value brands and rivalries. Pitt is a bigger brand and certainly brings a rivalry. They’ve also been decent in football. Maybe they would’ve brought more money, because RU kills TV ratings which has to be factored into overall value.
With the rise of cable cutting, the value of RU may be ever decreasing. That said, the B10 seems to have focused on markets (NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, DC) which seemingly makes RU a priority. Would SU have worked as well? Probably not, but maybe. The B10 obviously didn’t think it would, but they might have been wrong. I don’t think they anticipated RU being this terrible.
LikeLike
Another issue is cultural fit. Mizzou would have been a picture-perfect cultural fit in the Big Ten, pretty much a clone of Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Mizzou would clearly be a better cultural fit than Rutgers.
Mizzou has also had a long-standing rivalry with Illinois since the 1960s, the Arch Rivalry, and it has recently been extended to 2035.
https://fightingillini.com/news/2020/3/6/future-football-series-with-mizzou-extended
LikeLike
So are four universities being mentioned for potential Big Ten inclusion: Missouri of the Big 12, and Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse of the Big East.
You got everything right except one thing: the date. That article is from 2010, when Missouri was still in the Big 12. When Rutgers was added, that was no longer true.
LikeLike
Marc, I didn’t “date” anything. Mizzou was discussed as a Big Ten expansion candidate back when Nebraska joined, again when Rutgers/UMD joined and rumors persist to this day.
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/mizzou-football/eli-drinkwitz-on-rumors-about-mizzou-leaving-sec-for-big-ten-nobody-has-asked-me-if-were-getting-traded/
LikeLike
Mizzou was discussed as a Big Ten expansion candidate back when Nebraska joined, again when Rutgers/UMD joined and rumors persist to this day.
You seem to be awfully selective about which rumors you think are credible. Most unsourced realignment rumors are wrong.
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2023/6/8/big-ten-conference-announces-exciting-future-football-schedule-formats-for-2024-and-2025.aspx
Shockingly, I disagree with their schedule plan. I’ll start from the B10’s press release to put my thoughts all in one place.
1. It’s a poor decision that they will regret and change in a few years (as usual).
Has any B10 scheduling plan lasted more than 6 years since NE joined in 2011? And they undid key parts of that plan with this new one (so much for history).
2. Why do they continue to make the same sort of dumb, unforced errors?
BIG TEN CONFERENCE ANNOUNCES EXCITING FUTURE FOOTBALL SCHEDULE FORMATS FOR 2024 AND 2025
Exciting? Really? To whom? It sounds like they’re trying way too hard to sell people on this. Just announce the schedule plan (and, crazy idea, the actual 2024 schedule).
The 2024 Big Ten football season will also debut the Flex Protect Plus model, which features a combination of protected opponents and rotating opponents for universities. Each member institution will continue to play nine intraconference games per season, and teams will play every other conference opponent at least twice – once home and once away – in a four-year period.
“Flex Protect Plus”? Seriously? Was Leaders and Legends Plus already taken? Why give it such a complex/fancy/buzzwordy name?
Note they now need more than a paragraph to explain their model – and they didn’t explain it completely. They left “flex” and “plus” unexplained. It really shouldn’t take that long to explain a scheduling model.
Conference schedules will include 11 protected matchups that will continue to be played annually and feature a combination of historic and geographic rivalries, as well as trophy games. These matchups were finalized in conjunction with all 16 member institutions to ensure the traditions of the Big Ten Conference remain strong as the conference evolves.
“A combination of historic and geographic rivalries, as well as trophy games,” but not the 2nd-highest ranked game which is also geographic, between 2 bluebloods, and has been played 32 straight years (and is tied as PSU’s current longest continuously running series as of now). Would some random trophy have made a difference? It didn’t save PSU/MSU.
“To ensure the traditions of the Big Ten Conference remain strong as the conference evolves.” You mean, like OSU and PSU playing annually? Like being a midwestern conference? Like having lots of annual random trophy games between teams that don’t care that much about each other anymore (if they ever did)? Like not winning national championships?
Evolves? Not sure that’s the best term for it. Chases the almighty dollar at the expense of the fans might be more accurate.
The guaranteed annual protected matchups are Illinois-Northwestern, Illinois-Purdue, Indiana-Purdue, Iowa-Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska, Iowa-Wisconsin, Maryland-Rutgers, Michigan-Michigan State, Michigan-Ohio State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, and UCLA-USC. The other two-play opponents for each member institution will change every two years.
Do they realize they have not actually explained what a “two-play” opponent is? That’s not some common use term all fans will know.
Two-play: an opponent scheduled for a home and home series spread over consecutive seasons
I will note that this turns the flex model into a 3/6/6 model, just with some temporary “locked” games. Some of us pointed to exactly that type of model being one way to use a 3/6/6. And why did they do that? Because a 3/6/6 makes scheduling easier to do and to understand.
The did some good things for 2024-25. Note that many “rivalries” that weren’t locked were chosen as non-locked rivals (OSU/IL, PSU/MSU, RU/PSU, IN/MSU, PU/NW, MN/NE, UCLA/NE).
Where did they botch this? Look at their non-locked rivals.
OSU – IL, NW (2 from 1 state, and both at home the same year?)
And OSU hosts MI that same year, so all 3 are at home in 2024 and on the road in 2025. OSU is the only team facing that. Having 1 game in IL each year seems better than o then 2.
PU – IL and IN locked, plus NW home and home
That’s a lot of games in IN and IL. Why does everyone else have to travel so much more?
The 2024 season will conclude with the annual Big Ten Football Championship Game, which will feature the top two teams in the overall conference standings at the end of the regular season, with the winner earning the Big Ten Championship. Tiebreaking procedures will be announced later.
“Tiebreaking procedures will be announced later.” They’ve had 11 months to figure out tiebreakers (the schedule model doesn’t impact them). Head-to-head, then what? CFP rankings (which factor in OOC games)? Road wins? Road W%? Point differential? Longest time since playing in the CCG (the old Rose Bowl criterion)? Do OOC games ever factor in (like most total P5 wins)?
The 2024 and 2025 opponent rotations were approved by the Big Ten Administrators Council after careful consideration and constructs that included:
* Maintaining control and flexibility as the college football postseason format evolves, with the goal to create access for programs into an expanded College Football Playoff.
* Balance of annual travel by distance, regions of the conference, and time zones.
* Balance of historic competitiveness and recent competitive trends, including home/away balance of traditionally competitive schools.
* Balance and maximization of television inventory each season.
The game dates for the 2024 football schedule will be announced later this year.
Careful consideration my left foot. They all wanted the easiest path and to screw the other guy.
“Maintaining control and flexibility”
You make the schedule. You, by definition, always have control of it. And it’s a 2-year schedule, so it’s inherently flexible. That’s a meaningless statement.
“with the goal to create access for programs into an expanded College Football Playoff.”
CFP rankings get you in (with the champ a given). Since you have no idea how the committee will treat any schedule in the 12-team CFP world, you have no idea how to plan for that. History says most/all 10-2 teams will get in, and some 9-3 teams. OOC schedules will have a sizable impact on that as well, and the B10 can’t control that. They don’t even enforce any OOC quality standards anymore. So again, a meaningless statement that can’t drive scheduling.
“Balance of annual travel by distance, regions of the conference, and time zones.”
PU has home and homes with NW, IL and IN. How is that balanced?
USC has road games at RU, UMD and NW (i.e NYC, DC, Chicago) in the first 2 years – coincidence? Plus PSU (Philly market) is a home and home for them. That’s a lot of eastern travel. USC doesn’t host RU or UMD.
“Balance of historic competitiveness and recent competitive trends, including home/away balance of traditionally competitive schools.”
You can’t balance both unless the trends align perfectly, and it’s a fool’s errand to chase balance. They tried that with Legends and Leaders. Historically NW was terrible, but they’ve been in the CCG twice recently. WI was terrible before Alvarez, and a power since. Lots of teams go up and down. So what timespan is historic, and what is recent? What is the timespan for “traditionally competitive”?
You know what doesn’t change much? Geography. Do a simple zipper and magically it balances travel and time zones for you, and it does fairly well with competitive balance as a by-product:
Pairs
USC/UCLA (locked)
NE/IA (locked)
WI/MN (locked)
NW/IL (locked)
PU/IN (locked)
MI/MSU (locked)
OSU/PSU
UMD/RU (locked)
3 games = locked rival(s) + non-locked rivals(s)
4-6 games = 1 of each remaining pair
0-2 games = rotate among the remaining teams
Examples using OSU (home-and-home teams):
OSU (MI/IL/NW) = MI + IL + NW + USC, IA, WI, PU, RU + 1 of PSU/MSU
OSU (MI/PSU/USC) = MI + PSU+ USC + IA, WI, IL, IN, UMD + 1 of UCLA/MSU
OSU (MI/UCLA/IL) = MI + UCLA+ IL + NE, MN, PU, RU + 1 of USC/PSU + 1 of MSU/NW
Note I alternated between the stronger and weaker teams in each pair to help with balance. This also keeps pretty equal travel, especially if several of the home-and-homes rotate every 2 years. Also note that locking OSU/PSU would make it even simpler.
Other note:
It’s interesting that they chose to rotate 6 opponents every year rather than do home-and-homes with everyone and then rotate. It’s good to play every team in just 2 years, but it’s bad that teams can’t get revenge the next year for 2/3 of the schedule. I don’t think there is a right or wrong choice for this.
So what did the B10 and PSU say about not locking OSU/PSU?
https://theathletic.com/4594181/2023/06/08/penn-state-schedule-big-ten-ohio-state/
Kerry Kenny, the Big Ten’s chief operating officer, addressed the league’s decision not to give Penn State a permanent rival.
“With Penn State, in particular, we obviously know that they’ve got some competitive rivalries, some regional rivalries, some trophy-game rivalries,” he said. “Ohio State-Penn State was definitely on the table for discussion. But where we landed with the final 11 protected opponents was what the entire group felt was in kind of the right spot for us to land to be able to make this model work moving forward.”
Penn State, at least publicly, appears to be fine with the decision. “The factors that were important to me, I think everybody should play each other. Guys should be able to go and play at different venues. I think that’s important,” Penn State athletic director Pat Kraft told The Athletic. “Once you get away from divisions, that’s what you want. You want to be able to go and play at Iowa, which is a great experience. You want to be able to go to USC and UCLA. Those games that we weren’t going to typically get in a regular basis are now part of the rotation.”
Complete gobbledygook. “To make this model work”? In what way would locking 1 additional game stop the model from working? Just like not locking PU/IL wouldn’t break the model. And we all know that a 3/6/6 enables playing at all the venues regularly, so that’s all garbage too.
https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/football/ohio-state-buckeyes-football-athletic-director-gene-smith-reacts-no-protected-rivalry-against-penn-state-nittany-lions-big-ten-network
Gene Smith gave equal and opposite babble:
“I’m OK with it. You know, Penn State had developed into a competitive rivalry for us unlike the other 11 protected games in this model where you have some history and tradition around those competitions,” Smith said. “You look at the three that Iowa protected or that Illinois protected or the fact that we protected Michigan. Those are historical rivalries, deep-rooted rivalries, but the Penn State rivalry for us was a competitive rivalry. And so, in order to meet the balance of trying to make sure that every team, every school had an opportunity over a four-year period to play at every place at least twice, you had to sacrifice some things.”
No, you didn’t have to sacrifice this to enable everyone to play at every place at least twice. Even a full 3/6/6 could accomplish that. Locking this 1 game wouldn’t change it.
Why not just give honest reasons? OSU didn’t value locking it and neither did PSU, if perhaps for different reasons, and TV didn’t tell them it needed to be locked. I’m fine as a fan with not having that game locked, but it doesn’t fit with their explanations or other decisions.
Is this another give back the B10 may have to make to get the TV deal payout to be what they want? We’ll see.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37820350/big-ten-introduce-flex-protect-plus-football-schedule-model-2024
Some “explanation” of the process.
Big Ten chief operating officer Kerry Kenny told ESPN that overall flexibility became the biggest priority with the schedule model, which generated about a year of discussion. …
“It’s done in two-year increments, so that allows you to be a little bit more responsive to competitive trends, responsive to changes in the postseason model,” Kenny said. “Look, we don’t know how the CFP committee is going to evaluate teams in this expanded playoff, but we’re pretty darn sure that this model that we’re putting forward and the depth of the games and the quality of games, that’s going to send a pretty strong and significant message.”
As the B10 has proven recently, any scheduling plan can be adjusted. That’s not particular to this model. This model just forces more frequent changes, and all the work that goes with that, while all models allow frequent changes.
…
When examining different schedule models, the Big Ten asked its schools to list the most important matchups — historic rivalries, regional games, trophy games — they would want protected annually in a nondivision format. The schools then were asked about their “nonnegotiables,” Kenny said, as well as games they would like to play frequently but not annually.
…
“The more protected matchups you’ve included in the model, the less flexibility you had to create a really balanced model for everybody,” Kenny said. “So 11 was where we capped it. Penn State doesn’t have any protected matchups, but they see more teams three out of four years, the way that the model will be built moving forward, that might be a little more geographic to them.”
He makes it sound like the number 11 is somehow important to the process. They stopped where they did, and it happened to be 11 locked rivalries.
And it sounds like 75% series, which many people have suggested as an option, may be what PSU gets with RU and UMD and OSU. Not forever at 75% necessarily, but maybe rotating through 1 or 2 of the 3 at 75% at any given time.
As with most things, we’ll just have to see.
LikeLike
Shockingly, I disagree with their schedule plan.
It seems 90% of your disagreement with the plan, is with the corporatespeak that was used to describe it rather than the substance. I agree the language is easy to make fun of, but it’s not the plan itself, only words.
They locked 11 games permanently. You would’ve liked to see a 12th. OK, fine. It’s hardly a storm-the-Alamo moment. There are probably many fans that did not get precisely the locks that they wanted.
For the rest of it, of course the fan of a particular school might say, “Horror! My team is traveling to the state of Illinois twice in one year.” You could fix that, but it “breaks” something else. In a system where most of the games change every year, every team isn’t going to get the perfect schedule each time.
LikeLike
I was careful to say that I disagree, not that it’s terrible or I hate it. They eliminated divisions (which we already knew was happening), basically picked a 3/6/6 (with non-locked rivals) and kept most of the obvious rivalries. Anyone could’ve gotten those parts right, so I don’t give them a ton of credit for it.
They kept the 4/5 splits consistent to match with OOC scheduling which is good, but the ADs are the ones doing this so of course they factored that in. They might want to reconsider that in the future, as it keeps OSU, MI, PSU and MSU all on the same cycle, with USC, WI and NE on the other cycle. Why does that matter? Big OOC home games coincide with 4 home B10 games, so it might be best in the long run to have half the big brands on each cycle.
I wouldn’t say 90% is about the language. Their logic is inconsistent, and they made some poor choices. If you only want to lock rivalries that have historical or geographical importance, how does RU/UMD count? They’ve played 8 times in the B10 and neither side particularly cares about the games. PSU is about the same distance from both of them as they are from each other, and PSU fans are abundant in Philly which is between them and very close to RU. PSU had no locked rivals, so RU and UMD didn’t have to one either.
Their claims of balance are also belied by some of their choices. I gave some examples already. Did you look at the home and away splits? PSU’s 2024 schedule has 4 road games – RU, IN, PU and WI. They host OSU, USC, NE, NW and MSU. MSU also has 4 road games – MI, PSU, NE and UMD. They host OSU, IL, IN, PU and RU. Nice equal scheduling there.
Again, no I didn’t want to see a 12th game locked. Individually, I’m just fine with not locking OSU/PSU. But it’s inconsistent with what they said to lock RU/UMD, for example, but not OSU/PSU. They could’ve not locked PU/IL and had 10, and few would complain. There were 9 really obvious locks, and everything else was dependent on what they wanted.
My point is that there’s a simple system that avoids most of those issues, and they (as usual) chose the harder path that gives worse results. It’s very B10.
LikeLike
Actually, this whole thing went quite smoothly and quickly. I was critical of the hiring of Commish Tony Petitti because he had no college football background but I now reverse myself. In just a couple of months he got this schedule format resolved and so far every president, AD and football coach seems happy with it. At least we’ve had no negative feedback from any of them.
Compare this to the endless squealing and complaining in the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC about schedules, expansion, contraction, TV deals, number of conference games, on and on. The only unfinished business in the B1G is night games in November, and that’s really a holdover problem from Warren. Since the B1G now has USC, UCLA, Rutgers, Maryland and indoor stadiums in Detroit and Indy, It seem some combination of those with creative scheduling will be workable.
LikeLike
I’m neither pro- or anti-Tony Petitti. They were working on the schedule format long before he got there. Unless I hear that he was instrumental somehow, I default to the view that he did not influence it all that much.
I’ll withhold judgment on the schedule. On the one hand, they did exactly what I wanted. But are all the schools happy? Many months after the TV deal was announced, we found out that multiple members did not agree to a season’s worth of NBC night games. So let’s wait a bit more than 24 hours before we pronounce it a success.
Compare this to the endless squealing and complaining in the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC about schedules, expansion, contraction, TV deals, number of conference games, on and on.
The main problems in the ACC and Pac-12 are due to the mismanagement and horrific mistakes of previous commissioners. Kevin Warren also left unfinished business, but his errors are minor compared with what Swofford and Scott did to their conferences.
A few of us don’t like that the SEC stayed at 8 games, but let me be contrarian: it could be the right decision for them. I can’t honestly say they failed, just because they didn’t do what I wanted.
The only unfinished business in the B1G is night games in November, and that’s really a holdover problem from Warren. Since the B1G now has USC, UCLA, Rutgers, Maryland and indoor stadiums in Detroit and Indy…
I must have missed the announcement that Ford Field and Lucas Oil are Big Ten stadiums now. Michigan State bailed out the Big Ten this one time by giving up a home game. I’m not sure they’d be happy (or that their fans would) if they make a habit of it.
LikeLike
Purdue has tried to move the Old Oaken Bucket game to Lucas Oil Stadium for years. Indianapolis is home to more students than any other city for both schools, and they’re all home for Thanksgiving weekend instead of on campus. Both schools could include the game in their season ticket packets so it would be a money maker for both. The only showstopper is the IU refuses to do it.
Forget to mention that Minneapolis also has an indoor stadium.
LikeLike
Marc: “I must have missed the announcement that Ford Field and Lucas Oil are Big Ten stadiums now. Michigan State bailed out the Big Ten this one time by giving up a home game. I’m not sure they’d be happy (or that their fans would) if they make a habit of it.”
I simply do not see these night games in November being mush of a problem in our “new’ Big Ten. we’re talking about four Saturdays and Black Friday, total five night games in November. So what’s the game inventory?
– USC-UCLA is always a late November game – that’s one game.
– UCLA and USC will each average 1.5 additional home conference (or ND) games each November – that’s another three games.
– A little creative scheduling could load up USC and UCLA with home game in November, so let’s call it four games instead of three.
– Rutgers-Maryland annual ‘rivalry’ could easily be scheduled in November – that’s another game.
– In addition to playing each other, Rutgers and Maryland will be hosting other conference games in November – another four games.
– Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana and Purdue could schedule a November night conference game in nearby NFL stadiums – potential five more games.
Now, all of those things aren’t going to happen at once but they don’t need to. We only need five night games in November and it shouldn’t be too difficult to come up with five games out of 15 scenarios that would be workable.
LikeLike
Marc,
I’m neither pro- or anti-Tony Petitti. They were working on the schedule format long before he got there. Unless I hear that he was instrumental somehow, I default to the view that he did not influence it all that much.
BTN interviewed him and he kept saying they were deep into meetings on it already when he got there. He may have helped mediate a few things, or given a neutral/outside perspective, but beyond that I think the ADs hashed it all out themselves.
“The only unfinished business in the B1G is night games in November, and that’s really a holdover problem from Warren. Since the B1G now has USC, UCLA, Rutgers, Maryland and indoor stadiums in Detroit and Indy…”
I must have missed the announcement that Ford Field and Lucas Oil are Big Ten stadiums now. Michigan State bailed out the Big Ten this one time by giving up a home game. I’m not sure they’d be happy (or that their fans would) if they make a habit of it.
Only unfinished business? There are no schedule dates for 2024 and beyond yet. How will USC/ND be treated? Who are the final week opponents? What are the tiebreakers? Details of the TV deals (drafting order, Friday nights, Peacock games, etc.)? Expanded CFP revenue split (what position does the B10 bring to the national debate, and then how does the B10 split it’s share)? And that’s just football.
USC and UCLA are likely to be the answers to the November night games issue. Everyone is available for the first weekend in November, so it’s really just 3 weeks that are at issue. If USC and UCLA each host one, that just leaves 1 game to rotate through everyone else. And OSU has said it will consider playing them on the road, just not at home. So you could have OSU @ NW or something.
LikeLike
I think it’s probably that the core of what they did is logically consistent, and then they had to make some exceptions for 2024 and 2025.
First, they want to integrate USC/UCLA with a bit of a bang. Second, schools already budgeted for how many home games they’d have in those years, so they probably couldn’t quite change the 4/5 conference home game splits yet – this probably is why the zipper model couldn’t integrate smoothly just yet. Third, maybe Rutgers and Maryland both want to lock the rivalry and aspire for it to be like UM/OSU, or Iowa/NE, or WI/MN, but obviously it’s not going to be there yet.
It makes perfect sense for the leaders of the B1G to say they locked rivalries that are important for blah blah blah tradition and good things, which obviously UMD-RU cannot be yet, but still lock UMD-RU.
Turns out that schools know who their next set of two-plays are for 2026/27, which undoubtedly factored into their decisions. So if schools know who their two-plays are for those years, it means they know what schools they are going to be playing in those years, but they probably want to sort out some issues like home/away splits, maybe better zippering, maybe competitive balance, maybe season-wide game quality, maybe some OOC scheduling, understanding how the CFP committee ranks teams, learning if the CFP is going to change in 2027 (or was it 2026?) once the existing contract expires, etc. For all we know they didn’t release tie breaker information and they are working on something where if necessary they can play TWO games on CCG weekend to resolve who the winner is.
All in all, it seems like they did a great job. If all we have to whine about is that OSU/PSU is skipping playing one year (but could be played 75% of the time if the 26/27 two plays have them matched), some minor nits about competitive balance (which never, EVER isn’t a complaint from fans), some criticism about what “Flex protect plus” means (as in the words, not the actual product), and some hypothetical optimizations that for all we know they already plan for 2026/27, then that’s pretty good.
It’s quite possibly the dumbest criticism I’ve ever read in my life to complain that the conference should prioritize the ability to explain the scheduling model in less than a paragraph over actually having a better scheduling model. If there’s a simple system that’s better than what the B1G is doing, by all means share it.
I think this is great. Any pair of schools (SCHOOLS, not necessarily fan wishes) that wanted to play 100% of the time got that. Any pair of schools that want to play 75% of the time instead of 50% or 100% got that. Every schools plays every other at least 2 out of 4 years in a home and home. There’s plenty of flexibility to make adjustments. Nothing revealed is obviously stupid.
LikeLike
Scout,
I think it’s probably that the core of what they did is logically consistent, and then they had to make some exceptions for 2024 and 2025.
Then what they did is logically inconsistent. It’s all or nothing for that. I also see no reason to think 2024-25 is special. NE’s AD said he knows their opponents for 2026-27, so they have a larger plan already. They haven’t asked schools to stop scheduling OOC games like they did before going to 9 games.
First, they want to integrate USC/UCLA with a bit of a bang.
Where did any of them state that? What evidence is there for that in the schedule? USC visits NYC, DC and Chicago, but those are also 3 of the smallest brands. UCLA got RU as a non-locked rival. Where is the bang?
Second, schools already budgeted for how many home games they’d have in those years, so they probably couldn’t quite change the 4/5 conference home game splits yet – this probably is why the zipper model couldn’t integrate smoothly just yet.
OSU is fully booked through 2026, so the B10 needs to say something if they want schools to stop scheduling OOC. Besides, the zipper just assigns games, not locations.
Third, maybe Rutgers and Maryland both want to lock the rivalry and aspire for it to be like UM/OSU, or Iowa/NE, or WI/MN, but obviously it’s not going to be there yet.
Then they should say that.
It makes perfect sense for the leaders of the B1G to say they locked rivalries that are important for blah blah blah tradition and good things, which obviously UMD-RU cannot be yet, but still lock UMD-RU.
Not when they use the lack of those same things to explain OSU/PSU not being locked.
Turns out that schools know who their next set of two-plays are for 2026/27, which undoubtedly factored into their decisions.
They know now, after making their decisions. But they had to have decided on the locked games before that could happen.
So if schools know who their two-plays are for those years, it means they know what schools they are going to be playing in those years, but they probably want to sort out some issues like home/away splits, maybe better zippering, maybe competitive balance, maybe season-wide game quality, maybe some OOC scheduling, understanding how the CFP committee ranks teams, learning if the CFP is going to change in 2027 (or was it 2026?) once the existing contract expires, etc.
Who wants to sort them out? What evidence is there that they have any intention of changing the 4/5 splits, or zippering, or anything else? If they knew they had a better plan for future years, why wouldn’t they say so up front to mitigate the criticism?
After all, this is just a 2-0year plan. Everything could be changed in 2026 anyway, so why save any improvements?
For all we know they didn’t release tie breaker information and they are working on something where if necessary they can play TWO games on CCG weekend to resolve who the winner is.
Except you can’t do that. You can flex final week games, but only 2 teams can play in a CCG. They’d need years to get it approved by the NCAA and then figure out the logistics. Until the expanded CFP is figured out, nobody is bothering to change CCGs.
All in all, it seems like they did a great job.
That’s one opinion. Most of what they did was simple and had been known for a long time (9 games, no divisions). It’s hard to give them much credit for that.
If all we have to whine about is that OSU/PSU is skipping playing one year (but could be played 75% of the time if the 26/27 two plays have them matched), some minor nits about competitive balance (which never, EVER isn’t a complaint from fans), some criticism about what “Flex protect plus” means (as in the words, not the actual product), and some hypothetical optimizations that for all we know they already plan for 2026/27, then that’s pretty good.
So if the only problems are the games they locked, the competitive balance, and the explanation then they did a good job? Those are literally the only 3 things they did here.
It’s quite possibly the dumbest criticism I’ve ever read in my life to complain that the conference should prioritize the ability to explain the scheduling model in less than a paragraph over actually having a better scheduling model.
Those are 2 separate issues. They picked the lesser model, and then they couldn’t explain it clearly. Marketing the product is part of their job, especially if they are doing a live TV announcement of it.
If there’s a simple system that’s better than what the B1G is doing, by all means share it.
I did. So did many others.
I think this is great.
And you’re welcome to that opinion. I clearly said I didn’t think it was a train wreck (like Legends and Leaders), and there is no perfect solution.
Any pair of schools (SCHOOLS, not necessarily fan wishes) that wanted to play 100% of the time got that.
We think/assume that’s true, but we don’t actually know it.
Any pair of schools that want to play 75% of the time instead of 50% or 100% got that.
There is no way to know that. Only 2 years of the plan are available, making 75% not an option so far, plus we have no way to know who may have wanted 75%.
Every schools plays every other at least 2 out of 4 years in a home and home.
Any realistic 9 game plan would achieve that.
There’s plenty of flexibility to make adjustments.
They created a 2-year 3/6/6 plan. By definition, every 3/6/6 plan is equally flexible over 2 years. Any 2-year plan would be just as flexible – you could scrap it and start again in 2 years.
Nothing revealed is obviously stupid.
Granted, that is a bar the B10 has failed to clear in the past but it’s still a pretty low bar. Especially since they’d already decided on 9 games and no divisions.
LikeLike
How about “Flex Leaders Protect Legends Plus”?
LikeLike
FWIW, they may have a longer-term plan.
LikeLike
On the new Big Ten schedule, there’s a head-scratcher in this story from The Athletic:
Different administrators had different preferences throughout the process, but there were a few important reasons this model gained the support it needed — including the ability to ensure there would never be three 9-0 teams in league play.
I’m a bit mathematically challenged this morning, so I am not grasping what exactly was done to “ensure” there would never be three 9–0 teams. It must be something very subtle.
LikeLike
Marc,
They haven’t said anything specifically about it that I’ve seen. It would require that 3 teams can’t all not play each other.
It’s also not true.
2024:
USC does not play OSU nor NE
OSU does not play NE
Therefore USC, OSU and NE could (theoretically) all go 9-0
LikeLike
OK, so you are as perplexed by it as I am. I thought it either meant:
1) Mathematically impossible (nope)
2) Or would require 9–0 by a program ridiculously unlikely to do so, such as Rutgers (nope)
LikeLike
They have the ability to ensure that however they chose not to exercise it in 2024/25?
I think they couldn’t change the number of home games each school had planned in 24/25 (for budget reasons), and that meant they couldn’t solve everything just yet.
LikeLike
Scout,
They can’t ever easily change the number of games because schools schedule OOC games so far in advance. They’d have to tell schools years in advance if the want to make a change. OSU already has 3 games for 2026, for example.
I think ensuring it would be tough with the variable number of locked games and rotation. You might do it for a while, but eventually it seems like the stars would align. Doing it would require stricter control of the schedule than they seem to want.
You play 9 of 15 possible opponents. That means the remaining 6 all have to play each other, which takes 15 more games. There are 72 total B10 games, but it takes 24 games just to ensure team 1 can’t be part of 3 9-0 teams. Can the other 48 prevent it for everyone else? If so, can they do it every year despite the schedule rotating? I doubt it.
LikeLike
Let’s look at something more neutral/positive – winners and losers from the new B10 scheduling plan.
Winners:
B10 East members – those CCG trips just got a lot easier to earn
Losers:
B10 West members – those CCG trips just got a lot tougher to earn
Winners:
TV networks
2024 big brand games:
OSU vs MI, PSU, MSU, IA, UCLA
MI vs USC, MSU, WI, UCLA
PSU vs USC, NE, WI, MSU
USC vs WI, UCLA
NE vs IA, MSU, WI, UCLA
WI vs IA
IA vs UCLA
2025 big brand games:
OSU vs MI, USC, NE, WI
MI vs PSU, NE, MSU, IA
PSU vs USC, MSU, IA, UCLA
USC vs NE, WI, MSU, UCLA
NE vs IA, UCLA
WI vs IA, MSU, UCLA
MSU vs IA, UCLA
That’s 21 and 23 conference games that could be big draws respectively. Add in the OOC games and games with ranked smaller brands, and there should be at least 2 pretty good games each week on average.
Losers:
ADs of weak teams – without a division title to chase, many teams will be out of the race in November and ticket sales may suffer
Add your own to the list.
LikeLike
Losers: B10 West members – those CCG trips just got a lot tougher to earn
I wonder if those programs would agree. The decision to scrap divisions seems to have been made many months ago, and I don’t recall any off-the-record grumbling. I don’t believe there was much agitation among the media or fan bases to retain divisions.
Or maybe they realized where their bread was buttered. The Big Ten is an equal revenue sharing conference. They probably make more money if the CCG features the two best teams.
Lastly, it could be that the western teams realized they had no leg to stand on: “Please keep giving us an easier schedule so that we can win sometimes” is not a very compelling argument.
I think almost every FBS conference has now eliminated divisions or is expected to, which suggests perhaps it is just not a very good way to organize. The ACC and likely several others would have done this years ago if the rule change (that Jim Delany helped torpedo at the time) had passed when it was first proposed.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Losers: B10 West members – those CCG trips just got a lot tougher to earn”
I wonder if those programs would agree. The decision to scrap divisions seems to have been made many months ago, and I don’t recall any off-the-record grumbling. I don’t believe there was much agitation among the media or fan bases to retain divisions.
I think they’d agree they have reduced odds of making the CCG. But they also get more games against OSU, MI, PSU and MSU. Plus with the big media deal jump and games in LA for CA recruiting, they might not consider themselves “losers” overall.
Or maybe they realized where their bread was buttered. The Big Ten is an equal revenue sharing conference. They probably make more money if the CCG features the two best teams.
Maybe at the next TV deal. The CCG is priced into the upcoming deal already.
Lastly, it could be that the western teams realized they had no leg to stand on: “Please keep giving us an easier schedule so that we can win sometimes” is not a very compelling argument.
Yes, it was an argument that wasn’t worth having. You could guarantee 9 opinions against it (the East 7 + USC and UCLA), and you need a majority at least to approve it. And as I said above, there were definite tradeoffs for them in having the easier division.
I think almost every FBS conference has now eliminated divisions or is expected to, which suggests perhaps it is just not a very good way to organize. The ACC and likely several others would have done this years ago if the rule change (that Jim Delany helped torpedo at the time) had passed when it was first proposed.
I think size has a lot to do with it. Divisions work pretty well for 12 teams, since even with 8 games you can play everyone in 2 years (5/3/3). 14 is tougher, as it takes at least 4 years to play everyone with 8 games. With the ACC and SEC at 8 games with 1 locked crossover, 14 was almost unworkable. At 16, it would take 8 years to play everyone and you cannot lock any crossover games. Moving to 9 games helps, obviously.
The other problem with divisions is keeping balance. The B10E is 9-0. The P12N went 9-2. The ACC Atlantic – 10-1 since 2011 (Coastal won 4 straight before that). The B12S won the last 7 straight (first 8 split 4-4). The SECW is 12-2 in the last 14. More important is how often the 2nd best team didn’t make the CCG because they were in the best team’s division.
All the CCGs should gain in viewership (and thus financial value) with the elimination of divisions.
Divisions work better in the NFL model – there is more parity and they are a smaller fraction of the schedule. They also don’t care about playing each other frequently.
LikeLike
Maybe at the next TV deal. The CCG is priced into the upcoming deal already.
When you make your CCG as popular as it can be, it gives you a better negotiating position at the next deal. But I wasn’t even thinking of that.
When you pair the two best, your champ is a playoff team almost for sure, and your runner-up has a good chance for an at-large berth. When you pair division winners, occasionally the “wrong team” will get a fluke win, and they could steal a bid from a stronger one.
LikeLike
Marc,
When you pair the two best, your champ is a playoff team almost for sure, and your runner-up has a good chance for an at-large berth. When you pair division winners, occasionally the “wrong team” will get a fluke win, and they could steal a bid from a stronger one.
For the B10, at least 2 teams should make the CFP every year. I believe the historical studies said it would have been more like 3 on average. In that case, divisions might increase the number that get in by getting a few upsets that get a lesser team in without knocking the CCG loser out. On the other hand, the upset winner might bump the lowest B10 entrant out. It certainly would end up costing the B10 1st-round byes. So which is more important to the B10: number of 1st-round byes or number of teams getting in?
Based on the past, usually the 12 teams would include #1-11 plus one lower-ranked champ (usually G5). With recent realignment, it’s even more likely the G5 champ will be outside the top 12. It’s probably more likely for the P12 as well, but I’ll assume #1-11 + a champ make it most years.
B10 CCG Scenarios (numbers are CFP ranking):
1 vs 5 – 1 wins -> both make it, 1 gets a bye
1 vs 5 – 5 wins -> both make it, 5 gets a bye
1 vs 10 – 1 wins -> both probably make it, 1 gets a bye
1 vs 10 – 10 wins -> both make it, maybe a bye
1 vs 15 – 1 wins -> 1 gets a bye
1 vs 15 – 15 wins -> both make it, probably no bye
1 vs 20 – 1 wins -> 1 gets a bye
1 vs 20 – 20 wins -> both make it, no bye
5 vs 10 – 5 wins -> both probably make it, 5 probably gets a bye
5 vs 10 – 10 wins -> both make it, probably no bye
5 vs 15 – 5 wins -> 5 probably gets a bye
5 vs 15 – 15 wins -> both make it, no bye
5 vs 20 – 5 wins -> both make it, 5 gets a bye
5 vs 20 – 20 wins -> both make it, no bye
10 vs 15 – 10 wins -> no bye
10 vs 15 – 15 wins -> no bye
10 vs 20 – 10 wins -> no bye
10 vs 20 – 20 wins -> no bye
3 scenarios get a second team in at the cost of not getting a bye
2 scenarios cost a bye with no gain
4 scenarios probably don’t change anything
No divisions do make it harder for the top team to win the CCG, so you are likely to be seeded slightly lower on average (#4 vs #1, etc.).
LikeLike
https://www.wthitv.com/news/i-wish-it-would-have-been-a-collective-community-decision-city-leaders-former-isu-players/article_9750d2e6-04a6-11ee-b03b-f374dad58e58.html
IN State lost game 1 of their baseball superregional to TCU. They are playing at TCU despite being the higher seed because IN State didn’t have enough local hotel rooms and available staff to host the series while also hosting the Indiana Special Olympics which they have held for 51 years. The Terre Haute mayor wishes the school would’ve reached out for help, and thinks they missed out on a great opportunity that may never come around again.
Kudos to ISU for prioritizing the Special Olympics and the wellbeing of their own staff, but it’s a shame their players (and the city) have to miss out on being the host. ISU doesn’t get many shots at hosting NCAA events.
LikeLike
And TCU eliminated IN St today.
LikeLike
Well, we’ll find out if Jim Williams is legit this month.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Pac-12 could have media rights deal by end of June, Washington State president says
By Stewart Mandel Jun 9, 2023
Washington State president Kirk Schulz expects to have resolution on the Pac-12’s next TV deal “by the end of the month,” he said at a WSU board of regents meeting Friday. He also gave a rare public hint at what the dollar figure might be.
“At least the projections (AD) Pat Chun and I and others have seen,” said Schulz, “I’m not sure that it will be a lot larger than we saw in the past, (and) it shouldn’t be smaller than in the past. It may be fairly flat.”
Schulz did not elaborate further, but in the 2022 fiscal year, the conference reported $385.6 million in revenue — an average of $32.1 million per school — from its media rights deals with ESPN, Fox and the Pac-12 Network.
A “fairly flat” number come 2024, when the league loses USC and UCLA, would put the Pac-12 closely in line with the reported $31.7 million-per-school deal the Big 12 recently reached with ESPN and Fox to begin in 2025. It’s noteworthy because it’s been well-documented that Pac-12 members Colorado and Arizona have been in recent contact with the Big 12 in the event the Pac-12 doesn’t reach a comparable deal.
“(Until we) see a working document that gives us numbers … that’s what we don’t have,” Arizona president Robert Robbins told ESPN’s Pete Thamel at an event in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. “Until we have it, no one can make an informed decision.”
He added: “I’ve seen forecasts and projections. … I do think there’s good data on what the Pac-12 is valued at. I’ve seen those numbers. If we get close to those numbers, I think we’ll be fine.”
Schulz’s comment about the end-of-month timeline is just the latest of many like it dating as far back as March by himself and other league presidents — none of which have proven true. A board member followed up by asking how confident he is on a scale of 1 to 10 that the deal will actually be completed by the end of June.
“I’d probably put it at a 7,” he said.
League members have agreed on the terms of a Grant of Rights document that the 10 schools would need to sign once a TV deal is reached, The Athletic confirmed earlier this week. In one of Friday’s agenda items, the board preemptively authorized Schulz to sign off on the deal without board approval, another sign that the finish line is in sight.
“The commissioner (George Kliavkoff) has said once we have a deal, we may need to execute the Grant of Rights over a couple days,” he said. “What we didn’t want to do is have some frantic board meeting in the middle of the summer (to approve it).”
LikeLike
Here’s a different opinion of the Pac-12 situation:
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/06/07/pac-12-media-pushes-verbal-agreement-as-sign-of-faux-progress/
LikeLike
I agree with the writer that the GoR “announcement” is a nothingburger. It just says that the schools are prepared to agree, contingent upon a deal that does not yet exist.
Okaaaayyy.
LikeLike
This is the latest of many deadlines that have been thrown out. Sooner or later, one of them has to be correct.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-football-schedule-distance-each-team-will-travel-in-2024-season-when-usc-ucla-join-conference/
Total travel for each B10 team in conference play in 2024.
UCLA and USC will each travel more than 15,000 miles roundtrip in conference play during their inaugural Big Ten season. In 2024 alone, the Bruins will travel to Rutgers, which is more than 4,800 miles roundtrip, while USC travels to Maryland and Penn State, each of which are more than 4,400 miles roundtrip.
The team who travels the most in Big Ten play behind the Southern California schools is Nebraska — and USC and UCLA are traveling over 225% more than Nebraska’s 7,022 mile roundtrip conference schedule. Purdue and Indiana travel the least in the conference next fall, and the new schools will travel 618% more miles than its conference foes.
UCLA also has trips to Hawaii and LSU booked on the 2024 schedule. So, in total, the Bruins will travel over 25,000 miles roundtrip. UCLA’s shortest conference road trip is to Iowa, which is 3,082 miles roundtrip.
The article has commentary, but these are the numbers:
1. USC: 16,134 miles
2. UCLA: 15,412
3. Nebraska: 7,022
4. Iowa: 6,682
5. Ohio State: 6,496
6. Northwestern: 6,470
7. Wisconsin: 6,436
8. Minnesota: 6,258
9. Illinois: 6,204
10. Michigan: 5,762
11. Maryland: 4,462
12. Rutgers: 4,322
13. Penn State: 3,478
14. Michigan State: 3,058
15. Indiana: 2,668
16. Purdue: 2,436
It’s almost like CA is far from the midwest or something. USC having to go to UMD and PSU adds up pretty quick.
Note that of the B10 East teams, OSU got screwed with travel. PU got a huge break compared to the rest of the B10 West. This is just 1 year, of course. I’d be interested to see an average over 10 years or so.
LikeLike
From the median distance that works out to about 2 hours each way per road game as the jet flies. As has been mentioned before not an issue for football. More of an issue for other sports.
LikeLike
I think the 2 concerns are the totals for the LA schools, and the range of values.
The West get 5 road games while the East + UCLA and USC gets 4 (technically USC has 5, but the 5th is UCLA which is essentially 0 miles).
So let’s normalize it and look at just one-way distance:
1. USC: 16,134/4/2 = 2017
2. UCLA: 15,412/4/2 = 1927
5. Ohio State: 6,496/4/2 = 812
10. Michigan: 5,762/4/2 = 720
3. Nebraska: 7,022/5/2 = 702
4. Iowa: 6,682/5/2 = 668
6. Northwestern: 6,470/5/2 = 647
7. Wisconsin: 6,436/5/2 = 644
8. Minnesota: 6,258/5/2 = 626
9. Illinois: 6,204/5/2 = 620
11. Maryland: 4,462/4/2 = 558
12. Rutgers: 4,322/4/2 = 540
13. Penn State: 3,478/4/2 = 435
14. Michigan State: 3,058/4/2 = 382
15. Indiana: 2,668/4/2 = 334
16. Purdue: 2,436/5/2 = 244 (it helps to play at IN and IL plus WI and MSU)
Airplanes cruise at 550-575 mph airspeed (jet stream can add/subtract 30 minutes to a transcontinental flight, and other winds also have an effect). The problem is that the shorter trips aren’t flights, so the average flight is longer than the numbers above. Still, the point that it isn’t all that much for most teams is correct. It’s also true that the West schools are used to longer travel already. But OSU and MI have it worst among the current 14 (esp. OSU).
The numbers do work for USC and UCLA, though. Their average trip will be about a 4-hour flight (plus 2.75 & 2.5 time zone changes).
LikeLike
For a trip under 1,000 miles, travel time is dominated by mandatory things other than the flight itself: getting to/from the airport, getting through security, loading/unloading luggage, boarding/deplaning, taxiing, weather or air traffic delays, etc.
LikeLike
Charters can reduce a lot of that, but yes.
LikeLike
This is an old link that contains the travel distances from each school in the Big Ten to every other school. Obviously USC and UCLA are not included. Only three pairs are less than 100 miles apart:
USC-UCLA 12 miles
Michigan-MSU 64 miles
Illinois-Purdue 93 miles
https://mgoblog.com/diaries/team-travel-distances-proposed-divisions
LikeLike
NE’s AD says they made need an easier OOC schedule in the expanded B10. It’ll be interesting to see if other B10 West schools follow that trend. It’s an admission that the end of divisions will make for a harder schedule, as will the addition of the LA schools. NE is also the school that pushed for the end of parity-based scheduling where they got OSU as their locked crossover.
https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/nebraska/
That said, here’s NE’s upcoming OOC schedules:
2023 – CU, NIU, LT
2024 – CU, UTEP, UNI
2025 – Cincy, Akron, ULM
2026 – TN, Ohio, N Dak
2027 – TN, NIU
2028 – AZ, UTEP, S Dak St
2029 – OU
2030 – OU, S Dak St
2031 – AZ
2034 – OkSU
How much easier do they want it? Eliminate all P5 games? I could see them dropping the TN series, but not the OU series (due to the rivalry). AZ isn’t daunting. Maybe they drop OkSU. What’s really odd is choosing a high-level I-AA like SDSU. That’s a lose-lose for NE despite being from the region.
This is where the CFP committee has to show that OOC SOS matters, or schools like NE will drop to 1 I-AA and 2 G5 games.
I agree, getting OSU, MI, USC and UCLA all in one season is rough. But IA is their only other brand game that year, and MI, UCLA and IA are at home. They also play RU, UMD, IL and MN so they have some easier games (on paper) too. They miss PSU, MSU and WI, so it’s not too unfair.
It seems odd to say NE has been “slumming it” in the West when they’ve never won the division. They haven’t won more than 3 B10 games in a season since 2016 (6 in 2016, 5 in 2014). They also complained about having to play OSU so much.
LikeLike
In 2024, Purdue plays Notre Dame, Penn State, USC and Wisconsin. In 2025 the Boilers play Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State and UCLA in LA. We ain’t complaining.
LikeLike
This is where the CFP committee has to show that OOC SOS matters, or schools like NE will drop to 1 I-AA and 2 G5 games.
Based on the committee’s past performance, I am a bit doubtful that they will. The bottom line is that you get credit for wins, even against terrible opponents; and losses count against you, regardless of opponent.
It seems odd to say NE has been “slumming it” in the West when they’ve never won the division. They haven’t won more than 3 B10 games in a season since 2016.
Not only that, except for 2016 they’ve never come higher than 5th. In 2016 they could’ve won the division if only they’d beaten Iowa in their final game. Instead, they lost 40–10. Their only tough crossover game that year was OSU, a game in which they barely showed up, losing 62–3.
In 2024, Purdue plays Notre Dame, Penn State, USC and Wisconsin. In 2025 the Boilers play Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State and UCLA in LA. We ain’t complaining.
It might be that Colin M. is not complaining, but across the wider Purdue fan base I wouldn’t be surprised if some people are.
LikeLike
Marc,
“This is where the CFP committee has to show that OOC SOS matters, or schools like NE will drop to 1 I-AA and 2 G5 games.”
Based on the committee’s past performance, I am a bit doubtful that they will. The bottom line is that you get credit for wins, even against terrible opponents; and losses count against you, regardless of opponent.
Oh, I agree 100%. The committee is all about W% and will do whatever supports the SEC model of ‘fraidy cat scheduling. But they are the only ones who can influence OOC scheduling outside of the TV folks. At some point they have to start picking 9-3 with a tough OOC game over 10-2 with a cupcake OOC schedule. And value 9 conference games over 8.
LikeLike
I’m not complaining either. Purdue used to play ND every year. Every once in a while we scare the bejabbers out of one of those teams. Does 49-22 ring a bell?
As I have said before. The Kings desperately need Princesses to beat up, so they can prove their are Kings. tOSU really needs to play Rutgers, Illinois, Youngstown St. If they played only Alabamas, they would average a 6-6 record, and some years they would go 3-9.
LikeLike
In the new B10, I personally think Northwestern should only schedule HaH’s with Rice, Tulane, BC, and the service academies (Duke is too tough for us now!) Though heck, Tulane might be too tough for us now. But even with such scheduling, going 5-7/6-6 and going to a bowl should be seen as a good season.
LikeLike
IRS says donations to NIL collectives are not tax exempt.
https://www.si.com/college/2023/06/10/irs-name-image-likeness-collectives-not-tax-exempt
LikeLike
Alan,
That makes sense to me. They were pretending they were the United Way, but everyone knew it was a way to pay players. I believe a legitimate charity (except universities) could do an NIL deal with some athletes as spokespeople, and donations to that charity would remain tax exempt. No athletic donation should be tax exempt.
LikeLike
As a tax attorney, I agree completely. These are not contributions to a scholarship fund, but effectively payment for services. The services are not being given to the donors, so there seems to be no basis for a tax deduction.
The IRS should collect back taxes and interest for anyone who took a deduction, as there is no reason not to do so. Penalties can be waived and probably will be for returns filed prior to this announcement. Filing amended returns would almost certainly avoid penalties.
I am wondering about taxation of the recipients. The players are getting money which is not a non-taxable scholarship. The money is not a gift, which must be based on disinterested generosity. Commissioner v Duberstein, a 1954 US SCt case.
If a car dealer pays Joe Receiver $100,000 to do adds to promote the dealership and the adds are used, that sounds deductible to the dealer and taxable to Joe.
Is the IRS looking at this now with other NILs where there are no true endorsements by players?
I personally find the deductibility of huge donations to be very problematic, but it is what it is. Many years ago, when a lot of the HBCUs (historically black schools) were in real trouble and in danger of closing, some guy donated $400,000,000 to the Harvard Engineering school. My thought was that that money could have saved all of those schools.
Of course, that is none of my business. what bugged me was that it was deductible, so taxpayers effectively gave Harvard $200,000,000. Let the guy use his own money for the gift, not tax deductible money.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see how many players get in trouble with the IRS over NIL. It’s clearly income, but many of them will know nothing about how to file for taxes. I’m sure the big schools are providing advice on this, but smaller schools probably can’t afford to do so. How many of them will try to hide some of their deals? Will they file estimated tax on time?
And if players unionize or get classified as employees, let’s see how much they enjoy Uncle Sam taking a big chunk of their check. Will the varying state tax rates drive recruiting? Many pro athletes officially live in FL and TX because there is no state income tax. Other such states: AK, WA, WY, NV, SD, TN, NH. WA and TN are the only ones of those with a P5 school (2 each), but FL has 4 and TX has 6. There will be 5 SEC schools in states with no income tax. Of course some of them just use other taxes, but I’m not sure athletes would look that deep.
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal:
IRS Nixes Tax Edge for College-Sports Booster Groups Paying Athletes
Getting cash to college athletes isn’t a charitable purpose, the IRS says. Audits could follow.
https://www.wsj.com/sports/irs-tax-edge-college-sports-booster-groups-427d403f?st=cmeywuy3k8zlsrx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/06/video-jon-wilner-on-pac-12-expansion-talks/
10 minute video of Jon Wilner on P12 Tv deal and P12 expansion.
LikeLike
Big Ten scheduling has been the foremost issue for us here on FTTS but now that issue has been resolved, at least until 2025, a remaining loose end is Notre Dame’s payout from NBC. We all know ND AD Swarbrick will retire in 2025 and is being replaced by a domer alum and NBC sports executive, but that still hasn’t settled the NBC payout to ND.
NBC will be spending a lot more for college football as a result of the ‘Big Ten Saturday Night deal’, and you’ve gotta wonder why they would spend even more for ND when they actually have ND by the balls. ND has no Plan B. If NBC doesn’t pony up big bucks, what are they gonna do? Not sign up? Another factor is that ND’s home schedule has become the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
The linked article cites limited TV revenue as one of the consequences that might force ND to give up this ‘independence’. Realistically, a schedule of five games dictated by the ACC + Navy + USC + Stanford isn’t really very independent, and this ‘barnstorming’ legacy is pretty lame when the remaining games are the like of Tennessee State and Central Michigan.
Whatever. Seems like ND and NBC are taking a loooong time to come to terms.
https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/lists/notre-dame-tv-contract-nbc-college-football-tv-deals/
LikeLike
I saw that article when it was published 5 weeks ago and did not bother linking it here. Written by a Fighting Irish fanboy, it’s not worth the pixels it’s printed on.
NBC will be spending a lot more for college football as a result of the ‘Big Ten Saturday Night deal’, and you’ve gotta wonder why they would spend even more for ND when they actually have ND by the balls. ND has no Plan B.
I don’t necessarily think it’s time for Irish fans to panic. The Big Ten’s TV deal was announced last August, in other words a year in advance. If ND does not have a new TV deal by August, Domers can start to worry.
I have wondered the same thing — could NBC be playing hardball, knowing that ND has nowhere else to go? Until a couple of weeks ago, the person playing the hardball would’ve been the very guy they just hired as their AD. It would be a bit strange to hire the guy who has been trying to screw them. Still possible, but strange.
Disney/ESPN could easily make room for ND—it’s not that many games. However, ND would need to make compromises. ESPN’s announcers wouldn’t openly root for the Irish the way NBC’s announcers do, and the Irish would need to be more flexible about game times. Some games would only be on cable. This is not what they want, but it’s an option if NBC refuses to budge on dollars.
Realistically, a schedule of five games dictated by the ACC + Navy + USC + Stanford isn’t really very independent.
Notre Dame always had a set of opponents they played just about every year. Pre-ACC, they played Navy, USC, Stanford, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, and Pitt in most years — almost like their own mini-conference.
LikeLike
Marc: “I have wondered the same thing — could NBC be playing hardball, knowing that ND has nowhere else to go? Until a couple of weeks ago, the person playing the hardball would’ve been the very guy they just hired as their AD. It would be a bit strange to hire the guy who has been trying to screw them. Still possible, but strange.”
I guess we view a glass half full from two different perspectives. It seems to me that ND’s insider guy at NBC has now gone home to ND, thereby neutering his influence. You seem to think that this NBC guy buried within ND will have the power to command more revenue from that cash cow. We’ll see.
LikeLike
I guess we view a glass half full from two different perspectives. It seems to me that ND’s insider guy at NBC has now gone home to ND, thereby neutering his influence. You seem to think that this NBC guy buried within ND will have the power to command more revenue from that cash cow.
No, that’s not what I think.
I think ND has already been negotiating with NBC for quite a while. They are obviously not entirely aligned yet, or the deal would’ve been announced already. But that doesn’t mean NBC is playing hardball either. Between “hardball” and “no deal yet” is a vast middle ground.
The person who would’ve been playing hardball, up to a couple of weeks ago, would’ve been the guy they have just hired. It would’ve been a very odd hire if NBC’s attitude has been, “F*ck you, you’ve got no other options.”
I am not making any assumptions about how much power that guy has now that he is on the other side of the table.
LikeLike
Marc,
“NBC will be spending a lot more for college football as a result of the ‘Big Ten Saturday Night deal’, and you’ve gotta wonder why they would spend even more for ND when they actually have ND by the balls. ND has no Plan B.”
I don’t necessarily think it’s time for Irish fans to panic. The Big Ten’s TV deal was announced last August, in other words a year in advance. If ND does not have a new TV deal by August, Domers can start to worry.
I have wondered the same thing — could NBC be playing hardball, knowing that ND has nowhere else to go? Until a couple of weeks ago, the person playing the hardball would’ve been the very guy they just hired as their AD. It would be a bit strange to hire the guy who has been trying to screw them. Still possible, but strange.
Disney/ESPN could easily make room for ND—it’s not that many games. However, ND would need to make compromises. ESPN’s announcers wouldn’t openly root for the Irish the way NBC’s announcers do, and the Irish would need to be more flexible about game times. Some games would only be on cable. This is not what they want, but it’s an option if NBC refuses to budge on dollars.
NBC doesn’t have ND under their thumb. Lots of networks would be happy to steal ND from NBC. They’d find room to show their games.
August 2024 you mean? Their deal runs through the 2024 season. They don’t need the new deal set up this year.
How can NBC play Hardball? You don’t think another network would pay them? I’m sure NBC is fighting them a bit – that’s standard negotiation. Look how much NBC was willing to pay the B10, and do some math:
$350M/year for 15 games (and 1 CCG over 7 years) + 8 Peacock games
Call that $300M for the NBC games + 2 Peacock games
ND provides less than half of that (6 NBC games + 1 Peacock)
That’s about $120M/yr
ND games, on average, bring more viewers than the average B10 game. There is higher risk with ND as a single team, and it only fills certain weeks, but they also always get ND’s best home games, not 1/3 of them. And they now will get the benefits of synergy with B10 coverage.
Getting $60-75M seems plausible.
Notre Dame always had a set of opponents they played just about every year. Pre-ACC, they played Navy, USC, Stanford, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, and Pitt in most years — almost like their own mini-conference.
Most/all major independents scheduled that way in the past (PSU, etc.). All that matters is that ND’s fans feel it is independent. They choose to play USC, Stanford and Navy, so those games don’t bother them. The 5 ACC games push the limits of the fans, and many hated their COVID year of full ACC membership, mostly because they don’t pick the 5 schools. As long as ND picks the teams, their fans would probably be fine with the same 10+ teams every year.
LikeLike
August 2024 you mean? Their deal runs through the 2024 season. They don’t need the new deal set up this year.
I am making an analogy to the Big Ten, whose new deal starts this year but was announced in August of last year. For ND to be on the same timetable, they’d need a deal by August 2023.
There is nothing special about that date, but ND’s deal ought to be simpler — they’re negotiating for one sport with only one media partner whom they have been in business with for 30 years.
If we get to September and there’s not a peep about a deal, I might start worrying. (That is, if I were the sort of person who worries about Notre Dame.)
LikeLike
But as you say, they’ve worked with NBC for 30 years. They can delay serious negotiations because all that needs to be discussed is the number. Also, NBC is focused on finalizing the B10 deal right now. That is a higher priority until all the details are nailed down. Only after that can they focus on ND.
ND doesn’t need a deal until next summer. The B10 was expanding, changing networks, and combining multiple networks. It also involves a lot of complications with 16 schools having various stipulations (F night games, November night games, etc.) and no schedule model known so the networks had to guess what they would get. That had to be done earlier to allow for finalizing the details.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/06/14/sec-big-ten-2-billion-athletics-revenue-power-five/70313053007/
A look at P5 athletic revenue by conference and the disparities (hint: the SEC and B10 lead by a sizable margin). And many schools have already allocated the revenue from CFP expansion, so don’t expect much new spending to come from that.
In 2022, when money from student fees and forms of institutional and government support is not counted, there was a $62.1 million difference between the median revenue generated by an SEC school and that generated by a Pac-12 school.
For some context, in 2022, only nine public schools outside the Power Five conferences had more than $62.1 million in total operating expenses for their entire athletics program.
…
In 2022, the SEC’s 13 public schools combined for $2.17 billion in total operating revenue, a figure that includes money from student fees and forms of institutional and government support.
The Big Ten’s 13 public schools combined for $2.04 billion.
…
Using median values for their schools’ revenues, rather than the averages, the conferences ranked in the following order:
SEC: $159.1 million.
Big Ten: $150.1 million.
ACC: $134.4 million.
Pac-12: $117 million.
Big 12: $110.7 million.
However, this hides some of these schools’ individual revenue-generating power. The Pac-12’s public schools receive more revenue through allocations of student-fee money than do the other conferences’. In 2022, there were 19 Power Five schools that received at least $10 million in allocated revenue; eight were in the Pac-12.
Going based on revenue actually generated by athletics departments, which includes conference and NCAA revenue shares, the medians change — and the gaps grow:
SEC: $159 million, with a range of $203 million for Alabama, to $110.7 million for Mississippi State.
Big Ten: $147.1 million, with a range of $251.6 million for Ohio State, to $85.6 million for Rutgers.
ACC: $125.2 million, with a range of $151.9 million for Clemson, to $94.8 million for Georgia Tech.
Big 12: $106.9 million, with a range of $239.3 million for Texas, to $91.4 million for Oklahoma State.
Pac-12: $96.9 million. The top amount was $153 million for Oregon, which reported that total included nearly $13.1 million in the form of a one-time, non-cash gift: a video board that was part of a massive overhaul of the Hayward Field track and field complex, which hosted the 2022 track and field world championship. The lowest amount was $69.7 million for Washington State.
Mississippi State, the SEC’s lowest revenue generator, was at least $8.5 million ahead of every Pac-12 public school except Oregon and Washington.
Pac-12 at a disadvantage
“You know, we don’t have a lot of stadiums that are 100,000 (capacity). And it seems like the Big Ten and SEC are all selling those things out — and that’s a lot of revenue,” University of Arizona president Robert Robbins told USA TODAY Sports. “So I think we’re at a disadvantage, obviously. For those numbers that you just quoted, that’s a big delta — and it obviously hurts us in terms of being able to attract coaches and pay salaries. We aren’t going to be as competitive (in those offers) as, say, the SEC or Big Ten.”
Robbins added: “I think if you look at the Pac-12 … what are the parameters you use to measure success? And if you look at how many national championships are being won, the Pac-12 is right up there with everybody — and probably leads the pack over the last 20 years. We think that’s really important. I think we’ve been leaders in mental health and other ideas about the welfare of athletes. But on the sheer financial competitiveness, I would say, using that lens and those metrics, we’re punching above our weight.”
…
As the recent LEAD1 webinar wound down, it was noted that more revenue for all FBS schools likely would be coming from the expanded College Football Playoff. The three panelists, all athletics department CFOs, were asked by a fellow CFO serving as the moderator how they planned to use that money.
There was a pause.
Then George intoned: “It’s already been spent, right?”
All four participants chuckled knowingly.
When the laughter subsided, George said: “You know, it’s a good question. There’s still a little uncertainty on exactly what that’s going to look like for each school … so you don’t want to get too far ahead of yourself.
“But … when you look at where the expenses are going, compared to the revenue, I truly don’t anticipate that allowing us to do a whole lot more new things. It’s really more about continuing to operate at the level that we’ve got to do.”
LikeLike
If you rank the schools by athletics revenue, there is a surprise at #13: Indiana, good for 5th in the Big Ten, and better than all but six SEC schools. I never would have guessed that.
LikeLike
Marc,
Hoops school make big money from hoops.
12. MSU
13. IU
14. UVA – #1 in ACC
16. UK
23. UL – #4 in ACC
24, IL
31. AZ – #3 in P12
32. UNC
35. KU – #3 in B12
37. PU
Caveat – this is public schools only.
LikeLike
Another thing is that we keep hearing how far behind the ACC schools will be so they have to escape their GOR somehow (also P12 and B12 schools).
1. OSU – $251.6M
4. MI – $210.7M
9. PSU
12. MSU
13. IN – $166.8M
14. UVA
15. FSU
17. Clemson
19. OR
21. IA – $151.5M
23. UL
25. UW
31. AZ
32. UNC
33. ASU
34. Cal
35. KU
36. UU
37. PU – $115.1
38. VT
39. ISU
41. TT
42. RU
43. UMD – $107.5M
44. GT
45. WVU
46. OkSU
47. UCLA
48. NCSU
49. KSU
51. CU
53. WSU
54. OrSU – $83.5M
That’s 15 M3 public schools out-earning RU and UMD, and 12 above PU (who we know gets a full B10 share). People talk about FSU falling $30M per year or more behind their competitors. OSU is $40M per year ahead of MI and that doesn’t seem to be a problem. Clemson is over $100M behind OSU and does fine in football. They actually outspent OSU on football in the recent past.
LikeLike
I’m obviously not understanding what is being counted here. In the past 15 years, Purdue has had more men’s basketball success than Indiana, and neither has been great at football. We are always told that football drives about 75–80% of the revenue. So, what would account for Indiana having $40m more in revenue than Purdue?
LikeLike
Marc,
It’s all forms of revenue. PU may have won more, but it doesn’t mean their fan base is more fanatical.
1. Higher ticket prices and/or required donations for hoops
2.
From the source:
IN:
Total = $166.8M
Tickets = $21.3M
Contributions = $61.7M*
TV/licensing = $77.8M
the rest = $6.1M
* In prior years, their donations were in the $20-30M range. Maybe they ran a fundraising campaign or got a big donation for some construction/renovations?
PU:
Total = $115.1M
Tickets = $16.6M
Contributions = $16.9M
TV/licensing = $72.7M
the rest = $8.9M
IU made almost $5M more on ticket sales, $5M more on rights (radio rights and ad sales) and over $40M more on donations. So in normal years, IU would be more like $15-20M ahead of them.
Revenue categories
Ticket sales: Sales of admissions to athletics events. Include ticket sales to the public, faculty and students, and money received for shipping and handling of tickets. Does not include amounts in excess of face value (such as for preferential seating).
Contributions: Includes amounts received directly from individuals, corporations, associations, foundations, clubs or other organizations for the operations of the athletics program. Amounts paid in excess of a ticket’s value. Contributions include cash, marketable securities and in-kind contributions such as dealer-provided cars for staff use. Also includes revenue from preferential seating.
Rights/Licensing: Includes revenue for athletics from radio and television broadcasts, Internet and e-commerce rights received from institution-negotiated contracts, the NCAA and conference revenue-sharing arrangements; and revenue from corporate sponsorships, licensing, sales of advertisements, trademarks and royalties. Includes the value of in-kind products and services provided as part of a corporate sponsorship (e.g., equipment, apparel, soft drinks, water and isotonic products). Also includes revenue from food, concessions and parking.
LikeLike
The Hickoosiers blood-suck their students’ tuition for an involuntary athletic events fee. Purdue does not.
LikeLike
https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2023/03/02/150-million-iu-foundation-gift-helps-offset-covid-financial-losses-for-indiana-athletics-rps/69959564007/
The IU Foundation gave $150M to IU in 2021 to help offset COVID losses. $38M of that went to athletics.
A nine-figure gift from the IU Foundation given in the 2022 fiscal year helped several key auxiliaries within the university cover substantial financial shortfalls related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In total, the Foundation gifted $150 million to the university in mid-October 2021. Designed to backfill a variety of specific holes, the Foundation funded the gift by taking on a loan it will pay back over 30 years.
Marshaled by the university, funds from the gift targeted entities across the Bloomington campus hit hardest, including the university athletic department and IU’s Residential Programs and Services (RPS).
“That’s what provided the motivation for the Foundation, the idea of trying to reduce any additional costs for students and preserve of education, quality of housing, quality of athletics, and ensure the high standards we’re used to didn’t have to be cut,” IU Foundation Executive Vice President for Finance and Operations Jeffrey Stumpf told IndyStar. “The Foundation was in the unique position to be able to borrow and provide a gift of $150 million to the university.”
The gift was unrestricted, except for the qualification that it had to be used to cover costs and could not be saved or reinvested elsewhere.
Of that $150 million, approximately $38 million was transferred to the athletic department, per IU general counsel. That gift was reflected in the department’s most-recent NCAA financial report, obtained via a records request by IndyStar.
LikeLike
I gather this was an unusual year, and the gap between them would not typically be as large.
The Hickoosiers blood-suck their students’ tuition for an involuntary athletic events fee. Purdue does not.
I saw there was an element of student fees, but it only accounted for less than 2% of athletic department revenue that year. Still, I think you could argue that if they are able to make that much money organically, the student fee shouldn’t exist anymore.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that with the B10 dropping divisions, nobody seems to be concerned about the possibility of a final week rematch in the CCG.
Remember the hullabaloo before L & L about what to do with OSU and MI? Some were convinced they had to share a division to preserve The Game and avoid rematches. Others thought The Game had to move earlier so they could be in opposite divisions and meet in the CCG. The B10 settled on leaving The Game in the last week (OSU strongly resisted moving it, and UM did to some extent as well) and risking a rematch, but many people were upset.
The concern went away with geographical divisions after just 3 years, but I expected the concerns to get stirred up with UM back at an elite level and the end of divisions.
The math says that the odds of a rematch are fairly low, with the loser of The Game usually getting knocked out of CCG running. Adding USC reduces those odds, but it could happen every few years on average.
Past years (back through 1993 – the PSU era):
14 teams: 2022, 2021, 2018*
12 teams: none
11 teams: 2007*, 2006*, 2003*, 1998*, 1997*
* depends on tiebreakers
LikeLike
Well, it’s an interesting situation. Yes, Ohio St and UM may be playing each other on Turkey weekend and again in the CCG, but then again the fact that they play must each other while Penn State and USC are not locked with heavyweights actually improves the chances that SC and PS will have fewer loses than either of them.
Seems odd that Penn State didn’t opt for annual games with Rutgers and Maryland. That would be two likely wins for the Nits and a reduced frequency of playing USC, OSU and UM.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that with the B10 dropping divisions, nobody seems to be concerned about the possibility of a final week rematch in the CCG. . . . The math says that the odds of a rematch are fairly low.
I’m not sure what one can say about it. In the L&L era, I felt they made the right decision to keep The Game on the final weekend, and take their chances on a re-match.
That era coincided with a long down period for Michigan, when in most years they couldn’t have made the CCG whether they beat OSU or not. Brian’s statistics say that when both teams are good, a re-match would occur fairly often.
Seems odd that Penn State didn’t opt for annual games with Rutgers and Maryland. That would be two likely wins for the Nits and a reduced frequency of playing USC, OSU and UM.
PSU wisely decided to optimize the regular season, just most programs do. The math says it’s a miniscule difference for PSU. Plus, in the schedule just announced, they’re playing RU and MD three out of four possible opportunities anyway.
LikeLike
Marc,
Brian’s statistics say that when both teams are good, a re-match would occur fairly often.
Most of those times happened with 11 teams and 8 B10 games. The 9th game makes it less likely, as do the additions of USC, UCLA, and NE.
The tiebreakers will be key. The first one will probably be head-to-head among the tied teams. But my first one would be avoiding a rematch from the final week. I know the B10 won’t do that because it would eliminate The Game as a rematch option and that is too valuable to them.
EX. OSU beats PSU in October and MI in the final week and PSU and MI end up tied, then PSU should get the rematch even if MI beat PSU earlier.
Plus, in the schedule just announced, they’re playing RU and MD three out of four possible opportunities anyway.
No they aren’t. They are playing RU 2/2 and UMD 1/2 of times. Anything beyond 2025 is speculation. We assume RU will become 3/4, but is that on the way to remaining 75% or to 4/6, 5/8, …? Likewise we think UMD might go to 3/4, but we have no idea where it is headed beyond that.
If you read too much into it, then USC and MSU will be 3/4 while OSU and MI will be 2/4. Do we expect that to be the long term trend, too?
LikeLike
Plus, in the schedule just announced, they’re playing RU and MD three out of four possible opportunities anyway.
No they aren’t.
I am not understanding what part you disagree with. I said “announced.” I didn’t make any assumption beyond what was announced.
LikeLike
They only released 2024 and 2025. Those are the only 2 opportunities announced so far. You can’t be 3 out of 4 if only 2 have been announced.
LikeLike
They only released 2024 and 2025. Those are the only 2 opportunities announced so far. You can’t be 3 out of 4 if only 2 have been announced.
They are playing Maryland in both years and Rutgers one of two — hence, three of the four possible games in a two-year period.
LikeLike
Marc,
They are playing Maryland in both years and Rutgers one of two — hence, three of the four possible games in a two-year period.
I read that as you meaning 3 of 4 years for both schools, hence the confusion.
LikeLike
The tiebreakers will be key. The first one will probably be head-to-head among the tied teams. But my first one would be avoiding a rematch from the final week. I know the B10 won’t do that because it would eliminate The Game as a rematch option and that is too valuable to them.
I think such a system would be pretty widely ridiculed. Every P5 league is going to need new tiebreakers and I wouldn’t expect this to figure in any of them.(*) In every tiebreaker I’ve ever seen, the head-to-head is first.
* I do realize that Michigan–OSU is one of the few rivalry week games where the two teams are also the two most frequent champions in the league’s history. But certainly there are others where it could happen with reasonable likelihood, e.g., Alabama–Auburn.
LikeLike
Marc,
I did say head-to-head would be first in the real system.
My personal choice would assert that the final week’s result should carry more weight than earlier games.
Scenarios:
OSU 9-0, UM & PSU 8-1 – the result of The Game should eliminate UM, even if UM beat PSU (H2H would give the rematch)
OSU, UM & PSU 8-1 (OSU beat UM, UM beat PSU, OSU lost to other) – the result of The Game should eliminate UM (H2H would give the rematch)
OSU, UM & PSU 8-1 (OSU beat UM, UM beat PSU, PSU beat OSU) – the result of The Game should eliminate UM (no telling what others tiebreakers would do)
I’d also use avoiding all rematches as a tiebreaker. If OSU played PSU but not USC, then USC should make the CCG (to face OSU) over PSU regardless of the results. Even if PSU beat OSU during the season.
LikeLike
The SEC announced their 2024 schedule opponents. All the current SEC schools were scheduled to play either Texas or Oklahoma.
https://www.secsports.com/article/37854660/sec-reveals-2024-football-opponents-locations
Texas (home) Florida, Georgia, Kentucky & Miss State; (away) OU in Dallas, A&M, Arkansas & Vandy. Only one unfamiliar foe on the road and its Vandy.
Oklahoma (home) Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina & UT in Dallas; (away) LSU, Auburn, Ole Miss & Mizzou.
A non-traditional marquee matchup includes UGA at Bama.
All primary and secondary rivals were retained. The remainder of the schedule was determined by a ten-year analysis of past results to make the schedules as equal as practicable regarding SOS.
My Tigers keep Alabama(h), Florida(a), A&M(a), Ole Miss(h) & Arkansas(a), and lose Auburn & Miss State, but pick up Oklahoma(h), along with South Carolina(a) & Vandy(h).
In addition to the SEC schedule, Florida will be three P5 schools OOC (Fla St, Miami & UCF), LSU will play two (USC & UCLA), as will UGA (Clemson & GA Tech). Other P5 OOC games include Notre Dame at A&M, Texas at Michigan, Alabama at Wisconsin, Arky at OK State, Cal at Auburn, Louisville at UK, Miss State at AZ State, BC at Mizzou, Ole Miss at Wake Forest, S. Carolina at Clemson, Tennessee v NC State at Charlotte, and VA Tech at Vandy.
While I certainly wish the SEC would have gone to a 9-game schedule immediately, I think the SEC did an admirable job of putting this (hopefully) one year bridge schedule together. In 2024, the schools would have had to cancel 12 OOC games. In 2025, only nine OOC games will have to be canceled. In 2026, only six.
LikeLike
Alan,
What a screw-up.
Where’s the ridiculous name that makes the schedule sound like a wireless or streaming package?
How could you not drop games like UGA/TN while keeping Vandy/Ole Miss?
Hopeless.
I haven’t looked through it in detail, but it sounds like they did a solid job as usual, other than sticking with 8 games.
LikeLike
Long, interesting gift article about Coach Prime at Colorado. Nebraska vs Colorado on Fox Sept 9
https://wapo.st/43ZDiwd
LikeLike
Colorado’s first five football games will be something to behold:
https://cubuffs.com/sports/football/schedule/2023
LikeLike
https://mgoblue.com/news/2023/6/15/general-athletic-department-projects-balanced-budget-in-fy-24.aspx
UM’s annual athletic budget projection release is out.
• Spectator admissions revenues are projected to decrease by $8.7 million due to a decrease in home football games, from an eight-game schedule in 2022 to a seven-game home schedule in 2023, and combined with a commitment to maintain current admission ticket pricing.
• A projected increase in Big Ten Conference distributions will not fully offset that revenue decrease. Those are projected to increase by $5.2 million, primarily due to an increase in television revenues.
So there you go – a home game is worth $8.7M directly to UM.
And the TV deal will only go up about $5M this year. UM projected it would go up $9.7M in FY23 and the total distribution was $58.8M for FY22. That would make it about $69.5M for FY23, then $74.7M for FY24. The big jump should come when the LA schools join and CBS pays their full share in FY25.
LikeLike
Listening to/reading local media, OSU fans aren’t thrilled with the upcoming home schedules the next 2 years.
2023:
OOC – YSU, WKU
B10 – PSU, MSU, MN, UMD
1 big game
2024:
OOC – SoMiss, WMU, Marshall
B10 – MI, IA, NW, IL, RU
1 big game
2025:
OOC – UT, UConn, ?
B10 – USC, NE, IN, UMD
2 big games, but only 1 in B10
They will be better if a team exceeds recent performance (MSU, IA, NE), but as is ticket sales might be a bit slower than normal.
LikeLike
I mean, what are they expecting? OSU will almost never get more than 1 of the other 3 kings at home each year if PSU isn’t an annual game (which evidently the OSU AD* wanted!)
OOC king would be once every 2 years at most. Then it just comes down to how good the B10 princes happen to be. OSU will average almost 2 princes visiting the Shoe each year with the addition of UO&UW at least, though.
*Also PSU
LikeLike
Well, apparently they are expecting more big games. Maybe it was just their response to the media hype and then seeing the actual schedule release.
Normally odd years have been at UM with home vs PSU and a big home OOC game. Even years get the big road OOC game and home vs UM while at PSU. But there is a brief lull in the OOC schedule and the PSU game is going away from annual (and isn’t being replaced by USC).
LikeLike
We’ve heard plenty of complaining over the years from fans of B10E teams about how they have to navigate a tougher schedule every year than the B10W (granted, more from PSU and some others than OSU), and obviously you can’t have an easier/fairer schedule without having less big home games. Did these folks want to keep the tough B10E-style schedule and an annual game with PSU?
Also, in effect, the annual PSU game is being replaced by a combo of PSU+USC. In OOC scheduling, the biggest difference is that OSU skips a big-time OOC opponent in 2024.
LikeLike
I think there are 2 groups in any fan base – one which wants big games all the time, and one which wants the easiest schedule possible. As you note, OSU fans didn’t complain much about the divisional imbalance. There was some concern that USC would just join the west and get an easy path, but then the B10 dropped divisions. Many of the complaining fans mostly are upset about the OOC schedule (I did say they were complaining about the next 2 years, not overall), but they also expected at least one of PSU and USC to be annual with the other at least 50%. While most don’t consider PSU a real rivalry, they did expect that game to continue.
LikeLike
Brian, worry not. You’re focused upon the high TV ratings for the OSU-PSU game. But OSU-USC will do just as well, ditto OSU-Washington and OSU-Oregon. And when you also consider PSU-USC and PSU-Washington and USC-Oregon, overall conference viewers will increase.
LikeLike
I thought this was interesting – the B12 records for all members since founding in 1996.
W% over 65%: OU, UT, NE*
W% around 55%: KSU, OkSU, TCU**
W% around 50%: TAMU*, MO***, CU*, WV**, TT
W% below 35%: BU, ISU, KU
* left after 2010
** joined in 2012
*** left after 2011
Their top 3 will all be gone, as well as 3 of their teams around 50%. Dominance will truly be up for grabs as a bunch of teams that have been up and down fight for it.
How does the B10 compare (only looking at B10 W/L)?
W% over 65%: OSU, UM
W% 60-65%: WI, PSU
W% around 55%: IA, MSU
W% 40-46%: NW, NE, PU
W% below 37%: MN, IL, IN, UMD, RU
I’d say the tiers are a bit more clear, with the same schools being good or bad most of the time.
LikeLike
Brian: How does the B10 compare (only looking at B10 W/L)?
W% over 65%: OSU, UM
W% 60-65%: WI, PSU
W% around 55%: IA, MSU
W% 40-46%: NW, NE, PU
W% below 37%: MN, IL, IN, UMD, RU
Thank you for demonstrating that Purdue is NOT a Peon as ranked in this goofy Kings/Princes/Knights/Peons mumbo jumbo. the Boilermakers may not be the Monsters of the Midwest but do have the best record in the conference vs Ohio State since 2000:
Purdue 5-9 .357
Michigan 5-17 .227
Penn State 5-18 .217
And the Boilers are also 5-5 vs Nebraska since the Huskers joined.
LikeLike
Thank you for demonstrating that Purdue is NOT a Peon as ranked in this goofy Kings/Princes/Knights/Peons mumbo jumbo. the Boilermakers may not be the Monsters of the Midwest but do have the best record in the conference vs Ohio State since 2000.
Mandel’s Kings/Princes/Knights/Paupers hierarchy considers many other factors besides record against Ohio State. That is why Michigan never lost king status despite many years of no championship until the most recent couple of years. Texas is still a king despite not winning the Big 12 since 2009. Those titles are not eternal, but it takes a LONG time to move between levels, whether up or down.
Purdue’s record against OSU is kind of strange, because if it were indicative of their true playing strength, their overall record should be a lot better. Sometimes a team has another team’s number without being able to replicate those results against other opponents. That seems to be what happened here.
LikeLike
The numbers are right there in front of you:
W% 40-46%: NW, NE, PU
W% below 37%: MN, IL, IN, UMD, RU
As for their peers, Purdue is 5-5 vs Nebraska since they joined the conference and 10-10 vs Northwestern. Mandel’s Kings/Princes/Knights/Paupers hierarchy is flat-out nonsense.
LikeLike
Mandel always explained, and I believe he is correct, that such status is not merely a tally of winning percentage. It is also about brand value, TV ratings, recruiting strength, postseason appearances, etc. Were it NOT about those things, there is no way Texas should be considered a King, and yet it is.
If it were just a ranking based on winning percentage, the list would be self-generating, because there are plenty of databases that can give you that without further thought. A trained monkey could do it.
LikeLike
Marc,
Mandel’s Kings/Princes/Knights/Paupers hierarchy considers many other factors besides record against Ohio State. That is why Michigan never lost king status despite many years of no championship until the most recent couple of years. Texas is still a king despite not winning the Big 12 since 2009. Those titles are not eternal, but it takes a LONG time to move between levels, whether up or down.
https://theathletic.com/3361576/2022/06/14/alabama-georgia-emperors-kings-barons/
In an offseason mailbag 15 years ago, I innocuously referred to Georgia as a “regional power.” This was midway through Mark Richt’s tenure, a decade before Kirby Smart would come in and turn the program into a behemoth. Still, many Bulldogs fans took this as a slight at the time.
The next week, Adam from Philadelphia — a Penn State fan — asked me: “Can you give us rankings of schools and their prestige and place in the national scene?”
So I decided to divide all power conference teams into a four-tiered feudal hierarchy: Kings, Barons, Knights and Peasants. For reasons I don’t understand but immensely appreciate, loyal readers reference my entirely subjective rankings to this day. The list is only partially tied to actual on-field performance. It’s more a measuring stick of which programs’ brands carry the most national cachet.
(emphasis mine above)
He updates it only every 5 years because he feels teams change levels very slowly.
Last time he did it (in 2022) it was Emperor/Kings/Barons/Knights/Paupers. Emperor is a fairly recent addition (for AL’s dominance – maybe that goes away next time with UGA passing them lately?).
Emperor: Alabama
Kings: Clemson, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, USC
Barons: Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Iowa, Miami, Michigan State, Nebraska, Oregon, Penn State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Wisconsin
Knights: Arizona State, Arkansas, Baylor, BYU, Cal, Georgia Tech, Kansas State, Kentucky, Louisville, Minnesota, Mississippi State, Missouri, UNC, NC State, Northwestern, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Pitt, South Carolina, Stanford, TCU, Texas Tech, UCLA, Utah, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Washington
Peasants: Arizona, Boston College, Colorado, Duke, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Maryland, Oregon State, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Washington State, Vanderbilt, Virginia
It does largely follow W%. A sub-0.500 program should expect to be a pauper. MN and NW are borderline Knights at best, and PU probably fits in with them right on that edge. But PU has zero football brand status outside of the state of IN, and that’s reflected by their standing here. Maybe making the CCG that one time will get them bumped up next time.
Purdue’s record against OSU is kind of strange, because if it were indicative of their true playing strength, their overall record should be a lot better. Sometimes a team has another team’s number without being able to replicate those results against other opponents. That seems to be what happened here.
1. OSU players often struggle to take PU seriously, so they often come in flat. Especially younger players.
2. Tresselball gave PU too many chances.
3. It’s a road game issue only – maybe the bus ride does it. OSU is 9-0 vs PU in Columbus since 1993, but 5-5 on the road. PU got to host some of the weakest OSU teams: 2000 (8-4, loss helped get Cooper fired), 2004 (8-4), 2011 (6-7, Fickell got demoted). But 2009 and 2018, OSU just got beat.
LikeLike
Brian, it is nonsense. The football “brands’ of so-called Knights Cal, Louisville, Northwestern, K State, West Virginia and UNC do not carry more “national cachet” than Peons Colorado (former NC), Syracuse (former NC), Illinois, Iowa State or Purdue. It is complete gibberish.
LikeLike
The Peasants would make an interesting conference, many former football Kings, good basketball.
LikeLike
The football “brands’ of so-called Knights Cal, Louisville, Northwestern, K State, West Virginia and UNC do not carry more “national cachet” than Peons Colorado (former NC), Syracuse (former NC), Illinois, Iowa State or Purdue. It is complete gibberish.
There are definitely a few at the margins that I’d question. In a subjective ranking that is bound to be the case.
With that said, Syracuse won their NC in 1959. Their last appearance in a NY6 (or equivalent) bowl was a quarter-century ago. They’ve made it to a bowl just two of the past 10 seasons. They have just one season of the last 20 that they finished ranked. They have zero CCG appearances.
Northwestern has appeared in two CCGs in the past 5 years. They’ve finished ranked in 4 of the past 10 seasons and 12 of the past 20 seasons, going to bowls in 5 of the past 10 seasons. I do think a rational person could say Northwestern is on a higher level than Syracuse.
Are you telling me you cannot see the difference here? Of those I spot-checked, the one that definitely does not make sense to me is Cal, but one mistake does not invalidate the whole list.
LikeLike
Marc: ” I do think a rational person could say Northwestern is on a higher level than Syracuse.”
I do not think a rational person could say Northwestern is on a higher level than Purdue. This asinine ranking has “Knight” Northwestern ranked above “Peon” Purdue. Now, NW has had a little revival since Fitz arrived but nonetheless Purdue leads the all-time series 52-32-1 and since 2000 it’s been tied 10-10. During the past four years of conference play, NW was 1-8, 1-8, 6-2 and 1-8. During the same time, Purdue was 6-3, 6-3, 2-4 and 3-6.
In addition to Cal and NW, another absurd choice is UNC. This ain’t basketball. Tell us about UNC’s “football cachet”.
LikeLike
Marc,
“The football “brands’ of so-called Knights Cal, Louisville, Northwestern, K State, West Virginia and UNC do not carry more “national cachet” than Peons Colorado (former NC), Syracuse (former NC), Illinois, Iowa State or Purdue. It is complete gibberish.”
There are definitely a few at the margins that I’d question. In a subjective ranking that is bound to be the case.
It’s almost the whole point of subjective rankings.
CU is in the cellar right now. They’ve had 1 winning season since 2005, and a W% of 0.356 (#116 in the nation). SU has also been bad over that period (0.395, #105). So have IL (0.373, #111), PU (0.407, #101) and ISU (0.417, #100).
WVU: #29, 0.629
UL: #37, 0.584
KSU: #40, 0.577 – 3rd most appearances in B12CG (4), with 2 wins
NW: #51, 0.548 – tied for 4th most B10CG appearances with UM and IA (2)
Cal: #70, 0.497
UNC: #84, 0.473 – tied for 5th most appearances in ACCCG (2)
I agree that Cal and UNC seem odd. Cal had a brief run under Tedford, but that’s faded. UNC was good under Mack Brown, then faded, and has recently revived.
Northwestern has appeared in two CCGs in the past 5 years. They’ve finished ranked in 4 of the past 10 seasons and 12 of the past 20 seasons, going to bowls in 5 of the past 10 seasons. I do think a rational person could say Northwestern is on a higher level than Syracuse.
Mandel is also a NW grad.
Are you telling me you cannot see the difference here? Of those I spot-checked, the one that definitely does not make sense to me is Cal, but one mistake does not invalidate the whole list.
But if it doesn’t give the order the reader wants, then it must be garbage.
LikeLike
I do not think a rational person could say Northwestern is on a higher level than Purdue.
This is ridiculously easy. At the time of the last update (mid-2022):
1) NW had two CCG appearances in the past five years. Purdue had zero.
2) NW had five ranked seasons in the previous ten years. Purdue had zero.
3) NW had six winning seasons in the previous ten years. Purdue had one.
You still cannot see a difference?????
LikeLike
All-time records vs Big Ten opponents:
Peon Purdue .455
Peon Illinois .443
Knight Northwestern .372
LikeLike
Peon Purdue .455
Peon Illinois .443
Knight Northwestern .372
Historical records matter somewhat, which is why Texas is still a king. But success many years ago counts for less, and eventually recedes into irrelevance.
Purdue: No ranked seasons in the past 10 years and no CCGs (as of mid-2022)
Illinois: No ranked seasons in the past 10 years and no CCGs
Northwestern: 5 ranked seasons in the past 10 years and 2 CCGs
Still don’t see the difference?
LikeLike
ESPN College GameDay podcast with Rece Davis and Pete Thamel. At the beginning they discuss the SEC sticking with 8 games and if the CFP committee should hold it against them. I thought it was interesting to hear ESPN people talk about it when they are beholden to both sides of the discussion. Davis is still an SEC apologist.
Then they switch to Thamel covering Congress and NIL.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/37864747/sources-san-diego-st-tells-mountain-west-plans-exit
SDSU is leaving the MWC, but not officially. They hope the P12 gives them an offer. Otherwise the B12 is their backup plan. They asked the MWC for an extra 30 days (the normal deadline is 6/30) because they don’t have an offer yet. I hope the MWC says no.
San Diego State gave the Mountain West written notice this week that the school “intends to resign from the Mountain West Conference,” sources told ESPN.
In a letter, the school asked the Mountain West for a “one-month extension given unforeseen delays involving other collegiate athletic conferences beyond our control.” As of now, there does not appear to be an invitation to San Diego State from a Power 5 conference.
The withdrawal letter, which came from San Diego State president Adela de la Torre on Tuesday, brought complexities and prompted a tense back-and-forth between the league and the school. SDSU subsequently informed the league that the letter was “not the official notice of resignation,” according to sources.
…
“SDSU is exploring all of the options and asking all the questions,” the source said. “The intention of the June 13 letter wasn’t that San Diego State is exiting.”
Along with the one-month extension requested in Tuesday’s letter, the school also asked the league to consider discussing the exit fee. SDSU noted the income the Aztecs have generated for the Mountain West through the NCAA basketball tournament — estimated this March to be at least $10 million — none of which it see if it leaves the league.
San Diego State requested that a four-year installment plan be considered for the exit fee. As of now, SDSU would have to pay the fee by June 2024, which would include the league withholding payment of its distribution to the school.
The Mountain West responded, informing the school in a letter Wednesday that the conference had accepted the letter of withdrawal and that the consequences of the move had begun. Those include that de la Torre’s seat on the MW board of directors is being pulled and that under league policies, its financial obligation tied to withdrawal will be withheld.
That prompted another communication from San Diego State to clarify that the June 13 letter was not an official resignation, just a request for an extension. It also asked that no payments be withheld. Mountain West schools are expecting a check for nearly $6 million in the upcoming weeks.
“They’re trying to find out what we’re willing to do,” a Mountain West source briefed on the exchange said. “They want to see if the Mountain West Conference is going to handle this nicely. Well, that’s not going to happen. Everyone wants to find the best financial path for themselves, and it’s clunky.”
LikeLike
The intention of the June 13 letter wasn’t that San Diego State is exiting.
This is practically amateur-hour stuff. You don’t send such a letter, and then say, “Oh, we are not exiting!” What did they think the Mountain West would do? (“Sure, you can take an extra 30 days to decide, and we will happily provide your next distribution.”)
Either SDSU has very strong assurances that have not leaked to the media (unlikely); or they are taking a very big risk. The Mountain West would probably take them back, since there is no imaginable replacement that they’d rather have. But still, it would be a huge and expensive embarrassment.
LikeLike
Yes, especially when conference by-laws tend to have standards for behavior that constitute indicating withdrawal. The “we didn’t mean it” letter doesn’t undo that.
As you say, the MWC would presumably take them back. But I’m guessing they will withhold paying SDSU until this is cleared up.
LikeLike
As far as I know, the contents of the letter have not been published.
No one really knows the significance or the letter without seeing it. The we did not mean to withdraw position may have merit or may be ridiculous, but without seeing the letter, there is no way to judge that.
LikeLike
Bernie,
We have seen purported quotes from the letter, as well as details of its contents.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/37864747/sources-san-diego-st-tells-mountain-west-plans-exit
San Diego State gave the Mountain West written notice this week that the school “intends to resign from the Mountain West Conference,” sources told ESPN.
In a letter, the school asked the Mountain West for a “one-month extension given unforeseen delays involving other collegiate athletic conferences beyond our control.” As of now, there does not appear to be an invitation to San Diego State from a Power 5 conference.
…
Along with the one-month extension requested in Tuesday’s letter, the school also asked the league to consider discussing the exit fee. SDSU noted the income the Aztecs have generated for the Mountain West through the NCAA basketball tournament — estimated this March to be at least $10 million — none of which it see if it leaves the league.
San Diego State requested that a four-year installment plan be considered for the exit fee. As of now, SDSU would have to pay the fee by June 2024, which would include the league withholding payment of its distribution to the school.
The Mountain West responded, informing the school in a letter Wednesday that the conference had accepted the letter of withdrawal and that the consequences of the move had begun. Those include that de la Torre’s seat on the MW board of directors is being pulled and that under league policies, its financial obligation tied to withdrawal will be withheld.
That prompted another communication from San Diego State to clarify that the June 13 letter was not an official resignation, just a request for an extension. It also asked that no payments be withheld. Mountain West schools are expecting a check for nearly $6 million in the upcoming weeks.
LikeLike
It’s a bit more complicated than that because SDSU also sent the letter to the other eleven MWC presidents. From The Athletic:
“Last week, San Diego State president Adela de la Torre sent a letter to the Mountain West’s other 11 presidents and commissioner Gloria Nevarez, indicating that San Diego State intended to leave the conference and wanted to discuss extending the conference’s June 30 exit fee deadline by another month, or perhaps lowering the fee or paying it over a longer period of time.
“Because the letter was sent to all of the league presidents, the rest of the Mountain West interpreted it as SDSU officially triggering its exit from the league. Conference bylaws require “written notice to the Conference and the other Members on or before the preceding June 30.”
LikeLike
Another issue to ponder: Whe UCLA jumped from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten, the University of California Board of Regents forced UCLA to pay ‘reparations’ to Cal-Berkeley. So if SDSU jumps from the MWC to the Pac-12, will SDSU be forced to pay reparations to San Jose State and Fresno State?
LikeLike
If SDSU jumps from the MWC to the Pac-12, will SDSU be forced to pay reparations to San Jose State and Fresno State?
I think the basis for the reparations was the diminished payout of the Pac-12, compared to what it would’ve been if the two LA schools had stayed. I don’t know if the TV value of the MWC goes down if SDSU leaves. If so, San Jose State and Fresno State would seem to have a similar claim.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think the basis for the reparations was the diminished payout of the Pac-12, compared to what it would’ve been if the two LA schools had stayed.
But while Cal is now making less, SDSU will be getting a big pay raise. UCLA should use that as a counter-argument, because SDSU had no chance at a P12 invitation unless the LA schools left. Plus, adding SDSU (and maybe SMU) may reduce the loss in TV value Cal experiences. CA should look at the big picture, not just UCLA leaving.
I don’t know if the TV value of the MWC goes down if SDSU leaves. If so, San Jose State and Fresno State would seem to have a similar claim.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/aztecs/story/2023-06-19/san-diego-state-sdsu-aztecs-conference-realignment-mountain-west-pac-12-june-30-deadline-letters-exit-fee
“The Mountain West has argued that if SDSU leaves, the media rights deal with CBS and Fox could be restructured for less money in a worsening economy and the exit fee is a way to recoup some of that loss.”
Composition clauses are typical in these TV deals, and San Diego is one of the MWC’s larger home markets that they actually are top dog in.
LikeLike
Jim Williams says a B10 source indicates the B10 is eyeing Miami and UNC as the next expansion targets (but may be 2030s).
It would be interesting to know how various B10 presidents are thinking. The appeal of the states of FL and NC are obvious.
1. But GA is slightly larger than NC, so does GT’s “little brother status” eliminate them? Does GA being SEC territory eliminate them?
2. If so, is that why FSU wasn’t mentioned (UF territory)? Is Miami so far away from UF and so different culturally that it is acceptable? Or is it AAU status keeping FSU off the list?
3. NC doesn’t dominate the state of NC, though they are the top brand (like Iowa vs ISU). Would NCSU be a fallback option? What if NCSU made AAU before then? Does UNC’s lack of football brand matter?
4. What about VA? It’s the 12th largest state, borders MD, and has plenty of B10 alumni. But do they think UMD brings NoVA (where most of the B10 alumni are) enough that UVA doesn’t add much? Is the problem that DC is the only major market in/near VA, and UMD already brings it? VT is more popular in football and a bigger brand with better history. Are they an option? What if they get AAU membership?
5. Some people say Clemson should be included among the ACC candidates. It’s a top football brand right now, and a decent school. But SC isn’t a large state and also lacks a major market. It also lacks B10 alumni. But if football strength is important, Clemson + FSU would help close the gap to the SEC.
6. Where on this relative scale would the P12 schools fit? Is it ACC or bust? I know the distance/time zone issue hurts them. But WA and AZ are the 13th and 14th largest states and have lots of B10 alumni, plus they bring Seattle and Phoenix. UW is a great school and solid brand. ASU is now AAU, but not a brand. Rumors say the LA schools didn’t want more western schools, but they can’t prevent it.
LikeLike
Jim Williams says a B10 source indicates the B10 is eyeing Miami and UNC as the next expansion targets (but may be 2030s).
Certainly believable, but they get the advantage of 10 more years of data before they have to make a decision. And by that time, I would bet that at least half of the presidents (as well as possibly the commissioner) will be replaced, so it will be different people deciding.
LikeLike
The average college president now has just 5.9 years on the job at US schools, so I’d guess it’ll be closer to 12-15 that have changed (it was 8.5 yrs in 2006).
That’s one reason realignment is so hard to predict. The decisionmakers keep changing, as does the environment (TV, demographics, funding, etc.).
But it is starting to be a consistent theme that the B10 wants into FL. Many sources are saying UNC and UVA are leaning towards the SEC (if they leave the ACC), though, so the B10’s preferences may not matter.
LikeLike
The problem for GaTech is that they are not a major player in any market. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, GaTech is number 4 in the Atlanta market, for behind UGa, and also Alabama and Auburn.
As to the LA schools, we have no idea what they can prevent. In theory at least, at the tome of joining they could have been given a veto over more PAC schools, at least for a period of time – say 5 years or so.
LikeLike
Pac-12 media rights outlook “bleak”
https://www.outkick.com/pac-12-media-rights-outlook-bleak-andrew-marchand/
LikeLike
Bleak enough that the Big 13-22 may come to fruition?
LikeLike
jog267: Bleak enough that the Big 13-22 may come to fruition?
Perhaps. My hunch is that the TV deal is Apple with ballpark comparable money per team as the Big 12 but Apple will insist on 100% of Pac-12 content and 100% streaming plus the Pac-12 adds SDSU and SMU. I doubt Colorado will agree with that and some other Pac schools may also have heartburn about it.
LikeLike
My hunch is that the TV deal is Apple with ballpark comparable money per team as the Big 12 but Apple will insist on 100% of Pac-12 content and 100% streaming plus the Pac-12 adds SDSU and SMU. I doubt Colorado will agree with that and some other Pac schools may also have heartburn about it.
Pac-12 schools want two things: revenue and distribution. A 100% Apple deal that pays $30m per school accomplishes only half of this. They get similar money as the Big 12, but on a distribution platform most of the country doesn’t have.
Such a deal would be an admission of failure, since no conference would take it if similar money were available from a traditional TV partner. I do think some schools are likely to leave if this is the deal. If you are Colorado and you can get identical money to play on Fox and ESPN, then why wouldn’t you take it?
LikeLike
Marc,
Pac-12 schools want two things: revenue and distribution. A 100% Apple deal that pays $30m per school accomplishes only half of this. They get similar money as the Big 12, but on a distribution platform most of the country doesn’t have.
Reporters (Marchand and others) have said that Apple would work with a linear network to broadcast some of the games (presumably also streamed) – like they do with MLS. That’s how Apple would advertise to draw more subscribers to watch the other games. It wouldn’t make business sense for Apple to only stream all the games. The question is how many games they air that way. I’d think at least 1 per week.
People also seem to forget that a lot of B12 games will be streaming on ESPN+ under the new deal, and that many P12 games are already buried on P12N. Apple is higher visibility than P12N.
Such a deal would be an admission of failure, since no conference would take it if similar money were available from a traditional TV partner. I do think some schools are likely to leave if this is the deal. If you are Colorado and you can get identical money to play on Fox and ESPN, then why wouldn’t you take it?
Is it failure? Of course they’d prefer a B10-like deal, but that was never an option. ESPN lowballed them with an offer that was almost guaranteed to lead to schools leaving. Fox focused on the B10 with the B12 as filler. What if streaming takes off over the next few years? Maybe the P12 would be seen as ahead of the curve.
I’ll reserve judgment until we see what the actual P12 deal is. How many games where, and for how much money?
LikeLike
Reporters (Marchand and others) have said that Apple would work with a linear network to broadcast some of the games (presumably also streamed) – like they do with MLS.
I was reacting to Colin’s prediction of 100% streaming. If there is an OTA partner, then of course we need to see which partner, how many games, and so on.
People also seem to forget that a lot of B12 games will be streaming on ESPN+ under the new deal, and that many P12 games are already buried on P12N. Apple is higher visibility than P12N.
True, but P12N is generally where the inferior content goes—sort of like having your game on the Big Ten Network, but with far worse distribution. For the P12N’s current content, I think they’d accept Apple in a heartbeat. The question is what happens to the top games.
What if streaming takes off over the next few years? Maybe the P12 would be seen as ahead of the curve.
This sounds eerily similar to Larry Scott saying the Pac-12 would be better off owning and operating its own networks when no other league had done it that way. If it had worked, we’d be talking about what a genius he was.
LikeLike
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/Pac-12/2023
ESPN Rights Notes
* At least two games on ABC, with one game required to air in primetime on the east coast
* Up to twenty games on ESPN Networks (ESPN, ESPN2 & ESPNU)
* Of the twenty games on ESPN Networks, up to four games on Thursday nights & up to four games on Friday night.
* Up to four of the twenty games can air on ESPNU
* Most ESPN/ESPN2 Saturday games will air at 10pm or 10:30pm ET
FSMG Rights Notes
* A minimum of eight games on FOX
* A maximum of fourteen games on FS1
* At least four games on FOX will air in primetime.
Overall, the conference works with both ESPN and FOX to place at least four games on Thursdays and another four games on Fridays, including the day after Thanksgiving. FOX and ESPN will alternate airing the Pac-12 Championship Game. In even-numbered seasons, FOX will air the game. ESPN has the rights in odd-numbered years.
The conference has also created the Pac-12 Networks, a mix of six regional networks and a national network feed, to air all other games.
A school may not appear more than nine times combined in the ESPN and FOX packages. This is to allow the Pac-12 Networks to air at least one game from every school, assuming a school plays at least one home non-conference game.
The P12N gets 30+ games already, out of roughly 78.
P12 TV breakdown:
P12N – at least 30
ABC – at least 2 games
ESPN family – up to 20
Fox – at least 8
FS1 – up to 14
Disney = 22, Fox = 22 (44 combined)
OTA = at least 10
cable = up to 34
P12N = the rest
Last year P12N had 37 games, which is more than 50% of all their games. Sure, they’re the worst games but it is still half of their inventory. Apple is an improvement for those games. Apple has low subscriber numbers, but it has the money to drive some growth and absorb short term losses if needed.
* 8 of their ESPN family games may be weeknight games, which hurts viewership.
* Most of the ESPN family games are in the late window, which hurts viewership.
* 4 ESPNU games aren’t much/any better than Apple either.
So it’s really just the 10+ OTA games (only 5 promised to be prime time games) that would get hurt a lot by going to Apple.
I’m not disagreeing that that is a concern, but I don’t think most people realize how bad their visibility already is. Maybe they can get a deal for 5-10 games plus the CCG OTA, and then they’d be about as well off as they are now.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth: SMU apparently thinks they’re getting a P12 invitation.
LikeLike
Pac-12 hires new CFO. The timing of this is downright weird.
https://sports.yahoo.com/pac-12-makes-eye-opening-141440461.html
LikeLike
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/from-big-ten-to-nfl-how-coaches-fare-at-developing-pros-on-offense
Fox Sports looked at how the various B10 coaches do at developing players for the NFL at each major position group.
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/prepping-for-the-nfl-how-big-ten-coaches-compare-at-developing-defensive-stars
It’s not just singing the praises of OSU for recruiting well, and only looks at the years under the current head coach.
LikeLike
https://www.nj.com/rutgers/2022/11/how-big-ten-changed-rutgers-beyond-athletics.html
This piece (3rd in a series of articles) about RU is a good explanation of the non-athletic value to B10 membership. It’s all about the ways RU has grown off the field in their 10 years in the B10.
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2022/11/how-rutgers-crashed-the-big-ten.html
1st in the series, and I’m sure we linked it here last year, this one is about how RU joined the B10. I link it again for this relevant quote to some recent discussion topics:
[Adding PSU in 1990] also added an unlikely advocate for further eastward expansion: Joe Paterno.
The longtime Penn State coach believed that 11 was an awkward number for a conference and that a natural East Coast rival should be next to join the conference. Paterno pushed for Rutgers from the beginning — and that continued when two of his former assistants, Dick Anderson and Greg Schiano, became head coaches in Piscataway.
“Penn State always was interested in going to 12 (members),” Delany said in a rare interview since stepping down as Big Ten commissioner in 2019. “Penn State always was very supportive of Rutgers. They did a lot of recruiting there. Dick Anderson was a Penn State guy. Schiano had been on the staff. There were a lot of connections there.”
Months after the Big Ten added Penn State, Rutgers sent what was described in newspaper accounts as “an extensive report” to the league in late 1990 seeking consideration as its 12th member. The 75-page package, entitled “Advantage: Rutgers” is the first known formal outreach, and it concentrated on the influential alumni, academic standing and — in an important bit of foreshadowing — the size of the New York and Philadelphia television markets.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37894173/cfp-executive-director-bill-hancock-step-2025
Bill Hancock is finally stepping down from running the CFP after this season. He has been in charge of ruining CFB since 2005. Good riddance.
Will Jack Swarbrick be the choice for this, or yet another TV person who is clueless about college sports?
College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock will retire when his contract expires Feb. 1, 2025, the CFP announced following a routine June meeting in Half Moon Bay, California, on Wednesday.
Hancock, 72, will remain in his current position through the 2023-2024 season. He’ll then take on a consultant role to the new executive director when the CFP expands from the current four-team playoff to the new 12-team format for the 2024-25 season.
LikeLike
I know you are anti-playoff, but given its existence, what would a “good” head of the playoff have looked like to you?
I agree that Swarbrick is a very likely successor.
LikeLike
Swarbrick is the worst possible successor. The last thing we need in the CFP is a domer on the inside devising rules that will reward hand-picked schedules and punish schools that play in CCGs.
LikeLike
Swarbrick was one of the architects of both the 4-team and the 12-team playoff. He didn’t use any subterfuge, bribery, or blackmail to get that role. No, he got it because the others all trusted him. The committee repeatedly chose Swarbrick as their spokesman. These events spanned quite a few years — plenty of time for them to notice if he was unfairly putting his thumb on the scale for Notre Dame.
You might not remember this, but some people were surprised that the 12-team playoff was designed so that Notre Dame can never get a first-round bye. They figured that Swarbrick would not let that happen. Of course, Swarbrick was only one of four on the committee, so he could not have done it on his own. But if he opposed that aspect of the plan, the secret is so far very well kept.
Given that the people who observed Swarbrick closely kept choosing him as one of the architects of the plan and key spokesman, I’ve no objection to him as next head of the playoff. He is probably the most qualified person who would accept.
LikeLike
Marc,
Swarbrick was one of the architects of both the 4-team and the 12-team playoff.
That’s 2 huge strikes against him.
He didn’t use any subterfuge, bribery, or blackmail to get that role.
How do you/we know that?
No, he got it because the others all trusted him.
He’s a lawyer and ND’s AD. Anyone dumb enough to trust a word that comes out of his mouth is not smart enough to be respected.
The committee repeatedly chose Swarbrick as their spokesman.
So maybe he was really good at blackmail.
These events spanned quite a few years — plenty of time for them to notice if he was unfairly putting his thumb on the scale for Notre Dame.
Noticing and fighting it are different things. Some people have been brainwashed into believing ND deserves a special place in CFB with rights and powers no other school has. That doesn’t make them correct.
Given that the people who observed Swarbrick closely kept choosing him as one of the architects of the plan and key spokesman, I’ve no objection to him as next head of the playoff. He is probably the most qualified person who would accept.
People keep “choosing” Putin and Xi, too. Is that supposed to impress me?
Crazy idea – why not try to select a leader who might have at least the appearance of neutrality?
LikeLike
Marc: “You might not remember this, but some people were surprised that the 12-team playoff was designed so that Notre Dame can never get a first-round bye.”
I not only remember it, that is actually the foremost reason that Swarbrick should NOT replace Bill Hancock. The Domers think they have been royally screwed in the 12-team CFP format because they cannot get a first-round bye. Those four slots are reserved for conference champions.
The Domers refer to this as the “independence penalty” or “independence tax” and of course, they want the rule changed so that they can have first-round access.
https://fightingirishwire.usatoday.com/lists/independence-but-at-what-cost/
LikeLike
That’s 2 huge strikes against him.
This is now veering into delusional nonsense. I can understand and respect the reasons for not liking the playoff. Given that it exists, and its owners want it to succeed, the playoff head is going to be a supporter. Anything else would be lunacy.
How do you/we know that?
You’ve got me there. He is not known to have used any subterfuge, bribery, or blackmail. If he did so, the secret has been extraordinarily well kept.
He’s a lawyer and ND’s AD. Anyone dumb enough to trust a word that comes out of his mouth is not smart enough to be respected.
Whether you respect them or not, they are the ones deciding unless they are all replaced, but the replacements would probably be similar people.
Some people have been brainwashed into believing ND deserves a special place in CFB with rights and powers no other school has. That doesn’t make them correct.
They have correctly figured out that it’s in their best interest. If they make it too tough for ND to be independent, the Irish could be forced to join a conference. Contractually, they’d be compelled to join the ACC, an outcome that nobody but the ACC wants. If ND could break their contract with the ACC, they’d likely join the Big Ten, an outcome that nobody but the Big Ten wants.
People keep “choosing” Putin and Xi, too. Is that supposed to impress me?
Most of Putin and Xi’s constituents have about as much say in the choice as I would have in choosing a playoff head. The playoff’s board of governors do have the option to pick someone else, barring your secret blackmail theory.
LikeLike
Marc,
This is now veering into delusional nonsense. I can understand and respect the reasons for not liking the playoff. Given that it exists, and its owners want it to succeed, the playoff head is going to be a supporter. Anything else would be lunacy.
That was just my personal opinion, not how I think the powers that be view him.
You’ve got me there. He is not known to have used any subterfuge, bribery, or blackmail. If he did so, the secret has been extraordinarily well kept.
Keeping it secret is the only way blackmail works.
Whether you respect them or not, they are the ones deciding unless they are all replaced, but the replacements would probably be similar people.
And equally undeserving of respect. A pox on all their houses.
They have correctly figured out that it’s in their best interest.
No, they haven’t. They have decided (or assumed) it’s in their best interest. There is no evidence that they are correct.
If they make it too tough for ND to be independent, the Irish could be forced to join a conference. Contractually, they’d be compelled to join the ACC, an outcome that nobody but the ACC wants. If ND could break their contract with the ACC, they’d likely join the Big Ten, an outcome that nobody but the Big Ten wants.
Tough has nothing to do with it. Why aren’t all independents treated the same? All P5 conference members are. All G5 conference members are. All 10 conferences get 1 representative on the executive committee, but so does ND. Why do they get the same vote as 14 SEC members combined? Why do they get a vote at all when they are also an ACC member? Why not a true independent instead? Why do they get an annual multi-million dollar payout regardless of performance?
Most of Putin and Xi’s constituents have about as much say in the choice as I would have in choosing a playoff head. The playoff’s board of governors do have the option to pick someone else, barring your secret blackmail theory.
So you agree, being repeatedly chosen is not evidence of competence.
LikeLike
Why aren’t all independents treated the same?
Because the leaders of the sport recognize ND’s unique ability to move the market. I am not a Domer—quite the opposite. I don’t have to like Notre Dame’s market position, to recognize that it in fact exists.
As far as I can tell, no conference commissioner or university president begrudges ND’s unique position. They all want to be in partnership with the Irish. None of the other independents have asked to be treated the same, probably because they know it would be nonsense.
So you agree, being repeatedly chosen is not evidence of competence.
To put it differently, I see no evidence of the coercion or corruption that would explain him being repeatedly chosen undeservedly. Thus, the comparison to Putin and Xi is inapposite, since they are corrupt and have the ability to forcibly purge any dissenters — powers Swarbrick is not known to have.
LikeLike
Marc, we all understand ND’s unique image and marketability in college football. That isn’t the issue. We’re talking about the fairness of having ND’s former AD as executive director of the College Football Playoff. The Domers feel the current system is unfair to them because they cannot get a first-round bye while at the same time ignoring the tremendous advantage they have by not playing a conference championship game.
Using the four-team format, we recently had two of the four selectees from the weakest P5 conference: Clemson and ND. Now, obviously both would not have been chosen if they had played each other in a CCG. And obviously this same situation is even more likely to recur with a 12-team CFP. The last thing that college football needs is an executive director of the College Football Playoff who is working on the inside to get ND a first-round bye.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Because the leaders of the sport recognize ND’s unique ability to move the market. I am not a Domer—quite the opposite. I don’t have to like Notre Dame’s market position, to recognize that it in fact exists.”
That’s fine for paying them more, though they should have to justify the numbers. Army is unique too. Why does ND get 14x (soon to be 16x) the voting power of an AL or OSU? Why do they get more voting power than other independents? The 10 conferences all get 1 vote each.
“As far as I can tell, no conference commissioner or university president begrudges ND’s unique position.”
Sure they do, they just can’t say it publicly.
“They all want to be in partnership with the Irish.”
Those are not mutually exclusive.
“None of the other independents have asked to be treated the same, probably because they know it would be nonsense.”
Were they asked?
“To put it differently, I see no evidence of the coercion or corruption that would explain him being repeatedly chosen undeservedly.”
Corruption and coercion are everywhere in CFB – recruiting, NIL, gambling, conference management, CFP management, bowl management, officiating, …
“Thus, the comparison to Putin and Xi is inapposite, since they are corrupt and have the ability to forcibly purge any dissenters — powers Swarbrick is not known to have.”
The Catholic church has proven to be just as corrupt and able to purge dissenters as anyone else over history. They still have infinitely deep pockets to get things done today, if not the direct power they used to have.
LikeLike
Marc, we all understand ND’s unique image and marketability in college football. That isn’t the issue. We’re talking about the fairness of having ND’s former AD as executive director of the College Football Playoff.
Whomever they pick will be an alumnus of something. Bill Hancock was an Oklahoma official and later a Big 8 official.
Using the four-team format, we recently had two of the four selectees from the weakest P5 conference: Clemson and ND. Now, obviously both would not have been chosen if they had played each other in a CCG.
I am not sure what you are talking about. There was only one occasion that Clemson and ND both made the playoff without facing each other in a CCG: 2018. There were not two selectees from the weakest conference—Notre Dame was independent. Clemson was 13–0, ND was 12–0.
There is no imaginable system where an undefeated ND is not a playoff team, unless you believe that independents should have been categorically disallowed. Bill Connelly says ND had #10 strength of schedule in the country that year — certainly not the patty-cake schedule that they are sometimes accused of playing.
LikeLike
Marc,
A good head of a terrible thing would act to end the terrible thing as quickly as possible.
The least bad playoff head would’ve fought the influences of ESPN, ND and the SEC. They would’ve torpedoed the committee as the glorified Harris Poll that it is, they would’ve fought for the importance of conference championships and games already played, and would’ve demanded neutrality from media partners. They would’ve demanded transparency and consistency. They would’ve recognized the importance of fan and game site geography. They wouldn’t have given ND such outsized influence (1 vote just like an entire P5 conference, a large annual payment, etc.). They wouldn’t have put the HQ in TX or hired a former SEC executive as their assistant.
LikeLike
I suspect you are greatly exaggerating the role that job is supposed to have. The schools are not going to hire someone to destroy the thing they want. That’s something a playoff opponent might do, but they are not going to hire someone opposed to it.
LikeLike
Marc,
I suspect you are greatly exaggerating the role that job is supposed to have.
No, that is the what that role should be. Someone with the power and the spine to stand up to anyone and everyone. That isn’t what the schools wanted, so they picked an ineffectual punching bag to take the blame for every bad decision.
The schools are not going to hire someone to destroy the thing they want.
I know, but that’s the only possible course for a “good” head of the CFP in my opinion. Some things you just can’t fix, you have to end it.
That’s why I went on to discuss the least bad option instead, to address your question.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
CFP executive director Bill Hancock to retire in 2025: Who could replace him?
By Nicole Auerbach and The Athletic Staff Jun 21, 2023
Bill Hancock, executive director of the College Football Playoff, will step down from his role at the end of this season and then officially retire when his contract expires on Feb. 1, 2025, he announced in a news release Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:
Hancock, 72, assumed the role shortly after the CFP was created in 2012 and will begin his 19th season working in postseason football this fall.
The CFP is expanding to 12 teams after the 2023-24 season.
Mississippi State president Mark Keenum, chairman of the CFP board of managers, said he anticipates that Hancock will “shift to a new role with the CFP in 2024 to help with the transition” to its new executive director. Keenan added that the CFP will “initiate a national search for a new executive director to take over when (Hancock) steps away.”
Longtime Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher told The Athletic on Wednesday that Hancock will be “tough to replace.”
The Athletic’s instant analysis:
Why now?
Hancock will have 18 months before he’s officially gone, but the timing makes a ton of sense. He oversaw the transition from the BCS to the CFP and now the CFP’s move from a four-team field to a 12-team bracket. He’ll be in his current role for the coming season and then an advisory role for 2024-25, which should allow for a long transition period.
Hancock has devoted so much of his life to this sport, but as it continues to change drastically, it makes sense for new blood. — Auerbach
Who could come next
This job has only ever belonged to Hancock, so its opening is particularly intriguing. The CFP board could go in any number of directions on this hire.
Perhaps the presidents opt to go with a sitting or former athletics administrator. Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick, who has been part of the CFP Management Committee ever since the CFP’s inception, recently announced he is stepping down from Notre Dame but did not say he was retiring from college sports. Former Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby still lives in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where the CFP is headquartered. Ohio State AD Gene Smith has been a leading voice amid so much change in college sports — could he be interested in such a job? What about former CFP COO Michael Kelly, the current athletic director at USF?
Perhaps the CFP opts to follow recent hiring trends at the Power 5 commissioner level and go outside of college sports for someone with experience in pro sports or as a media executive. Or someone with more of a traditional events or operations background, since the role is heavy on that. — Auerbach
What they’re saying
In a news release, Hancock called his time with the CFP “a dream come true.”
He added: “The plan was established several years ago for me to notify the CFP Board of Managers a year in advance if I decided to step aside, in order to provide ample time to plan a smooth transition to the next executive director.
“I’m advising the board now, so the new executive director will have a long on-ramp, as he or she prepares to guide the CFP into the 12-team era.”
On Hancock, Steinbrecher told The Athletic, “Bill has been an outstanding steward of building and growing the Playoff as well as being a steward of college football. He had a unique opportunity to build an event from scratch or from where it was initially placed. And he’s done an outstanding job.”
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said in a statement he is “thrilled” for Hancock as he begins “this next chapter.”
“Bill Hancock has led the highest level of postseason college football for nearly two decades and has done so with incredible steadiness and collaboration,” Phillips said. “His love for college athletics, and specifically the student-athletes, has radiated throughout his 50-year distinguished career and we look forward to his continued expertise. Bill is a wonderful friend who has poured his heart and soul into his family, friends and profession.”
Backstory
In addition to being the first director of the CFP, Hancock was the first full-time director of the NCAA Men’s Final Four and the first administrator of the BCS. He spent 16 years with the basketball tournament before joining the BCS in 2005.
LikeLike
Breaking news . . . Auburn captures the National Collegiate Bass Fishing Championship.
https://www.wsj.com/sports/auburn-bass-fishing-team-champions-9f553ec?st=uvwayvxq4ze7jy8&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
National Collegiate Bass Fishing Championship
Surely, you jest. Do you get fries with the trophy?
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2023-acc-win-totals-odds-picks-clemson-florida-state-aim-high-while-facing-large-numbers/
Alan, how are the Tiger faithful reacting to the LSU penalties? Les Miles not being HoF eligible is a notable indirect penalty, but I doubt the NCAA did that math in advance.
LSU’s football program has been charged with three violations stemming from a wide-ranging ruling from the NCAA’s Independent Resolution Panel (IRP), handed down Thursday, that also includes the men’s basketball program. As part of the ruling, the football program received a Level I violation, a Level II violation and a Level III violation. Not only was LSU hit with a three-year probation sentence, which is set to end on Sept. 21, 2023, but the football team was forced to vacate 37 of its wins from the 2012-15 season due to the Level I violation.
Vacating victories is significant, as it drops former coach Les Miles’ career record to 108-73 with a winning percentage of .597. That means that he no longer meets the .600 career winning percentage requirement for College Football Hall of Fame candidates. The Tigers must also forfeit two bowl wins from that span.
According to the NCAA’s release, the Level I violation dates back to 2012 when a representative of LSU’s athletics interests paid the father of a prospective athlete a total of $180,150 over a five-year span as part of an embezzlement scheme. The athlete enrolled at LSU and competed from 2012-16. The representative has been disassociated from the program for 10 years.
LikeLike
Brian – relief. LSU already self-imposed several penalties and the NCAA took that into consideration. The so called “representative of LSU athletics interests” acted completely on his own and is serving time in a federal prison.
Les Miles is now persona non grata around here.
LikeLike
Personally I’ve never liked the notion of vacating every single game that one guy played in, especially if it’s true that the athletic department didn’t know and couldn’t have known that the kid’s father was on the take.
LikeLike
Once you know an ineligible player played in a game, you cannot allow that team to keep the win. Otherwise every team will “unknowingly” play all sorts of ineligible players and only discover it after the season. There has to be a price for that. As is, they still have the memories, and the recruiting boost from the wins, and the bowl swag.
It’s not like this was a $5 burger or something. He took $180k.
LikeLike
It’s true that $180k is a substantial sum, but the principle works the same regardless of the amount. In the Ohio State tattoo scandal, for example, I think the maximum amount for any player was $2,500.
LikeLike
And we vacated games for it, because we won with ineligible players. If you don’t follow the rules in a sport, it’s just anarchy. Ineligible players played. You can’t know which team would’ve won without them playing, so any wins are vacated while losses aren’t.
LikeLike
If you don’t follow the rules in a sport, it’s just anarchy. Ineligible players played. You can’t know which team would’ve won without them playing, so any wins are vacated while losses aren’t.
Vacating wins is uniquely an NCAA punishment. I don’t think they always did it, and I cannot think of another sports regulatory authority that does it. Everywhere else, you just punish the particular people who were guilty, and it seems to work.
For instance, the New England Patriots did not “vacate” the win when Tom Brady illegally deflated the football. And what Brady did is a lot worse: Terrelle Pryor did not perform any better as a quarterback because he sold memorabilia, but Brady got a tangible advantage in the game that his opponent didn’t have.
The Cincinnati Reds did not vacate games that Pete Rose illegally bet on while he was managing them. The Houston Astros didn’t vacate the World Series that they won while they were illegally stealing signs. And so on.
LikeLike
Marc,
Vacating wins is uniquely an NCAA punishment. I don’t think they always did it, and I cannot think of another sports regulatory authority that does it. Everywhere else, you just punish the particular people who were guilty, and it seems to work.
Incorrect. It’s an amateur sports thing. The Olympics does it (medals pass down to those who didn’t cheat, etc.). High schools do it, too. Here’s one example: https://www.highschoolot.com/village-christian-must-forfeit-wins-vacate-championship-placed-on-probation/18251274/
Pro soccer also does similar things, vacating titles and moving a team to last in the standings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calciopoli
Even NASCAR will punish teams with a points penalty.
Apparently the NCAA first used it in 1961 for the MBB gambling scandal.
LikeLike
I figured there had to be a copycat or two. Note that the overwhelming majority of vacated Olympic medals were for individual competitors. This, of course, is a totally fair outcome because it penalizes the one person who deserves it.
But you are plainly incorrect that this is the only way it could imaginably work, because most sports don’t do this, and it does not lead to the anarchy that you predicted.
The Olympics now have the ability to disqualify an entire team for one violator, but that is fairly recent (since 2003). I am somewhat more sympathetic to this approach when an athlete did something that gave them a direct advantage in the competition, even if it means stripping the win from those who were innocent.
But I think it’s completely ridiculous when an athlete off the field does something he is not supposed to, such as selling a trophy or a textbook. If you cheated at the game itself, you should not be entitled to the victory. Illegally selling a championship ring should not change the outcome of a game that was itself contested fairly.
LikeLike
About 20 years ago or so, Wisconsin Madison was put on probation for 5 years and lost scholarships when a bunch of athletes got a special deal for discounted sneakers.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I figured there had to be a copycat or two. Note that the overwhelming majority of vacated Olympic medals were for individual competitors. This, of course, is a totally fair outcome because it penalizes the one person who deserves it.”
That’s because most Olympic sports are individual. When 1 team member gets ineligible, the whole team is punished. See the Russian figure skaters as the most recent example.
“But you are plainly incorrect that this is the only way it could imaginably work,”
I didn’t say that it was the only imaginable way.
“because most sports don’t do this, and it does not lead to the anarchy that you predicted.”
Yes, it does. It leads to large chunks of fans not believing the winners won.
“But I think it’s completely ridiculous when an athlete off the field does something he is not supposed to, such as selling a trophy or a textbook. If you cheated at the game itself, you should not be entitled to the victory. Illegally selling a championship ring should not change the outcome of a game that was itself contested fairly.”
Getting paid “illegally” is a direct advantage in amateur sports. It reduces financial stress and frees up time to focus on your sport rather than a low-paying job. It also entices people to stay in a sport who might otherwise have quit to get paid instead.
LikeLike
That’s the nice thing about vacating wins as a penalty – they don’t really hurt you. You didn’t lose a national title, just some mediocre bowl wins.
This plus his behavior at KU has really tarnished Miles’ legacy.
LikeLike
KU has plans to eliminate 7,000 seats from its football stadium, which would reduce its capacity to 39,839. This would make it the smallest stadium in the Big 12, although incoming members Cincinnati and Houston have stadiums that are only a hair larger. The next-largest stadium among current members is Baylor at 45,140.
The plan is part of a larger proposal that would build a conference center, a hotel, and a concert venue in the stadium’s vicinity. The consultant who came up with the idea would tear up the parking lot, so no more tailgating for Jayhawks fans unless they come up with another place to do it. Like a lot of college football stadiums, the one at Kansas is used only 7 days a year. They seldom fill it.
LikeLike
Yes, but they are going for more premium seating as well. It’s basically what NFL teams have been doing for a while.
— Improvements to the football stadium would include increased premium-seating options, new chairback seating to replace bleacher-style seats, new restrooms and concession areas, additional concourses, new scoreboards and other amenities. The plans call for more than 2,500 “club seats,” which would be a type of premium seating that would include additional services — perhaps concessions and other amenities — as part of their ticket. The plans also call for about 55 new suite-level seats in the stadium.
With a historically terrible program, they’re better off finding other ways to use the stadium and surrounding area to make money. It’s not like they regularly fill the place.
Consultants with Hunden Strategic Partners told KU that the university will still be well served by the smaller capacity stadium. The consultants noted that KU football averaged 26,610 fans during the 2015-2019 seasons, which was a period of few victories for the team. In 2022, when the football program became nationally ranked and bowl bound again, the team averaged less than 35,000 fans per game. While it was not mentioned in the consultant’s report, KU officials during the height of the Mark Mangino era — which included an Orange Bowl victory — touted an average attendance of more than 40,000 fans per game. In 2006, KU officials announced the season average was just over 44,000 per game.
If tickets are more in demand, they can raise prices a bit and probably get more total money.
LikeLike
IMHO, the loss of Texas and Oklahoma will hurt Kansas’ attendance more than a stadium renovation will help it.
LikeLike
KU has been trying for years to find funding to do much needed improvements to their stadium. IIRC their last “big” investment in football (new football building) opened in 2008. The article states that they haven’t secured funding for this attempt either so who knows if this will even happen.
At a high level KU looks like a great expansion candidate. State flagship, AAU, men’s basketball blue blood, and close to KC. Take a closer look and you’ll see they really haven’t invested in anything other than Men’s Basketball. Last five Director’s cup finishes: 61st, 82nd, 62nd, and 57th (x2). Glancing at Wikipedia shows Only 7 (non MBB) Big 12 titles (indoor and outdoor women’s track, volleyball, tennis, baseball, soccer, and softball ) since 2000. Nebraska leaving the Big 12 should have been a wake up call for the KU admin. They needed to invest in football and quickly. For some reason, it didn’t happen. IMO – Kansas has almost a zero chance of the Big Ten or SEC at this point.
LikeLike
Kansas has almost a zero chance of the Big Ten or SEC at this point.
Football drives almost every expansion decision. At this point, the ship for KU has probably sailed. The state’s demographics don’t align very well with the priorities of the SEC and the Big Ten. That isn’t likely to change, even if they miraculously became a football superpower.
I don’t think the SEC wants another Midwest school, so that’s probably out of the question no matter what KU does about their football team. I’m sure the Big Ten looked at KU over the years, but nothing ever came of it. Missouri is better at football than Kansas, and they couldn’t get a Big Ten invitation either.
LikeLike
Bernie,
Now we know exactly what SDSU’s letter to the MWC said.
… this letter is to formally notice that San Diego State University (SDSU) intends to leave the Mountain West Conference (MWC) effective June 30, 2024 or at an agreed upon later date. …”
Even a lawyer can’t claim that isn’t official notice. It literally says that it is.
LikeLike
Such a funny combination of material clearly written by a lawyer and friendly throwaway sentences such as, “It has been an absolute joy to collaborate and compete… (etc.).”
LikeLike
From The Athletic
Letters between San Diego State, Mountain West show discussion, disagreement over exit
By Chris Vannini Jun 26, 2023
As the Mountain West and San Diego State continue their standoff over San Diego State’s future in the league, The Athletic has acquired the letters at the core of the issue.
San Diego State on Monday responded to a public records request filed last week for communications between the Mountain West and SDSU president Adela de la Torre. It further confirms what The Athletic and others reported last week: SDSU said it intended to leave the conference, the Mountain West took the university’s initial correspondence as a formal notice and SDSU claimed it was not.
The MWC has deferred comment to San Diego State, which stands by its original statement: “As there has been a large amount of discussion about conference realignment nationally, we continue to do our due diligence to identify the best opportunity and fit in the interest of both our university and our student-athletes.”
Here is the timeline so far.
June 13
In a letter to “Mountain West Conference and All Members,” de la Torre wrote, “this letter is to formally notice that San Diego State University (SDSU) intends to resign from the Mountain West Conference (MWC) effective June 30, 2024 or at an agreed upon later date. It has been an absolute joy to collaborate and compete with each of the member universities.”
The letter also includes requests to extend the official June 30, 2023 notification deadline for exit by one month, “given unforeseen delays involving other collegiate athletic conferences beyond our control.” De la Torre also asked to discuss the exit fee, considering San Diego State earned $10 million in NCAA men’s basketball tournament units this year, and the possibility of spreading the exit fee over a four-year span.
June 14
Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez replied, thanking San Diego State for its consideration and professionalism and saying the conference received the news “with a heavy heart.” The Mountain West letter also confirmed June 13 as SDSU’s “Notice Date,” the official notice of resignation. It laid out the exit fee (three times the average per-school distribution from the conference, which comes out to around $17 million), the fact that future payouts will be withheld and applied toward the exit fee, and that de la Torre has been removed from the conference Board of Directors, as described in league bylaws.
Nevarez also wrote that she would convene the Board of Directors to review SDSU’s waiver requests over exit fee and dates.
June 15
Looking to backtrack a bit, de la Torre replied to Nevarez, asking to clarify that the school has not officially put in its notice of resignation.
“First, our letter dated June 13, 2023 was not the official notice of resignation from the MWC pursuant to Bylaw 1.04(a). As plainly set forth in that letter, its purpose was twofold: to request a one-month extension of time under which we could formally provide our notice of resignation, and to ask for the opportunity to discuss the exit fee. … Second, because SDSU has not already resigned from the MWC, the formal Notice Date, as defined in Bylaw 1.04(a) has not yet occurred. As such, no such payments due to SDSU from the conference for the previous year should yet be withheld and applied to any future exit fee at this time.”
June 16
Nevarez replied to de la Torre, saying the conference will not approve any waiver over the bylaws and that the conference still considers San Diego State to be on its way out, effective June 30, 2024.
“This letter is not intended to express agreement with any interpretation expressed in the Second Notice Letter (June 15), including those concerning whether your letter, dated June 13, 2023, constitutes a ‘Notice of Resignation’ under the Bylaws. The Conference continues to reserve all rights.”
So what now?
June 30 is Friday. It seems extremely unlikely the Pac-12 will agree to a media rights deal and invite San Diego State before then. The Athletic has put in further public records requests for additional communication between the two sides. If the calendar flips to July with no change, either San Diego State will need to hope a Power 5 invitation comes by next summer, and that it’s one worth accepting, or it will need to mend fences with the Mountain West, even if only for a short period of time.
LikeLike
I agree that is a really ugly letter. A very poor attempt to straddle a line. Claim that notice was given on a timely basis but simultaneously claim an excuse if the PAC does not work out.
Ouch, it saddens me to think that a major educational institution would have a lawyer who is so totally inept. They (SDSU and the lawyer) deserve their fate.
I try to never start with the assumption of gross incompetence or stupidity. Oh, well.
OK, I give up any thoughts that SDSU had an excuse. This letter s&ucks. Yucky poo.
LikeLike
Congrats to Alan’s Tigers on their National Title last night. Last few years have been a great time to be an LSU alum.
LikeLike
Weird series, though, with 2 games having over 20 total runs and each team winning one of them by more than dozen runs.
LikeLike
It really was. I thought LSU had ran out of “gas” when they were blown on on Saturday. Monday through Thursday they played four games (3 elimination) with the last one an 11 inning thriller. One day off and then another 11 inning game. That would stress a major league team, let alone a bunch of college kids which leads to scores like 24-4. I give the Tiger’s credit, they answered the bell for the third game. That’s some serious leadership to bounce a team back that quickly.
LikeLike
Mike – thanks. I’m just getting back in the swing of things after my Tigers victory in the CWS championship series, and am still recovering from the Tiger fans’ blowout victory in the Rocco’s Jello Shot Challenge.
This was my first time in Omaha since LSU’s first national championship in 1991.
While we’re on the topic, here’s a link to a CWS TV ratings article from The Athletic.
https://theathletic.com/4646267/2023/06/27/college-world-series-viewership-espn/
The 2023 Men’s College World Series (MCWS) was the most-watched men’s CWS on ESPN platforms on record, ESPN announced Tuesday. Here’s what you need to know:
The 16-game postseason averaged 1.65 million viewers on ESPN platforms, which was a 48 percent increase from the 2022 College World Series.
The finals saw a record audience, averaging 2.86 million viewers on ESPN and ESPNU across the three-game series, up 75 percent from last year’s two-game finals.
LSU beat Florida 18-4 in Game 3 on Monday to win its seventh national title and its first since 2009.
***
Game 3 of the finals was the most-watched men’s College World Series game for ESPN platforms, as it averaged 3.58 million viewers and peaked at 4.2 million viewers.
LikeLike
Mike – thanks. I’m still recovering from a fantastic weekend in Omaha with my CWS champion Tigers and our World Jello Shot Challenge champion fans. This was the first time I have attended the CWS since 1991, when my Tigers captured their first CWS title. In the forty years since Skip Bertman first arrived on campus, LSU has accumulated 19 CWS appearances, one runner-up, and seven championships. Only USC has more, but none since 1998.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike – thanks. I’m still recovering from a fantastic weekend in Omaha with my CWS champion Tigers and our World Jello Shot Challenge champion fans. This was the first time I have attended the CWS since 1991, when my Tigers captured their first CWS title. In the forty years since Skip Bertman first arrived on campus, LSU has accumulated 19 CWS appearances, one runner-up, and seven championships. Only USC has more, but none since 1998.
LikeLike
Realignment is not great for fans who like to win. Brett McMurphy has the states, and they’re ugly:
1. In the past 12 years, 12 teams have either moved up to the P5 or switched conferences within the P5. Combined, those 12 teams have played 127 seasons.
2. Only 2 of the 12 have won their new conference outright: Pitt (once) and Utah (twice). TCU was also a co-champ in 2014 but lost the tie-breaker.
3. Only one advanced to the college football playoff: TCU last year.
4. Of 127 seasons played, only 38 times has one of the switching schools had a winning record in conference.
LikeLike
I meant “stats” not “states”.
McMurphy didn’t mention that, despite all the losing, each of these schools achieved the main objective of realignment, which is to make more money. I am pretty sure that none of them prefers to be back in their old home, even if they would be winning more often.
Another interesting stat: as of this Saturday, 10% of FBS will be in a new conference.
LikeLike
Lots of wild speculation in the following link about Big Ten expansion and I think most of you know I don’t believe a word of it but it’s an interesting read:
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/the-b1g-10-expansion-hinges-on-timing-of-pac-12-acc-implosions-its-when-not-if/
LikeLike
Most realignment rumors are false regardless of the source, so you would be wise to disbelieve this article as well as all the others. Some of the writer’s opinions are no more or less valid than ours, but there is this howler:
Travel problems aren’t limited to football, and more importantly, aren’t limited to just USC and UCLA. The rest of the Big Ten’s travel schedule in multiple sports — which was wildly overlooked by former commissioner Kevin Warren — will be impacted, too.
So will the academic schedules of the student athletes over all sports. The answer isn’t the Flex Protect schedule; it’s more schools on the West Coast.
I mean…help me out here. If the “rest of the Big Ten’s travel schedule…will be impacted, too,” how does adding more West Coast teams help? It seems that the majority of the conference would travel more.
And as we have discussed here before, adding Washington and Oregon helps USC and UCLA with travel only a little bit—not a lot. Certainly not enough to justify growing to 18 teams, unless there are other reasons besides travel to make it worthwhile.
And: This time around, it’s all about properties and football potential. Television markets aren’t as important because of streaming platforms and viewership moving away from cable.
More than anything, it’s about the new Playoff that begins in 2024 — a 12-team format built to benefit those conferences who can qualify the most teams. The distribution specifics for the estimated $1.5 billion annual payout are stilling being negotiated, but it will likely be a system based on units.
This seems dubious as well. The $1.5 billion in playoff money is a nice chunk of money, and you’d rather have a big piece of it than not. But it seems like a big risk to add two more mouths to feed, betting on games not yet won to provide playoff money.
LikeLike
Money may be the short term objective, but many of them also moved for academic improvement. How has that worked out?
LikeLike
The article which you posted above, https://www.nj.com/rutgers/2022/11/how-big-ten-changed-rutgers-beyond-athletics.html, shows that Rutgers at the least gained major academic benefits from joining the Big Ten.
Actually, I think that the academic end of the B1G was a very big deal for RU. In the “old days” Rutgers (boys) and Douglas (girls) were pretty selective small institutions in New Brunswick. Throw in the graduate schools and overall RU and Douglas were strongly considered public Ivies. Kids who could not afford Princeton, went to Rutgers.
Then additions came of branches with much lower admission requirements, including the consolidation with Newark and Camden and the academic fac of the school changed dramatically. The B1G brought some of that back.
LikeLike
I believe in most conference switches, the destination conference is academically superior to the former one. However, in 100% of (voluntary) switches the school makes more athletics revenue. I had seen the article that Bernie linked, but academics were the cherry on top. Rutgers was going to move to the athletically stronger conference, even if they got nothing else out of it.
I don’t think anyone has gone out and studied academic impacts systematically. It’s is challenging because academic results are driven by so many other variables besides what conference you’re in — though being in an academically stronger conference certainly helps.
LikeLike
Marc
You are absolutely correct that finances were on the top of the list for Rutgers, but it really went well far beyond that. RU was part of the Big East for years and then the basketball schools pretty much forced a split with the football schools. If that status quo had remained, meaning Pitt, VaTech, Miami, etc., had stayed in the Big East, RU probably would not have been desperate to get into the B1G.
Then BE football fell apart when those schools and others went to the ACC.
By the way, while this was all happening, I was living in NJ and really on top of what was going on. Honestly there seemed to be little interest in RU going to the ACC, though they clearly would have taken any life raft out of the AAC.
It seems as though the academic prestige of the B1G schools had been a huge draw for Rutgers for a very long time. Keep in mind that for decades Rutgers considered itself and was viewed by others as one-half step below the Ivies. Not an equal, but quite selective in its own right. Back in the old days, there were lots of kids who got into Ivies but went to RU for financial or family reasons.
There is a huge number of high achieving kids in NJ high schools. When everyone took SATs, NJ was always one of the two or three highest ranking states for average scores. Many of those top kids went to RU.
The then limited access to Rutgers was a reason that such a large percentage of NJ grads went out of state for college. That high selectivity has been watered down dramatically in the last 20 or 30 years or so, with the addition of multiple campuses that are part of RU and which obviously have less strenuous entry requirements.
From other articles that have been posted, behind the scenes RU had been trying to get an invite to the B1G for many years, and then the access of the Big Ten network to 9 to 10 million TV homes in the NYC and South Jersey areas (and many tens of thousands of B1G alumni) led to the invitation from Delany.
As badly as RU stinks in football, no one can argue that adding the NY market to the league has not paid off financially big time. NY to Chicago to LA says it all. Beyond that tOSU, UM, PSU, etc. need some easy games on their schedules.
There is one other factor in the academic/athletic evaluation. For many years there was a meaningful contingent of professors, who called themselves the Group of 100, or something like that. They were very loud and adamant that Rutgers should keep its athletics at the level of old-time rivals, such as Lehigh, Bucknell, Lafayette, or Princeton, Cornell and Columbia from the Ivies. That Group of 100 seems to have disappeared since RU has been in the B1G. I presume that the academics like their new neighborhood.
Of course, there are constant gripes about the annual financial losses by the athletic department, but hopefully bunches of new B1G money will help on that front.
LikeLike
Bernie, I think Rutgers was a good addition to the Big Ten for the reasons that you cited. However it kinda bugs me that Rutgers and Penn State didn’t set up an annual rivalry game with the Big Ten’s new, awkwardly-named Flex Protect scheduling format. None of us imagined that a conference school would opt for zero annual rivalries. This is almost certainly Penn State’s fault.
As Brian mentioned, for years PS squealed for an eastern school to join the conference – Joe Paterno wanted Rutgers – and then when the opportunity came to set up an annual home-and-away, they didn’t do it. It appears the foremost reason is the PS football theme of “Unrivaled” that they have been promoting in the past few years. I think they’re seeking a unique identity similar to ND and so-called “Independence”.
If the Flex Protect scheduling had been done logically, Penn State would have annual rival games with both Rutgers and Maryland and RU-MD would NOT be an annual rivalry. Prior to joining the Big Ten:
Penn State played Maryland 37 times.
Penn State played Rutgers 24 times.
Rutgers played Maryland only 9 times and 7 of those were prior to 1942.
https://gopsusports.com/news/2019/8/28/-unrivaled-psu-football-story-premieres-8-29.aspx
LikeLike
It kinda bugs me that Rutgers and Penn State didn’t set up an annual rivalry game with the Big Ten’s new, awkwardly-named Flex Protect scheduling format…
Quite the contrary, I suspect most of the conference is delighted about this. Most teams want to see “good games” on their schedule, and Penn State is such a game. The less they play Rutgers and Maryland, the more they are available to play others.
Lest we exaggerate the impact here, in 2024–25 PSU is playing RU and MD three times out of a possible four, so we are talking about one game. Beyond that is unknown. We might consider waiting to criticize the 2026 schedule until it actually exists.
This is almost certainly Penn State’s fault.
What does that even mean? Maybe it’ll come out someday that RU and MD wanted the game and PSU didn’t, but we’ve heard no such thing.
for years PS squealed for an eastern school to join the conference – Joe Paterno wanted Rutgers – and then when the opportunity came to set up an annual home-and-away, they didn’t do it.
Joe Paterno coached his final game in 2011 and was fired in disgrace. Rutgers joined in 2014 because the Big Ten wanted them, not because Joe Paterno did. The statute of limitations on his influence long ago expired. The addition of Rutgers has been a financial windfall that the league is very happy about. It’s not like Rutgers has no reason to exist unless one of their nine games is against Penn State every year.
If the Flex Protect scheduling had been done logically, RU-MD would NOT be an annual rivalry.
The Big Ten allowed the schools to declare who they wanted to play annually. Apparently RU and MD wanted this game. Why should we object to that?
LikeLike
I done told you guys that this new NCAA Prez didn’t know jack.
NCAA says schools must comply with its NIL rules in states with conflicting laws
By Nicole Auerbach
The NCAA’s national office reiterated its stance that its rules governing college athletics should supersede state laws that contradict them via a memo sent to member schools Tuesday.
“The Association has been clear and maintains that schools must adhere to NCAA legislation (or policy) when it conflicts with permissive state laws,” read the memo sent by Stan Wilcox, the NCAA executive vice president of regulatory affairs. “In other words, if a state law permits certain institutional action and NCAA legislation prohibits the same action, institutions must follow NCAA legislation.”
The clarification from the NCAA came in the wake of several states passing laws that allow for more direct involvement from universities in their athletes’ name, image and likeness (NIL) activity. Some of those state laws specifically say that schools in their footprint should follow the state laws when they conflict with NCAA rules. The contradictory stances make it likely, if not inevitable, that there will be a legal clash at some point challenging the NCAA’s ability to enforce its rules around athlete compensation.
“NCAA rules are adopted by member schools,” the memo stated. “It is not fair to those schools who follow the rules to not enforce rules against those who choose not to do so. Schools who do not like the application of a particular rule should work through the NCAA governance process to change the rule. Unless and until the membership changes a particular rule, all schools, as part of a voluntary membership, are required to comply.”
The NCAA’s stance
The NCAA’s statement argues that its members voluntarily join its organization and agree to follow its rules, and in other areas — such as marijuana use and gambling — the NCAA has in the past enforced policies that are more restrictive than state laws. But its policies regarding athlete compensation have always been scrutinized far more, and the topic has been in the news of late as NCAA president Charlie Baker lobbies for federal help to create legislation that preempts state NIL laws.
Which schools does the statement target?
Tuesday’s clarification appeared to specifically take aim at schools in states such as Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma with laws that allow for fundraising groups that are legally separate from the university but work with athletic departments to directly pay athletes in NIL deals. In response to the question of whether it was permissible for an entity closely associated with an institution to compensate student-athletes for use of their NIL, the NCAA stated, “No.”
“Institutions may not use NIL transactions to compensate student-athletes for athletics participation or achievement or as an improper inducement,” the memo stated. “Any entity that is so closely aligned with an institution that it is viewed as an extension of the university is subject to the same NIL scrutiny as the institution and must adhere to NCAA rules and policy. This includes the prohibition on compensating student-athletes for use of their NIL. Further, institutions are accountable for such entities since they meet the NCAA’s definition of a booster — even if the group is formed as a separate 501(c)(3).”
The NCAA also wrote that schools cannot provide perks such as tickets, suite access and club seating to donors to incentivize their contributions to a collective. The new law in Texas allows the state’s schools to offer exactly that.
Texas A&M boosters, a new NIL fund and big questions about what’s next
“The state law is going to govern how we do business,” Texas A&M athletic director Ross Bjork told ESPN this week. “We will continue to communicate with the NCAA on a variety of matters, but in terms of this, the state law will reign.”
Bjork isn’t alone in that sentiment, and school administrators in states with aggressive NIL laws have been candid in speaking about the advantages they believe they have because of the behavior permitted by state law. It is not clear whether the threat of NCAA violations is enough to deter schools from following their own state laws. In some states, flagship school administrators were directly involved in the drafting of those bills.
LikeLike
Is not the issue here whether a state law permits something or mandates it? If a state law is merely permissive, then the school can (and should) follow NCAA regulations. Bjork is being disingenuous to the verge of dishonesty.
By the way, the real problem here is that NIL and legalized gambling on college sports facilitates bribery of athletes to shave points and lose games. Remember that in the 78/79 season, Boston College basketball players were paid by a gambler(s) to shave points, in a era when gambling on college sports and payments to students were illegal.
LikeLike
bob sykes, here are documents about NCAA & NIL (if links copy correctly):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzpXvnRaEAI6LpV?format=png&name=360×360
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzpXvnRaEAI6LpV?format=png&name=medium
LikeLike
The final Directors’ Cup standings are out. Stanford wins.
Top 25 by conference:
P12 – (1) Stanford, (10) USC, (14) UCLA, (21) Washington & (22) Cal
B12 – (2) Texas, (23) Oklahoma & (25) OK State
B1G – (3) Ohio State, (11) Michigan & (15) Penn State
ACC – (4) Virginia, (8) UNC, (16) Duke, (17) Florida State, (19) NC State & (20) Notre Dame
SEC – (5) Florida, (6) Tennessee, (7) Georgia, (9) LSU, (12) Alabama, (13) Arkansas, (18) Kentucky & (24) A&M.
Last place for each conference (57) Miss State, (61) Colorado, (92) K-State, (105) BC, and (130) Rutgers.
LikeLike
The final Directors’ Cup standings are out. Stanford wins.
Top 25 by conference:
P12 – (1) Stanford, (10) USC, (14) UCLA, (21) Washington & (22) Cal
B12 – (2) Texas, (23) Oklahoma & (25) OK State
B1G – (3) Ohio State, (11) Michigan & (15) Penn State
ACC – (4) Virginia, (8) UNC, (16) Duke, (17) Florida State, (19) NC State & (20) Notre Dame
SEC – (5) Florida, (6) Tennessee, (7) Georgia, (9) LSU, (12) Alabama, (13) Arkansas, (18) Kentucky & (24) A&M.
Last place for each conference (57) Miss State, (61) Colorado, (92) K-State, (105) BC, and (130) Rutgers.
LikeLike
From an ESPN press release regarding TV rating from the CWS.
The 2023 NCAA Men’s College World Series (MCWS) marked the most-watched MCWS on ESPN platforms on record. The 16-game postseason averaged 1.65 million viewers across the platforms, up 48% from the 2022 MCWS.
The best-of-three Finals series showcase between LSU and Florida brought in a record-setting audience, averaging 2.86 million viewers across three games (ESPN/ESPNU), up 75% from last year’s two-game Finals. Game 1 saw 2.75 million viewers (Saturday, June 24), up 68% from 2022, making it the most-watched Finals Game 1 on record on ESPN platforms and fourth-best MCWS game on record. Game 2 notched 2.25 million viewers (Sunday, June 25), up 38% over 2022’s second game, and finished as the second-most-watched Finals Game 2 on record for ESPN platforms behind only 2009.
This year’s MCWS concluded on Monday, June 26, with a Game 3 showdown where LSU earned its seventh national championship. Game 3 of the Finals was the most-watched MCWS game on record for ESPN platforms, averaging 3.58 million viewers and peaking at 4.2 million viewers.
The 16-game postseason tournament took place from June 16-26 from Omaha, Neb., exclusively airing across ESPN platforms. The event concluded ESPN’s expansive NCAA Championships coverage for the 2022-23 season, marking the 31st championship event to air across ESPN platforms.
LikeLike
https://sicem365.com/s/15245/how-much-exposure-can-we-expect-from-conference-tv-deals
A detailed look at the exposure offered by the current and future P5 TV deals. It’s by a Baylor guy, so there is some pro-B12 spin (like ignoring the impact of the loss of UT and OU, and certain assumptions), but it’s mostly what you’d expect – the B10 and SEC ahead of the rest and the other 3 somewhat similar (barring the future P12 deal).
LikeLike
I previously predicted that the Pac-12’s new TV deal would be a “train wreck”. I now wish to further downgrade that forecast to “apocalypse”.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/pac-12-media-rights-is-conference-network-going-direct-to-consumer-d2c-latest-update-rumors-surrounding-deal-expansion-news
LikeLiked by 1 person
From The Athletic:
NCAA D-I Council proposes reducing transfer portal windows to 30 days per sport
By Nicole Auerbach 3h ago
The NCAA is considering shortening the length of time its transfer portal windows are open each year, the organization said in a release on Wednesday.
The Division I Council has introduced a proposal to shorten transfer windows to 30 days, down from the current 60-day period. The windows have been in effect for only one year, but that has provided enough data for the NCAA to determine that most athletes enter the portal at the beginning of the window. A shorter window would simplify the task of coaches in their efforts to manage and reconstruct their rosters.
This proposal will now be sent around for feedback from various sport oversight committees and the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Council. It will be voted on by the D-I Council at its October meeting.
Football currently has two transfer windows: the first began the day after the College Football Playoff field and bowl matchups were announced and lasted 45 days; the second ran from April 15-30 this spring. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said this week that he believed the NCAA should shorten the 45-day winter window.
“What you saw when the portal opened, the day after bowl placement, the first week or two was the exact behavior anticipated,” Sankey said on “The Joel Klatt Show.” “A lot of people who didn’t get playing time or didn’t make the right decisions raised their hand and said I would like to leave. After those two weeks, you had a lot of third parties and agents saying, ‘I’ve got a deal for you if you leave.’”
The Division I Council approved two other transfer-related rule changes. If transfers decide to leave their team following a coaching change at their second school, they can still continue to receive their scholarship without counting against the team scholarship limits. The second rule change exempts a school from counting a transfer player against its team scholarship limit if the athlete does not actually enroll.
LikeLike
I don’t post every unattributed rumor that comes across the transom. This one has enough specificity to be worth reading:
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
LikeLike
I clearly don’t know how to post tweets the right way. Here is the full text of it:
LikeLike
Use “Copy Image Address”. That works in FTTS.
LikeLike
If you just post the URL (cut it off at the ? if it has one), it will embed the tweet.
For example, if the address was … twitter.com / frankthetank111 / status / 1673393033633472521 (include the bit I replaced with …)
Paste that URL in and you get this:
LikeLike
Well over 3 months ago, this comment was made:
EndeavorWMEDani
It’s one thing to become a living, breathing conspiracy theory’ like my friend K-Brod (#Big12Karen Whoo-Hoo!!) but when Bob Thompson goes full fledged Kanon (or is it 12anon?) you know you’re over the target. I guess that 1000 bot army of hers is on the march ! lol. I, personally, would rather have the P12 survive. I have a lot of familial ties to it, but market forces predetermined its demise long ago. “But the Presidents!!” Hilarious. I see you guys are STILL in denial. Oregon and Washington will be in the B1G by the time the new contract kicks off next year. Bank on it. It’s going to be an interesting couple weeks.
MARCH 9, 2023 AT 9:01 PM
Well, the new deal starts Saturday. Did I miss the B10 expanding?
Without a big announcement tomorrow, they couldn’t move for the 2024 season either.
LikeLike
It is amazing how the collective knowledge of the sports bloggers is that at least OR/WA are coming to the B1G and most likely Stanford and Cal are also on board for a nice 6 team western wing. Many still believe that the B1G almost needs those schools to survive. Absolute insanity.
When asked for comments from a single B1G team supporting that, they cannot comply, but rather use the analysis of other bloggers to support their own conclusions. It is a big circle of people who are wrong reinforcing each other. Statements from places such as tOSU, Purdue, etc., against any expansion now – or maybe later – are totally ignored.
LikeLike
Did you? It turns out that UW and UO will join the B10 next year (even if not in time for the true start of the B10 TV deal; though in time for all 3 B10 TV partners to show a full slate).
LikeLike
The new TV deal started 7/1. Were they in the B10 when the new TV deal started? No. That was the claim the comment made.
If you go back to when it was first posted, I said that 2023 was barely a possibility for logistical reasons:
It starts July 1, not next year. That doesn’t leave much time for the B10 to get a new commissioner, get the presidents to approve it, get the schools to give notice to the P12 and join the B10. There was talk of USC and UCLA needing to give notice by June 30 last year to join the B10 this year. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but it’s getting more difficult.
LikeLike
With no Pac-12 media deal yet announced, I was thinking that San Diego State would be having some serious pucker factor today. Instead, it appears that the Mountain West is essentially kicking out the Aztecs whether they have a new home or not. That letter that SDS sent which they later claimed was not a resignation letter actually is a resignation letter in the eyes of the MWC.
LikeLike
It’s a pretty dumb article. For starters, it attributes to the MWC commissioner a decision that she almost certainly did not make on her own. And regardless of who made it, all the MWC did was to follow its own rules — rules SDSU probably voted for, since they are a charter member of the conference.
I think we all agree that SDSU’s “we resign,” “no we didn’t” two-step was weak sauce. Like every other conference, the MWC has procedures when a member leaves, and to the surprise of almost no one, it is following them. Noting really to see here.
As I said upthread, I have very little doubt that the MWC would take SDSU back if they somehow fail to find a new home. There’s no imaginable replacement school that the MWC would rather have.
Perhaps SDSU wants to have it both ways. The MWC exit fee would triple as of July 1. By resigning now, they pay the lower (but still substantial) fee if they get a Pac-12 or a Big 12 invite. And if they don’t get the invite, the conference will probably let them back in anyway. Heads I win, tails you lose.
LikeLike
Looks like Twitter has shut down all access for non-members, minus some sketchy workarounds. Just FYI.
LikeLike
Ross Dellenger had 2 relevant tweet threads about the P12 today.
First, about the TV deal:
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
At a board meeting today, Pac-12 presented presidents with an update on what’s termed “accelerated” progress on a TV deal, sources tell @SINow.
Only a general framework was revealed, w/ significant linear concepts. A more substantive framework expected by FB media day (July 21).
Second, about SDSU’s staus:
Ross Dellenger
Jun 30, 2023
@RossDellenger
Replying to @RossDellenger and @SInow
Pac-12 leadership reiterated that any expansion decisions will be made after a deal has been agreed to.
This puts San Diego State in a bind, as Aztecs must give Mountain West formal notice of withdrawal by today to avoid a doubling of the $17M exit fee for 2024 season.
Ross Dellenger
@RossDellenger
The news from the Pac-12 board meeting – or, more like, the non-news – signals that San Diego State is likely, at some point soon, to reaffirm its position with the Mountain West: that its original letter to the conference was not, in fact, a formal withdrawal.
SDSU can say whatever they want. Their letter clearly said it was a formal notice of withdrawal and the MWC will enforce it. I’m sure SDSU will try to negotiate with them, but I don’t see how they can win. A judge would laugh them out of court.
LikeLike
July 21st, the Pac 12’s annual media day, is the latest arbitrary “deadline” after previous deadlines came and went. It’ll be awkward facing the media if George doesn’t have a deal by then — a PR nightmare as Jon Wilner put it.
For what it’s worth, Wilner thinks ESPN will take 22 Pac-12 games per year (the same number it has now), with Apple taking most of the rest, with potentially a third partner taking a small number of games (Amazon, Fox, or NBC). He thinks the sum of these packages will be within a few million, either way, of the Big 12 deal —good enough to hold the league together.
But Wilner says he gives the league only a 60% chance of actually landing such a deal, which doesn’t sound that great to me.
LikeLike
The news from the Pac-12 board meeting – or, more like, the non-news – signals that San Diego State is likely, at some point soon, to reaffirm its position with the Mountain West: that its original letter to the conference was not, in fact, a formal withdrawal.
This presupposes that SDSU actually expected, by today, either a Pac-12 invitation or the MWC graciously offering to extend the deadline by an extra month. Could their legal advice really have been that incompetent? Maybe so.
SDSU could probably get a mulligan if they asked for it before 11pm tonight. But that would mean they are back in the MWC, and if they resign again, they pay the doubled exit fee.
After 11pm, what would the MWC do? If they want to be real hard-asses, they could say: “You resigned, and you owe us the exit fee that you voted for when you were a member. That’s non-negotiable. If you’d like to re-apply, we’d be happy to consider you as we would any other prospective new institution.”
LikeLike
And SDSU’s unending throes is all due to Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff’s failure to secure a media rights deal. He actually may be more incompetent that Larry Scott. Kliavkoff promised the moon and failed to deliver again and again and again.
Earlier in the year I posted here that Kliavkoff was nothing but a snake oil salesman and here we are, months later, with the Pac-12 on the brink of collapse. Yes, I told you so. I told you so. The new Pac-12 media rights deal that he has ‘negotiated’ is bullshit. If there was anything worth a puddle of piss, it would have come out months ago. The Pac-12 is now mousemeat and SDSU is screwed. SMU remains mousemeat.
LikeLike
Larry Scott was an epic disaster in concrete ways you can itemize. Granted Kliavkoff has not announced anything, but no one has suggested that there was a better available strategy that he failed to execute. He was handed a mess that was perhaps unfixable.
If there was anything worth a puddle of piss, it would have come out months ago.
How much of the Big Ten’s new deal (that was not announced until August) did you know on June 30, 2022?
SDSU is screwed.
I think, even in the worst possible case for SDSU, a diminished Pac-12 is still better than the league they are in. And as I keep reminding you, the MWC would probably take them back, because there is no better option for them.
LikeLike
Marc, George Kliavkoff promised the moon and the sun and the stars and that’s why the naive, gullible, pan-faced Pac-12 prexys and ADs bought in on his gibberish. The Pac-12 media rights deal will be a shameful piece of shit. Palm-in-face shameful. Shit. Yet you remain as one of the mouth-gulping guppies.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 media rights deal will be a shameful piece of shit. Palm-in-face shameful. Shit. Yet you remain as one of the mouth-gulping guppies.
Um…no. I do not have any beliefs about what the deal will be, one way or the other. As you might have noticed, I never hesitate to tell you what I think—when I am sure. In this case, I am uncommitted.
I know this is a wild concept, but perhaps we ought to see the deal first before we decide how bad it is.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/media/2023/06/30/jeff-van-gundy-jalen-rose-out-espn-layoffs/70372809007/
ESPN’s layoffs are hitting some pretty big names. It’ll be interesting to see how quickly others scoop them up. It could be an easy way for a streamer to build some credibility, or for Fox to catch up to ESPN a bit.
Some of the people let go:
Jeff Van Gundy, Suzy Kolber, Keyshawn Johnson, Todd McShay, Max Kellerman, Keyshawn Johnson, Jalen Rose, Steve Young, Matt Hasselbeck
But they found $85M for Pat McAfee, and a lot for Buck and Aikman as well.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/san-diego-state-remaining-in-mountain-west-as-aztecs-back-off-intention-to-withdraw-from-conference/
SDSU has decided to stay in the MWC (for now). That is, of course, assuming the MWC allows them to stay after announcing their intention to leave. I don’t know if they have to let them stay, but certainly it’s in their best interest to keep them around. I wonder if the conference changes the exit fee real soon to take advantage of any future departures.
LikeLike
Further evidence that Georgie Boy has totally botched the Pac-12 TV deal. MWC should just give SDS a hearty mouthful of spittal in the face and send them on their way.
LikeLike
I cannot imagine why the MWC would not permit them to stay. There are no available expansion targets better than SDSU. If they leave after today, the exit fee doubles.
LikeLike
Marc,
It doubles if they still leave for 2024. It stays about the same for leaving with 12+ months notice. I’m wondering if they try to raise the price of leaving even with 12 months notice.
LikeLike
MWC should just give SDS a hearty mouthful of spittal in the face and send them on their way.
And invite in their place…who?
LikeLike
At this point the MWC and SDSU might be playing a game of chicken. They need each other. SDSU is by far the largest market and most important team in the league. There is really no viable replacement for the MWC (unless the PAC totally collapses there might be a shot at former PAC teams).
On the other hand, SDSU can not viably be an independent, so they need the MWC.
Perhaps the MWC could squeeze SDSU by doing what has been suggested above, with the approval of SDSU (which may not actually be required, but would be nice to have). Increase the one year buyout notice fee to $25 million rather than $17. Also double the two year notice buyout, since it would be pretty much impossible for SDSU to even consider a $50 million buyout, unless the PAC somehow subsidized it. At the moment it does not look very likely that the PAC will be able to subsidize anything, even with their new TV deal.
The only way that the deal that Wilner suggested could come about would be if Apple came up with a very large offer, while bidding against itself. Not likely. Certainly ESPN has been given the chance to jump in and throw around some money, but it is not doing that. So, ESPN would have to get a really good deal, which would effectively be subsidized by Apple.
60% sounds pretty optimistic.
Colin, I have also been saying for months that Kliavkoff is a disaster. He did promise at least Big 12 money to the PAC teams. Good luck.
LikeLike
From The Athletic – If SDS stays, Kliavkoff is in deep trouble..
San Diego State notifies Mountain West it will not leave conference: Source
Jun 30, 2023
San Diego State has informed the Mountain West they are not leaving the conference, a source briefed on the matter told The Athletic on Friday. Here’s what you need to know:
June 30 was the deadline for the Aztecs to give official notice to leave in 2024 without their exit fee doubling from about $17 million to $34 million.
Earlier this month, The Athletic reported SDSU said in a letter it intended to leave the conference. The Mountain West took the university’s initial correspondence as a formal notice and SDSU claimed it was not.
On Monday, The Athletic acquired the letters at the core of the issue, which show the discussion and disagreement over the school’s potential exit.
The Athletic’s instant analysis:
Does this change anything with the Mountain West?
We don’t actually know yet if the Mountain West has accepted this latest notice. The Aztecs had already told the league it was not planning to immediately withdraw, but the MWC still took its initial message that way and didn’t budge.
It’s not clear yet whether this letter has changed anything from the Mountain West’s perspective on its initial response to the school’s communication, from the withholding of the conference payout (around $6 million) to the removal of SDSU president Adela de la Torre from the Board of Directors. This saga wasn’t a simple situation of SDSU planning to withdraw and then deciding not to.
The Aztecs have already claimed they were never in the process of withdrawing at all. The Mountain West hasn’t commented on its stance, but it would likely need the board to formally accept SDSU’s stance to make it official.
And, of course, what happens when the Pac-12 media rights deal is completed? Will the Pac-12 invitation come to SDSU, and if it does, will the Aztecs pay a $34 million exit fee to join in 2024? Or will they wait another year?
Some industry sources thought SDSU may just wait it out, hope an acceptable Pac-12 invitation came, and if one didn’t, rejoin the MWC because the MWC wouldn’t want to turn the Aztecs away at the end of the day. For now, at least, it appears SDSU has tried to make it clear where it stands on its exit situation, which could make a future move more expensive or delayed by a year.
LikeLike
I don’t think the MWC is going to try to squeeze SDSU for every last drop of blood. It’s one thing if they’re leaving, but yesterday’s notice is that they’re staying, at least for now. Why would you try to screw what is obviously the best team you’ve got?
Granted that SDSU is obviously looking for the exit, but so is almost every team in every FBS league not named “Big Ten” or “SEC”. Some have better chances than moving up than others, but most of them hope to punch the golden ticket someday. Boise State, Fresno, and UNLV have all at least been mentioned as potential realignment candidates.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree. The MWC needs SDSU, and they also know that any of their members would leave for a P5 invitation. SDSU was clumsy and should face some sort of punishment for that. Perhaps make them pay the application fee (if they have one), and maybe keep their president off the board of directors since SDSU has indicated a desire to leave in the near future.
LikeLike
Brian, the more imminent issue is “Where is George Kliavkoff’s high-powered, super-duper Pac-12 TV deal that has been promised for months?” With SDSU out, it obviously is worth even less than before. But they still have SMU!
LikeLike
…the more imminent issue is “Where is George Kliavkoff’s high-powered, super-duper Pac-12 TV deal that has been promised for months? With SDSU out, it obviously is worth even less than before. But they still have SMU!
The reporters who cover sports media do not all consider it obvious — which is the very reason the Pac-12 has not yet expanded. And as Brian explained, SDSU is not out; they are just out for one season.
Herewith your reminder that at this date last year the Big Ten didn’t have a deal either. And Notre Dame still doesn’t. I don’t know what Kliavkoff will come up with, but it’s not yet panic time.
LikeLike
It isn’t yet panic time for ND but the Pac-12 probably hit the Panic Button yesterday. Kliavkoff’s antics are obviously a cover for his inability to secure a TV deal like he promised. Marc, you do not understand this. I do.
For ND, why should NBC pay them a penny more than last year? Tennessee State and Central Michigan? Oh, and that dynamic Navy game. As I told you before, ND has no Plan B.
LikeLike
@Colin, the difference between us is that I have the humility to know I can be wrong sometimes. Despite being completely wrong many, many times, you continue to state as certainty things which are merely possible.
Kliavkoff’s antics are obviously a cover for his inability to secure a TV deal like he promised. Marc, you do not understand this. I do.
I acknowledge this is possible. I do not attach certainty to things that are uncertain.
For ND, why should NBC pay them a penny more than last year? Tennessee State and Central Michigan? Oh, and that dynamic Navy game.
Because all sports rights go up in value over time. Even Notre Dame’s admittedly lame schedule is worth more than it was the last time they did a deal.
LikeLike
Marc: “@Colin, the difference between us is that I have the humility to know I can be wrong sometimes.”
You’re humble??? I seem to recall you telling us that the Big Ten Commish would need a ‘lobotomy’ if he didn’t lock USC and UCLA as annual rivals with OSU and UM plus OSU with PDU.
Tell ya what, I am indeed very skeptical that this new Pac-12 media rights deal will not be a train wreck. If I’m wrong, I come back here and eat a large helping of crow.
LikeLike
I seem to recall you telling us that the Big Ten Commish would need a ‘lobotomy’ if he didn’t lock USC and UCLA as annual rivals with OSU and UM plus OSU with PDU.
Incorrect. Again. I was never that sure the Big Ten would lock USC/UCLA with OSU/UM. But I was quite sure what they wouldn’t do. You opined with your usual unjustified certainty:
Both USC and UCLA will get locks with schools now in the Western Division.
And I said, “Is that before or after Kevin Warren’s lobotomy?”
Sure enough, I was correct. The Big Ten did not lock USC and UCLA with schools now in the Western division. You can look it up on past threads.
LikeLike
Marc: “Sure enough, I was correct. The Big Ten did not lock USC and UCLA with schools now in the Western division.”
Needless to say, that is completely out of context. The conversation was based upon assigned rivals IF the Big Ten went with the 3-6-6 format. Obviously, it didn’t.
LikeLike
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-dakota-college-minnesotas-free-tuition-north-star-promise-catastrophic/
Universities and colleges in ND are worried about a new law MN just passed, giving free tuition to poor residents. A small state surrounded by small states, ND doesn’t have many great options for where else to pull students from. I suppose Chicago is their next best option.
This will be a growing issue in the midwest as demographics intensify the fight for students. And good for MN making college easier to access. ND’s struggles are not the problem of MN.
Minnesota this year passed the North Star Promise scholarship program, which will pay college tuition and fees for in-state residents whose families earn $80,000 a year or less. The program, set to launch in the fall of 2024, is projected to cost $117 million and would help about 15,000 to 20,000 students, according to the state’s office of higher education.
More than half of North Dakota State University’s incoming class, and 45% of its undergraduate student body, consists of students from Minnesota, according to estimates presented at the meeting. Minnesota natives make up 24% undergraduates at North Dakota State College of Science, and 28% at the University of North Dakota.
…
The outflow of Minnesota students from North Dakota could cost state universities $12 million a year in lost tuition and state funds, which fluctuate based on colleges’ enrollment, according to a presentation given during the meeting.
But the greater concern, according to officials from UND and NDSU, is the effect on the state’s workforce as Minnesotans who move to the state for school and stay for work are a major source of population growth.
Nationwide, college enrollment has been steadily declining since peaking in 2011, and is forecast to fall even further in the next 10 years due to demographic trends. Minnesota’s move was in part intended to boost enrollment at its own state universities, according to the Minnesota Office of Higher Education. Meanwhile, North Dakota’s population is growing, but not enough to offset the loss of Minnesota students.
LikeLike
With regard to Friday’s Supreme Court ruling which bans Affirmative Action, universities are now seeking other ways to enhance diversity on campus. Here’s how Purdue does it.
While President of Purdue University for ten years, Mitch Daniels started three Purdue Polytechnic High Schools, two in Indianapolis and one right under the nose of Notre Dame in South Bend. They were actually public prep schools designed to get inner city kids prepared for the rigors of a STEM education at Purdue University. And it worked. Most of the kids who graduate from PPHSs do indeed attend Purdue and flourish in engineering and other STEM majors.
This is the answer; Intense, targeted preparation, not Affirmative Action quotas.
https://pphs.purdue.edu/
LikeLike
The Supreme Court decision leaves a big loop hole that will allow affirmative action to continue, namely that admissions people can consider a person’s character:
Roberts: “Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise, … A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination… In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”
The test will be how many Asians are admitted to Harvard.
People have noted that almost all liberal arts colleges have quotas for men. Kenyon College admits 45% men as a minimum regardless of credentials. It has also been noted that most elite colleges have quotas for the children of alumni.
The decision might also have implications for athletic scholarships, especially since every big time program has different and lower standards for the admission of scholarship athletes. That specifically includes Notre Dame, Michigan, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Stanford…
PS. The Court previously prohibited actual quotas based on race.
LikeLike
Gift link about legacy admissions being challenged at Harvard;
https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvards-legacy-admissions-challenged-after-affirmative-action-ruling-c5aff91b?st=y9aejdats5fjg8h&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
And the Number One school in the nation for legacy admissions? The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame.
“With a wide and loyal alumni network, Notre Dame historically has had a high percentage of alumni children attend the University. Bishop estimated that between 19% and 25% of each class consists of alumni children, varying year to year.”
https://ndsmcobserver.com/2022/04/legacies-old-and-new-notre-dame-admissions-documents-increasing-diversity-access-for-all-types-of-students/
“Notre Dame continues to lead top U.S. schools in legacy admissions.”
https://magazine.nd.edu/stories/fresh-approaches/
“Bishop said 23.6% of the makeup of (Notre Dame’s) class of 2022 is legacy students, as compared to 11.6% across the eight Ivy League schools.”
https://ndsmcobserver.com/2019/04/admins-students-discuss-legacies/
LikeLike
Bob,
Athletic scholarships are given on merit, and thus are perfectly fine legally. Nowhere does the law say only those with the highest GPA can be admitted.
I wouldn’t be surprised if elite private schools like Harvard stopped accepting high school GPAs as well as test scores. No student “deserves” a spot in Harvard.
LikeLike
Jim Williams has some info on the P12 TV deal.
and
LikeLike
two linear partners, one streamer – regional/national coverage – week night games on the table
Almost everyone plays some weeknight games anymore. Some of them will be Labor Day and Thanksgiving weekends, so they don’t really count. Even the B10 is stuck with Friday night games, as terrible as they are. The B12’s new deal also has Friday games. I suppose the real question is if they are looking at MAC-like games on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Would any network risk Thursday night games, thinking not everyone wants to (or can) stream the NFL on Amazon?
The other part is harder to figure. There is no such thing as a regional streamer, but there aren’t really regional networks either (assuming P12N dies) with the regional sports channels going bankrupt. Perhaps that means someone like the CW or Ion, but only the stations in the conference footprint. So that leaves 1 more linear partner (ESPN?), plus a streamer (Apple?) for national coverage.
That could be a decent package, depending on the $ and the details (game windows, % linear vs streaming, etc.). It’d be good for everyone if they can get a general agreement before their media day.
LikeLike
More from JW – the P12N won’t die. We knew it would likely produce the games if a streamer bought the rights, but I didn’t expect them to still be a provider.
LikeLike
I had long expected the P12N to survive in some form. There’s no reason for another party to recreate it — especially if any of the winning bidders are parties like Apple who have no CFB production facilities of their own. And I doubt that Apple wants to acquire it either, as they’d be stuck if the conference doesn’t survive the next round of realignment.
LikeLike
The production facility continuing was expected, but not the actual channel.
LikeLike
The MWC has withheld SDSU’s $6.6M revenue distribution pending a meeting of their presidents this month to decide SDSU’s status.
LikeLike
This is hilarious. SDS says they’re still in the MWC and the MWC says SDS is out.
LikeLike
Paul Finebaum declares the Pac-12 is still ‘in big trouble’
https://www.si.com/college/stanford/football/paul-finebaum-declares-the-pac-12-is-still-in-big-trouble
LikeLike
San Diego State may end up in No Man’s Land. The MWC says they are no longer a member, John Canzano predicts the Pac-12 will not expand because members don’t want to further dilute any money from the CFP (ten shares vs 12 shares) and now CBS Sports reports that SDS is not part of Big XII expansion plans.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/san-diego-state-not-part-of-big-12-expansion-plans-as-aztecs-face-uncertain-future-with-mountain-west-pac-12/
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/07/03/california-college-athletes-revenue-sharing-bill-delayed-2024/70381137007/
The CA bill to pay college athletes has been put on hold for a year.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2023/07/07/northwestern-suspends-pat-fitzgerald-football-hazing-allegations/70390832007/
Pat Fitzgerald has been suspended for 2 weeks due to a hazing investigation.
The outside investigation began last December under the direction of Maggie Hickey, the former inspector general of Illinois. In late November, the university received a complaint alleging instances of hazing occurring inside the Wildcats’ normal locker room and at “Camp Kenosha” in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where the program has held preseason camp.
…
According to the complaint, football players would pressure teammates into participating in hazing activities. The university said details of the investigation will remain confidential.
While the investigation found that student-athletes provided differing perspectives about the hazing, the “investigation team determined that the complainant’s claims were largely supported by the evidence gathered during the investigation, including separate and consistent first-person accounts from current and former players,” according to an executive summary of the investigation.
The investigation “did not uncover evidence pointing to specific misconduct by any individual football player or coach” but found that “participation in or knowledge of the hazing activities was widespread across football players.”
And while the investigation did not find sufficient evidence suggesting the coaching staff was aware of any hazing, “there had been significant opportunities to discover and report the hazing conduct,” according to the summary.
How can evidence “largely support the claims,” “including separate and consistent first-person accounts” and yet no evidence points to any misconduct by any individual? What were those first-person accounts of? What sort of evidence doesn’t indicate any individual?
The school will also add an independent monitor to the locker room who does not report to the football staff and create an online reporting tool for student-athletes to report allegations of hazing or misconduct.
A locker room narc? That will be a popular job. Isn’t it a little weird for someone to hang out in a locker room with no other purpose but spying? Wouldn’t being at practice be a better place to catch misconduct and not be watching people change clothes (that’s just creepy)? What about all the off times when players could haze each other?
LikeLike
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2023/07/08/top-stories/former-nu-football-player-details-hazing-allegations-after-coach-suspension/
Maybe this is worse than NW let on. They might regret such a weak penalty (2 week suspension without pay during the offseason and a recruiting dead period) if more stories come out.
A former Northwestern University football player told The Daily some of the hazing conduct investigated by the university involved coerced sexual acts. A second player confirmed these details.
The player also told The Daily that head coach Pat Fitzgerald may have known that hazing took place.
“I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and it’s just absolutely egregious and vile and inhumane behavior,” the player, who asked to remain anonymous in this story, said.
The former player said he reported his experiences to the University in late November 2022. He alleges that much of the team’s hazing centered around a practice dubbed “running,” which was used to punish team members, primarily freshman, for mistakes made on the field and in practice.
If a player was selected for “running,” the player who spoke to The Daily said, they would be restrained by a group of 8-10 upperclassmen dressed in various “Purge-like” masks, who would then begin “dry-humping” the victim in a dark locker room.
“It’s a shocking experience as a freshman to see your fellow freshman teammates get ran, but then you see everybody bystanding in the locker room,” the player said. “It’s just a really abrasive and barbaric culture that has permeated throughout that program for years on end now.”
…
According to the former player, team members allegedly identified players for “running” by clapping their hands above their heads around that player. The practice, the player said, was known within the team as “the Shrek clap.”
The Daily obtained a video of a player clapping his hands during a game, which the anonymous player said was the same motion taken to signify “running.”
According to the player who spoke with The Daily, Fitzgerald repeatedly made the signal during practices when players, specifically freshmen, made a mistake.
The player believes some players interpreted Fitzgerald making these signals as knowingly “encouraging” the hazing to continue.
“Everyone would just be looking at each other and be like ‘bro, Fitz knows about this,’ because you wouldn’t take that action otherwise,” the player said. “Everyone joins in, because he’s the head coach.”
The second player who spoke to The Daily, who also asked to be anonymous in this story, said he also witnessed these actions occurring.
…
In addition to “running,” the whistleblower alleged that he witnessed the team participate in other hazing traditions in which freshmen were forced to strip naked and perform various acts, including bear crawling and slingshotting themselves across the floor with exercise bands.
In a once-a-year tradition dubbed “the carwash,” the first player said that some players would stand naked at the entrance to the showers and spin around, forcing those entering the showers to “basically (rub) up against a bare-naked man.” Upon entering the showers, the player alleged that players set up a hose they connected to the shower to spray people.
“It’s extremely painful,” the player said.
The player also alleged that he witnessed and was forced to participate in what he called a naked center-quarterback exchange, wherein a freshman quarterback was forced to take an under-center snap from a freshman center, while both players were naked.
The player said that on one instance, another player was “very vocally adamant” about not wanting to participate in this exchange. Older players threatened to “run him” if he refused and there was “no other option,” according to the player.
“He was forced to engage in this,” the player said. “I wish I would have told him to transfer, because this is an absolutely abusive environment, and an environment in which the safety and well-being of players is not protected at all.”
The second player confirmed these allegations.
…
Other hazing practices that the player detailed to The Daily included a practice called “Gatorade shake challenges,” where teammates, often freshmen, were forced to drink as many Gatorade shakes as they could in a 10-minute period. The player alleges that he has witnessed this practice on two separate occasions, and that he’s “never seen anyone not throw up” either during or after the challenges.
The second player said he also witnessed this tradition.
…
Additionally, Yates said each sports program has biannual meetings with the athletics compliance staff and sports administration “to discuss hazing and its impact on the student experience.”
At these biannual meetings, the player who spoke to The Daily said the office described the hazing policy as a “no tolerance” policy.
After the meetings, the player alleges that upperclassmen would make threats to freshmen saying that “if anyone snitched, then Shrek would get you” in reference to the practice of “running.”
LikeLike
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2023/7/8/23788239/daily-northwestern-alleges-new-hazing-allegations-tied-to-pat-fitzgerald-suspension-ncaa-football
The Chicago Sun Times got some more corroboration from former players.
In a 2014 video for the Positive Coaching Alliance shot on a Northwestern practice field, Wildcats football coach Pat Fitzgerald discussed hazing in college athletics. Specifically, he said there was ‘‘zero tolerance’’ for it at the school where he starred as a player in the mid-1990s and has coached since 2001, including the last 17 seasons as head coach.
‘‘There’s no reason to ever have it,’’ he said. “I know there’s a lot of initiations and traditions and things of that nature, and we had that here back, frankly, when I was a player in some different ways. But as society has evolved and we really thought deep about how we want to welcome our new family members into our organizations, hazing should have nothing to do with it.’’
…
A third former player, who was on the team in 2022, corroborated the gist of the allegations for the Sun-Times, though he was unsure how much Fitzgerald would have known. Multiple former players from earlier teams — going back to before Fitzgerald’s own arrival as a player — indicated hazing always has been present at some level, though not to an unusual extent compared with other schools.
…
Under threat of incoming intense scrutiny, too, are athletic director Derrick Gragg, president Michael Schill and whoever else was in the room when Fitzgerald’s initial punishment was decided. According to a source, all the key allegations in the Daily story were uncovered during the investigation and shared with Fitzgerald and his bosses.
Current players deny the allegations, sort of:
The Sun-Times received a text late Saturday of a letter signed by ‘‘The ENTIRE Northwestern Football Team.’’ It came from the number of a former player and staffer under Fitzgerald who said it was ‘‘written by team leaders’’ in collaboration with teammates via Zoom and group messaging.
‘‘We do not tolerate hazing in any form,’’ the letter stated. ‘‘Hazing goes against our values of respect, integrity, and personal growth. We are committed to fostering a supportive and inclusive environment. . . .
‘‘The [allegations] have been exaggerated and twisted into lies. These fabrications have been made with the intention of harming our program and tarnish the reputation of our dedicated players and coaching staff. . . .
‘‘It is crucial to note that [Fitzgerald] was not involved in any of the alleged incidents in any way, shape, or form. [He] had no knowledge of these allegations until they were brought to his attention during the investigation.’’
Note that the team doesn’t deny the allegations, just call them exaggerated. Either players were forced (peer pressure counts as forced for hazing) to do things naked or they weren’t. Either players were restrained and assaulted or they weren’t.
LikeLike
Way back in 1975, Indiana freshman Larry Bird quit Bobby Knight’s Hoosiers after only one week due to the hazing from the team’s upperclassmen. Bird returned to his home town and got a job driving a garbage truck. The rest is history.
https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2021/11/16/movie-how-indiana-state-coach-bill-hodges-recruited-larry-bird/8528520002/
LikeLike
https://northwestern.rivals.com/news/explosive-hazing-allegations-call-fitz-nu-administration-into-question
The NW Rivals site has corroboration from a NW staff member.
The detailed nature of the accounts make it difficult to believe that they were fabricated by a disgruntled former player. One football staff member — not a player or coach — corroborated the running of players to WildcatReport. The person, who wished to remain anonymous, also said it would be very surprising if Fitzgerald was not aware of the practice because it was common knowledge within the program.
“It wasn’t a secret,” the source said.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/07/08/northwestern-football-hazing-accusations-fall-on-coach-pat-fitzgerald/70394594007/
Dan Wolken thinks Fitzgerald should be fired for this.
The only way Pat Fitzgerald is coaching Northwestern when the 2023 season begins is if one of America’s elite academic institutions has decided that a guy who calls football plays is worth more than the pain and suffering of young men who weren’t just hazed when they arrived in his program but were reportedly violated, defiled and humiliated as part of a twisted so-called culture that is 100% his responsibility and now 100% his shame.
Even if you are naïve enough to believe that the person who has been leading Northwestern’s football program for the last 17 seasons didn’t know the exact ways that his upperclassmen were allegedly indoctrinating newcomers — or, as others may call it, sexual assault — Fitzgerald has utterly failed.
…
Northwestern fans haven’t been happy with the record recently, but that seems small in comparison to what the school is dealing with now.
A broken trust with its fans and, more importantly, its players. A reputation of shame not only for what happened, but a meek and ineffective attempt to bury it under a Friday news release. A symbol of football’s cultural rot that needs to be cut out like a malignant tumor.
That’s what Northwestern now represents. That’s what Fitzgerald’s largely successful career has been reduced to.
At this point, Fitzgerald simply cannot be retained. This was his program, his locker room — all of it from the record to whatever was going on in the showers.
If he doesn’t own that, if the school doesn’t own that, he isn’t the man he wanted the world to see and Northwestern isn’t a university that deserves anyone’s respect.
LikeLike
Dan Wolken thinks Fitzgerald should be fired for this.
Me too. He has been there all but five of the past 30 years — as a player, assistant coach, and head coach. How could he not have known?
LikeLike
Here is a response from the Northwestern football team denying the allegations.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/09/northwestern-reconsidering-pat-fitzgeralds-hazing-penalty/
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37980269/ex-northwestern-player-says-hazing-included-sexualized-acts
NW says they knew about these allegations as part of their investigation, and yet despite saying yesterday that they wouldn’t talk about specifics they are now reconsidering Fitzgerald’s punishment. It’s like they are embarrassed now that the details got out – how did they think this would not happen?
The new president at NW met with the former player making the allegations, as well as his parents.
University President Michael Schill, in a letter sent late Saturday to the Northwestern community, wrote that he “may have erred in weighing the appropriate sanction” for Fitzgerald, who began serving a two-week unpaid suspension Friday. Fitzgerald’s suspension was among the measures Northwestern announced after concluding the six-month investigation it commissioned into hazing allegations made by an anonymous whistleblower.
…
Schill will speak with Northwestern’s board of trustees and other university leaders to determine a new penalty for Fitzgerald, the team’s coach since 2006 and a two-time national defensive player of the year for the Wildcats.
“In determining an appropriate penalty for the head coach, I focused too much on what the report concluded he didn’t know and not enough on what he should have known,” Schill wrote. “As the head coach of one of our athletics programs, coach Fitzgerald is not only responsible for what happens within the program but also must take great care to uphold our institutional commitment to the student experience. … Clearly, he failed to uphold that commitment, and I failed to sufficiently consider that failure in levying a sanction.”
Earlier Saturday, Northwestern told ESPN that it would not comment on any specific allegations beyond the executive summary of the investigation released Friday. Sources with direct knowledge of the matter told ESPN that investigators were already aware of the allegations outlined by the former player.
LikeLike
Basic crisis management is that you dump all the bad news up-front. Instead they announce a brief suspension, and just two days later announce they got it wrong.
LikeLike
https://espn960sports.com/news/why-the-pac10-is-struggling-to-make-a-media-deal-part-7-football-basketball-attendance-shows-long-term-declining-trends/
This is part 7 in a series of articles about why the P12 is struggling to sign a TV deal. The author uses stats to support his opinion. The series is written by a BYU guy at a radio station in SLC, so keep his clear bias in mind (which stats to use, where to get the stats, how to analyze the data, etc.).
Each article has links to all the previous articles:
Part 1: Intro
Part 2: Brand/Fan Base Value
Part 2a: Silver vs Altimore Fan Base Estimate
Part 3: TV Viewership
Part 4: TV Market Value
Part 5: Would SDSU & SMU (or Tulane/Rice) Be Dilutive To PAC Media Value?
Part 6: Social Media Metrics Show Low Fan Engagement for PAC))
Part 7 looks at FB and MBB attendance trends over the past 5-10 years.
% change in average attendance (2022 vs 2012, 2019 vs 2012)
SEC +1.3%, -3.7%
B12 -0.5%, -2.6%
ACC -3.6%, -3.3%
B10 -5.7%, -7.1% (not adjusted for additions of RU and UMD)
P12 -17.3%, -14.2%
The data is a bit sensitive to the year you compare against. To account for the addition of RU and UMD to the B10, I ran the numbers using 2022 vs 2014:
B12 +1.0%
B10 -1.2%
SEC -1.5%
ACC -4.3%
P12 -15.8%
In general you see the same basic trends – the B10, B12 and SEC held close to constant, the ACC dropped a little more, and the P12 dropped a lot.
It’s notable this is the same time period as the CFP. Are the lack of P12 CFP bids, and the media ignoring the P12 (or bad-mouthing them) after they are out of the CFP hunt, being reflected in a consistent loss of attendance out west?
Not so fast. Several P12 schools have reduced their stadium capacity over this period:
USC from 93,607 to 77,500
ASU from 71,706 to 53,599
UA went from 56,029 to 50,800
CU from 53,613 to 50,183
OrSU from 45,674 to 26,407 (temporarily down due to renovations – was 43,363 in 2021)
WSU from 33,522 to 32,952
Cal added a little over 2200 seats
UU added a little over 6400 seats
Mostly the smaller changes cancel out, but ASU’s and USC’s big decreases are not balanced by any expansion. Of course, so many P12 schools shrank their stadiums for reasons that speak to less CFB popularity out west.
So what about % of capacity? Below are the 2022 stats:
B12: 96.1%
SEC: 95.1%
B10: 89.9%
ACC: 81.9%
PAC: 77.5%
But that’s partially skewed by UCLA having the Rose Bowl (a much larger stadium than they’d choose to have if they owned it). The numbers are also hurt by the bad P12 teams in 2022 (Stanford has cratered, Cal stunk, ASU was embarrassing, CU was abysmal). Still, they have the smallest stadiums and still can’t fill them. I do think this shows that the P12’s 17% drop in attendance is misleading.
P12 MBB has also had a drop on attendance, which may reflect a drop in performance.
LikeLike
Brian, in this era virtually everyone cooks their numbers on attendance, Including behemoths Notre Dame and Michigan. For years, ND has had a local car dealer buy up excess tickets to create the “sellout” myth. Michigan hands out free tickets to the Boy Scouts and Brownies.
https://www.onefootdown.com/2023/3/27/23657292/notre-dame-football-attacking-the-attendance-problem-stadium-green-out-home-south-bend-nd-news-irish
LikeLike
Granted there are many ways to goose attendance. But it’s pretty telling when a program cannot make their stadium look full, no matter how many tickets they give away.
Even Michigan will acknowledge that “attendance” is the number of bodies in the stadium, regardless of how they got there: the bands count too. They have never claimed that their number is “paid attendance.”
Still, I am not sure even that is always true. There were a handful of games during the Brady Hoke era when the stadium did not appear to be more than 2/3rds full at any point in the game, and yet they claimed 100,000+. There was an embarrassing incident where a local store was giving away game tickets if you bought a six-pack of Pepsi.
But if “virtually everyone” does it, then the reported Pac-12 numbers probably aren’t true either.
LikeLike
Nowadays with massive TV coverage of college football, there is an element of irony regarding attendance. The most successful teams in the most successful conferences now have every game televised, either by a national carrier or by a conference network, thus there is less incentive for fans to get to the stadium to watch in person.
LikeLike
The most successful teams in the most successful conferences now have every game televised, either by a national carrier or by a conference network,…
Not sure what you mean by that. Every FBS game is televised, and a big chunk of FCS too. Maybe you are distinguishing conference networks from other modes of paid distribution like ESPN+. But outside of over-the-air, every other service is something you pay extra for. These services can easily be added and dropped, usually for less than the price of a game ticket.
…thus there is less incentive for fans to get to the stadium to watch in person.
This was exactly the NCAA’s argument for limiting TV coverage, in the days when they controlled access for all their members. Many schools feared that too much TV would depress live attendance. Eventually the Supreme Court ruled against the NCAA, and the modern era of televised college sports was born.
Attendance has indeed gone down, as many of the NCAA”s members had feared. It’s hard to weigh the impact of TV in isolation, as so many other things have changed too. Anyhow, I doubt you’d find many takers for going back to the old way.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/37981764/former-coach-bob-huggins-says-never-resigned-wvu
Bob Huggins’ attorney now claims Huggins never retired. You know this is all about money. This effort would be better spent getting Huggins some alcohol treatment.
Weeks after Bob Huggins announced his resignation following a DUI arrest, an attorney for the former West Virginia men’s basketball coach claims he never formally resigned last month and said Huggins will sue the university if he’s not reinstated.
In response, the university, which announced the hiring of longtime assistant Josh Eilert as interim coach last month, said it will not reinstate Huggins and will defend itself against any “spurious allegations.”
…
“Based on press statements, it appears that WVU is taking the position that Coach Huggins voluntarily resigned and terminated the Employment Agreement in advance of April 30, 2024 (the day his current contract was set to expire),” Campbell wrote. “However, although the press statements purport to have resignation communications directly from Coach Huggins to you and/or the Athletic Director, Coach Huggins has never communicated his resignation to you, the Athletic Director, or anyone at WVU. To the contrary, we understand that the purported ‘resignation’ is incredibly based on a text message from Coach Huggins’ wife.”
The university on Saturday released an email that was sent from an account belonging to “June Huggins” — Huggins’ wife — to athletic director Wren Baker the day the head coach announced his resignation that said, “Please accept this correspondence as my formal notice of resignation as WVU Head Basketball Coach and as notice of my retirement from West Virginia University, effective immediately.”
The school also said it has had ongoing conversations with Huggins’ legal representatives — not Campbell — in recent weeks that suggest the former coach understood he had resigned and had even been discussing the next steps of the resignation and retirement with Bob Fitzsimmons and James “Rocky” Gianola, two attorneys who have historically represented the former West Virginia coach, as recently as Friday.
…
“Notwithstanding any response, and in no uncertain terms, the University will not accept Mr. Huggins’ revocation of his resignation, nor will it reinstate him as head coach of the men’s basketball program,” Taylor’s letter read. “Moreover, if Mr. Huggins or his counsel attempts to publicly suggest that he somehow did not resign and retire from his position, please be advised that the University will swiftly and aggressively defend itself from these spurious allegations.”
LikeLike
Bob Huggins’ attorney now claims Huggins never retired.
He apparently has the same legal advice as San Diego State.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2023/07/10/northwestern-hazing-football-pat-fitzgerald-claims-racism/70399089007/
Now some former NW players are accusing the program of being racist.
After a Saturday report by The Daily Northwestern detailed alleged hazing and sexual misconduct on the Northwestern football team, three former players are making allegations about a racist culture within the program, including multiple racist attacks and remarks from the coaching staff and players, The Daily reported on Monday.
…
Two of the former players who spoke with the Daily asked to remain anonymous. One told the Daily there was blatant racism on the team, with Fitzgerald implementing the “Wildcat Way,” which meant asking Black players and coaches to cut their dreadlocks. The former player alleged that the coaches used the phrase “good, clean American fun” to indicate how they wanted players to look and act, adding that white players with longer hair were not asked to change it.
Ramon Diaz Jr., a Latino player who was an offensive lineman from 2005-2008, described a hostile experience as a non-white player.
“I didn’t feel like I could be anything other than white,” Diaz told The Daily. “We never felt like we could be ourselves. We had to fit in by being white or acting white or laughing at our own people.”
Diaz alleged multiple instances of racism directed toward him. He said he had to shave “Cinco De Mayo” in his hair for a freshman tradition where players put messages in their hair. He said a coach asked if he had experience cleaning dirty rooms, joking that his family must know how to clean houses.
Diaz said he had flashbacks and nightmares about things that happened in the locker room. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after graduating from Northwestern, saying his experience in the football program was a major factor in the diagnosis.
“The fact that I’m still going to a therapist and talking about these things after more than 10 years is indicative of the mental health state I was left in,” Diaz told The Daily. “I didn’t even watch a football game again for almost five years after I left Northwestern. It was that negative of an experience for me that I didn’t want anything to do with the sport.”
A second anonymous player claimed that the team felt segregated — the defense had more Black players, while the offense had more white players, making it difficult for Black players on offense. Diaz agreed, saying that by the end of his time at Northwestern, he felt alienated and had to act white to fit in.
All three ex-players confirmed some of the hazing allegations that were reported by the Daily on Saturday.
LikeLike
https://www.audacy.com/670thescore/sports/sources-northwestern-baseball-accused-of-toxic-culture
And apparently the baseball program has issues, too. The new AD apparently screwed up the hire and the HR investigation didn’t even interview players.
In his first season leading the Northwestern baseball program, coach Jim Foster created a toxic environment that has run off coaches, broken the spirit of his team and led to a human resources investigation by the university regarding his alleged bullying and verbally abusive behavior, nine sources told 670 The Score.
As part of the toxic culture, Foster discouraged players from seeking medical attention for their injuries, made racially insensitive comments and made an inappropriate comment to a female staff member. Northwestern’s internal investigation didn’t find enough evidence to corroborate all of the allegations, but the university didn’t speak with players on the team while looking into the allegations, sources said.
Northwestern pitchers, in particular, hid their injuries from Foster this past season due to his demanding nature, and they instead sought treatment from trainer Josh Kuester away from the field, sources said. One Northwestern player had an elbow injury and pushed too hard to return because Foster wanted him back by a certain date. That player ended up needing Tommy John surgery. Foster also told multiple upperclassmen that they should quit if they didn’t return from injury sooner than expected, sources said.
…
One player detailed to 670 The Score how he was the subject of a punishment run for nearly the entirety of a 2 1/2-hour practice last fall. After that, in November, the HR complaint was filed against Foster, and the university began monitoring him more closely, though toxic culture didn’t stop, sources said.
This isn’t the first time that Foster has found himself in a concerning situation regarding his players’ physical well-being. Foster was the head coach of the Rhode Island program from 2006-’14. In October 2011, a player on his team died following a strength and conditioning workout outdoors. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the university, and it was settled for $1.45 million.
Other Northwestern baseball coaches and staffers made repeated attempts to meet with athletic director Derrick Gragg to detail the toxic culture and medical mistreatment, but they were repeatedly denied a chance to meet with him, sources said.
…
One allegation that Northwestern’s internal investigation did corroborate was his inappropriate comment to a female staffer. He said that she couldn’t be on the field because he didn’t want players “staring at her ***” and that she should be in the press box taking notes, sources said. She soon distanced herself from the team, sources said, because of Foster’s comment and behavior.
…
Foster was hired in June 2022 by Northwestern, which went 10-40 this past season. The Wildcats have about 15 players who plan to transfer, sources said.
Foster came to Northwestern after leading the Army baseball program for six seasons. In the phone conversation Monday morning in which he addressed the allegations against him, Foster referenced his West Point coaching background, saying he came from a place where you need to have the highest of standards to succeed.
Foster also called the reporting of this story a “hit piece.” Regarding the inappropriate comment toward the female staffer, Foster noted that at Army, females had to wear army uniforms but that they could wear tight pants at Northwestern.
Regarding the other coaches who detailed the toxic environment, Foster suggested they wanted his job. He also put the responsibility back on the players.
“Maybe the players aren’t good enough and are just making excuses or are disgruntled,” Foster said. “Maybe it’s how they’re raised, could be any of that stuff.”
The nine sources that spoke with 670 The Score were comprised of former coaches, current and former players and others close to the program.
https://www.insidenu.com/2023/7/10/23790160/jim-foster-accused-of-toxic-workplace-environment-nine-players-and-staffers-tell-670-the-score
Here is the bit about screwing up the hire.
In addition, these members confirmed that Athletic Director Derrick Gragg conducted a “chaotic and unusual hiring process” in tabbing Foster as head coach in June 2022. He and Deputy Director of Athletics Monique Holland supposedly “pawned the hire off” to two Northwestern boosters, who sat in on final interviews.
Those boosters, who played for former head coach Ron Wellman, said that hiring a “disciplinarian” (as the report noted) like Foster, who coached at Army before coming to Evanston, would help the players overachieve.
…
According to the report, one player was forced to engage in a “punishment run,” which lasted for the “vast majority of a 2.5-hour practice.” This occurred in spite of a Rhode Island player dying under Foster’s watch, allegedly for a “punishment run.”
Moreover, the report posited that 15 players transferred due solely because of Foster. When Foster left Army last summer, there was allegedly a “celebratory Zoom,” and the school was “thrilled” to remove him.
In February, when asked why Foster would not be fired, Holland allegedly told trainer Joshua Kuester that “sometimes the right thing to do is not always the best thing to do.”
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/media/2023/07/10/new-york-times-dissolves-sports-department-the-athletic/70397685007/
The NY Times is dropping their sports department and will use articles from The Athletic instead. Is this the future? Will Gannett do something similar to save money, and drop local coverage from their hundreds of newspapers?
The Times sports department currently has more than 35 journalists and editors, who will be shifted to other roles in the newsroom without any layoffs, the newspaper said.
The shift in philosophy “will scale back the newsroom’s coverage of games, players, teams and leagues,” according to the email, and focus “even more directly on distinctive, high-impact news and enterprise journalism about how sports intersect with money, power, culture, politics and society at large.”
…
The New York Times Company acquired The Athletic, a subscription-based sports journalism site, in January 2022 for $550 million. At the time of the sale, CEO Meredith Kopit Levien said The Athletic would continue to exist as a “stand-alone product.”
In June, The Athletic announced layoffs amounting to nearly 4% of its newsroom, with almost 20 journalists losing their jobs and another 20 reassigned to different roles.
LikeLike
In June, The Athletic announced layoffs amounting to nearly 4% of its newsroom, with almost 20 journalists losing their jobs and another 20 reassigned to different roles.
Before June, the Athletic had a dedicated beat reporter assigned to every team in the four major professional (U.S.) team sports, or at least that was what they aspired to. According to the Washington Post story on the layoffs, the company dropped its beat reporters for a number of low-interest teams, including the Philadelphia 76ers, Chicago White Sox and Seattle Mariners, among others. It didn’t mention if any colleges or universities were dropped.
LikeLike
They never aspired to have beat reporters for every school, so maybe they didn’t need to cut many from CFB.
https://theathletic.com/1075857/2019/07/15/the-athletic-welcomes-andy-staples-10-new-college-football-team-writers/
They had 33 CFB beat reporters back in 2019. They probably added a few more P5 teams over the years as well. Their new plan focuses more on regional coverage and big-picture stories, so a few probably have been laid doff or moved to new roles. It makes sense – local news only has local interest. Only the big brands get national interest.
LikeLike
Much bad blood from the (former) NY Times sports dept. They say this is union-busting.
https://wapo.st/43kl87K
LikeLike
I don’t have an opinion on the union-busting aspect of it, but to have two sports departments made very little sense.
LikeLike
Well, that escalated quickly. NW has fired Pat Fitzgerald. How bad does that 2 week suspension look now?
Now about that baseball coach … (see my comment above)
LikeLike
Ultimately the right answer, but appalling how how badly it was handled initially.
LikeLike
Now the issue is a coaching search. They probably are stuck with an interim coach for the season, but you’d think they’d want to clean house. For now their fairly new DC (hired in 2022) is in charge, but doesn’t even have the interim tag. I suppose it makes sense to choose someone who hasn’t been there long if you have to name someone from the current staff.
Is there someone currently out of coaching they could hire to be a CEO coach for the year? One of Saban’s 37 analysts? Someone who retired recently? I’d like to think most coaches wouldn’t abandon their current team this close to the start of a season. But with the transfer portal eliminating player loyalty, I wouldn’t blame a coach for leaving. It’s a 2-way street.
https://dknetwork.draftkings.com/2023/7/10/23790534/northwestern-wildcats-head-coach-candidates-rumors-news-pat-fitzgerald-fritz-mason-crieghton
DraftKings suggests Willie Fritz (Tulane), Derek Mason (formerly VU) and Chris Creighton (EMU) as options to consider long term. I saw Matt Campbell (ISU) mentioned somewhere. Would Clark Lea leave VU (he has a midwestern background)?
LikeLike
Would Jim Leonhard be interested?
LikeLike
I hear Scott Frost is available 🙂
LikeLike
The P12 may know the basic plan in a month and have a deal to announce by Labor Day, according to John Ourand on his podcast.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-in-no-hurry-as-las
And this from Canzano:
In mid-June, a member of the Pac-12 Conference CEO Group told me something that I haven’t stopped thinking about.
“Finally feeling no time pressure,” the source said at the time.
The Pac-12 had been engaged for months in its media-rights negotiation. The conference had taken a public beating from outsiders who claimed it was surely left for dead. But internally, the mood was suddenly pressure-free?
What happened exactly?
One member of the CEO Group told me on Tuesday: “The room just shifted.”
Their media days are going to be interesting. Will anyone ask a question about football?
LikeLike
Brian: “What happened exactly?”
Brian, are you really so gullible that you think this is not going to be a train wreck/apocalypse? I will tell you exactly what is happening. George Kliavkoff is delaying/bluffing/bullshitting until it becomes too late for Pac-12 schools to bail out. And it’s working. He’s led the Four Corners around by the nose and now they’re stuck in the Pac-12 for another year.
And Kliavkoff’s waiting game isn’t over yet. Just wait and see. And wait. And wait.
LikeLike
Brian, are you really so gullible that you think this is not going to be a train wreck/apocalypse?
I don’t think Brian endorses the viewpoint of every story he reposts. I take it that Brian posted this because it is interesting, not because he thinks this is necessarily going to happen exactly as described.
George Kliavkoff is delaying/bluffing/bullshitting until it becomes too late for Pac-12 schools to bail out.
This is illogical nonsense. Do you really think that if in September the four corners — or a couple of them — asked to join the Big 12 as of 7/1/2024, Yormark would say it’s too late?
LikeLike
Marc: “Do you really think that if in September the four corners — or a couple of them — asked to join the Big 12 as of 7/1/2024, Yormark would say it’s too late?”
Yormack has already told San Diego State that it’s “too late”.
LikeLike
Yormack has already told San Diego State that it’s “too late”.
The rumor — it is only a rumor — is that the Big 12 is not interested in SDSU, not that they asked too late. The Big 12 has cooled on them because it is hunting bigger game.
If you are the Big 12, SDSU is a school you potentially consider if your prime targets don’t come over. The Four Corners are the prime targets.
LikeLike
Marc: “The Big 12 has cooled on them (SDS) because it is hunting bigger game.”
That’s probably true, meaning that Yormack now has some insight that the Pac-12 is on the verge of collapse. My hunch is:
1. Proposed Pac-12 TV deal doesn’t pass muster with Colorado or Arizona.
2. Proposed Pac-12 TV deal announcement being delayed by George Kliavkoff to prevent Colorado and Arizona from bolting to Big XII.
3. If AZ and CO leave, ASU and Utah will follow.
4. Yormack knows all of this and that’s why invitations to both SDS and UConn are now in limbo.
LikeLike
Marc,
Exactly. It’s new content on a much-discussed topic. People can form their own opinions of it.
This is illogical nonsense.
Consider the source. Do you really expect better?
Do you really think that if in September the four corners — or a couple of them — asked to join the Big 12 as of 7/1/2024, Yormark would say it’s too late?
Also, it presumes that the P12 schools will wait forever. Sure, they have now passed 6/30 but the P12 has no exit fee so I don’t know that it really matters much. Stability and long-term revenue matters more than a 1-time fee. And as you note, the B12 doesn’t need 12 months of notice. More time helps with integration, but they really just need their football schedule released by March or so (it was end of January this year) for the TV people. If the B12 can’t take them in 2024, they can refuse to sign a P12 GOR and be available for 2025 instead.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37995737/northwestern-football-keep-assistants-pat-fitzgerald-firing
NW will retain the entire coaching and support staff for the upcoming season. If the HC should’ve known about the hazing, shouldn’t the position coaches have known as well? If that whiteboard was in the locker room, shouldn’t they have seen it? At least a bunch of the staff are new.
Northwestern will retain its assistant coaches and support staff for the 2023 season in the wake of coach Pat Fitzgerald’s firing, the school told ESPN.
Athletic director Derrick Gragg, who returned Tuesday from an overseas trip, informed the coaches and staff of their status in a meeting. Gragg is set to meet with the team later Tuesday.
Defensive coordinator David Braun is managing the program as a liaison and could become the Wildcats’ interim coach, according to sources. But Gragg did not announce an interim coach in Tuesday’s meeting.
Braun, one of five assistants who joined the team this offseason, previously served as defensive coordinator at North Dakota State.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/4673824/2023/07/12/notre-dame-football-nbc-independent/?source=emp_shared_article
A second sports media consultant, who would speak only on background due to the sensitivity of negotiations, believed a $60 million agreement for Notre Dame’s next NBC deal would be in the ballpark of current market value. Privately, Notre Dame hopes to at least double its current media rights deal with NBC, with internal perspective that the school must be within “striking distance” of the SEC and Big Ten financially. Revenue from the ACC Network has been slightly better than forecast to date. And hitting analysts’ projections of $60 million would seem to make Notre Dame whole.
“It’s Notre Dame. It’s the whale. It’s what everybody wants,” said the anonymous media consultant. “After so many years, why change now? It’s kind of like the Masters and CBS. It’s just one of those things that is just kind of there and it’s expected. You don’t wake up thinking the Masters went somewhere else for a few dollars more.”
LikeLike
After so many years, why change now? It’s kind of like the Masters and CBS. It’s just one of those things that is just kind of there and it’s expected. You don’t wake up thinking the Masters went somewhere else for a few dollars more.
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the consultant, but many sports properties have moved to new homes after many decades in one place. Examples off the top of my head include the NFC on CBS (went to Fox; a very big upheaval at the time), the AFC on NBC (went to CBS), the SEC on CBS (went to ESPN), and the Big Ten on ABC/ESPN (went to NBC and CBS).
Of course, all of these were for more than just “a few dollars more.”
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree with you on that part. Even just in CFB, you see changes. The B10 and ABC/ESPN, NBC and major bowl games (had the Rose and Orange for over 30 years, the Fiesta for almost 20), CBS and the Cotton Bowl, etc.
But from NBC’s point of view, getting the B10 probably makes keeping ND even more important (and more valuable). They need the synergy of the ND deal and the B10 deal to get a good return on their investment.
LikeLike
The article was written by the Athletic’s homer who covers Notre Dame full time. This does not necessarily invalidate it — even homers are right sometimes — but parts of it are clearly meant to be catnip for the Irish faithful. It’s not the article that a national beat reporter (like Stewart Mandel or Dennis Dodd) would write.
Perhaps the funniest part is describing the NBC game announcers as “objective,” whereas to almost everyone else they seem very clearly to be openly rooting for the Irish.
I do agree with the core conclusion that $60m per season seems very do-able. It would be less per game than NBC is paying for the Big Ten, but enough to keep ND financially viable.
Colin is fond of pointing out the stinkers on the ND schedule, and he is not wrong about that. The Irish have home dates this year against Tennessee State, Central Michigan, and Wake Forest. But not every Big Ten game will be ratings gold either. Among the games already announced for NBC and/or Peacock are: East Carolina at Michigan, Delaware at Penn State, Charlotte at Maryland, and Syracuse at Purdue.
LikeLike
I went to CostCo in Louisville today, wearing my Purdue cap. As I checked out, the cashier said that the Louisville and Purdue would be playing each year starting in 2024. I am not making this up.
He went on to explain that he was a Miami fan, not a Louisville fan, and he had insider info that the implosion of the ACC was imminent and that Miami, FSU and Louisville were all headed for the Big Ten. I bet him a six-pack of brewski that it wouldn’t happen by the end of the year.
LikeLike
Marc,
I focused my quotes on the part of interest, with the consultant guesstimating $60M and the writer saying ND wants to at least double (from the current about $25M).
https://sicem365.com/s/15070/realignment-tv-data-questions-answers
A Baylor fan crunched the numbers and came up with $64.5M as a guesstimate based on ND’s TV ratings.
I do not work for any media company but will attempt to back into a reasonable estimate using the SEC’s recent ABC contract terms for estimate price per viewer. My logic in this is that the television partners are selling advertising spots based on expected viewership so pricing based on what you could expect a league to deliver could be informative. Since the ABC deal with the SEC is for only 15 games and is all football inventory it makes for the cleanest math with the fewest variables to consider for a football-only valuation.
ABC will be paying the SEC 3 billion over ten years 300 Million per year Since the deal was for the top 15 of the SEC’s games it’s easy to estimate $20 million per game in valuation.
Since I have years of television data I will then try and get a good expectation for those games in terms of viewership. Since it’s the same inventory that CBS was running with can take the SEC on CBS figures for the last four normal seasons which would be 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022. I arrived at $3.76 per median viewer using the median 2018-2022 (no 2020) CBS SEC game of week of around 5.32M.
…
If I apply the $3.76 per median viewer to [ND’s] typical 7 game home slate (median viewers in the afternoon are 2.45M which estimates 64.5M in value using the methodology above.
There are plenty of nits to pick with his methodology (assumes linear scaling of value with number of viewers, for one thing), but it’s a rough approximation. It’s also for the average value of the deal, not the first year value.
LikeLike
Brian, you continue to ignore that the value of ND games is not based upon the comparative value of Big Ten or SEC games. As I have said before, ND has no Plan B. At this point, ND’s negotiations with NBC consists of “We want the same ballpark money as the Big Ten or else we’ll stomp our widdle feet weally hard.”
NBC will be forking over a lot of money to the Big Ten that wasn’t being spent previously. They don’t have millions to throw at ND. Why should they pay double for the same thing they got for $25 million last year? How many viewers will tune in to watch the Navy beatdown this year?
LikeLike
Brian, you continue to ignore that the value of ND games is not based upon the comparative value of Big Ten or SEC games. As I have said before, ND has no Plan B.
Repeating it does not make it more true. Look, as a fan I don’t like Notre Dame at all. But I do understand they are one of the most iconic brands in sports. Obviously there are rational comparisons to make with other iconic brands.
NBC will be forking over a lot of money to the Big Ten that wasn’t being spent previously. They don’t have millions to throw at ND.
You know this…how? As far as I know, you are not an NBC insider, and I have not seen any news story which suggests they cannot afford to re-up Notre Dame at market value.
I have seen stories that the Big Ten night game package was the only package they were interested in, which is consistent with the view that they intend to renew Notre Dame in the afternoons.
Why should they pay double for the same thing they got for $25 million last year?
The Notre Dame package has been on NBC for 32 years. The price has always gone up (just like every other sports property), and NBC has always renewed at a fair market rate. While we might argue exactly what the “market” consists of, it’s definitely not “the same rate as last year.”
How many viewers will tune in to watch the Navy beatdown this year?
ND has played Navy annually since 1927, so I think they have a pretty good idea what it is worth. Service academies tend to do well on TV, even in lopsided games. As I noted above, not every Big Ten game is a blockbuster either. I bet ND/Navy will do better than Purdue vs. Syracuse, for which NBC is paying a lot more.
LikeLike
Marc, the abolition of divisions and the additions of USC/UCLA to the Big Ten and UT/OU to the SEC will be transformative for both conferences. The value of their TV content will increase dramatically while the value of ND’s home games will actually diminish as the NBC 3:30 slot competes against better games in the B1G and SEC.
Currently the Big Ten’s three heavyweights are each stuck with three games each year vs Indiana, Maryland and Rutgers. That will end in 2024. Needless to say we’ll have blockbuster games whenever USC, OSU, UM and PS play each other but even when they don’t we’ll have a far better array of games for the networks to choose from each week, e. g., OSU-Illinois, Michigan-Wisconsin, Penn State-UCLA and USC-Nebraska. The top two that the networks choose will be on at noon and 3:30 against a ND-NC State game that starts as 2:30.
And the same thing will happen in the SEC. From an assortment of games like Texas-Arkansas, A&M-LSU, Bama-Tennessee, Georgia-Florida and Oklahoma-Ole Miss, the top two of those matchups that the networks choose will also be on at noon and 3:30 against a ND-NC State game that starts as 2:30.
The Big Ten and SEC are being paid a lot more money because they are going to have better quality and greater quantity content. Now, of course, games like ND-FSU will continue to be big draws but ND has only a couple of those type opponents each year and half of them are road games. The majority of ND’s home schedule will continue to be against the likes of Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake and Navy. Another factor, NBC is getting only seven home games from ND while they’re getting ~45 from the Big Ten and ~45 from the SEC.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/4662794/2023/07/12/college-football-conference-realignment/
Why conference realignment is the subject college football — fans included — can’t quit
It’s apparently the first in a series about realignment.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/4670429/2023/07/12/conference-realignment-big-ten-jim-delany/
Second in the series is an interview with Jim Delany about expansion. He says he can’t talk about any offers that didn’t work out due to NDAs, but he does speculate on the future.
Setting the stage:
Delany was 31 when he left NCAA enforcement to take over as the Ohio Valley commissioner. Delany was 41 when he became the fifth commissioner in Big Ten history. In an era he described as “bully ball” among the Big Ten’s presidents, athletic directors and coaches, Delany presided over a league that grew unified, added four members and soared beyond its peers in wealth.
While working with 71 presidents across 30 years in the Big Ten, Delany helped secure Penn State as the league’s 11th member in 1990. It was the first modern-era expansion and one that ushered 26 other major-conference football moves through 1999. The Big Ten missed out on Notre Dame in 1999, but its expansion search in 2009 and conclusion with Nebraska in 2010 caused major conference upheaval. The major conferences combined for 17 other moves through 2014 and the Big East and WAC collapsed.
2 biggest factors in realignment:
1) UGA & OU’s Supreme Court win
2) No eastern conference forming with PSU
Without PSU, the B10 likely would’ve stayed at 10 for a while longer.
Personally, I think the B10 would’ve eventually expanded because the money was pushing the major independents (except ND) into conferences. The SEC still would’ve expanded, the SWC still would’ve crumbled, etc. Maybe the B10 would’ve gotten NE and MO. RU and SU?
Delany also thinks CCG deregulation is/will be big for the future. It’s hard to do 16 without eliminating divisions for the CCG, for example.
LikeLike
Also an article in today’s Arhletic that Georgia Tech came pretty close to joining the Big Ten. Not much news about it because all discussions were tightly covered by nondisclosure agreements.
LikeLike
Also an article in today’s Athletic that Georgia Tech came pretty close to joining the Big Ten.
Really good article, but it doesn’t say they came close — only that it was discussed. Apparently GT felt that a move to the Big Ten would not be well received by its alumni. Of course, the disparity in TV dollars was not as great as it is now. If they could make that move today, I am pretty sure they’d take it in a heartbeat.
Perhaps this is common knowledge, but until now I didn’t know why GT left the SEC. At the time, the SEC allowed its members to over-recruit and then “run off” poorly performing players. GT refused to do that, which they felt put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Bobby Dodd tried first to get the SEC to change its rule. After they refused, GT left the conference. But nine years later, the SEC did change the rule. GT wanted back in, but the SEC wouldn’t take them. Probably the worst conference realignment decision of all time.
LikeLike
Without PSU, the B10 likely would’ve stayed at 10 for a while longer.
Personally, I think the B10 would’ve eventually expanded because the money was pushing the major independents (except ND) into conferences.
Delany points out that the Big East was the first league created basically just for television. Those schools had very little tying them together except a TV deal. Certainly the Big East’s rejection of PSU was a very poor decision. But that league was probably going to be doomed no matter what. Since TV was the only thing holding the Big East together, it would always be vulnerable to neighboring conferences offering more money.
LikeLike
The biggest mistake of the Big East was certainly rejecting Penn State, but the biggest problem was the split between the football schools and the basketball only schools. Note that two basketball schools kept PSU out of the league.
Even in retrospect, vetoing PSU was not necessarily contrary to the interests of the basketball only schools. The split from football was inevitable and have PSU on board would have given the football schools more power in the league.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38001397/bedlam-rivalry-oklahoma-history
Some Mike Gundy tidbits from B12 media days:
* Gundy says Bedlam is done in football. OkSU is scheduled through 2037, and if the SEC goes to 9 games they’ll drop the P5 OOC game anyway. Fact check: OkSU does have a P5 team scheduled most years through 2037, but they only have Tulsa for 2030-31.
* Gundy mentioned the 4C schools as expansion options.
“In football, Bedlam is history in my opinion,” Gundy told ESPN at Big 12 media days at AT&T Stadium. “OU chose to go to the SEC. When they did, they took Bedlam with them. … [Oklahoma athletic director Joe] Castiglione is a friend of mine, but when he and their president decided to go to the SEC, they took Bedlam with them. Do I like it? No. I like tradition.
“I like Big 12, I liked the old Big Eight,” he said. “I like rivalries. I like the things in college football that have been around forever, but that’s not going to matter anymore. All those things are history.”
Gundy said Oklahoma State’s schedule is set through 2037, and suggested that if the SEC ever moves to a nine-game conference schedule, it wouldn’t be smart “from a business perspective” for the SEC to schedule another Power 5 opponent.
“Nobody likes it,” he said, “but Bedlam’s out the window.”
…
When asked what schools he thinks would be a good fit for the Big 12, Gundy mentioned the four schools that have for months created the most speculation — Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Arizona State — but said it was only a guess.
“Colorado is right down the road,” he said. “They used to be in our league. They make sense, right? You know, if you’re thinking location, a little bit of television market, the two Arizona schools grab the West Coast a little bit. You know, Utah sitting right there. I’m guessing they have a rivalry with BYU, so you bring another rivalry in.”
LikeLike
Gundy says Bedlam is done in football. OkSU is scheduled through 2037, and if the SEC goes to 9 games they’ll drop the P5 OOC game anyway.
So, he thinks that Florida–Florida State, Clemson–South Carolina, and Georgia Tech–Georgia will all be cancelled too?
LikeLike
Well, he didn’t address those specifically.
My guess is that he wouldn’t think those specific games would necessarily go away, but generic SEC vs P5 games would. I don’t know if any of those in-state rivalries are mandated by their governments. I could see SC wishing to drop the annual loss to Clemson, or at least not making it an annual series. UGA gets an easy win and a virtual home game in Atlanta every other year, but they might want an occasional break from GT to play someone else HaH. UF has been content to only play in FL, so they might be the one most likely to keep their rivalry.
In the future, I wouldn’t be shocked to see some rivalries move to 2 on, 2 off scheduling so teams can play someone else the other years. I hope it doesn’t happen, but UT/TAMU, KU/MO and others show you can survive without the rivalry.
LikeLike
FSU-UF is mandated by the State of Florida. I think that it was in the around 1965 that the State of FL Legislature was prepared to pass a law that the game must be played every year. The governor intervened and said that legislation was no needed and forced UF to accept the annual FSU game.
I do not believe that either school would even try to end that game and have no doubt that ending it would be very unpopular throughout the state.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/yankees/2023/07/12/new-york-yankees-add-starr-insurance-logo-patch-iconic-uniforms/70406669007/
The Yankees are putting an ad patch on their sleeves as part of a $20M deal.
The New York Yankees don’t allow names on the back of their jerseys, but they will allow something else besides the interlocking NY and their iconic pinstripes going forward.
The team on Wednesday announced a deal with Starr Insurance that will put the company’s logo on a uniform sleeve patch, which the team will wear for both home and away games as the Yankees’ new “signature partner.”
The first appearance of the new patch will come when the Yanks host the Kansas City Royals on July 21 to kick off their first home series of the season’s second half.
The sponsorship deal is expected to net the Yankees at least $20 million per year.
The team’s relationship with the insurance company began in 2018 will now run through the 2031 season. In addition to the uniform patches, Starr Insurance will have ads on the outfield wall at Yankee Stadium and on both the home and away teams’ bullpens.
LikeLike
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sports/college/memphis-tigers/2023/07/12/what-big-12-commissioner-brett-yormark-said-about-conference-expansion-at-media-day/70407362007/
Yormark on B12 expansion.
While the wait continues, commissioner Brett Yormark said Wednesday the Big 12 has a plan for expansion. But he declined to provide specific details. Yormark added the Big 12 is keeping its options open and is in favor of adding schools from outside the Power 5 if they meet certain criteria.
“As it relates to a school that is non-Power 5, if they create value and they align well with our goals and objectives, it’s a conversation we’ll consider having,” Yormark said at Big 12 football media days in Arlington, Texas. “The great thing about my board and my AD partnership is that we collaborate all the time. We can agree to disagree on certain things and we have throughout the year. I’ve learned a lot from both governance groups, but again, if within the value equation, there is alignment, Power 5 or non-Power 5, we’ll look to pursue it.”
…
… Yormark said Wednesday he believes there is strength in numbers but added he’s “not chasing a number.”
Yormark also did not rule out the possibility of standing pat, but the league’s interest in possibly adding Pac-12 members Colorado and Arizona has been well documented. …
Also, this tweet about no western partner for BYU:
LikeLike
Brett Yormark was asked about finding a college to pair with BYU on the western front, in terms of potential expansion: “Right now there’s nothing on the board.”
The dumb notion of a “travel partner” persists, despite how illogical it is. Joining the Big 12 has not made BYU’s travel notably worse, because they already played a national schedule anyway. There are other Mountain time zone schools the Big 12 covets, but not because BYU might want them.
LikeLike
The one reason I thought it was interesting was because Utah is one of the 4C schools, and we know the B12 has interest in at least some of them. This pretty clearly says that UU has told the B12 that they prefer to stay in the P12 (which we already knew, but now we’re hearing it from Yormark).
It might also say something about the likelihood of adding Gonzaga. I don’t think it’s relevant for SDSU.
LikeLike
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/bob-iger-disney-ceo-extension-2026-1235668668/
Disney has extended Iger’s contract 2 years, through 2026. Initially he came back just to find a new successor supposedly.
“Time and again, Bob has shown an unparalleled ability to successfully transform Disney to drive future growth and financial returns, earning him a reputation as one of the world’s best CEOs,” said Disney chairman Mark G. Parker. “Bob has once again set Disney on the right strategic path for ongoing value creation, and to ensure the successful completion of this transformation while also allowing ample time to position a new CEO for long-term success, the Board determined it is in the best interest of shareholders to extend his tenure, and he has agreed to our request to remain Chief Executive Officer through the end of 2026.”
From the moment Iger returned, Disney watchers were expecting the news that his tenure would be extended. Disney at present is in dealing with a host of internal issues in addition to the urgency to reinvent its linear TV businesses for the streaming era. Disney has been awash in losses for the past few years as it invested big in direct-to-consumer streaming platforms Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+. The softening of the global streaming marketplace over the past two years has forced Disney and other Hollywood content giants to rethink the gung-ho pivot to streaming even as cord-cutting takes its toll on legacy linear networks like ESPN and Disney Channel that was churned out profits for the Mouse House.
…
… Iger quickly initiated a restructuring of Disney operations, which were dramatically realigned under Chapek into separate units for content creation and content distribution.
Iger quickly did away with that structure that was unpopular within Disney, re-integrating content and distribution operations. …
…
Disney’s recent travails have been reflected in its stock price which was approaching the $190 mark in early 2021 but has traded under $100 since March. For the year to date, Disney shares are down 14%, closing Wednesday at $90.15.
LikeLike
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/13/disney-open-to-finding-espn-strategic-partner.html
More about Disney:
* Disney has held early conversations to find a new strategic partner for ESPN
* Disney is also open to selling or spinning out its legacy cable networks and ABC
* Iger still won’t say when ESPN will go DTC
… Disney is open to potentially selling an equity stake in ESPN and is looking for a strategic partner in the business as it prepares to transition the sports network to streaming, CEO Bob Iger said Thursday.
The linear TV business has degraded over the past year more than Iger expected, the Disney CEO told CNBC’s David Faber Thursday in an interview at Sun Valley, Idaho. …
Disney has held early conversations with potential partners that could improve an ESPN streaming service by extending its distribution and adding content, Iger said. He declined to name specific partners. Disney currently owns 80% of ESPN. Hearst Communications owns the other 20%.
Disney has held off from putting its prime ESPN content on its ESPN+ streaming service as it continues to make billions of dollars in revenue each year through traditional cable TV. Still, millions of Americans cancel their cable subscriptions each year, and that number has accelerated in recent years.
“The challenges are greater than I had anticipated,” Iger said. “The disruption of the traditional TV business is most notable. If anything, the disruption of that business has happened to a greater extent than even I was aware.”
…
Iger’s comments about finding a strategic partner suggest he believes ESPN may function better in a streaming environment if paired with other companies’ sports content. CNBC reported earlier this year that ESPN wants to be a hub for all live sports programming if it can agree to partnerships with other media companies.
…
In addition to finding a strategic partner for ESPN, Iger said he was open to selling or spinning off Disney’s legacy cable networks, including FX and NatGeo, and its broadcast group, ABC Networks. Iger said Disney would be “expansive” in its thinking about the legacy cable and broadcast assets, outside of ESPN.
Iger also said Disney plans to acquire Comcast’s minority stake in Hulu as planned. The two companies struck a deal in 2019 that would give Disney the option to buy Comcast’s minority stake at a fair market value.
This could be Apple or Amazon’s path to really getting into sports. Just wait until Amazon owns all the ACC and SEC rights and starts shoving their merch down everyone’s throat.
LikeLike
Iger has been a great leader for Disney. Disney+ has lost billions of dollars. It seems as though for the year 2023, Disney movies will LOSE close to a billion dollars, cumulatively. They have had individual movies lose more than $200 million.
This year, Disney World in FL had its worst 4th of July in more than a decade.
As far as Disney planning to buy Hulu, Comcast has exercised a put option. Disney has no choice. The issue will be the price to Comcast, which will be somewhere between $9 billion and $27 billion.
LikeLike
A 10:00 clip of B12 deputy commissioner Tim Weiser on B12 expansion, the P12 media deal, and other topics. He expects they will add more schools, including someone out west to partner with BYU. He downplays MBB-only additions like Gonzaga unless their next TV deal separates FB from MBB and MBB gains in relative value.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38007548/acc-cw-strike-broadcast-deal-air-50-football-basketball-games
The ACC has signed a deal with the CW to broadcast 50 CFB, MBB and WBB games starting this year. The CW is replacing Raycom as the broadcaster, but Raycom will still do the production.
The CW has secured the rights to 50 ACC games, beginning Sept. 9 with Pitt’s football game against Cincinnati. Thirteen ACC football games will air Saturdays on the CW, which will broadcast 28 ACC men’s and women’s basketball games throughout December, January and February. The ACC will have men’s basketball doubleheaders on the CW every Saturday, and women’s basketball doubleheaders on Sunday afternoons.
Raycom Sports, which sublicences ACC events from ESPN, sold its rights to the CW but will continue producing them.
…
“We are thrilled to be adding The CW to our weekly television lineup for ACC football and basketball games,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said in a statement. “The CW’s national distribution will directly benefit our student-athletes, teams, alumni and fans. We appreciate ESPN and Raycom working together and look forward to the partnership with The CW.”
Maybe it’s a little more exposure (did the west get Raycom games?) and a little more money.
LikeLike
A little more NW news:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38007901/northwestern-defensive-coordinator-david-braun-school-interim-coach-sources-say
The new DC will be named the interim coach. He was hired after last season, so he’s not tainted by the scandal. He’s also never coached in I-A before (came from NDSU).
Braun’s first task will be preserving the Northwestern roster, as many players and parents are upset at the handling of Fitzgerald’s departure. The Northwestern players have a window of nearly four more weeks in which they can transfer without penalty.
I’m a little curious to see what extra coach they hire since they are short one, or if they promote a GA.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38007877/northwestern-fires-baseball-coach-jim-foster-sources-say
NW has fired their baseball coach. No surprise there.
Foster had been investigated by the university’s human resources department before the season. The probe found evidence that Foster “engaged in bullying and abusive behavior,” according to a document obtained by the Chicago Tribune, and made an inappropriate comment about a female staff member.
The document was set to be shared with athletic department leaders to “take remedial action” against Foster, but he coached the season without any formal discipline, according to the Tribune.
Northwestern had several coaches depart the program in February, and the team struggled to a 10-40 record. After the season, 16 players reportedly entered the transfer portal.
LikeLike
From the Athletic:
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips named a defendant in second Northwestern lawsuit, lawyers say
By Chris Vannini Jul 19, 2023
Lawyers representing an unnamed former Northwestern player suing school officials said Wednesday they will file another lawsuit on behalf of a second player, adding ACC commissioner Jim Phillips as a defendant. The lawyers also said they discovered more allegations of misconduct in the school’s softball and volleyball programs, on top of known allegations in the football, baseball and cheerleading programs.
Phillips served as Northwestern’s athletic director from 2008 to 2021. Both lawsuits also list the school itself, president Michael Schill, former president Morton Schapiro, the board of trustees, current athletic director Derrick Gragg and former football coach Pat Fitzgerald as defendants.
LikeLike
More on NW mess, gift article from WaPo.
https://wapo.st/3rFJMmk
LikeLike
Yet another former Northwestern files suit against the school and he too names ACC commish Jim Phillips.
https://wapo.st/3K69sPl
LikeLike
Does anyone have direct contact with Frank.
We really need to start a new thread, even without a specific new subject.
LikeLike
Bernie,
He was probably waiting for a new P12 media deal and/or further P5 realignment (4C to B12, SDSU to P12, maybe SMU to P12, etc.). Like everyone else, he didn’t foresee it taking this long. I’m impressed we’ve gotten to 4600 comments, and may get to 5000. It still works okay in a browser on a computer, but I know it always used to act up on phones when there were too many comments.
LikeLike
Bernie, over the years I’m emailed Frank a couple of times when I’ve had trouble logging in or posting. Both times he responded by email and said the problem was the spam filter, which he fixed.
frankthetank.illini@gmail.com
LikeLike
Its interesting that we think commissioners and university presidents have studies done with everything planned out and the strings ready to pull when it comes to realignment. Then we find out that this little corner of the internet is way more influential that we ever thought, because Jim Delany is passing around articles from here.
This site might as well be the Conference M&A version of the Baseball Prospectus.
https://theathletic.com/4086221/2023/01/16/baseball-prospectus-sabermetrics-mlb/
LikeLike
Very cool for Frank (with maybe a little reflected glory for the commentators here). Referenced in a law journal, and now this. Maybe he should give up his day job and turn into a sports business pro (like Kristi Dosh and others).
LikeLike
Some tidbits:
“We announced our intentions to explore it but weren’t committed to do it,” Delany said. “But it had a very destabilizing effect on about everybody. And that wasn’t intentional, but it was obviously true.”
…
The Big Ten’s 2009 announcement allowed for a 12- to 18-month window for evaluations. It was designed to be inclusive and transparent. It was just the opposite from what happened in 1990 when Delany stepped into a process led by university presidents without involvement from athletics. It nearly blew up on the league until Delany salvaged enough votes to bring in Penn State.
But in 1990, there was no Twitter and no daily college football television shows speculating on every possibility. It also gave seemingly secure institutions the opportunity to assess their options. ESPN analyst Andre Ware said the Big Ten should add TCU, then in the Mountain West. Chicago-based blogger “Frank the Tank” developed enough reasoning that Delany passed his analysis along to university presidents. Within two days of the Big Ten announcement, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said his state’s flagship institution should “look at what options the Big Ten may have to offer.”
Delany:
I thought we had screwed it up pretty good in 1990 by not vetting it. We gave ourselves 18 months so we can do a thorough study and analysis on those that might be interested, and we created a process for that to occur.
[about BTN]
Delany:
ESPN was trying to keep control of us, but we basically had a 400 percent increase. We went from about $50 million a year to about $200 million a year AAV (average annual value). So that makes everybody’s eyes pop. Everybody, just like they had Rose Bowl envy, they got that network envy. The ACC was 13 years late. The SEC did fine, but they were eight years after us. ESPN was paying them not to have a network, then they paid them to have a network. So they were doing fine. But ESPN lost control over pricing because we were able to show that you could do it. So they had to collaborate. Otherwise, people would do it against them.
After numerous conversations with Notre Dame even beyond their high-profile 1999 courtship, Delany believed Notre Dame was immovable as a football independent. He met with plenty of schools and both sides signed non-disclosure forms, which still prevent him from discussing those candidates.
Delany:
With the exception of some private discussions with Notre Dame, we decide that we’re going to (expand) more than likely than not (but) we weren’t committed to it. We’re going to have a deep study, a deep dive, and we did. That didn’t add to stability, for sure.
[about adding NE and whether BTN was a major factor]
Delany:
It wasn’t a network play because there aren’t any cable networks in Nebraska. It was a brand play and a football play and a broad-based play and a geographic play. My belief was that notwithstanding it not being a cable play, it was a mega-TV play. Because Nebraska had one of the top five brands in football in the country, having won three national championships in the previous 20 years. And that Nebraska-
Ohio State, Nebraska-Michigan, Nebraska-Iowa, Nebraska-Wisconsin, Nebraska-Penn State resonated. And I thought that was the biggest game in town.
We were seeking something that made a lot of sense from a lot of perspectives: geographic, academic, historic, cultural. And so when we made that announcement, undoubtedly, it had a destabilizing effect because people want to come. But it’s not like people didn’t understand that seismic changes were occurring. They’ve been occurring over the last 19 years. Otherwise, how do you explain the growth of the Big East? The growth of the ACC, the growth of the Big 12, the merger/acquisition between the Big 12 and Southwest? How do you explain the WAC growing to 16 and falling apart? All these things were happening. So it’s hard to say what caused what.
[about adding UMD and RU]
Delany:
It was an inconvenient truth that the ACC occupied the old Big East space, and the SEC occupied part of Missouri and the ACC occupied Pittsburgh, Syracuse, other parts of the Northeast and parts of Indiana. So my view was, “OK, we’re moving.” And so I thought, by doing what we did, it was a great network play because we can monetize it. But primarily, it was to grab territory from D.C. to Baltimore to Philadelphia to New York and there’s no other FBS conference there.
[about demographics and the process for adding RU and UMD]
Delany:
We have all of our studies done internally. But since we screwed up the Penn State approach, and since we screwed up by being transparent, we kind of combined opaqueness by keeping it private with internal collaboration. So everybody knew what was going on that needed to know. And we took Maryland and Rutgers.
That was a reaction in part to the idea that we need to be in two regions. Because the way I was doing this, it was consolidation for media purposes, but it had to meet the standard of AAU in a contiguous state. While Nebraska didn’t have many TV homes and had a big brand, you would say that Maryland and Rutgers didn’t have the Nebraska brand. But they had good brands and had good academics and they were in the most densely populated area of the country, albeit a pro sports area primarily, but you don’t need to get 10 percent; you just need to get 2 percent.
[about BTN buy-ins]
Delany:
We had an asset that was worth probably between $1 billion and $2 billion in the Big Ten Network and they were going to become an undivided owner of that in an undivided way when they became a full member. We weren’t just handing it over to them. There was a buy-in. This is not Christmas. Iowa and Michigan and Northwestern put sweat equity into creating that asset and took a lot of risks. So if you come to the Big Ten, you had better bring a lot.
[the ACC tried to poach PSU and another school]
Delany:
That was after we had taken Maryland, I believe. I don’t know about any contacts
between the ACC and Penn State before our move with Maryland. I do understand that calls went into Penn State at that juncture. But there was no interest.
[about the next phase in time, and the P12N and ACCN]
…
ESPN started SEC and ACC networks. The Pac-12 formed its own television network without help from a cable company. Its lack of distribution led to financial disparity and sowed discontent among its membership.
Delany:
I won’t call it mismanagement, because it’s also fair to say the Big Ten, Notre Dame and the SEC, you could argue that a monkey could do it. They’re powerful brands, great locations and powerful fan bases, but you could still screw it up. People used to say the WAC has more reindeer than it has TV sets.
(Former Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott) misjudged and he thought, “Well, we can do this network, and we can own it all.” He didn’t know enough about it to know that he couldn’t do it. The ACC, to be honest with you, gave away too much. They wanted it so bad, they did a 20-year deal for their primary rights.
The SEC was powerful enough by bringing in Texas A&M and Missouri. They were always paid well because they’ve won 12 of the last 15 football championships. I mean, we were doing it on the basis of good middle class, good upper class, good markets, good branding, good timing. But it wasn’t because we were mowing people down. Hell, we won one basketball championship and three football in 30 years. So we were doing something else. But our brand didn’t suffer, because we got way ahead of the curve on the media side.
[about the near future and the ACC]
…
The ACC’s grant of rights should keep its schools from bolting, if only because of the prohibitive cost. But don’t expect a network like ESPN to orchestrate moves such as Clemson, North Carolina or Florida State to the SEC while it owns the ACC’s rights through 2036.
Delany:
These networks already have control of these rights at 50 cents on the dollar. Why would they pay somebody more for something they already own?
As for the Big Ten and SEC, which have emerged as the nation’s most powerful conferences, Delany issued a cautionary note should either contemplate adding more spoils to the realignment war chest. While political factions have interfered in realignment, a dominant Big Ten or SEC could shift government officials from grandstanding to legitimate investigation.
Delany:
If I look at the SEC, I see that they should have pretty much everything that they need. I think the Big Ten probably has everything they need. I think the others may be threatened. But I would say if somebody goes beyond 16, whether it’s the Big Ten or SEC, they’ve got to ask them the question about size and scale and market power. The NCAA was found to have had market power in 1984 and the way they had their hold on college sports TV was ruled to be excessive. I don’t know where that point is.
Conferences became the natural inheritors of the marketing of the TV rights. I don’t know when that line gets crossed, but I think that — certainly if the Big Ten and the SEC combined, which I’ve never heard any discussion of — I don’t think there’s any doubt that would cross the line. The question is what crosses the line beyond 16 because at a certain point, you’re gonna have more people in your group than you can even play.
I would hope there would be a healthy Pac-12 and a healthy ACC. I’m really happy that there’s a healthy Big East in basketball. I hope there’s a healthy MAC. Everybody doesn’t have to live in a gated community.
LikeLike
Maybe he should give up his day job and turn into a sports business pro (like Kristi Dosh and others).
After following Matt Brown’s career a bit, I expect Frank’s day job to be more lucrative then sports business journalism. I am a little surprised that no one has made an attempt at hiring him to work in a conference office like The Baseball Prospectus guys all ended up doing. Perhaps if someone did a profile (paging Matt Brown) we could learn about all the things he’s been too humble to tell us.
If I say Matt Brown one more time, he’s bound to show up right?
LikeLike
Well, there are lawyers that specialize in sports business. Any writing can be done on the side (or maybe even as part of the job).
LikeLike
The son of a friend majored in Sports Management at the University of Michigan. When he graduated, there were zero jobs available in his field. He ended up working for a tobacco company in Charlotte.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-ceo-group-member-offers
Canzano has a pay-walled article about the P12 media deal.
Headline:
Pac-12 CEO Group member offers insight on delay amid Disney/ESPN shift
Subtitle:
Source says it “will be worth the wait.”
Canzano’s sources have been giving rosy quotes for a year now, so take it FWIW.
LikeLike
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/07/13/twitter-starts-paying-creators-tens-of-thousands—amid-intensifying-competition-with-threads/
Now that Twitter starts paying tweeters I expect to see a lot more fake realignment rumor accounts to shift into overdrive.
LikeLike
Mike,
One key point:
Users must be subscribed to Twitter Blue, own a Stripe account for payment and have more than 5 million tweet impressions in each month for the last 3 months to be eligible for ad revenue sharing.
5M impressions for 3 straight months will eliminate most of them, I think. Will several people gang up and use one account to get enough impressions?
LikeLike
Just eyeballing the realignment focused Twitter accounts that I can think of:
Genetics56 claims to have exceeded that in June. It wouldn’t surprise me if TJAltimore did too. MHver3 probably could do it, but doesn’t appear to tweet enough. Just eyeballing it, would take Fluguar and Swaim about 1000 tweets a month get there. I don’t remember the main “12Anon” accounts so I didn’t check those. The “Dude” appears to have been suspended, I’m sure I missed some ridiculous “very online” drama there.
LikeLike
When the Big Ten abolishes divisions and goes to a format of the two top teams playing in the CCG, we’ve kicked around the possibility of Michigan and Ohio State playing each other on two consecutive weeks. Something to ponder is that with the new 12-team CFP, we could actually have Michigan and Ohio State playing each other on three consecutive weeks. That would be unlikely although a third meeting at some point in the CFP is clearly possible.
Less likely but it could also happen with USC and UCLA. Texas and A&M could also do the three-peat after UT joins the SEC. Perhaps the Playoff Committee would tweak their rankings so that this type of three-peat wouldn’t happen.
LikeLike
I think the basketball committee explicitly states that tournament seeding avoids rematches in the first couple of rounds. I would not be surprised to see such a rule (written or unwritten) in football as well.
The Michigan/OSU situation is (I believe) unique in college football — I think there is no other Rivalry Week match-up where both teams are kings. However, with divisions abolished this absolutely could happen in other leagues. There have been years when Alabama and Auburn could theoretically have met three times in a row if the new rules had existed at the time.
Certainly it will be very common that in some conferences both the CCG winner and loser will make the playoff, and I think they would advise a first-round rematch.
LikeLike
Marc: “Certainly it will be very common that in some conferences both the CCG winner and loser will make the playoff, and I think they would advise a first-round rematch.”
Seems like the committee would do the opposite. Rather than yet another rematch, they could place the teams in opposite brackets so that the only way they’d meet again is if both made it to the nacional championship game.
LikeLike
Sorry that was a typo. I meant to say “avoid,” not “advise”.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think the basketball committee explicitly states that tournament seeding avoids rematches in the first couple of rounds. I would not be surprised to see such a rule (written or unwritten) in football as well.
Yes, if possible they spread teams around different regionals. I don’t think you’ll see that in the CFP at first. The committee’s job is to rank the teams so the best 12 (within the rules) get in. They always claim to ignore conference affiliation when ranking. Plus changing things in 5-12 would draw an outcry because of the value of homefield advantage and giving someone else an unfair matchup to keep SEC teams from playin each other.
I say at first because if it happens several times and people decide it’s a problem, then they might change it (like they did with hoops).
The Michigan/OSU situation is (I believe) unique in college football — I think there is no other Rivalry Week match-up where both teams are kings.
Both kings: USC/ND. UF/FSU (debatable – but nouveau kings). But they aren’t in-conference, so they don’t challenge the uniqueness of The Game. AL/AU is close.
However, with divisions abolished this absolutely could happen in other leagues. There have been years when Alabama and Auburn could theoretically have met three times in a row if the new rules had existed at the time.
Certainly it will be very common that in some conferences both the CCG winner and loser will make the playoff, and I think they would advise a first-round rematch.
Normally the CCG outcome would drive that separation anyway. One would have to be #5-8 with the other being the corresponding #9-12 seed. If they split the series, many might actively support the rubber match as the most fair thing anyway. If one team won the first two, it’d be unusual for the two team to be paired in the first round.
LikeLike
A realignment rumor:
NDSU and SDSU are trying to get into the MWC. They’re good at football, but terrible candidates in all other aspects (location, markets, recruiting, academics. I don’t see how this would make sense for the MWC unless they lose a lot of schools.
Better options – UTEP and NMSU are already I-A and in the region. N TX, TX St, UTSA and Rice would get them into TX. Maybe add Tulsa to the list. Some other I-AA schools may even bring more value.
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/os/news/brett-yormark-id-be-a-little-disappointed-if-big-12-doesnt-add-two-teams-in-two-years/
Brett Yormark says he’d be disappointed if the B12 hasn’t added 2 schools by 2025. He seems to think 14 is the ideal number. He also doesn’t claim to have foreseen the media rights headwinds coming when he quickly signed the B12 deal.
Q: If we talk two years from now and you have not added two schools to get back to 14, would you be disappointed?
YORMARK: “That’s a great question. First time I’ve been asked that way. I would say if in two years we have not solidified ourselves at 14, I would be a little disappointed. Just because I’m so bullish on our conference. I think there is really opportunity and possibility out there for us. I love the 12. I think we have great makeup right now, especially with the four new members and the continuing eight.
But two years from now, I’d like to see us kind of look at things a little differently and maybe look a little differently. And hopefully, that happens. And if that doesn’t happen, it is okay. But I’d say I guess I’d be slightly disappointed.”
Q: Is 14 the preferred number?
YORMARK: “You know what, I’m not chasing a number. But I like 14. I like it. You think about media days – we’re going seven [teams] one day, seven the next. It’s a nice, even number. It’s a nice number. I guess you can say I’ve gotten used to it a little bit, even though it’s our first time as a 14-team league. To the extent that we can stay there, it would be great. If we go back to 12 and stay at 12, I guess that’s okay, too. But 14 kind of feels right.”
…
Q: You mentioned you’re “grateful” for striking early with a media rights deal last fall, extending with ESPN and FOX. There are now fierce headwinds in the media rights space – including ESPN becoming more selective in rights decisions – and other leagues [Pac-12] are feeling those headwinds. Did you see them coming? Is that why you struck fast?
YORMARK: “I didn’t. But once I came out of media day last year, and our next media deals, if you will, were kind of on my radar, and we had interest from our TV partners, I’m a firm believer that you grab a good bird in the hand when you get it. And I felt that we had a good bird in the hand. It was a fair deal. It was the right deal. Everyone said we wouldn’t get an increase. We did. We got more promotion. We got more marketing. So, I felt it was a great deal and one we had to do. Looking back now, I think that deal looks better every day.”
LikeLike
Brett Yormark says he’d be disappointed if the B12 hasn’t added 2 schools by 2025. He seems to think 14 is the ideal number.
Yes he does, though he is not very fulsome about his reasons (the way we are here sometimes) — it just “feels right.” Conspiracy theorists will speculate that he already has #13 and #14 penciled in, which would be an excellent reason for these “feelings” he has.
But the Big Ten and SEC were at 14 for years — it is no longer controversial that a conference can work at that number. Sixteen is unproven, and I still recall a few FTT commenters thought that “16-team leagues don’t work.”
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes he does, though he is not very fulsome about his reasons (the way we are here sometimes) — it just “feels right.” Conspiracy theorists will speculate that he already has #13 and #14 penciled in, which would be an excellent reason for these “feelings” he has.
He has preferences, but the presidents may not agree (like his interest in Gonzaga and UConn). I wonder if it “feels right” because the B10, SEC and ACC all have at least 14 teams, while the P12 doesn’t and B12 didn’t – look which 2 conferences struggled publicly lately.
But the Big Ten and SEC were at 14 for years — it is no longer controversial that a conference can work at that number. Sixteen is unproven, and I still recall a few FTT commenters thought that “16-team leagues don’t work.”
Well, historically they haven’t worked (WAC16, SoCon). We’ll get the first real test cases next year, though. I think a valid question might be how well 16 teams can work with 8 conference games in FB, but the SEC never cared that much about playing their fellow members. UGA has played AU 90 times in SEC play, but MsSU just 25 times, LSU 32 times, and TN 41 times.
Most likely money would be the thing that might break up 16-team conferences, and that would likely be with a superleague (NFL lite) forming with the best of the best only. That might even be for FB only.
LikeLike
Most likely money would be the thing that might break up 16-team conferences, and that would likely be with a superleague (NFL lite) forming with the best of the best only. That might even be for FB only.
I suspect money or corruption was at the root of most conference failures, whether they reached 16 or not. The WAC16 and SoCo failed, and they happened to reach 16. But the Southwest Conference, the Metro Conference, the Border Conference, and the Skyline Conference all failed too, and none of them had 16.
So I think if one wanted to make a case about that, you’d have to look at all the conferences that failed, to see if large numbers are really what made the difference or if that was just coincidental.
LikeLike
The recent Delaney interviews have been great.
LikeLike
Mike: “The recent Delaney interviews have been great.”
What a difference a commish makes. Imagine where the Big Ten would be right now if we’d hired some turkey like John Swofford or Larry Scott instead of Delany.
LikeLike
Yep. The timeline article was good, too. It reminds you of some of the what-ifs that we forget about:
ND could’ve been in the B10 in 1899, but they didn’t send anyone to the meeting where new members were selected so it was IA and IN that got in.
NE was thought to be the clear choice to replace UM in the B10 when they dropped out in 1907, but instead OSU was invited in 1912.
NE almost got in over MSU in 1948, with IA supporting NE and UM opposing MSU until the last minute. It took them 15 hours to decide. Pitt also was in the mix.
When the new ACC met to add UVA, UNC tried to get VT and WV added as well but it wasn’t on the meeting agenda so it wasn’t allowed to be voted on.
Change any of those, and think how different CFB might be today.
Also, just a personal pet peeve: it’s Delany, not Delaney. Even sports writers screw it up sometimes.
LikeLike
From The Athletic – The Swoffordian corruption continues . . .
CW secures broadcast rights to 50 ACC football, basketball games
By The Athletic College Football Staff Jul 13, 2023
By David Ubben, Chris Vannini and Brendan Marks
The CW Network announced on Thursday that it has secured the rights to 50 ACC football and basketball games each season through 2026-27. Here’s what you need to know:
The first ACC football game that will air on The CW on Sept. 9 will feature Pittsburgh in a nonconference game against Cincinnati.
The CW will broadcast 13 football games, 28 men’s basketball games and nine women’s basketball games.
The basketball games will be broadcast in December, January and February with men’s basketball doubleheaders each Saturday and women’s basketball games on Sundays.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F08TiT_XsAA_qLB?format=jpg&name=small
LikeLike
Racist, unconstitutional hiring at the University of Wasconsin.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-on-campus-goes-beyond-admissions-race-college-students-diversity-cdc99db6?st=xwpk9lltytaebd9&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey wants federal action on NIL
By Seth Emerson
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — SEC commissioner Greg Sankey on Monday belabored the “patchwork” of state NIL laws, including in the SEC’s footprint, and called it a “race to the bottom at the state legislature level.” Here’s what you need to know:
A month after personally lobbying Congress for a national standard, Sankey sounded unsure whether it would happen but still focused on it.
Sankey emphasized that this was not about eliminating NIL rights for athletes, but he painted it as making it fair for athletes.
Sankey was speaking at the opening of SEC media days, which he announced would be held next year in Dallas, to ring in the first year with Oklahoma and Texas in the league.
Why does Sankey still want federal action?
Without a federal NIL law, state legislatures around the country have enacted separate laws, which go further than NCAA rules. Texas’ NIL law essentially prevents the NCAA from enforcing its own rules. The law, signed in May, outlines ways that athletes can profit off their NIL and their schools can help them; it includes a clause that prohibits the NCAA or its conferences to punish schools that take advantage of the rights under Texas law. Missouri’s NIL law allows coaches to participate in negotiations between athletes and entities. NCAA rules do not allow that. Arkansas and Oklahoma have state laws governing NIL that clash with NCAA rules.
Sankey and representatives from each of the 14 current SEC schools, including Nick Saban, went to Washington, D.C., in early June to meet with Congressional leaders.
“Whether Congressional action is achievable is a matter for debate. Much debate,” Sankey said. “These are non-partisan issues that deserve a non-partisan solution. We have a responsibility to seek a congressional resolution. Only Congress can adequately solve these issues.”
What does Sankey want Congress to do?
On the one hand, Sankey painted this as a fairness issue. “It’s not about taking away this new name, image and likeness opportunities. In many ways it’s been a net positive for young people,” Sankey said. “But we all know there have been stories told of promises made but not fulfilled, of inducements offered but not made, of empty promises. … The reality is our student-athletes deserve something better than a patchwork of state laws.”
But Sankey spent part of his Monday speech sounding like many college administrators during the past few years: criticizing the revenue sharing law that was introduced in California, as well as the movement to make athletes employees of their schools.
“Efforts to simply upend the collegiate model jeopardize the opportunities of thousands of student-athletes for decades to come,” Sankey said.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38031370/source-pac-12-media-rights-deal-expected-future
No P12 media deal before media days, but it’s coming soon. Note, this is ESPN and Heather Dinich saying this, not the usual folks accused of P12 bias.
The Pac-12 expects to release details of its highly anticipated media rights deal in the “near future,” a league source with knowledge of the conversations told ESPN on Tuesday.
The deal will not be announced at Pac-12 football media day on Friday in Las Vegas, the source told ESPN. It is likely to include a mix of streaming and linear options and is expected to be on-par with the ACC and Big 12, the source said.
“Our 10 schools have been ridiculously patient,” the source said, adding that the league’s patience to make a deal has led to more bidders coming to the table. “That patience is about to pay off.”
Meanwhile, Stewart Mandel says new bidders are in the mix. Maybe the economy improving has changed things a bit.
LikeLike
I meant to post something about this last month, but things have been a bit hectic in my life lately.
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/38030514/mlb-taking-broadcasts-arizona-diamondbacks-games
Anyway, with the RSN model collapsing thanks to cord cutting, Bally Sports (which recently filed for bankruptcy) has terminated its contract with the Diamondbacks. This is the second time this happened this season (the first was Padres) and now MLB is taking over the DBack’s local broadcast rights. This will actually mean the end of local blackouts.
LikeLike
Anyway, with the RSN model collapsing thanks to cord cutting, Bally Sports (which recently filed for bankruptcy)
IMO cord cutting isn’t helping, but the problem is Sinclair financed too much of the purchase price. I think the RSN model still works as long as you don’t have huge interest payments for an asset you over paid for.
LikeLike
As expected, San Diego State has been restored to full membership in the Mountain West Conference. The Aztecs will receive the $6.6m distribution that the conference had withheld, less the conference’s legal fees. If the Aztecs decide to leave later on, they’ll be on the hook for the full exit fee—the same as if they had never sent the “we’re leaving, we’re not” letters in June.
LikeLike
I guess SMU should probably start unpacking, too.
LikeLike
Mark Redman, SDSU’s All-MWC starting tight end, said in an interview that players were told multiple times that they were joining the Pac-12.
I agree with Colin that SMU’s Pac-12 hopes are almost certainly on ice for now. However, all this news really means is that the Aztecs have to wait a year, i.e., until 2025. Next time, I am betting they won’t send the letter until they have an invitation in hand.
Today (the Pac-12’s media day) is the latest of many self-imposed deadlines for a media deal that have come and gone. But for the first time in months, Kliavkoff will have to take questions.
The proverbial unnamed sources told The Athletic a few days ago, “We’ve seen folks come to the table that were not at the table six months ago. The patience that the presidents and chancellors are showing is paying off, because waiting is going to result in better deals than the league would have gotten three, six, nine months ago.”
Yeah, right. CBS Sports reporter Dennis Dodd said on Twitter yesterday, “Industry sources remain perplexed by who [the] main linear TV partner would be.”
LikeLike
Marc,
It’s possible that the improved economy has changed who is willing to work with the P12 and how much they are willing to pay them. Many were convinced a terrible recession was going to have hit by now (it still could later).
As for industry sources being perplexed, that’s meaningless. Nobody has access to the inner thinking at all the media companies. People used to think NBC didn’t want more CFB, then they went big with the B10. Maybe a major network wants more than it has now. Maybe a smaller player wants to become a big fish. We’ve seen the CW enter the sports realm. Others could surprise us too. And that ignores the streamers and their financial ability to partner with a lesser company.
LikeLike
I’m not taking a position either way. So many rumors have come and gone that you’d get whiplash watching them pass by. However, I would note that the CW entering sports was not a surprise at all — that was rumored for months.
As for industry sources being perplexed, that’s meaningless. Nobody has access to the inner thinking at all the media companies. People used to think NBC didn’t want more CFB, then they went big with the B10.
The fact that NBC might be interested in the Big Ten was widely reported well before it was announced officially. So it does strike me as somewhat notable if Dodd cannot find anyone who knows. Might this be a better-kept secret than most media negotiations? Maybe.
LikeLike
I’m looking over the span of years, not months. 5 years ago, nobody thought NBC wanted more CFB or that the CW was an option for CFB.
Who says Dodd has significant sources across the media world? He has regional sports sources, and that’s about it. It would mean more if Ourand said it, but even he will admit he doesn’t really know what the streamers are thinking.
LikeLike
I’m looking over the span of years, not months. 5 years ago, nobody thought NBC wanted more CFB or that the CW was an option for CFB.
Right, but the Pac-12 needs a deal in months, not years.
Who says Dodd has significant sources across the media world?
None of the writers will tell you who their sources are, but Dodd is one of the major national writers who covers this topic, so I am guessing he does have them.
LikeLike
Marc,
Right, but the Pac-12 needs a deal in months, not years.
I was referring to your comments about the CW and NBC being rumored for months. When I said those were surprises, I’m talking pre-UT/OU to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the B10.
None of the writers will tell you who their sources are, but Dodd is one of the major national writers who covers this topic, so I am guessing he does have them.
Why would a CBS reporter necessarily have insider sources at NBC/ABC/CW/Scripps/Apple/Amazon/etc.? Sports sources sure, but he’s not known for covering the media side of sports per se. Ourand is the nominal expert there, and he doesn’t have strong sources at the streamers.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff slinging spin at P12 media days. By his theory, they should wait until the day before their current deal ends to sign because their options keep improving. Maybe going 7 months between public speaking isn’t the best policy for a commish with his conference under fire.
and
LikeLike
As I said months ago, Kliavkoff is selling snake oil.
LikeLike
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/21/espn-had-talks-with-nba-nfl-in-search-for-strategic-partner.html
Disney search for a strateg9ic partner for ESPN included the major pro leagues.
As Disney
considers a strategic partner for ESPN, Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger and ESPN head Jimmy Pitaro have held early talks about bringing professional sports leagues on as minority investors, including the National Football League, National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball, according to people familiar with the matter.
ESPN has held preliminary discussions with the NFL, NBA and MLB about a variety of new partnerships and investment structures, the people said. In a statement, an NBA spokesperson said, “We have a longstanding relationship with Disney and look forward to continuing the discussions around the future of our partnership.”
Spokespeople for ESPN, the NFL and MLB declined to comment.
Talks with the NFL have occurred in conjunction with the league’s own desire for a company to take a stake in its media assets, including the NFL Network, NFL.com and RedZone, said the people, who asked not to be named because the talks have been private.
I wonder if the government would investigate such a deal since there are antitrust exemptions, and it could give Disney too much power.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/07/mailbag-pac-12-presidential-tumult-and-what-it-means-imagining-the-ads-in-charge-current-tv-dollars-the-survival-line-and-more/
Jon Wilner blames the P12 presidents for their current issues, and he’s probably correct.
If the athletic directors were in charge of the Pac-12 instead of the school presidents, would a media rights deal be done by now? — @MarcSheehan006
No, it absolutely would not, and here’s why (in my opinion):
With the ADs calling the shots, the conference would not be in this position. It would not have lost USC and UCLA, and it would not be negotiating a new contract.
The athletic directors would have been smart enough to accept ESPN’s offer in 2018 to partner on the Pac-12 Networks and sign the conference to a long-term deal for the Tier 1 rights.
In other words, the conference would have more money for the campuses, wider distribution for its football content and a stabilizing grant-of-rights deal that likely would have run into the 2030s.
The L.A. schools would not have been nearly as motivated to leave; nor would they have possessed the opportunity (because of the long-term contractual commitment).
So there would be no negotiations, no instability and no defections at this point.
A related Q&A:
How will the resignation of Stanford’s president affect Pac-12 leadership? Who are the possible candidates to take over, and do any of them care about sports? — @UACatManDo
It’s far too early for the Hotline to speculate on potential replacements for Marc Tessier-Lavigne and his successor’s impact on Stanford athletics, but the bar is fairly low: Any new university leader who knows that footballs are inflated, not stuffed, would be a victory for the Cardinal.
The impact on the Pac-12 is easier to assess, and limited.
First, a few words on the logistics.
Tessier-Lavigne’s resignation, which followed allegations of academic misconduct, is effective at the end of August. He remains a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors until that point and, notably, will keep his position on the board’s executive committee until his departure, as well.
(The three-member executive committee helps drive the agenda for the board. The other members are Washington State’s Kirk Schulz, the chair, and Arizona’s Robert Robbins.)
Absent an offer from the Big Ten, Stanford has little leverage within the conference power structure. The school will vote to approve any reasonable media rights deal presented by commissioner George Kliavkoff, and it doesn’t matter if Tessier-Lavigne is on the job at the time or has been replaced by interim president Richard Saller.
However, Stanford’s situation reflects a larger challenge for the conference: board tumult.
As outlined below, half of the 10 university leaders — we’re excluding USC and UCLA, which don’t vote on the media deal — are either new to their positions or have announced their departures.
Here’s the list in chronological order from the date of assuming office.
(An asterisk indicates presidents/chancellors who have less than two years of experience or are stepping down in the next year.)
ASU’s Michael Crow: In office since July 2002
Colorado’s Phil DiStefano: In office since May 2009
Washington’s Ana Mari Cauce: In office since October 2015
WSU’s Kirk Schulz: In office since June 2016
* Stanford’s Tessier-Lavinge: In office since Sept. 2016; departing August 2023
Arizona’s Robert Robbins: In office since June 2017
* Cal’s Carol Christ: In office since July 2017; retiring June 2024
* Utah’s Taylor Randall: In office since September 2021
* Oregon State’s Jayathi Murthy: In office since September 2022
* Oregon’s John Scholz: In office since July 1, 2023
Kliavkoff is at once negotiating a media deal and (presumably) working with the presidents to get the newcomers up to speed and keep the outgoing members engaged.
What’s more, there is good reason to question Cauce’s interest in college sports and Crow’s instincts for college sports — he was a fervent supporter of Larry Scott — and we can’t help but wonder how much longer DiStefano, a septuagenarian, plans to remain on the job.
In other words, there are just two presidents, Schulz and Robbins, with ample experience in office and a solid grasp of college athletics.
Fortunately for the Pac-12, both of them are on the executive committee.
Leadership does matter, and the P12 presidents have made some unwise choices (esp. about Larry Scott).
LikeLike
The L.A. schools would not have been nearly as motivated to leave; nor would they have possessed the opportunity (because of the long-term contractual commitment).
He’s assuming the Pac-12 would have made the same mistake as the ACC, locking up its rights for many years. A long-term lock-up prevents your most valuable franchises from leaving, but it also results in everyone being underpaid.
In his recent interview with The Athletic, Jim Delany said the ACC “gave away too much,” and of course he is right. So Wilner is saying that the ADs would have been more savvy, and yet, they would make the same dumb long-term decision that the ACC presidents made.
Leadership does matter, and the P12 presidents have made some unwise choices (esp. about Larry Scott).
This is true, but is there any conference where the ADs choose the commissioner?
LikeLike
Marc,
He’s assuming the Pac-12 would have made the same mistake as the ACC, locking up its rights for many years. A long-term lock-up prevents your most valuable franchises from leaving, but it also results in everyone being underpaid.
Would it have been a mistake for them? Just as the ACC has made a lot of money from the ACCN, the P12 would have a useful P12N. That would mean a lot more money and visibility for them. Also, I’m not convinced the “ACC is underpaid” narrative is actually true. How much more are they actually worth? They may end up underpaid by the end of the deal, but they are still making about what the B12 does. Clemson and FSU might be underpaid, but the top brands in any conference are worth more than they make.
In his recent interview with The Athletic, Jim Delany said the ACC “gave away too much,” and of course he is right. So Wilner is saying that the ADs would have been more savvy, and yet, they would make the same dumb long-term decision that the ACC presidents made.
We don’t know how long of a deal ESPN wanted from the P12 back in 2018. ESPN had tried to say no to the ACC, then demanded a very long deal in order to start the ACCN. The P12 already had all the production facilities and personnel available. Perhaps that is why ESPN approached the P12, and maybe they’d have asked for 10 years rather than 15 or whatever the ACC’s deal was. Right now, the P12 might prefer to be locked into a longer but slightly undervalued deal than scrambling to sign any deal.
Delany would be right if the B10 or SEC were considering a long deal like that. It might actually be the lesser of evils for the ACC/B12/P12.
This is true, but is there any conference where the ADs choose the commissioner?
Of course not. It was just a hypothetical from Wilner. But the ADs used to have a lot more power (see their pushback when the presidents added PSU, then the B10 had to vote again).
LikeLike
Not every school in the Pac-12 is convinced they should expand. According to Stewart Mandel in The Athletic:
LikeLike
USC/UCLA biggest beneficiaries probably from lack of visits from the other Pac-12 schools and not having one in their backyard.
LikeLike
Marc,
Not every school in the Pac-12 is convinced they should expand. According to Stewart Mandel in The Athletic:
That might change if Kliavkoff ever presented actual numbers to the presidents. If TV says it makes financial sense, they’ll probably do it. But right now it might require a partial share for SDSU, and I’m not sure the P12 wants to risk SDSU not gaining enough in value over the deal. I think some presidents refuse on general principal to agree to hypothetical expansion in a nonobvious scenario like this. They need facts to justify adding G5 teams.
The other side of the equation is what if the B12 offers SDSU? Can the P12 risk letting another P5 conference into SoCal? I don’t think so. It may come down to SDSU trying to leverage a potential B12 offer into an actual P12 offer.
LikeLike
Mandel seems to be saying two very different things. One is purely financial. Obviously they won’t expand to lose money, and presidents might disagree on an expansion where the gain is marginal or speculative.
His other point is about playoff berths, and there he’s on shakier ground (or his sources are). Except for Utah, most teams moving up from the G5 have not excelled in their new homes. It’s highly unlikely that SMU will challenge for playoff berths anytime soon, given their history, and somewhat unlikely that SDSU will either. If both join, I suspect their presence would make the average Pac-12 schedule very slightly easier on average, but probably not by enough of a margin to matter for playoff purposes.
(SMU has just one season in the past 30 years with double-digit wins. SDSU has a better record, but that’s against a Mountain West opposition. They play the Pac-12 fairly often. In the past five seasons they’re 3-4; in the past ten seasons, they’re 6-7. So we could predict they would be more-or-less average in the Pac.)
LikeLike
Yes, but expansion could mean splitting the CFP money with 11 other schools instead of 9 others. Even if they do an unequal distribution, likely everyone gets at least a taste of the money every year. Having 12 mouths rather than 10 matters then if they aren’t earning more than they cost.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/01/thursday-night-football-ratings-down-first-season-amazon-nba-nhl-louisville-kentucky/
Based on these stats for Thursday Night Football on Amazon, how should the P12 view streaming?
The first season of Thursday Night Football on Amazon Prime averaged 9.58 million viewers (11.3 million per Amazon’s internal metrics), down from last year on FOX and NFL Network (12.9M, per Sports Business Journal) and the lowest average for the series since 2013 — the last year it aired exclusively on NFL Network.
Though down overall, viewership actually increased from last year in adults 18-34, rising 11% from 1.9 to 2.1 million. Among men 18-34 in particular, viewership increased 18% — the highest year-over-year increase any NFL package has seen in that demo since 2014. Adults 18-34 made up 22% of the TNF audience, compared to 14% for the other NFL packages.
They will lose overall viewership, but gain younger viewers. With the aging of America and the demographic shift coming in the future, is there value in getting in on younger viewers early? Might that be the better long term play (assuming the money works, obviously)?
LikeLike
Three interesting atricles about the Big Ten & ND in The Athletic. At the risk of the FBI coming to take me away in handcuffs for copyright infringement, I’ll post all three.
Inside Penn State’s dramatic Big Ten entrance: ‘An A outcome with an F execution’
Scott Dochterman and Audrey Snyder Jul 24, 2023
Long known as the “Beast in the East” among college football programs, Penn State marks its 30th anniversary as a Big Ten football member this fall. In retrospect, it seems like a no-brainer for the Big Ten to welcome the Nittany Lions aboard. Penn State ranks among the Big Ten’s top four in overall and conference victories over that span and 15th nationally. The Nittany Lions have won four league titles and annually compete before many of the nation’s largest television audiences.
But the contentious process lacked transparency and dragged out over several months. There was little communication among the stakeholders at different levels and only a late provision and vote reversal secured the invitation.
“Net-net, the actual decision to add Penn State was a home run,” former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said. “The way we did it, I probably would grade it as an ‘F.’ So you have an ‘A’ outcome with an ‘F’ execution.”
It was a self-inflicted disaster with the optimum outcome, and it sparked a wave of conference realignment around the country. Here’s how it happened.
‘A vote in principle’
Penn State regularly competed in high-profile games and frequently was in the national title hunt. Yet as an independent, it had little cover for the occasional down season.
In 1980, the Nittany Lions faced Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl. While traveling to the Rose Bowl, Big Ten commissioner Wayne Duke stopped in Phoenix. Duke held conversations with Penn State president John Oswald and coach Joe Paterno and found there was mutual interest in a path for Big Ten membership. At the time, Paterno preferred an all-sports Eastern conference, but he was rebuffed in the ensuing years. The Big East, focused on basketball, also rejected Penn State.
By 1989, Penn State president Bryce Jordan called Illinois president Stan Ikenberry to gauge interest in possible Big Ten membership.
“He basically said, ‘Stan, Joe Paterno is not going to be going on forever.’ Well, it turns out he did,’” said Ikenberry, now 88, with a laugh. “He said, ‘We need to look at Penn State’s affiliation with a conference to prepare us for that. We think the time has come for us to affiliate with a conference. And if we had our choice, we would like to affiliate with the Big Ten.’ “I told him I thought there would be a great deal of receptivity from the Big Ten.”
The Big Ten was a provincial Midwest conference. All 10 of its schools were members of the Association of American Universities, a prestigious research consortium. Any potential addition required elite academic and athletic credentials to merit Big Ten consideration.
Penn State joined the AAU in 1958 and was a football powerhouse with national titles in 1982 and 1986. In private conversations, Ikenberry brought up Penn State with his presidential peers, and the institution was viewed favorably.
“I called Bryce back and I said, ‘I screened the presidents, and they all think that’s a great idea,’” Ikenberry said. “But we need to keep this confidential for the next week or so.”
Delany played basketball for Dean Smith at North Carolina, went to law school and worked as an NCAA investigator. In 1979, he became Ohio Valley Commissioner. On April 5, 1989, Big Ten leadership chose him to succeed Duke. Delany took over on July 1.
What sparked college football’s realignment craze? Ex-Big Ten commissioner explains all. The Big Ten’s Council of 10 met for a two-day retreat Dec. 9-10 in Chicago. It was the first time Delany had met with the on-campus leadership since becoming commissioner.
“One of my tasks was to make the old and the new come together,” Delany said. “In the old days, they said that the faculty were in charge, but really powerful individuals were in charge. Some were coaches, some were ADs. So I was working with them, but I was really working for the presidents.
“I wasn’t experienced in the Big Ten, but I had some experiences with governance. And the presidents were pretty sure that they wanted to do it the way they wanted to do it. I didn’t push super hard. I just suggested that was the best way to do it. But you have to understand it was my first meeting with them.”
The leadership took an informal poll. It came out 9-0 in favor of inviting Penn State, with one president absent.
“I would call it a vote in principle because there was neither an invitation nor an acceptance nor an application,” Delany said. “So it couldn’t be more than that. But it was clearly communicated to Penn State that things would happen.”
Ikenberry called Jordan to inform him of the vote. But the process was rushed and none of the athletics officials were aware of this monumental event. Plus, the Council of 10 asked for confidentiality until a formal invitation took place later in the week.
“The pre-work wasn’t done,” Delany said. “The political work hadn’t been laid down. You always have financial integration, not a big deal. But then you have competitive integration, you have academic integration, you have governance integration — all these things should be known in detail. And they weren’t.
“And then all hell broke loose.”
Immediate backlash
Within four days of the confidential vote, word leaked beyond the Council of 10 and league office. The Chicago Tribune broke the story.
By Friday afternoon, Big Ten presidents finally informed their athletics directors and held a 6 p.m. ET teleconference with reporters. The athletic officials held nothing back.
“This confirms the worst fears I have of the presidents getting too much control in athletics,” said Bo Schembechler, then Michigan’s athletic director and football coach. “Making decisions like that without ever studying it is terrible. Not one athletic director was consulted on this matter.”
“It’s unfortunate that the presidents considered this in a vacuum without input from the athletic directors,” Minnesota athletic director Rick Bay told reporters. “But we’re famous for that in the Big Ten. The presidents and athletic directors don’t communicate.”
At that time, Big Ten athletics and university hierarchies rarely worked together. The league already pooled its NCAA Tournament shares, and in 1988, the presidents granted all television rights to the conference. Basketball became a surging revenue source, and every Big Ten school benefitted.
Penn State generated little income from men’s basketball. But that issue and Penn State’s location became footnotes compared with the lack of communication.
At a Rose Bowl news conference, Schembechler roasted the entire process.
“It illustrates what I’ve been saying about the mood of the presidents,” Schembechler said. “In the next five years, the presidents will completely confuse intercollegiate athletics. Then, they’ll dump it on the athletic directors.” Delany was caught in the middle.
“The coaches and ADs and others were very angry with me, but also with the presidents,” Delany said. “Tradition was clashing with presidential quote-unquote leadership or authority. So it became difficult.
“Bo didn’t like presidential leadership, and Stan didn’t like the coaches being in charge. So this was a lot about local politics and shifting of authority from coaches and ADs to presidents.”
In his final salvo, Schembechler said, “I see Northwestern under pressure. They’d deny it, but that’s how I see it.”
That scared everyone in Evanston, starting with president Arnie Weber.
Contentious vote
It wasn’t just athletics officials that struggled with the potential expansion. Newspaper columnists also blasted the move.
“Penn State would bring a fine academic institution to the league,” wrote Mark Dukes of the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette. “But it also may mean athletes will lose more class time. Iowa’s Hunter Rawlings III and his presidential colleagues apparently weren’t concerned enough with these issues to ask. Instead, for reasons that escape most of us, the Council has rammed this down everyone’s throat.”
“I’ll admit more than anything, it’s the provincial side of me that resists the addition of Penn State to the Big Ten,” wrote Bill Benner of the Indianapolis Star. “The Big Ten belongs to the Midwest and Midwesterners. It is part of our fabric and heritage … let the Easterners fend for themselves.”
While an agreement was reached, the Council of 10 still needed to confirm the vote with at least seven affirmatives. Penn State had allies at Illinois, Iowa, Ohio State, Purdue and Wisconsin. Minnesota was solid at the presidential level. But four universities were lined up against Penn State: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana and Northwestern.
Schembechler and Indiana men’s basketball coach Bob Knight talked their administrators into opposing expansion. Knight famously told the IU Athletic Committee that spring: “I’ve been to Penn State, and Penn State’s a camping trip. There’s nothing for about 100 miles.”
“It was very messy that day because we did not anticipate both Michigan and Michigan State (opposing it),” said Donna Shalala, who was chancellor at Wisconsin. “We thought we had the votes for Penn State to come in.”
Shalala said her board left the vote up to her. She checked with football coach Barry Alvarez — a Pennsylvania native — who told her he was all for adding Penn State.
“We would’ve had egg on our face (after the agreement in principle), but more importantly, we really wanted Penn State,” Shalala said. “We wanted the kind of institution that it was. We wanted its location. I mean, for Bobby Knight to say it’s in the middle of nowhere, have you ever been to Bloomington, Indiana?”
Indiana president Thomas Ehrlich listened to Knight, the faculty and other campus leaders. After initially voting for Penn State, Ehrlich flipped.
“When I went back and talked to our athletic director and our coaches, they underscored what had been a concern to me, is that Penn State is very difficult to get to from Bloomington,” said Ehrlich, now 89 years old and living in Palo Alto, Calif. “It would mean that our athletes would be spending, as I concluded, a disproportionate amount of time traveling to get to Penn State. And while it’s a great school and fine teams, it simply wasn’t fair to our athletes to do that.
“I understood the arguments for East Coast coverage for television. But it seemed to me a mistake, because our first priority should be the student-athletes and their well-being.”
The situation left Ikenberry frustrated. “Several university presidents from the Big Ten went home to their athletic directors or other power forces on their campuses and got a totally different message,” Ikenberry said. “So Indiana, all of a sudden, wasn’t quite as sure where it stood, because Bobby Knight didn’t like the idea.
“I love Tom Ehrlich, but Bob Knight had him totally in his pocket. … Michigan was completely under Schembechler’s thumb.”
With Michigan, Michigan State and Indiana solidly against Penn State, the most pivotal vote belonged to Northwestern.
At that point, the Wildcats were non-competitive. They hadn’t enjoyed a winning football season since 1971 or in men’s basketball since 1967-68. From 1976-1989, Northwestern went 15-103-1 in Big Ten football. The men’s basketball program never had appeared in the NCAA Tournament and was 2-16 against Big Ten opponents for six consecutive seasons. Speculation swirled that the league would admit Penn State and then boot Northwestern to remain at 10 teams.
“We had no intention of throwing them out, but they were very nervous,” Shalala said.
How the Big Ten sparked a realignment avalanche: Jim Delany on adding Nebraska and more
The Council of 10 scheduled its spring meeting for June 4 at Iowa. The Penn State debate seemingly was the only topic on the agenda. Leadership arrived in Iowa City on June 3 and informal conversations intensified that evening.
“There was still a lot of hand-wringing around the room from Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State,” Ikenberry said. “We convened the next morning and had an extended discussion. A majority of the Big Ten presidents were supportive, but I still did not have the one vote that I needed to meet our requirements.
“We talked for too long, and we weren’t quite there. We took a bit of a recess and were chatting around, having a cup of coffee. Donna Shalala apparently read my body language and saw that I was discouraged by all of this. She said, ‘Don’t give up, Stan. We can do this.’ And I said, ‘Well, what’s your idea?’ And she says, ‘Let’s talk to Arnie.’”
Shalala said she called for a break in the meeting with the sole purpose of negotiating with Weber.
“I was not going to lose that vote,” Shalala said. “We just had to maneuver.”
She knew in order to secure Weber’s vote she’d need to reassure him that Northwestern would not get kicked out of the conference — at least not for the duration of his tenure.
“She said, ‘Arnie, would it help you, before we considered the question of taking in Penn State, if we were to adopt a motion that there would be no additional change in the composition of the Big Ten for the next three years?’” Ikenberry recalled. “Arnie kind of looked at the ceiling for two or three seconds and came back and said, ‘Yes, that would be very helpful.’ What Donna had figured out is that Arnie had this problem of several of his trustees thinking that the move to bring Penn State in was also a move to take Northwestern out.
“Donna pointed out also that, in three years, Arnie’s contract is going to be up so he was out of there at that point, but he said that would be helpful. So Donna went back to the table and made the motion that even after taking a vote on Penn State, there would be no further consideration of the composition of the Big Ten for the next three years.
“Everybody was so sick of the Penn State prolonged debate that it sounded good to everybody. And so boom, boom, it was all done.”
Penn State was in with a 7-3 vote. Michigan, Michigan State and Indiana were opposed.
“We made the case as strongly as we could, and we lost,” Ehrlich said. “It has nothing to do with Penn State, which is really a great university and had a fine president. Players are not and should not be gladiators.”
Aftermath
Penn State, independent in football but affiliated with the Atlantic 10 in other sports, joined the Big Ten in waves. With rigid NCAA rules regarding round-robin in-conference basketball games, the Nittany Lions were stuck in limbo by the announcement. They were allowed to play in the Atlantic 10 for one more season — the men’s basketball team won the A-10 tournament championship on its way out — and then were evicted.
Letters sent from Jordan and Penn State athletic director Jim Tarman to Atlantic 10 commissioner Ron Bertovich highlighted the contentious exit. In one letter shortly after the initial presidential vote, dated Dec. 20, 1989, Bertovich instructed Penn State to voluntarily withdraw from the Atlantic 10 by Dec. 31.
In another, Tarman outlined to Bertovich concerns about a lack of conference affiliation. The letter did little good. Penn State played basketball as an independent in 1991-92 before joining the Big Ten for the 1992-93 season.
“The opportunity to join the Big Ten, the kind of all-sports conference we had been attempting for years to establish in the East, arose suddenly and deprived us of the chance to orchestrate the more orderly transition everyone would have preferred,” Tarman wrote.
Penn State football joined the Big Ten in 1993 and finished 6-2 in its inaugural season. Its nonconference games that year were against Maryland, Rutgers and USC — all of whom will be Big Ten members by 2024.
Big Ten allegiance perhaps secured Penn State’s future but hampered its attempt to win the 1994 national title. As the Big Ten champion, the unbeaten No. 2 Nittany Lions were contracted to play in the Rose Bowl against No. 12 Oregon, which prevented them from facing top-ranked Nebraska in the Orange Bowl. The Cornhuskers, who went on to join the Big Ten in 2011, instead won the championship.
Penn State’s addition sparked a 1990 realignment wave that swept the college landscape. Within months, the SEC invited Arkansas and South Carolina, the ACC added Florida State and the Big East began a football conference with Miami. Four years later, the Big Eight and four members of the Southwest Conference joined forces as the Big 12.
For Delany, the experience sharpened his approach as a commissioner. In July 1990 at the conclusion of his first year on the job, Delany sent a letter to all of the conference’s presidents and head coaches. He wrote as a result of the “Penn State experience” he would establish a committee to improve communication between the conference’s presidents.
It was clear Delany had to learn how to manage the different levels of campus leadership.
“What I really learned to do was to create a shared vision,” Delany said. “Who are we, what do we want to be and how do we want to amplify that and enhance that? So, I could talk their language; I knew what our DNA was. I knew what our history was. I was not committed to diminish that and if we were going to change it, I wanted to amplify it not to diminish it. And that resonated with them. But the other thing I learned after the Penn State debacle was this has to be a team effort.
“I just came into an environment where there was a lot of bullyball being played, and we had to undo that.”
If Ehrlich and Ikenberry can agree to one aspect, it’s that neither saw future expansion as a positive, both in the 1990s and today.
“It’s just gotten worse,” Ehrlich said. “The concern I had then has just been exacerbated and I think will increasingly become more and more players are having less and less time and attention to academics, which should be primary, of course, because they’re spending so much time traveling and preparing for games.”
Said Ikenberry: “If I had been able to foresee it, I would have paused longer to think about the implications. But I was so naive and I really didn’t foresee the implications long term. And what I was not taking into account was the impact of television.”
LikeLike
Why hasn’t Notre Dame joined a conference? Former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany weighs in
Scott Dochterman Jul 13, 2023
Notre Dame has treasured and monetized its football independence in a way that few, if any, other colleges could approach, let alone replicate.
Conference officials have tried to sway the Fighting Irish toward their leagues for decades, and whenever a major expansion cycle takes place, college athletics’ knee-jerk reaction immediately kicks in Notre Dame’s direction.
The same question gets asked move after move: Will this force Notre Dame to join a conference? So far, the Irish have stayed independent in football. And as Pete Sampson wrote, it’s likely that Notre Dame’s relationship with NBC can keep the Irish independent.
Can Notre Dame still afford independence? Don’t bet against the NBC marriage
Notre Dame joined the Big East for all sports but football in 1995, then shifted to the ACC for a similar arrangement in 2013. In between those moves was a high-profile dalliance between Notre Dame and the Big Ten. It was likely as close as Notre Dame has come to joining a conference for football.
Former Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany first sought Notre Dame in 1991, a year after Penn State was voted as the league’s 11th member. Negotiations went dormant until 1999, when Delany aggressively pursued Notre Dame and it became the primary topic in college football. Football was the main motivator for Delany. For Notre Dame, the Big Ten was a perfect fit for its other sports and the league’s academic cooperative was something the northern Indiana Catholic university had to review.
Ultimately, football independence was too embedded into the university culture, and Notre Dame’s board of trustees rejected a path to Big Ten membership.
“From their perspective, they had historic, bad feelings about the Big Ten,” Delany said. “They felt — and I’ve read this — I don’t know this for a fact that Fielding Yost worked overtime to keep (Knute) Rockne and Notre Dame out of the Big Ten in the ’20s. I never saw any of that, for the most part. Our schools wanted to play them, and they did. But nevertheless, part of the Notre Dame mindset was they had been discriminated against. I think they also loved independence and the freedom that it gave them.”
Notre Dame first applied for the Big Ten in 1899 alongside Indiana and Iowa. When the charter members gathered at the Chicago Beach Hotel on Dec. 1 1899, delegates from Indiana and Iowa were present. Notre Dame sent no officials to the meeting. The Hoosiers and Hawkeyes became Big Ten members while Notre Dame was not invited. In 1926, Rockne and the Irish were interested in joining the Big Ten, but Yost and his Michigan contingent reportedly worked against Notre Dame for membership. For a century, Yost’s supposed actions have left a scar on the relationship between the entities.
“At the end of the day, and I don’t know exactly why, they had a historic sensibility that they had been discriminated against,” Delany said. “It’s not really articulated very much, but it’s felt, I could tell you. Also, there were people, and I’m not sure they were necessarily presidents or ADs, but there were people in their governance system who felt like they would not support Notre Dame if Notre Dame gave up their independence. I can’t name names because I don’t know the names. I just know that on a couple of occasions, the discussions went pretty far, and then they just dropped. They just dropped, and there was no deal to be had. And beyond that, I can’t give you any more detail.”
Unlike most conferences, the Big Ten had no interest in expanding just to add a championship game. After Penn State began Big Ten play in 1993, the league entertained several conversations with prospective members but had little interest until Delany announced in 2009 it would consider expansion. Membership in the Association of American Universities (AAU), a prestigious research consortium, was a prerequisite for Big Ten interest. Notre Dame was the anomaly.
The value Notre Dame places on being Independent
“They were about TV, and they were about independence,” Delany said. “They weren’t very interested in the Big Ten. I didn’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. But I did have a sense that if we were going to expand in the Midwest, if we’re going to expand from 11 to 12 — because there wasn’t a conference that was larger than 12 — but if it was only about 12, I can’t tell you how many times people wanted to come in as a 12th member.
“If they weren’t in the AAU — Notre Dame was not in the AAU — if they weren’t in a contiguous state, and if they didn’t have AAU, and if they didn’t bring a lot of value, there was no interest in the Big Ten expanding again. However, Notre Dame was an exception to that. They approached us a number of times, in the ’90s and early 2000s, to begin a conversation. That was a conversation we engaged, but it was never at the end finally fruitful. It just wasn’t.”
The interest was mutual, but partial membership was a non-starter for Delany.
“It was only on the basis of being a full member, no special deals, no special TV arrangements, no special anything,” Delany said. “If Notre Dame had been ready, willing and able to come in as an equal member, that would have probably moved us. But there was never such a moment.”
By December 2009, when the Big Ten announced it would become active in potential expansion, Notre Dame was no longer a target.
“I thought Notre Dame was not a moveable institution,” Delany said. “They demonstrated that to me before. We continued to play them and have them now in the conference as an affiliate member in hockey. But that’s their call. They had certain feelings about independence and TV, and we have certain feelings about all or nothing.
“In the Big East, they had worked through a relationship in their Olympic sports, and they worked through the same relationship with the ACC. But that kind of relationship was never available to them from us. Ever. And that’s why that didn’t happen. In my mind, that was off the table.”
Through the Big Ten’s multiple rounds of realignment, from adding Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers in the past decade to USC and UCLA joining the league in 2024, the Notre Dame topic always comes up. Is it possible for the Irish to remain independent well into the future?
Delany says yes. “Notre Dame is fully capable of surviving this environment,” Delany said. “I think they have made it clear as long as they have the access to the Playoff and their own network, they’re fine.”
LikeLike
Notre Dame football is conference realignment’s biggest prize. Can NBC keep it independent?
Pete Sampson Jul 12, 2023
SOUTH BEND, Ind. — The last time Notre Dame re-upped with NBC, the school negotiated as a national title contender and ratings darling at the epicenter of conference realignment.
The football program had just completed its first undefeated regular season in almost a quarter century, consuming the sport’s oxygen in the process in 2012. The Irish averaged 4.4 million viewers for their high-wire act home slate. The season finale at USC on ABC hit 16.1 million viewers, quadrupling the Iron Bowl and almost doubling Ohio State–Michigan.
Notre Dame was appointment viewing.
The school had also finished its shrewd move to the ACC, taking the football program there part-time and just about everything else there in full amid a series of moves by the Big Ten, ACC, Big East and others.
And so NBC re-signed Notre Dame on April 18, 2013, in the best of times, dropping the news during the Blue-Gold Game as the late Louis Nix scored on a quarterback sneak. The 10-year extension through the 2025 season was a departure from the five-year deals the school and network had matter-of-factly signed since Notre Dame forced the entire sport to rethink media rights when it quit the College Football Association in 1991 for a reported $38 million contract with NBC. That first deal was a market disruptor, a path for Notre Dame to charge ahead. The new deal, believed to be in the neighborhood of $25 million annually, was a market codifier, a means for Notre Dame to hold serve.
“It became apparent to me how they viewed Notre Dame and how important it was to them and how much they valued it,” said athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “They always talked about the brands that they worked with: the Olympics, the NFL, Notre Dame. We were always included in that.”
The true value of the Notre Dame-NBC contract has always been its partnership. What has been good for school has been good for network. Yet, economic forces have changed in the past decade. If geography drove the last round of realignment, now brand strength pays the bills.
And that leads Notre Dame and NBC to a different kind of negotiation, one that’s already begun.
How much television money would it take for Notre Dame to be able to afford independence while also making sure NBC could afford Notre Dame? It’s an answer that impacts not just Notre Dame, but virtually the entire sport.
Notre Dame is still a tent-pole property for NBC, but it’s no longer the only circus in town, with the media landscape unrecognizable from the one Swarbrick negotiated in a decade earlier. The English Premier League is on a nearly $3 billion deal with NBC, filling weekends on the network and even more space on streaming platform Peacock. This fall, the Big Ten will join the party, providing prime-time programming for NBC as part of a bigger $8 billion multi-network contract with the conference.
Last season’s Notre Dame home slate averaged 2.43 million viewers, not including the unpublished viewership for the Peacock-only game against UNLV. Until now, this was all fine for Notre Dame. It didn’t need to treat NBC as an ATM for the athletic department; it just needed a reliable partner to keep its foundation up to code.
For most of the past decade, Notre Dame maintaining independence came down to three things: a broadcast partner for football, a home for its Olympic sports and access to the national championship, whether that was the BCS, the four-team College Football Playoff or the 12-team iteration Swarbrick helped design. Check those three boxes, and Notre Dame could afford to pay the independent tax that comes with eschewing conference membership, even if that meant making less from media rights than Purdue or Vanderbilt.
But yesterday’s price is not today’s price. And Notre Dame can’t pay bills with the prestige or exposure that comes from an NBC contract if renewed.
It probably won’t have to.
If the investment in Big Ten football didn’t tip NBC’s hand about going big into college football, Notre Dame’s hiring of NBC Sports chairman and alumnus Pete Bevacqua to replace the retiring Swarbrick would have. Sources on both sides have struggled to envision a scenario in which a deal doesn’t get done after Notre Dame entered an early negotiating window with NBC when the Big Ten deal triggered a clause in the contract. (It hit pause on talks until Bevacqua begins his new job later this month in advance of Swarbrick’s departure next spring.) New Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua’s passion for alma mater makes his return ‘a calling’
Getting to the finish line from here is not uncomplicated. But it is essential, especially for Notre Dame to remain competitive in independence, meaning conference realignment’s biggest free agent stays unattached.
“When I use the phrase ‘committed media partner,’ I was always intending to communicate financially too,” Swarbrick said. “It’s the promotion of us. It’s the positioning of us on Saturday. “And it’s the money.”
The price of independence
The maneuvering of the Big Ten and SEC has escalated Notre Dame’s cost of independence.
In the past, Swarbrick has said Notre Dame would make more money off media rights as a full member of the ACC, which paid Notre Dame $17 million last year as a partial member. That’s the same league that athletic directors at Clemson and Florida State have been saber rattling as revenue gaps become financial chasms with the Big Ten and SEC.
The Big Ten’s new deal is expected to begin by paying out around $64 million per school and rise from there as USC and UCLA join the league. The SEC just quintupled the media rights for its marquee game, dropping CBS for ESPN on a 10-year, $3 billion deal before Texas and Oklahoma were added. That’s after the league paid each school $49.9 million last year, with some high-end projections forecasting that figure to double this decade.
Meanwhile, the ACC distributed $39.4 million to member schools in 2021-22. And the league’s schools are stuck in a grant of rights agreement through 2036, essentially capping their financial trajectory.
“The changing media landscape, and trying to make sure we still have the sort of positioning NBC has afforded us, it’s all different and more complex. It’s the SEC deal, it’s the Big Ten deal,” Swarbrick said. “You see the dynamic going on in college athletics, otherwise right now where people are struggling.”
That doesn’t exclude Notre Dame.
When the belt-tightening of COVID-19 hit, Notre Dame was already looking to its next media rights deal as a financial safety valve. Internally, athletic department officials coined the phrase “Survive Until ’25” as a shorthand operating procedure, meaning Notre Dame needed to restrain today under the premise the department could return to solid financial ground after the next NBC deal was signed.
William Mao won’t put an exact number on it, but the senior vice president of Octagon Global Media Rights Consulting knows how these contracts work. His company has done deals with the NFL, MLB, NASCAR, WWE and 18 international soccer leagues. And from a distance, there are paths both Notre Dame and NBC can take to negotiate a deal that ends with a win-win.
When asked if a $60 million deal would make mutual economic sense, Mao didn’t disagree.
“If both sides were talking ranges, that’s an area of positive outcome,” he said. “Keeping and retaining the Notre Dame package, that was part of the package pitches for the Big Ten package. Plenty of that provides Notre Dame leverage. Longstanding partnerships and legacy relationships usually continue.”
A second sports media consultant, who would speak only on background due to the sensitivity of negotiations, believed a $60 million agreement for Notre Dame’s next NBC deal would be in the ballpark of current market value. Privately, Notre Dame hopes to at least double its current media rights deal with NBC, with internal perspective that the school must be within “striking distance” of the SEC and Big Ten financially. Revenue from the ACC Network has been slightly better than forecast to date. And hitting analysts’ projections of $60 million would seem to make Notre Dame whole.
“It’s Notre Dame. It’s the whale. It’s what everybody wants,” said the anonymous media consultant. “After so many years, why change now? It’s kind of like the Masters and CBS. It’s just one of those things that is just kind of there and it’s expected. You don’t wake up thinking the Masters went somewhere else for a few dollars more.”
So if Notre Dame and NBC want to be together, how do they afford it? That’s where the partnership between school and network can play a lead role.
How Notre Dame can help NBC
Notre Dame has put one regular-season game on Peacock each of the past two seasons, but they were against Toledo and UNLV. When NBC initially reached out about a streaming-only broadcast, Swarbrick encouraged the network to go bigger. He didn’t offer up USC, but he felt games against ACC opponents should be considered. NBC declined. This year’s Peacock game is Central Michigan.
“From the NBC side, having more of that content available on their streaming service, that drives the value proposition of sub acquisition and maybe more so in this case retention,” Mao said. “If and when games are more exclusive, is that something that’s part of the conversation? If you want the economics and you’re seeking properties, not just in the college space, that can become more valuable, Peacock is obviously a lever to pull. The question is if you’re willing to pull it.”
Swarbrick argues for Peacock as part of the NBC deal but admits it’s been a learning experience. He cited the broadcast coming back from commercial breaks too late, missing live action. The lag time in game broadcasts — Notre Dame’s winning touchdown against Toledo was scored on Twitter before the ball was snapped on Peacock — made some viewers irate.
Still, Swarbrick insists Notre Dame should lead in streaming, even if the path is unmarked. He sees value in the shoulder programming Notre Dame and NBC can produce around games, although that material could exist on Peacock while games remain on NBC. The Blue-Gold Game was streamed exclusively the past three years. Swarbrick isn’t sure what to make of the data Peacock generates but believes there’s value in knowing exactly who’s watching and for how long as Notre Dame attempts to better connect with its “customers” moving forward.
“We learned a lot and the benefits are clear, but the dynamic that we all see is that’s where this is headed,” Swarbrick said. “ESPN is talking about taking the entire ESPN direct to consumer. I don’t know whether Peacock will be NBC in five years. It may be.”
If Notre Dame can generate subscribers for Peacock by streaming, it can drive NBC ratings by scheduling more Big Ten opponents, essentially creating college football inventory for the network by adding home-and-home dates with the conference. Ohio State or USC visiting Notre Dame would still be an NBC property, but suddenly the return dates could be NBC broadcasts thanks to the new Big Ten deal. NBC will pay nearly $350 million per year to broadcast 15 league games. Every one of those that involves Notre Dame would represent a ratings win.
How close has Notre Dame come to joining the Big Ten? ‘There was no deal to be had’
In the past 10 seasons, Notre Dame has faced 14 Big Ten opponents during the regular season. Those games averaged 5.21 millions viewers. They finished No. 1 on their weekend four times. The only games that didn’t finish in the top five on their respective weekends involved Northwestern. Those games were sixth.
Swarbrick cautioned it’s not as simple as every Big Ten road game adding value to NBC, but it would enhance the collection of games NBC could draft as part of its prime-time package with the Big Ten. Fox and CBS could also conceivably draft Notre Dame games. The question is how aggressive Notre Dame may get in scheduling if better opponents can create value for its own broadcast agreement.
Would the expanded College Football Playoff make Notre Dame more open to scheduling because losses became less punitive? Could Notre Dame rethink rivalries with Stanford or Navy? Does a singular “buy game” become the norm, meaning it’s Tennessee State or Central Michigan, not both?
“I’d question if they’re willing to schedule more Big Ten schools,” Mao said. “That helps prop up the broadcast value for both sides, but coaches have to think about their record, too. That’s the question Pete Bevacqua is going to have to balance.”
Notre Dame has road games scheduled at Purdue in 2024, 2026 and 2028. The Irish also have future road games scheduled against Michigan State, Indiana and Michigan.
Considering the Big Ten inventory already scheduled, it’s not clear how much Notre Dame could enhance a negotiating position that it’s already strengthened for NBC. However, If the Irish can average $10 million per home game — less than what NBC will pay the Big Ten per broadcast — to go with auxiliary income from the ACC, it could put Notre Dame where it needs to be financially.
“The acquisition of the Big Ten rights for NBC reflected a level of commitment to college football which is really good for us,” Swarbrick said. “Everything about that, having more college football inventory, being able to cross-promote against Notre Dame with the Big Ten, some of the scheduling things we’ll do, that was for me an important sign of their commitment to college football that is good for us.”
That’s the hard math for Notre Dame. But there’s soft power in the NBC deal, too.
Naturally, Notre Dame Stadium was a good place to start.
That’s not how most networks train new analysts. They’re typically put through the paces of calling a recorded game in a studio far from the general public’s eyes or ears. Rudolph figured he’d get his reps that way before jumping into USFL work. Instead, NBC put the former Notre Dame tight end and 12-year NFL veteran into the same broadcast booth once occupied by Tony Dungy, Drew Brees and Mike Mayock.
“I wouldn’t recommend your first broadcast being a spring game,” Rudolph said. “It was certainly an experience.”
It’s also exactly the kind Notre Dame and NBC have created for one another during the past decade as broadcast opportunities have increased, no longer limited by time slots or even broadcast television itself. NBC Sports Network became Peacock. And Notre Dame’s in-house media arm — Fighting Irish Media — evolved beyond press conferences and coaches shows. The resulting symbiosis has seen NBC serve Notre Dame and vice versa.
Notre Dame has pushed for alumni to get broadcasting opportunities — the school pitched Kyle Hamilton as sideline reporter for the spring game — and found a receptive partner in NBC. And the network’s production chops have helped Notre Dame’s own video team do more on the video board while giving players branding opportunities on national television.
It went as far as Mike Tirico sitting in on a Notre Dame broadcast journalism class for three hours, critiquing his call of the Clemson game in 2020 before helping sophomores and juniors improve their calls of Irish soccer.
“That’s something literally no other school and network can offer,” said play-by-play announcer Tony Simeone, who called the Blue-Gold Game with Rudolph. He also does Irish coaches shows and calls Notre Dame men’s basketball.
This part of the NBC relationship matters to Notre Dame but doesn’t show up in the financial terms of the contract. NBC is open to Notre Dame’s suggestions, no matter how much it attempts to be objective in calling the games themselves. And Notre Dame understands the power of the pulpit, from Lou Holtz’s run at ESPN to Brady Quinn at Fox, to the bench of Notre Dame alumni working in the NBC ecosystem.
“It’s hard to overstate its importance, because we’re seeing the benefits of it,” Swarbrick said. “They have a feel for Notre Dame, they have an understanding, they have some passion for it. Doesn’t change their objectivity. But, gosh, it’s great to have your people doing that.”
In some cases, NBC’s people become Notre Dame people as an extension of the contract. Former NBC Sports president Ken Schanzer sent three children to Notre Dame. Former NBC Sports chairman Dick Ebersol sent his son Charlie to Notre Dame. Bevacqua is a Notre Dame graduate and former football walk-on. His father also graduated from the university. Swarbrick’s daughter Kate has worked in creative partnerships for Peacock. And Notre Dame alumnus Jac Collinsworth replaced Tirico in the booth last season at 27 years old.
Rudolph, whose NBC connections began in the U.S. Army All-American Bowl as a five-star prospect, doesn’t hide from the fact that without Notre Dame, the doors at NBC wouldn’t have opened quite as wide, if they opened at all.
“One-hundred percent. It was without question the reason why,” Rudolph said. “I’m an anomaly, played 12 years in the NFL before starting my next chapter, but Notre Dame was still there opening doors and giving me opportunities.”
Rudolph said he’ll call select Big Ten games for NBC this fall, steps toward a life after playing football. It’s the kind of path Notre Dame wants designed. It’s one NBC hopes to pave.
“We always love giving the Notre Dame student-athletes opportunities on these kinds of broadcasts,” said senior associate producer Ryan Burke, who produced the spring game and handles replays during the fall. “I’ve never heard of it with one school and one network like we have. It’s definitely something unique in the industry.”
The economics of this familiarity may be hard to quantify, but Notre Dame and NBC place value on it just the same. Still, what will drive a college program and national network to extend this 30-plus-year marriage won’t be rapport or collegiality. It will be the money, the kind Notre Dame needs to remain independent, and an investment NBC could make to keep the Irish that way.
On the first weekend of November last fall, NBC billed its lineup as “Big Event Weekend” starting with the Breeder’s Cup into Notre Dame on Saturday, followed by NASCAR and Sunday Night Football with the Titans visiting the Chiefs. As the crews reconvened in New York after the fact, they wondered which big event was the biggest. Notre Dame’s blowout of Clemson didn’t come close to Kansas City’s overtime win over Tennessee, which got nearly 18 million viewers.
But as NBC reflected on the field storming the enveloped Marcus Freeman and the imagery created, it was hard to argue which moment would stand up over time. It was a scene that reminded NBC why it coveted Notre Dame football in the first place and why Notre Dame desired the national television reach of NBC.
“You get this game against a perennially No. 1 team and an upset or big game like that happens, you can’t beat that,” Burke said. “That’s why this contract is awesome.”
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal. This is almost beyond belief . . . .
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sorority-consultants-rush-colleges-parents-prepare-80b2cfc8?st=nb4q0kduf9f7o5x&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Jim Williams has sources that claim the P12 may see media deal numbers by the end of the month. Also, the B10 will wait to see how adding USC & UCLA goes (plus the ND TV deal) before considering any further expansion.
LikeLike
Actually this confirms what I have posted previously:
The Pac-12 media deal is going to be a pathetic. Georgie Boy is continuously delaying it to prevent members from deflecting. And that works. So far, they have taken the bait.
ND is not joining the Big Ten nor any other conference. Period. At the same time, their value on NBC is not worth $60 million/yr. Now that ND’s homer has moved from NBC Sports to ND AD, I see no reason for NBC to pay more for Tennessee State or Central Michigan or Navy than they are worth. Those Saturday afternoon broadcasts will soon be playing against Bama-Tennessee, Ohio State-USC and LSU-Georgia.
LikeLike
This is the same warmed-over guesswork you have been serving for months. Whether correct or not, I don’t see how any of it is implied by the Jim Williams tweets. Heck, even Williams does not seem very confident — “tell me if you’ve heard that before”.
Your hypothesis is not even consistent on its own terms. If Notre Dame is going to remain independent, they simply have to be paid in the ZIP code of the major programs. Even Swarbrick admits publicly that this is true. So, it is possible ND will remain independent, and it is possible NBC won’t give them a big raise for their crappy games, but both can’t be true.
LikeLike
Marc: “So, it is possible ND will remain independent, and it is possible NBC won’t give them a big raise for their crappy games, but both can’t be true.”
It’s not only possible, that’s probably what will happen.
LikeLike
And we should believe you rather than what their own Athletic Director says?
LikeLike
Marc: “And we should believe you rather than what their own Athletic Director says?”
ND’s new AD is the previous head of NBC Sports. Seems like he would have arranged the big pay raise for the Domers before he left NBC, not after.
Just because the Big Ten and SEC are getting more for their TV deals doesn’t mean the ND football is worth more. It isn’t, it’s the same old ACC plus Navy and they seem to have developed a fettish for playing MAC teams as well. But the football options coming out of the P2 will certainly be more appealing with the addition of USC/UCLA and Texas/OU and the abolition of divisions.
So tell us, why should NBC pay more for Notre Dame home games?
LikeLike
ND’s new AD is the previous head of NBC Sports. Seems like he would have arranged the big pay raise for the Domers before he left NBC, not after.
Had Pete Bevacqua known that Swarbrick was retiring and he’d be the new AD, it would have been a flagrant conflict of interest for him to negotiate that deal on NBC’s behalf. The NBC/ND partnership has two years to run, so it’s not at the point where you’d expect a renewal just yet.
Just because the Big Ten and SEC are getting more for their TV deals doesn’t mean the ND football is worth more.
Yes it does. Sports rights fees go up over time, even the crappy ones — not that ND is crap, but that seems to be your hypothesis, so I’m riding with it. Every source I can find expects ND’s payout to go up, because of course it will. Even Jim Delany expects ND will make enough money to remain independent, and I will venture he knows the subject better than you do.
LikeLike
Marc: “. . . it would have been a flagrant conflict of interest for him (Pete Bevacqua) to negotiate that deal on NBC’s behalf.”
It was a flagrant conflict of interest for ND to hire the head of NBC Sports as AD.
Marc: “Sports rights fees go up over time . . .”
Of course that is true but that does not justify the mentality of “Big Ten/SEC same-same Notre Dame”. The quality and value of the noon & 3:30 games by the Big Ten and especially the SEC will increase dramatically with the addition of USC, Texas and Oklahoma. At noon when Ohio State is playing Wisconsin and Bama is playing Tennessee followed at 3:30 by USC-Penn State and Texas-LSU, there will be FEWER fans watching ND-Central Michigan at 2:30 on NBC. The value of ND home games is not increasing while the value of Big Ten/SEC games clearly is.
LikeLike
It was a flagrant conflict of interest for ND to hire the head of NBC Sports as AD.
No it’s not. Otherwise no one could ever switch sides, and this happens with some regularity.
“Sports rights fees go up over time . . .”
Of course that is true but that does not justify the mentality of “Big Ten/SEC same-same Notre Dame”.
ND could always have made more in the Big Ten. They don’t need that much and won’t get that much, as even their own people acknowledge. But your position has been that NBC shouldn’t increase them by even a dollar, and that’s ludicrous.
The quality and value of the noon & 3:30 games by the Big Ten and especially the SEC will increase dramatically with the addition of USC, Texas and Oklahoma. At noon when Ohio State is playing Wisconsin and Bama is playing Tennessee followed at 3:30 by USC-Penn State and Texas-LSU, there will be FEWER fans watching ND-Central Michigan at 2:30 on NBC.
You’ve cherry-picked the hypothetical best Big Ten/SEC opponents with ND’s worst. On the actual date that ND hosts Central Michigan, Penn State is playing Illinois, Ohio State is playing Western Kentucky, and Alabama is playing South Florida.
The value of ND home games is not increasing while the value of Big Ten/SEC games clearly is.
ND insiders have admitted that they have had discussions about strengthening their schedule, which they could easily do. They will have to weigh the bump they get from NBC vs. adding another “losable” game to their schedule. However, with the 12-team playoff the Irish no longer have to go undefeated to make the field as an independent, so perhaps they will do it.
LikeLike
Marc: “But your position has been that NBC shouldn’t increase them by even a dollar, and that’s ludicrous.”
I said nothing of the kind. That is your wacko distortion of my comments.
Marc: “You’ve cherry-picked the hypothetical best Big Ten/SEC opponents with ND’s worst.”
We’re talking about 2024, not 2023. After USC/UCLA join the Big Ten and Texas/OU join the SEC, there will be a huge increase in quality game inventory in both conferences. USC will play someone every week. Texas will play someone every week. When they play turkeys, then the networks will show something else. When ND plays turkeys, then NBC is stuck with it. Wanna see ND’s home schedule in 2024? Here it is:
Northern Illinois, Miami of Ohio, Louisville, Stanford, Florida State, Virginia and Miami of Florida.
LikeLike
According to this analysis, Colorado cost itself almost $70m by leaving the Big 12. The contributing factors are:
A) The exit fee it paid
B) The ramp-up to a full Pac-12 share
C) The Big 12 paid its members more in every year but one since the Buffaloes left
A huge chunk of that was in 2020–21 because Colorado (with the rest of the Pac) played a highly abbreviated Covid schedule, for which they were paid over $15m less than they would’ve made in the Big 12.
I don’t know if the numbers are correct, but that is what’s claimed. Of course, none of this matters now. As Wayne Gretzky might say, Colorado needs to look at where the money is going, not where it has been.
LikeLike
Marc,
That doesn’t account for their share of ownership of the P12N. That’s an asset with tangible value that the B12 doesn’t have. They’ve still earned a lot less money athletically, but $70M may not be correct.
Also, what about CU overall? How did the university do in the bigger picture (much more important than just the AD)? Were donations up? Is there academic brand up? Is their research growing? Sports are a small piece of the puzzle.
LikeLike
Big Ten computer projections from The Athletic:
First number is XWINS, the average win total over the model’s simulations.
Second number is CONF. TITLE, probability the team wins the conference title game.
Third line is 6+ WINS, probability the team the team gains bowl eligibility.
Michigan
10.5
34.58%
100.0%
Ohio State
10.3
33.11%
100.0%
Penn State
9.9
14.74%
100.0%
Wisconsin
8.7
11.19%
98.9%
Iowa
7.4
2.37%
92.4%
Illinois
6.6
2.01%
75.8%
Minnesota
6.0
0.96%
63.8%
Purdue
5.3
0.64%
45.3%
Nebraska
5.7
0.22%
55.1%
Maryland
7.0
0.17%
86.9%
Rutgers
4.5
0.01%
22.4%
Northwestern
4.5
0.00%
19.7%
Michigan State
4.1
0.00%
15.5%
Indiana
3.3
0.00%
4.1%
LikeLike
Ross Dellenger reports that Jim Harbaugh will likely accept a four-game suspension as part of a negotiated settlement of recruiting violations. The violations themselves were minor (“Level II” in the NCAA’s nomenclature), but NCAA investigators say that Harbaugh lied to them, which is considered a major violation.
Initially, Harbaugh was not willing to admit he had been dishonest, but a four-game suspension is pretty substantial. I agree with Dellinger that Harbaugh must now be willing to acknowledge “some sort of dishonesty” — or at least he and the school have concluded that the investigators would likely prevail if it went to a formal hearing.
If it’s settled before the start of the season, Michigan’s first four games (all at home) are East Carolina, UNLV, Bowling Green, and Rutgers.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s really a penalty to miss your coach for 4 scrimmages. UM could pick a random person off the street to be HC for those games and they’d still go 4-0 by a wide margin.
LikeLike
Here’s a hot take from an Ohio State partisan:
LikeLike
I’ll give the opposite version:
Tressel deserved to be fired for lying to the NCAA multiple times. It’s a clear violation of the rules, and the NCAA can’t function if people are allowed to lie to it (esp. since they lack subpoena power). It’s part of a coach’s job to follow NCAA rules, whether they like them or not. Just because the NCAA world changed soon after doesn’t mean the NCAA were wrong to enforce their rules at the time on OSU.
I won’t compare Harbaugh vs Tressel in terms of who lied more or about what. But missing 4 scrimmages is not a real penalty.
LikeLike
Shameful copyright infringement from The Athletic. A pox upon my descendants for a thousand generations. Federal NIL Bill update:
Sens. Manchin, Tuberville introduce NIL bill with transfer restrictions, registry of deals By Nicole Auerbach 5m ago
U.S. Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) introduced on Tuesday a long-awaited bipartisan bill regarding name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and other college sports issues. Called the “Protecting Athletes, Schools and Sports Act,” the legislation includes the creation of a national public registry to record and track NIL deals, enhanced healthcare coverage for both current and former college athletes and strict rules regarding athletes’ usage of the transfer portal. Here’s what you need to know:
The bill would preempt state NIL laws and require a uniform NIL contract for all parties entering into a contract. It would also allow the NCAA to prohibit certain types of deals, such as those with gambling companies or alcohol brands.
The NCAA would be in charge of enforcing and investigating such rules, but it would have the support of the Federal Trade Commission, which would handle the registration of agents and collectives as well as the national public NIL deal registry. Collectives and boosters would be required to be formally affiliated with specific schools.
The act would guarantee health insurance for sports-related injuries for uninsured student athletes for eight years following graduation from a four-year institution. That responsibility would either fall upon the school at which the athlete played and/or a newly formed trust fund taken from one percent of annual proceeds from revenue-generating collegiate tournaments, including the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and the College Football Playoff.
Athletes would only be able to transfer and play right away after completing their first three years of academic eligibility. Exceptions to this would include a death in the player’s family or a head coach or position coach leaving the school.
The implications (and criticisms) of a public NIL registry.
The act would establish “a publicly accessible internet website on which the Federal Trade Commission shall publish and frequently update anonymized and aggregated name, image or likeness data.” While a great many college administrators have called for transparency around NIL deals themselves, not every proposed bill has included a public registry. This information would be useful in determining what is or isn’t true market value. Critics have argued that it is not necessary because such a database doesn’t exist in other industries, nor does it exist for professional athletes who sign endorsement deals.
The other new bipartisan bill coming from the Senate
Last week, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) circulated a discussion draft of their bipartisan bill, which proposes the formation of the College Athletics Corporation (CAC), a central oversight entity that would set, administer, and enforce rules and standards to protect athletes who enter into endorsement contracts. It would require that athletes disclose deals to a designated athletic department official at their school but not publicly.
The bill also included healthcare provisions for current and former players, paid for by a medical trust fund, and the ability for an athlete to transfer one time and play immediately as long as the transfer occurred out of season and not within 60 days of the start of the sport’s season. The bill would also allow athletes who go undrafted in a professional sports draft the ability to return to school.
How they compare
Neither bill explicitly states that athletes are categorically not employees. But other than that, these bills both provide the NCAA with a lot of what it’s been asking for: the preemption of state NIL laws, requiring that NIL deals be disclosed and tracked and assistance with enforcement. The biggest differences are in how each treats athletes’ ability to transfer and ease in which they can do so. The Manchin-Tuberville bill severely restricts athlete mobility, presumably to avoid recruiting inducements in the form of NIL deals.
But it’s an odd inclusion during an era that has seen a significant loosening of athlete restrictions in this area, among others. The bills also differ in disclosure — the Manchin-Tuberville bill proposes a national public registry with athletes granted anonymity, while the Booker-Moran-Blumenthal bill would keep contract information private and protected from Freedom of Information Act requests. The bills also differ slightly in the breadth of medical coverage provided and some of the particulars surrounding how it would be funded. It’s not clear exactly how the FTC or the newly formed CAC would actually work with or in lieu of the NCAA in terms of regulation and punishment for violations.
LikeLike
Athletes would only be able to transfer and play right away after completing their first three years of academic eligibility. Exceptions to this would include a death in the player’s family or a head coach or position coach leaving the school.
I am not sure how I feel about Congress legislating transfers to this extent. I get the desire for a national NIL standard. Otherwise, you could have a deal that’s legal in Texas but illegal in Arkansas, for example.
But who is allowed to transfer doesn’t strike me as an area where Congress has great competence. I get that this would ensure athletes don’t bail on their team for a better NIL deal. But such a law would sweep all transfers within its ambit, not just the NIL-related ones.
The NCAA transfer rules were corrupt and unfair for years. But at least the NCAA can tweak them relatively easily. Once the transfer rules are written in federal law, they are likely to be set in stone for a long, long time.
LikeLike
I agree that the NCAA transfer rules aren’t anything that Congress needs to address. The NCAA can take care of that issue.
A national NIL standard is a far more thorny problem and I have yet to hear anyone propose a resolution. We’re talking about a female gymnast at LSU who’s making over $2 million/yr and a quarterback at Miami who was looking at $13.4 million before the deal fell through and a second-string offensive tackle at Rutgers who makes nothing. I flat-out do not believe that Congress can come up with a national NIL standard that will make everyone happy and get enough votes from 435 legislators representing 50 states to become law.
LikeLike
I’ve no idea if anything will pass — honestly, I hope it doesn’t — but I think you have misunderstood what the standard would regulate. Nobody is saying that the Rutgers offensive tackle should make more or that the LSU gymnast is getting too much. This is capitalism. Sometimes X will earn more than Y, and it might not be fair.
LikeLike
Marc, you are probably right that nobody will say that the Rutgers offensive tackle should make more or that the LSU gymnast is getting too much. But rather proclaiming what it won’t say, focus upon what it wiil say. That’s the enigma. I do not believe it is possible to come up with a “NIL Standard” that everyone in AL and TX and OH and UT – and their politicians in Congress – can agree upon.
LikeLike
Marc,
I am not sure how I feel about Congress legislating transfers to this extent. I get the desire for a national NIL standard. Otherwise, you could have a deal that’s legal in Texas but illegal in Arkansas, for example.
But who is allowed to transfer doesn’t strike me as an area where Congress has great competence. I get that this would ensure athletes don’t bail on their team for a better NIL deal. But such a law would sweep all transfers within its ambit, not just the NIL-related ones.
Such is life. If people didn’t abuse it, regulations wouldn’t need to be added. Besides, they are not limiting transfers at all. The bill would limit the ability to play immediately after the transfer. The NFLPA claims players aren’t ready for the pros until after 3 years of eligibility, so maybe that’s why they chose 3 years rather than 2 – that’s when players become football adults, able to make decisions for t6hemselves.
The NCAA transfer rules were corrupt and unfair for years.
Corrupt? I don’t think so. You can make a case for unfair.
But at least the NCAA can tweak them relatively easily. Once the transfer rules are written in federal law, they are likely to be set in stone for a long, long time.
Consistent rules are a good thing. It’s harder to get everyone involved properly informed of the rules if they frequently change.
LikeLike
Besides, they are not limiting transfers at all. The bill would limit the ability to play immediately after the transfer.
You’re really playing with semantics there. Transfers exploded after they allowed immediate eligibility, so it’s fair to say they would be drastically reduced if the old rule were put back into effect.
Corrupt? I don’t think so. You can make a case for unfair.
I considered it corrupt because of the stated reason for requiring most transfers to sit out a year of competition — to give the athlete time to adjust to a new institution. I think every serious person knew this was not the actual reason for it, or at least not the main one.
But in any event my main point is not to say what the transfer rules ought to be, only that Congress is most likely not the most competent authority to decide. Inconsistent NIL laws from one state to another are a real problem that only they can fix. I’m not convinced transfer rules are.
Consistent rules are a good thing. It’s harder to get everyone involved properly informed of the rules if they frequently change.
I do not get the sense that most players eligible to transfer have any trouble knowing what the rules are.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38070433/pass-act-aims-protect-athletes-integrity-college-sports
Congress may eventually do something about NIL. They are at least pretending to care at the moment.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38070171/northwestern-football-players-big-ten-media-days
The interim coach will take all the blows for NW at media days. I think the players were right to skip it. It’ll be interesting to see how the media deal with the topic since the interim guy was hired after last season. He can’t have much knowledge about any hazing.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/07/pac-12-survival-colorados-conundrum-and-the-unique-challenge-of-a-boulder-existence/
Jon Wilner on CU’s dilemma.
Would the Buffaloes leave for the Big 12 even if the annual broadcast revenue from ESPN and Fox ($31.7 million per school per year) is comparable to what they stand to earn in the Pac-12?
Would they accept an invitation from the Big 12 before seeing an official offer on the table in the Pac-12?
The Hotline won’t claim to know how the saga within a saga will end (or when it will end). Instead, this exercise is intended to illuminate the issues at the heart of Colorado’s decision — issues that are as unique as CU’s geography.
For all the uncertainty, three things are apparent:
1. Realignment rumors and grapevine position move in lockstep.
…
2. Colorado’s situation is as complex as the map is simple.
…
3. Colorado’s identity is at stake in realignment, but which identity?
The decision to remain in the Pac-12 or return to the Big 12 illuminates the university’s quest to define itself athletically and academically. What’s best for one might not be best for the other.
…
But when it comes to issues that impact the university in totality, including both the source and mouth of Colorado’s enrollment pipeline, the school seems more suited for the West Coast.
— The source: Colorado welcomed 36,000 students in the fall of 2022, according to the university’s office of data analytics, and slightly more than half (56 percent) were in-state residents.
The out-of-state student population tilts heavily to California. The Golden State is CU’s golden ticket — hello, full-cost tuition! — and accounts for 10 percent of the school’s total enrollment.
There are three times as many students from California as those from Texas.
— The mouth: Colorado has approximately 300,000 living alumni, according to the university. About 50 percent reside in Colorado, while the out-of-state alumni base tilts substantially to Northern and Southern California specifically and the West Coast generally.
There are more alumni in San Francisco than Colorado Springs, more in Seattle than Dallas.
Donations to the athletic department from California increased 903 percent during CU’s first four seasons in the Pac-12, the Boulder Daily Camera reported in 2015.
“Where we play is taking us to where our people are,” George said at the time.
(Note: The alumni data cited above is from 2016.)
Donations up 900%? I could believe 90%, but 900%?
I wonder how much the donations to the academic side grew. They were #61 in total research money in 2010 with $336M, and were #51 by 2018 with $489M. That’s up to almost $600M now. That’s nice growth, but not overwhelming. Of course, it’s hard to move up the list when everyone else is pressing to grow as well.
LikeLike
This Instagram post has the expansion rumors flying again. I know OSU and UO have a HaH series in 2032-33 already scheduled. OSU has openings in 2029 and 2034, but I wouldn’t think we’d want to double down on UO in that period.
Maybe this is just a reference to some upcoming mascot competition or something.
LikeLike
Some have fairly wondered whether Jim Williams should be considered a solid source for info. He has at least 1 good source:
Back in February, Williams wrote this article about Apple looking to get the P12 rights:
https://www.zenger.news/2023/02/28/the-apple-tv-move-to-land-the-pac-12-was-years-in-the-planning/
Apple TV+ has been planning to make a run at the Pac-12 for quite a while.
In December 2019, Apple CEO Tim Cook a huge sports fan sent one of his top executives Eddy Cue the senior vice president of Services, to meet with then Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott about becoming the home of all the Conference of Champions sports. Cue and Scott went over what it would take to get an exclusive deal that would start in 2024.
The duo played out a scenario where Apple TV+ would make an all-in bid for everything possibly even buying or at least takeover over the Pac-12 Network. In a 2019 interview, my former colleague Tripp Mickle wrote this for the Wall Street Journal about Cue and his thoughts on bidding for the Pac-12, and here is what he said.
“Mr. Cue has questioned the value of a deal with the Pac-12 because it would only give Apple rights to some games, people familiar with his thinking said. He also recognized that if Apple ever secured rights to all the conference’s best programming, it would need to show some of those games on traditional, broadcast TV to satisfy fans.”
Even in 2019 Cue and Cook wanted all the Pac-12 content for their brand-new streaming service. Well, what started back in 2019 has now come full circle as a much stronger Apple TV+ has come calling for an all-streaming deal that would likely include the nearly 800 events scheduled for the 2024 season.
LikeLike
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-97-espns-future-mls-messi-and-the-big-get-mike-tirico/id1587364692?i=1000622385548
Marchand and Ourand discuss many topics, including the P12 deal (starts about 27:30).
In this week’s Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast sponsored by WSC Sports:
In this week’s Marchand & Ourand Sports Media Podcast, Mike Tirico joins the show one year before the start of the Summer Olympics in Paris. Tirico talks about his preparation for hosting those games with NBC and his role in covering geopolitical stories during the games. Tirico describes how he broke into the business, how he landed a job at ESPN and what made him move to NBC. Tirico also discusses the situation early in his NBC tenure when he wasn’t calling NFL games and how he kept from being frustrated.
Marchand and Ourand open the podcast with a discussion around the company Disney is most likely to pick as a strategic partner on ESPN, from Comcast to sports leagues to venture capital to Big Tech to gambling. The two hosts then talk the story Ourand broke about the number of MLS Season Pass subscribers approaching 1 million. The conversation turns to parsing Apple’s sports ambitions further and a review of the Pac-12’s Media Day. As always, Marchand and Ourand give their picks for Who’s Up and Who’s Down in sports media for the week.
LikeLike
Thanks. That was very enjoyable to listen to (mostly the Tirico part). Marchand and Ourand are not fans of George Kliavkoff’s negotiating strategy. He said to the media, “the longer we wait, the better our options get.”
Ourand said: “you don’t want to talk about the longer we wait, the better the deal gets. You’re almost taunting people that you’re trying to do deals with. It’s a bizarre strategy.”
He also said, when you’ve got the facts on your side, you tout the facts. When you don’t have the facts, you pound the table.”
LikeLike
Intrigue in CO this week. Perhaps the infinite delay strategy is failing GK:
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/article/notre-dame-football-nbc-college-football-media-games-tv-rights-deals-money-213237109/
NBC loves the midwest. Not so much the P12.
“We love Notre Dame. You couldn’t find a better working relationship than the one we’ve had,” said NBC Sports’ Jon Miller, president of acquisitions and partnerships. “I’m not going to comment on the dollars because that wouldn’t be fair to them or quite honestly to us, but we’ll sit down at the right time and have a conversation. I’m confident that we understand what’s important to them and they understand clearly how Notre Dame works for us. Hopefully, we’ll find a way to make a deal. I would very much like to have Notre Dame continue with NBC forever. I don’t want to even put an end date on it.”
Historically, NBC hasn’t been a big player in college football media rights. That changed in 2022 when the company struck a deal to acquire the Big Ten’s prime time games starting in 2023. Miller told 247Sports that the network is interested in two college football products: The Big Ten and Notre Dame. Other than those entities, NBC is “not a player for any other college football opportunities that may be out there.”
LikeLike
Speaking of NBC, fbschedules.com released all of the B1G/NBC schedule for the Fall.
2023 Big Ten Football Schedule on NBC
All times Eastern.
* Previously announced.
Saturday, Sept. 2
*West Virginia at Penn State – 7:30pm
Saturday, Sept. 9
*Charlotte
at
Maryland – 7:30pm
Saturday, Sept. 16
*Syracuse at Purdue
– 7:30pm
Saturday, Sept. 23
Maryland at Michigan State – 3:30pm
*Ohio State at Notre Dame – 7:30pm
Saturday, Sept. 30
Illinois at Purdue – 7:30pm
Saturday, Oct. 7
Purdue at Iowa – 7:30pm
Saturday, Oct. 14
Iowa at Wisconsin – 3:30pm
Saturday, Oct. 21
Minnesota at Iowa – 3:30pm
Michigan at Michigan State – 7:30pm
Saturday, Oct. 28
Ohio State at Wisconsin – 7:30pm
Saturday, Nov. 4
Purdue at Michigan – 7:30pm
Saturday, Nov. 11
Maryland at Nebraska – 3:30pm
*Michigan State at Ohio State – 7:30pm
Saturday, Nov. 18
Nebraska at Wisconsin – 7:30pm
Friday, Nov. 24
*Penn State vs. Michigan State (in Detroit) – 7:30pm
LikeLike
“Miller told 247Sports that the network is interested in two college football products: The Big Ten and Notre Dame.”
And what have I told you again and again? The ND home football schedule is not worth anything near the competition that they will be getting starting on 2024. Their MAC/ACC/Navy crap will be ignored by viewers once that the SEC and B1G add Texas, USC, OU and UCLA.
Brian, Marc is a basket case of denial but surely you have the intellect to understand this.
LikeLike
Brian, Marc is a basket case of denial but surely you have the intellect to understand this.
When Brian or I post a story, that doesn’t mean we are endorsing everything it says. I do think that if NBC is interested in only two properties — the Big Ten and Notre Dame — it means NBC thinks there’s a deal to be had that gives the Irish most of what they want.
This statement — I would very much like to have Notre Dame continue with NBC forever. — doesn’t sound like they are about to screw their partner of 33 years. Sure, there could be a scenario where the Irish are screwed, but I don’t get the sense that NBC is aiming for that.
Notre Dame themselves have admitted that they cannot remain independent if the financial gap remains as big as it is now. This is not me speculating — it’s what the Irish have said. Since I know they are saying this, it’s a good bet that NBC knows it too.
LikeLike
Feeding the troll only encourages it, just ignore it. There is no rational discussion to be had, so don’t waste the effort. I haven’t read any of it’s comments for months, and it’s vastly improved my experience here.
LikeLike
If the reports are true, IMO, Colorado is about to make a mistake. At the P5 level these should be 50 to 100 year decisions. It looks like they’re thinking ten years out right now.
LikeLike
At the P5 level these should be 50 to 100 year decisions.
The Pac-12 today is not the league that Colorado joined. Knowing what we know now, would Colorado have moved when they did? No way. They are the only P5 school in the modern realignment era that moved when they should not have. If they move again, they are rectifying a mistake.
It looks like they’re thinking ten years out right now.
I am sure they are thinking far beyond 10 years. Could they be wrong? Well, they were wrong the first time, so it could happen. But I don’t think so. What’s the likely catalyst where, 10 years from now, they’d be thinking they were wrong a second time? I don’t see it. And they have access to better information than we do, as they’ve seen the outlines of Kliavkoff’s deal.
LikeLike
Marc,
The Pac-12 today is not the league that Colorado joined. Knowing what we know now, would Colorado have moved when they did? No way. They are the only P5 school in the modern realignment era that moved when they should not have. If they move again, they are rectifying a mistake.
We can’t know that, for several reasons. First, we don’t know what the P12 media deal looks like. If CU also doesn’t know, moving now is a mistake. If CU does know, then we can’t evaluate their decision without also knowing the numbers. If it’s less than $5M per year more, is it still a good idea? Travel will eat up most of that if not all. Remember, they will be playing in FL, WV and OH if they join the B12. CU is a better fit in the P12, both culturally and academically. If their football team hadn’t cratered since the move, they might not even be considering a move back. There’s no evidence it wouldn’t have stunk in the B12 with the same coaching hires.
Here’s an article from 2020 with the former AD saying that he’d do it again:
I am sure they are thinking far beyond 10 years. Could they be wrong? Well, they were wrong the first time, so it could happen. But I don’t think so. What’s the likely catalyst where, 10 years from now, they’d be thinking they were wrong a second time? I don’t see it. And they have access to better information than we do, as they’ve seen the outlines of Kliavkoff’s deal.
Were they wrong? The B12 was falling apart at the time, and now every major brand is gone (NE, UT, OU, TAMU). Do you think CU fans are excited to play UCF, WV, UH, UC, ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, Baylor, TT, TCU and BYU? CU moved into a better academic conference, and closer to their alumni and future students. Was CU calling for Larry Scott to be fired? Did they push for selling the P12N to ESPN? Did CU not let their football program crater? Many of the P12’s problems were self-inflicted, and CU shares responsibility.
LikeLike
We can’t evaluate their decision without also knowing the numbers. If it’s less than $5M per year more, is it still a good idea? Travel will eat up most of that if not all. Remember, they will be playing in FL, WV and OH if they join the B12.
I am not so sure about that. Most of the Big 12 campuses are closer to Boulder than most of the Pac-12 ones are. You’ve named the three that are worse, which would mean approximately one long road trip per football season against 3–4 others that will be shorter. That doesn’t feel like $5m per year more to me.
Were they wrong? The B12 was falling apart at the time, and now every major brand is gone (NE, UT, OU, TAMU).
Assuming perfect knowledge, they shouldn’t have moved. They lost a ton of money by doing so (see the post earlier this week), and it hasn’t worked out competitively either. At the time, it seemed like the right thing to do — I don’t dispute that.
Do you think CU fans are excited to play UCF, WV, UH, UC, ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU, Baylor, TT, TCU and BYU?
I’m not plugged into CU fandom (and don’t intend to be), but the stories say Deion Sanders was pushing for this. Now, to be clear, I think it would be foolish to move on the say-so of a coach who could be gone in two years — I hope there are far better reasons for it than just his opinion. But even though he hasn’t coached a game yet, I will assume until shown otherwise that he knows the fan Zeitgeist better than we do.
Of course, if they are able to restore a culture of winning, I doubt there will be many complaints. If they fail at that, there’ll be a lot of them. I know CU sources a lot of students from California and has a lot of alumni there, but a good chunk of them probably come from Southern California, which isn’t in the Pac-12 footprint anymore.
Was CU calling for Larry Scott to be fired? Did they push for selling the P12N to ESPN? Did CU not let their football program crater? Many of the P12’s problems were self-inflicted, and CU shares responsibility.
Conferences are very good at claiming unanimity regardless of their internal differences, so we simply don’t know if there were any dissenting voices while the Pac-12 ran itself into a ditch. Clearly the crater that CU football became is nobody’s fault but their own. However, if you are CU management, you have to take the facts as they are now, not as they would’ve been if different decisions had been made years ago.
LikeLike
Mike,
If the reports are true, IMO, Colorado is about to make a mistake. At the P5 level these should be 50 to 100 year decisions. It looks like they’re thinking ten years out right now.
I mostly agree with you, but Kliavkoff’s handling of the media deal is largely to blame. You can’t string people along with promises of getting info “soon” indefinitely. A bird in the hand beats two in the bush. CU knows what the media deal is for the B12. They have to guess whether the P12 will ever even sign a deal.
I agree with you because CU has a lot more alumni on the west coast (more in Seattle than Dallas, for example, and a lot more in CA). They attract a lot more students from CA (11.9%) than from TX (3.4). Plus, they’re AAU and the P12 is a much better academic conference.
LikeLike
A bird in the hand beats two in the bush. CU knows what the media deal is for the B12. They have to guess whether the P12 will ever even sign a deal.
Lets say the PAC12 only gets half of what the Big 12 is getting. 15 million is a lot of money but its not a complete handicap. The additional CFP money will help close the gap to keep their budget in the same general ballpark as it is today. Is it ideal? No. However, the G5 teams do a lot more with less than Colorado.
We’ve seen the last few years a consolidation around brands. In the PAC12, Colorado is walking away from the conference with the stronger brands. Its going to be a whole lot more difficult for Colorado to build its brand playing in Stillwater, Manhattan, Ames, Lubbock, and Waco. They are literally doing the opposite of what Texas did. Texas saw fan apathy around the playing of (and losing to) solid but not “sexy” teams. Its one thing to lose to Alabama, its another to lose to Iowa St or TCU. Denver is a very competitive sports market. Its going to be very hard for a Big 12 CU to get noticed playing UCF. If I were in charge CU’s marketing/ticket sales, I’d much rather see Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Arizona St vs anything the Big 12 has, despite the Big 12 probably having better overall teams.
This move screams penny wise, pound foolish.
LikeLike
Lets say the PAC12 only gets half of what the Big 12 is getting. 15 million is a lot of money but its not a complete handicap. The additional CFP money will help close the gap to keep their budget in the same general ballpark as it is today. Is it ideal? No. However, the G5 teams do a lot more with less than Colorado.
I am pretty sure the Pac-12 was verging on an unequal revenue sharing deal, where playoff money goes disproportionately to the teams who qualify. So unless CU makes the playoff itself, they don’t get as much as you’re thinking.
However, the G5 teams do a lot more with less than Colorado.
Oh, really?? So why is it that every G5 team leaps at the chance to join a P5 conference as soon as they can? Are they all wrong?
We’ve seen the last few years a consolidation around brands. In the PAC12, Colorado is walking away from the conference with the stronger brands. Its going to be a whole lot more difficult for Colorado to build its brand playing in Stillwater, Manhattan, Ames, Lubbock, and Waco.
That was the theory when they moved to the Pac-12 originally. How did that work out for them? Not well. Why is it that George Kliavkoff can’t get a TV deal? It’s because the majority of the Pac-12 is deadwood from a football standpoint.
They are literally doing the opposite of what Texas did. Texas saw fan apathy around the playing of (and losing to) solid but not “sexy” teams.
In other words, the types of teams that would comprise most of CU’s schedule if they stayed in the Pac-12.
Its one thing to lose to Alabama, its another to lose to Iowa St or TCU.
The Pac-12’s Alabama will be in the Big Ten next year.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 may have some stronger brands than the B12 but that is tempered by the fact that there is less interest in college football West of the Pecos. New England is the same way. It’s just a different culture and the TV contracts seem to reflect this.
LikeLike
I am pretty sure the Pac-12 was verging on an unequal revenue sharing deal, where playoff money goes disproportionately to the teams who qualify. So unless CU makes the playoff itself, they don’t get as much as you’re thinking.
They may have wanted to do that, but a TV contract coming in under expectations (and Oregon and Washington having no B1G option) will probably change their thinking. At any rate, no one knows the numbers and this is all conjecture.
Oh, really?? So why is it that every G5 team leaps at the chance to join a P5 conference as soon as they can? Are they all wrong?
I am pointing out that you can be competitive with TV deals below the Big 12’s. You’d much rather have more money than not, but Cincinnati made the playoff with the AAC’s TV money.
That was the theory when they moved to the Pac-12 originally. How did that work out for them?
I think Brian posted the numbers somewhere in here, but IIRC out of state students and donations from the PAC footprint (CU’s most important areas) were up. That’s worth a lot more than the annual PAC TV distribution.
Not well. Why is it that George Kliavkoff can’t get a TV deal? It’s because the majority of the Pac-12 is deadwood from a football standpoint.
Frank had a good twitter thread on it yesterday. Its not because the PAC is deadwood.
The Pac-12’s Alabama will be in the Big Ten next year.
Yes I know. Oregon, Washignton, Utah, and Arizona St still “move the needle” more than anything the Big 12 can offer. It wasn’t that long ago, that FOX and ESPN told the PAC 12 none of the Big 12 teams would make money in an expansion. ESPN* put it in the Big 12’s contract that EVERY PAC 12 team would be at least a pro rata increase.
*Reportedly, FOX didn’t but I don’t know for sure.
LikeLike
From The Athletic: Colorado may be leaving P-12 today.
Colorado regents schedule meeting amid Big 12 buzz; Arizona president ‘waiting’ on Pac-12 deal
By Max Olson Jul 26, 2023
Amid speculation that a move from the Pac-12 to the Big 12 could be imminent, Colorado’s Board of Regents has scheduled a special board meeting for Thursday afternoon.
The Big 12 has been pursuing Colorado as an expansion candidate since last summer, ever since commissioner Brett Yormark was hired last June, and appears to be closing in on bringing the former member back into the conference while the Pac-12’s yearlong negotiations for a new media rights deal continue into August.
Colorado’s board met Wednesday and went into executive session for legal advice on a matter regarding “athletics operations,” then scheduled an additional meeting following its session.
Colorado athletic director Rick George declined to speak with reporters at Pac-12 football media day last Friday in Las Vegas, telling reporters he had a flight to catch. His chancellor, Phil DiStefano, told the Denver Post last week that the school’s goal is to remain in the Pac-12 but that he was “eagerly awaiting” more details on the media rights negotiations from commissioner George Kliavkoff.
At Pac-12 media day, Kliavkoff said the threat of losing Pac-12 members was “not a concern” and that his member schools were committed to each other and the conference, predicting that the imminent Pac-12 media rights deal would bring an end to the cycle of conference realignment.
“What we’ve seen is the longer we wait for the media deal, the better our options get,” Kliavkoff said at Pac-12 media day.
No Pac-12 member has been more receptive to the Big 12’s pursuit than Colorado. The school was an original member of the Big 12 when play began in 1996 and departed to join the Pac-12 in 2011.
When asked if Colorado leaving the Pac-12 for the Big 12 would impact his school’s decision on its future in the Pac-12, University of Arizona president Robert C. Robbins told The Athletic it depends on the details of the media rights deal.
“All I keep saying is, you know, we’re just waiting to get a deal,” Robbins said. “And then everybody has to evaluate the deal on its merits. I’ve been pretty steadfast in that stance.”
The Pac-12’s current media rights deal and grant of rights expires in the summer of 2024. USC and UCLA are exiting the conference to join the Big Ten next July. If Colorado joins the Big 12, the conference would have 13 members for 2024-25 following the departure of Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC.
LikeLike
They may have wanted to do that, but a TV contract coming in under expectations (and Oregon and Washington having no B1G option) will probably change their thinking. At any rate, no one knows the numbers and this is all conjecture.
At some point we must separate our own wishful thinking from the facts. Whatever we think we know, CU assuredly knows more. I don’t give them a free pass, since they’ve obviously made their share of mistakes in the past. But you are resolving every single unknown in favor of your preferred outcome, which is always suspect.
I am pointing out that you can be competitive with TV deals below the Big 12’s. You’d much rather have more money than not, but Cincinnati made the playoff with the AAC’s TV money.
Unicorns make bad precedents. Cincinnati is the only G5 program to make the four-team playoff. They had an undeniably good season, but a lot of luck too: multiple factors they don’t control had to fall their way for it to happen.
I think Brian posted the numbers somewhere in here, but IIRC out of state students and donations from the PAC footprint (CU’s most important areas) were up. That’s worth a lot more than the annual PAC TV distribution.
Until someone shows me otherwise, I will assume CU knows where their revenue comes from.
Frank had a good twitter thread on it yesterday. Its not because the PAC is deadwood.
Frank had an interesting hypothesis, which could be true but might not be. The Pac-12’s structural problems have been discussed for years — the very reasons USC and UCLA left. It’s not like it only began when Netflix reported one bad quarter.
LikeLike
At some point we must separate our own wishful thinking from the facts. Whatever we think we know, CU assuredly knows more. I don’t give them a free pass, since they’ve obviously made their share of mistakes in the past. But you are resolving every single unknown in favor of your preferred outcome, which is always suspect.
I’m showing that there are ways to avoid budget cuts by staying in the PAC12. They may or may not be plausible. The point is that switching conferences to chase X dollars in TV money is a fool’s errand.
Unicorns make bad precedents. Cincinnati is the only G5 program to make the four-team playoff. They had an undeniably good season, but a lot of luck too: multiple factors they don’t control had to fall their way for it to happen.
Cincinnati isn’t the only G5 to be more successful (and a better program) than Colorado while getting much less TV money and exposure. Chasing the X dollars doesn’t guarantee a better program.
Until someone shows me otherwise, I will assume CU knows where their revenue comes from.
The data Brian posted was from CU. To chase X dollars in TV money, Colorado is turning away from their alumni and donors.
The Pac-12’s structural problems have been discussed for years — the very reasons USC and UCLA left.
USC and UCLA took the “Godfather” offer from the Big Ten. If USC and UCLA stayed and the PAC was in the exact same position, I don’t think we’d be talking about those two headed to the Big 12.
Its not too often we see a realignment move away from their alumni and donors, away from a more academically prestigious conference, away from more convenient travel, and away from better brands. Something here doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
The point is that switching conferences to chase X dollars in TV money is a fool’s errand.
Almost every conference realignment move is for money — tell me how many exceptions you can think of. There are not many.
Cincinnati isn’t the only G5 to be more successful (and a better program) than Colorado while getting much less TV money and exposure.
This is true, but the existence of exceptions does not disprove the rule. The schools that switch conferences for money — practically the only reason for it — almost never regret it. Again, tell me how many exceptions you can think of.
If USC and UCLA stayed and the PAC was in the exact same position, I don’t think we’d be talking about those two headed to the Big 12.
But the Pac almost certainly would not be in the exact same position had those two programs stayed.
Its not too often we see a realignment move away from their alumni and donors, away from a more academically prestigious conference, away from more convenient travel, and away from better brands.
I think you are mistaken about the travel: most Big 12 schools are closer to Boulder than most P-12 schools are. You are correct about academics, but I think the history shows that academics are tertiary factor in conference alignment decisions. It’s not an irrelevant factor, but it’s not the main consideration either.
Now about the alumni. The best stats I can find show that CU Boulder gets 57% of its students from Colorado, 11.9% from California, and 3.4% from Texas. No other state provides more than 2%. The California stats do not distinguish which part of California, but greater L.A. is surely a big part of it, and that’s gone now. So it’s not that huge of a difference. People are writing as if California is the biggest supplier of students to CU, and it just is not the case.
LikeLike
This guy already has Colorado State penciled in as a replacement for CU.
https://www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/csu/football/2023/07/27/colorado-leaving-pac-12-for-big-12-what-it-could-mean-for-colorado-state/70474898007/
LikeLike
Marc,
Now about the alumni. The best stats I can find show that CU Boulder gets 57% of its students from Colorado, 11.9% from California, and 3.4% from Texas. No other state provides more than 2%. The California stats do not distinguish which part of California, but greater L.A. is surely a big part of it, and that’s gone now.
I’m pretty sure LA is still there, and games in SF (and maybe SD) are a lot closer to it than games in TX are. It’s not like P12 games won’t be on TV in LA.
So it’s not that huge of a difference. People are writing as if California is the biggest supplier of students to CU, and it just is not the case.
It’s 706 students vs 204, so lets’ call that 500 more students from CA. CU gets 3500 from CO because it’s a state school. Of course CA isn’t #1 for them. But it is #1 OOS. That’s 500 more students at $38.3k per year, or $19M more in tuition from CA. Plus room and board and other fees.
Also, IL provides more students to them than TX.
LikeLike
Almost every conference realignment move is for money — tell me how many exceptions you can think of. There are not many.
Yes its (almost) always about money. I just see the gap between the PAC and Big 12 as significantly smaller as the one between the Big 12 and Big Ten/SEC. That’s real money, but I don’t think it justifies short term moves. Does anyone think that Colorado aspires to be a Big 12 school or is it setting its sights higher? Lets be honest, every school in the Big 12 would leave for greener pastures. Everyone is expecting another big round of realignment in the early 2030’s. If Colorado wants to improve their standing, they just locked themselves into the large Big 12 buyout.
This is true, but the existence of exceptions does not disprove the rule. The schools that switch conferences for money — practically the only reason for it — almost never regret it. Again, tell me how many exceptions you can think of.
My point was it doesn’t take 30 million in TV money to have a successful program. Lots of programs with less money are better than Colorado.
I think you are mistaken about the travel: most Big 12 schools are closer to Boulder than most P-12 schools are.
They might be closer, but I see you’ve never actually tried to get to Manhattan, KS, Stillwater, OK, or Ames, IA. I didn’t check to be sure, but I am pretty sure there are multiple direct commercial flights from Denver to most P12 cities.
You are correct about academics, but I think the history shows that academics are tertiary factor in conference alignment decisions. It’s not an irrelevant factor, but it’s not the main consideration either.
I believe this is the first time a D1 school has downgraded academic conferences.
Now about the alumni.
You did students. The info I found was a bit dated (2016) But the top 10 metro areas for alumni that are not in Colorado: San Francisco, LA, Seattle, Chicago, DC, and NY.
LikeLike
Look at the bright side. Maybe Frank the Tank will finally have a reason to start a new post.
LikeLike
Fingers crossed!
LikeLike
So if CU decides to jump, what then?
For now, the “sources” are saying it will be just CU. But we know they won’t stay at 13. Will UA follow them? If so, will ASU go as well? Some rumors say UO is talking to the B12. Perhaps SDSU?
Lots of people are predicting the P12 will disintegrate, with the B10 grabbing 2-4 schools. I think the B10 has been pretty clear about wanting to onboard USC and UCLA first, but this might force the B10’s hand.
LikeLike
It won’t happen, but the Pac 12 should just add Colorado St out of spite.
LikeLike
So if CU decides to jump, what then?
For now, the “sources” are saying it will be just CU. But we know they won’t stay at 13. Will UA follow them?
Conference moves are like Lays potato chips: you can’t have just one.
So the question is, how many Pac-12 schools is the Big 12 willing to take? One report said they’d accept all Four Corners in a heartbeat. Another said they’d “cooled” on that idea. We are back to the rumor stage where no report can be trusted. But I agree, they are incredibly unlikely to stay at 13.
Whatever media deal Kliavkoff thought he had, it is not getting any better now and is probably getting worse. If I were the president of a remaining Pac school, would I bet on the others staying together? It doesn’t seem wise. I don’t know what issues Oregon might have separating from Oregon State, but if they are surmountable, I’d have my Big 12 application in by dinnertime.
LikeLike
A smart move by the B12 would be to lower the buyout fee to leave the conference effective a few years from now provided that the new conference paid at least 75% more. That would allow members an easier move to the B10 or SEC but not the ACC or PAC. It might also get OU or UW to decide that waiting in the B12 is better than the PAC12 for an invitation that may never come.
LikeLike
“. . . the Big 12’s university presidents Wednesday night voted unanimously to approve membership for Colorado should it formally apply. . . .”
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/colorado-returning-to-big-12-league-presidents-approve-membership-as-buffaloes-consider-leaving-pac-12/
LikeLike
A smart move by the B12 would be to lower the buyout fee to leave the conference effective a few years from now provided that the new conference paid at least 75% more… It might also get OU or UW to decide that waiting in the B12 is better than the PAC12 for an invitation that may never come.
I suspect this is not what is standing in the way of OU or UW making a decision.
LikeLike
How does the disintegration of the PAC force the hands of the B1G? Taking WA/OR or whatever combo of PAC schools does not benefit the B1G at this point, and probably never will, unless Stanford comes in with ND.
If WA/OR do not jump to the Big 12, they will be right there any time that the B1G wants them. If those two suffer due to PAC/MWC combo league problems, why is that an issue for the B1G?
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
How does the disintegration of the PAC force the hands of the B1G?
It forces them to make a decision sooner than they may prefer. The B10 thought the P12 would get a 5-7 year deal, so the B10 could reconsider expansion around 2028 (with schools joining for the next B10 TV deal). The P12 has no exit fee (bad decision on their part), but the ACC and B12 have large ones which may hinder acquiring these schools next time around.
Taking WA/OR or whatever combo of PAC schools does not benefit the B1G at this point, and probably never will, unless Stanford comes in with ND.
We only know they didn’t create enough benefit to get them added last time. Half the presidents have changed since then, the commissioner has changed, the media market has changed, and the opinions of USC and UCLA (and others) may have changed over time as the B10 works on integration and travel scheduling. As CFP revenue sharing plans develop, that might also change the picture. We don’t know how close the B10 was to wanting those schools last time, either.
If WA/OR do not jump to the Big 12, they will be right there any time that the B1G wants them. If those two suffer due to PAC/MWC combo league problems, why is that an issue for the B1G?
They could go to the ACC as well.
It would be an issue if the B10 knows now that they want to add them in the future and they lose value before then. The B10 has always been conservative about expansion, but it doesn’t have to be that way.
LikeLike
CU is a better fit in the Pac 12 culturally and academically. But athletically and geographically it’s a better fit in the B12. They are swapping Utah for BYU. Swapping 2 border state opponents (UA, ASU) with whom CU has little to no history, for 3 border state opponents (KU, KSU, OKSU) with whom CU has decades of history. And probably the most important factor is 4 opponents in TX which is the #1 state for HS football. This takes on a new significance since the draw of being in the P12 was games against USC and UCLA in Southern California where CU will no longer be playing. Of course there are far flung opponents (UCF, WVU, UC) in the B12, but there are also far flung opponents in the Pac 12 (the pacific NW schools). But in this era of realignment far flung opponents exist in every league.
The bottom line is you don’t make this move for a pay cut. I’m guessing they have a good idea what the P12 media deal is going to look like and the Big 12 has the far superior deal. And if the B12 deal is far superior, that means UO and UW will be more desperate to leave when they get a chance which only increases instability which reinforces the negative perception of the P12 ,which makes it harder to recruit, etc.
In terms of short vs. long term thinking, I see no reason to believe the P12 will be around long term. UO and UW (possibly Cal and Stanford) seem destined for the B1G at some point. If you’re CU and you’re not getting into the B1G or SEC, might as well take a spot in what may be the 3rd best league moving forward.
LikeLike
startupsandheismans,
CU is a better fit in the Pac 12 culturally and academically. But athletically and geographically it’s a better fit in the B12. They are swapping Utah for BYU. Swapping 2 border state opponents (UA, ASU) with whom CU has little to no history, for 3 border state opponents (KU, KSU, OKSU) with whom CU has decades of history. And probably the most important factor is 4 opponents in TX which is the #1 state for HS football. This takes on a new significance since the draw of being in the P12 was games against USC and UCLA in Southern California where CU will no longer be playing. Of course there are far flung opponents (UCF, WVU, UC) in the B12, but there are also far flung opponents in the Pac 12 (the pacific NW schools). But in this era of realignment far flung opponents exist in every league.
I disagree on the geography. First, you can’t only look at where the school is. Where the alumni are and where the future students are matters, and that was why they moved. CU’s alumni are on the west coast, not in TX. CU pulls a lot more students from CA than TX. Games in NorCal are still closer to SoCal than games in TX.
CU has history with KU, KSU and OkSU, but they don’t care about them. NE was their “big” game in the B8. The P12 still offers 2 teams in CA, and probably a 3rd soon (maybe even 4). TX generates more players, and CU can still recruit there, but CA is where their students come from and alumni go. CU has 14 players from TX right now, and 18 from CA. And that’s after Deion’s purge. In 2008, they had 31 from CA and 5 from TX, so being in the B12 and playing in TX regularly didn’t help them at all.
You make a big deal of the loss of USC and UCLA, but ignore the loss of UT and OU. Will anybody in TX even watch CU vs TCU/TT/Baylor/UH? The attraction of the B12 would be playing UT or TAMU in TX, not the #3-6 schools in TX, and OU. What game will draw national interest with CU in the B12?
The bottom line is you don’t make this move for a pay cut. I’m guessing they have a good idea what the P12 media deal is going to look like and the Big 12 has the far superior deal. And if the B12 deal is far superior, that means UO and UW will be more desperate to leave when they get a chance which only increases instability which reinforces the negative perception of the P12 ,which makes it harder to recruit, etc.
The last we heard from any P12 sources, the presidents had not seen the numbers yet but might by the end of the month. Nobody has leaked having seen the numbers, or what they are. It seems like CU is just tired of waiting and is assuming the worst.
In terms of short vs. long term thinking, I see no reason to believe the P12 will be around long term. UO and UW (possibly Cal and Stanford) seem destined for the B1G at some point. If you’re CU and you’re not getting into the B1G or SEC, might as well take a spot in what may be the 3rd best league moving forward.
The P12 will be around because the brand has value. It may be a glorified MWC in the future, but the P12 name will survive. The B12 has survived losing NE, CU, MO, TAMU, UT and OU. The ACC will survive any future losses. So will the P12.
People keep assuming UW and UO to the B10, but that requires interest on both sides. Nobody has made a compelling case for why the B10 should add them.
LikeLike
Agree completely on WA/OR. There is no indication anywhere that there has ever been any B1G interest in either, except Commissioner Warren. Certainly nothing has appeared indicating that B1G schools are seeking additional trips to the Pacific Coast.
It will be interesting to see how going to LA works, though for all sports other than football, one trip will cover two teams.
LikeLike
Official statement from the Pac-12 Conference:
LikeLike
Blah, blah, blah… Colorado will be in the B12 by close of business Friday, of not sooner.
The B1G must now, as in NOW!, admit UW and UO, if they want to be a member of the coming P2. It they do not, the P2 will consist of the B12 (with UW, UO and other former Pac) and SEC. The B1G itself will be subject to poaching. Nebraska and Iowa to the B12 and Penn St, Rutgers and MD to the ACC are the likely losses. Welcome to the B1G of 1908. ND will more likely join the ACC, if it gives up independence.
The Pac12 is dying because of economics and arrogance. If they had not backed out of the scheduling agreement with the B1G, none of this would be happening. USC and Ucla and Colorado would still be in the Pac.
The Pac12’s problem is lack of TV market. Almost all their games are on the west coast, and they are played when most of the country is done for the day or even in bed. All the west coast professional teams have a similar problem, but it is not as severe, because the pro teams play a national schedule.
As of today, the remaining Pac is at best a G6 conference. After the prime bits are gone, the remnants will find themselves in the MWC, if they are lucky. Stanford and Cal might have to give up football and basketball, or maybe they could continue as a sort of Ivy West.
LikeLike
How would adding UW and UO make the B12 better than the B10? It might close the gap, but they aren’t valuable enough to make up for losing UT and OU (and NE, and TAMU).
Neither NE nor IA want anything to do with the B12. With OU gone, there’s no real attraction for NE. IA certainly doesn’t want to join ISU.
If PSU, RU and UMD want to pay to break the B10’s GOR and join the ACC, more power to them. Why they’d pay to earn $30M less per year I don’t know.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian’s comments. In addition, this is a real head-scratcher:
The Pac12 is dying because of economics and arrogance. If they had not backed out of the scheduling agreement with the B1G, none of this would be happening. USC and UCLA and Colorado would still be in the Pac.
The Pac-12’s OOC scheduling was not its main problem. I mean…sure, you would have had the occasional regular-season blockbuster, such as Ohio State–USC or Penn State–Oregon. But you also would have had a ton of cookie-cutter games like Purdue–Cal or Rutgers–Arizona that are certainly no better, and in fact might be worse, than the games those teams schedule now.
After the prime bits are gone, the remnants will find themselves in the MWC, if they are lucky. Stanford and Cal might have to give up football and basketball, or maybe they could continue as a sort of Ivy West.
Let’s say the Big 12 grabs three more Pac-12 schools — the most I can imagine them taking. That would leave the Pac-12 with six, clearly not a viable conference. I imagine they’d try to persuade the Mountain West to dissolve and form a new conference of between 14 and 16 total schools — let’s call it the Mountain Pacific — consisting of the six Pac-12 remnants and between 6 and 10 of the best MWC schools (they now have 12).
If the Big 12 does not grab three more, then I see the Pac surviving as an entity, obviously much diminished.
LikeLike
Seems like Commish Yormark knew this was coming or he wouldn’t have abruptly frozen his invitation to SDSU. It also suggests that he knows someone else is getting on board the B12 along with Colorado. Rumors say it’s Arizona.
LikeLike
Not a surprise, but the Pac-12 is meeting to consider their expansion options. Expansion is no longer optional, assuming the league continues to exist: they were selling a 9-game conference schedule, which means they need at least 10 members. Also, if they went down to 8 games, they’d all have a hole in their schedule for the next few years that would be hard to plug.
If SDSU wants to join in 2024, they’d need to pay the MWC a $34m exit fee that they can’t afford. SMU was the best candidate to join them as #12, but is far from ideal as #10.
LikeLike
SDSU is probably drafting a retraction of their retraction now that says on further reflection the MWC interpretation of their original letter as a binding withdrawal was correct.
LikeLike
Marc: “If SDSU wants to join in 2024, they’d need to pay the MWC a $34m exit fee that they can’t afford. SMU was the best candidate to join them as #12, but is far from ideal as #10.”
As I have repeatedly posted on this forum, the Pac-12 screwed the pooch when they failed to bring in BYU. At this point SMU is a totally dickhead option, just another bottle of snake oil conjured up by this George Kliavkoff creature. He may be worse than Larry Scott.
Now, the Pac-12 options that I have suggested in the past that were received by great ridicule by some FTTSers – AFA, CSU, Wyoming, Boise, UNLV, probably seem a lot more appealing right now.
LikeLike
At this point SMU is a totally dickhead option, just another bottle of snake oil conjured up by this George Kliavkoff creature. He may be worse than Larry Scott.
The end of the tale hasn’t yet been told, but Scott took over a healthy conference and broke it. That has to be worse. Kliavkoff took over an already-sick patient and failed to cure it.
Now, the Pac-12 options that I have suggested in the past that were received by great ridicule by some FTTSers – AFA, CSU, Wyoming, Boise, UNLV, probably seem a lot more appealing right now.
Well…yeah, of course. When the Big 12 had Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, Texas, and Oklahoma, they didn’t want TCU, West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, Houston, or BYU. When you lose your best brands, the next ones you add are always going to be worse.
Louisville was a terrible fit for the ACC—until they lost Maryland.
LikeLike
Marc: “Louisville was a terrible fit for the ACC—until they lost Maryland.”
Louisville is still a terrible fit for the ACC. Shameful academic skank among UNC, Duke, UVA, Pitt, etc.
LikeLike
Marc,
Even that reality doesn’t bring AFA or WY into the picture. The AFA doesn’t want to be in a P5 (neither do Army or Navy), and WY is an empty market with no brand. CSU’s chances improved because CU is gone – they’re still a weak little brother, but at least they’d keep the Denver market in the footprint (kinda sorta). Boise has brand but no market and JUCO academics. UNLV is terrible, and would only be added for the market. BYU was never an option, as the cultural and academic mismatch was too great to even bother having discussions.
LikeLike
Marc,
They were selling 54 conference games and about 20 OOC games. TV doesn’t care if it’s an 8 or 9 game schedule, they care about the total number of games. With 13 teams playing 8 games, they’d have 52 conference games and about 20 OOC games. As long as the range of brands are on par, it wouldn’t matter to TV. But yes, they need to expand. They’ll raid the MWC and maybe the AAC, and it will trickle down from there. They can wait until 2025 – everyone can play their rival twice to get to 9 games (and count ND vs Stanford) for 1 season.
The fun part is that P12 media negotiations have to start over with the Denver market missing – unless they add CSU and that’s accepted as equivalent. Does Kliavkoff still think the TV deal has to come first with expansion after that? I doubt the TV people think that.
LikeLike
With 13 teams playing 8 games, they’d have 52 conference games and about 20 OOC games.
I am not following your math. The Pac now has 9 teams, not 13. My point is that if they drop down to eight, they are not going to fill the hole with comparable content on one year’s notice. TV does care about the quality of the games. You are right that each team could have a home-and-home with one main rival — that would do it.
LikeLike
I’m just pointing out that TV doesn’t care if it’s 8 or 9 P12 games, they care about the total number of games (assuming comparable quality).
2023:
12 teams playing 9 games = 12*9/2 = 54 P12 games + 18-24 OOC games = 72-78 games
Hypothetical just to make a point:
13 teams playing 8 games = 13*8/2 = 52 P12 games + 20-26 OOC games = 72-78 games
TV would be equally happy with either one. The P12’s problem is that they’re down to 9 members, not whether or not they play a 9-game schedule.
2024 with 9:
9 teams playing 8 P12 games = 9*8/2 = 36 P12 games + 18-27 OOC games = 54-63 games
9 teams playing 9 P12 games (HaH with rival, plus count Stanford vs ND) = 9*9/2 = 40 P12 games + 13-18 OOC games = 53-58 games
9 teams playing 0 P12 games = 54-72 OOC games
They’d need to only play OOC games to be able to meet their prior inventory level. Obviously they can’t schedule that many OOC games in time.
So the new deal would likely lose significant value because the inventory is 20-25% less. That would come out of the P12N games mostly, but it means fewer quality games available each week. And they lost LA and maybe Denver (CSU?). Of course they only need to split it 9 ways, which takes some of the hit away.
LikeLike
No longer a rumor.
LikeLike
Perhaps the funniest tweet I have read today, from Canzano:
Pac-12 CEO Group has called a meeting for this afternoon. The conference ADs will be included on the call.
A member of the CEO Group told me they will “discuss the opportunity to ‘trade up’ through expansion given Colorado’s decision.”
There are going to trade up? To what?? This is the conference that joined a short-lived “alliance” with the Big Ten and ACC, was caught flat-footed when USC and UCLA left, couldn’t negotiate a TV deal, claimed its remaining 10 members were united, and then lost Colorado.
LikeLike
Marc,
Up above you just talked about how terrible CU’s time in the P12 has been. They went 48-94 since 2011. That’s #114 nationally. That’s worse than every P5 team but KU, and even worse than Rice and EMU. It is possible to trade up from that. The P12 got a worse result from CU than the B10 did from NE. Utah thrived, and CU was horrible.
Some relevant comparisons:
6. Boise
14. SDSU
41. USU
61. Fresno St
67. Nevada
77. SMU
92. CSU (picked a bad time to stink)
126. UNLV (picked a bad time to stink)
Sure those records are aided by being G5, but they also have G5 resources.
LikeLike
They went 48-94 since 2011. That’s #114 nationally. That’s worse than every P5 team but KU, and even worse than Rice and EMU. It is possible to trade up from that.
If you’d asked any Pac-12 president or AD whether they’d rather have any of the above-named teams than Colorado — under oath, so they have to be truthful — I’m betting the answer would generally be no.
College sports programs have a tendency to revert to their historical mean. Hence CU’s football performance over the last decade or so — atrocious as it is — is probably not a good measure of what you are getting if you invite them into your conference. In contrast, G5 teams promoted to higher leagues have typically performed a lot worse against upgraded competition. Utah is the main exception to that.
So yeah, the Pac-12 could add SDSU and say they are trading up, but it’s not believable. All of the schools you named are ones the Big 12 could’ve had at any time, and still could. It has considered a number of them in the past. None were invited.
LikeLike
Marc,
Sure. I don’t agree with the premise behind his statement. It was a heat of the moment spiteful comment. I was just pointing out that there is at least one POV from which it makes some sense.
The presidents would definitely prefer CU. The ADs and coaches might be more positive about SDSU (and SoCal games) than CU.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/07/pac-12-survival-colorados-exit-becomes-official-as-conference-takes-another-hit/
Wilner discusses P12 survival. Two key tidbits:
Colorado’s patience with the process wore so thin that chancellor Phil DiStefano accepted the Big 12’s offer ($31.7 million annually in media revenue) without waiting for a final proposal from the Pac-12.
Asked about the financial repercussions, one source did not view Colorado’s departure as having a material impact on the Pac-12’s media valuation or the per-school payouts.
According to an independent industry analysis provided to the Hotline, CU’s media valuation falls in the middle of the 10 remaining schools based on TV viewership data.
CU never saw final numbers. We’ll likely never know what that offer would’ve been.
https://sports360az.com/2023/07/pac-12-survival-the-expansion-imperative-following-colorados-departure/
And more from him on survival – it requires expansion. His solution is SMU now, and SDSU and CSU in 2025 (to reduce the exit fees).
A nine-game conference rotation doesn’t work with nine teams.
As much as we’d like to see Oregon and Washington play a home-and-home series each fall, there’s no indication the Pac-12 plans to double up the intra-conference matchups.
Sure, it could move forward with nine teams schools drop to an eight-game conference schedule. (The SEC and ACC also play eight league games.) But that approach would require each team to add one non-conference opponent — a tricky and costly proposition at this late date.
…
The simplest solution for the Pac-12 is the most intricate: Expand by at least one school for the 2024-25 sports year, which coincides with the conference’s next media rights contract — a contract that, ahem, has not been finalized.
There are three obvious candidates:
— San Diego State
…
— SMU
…
— Colorado State
The Rams’ status as a second-tier expansion candidate could change with Colorado’s departure.
…
The Pac-12 could add any of the three schools to reach 10 members or all three to create a 12-team conference.
The one scenario we don’t foresee is adding two schools, which would produce an odd number (11) and add complications to scheduling and other matters.
What’s the most likely course of action?
There, too, complications arise. San Diego State and Colorado State make the most sense geographically but face steep Mountain West departure penalties.
Joining the Pac-12 for the 2024 season would carry a $34 million exit fee (approximately), while waiting for the 2025 season cuts that amount by 50 percent.
SMU also faces a departure penalty in the American Athletic Conference, but it likely would not be as steep: The AAC negotiated $18 million fees for Houston, UCF and Cincinnati when they joined the Big 12.
And as a private school with a donor base desperate for Pac-12 membership, the Mustangs are seemingly better equipped to cover the cost.
LikeLike
CU never saw final numbers. We’ll likely never know what that offer would’ve been.
If you believe Wilner, CU’s departure does not adversely affect the deal. Heck, some Pac-12 sources are saying they can “trade up.” So when the deal finally does come out, I think we’ll have a pretty good idea what CU could’ve had if they’d stayed.
We probably know <10% of what the Pac-12 presidents were told. But merely going by what they said publicly, this was a stumbling, bumbling process with one unbelievable pronouncement after another.
Colin is fond of calling Kliavkoff a snake-oil salesman. That is probably paying him too high a compliment. I think Dan Beebe is the better comparison — someone who meant well and earnestly tried hard, but was way out of his depth.
Will the Pac-12 sign a package where any rational person would say, "This is the media deal I'd rather have"? I doubt it.
LikeLike
Marc,
To be fair, Wilner was quoting a source about that. I agree that CU was probably close to the median value based on their terrible performance in the P12 (big market, but little interest in a loser). But the optics of a losing a school hurts the value, and so does adding a G5 school (or 3) as they tend to be below the P5 average. The media companies may smell blood in the water and offer even less. The loss may even change who is interested at all. But the deal would likely stay within 10% or so of what it would’ve been.
I fully agree the process was screwed up. I just don’t know if that was GK, or a complete lack of interest from the media companies, or things the presidents decided (What might they have rejected? What demands might they have made?). It’s possible that GK was chasing an impossible goal based on the demands of the presidents for $ and exposure, and the willingness of the media companies to pay that figure.
The unfortunate economic timing wasn’t GK’s fault.
LikeLike
I was willing to give Kliavkoff some benefit of the doubt since he inherited the absolute shit-show Scott left behind, but its hard to give him much of a pass for the moves he has made in the last months. He completely mismanaged the SDSU situation and embarrassed the hell out of them. Its obvious he was making behind closed door promises about membership, so much so that any media company they were negotiating with would also have known SDSU would be part of the package. So why lead them on like some football Goomar? The whole “Hey, we’re letting you know we’re leaving the conference… oh shit.. never mind” debacle was total amateur hour mostly caused by Kliavkoff. Now the PAC are completely screwed since its delayed SDSU’s eventual entry by a year, or its going to cost twice the money to get them to backfill so they can keep a 9 conference game schedule.
Between that and the ongoing debacle of the media rights deal (if there was a deal on the table that was in range of the BIG XIIs it would have been snapped up already) I honestly can’t see how any PAC president or AD can trust him. Surely losing a full quarter of your membership has to trigger some clause in his employment contract to fire his ass for cause.
LikeLike
The inquisition of George Kliavkoff escalates. It appears he has now degenerated from snake oil salesman to the antiChrist.
Mandel: Colorado rejoining Big 12 would be a product of Pac-12 negligence
By Stewart Mandel Jul 27, 2023
In 2010, Colorado opted to flee the Big 12 for what was then the Pac-10 amid fears that Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma were about to leave for other leagues and decimate the Buffs’ conference. Which they eventually did. Thirteen years later, Colorado’s board is expected to vote Thursday to rejoin the Big 12.
Think about just how many things the Pac-12 had to get wrong over those 13 years to arrive at this precarious moment where it may soon be down to just nine members. Think about the fact that just two summers ago, after powers Oklahoma and Texas bolted the Big 12, new commissioner George Kliavkoff and his league presidents felt no need to grab a TCU or Houston when either would have come crawling in a nanosecond.
Former commissioner Larry Scott may have set the Pac-12’s tumble in motion with his combo of arrogance and aloofness, but Kliavkoff, his successor, has now rolled the boulder right up to the edge of the cliff with a unique cocktail of naivete and negligence.
It’s admittedly debatable whether Kliavkoff could have done anything to prevent USC and UCLA from leaving for the much-richer Big Ten. Some folks within the league say the warning signs were there that its golden ticket, USC, was getting antsy. Others say the L.A. schools’ defections last year came as a complete shock.
But Colorado? … He really can’t keep Colorado? How demoralizing must it be for a school that’s gone 27-76 in conference play to have the leverage to singlehandedly destabilize your league. How much more time could he have possibly needed to prepare for the possibility than, oh, the last 13 months?
At no point since June 30, 2022, would any of the Four Corners schools — Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Arizona State — leaving be considered a shock. And yet, it does genuinely appear that Kliavkoff — the same guy who once formed an “Alliance” with the ACC and Big Ten based on “an agreement between three gentlemen” — did not see this one coming. Had he even a hint Colorado might leave this week, he probably would not have said or done any of the following at his conference’s football media day last Friday:
• When asked whether it was a “major concern” that the Big 12 may poach his schools, he called it “not a concern,” said that realignment “will come to an end for this cycle” and that “the truth is, we have bigger fish to fry.”
• On the topic of his league’s interminable media rights negotiations, he said the longer the league has waited, the better their options have become, and that presidents’ and chancellors’ “commitment and patience will be rewarded with an announcement in the near future.”
• And when the league hosted a lunch-hour roundtable to discuss College Football Playoff expansion, one of the invited panelists was none other than Colorado AD Rick George, a former committee member.
In hindsight, the first sign something might be amiss came when George rushed off stage afterward and purposefully dodged a group of reporters — at media day.
As realignment sagas go, this one is uniquely bizarre. In a vacuum, losing Colorado would seem entirely insignificant to the conference. The program is now three decades removed from its Eric Bieniemy/Kordell Stewart/Rashaan Salaam glory days and last played in a major bowl game in 2001. While CU performs better TV-wise than one might expect — fifth-best among the non-L.A. Pac-12 schools from 2015-21 — it would not be considered “additive” if the league were starting from scratch today. Unless potential TV partners were willing to gamble hundreds of millions on Coach Prime becoming the Buffs’ savior.
And yet, because of its own continued ineptitude, CU leaving is a huuuuuge deal for the Pac-12.
For one thing, it makes the conference look even weaker than it already does. Since taking over the Big 12 a little over a year ago, commissioner Brett Yormark has outmaneuvered his Pac-12 counterpart at every turn. He landed an extension with ESPN and Fox a year earlier than expected, making the Pac-12’s negotiations more difficult. He’s spent a full year courting the Four Corners schools and is ultimately set to reel in Colorado in part because he’d locked in assurances from ESPN and Fox that any Pac-12 additions would receive the same $31.7 million-per-year share as his current members come 2025. Whereas Kliavkoff has yet to deliver his own members assurance of any TV numbers of any kind beyond this coming year.
But of course, the much, much bigger deal will be if Colorado’s departure becomes the domino that causes other Pac-12 schools to leave.
For weeks, administrators across the conference have expressed confidence both that Kliavkoff will land the plane on the TV deal, and that Colorado was the only school still intrigued by the Big 12. If there are in fact new bidders that came to the negotiating table recently, as Oregon AD Rob Mullens and others said last week, and if it results in a deal with a similar dollar figure to the Big 12’s, the Pac-12 could ostensibly just swap in San Diego State for Colorado and be done with the thing.
But even that would not play out cleanly. The Pac-12’s inability to nail down its deal sooner has all but assured the Aztecs won’t be able to join before 2025, lest they have to pay the Mountain West double their exit fee. Plus, as of media day on Friday, there were at least two schools still opposed to expansion, per two league sources. One would think they’ll reconsider that stance now, though this being the Pac-12, never gamble on it acting rationally.
Colorado officials may provide a more complete picture in the coming days as to their rationale — one that likely includes Deion Sanders’ desire to recruit Texas — but this much is obvious: CU ran out of patience with the Pac-12.
Last Friday, its commissioner said, “Getting the right deal has always been more important to our board and to the conference than getting the expeditious one.” At least one school disagreed, and if even one more follows, the conference may cease to exist. Surely Kliavkoff must be aware of that possibility.
LikeLike
The Mandel article — one of about 3 or 4 I have seen — does an admirable job of laying out Kliavkoff’s ineptitude. But that’s why I feel that “snake-oil salesman” is if anything too much of a compliment. What kind of a con man is he, when it appears HE is the one who got conned? Playing checkers the past two years while everyone around him played chess.
LikeLike
Nathan,
What was GK supposed to do about USC and UCLA? They lied to his face and then left. The money gap was always going to be large to keep them.
I do think he screwed up in being public at SMU, but SDSU has only themselves to blame. You don’t send a legal letter saying you’re leaving until you have an official invitation. I think SDSU was trying to force the P12’s hand, and it didn’t work.
On the media rights deal, it’s key to remember that GK has been silent all year. It’s presidents that keep setting false deadlines and making comments about its value. We have no idea what GK has been telling them in their meetings, so I don’t know who to blame. Is he making false promises/claims? Are the presidents ignoring his reports and assuming they must be worth more than the B12? Who is holding up the pace of negotiations, and why? Maybe the story will come out later.
The commissioner can’t fix the geography/time zone issue, and he can’t make western people care more about college sports. The P12 has had questions about its leadership under 3 straight commissioners now (Hansen, Scott, Kliavkoff). The only common denominator is the schools. Maybe the presidents are more of the problem – elitist academics who mostly don’t like or understand college sports.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/07/pac-12-survival-time-for-commissioner-george-kliavkoff-and-the-presidents-to-take-swift-bold-action-i-e-the-costanza-plan/
Wilner agrees with me, sort of. He endorses the Costanza plan – do the opposite of your instincts.
The Pac-12 presidents have long prided themselves on knowing “where the puck is going,” in the words of former Oregon boss Michael Schill, who hired Kliavkoff. But for all the talk, the board of directors sure doesn’t think big.
The presidents could have changed commissioners in the late 2010s and avoided many of the current problems.
They could have partnered with the Big 12 on any number of occasions in the past. (We suggested it in 2019.)
They could have added Houston (and other teams from the Big 12 footprint) in the summer of 2021.
And they could have urged Kliavkoff to move quickly on expansion and the media rights deal last fall.
Instead, they did none of those things.
This feels like a good time to follow the advice of noted Seinfeld sage George Costanza: “I used to sit here and do nothing and regret it for the rest of the day. So now, I will do the opposite, and I will do something.”
The presidents need to disregard their instincts. They need to act with bold strokes and a broad view.
LikeLike
Marc: “Colin is fond of calling Kliavkoff a snake-oil salesman. That is probably paying him too high a compliment.”
I’m not trying to be nasty but recently George Kliavkoff said: ‘The Longer We Wait for Our Media Deal the Better Our Options Are’.
Honestly, does anyone believe that? That comment might have had a germ of credibility three months ago but at this juncture, it seems obvious that he’s bluffing in an attempt to prevent more schools from leaving the conference. And now he’s got the perfect excuse. “Jeepers. I had a great deal lined up and then Colorado left and ruined it.”
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/07/21/george-kliavkoff-the-longer-we-wait-for-our-media-deal-the-better-our-options-are/
LikeLike
Some things we need to find out:
* What CU actually gets paid in the B12
ESPN has a pro rata clause with the B12, but Fox doesn’t (supposedly). Will Fox offer them a a full cut, a partial cut, or not agree to add anything to the pot? If Fox doesn’t give the full share, do the schools share the pain or make CU suffer it? My guess is that Fox gives them a full share as well, but might ask for a minor concession from the B12 (an extra late game?).
* Who else joins the B12
UAZ has been rumored for a while. They share a board with ASU, but supposedly the board gave both schools permission to make the decision on their own. Will that hold true if ASU is stuck on a sinking ship?
UU has been a staunch P12 supporter. Will they come crawling to BYU-land and ask for entry?
Are UConn or Memphis about to get a golden ticket?
* Who joins the P12
SDSU and SMU have been their top choices. Do they still want to join? Does the P12 want CSU to keep the Denver market? Will they lower their academic standards (UNLV, Boise)? What about HI (maybe football-only)? Do they go east some more (Rice, Tulane)?
* What the B10 does in response
If the P12 splinters, does the B10 swoop in? Do they care if the schools have to join the B12 or ACC, and thus have GORs locking them in? The B10 has talked about wanting to integrate the LA pair first, but this could move up the timetable.
* What else the P12 does in response
Do they go outside the box? Does partnering with the ACC make more sense now? Would ESPN support that? Does the P12 merge with the MWC and just own the west (outside of LA and Denver, at least)?
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
“The more Kliavkoff delays, the more his schools get antsy. Chris Vannini writes that it will be up to Arizona and Arizona State to decide the fate of the Pac-12, and Arizona president Robert C. Robbins told The Athletic’s Max Olson he’s just waiting to see the Pac-12’s media deal. Tick tock.”
LikeLike
At this point, I think it’s on a knife’s edge. I will be shocked if the Pac-12 deal is as good as the Big 12 deal (in terms of both money and distribution). The only question is how much “worse” it can be without at least one more school peeling off. Although UAZ and ASU might have the freedom to decide independently, it would be surprising if they, in fact, go separate ways.
If the Pac-12 holds, I expect they’ll add SMU now, with SDSU +1 coming in 2025. I don’t see any way that SDSU could afford the $34m exit fee that they’d owe if they leave in 2024. I don’t see a clearly better 10th school (that would accept) than SMU. This doesn’t mean SMU is remotely as good as Colorado — they’re not — but I don’t think the Pac-12 wants to play with nine members. Colorado State would have the same exit fee problem as SDSU.
I don’t expect the Big 12 to do anything until they know if they can pry loose another Pac-12 school—or three. Every story I’ve read suggests the presidents are not yet sold on UConn. I am not sold on them either. Their football program is a dumpster fire, and it’s an open question whether the resources exist for it ever to be consistently competitive.
If the Pac-12 collapses, I would expect them to merge with the Mountain West somehow. I have read about a putative ACC partnership, but I am still hazy on the benefits — not saying there aren’t any, but it’s just not clear to me.
LikeLike
Interesting comment in The Athletic. The # 14 school in the Big 12 may be UConn.
“There was a time when Yormark and Big 12 leadership hoped that landing one Pac-12 member sets off a domino effect, that one gets them two and maybe even four. The theory all along was that one school bailing might set off a panic among other Pac-12 members bothered by uncertainty, concerned about the media rights deal and fearful of getting left behind. These Big 12 schools have gone through it before. They know how it feels.
“Can the Big 12 convince one more Pac-12 school to make a change? We’re about to find out if that’s a real possibility or was purely wishful thinking. Getting another Pac-12 school to jump on board would be a triumph, and more basketball-focused Big 12 additions probably belong on the back burner for these next few weeks.
“But here’s the thing about Yormark: What he wants to sell his members on is UConn.
“If Colorado is the only Pac-12 member coming in, don’t be surprised if Yormark goes all-in on UConn. All the political capital he’s gaining in the eyes of his league presidents, chancellors and ADs from pulling off this Colorado move? Conference sources believe that’s where he wants to spend it.”
LikeLike
Yormark may want UConn but I expect that ESPN and/or Fox will effectively kill this by not approving pro rata for this school. That will cool any support he gets from the current B12 members.
LikeLike
Pro rata was only for P5 schools. Anyone else gets a partial share, because that’s all the networks will pay. It isn’t only a UConn problem.
The problem with UConn is whether you believe they could ever be competitive in football. They have struggled to fund the program at adequate levels, and their stadium is 25 miles from campus.
LikeLike
Football in New England is like ice hockey in Mexico.
LikeLike
Marc,
A “source” said the P12 could still get the same or better money with an all-streaming deal, or closer to $20M per school with a lot of linear games. I have no idea if that’s correct, but it’s probably close to correct. And yet Fox and ESPN have pro rata deals with the B12 that say every P12 school is just as valuable as the B12 average. What if the B12 added the entire P12 (not that they would)?
Yes, I’m also unconvinced that UA and ASU will split. I’d think the board would try to leverage both of them into the B12.
The only alternative to SMU now with 2 later from the MWC would be to negotiate down the MWC exit fees and pay them in installments (which I think is what the rules say anyway – they withhold money from the day you announce, but the rest can be paid over a few years. SDSU and CSU could send half their new paychecks to the MWC or take loans from the P12 against future earnings. Promise to have some extra OOC HaH’s with M WC teams as part of it.
I also think the B12 has to wait to see if the other 4C schools break ranks. Yormark seems to love UConn, but they make no financial sense.
For the ACC partnership, I think the idea is a western pod that plays each other to minimize travel. It would expand the ACCN, earning more money for the ACC and ESPN.
LikeLike
A “source” said the P12 could still get the same or better money with an all-streaming deal, or closer to $20M per school with a lot of linear games. I have no idea if that’s correct, but it’s probably close to correct.
I have become skeptical of such sources. I am pretty sure one of the Pac-12 presidents said on the record a few months ago, that their deal would “easily” eclipse what the Big 12 was getting. If they had such a deal in hand, what have they gained by waiting? If they turned it down, what kind of fools are they?
Note that an all-streaming deal for identical money is in fact a worse deal, since streaming games won’t have as many viewers. Or, perhaps they’d have to play at undesirable times, such as Tuesday and Wednesday nights — another rumor that’s out there.
And yet Fox and ESPN have pro rata deals with the B12 that say every P12 school is just as valuable as the B12 average. What if the B12 added the entire P12 (not that they would)?
My theory about the pro rata: Yormark took a risk by renewing their TV deal a year earlier than he had to, and without taking it to market. He may look like a genius now, but I don’t think anyone said that at the time. Yormark has admitted that didn’t know the decision would turn out quite as well as it has.
Usually, sports rights fees are continuously going up, so if you repeated the Big 12’s game theory decision in a mock-simulation with hundreds of trials, most of the time they should wait. The TV partners know that. To compensate them for locking up early, Fox and ESPN gave them a pro rata for any P5 addition, knowing that they weren’t going to just swallow up the whole Pac-12, even if they theoretically could.
It could be that the pro rata was limited to no more than four schools, or something like that — we haven’t seen exactly what it says, and we never will. I think Bob Thompson said on Twitter that most of these deals do not commit the TV partner to a specific amount of money if the conference expands, only to negotiate in good faith if it happens. It’s been reported that the Big Ten deal, for instance, guarantees the payout for Notre Dame but not for any other addition.
LikeLike
Yes, of course an all-streaming deal is worse. For now, at least. Maybe it’s as good in 5 years.
I was just noting that Fox and ESPN could end up paying a lot more for the same schools by them joining the B12 pro rata than if they made the P12 a decent offer.
LikeLike
* What CU actually gets paid in the B12
ESPN has a pro rata clause with the B12, but Fox doesn’t (supposedly). Will Fox offer them a a full cut, a partial cut, or not agree to add anything to the pot?
McMurphy reported yesterday that FOX also has the pro rata.
Assuming his reporting is true (and no reason to believe it isn’t), that means that both FOX and ESPN value the PAC12 as no less than the same value as the Big 12. Mergers of the two have been discussed, so we know both knew its a possibility that they could end up having to pay that to each PAC school.
Does partnering with the ACC make more sense now?
Assuming there isn’t a P2 option, if I were UO/UW/UU I would be looking at taking four friends to the ACC. Three pods of 7, play 6 in the pod, and one each from the other. Last week of the season, is a flex week. Pod winners (and one wild card) play for a birth in the ACC championship while the others play games picked by TV. Solidifies the ACC as #3. Travel isn’t drastically different (one or 2 cross country trips). Olympic teams can (as needed) stay within their pod to reduce travel. Lots of logistical issues that are solvable IMO.
LikeLike
McMurphy reported yesterday that FOX also has the pro rata. Assuming his reporting is true (and no reason to believe it isn’t), that means that both FOX and ESPN value the PAC12 as no less than the same value as the Big 12.
This assumes too much. I mean—do you doubt that if the Pac 12 could’ve had that deal last week, they should and would have taken it? If such a deal was offered and they turned it down, then their stupidity goes far deeper than anyone imagined. I’m betting a round of drinks that the networks are not valuing the Pac-12 at the same level as the Big 12 — and that is why the Pac-12 has no deal yet.
If I were UO/UW/UU I would be looking at taking four friends to the ACC. Three pods of 7, play 6 in the pod, and one each from the other.
For this to work, three parties have to agree it’s to their advantage: the seven Pac-12 schools that would be breaking away, the ACC, and ESPN. ESPN doesn’t want to pay a penny more for the ACC than they’ve already contracted for. And if the ACC is not going to make more money, then why should they sign up for this?
Travel isn’t drastically different (one or 2 cross country trips). Olympic teams can (as needed) stay within their pod to reduce travel. Lots of logistical issues that are solvable IMO
Olympic sports, with their longer seasons, can’t just stay in pods. For example, the ACC plays a 20-game basketball season. In your hypothetical pod system, the seven former Pac schools can all play a home-and-home, but that means they’ve got at least eight games against the ACC.
So, each of the seven Pac schools is hosting four ACC teams over the course of a basketball season, so each ACC team must make an average of two such trips per year during the conference season. Of course, it also means they play each other less. Basketball is sacred in the ACC, so the financial benefits of this deal would need to be very compelling indeed.
LikeLike
This assumes too much. I mean—do you doubt that if the Pac 12 could’ve had that deal last week, they should and would have taken it?
I’m just saying that at the time of the Big 12 agreement, both ESPN and FOX assumed that the Big 12 per school yearly payment was the floor for the PAC12. They wouldn’t have included the pro rata otherwise.
For this to work, three parties have to agree it’s to their advantage: the seven Pac-12 schools that would be breaking away, the ACC, and ESPN. ESPN doesn’t want to pay a penny more for the ACC than they’ve already contracted for. And if the ACC is not going to make more money, then why should they sign up for this?
ESPN’s ACC deal is roughly the pro-rata of the Big 12’s contract. If those PAC schools go to the Big 12 they’d have to pay it anyway. As a bonus, ESPN would get additional premium games plus the ACC network would get carriage on the west coast. ACC would see greater revenue sharing from the ACCN and be the clear 3#. It would also position itself to better survive the next round of realignment.
Olympic sports, with their longer seasons, can’t just stay in pods. For example, the ACC plays a 20-game basketball season. In your hypothetical pod system, the seven former Pac schools can all play a home-and-home, but that means they’ve got at least eight games against the ACC.
56 (7 PAC teams needing 8 games) cross over games spread out over 15 east teams. That’s almost 4 games (ND really mucks the math up) for each team, 2 home, 2 away. East/teams can easily make one two game (e.g. at UW Saturday, at UO Monday) long travel swing a year. Especially if they do it before schools starts in January.
LikeLike
I’m just saying that at the time of the Big 12 agreement, both ESPN and FOX assumed that the Big 12 per school yearly payment was the floor for the PAC12. They wouldn’t have included the pro rata otherwise.
I can give a bunch of reasons that is probably not true. But let’s suppose it is. It still doesn’t matter: Any deal now would depend on the value of those rights today, not what it used to be. The fact that Kliavkoff could not land the plane at that price makes me pretty confident that the Pac-12 is not worth that much anymore, even if it once was.
Sports rights fees historically go in one direction: up. But ESPN is not opening its checkbook the way it used to. That’s why everyone is hailing Yormark as a genius for locking up the Big 12’s rights over a year ago, when the going was good. Eventually, the big bucks might start flowing again, but that doesn’t help the Pac-12 right now.
LikeLike
Mike,
I’ve seen those reports since I commented, but I don’t inherently trust anyone’s reporting on these things anymore. I don’t think he’s lying, but he might be wrong. For months the reports said that Fox didn’t have the pro rata clause. Maybe they had it for only certain schools, or maybe the B12 asked and Fox said yes for CU.
LikeLike
The reports when the B12 deal signed were ESPN pro-rata on any P5 addition with approval required from Fox for any additional inventory. ESPN also requires approval of any non-P5 addition.
Colorado said it would get a full share so I assume that the B12 precleared with Fox. This could also explain why the B12 cooled to SDSU. A good chance ESPN and/or Fox would not approve that addition on a pro rata basis.
LikeLike
Little8: “This could also explain why the B12 cooled to SDSU. A good chance ESPN and/or Fox would not approve that addition on a pro rata basis.”
That’s a good analysis and probably spot on. I thought it was odd that both the B12 and P12 suddenly cooled their jets on SDSU but that would explain it.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel also said Fox is pro rata, which doesn’t make it right, but at least it’s two guys saying it, not one.
LikeLike
Should Colorado want to maintain some sort of presence in CA perhaps they could interest BYU in regularly/occasionally playing games in LA or the Bay Area.
LikeLike
The fundamental problem for the PAC is that they play almost all their games in the wrong time zone, and they have intrinsically less value in the national TV market. The PAC will die, and its members scattered to other conferences. The lucky ones will end up in one of the conferences east of the Rockies. The unlucky ones are slated for the MWC.
At some point there will only be a P2, and both will be super conferences with 24 to 32 members. That is the professional sports model that Warren promoted.
The SEC will be one of the super Power conferences, and they will take in all of the southern ACC teams, Virgin2a to Miami, after 2036.
The B1G is in a death struggle with the Big 12 to be the second super power conference. Unfortunately, the B1G presidents suffer from the same arrogance, provincialism, and lethargy that killed the PAC. If the Big 12 gets the jump on them and takes in more PAC teams, including UW and UO, then the B1G will be relegated to non P status. It will even be subject to raiding. Would not a Nebraska look fondly at an enlarged, revitalized Big 12? What if Missouri left the SEC for the Big 12? Yes, for now and the next 5 years or so, Nebraska and Missouri make much more money in the B1G and SEC, respectively, but that may not be the case in the next contract cycle.
The future of the B1G may be decided this summer and fall.
LikeLike
I don’t know if this is parody or just trolling, but this cannot be a serious post.
LikeLike
PAC won’t die. There’s more value in the PAC history than in the MWC. They’ll pull an (old) Big East and poach the best of the MWC and trundle on (and much like the old Big East / AAC fall from the Power conferences to the Group Of conferences).
There’s more value on a per-school basis in a rump PAC-12 + the best MWC schools than there are in the MWC with the cream of whatever PAC schools are left.
LikeLike
bob,
You are comically wrong here.
The B10 is about to be making over $70M per year on average, the B12 les than $32M. Adding some P12 schools (who can’t seem to get even $25M) isn’t going to change that much. You just said how terrible the P12 is, so how much could adding P12 schools help the B12? There is no struggle for top 2 status here.
Would not a Nebraska look fondly at an enlarged, revitalized Big 12?
No, they wouldn’t. They liked the Big 8 more than the B12, and they’re favorite part of both was OU. CU considered NE their rival, but it wasn’t mutual. And the money wouldn’t be close to the same, let alone the academics (and that was a big benefit of NE making the move).
What if Missouri left the SEC for the Big 12?
Why would they? They’d be giving up tens of millions per year to go to a worse conference in every way (except for having KU as a rivalry again).
Yes, for now and the next 5 years or so, Nebraska and Missouri make much more money in the B1G and SEC, respectively, but that may not be the case in the next contract cycle.
$40M * 5 years = $200M
The B12 and P12 are worth a lot less now. Why would combining them after they lost their top brands increase their value significantly?
LikeLike
Brian, Agree with you completely. And there is less than zero reason to believe that the B1G or the SEC want to move to 24 teams or an NFL lite model. Bob keeps coming back to that approach though it appears that only Commissioner Warren had any interest in it. There has never been an indication of that from any team.
Bob, Exactly how in the world is the B1G in a death struggle with the Big 12 to be the number two conference? Not a single brand in the Big 12 is close to comparable to Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and probably a few other B1G teams? For example what Big 12 school has a bigger profile than Michigan State or Wisconsin? Look at the ratings for B1G games. Obviously the networks do not agree with you since the Big 12 TV deal is not even close to the B1G.
Bob, either you intensely hate the B1G or you are delusional to think that raids are imminent (within the next 10 or 15 years).
It does look as though Big 12 is in a struggle with the ACC to be number three, and that is notwithstanding the fact that the ACC has Clemson and FSU, both much bigger names than anyone in the Big 12. Of course the ACC has the albatross of its TV deal till 2036, if the league survives that long.
LikeLike
And there is less than zero reason to believe that the B1G or the SEC want to move to 24 teams or an NFL lite model. Bob keeps coming back to that approach though it appears that only Commissioner Warren had any interest in it.
It’s imaginable that they might do it someday. Not an outcome I favor, but twenty years ago who thought those two leagues were headed to 16?
I agree neither league is expanding again anytime soon.
LikeLike
A couple of interesting gift articles from the Wall St Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/university-of-north-carolina-bars-race-from-hiring-and-admissions-essays-73473300?st=hqgp03qr04udfij&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-ivy-league-schools-tilt-your-odds-in-the-lottery-of-life-590f8ec1?st=2v41vsdfmrxlux2&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://www.nascar.com/news-media/2023/07/28/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-cw-network-xfinity-series-partnership/
Another blow for the P12. NASCAR signed a 7-year, $800M deal with the CW to air Xfinity races (33 per year – February – early November) on Saturday afternoons and nights starting in 2025, plus streaming practices and stuff. That’s another TV window gone.
NASCAR Xfinity Series races draw an average of approximately 1 million viewers per race each season, historically airing on a combination of cable and broadcast television, but will now be entirely and exclusively distributed on broadcast television. The NASCAR Xfinity Series agreement with The CW underscores recent trends in which major sports properties have prioritized broadcast television to ensure the widest reach for their fan base and industry.
“Landing the NASCAR Xfinity Series is a game changer for The CW and our CW Sports division and represents another important building block in our programming strategy,” said Dennis Miller, President of The CW. “Live sports are the most watched television content and with The CW’s national reach, moving NASCAR Xfinity Series to The CW will transform and elevate the viewing experience for the series and its fans. The CW has quickly become a destination for sports, as the NASCAR Xfinity Series joins our growing slate of sports programming, including INSIDE THE NFL, ACC college football and basketball, LIV Golf, and the motorsports documentary series 100 DAYS TO INDY. Beginning in 2025, The CW will have 48 weekends per year of live sports programming. With ubiquitous distribution across one of the nation’s five major broadcast networks, NASCAR Xfinity Series races on The CW will deliver more access for fans and far more revenue opportunities for The CW and its affiliates.”
LikeLike
The full story of SDSU’s half-departure from the MWC hasn’t been told. We still don’t know exactly what they were led to believe. This Mountain West beat writer thinks SDSU should insist that the Pac-12 pay its exit fees and offer a full media share immediately. I don’t think that’s happening, but the writer has a sense of humor that makes the story worth reading.
LikeLike
” . . . get our media rights deal done, Grant of Rights signed, then we’ll consider expansion.”
Completely back-asswards.
LikeLike
It was a logical strategy a year ago — expand once you know what your media partners will pay for it. But they needed to have their deal done a lot sooner.
LikeLike
Marc,
I could see SDSU saying if you want us for 2024, the P12 has to cover the doubling of the exit fee (so the extra $17M if they can’t negotiate it down). That would seem fair. I doubt they would also get a full share from day 1. They could ask for moving some future money forward to help them pay their exit fee as well, making it a few extra years before they get a full share.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-things-and-thoughts-for-your
Note from Canzano about the P12 meeting after CU left:
“Meeting was fine. I think we are pretty solid,” the person said. “Waiting to early next week. League needs to deliver something soon and good. Excellent communication between ADs. Seems we are strongly committed to wait and see the deals.”
…
— Colorado’s departure to the Big 12 doesn’t help move things along quickly or make that wait easy. I asked the same AD source how the current economic climate in the media world is affecting the Pac-12’s negotiation. How much, if any, of the delay is on Commissioner George Kliavkoff? The slow-moving presidents/chancellors?
Other factors?
“Just taking far too long,” the source said. “But the climate is terrible. And peers from other conferences are trying to take the league. Along with (Fox) trying to own it all. Not healthy.”
— Fox has USC and UCLA as part of its Big Ten contract and also has the Mountain West Conference. The network doesn’t “own it all” but it has a foothold in the Pacific time zone. It isn’t motivated to help the Pac-12 get a good deal. In fact, you could argue that Fox benefits from the destabilization of the Pac-12 (see: USC, UCLA, Colorado).
I’ve been told, on and off during the last six months, that Fox was still at the table with the Pac-12. How aggressively? Not sure. I’ve wondered if the network wants anything more than a few FS1 Thursday/Friday games, if that.
Meanwhile, ESPN currently doesn’t have anything west of the Big 12 footprint when it comes to college football. It needs the 10:30 p.m. ET window filled and the Pac-12 offers that. Also, Apple remains a potential partner. I wonder if Apple would just take an equity stake in ESPN and gobble up the entire Pac-12 package in one giant linear/streaming bite.
I had a Pac-12 CEO Group source tell me two weeks ago “it will be worth the wait.” I don’t think the person was blowing smoke. But that ‘wait’ needs to end soon. How’s next week for everyone? Work for you?
It would be good for all involved if GK presents numbers next week. At least then people could make informed decisions and fans could shift their focus to the season.
LikeLike
I had to laugh at: Seems we are strongly committed to wait and see the deals.
“Committed to wait and see” is the most Pac-12 thing ever.
It would be good for all involved if GK presents numbers next week.
That is an understatement, but “early next week” is merely the latest of many deadlines. Sooner or later one of them will be true, but I am not holding my breath anymore.
LikeLike
It is, but this might be a deadline from other schools sick of waiting (unlike the arbitrary deadlines before). CU left because they demanded numbers and GK couldn’t provide them. Missing this deadline may cost them more schools. Most people seem to agree they have to have a deal before the season begins in a month. Add in the B12 wanting 1 more school (rumors say Fox and ESPN want it capped at 14 for now), and the time pressure may be growing quickly.
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2023/sports-ad-dollars-lifeline-traditional-tv-1234732426/
Sports are even more important to broadcast networks this year. The writer’s strike is reducing ad value for everything else.
Caught between the lashing winds of a depressed ad market and the 100-foot rogue wave that is the Hollywood writers/actors strike, the Big Four broadcast networks have had to resort to the exceedingly rare practice of rolling back their fall ad rates. And while the cost of advertising in primetime entertainment programming has been reduced by as much as 8% versus the year-ago upfront bazaar—a period marked by healthy 10% price hikes and a $600 million increase in overall volume—sports, predictably enough, have managed to buck the downward trend.
According to media buyers who are active in the 2023-24 upfront market, the combination of an unsettled fall broadcast slate and the ongoing erosion of commercial impressions has led to a perfect storm for advertisers looking to snap up primetime inventory on the cheap. From the networks’ perspective, that meteorological metaphor may as well be capitalized and italicized, as the freak confluence of labor strife and record-high ad avoidance are implacable enough to sink a commercial fishing vessel.
Fortunately, not every TV hand is heading down to Davy Jones’ locker alongside George Clooney and Marky Mark. In a pinch, a football makes for a handy flotation device, and the network execs with access to these life-saving prolate spheroids have managed to keep their heads above water. …
NBC also enjoyed a lift courtesy of its new Big Ten Saturday Night feature, which bows Sept. 2 with a showdown between West Virginia and Penn State—the first meeting of the two programs since 1992. The Big Ten package, which NBC acquired last summer as part of the conference’s massive $7 billion rights coup, helped the network bring more than 40 new advertisers into the fold.
…
Fox joined NBC at the finish line late this week, closing out its upfront deals with a flurry of commitments for its NFL, Big Ten football and MLB properties. Since shifting to its sports-first model in 2017, Fox has helped disrupt the market by selling as much as 85% of its available in-game inventory during the upfront. (Before the paradigm shift—which itself was triggered by the death of “appointment TV”—broadcasters largely reserved their sports sales until after the bulk of their entertainment units had been auctioned off.)
Sports now account for approximately 77% of the time viewers spend with Fox, which worked to the network’s advantage in the run-up to a largely unscripted fall season. Last year, the NFL alone provided Fox with more than half (55%) of Fox’s total viewing time, while racking up nearly one-third of the time spent with legacy broadcasters CBS (32%) and NBC (31%). Fox also gets an autumn lift from its Big Noon Saturday platform, which last season earned bragging rights as college football’s most-watched window. While NBC’s new primetime showcase will challenge Fox’s midday package for dominance, Fox’s in-season numbers get a nice boost after the deliveries for the annual Michigan-Ohio State rivalry are factored into the mix. Last year’s big game averaged 17.1 million viewers on the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
…
Taken as a whole, sports pricing looks to be up between 5% and 7% over last year’s rates. As always, it’s a great time to be in the sports media business; on average, the cost of reaching 1,000 sports viewers next season will work out to around $75, while the average broadcast CPM is expected to dip to $42.
LikeLike
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/maryland-qb-taulia-tagovailoa-offered-1-5-million-transferred-unnamed-sec-school-report?dicbo=v2-ecXttiO
LikeLike
I believe that Taulia now holds every single Maryland passing record. He is without a doubt one of the two (or maybe three) QBs to ever play for the Terrapins. If he did not have a brother making tens of millions in the NFL, he would be crazy to turn down $1 million or more from an SEC school.
By the way, I have seen comments saying that Maryland is rebuilding this year. How does a team rebuild when the senior QB might be the best in the history of the school and will be in the NFL next year?
LikeLike
It’s a pity for Terps fans that the Big Ten didn’t scrap divisions a year early. They have to face Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State in their own division. Their crossovers include Nebraska and Illinois, which aren’t pushovers either. Even 8–4 vs. that schedule is no guarantee. I think the rebuilding effort is mostly on defense, something that Taulia can’t help with.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner (Pac-12 beat writer) has a new Q&A. Money quote:
The bold play at this point would be to add multiple schools at reduced revenue shares — some combination of San Diego State, SMU and Gonzaga, for instance.
But anyone expecting bold action from the Pac-12 presidents is setting themselves up for disappointment.
The group talks about a strategic approach that anticipates “where the puck is going.” In reality, it’s unable to see the puck until the conference gets whacked in the mouth.
LikeLike
Another tidbit from Wilner: Kliavkoff’s opening bid was $40m per school. Wilner isn’t clear if that figure was contingent on UCLA reversing its decision to join the Big Ten. However, UCLA alone could not possibly justify paying the Pac-12 that generously. If indeed Kliavkoff was demanding $40m, he was way off the market.
LikeLike
Marc,
Many people thought the B12 settled for a surprisingly low $31.7M when they were probably worth more like $35M. Based on that, starting at $40M isn’t ridiculous especially if they still had an LA school. Demanding it as a floor might be, but not as an opening bid.
Over time it became clear the market was changing, but a year ago it wasn’t that clear.
LikeLike
Brian: “Many people thought the B12 settled for a surprisingly low $31.7M when they were probably worth more like $35M.”
I will say it yet again: The gameday inventory of the Big Ten and SEC will rise in 2024 when UT/OU join the SEC and USC/UCLA join the Big Ten. That does NOT mean that the value of B12/P12/ACC/ND games rises accordingly. Those games will actually diminish in value as more viewers focus upon the P2 and fewer upon the M3 and the ND cupcakes.
LikeLike
Many people thought the B12 settled for a surprisingly low $31.7M when they were probably worth more like $35M. Based on that, starting at $40M isn’t ridiculous
I too thought that the B12 settled for a surprisingly low amount. But that’s why Yormark is in his seat, and I am in mine. He might have let his pet dog decide the strategy, but however he did it, he was right and Kliavkoff was not.
LikeLike
I’m just saying it wasn’t an obviously bad decision based on the information available at the time, unlike some other decisions.
I’m not sure Yormark was totally right, though. If he could’ve gotten $35M+, then he screwed his conference a bit in the rush to renew.
LikeLike
Gift articles from WSJ and WaPo:
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/colorado-pac-12-big-12-ucla-usc-fbefe47b?st=g6llzwnq4xb3it4&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
https://wapo.st/455szBc
LikeLike
For what it is worth, there is a lot of chatter that FSU might be willing to challenge the ACC GOR and part of the basis is some unknown emails to FSU by the ACC prior to the last contract. FSU was the last team to accept it, so who knows? Do I believe it? Not really but stranger things have happened. It appears that August 15th is the last day to give notice, or wait until next Aug 15th.
Supposedly a group of boosters will come up with the $120 million exit fee, but that does not cover the GOR issues. Clearly FSU cannot use state of FL funds to pay that amount.
There is also an analysis, for whatever it is worth, that ESPN would facilitate the FSU move to the SEC, since they own the rights to both conferences. The problem that I have with that is that FSU leaving the ACC creates a huge hole in the conference, which would devalue the ACC rights much more than it would increase the value of the SEC. So ESPN would lose out overall. Obviously if pushed to the wall, ESPN would far prefer FSU in the SEC compared to the B1G.
In addition, if FSU can actually leave the ACC, Clemson and Miami will be out the door immediately thereafter. And maybe others too. The value of the ACC would plummet.
I do not think that the SEC needs (or maybe even wants) FSU, but would take them in a second to block the B1G.
LikeLike
I have seen that chatter too. Upwards of 90% of realignment rumors are false. For now, I’m lumping this in that category. At least it’s readily verifiable. August 15 will come and go, and either it will have happened or not.
(Contrast that with Wilner’s recent projection that the Pac-12 had a 60% chance of surviving. No matter what happened, he could claim he predicted it.)
It seems to me that if there are boosters willing to put up $120m, there are so many better ways to spend it than merely to buy your way out of the ACC — so that you can lose more often in the SEC.
Assuming all of that is true, I can’t imagine FSU giving notice unless it had an invitation. Otherwise, it’s another San Diego State. And I can’t imagine the SEC extending an invitation without knowing another school is coming along — nobody wants odd numbers.
I agree with your analysis that this does not seem to be a good deal for ESPN. While they might not be able to prevent it, I can’t see them encouraging it either.
LikeLike
Imagine Notre Dame’s schedule if FSU, Clemson and Miami leave the ACC:
– Two MAC teams at South Bend
– Five ACC cupcakes excluding FSU, Clemson and Miami
– Navy, Stanford and Southern Cal
– Purdue is scheduled 2024 thru 2029 so that annual rivalry is probably renewed
Cripe, the CFP Committee should just give ND an automatic at-large berth and then sit down to deliberate who the other five at-large slots go to.
LikeLike
Bernie,
FSU and other schools has been examining the GOR for years. If there was a loophole, they’d have found it by now. I find it hard to believe any prior emails trump the black and white text of the GOR they signed, but crazier things have happened in a court of law.
If the boosters can come up with $120M, why not just give it to the AD to greatly reduce the financial gap from the TV deal? Then they can win more easily and make more CFP money and further improve their position.
Any such deal sure seems vulnerable to lawsuits. The other ACC schools are hurt if FSU leaves, even if ESPN keeps their payout the same. How would ESPN compensate for ACCN revenue losses? The GOR requires unanimous permission to be changed, so why would all the schools agree? Why would Disney agree to pay FSU twice as much when they already control FSU’s rights? They wouldn’t increase the SEC’s value that much.
And not only would other ACC schools want out (and not all to the SEC), but every GOR with Disney becomes worthless.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Big Ten football: 10 big TV topics for 2023 and beyond
By Scott Dochterman
INDIANAPOLIS — When it comes to Big Ten football on television this fall, it’s going to take some time to get used to the changes. For the first time since 1986, Big Ten home games will appear on CBS, and the conference doesn’t have a contract with ABC or ESPN. It also marks the first time the Big Ten has linked up with NBC and a streaming network — NBC’s Peacock — for exclusive games.
There are the old standbys like Fox, FS1 and BTN, and the 2023 season is transitional. CBS is in the final year of its contract with the SEC and will air seven Big Ten games this fall before jumping to 15 beginning in 2024. CBS and NBC will have a few experimental windows this fall before they settle into their consistent time frames in 2024. That year also coincides with USC and UCLA joining a division-less Big Ten.
“This first year is kind of an element unto itself,” said Kerry Kenny, the Big Ten’s chief operating officer who handles television and football scheduling.
Let’s take a look 10 big topics involving Big Ten television in 2023 and beyond.
Classic and new additions
With conferences eyeing partnerships with nontraditional networks or streaming options, the Big Ten leaned into linear. In picking up CBS and NBC, the conference opted for maximum and recognizable exposure over continuing a long-standing relationship with ABC/ESPN or perhaps more revenue to partner with Amazon Prime.
Big Ten football will stretch across three time windows on three major networks. Fox regularly will kick off the action with its Big Noon broadcast. In 2024, CBS will replace its midday SEC package with a Big Ten game at 3:30 p.m. ET. NBC debuts its “Big Ten Saturday Night” with prime-time games starting at 7:30 p.m. ET this fall.
In addition to NBC’s package, which consists of 15 games mostly in prime time, the network’s Peacock streaming-only service will show nine games this fall. In the first three weeks, Peacock secured major brands with Michigan (against East Carolina) and Penn State (against Delaware) plus Washington at Michigan State in Week 3. The combination of showing games on both platforms was critical, said Jon Miller, the president of partnerships and acquisitions for NBC Sports.
“It was very important to us,” Miller said. “It was a commitment that we made to the Big Ten that the only other college football that we were even interested in acquiring was the Big Ten to marry up with Notre Dame. NBC is going to be 100 years old in 2025, and this is the first college football conference relationship they’ve ever had.”
CBS will fit games where it can this year before slotting the Big Ten into the 3:3o p.m. ET window in 2024. In 2023, that includes a Sunday afternoon game on Labor Day weekend, a prime-time kickoff in week four, a noon Black Friday contest, two Saturday games at noon and only two at midday.
“What we did with the Big Ten, we focused on creating a side-by-side scenario where the open windows that we had we could fill with Big Ten games can exist side-by-side with the commitments we have to the SEC,” said Dan Weinburg, executive vice president of programming for CBS Sports. “It worked out beautiful.”
The draft
Each year, the Big Ten’s primary media partners engage in a draft used for game selection. Fox holds the No. 1 pick and Ohio State-Michigan always earns the top spot. From there, the selection order gets blurry as to which networks choose in what spots.
“For this first year, it’s very similar to what our process has typically been in the past with multiple networks and rotating picks, where you have the networks selecting picks in weeks they’re not selecting actual games,” Kenny said. “For Fox and NBC, it was a little bit more of that traditional, ‘Hey, we may want to broadcast games in these weeks. We may want FS1 games in these weeks. We may want, in NBC’s case, Peacock games in these weeks.’”
The networks with the top pick in those weeks can designate their game right away, which Fox has done with Ohio State at Michigan on Nov. 25 and Michigan at Penn State on Nov. 11. Or in other weeks, the top network can pick its game using a six- or 12-day selection period and the other networks choose in some order afterward. As to how often NBC and CBS will get the top pick for a weekend, Miller said, “Probably about a third.”
“This year is what they call it stub year because CBS is still involved with their SEC package,” Miller said. “We’ve only announced, I believe, five of our matchups so far. Some are locked in.”
Outside of the first three weekends, NBC’s prime-time slate includes Michigan State at Ohio State on Nov. 11 and Penn State vs. Michigan State in Detroit on Black Friday. Some of the other weekly potential matchups were leaked to Action Network, but Kenny said those games are subject to the six- and 12-day window.
“We definitely understand the excitement from some of our partners, especially our new partners to be involved in Big Ten football,” Kenny said. “But in terms of where things stand for those weeks, whether or not games have been confirmed, from a time standpoint, from a network perspective, that’s all subject to that in-season selection process.
“Nothing is confirmed until it’s released by the conference during that part of the season and all of our networks.”
2024
With USC and UCLA aboard in 2024 and CBS clear of its SEC contract, the television process will develop a routine.
“The goal is to keep as much consistency with Fox at noon and CBS at 3:30 and NBC in prime time,” Kenny said. “That really helps them from a sales perspective. It really helps them from an overall branding of the day, making it easy for our fans to seamlessly go from that early part of the day to the late part starting with the pregame shows in the morning on Fox and then going all the way to Saturday Night Live after the prime time game on NBC.”
There may be a few alterations, such as NBC shifting two Notre Dame games into prime time. That could lead to a time flip between NBC and Fox. In addition, the Big Ten has no plans to air a USC or UCLA home game at 9 a.m. PT on Big Noon Kickoff. But the 2024 inventory ranges from traditional rivalry games to USC’s matchups with Penn State, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin to a wider variety of games without a divisional structure.
“The depth that the league already has, plus what will be added with USC and UCLA, is really helpful in that regard,” Weinburg said. “You don’t have to necessarily have the top pick in any given week to potentially have an incredibly meaningful and significant game and a great atmosphere that has national championship implications. That’s the beauty of what we have here.”
In addition, the 2024 and 2025 schedules consist of 14 weeks, instead of 13, which could help spread the league’s inventory.
Labor Day weekend and Black Friday
The Big Ten has branched out on holiday weekends, particularly on Labor Day weekend. Games will appear over four days, starting with Fox airing Nebraska at Minnesota on Thursday night and concluding with Northwestern at Rutgers on CBS that Sunday.
“There may be some opportunities in the future on Labor Day Sunday with NBC in their final week before they start their Sunday Night Football package with the NFL, to really take advantage of that real estate as well,” Kenny said.
Beginning this fall, the league will broadcast two Black Friday matchups. The traditional Iowa-Nebraska game kicks off at noon ET on CBS, while Michigan State-Penn State in Detroit at 7:30 p.m. ET on NBC. While Nebraska-Iowa likely will remain a Black Friday staple, the other matchup could change annually.
CBS also will show an SEC game (Missouri at Arkansas) immediately following the Iowa-Nebraska game. Weinburg considers the Whiteout game on Sept. 23 featuring Iowa at Penn State as “a signature moment for us this year.”
The only Big Ten game NBC airs on Thanksgiving weekend this year is on Black Friday. That will change in 2024.
“What’s really exciting is that we’ll have a Thursday night NFL game, we’ll have a Black Friday game, we’ll now have a Big Ten Saturday night game, and then we’ll have a Sunday night NFL game,” Miller said. “We’ll have four nights in a row of blockbuster football on NBC.”
November nights
A semi-sticking point between the Big Ten office and its membership was NBC’s night package in November. The Big Ten’s previous contract called for night games through only the first weekend in November. Afterward, both participants were required to agree to prime-time requests. That’s no longer the case.
Many athletic directors were upset with the package or felt as if they weren’t consulted. To alleviate the situation, Ohio State agreed to host Michigan State on Nov. 11, and the Nov. 24 Michigan State-Penn State game was moved to Detroit’s Ford Field.
“In any partnership, with TV or other external partners, we understand that we need to be collaborative, we need to be creative,” Kenny said. “I think you’re going to see that through the next seven years, where we’re really going to want to work with NBC to make sure that their broadcast package is as good as all of our other partners at noon and at 3:30 and other times throughout our season. And our schools understand that as well.”
Ohio State-Michigan future
At Big Ten media days, Ohio State coach Ryan Day suggested moving the annual Ohio State-Michigan game off the final weekend. With divisional play ending after 2023, the prominent rivalry could have a rematch the following week in the Big Ten championship game. With an expanded College Football Playoff, the teams could meet for a third time in a season.
Any movement in ‘The Game” could meet resistance from Fox. Ohio State-Michigan rates as the most viewed regular-season game each year with more than 17 million viewers last season and nearly 16 million in 2021. A move to late October or early November could impact those ratings.
“From a conference perspective is, we work as a membership service organization,” Kenny said. “If Gene (Smith, Ohio State athletic director) and Warde (Manuel at Michigan) were ever to come to us and say, ‘Hey, we want to have a discussion about this,’ then we’ll obviously happily be a part of that discussion with them to see what they’d ask us to consider from a television perspective. But at this point in time, that hasn’t been a discussion that’s been brought up in that formal way with our office and in the context of scheduling or TV.”
USC-Notre Dame
No cross-country rivalry has persevered quite like USC-Notre Dame. When those teams play in South Bend, the game is staged in October. When it’s in Los Angeles, it’s held on Thanksgiving weekend.
In 2024, it’s scheduled for Thanksgiving weekend, and USC and the conference have held discussions about the rivalry. But there are some scheduling and television hurdles to keep that series on its traditional rotation.
“There’s a lot of different pathways on the table of how to make sure that that game can continue if both schools plan on continuing that game,” Kenny said, “but also be creative in how we integrate that into our overall scheduling philosophy with the Big Ten.”
Week Zero
The Big Ten previously incorporated Week Zero matchups in 2021 and 2022 with solid viewership. Last year’s game in Ireland featuring Northwestern and Nebraska garnered more than 4.4 million viewers.
There is interest in changing NCAA regulations around Week Zero to allow for more future matchups. Currently, Week Zero must include an international location, a game against Hawaii or an FCS opponent matchup.
“We definitely have that tagged as an item that we’ll need to evaluate if it does present itself as something that looks like it’s going to be adopted across all of the conferences here and in the NCAA that are playing college football at our level,” Kenny said. “I think we’d be supportive of identifying ways to positively impact our broadcast partners if we were to move in that direction.”
Theme music
In what has pained many SEC fans, the CBS college football theme won’t follow the conference to ESPN and will stay with CBS. Although it has become synonymous with the SEC, the music also airs on intro and outro bumpers for Army-Navy, the Sun Bowl and other college football games.
NBC also has unveiled a new theme performed by Fall Out Boy called “Here Comes Saturday Night.”
“We have new music that’s been created just for ‘Big Ten Saturday night,’” Miller said. “It’s a pretty cool, very catchy tune that will be synonymous with ‘Big Ten Saturday night.’”
Fox also has a popular opening theme.
Championships
All three linear networks will carry the Big Ten championship game at least once through 2029. Fox airs it in the odd years — 2023, 2025, 2027 and 2029. CBS gets the championship in 2024 and 2028, while NBC broadcasts it in 2026.
“We love crowning champions on CBS Sports,” Weinburg said. “That’s what we do. We do big events, we do champions. It was a very, very important thing for us to be part of the rotation for the Big Ten championship game.”
“That comes at a great, great time for us,” Miller said. “We have the 2026 Super Bowl, and we’ll have the 2026 Big Ten championship. That year is going to be a big year for us because we’ll also have the Winter Olympics from Milan.”
LikeLike
Scott Doctherman at The Athletic has a nice article summarizing the state of play with the Big Ten’s new TV deals.
Not a huge amount of news. According to the article, the timing of the Notre Dame–USC rivalry has not been decided past 2024, when the Irish play the Trojans in L.A. on Thanksgiving weekend—their traditional date. The Big Ten clearly would prefer to keep that game going, assuming the schools agree, but the Thanksgiving date creates other headaches.
fbschedules.com shows the ND–USC games on their traditional dates in 2025–26, with no games scheduled after that. The same site shows the ND–Stanford game is not scheduled past 2024. There have been rumors that NBC would press ND to replace the Stanford game with a Big Ten opponent. That would be another blow to the Pac-12 media deal, because Stanford is not going to replace ND with an opponent of comparable quality. Future Stanford P5 OOC games are against TCU, BYU, Vanderbilt, and Boston College.
Also mentioned: there have been no official discussions about moving the Michigan–Ohio State game, a possibility that Ryan Day mentioned. Kerry Kenny, the Big Ten official who handles football scheduling, said that the league would certainly look at it if the two schools requested it. But that game is easily the Big Ten’s most valuable regular-season property. Any discussion of moving it would need to be handled very carefully.
LikeLike
Marc,
You’re correct, most of this was known. But here’s some highlights:
… The combination of showing games on both platforms was critical, said Jon Miller, the president of partnerships and acquisitions for NBC Sports.
“It was very important to us,” Miller said. “It was a commitment that we made to the Big Ten that the only other college football that we were even interested in acquiring was the Big Ten to marry up with Notre Dame. NBC is going to be 100 years old in 2025, and this is the first college football conference relationship they’ve ever had.”
…
“[For 2023] What we did with the Big Ten, we focused on creating a side-by-side scenario where the open windows that we had we could fill with Big Ten games can exist side-by-side with the commitments we have to the SEC,” said Dan Weinberg, executive vice president of programming for CBS Sports. “It worked out beautiful.”
…
As to how often NBC and CBS will get the top pick for a weekend, Miller said, “Probably about a third.”
…
“The goal is to keep as much consistency with Fox at noon and CBS at 3:30 and NBC in prime time,” Kenny said. …
There may be a few alterations, such as NBC shifting two Notre Dame games into prime time. That could lead to a time flip between NBC and Fox. In addition, the Big Ten has no plans to air a USC or UCLA home game at 9 a.m. PT on Big Noon Kickoff.
…
The only Big Ten game NBC airs on Thanksgiving weekend this year is on Black Friday. That will change in 2024.
“What’s really exciting is that we’ll have a Thursday night NFL game, we’ll have a Black Friday game, we’ll now have a Big Ten Saturday night game, and then we’ll have a Sunday night NFL game,” Miller said. “We’ll have four nights in a row of blockbuster football on NBC.”
“According to the article, the timing of the Notre Dame–USC rivalry has not been decided past 2024, when the Irish play the Trojans in L.A. on Thanksgiving weekend—their traditional date. The Big Ten clearly would prefer to keep that game going, assuming the schools agree, but the Thanksgiving date creates other headaches.
fbschedules.com shows the ND–USC games on their traditional dates in 2025–26, with no games scheduled after that. The same site shows the ND–Stanford game is not scheduled past 2024. There have been rumors that NBC would press ND to replace the Stanford game with a Big Ten opponent. That would be another blow to the Pac-12 media deal, because Stanford is not going to replace ND with an opponent of comparable quality. Future Stanford P5 OOC games are against TCU, BYU, Vanderbilt, and Boston College.”
2023
10/14 – USC @ ND
11/25 – ND @ Stanford
2024
10/12 – Stanford @ ND
11/30 – ND @ USC
2025
10/18 – USC @ ND
2026
11/28 – ND @ USC
Some solutions:
1. They can’t play the final week anymore because everyone needs to play a conference game the week before the CCG.
1a. The game is always in mid-October.
1b. The game moves up 2 weeks in November.
2. UCLA plays Cal the final week every other year, mid-October the others. Stanford and Cal would have to play the final week in the other years (something they don’t want to do), allowing ND vs Stanford to continue.
3. UCLA replaces Stanford. The later game is still 2 weeks before Thanksgiving at least.
“Also mentioned: there have been no official discussions about moving the Michigan–Ohio State game, a possibility that Ryan Day mentioned.”
It isn’t broke, so don’t try to fix it. If back-to-back games prove to be a problem, then they can discuss moving it (the week before Thanksgiving was the longtime date). But why would Fox want to mess with the golden goose? It’s the most-watched regular season game in CFB (on average). Moving it will hurt that. Coaches only focus on their selfish view. Never listen to them about scheduling – we’ll end up playing 8 I-AA teams, 2 G5’s, 1 random B10 team and 1 rival.
LikeLike
Canzano’s latest…no point in linking because it is paywalled:
. Kliavkoff is presenting real numbers this week. Really. There is no consensus on what those numbers will be, or if they are good enough to keep Arizona in the fold. He said that among his sources there is “both angst and optimism.”
. The Pac-12 would provide a financial assist to San Diego State to help them cover their $34m exit from the MWC so that they can join in 2024. Any amount greater than zero is a farce, given that the Pac could have had them “for free” a month ago.
. SMU is still dying to get in. They would accept a fractional distribution in the early years of the deal. “Hoping to learn more over the next 48 hours,” a Mustangs source said.
Canzano has egg on his face after a less-than-stellar year of false predictions. I do like that he is willing to admit how much he doesn’t know right now.
LikeLike
Marc,
. Kliavkoff is presenting real numbers this week. Really. There is no consensus on what those numbers will be, or if they are good enough to keep Arizona in the fold. He said that among his sources there is “both angst and optimism.”
See, maybe that 8/1 rumor is real.
. The Pac-12 would provide a financial assist to San Diego State to help them cover their $34m exit from the MWC so that they can join in 2024. Any amount greater than zero is a farce, given that the Pac could have had them “for free” a month ago.
They had 10 members a month ago, and may not have had the votes to expand. Besides, GK insisted on a TV deal first, then expansion. There’s still no deal, so they couldn’t have added SDSU a month ago.
. SMU is still dying to get in. They would accept a fractional distribution in the early years of the deal. “Hoping to learn more over the next 48 hours,” a Mustangs source said.
Of course they would. They know no other P5 conference would add them, so a wounded P12 is their best option.
Canzano has egg on his face after a less-than-stellar year of false predictions. I do like that he is willing to admit how much he doesn’t know right now.
Predictions? He usually provided statements from his sources. They have proven to be wrong, but that’s not Canzano’s fault. He just needs better sources (and this may explain some of the P12’s problems – his sources are making decisions in the P12).
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/college/arizona/Article/pac-12-present-media-deal-on-tuesday-213459575/
Pro-B12 UA “reporter” Jason Scheer also says the P12 will present numbers tomorrow. The article is paywalled, I just linked it to show others are saying the same thing.
Stewart Mandel also says so:
LikeLike
MHver3 claims to have the details:
* Deal will be for $20m per school for up to 12 schools. apple will take over PACN absorbing the production costs (last minute add over the weekend) and give a one-time payment of $70m (which just so happens to cover the comcast debt) paid directly to the conference.
*PACN will become a subscription add on to Appletv and additional payouts would trigger to the conference when certain tiers of subscribers are met. $1 per sub per quarter. Tiers are 1m, 5m, 10m, 20m, 30m, 40m etc.
* GK is going to recommend going to 12 and paying half shares to the new additions for the duration of this contract which will leave the rest of their shares to be divided amongst the remaining original members based on “aggregate television ratings over the previous decade”.
https://nitter.net/MHver3/status/1686151544218038272
LikeLike
Bob isn’t buying it.
LikeLike
The $20m figure was also on an AZ paywall site, but the tweet that said so didn’t have all of the supporting details that MHver3 claims to have. AZ has scheduled a Board of Regents meeting that was not previously on the calendar.
LikeLike
Arizona to B12 reportedly a ‘done deal’:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/cfb-insider-reveals-arizona-big-12-done-deal-drops-deadline-big-12-expansion-extending-14-programs
LikeLike
They had 10 members a month ago, and may not have had the votes to expand. Besides, GK insisted on a TV deal first, then expansion. There’s still no deal, so they couldn’t have added SDSU a month ago.
All of us here know that was the reason. Still, it’s not a great look if you pay $17m to acquire something you could have had for free, regardless of what the purported logic was.
He usually provided statements from his sources. They have proven to be wrong, but that’s not Canzano’s fault.
When a journalist leans so heavily into his sources, it’s implicit that he has made a judgment that they are reliable. That is especially true where they are anonymous, and therefore we can’t make that judgment ourselves. His ability to assess his sources’ credibility is a big part of the job.
LikeLike
I think it’s an exception when they are people in power (like an AD) who could/would/should know the details. Whether that person ends up being correct or not, you need to pass on what they say. I do think he should perhaps add warnings that “this source’s predictions have not been accurate in the past” or something.
It’s not his job to stop propaganda. He should point it out when it happens, though.
It would be different if we were talking hard news. This is sports.
LikeLike
Pete Thamel says UA, ASU and UU may stay or go as a block.
LikeLike
Gift article WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-applicants-ask-can-i-mention-my-race-or-not-833fa774?st=nixjn6tpm9agmzi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Interesting if true:
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/07/31/cable-net-distribution.aspx
SBJ article on the sharp drop in cable subscribers in 2023.
The cord-cutting trend appears to be speeding up this year, as every cable channel that carries lives sports has suffered significant subscriber drops since the beginning of 2023, according to Nielsen’s most recent estimates. Overall, the total multichannel audience, which includes cable, satellite and VMVPDs, has dropped by more than 3.1 million subscribers in the past eight months. In January, that figure was at 78.889 million homes; as of August, its distribution is at 75.783 million homes.
A couple of stats to highlight:
* July marked the first month that FS1 posted a higher subscriber figure than ESPN. According to Nielsen, FS1 is in 71.375 million homes, and ESPN is in 71.321 million homes. In this most recent report, FS1 claimed more subscribers than Fox News, which is in 71.224 million homes.
* The Warner Bros. Discovery networks had the biggest declines. For example, truTV, which carries March Madness games every year, has lost 4.639 million subscribers since the beginning of 2023. Similarly, TNT is down 3.083 million subscribers since January, and TBS is down 3.067 million.
* League-owned networks have not dropped as many subscribers this year. But distribution for NFL Network, MLB Network and NBA TV falls well short of bigger networks. Whereas FS1 and ESPN are in more than 71 million homes, NFL Network is in 51 million, MLB Network is in 41 million and NBATV is in 38 million homes.
General viewers are cutting the cord more than sports fans, which makes sense. WBD is mostly thought of as general entertainment, so its networks are suffering more than true sports networks.
It will be interesting to see if FS1 ratings will catch or even surpass ESPN for CFB. That would be a boon to the B10.
LikeLike
Well, the P12 met and … will meet again later. The Arizona BoR meets later today, also with no final decision expected.
For a positive spin:
LikeLike
Wilner has heard Warner (TBS/TNT) may be involved.
LikeLike
The old Canzano is back. That didn’t take long.
LikeLike
Mother Of All Realignment Rumors: “FSU, Clemson, Oregon and Washington will announce by week’s end their intentions to join the Big Ten.”
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/sports/college/fsu/2023/08/01/fsu-football-acc-revenue-sec-big-10-big-12-leaving-conference/70497171007/
LikeLike
Apparently the P12 will live in an Apple world.
Although a deal is not yet approved, Apple looks set to land the streaming rights for the Pac-12 sports conference. As reported by ESPN’s Pete Thamel, the Pac-12 hosted a meeting today with its conference schools, proposing Apple as their new TV rights partner.
The arrangement would materialize in a similar vein to MLS Season Pass, which sees all MLS games exclusively stream through the Apple TV app. Like MLS Season Pass, access to the Pac-12 channel would likely be a standalone subscription (separate to Apple TV+).
While nothing has yet been agreed, there are reportedly no alternatives to the Apple deal on the table. Some Pac-12 schools are hesitant to go forward with a streaming TV future, worried that their viewership and exposure would drop significantly compared to the traditional TV and cable broadcast model.
Reportedly, only Apple would offer financial terms at levels the conference would deem acceptable. Terms of the arrangement remain under lock and key, but are rumored to be in the region of $20-25 million per school, with bonus incentives if certain subscription levels were hit.
As an FYI, apparently the MLS deal has about 800,000 subscribers according to Andrew Marchand.
The rumor is that Apple would also eat the production costs (using the P12N facilities).
LikeLike
What did I tell ya? Huh? Snake Oil from Day One.
The biggest surprise is that these Pac-12 schools took the bait again and again and again, over many months. What were they thinking? “The longer we wait, the better the deal gets.” Honest to God, how many university presidents and ADs are in a deep enough zombie state to believe such jackarse gibberish?
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38116124/sources-pac-12-leaders-presented-apple-streaming-deal
ESPN has better reporting on this (I think).
After months of negotiations and uncertainty, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff on Tuesday presented the conference’s presidents and chancellors with a potential, primarily subscription-based Apple streaming deal for its television contract that expires after this school year, according to multiple sources.
While several options were presented, the Apple streaming deal emerged as the likely leader at this point, bringing some clarity to a lengthy process that frustrated many within the league and ultimately played a role in Colorado’s decision last week to join the Big 12. Monetary and exposure questions still loom, though, and outside pressure from the Big 12 remains.
There are not expected to be any imminent decisions on whether this TV deal is enough to appease Arizona, Arizona State and Utah, which are being heavily courted by the Big 12. The Arizona board of regents, which oversees Arizona and ASU, is scheduled to meet later Tuesday, but no decision is expected after the meeting.
According to sources, the first year of what’s expected to be a relatively short-term contract with Apple would start in 2024-25 and begin relatively low relative to the league’s hopes. But the deal, sources said, would incrementally improve and potentially be competitive with its peers in the Big 12 and ACC down the road, provided certain subscription numbers are met.
…
Sources familiar with the negotiations told ESPN the Pac-12 is in a better position now than it was a month and a half ago to sell digital subscriptions thanks to changes in the media landscape.
Perhaps the success of the MLS Season Pass has helped?
LikeLike
If anyone is interested, @Genetics56 will be doing a live appearance on YouTube (for the first time ever, I think) on Wednesday. It’s a chance to judge for yourself how much you should trust him as a source.
YouTube channel link (The Voice of College Football) – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNOBtSrRG8K9LR5w5Np3fmA
LikeLike
One hour interview with the chair of the FSU Board of Trustees, Peter Collins.
Regarding the GoR:
“We understand the documents very well,” Peter Collins said. “We understand our positions on those documents. We understand the legal arguments in that document. We understand who the actual parties would be under those documents. We have a very good handle on what our risks and opportunities are under that document.
That’s the least of my worries based on what we know. So when I say we have a good handle on (the GoR) — we understand it, we have gotten a lot of counsel on that document, and that will not be the document that keeps us from taking action.”
If not the GoR, then what document would?
It sounds like FSU is getting ready to fight it. Is this real, or is FSU trying to bluff ESPN into paying more?
Also, he predicts FSU will join the AAU in 5 years due to some recent changes with their medical school – they can now do research.
LikeLike
FSU may believe they can beat the ACC GoR but even assuming they can how many years of litigation will it take? Is the B1G/Fox going to take that risk on? Will ESPN pay the SEC if they add FSU or claim they already have those rights so there is no increase? FSU will be left in the wilderness for several years unless they can get released from the GoR. I doubt ESPN will be bluffed.
LikeLike
I could be very wrong, but I am willing to assume that FSU knows much more about its situation than we could ever hope to. Does that mean that your comment is wrong? No, but it may not be correct either.
LikeLike
It sounds like FSU is getting ready to fight it. Is this real, or is FSU trying to bluff ESPN into paying more?
If he’s bluffing, I’d say it’s more likely he trying to leverage the ACC into giving the ‘Noles a larger share of the pie. To me at least, that seems more likely work..
LikeLike
Speak of the devil, immediately after posting this, I saw article.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38122958/florida-state-consider-leaving-acc-due-revenue-distribution
Florida State President Richard McCullough told his board of trustees during a meeting Wednesday that the university would have to “very seriously” consider leaving the ACC unless there is a radical change to the conference’s revenue distribution model.
…
The ACC recently changed its revenue distribution model to reward success on the field in football and basketball. But Florida State has also pushed for changing the model to reward programs that generate higher television revenue and marketability, areas where FSU believes it has an advantage.
The whole article is pretty interesting as McCullough is unusually blunt about the ACC’s economic model.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/whats-next-in-college-sports-conference-realignment-heres-where-the-shaky-landscape-stands-030444592.html
Ross Dellenger on the P12, how it got here, and its future.
Schools with more lucrative television offers — presumed to be Arizona, Arizona State and Utah — have a decision to make: accept an invitation from the Big 12 or remain with the Pac-12. A decision timeline isn’t clear, but the Arizona Board of Regents, which manages both Arizona and Arizona State, discussed the matter in private during an executive session on Tuesday afternoon — a sign of the seriousness of the situation.
One source described the presented TV deal as not suitable enough to keep all three within the league. After a year of TV negotiations — with miscalculations and missteps along the way — could the deal somehow get better over a matter of days?
“If we had a good deal, we’d have presented it earlier,” says one league source.
…
“If anyone follows Colorado,” says one administrative source, “that thing is standing on a knife’s edge.”
…
USC and UCLA’s announcement of their 2024 departure to the Big Ten sent the conference’s value tumbling by as much as 40%, TV network experts say. Despite the loss of the Los Angeles market, the Pac-12 “shot high” at the beginning of negotiations last summer and fall, says one source. The league’s starting point in per-team distribution neared $50 million — roughly $15 million more than league teams receive in its current TV deal.
Pac-12 officials hoped to be worth roughly 3/4 of the value of the recently signed Big Ten TV contract, …
…
“They got out-played by the Big 12,” says another TV executive.
…
A media market that had seen the Big Ten and SEC agree to mega deals over the previous three years suddenly began to crumble under the changing landscape — cord-cutting consumers and streaming options. Money in the market evaporated.
ESPN, Fox, NBC and CBS had all recently struck partnerships with other conferences, including the SEC (ESPN), the Big Ten (Fox, NBC and CBS) and the Big 12 (ESPN and Fox).
“The market turned against George,” says one former athletic administrator who remains in the college space. “If you can get 80% of what you ask, you usually take it. You don’t hope for 110%.”
In the end, ESPN and Fox showed interest — and still do — in providing a small window of linear exposure. But monetarily, it is not enough to push the distribution figure higher than the Big 12 — or even that close. For that to happen, it necessitated an entity offering a large guarantee on the front end.
…
In the most recent sign of desperate times, Pac-12 leaders last month approached NBC for at least the third time in the last year, this time with a significantly low offer.
The network passed.
“We were looking for a savior but no one seemed to want to step up,” says one Pac-12 insider.
…
Notable in Arizona is the president of Arizona State: Michael Crow, a 67-year-old who has presided over the university since 2002 and one who holds considerable authority in the state and with the board. For years now, Crow has been one of the most vocal supporters of the Pac-12 and one of its loudest chest-beaters about the league’s future.
“He is powerful in that state,” says one person familiar with the Arizona landscape. “When he talks, they listen.”
Arizona and Arizona State both entered the league at the same time: 1978. Can the schools be split?
Arizona president Robert Robbins was asked that question in early June. Arizona has the authority to make a move without ASU, he said. However, he continued, it would be “unlikely” if that were to happen.
…
“If the Pac-12 starts to unravel, maybe the Big Ten figures a way to take Oregon and Washington with as minimal of an impact as possible, financially, to have partners for LA schools,” suggests one source in the college space.
For months now, Big Ten administrators have steadfastly and publicly voiced their stance on further expansion: They are not interested.
But what if this western domino effect changes minds? Both Oregon and Washington were on the Big Ten’s list of potential expansion targets under former commissioner Kevin Warren. In a potentially desperate situation, Oregon and Washington may accept distribution shares at a low rate. Will new commissioner Tony Petitti and his presidents crack the door?
…
Says one executive in the college space: “If I could turn back the clock, I’d put the LA schools back in the Pac-12. That’s the original sin of George (Kliavkoff), not opening an office in LA and saying to them, ‘What do you need? What do you want?’”
But the Pac-12 troubles go beyond its current commissioner. The league continues to crawl out of hole made by the failures of the Pac-12 Network, the ghastly baby of its last commissioner, Larry Scott. Scott promised administrators lofty figures as part of the league’s plan to start its own independent network, declining to partner with a major distribution carrier.
That said, school presidents are to blame as well, administrators say. After all, commissioners work for a board of presidents that, in this case, should have “demanded a more honest assessment of where they are,” says one official.
LikeLike
“The truth of the Pac-12’s journey to a new media rights deal is that the negotiations were never going well and the contract was always going to be bad.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/08/01/pac-12-schools-nervous-future-no-great-media-deal/70508563007/
LikeLike
This is interesting.
LikeLike
I don’t think I would take Cal, but it will be hard for the presidents to say no. I don’t know how you can leave ASU and Utah out if you take any other team from the PAC.
IMO – once you go past 16 you almost have to have a four team playoff to determine a conference champion.
LikeLike
Mike,
I think the idea would be that the B10 is only likely to do this if the B12 takes more schools. If UA goes (the most likely one to go), then ASU will likely be pressured to go unless they have a better option. UU would have to seriously consider it as well, because they know the B10 isn’t likely to invite them.
I’d take both Stanford and Cal because it is another travel pair, making for easy 2-game road trips for the eastern schools. NorCal is a big market with lots of B10 alumni (esp, when you include USC and UCLA). It also would eliminate UCLA’s Cal tax, helping UCLA to compete. They are also great schools in Olympic sports, so the B10 would be winning lots of national titles. Adding a few weaker teams isn’t the end of the world – they’re no worse than RU and UMD, and even better schools.
I think a bigger question is adding UO. They’re a better football brand, but for how long? Phil Knight will die soon, and then what happens to them? Phoenix is a bigger market with tons of B10 alumni. UO is fairly close to UW, so the 2-game trip factor probably still applies.
ASU even offers hockey, and are now AAU so I could see some appeal. But they are a tiny brand in sports, and I think that’s the deciding factor. TV won’t pay them much.
That’s a key point here – are these schools being considered at a full share, or at a discounted rate? ASU is only an option at a partial share. Maybe Cal and Stanford too.
For now you can’t do a 4-team B10 playoff. You could flex the final week games to achieve it if you don’t mind messing with rivalry week. But I don’t see the need for it. What matters is being in the 12-team playoff. Being the official champ just helps you get a bye.
LikeLike
I think the idea would be that the B10 is only likely to do this if the B12 takes more schools. If UA goes (the most likely one to go), then ASU will likely be pressured to go unless they have a better option. UU would have to seriously consider it as well, because they know the B10 isn’t likely to invite them.
I don’t think you are wrong, but I am a lot more bullish on Utah’s Big Ten prospects.
I’d take both Stanford and Cal because it is another travel pair, making for easy 2-game road trips for the eastern schools. NorCal is a big market with lots of B10 alumni (esp, when you include USC and UCLA). It also would eliminate UCLA’s Cal tax, helping UCLA to compete. They are also great schools in Olympic sports, so the B10 would be winning lots of national titles. Adding a few weaker teams isn’t the end of the world – they’re no worse than RU and UMD, and even better schools.
Those are all big plusses, but their football value would be near or at the bottom of the Big Ten. Its going to be very hard to get TV to sign off on those two. I think UU and ASU bring more value and will slot more toward the middle of the Big Ten. IMO: UW/UO > ASU/UU > AZ/OSU/WSU > Cal/ Stan.
I think a bigger question is adding UO. They’re a better football brand, but for how long? Phil Knight will die soon, and then what happens to them? Phoenix is a bigger market with tons of B10 alumni. UO is fairly close to UW, so the 2-game trip factor probably still applies.
ASU even offers hockey, and are now AAU so I could see some appeal. But they are a tiny brand in sports, and I think that’s the deciding factor. TV won’t pay them much.
I think between UO/ASU they’ll take UO. FWIW the Big Ten Hockey Conference has repeatedly turned ASU down. That could be due to travel concerns or something more.
That’s a key point here – are these schools being considered at a full share, or at a discounted rate? ASU is only an option at a partial share. Maybe Cal and Stanford too.
Follow up reporting states it will likely be a Maryland/Rutgers style buy in.
For now you can’t do a 4-team B10 playoff. You could flex the final week games to achieve it if you don’t mind messing with rivalry week. But I don’t see the need for it. What matters is being in the 12-team playoff. Being the official champ just helps you get a bye.
They’re going to have to figure out how to pay for these adds. At a minimum (IMO) they’ll have to go to 10 conference games. Flexing in a four team playoff or making the Big Ten playoffs part of the CFP makes finding the money easier.
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t think you are wrong, but I am a lot more bullish on Utah’s Big Ten prospects.
Apparently so. But I worry about them post-Wittingham. SLC isn’t a big market, Utah isn’t a big state, and BYU is the bigger brand in the area.
Those are all big plusses, but their football value would be near or at the bottom of the Big Ten. Its going to be very hard to get TV to sign off on those two.
Yes their sports brands are low (though Stanford was decent not long ago). But their market matters, as do all the B10 alumni that live in it. As for TV, like I said that depends on their share. The B10 might be willing to take a small hit to add them (for the academic shine and SF/Silicon Valley access), or they might just say $40M each for them is a lot more than they’d get elsewhere and TV would probably swallow that.
I think UU and ASU bring more value and will slot more toward the middle of the Big Ten. IMO: UW/UO > ASU/UU > AZ/OSU/WSU > Cal/ Stan.
UU is better on the field, but their ratings don’t match their success. What happens when they start going 6-6 for a while? Stanford gets better ratings, and they’ve been down for a while (the ND game helps). ASU gets weak ratings already and aren’t a brand at all. When’s the last time they were good? 1997?
Let’s look back at Bob Thompson’s numbers: https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-geeking-out-on-the-media
He gave point values:
UW – 36
UO – 34
Stanford – 30
ASU – 25
UU – 22
Cal – 20
So he thinks the SF pair have a little more value than UU + ASU.
I’m not saying he is automatically correct, but he is knowledgeable in the field.
I think between UO/ASU they’ll take UO. FWIW the Big Ten Hockey Conference has repeatedly turned ASU down. That could be due to travel concerns or something more.
I agree, UO is more valuable right now – it’s not even close. Its the other factors that might make the B10 think twice. I think hockey didn’t want the long trips. It’s not like ASU added much financial value to BTHC.
Follow up reporting states it will likely be a Maryland/Rutgers style buy in.
That helps, but by the end of the deal they have to carry their weight. Cal and Stanford won’t do that on the field/court, so it would need to be synergy (alumni access, big market, corporate contacts, academics) that justifies it. The pair of them could make UO’s academics easier to swallow, though.
They’re going to have to figure out how to pay for these adds. At a minimum (IMO) they’ll have to go to 10 conference games. Flexing in a four team playoff or making the Big Ten playoffs part of the CFP makes finding the money easier.
The buy-in helps pay for them. Easier travel logistics helps pay for them. BTN subscribers in NorCal and elsewhere help pay for them. ND games at Stanford help pay for them. beyond that, the B10 may just amortize it in the next TV deal so people never know what they may have gotten without these additions.
One key point – adding 4 more P12 schools probably means mostly giving up on the ACC schools. Is it worth it? Or is the B10 willing to expand to 24+?
LikeLike
Let’s look back at Bob Thompson’s numbers:
He would know better than I. If the PAC isn’t going to survive, than a UW/UO/Stan/ASU is pretty good. Phoenix has a lot of pluses.
One key point – adding 4 more P12 schools probably means mostly giving up on the ACC schools. Is it worth it? Or is the B10 willing to expand to 24+?
I think so. The door must always be left open for Notre Dame.
LikeLike
The B10 will run into the problem the SEC had with CBS when adding PAC members. How does that make the best 3 games better? If it does not why would CBS or NBC pay a cent more than the contract required? Per reports NBC has already turned down the PAC inventory 3 times. Fox could have the same deal but did not seem interested. Fox could get a third of any PAC team at $11M if they join the B12. ESPN would get two-thirds with the B12. However, ESPN and WA/OR may prefer the ACC where it will cost ESPN about half of what a full membership in the B10 would cost Fox.
Oregon as a national brand needs to consider what it will be worth after 5 years when only one or two games per year are over the air. Will they still get recruits? Will major schools play in Eugene without an over the air TV deal for the game guaranteed? For MLS Apple TV is charging $15 per month. I doubt Notre Dame at Stanford will survive without over the air in the game contract approved by Apple if they get the rights.
LikeLike
Little8: “How does that make the best 3 games better? If it does not why would CBS or NBC pay a cent more than the contract required?”
Exactly. And the same applies to Notre Dame’s contract with NBC. As the additions of USC/UCLA to the Big Ten and UT/OU to the SEC have increased the value of their game inventory, those Northern Illinois/ND games are worth less. Why should NBC pay more for them?
LikeLike
Little8,
The B10 will run into the problem the SEC had with CBS when adding PAC members. How does that make the best 3 games better? If it does not why would CBS or NBC pay a cent more than the contract required?
I’d argue that UW and UO would make the top 3 games better, because there would be more depth of brands to provide good games. Each OTA network will get 15 games, so the B10 needs 45 games that will draw 4M+ viewers. UW and UO probably make it about 10 brands in the B10 that will produce a big game when they play each other, upping the odds of the third game not being weak. Also, it helps avoid bad OOC weeks. Look at some of the week in 2024 and you can see weak 3rd choices. The SEC had more brands than the B10, so UT and OU didn’t help as much in this way. They did increase the quality of the top 3 some in my opinion, though.
Per reports NBC has already turned down the PAC inventory 3 times. Fox could have the same deal but did not seem interested.
That’s for the P12 playing each other. The top P12 brands playing top B10 brands have always drawn good ratings.
Fox could get a third of any PAC team at $11M if they join the B12.
UO vs OkSU/BU/TCU is as good it could get there. UO vs OSU drew 7.7M people in 2021.
ESPN would get two-thirds with the B12. However, ESPN and WA/OR may prefer the ACC where it will cost ESPN about half of what a full membership in the B10 would cost Fox.
ACC has already said no – there isn’t enough value.
Oregon as a national brand needs to consider what it will be worth after 5 years when only one or two games per year are over the air. Will they still get recruits? Will major schools play in Eugene without an over the air TV deal for the game guaranteed?
As long as they do NIL, they’ll get recruits. Since everyone is starting to have some streaming games, I doubt it will prevent scheduling OOC series.
For MLS Apple TV is charging $15 per month. I doubt Notre Dame at Stanford will survive without over the air in the game contract approved by Apple if they get the rights.
With 800k subscribers, that’s $12M per month. That sounds decent for Apple. ND has games on Peacock, so does the B10. The B10 can’t keep good games off there – UW @ MSU is on Peacock this year. Likely ND will have the same issue in their new NBC deal. You won’t know who will show the game when you schedule it.
ND alumni can afford AppleTV.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-big-ten-has-begun-preliminary-talks-to-potentially-add-oregon-washington-cal-and-stanford-173934989.html
B10 has opened preliminary discussion of adding 2-4 P12 teams. Nothing is imminent.
The Big Ten has begun exploratory discussions about expanding membership to 18 or even 20 teams, industry sources have told Yahoo Sports. The schools being considered are Oregon and Washington if the league adds two schools, and Cal and Stanford if it wants to move to 20. All four institutions are currently members of the Pac-12.
The discussions are in the very early stages, sources caution. No decision, including on whether to expand or stay put at 16 teams, has been made or is considered imminent.
…
A group of four Big Ten university presidents began the preliminary process on Wednesday.
…
With the Pac-12 at risk of splintering, Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford renewed their push to the Big Ten, seeking a safe, and far richer harbor, for their athletic programs starting in 2024.
The Big Ten has been reluctant to move to 20 teams, even if many in college athletics believe expansive superconferences are inevitable. One reason has been a hesitancy to deliver the final destructive blow to the Pac-12, although the poaching of UCLA and USC caused massive destabilization.
The Big Ten was, for generations, Midwestern-based with a like-minded membership. The modern realities of college athletics though is to go bigger in search of marquee matchups featuring big branded teams that can draw millions of viewers.
The Big Ten’s thinking is that if the Pac-12 is going to be decimated anyway with the departure of Arizona, Arizona State and Utah, and 20-team national conferences are the future, then why not act now when the conference is already in transition? It could just add Oregon and Washington, but at that point, why not bring along Cal and Stanford?
…
One source tossed out the possibility of playing the Big Ten championship game some years in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, rather than Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis. Also a possibility is a more regional based setup for so-called Olympic sport travel.
LikeLike
So if this happens, how do you handle the scheduling? I assume some version of the new flex plan, but for simplicity of analysis I’ll look at fixed numbers of rivals.
18 teams, 9 games:
9 = 3 locked + 6/14 (play all but 2 schools twice in 4 years)
9 = 2 locked + 7/15 (play all but 1 school twice in 4 years)
9 = 1 locked + 8/16 (play everyone twice in 4 years)
18 teams, 10 games:
10 = 3 locked + 7/14 (play everyone twice in 4 years)
20 teams, 9 games:
9 = 3 locked + 6/16 (play all but 4 schools twice in 4 years)
9 = 2 locked + 7/17 (play all but 3 schools twice in 4 years)
9 = 1 locked + 8/18 (play all but 2 schools twice in 4 years)
20 teams, 10 games:
10 = 3 locked + 7/16 (play all but 2 schools twice in 4 years)
10 = 2 locked + 8/17 (play all but 1 school twice in 4 years)
10 = 1 locked + 9/18 (play everyone twice in 4 years)
At these larger sizes, I think you have to live with not playing everyone twice in 2 years. The coastal schools don’t need to play the opposite coast as often to save on travel. The midwestern schools can rotate through playing some on each coast less often.
Also, 10 games is not going to happen. Schools with OOC P5 rivalries (IA, USC, UCLA?, Stanford, UW, UO) do not want to face 11 P5 games, or 6 home games every other year. I think 9 is the most we can expect for now.
LikeLike
Its a bit surprising that the SEC appears to be sitting this one out. I would think the SEC would have some interest in ASU at least. I wonder if its due to austerity at ESPN where ESPN wouldn’t even pay the SEC to play nine conference games.
LikeLike
Mike,
The SEC takes the “SE” part of its name seriously. They’d take Notre Dame (or a B10 king) but otherwise they really believe in staying regional. It helps that they have the best recruiting territories and fan support regions. ASU wouldn’t make them more money.
LikeLike
I could be very wrong, but I am willing to assume that FSU knows much more about its situation than we could ever hope to. Does that mean that your comment is wrong? No, but it may not be correct either.
As an aside, it would be incredibly easy to say not to Cal, and for that matter WA or OR. No one at Cal cares about football. They will be drain on finances forever. Several B1G schools have openly said that any new school must pay for itself and help the finances of the existing schools.
As far as Stanford, WA, OR, Stanford is special case, because it is Stanford.
As to the other two, it almost seems as though these commentators do not consider the extra trips to two different places on the West Coast by 14 teams.
Also if WA/OR were valuable, how does the entire remaining PAC only warrant a TV deal in the neighborhood of $200,000,000 for eight or nine schools? None of the networks care enough about that late night 10:00 pm window to pay for it.
Rutgers brought 10 million TV sets in the NYC market and South Jersey, and miserable football.
UMd brought Maryland, DC and North Va, and decent, but not nearly great football. Both of those schools reasonably could and would pay for themselves after the 6 year buy in. Numerous comments were made it clear that going from NY to Chicago to LA was a basis for the $7 to $8 billion deal. How does Seattle add to that?
At what point can one expect WA or OR to be worth as much as or more than the average of the other 16 teams. It is said that the loss of USC/UCLA cut the TV value of the PAC by 40%. If those two schools were worth 40%, when if ever will WA/OR pay for themselves?
It will be interesting.
Also if FSU actually does somehow leave the ACC within a couple of years, isn’t the B1G really going to keep a spot available for them (and Miami or NC)?
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
I could be very wrong, but I am willing to assume that FSU knows much more about its situation than we could ever hope to. Does that mean that your comment is wrong? No, but it may not be correct either.
I assume they know more too. What I don’t assume is that they actually plan to try to get out early via the courts. I think they are first trying to scare their fellow ACC members and ESPN (unequal revenue shares? slight bump in payout?), and also their donors (help cover the shortfall).
As an aside, it would be incredibly easy to say not to Cal, and for that matter WA or OR. No one at Cal cares about football. They will be drain on finances forever. Several B1G schools have openly said that any new school must pay for itself and help the finances of the existing schools.
It’s easy to say no to all of the P12 schools. The B10 doesn’t need them. Unless Fox is telling the B10 otherwise.
As far as Stanford, WA, OR, Stanford is special case, because it is Stanford.
As to the other two, it almost seems as though these commentators do not consider the extra trips to two different places on the West Coast by 14 teams.
All people see is the reduction in multi-time zone trips for USC and UCLA. They can’t wrap their heads around the whole picture of travel.
Also if WA/OR were valuable, how does the entire remaining PAC only warrant a TV deal in the neighborhood of $200,000,000 for eight or nine schools? None of the networks care enough about that late night 10:00 pm window to pay for it.
Rutgers brought 10 million TV sets in the NYC market and South Jersey, and miserable football.
UO drew 7.7M viewers when they played OSU in 2021. The problem is when UW and UO play other P12 schools, or so the theory goes. They just need other brands to play.
UMd brought Maryland, DC and North Va, and decent, but not nearly great football. Both of those schools reasonably could and would pay for themselves after the 6 year buy in.
BTN was a key driver then. Now the B10 owns less of it, and subscribers are dropping with cord cutting.
Numerous comments were made it clear that going from NY to Chicago to LA was a basis for the $7 to $8 billion deal. How does Seattle add to that?
It’s a top 15 market, and stretches the footprint to the NW corner of the continental US?
At what point can one expect WA or OR to be worth as much as or more than the average of the other 16 teams.
From day 1, they are at least equal to IN, PU, IL, NW, UMD, RU, MN and IA. They are bigger brands, and WA is a larger state than IA.
It is said that the loss of USC/UCLA cut the TV value of the PAC by 40%. If those two schools were worth 40%, when if ever will WA/OR pay for themselves?
Some of that was losing the LA market, but USC is also one of the kings with UCLA a hoops blueblood. They carried outsized value in the P12. OrSU, WSU, UA, ASU, Cal and CU carried very little value. UW and UO are their ratings leaders now.
It will be interesting.
It always is.
Also if FSU actually does somehow leave the ACC within a couple of years, isn’t the B1G really going to keep a spot available for them (and Miami or NC)?
I think that opportunity cost has to be part of the discussions. Also the odds of the most desirable ACC schools choosing the B10 over the SEC.
LikeLike
Brian, the one part of your response with which I have a real problems is
“From day 1, they are at least equal to IN, PU, IL, NW, UMD, RU, MN and IA. They are bigger brands, and WA is a larger state than IA.”
That is largely, if not totally irrelevant. IN, PU, IL NW, IA and MN have been in the B1G for many decades. Does anyone believe that IN and PU both applied to the B1G today, both would be accepted? Why does the B1G need two schools in Indiana – because they have been there forever and no other reason. That ignores the possibility of ND. Three schools in Indiana is nuts, but may well happen.
How about NW and IL? With an application today be accepted from NW? Fine academic institution right outside Chicago, but would that be enough? I do not know
MN, again major flagship state U, which has been in the B1G forever. In addition, MN and WI are literally attached at the hip. Students from WI or MN can attend the non resident school and pay in state tuition. It appears that both of them have similar reciprocity with other midwestern colleges. There is a major exchange between MN and WI.
The reputation of U of IA and the size of the state compared to Washington is irrelevant for similar reasons. Been in the B1G since the beginning of time. Given the location and flagship status, why would IA not be admitted today over a school three time zones away?
I have said my piece about RU and UMd. Because of the size of their markets and strategic locations near NYC and DC, I think that both would be invited before a school 1500 miles away from the closest B1G school. This also ignores the desire of Penn State for an eastern wing. While PSU does not pick either as an important rival, it was pretty clear that PSU wanted eastern schools.
Who is advocating the strong desire for UW or Oregon, for that matter.
UW on the other hand has no ties to any of the 14 current members. Even if Seattle is the 15th biggest TV market, in a conference with NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, which are the four biggest markets, and others, Seattle does not stand out. The additional costs and strain on student athletes to travel to the number 15 TV market is not the same as going to Iowa – or two schools in the number 2 market.
If Fox wants them and will pay for them, then maybe WA/OR get in. But it will be expensive.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
Brian, the one part of your response with which I have a real problems is
“From day 1, they are at least equal to IN, PU, IL, NW, UMD, RU, MN and IA. They are bigger brands, and WA is a larger state than IA.”
That is largely, if not totally irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? You asked:
“At what point can one expect WA or OR to be worth as much as or more than the average of the other 16 teams.”
If they are already around the median, that’s important and relevant to the question you posed.
I have said my piece about RU and UMd. Because of the size of their markets and strategic locations near NYC and DC, I think that both would be invited before a school 1500 miles away from the closest B1G school. This also ignores the desire of Penn State for an eastern wing. While PSU does not pick either as an important rival, it was pretty clear that PSU wanted eastern schools.
As BTN loses subscribers, the value of RU and UMD fade. They need to start producing on the field. That said, of course being near PSU and the B10 helps them. And it’d be less than 1000 miles from UW to the nearest B10 schools – USC and UCLA.
Who is advocating the strong desire for UW or Oregon, for that matter.
Fox? Some presidents? I’m not advocating for it, and I doubt they’ll do it unless it makes financial sense to them in the big picture.
UW on the other hand has no ties to any of the 14 current members. Even if Seattle is the 15th biggest TV market, in a conference with NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, which are the four biggest markets, and others, Seattle does not stand out.
Seattle is #12 on the list I saw, not that it changes your point. It wouldn’t stand out, but it would quickly be another large market in the footprint. WA is also the #13 state in size, and it’s rapidly growing so the demographics are good. And Seattle has lots of B10 alumni – especially when you consider the LA schools.
The additional costs and strain on student athletes to travel to the number 15 TV market is not the same as going to Iowa – or two schools in the number 2 market.
But travel is controllable to an extent:
Football – The 6 P12 schools play each other every year (that’s 5 of 9 games locked), leaving just 2 eastern road trips each year for each school. Likewise, the current schools focus on playing each other.
Hoops – The 6 P12 schools play each other HaH every year (that’s 10 of 20 games), and rotate through everyone else. That’s just 5 eastern road games, so 3 trips (play 2 games in one trip – Friday and Sunday for example). Likewise, the current schools focus on playing each other.
This is also why people suggest adding geographical pairs. UW and UO are a short drive apart, making it easier to get 2 games in one trip.
If Fox wants them and will pay for them, then maybe WA/OR get in. But it will be expensive.
Of course it’s dependent on TV wanting it, or the price being so low the B10 can’t help but do it.
LikeLike
If they are already around the median, that’s important and relevant to the question you posed.
I’m not sure median is best tool judging “average” in this case because the B1G has even equal revenue distribution and TV value tends be skewed way to right.
Not saying median value is completely irrelevant, but mean would be the better measurement to use.
LikeLike
frug,
I agree, but I don’t have access to the data required to calculate things. How about this model:
Say the 3 kings bring half the value, and the 4 princes 30%. That leaves the other 7 worth 20%. I’m ignoring USC and UCLA for simplicity.
3 kings = 50% = 17%/king
4 princes = 30% = 7.5%/prince
7 others = 20% = 2.9%/other
Average = 100%/14 = 7.14%, so below the average of the princes.
Well, in my list I included all 7 others plus 1 prince. UW and UO would be 2 more princes, so rescale the value.
3 kings = 43% = 14.5%/king
6 princes = 39% = 6.5%/prince
7 others = 17% = 2.5%/other
Average = 100%/16 = 6.25%, so below the average of the princes.
So again, by being above 1 prince and at least at the median they must be close to the average.
Extreme (not realistic):
3 kings = 67% = 22.3%/king
6 princes = 33% = 5.5%/prince
7 others = 0% = 0%/other
Average = 100%/16 = 6.25%, so a little above the average of the princes. I posited they’d be above at least 1 of the other 4, so close to the median of the princes. That puts them close to the average even in this unrealistically extreme example.
Thus if people agree they’d be equal to or ahead of the 8 listed schools, they have to be near the average.
LikeLike
https://dnyuz.com/2023/08/02/how-espn-went-from-disneys-financial-engine-to-its-problem/
This who article is pretty good, but the interesting tidbit (to me at least) is this
Disney’s family of sports channels currently earn somewhere north of $12 per month in affiliate fees for each cable subscription, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Estimates vary widely, but if ESPN offered its cable channels à la carte, it would most likely have to charge an astonishingly high fee for the streaming service, perhaps $40 or $50 per month, just to maintain its current revenue.
Gives you an idea of both how much non-sports viewers have been subsidizing sports fans interests and why Disney has been so hesitant about launching a stand alone ESPN streaming service.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/report-stanford-cal-oregon-and-washington-under-consideration-for-membership-in-the-big-ten/
Here’s Wilner on the report of the B10 discussing expansion. As Mike said, the new schools would have to buy in.
The Big Ten presidents had shown no interest in adding more schools following the move last summer to gobble up USC and UCLA, partly because the conference didn’t want to be viewed as predatory and partly because of financial complications.
However, Colorado’s move from the Pac-12 to the Big 12 and the potential for Arizona, Arizona State and Utah to do the same has massively destabilized the century-old conference — to the point that the Big Ten could appear as a savior for four of the remaining schools.
Oregon and Washington would be the options if the Big Ten added two and became an 18-team league; the Bay Area tandem would create a quartet and push membership to 20.
The newcomers would not join the conference at full shares of the broadcast revenue, which total approximately $65 million per school per year.
Instead, they likely would join with about 50-percent shares, compared to their peers.
Even at $30 million in media revenue per year in the Big Ten, the schools might exceed the cash headed their way in the Pac-12 under Kliavkoff’s proposed plan.
Let’s look at the math. I’m going to assume an average of $70M per school per year ($1.1B per year) with a 4% escalator, so the new deal would start at $62.0M in 2023. I know this isn’t exactly how it works, but I went with a simple model.
2023: $62.0M – 14 teams
2024: $64.5M – 16 teams
2025: $67.1M
2026: $69.7M
2027: $72.5M
2028: $75.4M
2029: $78.4M
Now assume the new schools join in 2024 like USC and UCLA.
If a new school got 50% every year through 2029, they’d make $35.6M on average, or almost $214M. The networks would save almost $214M per school versus a full share ($855M total over the 6 years).
Are the improved top 3 games, a late night slot (a chance for ESPN to get back in), new BTN subscribers, and more streaming games worth $143M per year on average to the networks? Probably.
But they won’t stay at 50% most likely. So what if they smoothly ramp up to 100% in 2030? They’d go 50%, 58.3%, 66.7%, 75%, 83.3%, and 91.7%, ready to hit 100% in 2030. They’d average $51.2M per year. Is it worth $175M per year on average to the networks? Possibly. It may require more scheduling power for the networks (weeknights, streaming, 12-day flexes, input on schedule in terms of which games in which weeks, etc.).
LikeLike
It may require more scheduling power for the networks (weeknights, streaming, 12-day flexes, input on schedule in terms of which games in which weeks, etc.).
That’s probably the hold up at this point, figuring out where the money comes from. I don’t expect CBS/NBC to fund much (if any) of an expansion. The Big Ten will probably try and sell them on better September games (weeks 1-3 are pretty weak this year) but I don’t see the benefits of a pro-rata for them.
LikeLike
Mike: “The Big Ten will probably try and sell them on better September games (weeks 1-3 are pretty weak this year) . . .”
True, but when the new TV contract begins in 2024 the Big Ten has a much better inventory of OOC games.
https://fbschedules.com/2024-usc-football-schedule/
https://fbschedules.com/2024-ucla-football-schedule/
https://purduesports.com/sports/2018/5/17/sports-m-footbl-future-schedules-html
https://fbschedules.com/2024-nebraska-football-schedule/
https://fbschedules.com/2024-iowa-football-schedule/
https://fbschedules.com/2024-wisconsin-football-schedule/
LikeLike
Mike,
Often there’s a list of schools that will get pro rata automatically. I think we heard that ND was the only school that qualified in the new deal.
I think NBC might benefit more, since more P12 schools means more schools willing to play November “night” games (5pm PT). And Stanford helps them with ND games every other year.
If they are both paying $350M per year (roughly), it’d be an extra $87.5M per year from each of them for 4 more schools. That’s a tough ask, but they should pay at least a little more each. That leaves Fox to cover the rest, either directly (more FS1 content, esp. at late night) or through a new partner (ESPN late night? Apple? Amazon?).
This is why partial shares are key to the expansion, if it happens.
LikeLike
Wilner is thinking along the same lines we are. Partial shares and someone will have to get creative.
But thanks to the Big Ten’s game-selection process, there could be an added complication.
The fourth media partner would not necessarily have priority picks.
For example, ESPN wouldn’t be guaranteed weekly high-level matchups involving Washington and Oregon just because it paid for Washington and Oregon, according to an industry source with knowledge of the Big Ten’s selection process.
It likely would pick behind the primary rights-holders (Fox, NBC and CBS).
Instead of Washington vs. Penn State or Oregon vs. USC or even Stanford vs. Michigan, the network would get the likes of Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers, Maryland and Illinois in most weeks.
That’s a lot of money for third-rate games.
And there could be several weeks in which the fourth media partner actually has the fifth pick, behind Fox, NBC, CBS and the Big Ten Network, which is, of course, owned by Fox, the controlling entity in all of this.
So additional West Coast expansion seemingly depends on …
— The Big Ten presidents approving membership invitations.
— Fox agreeing to sell the broadcast rights to the additional inventory.
— A buyer covering the cost and accepting the limitations in the Big Ten’s selection model.
What’s more, the Big Ten schools probably would need to offer the new members a full revenue share of the next media rights contract. Adding schools now could impact cash for the current members in the 2030s.
And just in case that’s not enough complexity for you, there’s one more issue the Big Ten must consider: The potential breakup of the ACC, where a handful of schools, led by Florida State, are frustrated with the media revenue and attempting to break the conference’s grant-of-rights agreement.
LikeLike
Mike: “The Big Ten will probably try and sell them on better September games (weeks 1-3 are pretty weak this year) . . .”
Not sure my previous comment posted. May have gotten caught in spam filter for too many links. So here’s a repeat, when the new TV contract begins in 2024 the Big Ten has a much better inventory of OOC home games vs 2023.
USC vs LSU in Vegas
Notre Dame at Purdue
Colorado at Nebraska
Iowa State at Iowa
Bama at Wisconsin
Texas at Michigan
UNC at Minnesota
Duke at Northwestern
Also, ND at USC in November
LikeLike
It is better, but still short of the three marquee games a week.
LikeLike
Mike: “It is better, but still short of the three marquee games a week.”
True, but it you add those games to the Conference games increasingly being played in the first three weeks of September, the collective schedule is pretty close to three marquee games per week. Bear in mind that ND’s home games during those three weeks are Northern Illinois and Miami of Ohio.
Big Ten conference games during first three weeks in Sept this year:
Neb-Minn
OS-IN
NW-Rut
PS-IL
Wisc-Pur
MD-MSU
Iowa-PS
Minn-NW
Add to that another couple of conference games in early Sept once the LA schools join and yes I think we’re pretty close three marquee games a week for the first three weeks of Sept.
LikeLike
The toughest thing for the Big Ten to work out is the media numbers. It’s just not clear how UW, UO, Cal, and Stanford as a 4-some ever match the average 4 team payout in the Big Ten.
Which means in the long run, it is a dilutive addition financially. How much does that matter to the presidents? Does academics/regional expansion and all the other factors make that worth enough to give up actual money in the equation?
UW/UO probably come close to the average 2 team payout, so there it’s an “easier” decision.
It’s still just hard for me to assume that the Big Ten leaps into this when the Big 12 isn’t likely to expand beyond 16, though who knows what the Pac-12 looks like after this. What would UW/UO do if the Big Ten says no? Do they stay there or do they go to the Big 12 and push that league to 18.
Also, the Big Ten has to value the ACC territories (especially down the Southeast) as more valuable terrain from a recruiting/future proofing kind of standpoint.
If you’re already at 20 schools, that means you’re forced to 22 or 24 to make a move towards Florida or North Carolina.
All of this stuff is hard, but I think if they feel forced to expand it should just be with 2 to make the financial numbers easier.
But I agree with Brian that there is an issue of UCLA-Cal and that subsidy, especially if UW/UO leave that league and the Pac-12 payout completely collapses. Feels like UCLA could be forced into a bigger subsidy than originally expected.
There’s no good answers here, so it feels like they should take the time to really figure this whole thing out; USC/UCLA were an absolute slam dunk.
It’s not at all clear to me that UW/UO/Stanford/Cal are a slam dunk addition. At that point, you really do have a full 6 school wing on the West coast with all the additional travel that would entail.
LikeLike
z33k,
The toughest thing for the Big Ten to work out is the media numbers. It’s just not clear how UW, UO, Cal, and Stanford as a 4-some ever match the average 4 team payout in the Big Ten.
Agreed. Especially Cal. UW and UO are about at the average already as you noted. Stanford would bring NorCal and all those alumni, plus games against ND keep their ratings and brand up. Adding Cal would end the UCLA tax, plus it would keep UCLA/Cal as a conference game rather than a locked rivalry for UCLA (I get the feeling they will be forced to play in the future). Other than that, I only see academic benefits from Cal.
Which means in the long run, it is a dilutive addition financially. How much does that matter to the presidents? Does academics/regional expansion and all the other factors make that worth enough to give up actual money in the equation?
Who knows? If they are partial until the next deal starts, the current schools wouldn’t even know what they “lost” – the same argument for adding more schools when USC and UCLA were added.
It’s still just hard for me to assume that the Big Ten leaps into this when the Big 12 isn’t likely to expand beyond 16, though who knows what the Pac-12 looks like after this. What would UW/UO do if the Big Ten says no? Do they stay there or do they go to the Big 12 and push that league to 18.
I wouldn’t assume it either. We’ve heard these rumors before. It will all come down to what TV says, which basically means how much of a discount the schools would accept to join. At a low enough price, you almost have to say yes.
Also, the Big Ten has to value the ACC territories (especially down the Southeast) as more valuable terrain from a recruiting/future proofing kind of standpoint.
If you’re already at 20 schools, that means you’re forced to 22 or 24 to make a move towards Florida or North Carolina.
Yes, there’s clearly an opportunity cost. But if being national is the goal, just LA doesn’t bring the entire western US. And the ACC schools may prefer to stay in the southeast. A bird in the hand beats 2 in the bush.
All of this stuff is hard, but I think if they feel forced to expand it should just be with 2 to make the financial numbers easier.
There is no forcing, unless Fox and friends are doing the forcing. Maybe a tiny bit of guilty consciences for taking the LA schools and starting the dominoes falling.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think I still lean towards Stanford being best paired with ND, though who knows what 10 year survival in a Pac-12 rebuilt around OrSU, WSU, Stanford, Cal looks like…
As far as the Southeast schools go, I think we can be reasonably confident that Miami would be there for the Big Ten (as an eastern version of USC in some sense). Maybe Ga Tech although that feels like another Cal and a school in Atlanta is going to be completely surrounded by an SEC with its dominance of that area (only enhanced if they add FSU/Clemson).
SEC isn’t likely to take a 3rd Florida school even if it is Miami when there’s UNC (and maybe a forced pair with NC State?), UVA, Clemson as other possibilities.
But the pickings might be thin in the South if only Miami (and maybe UVA) are willing to go to the Big Ten among schools that the Big Ten covets, so would have to look West if the presidents want more schools that bring more territory.
I don’t see the FSU/Clemson smoke making any sense, they’re virtual locks for the SEC in my mind.
LikeLike
If indeed UW & UO & Stanford & Cal go to the Big Ten and the Four Corners go to the Big XII and FSU & Clemson go to the SEC, those six conference champions that get into the College Football Playoff will be really interesting. It’ll look something like this: Ohio State, Bama, TCU, NC State, Fresno State, Tulane.
LikeLike
z33k,
Yeah, I think I still lean towards Stanford being best paired with ND, though who knows what 10 year survival in a Pac-12 rebuilt around OrSU, WSU, Stanford, Cal looks like…
1. Everyone is best paired with ND, at least financially.
2. ND is not joining a conference for football. Someone will always pay them to stay independent, and some league will always make sure their other sports have a home.
As far as the Southeast schools go, I think we can be reasonably confident that Miami would be there for the Big Ten (as an eastern version of USC in some sense). Maybe Ga Tech although that feels like another Cal and a school in Atlanta is going to be completely surrounded by an SEC with its dominance of that area (only enhanced if they add FSU/Clemson).
I agree that Miami is the most likely of the southeastern schools to not join the SEC. The SEC would likely pass on GT, but the B10 might as well. I’d say they are more like Stanford (or NW) than Cal (they do have passionate fans, but not localized in Atlanta), but yes similar issues apply to them. But at least they are a direct flight from everywhere.
SEC isn’t likely to take a 3rd Florida school even if it is Miami when there’s UNC (and maybe a forced pair with NC State?), UVA, Clemson as other possibilities.
I agree, unless they do it purely to block the B10. Some people think they would prioritize owning their footprint over expanding it more.
But the pickings might be thin in the South if only Miami (and maybe UVA) are willing to go to the Big Ten among schools that the Big Ten covets, so would have to look West if the presidents want more schools that bring more territory.
What about USF in the future? It’d be a second FL school, it’s AAU, and is large. It’s no worse than RU was at football, and there are tons of B10 alumni down there.
I don’t see the FSU/Clemson smoke making any sense, they’re virtual locks for the SEC in my mind.
Agreed, unless they want the B10 as a differentiator for recruiting or something. Or just seek an easier path to winning.
LikeLike
There is no way that Stanford and Cal bring enough to the table for the Big Ten to invite them. Stanford is a small school with a small fan base and football at Cal is on the same interest level as water polo.
Whenever I see the justification being “There are a lot of Big Ten alumni in the Bay area (or the Phoenix area, or the Seattle area, or the Atlanta area)” that is code for lukewarm fan base for local teams in that region.
A related issue that’s been on the backburner, notice that the ND & NBC haven’t come to terms yet? We are seeing people ask “Why should ESPN pay more for FSU in the SEC than they are in the ACC?” Further, the Pac-12’s pathetic TV deal plus Disney’s widely-reported revenue problems makes it pretty obvious that the OTA networks are pretty much spent out for college football. So I’ll ask yet again: “Why should NBC pay more for the same weak ND home schedule than they’re paying right now?”
LikeLike
A related issue that’s been on the backburner, notice that the ND & NBC haven’t come to terms yet?
Their current AD is negotiating with their future one. I’m sure they’ll figure it out.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-survival-the-downside-risks-potential-benefits-and-missing-pieces-within-an-apple-deal/
Wilner has 10 reactions to the P12’s media deal proposal, many of them questions.
1. Any chance to link arms with the richest, most influential, most innovative, savviest, smartest company in the world is something the Pac-12 should seriously consider, especially when that company is rapidly expanding its portfolio of sports properties and positioned to dominate the sports media landscape in the near future. But in this case, the details mean everything.
…
3. At the same time, the Hotline viewed any media rights deal that didn’t include a package of games on ESPN as a suboptimal approach.
ESPN is vital because of the product visibility provided by linear television and the network’s messaging power within the college sports space.
If the Pac-12 isn’t contractually tied to ESPN, then its highly-influential studio shows have little motivation to discuss the conference and promote its teams and players.
4. Which brings us to a critical point in this assessment: The unknown elements of the deal Kliavkoff presented.
Is the proposed contract only with Apple? Or is there a separate linear TV component? Did Apple commit to sub-licensing games on ESPN or another network? What other deals are under consideration, if any?
5. Within the Apple piece alone, there are myriad unknowns.
How much revenue is guaranteed per year? How easily reached are any subscription-based incentives? How would Pac-12 content be viewed on Apple products and, of course, what’s the cost?
…
6. Another question: To what extent will Apple throw its immense marketing power behind the Pac-12?
…
7. How would the football schedule work, particularly the kickoff times?
…
8. How would an Apple deal impact recruiting?
…
9. The conference plans to expand — it needs a 10th team in time for the 2024 football season. Will the targets change with a media contract that connects revenue to streaming subscriptions?
…
10. Kliavkoff’s strategy also focused on limiting the duration of the contract. Specifically, he wanted a deal that expired before the new Big Ten (2030) and Big 12 (2031) contracts, thus giving the Pac-12 a chance to gorge at the media cash trough before its competition.
Within that approach is a vital calculation for the university presidents to consider: The next contract.
Yep, the schools are already (and smartly) thinking about what comes next. How would a contract cycle that begins in the summer of 2024 position the Pac-12 for a deal that starts in the summer of 2029?
…
Ultimately, there are too many unknowns — from the linear piece to the subscription incentives to the marketing plan — for the Hotline to render final judgment.
This much is clear: The future of the conference is at stake. Colorado just left for the Big 12, and Arizona could very well be next. That might force Arizona State to leave, sparking the swift extinction of the Pac-12 as we know it.
Is the Apple deal good enough to save it? The devil’s in the details.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38123037/big-ten-explores-possible-expansion-amid-pac-12-instability
ESPN also has a story on the possible expansion. Not much new in it.
In the wake of a Yahoo Sports report Wednesday that the Big Ten has begun “exploratory discussions” about potential additions, the Big Ten said in a statement: “It’s also commissioner’s job to keep conference chancellors and presidents informed about new developments as they occur.”
…
“Discussions are happening,” an industry source told ESPN. “It’s hard to assess when it would/will happen. At this point, it’s now logical for all parties. I think if something happens, it’ll be pretty quickly.”
ESPN reported on Monday that Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti had begun quiet diligence on Washington and Oregon. Sources indicated that effort has ramped up throughout the week, although there’s some patience to see how things unfold in the Pac-12.
Although there’s some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford’s addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn’t appear imminent at this point.
…
Washington’s and Oregon’s conference predicament would likely have them come in below that $60 million figure, then ramp up and aim for a full share when the current television deal expires. It’s uncertain whether a new media partner would be needed to add just two schools, given that there already are four partners in the deal — Fox, CBS, NBC and Big Ten Network — and the fact that the new schools likely wouldn’t be getting a full television share.
…
There are potential headwinds for the additions. USC had been a strong opponent of allowing other West Coast schools into the Big Ten under former athletic director Mike Bohn, as a key part of USC’s initial strategy entering the league was to keep other western schools out of the Los Angeles recruiting market.
Big Ten presidents also could see more academic synergy in looking east, as Virginia and North Carolina are both coveted by the SEC and Big Ten because they offer new markets, big cities and fertile recruiting grounds.
It appears that part of the fragile truce holding together the collegiate landscape might be deteriorating. A reason for the reluctance of Arizona to join the Big 12 matched what Big Ten sources said about that league’s hesitancy to approach Washington and Oregon — no one wanted to be the reason the Pac-12 fell apart.
As the Pac-12 schools ponder taking the television deal commissioner George Kliavkoff presented to them Tuesday morning, one source predicted that rationale might soon fade away.
“I don’t think anyone is poaching now,” an industry source said. “These schools are looking for a home.”
Sounds like it’s TV pushing UW/UO and the presidents wanting the SF pair – no big shock there.
LikeLike
It also became clear that Warren wanted to add UW/UO when USC/UCLA were added, and that’s where the pushback started and the realignment process sort of froze in place because there wasn’t consensus on UW/UO or the futher question of Stanford/Cal.
Warren’s discussions with TV partners on those 4 schools probably completed a lot of the due diligence so Petitti isn’t working from scratch; it’s really about whether there’s any consensus on whether anybody should be added with the Pac-12 on the edge of collapse and schools basically free to leave due to lack of a 2024+ signed deal.
LikeLike
Warren’s discussions with TV partners on those 4 schools probably completed a lot of the due diligence so Petitti isn’t working from scratch;
It was reported yesterday that the presidents on the Big Ten expansion committee are different than last time they met. That doesn’t really change anything, but was interesting to me at least.
LikeLike
z33k,
It also became clear that Warren wanted to add UW/UO when USC/UCLA were added, and that’s where the pushback started and the realignment process sort of froze in place because there wasn’t consensus on UW/UO or the futher question of Stanford/Cal.
The presidents have always preferred being cautious in expansion, taking at most 2 teams at once. I’m not surprised the academics wanted the SF pair, perhaps as a way to counterbalance UO’s academics.
Don’t forget that USC really didn’t want UO invited. TV seemed willing to pay for UW and UO, but didn’t necessarily want that expansion. TV said no to the SF pair. But that was all assuming full shares for everyone. If people now think they could expand for partial shares for a few years, that changes the math. It gives those P12 schools time to build their brand in the B10 with the increased exposure.
Warren’s discussions with TV partners on those 4 schools probably completed a lot of the due diligence so Petitti isn’t working from scratch; it’s really about whether there’s any consensus on whether anybody should be added with the Pac-12 on the edge of collapse and schools basically free to leave due to lack of a 2024+ signed deal.
Yep. I think the only new part is really considering partial shares or buy-ins that they could demand now.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-tv-picking-apart-college
Canzano mostly blames TV’s greed, and especially Fox’s, for the demise of CFB and the P12. I’d say his comment about the presidents reflects another major cause – they didn’t seem to understand the reality (either they didn’t listen, or GK told them lies).
I get it. Television is a business. Media companies have profits to turn and money to make. But in the end, I’m left wondering if TV cares about the wreckage the industry is causing in pursuit of it.
The Pac-12 is in trouble.
The conference has made some strategic errors, blown the messaging and overplayed its hand. But it still has a line of wonderful schools, excellent brands, good media markets and talented college football teams.
So why is TV reluctant to buy it?
…
In the last year, more than half of the remaining members of the Pac-12’s CEO Group told me that they believed the conference was positioned to get a solid media deal. They echoed each other and preached solidarity and unity. They were confident they’d get market value for their product and stick together. Now, we’re all left wondering if a subscription-based deal heavy on Apple TV+ will be enough.
One of the remaining “Four Corners” athletic directors confessed a few days ago that the negotiating landscape was difficult. He believed Arizona, ASU and Utah wanted to stick together, see commissioner George Kliavkoff’s presentation, and ideally remain in the Pac-12.
What were the threats?
Peers from other conferences trying to “take the league,” he said.
TV executives trying to “own it all,” he offered.
A “major influence” from one TV group, in particular, he noted.
What TV group exactly?
“Fox,” he said.
…
Television isn’t just responsible for late kickoffs, longer game times, and the loss of traditions and rivalries. Its greed has effectively squeezed the landscape into thinking there isn’t room for more than maybe 50 or 60 schools as long as the key media markets are captured and controlled.
Again, I get it. Shareholders need results. Television is a business. These are tough times in the media world, but live sports programming is one of the few revenue streams actually pulling its weight. Disney CEO Bob Iger said that sports is one of the places that still “stands tall.” Which should make us all wonder why the Pac-12 doesn’t already have a signed deal.
Did the conference and its consultants piss off Fox by asking for $50 million per school in the early part of the negotiation? Or when it asked Fox’s remote broadcast crews to show up on site to football games? Should the Pac-12 have just taken the network’s first offer and kept quiet because the alternative literally meant an existential reckoning? Are there some antitrust issues that lawmakers should unpack?
The Pac-12 probably could have likely cut an early deal with Fox/ESPN and left the Big 12 holding the bag. But I’d still feel the same way. There’s something about the role of television in all of this that feels icky.
I don’t know what’s going to happen to the Pac-12 in the next few days. It could be Apple is seeking a linear partner to help sweeten the deal. It could be the Pac-12 finds one by itself. Or doesn’t. As retired Fox Sports Networks President Bob Thompson told me on Wednesday morning: “The deals are never over until they’re signed.”
The Pac-12 is a great conference with loads of rich history. I keep thinking about all the great players and coaches who suited up over the years. Also, the fan bases that have been left in agony and limbo for the last 14 months.
They deserved better.
LikeLike
I find it a little funny that *now* Canzano has issue with all of this, and moreover that it seems like he’s laying it all at Fox’s feet.
As if Disney/ESPN are just innocent bystanders in all of this, and everyone should’ve just been happy when they controlled 80% of the CFB market. Or the Pac12 when balked at taking more Big12 schools, and assuming they were going to get a sweetheart deal just because they’re the Pac12. Or even the NCAA’s long term refusal to compensate players fairly while profiting handsomely in a faux amateur sport, which led to the eventual damn burst that is the current NIL predator market. To say nothing of the eventual player compensation initiatives that are coming which has all of these schools scared and scrambling, or even the greater market and cultural trends that produced the environment to begin with.
As a CFB fan, yeah, some of these things suck. I’m going to miss the Pac12, and I agree they deserved a better fate than the one likely coming. That said, I have no love for Fox, but it’s disingenuous to look at the current situation and say they’re the issue here. Anyone looking at the trajectory of the sport over the last two decades could see that contraction was coming and schools/conferences were going to get screwed.
Did Canzano have similar laments when the Big East died, or when it looked like the Big12 was the one about to dissolve not that long ago? Something tells me he was probably less bitter when it was his preferred conference in the dominant position.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
I find it a little funny that *now* Canzano has issue with all of this, and moreover that it seems like he’s laying it all at Fox’s feet.
As if Disney/ESPN are just innocent bystanders in all of this, and everyone should’ve just been happy when they controlled 80% of the CFB market. Or the Pac12 when balked at taking more Big12 schools, and assuming they were going to get a sweetheart deal just because they’re the Pac12. Or even the NCAA’s long term refusal to compensate players fairly while profiting handsomely in a faux amateur sport, which led to the eventual damn burst that is the current NIL predator market. To say nothing of the eventual player compensation initiatives that are coming which has all of these schools scared and scrambling, or even the greater market and cultural trends that produced the environment to begin with.
I don’t think he just started having a problem with it, but the problem became a lot bigger to him when the P12 started to fall apart because of it. The P12’s suffering may be due to Fox, but ESPN is more responsible for the problem overall so I agree with you there.
I think it was a good thing that the P12 didn’t tear up the B12, it’s just a shame nobody else has those scruples in CFB.
Players have been compensated with free clothing, tuition, room, board, tutoring, coaching, training, life skills and now “cost of attendance” on top of Pell grants if eligible. That’s worth over $1M easily. They also get free exposure to future employers on national TV, and now NIL opportunities. Nobody’s forcing them to choose to play CFB, but the most responsible parties are the NFL (no minor league) and NFLPA (3-year rule).
As a CFB fan, yeah, some of these things suck.
All of them do. Every single thing.
I’m going to miss the Pac12, and I agree they deserved a better fate than the one likely coming. That said, I have no love for Fox, but it’s disingenuous to look at the current situation and say they’re the issue here. Anyone looking at the trajectory of the sport over the last two decades could see that contraction was coming and schools/conferences were going to get screwed.
The P12 certainly needs to look in the mirror and at their marketing to alumni. If their fans cared more, they wouldn’t be having these problems to the same extent.
Did Canzano have similar laments when the Big East died, or when it looked like the Big12 was the one about to dissolve not that long ago?
I don’t know. He was already an Oregon columnist back when the BE died, so he probably wouldn’t have written much about it.
Something tells me he was probably less bitter when it was his preferred conference in the dominant position.
Sure, he’s human. This time it’s personal. He also always thought the P12 was more valuable than the B12, which presumable makes this hit harder.
LikeLike
“I think it was a good thing that the P12 didn’t tear up the B12, it’s just a shame nobody else has those scruples in CFB.”
> Nothing to do with P12 scruples. Most P12 members thought the B12 schools were beneath them. It was academics getting mixed in athletics. The B10 can get away with that being on top but the P12 is paying for that now. When the ACC had to replace Maryland the academics held their nose and invited Louisville which is way below most ACC academic standards. If the P12 had done the same, they would not be in danger of a takeover by the MWC.
The PAC will survive since it has a better brand even if the remainders are absorbed by the MWC. Like America West (first rebranded USAir, then American) and Chemical Bank (Chase Manhattan, then JPMorgan Chase) the brand will survive even if the conference does not. That could save SDSU $34M in exit fees.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/08/03/college-sports-ruined-failed-leaders-expansion-ncaa-pac-12/70519616007/
Dan Wolken also is bemoaning the current status and future of CFB. He’s blames general greed and the lack of leadership.
When whatever’s going to happen finally happens, the long descent of college athletics into one of America’s most contemptible institutions will be complete. The life’s work of clueless college presidents, soulless conference commissioners and greedy athletics administrators will be the ruin of tradition, the mockery of common sense and the thirst to keep score in dollars above all other metrics.
Look at the dysfunctional industry they’ve built around one of the best on-field products in the world. Look at their determination to ruin what so many people enjoyed for so long. Look at what a shambolic mess College Sports Inc. has shown itself to be this week, throwing itself into a panic spiral that is likely to end with something none of them really wanted in the first place.
…
Unless someone gets control of this thing, college sports are headed quickly toward 20-team super leagues, the extinction of a Pac-12 that has served its members well since the 1960s and a further solidification of the reality that this is kill-or-be-killed pro sports — while administrators argue in front of Congress that they deserve legal protections for their “amateur” model.
What a bunch of hypocrites. What a bunch of failed leaders and pathetic backstabbers.
If this is what 20 years of treating each other like financial competitors rather than business partners has wrought, what do you think the next 20 is going to look like? Do you really think it ends here?
Of course it doesn’t.
The fight to concentrate and divide the financial power of college sports into fewer hands has given conferences and schools the go-ahead to do literally anything they want to stay on the right side of a line that is always moving toward the top. We can argue about who did it first or who’s to blame, but the real answer is everybody.
…
There was no better representation of the fecklessness of college sports than the NCAA coming in Wednesday with an announcement of first-year president Charlie Baker’s “goals and strategies” designed to take on the “period of dramatic transformation” they all find themselves in.
The news release included lots of nice-looking flow charts and corporate jargon that was undoubtedly crafted by an expensive consulting firm. It’s the kind of thing a normal business of the NCAA’s size would do under a new leader: New job responsibilities, revenue-generation initiatives, setting goals and so forth.
It also underscored how frivolous the NCAA has become, because it completely ignored the reality of what was happening on its watch. If the national organization has no way to address an existential crisis of this magnitude going on with its most valuable members, why does it exist in the first place?
…
We have 40 years of data telling us exactly where this enterprise is heading, and nobody is going to like it except the handful of schools at the very top. That’s the existential crisis at hand: Not NIL, not making players employees, not the transfer portal or anything like that but rather the very idea that your university is disposable if it’s not one of the top 30 revenue-generators.
There are a lot of reasons it happened this way, but mostly because college sports changed from a small business to a bloated, self-indulgent industry where administrators could expect close to a seven-figure annual salary, getting wined and dined at five-star resorts and a level of fame that fed their voracious egos if they rose high enough in the industry.
LikeLike
Hey, just ignore the whining and squealing from the cadre of loser conferences. This is a great day for Big Tenners. OS, UM and PS may not benefit as much at the Indianas and Rutgers’ but it is a rising tide that lifts all boats. There will be two wealthy conferences and a lot of wannabes squealing to get in. That’s what we are seeing right now.
LikeLike
Yeah, there’s no innocent parties here.
You’re 100% right on all these thoughts.
LikeLike
Pete Thamel with a series of tweets. I’ll just paste all the text here, and embed the first one if you want to go to Twitter.
Sources: The Big Ten’s presidents met early Thursday morning and authorized Commissioner Tony Petitti to explore expansion and bring them back more information on Oregon and Washington as potential Big Ten members. No offers have been made,
…
And a deal is uncertain. There’s a political thicket with the potential additions because the moves don’t offer the current Big Ten schools any additional money. USC doesn’t have a vote, but they’ve been vocal in the past about not wanting other West Coast Big Ten teams.
…
Oregon and Washington would also have to come to terms with not getting a full share, which isn’t a slam dunk for them. There’s potential, but significant road blocks remain.
LikeLike
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/things-consider-big-ten-potentially-becoming-big-twenty
Matt Brown has some reporting on the nuts and bolts of B10 expansion.
The TV math is much more complicated than you might think
Big Ten leaders need to consider a few different financial variables when considering expansion. They need to figure out what new and existing TV partners will pay for the increased inventory, what conditions will be required around that inventory, and what expansion will do for travel and operating costs.
I’m told that additional West Coast expansion would likely require the Big Ten to bring in a 4th TV partner, as the three existing partners wouldn’t be able to completely absorb all of the new inventory, but the industry people I’ve spoken to, in and outside the Big Ten orbit, were very confident that finding the right partners and the right price would not be difficult. Reworking deals with existing TV partners would also be a significant lift, but not impossible, I’m told.
The bigger challenge, I’m told, is in executing a newer TV deal.
Adding multiple West Coast schools would open up potentially lucrative new TV windows for the Big Ten, both in the late-night football time slot, and late-night weekday college basketball.
But how valuable those windows become depends, in large part, on who plays in those games. As one media industry professional told me, “nobody wants to pay top dollar to broadcast Cal-Washington seven different times,” an assessment that feels particularly accurate given the soft market demand for a Pac-12 TV deal full of exactly that type of game. The real value of that new Big Ten TV time slot is that it would also involve many other Big Ten teams.
Multiple big-time Big Ten football programs, like Ohio State and Penn State, threw a fit over playing night games, at home, late in the season. Are those teams going to be okay with playing a football game every other season at 10:00 ET? Or basketball games at 9:30 every season? Can the Big Ten manage to convince ESPN or Apple to pay real money for a slate of Stanford/Maryland or Oregon/Purdue games?
Even with any newcomer earning only partial shares for the immediate future, Big Ten leaders will need to think long and hard about what kinds of athletic sacrifices their coaches and fans are willing to make in the name of maximizing broadcast revenue. There will be tradeoffs.
The travel is also complicated
Clever scheduling can help, but there’s no way around it. Travel to and from LA is going to be a significant logistical challenge, not just for UCLA and USC, but for everybody. Moving equipment that far, depending on non-charter flights out of Chicago O’Hare, multiple schools sharing one flight…it will be a lot. Travel from PST going east is particularly hard on the body clocks for athletes.
Adding Oregon and Washington alone will cut down on the number of cross-country flights required for USC and UCLA, but I am deeply skeptical it would cut down on travel for the rest of the conference. Four teams aren’t enough to “pod up” in most sports (and lest we forget, those are four teams that are still 1,000ish miles away from each other), and adding just two teams will require more CST and EST squads to make cross-country trips out of conference.
Adding four West Coast teams, I’m told, would be enough to create more geographically concentrated schedules in many sports. But the Big Ten will still have to balance saving money on travel with creating the most attractive matchups possible for television. After all, a “West Coast” Big Ten division means an awful lot of Cal-Washington and Stanford-ULCA and we already know those games don’t draw big ratings.
And finally, the political aspect is more complicated than you think
…
Does that mean it’s impossible for the Big Ten to make a membership decision that might involve Stanford or Ohio State? No. Does it slow down and add additional uncertainty to the process? Absolutely.
There are also two other explicitly political considerations.
For one, I’m told there is a legitimate concern about statehouse political blowback from lawmakers in Oregon and Washington if UO and UW leave for the Big Ten. …
There’s also a concern about regular ol’ governance. Not to be too partisan here, but friends, higher education is becoming more politicized in this country, and in some states, more explicitly partisan or activist individuals are getting appointed to boards or getting more involved in university governance. That can make day-to-day university operations more complicated. Just ask Texas A&M.
…
Is all of this to say that the Big Ten WON’T eventually add Oregon, Washington, or others? No.
…
I’m told that these conversations, right now, really are exploratory in nature, rather than trying to expedite the expansion process.
…
LikeLike
BTN is estimated to gross $440 million a year.
LikeLike
$440 million /yr for game inventory that was previously worth nothing. That is the genius of the BTN. The network took games like Iowa-Illinois and Purdue-Minnesota that previously had no TV value and now the conference is making almost hafl a billion dollars a year from it.
LikeLike
Quick math:
$441M now with 47.7M subscribers. That’s $12.3M per school (gross).
After adding the LA schools (5.7M TV households in LA alone), how many new subscribers does BTN get? It’s $9.24 per subscriber per year, so 1M new subscribers grosses $9.24M. Even if that’s all profit, the B10 only gets 39% of it so $3.6M per year for 1M new subscribers. Spread over 16 schools, that isn’t much. But ad revenue will also go up.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38129312/sources-big-ten-commissioner-explore-adding-oregon-washington
Pete Thamel says it’s down to just UW and UO, or nobody. I guess that means that TV won that little argument.
Big Ten presidents and chancellors met early Thursday morning and authorized commissioner Tony Petitti to explore adding Oregon and Washington in expansion as potential conference members, sources told ESPN.
Petitti was tasked with narrowing his focus to those schools, which are amid the uncertainty of the future of the Pac-12, and bringing the presidents back more information on the potential additions. No offers have been made nor was a vote taken, sources told ESPN, as there would remain significant political roadblocks to them being added.
The Big Ten explored adding Oregon and Washington in the months following the addition of USC and UCLA, sources told ESPN, but that quest ended in part because of the complications of funding the schools at a full share. This time around, sources told ESPN, the schools would be given only a partial share.
The excess inventory potentially could be covered by one of the league’s four current television partnerships — FOX, CBS, NBC or the Big Ten Network.
Sources cautioned on Thursday that complications remain that would need to be resolved for the schools to receive a Big Ten invitation. First off, Big Ten leaders have been hesitant to wipe the Pac-12 completely off the map. The Big Ten’s addition of USC and UCLA began the Pac-12’s current spiral, which also has been fueled by Colorado’s decision last week to go to the Big 12.
But this would be a fatal blow.
The notion of calling checkmate is concerning to Big Ten leaders, sources told ESPN. Part of Petitti’s job is to monitor and observe as the future of the Pac-12 plays out. If schools like Arizona, Arizona State and Utah leave for the Big 12, the move would be easier for Big Ten decision-makers.
There’s other headwinds that remain.
USC may not be thrilled with the additions, as part of the appeal of the Trojans and Bruins coming to the Big Ten was the allure of both schools being the only Pac-12 members on the West Coast. In theory, that would protect the Los Angeles recruiting market and strengthen the recruiting pitch to West Coast prospects. This was not a negotiated part of the deal, sources told ESPN, but it was something valued. While the Los Angeles schools don’t have a vote yet because they aren’t officially members until the 2024-25 school year, there’s still some political ground to cover there.
Also, and more immediate, the allure of the move to the current Big Ten schools may not be significant. There’d be an uptick in travel costs to play those schools, but there’s no immediate guarantees that the Big Ten schools would make any more money — certainly not significantly more — from the additions.
LikeLike
If anyone is interested The Ocho returns starting tonight at 7 ET and runs for 43 hours.
https://www.espn.com/action/story/_/id/38121363/ocho-2023-edition
So enjoy the 2023 FootGolf World Cup and Masskrugstemmen Stein Holding Competition.
LikeLike
The reality is that consolidation was inevitable.
I don’t think blame makes sense because we live in a world where globalization and technology has changed the economic landscape. In the modern economy, giant trillion dollar market capitalization technology players can dip into any industry and disrupt by simply offering a service in that area or changing the rules of the game. Entertainment especially has faced that because of how close it is to technology in terms of distribution.
Look at music where Spotify, Apple Music, Youtube Music (Google), and Amazon Music are the dominant distribution players now.
Look at media where Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Apple TV+ are becoming continually more important and putting enormous pressure on the linear players.
Look at video games where Sony and Microsoft are 2 of the 3 dominant powers, and Microsoft has introduced the concept of subscription gaming and gone on a publisher acquiring binge.
Coming back to media, FOX/ESPN-ABC (and NBC/CBS) are still powerful, especially in sports, but the reality is that they face the same pressure that every linear player faces as we move towards a more streaming/subscription oriented future.
I’ve been saying for years, but the Pac-12 just didn’t make sense in the modern world. A Power 5 conference with no relevance in the Eastern 2/3 of the US just doesn’t work right now. SMU isn’t enough to get that relevance, the only way they’d survive now is if the Pac-16 with Texas/OU had worked out…
All of the Pac-12 schools (except 3-4) are more valuable to other conferences and better fit the models for the media players as parts of other conferences. T
College athletics with a Power 2 and then Big 12 as leader of the rest makes more sense financially in the long run and should be able to better rationalize the earnings structure of the sport.
They should better be able to negotiate with players like Apple or Amazon in the future as opposed to a Pac-12 that was negotiating from a position of extreme weakness.
We’re going to end up with a Power 2, Middle 1, Group of 7 kind of structure at the end of this.
Maybe someday the biggest programs consider the final step (a mini-NFL of just 24 of the biggest programs), but I think a Power 2/Middle 1 can be a long-term balanced structure.
Somebody does still have to lose; this isn’t the actual NFL. Boosters want 9-11 wins a year.
LikeLike
z33k,
The reality is that consolidation was inevitable.
I don’t really believe in “inevitable” in business. Disruptions happen all the time that pre-empt the “inevitable” outcome.
The 4-team CFP applied pressure to get to a P5, but the 12-team CFP relieves that.
I don’t think blame makes sense because we live in a world where globalization and technology has changed the economic landscape.
Sure, there are many changes with nobody at fault. But ESPN and Fox have facilitated some moves in ways they didn’t have to, so blame could be assessed there.
Coming back to media, FOX/ESPN-ABC (and NBC/CBS) are still powerful, especially in sports, but the reality is that they face the same pressure that every linear player faces as we move towards a more streaming/subscription oriented future.
Sure, but that doesn’t justify every action of the networks.
I’ve been saying for years, but the Pac-12 just didn’t make sense in the modern world. A Power 5 conference with no relevance in the Eastern 2/3 of the US just doesn’t work right now.
It only seems irrelevant because their quality of play fell off just as the SEC peaked and then the CFP happened. The P10 used to be nationally relevant when CFB was regional. But after USC fell off, UO couldn’t carry the P12 alone. UCLA, UW and others didn’t do their fair share of winning, and this is the result.
College athletics with a Power 2 and then Big 12 as leader of the rest makes more sense financially in the long run and should be able to better rationalize the earnings structure of the sport.
Why the B12 over the ACC? Why not a P12/B12/ACC mix (as 1 or 2 conferences)?
They should better be able to negotiate with players like Apple or Amazon in the future as opposed to a Pac-12 that was negotiating from a position of extreme weakness.
Timing is everything. Negotiating with streamers in 5 years will be very different from doing it now.
We’re going to end up with a Power 2, Middle 1, Group of 7 kind of structure at the end of this.
Or NFL Lite + other. Or any of the other options.
Maybe someday the biggest programs consider the final step (a mini-NFL of just 24 of the biggest programs), but I think a Power 2/Middle 1 can be a long-term balanced structure.
I don’t see a 3-legged stool as balanced when 1 leg is significantly shorter.
Somebody does still have to lose; this isn’t the actual NFL. Boosters want 9-11 wins a year.
That goes against your opening statement that consolidation is inevitable. That should drive the B10 and SEC to drop their least valuable schools as part of the consolidation to NFL lite.
LikeLike
There continues to be no valid reason for either the Big Ten nor the SEC to expand. I understand there are many teams who want in. But neither conference has any justification to accept them. Obvious exception is ND but of course they will continue to cling to their Holy Independence.
LikeLike
The thing is that there are points in CFB history where we’ve seen long periods of stability at much less consolidated situations.
I just think that the Power 2/Middle 1 matches the current moment of where technology/distribution is.
Maybe that changes in the future and we see a mini-NFL, but who knows when that would be. There’s also cultural differences between the SEC powers and Big Ten powers and a question of whether they’d all even want to be together or work together.
They might just decide to use the playoff/postseason as their meeting point in an AFL/NFL kind of situation.
I also don’t think winning was the Pac-12 issue. Once FOX/ESPN settled on the Big 12 instead of the Pac-12, the writing was on the wall. They’d have to go to a streaming solutions, but that has the biggest problem:
No amount of winning would change that 2/3 of the US wouldn’t be buying many subscriptions to watch it.
There’s no Messi to save them (like MLS just got an easy way to sell subscriptions with his global popularity). Maybe they were hoping Coach Prime/CU was that, but they’re gone.
LikeLike
z33k,
The thing is that there are points in CFB history where we’ve seen long periods of stability at much less consolidated situations.
Not really. https://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/11/30/football-conferences/index.html
Just considering power conferences, there were changes in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2005, 2004, 1996, 1993, 1992, 1984, 1978, 1976, 1971 and 1965 (just looking since 1965). More changes will happen in 2023 and 2024. We’ve never seen a decade of stability.
I just think that the Power 2/Middle 1 matches the current moment of where technology/distribution is.
I don’t see why the ACC will go away when they have a GOR through 2036.
I also don’t think winning was the Pac-12 issue. Once FOX/ESPN settled on the Big 12 instead of the Pac-12, the writing was on the wall. They’d have to go to a streaming solutions, but that has the biggest problem:
No amount of winning would change that 2/3 of the US wouldn’t be buying many subscriptions to watch it.
Chicken and egg. Fox and ESPN favor the B12 because more people watch them and they win more. More people watch them because they win more. At USC’s peak under Carroll, ESPN would’ve re-signed the P12. But with a decade of losing and becoming a national afterthought for much of the season, they have a lot less value now.
LikeLike
https://sicem365.com/s/15486/realignment-thoughts-as-colorado-goes-big-12-prime-instead-of-pac-12-after-dark
A detailed look at current realignment issues. On the B10 adding UW and UO:
Washington and Oregon are the best television draws left in the Pac 12 and academically they’d be solid fits. However, there are a few issues with Big Ten expansion currently.
Firstly, how do you pay for it? My understanding is that the Big Ten isn’t working with a pro-rata clause and would effectively need to sell the roughly 13 additional games of inventory to a new partner. So who could that be and what issues arise on how to pay for it even if the newcomers were able to take half shares?
One Easy Source Of Revenue Is The Big Ten Network: According to one report USC & UCLA joining helped the Big Ten go from 10 cents per subscriber in the Los Angeles DMA to 1.50 per subscriber. If that’s a flat rate negotiated nationally that’s going to be huge to get possibly 78.5mm more dollars per year out of the 4.675M households in the 7 DMA’s that make up those two states. Even if they have to negotiate a much lower rate this part is promising as a 50 cent increase would project to 28mm.
Exclusivity In Their Contract May Be A Problem: From the reporting of the deal it appears that among over the air linear providers like CBS, NBC, FOX, ABC, etc there is an exclusivity for FOX to be the only carrier for Big Ten games at noon eastern, CBS at 3:30, and NBC in prime time. This leaves only the late night slot for Saturdays where ESPN gets 1.6mm typically and FS1 gets less than 500k. If we use the 3.76 per likely viewer I estimated off the SEC deal in a prior article I only get between 24 and 78 million dollars for thirteen games. Even at reduced shares it’s tough to see that making more money for existing members once other revenue streams are divided two more ways.
The FOX owned Big Ten Network and Fox Sports 1 appear to be exceptions here (as the BTN is majority owned by FOX who owns all the Big Ten rights) but does that exception extend to a Turner, CW, Amazon, Apple, or others? That could limit who can help pay the freight here with Saturday games.
Will Media Partners, Presidents, & AD’s Play On Friday or Thursday? This would be one way around contractual exclusivity but is their appetite to do so when they are already paid so much? Would the existing schools go for it? Would the potential TV partners have openings there where they wouldn’t be eating sunk costs on other programming? If these windows are refused on either side that’s one avenue for big dollars that is shut. Remember that these are prime time or late games typically and this conference has recently been butting heads with NBC over late season prime time games.
Will Linear Media Partners Pay Enough For 13 Games AFTER FOX, NBC, and CBS pick nearly 44-50 Games First? Nobody doubts that the Big Ten has a deep roster of great games. However once you get past the top 50 performing home games for this 18 team group in 2022 you end up with games that drew between 1.1-1.6M viewers making up the next seven games the data I compiled from Sports Media Watch. Linear partners may have an issue with viewership potential that far down the selection order.
Is There Any Appetite For A Streaming Service For Those Games? A streaming partner wouldn’t have the concerns with having a tier two game package as much because they’ll possibly hit subscription targets even if it’s some more modest games involving most of Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, and others. Those schools have large fanbases who are passionate. However, the Big Ten turned down Amazon in favor of both CBS and NBC who allegedly outbid them significantly. A partner like Amazon would certainly be able to make the money work even if they were at just 40% of what they would have paid for the 15-16 game NBC or CBS inventory. This can work but will the decision makers be on board? They turned down tens of millions NOT to do a streaming deal recently so would they reverse course here with a less prominent package of games?
The next issue is travel. How much will the revenue compare to added travel concerns for eastern teams? Decision makers at Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois would end up traveling west for games much more often. Is there enough upside to make them bother? Seattle & Eugene aren’t exactly easy bus trips from LA so they really don’t help the situation either.
Finally, does it fit with their long term strategy? It could be a “we like you but we like our friends in the East more” situation where they will wait for other targets to shake loose rather than expand now.
LikeLike
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2023-08-02/commentary-usc-oregon-big-ten
Just to reiterate, USC does NOT want UO invited to the B10. They can’t prevent it, but they are not fans of UO.
During the last year, USC and UCLA expected they would be the only Pac-12 schools invited to join the Big Ten — that they were the lone West Coast powers selected to elevate the brand of the country’s oldest major college sports conference.
USC and UCLA administrators were led to believe by their peers in the Big Ten that they were special.
And that’s just how USC, in particular, needed this to feel. The Trojans were adamant with the Big Ten that they did not want to be followed to this exciting opportunity by their Pac-12 brethren. They singled out a specific school they found to be most distasteful.
If the Big Ten thought it had to add Stanford or Cal or Washington, USC could probably live with it. But not Oregon. No, no, no. Anybody but the Ducks. That preference, shared by UCLA, was certainly understood, and the L.A. schools hoped it would be honored, a source with knowledge not authorized to speak publicly told The Times.
…
Oregon has been a pain in USC’s backside for the better part of two decades now and remains so. The Ducks started off plucky under Rich Brooks and Mike Bellotti, but once Phil Knight threw all of his financial weight behind his alma mater’s football team, they soared higher under Chip Kelly than anyone ever thought possible.
When USC fell apart after Pete Carroll left and the NCAA sanctions hit, Oregon stepped in and became the best program in the Pac-12 during the 2010s. It remains the last West Coast team to play for the national title, losing to Ohio State to conclude the 2014 season.
The Ducks under Mario Cristobal came to Southern California to plunder on the recruiting trail during the final years of Clay Helton at USC and succeeded again and again. Under second-year coach Dan Lanning, they remain the most consistent threat to raid the Southland, thanks to an aggressive donor collective that has Knight’s backing, the glossiest football facilities around and, as always, all those slick uniform combos.
USC was enthralled by the Big Ten opportunity for many reasons that we’ve covered here — the money and the exposure, mostly. But Oregon being stuck behind in the Pac-12 would be an undeniable advantage to the Trojans as they try to ascend back to prominence under Lincoln Riley.
LikeLike
Some months ago, I posited that ACC teams could attempt to break the GOR and take down the conference by claiming fraud in the inducement by Commissioner Swofford and others in the manner in which they convinced teams to go along with the ESPN deal. A major part of that was the involvement of Swofford’s son, At the time, I did concede that perhaps the member teams knew all about that. I also stated that my “novel” approach might not be reasonable, since there was no indication that any of the schools were making that argument.
I have now read that the “ace in the hole” for FSU is almost exactly what I suggested. FSU was the last ACC team to get on board and it now seems that they may argue that Swofford ( and maybe ESPN? ) intentionally defrauded FSU by making financial projections that he knew were untrue. At least arguably, a motivation for this was his son’s financial interest.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I’ve heard this theory, but it doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you can clarify it for me, or point me to a more detailed link.
1. They all knew (or should have known) about Swofford’s conflict of interest. It was regularly mentioned in the press. Perhaps Swofford didn’t disclose it and should have by ACC policy, but that wouldn’t void the GOR I don’t think. It would just be a reason to fire him and maybe sue for damages.
2. My understanding is that they were shown projections for ACCN subscribers (high, middle and low, probably) and the associated revenue. The fact that they didn’t hit the top numbers doesn’t make it fraud, unless it was known a priori that it was impossible to hit those numbers. ESPN and Swofford aren’t responsible for cable cutting or lack of customer interest or the collapse of every team but Clemson and FSU.
So what am I missing? Where is the fraud?
LikeLike
I obviously do not have direct access to the information, but I am only repeating what FSU sources have said, Sitting here we have no idea what projections were presented to FSU.
I was not in any way following the ACC, ESPN, and the GOR. That said, I do not know what they knew about the Swofford conflict. Perhaps it was obvious to anyone there. If it was public knowledge, then this would not be part of a fraud case, but, as you said, may still be an element of damages.
LikeLike
No problem, I just figured I’d ask. Perhaps you had read a more detailed source than I had, or maybe your legal understanding clarifies something a layman like me just isn’t seeing.
Time will tell. As I linked recently, David Hale tweeted that there is no fraud case because the ACCN has exceeded projections. So maybe the fraud would be in some other part of the deal.
LikeLike
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/hayes-fsu-wants-out-of-the-acc-the-question-is-who-wants-fsu/
Matt Hayes thinks FSU might have nowhere to go if they do escape the ACC. I think he’s wrong about that.
That’s Problem No. 1 for FSU. Problem No. 2 is just as difficult: What conference is adding FSU?
The SEC and Big Ten aren’t inviting any school from any conference unless they’re free and clear from their previous conference. And FSU isn’t exactly a fit for either conference.
If the SEC expands, it will only be for value. Multiple SEC sources told Saturday Down South that there are 2 schools remaining that add value: Notre Dame and North Carolina.
If the Big Ten expands into the state of Florida, multiple industry sources told Saturday Down South the target is Miami. The Canes would deliver a large television market and are a member of the American Association of Universities — of which all but 1 (Nebraska) of the 16-team Big Ten is a member.
…
There’s a possibility that FSU figures a way to break the Grant of Rights (it hasn’t been done yet) and pulls the 6 other schools who were reportedly interested earlier this spring in leaving the ACC — Miami, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech — into a new conference. A national conference that could include SMU (Dallas television market), Washington, Oregon and Utah.
But there are problems with that move, too. Washington and Oregon want a Big Ten invite and will wait.
But it doesn’t end there. ESPN paid millions up front to build the ACC Network as part of the media rights deal through 2036, and now those 7 schools are breaking their agreement.
Why would ESPN then reach another media rights deal with that new conference, whose members broke up the ACC and cost ESPN tens of millions? Would that new conference then be in the same situation as the embattled Pac-12 — scrambling for a streaming, non-linear TV deal that may or may not pay what the remaining schools need?
Another problem to consider: Once the Grant of Rights is broken, that doesn’t automatically mean North Carolina and Virginia will move to any newly assembled conference. Both are coveted by the SEC and Big Ten because both would be new territory and add value.
LikeLike
Some BoR meetings “news”:
UA is probably leaving, and UW thinks they need $10M for travel
LikeLike
This is the first time I’ve heard a timeline for ESPN going purely DTC – once ESPN drops to 50M subscribers, or 2-3 years at the current pace of cord cutting.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38130567/sources-arizona-deal-big-12-expected-finalized-soon
Pete Thamel says UA to the B12 is close to a done deal. This could be the domino that leads to the B10 expanding, as it makes ASU and UU more likely to go as well.
The B10 is partially waiting for the B12 to kill off the P12.
Arizona is in deep discussions about joining the Big 12, sources told ESPN, with a deal expected to be finalized in the near future.
The school is amid the final steps, sources said, including detailing the move in an Arizona board of regents meeting Thursday night. Big 12 presidents and CEOs met Thursday to vote on approving the move, sources confirmed to ESPN, another sign of the likelihood of it happening.
Barring an unexpected turn in the board of regents meeting, Arizona’s decision is expected be formalized soon, sources said.
…
The spotlight will quickly shift to Pac-12 members Arizona State and Utah, which could take a few days to determine their future. The Big 12 has also courted them, the final two of the so-called “Corner Schools.” But they always have been on a separate timeline from Colorado and Arizona, which both had meetings with the Big 12 in recent months before jumping aboard.
Arizona State and Utah have been more conservative in their approach, but sources said the tenor on that has changed recently with the flurry of events.
Arizona State president Michael Crow has been a staunch supporter of the Pac-12 and had been a longtime advocate of former commissioner Larry Scott, even after the league’s trajectory went wayward. But the urgency of the league likely being reduced to eight schools has begun to push Crow past his deep loyalty.
Utah has been conservative in its realignment discussions, but the two-time defending Pac-12 football champion appears to also be more open toward Big 12 discussions. More discussions would be necessary for either Arizona State or Utah to move.
LikeLike
It sounds like John Michael Crow really prefers the P12. The P12 is having another meeting today, hoping to salvage the conference. If ASU and UA both go, UU pretty much has to go as well (if they can).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38129880/unc-ad-bubba-cunningham-critical-comments-florida-state-president
UNC’s AD wishes FSU would shut up and just stay or go.
“I don’t think it’s good for our league for them to be out there barking like that,” Cunningham said on “The Adam Gold Show.” “I’d rather see them be a good member of the league, support the league and if they have to make a decision, then so be it. Pay for the exit fee, wait for your grant of rights that you’ve given and then in 2036, when those rights return to you, do whatever you want.”
I agree with him that this doesn’t help the ACC. I don’t know if it helps FSU either.
LikeLike
https://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/2023/08/if-offered-oregon-ducks-will-accept-big-ten-invite-source-says.html
NEWSFLASH! If offered a spot in the B10, UO will accept.
Actually, it is somewhat newsworthy since it would be for a partial share and with a lot of travel.
With the future of the Pac-12 in peril, the University of Oregon is prepared to accept an invitation from the Big Ten, should the conference ultimately choose to expand, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.
Multiple sources with knowledge of UO’s thinking, who spoke to The Oregonian/OregonLive on the condition of anonymity because they’re not authorized to speak publicly, conveyed a quiet confidence that the process of conference realignment will play out with the Ducks ultimately being invited to the Big Ten and accepting the opportunity.
Though agreeing to join the Big Ten might seem obvious given the potential competitive and financial benefits — the conference’s potential offer to Oregon and Washington is expected to be $35 million to $40 million each annually — longer travel to face foes in the Midwest and East Coast could create some hesitancy, according to Yahoo Sports.
But UO would not hesitate in accepting the invite, according to sources, who said the school understands it would receive less than a full share of Big Ten Conference revenue, at least initially, should it be invited to join the league.
The framework of a Big Ten invitation for the Ducks and Huskies would start with an annual payout in the low-to-mid $30 millions, The Associated Press reported. The schools also could receive an advance on future payments to boost the total to more than $40 million in the first several years of their Big Ten membership. The advances would be subtracted out of future payouts, the AP’s sources said.
…
Nike founder and UO booster Phil Knight has been heavily involved in Oregon’s process involving its conference affiliation over the past year, sources said.
LikeLike
A couple of thoughts:
– Does anyone else find it odd that Florida St is the only ACC school publicly complaining? Nothing out of Clemson or the rest of the “seven”, except the UNC AD saying “I’d rather see them be a good member of the league, support the league and if they have to make a decision, then so be it, pay for the exit fee, wait for your grant of rights that you’ve given and then in 2036 when those rights return to you, do whatever you want. I’m not sure how you can just say, ‘Just kidding. I didn’t like the deal that was struck and now I want to get out of it.’ … Any contract, it obligates you to what you agreed to on the front end. So I’m scratching my head, wondering what are you talking about.” (quote via @murphsturph)
– Most realignment moves (especially by first movers) is usually a time to celebrate. It appears that the four corner schools are being dragged out of the PAC against their will. Ten million dollars a year (+ “exposure” concerns) is a lot of money, but is really worth doing something you don’t want to do, especially if the Big Ten holds off on taking UW/UO if they stay?
LikeLike
It appears that the Pac-12’s TV deal with Apple is looking even worse:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-shines-during-apples-off-season-7f27fc58?st=jmzuw13fbulncki&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Mike,
It seems like everyone else is perfectly happy to let FSU get all the bad press, then ride their coattails out of the ACC. Maybe it’s just that they’re less confident in FSU’s legal approach, and don’t want to risk losing anything if they can’t get out.
I think that’s what is so disappointing with the P12 collapsing. Nobody really wanted it to happen (except CU’s fans), but the financial situation is driving them to it. Almost all the previous situations were schools moving up of their own volition.
But many of these moves have been made for money, or fear of lacking money in the future. That drove the independents into conferences in the 90s, the SWC -> B12, UMD into the B10, UT/OU/USC/UCLA.
If you reset to the 1980s alignment when the Supreme Court freed up TV rights and took money out of the equation, how would conferences look today?
LikeLike
Interesting pair of tweets from Ross Dellenger:
1. The B12 approved UA if they apply
2. P12 has held “positive” meetings examining details of the Apple deal. GoR expected to be presented Friday.
LikeLike
And this from McMurphy:
LikeLike
Life comes at you fast apparently?
(Hopefully this link works)
LikeLike
This is interesting.
LikeLike
It seems that the exit fee and the GOR are two different things. In other words, if FSU raises $120 million to pay the exit fee from the ACC, they would nonetheless still be bound by the GOR until 2036. They could exit the conference but the rights to their athletic programming would still be owned by the ACC and ESPN.
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/business/finance/2023/florida-state-athletics-jpmorgan-private-equity-funding-acc-1234733152/
So say hello to the Saudi PIFinoles.
The school is considering a structure similar to many of those pro sports investments, where commercial rights are rolled into a new company, the private equity fund invests in that entity, and then recoups its money via future media/sponsorship revenue. That’s how Silver Lake structured its investment into the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team, and how CVC organized its $2.2 billion Spanish soccer deal with LaLiga.
…
It’s unclear exactly which FSU entity is most involved in the process. Florida law allows its public universities to organize their athletic departments as separate nonprofits, and there is a complex web of entities that includes the school itself, its booster organization and these nonprofit athletic setups. Many public schools also have strict rules around transparent, competitive bidding for university contracts, and certain deal structures would need to be avoided so as not to jeopardize a university’s tax-exempt status.
…
Florida’s public universities can organize their athletic departments into separate nonprofit “direct-service organizations,” or DSOs, which gives schools greater flexibility than other states in how they can raise and spend athletics money, often with fewer public disclosure requirements. FSU’s board of trustees voted in 2019 to bring its athletic department under the umbrella of its DSO, the Florida State University Athletics Association (FSUAA), which also is formally tied to another organization, Seminole Boosters Inc.
Since then, however, only a relative fraction of the athletic department’s money and assets have flowed through FSUAA. For example, while the athletic department brought in $161 million of revenue from 2021 to 2022, the nonprofit reported taking in less than $3 million during that time, primarily in contributions from the school’s foundation and Seminole Boosters.
Transparency advocates have criticized the secrecy with which DSOs in Florida can operate, but have so far been unable to expose them to much sunlight. In 2016, a proposed piece of legislation that would remove their public records exemption died in committee.
LikeLike
An FSU legal theory
LikeLike
Florida may be able to keep FSU from being sued but that will not stop ESPN from bringing suits against any other broadcaster airing games it owns under contract with the ACC until the GOR expires. The problem FSU will face is finding a broadcast partner or conference who wants to take on that legal trouble if FSU has not settled the GOR with the ACC. I am fairly certain that ESPN will tell the SEC that FSU is worth $0 until after 2036 since it already owns those rights. That leaves the B10 and Fox as the likely partners to improve their current situation. Could FSU strike a deal with the Saudis?
LikeLike
I thought their by-laws specified that NC law applies for any dispute with the conference, or the state law in NC for charities registered there said that it did.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/4748878/2023/08/04/washington-oregon-big-ten-slowed/
Nicole Auerbach says that the move to add UW and UPO lost momentum overnight.
Oregon and Washington’s exit from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten appears to have lost momentum overnight, sources briefed on the discussions tell The Athletic. This is a turning of the tides after Big Ten presidents authorized commissioner Tony Petitti to pursue expansion on Thursday.
Additionally, the Pac-12 has a meeting scheduled for Friday at 10 a.m. ET, and there is renewed optimism around it.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty wild twist. I wonder what happened exactly.
LikeLike
Money, and the resistant schools (WI, USC, UCLA, others?) pushing back.
LikeLike
Twitter and Google News are blowing up now saying UW & OU to BIG-10 is a done deal. Here’s Yahoo Sports link:
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-big-ten-adding-oregon-and-washington-leaving-pac-12-with-uncertain-future-163742534.html
LikeLike
Yes, this turned around quickly.
LikeLike
Speaking of media rights deals, Notre Dame doesn’t yet have a new contract with NBC. Says here they want their TV revenue to triple and it appears that would come out of the hide of NBC.
My hunch is that the Irish will not join the Big Ten or SEC to cash in. They’ll remain independent, but they won’t be getting anything close to triple their current revenue when considering their eye-glazing schedule.
https://frontofficesports.com/notre-dame-wants-to-triple-its-football-media-rights-fees/
LikeLike
Looks like the B10 presidents now need to discuss… something:
LikeLike
Looks like the end of the Pac-12?
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/oregon-washington-join-big-ten-leave-pac-12
LikeLike
Oregon and Washington to the Big Ten. Confirmed everywhere.
Makes sense to me to do this now when there’s no GoR/no exit fees, and they can come in on a staggered payment schedule. They do bring near equal value to average Big Ten school.
Stanford can still join eventually if ND ever decides to join the Big Ten.
Next major moves: FSU and Clemson to the SEC at some point by 2036.
Miami + 1 to the Big Ten at some point by 2036.
UNC is the big X-factor (and UVA as well). Hard to tell what happens to those 2.
LikeLike
Arizona, Arizona State and Utah can’t GTFO now quick enough. The carcass of the PAC-Whatever HAS to be worth something. The question is can the final 4 teams backfill with enough teams in a year? What is the MW policy around dissolving the league? Need a unanimous vote, or just a super majority? If the latter I figure the top 8 MW teams flush the league (and not have to pay fees to leave) and join what’s left of the PAC. This assumes that WSU, OSU, Cal + Stanford + the 8 most valuable MW teams can earn, on a per-team basis, more than what the average MW payout currently is.
LikeLike
I think they may have to vote for some kind of merger. Situation is almost unprecedented because other leagues have substantial exit fees and the Pac-12 doesn’t have a media deal.
So there’s no “easy” way to transition MWC teams to the Pac-12 other than some kind of merger or something.
LikeLike
Curious to see what happens with the Rose Bowl now. If the Pac12 absorbs the MWC to become the Pac Mountain Conference, does that leave everyone still contractually bound to the old Pac12 agreements?
I’m also genuinely curious to see what Stanford and Cal do now. OrSU and WSU would accept a P12/MWC merger I imagine, but will those two? They didn’t want to be associated with ‘lesser’ schools like Texas Tech and Oklahoma State before — are they going to be thrilled to rub elbows with UNLV, Boise State, and Wyoming now?
There was scuttlebutt at one point of Stanford dumping football if the money issues continue to get worse — does that happen? What about Cal, which hasn’t seemed to care much for the expense of big time football for a while now? Do they swallow their pride and hope the B12 gives them a call, after years of those two looking down on that conference and its members?
I wonder if Cal accepts the PMWC given that seems to be more their speed at this point, and Stanford goes the independent route for a while to wait and see which way the wind is blowing re: ND. They’re probably the only remaining P12 school with options.
LikeLike
Curious to see what happens with the Rose Bowl now. If the Pac12 absorbs the MWC to become the Pac Mountain Conference, does that leave everyone still contractually bound to the old Pac12 agreements?
The PAC is still an ” autonomy conference.” and owns half of the Rose Bowl. there is quite a few merger benefits.
What about Cal, which hasn’t seemed to care much for the expense of big time football for a while now? Do they swallow their pride and hope the B12 gives them a call, after years of those two looking down on that conference and its members?
IIRC, Cal put a ton of money into their football stadium. I think they’ll want to use it.
LikeLike
They apparently renovated it back in 2012, but I didn’t see anything after that. Something like $445 million to do that and build an athletic center. Hope they got most of it paid off in the 11 years between then and now.
LikeLike
I looked it up. Its way worse than you’d ever guess (This is from 2013)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/collegesports/article/Cal-scrambling-to-cover-stadium-bill-4604221.php?t=7903d5abac47b02379
Stadium debt already absorbs 20 percent of intercollegiate athletics’ annual income, or roughly $18 million of its $89 million budget. And that pays only the interest.
Cal won’t start paying down the principal until 2032, when its yearly payments rise to $26 million, then $37 million, before tapering off in 2051. After a brief respite, Cal will owe a lump sum of $82 million in 2053 alone. Then it will have six decades to pay off the final 17 percent, or $75 million.
LikeLike
z33k,
If it’s a wash financially, why bother? What is it adding? I get not wanting to see them wither away, but how does this help the B10? More travel and fewer games against traditional rivals.
And now they get to redo the football schedule. Obviously UW and UO will play each other, but does either LA school want to play UO annually? Will the B10 force them to? Does it change anyone else’s?
LikeLike
Pretty sure both sides have to agree on annual games. Penn State didn’t agree to have anyone as a rival.
Not sure what happens with those 4 out West. Do they each just keep 1? USC-UCLA and UW/UO or do they force the 4 to all play each other.
LikeLike
David Hale with a great thread yesterday about FSU.
LikeLike
This one is relevant to another discussion here – FSU does not have a fraud claim according to David Hale.
LikeLike
This made me laugh. (NSFW language)
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38134021/big-ten-set-send-invites-oregon-washington-sources-say
ESPN’s article on it (Thamel).
Oregon and Washington are finalizing a deal to join the Big Ten, sources told ESPN, a move that continues to dwindle the Pac-12 and puts that conference’s future in the crosshairs.
The schools are expected to formally apply for membership Friday, sources said, and a Big Ten vote is expected to take place this evening, according to sources.
The Big Ten vote is expected to be unanimous for them to join in 2024, sources said, despite some initial pushback from schools in the league on admitting the two schools.
The finances of the move are not immediately clear, but both Oregon and Washington will receive only a partial share of the conference allotment through the length of its upcoming television deal, which goes through the 2029-30 school year.
…
The departures put Oregon and Washington’s former conference, the century-old Pac-12, in flux. Arizona has applied to and been admitted to the Big 12, ESPN sources said, although that deal has yet to be finalized. And conversations between the Big 12 and Utah and Arizona State ramped up on Friday, sources said.
…
Oregon and Washington’s decision to go to the Big Ten won’t be a financial windfall in the short term. The deal is expected to escalate each year, but it’s still only in the neighborhood of a half-share of what the other 16 teams in the conference are expected to get. A source said the payouts would grow every year and be competitive with, and perhaps surpass, the payouts of leagues like Big 12 and ACC.
That Big Ten full-share number is fluid, so schools don’t have clarity on it yet. That’s because the Big Ten longform television contract isn’t complete along with variables like College Football Playoff money and NCAA tournament units, but a fair projection is nearly $70 million annually.
The numbers from the Big Ten were being compared to the ambiguity of the numbers the Pac-12 received in its stream-heavy deal from Apple, which included subscription incentives that needed to be hit for the schools to make big money.
The Big Ten and Washington and Oregon went back into deep discussions Friday morning, sources said, after the Pac-12 presidents call ended quickly because of a lack of comfort moving forward with the primary streaming deal.
LikeLike
Yeah, the reporting is that Oregon and, especially, Washington had cooled on the Big Ten last night given that, based on the partial shares the Big Ten was offering them and a projected increase of travel costs of $10 million a year, they wouldn’t make anymore than they would by staying put.
Apparently, things changed after a disastrous conference call with all the PAC CEO’s and conference executives,
LikeLike
Yeah, the reporting is that Oregon and, especially, Washington had cooled on the Big Ten last night given that, based on the partial shares the Big Ten was offering them and a projected increase of travel costs of $10 million a year, they wouldn’t make anymore than they would by staying put.
Apparently, things changed after a disastrous conference call with all the PAC CEO’s and conference executives,
IMO – It an attempt to improve the terms. Big Ten probably said we’ll be able to offer you X which is a function of Y and Z*. They were probably trying to get some concessions (like unequal sharing) to maybe bring that Big Ten number up. Once the Big Ten made them an offer, they had to take it.
*When Nebraska was added, they said Nebraska would get no less than what they would have in the Big 12.
LikeLike
frug,
Maybe some discussions with USC and UCLA about how plans are being made to minimize travel helped? The B10 did offer to let them borrow against future revenue, so they’d be farther ahead now. I think even a half share would escalate faster than the P12’s deal, and $10M seems inflated. Didn’t UCLA estimate $8M after having months to research it? And isn’t there something to be said for visibility as well?
I understand that being $30M behind you conference mates sort of sucks, but you were going to be behind those schools at least that much anyway.
Also, they may not be considering the other revenue streams besides TV – bowl money, NCAA money, CFP money, ticket sales, etc. I’m guessing season ticket prices go up and sell better in the future, for example. Does the half share only apply to TV revenue, or does it include all forms of revenue from the B10?
LikeLike
“Oregon and Washington’s decision to go to the Big Ten won’t be a financial windfall in the short term. The deal is expected to escalate each year, but it’s still only in the neighborhood of a half-share of what the other 16 teams in the conference are expected to get.”
Don’t get the revenue drama here. Nebraska, let alone RU and MD, didn’t get a full share at first. Only USC and UCLA, and that was a combo of King tradition/TV sets (USC) and Baron/TV sets (UCLA).
Washington and Oregon are Barons overall, nowhere near the TV eyeballs (better of course than Nebraska) and under far more duress than Nebraska was to jump ship,
They should consider themselves lucky to get a partial share deal with their conference blowing up.
LikeLike
This was actually posted before news of Oregon and Washington bolting
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38130567/sources-arizona-deal-big-12-expected-finalized-soon
Arizona is in deep discussions about joining the Big 12, sources told ESPN, with a deal expected to be finalized in the near future.
Interesting that much like the Ducks and Huskies to the B1G the early morning reporting was the UA had reconsidered and was strongly leaning to stay. But I’d this pretty much bye-bye PAC.
LikeLike
So what do the PAC leftovers do now (assuming UA, ASU, and UU joing the Big XII)?
Try and rebuild with MWC teams? Beg for Big XII invites? Join the MWC themselves?
I suppose Stanford, and to a lesser degree Cal, still have a shot at the Big 10, but I don’t think they want to bet on that.
LikeLike
frug,
There are no exit fees from the P12, but there are NCAA credits coming. They don’t want to lose those. They also get a huge amount of CFP money, since there’s only 4 schools to split it.
You’d think they’d basically invite the MWC to merge with them, keeping the Pac brand for its value. Maybe call it the Pac-16. Equal revenue splits, but maybe unequal sharing of the NCAA money for 6 years and CFP money for the first 2 years (until the new CFP deal starts).
LikeLike
Personally, I do think rebuilding the PAC is most likely scenario based on what we know now, but as a native Oklahoman and son of two Okie St. alums, I love the idea of the snobs in Berkley and Palo Alto being reduced to begging the rednecks, hicks, and hillbillies of the Big XII to rescue them.
LikeLike
Well, how do you think they feel about Wyoming, CSU, BSU, USU, NV-Reno, UNM, Fresno St, and SJSU? Cal’d be asking Cal State schools to save them.
LikeLike
Oh they would hate it… but at least they wouldn’t have to worry about being turned down by the MWC schools. Plus, in that scenario they would have at least get to be alpha dogs of their new PACk.
LikeLike
We better get a new post from Frank soon.
Thoughts:
1. This was all inevitable once the Pac-10 declined ESPN/FOX and the Big XII took the offer. If the Pac-10 accepted it, we’d instead be watching ESPN/FOX incent the Pac-10 and ACC to rip apart the Big XII by sending TCU/TTU/Kansas/Houston west to the Pac10, Cinci + WVU to the ACC. ISU/OkSU/Baylor/KSU/UCF/BYU to purgatory. FOX would have turned the P12N into a BTN or SEC like structure and drove carriage into Texas.
2. NBC’s new deal with ND should be announced soon. How long it runs will tell us a whole lot of what’s going on.
3. My bet is on Amazon paying for a Friday night game. 8:30EST. Take it out of the FS1/BTN inventory. So basically the 4th/5th pick, which is going to be a pretty interesting game most weeks.
4. I don’t think it’ll be ESPN/ABC as the partner unless they want a Friday night game. They can only offer the 1030 EST slot on saturday, and I cannot believe any Big Ten teams are going to be willing to play in that consistently. Maybe you can put the Western 4 non-con games in there, but nothing else. Rutgers/Minnesota/Maryland/Purdue/Indiana/Northwestern didn’t vote yes to OR/WA to get banished to after dark.
5. I’m not ruling out Nebraska making a move to the SEC in 2029. It may honestly be better for all parties at that point. Oregon is modern day Nebraska without the titles anyway. Nebraska and Kansas to the SEC in 2029/30 when the Big XII and B1G deals expire – B1G adds ASU to replace Nebraska.
6. Cal and Stanford are in a weird position. You need ND joining to add them or the financials will never work. It’s also a super weird relationship. Stanford has enough money that it was actually STANFORD grads that raised the money to save the Cal baseball team like 10 years ago. I wouldn’t discount some super weird back
I just hope we get 10 B1G conference games now. The Flex Protect Plus arrangement works perfectly that way. Iowa can shove their demand for 7 home games a year and have 6 one year (ISU at home) and 7 the next (ISU on the road).
LikeLike
We better get a new post from Frank soon.
Wild guess. he’s on vacation. His posting (twitter, cnsbbs) has been down recently
LikeLike
Called that one.
LikeLike
This was all inevitable once the Pac-10 declined ESPN/FOX and the Big XII took the offer. If the Pac-10 accepted it, we’d instead be watching ESPN/FOX incent the Pac-10 and ACC to rip apart the Big XII
They never provided any incentive. The PAC kicked those tires several times. If the PAC took the deal, we’d likely be looking at the Big 12 getting a smaller deal but one one wants their schools. If they were additive, they would have been added.
I’m not ruling out Nebraska making a move to the SEC in 2029. It may honestly be better for all parties at that point. Oregon is modern day Nebraska without the titles anyway. Nebraska and Kansas to the SEC in 2029/30 when the Big XII and B1G deals expire – B1G adds ASU to replace Nebraska.
I can rule that out for you. Nebraska isn’t going to the SEC. The SEC doesn’t want Kansas.
LikeLike
Scout,
We better get a new post from Frank soon.
Probably as soon as it becomes official tonight (or this weekend). Will we break 5000 comments first? Probably.
1. This was all inevitable once the Pac-10 declined ESPN/FOX and the Big XII took the offer. If the Pac-10 accepted it, we’d instead be watching ESPN/FOX incent the Pac-10 and ACC to rip apart the Big XII by sending TCU/TTU/Kansas/Houston west to the Pac10, Cinci + WVU to the ACC. ISU/OkSU/Baylor/KSU/UCF/BYU to purgatory. FOX would have turned the P12N into a BTN or SEC like structure and drove carriage into Texas.
1. I don’t think it was inevitable, but maybe close. They got lowballed with that initial offer (around $25M). I get the feeling Kliavkoff mishandled negotiations by coming in way high and coming across as arrogant. If the P12 had started at $35M and quickly accepted $30M, a deal may have been possible.
2. Deals are all shorter now. Look for ND to want another bite at the apple around 2030-32, not long after the B10 and SEC. They don’t want to wait for the ACC in 2036.
3. Maybe Amazon, or maybe Apple is interested. Or maybe NBC wants more Peacock games.
The problem is getting everyone to agree to scheduling compromises. USC and UCLA don’t want late night games, and the midwest kings don’t want November night games. So maybe the P12 4 all agree to 1 November home primetime game each year (with the first 10 weeks covered by the 14 current members) and 1 late game each year. UW and UO could offer to take more night games in exchange for a bump in revenue. Weeknight games are also unpopular, but maybe a Friday night game will become a regular thing too.
4. ESPN might agree to a few late night games (the western 4 can all play 1 crappy OOC game at night, for example) plus some Friday night games. Just something to slightly boost their inventory. I think any game between B10 cellar dwellers might benefit from being shown late at night when nobody is watching (1-8 RU vs 2-7 IN or something).
5. Why would NE want to leave? Joining the B10 helped their school a lot. Bad coaching hires are what hurt their team, and Rhule has a track record of fixing bad programs. Once they start winning again, the NE faithful will be happy in the B10.
6. The academics would love to have them, but it takes ND (or Miami and FSU) to pay for them. They can survive in a weakened P16, since their success is really in the non-revenue sports.
I just hope we get 10 B1G conference games now. The Flex Protect Plus arrangement works perfectly that way. Iowa can shove their demand for 7 home games a year and have 6 one year (ISU at home) and 7 the next (ISU on the road).
10 games is not going to happen any time soon. Schools with locked OOC rivals (IA, USC, maybe UCLA, UW, UO) do not want 11 P4 games and the inability to have 7 home games every year, and the B10 doesn’t want to lose USC vs ND from the schedule.
Sure 10 = 3 + 7/7, but 9 = 1 + 8/8. Everyone could drop to 1 locked rival and rotate through the others every 2 years, but it would kill some key rivalries. I’m guessing they stick to the current plan, adding UW vs UO for sure, and maybe UW vs USC, UCLA and UO vs USC, UCLA (to reduce travel). IA would still play 12 of 14 schools in 2 years, those with 2 locked rivals would play 14 of 15, and those with 1 or 0 locked rivals would play everyone in 2 years.
The big question is still how to handle USC vs ND and rivalry week. I’ll propose this: UW could play the Apple Cup or UO for the Platypus trophy in the final week as needed to balance USC playing ND. Move those games to the week before Thanksgiving when they aren’t the final week (it can alternate between the 2). That way nobody gets a bye in the final 2 weeks.
LikeLike
The WC schools (especially UO and UW) are in no position to reject late-night games. So they’re going to play them.
What are they going to do? Jump to the B12?
LikeLike
ESPN still needs to fill its after dark inventory. Will probably be a lot of AZ, ASU games in that slot because AZ has the same time as CA until Nov 5. The AZ schools also prefer night games due to the extreme heat. If WA & OU want to avoid late starts they will need to join the MWC. With the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (full B10 share) I think neither school is in a strong position to object to how the B10 will schedule.
LikeLike
I was saying they could volunteer for more than their share for a bump in revenue.
USC and UCLA made it clear that night games were one of their issues with the P12. They didn’t join the B10 just to have to keep playing a bunch of them. But no current members are likely to play them voluntarily either. And I don’t see why a 4th network would pay the B10 if they aren’t getting a new window, so someone has to play late nights and weeknights. Maybe it becomes where everyone has to play at least 1 Friday night or late night game every season with many playing 2 or more, UW and UO could host multiple late night games with USC and UCLA only hosting 1 each. Current members would do more hosting of Friday nights.
LikeLike
The LA schools can make it clear as much as they want, but at most, USC (and OSU, UMich, and PSU) will be appeased. The rest of the WC schools will play plenty of After Dark games. Are they gonna leave the B10 and jump to the B12?
LikeLike
Scout: “2. NBC’s new deal with ND should be announced soon. How long it runs will tell us a whole lot of what’s going on.”
I may be a heretic on this issue but I think NBC is going to have a hard time coming up with the kind of money Notre Dame wants for their home football games. If you look at the viewers for ND football in 2022 ( link), they averaged only 2.42 million for six home games, a 45% reduction from the 4.4 million average in 2012. (UNLV game was streamed on Peacock and number of viewers not available). Only one game topped 3 million and that was Clemson at 3.22 million. The ND game vs BC drew only 1.27 million viewers.
https://www.on3.com/teams/notre-dame-fighting-irish/news/notre-dame-football-tv-numbers-viewership-abc-nbc-ohio-state-usc-2022-fighting-irish/
The following is about 60% of a long article in The Athletic about NBC and ND. It seems that if NBC was just going to roll over and pay ND what they want, it would have happened months ago.
Notre Dame football is conference realignment’s biggest prize. Can NBC keep it independent?
Pete Sampson Jul. 12, 2023
SOUTH BEND, Ind. — The last time Notre Dame re-upped with NBC, the school negotiated as a national title contender and ratings darling at the epicenter of conference realignment. The football program had just completed its first undefeated regular season in almost a quarter century, consuming the sport’s oxygen in the process in 2012. The Irish averaged 4.4 million viewers for their high-wire act home slate. The season finale at USC on ABC hit 16.1 million viewers, quadrupling the Iron Bowl and almost doubling Ohio State–Michigan.
The school had also finished its shrewd move to the ACC, taking the football program there part-time and just about everything else there in full amid a series of moves by the Big Ten, ACC, Big East and others.
And so NBC re-signed Notre Dame on April 18, 2013, in the best of times, dropping the news during the Blue-Gold Game as the late Louis Nix scored on a quarterback sneak. The 10-year extension through the 2025 season was a departure from the five-year deals the school and network had matter-of-factly signed since Notre Dame forced the entire sport to rethink media rights when it quit the College Football Association in 1991 for a reported $38 million contract with NBC. That first deal was a market disruptor, a path for Notre Dame to charge ahead. The new deal, believed to be in the neighborhood of $25 million annually, was a market codifier, a means for Notre Dame to hold serve.
“It became apparent to me how they viewed Notre Dame and how important it was to them and how much they valued it,” said athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “They always talked about the brands that they worked with: the Olympics, the NFL, Notre Dame. We were always included in that.”
The true value of the Notre Dame-NBC contract has always been its partnership. What has been good for school has been good for network. Yet, economic forces have changed in the past decade. If geography drove the last round of realignment, now brand strength pays the bills.
And that leads Notre Dame and NBC to a different kind of negotiation, one that’s already begun. How much television money would it take for Notre Dame to be able to afford independence while also making sure NBC could afford Notre Dame? It’s an answer that impacts not just Notre Dame, but virtually the entire sport.
Notre Dame is still a tent-pole property for NBC, but it’s no longer the only circus in town, with the media landscape unrecognizable from the one Swarbrick negotiated in a decade earlier. The English Premier League is on a nearly $3 billion deal with NBC, filling weekends on the network and even more space on streaming platform Peacock. This fall, the Big Ten will join the party, providing prime-time programming for NBC as part of a bigger $8 billion multi-network contract with the conference.
Last season’s Notre Dame home slate averaged 2.43 million viewers, not including the unpublished viewership for the Peacock-only game against UNLV. Until now, this was all fine for Notre Dame. It didn’t need to treat NBC as an ATM for the athletic department; it just needed a reliable partner to keep its foundation up to code.
For most of the past decade, Notre Dame maintaining independence came down to three things: a broadcast partner for football, a home for its Olympic sports and access to the national championship, whether that was the BCS, the four-team College Football Playoff or the 12-team iteration Swarbrick helped design. Check those three boxes, and Notre Dame could afford to pay the independent tax that comes with eschewing conference membership, even if that meant making less from media rights than Purdue or Vanderbilt.
But yesterday’s price is not today’s price. And Notre Dame can’t pay bills with the prestige or exposure that comes from an NBC contract if renewed. It probably won’t have to.
If the investment in Big Ten football didn’t tip NBC’s hand about going big into college football, Notre Dame’s hiring of NBC Sports chairman and alumnus Pete Bevacqua to replace the retiring Swarbrick would have. Sources on both sides have struggled to envision a scenario in which a deal doesn’t get done after Notre Dame entered an early negotiating window with NBC when the Big Ten deal triggered a clause in the contract. (It hit pause on talks until Bevacqua begins his new job later this month in advance of Swarbrick’s departure next spring.)
New Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua’s passion for alma mater makes his return ‘a calling’ Getting to the finish line from here is not uncomplicated. But it is essential, especially for Notre Dame to remain competitive in independence, meaning conference realignment’s biggest free agent stays unattached.
“When I use the phrase ‘committed media partner,’ I was always intending to communicate financially too,” Swarbrick said. “It’s the promotion of us. It’s the positioning of us on Saturday. “And it’s the money.”
The price of independence
In the past, Swarbrick has said Notre Dame would make more money off media rights as a full member of the ACC, which paid Notre Dame $17 million last year as a partial member. That’s the same league that athletic directors at Clemson and Florida State have been saber rattling as revenue gaps become financial chasms with the Big Ten and SEC.
The Big Ten’s new deal is expected to begin by paying out around $64 million per school and rise from there as USC and UCLA join the league. The SEC just quintupled the media rights for its marquee game, dropping CBS for ESPN on a 10-year, $3 billion deal before Texas and Oklahoma were added. That’s after the league paid each school $49.9 million last year, with some high-end projections forecasting that figure to double this decade.
Meanwhile, the ACC distributed $39.4 million to member schools in 2021-22. And the league’s schools are stuck in a grant of rights agreement through 2036, essentially capping their financial trajectory.
“The changing media landscape, and trying to make sure we still have the sort of positioning NBC has afforded us, it’s all different and more complex. It’s the SEC deal, it’s the Big Ten deal,” Swarbrick said. “You see the dynamic going on in college athletics, otherwise right now where people are struggling.” That doesn’t exclude Notre Dame.
When the belt-tightening of COVID-19 hit, Notre Dame was already looking to its next media rights deal as a financial safety valve. Internally, athletic department officials coined the phrase “Survive Until ’25” as a shorthand operating procedure, meaning Notre Dame needed to restrain today under the premise the department could return to solid financial ground after the next NBC deal was signed.
William Mao won’t put an exact number on it, but the senior vice president of Octagon Global Media Rights Consulting knows how these contracts work. His company has done deals with the NFL, MLB, NASCAR, WWE and 18 international soccer leagues. And from a distance, there are paths both Notre Dame and NBC can take to negotiate a deal that ends with a win-win.
When asked if a $60 million deal would make mutual economic sense, Mao didn’t disagree. “If both sides were talking ranges, that’s an area of positive outcome,” he said. “Keeping and retaining the Notre Dame package, that was part of the package pitches for the Big Ten package. Plenty of that provides Notre Dame leverage. Longstanding partnerships and legacy relationships usually continue.”
The value Notre Dame places on being Independent
A second sports media consultant, who would speak only on background due to the sensitivity of negotiations, believed a $60 million agreement for Notre Dame’s next NBC deal would be in the ballpark of current market value. Privately, Notre Dame hopes to at least double its current media rights deal with NBC, with internal perspective that the school must be within “striking distance” of the SEC and Big Ten financially. Revenue from the ACC Network has been slightly better than forecast to date. And hitting analysts’ projections of $60 million would seem to make Notre Dame whole.
“It’s Notre Dame. It’s the whale. It’s what everybody wants,” said the anonymous media consultant. “After so many years, why change now? It’s kind of like the Masters and CBS. It’s just one of those things that is just kind of there and it’s expected. You don’t wake up thinking the Masters went somewhere else for a few dollars more.”
So if Notre Dame and NBC want to be together, how do they afford it? That’s where the partnership between school and network can play a lead role.
How Notre Dame can help NBC
Notre Dame has put one regular-season game on Peacock each of the past two seasons, but they were against Toledo and UNLV. When NBC initially reached out about a streaming-only broadcast, Swarbrick encouraged the network to go bigger. He didn’t offer up USC, but he felt games against ACC opponents should be considered. NBC declined. This year’s Peacock game is Central Michigan.
“From the NBC side, having more of that content available on their streaming service, that drives the value proposition of sub acquisition and maybe more so in this case retention,” Mao said. “If and when games are more exclusive, is that something that’s part of the conversation? If you want the economics and you’re seeking properties, not just in the college space, that can become more valuable, Peacock is obviously a lever to pull. The question is if you’re willing to pull it.”
Swarbrick argues for Peacock as part of the NBC deal but admits it’s been a learning experience. He cited the broadcast coming back from commercial breaks too late, missing live action. The lag time in game broadcasts — Notre Dame’s winning touchdown against Toledo was scored on Twitter before the ball was snapped on Peacock — made some viewers irate.
Still, Swarbrick insists Notre Dame should lead in streaming, even if the path is unmarked. He sees value in the shoulder programming Notre Dame and NBC can produce around games, although that material could exist on Peacock while games remain on NBC. The Blue-Gold Game was streamed exclusively the past three years. Swarbrick isn’t sure what to make of the data Peacock generates but believes there’s value in knowing exactly who’s watching and for how long as Notre Dame attempts to better connect with its “customers” moving forward.
“We learned a lot and the benefits are clear, but the dynamic that we all see is that’s where this is headed,” Swarbrick said. “ESPN is talking about taking the entire ESPN direct to consumer. I don’t know whether Peacock will be NBC in five years. It may be.”
If Notre Dame can generate subscribers for Peacock by streaming, it can drive NBC ratings by scheduling more Big Ten opponents, essentially creating college football inventory for the network by adding home-and-home dates with the conference. Ohio State or USC visiting Notre Dame would still be an NBC property, but suddenly the return dates could be NBC broadcasts thanks to the new Big Ten deal. NBC will pay nearly $350 million per year to broadcast 15 league games. Every one of those that involves Notre Dame would represent a ratings win.
In the past 10 seasons, Notre Dame has faced 14 Big Ten opponents during the regular season. Those games averaged 5.21 millions viewers. They finished No. 1 on their weekend four times. The only games that didn’t finish in the top five on their respective weekends involved Northwestern. Those games were sixth.
Swarbrick cautioned it’s not as simple as every Big Ten road game adding value to NBC, but it would enhance the collection of games NBC could draft as part of its prime-time package with the Big Ten. Fox and CBS could also conceivably draft Notre Dame games. The question is how aggressive Notre Dame may get in scheduling if better opponents can create value for its own broadcast agreement.
Would the expanded College Football Playoff make Notre Dame more open to scheduling because losses became less punitive? Could Notre Dame rethink rivalries with Stanford or Navy? Does a singular “buy game” become the norm, meaning it’s Tennessee State or Central Michigan, not both?
“I’d question if they’re willing to schedule more Big Ten schools,” Mao said. “That helps prop up the broadcast value for both sides, but coaches have to think about their record, too. That’s the question Pete Bevacqua is going to have to balance.”
Notre Dame has road games scheduled at Purdue in 2024, 2026 and 2028. The Irish also have future road games scheduled against Michigan State, Indiana and Michigan.
Considering the Big Ten inventory already scheduled, it’s not clear how much Notre Dame could enhance a negotiating position that it’s already strengthened for NBC. However, If the Irish can average $10 million per home game — less than what NBC will pay the Big Ten per broadcast — to go with auxiliary income from the ACC, it could put Notre Dame where it needs to be financially.
“The acquisition of the Big Ten rights for NBC reflected a level of commitment to college football which is really good for us,” Swarbrick said. “Everything about that, having more college football inventory, being able to cross-promote against Notre Dame with the Big Ten, some of the scheduling things we’ll do, that was for me an important sign of their commitment to college football that is good for us.”
That’s the hard math for Notre Dame. But there’s soft power in the NBC deal, too.
LikeLike
NBC Sports is also having other financial troubles. The NBC Sports Network was shut down on Dec 31, 2021. NBC also aired the 2022 Winter Olympic Games:
“NBC is facing a cataclysmic loss of audience for the 2022 Winter Olympics as viewership tanked for Friday’s Opening Ceremony, averaging just 16 million.
“It is a record low for the Opening Ceremony (20.1 million for 1988 in Calgary was the previous record) and a whopping 43 percent below the 2018 Games in South Korea that notched 28.3 million viewers despite also dealing with a less than advantageous Asian time zone for American audiences.
“It comes on the heels of Thursday’s ratings disaster that saw just 7.7 million people tune in, dramatically below same-night audiences of 2018 (16 million) and 2014 from Russia (20.02 million).”
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/nbcs-cataclysmic-olympics-coverage-flop/#:~:text=loss%20of%20audience%E2%80%9D%3F-,NBC%20is%20facing%20a%20cataclysmic%20loss%20of%20audience%20for%20the,Ceremony%2C%20averaging%20just%2016%20million.
And NBC has agreed to paying $7.75 billion to air the Olympics through the 2032 games.
LikeLike
Dear Fellow Tankers:
I officially eat humble pie with a hearty side of crow for my bodacious prediction that the Big Ten and SEC wouldn’t expand again in our lifetimes. Marc, you may cyber-LOL.
Respectfully Submitted,
Colin the Forum Elder
LikeLike
We’ve all had predictions that didn’t turn out. Sometime around 2011ish I predicted that the power conferences would continue to consolidate and ND would be forced to join a conference as a full member within a decade.
While the top dogs did continue to consolidate power, my timeline regarding the Irish was obviously off (mostly because I never dreamed the ACC would be desperate enough to give ND everything it ever wanted in exchange for what amounted to 1 extra FB game a year). I still think ND will be forced into a conference but they are probably safe until 2036.
(For the record, I blame Jack Swofford :p)
LikeLike
Frug, thanks for your gracious response. However I do not think the ND-NBC TV deal will be resolved soon. Notre Dame’s Domer Homer at NBC is now AD at ND.
Now that the Fox/CBS/NBC/ESPN conference deals have all been finalized. ESPN admits to being flat broke on sports programming and there are probably others. Why should NBC pay 2X or 3X more for something that they already have?
LikeLike
Wilner on what Cal, Stanford, OSU, and WSU can do:
We see a handful of scenarios for the schools:
— Washington State and Oregon State join the Mountain West while Stanford and Cal compete as Independents.
— WSU, OSU and Cal join the Mountain West while Stanford alone goes the Independent route.
— The quartet sticks together and attempts to reform the Pac-12 through expansion, using a handful of Mountain West schools and perhaps SMU (from the American Conference) as the building blocks.
One of many challenges with this strategy is the timing: It’s unlikely the Pac-12 could add schools in time for the 2024 season because of logistical issues and exit fees in other conferences.
— The schools move en masse into the Mountain West, creating a 16-team mega-conference under the leadership of current commissioner Gloria Nevarez.
The MW distributes 4 million a year in TV money thru 2026.
LikeLike
Mike,
It seems to me the his 4th option works better if they merge into a Pac-16 rather than into a MWC16. The Pac has huge CFP checks coming for 2 more years, plus NCAA money. If they dissolve the Pac, what happens to their split of the CFP?
LikeLike
Big20!
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/08/04/networks-espn-fox-trump-history-college-realignment-pac-12-big-ten/70530889007/
Now Dan Wolken is blaming ESPN and Fox.
Television runs college sports. That has been true since the 1984 NCAA vs Oklahoma Board of Regents Supreme Court case where schools won the ability to sell their broadcast rights.
But it has never been more true than now.
…
Why are Oregon and Washington headed to the Big Ten, while Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are likely to join Colorado in the Big 12?
In the simplest terms, it comes down to this: By stripping the Pac-12 down for parts, ESPN and Fox are going to end up getting the teams they wanted, without having to pay the teams they didn’t want.
…
None of this is a coincidence. None of it happened because schools want to be in 16- or 18-member leagues that require thousands of miles of travel.
But it is what the constant need for more television money has wrought, and that should terrify everyone about the long-term future of college sports.
…
It’s not only nonsensical, it’s diabolical. And if you’re not one of the top 30 or 40 programs, it should be frightening.
Think carefully about what just happened. Instead of staying in a Pac-12 that they could have dominated while having most of their games broadcast in the streaming Apple TV service, Oregon and Washington have chosen instead to join a far-flung conference where they will initially receive less than a full share of the media rights that the likes of Purdue and Minnesota will be making.
And given that there’s no major upside here for the other Big Ten schools to add two more good programs that make competition tougher and travel more difficult, it strains credulity to think they did it without the blessing and perhaps even a nudge from their TV partners.
…
Unless Congress or college presidents put a stop to this, there’s going to be no end to this consolidation of money and power. Every decade when these media deals come up for renewal, institutions that have spent hundreds of millions to compete at the highest level are going to be on the chopping block. Even century-old conferences aren’t immune.
It may not be the future that the stakeholders of college sports say they want. But as long as the TV networks are in charge, it’s what they are going to get.
It is probably going to prove good business for Fox and ESPN to fill their college football programming slots with more of the elite brands while having one less conference to worry about.
LikeLike
Who would have predicted two years ago that the conference with the only major universities in the #2 (LA), #10 (SF), #11 (Phoenix), #12 (Seattle), #16 (Denver), #20 (Sacramento), and #22 (Portland) TV markets would be the one that implodes, and that the actions by the B12 after losing its top 2 football draws – after already losing 4 other programs would survive?
Is it just me, or does it feel as though after the dust settles that the only conference that will have a strong identity and engaged fan base is going to be the SEC. Conference matchups of Rutgers-Oregon and UCF-Arizona don’t feel like they will appeal to alumni or local fans in the long run.
The brave new world where NIL can dramatically influence where players go [and they deserve to grab every dollar they can get for all of the revenue they have generated for universities over the years] and implosion of the cable bundle limiting the money ESPN and to a lesser extent other broadcasters to provide feels as though it will generate even more disruption before the dust settles.
LikeLike
Stew,
Is it just me, or does it feel as though after the dust settles that the only conference that will have a strong identity and engaged fan base is going to be the SEC. Conference matchups of Rutgers-Oregon and UCF-Arizona don’t feel like they will appeal to alumni or local fans in the long run.
Yes the SEC has a cult-like identity that nobody else can match (also unparalleled success in CFB). But you’re picking extreme examples that make the problem seem worse than it is.
Will USC vs PSU feel like a B10 game? Not for a very long time for me (PSU barely feels B10), but it’s still a big game nationally. Any game between the Pac4 and the current B10 brands (top 7) will feel big, even if it also feels like an OOC game.
And let’s be honest, top 7 brand games against the other 7 may feel like B10 games but they don’t excite many people outside the footprint (or even just their home states).
I also think some new rivalries may show up over time. People will learn to love hating USC and UO.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-survival-oregon-washington-to-deliver-the-death-blow-leave-for-the-big-ten-more-defections-expected/
Wilner piece, headlined:
Pac-12 survival: Oregon, Washington to deliver the death blow, leave for the Big Ten; more defections expected
The Pac-12 Conference, home to hundreds of NCAA titles and dozens of iconic athletes and coaches, hurtled toward extinction on a momentous Friday as Oregon and Washington prepared to formally accept invitations to join the Big Ten next summer, reducing the conference to seven schools and assuredly triggering more defections.
The departure list is expected to include Arizona, which has applied for membership in the Big 12.
Arizona State and Utah likely will follow and have “ramped up” their talks with the Big 12, according to ESPN.
That will leave Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State behind in an abandoned home.
“It’s tragic that it came to this,” a conference source said. “It never had to get to this point, but there were so many mistakes along the way.”
…
One university didn’t hesitate to speak up, as Washington State president Kirk Schulz and athletic director Pat Chun issued the following statement:
“We are disappointed with the recent decisions of some of our Pac-12 peers. While we had hoped that our membership would remain together, this outcome was always a possibility …”
The swift collapse of a century-old college sports institution followed commissioner George Kliavkoff’s failed attempt to secure a media rights agreement that fully satisfied the university presidents.
Five schools have left under Kliavkoff’s two-year watch, with the announced departures of USC and UCLA last summer setting the Pac-12’s demise in motion. (Colorado accepted membership in the Big 12 last week.)
Many details of the collapse have yet to be made public, but this much is certain: The upcoming college sports season will be unlike any experienced by the Pac-12, or any major conference, in the modern history of college athletics.
…
But abysmal leadership by the university presidents and strategic missteps by the commissioners, Kliavkoff and his predecessor, Larry Scott, sent the conference on a path of self-destruction.
“This has been a slow-moving train wreck,” an industry source said.
Four gaffes come immediately to mind:
— Scott’s decision to create the Pac-12 Networks. The wholly-owned media company failed to meet lofty revenue projections, created financial desperation across the conference and stoked deep frustration in Los Angeles, where USC and UCLA were forced to accept a revenue structure that did not reflect their market value.
— Scott’s rejection of an offer from ESPN, in 2018, to take over control of the struggling Pac-12 Networks and sign the 12 schools to a long-term media contract. Had that deal been in place last summer, USC and UCLA would have lacked the escape hatch necessary to bolt for the Big Ten.
— The conference’s refusal to expand in the summer of 2021, shortly after Kliavkoff took charge, when the Big 12 was vulnerable to poaching after the announced departures of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. The Pac-12 presidents evaluated their options and determined none of the available schools brought the financial benefits or institutional fit. Given a second chance, the Big 12 quickly expanded and positioned itself to eventually feed on a weakened Pac-12.
— Kliavkoff’s lack of urgency in securing a media rights agreement last fall and winter. New to the college sports scene, he failed to recognize the risk of dragging out the media rights negotiations. As a result, the Pac-12 was unable to secure a deal during a prolonged stretch in which the greatest existential threat — an aggressive Big Ten, led by its media overlord, Fox — lay dormant.
…
Fox found the money to pay for the Huskies and Ducks and convinced the Big Ten presidents that the moment had arrived to deliver the death blow.
…
With the Northwest school gone and Arizona ready to flee, Arizona State and Utah — both deeply loyal to the Pac-12 — are seemingly left with no choice but to depart for the Big 12, as well. The paperwork could take time, but the outcome appears inevitable. There is no viable conference left.
…
The Pac-12 teetered for 13 months. But the final step came swiftly as the ‘Conference of champions’ prepared to dissolve into the league of ash and ruin.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-and-washington-trade
Canzano on what made UO and UW change their minds again and go to the B10.
The Pac-12 CEO Group met on Friday morning. Each of the nine remaining members joined the meeting. The conference’s objective was to get its Grant of Rights signed and for a spell it appeared the Pac-12 might save itself.
…
The dramatic twist came when University of Oregon president John Karl Scholz informed the conference that his school was having second thoughts and intended to accept an invitation to join the Big Ten. Washington president Ana Mari Cauce did the same.
Two bitter Pacific Northwest rivals banded together in a surreal ‘going and going’ moment which left the Pac-12 essentially gone. A second meeting of the Pac-12 CEO Group is scheduled for later on Friday. One involved source told me: “We need to come up with something very quickly.” Regardless, it appears the Ducks and Huskies have their minds made up and bags packed for the Big Ten.
Here’s what you need to know:
• The Big Ten made a late push this week to expand to 18 teams and apparently peeled Oregon and Washington away from the Pac-12 at a reduced distribution. I’m told that the Ducks examined the decision from all angles, poring over the implications through a long-range lens.
Not a two-year window, but a 20-year view.
“Tons of implications either way,” said one involved UO source.
• The Pac-12 believed earlier in the week that it had staved off the Big 12’s latest attack and would survive. The presidents at Arizona and ASU were privately telling their Pac-12 peers they’d stay as long as Oregon and Washington did, too.
Late this week the Pac-12’s primary focus turned from fighting off the Big 12 to battling another Fox-television fueled conference. Said one member of the CEO Group on Thursday morning: “Now we have to fend off the Big Ten.”
• With USC and UCLA gone to the Big Ten, Oregon viewed itself as the big dog in the Pac-12. The Ducks weighed whether they would be better off remaining in a weakened 108-year old conference or move alongside Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State and company. There had also been some reluctance from Big Ten members, who wouldn’t be guaranteed more revenue with Oregon and Washington joining.
• Staying in the Pac-12 provided a clear path to the expanded College Football Playoff for Oregon. But was that enough? UO athletic director Rob Mullens told me recently that playoff access was a huge factor to his school, but he also mentioned visibility, revenue and exposure as important things. Those things appear to have won the tug-of-war.
• Phil Knight and his wife, Penny, have given $1 billion in gifts to his alma mater. Oregon wants to get him a return on that investment, but it’s not totally about getting to the playoff for Knight. He thinks about long-range success. He’s visionary. Knight, 85, would cave to the Big Ten decision if he was convinced it’s what’s best for Oregon long term.
• There was some question about whether the University of Washington could handle the financial burden of travel in the Big Ten while receiving a reduced distribution. The Huskies and Ducks are making the same conference move as UCLA/USC, but at a discount. An up-front payment against future distributions? Some other subsidy? We’ll soon find out how that will work.
…
• There were concerns about the Apple deal in Eugene. If the model wasn’t executed properly it would threaten revenue and Oregon’s visibility. There was no guarantee of a linear element. There’s a cost to staying relevant, right? In a worse-case scenario the Ducks could have faced additional costs that Pac-12 fans weren’t thinking about (i.e. additional marketing, NIL, recruiting increases, etc.).
• Apple cut a 10-year, $2.5 billion deal with MLS. Apple layered in a bonus structure for star Lionel Messi, who will reportedly receive a revenue share of subscriptions to MLS Season Pass on Apple TV+. There was some late discussion at Oregon, I’m told, about whether Apple might add a layer of Messi-like upside for the Ducks.
• Without Oregon and Washington what happens to the rest of the Pac-12? It feels gone as you knew it. Dead. Over. Apple won’t pay $25 million per school for what’s left of the Pac-12.
Arizona and ASU would likely seek shelter in the Big 12. Utah, Stanford and Cal could make a run at joining the Big Ten or try to be tentpoles in a new-world Pac-12. The Mountain West Conference may choose to absorb Washington State and Oregon State at some point. Or the Cougars and Beavers could join forces with the Bay Area schools.
It amounts to a sobering ending to a conference that had rich tradition and solid rivalries. The Pac-12 was founded in a downtown-Portland hotel in 1915.
…
• Who do you blame for the death of the Pac-12? Greed. Television. Ex-commissioner Larry Scott, who put the conference on the road to destruction. Commissioner George Kliavkoff, who lost USC in his first 366 days on the job and struggled to get a media-rights deal done. The Pac-12 presidents themselves get a pile of blame too. In the end, the academics in charge could not trust each other. That much was evident.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-putting-a-face-on-the-plight
Canzano with a story reminding us of the collateral damage from realignment. It’s worth a read.
Matthew McNelly is the pastor at Pullman Presbyterian Church. It has the good fortune of being located on Stadium Way, just three blocks from the football venue at Washington State University.
On Friday, Oregon and Washington informed the Pac-12 they’re both leaving for the Big Ten. Good for them. They’ll enjoy a superior media-rights deal, more TV exposure and a seat at the table of major college football. But it was a rotten day for some others.
For the rest of Pac-12 Conference.
For schools and fans left behind.
For tradition and history.
Also, for the youth group that McNelly oversees at his church.
‘We’re a five-minute walk to Martin Stadium,” the pastor told me. “I tell people we’re the closest parking lot you can get without having to pay a $1,000 donation to the athletic fund.”
The kids of the youth group utilize that church parking lot to fund their programs. For typical home football games, they charge $25 for a parking spot. But when WSU plays against premium opponents such as Washington, Oregon, USC or even this year’s scheduled home game against Wisconsin, they’ll get $40 or $50.
“All that goes away now,” McNelly said.
…
We’re left instead with two words from Pastor McNelly: “This stinks.”
Maybe you thought about the loss of tradition when you heard the Ducks and Huskies were leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten. Maybe you wondered if they’ll still bother to play the Civil War or the Apple Cup rivalry games years from now. (Will they squeeze it in for Week 3?) But McNelly’s mind drifted to the adjustments he’ll have to make to the youth-group budget after the 2023 football season.
…
“I get it,” the pastor said, “we’re incredibly blessed to have that parking lot so close to the stadium, but USC is never coming back to Pullman. UCLA is not coming back.”
…
That’s the college realignment game. Washington State and Oregon State now must play it, like it or not. But remember, the death of the Pac-12 is a gut punch for the youth group, too. That church parking lot sends kids to summer camp.
Said McNelly: “It’s a pretty sad day around here.”
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2023/8/4/general-big-ten.aspx
It’s officially official. The B10 has posted a statement.
The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) voted unanimously today to admit the University of Oregon and the University of Washington to the Big Ten Conference effective August 2, 2024, with competition to begin in all sports for the 2024-25 academic year. With the schools’ admission, Oregon and Washington will also join the Big Ten Academic Alliance (BTAA), a consortium of world-class research institutions dedicated to advancing their academic missions.
“I’m thrilled that the University of Oregon has the opportunity to join the nation’s preeminent academic-athletic conference,” said University of Oregon President John Karl Scholz. “Our student-athletes will participate at the highest level of collegiate athletic competition, and our alumni, friends, and fans will be able to carry the spirit of Oregon across the country.”
“The Big Ten is a thriving conference with strong athletic and academic traditions, and we are excited and confident about competing at the highest level on a national stage,” said University of Washington President Ana Mari Cauce. “My top priority must be to do what is best for our student-athletes and our University, and this move will help ensure a strong future for our athletics program.”
“The Big Ten Presidents and Chancellors are pleased to welcome the University of Oregon and the University of Washington to the Big Ten Conference,” said COP/C Chair and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Chancellor Robert Jones. “When considering the full spectrum of academic, athletic and research excellence, the alignment with our member institutions is extremely clear. We are excited to welcome them and look forward to collaborating and competing with them in the years ahead.”
“Accepting membership into the Big Ten Conference is a transformational opportunity for the University of Oregon to change the short and long-term trajectory of our university and athletics department,” said Oregon athletic director Rob Mullens. “The stability and exposure of joining the Big Ten is of great benefit to the University of Oregon, and we are grateful to the Big Ten presidents and chancellors for accepting our application to join the conference. We look forward to the opportunity for our student-athletes to compete in this conference, which includes many of the best programs in the nation in every sport.”
“We have tremendous respect and gratitude for the Pac-12, its treasured history and traditions. At the same time, the college athletics landscape has changed dramatically in recent years,” said Washington Director of Athletics Jennifer Cohen. “The Big Ten’s history of athletic and academic success and long-term stability best positions our teams for future success, and we are energized at the opportunity to compete at the highest level against some of the best programs in the country.”
In order for an institution to be admitted to the Big Ten Conference, it must submit a written application, which must then be approved by at least 70 percent of the Big Ten COP/C. The University of Oregon and the University of Washington formally submitted applications to join the Big Ten Conference this afternoon. The Big Ten COP/C then met via conference call and unanimously approved both applications.
“We are excited to welcome the University of Oregon and the University of Washington to the Big Ten Conference,” said Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti. “We look forward to building long-lasting relationships with the universities, administrators and staff, student-athletes, coaches and fans,” Petitti said. “Both institutions feature a combination of academic and athletic excellence that will prove a great fit for our future.”
About the University of Oregon
The UO is a Carnegie R1 research university and a member of the Association of American Universities. The UO faculty includes a Nobel Prize winner, a MacArthur fellow, a pair of National Medal of Science winners and a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize. The UO has more than 500 student-athletes who compete in 20 sports. UO teams have taken home 38 national championships.
About University of Washington Athletics
The University of Washington has one of the nation’s elite intercollegiate athletics programs that consists of 22 sports. The Huskies have won national championships in football, women’s cross country, men’s rowing, women’s rowing, softball, women’s volleyball, and women’s golf. The department annually finishes among the top schools in the nation in the NACDA Director’s Cup and the Pac-12 Conference.
Washington Athletics inspires champions on the field and in the classroom. Like the region and world-class University they represent, the Huskies choose to lead by example. With over 650 student-athletes competing throughout UW’s 22 sports programs, the department of Intercollegiate Athletics is committed to a leading-edge student-athlete experience, and offering student-athletes the ability to compete for NCAA and Pac-12 championships while working toward a degree from one of the world’s leading public research universities.
Washington Athletics inspires champions on the field and in the classroom. In sport and in life, who we are is why we win. It’s the Washington Way.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38135462/utah-arizona-state-apply-big-12-membership-sources-say
ASU and UU have applied to the B12 according to Pete Thamel’s sources. The B12 has a conference call tonight to vote.
Both Utah and Arizona State have applied for formal membership to the Big 12 Conference, sources told ESPN’s Pete Thamel on Friday.
The Big 12’s presidents and chancellors will discuss their membership during a Friday night conference call.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38134807/college-football-2023-conference-realignment-big-ten-pac-12-sec-florida-state
The remaining realignment questions (various ESPN reporters cover each one):
What does this mean for the remaining Pac-12 teams?
Where do things stand with further Big 12 expansion?
Is the SEC really content to stay at 16 teams?
Does this change anything for Florida State and its timeline?
Yes. Florida State has been monitoring the events in the Big 12 and Pac-12 closely and understands the realities and dynamics of realignment.
…
Does this mean anything for Notre Dame?
No, not at this time.
…
What does this mean for the Big Ten schedule in 2024?
What is the USC/UCLA reaction to adding two Pacific Time Zone schools?
Some combination of relief and begrudging acceptance. As Chip Kelly pointed out at UCLA practice Friday, as other teams scramble to figure out where they’ll play in the coming years, it’s nice to know where your home will be. Kelly joked that perhaps the Big Ten could put the former Pac-12 teams in a pod and the Big Ten teams in a pod and have the winners play each other at the end of the year, perhaps in the Rose Bowl. If it was up to him, though, he’d scrap the whole thing and start anew.
“I’d be for, we’re all in the same division. Put 60 of us in the same division,” Kelly said. “Do it like the NFL where there’s NFC West, NFC north, NFC south. I think we should all be in, there should be one conference in all college football and then just break it up like they do the professional game. Based on geography. That makes the most sense. There’s your travel question. There’s all those other questions, but no one asks me.”
…
From a logistics standpoint, I’m sure there are those who will be grateful both L.A. schools will have more than one West Coast conference game to play in every year. UCLA and USC don’t have some storied history playing against Oregon or Washington, but as the Pac-12 crumbles, carrying over some semblance of continuity isn’t the worst scenario either.
What happens to the Rose Bowl?
Conference realignment didn’t change the Rose Bowl’s storied partnership with the Big Ten and Pac-12 — the College Football Playoff did. Last year’s game between Penn State and Utah was the last, true historic matchup between those leagues. Moving forward, the Rose Bowl has fully integrated with the CFP and will host a semifinal this season, followed by quarterfinals in each of the first two seasons of the 12-team playoff.
Is the Big Ten done expanding?
What does this mean for the College Football Playoff?
…
It was too early following the news for any concrete answers as to if and how the model might change, and how it could impact conference champions. “I certainly understand why people need to ask the question,” CFP executive director Bill Hancock told ESPN. ” The fact is that it’s too soon to say. The CFP management committee and board of managers will discuss the future if and when it becomes appropriate. Of course, none of this will affect the four-team playoff this year.”
LikeLike
The death of the P12 should be good news for the G5 in the CFP. With just a P4 left, that leaves 2 conference champion slots for the G5 in the 12-team playoff. Even if the P12 rebuilds with G5 teams, it still makes an easier competition for the last 2 champion spots. We’ll see if they restructure the deal, but for now it’s a positive for them. It also means almost guaranteed byes for the P4 champs unless they have a really down year. It probably also means a lot of blowouts in the CFP, but that’s been true with just 4 teams.
Any guesses at the first MAC team to make the CFP, and when?
LikeLike
Four Corners to Big 12 . . .
https://dknetwork.draftkings.com/2023/8/4/23818706/utah-joins-big-12-college-football-conference-expansion-realignment-rumors-news-pac-12
LikeLike
The current “6 conference champions + 6 at-large” CFP deal is only 2 years long (the expansion of the old contract expiring in 2026).
Next deal will almost assuredly not include the guarantee of 6 conference champions… maybe 4 at most for the next 12 years (Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, ACC would assuredly hog those 4 slots).
LikeLike
z33k,
I don’t know. The G5 would throw a fit if it dropped to 4, or if champion slots are dropped entirely. I think they may cut it to 5 + 7 at-larges as a compromise.
Now that congress has gotten involved in college sports, shutting out the G5 would be a risky choice.
LikeLike
I think Big Ten will play hardball (like the SEC).
Hard to see how they wouldn’t be aligned here; Big Ten will want its #3 or #4 school to have a good shot at the playoff.
LikeLike
z33k,
The B10’s #4 already has a good shot in the current model, and probably better after adding 4 good programs. With the P12 dying it probably goes up even more. If you look back at the past 9 seasons (CFP era), the B10 would’ve averaged about 3.7 teams per year if you include the Pac4.
Frankly, adding another at-large is just giving the SEC another spot most years.
LikeLike
The truth straight from someone who’d know.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38136135/big-12-approves-addition-utah-arizona-state-bringing-league-16-teams
It’s officially official for the B12, too, pending approval from the UU BoT.
The Big 12 is rapidly getting bigger, as the school’s presidents and chancellors voted unanimously to formally add Utah and Arizona State on Friday night.
They are expected to be introduced soon along with Arizona, which was approved Friday. The only obstacle remaining is a University of Utah Board of Trustees vote, which is expected to happen Friday.
LikeLike
A little more detail on the partial shares. Adam Rittenberg verifies his sources say the same thing.
$30M + $1M per year. That seems like slow escalation (1.33% and dropping). Plus a share of any extra money the B10 can get now from a 4th network, presumably. And a profit share from BTN.
LikeLike
Not much Pac-12 can say, but their statements over the past year have just been incredibly sad.
LikeLike
So Kliavkoff is scouting out MWC deals for WSU and OrSU? Helping Stanford decide if they should go independent? Or does it mean he’s trying to get a merger with the MWC? Or is he begging the B10 to take Cal and Stanford?
How long until the CA government begs the B10 to take Cal?
Would Stanford and Cal accept an even smaller share to join the B10, perhaps a permanently reduced share?
LikeLike
Kliavkoff is probably just stunned. He should know how many members it will take to dissolve both the MWC and AAC. Those are the only two conferences that the PAC could rebuild from. No one is going to pay exit fees so if dissolution of a conference is not an option than the other option is a reverse merger where the corporate structure and assets of the PAC remain, but management is taken over by the merging conference (MWC or AAC). That way the PAC’s playoff share and bowl contracts exist for at least 2 more years. The NCAA basketball tournament credits are also retained. All of these will payout much higher than anything the MWC or AAC gets today. Travel will be less if the MWC is the merger partner but both should be contacted to minimize the leverage the G5 conference has in negotiations.
From the viewpoint of the schools leaving the PAC the best outcome would for the conference to dissolve since then the basketball tournament credits will revert back to the schools that earned them.
LikeLike
Just realized that Big XII (XVI?)’s new membership allows for some fun groupings based on previous conferences
Once Upon a WAC
Utah
BYU
‘Zona
ASU
The SWC Rides Again
Houston
TTU
TCU
Baylor
The Big 8 Is Back
Colorado
Oklahoma St.
Kansas
K-State
ISU
Uh… Everybody Else
BYU
Ciny
UCF
Of course if you want to go a step further and actually set up Pods for scheduling then you can do some slight tweaking
PAC
Utah
Colorado
‘Zona
ASU
SWC
Houston
TTU
TCU
Baylor
Big 8
Oklahoma State
Kansas
K-State
ISU
Other
BYU
Cincy
WVU
UCF
Finally, you could simply the practical (and boring) choice and go
West
BYU
Utah
Arizona
ASU
South
Houston
TTU
TCU
Baylor
Central
Colorado
Okie St.
Kansas
K-State
East
ISU
Cincy
WVU
UCF
LikeLike
frug,
Just realized that Big XII (XVI?)’s new membership allows for some fun groupings based on previous conferences
Once Upon a WAC
Utah
BYU
‘Zona
ASU
The SWC Rides Again
Houston
TTU
TCU
Baylor
The Big 8 Is Back
Colorado
Oklahoma St.
Kansas
K-State
ISU
Uh… Everybody Else
BYU
Ciny
UCF
It seems unfair to count BYU twice – I think you meant WV under Everybody Else.
UC was in the Missouri Valley Conference, and so were ISU, KU, KSU, OkSU (not at the same time as UC, but it’s a connection).
UCF and UC were both in CUSA, and WV was an affiliate member of CUSA.
Of course if you want to go a step further and actually set up Pods for scheduling then you can do some slight tweaking
PAC
Utah
Colorado
‘Zona
ASU
SWC
Houston
TTU
TCU
Baylor
Big 8
Oklahoma State
Kansas
K-State
ISU
Other
BYU
Cincy
WVU
UCF
At least it’s 4 groups of 4, and reasonably balanced.
Finally, you could simply the practical (and boring) choice and go
West
BYU
Utah
Arizona
ASU
South
Houston
TTU
TCU
Baylor
Central
Colorado
Okie St.
Kansas
K-State
East
ISU
Cincy
WVU
UCF
Travel is great for the South, decent for the Central and West, but terrible for the East.
LikeLike
Let’s look at some other sports:
Andy Katz says the B10 will stay at 20 games – 3 HaH and 14 single plays. That’s 7 eastern road games for each Pac school. Could the B10 put together some midseason tournament scenarios where 4 (or 8) teams come to town and get 2 (or 3) games in a condensed time frame as a way to reduce travel (everyone meet in StL)?
* How many teams will make the hoops tournament? 16? All 18 (bottom 4 play-in)?
* How long until the hoops tourneys are in LA and Seattle?
Baseball and softball can come west for some early season B10 games rather than playing in 40 degrees. Again, maybe set up some tournaments to get 4-8 teams in one place and get a bunch of games in 1 trip.
LikeLike
For basketball all that needs to be done is to schedule 2 fairly close opponents for the same week such as a game on Thursday and a second on Saturday or Sunday. Not as close as UCLA/USC but IL and IN are not that far apart as are quite a few others. It is how the B12 schedules WV. Eliminates about half of the cross-country trips.
LikeLike
Yeah, no need for a tournament if you can knock off 2 (or even 3: Th-Sat-Mon) road games over a long weekend on each trip east.
LikeLike
Here is an interesting question; would the PAC have actually been better off sticking with Larry Scott? I know it seems unthinkable at first, but say what you want, the one undeniable success he had was negotiating a TV deal with ESPN and Fox. Would he have done a better job at the reading the market this time?
LikeLike
Naw, Larry Scott was such a disaster in TV terms, and the way he talked in 2018, he really didn’t understand the changes that were happening in cable/paytv markets. If he had, he would have folded the 7 Pac-12 Networks into 1 half-owned/full-owned by ESPN back in 2018 when he had the offer on the table to do so.
LikeLike
Larry Scott raped the Pac-12 for $50 million. He was a con man.
https://tucson.com/sports/pac-12-hotline/pac-12-hotline-larry-scott-s-jackpot-presidential-incompetence-and-an-epic-fail-all-around/article_723d6a8c-f731-11ed-a647-1f8b100d4dee.html
LikeLike
A more interesting question:
What if GK has hired the consultants to help negotiate their TV deal that Big 12 did instead of his buddy from UVA? The same consultants who correctly told BY to take the extension.
LikeLike
Or at least hired a PR firm to counter all the negative press coming from the B12’s consultants through various mouthpieces.
Yormark said he didn’t see the market change coming, so I’m not sure consultants were the difference there.
LikeLike
frug,
I agree with z33k. Scott wasted millions of dollars (SF rent, fancy hotel suites, etc.) in a conference facing financial issues. Then there’s the whole issue with the $50M owed to Comcast. He also botched the referees, and don’t forget he’s the one who forced equal revenue distribution on USC and UCLA – the first step to them leaving. And not agreeing to ESPN’s offer in 2018 was probably the straw that eventually broke the conference’s back.
The only question is if Scott would’ve accepted the initial ESPN offer, and I don’t believe he would have. He believed in the value of the P12. He convinced the presidents of that, who then convinced GK.
To be fair, I’m not sure anyone would’ve read this market correctly. Yormark admitted he didn’t see it coming.
LikeLike
I mean, you could say Delany (the master of media himself), was the one that correctly read the market every step of his tenure.
Bet on the Big Ten’s schools/markets/fanbases with BTN before the cable business peaked.
Went into business with FOX on short term deals that allowed the Big Ten to make aggressive moves. That last deal especially being only 6 years allowed the Big Ten to be first in line for Warren’s move on the Pac-12.
But yeah, reading markets that are in major flux is hard. So many business rise or fall based on decisions that in hindsight look obvious but in real-time are incredibly hard to gauge.
Tech associated markets (like media/entertainment which relies on technology for distribution that’s rapidly changing over the past 15-20 years) are especially difficult to gauge given how rapidly things shift in terms of how a product is sold to consumers.
LikeLike
Predictably, the day after type media articles lament the PACs demise and the Big Ten’s ruthlessness. The PAC sealed its own fate for a decade by not partnering its network with ESPN, Fox, or any distributor, like BTN, SECN, ACCN, or even the LonghornN.
The ACC has its own dysfunction but it is still alive, and the Big 12 survived death twice and is now thriving. The PAC killed itself, never forget it.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_schools_with_the_most_Division_I_national_championships
So who becomes the Conference of Champions? The P12 truly deserved that title, with the 3 dominant leaders plus Cal at #10. But now? We don’t know where Cal and Stanford will be. The B10 has 3 of the top 5.
Schools by total NCAA team titles:
1. Stanford – 133
2. UCLA – 121
3. USC – 112
4. UT – 56
5. PSU – 53
6. OkSU
7. AR
8. UNC
9. LSU
10. Cal
Schools by total college team titles (includes football, AIAW, other sponsored sports – see footnote at Wikipedia for details):
1. Stanford – 152
2. UCLA – 141
3. USC – 134
4. PSU – 97
5. Yale – 87
6. Cornell
7. OSU
8. Princeton
9. UT
10. Cal
LikeLike
It will be the Big Ten when Stanford joins with Notre Dame.
That will happen at some point TBD.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/video-wilner-cesmat-emergency-chop-up-on-pac-12-demise/
Half hour Jon Wilner interview on the demise of the P12.
* How the P12 got here (including some details from Friday)
* What’s next for the remaining 4
* What’s next for realignment
LikeLike
What’s next for the Pac-4? They’ve been meeting to discuss it. The MWC has been receptive to the idea of a merger/partnership.
LikeLike
I’ll still be a bit surprised if Stanford (and maybe Cal) goes along with that. They were supposedly so adamant before about being associated with the ‘right’ kind of universities. Would definitely be a bit of humble pie for them.
LikeLike
Short of a full merger, 9 of the 12 MWC schools could vote to dissolve and ditch 3 of the least desirable schools. Utah St, San Jose St, Nevada?
9 + 4 = 13. Add SMU, Rice and Tulane – quality, private universities that Stanford would like, located in big markets, to get to 16.
LikeLike
Logan,
I don’t think the MWC wants to screw over its own members. Besides, there’s strength in numbers. Bigger also lets them limit travel by scheduling geographically even if they don’t use divisions.
SJSU would rightly throw a fit if they got kicked out just as their neighbors get added. I think the Cal St BoT would tell Fresno State and SDSU they have to vote to keep SJSU. The schools at risk would vote to keep each other I assume, so that’s 5 votes against. If the at-risk schools all can’t vote, then that’s 2 of 9 votes against. One more school saying no would be all it takes to stop it. I think UNM would also be worried about that precedent.
They could still add SMU, Rice, Tulane and 1 more (Tulsa for academics, or NMSU or UTEP for geography). 20 could work for them.
16:
Mountain – WSU, OrSU, BSU, USU, WY, CSU, AF, UNM
West – Cal, Stanford, SJSU, FrSU, SDSU, NV, UNLV, HI
LikeLike
Desperation leads to strange bedfellows. In the past, Stanford had the privilege of being able to be picky.
There were rumors that Stanford reached out to the B12 last night.
LikeLike
I hereby copyright “Rocky Pacific Conference”, the Rock-Pac.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-a-shrinking-pac-12-could-alter-the-selection-process-for-the-the-12-team-college-football-playoff/
How might the 12-team CFP change with the P12’s demise?
With Oregon and Washington leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten following the 2023 season, the balance of power in college sports is swinging so hard in the direction of the Big Ten and SEC that it raises a critical question about college football’s postseason. How long will those two leagues remain content with the previously agreed upon structure for the 12-team College Football Playoff?
The 12-team CFP, which begins with the 2024 season, previously decided to grant automatic bids to the top six conference champions in the CFP rankings, with the remaining bids going to the top six teams who didn’t win their conference title. But that system was agreed to by the CFP Board of Managers when it seemed like the Pac-12 would survive as a “power conference” propped up by football brands Oregon, Washington and Utah.
…
Could AQ bids be on the way out?
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey already made it seem like an act of charity to concede any automatic bids amid the long saga of CFP expansion. He certainly can’t be thrilled by the agreement now. After all, the SEC, which only plays an eight-game conference schedule, would benefit greatly if all CFP bids were granted on an at-large basis.
…
The Power Five could shrink to the ‘Power Four’
A 12-team College Football Playoff featuring two conference champions from that group would be different than what the Board of Managers likely envisioned. But it would double the Cinderella possibilities and push the event further into the mold of what makes the NCAA Tournament so wonderful in basketball. A playoff featuring two conference champions from outside the sport’s ruling class would also regularly bring national stakes to games played on the blue turf of Boise State and on the “surf turf” of Coastal Carolina.
It would ratchet up the pressure from the power conference teams to perform in the regular season, too. That should appeal to traditionalists who never wanted CFP expansion in the first place.
…
SEC, Big Ten could get more
If you believe for a second that the Big Ten and SEC will be content to see one-sixth or 16.7% of the playoff spots taken up by the have-nots, then you haven’t been paying attention to college sports for the past 15 years.
The CFP’s long-term media rights situation is up in the air past the 2025-26 season. Given how significant the influence of media rights holders has become in college sports, expect a significant push in the months ahead to tweak the CFP formula in a way that benefits the Big Two as the CFP enters a new media agreement. A three-loss Michigan team is almost certainly of more interest to a network than an 11-1 Fresno State team.
…
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/oregon-washington-join-big-ten-distances-teams-will-have-to-travel-to-face-all-four-pac-12-defectors/
A good look at the travel distances in the future B10.
No other conference in major college football will require certain members to make true cross-country road trips. With four Pac-12 schools joining the fold next summer, it’s likely every school will have to make at least one trip out West in 2024. In the original schedule, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Michigan State, Indiana and Purdue all avoided a trip to either USC or UCLA that season.
All six of those schools would’ve had to travel less than 5,000 miles round trip for conference games. For context, USC was scheduled to travel over 16,000 miles roundtrip in 2024 because of road games against Maryland, Penn State and Purdue. UCLA had conference road games scheduled against Rutgers, Michigan and Indiana, plus nonconference road games against Hawaii and LSU.
I’d note that Orlando to Phoenix is pretty close to cross-country, and so is Miami to Boston (just in the other direction).
There’s a table of all the one-way distances for the Pac-4 (he has UW to RU wrong – it’s 2392 not 1702.
Some quick calculations:
Average road trip = 1626-1659 miles
Average road trip to eastern 3 = 2313-2378 miles + 3 time zones
Average road trip to midwest 11 = 1706-1759 miles + 2.5 time zones
Average road trip to midwest ET 5 = 1886-1955 miles + 3 time zones
Average road trip to midwest CT 6 = 1556-1597 miles + 2 time zones
Average road trip to western 3 = 568-725 miles + 0 time zones
Average road trip to far western 2 = 734-962 miles + 0 time zones
It’s obviously very similar for all 4 schools.
Let’s assume something like flex protect plus is used, and the Pac-4 all lock each other. That leaves 6 other games, so 3 road trips across the mountains. That’s 9900 miles round trip and 15 time zone changes in total. That’s also 3 home games each against eastern teams, or 12 total western trips for the 14 eastern teams. I’d like to see the B10 limit the number of trips from coast to coast. You shouldn’t completely eliminate them I suppose, though there would be 12 teams to take the 12 trips. Maybe all 6 CT teams always go west, and 6 of the 8 eastern teams. Maybe all 6 CT teams plus MU, MSU, OSU and PSU always go west once, and 2 of RU, UMD, IN and PU. That gets the shortest trips and brands out west, and minimizes the travel of lesser brands with long trips. But most likely all 14 rotate through equally.
But what if the Pac-4 only lock their close rival? That leaves 8 other games, so 4 road trips across the mountains. That’s 13,200 miles round trip and 20 time zone changes in total. That’s also 4 home games each against eastern teams, or 16 total western trips for the 14 eastern teams. I’d still like to see the B10 limit the number of trips from coast to coast. Maybe all teams take at least 1 trip west, with 2 of the 6 CT teams plus MU, MSU, OSU and PSU going twice. But most likely all 14 rotate through equally.
LikeLike
This fretting about conference travel is kinda silly. Jets are very efficient at high altitudes and an extra hour in the air in not a problem.
In the past few years, Purdue has scheduled football games with Nevada, Oregon State, UConn, Boston College, TCU and Fresno State. Obviously, there are many colleges that the Boilers could have scheduled that were much closer. It’s a trivial issue unless someone wants to squeal that it’s a bigly problem
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/conference-realignment-winners-losers-oregon-comes-up-short-in-big-ten-move-arizona-fits-in-big-12/
Realignment winners and losers. UW and UO are losers according to the writer. CU and UA are winners (despite making less than UW and UO will), with UU a loser and ASU TBD.
Other winners: Big 12
Other losers: west coast athletics, Kliavkoff
No mention of the B10.
About UW and UO:
The Ducks and Huskies have been among the most watched and successful athletic departments in the country over the past 30 years. Both programs earned a rightful place in one of the top conferences in college football. However, their arrival comes through the back door with a diminished share.
Oregon has won a College Football Playoff game and played for national championships in 2010 and 2014. Washington has four top-15 finishes in the past seven years, including an 11-2 season with an Alamo Bowl victory in 2022. Now, both programs will make substantially less money than Maryland and Northwestern to play in the same conference.
To make matters worse, the Big Ten is a logistical nightmare for the newest West Coast additions. The nearest current Big Ten member is Nebraska, more than 1,600 miles away from both schools. While USC and UCLA provide a Western wing of the conference, even those schools are more than 800 miles away. At least USC and UCLA earn $75 million per year to make the nightmare trips; Oregon and Washington will be struggling on a budget.
Frankly, these programs deserve better.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/third-party-influence-may-soon-shake-foundation-of-college-football-impacting-conferences-programs/
Third parties could soon take over CFB.
The conversation — a notably preliminary one — took place in December 2022. Around a table were venture capitalists and private equity types. The super-rich don’t get that way sitting on their assets. They plan. They innovate. They create change; they don’t wait for it.
So, at some point in the conversation, the question was posed: What would it take to “buy” a conference, invest at the base level of college athletics itself?
After some noodling, they agreed: $1 billion.
There’s even a conference out there that would be available. You haven’t heard of it. Nobody has.
It resides in the mind of media consultant Patrick Crakes. He was the one speaking with those investors who are beginning to see great potential in reshaping college athletics.
“Take $1 billion and roll up all the best teams into a new conference,” said Crakes, who spent a quarter century as an executive at Fox Sports. “The best ones you can find who will go. Four or five from the Pac-12. Four or five Big 12 schools. Four or five from the ACC. Maybe there’s a Big Ten or two that comes. You’ve got a conference.”
…
The mere fact that it’s being discussed — even in a precursory manner — offers a peek into the future. College athletics has always been a closed loop. Sure, there are sponsors and NIL, but all of that revolves around a (mostly) for-profit athletic department model married in at least a minor way with an educational model.
This sort of deal would not only mean third-party influence in college athletics but third-party ownership.
Since pursuit of this story began, CBS Sports has learned that at least one major private equity firm has shown interest in funding a conference structure.
“Things like the Big 12 and Pac-12 merging and taking parts of the ACC with them suddenly becomes something a private equity firm might say, ‘Here’s $1 billion to break all the contracts and make that happen,'” Crakes said. “I actually pitched that idea to a couple of people, and they all said, ‘That is a great freaking idea, but we can’t get our arms around that right now.’ It was people who had the money to do it.”
…
Any combination of teams that keeps the Big Ten and SEC from disappearing over the horizon is a win at this point. Big Ten schools, at the back end of their new media rights deal, may be making $100 million annually (including bowl, College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament revenue). The SEC could be at $80 million. Big 12 sources said their all-in figure will come close to $50 million.
Survival below that level may depend on some version of Crakes’ vision.
“You hire somebody who can assemble a team who can go get this executed,” Crakes said. “To get the $1 billion, you’ve got to have it first. There’s a list of 15-20 people like that. None of those people ever get hired (as commissioners).
“When are we going to know when somebody is serious? When one of these 20 people gets hired. That would be a big tell.”
…
“Once that playoff is in place and we’ve gone through more of this media distribution evolution, there will be a place for more realignment,” Crakes said. “That’s why you want to have your conference locked in.”
The question is the timing of what might as well be called “The Big Flex” from the Big Ten and/or SEC — the moment when one or both overtly assert their primacy over the rest of the sport. It could be in those negotiations. It could be sooner. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has reminded anyone who wants to listen on several occasions his league could stage its own playoff.
“The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us,” outgoing Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick told Sports Illustrated, “or does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception?”
…
After the CFP is priced, the process for change should become more streamlined. There will conceivably be cash reserves making it possible to revenue share with players. Conferences left out in realignment may consider consolidating. That’s when the investment houses get interested.
…
The board went from 21 members to nine and included representatives of all three divisions.
“You’re assigning all the legal and financial responsibility to a nine-member group that has a minority representation from the groups that are generating the financial and legal realities,” Sankey said. “It really is backwards.”
It’s easy to read the code embedded there: The Power Five should have more control of the NCAA. That includes deciding not only how to spend the money but how much of it should be spent on legal issues.
In other words, for all intents and purposes, the NCAA is the Power Five. At least until the Big Ten and SEC decide to become a Power Two.
“That’s our world,” Sankey said of the power conferences’ influence. “To assign decision-making authority to a room that is not invested the same way is long-term problematic. That’s as direct and blunt as I could be.”
…
“So, what is going to happen if somebody wants to just buy a college team?” Danielson asked rhetorically. “What would it take? Twenty-five million a year, and in three years, you’d win the national championship? It’s like a big shadow sitting out there. It won’t be a huge deal if it’s Ohio State or Alabama or LSU or USC that does it. But what if this guy decides to do it at South Florida, or, ‘I live in Boise. I want Boise to be the national champion. I’ve got $8 billion.'”
The biggest issue in any such model is return on investment. Is ROI in college sports measured in championships won, dollars earned or both?
…
“I wish there was a way for us to have more collaboration [with the SEC], but we are restricted legally … to come together and collaborate,” Smith told CBS Sports. “We can’t collude on the financial model.”
…
“The Autonomy Five said, ‘We’re going to let all of you share in all of our basketball money, so leave us alone on the football question,'” shared a Division I commissioner who spoke with CBS Sports under the condition of anonymity. “I’ve gotten the lectures from all of [the power conference commissioners].”
…
The collegiate model itself has been shifting before our eyes for a while. Instead of speculating on the process — what teams are going where?! — why not own the process? Instead of evaluating the value of teams switching conferences, just buy the conferences themselves.
…
Whatever the case, all of it is an indication of college sports becoming decentralized. The NCAA will have to share power. Sankey’s comments certainly indicate that. The result is consolidation, like any business struggling to figure its future.
…
Venture capital opportunity awaits. Realignment may just be starting.
“We need to get things settled down and locked down to get through this next half decade of complete freakin’ turmoil,” Crakes said.
LikeLike
“Third parties could soon take over CFB. . . . Venture capital opportunity awaits. Realignment may just be starting.”
Brian, give it a rest. Your nonsensical scenario isn’t happening. Maybe you should back off the prune juice and try a high fiber diet.
LikeLike
Eh, I work on this type of stuff for a living and I don’t see it. For now it’s mostly just big talk/pie in the sky stuff that you see from rich PE guys.
CFB is not pro-golf where you can buy 2-3 dozen top golfers for a billion or so and try to create a rival golf tour.
Big Ten revenue will be at $2 billion a year by end of this decade; PE money doesn’t mean much to a business that big.
Even just individual schools, this FSU situation is unique. It makes 0 sense what they’re trying to do.
PE would give them $300-500 million to break out of the ACC and then take 20-30% of their conference distributions for 20-30 years.
It makes no sense to do a deal like that because you get hosed on the backend and you’re at a disadvantage to your conference-mates for decades. FSU saber rattling is just that. When a school moves, they make very little noise in public.
And there’s no properties in college athletics that are worth this kind of move because the TV money isn’t there outside of the Big Ten/SEC to justify it.
After the ACC implodes we’ll be at a situation where the Big Ten/SEC are getting $100+ million for each school and the Big 12 is getting 50% of that. Rest will be getting $10 million per school or something like that…
So yeah what would be the point of a PE rollup there? The big brands will all be in the Big Ten and SEC and the best of the rest will be in the Big 12. That’s about as efficient as it can be.
LikeLike
z33k,
Eh, I work on this type of stuff for a living and I don’t see it. For now it’s mostly just big talk/pie in the sky stuff that you see from rich PE guys.
Agreed, but it seems more possible now than ever before. FSU is looking into the venture capital market. The P12 looked into it a few years ago. The real question is how they make a profit from the investment.
CFB is not pro-golf where you can buy 2-3 dozen top golfers for a billion or so and try to create a rival golf tour.
No, but you could buy the CFP. And you can incent players to certain teams with NIL money. And you can support networks who hype your teams.
Big Ten revenue will be at $2 billion a year by end of this decade; PE money doesn’t mean much to a business that big.
But it does to any but the P2. It would be a way for the ACC or B12 to keep up. It would be a way for a G5 conference to reach the P4 level.
Even just individual schools, this FSU situation is unique. It makes 0 sense what they’re trying to do.
Yeah, I don’t see where the profit is for the investors unless they are just boosters wanting championships.
PE would give them $300-500 million to break out of the ACC and then take 20-30% of their conference distributions for 20-30 years.
It makes no sense to do a deal like that because you get hosed on the backend and you’re at a disadvantage to your conference-mates for decades. FSU saber rattling is just that. When a school moves, they make very little noise in public.
Who knows? This latest round wasn’t very quiet.
And there’s no properties in college athletics that are worth this kind of move because the TV money isn’t there outside of the Big Ten/SEC to justify it.
If you can build a regular CFP winning entity, you’ll get that TV money too.
So yeah what would be the point of a PE rollup there? The big brands will all be in the Big Ten and SEC and the best of the rest will be in the Big 12. That’s about as efficient as it can be.
My one guess would be if they think it will become NFL Lite, they can get in at the ground floor and own a piece of something that will explode in value. They can’t buy an NFL team for that money, but they could own a college team (theoretically).
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s just that you need to somehow get eyeballs or a TV contract for a non-Big Ten/SEC/Big 12 kind of conference that’s worth all the hassle and exit fees and everything else involved in a rollup that they’re looking at…
As far as the CFP goes, we’ll see how that gets split. I’d imagine the network want Big Ten/SEC representation maxed out for the big brands, so we’ll see how this works out beyond the next 2 years.
Like just as an example, the MWC and ACC have exit fees that are way too big to justify for this PE strategy unless those teams are going to a place where taking 20-30% of the conference revenue for that team would be worth it.
But the Pac-12 may not even be able to pluck anybody because they have no TV deal.
And Apple’s terms are extremely tough, so just hard to see how you put it together.
I don’t doubt that there may be some kind of involvement in the future, but as I said before the sport is actually getting to a point where the brands are distributed efficiently. That just makes it harder to make more efficient unless you’re trying to buy a part of the playoff or something else.
There’s no real promotion/relegation here because it’s not like you can buy a low tier English soccer club and then plow tons of investment hoping to reach one of the top levels where the TV money is good.
Even if you “buy” a part of Boise State and put tens of millions into NIL to bring players there, what do you win if they go 13-0 and reach the CFP. Even if they win it, what are you actually getting out of that?
And how realistic is it? Plenty of big schools have billionaires that plow tens of millions if not hundreds of millions into them for athletics.
LikeLike
Which universities are going to sell their football or athletic programs to venture capitalists? Somehow I cannot see these university presidents agreeing to any such thing – ever. Getting money from a major bank loan is another thing.
LikeLike
Bernie,
I could see some southern schools doing it if they thought they’d win more. Presidents might not, but their BoR/BoT would. Frankly, I think many presidents would love to see athletics separated from their school. If selling them is the path, they wouldn’t mind.
LikeLike
Looks like GK has decided to get ahead of the media cycle for once by launch a new website to promote the new league.
https://pac-4.com/
LikeLike
Someone is going to get sued for that, since they’re using official logos without permission.
LikeLike
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2tpPqIWMAA-rjH?format=webp&name=large
LikeLike
Just read this Athletic article going into more details about the Apple deal and everyone’s mindset Thursday night / Friday morning and I’m honestly now more surprised that the PAC-9 didn’t survive (for at least 3 more years).
https://theathletic.com/4752583/2023/08/05/pac12-apple-tv-deal-college-football-realignment/
If the article’s to be believed as long as UW and UO stuck around everyone else would stay pat too. And while $25 million (up from the initial $23 million) wasn’t anywhere near the Big-12 numbers, They could have gotten closer depending on subs.
It really seems like UO and UW were worried about the half shares in the B1G along with the crazier travel. So why not take the Apple deal since it had an out in 3 years? If it was a total failure you’re not *that* far behind where you would be taking the B1G deal. I guess they feared that this may be the only offer that they could get from the B1G, so grab it while you can. My guess is, though, the B1G would still snap them up in 3 if the PAC fell apart then.
Just ponderous.
LikeLike
Nathan,
The lack of linear games (and thus visibility) was a major issue. But also the instability. A 3 year out? Then what? All the networks would still have their other deals going, so why would the P12 expect a better deal then? And what if another round of realignment hit as other P12 schools bailed if the media deal didn’t work out? The B10 offered more money (only a little at first, but then lots more) and most important to presidents, stability.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38141550/was-stability
The UW president says the move was about stability more than money.
Interesting that the media deal changed between Tuesday and Friday. Also odd that the presidents were expecting to be presented options, not just 1 potential deal.
University of Washington President Ana Mari Cauce said Saturday that the program’s departure from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten alongside Oregon was “not just about dollars and cents” but rooted in myriad factors, one being that the proposed TV rights deal between the Pac-12 and Apple did not provide the long-term stability the school was seeking.
“When you have a deal that people are saying that one of the best aspects are that you can get out of it in two years, that tells you a lot,” Cauce said in a conference call with news media. “This was about national visibility for our players, being on linear TV so they can be seen, so they could have the national exposure. It was about stability. It was about having a future that we could count on and built towards.”
Cauce went on to say that the TV deal the Pac-12 presidents had been discussing a few days before was not the same one that was on the table at the end, and that the opportunities and stabilities provided by the Big Ten were “simply unmatched.”
“I have to say this was heart-wrenching,” Cauce said. “For more than a year, all of us worked really, really hard to find a viable path forward that would keep us together.”
…
“There was some risk but huge opportunity,” [ASU President] Crow said. “Some of the schools were committed to that but it created this another destabilizing moment of sort of tradition vs. this modern thing, so a lot of back and forth.”
Cauce and Washington athletic director Jennifer Cohen were clear in their media availability that they were not in favor of the Apple deal, which they had expected to be one of several potential TV agreements to assess, not the only one as it turned out to be.
“I have every reason to believe that offers fell apart because of factors beyond [commissioner George Kliavkoff’s] control,” Cauce said. “There was enough uncertainty [with the Apple deal]. We had been living in uncertainty for too long to continue in that level. It makes it very, very hard to build.”
…
According to Crow, while Colorado’s decision to leave the Pac-12 for the Big 12 last week was not fully responsible for ASU’s eventual move, it did create an unstable moment that put the conference and its remaining members on notice. Once Oregon and Washington made their decision, Crow said the school was forced to act and seek a viable conference — in its case, the Big 12 alongside Arizona and Utah.
“There are a lot of forces at work, including the overlords of the media empires that were driving a lot of this,” Crow said. “[ASU] was one of the stalwarts fighting for the Pac-12 until the last moment.”
ASU athletic director Ray Anderson said the program was trying to save the conference and remained “in the trenches” for as long as possible until it became clear that staying was no longer an option.
…
“I’ll be the first to say this is not perfect,” Cohen said. “There will be challenges. This does require a lot of change in adaptability. Part of the decision was that we felt very confident in the agreement we had with the Big Ten to have the resources to adapt to the challenges, including travel costs and additional resources, that our student-athletes are going to need to have a successful experience in the Big Ten.”
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/4752583/2023/08/05/pac12-apple-tv-deal-college-football-realignment/
The Athletic has the details on the Apple offer and what happened this past week, including another offer yanked at the last moment. So maybe we really were that close to the P12 surviving. The complete lack of linear in the deal killed it, ultimately. Apple has only themselves to blame for that.
According to three people with knowledge of the terms, Apple offered the members a five-year deal with an annual base rate of $23 million per school (a subsequent counteroffer lifted it to $25 million), with incentives based on projected subscribers to a Pac-12 streaming product akin to Apple’s MLS League Pass.
At 1.7 million subscribers, the per-school payout would match the $31.7 million average that Big 12 schools will reportedly receive from ESPN and Fox beginning in 2025. But Kliavkoff encouraged the room to think much bigger — at 5 million subscribers, the schools would eclipse $50 million per year, closer to the deep-pocketed SEC and Big Ten than the ACC or Big 12.
The league also had an opt-out clause after three years if the deal didn’t reach a specific revenue target.
But there were no guarantees whether Apple would simulcast certain games on a linear network, as it does with Fox for MLS, in which case conference games would reach a much smaller universe than other major conferences. ESPN currently has 75 million subscribers, far more than the most optimistic projections for a Pac-12 product on Apple+.
As a reminder, the MLS pass has 800k subscribers (thanks to Messi). The P12 would need to more than double that to match the B12. 5M is a pipe dream. And ESPN is below 72M subscribers now.
Kliavkoff updated the 10 presidents throughout the negotiations, so neither Apple’s involvement or a streaming-heavy deal came as a surprise; the New York Post first reported the possibility in February. However, three participants said they’d been expecting to be presented with a second, more traditional option as well. Just as Kliavkoff and others had told reporters at the league’s Media Day on July 21, they were under the impression a new major player had emerged in the last six weeks.
But that deal, which involved multiple partners, fell apart at the 11th hour, shortly before the presidents’ self-imposed July 31 deadline for bidders to finalize their offers.
…
Even despite the underwhelming offer, at least several ADs went to bed Thursday believing they had a deal. Though Arizona and Utah had already applied for Big 12 membership, an Arizona board of regents meeting Thursday night ended with ASU president Michael Crow still unwilling to leave, and he and Arizona president Robert Robbins had pledged for their schools to remain together. If they stayed, Utah would, too.
“We were the stalwarts fighting for the Pac-12 until the last ditch,” Crow told reporters Saturday. He described the Apple deal as “a technological 23rd century Star Trek thing with really unbelievable capability that ASU was very interested in.”
Crow is also big into online education and technology in education. Perhaps his inner geek had him more excited about this option than anyone else.
“Late Thursday night, we were like, ‘Man, I don’t know if this is going to happen,’” one person familiar with the Big 12’s discussions said. “We went into Friday morning knowing there was a very real possibility that the Pac-12 was going to stay together as is.”
…
“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.
“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”
LikeLike
https://saturdayoutwest.com/ucla-bruins/chip-kelly-shares-details-of-b1gs-scheduling-plan-for-ucla/
I don’t think this is really news, but presumably it applies to 4 schools now.
Kelly told Ben Bolch of the Los Angeles Times that the Bruins won’t be dealing with any early kickoffs when they travel east to face B1G teams. The UCLA head coach suggested his squad will likely be playing many 3:30 ET games. It’s interesting to note that FOX, one of the B1G’s primary TV partners, features its game of the week with a noon ET kickoff.
So Fox never gets the Pac4 for Big Noon games? Maybe they’ll take advantage of window swaps occasionally (like when NBC has a ND night game so they need an earlier B10 game) to get a later game featuring the Pac4.
LikeLike
Actually, I bet Fox paid for $60mm+/year for a full After Dark window that will get 4th pick.
If the WC teams don’t want to play games that kick off 9AM Pacific time, they better get use to playing plenty of After Dark games. I bet roughly half their home games will be After Dark, though USC would have fewer of those than the other 3, with only mostly games vs. the IN pair, IL pair, and EC pair being After Dark).
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/news/what-should-the-sec-do-next-administrators-weigh-in-after-latest-big-ten-big-12-expansion/
Three SEC administrators discuss what they should do next in realignment.
“Do I think that this is over and that the SEC will never add teams? No,” one administrator said. “But I don’t think the SEC needs to be in a rush just because other things are going on. You don’t need to add teams just to add teams.”
“I’m not sure that bigger is necessarily better,” another added.
“I think you have to do your due diligence in talking and seeing what’s out there and all that,” added another administrator. “But at the same time, I’m pretty pragmatic and I don’t know that I’d get caught up in the emotion of ‘the Big Ten’s got more than us’ or this or that. I think you have to focus and say, ‘Okay, any move that we make, what would be the ROI on that move?’ And short of a few schools that I don’t think are moving, I don’t know that there’s an ROI that justifies splitting the pie further.”
…
“Florida State and Clemson have undeniably good brands, but I think the thing to analyze if you’re going to call them is: What do they bring from a revenue standpoint, especially TV?” the administrator said. “And I think that’s tricky because you already have Columbia, you have South Carolina and you have Florida. Do Florida State and Clemson move the needle TV-wise? Maybe from a national brand, but I think that’s the analysis. I think a lot of people think they’re a slam dunk, like, ‘Oh, include them?’ And I’m like, ‘I don’t know.’
“… What do they add revenue-wise? What’s their TV revenue value? Is ESPN willing to go back and give you an extra amount of money or are you just splitting the pot 18 ways instead of 16 ways now? It’s really just a revenue analysis.”
Nevertheless, what Florida State and Clemson would bring with football is why all three administrators view as it as fair to talk about them as two of the top potential fits for the SEC.
“I know the Big 12 is going down this rabbit hole that, ‘We’re going to be great at basketball.’ Well, that’s because they can’t get the football brands,” one said. “That’s their only play, right? Football drives all of this. So the strongest football brands that make sense geographically is what I would do.”
Current SEC teams have won 13 of the last 17 college football national championships. If Florida State and Clemson were part of the conference, that number would go up from 13 to 16.
“It’s tough without knowing what the ACC’s situation truly is,” the other administrator said. “But let’s just say for argument’s sake that schools were able to be brought over. I think Clemson and Florida State make a lot of sense, both geographically and with the emphasis that they put on football. I think there could be all kinds of problems there, especially in the Florida legislature where if you’re taking Florida State but you’re not taking Miami and you’ve already got Florida in there and all that. But I think both of those just much more fit the SEC mentality than the ACC.”
…
“Virginia probably aligns closer with the Big Ten,” the administrator said. “North Carolina, to me, could swing either way. And I know the Big Ten’s tried to lure North Carolina for a long time. But North Carolina is a valuable brand. I would say probably even more so than Miami. If you really think about the overall brand and the university and the infrastructure of what it takes to be successful, North Carolina’s a strong brand.”
Another of the administrators did mention a potential complication.
“The thing with North Carolina and Virginia, as with other ACC schools, they sponsor a lot more sports that the SEC doesn’t sponsor,” the administrator said. “So you do bring in some of the basketball piece to that, but football doesn’t really add anything and what do you do when they’ve all got lacrosse and field hockey and squash and all those sports that the SEC schools don’t have? How does that look? Are they going to have to now join multiple conferences to fit some of that stuff in? The Big Ten, they’ve got a little more variety of sports and have some of those. The ACC certainly has more sports. So I think it depends on what the end goal is and the direction the conference wants to take.”
However, one of the other administrators came back with a counterpoint.
“I would just say: Don’t lose sight of the fact that football is going to drive all of this,” the administrator said. “That question is a valid question. But I think the bigger question is: How are those sports even going to operate moving forward, right? Is it going to be the same model that it is today where football is paying for everything and we still have the illusion that we’re going to try to support everybody at the same level?
“The players are going to get their money. And it’s getting more and more that way. And the more money the players get in the revenue sports, the less money that we’re going to be able to support the non-revenue teams. So the bigger question is: What happens to those sports in general? I think that’s just not a big enough issue to guide decision making.”
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts from the SEC side of things.
It does sound as if they will target FSU/Clemson first and then UNC.
All of that makes logical sense.
Maybe they take UNC-NC State if those 2 have to go as a pair (sort of like how AzBOR wanted ASU/UA together).
UNC-NC State share the same board like ASU/UA, so it’s a decent possibility.
LikeLike
Except, while ASU+UA wasn’t dilutive to the B12, which makes roughly half as much as the B10 and SEC, UNC+NCSU is certainly dilutive to the B10 and SEC.
If Stanford & Cal, with their massive academic brands, huge numbers of B10 alums in the Bay Area, and big media market were too dilutive for the B10 to add, any of UNC, NCSU, Duke, and UVa certainly will be for the B10 as well. SEC _may_ still want to add UNC for prestige reasons, but it won’t be for monetary reasons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do think we’ll basically be approaching the endgame in 2036 and that the final moves are starting to appear:
SEC’s maximum is likely to be 20:
Highly likely next 2 to 18 = FSU and Clemson
Possibilities for final 2 = UNC, UVA, NC State, Va Tech
Hard to know exactly how the UNC-NC State situation will resolve; they might move together if the BoR there ties them together in which case the Big Ten is out and SEC is the only possibility.
I think NC State/Va Tech is somewhat possible (they are technically bigger football brands than UNC/UVA though it’s pretty clear that UNC would be ahead in line of the other 3).
Big Ten’s maximum is likely to be 22 without ND/24 with ND:
Highly likely to join: Miami
Possibilities for 20 or 22: UNC, UVA, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Duke
I’m considerably more bearish on Duke/Ga Tech now than I would have been 10 years ago when Maryland joined. If Cal/Stanford got left behind (for now) then I don’t see how Duke/Ga Tech can be high on the list now. Even though Atlanta/Georgia are CFB markets, they’re SEC CFB markets.
Miami is now AAU and I consider them to be a virtual lock; they’re more valuable than Washington or Oregon with their national football brand, recruiting grounds, market (insulated from UF/FSU by considerable distance of those 2 to South Florida so they have a solid t-shirt fanbase).
Stanford still has a chance as a partner with Notre Dame someday, and the Big Ten won’t go past 22 without ND in my opinion. 24 feels like the absolute maximum.
So play this all out and you end up with Miami + 1 or 3 in the Big Ten by 2036. The question is who Miami’s partner(s) would be. It could be UVA or Va Tech. It could be UNC + 2 more.
I actually think Miami/Va Tech is a solid choice to 20 if UNC/UVA go to the SEC. I get that they aren’t AAU, but they’re basically above Nebraska in every metric that matters and research wise comparable (and well above Oregon which does still have AAU).
Either way it will be interesting:
Miami + UNC + UVA + 1 (Duke or Va Tech or Ga Tech)
Miami + UVA
Miami + Va Tech
Miami + Stanford
Those are really the 4 major possibilities for the next Big Ten move in the 2030s with FSU/Clemson going to the SEC in 2036.
LikeLike
IMO, the SEC and B10 will woo (only) FSU+ Clemson.
B10 adds 1 of Stanford/Miami as a partner only if ND comes along (with Miami, you also have to worry about global warming; a direct hit from a hurricane could devastate Miami as much as Katrina did Nawlins and Tulane). The NC and VA schools are dilutive to the B10 and SEC, but the B12 would likely be happy to pick off a bunch of strong bball schools from the ACC.
If the B10 adds FSU+Clemson, expect the B10 to add weekly Friday night and Sunday morning (before NFL games, so 10AM Eastern) windows to pay for it and maximize revenue. FSU and Clemson may have to agree to play all their home games Friday night or Sunday morning during the next TV contract in order to join. And/or squeeze in a bunch of conference games Th-Sun both Week Zero and Memorial Day weekend.
LikeLike
I still feel as if Miami is valuable enough to justify itself + 1. There’s only 4 programs in the Big Ten clearly more valuable than them: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and USC.
They’re more valuable than Oregon, Washington, or UCLA (all 3 of which just joined).
Global warming is a slight consideration, but the conference did just add USC and UCLA, so I don’t know how important it is.
UM is 2.5 miles away from the bay, so it’s not as if it’s built on the Bay like Northwestern is built on Lake Michigan.
LikeLike
Unlike Miami, LA isn’t completely at sea level and build on porous limestone. Even a sea barrier wouldn’t save Miami for that reason. Also, while wildfire smoke will blanket LA (just like they now do the Midwest), LA isn’t at risk of a direct hit from a hurricane.
And Miami, UO, both UW’s, UNL, Iowa, and MSU are all about the same tier in terms of TV draw. The problem for Miami is that if FSU and Clemson are off the table, there’s no partner to pair with Miami that wouldn’t be dilutive (besides ND). Now granted, it’s possible that FSU and Miami come as a package while the SEC takes Clemson and someone else (UNC?)
LikeLike
Richard, i agree. I think the Big Ten could indeed knock heads with the NFL on Sunday if the right teams were involved. States with no NFL presence – Oregon, Nebraska, Iowa or those where the Big Ten school is a stonger brand than the pros, e. g. Ohio, Michigan.
I wouldn’t be afraid to take on Monday Night Football, either. If you have an NFL team in Texas playing one in Vegas, a lot of people would prefer watching Penn State vs Wisconsin.
LikeLike
I’m weary of reading that the Big Ten “poached” USC and UCLA or that they “plundered” Washington and Oregon. It is well known that those schools came groveling to the Big Ten for admission, not vice versa. They did so because their TV deals were chump change compared to the B1G, also a well-known issue.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
How will Big Ten’s 2024 football schedule play out? Here’s an attempt to plan it
By Scott Dochterman Aug. 6, 2023
With painstaking detail and discussions lasting for more than a year, Big Ten and campus officials crafted a league football schedule beginning in 2024 that eliminated divisions, protected signature rivalries and ensured every athlete would play at least one game at every venue in a four-year period.
It was called flex protect-plus, and its supporters were excited to tout it during the weeks after it was unveiled June 8.
“What they’ve put together shows a tremendous amount of creativity and recognizes the unique situations that each of our schools faces with rivalries,” Illinois athletic director Josh Whitman said at Big Ten media days July 26. “(It) finds that balance point between not fabricating or creating new rivalries where none exist, but also making sure that we don’t eliminate great games and long-standing traditions.”
All of that work, discussion and compromise became merely a team-building exercise and nothing more. On Friday, the Big Ten added Washington and Oregon for the 2024 season, which rendered everything but the principles of flex protect-plus moot. The league now must adjust its 2024 scheduling and structure.
With the Washington and Oregon announcement barely hours old, it’s too early for the Big Ten brass to rearrange the 2024 opponents, let alone brandish a schedule. But it’s not too early for The Athletic to reconstruct each team’s 2024 opponents and put together an equitable schedule.
Using the most narrow scheduling tweaks coupled with the conference’s scheduling principles, here’s a look at how the Big Ten might (should) rework the 2024 schedule when Washington, Oregon, USC and UCLA join the conference.
Opponent changes
The first step in building a 2024 schedule comes with opponent changes. Surprisingly, this isn’t a real difficult process. Whether Oregon and Washington become annual protected foes with USC and UCLA remains undetermined, but it makes sense to have them all play one another in 2024.
Based on the 2023 Pac-12 schedule and the Big Ten’s 2024 plan, Oregon should join UCLA with five home league games while Washington and USC should have only four. Then one home and one road opponent for USC and UCLA should shift to Washington and Oregon. In this scenario, USC would lose Iowa (home) and Maryland (road) to Washington while UCLA would move a home date with Ohio State and a road trip to Indiana to Oregon.
That would leave Washington and Oregon with five of nine opponents. Then all that’s needed is to alter four other games. For instance, Maryland is scheduled to play at Illinois, and Minnesota is set to play at Nebraska. Simply add those games to Oregon’s schedule with the Ducks playing at Illinois and Nebraska and hosting Maryland and Minnesota. For Washington, shift Purdue at Michigan State and Penn State at Wisconsin to the Huskies’ schedule in a similar fashion.
Those tweaks would prevent wholesale changes for 2024, keep the predetermined permanent rivalries intact and have little disruption to the current 14 teams’ schedules. As for the four newcomers, this is how their schedules would shake out:
Washington — Home: USC, Iowa, Purdue, Penn State. Away: UCLA, Oregon, Maryland, Michigan State, Wisconsin
Oregon — Home: Washington, UCLA, Ohio State, Maryland, Minnesota. Away: USC, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska
UCLA — Home: USC, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern. Away: Oregon, Iowa, Michigan, Rutgers
USC — Home: Oregon, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. Away: UCLA, Washington, Penn State, Northwestern Purdue
Other changes: Iowa at Washington (was USC); Washington (was USC) at Maryland; Ohio State at Oregon (was UCLA); Indiana at Oregon (was UCLA); Oregon at Illinois, Maryland at Oregon (was Maryland at Illinois); Purdue at Washington, Washington at Michigan State (was Purdue at Michigan State); Minnesota at Oregon, Oregon at Nebraska (was Minnesota at Nebraska); Penn State at Washington, Washington at Wisconsin (was Penn State at Wisconsin).
Should the former Pac-12 schools become permanent annual rivals, a perfect rotation would be two West Coast road trips in years when that school has five. That would limit each school’s cross-country trips to three in a given year.
The schedule
No matter how the schedule shakes out, there will be dynamite matchups, travel difficulties and weekly oddities. There’s no way to avoid it with 18 teams. If there’s a blessing in 2024 (and 2025), it’s that there are 14 weeks in the season. And with two newcomers already with scheduled matchups at Hawaii, there are Week Zero games, too.
Oregon is slated to play at Hawaii on Aug. 24 and UCLA is in Honolulu a week later. That allows UCLA to play a Week Zero game, and it makes sense to get a long trip out of the way before school starts. In this scenario, we’ll have the Bruins opening at Iowa on Aug. 24.
But the Big Ten has an interest in attaching Week Zero to the regular season. As a league with 18 institutions, spreading out the inventory makes sense. Perhaps the Big Ten could obtain a waiver — or push for immediate rules changes — so schools traveling more than two time zones can play on Week Zero. In my schedule, we’d add two more Week Zero games: USC at Penn State and Washington at Maryland.
In a 14-game schedule, there are two automatic off weeks, and with a Week Zero, that makes three byes and some quirks. Iowa, Nebraska and Rutgers have three-game road streaks broken up by a bye in a four-week stretch. Michigan State has a three-game home sequence and a bye in four weeks. But no team directly has more than two straight home or away Big Ten games.
Because of travel concerns, I put no West Coast team on the road for consecutive trips except for USC, which goes to Washington and UCLA. Minnesota is the only team to take two West Coast trips, but one was followed by a home game and the other week with a bye.
Some other 2024 scheduling notes:
• Three Big Ten members still require a nonconference game for the 2024 season: Washington, Northwestern and Rutgers.
• With 15 weeks, it would allow NBC and CBS each to have four top-week selections and Fox with seven. On Week Zero, NBC would get that claim.
• It already is determined that the Big Ten will air two games on Black Friday and a Sunday night game on Labor Day weekend.
Predicting August/September 2024
Aug 24/25 Aug 29-31/sept 1
UCLA at Iowa North Carolina at Minnesota
USC at Penn State W. Michigan at Wisconsin
Oregon at Hawaii Idaho at Oregon
Washington at Maryland Purdue at Illinois
Fresno State at Michigan
UConn at Maryland
Fla. Atlantic at Michigan State
UTEP at Nebraska
Miami (Ohio) at Northwestern
Fla. International at Indiana
Illinois State at Iowa
UCLA at Hawaii
Weber State at Washington
Penn State at West Virginia
USC vs. LSU at Las Vegas
Southern Miss at Ohio State
The future
For 2025 and beyond, the Big Ten has major decisions to make. The mathematical symmetry in place for a 16-game model has changed. The plan of 11 protected rivalries and 13 double-plays in a two-year period is tossed aside.
According to Big Ten chief operating officer Kerry Kenny, the league “will look to incorporate most, if not all, of the principles from flex protect-plus at 18 now instead of 16. Some areas may need to adjust a bit to ensure a rotation can be built, but the foundation of wanting to play each other more, not less, and preserving rivalries will still guide the conversation.”
Predicting September 2024
Sept 6-7 Sept 13-14 Sept 2021 Sept 28
TX Tech at Oregon Boise St at Oregon Marshall at Ohio St Oregon at Nebraska
Texas at Michigan Alabama at Wisc Washington at Wisc Northwestn at UCLA
Iowa State at Iowa NW at Ohio St USC at NW Wisc at Michigan
Colorado at Neb N Dame at Purdue Arkansas St at Mich Minn at Indiana
Kansas at Illinois Mich at Rutgers Toledo at Maryland Iowa at Rutgers
Mich St at Maryland Louisiana at Mich St Charlotte at Indiana
Duke at Northwest Troy at Iowa Kent State at Penn State
W. Mich at Ohio St Nevada at Minn Eastern Illinois at Illinois
Bowl Green at PS C. Mich at Illinois UCLA at LSU
Rhode Island at MN UNI at Nebraska Rutgers at Virginia Tech
Ind St at Purdue Fresno St at UCLA Michigan State at Boston College
S Dakota at Wisc Maryland at Virginia Purdue at Oregon State
Akron at Rutgers
E. Michigan at Washington
Utah State at USC
Indiana at Louisville
So what models work best? If the league places a premium on a pure rotation, then a 1-8-8 configuration is the easiest to implement. But significant historical rivalries like Michigan-Michigan State and Iowa-Minnesota would get tossed aside in that structure. Plus, USC and UCLA would play Rutgers and Maryland as often as they’d face Washington and Oregon. With a bicoastal conference that will have grown by 50 percent during the past 10 years, geography and history need to play a role in scheduling.
If the 11 permanent rivalries plus West Coast series become annual games, then designating three yearly foes for each program has merit. It would enable every team to play the others three times in seven years or six times in 14. There could be some adjustments to permanent rivalries over time, but no longer could the league guarantee every athlete plays on each campus during his college career.
Predicting October 2024
Oct 4/5 Oct 11/12 Oct 18/19 Oct 25/26
Minn at Oregon Wash at Mich St Ohio St at Mich St Oregon at USC
Illinois at Ohio St Nebraska at UCLA UCLA at Michigan Nebraska at Penn State
Michigan at USC Wisconsin at Iowa Illinois at USC Michigan St at Michigan
Penn St at Wash Oregon at Illinois NW at Minn Minnesota at UCLA
UCLA at Rutgers NW at Penn St Indiana at Wisc Rutgers at Ohio State
Mich St at Neb USC at Purdue Penn St at Purdue Maryland at Iowa
Indiana at NW Rutgers at Minnesota
Purdue at Maryland
Or, the league could set up a geographical pod system designed to preserve certain games and then find an unequal but manageable way to filter handle scheduling. For instance, five pods could consist of Washington-USC-UCLA-Oregon, Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa-Nebraska, Illinois-Northwestern-Indiana-Purdue, Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State and Penn State-Maryland-Rutgers. Then the league could employ a rotation mixed with competitive equality to establish annual matchups.
Finally, the Big Ten could return to geographic divisions, but that seems the least likely. The four West Coast schools have brand equity for the league’s television partners. It would be a wasted opportunity for USC and Oregon to rarely play Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State and instead face Purdue and Northwestern each year.
Predicting November 2024
Nov 2 Nov 9 Nov 16 Nov 23 Nov 29-30
Mich at Illinois Wash at UCLA Minn at Mich Ohio St at Minn Nebraska at Iowa
OH St at Oregon OH St at PA St Iowa at OH St USC at Wash Wash at Oregon
Wisc at USC Purdue at Wisc USC at UCLA Wisc at Neb Michigan at OH St
Iowa at Minn UMD at Oregon Oregon at Ind UCLA at Oregon Mich St at PA St
Penn St at Ind Illinois at Rutgers Neb at Purdue Ind at Mich St N Dame at USC
Neb at NW Ind at Neb Illinois at Mich St UMD at Mich Purdue at Ind
Rutgers at Mich St Wisc at Maryland NW at Purdue Wisc at Minn
Penn St at Rutgers ILL at NW
Rutgers at UMD
Before the invitations to Washington and Oregon, the division-less structure was designed to give the Big Ten a better chance at more College Football Playoff access when the field grows to 12 in 2024. That tenet still will guide league and school officials through this process with 18 programs. As for determining conference championship participants, good luck establishing that formula.
LikeLike
I can’t remember where, but not long after USC and UCLA announced they announced they were leaving a PAC writer did an interview with the former president of (I think) Fox Sports. In it, the president estimated that the TV rights for the LA schools was about $120 million, $90 million for Stanford and Cal, and about $60 million for the Oregon and Washington.
Given what it looks like Big Ten is going to be paying their new members over the next 6 years he looks like he was almost dead on for the values of the LA and NW schools. However, I remember even at the time I, and several other people on this board, immediately questioned his estimates for the NoCal schools (and given the events of this week, I’d say we were proven correct).
I’m having trouble wrapping my head around how someone with that much experience could be so widely off base that bunch of keyboard warriors could find the clear holes in his logic, especially given how accurate his other predictions were.
LikeLike
Bob Thompson later revised his original figures after doing more analysis, though.
LikeLike
frug,
Canzano talked with Bob Thompson, former president of Fox Sports Networks. His initial numbers (from early July, 2022):
USC + UCLA = $200M
Stanford + Cal = $90M
UW + UO = $60M
Thompson strongly weighted market size. Maybe that was more true in his day at Fox than it is now. ESPN’s executive said elsewhere they value rivalries and brands over markets.
Canzano correctly said (see the mailbag below) despite Thompson’s numbers, he gave UO the edge over Stanford, but expected UO would have to go through a buy-in before getting a full share.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-gut-punch-comes-with
Prior to the desertion, Thompson anticipated the Pac-12 would land a deal in the neighborhood of $500 million per-year average over the course of the contract. That assumed an offering of games similar to what the Pac-12 sold Fox and ESPN in their current agreement.
“I guess you could take a run at adding San Diego State, UNLV, Air Force, Boise State, San Jose State or Fresno State to the Pac-12,” he said, “but none of those markets really move the meter from a television standpoint.”
The new estimated valuation: ~$300 million per year.
…
The Big Ten appears focused on trying to lure Notre Dame into the fold right now. After that, Oregon and Washington may be of interest to the Big Ten. However, Thompson estimated that those two Pac-12 universities, along with the Oregon and Washington television markets, would only generate an additional $60 million in combined additional revenues.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mailbag-deals-with-pac-12s
Q: How will Cal ever pay off its stadium debt now? Getting into the Big Ten is a fantasy, so we’ll be left with mid-major TV deal money. There’s no way out of a $100M(?) debt with that. Do you think it’s a possibility that Cal shuts down its football program within a few years? — @RuminatingOrion
A: There’s a lot of ball to play before we get to a “shut down” situation. Cal is paired with Stanford and sits in the Bay Area television market. Because of that former Fox Sports Network president Bob Thompson told me he believes Cal/Stanford are worth $90 million total in annual television revenue. That is a huge advantage.
…
Q: Who is more attractive to the Big Ten, Stanford or Oregon? — @williamswes
A: The ex-Fox Sports Network president, Bob Thompson, placed Oregon’s media-rights value at $30 million and Stanford’s at $45 million when I pressed him. That may be all that would normally matter to the Big Ten. However, I think Oregon’s national brand and Phil Knight’s clout give the Ducks the edge. If the Big Ten takes Oregon, I would expect there to be some sort of subsidy or waiting period (See: Maryland) before the Ducks are allowed to take a full conference media share.
In late August, Thompson did a new analysis. He based it on the P12 getting a deal that averaged $350M with a 4% escalator, so it started at $324M. Thompson looked at how he might do unequal revenue sharing.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-geeking-out-on-the-media
He gave point scores for everyone:
UW 36
UO 34
Stanford 30
ASU 25
UU 22
Cal 20
UA 19
WSU 16
CU 15
OrSU 10
Then he broke payment into 3 tiers – the top 3, next 3 and bottom 4.
Top 3 – $38.7M
Middle 3 – $32.3 M
Bottom 4 – $27.7M
So this time around:
UW + UO = $77.4M
Stanford + Cal = $71.0M
USC + UCLA = $150M is implied
That’s a big reduction for the SF pair, and a sizable gain for the NW pair.
LikeLike
Brian: “The Big Ten appears focused on trying to lure Notre Dame into the fold right now.”
Now is a good time to lure Notre Dame in. Their next TV contract with NBC is going to be mousemeat.
LikeLike
That’s what it was. Thank you.
The updated numbers are better, but still seem to overvalue the Bay Area schools.
LikeLike
Article from Wilner estimating how much would cast the Big Ten to add the Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal assuming partial, but escalating, shares (note was published a couple days before the Oregon-Washington to B1G was announced).
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-survival-are-oregon-uw-stanford-and-cal-worth-the-investment-breaking-down-the-big-ten-expansion-math/
He guesses that Washington and Oregon will cost $521 million over seven years and the Bears and Card would cast $390.75.
So if his numbers are right, Fox must have been willing to fork over another half a billion to get this deal done.
LikeLike
Fox is actually probably paying an average of a little over 60mm/year over 6 years for the 2 schools, so a little less than $400mm total. Probably about $380mm total.
Recall that the 2023 season is the 1st year of a 7Y contract.
For that, Fox will likely get the 4th pick in the After Dark slot (which will feature roughly half the WC teams’ home games).
These will mostly be games featuring RU/UMD/UMTC/IL pair/IN pair@WC team though also sometimes UNL/Iowa/UW-Madison/MSU@WC team (more often UCLA&UW-Seattle than USC&UO).
For that, Fox will be hoping to pull in a little over 15mm viewers total (say 16mm) with 12-15 After Dark games.
LikeLike
It remains to be seen who actually pays, and what they get for it. Fox is probably talking to others (ESPN, Apple, Amazon) about interest in a 4th package as well. Fox already has some MWC games in the late night window. They had 9 P12 games in that window last year (2 on Fox + 7 on FS1), with the 2 on Fox having USC and UCLA in them. They also have part of the expanding B12 deal, and the AZ schools need night games early in the season. ESPN lost even more late P12 games, but they have more of the B12 deal to help fill that. Perhaps both Fox and ESPN want a few B10 games for their late windows. I don’t think Apple wants a lesser package, but maybe they’ll pay CBS and NBC a bit to get a more equal split of good games or to remove exclusivity. Amazon likewise.
What combination of late night and weeknight games the B10 agreed (or agrees) to as part of this expansion (or even the new TV deal before this) is also unknown.
LikeLike
Interesting. That seems reasonable. $37m a year from Oregon and Washington, a bit more then what they would get with Big 12. $27.9 a year from Cal and Stanford, less then what they could make in the Big 12, way more then Mountain West, but allows them to stage in a prestigious academic conference (if there is ever an offer from the Big Ten.
LikeLike
With 4 WC teams, the outline for an After Dark package is clear.
I also prefer the last weekend to be all B10 conference games so that no B10 team rests up for the CCG playing a OOC foe, which means UO-UW Black Friday night on NBC (after Iowa-UNL Black Friday morning on CBS) and USC-UCLA Saturday night on NBC.
I’d get the B10 to influence NBC to influence ND to switch their end-of-season partnership from Stanford to UCLA and also to travel to LA and end their season the weekend before Thanksgiving (if you want $60mm instead of $50mm, Domers).
So the weekend before Thanksgiving would always have ND@USC/UCLA on NBC primetime and UMD/RU@USC/UCLA After Dark on Fox. Ideally, the Apple Cup and Civil War can be played this weekend as well.
First 2 weeks of Nov would feature WC 2 games each as UW&UO take turnings facing off against USC&UCLA on NBC primetime and After Dark on Fox.
This arrangement has the salutary effect of not making any of the Midwestern&EC original 14 B10 teams have to play at night any weekend in Nov and the WC schools would also like it as they wouldn’t have to travel to the freezing Midwest/EC to play any games in Nov.
LikeLike
Richard: “This arrangement has the salutary effect of not making any of the Midwestern&EC original 14 B10 teams have to play at night any weekend in Nov and the WC schools would also like it as they wouldn’t have to travel to the freezing Midwest/EC to play any games in Nov.”
The Midwest and EC are not freezing in November. You are parroting urban legend.
LikeLike
UW has already made its last trip to Pullman. If the Apple Cup survives it will be as a buy game in the Seattle area. Almost every school that leaves a rival to move to a new conference state they will continue with the rivalry game. That mutes political opposition but in practice the games are dead. Once the 2024 schedules are out UW will say with 9 conference games there is no way to have 7 home games and keep the OOC rivalry game. Since it looks like WSU and OSU will be pushed down to G5 status they do not need 7 home games so there is some possibility that these games could survive if WSU and or OSU will play them as road buy games. That will also probably push the games to September.
I think Texas was the only school that said its rival game (A&M) was dead. The SEC will resurrect it, but it has not been played since A&M went to the SEC. Oklahoma said Bedlam would continue but OK State coach told the fans to expect 2023 to be the final year.
LikeLike
I think Texas was the only school that said its rival game (A&M) was dead.
Kansas publicly stated it was ending its BB rivalry with Mizzou.
LikeLike
Kansas and Mizzou are in the middle of a 6-game basketball series, two games each in Kansas City, Lawrence and Columbia. The first game scheduled in KC was cancelled in 2020 due to the ongoing pandemic, but they played the last 2 years on campus. They also played an exhibition game for charity in KC in 2017 for hurricane relief. Most of the people involved in 2012 are no longer at either University, Bill Self is about all that is left.
There are also 4 future football games on the schedule.
LikeLike
Little8,
If it is up to the schools, maybe. We just don’t know what state governments might do. Cal gets $10M/year from UCLA. Might UCLA reduce that by agreeing to play them every year (which conveniently gets them another annual west coast game)?
The WA and/or OR state governments might decide to force the rivalries to continue. Or the schools might want those games for a few years of transition to keep fans happy and have another regional game (while getting a half share, cheap travel OOC helps). Maybe the game moves to the Seahawks’ stadium annually (or every other year) rather than going to Pullman.
You can still have 7 home games, just sync the road rivalry game to your 5 home B10 games (so a 5/5 split). Then get 2 buy games. It works for Iowa. UW and UO don’t need national OOC games for a while – they get those in B10 play.
As far as I know, we haven’t heard anything about UCLA, UW, or UO and their in-state rivals. Maybe all 3 series end. Maybe none of them do.
LikeLike
https://omny.fm/shows/pokescast/wyoming-athletics-director-tom-burman-on-pokes-fut
Podcast with WY AD talking about the futures of the MWC and Pac-4, and WY’s place in it.
LikeLike
History of Oregon/Washington vs current B1G schools:
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/oregon-washington-depart-for-big-ten-how-the-ducks-huskies-have-fared-against-every-new-conference-opponent/
LikeLike
https://www.theringer.com/college-football/2023/8/4/23820686/death-of-pac-12-conference-realignment-college-football-oregon-washington-big-ten
College sports are at the point of no return with the demise of the P12, according to this article.
Evolution turns everything into crabs. For whatever reason, a handful of unrelated crustacean species all wound up looking exactly the same, because flat and pinchy is apparently the optimal body structure for survival. The same has happened with North American pro sports—even though every league was founded under entirely different circumstances, in different regions of the country, across different eras with different business models. The NFL was founded in midsize Rust Belt cities with hopes of leeching off the massive popularity of college football; the American and National Leagues used to be competitors, with their own commissioners and rules; the Stanley Cup was originally given out to amateur Canadian clubs who had to challenge one another for the title. Now these leagues are essentially all the same—with 30 to 32 teams, spread across the continent, playing in most of the same cities. Same with the NBA, and MLS, all having evolved into the same pro sports crab.
Next up is college football, a sport built on the strength of regional rivalries which is now rapidly evolving into a national sport with just a few massive coast-to-coast conferences.
…
Either way, the Pac-12 is dead. It was not preordained that the conference was doomed to die—a decade or so ago, people thought the Pac-12 would be the league to add Texas and Oklahoma and form a superconference. The tables turned quickly, and for silly reasons. Ironically, the lame-duck Pac-12 is set to have a really awesome 2023 football season, with reigning Heisman winner Caleb Williams on USC and a really strong crop of contenders elsewhere in the conference. (Oregon State is gonna be really good! Sorry, you’re still getting ditched.)
The Pac-12’s cause of death is TV money. Of course, there’s a chicken or the egg question here. Did TV networks avoid giving the Pac-12 the megabucks media deals because the Pac-12 hadn’t won a football national championship since the 2004 season and hadn’t even gotten a participant into the four-team College Football Playoff since 2016? Or were Pac-12 football teams unable to compete because their TV contracts left each school tens of millions of dollars behind their counterparts in rival leagues?
The Pac-12’s poor management deserves some blame. Few conference commissioners failed as thoroughly in their jobs as former commissioner Larry Scott, who urged the league to bet big on the Pac-12 Networks and failed. (I literally cannot pay my current cable provider to get the Pac-12 Networks on my TV, and I am not alone.) College football fans celebrated “Pac-12 After Dark,” as an affectionate way to refer to the kooky high-scoring games buried deep in your channel guide well past midnight Eastern time—left unsaid was that no major TV network wanted to broadcast these games. Other conferences were playing in prime time while the Pac-12 built a cult following by playing at 1 a.m. on strange channels, like some weird public access program.
…
Conference realignment is not new. Teams have been switching leagues for decades. But this latest round is exceptionally bleak. Historically, the most important thing about college athletic conferences was their geography. Part of this was about convenience: It’s easier to schedule games against the team down the road. But it also fostered the environment that made college sports special. It’s about road-tripping to watch your squad play and having neighbors or coworkers or in-laws who root for That Other Team in your state—and will spend 364 days telling you about it if your team loses that one rivalry game every year.
Pro sports, on the other hand, are inherently national, not regional. It is rare for cities to have two teams in the same league. A crosstown rivalry is nice, and might even be feasible in metropoles like New York or Los Angeles. But everywhere else, it’s a bad strategy. Why split one city’s fans between two teams when you could spread out into new territories? Although there are geographic rivalries in pro sports, they’re less personal. A Yankees fan in New York doesn’t have to see Red Sox fans most days. It’s a hate you bust out a few times a year, instead of the simmering hate that powers college athletics.
…
In doing so, these teams that are leaving for bigger leagues or more TV money are permanently winning their rivalries, officially announcing themselves as bigger and better than the teams they share a state with. They will crowd out their ex-rivals, soaking up resources and talent and fans. Their pockets will be richer and their experience will be poorer: Instead of bragging about beating their rivals from down the road, they will play schools from the other side of the country and have nobody to talk to about it.
People bemoaning the modern state of college athletics (including many of the people who actively run universities, conferences, or the NCAA) have repeatedly harped on the growing professionalization of college athletics—and when they say this, they’re talking about how college athletes can now switch schools with more ease through the transfer portal or receive money for appearing in commercials. But the thing about college sports which reminds me most of the pros is the way the most powerful schools and conferences have reshaped the sport. The Big Ten and the SEC are locked in a battle to become the Junior NFL, they know the form they need to take, and they are clearly putting in the steps to get there. Evolution turns everything into crabs, and it’s shaped every pro league into the same creature. The Pac-12 is one of the species that didn’t survive.
LikeLike
*The Pac-12 is one of the species that didn’t survive.
Next time you hear a fan talk about how their conference commissioner doesn’t do anything and doesn’t matter, be sure to bring up the story of the Pac12. Making the right hire is important, and screwing up twice (in a row no less) can have disastrous consequences.
LikeLike
The commissioner matters, but also the university presidents. If I recall, it was the Pac presidents who held their nose at admitting B12 schools and thus laid the groundwork for several Pac teams to ultimately have a conference to leave to.
LikeLike
Manifesto: “If I recall, it was the Pac presidents who held their nose at admitting B12 schools and thus laid the groundwork for several Pac teams to ultimately have a conference to leave to.”
Nope. The reason that the marquee brands of the Big XII didn’t join the Pac-10 in 2010 was Texas AD DeLoss Dodds and his cherished Longhorn Network.
https://saturdayblitz.com/2021/08/26/longhorn-network-changed-pac-12/
LikeLike
We’ll probably never know the exact details, but I do think multiple things can be true at once.
Texas wanted their own network. But maybe they also wanted to be the prettiest girl in the room, something they’d have to at least share with USC in a Pac16 scenario. Maybe they were only playing Larry Scott to get the Big12 to panic and cave, which feels very Larry Scott and I could totally see.
But there were also rumors out there that Stanford and Cal (at minimum) were hard ‘no’s for TT/OkSt, somewhat similar to why there was always question why the Pac refused to invite BYU even though they’re a fairly storied football program. There were rumors that USC wasn’t super excited with sharing the spotlight with Texas and Oklahoma as well. Larry Scott might’ve been trying to raid the Big12, but I don’t remember it being unanimous that the schools were on board from the start.
Basically the issue with the article you linked is it could be true, but it also could be only part of the story. It doesn’t provide enough sources to prove one way or the other.
Regardless, in the end I think both Texas and the Pac10 ended up in worse situations, caused primarily from inflated egos on all sides. The Pac is obvious, and Texas probably won’t lament the missed opportunity given that incoming fat SEC payday, but I think they would’ve succeeded far more in that Pac16 lineup than they ever will in the SEC. That Pac16 lineup would’ve been a hell of a conference.
LikeLike
I meant in recent years, after Texas and OU left for the SEC.
LikeLike
FWIW. I wish it was true, so presumably it isn’t.
LikeLike
Sounds like complete wishcasting. We’ll get one final major round of ACC/ND realignment in the 2030s and then settle into some kind of longer term stability.
Only real threat at that point would be the Super League idea but there’s a lot of difficulties with that unless there’s some way to detach football.
Everything will settle down and be fine.
LikeLike
The UC BoR has a special meeting this morning (7am PT, 10 am ET) to discuss Cal’s P12 membership. I wonder if they’ll look at cranking up the UCLA tax or any other measures while deciding how hard to hold their academic noses while considering P12 expansion or joining another conference. Their big concern needs to be how Cal pays off their stadium debt. Without a P5 paycheck, I doubt it is feasible for the AD to cover it. The school might end up eating the whole thing.
LikeLike
Much of the expense of Cal’s stadium renovation is due to Hayward Fault running through it. The stands and pressbox had to be made earthquake-proof. Cal has installed some contrasting turf that marks exactly where the fault line runs across the playing field.
https://247sports.com/college/california/article/cal-football-marks-hayward-fault-line-running-through-stadium-wi-105674353/
LikeLike
Total wishful thinking on my part, but maybe it’s to accept a low ball offer from the Big Ten to join.
I know going to 20 without ND is nuts, but I still think leaving Stanford and Cal on the table is short sided by the Big Ten. Despite being terrible at football and basketball of late, they are still great brands in sports and academics, they are both top 10 in NCAA championships, they are arguably the best private and public school in the US/world, and they are in a strong media market.
I know, I know, Cal and Stanford fandom kind of suck in the Bay Area, and they don’t tune in, but even Frank the Tank has pointed out (many posts and years ago) media markets where Big Ten fans live are important to the Big Ten and the Bay Area has loads of Big Ten grads is high paying jobs. If any Big Ten school came to play in the Bay Area the stadiums would be packed. I’m also one of the few that believe the end game of realignment ends at 3 x 24 team leagues once the ACC is picked apart and some stragglers are picked up by the Big 12.
LikeLike
An ACC lifeboat?
LikeLike
Travel won’t be that big of deal for the east coast teams. However, it won’t be great for Stanford or Cal.
LikeLike
Could it be football-only? That’s the only sport they really need to chase the money in. They can try to park the rest in the WCC or Big West.
LikeLike
That would be the least intrusive, That might be the only way it works out financially for the ACC to add them.
LikeLike
I thought there was some concern that adding teams would potentially nullify the existing GOR, providing an out for FSU and the rest? Must not be true if the ACC is seriously considering this.
LikeLike
Several reports are similar to this one:
LikeLike
Well, it makes sense. That GOR is a real set of handcuffs.
LikeLike
manifesto: “Well, it makes sense. That GOR is a real set of handcuffs.”
I fully agree. And as I have pointed out previously, FSU paying the $120 million exit fee from the ACC does not cancel their obligation to the GOR. Exit fee is one thing and grant of rights to the ACC/ESPN is another. If FSU wants out, they need to address both issues.
LikeLike
That was never a real concern. A school has to sign the GoR to join the ACC, and then they are just as beholden to it as anyone else.
LikeLike
IMO – AAC and Mountain West should be pushing for a merger. PAC Autonomy status, NCAAT, and CFP money would be a big deal for those confernces.
LikeLike
Big Ten moving to ten game schedule?
LikeLike
The B10 won’t go to 10 conference games until the next TV contract at the earliest (if ever).
The tell will be if OSU and Mich stop scheduling bigtime OOC opponents for the ’30’s.
By then, the B10 may have added FSU + Miami/Clemson. Possibly the Domers but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-collapse-our-five-step-guide-to-rebuilding-the-conference-around-the-four-schools-left-behind/
Wilner’s 5-step plan to rebuild the P12 around the remaining 4.
Step 1: Clarity on Stanford (and Cal)
Both Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Cal chancellor Carol Christ were surprised when the Pac-12 collapsed on Friday despite numerous warning signs, according to a conference source. Now, they are scrambling to find homes for their athletic departments.
Stanford has mustered its influential alumni network and is pushing for membership in the Big Ten and ACC, with Cal as a possible travel partner, multiple industry sources said. Answers from both leagues are expected this week, with membership invitations considered unlikely.
(A six-team western arm of the Big Ten, with Stanford and Cal joining USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon, makes loads of logistical sense. But Fox, which controls the Big Ten’s media rights, would have to fund the Bay Area additions — and the cost could approach $150 million.)
Stanford is considered essential to any rebuilt Pac-12 because of the university’s national brand, deep ties to Silicon Valley power and the football program’s recent history of success (2009-2018).
If the Cardinal and Bears land in the Big Ten or ACC — or decide to compete as Independents — then Washington State and Oregon State likely would move into the Mountain West.
If the Bay Area schools don’t relocate their football programs, the four schools likely will stick together and work to rebuild the shattered conference.
Of note: The University of California Board of Regents will convene in closed session tomorrow to discuss Cal’s plight.
Step 2: Convene the attorneys
If the four schools opt to rebuild, they must first identify the resources available for the project.
How much cash resides in the Pac-12’s emergency reserves?
How much debt will remain at the end of the 2023-24 fiscal year? What are the liabilities?
And critically: Do they have the authority, as the remaining members of the Pac-12, to withhold any forthcoming revenue distributions from the eight outgoing schools?
…
Step 3: Solve the Kliavkoff question
…
Asked if he planned to resign, Kliavkoff said (via text message):
“I’m loyal to a fault (and probably to my personal detriment). Had plenty of chances to leave over the past two years when the breadth of the challenges were already obvious and decided to stick it out and try to do the best I could. We still have a lot of work ahead of us to try and minimize the impact on the student athletes, and I’m still committed to that.”
So in addition to everything else, the four presidents must decide whether to keep Kliavkoff or find a permanent or interim replacement. (The change would be costly: Kliavkoff is believed to earn about $3.5 million annually and likely has three years remaining on his deal.)
If the schools make a change and hire an interim commissioner to get through the storm, our suggestion is Bob Thompson, the retired Fox Sports president and Oregon alum.
Step 4: Expand by four (or more)
If the four schools decide to rebuild the Pac-12, they must add at least two members in order to become an officially recognized conference by the NCAA.
But a conference of six schools doesn’t work for a variety of reasons, with scheduling atop the list. The Pac-12 would need at least four schools, and perhaps six, to become viable.
The Pac-4 could attempt to lure a handful of schools from the Mountain West, with an emphasis on media value and football success.
But the schools should think bigger, both in numbers and in scope. In our view, they should add schools from the American Athletic Conference and form a 10-team league.
In addition to a combination of San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State and Boise State from the Mountain West, why not add SMU, Rice and Tulane from the American?
…
And you know what else? The Pac-12 should make a hard run at Gonzaga as a non-football member to uplift the men’s basketball product.
…
Step 5: Land a media deal
College football is run by the major networks, Fox and ESPN. They are the grandmasters, with the conferences and schools as pawns. The Pac-12 was set to survive its existential crisis until Fox mustered the $350 million (approximately) to pay for Oregon and Washington.
We’re skeptical of either network forging a broadcast relationship with the reformed Pac-12. But the remaining schools — and any additions — must secure a media rights agreement for the contract cycle that begins next summer.
A rebuilt conference that includes the top tier of the Mountain West, plus SMU and Rice, would provide any linear media partner with exposure in several major media markets.
Or perhaps Apple, which was on the brink of a deal with the Pac-12 last week that would have paid each school $25 million annually in guaranteed cash, would offer half that amount as a means of gaining a toehold in college sports.
…
This much is clear: There are expansion options for the Pac-12, and there might be a media deal, as well … if the four schools stick together.
LikeLike
“A rebuilt conference that includes the top tier of the Mountain West, plus SMU and Rice, would provide any linear media partner with exposure in several major media markets.”
My fellow Frank The Tank Slanters, is there even one of you who is dumb enough to believe that?
LikeLike
Nobody believes that, just like nobody here believes there was any “there there” in terms of the Pac-12 media deal.
Kliavkoff talking 5 million subs for the Pac-12 was a total joke.
That rebuilt conference is worth $5 million per year. Best option for Cal/Stanford is to get into the ACC somehow.
LikeLike
Maybe Stanford and Cal can join the WCC for all sports and then join the ACC for football only since the WCC doesn’t offer D-1 football. The ACC has shown a certain flexibility in the past with partial memberships.
LikeLike
In addition to a combination of San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State and Boise State from the Mountain West…
And how exactly are those schools and the PAC 4 suppose to finance the $35 million in exit fees each would owe for leaving MWC was less than 1 year notice?
LikeLike
frug,
Read his step 2 in full in the article. Part of what I didn’t quote:
The conference will generate more than $500 million in the 2024 fiscal year from broadcast contracts, the NCAA Tournament and the College Football Playoff.
The general counsels from the four schools will undoubtedly comb through the bylaws and budget this week.
Much rests on the amount of cash available, which could be used to help new members pay the departure penalties from their current conferences.
LikeLike
Bob Thompson has made it quite clear that he’s enjoying retirement very much (trading barbs with strangers on Twitter) and has zero interest in assuming any real responsibility/headaches.
LikeLike
The B12 is done expanding for a while. No Pac4, no SDSU, etc.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38135996/acc-florida-state-college-football-2023-conference-realignment
More on the ACC members’ responses to FSU. The last comment from an AD is key – if FSU is going to leave anyway, why give them anything extra? Just wait until FSU writes a check to leave.
While Florida State has made it clear it has been unhappy before, this was the first time McCullough said so publicly — the strongest sign yet that Florida State would consider leaving the league.
One ACC administrator thought it was an attempt to “strong arm” presidents to change their minds on revenue distribution. Another questioned whether trustee members even realized Florida State willingly signed the grant of rights in 2016, giving the ACC control over its media rights through the end of its television contract in 2036.
“Was this a leverage play?” one administrator asked. “It seems like there would’ve been a lot better ways of handling it.”
Based on interviews with administrators and league officials over the past several days, the league has seemingly taken an “us versus Florida State” mentality — with both public and private comments intimating as much.
…
There is an Aug. 15 deadline for any conference member to give notice if it plans to leave the ACC in a year. With that date looming, there remain incredulous administrators wondering what the play is for Florida State.
“One could argue they’re just trying to create chaos and that they thought the only way to make it work would be to break the league up,” one source said. “Part of the theory here is they bang the drum real loud and eventually everybody else would panic.”
…
Beyond the success initiatives, Florida State has been pushing for another component to the revenue distribution: rewarding teams that generate higher television ratings and viewership with a larger share of the television money distribution. But that has gotten zero traction from ADs and presidents, frustrating Florida State further.
A number of administrators from other ACC schools questioned why Florida State felt it deserved a larger revenue share, considering its football program has not won an ACC championship or been in the College Football Playoff since 2014. Florida State has presented numbers that show they bring 15% of the value to the TV deal but get 7% of the revenue. Currently, each ACC school shares that equally.
“I would love all my colleagues in the ACC to love me in every way,” McCullough told ESPN before the board meeting. “But I have a fiduciary responsibility to Florida State, so I have to push and there are some schools that just don’t agree with my point of view.
League commissioner Jim Phillips declined comment but several athletic directors did not after Alford’s remarks Wednesday. After the board meeting, a group of ACC ADs discussed how to best address the remarks and decided North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham would speak first publicly on their behalf. Cunningham told a local radio station Thursday it did the ACC no good for Florida State to be “barking like that.”
…
As one ACC administrator noted, the ACC is already losing the PR battle, with the Big 12 — a league with fewer signature programs, a lower TV valuation and no standalone network — being viewed as growing and stable, while the ACC looks to be teetering. Florida State’s public criticism of the league’s financial picture only exacerbates that problem.
…
Radakovich said the payouts from the league’s TV deal have exceeded initial projections. The problem is the SEC and Big Ten negotiated new deals in a far different climate that provided them with more money.
“It’s hypersensitive, now, given all the different changes that have continued to come within intercollegiate athletics,” Radakovich said. “Needing more resources is high on the list.”
Florida State is not alone in wanting those resources, of course. That is why what happened Wednesday remained perplexing for many within the league. Multiple sources questioned where Florida State would go if it decided to leave given the current situations in the SEC (not looking to expand) and the Big Ten (adding Oregon and Washington).
Panic is a concern, another league source told ESPN, noting “everyone’s head has to be on a swivel” right now, but that making hasty decisions could create far worse long-term outcomes.
Another school official did not think making loud statements would change any decision a president makes about unevenly distributing television revenue based on ratings. “Why would my president take money out of our pocket and give it to Florida State when it would only hurt us? We need to run an athletic department, too,” one source said.
If FSU is planning to leave anyway, an athletic director said, there’s little reason to give them more money now. Instead, ACC schools could simply wait for FSU to be the one to cut a sizable check on its way out the door.
LikeLike
SBJ with some details on the last minute PAC bids. Note that FOX number is not per school.
The PAC’s rejection of ESPN reminds me of when the Big East rejected an ESPN offer and then ESPN funded the ACC’s raid of the Big East. It seems only the Big Ten has been able to reject ESPN and not suffer ESPN’s wrath.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2023/08/07.aspx
Fox’s bid was for a package of just 13 football games, for which it said it would pay around $35-$40 million per year. Fox’s bid, essentially, was for what it considered part of the conference’s “B” package.
ESPN had offered a significant package to the conference more than a year ago — one that the conference’s university presidents rejected. ESPN ended up cutting a deal with the Big 12, and while it remained involved with the Pac-12, it only put in a small bid for Pac-12 rights within the past few weeks.
CBS also engaged with the Pac-12 over the past couple of weeks, but it only put forward a bid for a handful of basketball games — around five in total. Sources had expected ESPN and Amazon to share the Pac-12’s “A” package. But as it turned out, Amazon never submitted a bid. Neither did NBC.
The delay from last year, when ESPN, Fox and CBS were willing to do a deal, to last week, when all three put forth small bids, was devastating to the Pac-12.
LikeLike
The Pac died because of their presidents’ hubris.
NBC was never going to bid as they have SNL late night.
ESPN evidently essentially only had an appetite for one more large deal so it was first-come/first-serve and the B12 was more astute and grabbed the offer while they could.
Fox was bidding for an After Dark package. After the Pac spurned it, they sweetened it a little and probably will pay the B10 a little over $60mm/year to air the 4th B10 choice After Dark. The B10 After Dark games (even though 4th choice and limited to games played on the WC) very likely will draw better than the Pac After Dark games would have.
LikeLike
Forgive me if this was posted earlier, but here is ESPN’s article on the Cal-Stanford to the ACC talks
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38152204/acc-begin-discussing-cal-stanford-additions
Most important quote
“It’s complicated,” an ACC source said. “There’s a significant travel expense. I think it’s going to be all over the board with both the ADs and the presidents in what they may want to do. [Cal and Stanford] would likely have to take a reduced share. Eventually, though, they’re going to want to become a full share.”
The ACC’s TV deal is locked in until 2036. Are Cal and Stanford really desperate enough to accept partial shares until then? Would partial shares to the ACC even be enough to make a move the ACC financially viable? Would both sides consider a FB only deal? Would Stanford really park the Olympic sports it is proud of in the Big West or WCC?
So many questions…
LikeLike
Seeing the ACC interest, would Fox finance the B1o adding them at very reduced shares (and would the B10 consider it)? If Fox truly wants a 4th window package, having 6 hosts is better than 4.
UW and UO get 1/2 shares for 6 years. Are Cal and Stanford worth 1/3 shares to Fox ($20M each)? 1/4 shares ($15M)? What if they stayed on a reduced share in the next deal (1/2 share would be near or more than ACC/B12 full shares)?
LikeLike
The problem is the smaller schools won’t want that because it’d open up the idea of unequal shares permanently, and it just drags down the average TV value of the conference.
Anybody that gets added should be able to justify their value to the TV contract within a reasonable timeframe 6-8 years.
If you can’t get to an equal share by then (ignoring debt from pulling forward future distributions), then that’s a problem.
Cal/Stanford would never be worth 2 shares of Big Ten money. Oregon/Washington are close to the average so it’s a wash; their “buy in” period of 6 years is fine.
Stanford still has a shot at the Big Ten with ND someday (sort of like how Rutgers had a shot at the Big Ten when Maryland joined even though the Big East had already collapsed).
Finally, the 4th window isn’t worth all that much. Not clear it’ll ever be worth that much; $100-150 million per year right now but you’d probably have to fill it when you’re making the TV deals to get an outside bidder to realize that value.
LikeLike
Yep. I just don’t see the Big Ten’s bottom half wanting to set a precedent for any sort of permanent unequal distributions (that may be inevitable someday, but no reason to speed up the process) especially since a Stanford/Cal expansion, even with partial shares, would likely be (at best) revenue neutral anyways.
LikeLike
Stanford and Cal are of no value to the Big Ten nor the ACC. Both have small fan bases and are in a part of the country where college football is an afterthought.
Large numbers of Big Ten alumni in the SF Bay area doesn’t change that equation any more than large numbers of Big Ten alumni in the Atlanta area justifies adding Georgia Tech. As for the ACC, adding Stanford and Cal would be like having another Duke and UVA.
LikeLike
frug,
As I said to z33k, it would be about Fox wanting it (perhaps to block ESPN more than anything).
To ease minds, you can change the bylaws to state that no member can ever be demoted to a reduced share. And SU/Cal could get to full over 2 TV deals rather than the 1 for UW and UO.
As for value, if they fill more late night and weeknight slots, then the other schools don’t have to. It’s also more western teams in non-revenue sports to keep travel more regional.
And maybe Apple or Amazon would pay more for a B10 package than they would the P12. Apple has strong ties to Silicon Valley and the SF schools.
I’m not saying it’s likely, I’m just throwing it out there as a question. I wouldn’t have expected the ACC to even talk about it, but perhaps they see ACCN value. Perhaps the BTN value from SF makes up for their lack of brand value.
LikeLike
z33k,
The problem is the smaller schools won’t want that because it’d open up the idea of unequal shares permanently, and it just drags down the average TV value of the conference.
What seems to matter is if Fox wants it. For the right price, do they want into NorCal? More importantly, do they want to keep ESPN out of NorCal (and thus the new edge of the B10 footprint)?
It would lower the average per school, but not the actual payout per school which is what matters.
Anybody that gets added should be able to justify their value to the TV contract within a reasonable timeframe 6-8 years.
What if they took 2 TV deals to get there instead? 6 years at 1/4 share, 6 at 1/2 (or slowly ramping up). That would give them more time to build, but not be permanent. You could also put in the bylaws that no members can ever be demoted to a partial share.
Cal/Stanford would never be worth 2 shares of Big Ten money.
Unless someone decides they (or their markets) are.
Finally, the 4th window isn’t worth all that much. Not clear it’ll ever be worth that much; $100-150 million per year right now but you’d probably have to fill it when you’re making the TV deals to get an outside bidder to realize that value.
That would cover their payouts for a while. They would also make weeknight games more feasible (as road teams that won’t complain about playing on Friday).
Like I said, this is all about what Fox wants. How much value is there to them in blocking ESPN?
LikeLike
Pretty much zero.
TV networks don’t really care about “blocking” any particular geography from other TV networks. The major networks are in all cities across the country, if you’ve noticed.
And we already know that Fox gave the B10 their valuation for Cal&Stanford and the B10 deemed those 2 to be too dilutive,
LikeLike
Plenty of people have said ESPN wants to keep Fox and the B10 out of the southeast. Whether true or not, only ESPN knows. If ESPN does feel that way, Fox may want ESPN not in CA (where the ACCN would supposedly get a huge boost as supposedly the entire state moves to the in-footprint price), where the B10 hasn’t solidified its hold on the fans yet.
It’s a possible reason for Fox to value SU/Cal differently now than they did before the ACC started talking with them.
I don’t want them added to the B10. I don’t think they add enough value no matter what they get paid. But Fox makes all these decisions anymore. UW and UO didn’t have enough value until they suddenly did.
LikeLike
Random people on the internet say all sorts of sh*t. Do you believe all conspiracy theories as well, Brian? If not, why would you believe something that makes no logical sense? In any case, CA isn’t the SE in college football. If the WWL valued having a football presence in CA, you’d have to explain why they put forward an absurdly small offer to the Pac recently.
LikeLike
z33K: “Finally, the 4th window isn’t worth all that much.”
Well, it isn’t now but Fox and the B1G could get a lot more creative about it. A couple of easy changes could easily get the game time down to three hours – Cut the halftime to ten minutes with teams staying on the field, keep the clock running on incomplete passes and doing all of the coin toss stuff before TV starts.
We could than have four games each Saturday, all in quasi-prime time. Using Eastern Time: 11:00am-2:00pm; 2:00-5:00; 5:00-8:00 and 8:00-11:00.
LikeLike
If I’m Stanford/Cal and the BigTen/Fox offered me $15m/year I’d take it in a heartbeat. A drowning man doesn’t scoff at the life preserver, and travel costs would be significantly less given they’d still be frequently playing half of the old Pac. Plus the ACC isn’t going to give them a full share either, and their partial share may end up comparable to the BigTen’s even if the BigTen’s share is a smaller percentage (and it would have to be).
The question is if there’s appetite within Fox to do that deal. Particularly because Stanford/Cal would likely want to be made whole at some point down the road. That also reduces the BigTen’s flexibility down the line when the ACC finally becomes ripe.
And, like Fox paying for Stan/Cal to make sure ESPN/ACC doesn’t get them, does the BigTen factor that in just to make sure the ACC doesn’t look any more appealing to ND? Does that move the needle with ND in any way? Do they have room if it does? I’m sure the answer is ‘always’, but there has to be an upper limit on how many teams you can reasonably take, and at 20-21 teams we’re well past reasonable already.
LikeLike
The ACC will never look more appealing to ND for full membership. But I don’t believe the Domers will ever give up “independence” anyway. They may contract with a conference to play 7 games and park all their non-football sports there but would still be determined to call themselves “independent”.
LikeLike
I have a hard time believing they will either. And even if they do, it’ll only be because a financial shotgun is in their back and that’s hardly going to be a happy marriage.
But, for the sake of conversation, what exactly do they do in 2036 if the ACC is ripped apart by the Big10/SEC/Big12 just like the Pac? The SEC is just biding their time and everyone knows it; the only real question for ACC teams isn’t if they’ll leave but where will they end up.
I suppose the truth is they’ll do what they always do: wait, watch, hold onto ‘independence’ as long as possible, and react only if necessary. It’s not like they wouldn’t have a home if needed. But if the writing appears to be on the wall, one would think being proactive would lead to a more positive outcome. Although I guess it’s not positive if the only thing you care about is calling yourself independent.
LikeLike
Yep, if “indepdendence” is one of your sacred values, anything other than getting to call yourself “independent” would be a worse outcome.
As for what happens when the top of the ACC is taken off, well, it doesn’t hurt that the ACC has a lot of schools and at the very most, 2-6 (though I would wager closer to 2 than 6) would be taken by the SEC/B10. Even if most of the rest join the B12, I doubt the B12 would turn down offering the same type of deal to the Domers that the ACC does now considering that an alliance with the Irish would juice the B12’s TV value.
LikeLike
Stanford and Cal just don’t contribute that much.
1. With USC/UCLA/UO/UW, their home games that aren’t top 3 picks are already enough to fill the After Dark window and Stanford&Cal would not add much more. In general, not really a bump above games between USC/UCLA/UO/UW or between the WC4 and UNL/Bucky/Iowa/MSU. Definitely not above games between the WC4 and OSU/UMich/PSU.
So if Stanford&Cal are worth roughly 1/3rd as much (or heck, even 1/2 the average B10 value), they would have to stay at 1/3rd or 1/2 share PERMANENTLY for it to make financial sense for the B10 to add them. And as Zeek and Frug noted, there’s no way the smaller-revenue B10 schools would want to introduce unequal revenue sharing to the B10 any time sooner than neccesary.
I’d like to add Stanford and Cal to the club, personally, but there’s just no way to financially justify it so long as football rules the roost.
LikeLike
It’s not really the B1G’s choice. Fox ponied up the extra money for UO and UW, because they wanted them in the B1G. If they want Cal and Stanford, they will pony up the money, and tell (not ask) the B1G to admit them.
LikeLike
bob sykes, the Big Ten was wise to hitch its pony to Fox. Fox News went from startup to Number One in six years, dwarfing ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN which except for the latter had been around for more than half a century. The Big Ten Network has been a huge success primarily because Fox bundled it with their other programing.
I personally do not like the demise of the Pac-12 but what were are seeing is survival of the fittest.
LikeLike
If Fox wanted Cal and Stanford, they would have ponied up the money to pay for that pair and the B10 wouldn’t have to be told as Stanford and Cal are stellar in all other metrics outside of football/eyeballs so the B10 would gladly add them if they made economic sense.
So we already have our answer: Fox clearly doesn’t find the Bay Area pair all that attractive.
LikeLike
On Twitter, Frank floated the idea of Stanford and Cal going independent in FB and joining the BE with Gonzaga.
But in that case, why wouldn’t the Leftover-4 just invite Gonzaga and St. Mary’s (or someone else; would Boise join?) to the Pac and go independent in FB?
In the Pac-6, for non-revenue sports, the travel costs will be as low as can be and the basketball conference would probably be about the same level as the BE. Stanford, Cal, ORSt., WSU, and Boise could play each other as independents and thus fill 4 late season games automatically that way. Those 5 probably could get HaH with MW and B12 teams and there are a few other independents looking to fill their football schedule as well (Army, UConn, and UMass) though they are inconveniently located on the other side of the country.
LikeLike
Oh, and possibly SDSU.
LikeLike
Same basketball level as BE? Villanova won the NCAA in 2016 and 2018. UConn last year. That is three men’s basketball titles since 2016. No, the new PAC/etc. basketball conf would not even be close.
LikeLike
Middle of the BE, then. My point is, the remaining Pac schools could put together a bball league that rivals the BE in TV viewership/payout.
LikeLike
Per school payout, I meant.
LikeLike
ACC hasn’t said no, yet.
LikeLike
With SMU?
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-considering-smu-in-addition-to-cal-and-stanford-in-expansion-talks-205526422.html
LikeLike
2 interesting tidbits from the article
1. SMU is supposedly willing to forgo all conference distributions for “several seasons” if that is what it takes to get in
2. According to the article at least, the ACC’s contract with ESPN does include a pro rata clause in the event of expansion. If true (and there are no strings attached like a mandatory contract extension), this could make things a lot easier for the Bay Area schools to gain admission. They would still have to accept partial shares to offset the added travel and logistical costs to the current members, but they would not need to be as severe.
LikeLike
What happens to the CFP need to be discussed
LikeLike
Sankey is such a douche. Pretends to be sad about the Pac-12, but immediately grave-dances.
LikeLike
Regarding ACC expansion into the Bay Area and Metroplex, it could be the difference in 10 cents a month per household for the ACCN on a sports tier versus $1 per month per household on expanded basic for the all cable & satellite households in CA & TX. That was the SEC play for aggy & Mizzou, and the B1G play for Maryland & Rutgers during the last realignment. The ACC is a cycle behind, but if they can pull it off with cable systems & Direct TV, that’s about ~$20m+ per month of new money. That gets an 18 team ACC up from $39m per school (with 14 schools) to $44m with 18. All in spite of cord cutters. Plus, it sounds like the ACC has a pro rata expansion clause with Disney, so increased carriage rates may be the answer the ACC, even FSU, is looking for.
The question is who would number 18 be if the ACC adds Stanford, Cal & SMU?
It may be just the carrot for Notre Dame to either join or sign up for more than five ACC per season. A game in the Bay Area every year, a game in the Metroplex every other year, multiple games on the East Coast.
I’m just spitballing here, which is what the ACC is going as well.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38156945/usc-commit-cb-dakoda-fields-flips-oregon-big-ten-news
This is exactly why USC didn’t want UO invited.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/38158198/penn-entertainment-rebrand-sportsbook-espn-bet
Disney is officially into sports gambling now. Is there any concern with ESPN having inside info from their reporters and “insiders” and using that to skew the lines? How about them slanting their reporting to try to swing the action in the direction that makes them more money?
ESPN has signed a licensing deal with Penn Entertainment to create ESPN BET, a sportsbook for audiences in the United States.
Penn will rebrand its current sportsbook to ESPN BET later this fall in the 16 states where it is licensed. The rebrand will include a mobile app, website, mobile website and mutually agreed upon retail locations.
Penn agreed to pay ESPN $1.5 billion in cash over 10 years, as well as grant ESPN $500 million of warrants to purchase approximately 31.8 million common shares of Penn. There are options to receive bonus warrants depending on the performance of ESPN BET.
The partnership is ESPN’s latest foray into sports gaming. The company has daily multiplatform betting-focused shows, runs odds on its website and TV programs and has covered the gaming industry on its website and social channels for years.
The rebranded offering will be ESPN’s exclusive sportsbook and will be part of ESPN’s programming and content integrations starting in the fall. Audiences will be able to place bets through ESPN’s digital products.
“Our primary focus is always to serve sports fans and we know they want both betting content and the ability to place bets with less friction from within our products,” ESPN chairman Jimmy Pitaro said. “The strategy here is simple: to give fans what they’ve been requesting and expecting from ESPN.”
LikeLike
Update on the ACC, Stanford and Cal. IMO , if Stanford gets an ACC offer they need to tell the Big Ten its now or never.
LikeLike
Gotta love this response: “It’s a numbers game. Number of league members.”
Jeepers, better add Troy and Ball State. More numbers! Bigger numbers!
LikeLike
“Never” is a long time. You act like the ACC won’t lose its top members within the next couple decades.
LikeLike
Well, 2036 is a long time and the ACC’s exit fee is no joke.
LikeLike
It is but 2036 isn’t “never”.
LikeLike
“Update on the ACC, Stanford and Cal. IMO , if Stanford gets an ACC offer they need to tell the Big Ten its now or never.”
My guess is the BigTen assumes that if they do join the ACC now it just means they’ll still be available in 2036 along with the rest. Assuming there’s ever a point it will make sense to take them. Either way I’d guess the BigTen’s response is still, “That’s cool, you can join us… assuming ND is coming with you.”
I do find it a bit amusing though that ND is pushing for it. Almost makes me wish the BigTen *would* take Stan/Cal just to spite them.
LikeLike
It’s purely a self-serving move by ND. They’re trying to bundle their annual ‘rivalry’ game with Stanford into the package of five obligated ACC games. Then they’ll be stuck with one less game vs the Wakes and the BCs and the Dukes.
LikeLike
Well, on the one hand it’s a bit hard to cast stones at ND for being self-serving since the college football landscape is nothing but self-serving moves. But it’s still funny to see how blatant this particular one is.
Some AD’s are asking the right question:
“But multiple athletic directors have questioned why anyone in the league would listen to Notre Dame because the Irish remain so steadfast in remaining independent.”
Maybe the mistress shouldn’t have a say on what furniture goes in the house?
LikeLike
Gift article WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-raising-prices-hulu-espn-earnings-call-64ae262?st=plcg48cm2erqkkj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
New details added to the article Mike linked yesterday
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-acc-considering-smu-in-addition-to-cal-and-stanford-in-expansion-talks-205526422.html
1. SMU willing to go 5+ years without any conference distributions if necessary to get into the ACC
2. While the ACC’s contract with ESPN does include a pro rata, ESPN would have to either kick additional cash on top of that to cover the current members increased travel and logistical costs or Stanford and Cal would need to agree to “60-70%” shares. No word though on how long partial shares would be necessary.
Not in this article, but Larry Williams who writes for Clemson’s Rivals Network stite says, ND is “pushing hard” for the Bay Area schools. Not surprising, but I really hope the other ACC schools don’t think adding them will actually pursued ND to join for FB.
LikeLike
Yeah, for ND that would basically reduce their ACC games to 4 since they want to play Stanford anyway. Maybe they ask to always play 1 of the 2 SF schools (or even just Stanford) as part of their deal (which saves others from traveling as much).
LikeLike
“ACC presidents met Wednesday night and continued to discuss Stanford and Cal expansion opportunities. There is still pushback within the league and no formal vote was taken, a league source told The Athletic. The ACC needs 12 of 15 schools to vote “yes” for the moves to happen — and it does not have that number of votes secured.”
LikeLike
Kinda comical that ND is ‘pushing hard’ for Stanford and Cal to join the ACC while the Irish themselves refuse to do so.
LikeLike
The ACC needs 12 of 15 to approve any additions. If at least 4 of the 7 that explored changing revenue distributions vote no it’s not going to happen. That group included FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, NC State, UVA, and VT.
LikeLike
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-athletics/2023/08/140013/presser-bullets-gene-smith-discusses-decision-to-retire-thoughts-on-changes-in-college-sports
Gene Smith is retiring on 6/30/2024. The search for his replacement will wait for the new president to be hired. That vacuum of experience at OSU could be important for an upcoming B10 expansion votes.
Lots of former OSU assistant ADs out there (see last bullet point) rumored as candidates. We’ll probably end up with a TV executive.
Some press conference highlights:
* He said he thinks there needs to be a new structure for governing college football. He isn’t sure whether that means the FBS breaking away from the NCAA as he had suggested in the past.
* Smith said the Big Ten’s revenue distribution for current schools was not diluted by the additions of Oregon and Washington. “Fox brought new money to the table,” Smith said.
* “I don’t think college athletics is ever going to go in the tank. It’s going to be different. … How do you embrace that change? How do you make the best of it? That’s the attitude you have to have.”
* Smith said the Big Ten studied Oregon and Washington at the same time they added USC and UCLA, so there wasn’t much of a learning curve when the conference considered adding them this time around. He thinks they are “great institutions” and that the positives of adding them will outweigh the negatives.
* “I do not believe that student-athletes should be employees. That’s a whole new relationship.” Smith said he supports giving more money to athletes, but he thinks that money should be tethered to education rather than giving athletes a paycheck.
* Smith said he is very proud that Ohio State has been able to maintain 36 varsity sports. He acknowledged that the new athletic director will have to make “a business decision” about whether it’s still feasible to manage that many sports.
* Smith said he is proud that he has been able to help a diverse group of his former assistants become athletic directors elsewhere including Martin Jarmond (UCLA), Pat Chun (Washington State), Heather Lyke (Pittsburgh) and Diana Sabau (Utah State).
* Asked if he would like to be the commissioner of college football, Gene Smith pointed to his wife, Sheila. Her response: “Hell no.”
LikeLike
Presidents are the one making expansion decisions, and in any case, the B10 won’t be adding anyone else until the ACC GOR is close to ending or if ND ever decides to join a conference (when hell freezes over).
LikeLike
Richard: ” . . . or if ND ever decides to join a conference (when hell freezes over).”
We all agree that ND does not want to join a conference but I continue to believe that the Domers are getting between a rock and hard place on the renewal of their NBC contract. That thing has drug out for months with no resolution in sight. ND wants a payout similar to what the Big Ten and SEC will be getting in 2024. Are they worth it? Considerations:
– Since the current contract with NBC was signed in 2012, viewership of ND home games has dropped 45%.
– ND’s home schedule has been flat-out pathetic in recent years.
– Competing games on Saturday afternoon from both the SEC and the Big Ten will be considerably improved starting in 2024.
– ND’s homer at NBC Sports will soon be the new AD at ND, thus their insider is no longer calling the shots.
My hunch is that ND will stay independent but their new TV deal with NBC won’t pay the $60-$70 million that they’re looking for. After about ten years of that, they may then be signing up with the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The Domers will probably get $50-$60mm/year and that probably will be enough for them to stay independent.
LikeLike
Agreed. However, Notre Dame’s Rockne Athletics Fund raised 19.3M in 2022 donations. The next NBC deal needs to get them close, but the booster fund helps offset things to a degree. The combined TV/booster money needs to keep them competitive financially. They will hang on to “independence” as long as they can.
LikeLike
Richard,
Presidents are the one making expansion decisions, and in any case, the B10 won’t be adding anyone else until the ACC GOR is close to ending or if ND ever decides to join a conference (when hell freezes over).
Are they? The BoR/BoT has the final say, the AD provides key input (esp. to a brand new president, and even more so if that president lacks P5 experience), and the major donors have a huge impact.
Until the entire P12 issue is settled, the B10 has long form TV contracts, and FSU settles down, I’m not 100% sure realignment is on pause.
LikeLike
Actually, no, in a conference, it’s the presidents/chancellors who vote who to admit. They may or may not care to listen to their AD.
And sure, ultimately, a president/chancellor answers to a BoR/BoT, but I’ve yet to hear of a BoR/BoT of a school in already in a conference meddling with who the conference admits.
LikeLike
To expand on this, when it came to admitting UW & UO, it was the B10 presidents/chancellors who said “yes” while some of the B10 ADs evidently held reservations about adding those 2.
LikeLike
BoT’s almost always rubber stamp what the President recommends. They simply do not meddle in the day-to-day running of the school. For example, BoT’s generally must approve faculty hires and promotions, but they never conduct their own evaluations, and simply agree to what is recommended to them.
(At tOSU, the last substantive review of hires and promotions is done at the Provost level, but they seldom reverse a College’s recommendation unless something egress happens.)
BoR’s are even more remote. They generally distribute state legislature monies according to some formula, and coordinate the programs at different schools in order to eliminate needless duplication.
The intervention of the Cal BoR in the move of U Cal to the B1G was really extraordinary.
LikeLike
Bob: In regards to tOSU’s BOT, my understanding is they mainly care about the higher profile hires. So a senior level individual? They’re going to pay attention, and in some cases be more involved at the search level than usual. They won’t rubber stamp those. But faculty and lower staff is below their care threshold.
They care a great deal about sports, specifically football and basketball as you’d expect (some more than others of course, tOSU does have 20 members on the board). I never heard of them meddling in things so much as demanding constant reporting of situations. That back and forth, I imagine, allows their opinions to be considered during the process, so that when it comes to an official vote it only looks like a rubber stamp because everything else was already done.
Again, this is for things the major BOT members actually care about personally. So, football, the med center, the financials, campus construction, etc. Each has their own interests. Now, with Gene Smith I do think they were more content to just wait for info dumps. As far as I know his options and abilities were always well respected, and he had real command of the department.
I’m unsure a new AD and President will get the same amount of space to work. In how that might relate to BigTen expansion it’s hard to say. I’m sure they’d want to thoroughly know the financials of it at the very least, and post-Gene I could see some of them attempt to meddle if the new AD and president don’t come out of the gate strong. Kind of just depends on who’s on the board at the time, and which way the winds are blowing regarding the power dynamics between them.
LikeLike
Bob,
That used to be the case, but they’ve been getting more involved. Look at FL and TX for 2 examples.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/trustees-regents/2023/04/27/new-college-board-denies-tenure-5-professors
FL’s New College’s BoT denied tenure to 5 professors this year.
During a contentious Board of Trustees meeting Wednesday, five professors at the New College of Florida were denied tenure—even though they had already received approvals at every other point in the process.
https://www.burntorangenation.com/2021/7/28/22599090/texas-am-aggies-board-of-regents-sec-expansion-vote-texas-oklahoma
The TAMU BoR specifically ordered the TAMU president to vote in favor of the UT and OU expansion of the the SEC.
Therefore The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents Board directs Texas A&M President M. Katherine Banks to vote in favor of extending formal invitations to the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas to join the conference in 2025 when the SEC presidents consider the matter.
Boards are stepping in for political and athletic (really a different form of politics) reasons, more and more often.
LikeLike
bob,
BoT’s almost always rubber stamp what the President recommends. They simply do not meddle in the day-to-day running of the school. For example, BoT’s generally must approve faculty hires and promotions, but they never conduct their own evaluations, and simply agree to what is recommended to them.
(At tOSU, the last substantive review of hires and promotions is done at the Provost level, but they seldom reverse a College’s recommendation unless something egress happens.)
Let’s talk OSU specifically:
* Les Wexner got Pres. Johnson fired because he wanted more control over the medical center.
* OSU has no interim president, and all decisions are ultimately being brought to the relevant committees of the BoT for final approval. This is despite this setup apparently violating state law.
BoR’s are even more remote. They generally distribute state legislature monies according to some formula, and coordinate the programs at different schools in order to eliminate needless duplication.
The intervention of the Cal BoR in the move of U Cal to the B1G was really extraordinary.
It used to be, but not so much anymore – see my other reply.
LikeLike
Welp, EndeavorWMEdani was right:
“At the risk of a heapin’-helpin’ of crow-emoji, I have declared with Indesputable! Irrefutable! certainty that Washington and Oregon WILL be admitted to the B1G (at a bargain price) BEFORE signing any sort of PAC grant of rights.”
Though, IMO, the only way his beloved Cardinal join the B10 is if
1. ND joins and wants to bring along Stanford.
2. The B10 loses out on FSU and Clemson and decide that Miami+Stanford aren’t dilutive and are worth adding for ancillary reasons (maybe at half-shares at first).
LikeLike
IMO – If the Big Ten goes to 24 I would think a Stanford and Cal (or Arizona St) would be added for a “Western 6”
LikeLike
Hard to see 24 happening. And even then, it would be 6 of ND/Stanford/FSU/Clemson/Miami/UNC/UVa.
LikeLike
That’s pretty close to what I was thinking. I would swap in Cal or ASU.
West – USC/UCLA/UW/UO/Stan/[Cal or ASU]
Central – NEB/IA/MIN/NW/IL/WI
North – MICH/OSU/MSU/IN/PU/RU
East – PSU/Mary/FSU/Miami/UNC/UVA
You can move a team around here or there, but these are four regional divisions. I don’t think going past 16 is a good idea with out a conference playoff.
LikeLike
The only problem there is while Miami and UNC may be neutral (neither additive or dilutive), FSU alone isn’t enough to pay for UVa, Stanford, and Cal/ASU.
LikeLike
The only problem there is while Miami and UNC may be neutral (neither additive or dilutive), FSU alone isn’t enough to pay for UVa, Stanford, and Cal/ASU.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but we keep saying that and FOX, ESPN, etc keep finding money to make it happen. The money for a conference playoff (which they’d have to have with this many teams) would probably easily cover it.
LikeLike
Mike.
The money for a conference playoff (which they’d have to have with this many teams) would probably easily cover it.
You keep asserting that it has to happen, but you know it is not currently allowed (outside of flex scheduling the final week) and nobody in power has ever said anything about even considering it. Why does it have to happen? Tiebreakers exist for a reason. If you don’t like that path, then use divisions.
After all, the championship means a lot less in a 12-team playoff (esp. since the model may change). If the “best” team misses the CCG, it can still make the CFP and win the national title. It’s like the hoops title in a P5 conference – who really cares who won when 68 teams get in?
Yes, conference semifinals would make more money if the were legal. But do fans really want another round of post-season travel added?
LikeLike
Mike, the money Fox found for UO and UW were half the B10 full shares, and those schools are at the Miami/UNC level in number of eyeballs they bring.
Fox evidently didn’t find enough money for Stanford+Cal to be palatable to the B10 presidents so I can’t see how they could suddenly find enough money to make Stanford+UVa+Cal/ASU palatable to the B10.
LikeLike
Wilner’s latest. Goes over the options for the PAC
LikeLike
Some good stuff in there.
Non-paywalled link: https://sports360az.com/2023/08/mailbag-cash-available-for-the-pac-4-the-rules-of-withdrawal-options-for-wsu-and-osu-kliavkoffs-strategy-and-more/
The Hotline mailbag typically publishes each Friday. Given the extraordinary developments that led to the demise of the Pac-12, we are planning a series of mailbags (beginning today) in the hopes of addressing all the topics that matter to our readers.
How much money is in the Pac-12 accounts? And are the four remaining schools obligated to share that, and the 2023-24 revenue, with the departing schools? — @grasslandJerry
The finances are critical to the next move for the remaining schools, and there are many unknowns at this early stage. But we have been told by multiple sources that the quartet controls the conference as the lone voting members of the Pac-12 Board of Directors.
They control the cash, to the extent that there is cash to be controlled.
Our reading of the bylaws indicates the eight outgoing schools could be entitled to their standard revenue shares for the 2023-24 sports season, which would greatly diminish the available funds for the continuing members.
…
Could the revenue be withheld? Final judgment undoubtedly will be rendered by the lawyers, who must determine “the real damages” inflicted upon the four remaining schools, according to a source.
But this much is known: The Pac-12 finished the 2022 fiscal year with $42.7 million in net assets, which includes the emergency reserve funds controlled by the presidents — the presidents of the four remaining schools.
What about the liabilities?
Our assumption is the payments due Comcast will be deducted from the campus distributions to all 12 schools in the spring, removing them from the books beyond June 30, 2024.
But the technological infrastructure underpinning the Pac-12 Networks must be accounted for; the same goes for the lease on the new property in San Ramon.
The Pac-12’s chief financial officer, Morane Kerek, who was hired in June, has a busy few weeks ahead.
And one more point:
If desired, the four schools could attempt to play the hardest of hardball and declare the eight outgoing members ineligible for Pac-12 titles in 2023-24 — and thus any automatic bids to NCAA championships.
There is precedent for such action. In 2012, the Colonial Athletic Association declared its three departing members, VCU, George State and Old Dominion, ineligible for championships.
We’re skeptical Stanford, Cal, WSU and OSU would take that step.
But like everything else, it’s on the spectrum of possibilities during this tumultuous stretch.
…
What happens to the College Football Playoff and NCAA Tournament payouts if the Pac-12 is basically dissolved at the end of the year? Is there a difference if Oregon State and Washington State keep the name? — @UACatManDo
Our understanding is the CFP distributes revenue during the fiscal year that includes the competition season. So the Pac-12’s cash haul from the 2023-24 playoff will flow to the schools in the first six months of next year.
(Whether that is split 12 ways or four is, again, to be determined.)
The revenue from March Madness is distributed on a delayed basis. Any cash earned from the 2024 event would be disbursed in 2025. The outgoing schools would not be entitled to a dime.
If the conference dissolves, that could change. But only the four remaining schools have the power to shut everything down and turn out the lights.
…
Is there any chance Stanford abandons Cal? What if the Big Ten or ACC, in their vetting, find that SMU or anyone else is a better option than Cal? — @tgbegreen
Cal’s administrative apathy and institutional hurdles, and the resulting deterioration of its football and basketball programs, have placed the Bears at extreme risk. They could very well get left behind in the realignment game, forever.
But at this point, an interlocked future for the Bay Area teams is the most likely outcome. If membership options open in the ACC or Big Ten, they would serve as logical travel partners.
If those doors close, the Cardinal and Bears could provide the foundation to rebuild the Pac-12, along with Washington State and Oregon State.
Key point: We do not envision any scenario in which Stanford joins the Mountain West, ever.
In the event the schools don’t remain in the Pac-12 and Stanford competes as an Independent, the Bears would have a choice: Do the same, or enter the Mountain West alongside WSU and OSU?
That endgame, which feels unlikely, is the only outcome in which they would split up.
…
Don’t know if this has been asked but what happens to the Rose Bowl on New Year’s Day once the Pac-12 dissolves? Is it strictly going to be playoff-only going forward? — @BSTEVENS_1984
It was easy to miss, but Penn State’s victory over Utah on Jan. 2, 2023 was, in fact, the last traditional Rose Bowl.
Why? Because the Rose Bowl in January 2024 will be a playoff semifinal, and all subsequent Rose Bowls will be part of the expanded playoff — as a quarterfinal two out of every three years and as a semifinal the third year.
What are your plans for the Pac-12 Hotline after the 2023-24 season is over? Will you change it to something like “Former Teams of the Pac-12 Hotline”? How about the “Big Ten and Pac-12 scraps Hotline”? — @KuhlBen1250
I haven’t had much time to sort things out, or execute the basic functions of life, since the collapse of the conference. If needed, we just change the name to WilnerHotline.com — that’s also my Twitter handle — and roll on.
The Hotline was covering the schools out west and the issues that matter to them long before “Pac-12” was added to the name of our operation.
That won’t change with new conference affiliations.
As always, we are deeply grateful for the support and loyalty from the legions of readers.
So Wilner will continue to cover the western schools, regardless of the P12’s demise. That’s good for fans of those teams.
LikeLike
Some random guy tweeted this out. If only he had a blog.
LikeLike
I can’t get the whole thread, but I really don’t see how this would make sense for the Big East. They seem pretty happy to be done with FB, and I can’t imagine they would be thrilled with the idea of having to pay to send all there non-revs to the West Coast twice a year all for the privilege of adding 4 schools with little to no basketball history or value.
I’m not even sure such an arrangement would financially viable for the PAC schools .
LikeLike
frug,
For you and any other non-users of Twitter, try Nitter.net:
https://nitter.net/frankthetank111
LikeLike
Here’s what he was thinking. A 20 team basketball (He left off Gonzaga) league with an 8 team football league. Its still probably a “G5” league, but it would keep the non-revenue sports in a power conference.
LikeLike
Future football revenue for Stanford and Cal is chump change regardless of what they do. I suggest the academic high road in which they form a West Coast quasi-Ivy League and play at the FCS level, as the Ivy League does. They’d continue to play at Division I in all other sports.
Here are the Wall St Journal public college academic rankings of four U of California universities, all of which play football:
4 – Berkeley
5 – Davis
17 – Santa Barbara
24 – Irvine
Among all national universities including both public and private, Stanford is ranked #2 and Cal Tech is ranked #7. Cal Tech currently plays football in Division III.
So that’s eight: Washington St, Oregon St, Stanford, Cal Tech, Berkeley, Davis, Santa Barbara and Irvine.
LikeLike
I have a hard time seeing Stanford and Cal dropping from a Power 5 conference to the FCS level. That feels hyperbolic.
Stanford in particular is a fairly proud program, and went to eight bowl games in 11 years (with three Rose Bowls) under Shaw (5-3 in those games, 2-1 in Rose specifically), and won the conference three times. Shaw needed to go, but he did go 96-54 during his tenure from 2011-2022. Five 10+ win seasons. That’s better than a lot of programs; for comparison, over the same time period Miami went 88-62 and Texas went 86-65. Yes those teams have higher ceilings than they performed, but a decade of football isn’t a fluke. The idea that they’d go P5 -> G5 -> FCS seems crazy to me.
They’ve fallen off recently, and their fanbase isn’t great. They don’t move the media needle, and I get that they aren’t USC or Alabama and never will be. But they aren’t Rutgers or Wyoming either.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that Stanford and Cal have the option of remaining in a P5 conference, which now seems to be the P4. They could probably cobble together a quasi-Ivy G6 conference with the Pac-4 plus Army, Navy, Air Force, SMU, Rice and Tulane.
LikeLike
“I don’t believe that Stanford and Cal have the option of remaining in a P5 conference, which now seems to be the P4. They could probably cobble together a quasi-Ivy G6 conference with the Pac-4 plus Army, Navy, Air Force, SMU, Rice and Tulane.”
You’re probably right. But I have to think that’s still preferable to dropping down to FCS. Still a bit crazy to me that no one seems to want those two schools. Of course no one in the Bay Area seems to want those two schools either (for sports anyway) so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
LikeLike
Stop living in the past, Colin. Caltech hasn’t played football since 1993. In any case, MIT will join the BE before Caltech leaps from being a DivIII school that doesn’t give athletic preferences, let along scholarships, to being a DivI football school. In other words, that ain’t happening.
LikeLike
Cal Tech was just an example. We could swap them out for the University of San Diego, which plays Div I football in the Pioneer Conference. That isn’t San Diego State nor U of Cal-San Diego, both public schools. USD is a private college with good academics.
LikeLike
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/the-big-ten/2023/08/140022/gene-smith-saw-additions-of-oregon-and-washington-as-obvious-move-after-big-ten-received-new-money-from-fox
Gene Smith on the UW and UO expansion.
A primary concern leaders from many Big Ten schools had about the potential additions of Oregon and Washington was that they would have to split the conference’s revenue with two more schools. That concern was nullified when Fox, the Big Ten’s primary television partner, gave the conference more money – approximately $30-35 million per year for each of those two schools, according to Smith – to add the Ducks and Huskies.
As a result, Ohio State and the other 15 Big Ten schools (including UCLA and USC) will not see any decrease in revenue from what they were already projected to receive – a number estimated to be approximately $70 million per year for those schools – from their new media rights deal with Fox, CBS and NBC, while Smith believes Oregon and Washington will give the conference even more value in negotiations for future media rights deals.
“The original dollar figures that we had prior to Oregon and Washington coming in stayed the same for those institutions that were already in. Fox brought new money to the table for Oregon and for Washington that they provided,” Smith said during his press conference on Wednesday. “It wasn’t diluted to us. The long-term play is that, hopefully, when we negotiate the next deal, that’s valuable inventory. So year five or six, whenever assuming it’s Tony goes to negotiate a new deal, you have Oregon and Washington in your portfolio.”
Specifically, Smith believes Oregon and Washington will bring added value for streaming rights, which are likely to be a larger component in the Big Ten’s next media rights contract than the seven-year deal starting this year, which includes a streaming feature with Peacock but is primarily based around linear television broadcasts for football games, with Fox, CBS and NBC all set to broadcast games on their national networks weekly.
“They’re in markets, when you look at the demographics of the Northwest, it’s a young population,” Smith said. “So when Tony gets to the point of renegotiating a new contract and we have streaming, that demographic might be more amenable to that type of platform.”
…
“They’re AAU institutions, strong academic institutions,” Smith said. “They have proven themselves as institutions that invest in their athletic programs. They’re valuable institutions to bring into our league.”
Because of all that, Smith said it was an easy decision to support the additions of Oregon and Washington as Big Ten members once it was assured that Ohio State and the rest of the schools already in the conference would only benefit financially.
“I have to compliment Tony. He did a great job as our commissioner, working with our television partners,” Smith told Eleven Warriors. “And so when he brought it to us, and it was non-diluted, we weren’t taking a financial hit and they were getting paid with new money, for me, it became pretty obvious as something we should do.”
…
“It’s gonna be exciting for our league, for Washington and Oregon to come in at the same time as USC and UCLA, and it’s gonna be exciting for our fans when they go to Washington and go to Oregon. They’re cool places,” Smith said. “So I think there’s a lot of positive elements around it. Sure, there are some negatives, but the positives outweigh that.”
LikeLike
Specifically, Smith believes Oregon and Washington will bring added value for streaming rights, which are likely to be a larger component in the Big Ten’s next media rights contract than the seven-year deal starting this year
I really do think FOX is setting itself up to be acquired by a streamer.
LikeLike
They are an outlier in terms of not developing any non-website streaming option. Maybe they are waiting for consolidation into streamer bundles and will just let experts handle it. It’s always seemed odd, since everyone else is into streaming.
Do Apple or Amazon want what’s left of Fox? Maybe as a way to get the NFL rights.
LikeLike
How many streamers are out there right now? A dozen + ? How many are you signed up for? How many would it take to get all of the football games that you want to watch?
Call me a heretic but I believe cable TV will rise from the ashes like a Phoenix. There may not be legions of the woke who will return to cable but there are a lot of college football fans who will make it their priority.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-an-empty-gun-the-downfall
Canzano with some info on the P12’s negotiations and failures:
1. This is the first clear reporting I’ve seen that GK was basically lying to the presidents and ADs all along.
2. The presidents approved the media consultant who GK knew with no relevant experience. They also ordered GK to make the ridiculously high counteroffer to ESPN that basically screwed them in the end.
3. 2 presidents signed the deal in advance – WSU and OrSU?
4. Larry Scott was aware of USC’s and UCLA’s unhappiness. but GK wasn’t (he took Folt’s assurances at face value). Did Scott bother to pass on his knowledge to his replacement? That’s part of his job. Of course, he didn’t pass on the info about overbilling Comcast either.
It sounds like a whole lot of blame deserves to be shared by all parties here.
None of the presidents and chancellors wanted to see the 108-year-old conference die. The members of the Pac-12 Conference CEO Group liked being together. The schools were a solid cultural fit. They shared academic missions. The geography worked.
So why is the Pac-12 dead?
What doesn’t the public know?
“How so many smart people can make such stupid decisions,” a conference insider told me on Wednesday.
…
The downfall of the Pac-12 should be used as a case-study for business schools and leadership courses. It’s a tale laced with hubris, strategic mistakes and mistrust. The Pac-12 as we once knew it is gone.
WSU athletic director Pat Chun told me on Wednesday: “The Pac-12 failed because of failed leadership. College football is fracturing right before our eyes because there’s no leadership. When there’s a void of leadership these are the outcomes you have to deal with.”
Did Fox play a role? Sure. Has college athletics lost its mind? Absolutely. But if a few things had gone differently the Pac-12 might still be a viable, living, breathing college conference.
Several Pac-12 presidents and athletic directors spoke publicly this week. And a handful of conference insiders shared new details with me from behind the scenes. Those in the inner sanctum of the conference pointed to a hurricane of broken promises, shaky gamesmanship, blown opportunities and old-fashioned arrogance.
…
Kliavkoff assured his bosses for months that a satisfactory media-rights deal was just around the corner. “I just need your patience,” he told him. “A little more time,” Kliavkoff said. The presidents and chancellors believed him, right up until that Tuesday meeting when the commissioner unveiled a $23 million-a-year Apple deal that required his membership to take a leap of faith.
They’d hoped for a big bang.
“The gun was empty,” one person said.
…
Still, Robbins and six other members of the Pac-12 CEO Group miraculously arrived at Friday’s 7 a.m. board meeting prepared to sign the Grant of Rights — “in blood” — he said. At least two of the Pac-12 presidents were so eager to get it done that they executed the document the night before, per multiple conference sources.
…
• The Pac-12 hired Doug Perlman and his company — Sports Media Advisors — in the summer of 2022 to help engineer the media-rights negotiation. Perlman and Kliavkoff attended law school together at the University of Virginia. The hire was approved by the Pac-12’s CEO Group, but raised eyebrows within the industry.
Perlman had a solid reputation in the media business, but arrived with little experience negotiating media-rights deal in the college space.
“Doug was way too nice and mild in my view,” said one source with knowledge of the negotiation. “You need cold-blooded killers in this business.”
Perlman formed a tight-knit “deal team” comprised of a handful of select individuals. Few particulars of the negotiation were shared outside of the deal-team members. The conference presidents and chancellors were given regular updates by Kliavkoff, but the CEO Group didn’t actually see the deal until it was put in front of them.
Said the source: “We all know now that we were flailing for the entirety of the time we were in the marketplace.”
• The Pac-12 got an offer of $30 million per school from ESPN in the fall of 2022. It included all the conference’s media rights, including the Pac-12 Network. But the conference presidents and chancellors believed they could do much better.
The board instructed Kliavkoff to reject ESPN’s proposal and make a lopsided counter-offer. The commissioner should have pushed back and managed expectations in the room. He should have been more tuned into the eroding media landscape. Kliavkoff followed the order and the consequences were grave.
Source to me: “You know what we told ESPN after their $30 million per-school offer?”
Me: “What?”
Source: “We said we want $50 million per school.”
Me: “What was the ESPN response?”
Source: “Goodbye.”
• .,.
The Big Ten wooed the Ducks and Huskies with the powerful exposure of Fox’s linear platform and a guaranteed cut of the conference’s media-rights package. The average annual distribution to the newcomers will be an average of $35 million per year for six years. It’s a reduced share for UO and UW, but more than either expected they’d get in the Pac-12.
One problem, though, Oregon officials informed Pac-12 leadership the Ducks wouldn’t leave the conference for less than a full share of the Big Ten’s deal. In the hours before the Pac-12’s fateful Friday meeting, the Big Ten added a sweetener.
Oregon and Washington were informed they would receive a full share of the Big Ten’s subsequent TV negotiation (in 2030). When UO president John Karl Scholz announced Oregon’s departure on Friday afternoon, he didn’t talk about the six-year guarantee. Scholz instead noted that the annual distribution would “average” $50 million in revenue over a 10-year period.
Without a linear option, the Pac-12 simply couldn’t match that.
Said one well-placed conference source: “Fox obviously screwed us and I would argue that after that initial ESPN offer in the fall that ESPN was no friend.”
• George Kliavkoff lost credibility with his board and the public during the last 10 months. The commissioner overpromised and under-delivered. It helps explain why a few Pac-12 presidents and chancellors randomly popped up, gave conflicting public interviews, and offered a series of timelines on when they expected the media deal to get done.
I spoke with several members of the Pac-12 CEO Group and a multitude of industry sources over the last year. I was repeatedly told the board was galvanized, had solidarity, and remained confident it would get a satisfactory deal.
When Oregon State’s new president, Jaythi Murthy, gave me a 27-minute radio interview in February, she echoed Kliavkoff’s enthusiasm. It almost exactly matched what several other members of the Pac-12 CEO Group were also saying.
“We are together on this,” Murthy told me. “We’ve got confidence in the future of the Pac-12 and we know things are going to be good.”
I later found out that the Pac-12 commissioner had spent 45 minutes briefing OSU’s president shortly before our interview.
Said one source: “We waited and waited and they didn’t deliver. Even Colorado waited until almost the bitter end.”
The lack of credibility was a killer down the stretch for the Pac-12 leaders. The commissioner was faced with selling a less-than-ideal Apple deal to a room that was annoyed with being strung along. Kliavkoff wasn’t just asking his members to bet on themselves. The commissioner was doing it without the trust of his board.
“I like George a lot as a person,” one person said, “but we were told things that didn’t come true time and time again.”
• Ex-commissioner Larry Scott played a key role in the demise of the Pac-12. His leadership put the conference on the path to destruction a decade ago. Scott doesn’t get a pass. But as awful as he was I’ve wondered if Scott would have let the conference die.
Would he have lost USC and UCLA to the Big Ten?
Would he have managed his board better?
…
I spoke to one long-time conference source this week who confessed he’d been thinking about the ex-commissioner this week. Scott had the unhappiness of the LA schools on his radar in 2009. He knew USC was a flight risk.
Scott’s successor was blindsided by it.
The source said: “No matter what you think of Larry I think he would have played much better chess than we did the past couple years.”
LikeLike
“Kliavkoff assured his bosses for months that a satisfactory media-rights deal was just around the corner. “I just need your patience,” he told him. “A little more time,”
What did I tell ya? Snake oil.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-could-oliver-luck-help-save
The Pac-4 have hired Oliver luck as a consultant. I bet they wish they had hired him as the P12 commissioner instead of GK now.
Also some other tidbits, including Bob Thompson perhaps knowing what he’s talking about.
The Pac-4 members may attempt to keep an imbalanced share of conference revenue in the next year. The conference expects to receive $420 million in television and postseason funds. There’s also an “emergency fund” that had more than $40 million in it before the pandemic hit in 2020.
I’d like to hear the legal justification for keeping more than their share of the media money. I’m pretty sure they all signed something that specified how much they each get paid (equal shares since the P12N started, right?). Leaving at the end of the deal is not breaking any rules and there is no exit fee.
How much is left in the fund? Could the Pac-4 justify the use of revenue to pay San Diego State’s $34 million MWC buyout? How about SMU? Also, is there a media-rights deal out there for a reconstructed conference?
1. I’d bet COVID used up a lot of that already.
2. Spend essentially your entire emergency fund to pay 1 school’s exit fee? How will that go over with everyone else? And what if another emergency happens (like the conference falling apart)? Wouldn’t splitting it equally among the remaining 4 as a way to help smooth the financial hit be better?
Luck will help the remaining members sort out those answers in the coming days and weeks. Meanwhile, I reached out to an executive at one of the four remaining schools with a follow-up question: Am I being naive to think rebuilding the Pac-4 is a viable option?
The answer: “No you are not.”
Viable, sure. As a G5 conference – if the SF pair can accept being together with lesser academic schools.
Speaking of consultants, can I take a moment to give Bob Thompson a victory lap? The retired Fox Sports Networks president emerged as a valuable public resource and a voice of reason during the last 15 months.
…
In July of 2022, shortly after USC and UCLA left for the Big Ten, I leaned heavily on Thompson’s expertise in a piece titled: “Pac-12 gut punch comes with a cost.”
Thompson explained how media companies think. He pointed out that he believed the Pac-12’s media deal was worth $500 million per year with USC and UCLA involved (12 schools) but estimated the new valuation for the 10 remaining schools to be only $300 million.
That’s $30 million, per school.
That figure jumps out at me now because of what I reported on Thursday. ESPN offered the Pac-12 exactly $30 million per school in the fall of 2022. The conference presidents turned it down and counter-offered at $50 million.
ESPN walked away.
Thompson’s other predictions in that piece:
— Fox an “unlikely bidder” on the Pac-12. (✅ Correct)
— NBC not a player for the Pac-12. (✅ Correct)
— CBS might have interest, but would rather have Big Ten. (✅ Correct)
— ESPN/ABC is a bidder, “but they are certainly not going to overpay.” (✅ Correct)
— Oregon and Washington’s value to the Big Ten would be approximately $30 million each. (Thompson was only off by ~15 percent. The Ducks and Huskies received an average of $35 million per year in the next six years).
If the Pac-12 accepts the $300 million offer from ESPN in the fall of 2022, the conference is still together. Thompson provided the conference the blueprint, didn’t he? The Pac-4 might think about hiring him, too.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/whos-in-charge-of-the-pac-12-answer-unclear-as-the-lawyers-dig-in/
The lawyers may have to get involved to figure out who’s running the P12. Then they can fire GK and hire someone competent (or merge with a conference which already has a commissioner.
One week after presiding over the collapse of a 108-year-old conference, George Kliavkoff’s role remains unchanged.
“He’s still our commissioner, and there have been no discussions with him besides him intending to still serve,’’ said Washington State president Kirk Schulz, chair of the Pac-12 Board of Directors.
“In my conversations with how to move ahead, George has been exemplary in terms of making sure the four remaining schools have options … He’s still making the day-to-day decisions for the conference office and preparing us for the fall. We still have a (competition year) to produce.”
However, numerous discussions about the future of the conference have taken place without Kliavkoff’s involvement, according to a source. The presidents and athletic directors of the four remaining schools (Stanford, Cal, Oregon State and Washington State) are in frequent communication.
Schulz declined to say whether Kliavkoff would lead any media rights negotiations if the quartet decided to rebuild the conference.
“We haven’t gotten that far,” he told the Hotline on Friday. “There could be lots of options with how we handle the media piece. But why bother with that stuff until we know more?”
…
Everything is on hold until Stanford and Cal decide their course of action. The schools are attempting to gain invitations to the ACC and the Big Ten. Competing as an Independent in football is also an option, at least for the Cardinal.
The lengthy to-do list includes determining exactly who’s running the conference at the highest level.
Initially, conference executives, including Schulz, believed only the four remaining schools held voting power and control of whatever assets remain.
That conclusion has not been confirmed by the lawyers.
“We have to figure out how to operate the conference and who is empowered with the decision-making,’’ Schulz said. “It turns out that’s not as trivial as everybody thinks.”
With no major decisions in the next two weeks — everything hinges on the Bay Area schools — the Pac-12’s legal team is digging into the bylaws.
Does that mean the eight outgoing schools could be empowered to vote on critical issues, including media rights and expansion, that don’t impact their futures?
“We don’t know,’’ Schulz said. “It’s an unprecedented situation where we lose five of the nine schools. There are decisions to make on all types of things, but right now we’re in a holding pattern …
“We thought, ‘Let’s step back and make sure who has the authority.’ We think there will be some clarity around governance issues in the next two weeks.”
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-rebuild-estimating-the-media-valuation-of-a-reconstructed-conference/
Wilner worked with a sports media rights valuation expert to figure out what a rebuilt P12’s rights might be worth. Hint: not much.
Assumptions:
* 6-year deal starting in 2024 with a 3% annual escalator
* Used average of AAC and MWC deals for share of games on linear networks (FB – 37%, MBB – 49%)
* 8 game schedule in FB + 2 home OOC games each + a CCG, 18 games in MBB + 5 home OOC games
* Equal revenue sharing
Scenario I
Expansion move: The four remaining schools merge with the Mountain West to create a super-conference. While an outright merger is considered unlikely, we wanted to provide a broad sweep of outcomes.
Total members: 16 in football, 15 in basketball (excluding Hawaii)
Estimated average valuation: $8.4 million per school
Scenario II
Expansion move: The four remaining schools add San Diego State, Fresno State and Colorado State from the Mountain West and SMU, Rice and Tulane from the American.
Total members: 10
Estimated average valuation: $10.5 million per school
Scenario III
Expansion move: The four remaining schools add San Diego State, Fresno State, Colorado State and Boise State from the Mountain West and SMU and Tulane from the American.
Total members: 10
Estimated average valuation: $10.9 million per school
…
How do those valuation levels compare to the current Mountain West and American contracts?
The American has a lengthy deal with ESPN — it lasts into the 2030s — that spins off an average of $7.5 million per year (approximately) to each campus. Any school jumping to the rebuilt Pac-12 would see an increase of about 50 percent annually under the highest valuation estimate.
The Mountain West’s contract with Fox and CBS, which expires in the summer of 2026, distributes an average of $4.75 million (approximately). Schools switching to the Pac-12 would more than double their media revenue under the highest valuation estimate.
…
Once all the revenue streams are considered, including future postseason payouts and the forfeited NCAA Tournament cash, the ‘Pac-4’ could receive $20 million annually, on average, over the six-year contract term.
At that level, the campus distributions would significantly lag schools those in the Power Four but far exceed payouts typically received by members of the Group of Five.
LikeLike
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/california-golden-bears-uc-berkeley-big-ten
A piece from the Cal POV:
There have been rumors that what remains of the Pac-12 has been in discussion with the Mountain West about a potential merger to consolidate before the 2024 season. Cal, Oregon State and Washington State are interested. Stanford will participate but is rumored too be actively opposed.
That being said, this is a fool’s errand. At least for the foreseeable future, Cal needs to be in a major college conference. Relegation is not an option.
If California were to move back to the Mountain West, the Golden Bears could not sustain the level of excellence and financial support required to support 30 sports. Projected plunges in ticket sales and ESP (Memorial Stadium premium donor seating) sales would effectively bury Cal in red ink. Major cuts of our most successful sports and eliminations of entire programs would be on the menu. Hundreds of athletes, many from disadvantaged programs, would no longer have the chance to earn a life-changing degree from the best university on the planet.
And we haven’t even gotten to the $200+ million albatross of the Memorial Stadium debt, with service repayments set to balloon by 2033. Cal moving down a conference will make it impossible for that debt to be re-serviced on time from the athletic department. If the university can’t handle repaying that debt nearly all of that burden would then have to be passed back to either the state of California. And if the state declines, it’ll likely be passed onto the students in escalating fee service.
UC Berkeley, already struggling with rising costs and rounds of budget cuts, would become even more unaffordable for the common student. It is a reality no one wants.
There are many alternatives for survival that can help us avoid these worst-case scenarios. A MountainPac is not it.
Three realistic options exist for finding a new home.
* There’s the Big Ten, which remains the North Star for the university for a myriad of reasons. Although the Big Ten did seem to consider Cal and Stanford earlier this week, the rate at which they accepted Oregon and Washington was unpalatable to the TV networks.
* There’s the Big 12, which still has some interest in accepting two more members. There is a lot of cultural and academic baggage though, and it seems as if Cal and Stanford aren’t particularly interested in the overall fit, despite four other Pac-12 programs already joining. The Big 12 also seems ready to move onto basketball-only/basketball-first programs like Gonzaga or UConn, or maybe looking at saving Oregon State and Washington State.
* There’s the ACC, which feels like a better fit culturally. However, this will be harder to justify.
There are too many investments Cal has made in the past decades to attempt any sort of relegation. Obviously, from the three cases above, the Big Ten is the most palatable, with the Big 12 an option Cal might have to swallow their pride and accept if there is no other opportunity.
…
I still think that in the long run, Cal and Stanford will get Big Ten invites. Big Ten university presidents are very excited at the prospect of having the two best academic football programs in the land in their conference. It’d also greatly reduce the stress of travel that only four west coast programs would face having to trek midwest, as half the schedule for these six teams would then be set in the West.
However, the media companies (particularly Fox) aren’t in a giving mood, and they hold the purse strings. Since Cal and Stanford are at their lowest possible negotiation point, Fox will likely set much harsher terms that both programs will have to be willing to accept to stay alive.
Because Cal has zero leverage, they will be very reduced deals compared to what Oregon and Washington received. I’d estimate around $25 million to start, with slight escalators to match Big 12 numbers, and possibly will not get a full share even at the next Big Ten renegotiation in 2029.
This would be a grave embarrassment for Cal, who should have at least come in at the same level as Oregon & Washington if they’d been proactive in negotiations and fought for themselves. They unfortunately hamstrung themselves at every turn and will now have to just eat whatever terms are given. It is the price the Bears will pay for not taking realignment seriously enough, as they assumed time and time again their academic prestige would save them. There is likely to be some payout from UCLA, but it will still be a significant revenue gap.
I know there are many Cal fans and alum who want to give up the game. That is not a practical reality. Giving up Cal sports will significantly reduce donations at a time where UC Berkeley needs every dollar to offset state budget cuts, plus hundreds of millions in stadium debt.
Is Cal further away from dreams of success as a second-tier B1G member? Yes. But I’ve had mediocre Cal football my entire college alum life, so it’s not like anything is changing in that regard.
Things don’t have to be great to justify their existence. They deserve to exist because people care about them.
Even a reduced share in the Big Ten is enough to keep Cal alive, and more importantly fulfill the dreams of hundreds of athletes to get a degree from the best public university on the planet.
I’d like for us to keep fulfilling our mission, even if competing will be much harder.
I don’t think any amount of engagement by Cal would’ve gotten them the same deal as UW and UO – Fox was not interested in them.
LikeLike
Yeah, this guy is living in lalaland.
Cal is worth less than $20mm/year in TV revenue. Only way the B10 will take Cal is if Berkeley accepts quarter B10 shares. Permanently.
Their best avenue is to go independent in football (the BYU route) and try to build a fanbase.
LikeLike
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/cal-stanford-lead-effort-salvage-pac-12-time-18289662.php
(paywalled)
The Pac-4 are looking at SDSU + AAC schools.
The onus is on the four remaining Pac-12 schools to ensure that expansion targets meet certain standards in terms of brand recognition and academics. Though speculation has amplified this week that the quartet could try adding four or five Mountain West teams, a league source told The Chronicle that San Diego State is the only Mountain West school that would likely receive an invite.
Stanford and Cal just can’t help themselves.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/11/stanford-cal-acc-unlikely-future-unclear-pac-12
According to Pat Forde, Cal and Stanford are 1 vote short of joining the ACC – FSU, Clemson, UNC and NCSU are against it. I get the football schools, but why UNC and NCSU? UNC just wants their old ACC buddies?
The two members of the disintegrating Pac-12 need 12 of the 15 members of the ACC to support their move. Four schools stood opposed when the issue was discussed Wednesday night, sources say: Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina and North Carolina State. Lacking the requisite numbers, sources say it is unlikely that the potential expansion of the league will be put to a formal vote.
Sources described ACC members Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech and Louisville as among the most vocal in advocating for the Cardinal and Golden Bears to join the league. ACC commissioner Jim Phillips has been leading the discussion, presenting financial and scheduling scenarios to the league members.
In explaining his advocacy for Cal and Stanford this week, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told ESPN, “The notion that two of the very best academic institutions in the world who also play [Division I] sports could be abandoned in this latest chapter of realignment is an indictment of college athletics.”
LikeLike
Maybe?
The NC publics want to just play Carolina and VA schools all the time?
IMO, they’re short-sighted, but I’m not surprised as we see short-sightedness all the time in college sports.
LikeLike
The ACC has certainly made it’s fair share of mistakes. However, I don’t see how declining to add two Bay Area schools that have no football following nationally (and very limited football interest locally) as a way to generate football TV revenue is being short-sighted. The better football schools in the ACC are probably better off banding together for a bigger slice of the fixed ACC pie for the duration of the GOR. They don’t really have a better option.
LikeLike
I can kind of see it from UNC’s perspective. Supposedly, one of the main reasons many schools back adding the Bay Area schools is simply depth, giving the ACC some insurance in the event they lose members in the future. Since UNC is, arguably, the school behind FSU most likely to find a home elsewhere, the Tarheels have less to gain by seeing the ACC expand.
NC State, on the other hand, I don’t really understand.
LikeLike
So here’s an idea:
If Stanford and Cal can’t get in to the ACC, they could:
1. Park all non-football sports in the WCC
2. Go independent in football, especially if ND is willing to schedule an annual series with both of them. They could probably get a minimum of $10-15mm/year each from Apple TV (but up to $50mm/year depending on how many candy bars they manage to sell!)
Now, the Domers would be sacrificing a little, but
1. They’d get the academic allure of associating with and helping out both Stanford and Cal (arguably the best private and best public academically in the US).
2. They’d probably be able to get those 2 Bay Area teams to shift some “home” games vs ND to some parts of the country that ND wants to play in (like Navy does).
3. They may want to end the season playing the 2 Bay Area teams “away”. ND@USC would then shift to the weekend before Thanksgiving. The B10 would probably like that too, Then the final B10 weekend would have UO-UW Black Friday primetime on NBC after UNL-Iowa noon on CBS, USC-UCLA Sat primetime on NBC, OSU-UMich noon on Fox. CBS would at worst have Bucky-UMTC Sat afternoon, but could get PSU-MSU some years.
LikeLike
Oh, and nothing says Cal and Stanford can’t play each other 2-3 times in 1 season.
LikeLike
When did you notice ND sacrificing anything that they did not view to be in their best interest, such as sacrificing money to stay independent not join the B1G?
They can be bleeding hearts about Stanford and Cal, as long as it costs them nothing of consequence.
There is a much simpler solution. Join the ACC full time on the condition that they add the two Bay Area teams. Not going to happen, because that would be real sacrifice.
I have been agnostic about ND for a long time. Did not like them, but was not avidly anti-ND. I find this to so obnoxious that I have now moved to the anti-ND camp.
LikeLike
Bernie,
Right now, ND’s annual series with both USC and Stanford are about to end. While they are likely to renew one or both of those, they haven’t yet. If the B10 makes scheduling USC too difficult or the available dates aren’t to ND’s liking, ND could easily switch to Cal for their second CA series. Force Cal and Stanford to host the game in LA every other time so ND is getting exposure in both LA and SF as they do now. ND would get everything it wants (except ratings).
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-media-rights-negotiations-multiple-presidents-pushed-for-unrealistic-deal-from-espn/
WSU’s president admits the P12 presidents made some mistakes.
Do-overs? Absolutely, Kirk Schulz has a list of decisions he’d like back following the collapse of the Pac-12.
…
“We should have had a more robust conversations about our value in the marketplace,” Schulz told the Hotline on Friday.
The failure to accept market reality led the Pac-12 presidents last fall to reject an offer of $30 million per year (per school) from ESPN for the entirety of the conference’s football and men’s basketball media inventory, according to JohnCanzano.com.
Instead, the presidents instructed commissioner George Kliavkoff to pursue a deal in the $50 million per-school range.
“Two or three schools were interested in that number,” Schulz said. “The discussions were that we really had to close the gap on the Big Ten. The commissioner went off with those numbers, which were unrealistic for sure.”
A source familiar with the negotiations told the Hotline this week that one president even believed the valuation “should be in the 50s” — meaning, more than $50 million per school. (The source declined to identify the president.)
ESPN declined the Pac-12’s counteroffer.
“They couldn’t save those guys from themselves,” the source said. “The people with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions …
“(But) if George had come to the presidents in October and said there was a deal out there at $32 million or so, they would have thrown him out of the room.”
Asked if Kliavkoff should have pushed back against the presidents, Schulz said: “I don’t know what the individual conversations were like between George and those schools.”
Kliavkoff declined to comment for this story.
…
“Nobody wants to hear it,” Schulz said, “but sometimes you need a reality check … rather than spending too much time chasing fantasy numbers.”
LikeLike
With that type of leadership, the Pac deserved to die.
I could see UO and UW asking for the moon as they likely could get high-value TV deals through the B10 (eventually), but if the rest of the Pac wanted to keep the conference together (and the Bay Area schools, Or St., WSU, the AZ schools, and Utah were a definite majority), they were braindead to worry about keeping pace with the B10 and not simply about surviving.
LikeLike
Tony Altimore infographic showing a bunch of metrics for a bunch of Pac-4 expansion candidates. It makes it easy to compare them, though not every relevant metric is included and you can always dispute the choices of time periods.
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1690333798251089921/photo/1
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/playoff-composition-revenue-sharing-ncaa-influence-up-for-grabs-as-college-footballs-power-structure-shifts/
Dennis Dodd looking at how the CFP might change. Mostly just speculation and repeating what we already know, but a few things of interest.
At a minimum, the CFP Board of Managers (university presidents) must consider whether there are six conferences worthy of automatic qualification amid the loss of the Pac-12. Beyond that, given the consolidation of brands and revenues in the Big Ten and SEC, should any conference receive an automatic berth?
No individual conference has automatic qualification, the top 6 champions do. I find his wording misleading. But yes, they should consider whether it should drop to 5+7. Dropping champion spots entirely shouldn’t fly, especially with the G5 but also the B10. But will the top 4 spots continue to be reserved for champs? That is a legitimate debate. Maybe just say they are reserved for teams who played in CCGs (so ND and others can’t benefit from playing 12 instead of 13 games), so a CCG loser might be #4 and get a bye?
Changing to a wide-open “12 best” playoff model would obviously benefit the two superconferences. In any given year, the Big Ten and SEC could combine to fill the overwhelming majority of the field.
I don’t know about that. Most years (all?) the ACC and B12 champs would make it in anyway, so the only real potential outliers are the last 2 champs – P12 and G5 (or G5 x2). I think they’ll stick with a plan that guarantees the G5 a spot every year for political reasons.
In nine years of the current four-team CFP model, the SEC (11) and Big Ten (eight) have combined to occupy 19 of 36 total spots in the bracket (52.8%).
…
It’s logical to assume the end game for the Big Ten and SEC is a “12 best” playoff format. That would allow more shots at championships but also more championships, period. The two conferences have combined to win 14 of the last 17 national titles (13 by the SEC alone). However, the Big Ten still has the most overall appearances in the BCS and New Year’s Six bowls (50 — all since 1998).
In a “12 best” format utilizing each season’s final CFP Rankings, the Big Ten and SEC — based on future membership as of 2024 — would have combined to place at least six teams (50%) in the playoff every year of its existence, taking up 66 of 108 total slots available — an average of 7.3 per season. Three-quarters of the 2019 and 2017 fields would have been comprised of Big Ten and SEC teams with the conferences combining to place nine teams in the playoff each of those seasons.
I don’t think that’s a logical assumption for the B10 at all. The B10 may change its stance now, but historically the B10 has favored giving credit for conference championships and including others (remember, they wanted autobids in the latest negotiations).
If the B10 and SEC combined for 7.33 teams per season, that means 4.67 other teams were getting in. That sounds like plenty of room for the ACC, B12 and a G5 champ. Even in the years when the P2 would’ve taken 9 spots, there’s room for those 3 champions. I wish he had broken out the numbers by conference, to save me the effort:
2014
B10 – 3
SEC – 3
ACC – 2
B12 – 4
Best other – #20 BSU, no P4 in top 25
2015
B10 – 3
SEC – 3
ACC – 3
B12 – 1
Other – #6 Stanford, #8 ND
Best other – #21 Navy
2016
B10 – 6 (all in top 9)
SEC – 2
ACC – 2
B12 – 2
Best other – #15 WMU, #18 Stanford
2017
B10 – 5
SEC – 4
ACC – 2
B12 – 1
Best other – #13 Stanford, #20 Memphis
2018
B10 – 4
SEC – 5
ACC – 1
B12 – 1
Other – #3 ND
Best other – #13 WSU, #21 Fresno St
2019
B10 – 4
SEC – 5
ACC – 1
B12 – 1
Best other – #17 Memphis, no P4 in top 25
2020 (COVID year)
B10 – 2
SEC – 5
ACC – 1
B12 – 2
Other – #4 ND, #12 Coastal Car
Best other – no P4 in top 25
2021
B10 – 3
SEC – 3
ACC – 1
B12 – 4
Other – #5 ND
Best other – #23 Louisiana, no P4 in top 25
2022
B10 – 5
SEC – 3
ACC – 1
B12 – 3
Best other – #14 OrSU, #16 Tulane
Totals
B10 – 35
SEC – 33
ACC – 14
B12 – 19
ND – 4
P4 – 1
Other – 1
Worst 5th champ – #23
P4 not in top 5 champs – 5 of 9 (but once was #18 as 6th champ)
Notes:
* I counted 68 P2 spots, not the 66 Dodd found, so one or both of us is slightly off.
* There was never a year in which at least 4 champs wouldn’t be in the top 12.
* The 5th champ was always ranked
* The P4 only made the top 12 once, but was #13 twice, #14 once, and #18 once (while playing inside the P12). Give them a full complement of teams, and their champ would likely be in or near the top 12 every year.
The real end game is revenue. As it stands, each Power Five conference gets a base CFP share of $80 million.
“One fewer Power Five conference means more money for the other four,” said one Power Five AD, “but how exactly do you distribute it?”
Set to be discussed in the coming months, the CFP distribution model will be key to the future of college athletics.
Yes it is, and they should’ve discussed it before settling on a model. The two decisions impact each other.
Expect distribution adjustments at least along membership lines, if not conference prominence lines. Another conversation topic is awarding extra shares based on CFP qualification or success.
The current CFP contract has three years remaining, though the 12-team playoff is set to begin in 2024. Negotiations on a new CFP media rights deal beginning with the 2026 season will begin in 6-8 months.
Likely it will be something similar to the NCAA hoops model, with a certain chunk given to everyone (power 4 conferences get equal amount per school, the rest get a chunk to split how they wish) and another chunk based on winning games or earning byes.
Early estimates have put the value of the new CFP deal upwards of $2 billion annually. That would be 2.7 times more revenue that what is currently produced per season ($720 million).
It would also be, by far, the biggest media rights deal in college sports history.
“I expect it to be a very robust negotiation,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Pettiti told CBS Sports.
It is up to the Management Committee to make any changes to the playoff structure and/or revenue model. Those CEOs would have to agree unanimously to change the format.
Distribution changes may be more complex to approve.
Going from 10 to nine FBS conferences, it is not known for sure what the exact voting structure would be, according to CFP sources.
Prior to the events of last week, a 12-team playoff with the “6+6” composition was assured from 2024-25. In 2026, virtually the only certainty in a new contract was there would be 12 playoff teams.
Even that is not assured now. One high-profile industry source put it this way: Everything is on the table from the size of the field to automatic qualifiers. The issue: Who votes, and who has authority?
Sankey has been an advocate for what he calls “The Big Tent” — access for all. But the simple change from “6+6” to “12 best” could cause further upheaval.
“If we don’t have clarity, those issues around format, seeding, placement and teams will be a bit more drawn out,” he said. “I’m one of those who thinks 12 teams can continue to work.”
…
The term “Power Five” essentially is defined in only two places. One is the NCAA Constitution which, since 2015, has allowed weighted voting rights to the “Autonomous Five” conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC).
The other is the CFP, which distributes revenue to those five conferences. Both are important for different reasons.
The constitution’s language gives those five leagues voting privileges in legislation they want to push through.
…
Meanwhile, a league dies before our eyes. If the Pac-12 does indeed go away, its name would simply be eliminated from that “Autonomous Five” language in the constitution. If the Pac-12 added members and was composed of at least eight schools, it would retain its autonomous status only if no one raises questions to the NCAA Board of Directors, the body that approves all legislation.
Expect those questions to be raised if, let’s say, there was a merger of the four remaining Pac-12 members with the Mountain West.
Then what happens? Do the remaining Power Four stick together? Are the Big Ten and SEC willing to operate on the same plane as the ACC and Big 12, or do they attempt to exert even more influence given their prominence?
Any vote relating to a conference or governance structure would require 75% of the board to pass it as emergency legislation. That’s where it gets complicated again. Only six of the 26 board members are from Power Five schools. You know, those familiar with being a major conference. Utah president Taylor Randall is a member of the board representing the Pac-12; the Utes join the Big 12 next July.
The board doesn’t meet again until October unless emergency legislation is needed.
Meanwhile, CFP commissioners have three weeks to grab a mop. And the mess just keeps spreading.
“How many FBS conferences will exist in 30 or 60 days?” Sankey asked rhetorically.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-on-brink-of-collapse-how-college-footballs-premier-west-coast-conference-fell-behind-in-realignment/
A timeline of the P12’s demise.
Some highlights:
Pac-12 and Texas won’t compromise
Sept. 20, 2011: With Texas reportedly unwilling to commit to equal revenue sharing, Scott did not take an expansion vote to Pac-12 presidents. Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech would have brought the league’s membership to 16 and inflicted a brutal blow to the Big 12, which was already losing Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC. Instead, the Pac-12 forged ahead with its equal revenue sharing and the Big 12 survived another day.
“We could have expanded, but the deal didn’t make any sense at the end of the day for us, especially given the position that we are in,” Scott told reporters. “There is a very high bar. It’s hard to imagine very many scenarios for our conference to expand because the bar is so high.”
Though Scott acknowledged that expansion could have generated more money for Pac-12 schools, he also said that it “could have torn apart the fabric of the culture of the conference.”
Forcing equal revenue sharing (angering USC and UCLA) and turning down UT for that same reason, even at the cost of giving up money seems like decisions the P12 might like do-overs on. Letting UT earn more is how the B12 kept them for a few more years and solidified the conference.
Pac-12 blamed for failed scheduling alliance
Nov. 19, 2012: Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany suggested his league’s expansion to 14 (adding Maryland and Rutgers) wouldn’t have been necessary if the Big Ten and Pac-12 could have finalized a proposed scheduling agreement. The idea received pushback from Pac-12 coaches, however, because of the conference’s nine-game league slate.
While blame is often assigned to the Pac-12’s chancellors, presidents and commissioners for the league’s demise, this failed scheduling proposal and others like it in the future demonstrated that coaches were also complicit in failing to embrace changes that could have generated more revenue.
Between this and USC falling off the grid, it’s refreshing to see the coaches get a share of the blame too. Everyone in the P12 had a hand in this.
USC AD turns heads
Feb 27, 2020: USC athletic director Mike Bohn raised eyebrows with comments to USC’s 247Sports site that “everything is on the table” for the Trojans in terms of their future conference affiliation.
“There’s no talk of [leaving], but guess what? If it was on the table, we would certainly explore that,” Bohn said. “But I’ve got to be careful. The league is really tender.”
How did nobody tell GK about this? How did he not research it and know?
LikeLike
Recent B10 expansion means some OOC games need to be changed:
OSU: 2032-33 vs UO
UM: 2028 vs UW
MSU: 2029-30 vs UO
NW: 2033-34 vs UCLA
WI: 2029-30 vs UCLA
If the B10 was to move to 10 games as some have suggested:
IL: 3 OOC games in 2024-26
IN: 3 OOC games in 2024-27
IA: 3 OOC games in 2024-26
UMD: 3 OOC games in 2024-25, 2027
UM: 3 OOC games in 2024-26
MSU: 3 OOC games in 2024-26
UMN: 3 OOC games in 2024-26
NE: 3 OOC games in 2024-26, 2028
NW: 3 OOC games in 2024
OSU: 3 OOC games in 2024, 2026
PSU: 3 OOC games in 2024, 2026-27
PU: 3 OOC games in 2024-28
WI: 3 OOC games in 2024-27
UCLA: 3 OOC games in 2024-27
USC: 3 OOC games in 2024-26
UO: 3 OOC games in 2024-28
RU: none
UW: none
I don’t think 10 games is likely, but if it does happen it won’t likely be before 2027.
LikeLike
10 conference games likely probably only with the next TV/streaming contracts.
If a streamer takes all the games outside of those shown on broadcast TV, then a B10 fan can get all football games for his/her team with just the streaming contract and a digital antenna (assuming that team pairs the 10 game B10 schedule with 2 home buy games).
And basketball matters when it comes to streaming.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38180842/source-ncaa-deal-michigan-jim-harbaugh-rejected
The NCAA COI has rejected the deal Harbaugh and UM negotiated.
It had been widely expected that the COI would approve a four-game suspension for Harbaugh to start the 2023 season, but that hit roadblocks this week, per sources.
Sources cautioned to ESPN that next steps are uncertain, and Harbaugh’s status to start the 2023 season or any potential suspension has yet to be determined. The case could go to a full hearing of the NCAA COI or Michigan could attempt to self-impose penalties, per sources.
This step doesn’t mean that Harbaugh had avoided trouble, but rather faces other avenues before he’s expected to be punished. A push to a full hearing would mean resolution wouldn’t come for months.
Missing the first 4 games this year was about as light a slap on the wrist as possible. In future years he’d miss a big OOC game (UT in 2024), and who knows what their first B10 game will be.
Marc – Are you hearing any inside info from UM fans?
LikeLike
Marc – Are you hearing any inside info from UM fans?
No, I’m not. Part of the problem is the lack of reported facts. It’s still not clear precisely what Harbaugh said and did, how often (or for how long) he did it, or how pervasive it was. In the absence of facts, fans will believe what they want to believe. This is universally true, regardless of which school it is.
Heck, I am sure there are still plenty of OSU fans (though maybe not you) who think the Jim Tressel penalties were too harsh — and in that case the facts are well known.
But it must be uncommon for the COI to reject a negotiated settlement between a school and the enforcement staff, which must be wearing egg on their faces right now. This likely means that what Harbaugh did is a lot worse than what has been reported. The COI seems to be pushing back on the Michigan-based media narrative, by emphasizing that this is “not about a cheeseburger.”
LikeLike
https://westvirginiawatch.com/2023/08/11/my-colleagues-and-i-are-still-in-shock-32-majors-marked-for-elimination-at-wvu/
WVU has a $45M deficit, so they’re slashing majors and degree programs.
West Virginia University leaders have recommended discontinuing 32 of its majors at its Morgantown campus as the school is feverishly working to make up for a multi-million budget shortfall.
The preliminary recommendations, released Friday afternoon, said 12 of those programs are undergraduate majors and 20 are graduate-level majors. Other programs were told to reduce their faculty size — 169 faculty jobs are on the line for cuts.
Programs marked for discontinuation included: master’s and doctorate in Mathematics; master’s and doctorate in Higher Education Administration; master’s of Public Administration; master’s of fine arts in Creative Writing; and a bachelor’s in Recreation, Parks and Tourism Resources.
The Department of World Languages, Literatures and Linguistics, which includes Spanish, Russian and Chinese studies, was marked to be completely dissolved.
“My colleagues and I are still in shock; it’s inconceivable that our state flagship, R1, land-grant university, the place where we’ve all built our homes, careers and lives is completely eliminating the teaching of languages,” said Lisa Di Bartolomeo, a teaching professor of Russian Studies.
The university is also reviewing plans to eliminate the language requirement for all majors. “Eliminating language instruction will close avenues of opportunity, career advancement, and personal fulfillment for current and future WVU students,” she added.
The cuts, if approved, will affect 147 undergraduate and 287 graduate students, which the university noted was less than 2% of total student enrollment.
The pending program and faculty reductions were driven by a $45 million budget shortfall at WVU, which university leaders have said was largely attributed to student population decline.
I think they understate the impact of these cuts on students. Eliminating the language department impacts a lot more than just the students majoring in it. Eliminating graduate level math means no grad students available to help teach, hold office hours, or tutor. It also means losing top faculty. I understand combining majors and cutting underutilized niche programs, but math is pretty central to higher ed.
I wonder how WVU’s ratings will change from this.
LikeLike
Eh. WVU would probably be at the academic level of a non-flagship public in over half the states in this country.
LikeLike
The demand for Piano teachers, Jazz Pedagogy, and Landscape Architecture is not what it once was. WVU is an early mover on Creative Writing since this is going to AI. It did say WVU considered the research $$ in determining what to cut so I doubt if its current fairly low standing is damaged much. Cutting graduate math seems strange but it may have limited enrollment. My advice to an aspiring math PhD student would be don’t bother if the best program they got accepted at was WVU. That may be why it got the axe. It is very hard to get more money from the state if WVU is wasting money.
LikeLike
Eliminating graduate level math means no grad students available to help teach, hold office hours, or tutor. It also means losing top faculty.
Math is a real surprise, because it’s a bedrock subject for so many of the programs they’re retaining. For some of these the math requirements go very deep. You can always find Calculus instructors, but how good is their physics degree if there’s no one to teach the mathematics of General Relativity and String Theory?
LikeLike
Exactly. WVU has graduate engineering programs, physics, etc. That usually requires grad-level math courses.
And the inability to take a foreign language for people going into a globalized world? That’s a significant disadvantage.
As Little8 pointed out, plenty of the cuts make sense. So does the combining of 2 similar majors into 1. But the more fundamental cuts are troubling. I’d point out that Landscape Architecture is thriving at OSU. And cutting recreation, parks and tourism is a little odd for a state with so much outdoor recreation and tourism (hiking, skiing, rafting, hunting, fishing, …).
LikeLike
Thanks for the link to https://espn960sports.com/news/why-the-pac10-is-struggling-to-make-a-media-deal-part-7-football-basketball-attendance-shows-long-term-declining-trends/, Brian. Through that series, I encountered the Nate Silver analysis: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/
Which I probably read back in the day but dismissed.
But it seems that his analysis is pretty on the mark, especially if you weigh the “Market” part several times more than “Sports” and “Fit” and thus “Composite”.
The way I look at it is that schools have to hit the “Nebraska line” in Market (64) and Composite (57) to get in with a half-share at the beginning. If you hit the average of the USC line (73 Market; 77 Composite), you’re a king and in with a full share (and can even drag in a partner rival that isn’t too terrible at a full share if the average Market and Composite for the 2 hit 62.5 & 72).
Under those criteria, ND blows through all thresholds with flying colors (93 & 73) as we expect and would start with a full share.
UO and UW exceed the Nebraska Line and come in with half-shares. So do FSU, UNC and Clemson while Miami is over in Market and close enough in Composite. Though frankly, I think it would take a full share to get FSU and the B10 would take FSU and Miami at full shares.
Nobody else is really all that close to the Nebraska Line. Somewhat surprisingly, no one is even all that close to the UCLA line (Market of 51, Composite of 69) to ride some football power’s coattails in to the B10.
I’m still not sure the B10 really desires Clemson (which is in a small state, doesn’t have B10 academics, and, honestly, has really been a football power under exactly 1 head coach in its entire history) all that much.
The B10 would gladly take ND and would also vie with the SEC for FSU, UNC, and Miami.
If the SEC manages to win over FSU and UNC and the Domers stay independent, the B10 would have a tough decision: Miami+Clemson or stand pat?
But the B10 may well be able to entice FSU+Miami with full shares and the pitch of being the only southern schools in the only conference in the Power 2 that is a true national conference. The SEC would definitely take UNC and then have a tough decision of UVa or Clemson. They may take UNC+UVa for the prestige and footprint.
LikeLike
Speaking of which, I should have considered the UNC+UVa pair. They average a 56.5 Market and 58.5 Composite. That’s close to the Nebraska Line. Also the Iowa Line. But not over. Another complication is that both VA and NC seem to want to tie UNC and UVa to NCSU and VTech, respectively.
It’s conceivable that the B10 adds UNC+UVa while the SEC take VTech+NCSU, though who knows. The SEC could add FSU and Clemson too so both the B10 and SEC go to 20. Miami then becomes TCU (which is still better than being Cal/Stanford/SMU).
LikeLike
These composite scores are useful for side by side comparisons and comparisons of possible pairings. The hard part is projecting them into the future. The ACC GOR expiry is 13 years away. The media landscape, impact of NIL, CFP expansion, coaching changes, AAU membership, etc. make it tough to project what the value of these schools will be in 10+ years. For example, the MD+RU composite average of 48.0 average is lower than the STAN+CAL average of 52.2 and way below the Big Ten (pre MD+RU addition) composite average of 67.0. Yet MD+RU were added and CAL+STAN were not.
How will the dramatic difference in TV money for B1G and SEC impact the relative fortunes of everyone else? Will FSU, MIA, UNC, CLEM, etc. be above average additions 10 years from now?
LikeLike
The hard part is projecting them into the future. The ACC GOR expiry is 13 years away. The media landscape, impact of NIL, CFP expansion, coaching changes, AAU membership, etc. make it tough to project what the value of these schools will be in 10+ years.
It’s not as hard as that. College sports programs tend to revert to their long-term average, even when they go through an unusually bad (or good) decade. For this reason, I suspect that if Nate Silver repeats his analysis in 10 years, the results won’t be that much different.
This is especially true for the Big Ten, which takes the long view and expects its additions to be permanent. That’s why it treated USC like a king, even though USC’s actual performance over the past 10 years has often not lived up to its billing.
For example, the MD+RU composite average of 48.0 average is lower than the STAN+CAL average of 52.2 and way below the Big Ten (pre MD+RU addition) composite average of 67.0. Yet MD+RU were added and CAL+STAN were not.
When the Big Ten took Maryland and Rutgers, Cal and Stanford weren’t available. The only decision was whether to take those two schools (especially Maryland) or to remain at 12. Given they wanted Maryland, the only decision was which 14th school was the best who would accept — and that was Rutgers.
The opportunity to take Cal and Stanford instead of Maryland and Rutgers was never even remotely considered. Had Nate Silver’s analysis been around then, the Stanford + Cal combo would have been better at the time, as it is now and likely still will be in 10 years. It was just not an option that was available then.
LikeLike
Marc makes good points on UMD+RU.
I’ll also add:
1. In the key “Market” category, both UMD and RU are higher than both Stanford and Cal.
2. UMD and RU may likely be dilutive now and going forward (though it’s just tough to tell as just the DMV+Baltimore CSA by itself is slightly bigger than the Bay Area CSA and the NYC tri-state CSA is much bigger), when UMD&RU were added, Delany noted that BTN revenues jumped from $50mm/year to $150mm/year (though it’s tough to tell how much could be attributed to the addition of the 2 Eastern teams).
3. The move wasn’t just purely economic but also to shore up PSU by giving it eastern neighbors/recruiting grounds and to weaken the ACC so that the ACC could never possibly look attractive enough to PSU.
Also note that Silver did his ranking with the projected population growth of 2040.
Here are the schools that meet the low standards of the average of UMD+RU (Market rating of 40; Composite rating of 48) outside of ND, FSU, UNC, Miami, and Clemson:
UVa
Duke
ASU
Utah
ASU and Utah probably make the list due to projected population growth* and UVa and Duke have been bandied as potential adds by the B10.
*Though climate change may wreak havoc with projected population growth in AZ and FL.
LikeLike
I was away for the past 12 days. I followed the realignment story, but couldn’t post, as my phone browser chokes on a 5,000 comment thread — or indeed, far less than that.
If there’s a lesson, it’s that there are no sure things. Remember, “The Big Ten doesn’t want to be a conference killer”? They did just that.
Remember, “Oregon and Washington are dilutive”? They were, until they were not.
Remember, “USC doesn’t want Oregon in their new conference”? Oregon is now in their new conference.
Remember, “Oregon would rather be in a conference where playoff access is easer”? Oregon is now in a conference where playoff access (for them) is harder.
Remember, “Utah doesn’t want to be in the same conference as BYU”? Utah is joining the same conference as BYU.
Remember, “Colorado doesn’t want to be in the B12, because their alumni are on the West Coast”? Colorado is rejoining the B12.
* * * *
Full props to Colin for eating humble pie after he said (repeatedly) that the Big Ten would not expand again in our lifetimes, period. But perhaps he does not yet understand his error. The error is not that he was skeptical of Oregon and Washington — many of us were. No, the error was believing he could predict realignment from now to the end of our lives, and then adding the superfluous “period,” as if to say there is no chance he could be wrong.
Thus, anyone who says “Notre Dame is never joining a football conference, period” needs to re-evaluate. I am not saying it is likely, but it is possible. “Never” and “period” are words you should avoid in any realignment prediction. Be skeptical of the things you think you know.
LikeLike
Marc,
If there’s a lesson, it’s that there are no sure things. Remember, “The Big Ten doesn’t want to be a conference killer”? They did just that.
There were multiple reports the B10 was saying that. It was the B12 taking CU that really triggered the demise. Only after that did Fox agree to pay for UW and UO.
Remember, “Oregon and Washington are dilutive”? They were, until they were not.
Yes, once they were desperate enough to take 1/2 shares. We were correct that they were dilutive in that all such discussions were based on the assumption of full shares.
Remember, “USC doesn’t want Oregon in their new conference”? Oregon is now in their new conference.
But that doesn’t mean USC wanted them in.
Remember, “Oregon would rather be in a conference where playoff access is easer”? Oregon is now in a conference where playoff access (for them) is harder.
We don’t actually know that. It was easier to win the P12 conference, but if they’re good enough to be top 12 then they should get in from the B10 too. The only way it’d be easier is as a 5th or 6th champion who is outside the top 12, and a team like that would rarely win the P12. Also, that was under the assumption the P12 could get a TV deal near the B12 money level.
Remember, “Utah doesn’t want to be in the same conference as BYU”? Utah is joining the same conference as BYU.
And if asked, they really don’t want to be there. But it was the best of a bad set of choices for them.
Remember, “Colorado doesn’t want to be in the B12, because their alumni are on the West Coast”? Colorado is rejoining the B12.
That did assume finances were roughly equal. Their alumni are on the west coast and CU wanted to stay in the P12 until no TV deal appeared.
LikeLike
Brian had some good rebuttals, and in a perfect world, UO would indeed have preferred a Pac with stability where they could make “enough” money (bare minimum being what the B12 members get), but that wasn’t to be because the Pac presidents/chancellors were ignorant & greedy.
It turns out that, like many people are saying, greed indeed was what killed the Pac, but it was the greed (and ignorance/overestimation of their revenue sports’ viewership draw) by Pac presidents/chancellors that killed the Pac.
If the Pac was self-aware enough to take the original ESPN offer of $300mm, they would still be alive today and all those points you raised would still hold,
LikeLike
Brian had some good rebuttals…
I realize that all of those things were rational thoughts when they were spoken. However, many folks made the error of believing those things would determine the outcome—and they didn’t.
If there’s a lesson, it’s that there are no sure things. Remember, “The Big Ten doesn’t want to be a conference killer”? They did just that.
There were multiple reports the B10 was saying that. It was the B12 taking CU that really triggered the demise. Only after that did Fox agree to pay for UW and UO.
I would argue that the Big Ten killed the Pac-12 when it took USC and UCLA. Suppose I stab you in the right lung, and say: “No worries. You still have the left lung. You should survive, and if you don’t it’s not my fault.”
If it were a murder case, the Big Ten was the killer—even though the Pac-12 could have played their cards a lot better than they did. If I stab you and you die, I am responsible even if you didn’t make optimal healthcare choices afterwards.
Anyhow, if Fox doesn’t take Oregon and Washington, the Pac-12 survives — obviously diminished but still viable. Having stabbed the right lung and waited a while for it to bleed out, they stabbed the left one and it was over.
Not that I mind. This is business, not murder. I have said before, conferences don’t usually decline moves they would otherwise make, out of an altruistic desire to see a competitor survive. That was true here and almost always is.
If the Pac was self-aware enough to take the original ESPN offer of $300mm, they would still be alive today and all those points you raised would still hold,
It’s even worse than that. ESPN was probably negotiable up to at least $320mm, which would have given them more than the Big 12 is getting. The Pac-12’s error was demanding $50mm+. ESPN concluded that negotiation against such an unreasonable demand would be impossible, and they walked away.
Nobody could have predicted that exact sequence of events, which is precisely the reason why we ought to be skeptical that we can predict what will happen next. There is always an element of chaos and human error that is unpredictable.
LikeLike
Marc,
I would argue that the Big Ten killed the Pac-12 when it took USC and UCLA. Suppose I stab you in the right lung, and say: “No worries. You still have the left lung. You should survive, and if you don’t it’s not my fault.”
If it were a murder case, the Big Ten was the killer—even though the Pac-12 could have played their cards a lot better than they did. If I stab you and you die, I am responsible even if you didn’t make optimal healthcare choices afterwards.
I disagree because the P10 got a legitimate offer from ESPN after that. Their decision to say no started the fall. That led to CU leaving after a year of negotiations and no deal, and then the weak deal led to 5 more schools leaving. Was the P12 more vulnerable after losing the LA pair? Sure. But so was the B12 after losing UT and OU, but they took a low offer, expanded and survived. The P10’s decisions are what killed the conference.
As for the legal analogy, the problem is that stabbing is illegal while accepting an application from 2 schools is not. And if the person died a year later, you’d have to have clear evidence that the knife wound was responsible. A lot of other possible causes can appear over a year.
Anyhow, if Fox doesn’t take Oregon and Washington, the Pac-12 survives — obviously diminished but still viable. Having stabbed the right lung and waited a while for it to bleed out, they stabbed the left one and it was over.
I don’t know if that’s true. UA might still have left for the B12, and that might’ve led to others leaving and/or changed the Apple deal some more. Also, the deal had a 2-3 year opt out which might’ve led to schools jumping ship anyway.
And that was clearly the schools reaching out to the B10 for a home, not the B10 poaching schools. Offering help when requested isn’t stabbing someone.
Not that I mind. This is business, not murder. I have said before, conferences don’t usually decline moves they would otherwise make, out of an altruistic desire to see a competitor survive. That was true here and almost always is.
It’s even worse than that. ESPN was probably negotiable up to at least $320mm, which would have given them more than the Big 12 is getting. The Pac-12’s error was demanding $50mm+. ESPN concluded that negotiation against such an unreasonable demand would be impossible, and they walked away.
Nobody could have predicted that exact sequence of events, which is precisely the reason why we ought to be skeptical that we can predict what will happen next. There is always an element of chaos and human error that is unpredictable.
You just explained why it wasn’t the B10 that killed the P12 – it was the P12. Or if you want to track back to the root cause, blame the 1984 Supreme Court decision that unleashed TV money in CFB.
LikeLike
The B10 wanted the B12 to kill the P12. However, the B12 could not get the job done so the B10 stepped in to finish off the P12. CO did not move the needle. Apple actually raised the bid $2M after CO left. AZ had an invite to the B12 but did not get BoR approval until after WA and OR were in the B10. ASU wanted to accept the Apple deal. It is not clear if ASU convinced AZ to take the Apple deal or convinced the BoR not to approve AZ move to the B12. Late Thursday it appeared that 9 PAC teams would sign a GoR for the Apple deal Friday morning. AZ, ASU, and UT showed up to sign the GoR. WA & OR were no shows since they were expecting to get B10 invites. That was the end of the P12. I am sure WA & OR were blowing up the phone of every B10 contact they had to try to escape the Apple deal.
WA & OR appear to be slightly dilutive due to increased travel costs for current B10 members. They are also likely to dilute payouts in the next contract by $2M to $4M per school per year depending on how much their value increases in the next 6 years by being B10 members. That is how determined the B10 was to kill off the PAC. I am not claiming the B12 would not have done the same if they could have. Just saying what the B12 could offer was not enough to get it done. The B10 took the kill shot.
LikeLike
Little8:
Also depending on whether relying more on streaming would make UO more important, etc. The Ducks are certainly 1 of the most cool/hot teams in the eyes of the youngs. And the PNW has a strong population growth rate. Also, unlike much of the Sun Belt, the PNW won’t be as adversely affected by climate change.
Travel costs may not even change that much (if the B10 isn’t braindead in scheduling) since pretty much all sports (that even play a conference slate) will travel away in conference play only 3-5 (long) weekends a year. So adding the PNW pair means averaging a little less than an additional WC trip once every 2 years.
LikeLike
Little8,
Some of that is pure conjecture, and some other parts are factually incorrect.
The B10 wanted the B12 to kill the P12.
I agree the B10 presidents hoped the B12 would splinter the P12.
However, the B12 could not get the job done so the B10 stepped in to finish off the P12. CO did not move the needle.
We can’t know that. There was less than a week between CU leaving and others leaving. The P12 might have died then anyway. Certainly UA, ASU and UU could have chosen to stay in it, even after UW and UO left. That core of 7 schools could have rebuilt the P12.
Apple actually raised the bid $2M after CO left.
We don’t know when they were willing to raise it. They raised it after the P12 said no, and before Friday morning. They might’ve been willing to do that regardless of CU.
AZ had an invite to the B12 but did not get BoR approval until after WA and OR were in the B10.
Yes, because UA had asked to be invited. Past quotes show the president felt he had the authority to make the decision to move with or without ASU. Once the invitation was approved, the board just had to meet to sign off. Like all the presidents, he preferred to get a good enough offer to stay in the P12.
ASU wanted to accept the Apple deal.
Yes they did. Crow is a big believer in fancy technology of all sorts – online education, streaming, etc. He still wanted to accept it after others left. He also was a huge supporter of Larry Scott (and the 7 channel P12N) all along, so maybe his judgement isn’t the best on these things.
It is not clear if ASU convinced AZ to take the Apple deal or convinced the BoR not to approve AZ move to the B12.
The BoR never said no that we know of. UA just didn’t want to go alone.
Late Thursday it appeared that 9 PAC teams would sign a GoR for the Apple deal Friday morning.
That’s a stretch. Some media said that and some presidents thought that, but clearly UW and UO were still hoping for a B10 offer. They only needed a promise that they would get a full share in the next media deal to say yes. I think the B10 thought that was implied in their original offer, or they would’ve made it clear the first time. The B10 never planned to keep UW and UO at half shares permanently.
AZ, ASU, and UT showed up to sign the GoR. WA & OR were no shows since they were expecting to get B10 invites. That was the end of the P12. I am sure WA & OR were blowing up the phone of every B10 contact they had to try to escape the Apple deal.
That’s the part that is wrong. UW and UO were clearly there, because all the reporting says that they said they were going to the B10 (UW first, then UO or vice versa – I forget) during that meeting.
WA & OR appear to be slightly dilutive due to increased travel costs for current B10 members.
Perhaps a bit. It depends a bit on scheduling. Also, BTN profit shares and postseason earnings could pay it.
They are also likely to dilute payouts in the next contract by $2M to $4M per school per year depending on how much their value increases in the next 6 years by being B10 members.
Likely? Based on what analysis? Some experts thought they were slightly additive now at full shares. $4M/year/school would be $72M per year below average value, or $36M each. That’s a huge stretch.
That is how determined the B10 was to kill off the PAC.
The B10 wasn’t determined to kill off the P12. You can see it in the quotes how often presidents and ADs mention sadness at it. Fox wanted the west coast brands and chose to pay for them.
LikeLike
AZ president Robbins said they were prepared to sign the GoR. They already knew how bad the Apple deal was. It is fairly definitive that if WA & OR had stayed so would the 3 schools that went to the B12 on Friday. There was no Apple deal without WA & OR so the choice was to become part of a PAC5/6/7 hanging in the wind or move to the B12. I doubt any of these presidents would survive a decision to stay.
How dilutive WA & IR are in 2031 is a guess. Based on what Fox was willing to pay their current value is pegged at 50% of a share. That means they need to double in relative value compared to the B10 average in the next 6 years to keep the other members whole. In that calculation there are 16 members so $32M to $64M per year. That is an increased value for WA&OR of 36% to 68% ABOVE the average growth in value of the rest of the conference. If the next deal comes in at $100M per year WA&OR will need to more than triple in value to add value to the conference.
LikeLike
To the extent that any event can cause another, the Big Ten’s actions were the proximate cause of the Pac-12’s demise. Other things had to happen, but you cannot rip out the most powerful school in a conference while ardently wanting it to survive. Those views are inherently incompatible, regardless of what you might say in the media.
Same story when the SEC when it took Texas and Oklahoma. The B12 played its hand a lot better, so it survived and the Pac-12 didn’t, but neither of the Power Two really cared if these second-tier conferences made it. Greg Sankey says that he laments the death of the Pac-12, while also licking his chops over another at-large playoff bid. Which do you think matters more to him?
Of course, as Little8 noted, the Pac-12 was still alive (by a thread) when the Big Ten administered the coup de grace by taking Oregon and Washington. No one can say for sure what the remaining nine would’ve done — perhaps the rest of the four corners would’ve left anyway — but the Big Ten made it a certainty.
Brian absolves the Big Ten from any culpability, by noting that “the P10 got a legitimate offer from ESPN after that. Their decision to say no started the fall.”
But a couple of weeks ago, Brian argued that the Pac-12’s decision to decline ESPN’s offer (and to demand far more) was quite reasonable, given that many of us (and in media) at the time believed the Big 12’s deal was below market.
LikeLike
Marc,
To the extent that any event can cause another, the Big Ten’s actions were the proximate cause of the Pac-12’s demise. Other things had to happen, but you cannot rip out the most powerful school in a conference while ardently wanting it to survive.
So clearly the B12 must be dead now, since the SEC took UT and OU. Oh wait, it’s doing just fine. Perhaps losing the top brands is a survivable event.
Same story when the SEC when it took Texas and Oklahoma. The B12 played its hand a lot better, so it survived and the Pac-12 didn’t, but neither of the Power Two really cared if these second-tier conferences made it. Greg Sankey says that he laments the death of the Pac-12, while also licking his chops over another at-large playoff bid. Which do you think matters more to him?
matters more wasn’t the question. The B10 said over and over they didn’t want to kill off the P12. They didn’t say they wouldn’t, they said they didn’t want to.
Of course, as Little8 noted, the Pac-12 was still alive (by a thread) when the Big Ten administered the coup de grace by taking Oregon and Washington. No one can say for sure what the remaining nine would’ve done — perhaps the rest of the four corners would’ve left anyway — but the Big Ten made it a certainty.
Brian absolves the Big Ten from any culpability, by noting that “the P10 got a legitimate offer from ESPN after that. Their decision to say no started the fall.”
No, I said they didn’t kill it. That’s not the same. But the B1 2is a pretty clear example that there was a survival path for a while, and they chose not to take it. After CU left, there isn’t enough time to know what might have happened.
But a couple of weeks ago, Brian argued that the Pac-12’s decision to decline ESPN’s offer (and to demand far more) was quite reasonable, given that many of us (and in media) at the time believed the Big 12’s deal was below market.
Lots of “reasonable at the time” decisions can lead to death. It doesn’t mean they weren’t the reason for the death.
LikeLike
Little8,
There was no Apple deal without WA & OR so the choice was to become part of a PAC5/6/7 hanging in the wind or move to the B12.
Did they go back to Apple and ask?
I doubt any of these presidents would survive a decision to stay.
If they were about to sign the deal, then why would signing get them fired? Crow had been around a long time and liked the deal.
How dilutive WA & IR are in 2031 is a guess. Based on what Fox was willing to pay their current value is pegged at 50% of a share. That means they need to double in relative value compared to the B10 average in the next 6 years to keep the other members whole.
No, because those are 2 different deals. Adding 2 schools into the existing deal made them worth about half, because all the games were already paid for so this was a slight quality bump. If they had joined before the deal was finalized, they would’ve been factored into the inventory available and the price. Experts said they’d have been right around the average, so they barely need to increase in value at all.
In that calculation there are 16 members so $32M to $64M per year.
But UW and UO will also get paid that much, so it’s 18 schools and thus $36-72M.
That is an increased value for WA&OR of 36% to 68% ABOVE the average growth in value of the rest of the conference. If the next deal comes in at $100M per year WA&OR will need to more than triple in value to add value to the conference.
How much will their ratings increase just from having no P12N games? How about from fewer (none?) weeknight and late night games? Now add playing bigger brands in conference play. I’d expect some growth.
Much of that increase in value will come from being in the B10 during the negotiations, not as an add on later. The B10 can sell 18 teams worth of inventory, perhaps including weeknight and late night packages. It’s harder to get that value after the fact, as evidenced by ND being the only school promised a pro rata bump in the deal.
LikeLike
Good points by Brian.
UW and (definitely) UO are worth more than half B10 shares so the TV networks (especially NBC and CBS) get a bump for free (assuming if they will be able to pick UO & UW home games) as they paid nothing extra for the additional increase in quality inventory. But
1. I’ve done the calculations and NBC and CBS (especially CBS, which didn’t even get the option to put games exclusively on a streaming service) overpaid just to establish a relationship with the B10.
2. These media companies have certain limits for their content budget and NBC and CBS didn’t have the money/willingness to pay more for the addition of UW and UO.
UO and (especially) UW would be borderline adds _right_now_ at full shares when it comes to TV value (they are about at the B10 median in viewership with UO being slightly above and UW being slightly below), but by giving them half-shares for 6 years, the B10 arguably got a steal. Or at least the B10’s TV partners did for 6 years. Though in the case of CBS and NBC, that really just makes up for the overpayment they made to get in to a relationship with the B10.
But anyway, the B10 presidents/chancellors have a long-term view, and they can see that the PNW has a growing population and UO is popular among the youngs, so as a long-term play, adding UO&UW makes sense, especially if you get them half-priced the first 6 years.
Note that in the all-important “Market” part of Nate Silver’s analysis (which is forecasting what it will look like in 2040), UO actually scores above USC and UW ties with UNL (slightly above the B10 median, which is Iowa, BTW).
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/mailbag-playoff-path-for-wsu-and-osu-fox-vs-the-bay-area-duo-elements-of-pac-12-reconstruction-a-60-for-60-and-more/
Another Wilner mailbag.
This question presupposes some sort of merger with the Mountain West: What odds would you place on Washington State or Oregon State making the playoff before Washington or Oregon? — @CougRob
The Hotline loves hypothetical questions that provide an outlet for explaining an underlying process, and no process is more important to college football than the playoff.
When the CFP expands to 12 teams next season (2024), the six highest-ranked conference championships will receive automatic bids. Why six? Because there are five power conferences. (In NCAA-speak, they are called the Autonomy Five.) The extra automatic bid creates access for the best team in the so-called Group of Five leagues and avoids any antitrust issues.
But that format is only in place for the first two years of the expanded playoff (the 2024 and 2025 seasons). After that, the current media contract ends and everything will be reconsidered.
We expect the SEC and Big Ten to use the collapse of the Pac-12 as a means of trimming the number of automatic bids (from six to five) and adding an at-large berth (from six to seven), clearing an extra spot for their array of football powerhouses.
Why five automatic bids? To provide access for the highest-ranked conference champion outside the power leagues. In the era of the Power Five, the CFP power brokers created six automatic bids. When it becomes the Power Four, they will have five automatic bids.
All of which means …
The Mountain West champion will have an excellent chance to claim an automatic bid.
Its competition for that slot would consist of the winners of the Sun Belt, Mid-American, Conference USA and American, which will be greatly depleted by the loss of Cincinnati, Houston and UCF.
In other words, if WSU or OSU produced a one- or two-loss season in the Mountain West, the playoff could very well be in play.
Meanwhile, Oregon and Washington would need to either win the rugged Big Ten or finish in the top three or four and hope for an at-large spot.
We cannot guarantee the CFP selection formula in the next contract cycle (starting with the 2026 season) will have five automatic bids, but it’s a reasonable assumption at this point. If they block access for the other leagues, a lawsuit could result.
In no way, shape or form is the Hotline attempting to minimize the impact of the Pac-12’s collapse on the WSU and OSU athletic departments, their athletes or their fans. It’s nothing short of devastating.
But the path into the playoff from a revamped Mountain West seemingly is more reasonable than it would be through an intact Pac-12, which likely would be in line for a single berth.
The P4 have struggled to compete in the P12. Once their budgets get slashed, how long will it take them to adjust to such a small TV deal? They have more and larger facilities to care for, more and more expensive staff (for now), and don’t know how to run an AD with such a small budget. They also haven’t recruited as a G5. How many players enter the transfer portal?
Is there a path for Oregon State and Washington State to push for a merger with the Mountain West without Stanford (and likely Cal)? — @busaf95
If the Cardinal and Bears are not involved, a merger seems unlikely. Why would the Mountain West members agree? They would hold the leverage (and the votes).
Instead, WSU and OSU would simply request invitations to join in time for the 2024 season.
Those requests assuredly would be granted, and the Mountain West would move forward with 14 football schools and 13 basketball schools. (Hawaii participates in the Big West in all sports except football.)
The unknown piece in that scenario: Would the Beavers and Cougars enter with full revenue shares?
The Mountain West distributes about $4.75 million annually to each member through its broadcast contracts with Fox and CBS. The current schools won’t accept less money to add schools, so the networks seemingly would need to fund the expansion — but only for two contract years.
The current deal reportedly expires in the summer of 2026, meaning negotiations on a renewal would begin in late ’24 or early ’25.
What’s the real reason Stanford and Cal didn’t receive invitations to the Big Ten? It makes the most sense for the Big Ten. A great pod of Pacific Time Zone teams would help ease much of the travel burden. — @SJVst
The “real” reason is the only reason: Fox.
Were the decision left solely to the Big Ten presidents, the Bay Area school likely would have invitations already.
But the Big Ten schools won’t support any expansion if the process results in reduced media revenue, so new cash is required. And that means the conference’s media overlord must find the cash, just as it did with Oregon and Washington.
Fox believed the Pacific Northwest schools were worth $375 million (at least) over six years. It did not believe the Bay Area schools were a worthwhile investment at that price.
Is there a number that works? Perhaps. We should know in the next few weeks.
As for your second question, the answer is clear: Yes, adding the Bay Area schools would greatly benefit Olympic sports athletes on all the Big Ten campuses.
A six-team western arm would create more intra-regional conference games, thereby reducing the need to travel to Big Ten territory.
And the reverse is also true. Any increase in games played within the West Coast pod would limit the number of cross-country trips for the Midwestern schools.
For athletes in the Olympic sports, the only thing that makes less sense than USC and UCLA being in the Big Ten alone is USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington being in the Big Ten without Stanford and Cal.
The math disproves this opinion about travel.
Football:
Pac-4:
9 = 3 in western pod + 3 at home vs eastern teams + 3 in east
4 western teams also means 12 games out west for the eastern 14
Pac-6:
9 = 5 in western pod + 2 at home vs eastern teams + 2 in east
6 western teams also means 12 games out west for the eastern 14
So the western schools save 1 trip east annually, but would play the eastern teams only twice in 7 years vs 3 times in 7 years.
MBB:
Pac-4:
20 = 6 in western pod + 7 at home vs eastern teams + 7 in east
4 western teams also means 28 games out west for the eastern 14 (2 per school)
Pac-6:
20 = 10 in western pod + 5 at home vs eastern teams + 5 in east
6 western teams also means 30 games out west for the eastern 14
So the western schools save 1 trip (2 games) east annually, but wouldn’t play all the eastern teams every year. If they do play everyone, then it’s 42 games out west for the eastern 14 (3 per school).
It would help the western teams, but not the current teams.
How was Stanford left behind? It wasn’t that long ago when Stanford was regularly a top team in football. How did it fall so hard and whose fault is it? — @Lionsmaul
The on-field downturn resulted from poor recruiting, substandard coaching and the malaise that often follows successful runs. Also, Stanford’s academic standards are ill-suited for the transfer portal era.
But make no mistake: If this realignment wave had unfolded in the mid-2010s, Stanford would have been a no-brainer for the Big Ten — and for Fox.
Timing is everything in realignment. For Stanford, the timing was terrible.
We say these are 50 year decisions for the B10, so it’s sad to think 10 years made such a difference for Stanford.
Is it possible that the Big Ten is thinking it eventually would want Cal and Stanford? And the conference is forced to decide to grab them before they jump to the ACC? — @bentMV
We can only speculate about the long game. Could the Big Ten have eyes on the Bay Area schools for its next contract cycle, in 2030? Perhaps.
But Fox could very well focus on expanding into the southeast to acquire college football properties in Florida.
The Hotline believes Stanford and Cal have a better chance of gaining entry into the Big Ten now if they have leverage, in the form of standing invitations to the ACC.
Fox came up with the cash for Oregon and UW only when they had a contract offer from the Pac-12.
Perhaps it would do the same if the Bears and Cardinal were on the brink of entering the ACC.
They’re close. Four schools reportedly oppose invitations: Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and N.C. State. If just one relents, the Bay Area schools are in. But that foursome will be a difficult bloc to break.
I don’t really see the ACC as leverage. ACC teams will likely be available soon anyway. I doubt Fox thinks the SF pair is so important that it can’t wait a few years (if ever).
Do you think the University of California regents regret approving UCLA’s move to the Big Ten now that Cal has been left out to dry? — @scottwmcdonough
We cannot speak for the regents, but that’s a reasonable assumption for the 11 members of the board who voted in favor of UCLA’s move. (Five voted against.)
And don’t forget about the Berkeley tax, the so-called Cal-imony.
The regents retained the authority to force UCLA to subsidize the Bears, with payments ranging from as little as $2 million annually to as much as $10 million. The exact total would be based “on the best available information on projected revenues for both campuses.”
If Cal doesn’t gain membership in the ACC or Big Ten, its revenue will crater and you can bet the regents will impose the top end of that subsidy.
UCLA has a lot riding on Cal’s landing spot and, we presume, is maneuvering to get the Bears into either the ACC or Big Ten.
How much better of a deal do they think they would’ve gotten if UCLA stayed but USC still left? How much more would ESPN have offered initially? How much more would Apple have offered?
At some point, don’t the Cal regents have to say Cal’s losses aren’t mostly UCLA’s fault? Would they rather have both schools suffering? Taxing UCLA will just make UCLA less competitive and make the athletes suffer. $10M isn’t going to fix Cal’s issues.
Ultimately, do you think the Pac-12 was unable to negotiate a media deal because the conference leadership and/or the schools incorrectly gauged their media value? — @Jalex0077
Both were true. The schools had an inflated sense of their media value, with multiple presidents pushing for $50 million paychecks from ESPN.
At the same time, commissioner George Kliavkoff was unable to convince them otherwise and create realistic expectations.
Which of the teams that have left the Pac-12 do you think you’ll stop covering? — @gohuskies1978
None of them.
The Hotline covered the schools and the issues that matter to them long before “Pac-12” was added to the name of our operation a few years ago. That won’t change with new conference affiliations.
If needed, we just change the name to WilnerHotline.com — that’s also my Twitter handle — and roll on.
A better question might be which schools would he start covering. The whole MWC? The schools the Pac4 add? Also, will his coverage of the 8 that left decrease as he loses his contacts in their conference HQs?
LikeLike
I agree with you, Brian. Wilner has a lot of bad/erroneous takes in that mailbag.
I got from that terrific ESPN960 series a bunch of links to social media interactions (which they argue is a better gauge of true fan interest than even TV viewership as TV viewership is so affected by channel, time slot, and, especially, opponent):
Stanford’s numbers are pretty darn low (as are Cal’s). Among P5’s, really only NU, BC, GTech, WFU, RU, and Vandy are comparable. And unlike IU, those schools don’t make up for their low number of CFB interactions with high MBB interactions.
Stanford’s TV ratings were definitely boosted by them being good a decade ago (not sure if they can reach those heights again in the NIL+transfer portal era) and annually playing ND, UO, and USC (as well as UW and UCLA).
LikeLike
One problem with using social media is that every school sets it up differently. Some do most things through the school channel, others through the AD channel, others through team-specific channels. Also, some focus on 1 app while others do all of them equally. The culture of various schools also impact how much interaction there is.
I still think TV ratings (adjusted for the known confounding factors) are the closest thing to a useful measure. Use them to compare within their conference, and use linear ratings to compare nationally. Yes playing ND skews Stanford’s ratings, but as long as they keep playing ND then TV will draw those ratings. TV doesn’t care whose fans they are or deep their fandom runs, just if they watch.
LikeLike
If you look at the links I posted, SkullSparks aggregates engagements across a bunch of social media platforms. And they post those aggregates for CFB, MBB, and the AD. I suppose it’s possible that those schools I listed may be engaging with fans in some more esoteric social media platform via some other handle, but overall, the social media engagement leaders and laggards are just who you’d expect them to be.
The problem with counting ND’s numbers for Stanford is that ND is under no obligation to keep playing Stanford, and if you ask the Domers, unlike USC, they don’t even see Stanford as a rival so likely wouldn’t make much of an effort to continue the series if there are difficulties to work through, so you really can’t count on Stanford’s past TV ratings saying much about the future. Especially since the future environment (NIL+transfer portal era) is very different from the era in the recent past when Cardinal football thrived.
LikeLike
I’m just noting that they use “official team accounts” but not every school does social media that way, and other social media analyses have looked at just one app. Some schools have very strong unofficial social media – are those not fans, too? Or what about other things like online sites (Eleven Warriors for OSU, for example)? They also choose to use interactions (comments, reactions, shares, retweets) because they are easily tracked, but plenty of people read things without interacting. Does it matter if a fan doesn’t interact with a tweet? Why not include followers as a metric? Like any fan metric, their method has flaws. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s terrible.
As for Stanford, I did include the caveat “but as long as they keep playing ND.” If they stop, their TV numbers will quickly drop and so the ratings will still be a decent measure. They just don’t promise long term future performance. Besides, many recent TV analyses have only looked at conference games, often without USC and UCLA, and Stanford still does well among the P12.
LikeLike
https://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/amie-just-trev-alberts-on-realignment-angst-future-plans-schedule-conflicts/article_e4e9413e-c06a-5e06-ab15-14b5ab34f245.html
Trev Alberts on realignment.
“What’s now happening is the cable bundle is in trouble through cord cutting,” Alberts said. “So where we were able to bundle all this stuff and where you would have certain teams that were joining conferences based on the cable bundle, now that’s being disrupted. So that business model is falling apart. And now it’s about streaming, so now the brand value of every individual institution is more important than ever before.”
…
“I thought adding Oregon and Washington made sense,” Alberts said. “Obviously we have a lot to work out in terms of scheduling, but I think the thing that was more palatable was the willingness of those schools to accept what their media value was for the seven-year period. And their history and investment in football and success and strength of the brands, I think it makes a lot of sense.”
What doesn’t make a lot of sense, though, is how it’ll work for sports that aren’t football — and Alberts concedes this point.
Since the news broke, a collection of Oregon’s softball players have taken their frustrations public. Having to go cross-country multiple times per season isn’t exactly a palatable thing, nor does it jibe with the Big Ten and NCAA’s message that student-athlete well-being and welfare are always top-of-mind.
“I think those concerns are valid and they’re real and they need to be addressed,” Alberts said. “I don’t think it’s sustainable. I will say, I think there’s some short-term strategies that we’re already working on with the Big Ten in ways that we can alleviate some of those concerns.”
But what about the long-term future?
Alberts proposes an ideal that’s more transformational than what’s currently happening — and it’s one I think will come to fruition someday. Maybe not exactly how Alberts envisions, but in some related version.
“This is my own personal opinion, but I think the future has to contemplate football being taken out of the mix,” Alberts said. “We’re moving to a 35 to 40 top brands being part of something. If you just look at football in isolation, eventually conferences will matter less in a sense. If we can find a way to take football and have that be this entity here, I think then you can get back to doing some much more intelligent thinking around the rest of the sports, which should be regionally based.
“All of these moves are driven by one sport. That’s football. And the football schedule is much different than a tennis schedule or a golf schedule. So these Olympic sports, the travel looks a little bit different. … We’re not there today, but I would think in the next 10 years, that reality makes more and more sense.”
…
Alberts, obviously, wasn’t at his current post when Nebraska left the Big 12 for the greener pastures of the Big Ten back in 2011.
In hindsight, that decision appears more and more beneficial for Nebraska by the day.
“I thought at the time it was a good decision. You’re looking for stability,” Alberts said. “… The move to the Big Ten ensured we were part of the haves, like, we have the resource. It obviously did not guarantee us success.
“So, this is not about making sure that if you don’t have enough money, you can’t win. That’s not true. The Yankees don’t win the World Series every year. The Cowboys don’t win the Super Bowl every year. But (money) gives you a reasonable opportunity and, frankly, to fund the rest of your sports.”
Alberts continued.
“So, at the time the move to the Big Ten was 100% the right decision. Not only did it align us with aspirant academic institutions, but it ensured the resources necessary that the Athletic Department could be a viable solution. Again, receiving no state taxpayer dollars and no student fees. That has to continue being our strategy moving forward.”
LikeLike
For non-revenue sports, nothing prevents the B10 from scheduling a minimal number of conference games (as well as always have the WC contingent always play each other) and then letting each team schedule a bunch of OOC games to their heart’s content.
UO softball now travels to 3 tournaments before conference play begins, then plays 8 conference series, so travel away 4 long weekends in conference play.
UMich softball now travels to 5 warmer locations before conference play begins, then plays 7 conference series as well as fit in a bunch of games vs MSU.
So even if nothing changes, so long as the WC B10 teams play each other every year, UO softball would play Eastern/Midwestern B10 teams 5 times a year, so travel east 2-3 times a year. Which makes all this whining sound ridiculous when you consider that they traveled to Mexico to play before conference play last year.
But the B10 could also cut down to 6 true conference series and then stage tournaments in LA and the PNW that the original 14 B10 teams can participate in.
LikeLike
I’d certainly expect baseball and softball to frontload schedules with midwest at west coast series in February/March, then midwest games and intra-WC games in April. A little smart scheduling and you have travel partners in both sports knocking out series at the same time.
LikeLike
The Columbus Dispatch had an article looking at expansion from the non-revenue sports side. It may be subscriber-only, so I excerpted a good bit.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/college/big-10/2023/08/14/what-big-ten-expansion-means-for-ohio-state-non-revenue-sports-osu-buckeyes/70574456007/
Ohio State women’s volleyball coach Jen Flynn Oldenburg still views herself as a purist.
…
To Oldenburg, Ohio State is fortunate. It’s not the school that is moving. The majority of its teams’ traveling still remains mostly on one side of the country even with the Big Ten adding Oregon, Southern California, UCLA and Washington in 2024.
But change is coming.
…
“I don’t think there was any consideration for our sport. And that’s not a knock that it should have been,” said Rosalind Joseph, Ohio State director of track and field and cross country. “I just don’t think that ‘What is track and field, and cross country going to do?’ I don’t think that ever came up, and where we benefit.
“I’m glad I’m not in the athletic director’s chair (or) the commissioner’s chair.”
When it comes to travel, Ohio State baseball coach Bill Mosiello has a “glass-half-full” mentality.
“Growing up in California, I think it’s neat to see other parts of the country,” Mosiello said. “A California kid never would have been able to see Columbus, Ohio, or East Lansing.”
…
For Oldenburg, travel is a concern, especially for Ohio State sports that play more than one game per week. Ahead of 2024, she said the conversation revolves around making sure that the Buckeyes’ West Coast travel schedule “makes sense.”
“They are going to be very creative and I think intentional with how they schedule, so that we do take into account what does this mean for the student athletes because they still have to be students,” Oldenburg said.
West Coast travel is something Lisa Strom has faced both as an Ohio State women’s golf team member and as its head coach, regularly scheduling nationally, including an annual trip to Palos Verdes Golf Club outside of Los Angeles for the Therese Hession Regional Challenge in honor of the Buckeyes’ former women’s golf coach.
“Is it taxing on the student athlete? Yes,” Strom said. “But what I remind them all the time, if you have your heart set on playing professional golf and chasing your dreams on the LPGA Tour … you’re going to be doing a lot of travel. … We really don’t have any issues academically to speak of, so it’s just one of those things that it’s the nature of our sport to get on airplanes and travel and maybe have to get off an airplane (and) go to class in a couple hours after we drop you off.”
For most Ohio State coaches, the competition Washington, USC, UCLA and Oregon will bring to the Big Ten is not an issue.
It’s welcomed, Mosiello said, knowing the potential those programs have to help make the Big Ten a more renowned baseball conference, while also expanding the Buckeyes’ recruiting footprint.
“I didn’t feel like just Ohio kids and just Midwest kids could help us win a championship, win a national championship,” Mosiello said. “They would help us tremendously and there’s some great ones, but I actually took it just like the football team. You have to start in your backyard, but you have to get a C.J. Stroud from California and you get some speed guys from Florida. That was my thought process baseball wise: ‘That’s what we’re going to do.’
“Because of the strong brand of Ohio State, I knew that anybody you call from all around the country, they’ve heard of Ohio State. And our goal is to start making that they heard of it because of the success of the baseball program.”
…
“In terms of what we want to accomplish here and winning championships, does it get more challenging? Yes, but it makes us better,” she said. “For us to win a national championship, I think that prep work during the conference is only going to make you tougher when the time comes in December.”
Ohio State wrestling coach Tom Ryan has more questions than answers regarding his sport’s role in expansion.
None of the four Pac-12 teams joining the Big Ten have Division I wrestling programs, something Ryan called “a concern,” even as the sport is “booming” and gaining traction from a spectator standpoint, calling wrestling “a top three or four (most) watched sport” on Big Ten Network.
“When you have 80, maybe 82 programs left (in Division I), every one of them matters,” Ryan said. “Wrestling could explode if these schools add wrestling. It can really explode. If it doesn’t, if they don’t add wrestling, it’s an interesting time.”
For Strom, the upcoming expansion is all about trust.
Strom says she has to practice what she preaches to her players, expecting them to trust that each decision she makes is for the betterment of the team as a whole. Now, with expansion, she’s in the same boat.
“They have conversations I’ll never understand and I don’t understand all the media rights,” Strom said. “I guess what I do understand is that they feel it’s going to benefit our conference, going to benefit our universities and trickle down to benefiting our staffs and our student athletes. At the end of the day, that’s where you’re going to have a lot of trust in what we’re doing at Ohio State.”
While there was no set plan for after expansion was confirmed, Joseph said Ohio State’s athletic department is actively seeking input from all of its sports about how to proceed with four more teams in the Big Ten.
“It’s also been a good opportunity to also sort of have our own input in what do we think it should look like, what are some of struggles and some of the advantages,” Joseph said. “While we haven’t quite gotten together to have those conversations, that is what we’re being asked to look into: how will this help in or impact your sport?”
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/college/basketball/2023/08/14/as-big-ten-expands-ohio-states-gene-smith-talks-role-of-basketball/70575138007/
Gene Smith on how hoops factored into expansion.
“Basketball is always talked about, but it’s not the driver,” Smith told The Dispatch on Wednesday morning after announcing his impending retirement. “It’s not. Football’s the driver. We’re always conscious of what’s the impact on basketball, but we never really make final decisions that are just because of basketball. Football drives television. That’s really the reality of it, but basketball comes into play because we talk about the scheduling. OK, can we really make this work? At a high level we talk about it and then we go from there.”
…
“I really think the NCAA Tournament’s in good standing,” he said. “I really don’t think they need to do a whole lot to it. You tweak some things operationally here and there, but I’m a big believer in staying at 68. People are talking about expanding to 96. We studied that when I was on the committee and we’re the ones who took it to 68. I think it oughta stay at that.
“It’s a great tournament. It’s exciting. I just think you don’t mess with something that’s really special right now.”
…
“It’s hard to have a Cinderella in football,” Smith said. “We may have that with the 12(-team playoff). It would be a different definition of Cinderella. (A Cinderella run) is like the coolest thing. I think the beauty of a tournament is that. Basketball’s just a different sport. I just think that the tournament is on good stay and we shouldn’t change it.”
It’s unclear how much the Big Ten men’s basketball schedule for 2024-25 will change with the addition of Washington and Oregon. When the two former Pac-12 teams join the league alongside USC and UCLA, the Big Ten will grow to 18 teams.
What that means for a 20-game conference schedule won’t be known for a while.
“We haven’t had our call yet on scheduling,” Smith said. “That’s going to be set up for us over the next couple weeks to begin those conversations. I’m not really sure. We have a scheduler in the league that will give us recommendations and advice. They know our principles. I just don’t know at this point.”
A point to consider: the Big Ten already has signed television contracts for 20-game league schedules. Increasing the number of Big Ten games could prove to be a challenge simply from a paperwork standpoint.
One thing that has been discussed: turning trips to play one of the California teams into a double play, reducing the number of times Big Ten teams have to travel to the West Coast.
“That’s already been talked about as something we need to consider, not just for basketball but for all our sports,” Smiths aid. “If our women’s soccer team is going out to play UCLA then they should have a day in between and play USC. Those scenarios, our senior women administrators have done a phenomenal job setting up the framework for that. Now with Oregon and Washington coming in we have to reevaluate if that framework still works.”
LikeLike
https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports/football/could-big-ten-play-its-football-title-game-in-las-vegas-2886561/
The B10 is considering Las Vegas for future CCGs. Don’t let IA make that game, or the whole team will be suspended.
Big Ten and Las Vegas officials are in discussions about hosting the power conference’s championship football game at Allegiant Stadium.
Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority President and CEO Steve Hill said those talks are in the early stages.
“The Big 10 has asked us to submit proposals,” Hill said in a text message to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “I’m sure they have asked a number of cities. We are certainly interested, will put our best foot forward and know there is no better place for their football championship.”
…
Big Ten’s football championship game has been held at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis since its inception in 2011. The conference’s contract with the home of the Indianapolis Colts expires after the 2024 game.
I guess the idea would be to have it near the western 4 occasionally, but not give USC or UCLA too much homefield advantage if they make it (unlike the Rose Bowl, Coliseum, or SoFi). Presumably they’ll at least ask the 3 LA stadiums as well as Seattle. Will Chicago’s new stadium get a chance (if they decide on a plan)? Maybe Detroit and MSP, too? East coast seems unlikely to me due to weather.
LikeLike
Chicago’s new stadium will definitely get the B10 CCG some years when it is finally built.
LA (and CA in general) has so many Midwestern (and PNW) B10 alums that it may not actually be a big advantage for an LA team if the CCG is held there.
The problem with Seattle is that while there are plenty of UW and UO fans there and a decent number of Midwestern B10 alums (especially from the stronger tech schools in the B10), it still wouldn’t have as many as LA.
I personally think Detroit makes sense as OSU, UMich, and PSU all have a decent chance of making the CCG.
I would rotate it between Chicago, LV, Detroit, and LA.
LikeLike
“I would rotate it between Chicago, LV, Detroit, and LA.”
I feel like you’d want to rotate it among as many big cities within your footprint as possible, so Chicago and LA would make sense. Seattle as well. I can live with LV. It’s a shame NYC/NJ doesn’t have a domed stadium, though I’d still consider it.
I feel like if you’re going to be a national conference then rotating amongst the biggest cities would be good for marketing. Recruiting too. SEC can’t exactly sell that you’ll potentially play in LA, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, and LV within your 4-5 years on campus. Treat it like the Super Bowl and constantly rotate it everywhere you have a presence.
LikeLike
Richard,
Chicago’s new stadium will definitely get the B10 CCG some years when it is finally built.
Have they settled on a plan yet? A location? Will it be a dome for sure?
LA (and CA in general) has so many Midwestern (and PNW) B10 alums that it may not actually be a big advantage for an LA team if the CCG is held there.
Rose Bowl results suggest otherwise for USC. Granted, times have changed but they dominated there for decades.
The problem with Seattle is that while there are plenty of UW and UO fans there and a decent number of Midwestern B10 alums (especially from the stronger tech schools in the B10), it still wouldn’t have as many as LA.
But isn’t that one of the costs of adding them? The major events need to rotate through occasionally. The problem is that Seattle is too close to UW’s home field.
I personally think Detroit makes sense as OSU, UMich, and PSU all have a decent chance of making the CCG.
I think they worried about UM having a home game. Maybe also hotels and other things with the other events in town (Lions, Pistons, Red Wings, conventions, etc.).
I would rotate it between Chicago, LV, Detroit, and LA.
I like Indy as a neutral site close to most of the midwestern teams (a dome in Chicago would also work). It’s probably fair to rotate it out west every few years, but the east coast never gets it so the west coast shouldn’t get it too often.
LikeLike
LV has a lot of cheap flights from many Midwestern cities, though. More than other WC cities.
I think of Detroit as being close enough to the only EC team that realistically will ever make a B10 CCG going forward (Detroit is about as far from the PA border as LV is from LA, though granted, central PA and eastern PA are farther away).
So rotated it amongst Chicago(1/4th time), LV(1/4th time), Indy(1/4th time), Detroit(1/8th time), and LA(1/8th time) if you like.
And that new Bears stadium will eventually be built somewhere and won’t be domed only if the Bears braintrust completely lacks braincells.
LikeLike
That new stadium in Chicago not a done deal.
https://news.wttw.com/2023/06/02/plan-new-stadium-arlington-heights-stalls-bears-start-considering-new-options
LikeLike
Is there any reporting on how the Big Ten’s TV deals will change with Oregon and Washington joining? Will another package be sold, or will the existing partners just soak up the extra games?
I have seen comments about the late-night window. The western teams’ non-conference buy games could go into that window, but that’s only a small package. For conference games, the bad teams would take the hit — nobody will schedule PSU @Oregon kicking off at 11pm ET. I wonder if the likes of Rutgers and Purdue were given any assurances in exchange for voting yes on the expansion?
LikeLike
Fox seems to have financed the move.
Fox may be pushing to add Cal and Stanford, too.
Rumors…
LikeLike
Marc,
I haven’t seen any reporting, just rumors. Of course, the B10 TV deal isn’t truly done yet anyway so maybe we can’t hear anything until they finalize it.
Fox paid for it all, but that’s because technically Fox owns all the rights (via BTN) and then sublicenses them out to everyone else. They are probably talking to ESPN and Amazon and Apple about a 4th package, but it’s hard to negotiate that when all the bets games are taken. For the higher quality UW and UO provide for no increase in payment, would CBS and NBC let someone else get into the game choice rotation? Or would it always be the 4th best game (or worse, if Peacock is in the rotation)?
It seems to make sense that they’d consider the late window, even if only for half the weeks. Likely more Friday night games are under consideration as well.
LikeLike
Only the After Dark window and Friday night make sense, and Fox can show After Dark games itself. It’s not like they have any other worthwhile programming at that time of night.
Marc:
Say it’s a 13-game package.
Using 2024 as an example:
The WC4 will host G5 opponents the first 3 weeks.
If the WC4 all play each other, that’s 6 games, though USC-UCLA and UW-UO won’t be among them (I project UW-UO to be Black Friday night and USC-UCLA to be a Nov Sat primetime game on NBC). And NBC and CBS have no way to pick the ones moved to Friday (so the 2 USC vs UW/UO games may be on Friday night).
If the WC4 all play each other, they will play the other 6 conference games vs the original 14, of which 6 are in the central time zone and 8 (including all the kings) in the eastern time zone. 3 at home each so 12 total at home vs the original 14 schools. That means 12/14 original B10 schools travel west once a year. Say the breakdown is 5 CST teams, 4 EST non-kings, and 3 (EST) kings.
The games vs. the kings OSU/PSU/UMich won’t go in to the After Dark slot or Friday night. If all 4 games vs. EST non-kings are Friday night, only 2/5 hosting CST teams have to be After Dark.
So say the first 3 weeks shows a OOC After Dark game each (3 After Dark games)
Then 4 Friday night games hosting an EST non-king and also 3 of the 4 LA school vs PNW games. All but UO/UW@USC (Fox could tell NBC and CBS that those games weren’t part of the inventory anyway until Fox paid up so there’s no reason NBC or CBS should get them, and anyway, they still get a shot at the UO/UW@USC game). (4+3=7 Friday night games out west)
The 5 games hosting CST teams and UO/UW@USC can be parcelled out over 3 weekends where NBC/CBS could pick 1 of them and there’s at least 1 going in to After Dark. (3 After Dark games)
Hmm, in fact, those weeks could cover all the weeks in Nov when NBC isn’t showing USC-UCLA or USC-ND (or maybe the kings go out west in Nov) so the Midwestern and Eastern B10 schools wouldn’t have to host November night games.
Bob: Are those rumors voices in your head? Because the B10 would have gladly added Stanford and Cal if Fox was willing to pay up for them.
LikeLike
Only the After Dark window and Friday night make sense
It also provides two more teams that are happy to host at 7:30pm ET as late in November as you’d like.
LikeLike
Richard,
Only the After Dark window and Friday night make sense, and Fox can show After Dark games itself. It’s not like they have any other worthwhile programming at that time of night.
I left it more open because maybe they have other thoughts – Thursday nights? Other weeknights? Non-standard windows (10 am, 2pm, 5:30, 9:00) to pick up viewers from blowouts? Streamers might not care about start times as much.
Fox is already paying for B12 and MWC rights that could fill the late window. With viewers capped by the time window, why not put lesser games there? I think it’ll be a mix. For example, UA and ASU have to play at night in September due to the heat,
so they get after dark games (Fox or ESPN).
LikeLike
B10 would have to sign off on Th and other weekday days besides F and I don’t see them doing so for weekdays after Labor Day. IMO, playing Sunday morning before the NFL kicks off (after adding FSU+some other EST southern school) is more likely than the B10 allowing non-Friday weekday games after Labor Day.
I suppose it’s possible Fox sublicenses to a streamer but then CBS and NBC may have to sign off for their timeslots. But maybe they would for the better inventory?
I suppose you’re right and we will have to wait and see, but reading between the lines, I got the sense that the B10 was dipping its toes in to streaming with Peacock (will help them decide on how much streaming in the next media deal) and won’t sign off on more streaming this go-around.
LikeLike
B10 would have to sign off on Th and other weekday days besides F and I don’t see them doing so for weekdays after Labor Day.
This is why I am wondering if the peon schools requested (or received) any assurances. They’re the ones who’d bear the brunt if the Big Ten decides to play at non-standard times — Michigan vs. Washington won’t be played on Sunday at 10:00am.
We’ve already seen that the last deal committed the league to November night games that some of the members didn’t really want. Given the speed with which these additions were approved, they can’t possibly have worked out every implication.
Reading between the lines, I got the sense that the B10 was dipping its toes in to streaming with Peacock (will help them decide on how much streaming in the next media deal) and won’t sign off on more streaming this go-around.
This is true, but the Big Ten also signaled that they were done expanding for now, and yet they did. Now Fox has 15 more football games per year to sell, and my head can’t even count how many basketball games. The question is where you put them to maximize the value of what they just bought.
LikeLike
Riffing on an idea I saw on Twitter:
The 18-team B10 will have 11 kings/princes (royalty) and 7 non-royalty (let’s call then peons; not being pejorative, of course, as I am a proud alum of a peon school).
The B10 should press for CFB to be allowed to play on Week Zero and then have the following Week Zero schedule:
Th night: Peon hosts Royalty
Fri night: Peon hosts Royalty
Big Ten Kickoff Saturday (on Fox, CBS, and NBC):
1PM eastern: Big Ten Kickoff Classic: RU hosts Royalty @ MetLife or UMD hosts Royalty @FedEx
5PM eastern (capture that sunset!): Rose Bowl Classic: UCLA hosts Royalty @Rose Bowl
9PM eastern: Windy City Classic: NU/UIUC hosts Royalty @Historic Soldier Field.
Sunday:
3 games back-to-back where royalty hosts peons.
2 more Royalty programs can host G5 patsies at times that don’t conflict with the B10 Classics (I know Bucky and MSU like to kick off their season with home games Friday night).
Make those 3 Kickoff games like bowl games with festivities for a couple days for both fans and players.
Every school would have a home game/host at least half the time. Granted, UMD, RU, NU, and UIUC wouldn’t have true home game openers on their home field, but UIUC has sacrificed a home game to be able to play in Chicago for several seasons in the past and the exposure and festivities may be worth it for UMD, RU, and NU as well*. Also, I personally believe they should contribute something for their share of B10 revenue.
* No, I don’t think NU should build that new stadium in Evanston.
LikeLike
I doubt the coaches want to open with a conference game almost every year. Why not build into it with some OOC games on Thursday and Friday, and maybe some more on Sunday?
And why start all the games an hour late on Saturday? That’ll cost you viewers as they start watching the noon game ET on another network, and won’t stay up to see the end of the late game. It also means they can’t have a late window game (WC royalty vs G5) on Saturday.
LikeLike
I’m personally not in favor of caring what coaches think. They’re paid good money to deal with stuff like this. Student-athletes, fans, and broadcast partners (because they fund so much) should matter but not coaches.
Listening to coaches is why the B10 has its current MBB scheduling philosophy (2 days between games) that is actually more disruptive to student-athletes and doesn’t even mimic the NCAA tournament.
LikeLike
You may not care, but ADs do. And fans will when their teams start out 0-1 multiple times.
As for 2 days between games, that’s for the benefit of the student-athletes – one of the groups you care about. Have players said they want less rest between games? Maybe they will with coast-to-coast trips so they don’t miss class as much, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
From WaPo: NIL has gone berserk.
https://wapo.st/47y3OPS
LikeLike
Ross Dellenger has a story on decisions playoff leaders must make when they next meet in person on August 30. Key ones include:
— Potential changes to the format from the 6+6 originally agreed. The easiest and most obvious change is to reduce the number of autobids by one, given that there is now one less “power” conference. The AAC’s Mike Aresco is already (predictably) on the record opposing this, although I think he does not have a leg to stand on. There is apparently still a push for “Best 12,” though I can’t imagine that passing in this cycle.
— Revenue distribution model. In the current system, each power conference receives an equal distribution, so a conference with 14 teams (the ACC) would get the same as one with 18 teams (the Big Ten). The larger leagues obviously would prefer a distribution “per school” rather than “per conference”.
— Voting system. For certain decisions, the P5 plus Notre Dame have more of a say than the G5. How does this change when one of the P5 no longer exists? The demise of a power league was not contemplated when the rules were drawn up.
It’s unclear if George Kliavkoff will show up at the meeting. The Pac-12 still exists and he is still its commissioner, which makes him technically entitled to participate. But who would give a damn what he says?
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/college-football-pac-12-collapse-cal-stanford-df172d69?st=87609m2qvrv0rn9&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Let’s play the options game
What’s next for Cal, Oregon State, Stanford and Washington State, the “Pac-4” schools left behind in the latest realignment frenzy? Chris Vannini and Nicole Auerbach explain four main options. Few are pretty.
Here’s how I’d rank realistic (and non) scenarios by desirability, if I had any say:
9. The Pac-Whatever: As Nicole and Chris explain, adding Mountain West or American Athletic members could cost tens of millions of dollars. For what? The Pac’s current future includes no media contract, Rose Bowl association or power-conference status. He’s dead, Jim.
8. Independence: Going indie in football while parking other sports in Gonzaga’s West Coast Conference could work for Stanford, the country’s best all-around athletic department. But do the other three leftovers have the brands to finesse media deals?
7. The AAC: No football members west of Texas? Rough travel. Joining another conference regularly raided by powers? Psychic damage.
6. The ACC is galaxy-braining the farfetched additions of Cal and Stanford. Those $39 million payouts sound nice! But “Atlantic” is in the name for a reason. And this league might also combust, especially if Florida State has to huff and puff about splitting revenue with even more football middleweights.
5. The MWC: Local stability. National success (Boise State, San Diego State, etc.). Its nearly $7 million payouts are good by “Group of 5” standards. And we’d enjoy Stanford humbling itself after long snorting at the Broncos’ Pac-12 candidacy, as if soccer games count toward U.S. News & World Report rankings.
4. The Peacock Polycule: I like this wild idea: Notre Dame, plus Notre Dame’s rival Stanford, plus Stanford’s rival Cal, plus three-way rivals Air Force, Army and Navy — another Notre Dame rival. NBC, get it done.
3. The Big 12: Seemingly done expanding for now. If it wanted the Pac leftovers, it would’ve thrown them in the cart while grabbing Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah.
2. The Big Ten: Similar story. Even less likely to want OSU or WSU.
1. The Huge 32: What if the ACC lets Clemson and FSU leave, then merges with the Big 12 and Pac-4? That’s a tidy 32, divisible into eight four-team pods. Everybody plays locals, in a top-three conference. If college sports had any adults in charge, it’d be considered. Thus it won’t.
— Jason Kirk
LikeLike
I frankly get annoyed at sports journalists who would rather live in a fantasy world than deal with reality. If a volleyball player would rather not make transcontinental flights, nothing’s stopping her from choosing to play volleyball at a WCC school rather than UO.
LikeLike
Marc,
For 2024-25, any changes must be unanimous so the AAC can block a move from 6+6 temporarily. Of course that comes with the risk of angering the P2 who can wield more influence from 2026 on.
I think the change to payment per school is a fairly safe change, though the ACC might push back. It’s one more way they can close the revenue gap a tiny bit. It also disincentivizes conferences from expanding (say by taking ACC teams). The Pac-4 might also push back. It’s not a huge difference, though, so the P2 may let it slide if they get pushback. It also depends on what fraction of money is given out this way vs for winning.
$100M/18 = $5.55M per school
$100M/16 = $6.25M per school
$100M/14 = $7.14M per school
$100M/12 = $8.33M per school
$100M/10 = $10M per school
With their bigger TV deals, the P2 don’t need to worry about this unless it is a large percentage of the total revenue.
The NCAA must have a mechanism for removing an autonomy conference. Unless that happens, a rebuilt P12 will stay in the P5. I’d guess they do something simple like keep the P/G power split the same (or else the G5 and maybe congress will balk). After all, more schools moved up and even more might with the P12.
I assume GK will show up because it’s his job to represent the P12 until told otherwise. The P12 at least wants a representative in the room to know what is said, and they have nobody else to send. Besides, he might have some meetings with the MWC and AAC commissioners that are productive.
LikeLike
For 2024-25, any changes must be unanimous so the AAC can block a move from 6+6 temporarily. Of course that comes with the risk of angering the P2 who can wield more influence from 2026 on.
I would put “unanimous” in scare quotes. Sure, he could veto it like the Rose Bowl was blocking playoff expansion. At some point you have the Godfather conversation: “Yes, you could do that this one time, but then good luck getting anything else you might ever want in the future.”
I think Jim Delany once said that the G5 should be careful what they ask for. At every stage, they have received more access than they had before, but the power conferences’ generosity is not infinite.
Even Aresco knows that the spirit of the deal was to guarantee one G5 bid per year — and that’s with three of their best programs no longer in the G5 as of this year. They are welcome to have more, when and if they are good enough, but they’ve got to earn it.
The NCAA must have a mechanism for removing an autonomy conference.
I think I have read that autonomy status can be revoked with the concurrence of three out of four (of the remaining A5).
LikeLike
Marc,
I think Aresco’s point is that the B12 lost CU, NE, TAMU and MO while adding TCU and WV and stayed P5. Then they added BYU, UC, UCF and UH and will remain P5. That’s 5 former G5 schools out of 14. Then they lost UT and OU and added CU, ASU, UA and UU. That’s 6 former G5 schools out of 16.
We don’t even know the final locations/makeup of the P12. But if more than a third of the conference being former G5 is okay, why draw an arbitrary line here? Why are those former G5s okay but others aren’t?
2026 is a different animal, but I think it’s fair for Aresco to contend it’s too early to decide anything about the P12. And what’s the real harm in letting 1 potentially weaker champ in for 2 years? It doesn’t impact the money.
LikeLike
I think Aresco’s point is that the B12 lost CU, NE, TAMU and MO while adding TCU and WV and stayed P5. Then they added BYU, UC, UCF and UH and will remain P5. That’s 5 former G5 schools out of 14. Then they lost UT and OU and added CU, ASU, UA and UU. That’s 6 former G5 schools out of 16.
The main flaw of this argument is that almost all of the above had already occurred when Aresco voted for the 6+6 plan. The B12’s losses of CU, NE, TAMU, MO, UT, and OU were all known then. The B12 had already made or announced its replacements for those losses.
If Aresco felt the Big 12 wasn’t a P5 league a year ago, he had his chance to make that argument. And if the B12 was a power league a year ago, adding four schools from the Pac-12 certainly has not diminished it. If anything, it probably has a stronger claim than before. I’m sure Yormark feels it does—he didn’t add four schools to get weaker.
We don’t even know the final locations/makeup of the P12. But if more than a third of the conference being former G5 is okay, why draw an arbitrary line here? Why are those former G5s okay but others aren’t?
All rules in sports require the drawing of lines that are somewhat arbitrary. There is always an argument that a different line would produce a different outcome.
I agree that we must withhold judgment until the Pac-4 find new homes. I am sure that will be known before any decision is made. But let’s suppose the best possible outcome for Aresco: the AAC absorbs all of the Pac-4. Still, by any rational metric there’d be a substantial gap between the new AAC and the other power four. It’s not as if they are drawing the line in a grey area.
And what’s the real harm in letting 1 potentially weaker champ in for 2 years? It doesn’t impact the money.
Personally, I don’t care. I like chaos and see no harm in it. But I do understand that if Aresco gets his way for the next two years, he is winning on a technicality: the spirit of the original deal was to guarantee one G5 bid, not two. And the AAC is still substantially a G5 league even if it adds the Pac-12 remnants.
LikeLike
Marc,
No, I meant the reverse of that. Aresco’s saying that if the B12 was P5 all along, why assume the P12 wouldn’t be too? Thus it should stay 6+6 until proven otherwise.
I agree that we must withhold judgment until the Pac-4 find new homes. I am sure that will be known before any decision is made. But let’s suppose the best possible outcome for Aresco: the AAC absorbs all of the Pac-4. Still, by any rational metric there’d be a substantial gap between the new AAC and the other power four. It’s not as if they are drawing the line in a grey area.
On paper, sure. But the P5 have put out some clunker champs over the years, and the G5 have had some really good teams. It seems less likely with the B12 taking the top G5s, but then 10 years ago nobody thought UCF was a P5 team. Who knows what the top G5s may become?
Personally, I don’t care. I like chaos and see no harm in it. But I do understand that if Aresco gets his way for the next two years, he is winning on a technicality: the spirit of the original deal was to guarantee one G5 bid, not two. And the AAC is still substantially a G5 league even if it adds the Pac-12 remnants.
I was thinking more about the P12 still being a P5, even if it skims the best from the MWC/AAC.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine why the remaining four autonomy leagues would want to give any of the remaining leagues (including a merged P12/MWC) autonomy status. The B1G and SEC have no reason to budge and the ACC and B12 have every reason to want to continue to set themselves apart from the rest.
LikeLike
Bob,
It’s not giving it, the P12 already has that status. The B10 and SEC would have to push to remove it from them, which is a much uglier process. That’s the problem. I agree they wouldn’t give them the status now.
LikeLike
Also, why would anyone care about autonomy status?
As opposed to the fight over the CFP money and slots which is actually consequential.
LikeLike
Well, the autonomy fight sort of is the fight for CFP money. The P5 (the A5 to the NCAA) get paid big chunks of the CFP and the others don’t. This is through having tie-ins to the major bowls (which no longer applies when they go to 12 teams) but I’m guessing any A5 conference would argue that it should get paid like the others from the CFP. There are also some voting rights and things, but mostly it’s CFP money.
LikeLike
Also, why would anyone care about autonomy status?
Autonomy status gives them the right to set certain rules for themselves outside of the usual NCAA bureaucracy. You can Google it. This is something they desperately wanted.
LikeLike
It will be very interesting to see what decision making structure and revenue split the B1G and SEC are willing to agree to. Do they view the B12 and ACC as voting and equals or will they flex for a system that includes a Power 2, Middle 2, and Other 5? Where will the ND vote end up in the pecking order?
LikeLike
It has been clear for quite some time that the so-called Power Five were not true peers. The Big Ten and the SEC have been careful not to flaunt their superiority too much, lest they invite regulatory intervention. That is why Greg Sankey agreed to the 6+6 model, knowing full well that in a “Best 12” model he might get more of his teams in.
So I think the Power Two will continue to treat the B12 and the ACC as “equals”. The fact that they’re unequal doesn’t need to be said out loud. The B12 and ACC know perfectly well that the P2’s generosity has limits, and they’d best not press their “equality” too far.
LikeLike
Remember all the chatter about the August 15 deadline for schools to leave the ACC for the 2024 season? That’s today.
FSU is talking tough, but they apparently do not have a solid enough exit strategy to actually do it. It could be that Swofford and/or ESPN committed fraud, but it would take years in court to prove that, during which their media rights would be tied up in knots. And then, what if they lose?
LikeLike
According to SI’s Pat Forde, multiple ACC sources told Sports Illustrated they would not be shocked if the Seminoles serve formal notice of a 2025 move in a matter of days or weeks. This would give FSU two years to work out a settlement (or to fight it in court) before joining another conference. FSU and Clemson are said to be “very connected,” although Clemson has not been as vocal publicly about their dissatisfaction.
The article also mentions that Stanford, Cal, and SMU are not done trying to get into the ACC. High-powered supporters like Condoleeza Rice and even George W. Bush are lobbying UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham. Currently there are four votes against adding those two schools. At least one needs to change their mind. If you figure that FSU and Clemson are unmovable, and that NC State wouldn’t separate from its big sister school, then it all comes down to UNC.
I still think any departures from the ACC before 2030 are highly unlikely—I am just passing it along. For now, the Seminoles are probably just agitating for a higher share of revenue. After 2030, the costs of leaving start to become more manageable. As of today, FSU would be on the hook for a $120m exit fee plus the loss of all their media rights through 2036 if they can’t get get out of the GOR.
LikeLike
FSU can agitate all they want, but if they’re signaling they’re leaving anyway, the rest of the ACC has zero incentive to give FSU more.
LikeLike
I have had the same feeling. If the other schools think FSU is leaving no matter what, then why throw money away in an attempt to appease them?
Maybe the more interesting case is UNC, which is more motivated to keep the ACC together.
LikeLike
It’s hard to have much sympathy for FSU squealing about the ACC 20-year Grant of Rights. Listen to the President of FSU in 2013, encouraging other ACC colleges to sign the grant of rights:
“Eric J. Barron, president of Florida State University, stated that the grant (of rights) would “ensure that the conference will strengthen its position of leadership among Division I athletics”, and stated that “we are also very pleased that we will be moving forward on the next phase of developing an ACC network.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACC_Network
Now, I think most of us would agree that signing a 20-year GOR is ill-conceived, especially in consideration that the average college president is in office less than six years. The mentality seems to be that it will be someone else’s problem ten or twenty years from now, and indeed it is. Eric Barron retired the 2014.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/college-presidents-are-less-experienced-than-ever-and-eyeing-the-exit#:~:text=The%20average%20tenure%20of%20the,and%208.5%20years%20in%202006.
LikeLike
I live in the Raleigh/Chapel Hill area and the consensus in the local media seems to be FSU should just stop whining and improve the product on the field. When they were winning every ACC game and ending the year ranked top 3 a certain amount of yapping and flexing may have been justified. That was a very long time ago.
Two things that don’t seem to be getting enough coverage. First, Disney may be for sale and at the least is likely shopping ABC and/or ESPN. Not really a sellers market if Fox and NBC are tapped out and Apple is offering streaming only deals. Disney has zero incentive to spend more for FSU, Clemson, etc.
Second, if FSU needs to pay $120M plus $200M+ to buy their way out of the GOR, would it make sense to just find a way to drive all that money into football directly? Why spend years trying to get an extra $300M in TV revenue from the B1G or SEC, when you will likely have to spend about the same amount to get out of the ACC. Seems like a wash in the near term.
LikeLike
I think Eric Barron sincerely believed that signing the GOR was in FSU’s long-term interests. I doubt he acted differently because he knew he wouldn’t be around at the end of it. University presidents are smart about a lot of things, but not necessarily about sports business.
We all know now that it was a swindle, but that wasn’t so clear at the time. I thought it was a mistake from Day One, but I didn’t see the numbers they saw. Turning it down has risks too. The Pac-12 has shown that if you turn down the deal in hand, the next offer could be a lot worse.
LikeLike
Marc: “I think Eric Barron sincerely believed that signing the GOR was in FSU’s long-term interests . . .”
I agree, I think he was sincere. The disconcerting aspect was the 20-year time frame. A ten-year GOR would have been something to balk at. Hard to believe that John Swofford couldn’t have gotten a shorter deal with RayCom in his back pocket.
LikeLike
The disconcerting aspect was the 20-year time frame.
This. In my 40 years in business, my experience is that there are very few investments in any industry that require a 20-year payback. It can sometimes be justified for long-lasting assets in mature, slowly-changing fields like railroads and utilities. But in media, nobody knows what will happen in 20 years. Even five years out is highly uncertain.
So when ESPN said, “We can’t fund a network unless we have 20-year certainty,” that was a huge red flag to me. I cannot believe their internal models required 20 years. That tells me it was a terrible investment, or they were pulling a fast one.
LikeLike
Marc:
Actually, it told me that they held leverage over the ACC.
The ACC took a short-term gain at the cost of FSU and Clemson’s long-term pain.
Though from the perspective of the WFU’s and BC’s in the ACC, that’s actually a wonderful trade.
LikeLike
I did a little analysis of the 2023 B10 slate given what we know (TV picks for the first week have already been set, several other TV & all Peacock selections have been announced, and there was a leak of the rest of NBC’s purported B10 TV selections).
Assuming that all king-king games would be picked over all king-prince games which would be picked over all king-peon and prince-prince games, it looks like:
Fox got the top 3 overall picks (I believe they will get all the games between OSU, UMich, and PSU).
NBC and CBS share the next 6 overall picks (as CBS will carry only a half-slate in 2023, NBC will get 4 of the king-prince games, including all 3 MSU-king games and CBS 2 king-prince games).
Fox gets half of the next tier of games (king-peon and prince-prince games) while NBC and CBS split the other half of that tier.
This divving up of games goes all the way down the line so NBC and CBS also end up stuck with some peon vs peon games. That + NBC putting some of its better selections on Peacock means NBC will broadcast Charlotte@UMD , Syracuse@Purdue, and UIUC@PU while CBS will broadcast Northwestern@RU.
This makes it look like NBC and CBS overpaid for the B10 vis-a-vis Fox. The only way this makes sense is if CBS and NBS will indeed get all of the top-3-worthy games of the LA schools even when they travel east (as well as when they play at home). The LA schools may still appear on FS1* or Fox After Dark or on Fox/FS1 Friday night in non-top-3-worthy games or on Fox in the afternoon or primetime after a trade, but they may never appear on Big Noon on Fox.
*Especially since, as Fox has FS1 games and may want to put them in primetime while NBC has Peacock games and may want to put them on at noon, there’s plenty of opportunity to make deals and horsetrade.
The bright side for some B1o folks may be that as UMich-MSU will almost always be a top-3 overall pick of games that don’t involve LA schools (since it’s likely that OSU-PSU and UMich-PSU won’t take place every year after 2023), UMich-MSU will likely always be a Big Noon game. I know some folks would rather have that game at noon than at night after some fans have already been drinking the whole day.
LikeLike
Though it still does work out to Fox getting the top pick in about half the weeks and CBS and NBC getting the top pick in a quarter of the weeks each.
Taking a stab at the draft order of games, it may be:
Top 3 overall picks of picks: Fox (but no LA schools)
Next 6 overall picks of picks: CBS & NBC (3 each)
Next 12 picks of picks: Fox (but no LA schools)
Next N number of picks: CBS & NBC
I have heard a report stating that Fox got the first several overall picks and another report that Fox got 70% of the top picks. Yet NBC and CBS added together definitely paid more than Fox (justifiable only if they each total about 65mm viewers over 15 games while Fox totals about 75mm viewers).
If this is the draft order, Fox does get the first few picks as well as over 70% of the top 21 picks but CBS and NBC get a third each of the top 9 picks. And maybe CBS and NBC will get pretty much all the good games that USC will play in as well.
LikeLike
Thinking about it some more (honestly too much), recall that Fox paid $500mm for half the B10 games, then the B10 managed to add the LA schools and NBC and CBS paid $350mm each for the rest. Which means NBC and CBS were probably promised first dibs for all games featuring the LA schools.
So taking another stab at it, starting in 2024, my guess at the order of picks:
First 4 overall picks: Fox (but no games with LA schools)
Next 8 overall picks: NBC and CBS (but no UO or UW home games)
Next 15 overall picks: Fox (but no games with LA schools)
Next 22 overall picks: NBC and CBS (but no UO or UW home games)
Next 11 overall picks: Fox
NBC will show in the last 1-2 weeks of primetime USC-UCLA & ND@USC. In the 2 weeks before that, NBC will get a choice each week for prime 2 games of CST/PNW@USC/UCLA, with the game not chosen by NBC going on Fox/FS1 After Dark.
UO and UW will play most of their home conference slate After Dark or Friday night (shown by Fox/FS1).
If the B10 can get everyone to agree to allow them to play Week Zero, each season will start with 2 blockbusters played in the PNW:
OSU/UMich/PSU/MSU@UO/UW on Th night and Sat primetime (though possibly some time Sunday as well) on Week Zero on Fox.
LikeLike
Actually, even better:
Each season will start with 2 blockbusters played in the PNW:
OSU/UMich/PSU/USC@UO/UW on Th night and Sat primetime (though possibly some time Sunday as well) on Week Zero on Fox.
LikeLike
First 4 overall picks: Fox (but no games with LA schools)
…
Next 22 overall picks: NBC and CBS (but no UO or UW home games)
…
UO and UW will play most of their home conference slate After Dark or Friday night (shown by Fox/FS1).
I find this very difficult to believe. For starters, I think you’ve misstated the sequence of events. The Big Ten was already in negotiation to sell the package three ways: Fox, NBC, CBS. Then they added the LA schools, and the price went up for everyone.
I’ve seen no reporting that CBS/NBC paid the full freight to add the LA schools, and therefore are entitled to all of their games. Of course, you are right that Fox will show them less often because most of the Fox games are at 12:00 ET on Saturdays. But that doesn’t mean never.
Even though UO and UW are getting half-shares, it’s still a huge amount of money: hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the deal. It’s inconceivable that Fox is paying for this exclusively, so that it can show their games only at the worst imaginable times.
And do you think UW and UO were told that from now on they’d never play at home on a Saturday afternoon? When Michigan visits Oregon, you think they’re going to show that on Friday night or after dark? No, it’s going to be on Saturday on either CBS or NBC.
LikeLike
I suppose we’ll find out over the coming years.
And it’s not _never_ for the PNW 2. Only for the duration of the current TV contract. Though it is true that viewership reach is more limited for the After Dark timeslot. So most of their conference home games may be Friday instead (with only 1 home conference game vs a EST peon like RU/UMD/IU/PU Sat afternoon on FS1 & 1 home conference game vs a CST peon like UIUC/NU/UMTC in the After Dark timeslot). I suppose we’ll see if Fox manages to sublicense a Friday night package to someone (Amazon?) anchored by a lot of UO & UW home games.
Oh, and as I mentioned, UMich@UO (any King@UO/UW game) may/would (if the B10 gets its druthers) be 1 of 2 King@UO/UW games that highlight the kickoff of the season Week Zero. They could be Th night, Friday night (potentially kicking off an Amazon package?), Sat afternoon/primetime, or possibly Sunday (primetime?)
BTW, the reason I got to thinking that NBC and CBS actually paid for and got first dibs on all the games the LA schools will play was because of a Chip Kelly interview:
https://www.si.com/college/ucla/football/ucla-football-chip-kelly-talks-game-scheduling-strategy-amid-big-10-move-rks97
“So, if we go to play an East Coast team in the Big 10 a year from now, they told us we won’t play any games before 12:30 our time, so it would be a 3:30 kick for them so we’ll stay on our same time schedule because we would leave on Friday, play a game on Saturday 12 noon for us, 3 for them then get on a plane and come back.”
So it looks like the LA schools will never appear on Big Noon.
Finally, the sequence of events was: The B10 sold their TV package to Fox back in April 2022 (it turns out half of the picks for about $500mm/year) then the LA schools were added in the summer of 2022 and CBS and NBC signed on for $350mm each while not getting the top X number of overall picks and only 30% of the top Y number of picks. I can’t imagine that they paid more for worse picks unless they’re getting exclusive first dibs on the LA schools (USC, specifically):
https://www.cornnation.com/2022/4/20/23033111/sbj-big-ten-renewing-tv-deal-with-fox-other-networkss-still-to-be-determined
LikeLike
And it’s not _never_ for the PNW 2. Only for the duration of the current TV contract.
Yes, that was how I interpreted your comment — “never” for the life of the deal. I cannot imagine them doing something so monumentally stupid as confining two of their best programs to the worst time slots for the entire season. “We joined the Big Ten and now we can never play on Saturday afternoons” (Pacific time).
So it looks like the LA schools will never appear on Big Noon.
I read that Chip Kelly comment, and I agree it suggests the LA schools will never be on Big Noon. But that doesn’t mean never on Fox, which does occasionally have games at other times: e.g., Nebraska @Minnesota on Thursday night 8/31.
LikeLike
I agree that the LA schools will definitely appear on Fox/FS1 sometimes, though I still believe NBC and CBS have first dibs on their best games.
And I would note that the B10 now has a ton of great inventory with 4 kings and 7 princes so UO and UW actually aren’t among the B10’s best ratings draws (OK, you can argue that UO is in the 5th-8th range with UNL, MSU, and Bucky, but UW is more like 11th).
It’s so much great inventory that virtually no prince-peon games will be top-3 picks*.
*Caveat is that NBC sometimes puts its top-3 pick on Peacock and shows a much worse game on NBC.
The most valuable games are the ones where OSU/UMich play anybody, PSU/USC vs royalty, and prince-prince games.
When UO/UW play away, they are eligible for being a top 3 pick, and (if the B10 gets its way) the king@UO/UW games will be highlighted Week Zero games.
That leaves roughly 2 prince-prince games (UCLA/UNL/MSU/Iowa/Bucky@UO/UW that may be pushed to a worse time slot instead of being a top-3 pick like most other prince-prince games.
Still, UCLA/UNL/Iowa/Bucky@UO/UW could go on Fox After Dark and that’s still a broadcast channel.
LikeLike
Actually, Mark, I forgot about FS1 and BTN.
So a bunch of those prince/peon@UO/UW games may/probably will end up on FS1 or BTN.
One USC/UCLA@UO/UW game may end up on FS1 too.
In which case they wouldn’t have to go on After Dark or Friday night.
Though note that UO and UW currently already play about 2 After Dark games at home and 0-1 Friday games at home a year, so that wouldn’t be anything out of the ordinary for them.
LikeLike
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/executive-leadership/2023/08/15/cast-out-12-years-ago-nebraska-seeks-return-aau
NE’s current president wants to push to get NE back in the AAU.
University of Nebraska system President Ted Carter stepped into his role on Jan. 1, 2020, nearly a decade after UNL left the AAU. But since then, he’s been thinking about a return to the AAU, raising the subject first in private conversations and more recently, in public.
In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Carter pointed out that Nebraska was one of the first 20 institutions to join the AAU.
“Every public or private institution in the country should say that AAU membership matters,” he said. “It’s not only a show of what your institution can do in terms of competing for research funding and influencing policy, but it’s a statement to faculty as well as our students that we want to be part of the what I would say is the best of the best.”
Carter also said he’s had conversations with the new UNL chancellor, Rodney Bennett—who oversaw the rise of the University of Southern Mississippi from an R2 to an R1 institution—about regaining AAU membership. Both are eager to see Nebraska find a path back to the organization.
Now Nebraska is working on a plan that will include reporting research expenditures from UNL, its flagship campus in Lincoln, in tandem with the University of Nebraska Medical Center located in Omaha. Currently, Carter said, Nebraska ranks 117th nationally for federal research and development dollars. But changing the organizational structure to combine R&D reporting would bump Nebraska to 66th.
“There’s nothing that doesn’t allow us to have the type of institutional control to make our research capabilities between our Med Center and our flagship be reported as a single entity. And that’s effectively what we’re doing,” Carter said.
The nascent plan also focuses on making Nebraska more competitive for federal research dollars, particularly from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
“We need to bring the culture of how we compete for federal funding money to another level,” Carter said.
The president had hoped to make moves toward regaining AAU membership earlier but said enrollment challenges and the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic a few months into his tenure forced Nebraska to play defense. Now the system is going back on offense, Carter said.
“A lot of people are asking the question, ‘Is it really just about joining the AAU?’ I would first point out that we don’t get to determine that; the AAU will decide if we will be invited back. So there should be nobody that questions that we want to be the best set of institutions that we can be, and to go after this is more than aspirational. This is about knowing how to make yourself better,” he said.
Though he doesn’t have a timeline for Nebraska’s return to the AAU, Carter is optimistic. He said plans for an administrative realignment would be presented to the university’s Board of Regents by Dec. 31. For now, details about the path back to the AAU are still being finalized for approval.
LikeLike
This will be a bloody process. I watched it play out at Ohio State. Basically you have to replace the entire faculty. Changing the culture means changing the faculty. All the new hires and all the promotions have to be given to dedicated, energetic researchers. Nothing else really matters.
The change over will take 30 years, because the tenured faculty can wait you out, and they will retire when they want to.
Another big problem will be NE’s degree of commitment to DEI. DEI criteria are opposed to merit criteria, and they will inhibit the needed hires and promotions.
LikeLike
Is UNL very committed to DEI? NE is a red state.
And I agree with you.
LikeLike
DEI programs at universities are being slashed across the nation. Ditto industries. Aftershock of the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/14/us/colleges-diversity-equity-inclusion-higher-education-cec/index.html
LikeLike
Although NE is a red state, college campuses are often a lot more liberal than the state as a whole. Texas would be a blue state if only Austin’s votes counted.
LikeLike
Democrats don’t really present much of a challenge to Republicans statewide in Nebraska. The Republican establishment doesn’t need to fight every battle in the culture war. That may change if the Pillen/Ricketts establishment loses influence to the MAGA right, but I haven’t seen much movement to ban it.
FWIW, as a Nebraska regent, current Gov. Pillen tried to introduce a CRT ban in 2021 to burnish his conservative “street cred” before running for Governor. It failed.
LikeLike
Now Nebraska is working on a plan that will include reporting research expenditures from UNL, its flagship campus in Lincoln, in tandem with the University of Nebraska Medical Center located in Omaha. Currently, Carter said, Nebraska ranks 117th nationally for federal research and development dollars. But changing the organizational structure to combine R&D reporting would bump Nebraska to 66th.
“There’s nothing that doesn’t allow us to have the type of institutional control to make our research capabilities between our Med Center and our flagship be reported as a single entity. And that’s effectively what we’re doing,” Carter said.
Nebraska will get back into the AAU via accounting tricks.
LikeLike
Mike: “Nebraska will get back into the AAU via accounting tricks.”
Well, it might be accounting tricks but bear in mind that the AAU doesn’t count agricultural research. Seems asinine and is probably a reflection of the Eastern snob schools trying to keep their academic club elitist. Bear in mind the AAU does consider ‘research’ in crap like the humanities, immigration, climate change and finance.
https://www.aau.edu/key-issues
LikeLike
I know. Its still an “accounting trick” to take research done by a completely separate school and assign it to a school 60 miles away.
LikeLike
The AAU’s criteria are totally up to them. UNL is being totally above-board about how they are doing it. The AAU can decide whether it “counts” or not.
With that said, there are many schools with campuses that are spread out like that, some I am sure greater than 60 miles. If the university decides it is all one school, the AAU apparently accepts it.
LikeLike
I would not call it accounting tricks for the state university trying to get credit or a state medical school.
It happened after Rutgers was already AAU, but the State of NJ put two medical schools back under RU control not that many years ago. I say back since they were part of RU, then the politicians saw how much graft they could get if the med schools were independent (such as $200,000 no show jobs.) Finally the stench got so bad, the whole thing was reversed and the med schools rejoined Rutgers.
By the way, Rutgers does huge amount of ag research. NJ is, after all, “The Garden State”. Many different varieties of fruits and veggys came from the Ag School research.
LikeLike
No Gonzaga or UConn for the B12, at leats for now.
LikeLike
Certainly an A+ for candor. Conferences don’t usually acknowledge prospects that were considered but not acted upon.
LikeLike
Worthwhile article in the L.A. Times: Inside the Pac-12 collapse: Four surprising moments that crushed the conference.
Notable bits (not previously reported elsewhere):
When Kliavkoff brought the league ESPN’s offer of $30m per school, one of the presidents consulted with a professor who opined that the schools were worth $50m. What’s interesting is not the figure itself (which we already knew), but the fact that one professor at one school was responsible for it.
After UCLA announced it was leaving, Kliavkoff “was deeply engaged with a small group of regents about the framework of a deal that would lead to the regents voting to block UCLA’s move.” The regents told him that if he could guarantee that UCLA would make at least $52m per year, they would vote to keep the Bruins in the Pac-12.
Kliavkoff presented this deal, but the Oregon interim president quickly shut it down. They would all have had to sign a grant of rights with no deal in hand. If Kliavkoff landed anything less than $52m per school, they’d all be responsible for making UCLA whole (and also covering a $15m breakup fee with the Big Ten).
You can criticize the presidents for many things, but in this case they got it right. Even with UCLA in the fold, they weren’t going to get anywhere near $52m per school.
LikeLike
Yes you can blame the Pac presidents/chancellors for many things.
Such as believing 1 ivory-tower professor rather than media professionals who have experience with media deals.
They. Are. So. Braindead.
LikeLike
Marc: “When Kliavkoff brought the league ESPN’s offer of $30m per school, one of the presidents consulted with a professor who opined that the schools were worth $50m.”
Isn’t Notre Dame making the same mistake? Their new TV deal with NBC hasn’t been finalized but the Domer mentality seems to be “If the Big Ten schools are worth $60 million each then ND is worth the same.”
It isn’t. In 2024, ND will be playing against a vastly improved Big Ten and SEC schedule every week. And the Big Ten may be at a ten-game conference schedule by then. Bear in mind that ND on NBC has nothing at all for half the season and the other seven weeks will show this:
Nothern Illinois
Miami of OH
Louisville
Stanford
FSU
Virginia
Miami of FL
And don’t forget that ND on NBC has lost 45% of its viewers since the previous TV deal was signed in 2012.
LikeLike
Isn’t Notre Dame making the same mistake? Their new TV deal with NBC hasn’t been finalized but the Domer mentality seems to be “If the Big Ten schools are worth $60 million each then ND is worth the same.”
The Pac-12 detonated their whole conference on the advice of a nameless professor who had no known experience with sports media. So no, whatever happens to Notre Dame, it is not the same mistake. And of course, if Notre Dame is wrong, nothing is detonated; they just make do with less money for now, until they decide whether to live with it or join a conference for real.
Bear in mind that your $60m figure is currently spread across 14 schools: Rutgers and Purdue get the same as Ohio State and Michigan. Notre Dame is one of the most valuable sports brands in the world, but their schedule strength has deteriorated. If you regard those factors as offsetting, it’s not implausible that they are worth approximately the same as an average Big Ten team — which is all they are asking for.
Multiple media reports have said that Notre Dame’s expectations are not out of line. That doesn’t mean they’ll get exactly $60m, but they are not 70% off the market, as the Pac-12 was.
NBC has repeatedly passed on the chance to bid on other properties so that they could keep Notre Dame. They’ve said publicly that they would like the relationship to continue “forever”. In contrast, ESPN was not especially motivated to keep the Pac-12. There are also multiple reports that ND and NBC are talking about strengthening the schedule. To the extent this is the crux of your argument, it is premature.
LikeLike
Minor detail. Rutgers does not get an equal share until 2027, due to the loans being repaid to the B1G. I think that until 2027, RU will at least $10 million behind each year. What I find interesting about that is all of the bloggers saying how RU gets more money than FSU and a few other schools. Not true but will be soon,
I also do not believe that Maryland gets a full share yet either. I have not found info reported on the UMd situation, but I think it is still a little while.
LikeLike
I thought the RU loans were still being negotiated with Petitti, or was that resolved?
LikeLike
Minor detail. Rutgers does not get an equal share until 2027, due to the loans being repaid to the B1G.
I would call it “receiving a full share, a portion of which is used to repay loans.”
LikeLike
Marc, OK that is a fair characterization. My main point was how frequently bloggers/journalists kick the RU football when they are down by claiming that they are getting more money than other schools, which is inaccurate, though due to loans.
As far as the negotiation with Petiti, that was a story for a week or two, but I am not even sure if it was real. Certainly, I have not heard anything about that in months. Maybe the new $7-$8 billion dollar contracts soothed any open “wounds” with RU and UMd.
Look RU was thrilled to get what it got. It is widely stated that RU was the single biggest winner of the realignment lottery. AAC v B1G? Yup the biggest winner. If they asked for more, I would presume that it was a humble request with fingers crossed behind their backs.
LikeLike
Bernie, I fully agree. And what happened to the Rutgers AD who moved Rutgers from the AAC to the Big Ten? Rutgers fired him.
LikeLike
Marc: “. . . they (ND) are worth approximately the same as an average Big Ten team . . .”
That isn’t true, it’s fuzzy math. The TV value of an Iowa or a Michigan State in itself isn’t much. Those schools earn their money from the large numbers of TV viewers who watch Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State and soon to include USC/Wash/Oregon.
The quality of football on Fox/CBS and ESPN/ABC that is playing against ND on NBC at 2:30 will improve dramatically in 2024. Even if the Irish improve their schedule, they will nonetheless be playing against the likes of Ohio State/Washington plus Texas/Tennessee at noon and USC/Penn State plus LSU/Georgia at 3:30.
Another factor, viewers for ND football have dropped almost in half in the past ten years and attendance at Catholic Mass has dropped by the same amount during that decade, 50%. We are becoming a more secular nation and there simply aren’t as many brain-washed subway alunmi as there were in the 20th Century.
If ND improves their home schedule it will help somewhat but not enough to negate these other factors. The number of viewers watching ND football will continue to drop and the market value of ND home football will diminish accordingly.
LikeLike
If ND improves their home schedule it will help somewhat but not enough to negate these other factors. The number of viewers watching ND football will continue to drop and the market value of ND home football will diminish accordingly.
You forgot to add, “Period.” As you did when you advised us that the Big Ten would for sure not expand again in our lifetimes.
LikeLike
Isn’t Notre Dame making the same mistake? Their new TV deal with NBC hasn’t been finalized but the Domer mentality seems to be “If the Big Ten schools are worth $60 million each then ND is worth the same.”
No. The guy negotiating the deal for NBC is going to be ND’s next AD. He’s not going to put himself in a bad position before he takes the job. It will be a “market rate” deal his bosses will sign off on. He won’t be low balling the Irish.
LikeLike
Mike: “The guy negotiating the deal for NBC is going to be ND’s next AD.”
I don’t think you understand the situation. Future ND AD Pete Bevacqua is no longer at NBC Sports. He’s now parked in some admin job at ND until Swarbrick retires. So ND’s former insider at NBC is no longer with the network and he will be negotiating the new TV contract from the Domer side, not the NBC side.
“University of Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., announced today that Peter Bevacqua, a 1993 alumnus, chairman of NBC Sports and a highly regarded leader and innovator in the world of sports, will succeed Jack Swarbrick as vice president and James E. Rohr Director of Athletics when he steps down in 2024. Bevacqua will join the University on July 1 in the role of Special Assistant to the President for Athletics, benefiting from the mentorship of Swarbrick before he assumes leadership of the athletics department sometime in the first quarter of 2024.”
https://news.nd.edu/news/nbc-sports-chairman-pete-bevacqua-to-succeed-jack-swarbrick-to-become-notre-dames-13th-athletics-director-in-2024/
LikeLike
There are other issues with NBC Sports. Peacock lost over $700 million in the first quarter of this year. The Beijing Olympics were a disaster and NBC is stuck with the Olympic Games until 2032. In summary, the assumption that NBC is now going to pony up whatever ND wants to stay even with the Big Ten and SEC is specious.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/nbcuniversal-revenues-fall-peacocks-loss-top-704m-in-first-quarter-1235403057/
https://sports.yahoo.com/nbc-won-t-profit-beijing-175504944.html#:~:text=The%20last%20two%20Olympics%20that,sales%20haul%20of%20%241.25%20billion.
LikeLike
I don’t think you understand the situation. Future ND AD Pete Bevacqua is no longer at NBC Sports. He’s now parked in some admin job at ND until Swarbrick retires. So ND’s former insider at NBC is no longer with the network and he will be negotiating the new TV contract from the Domer side, not the NBC side.
Sorry I thought he was still there for a while longer. However, PB is not taking the ND job if there was any chance of ND not getting a competitive TV deal. He didn’t become AD to sign a 20 million dollar Apple TV streaming deal or to go into the Big Ten in his first year as AD. He didn’t become AD to be ND’s Kliavkoff. He knows what NBC’s priorities are and how much they’ll pay.
There are other issues with NBC Sports.
Not renewing a profitable property would add to them.
Mike, more to the point: Can you imagine a more egregious conflict-of-interest than the Chairman of NBC Sports negotiating the new ND contract after he had been hired as the new AD at ND?
Could I? Yes. He’s got bosses. I’m sure NBC could figure out if it was a good deal or not.
Honest to God, that would even be more outrageous than Chad Swofford, Gofer For RayCom, setting up the 20-yr GOR for the ACC, of which his daddy was commish.
John Swofford’s son worked for RayCom and the ACC carved out a package for them. It wasn’t a secret and yet Every ACC president signed off on that deal. The GOR was extended because the ACC wanted more money and a cable network and ESPN would only give it to them with an extension of their contract.
LikeLike
Mike: “Not renewing a profitable property would add to them (NBC’s problems).”
Future profitability is indeed the issue that I am questioning. NBC has been paying ND $22 million/yr. Now ND wants TRIPLE that amount, $60 – $70 million/yr for exactly the same product. Also bear in mind that NBC will be paying the Big Ten $350 million/yr starting in 2024, an expense that they did not previously have.
I don’t think ND is joining a conference nor do I believe that NBC will drop Irish football. But why should the network pay three times as much for something that is steadily losing viewers? If NBC tells ND that they’ll double the payout, $44 million/yr, will ND reject it and start looking for another broadcast partner?
Marc and I have gone around and around on this. He believes fat new TV deals for the Big Ten and SEC means that ND football is worth more too. I think the enhanced game inventory of those conferences means that ND football is worth less in the marketplace.
https://247sports.com/article/notre-dame-football-nbc-college-football-media-games-tv-rights-deals-money-213237109/
LikeLike
With the $17M ND is getting from the ACC a NBC contract of $44M would put them north of $60M. The B1G/SEC media deals are for all sports so not apples to apples.
LikeLike
Little8: “With the $17M ND is getting from the ACC a NBC contract of $44M would put them north of $60M. The B1G/SEC media deals are for all sports so not apples to apples.”
But that is not what is happening. ND wants $60-$70 million/yr from NBC. The text from the article that I linked is copied below and that is clearly what it says. Bear in mind the payout that the Big Ten is getting from Fox/CBS/NBC does not include the Big Ten Network, so it actually is pretty much apples to apples.
“NBC wants Notre Dame, but the Fighting Irish want substantially more money to remain partners with the network. The question is whether the price tag will be too high for the two parties to continue a long-standing relationship that began in 1991. The university is expected to seek a multi-year contract that will triple its current payout, increasing to a yearly total between $65 million and $75 million, according to Front Office Sports. NBC currently pays Notre Dame $22 million per year.”
LikeLike
Future profitability is indeed the issue that I am questioning. NBC has been paying ND $22 million/yr. Now ND wants TRIPLE that amount, $60 – $70 million/yr for exactly the same product. Also bear in mind that NBC will be paying the Big Ten $350 million/yr starting in 2024, an expense that they did not previously have.
I have no idea what they will get. I’m sure PB has a very good idea, and that number is good for ND. Otherwise he wouldn’t have taken the job. We don’t know how profitable ND football is to NBC. The increase in rights fees may or may not make a huge dent in profitability. We do know that NBC signed the Big Ten for “shoulder programming” for ND football, so its likely profitable and important to NBC.
Marc and I have gone around and around on this. He believes fat new TV deals for the Big Ten and SEC means that ND football is worth more too. I think the enhanced game inventory of those conferences means that ND football is worth less in the marketplace.
You could be right. However, NBC, CBS, FOX, and ABC/ESPN all would make room in their schedules for ND. That will drive the price up.
LikeLike
Mike: “I have no idea what they will get. I’m sure PB has a very good idea, and that number is good for ND.”
I actually question that PB has much input into this. Pete’s replacement as Chairman of NBC Sports hasn’t been chosen yet although there is a short list of six candidates (link below). I imagine the new Chair will negotiate the ND contract.
I looked up the bio of each of the six and there ain’t a Domer in the group. They are graduates of, in sequence, Stanford, Michigan, Northwestern, Georgetown, Providence and Winthrop.
LikeLike
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2016/06/20/new-deals-with-fox-espn-and-cbs-nearly-triple-big-ten-television-revenue/?sh=41ab17a823e2
The B10 rights almost tripled in 2016.
Despite cost cutting in recent months, SportsBusiness Daily is reporting that ESPN will pay an average of $190 million per year over the next six years for half of the Big Ten’s media rights package.
Fox already committed $240 million over the same time period for the other half of the Big Ten’s media rights, securing the conference football championship game and the advantage when it comes to choosing games.
CBS will also renew its basketball-only package at $10 million annually through 2023. As part of that agreement, CBS will retain the conference basketball tournament semis and the championship game.
The three deals together, along with Big Ten Network’s rights through 2031-32, tie up the Big Ten’s media rights for the next six years and nearly triples the conference’s revenue from television.
ESPN’s last deal with the Big Ten was signed in 2006 for $100 million annually, a figure which increased to $150 million annually this year to cover the addition of Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers to the conference.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2022/08/18/Media/Big-Ten-Media-Deal.aspx
The B10 rights almost tripled in the new deal.
The conference in its previous media rights deals with Fox and ESPN was making $440 million per year, meaning the new deals will provide the Big Ten with nearly a three-times increase starting with the 2023-24 season and going through the 2029-30 fiscal year.
ND’s current deal is 10 years long and was signed in 2013, but started in 2016. The B10 right have nearly tripled twice since then (so grown by a factor of 7-8 times). Part of that is expansion, but most isn’t.
ND looking to jump from $26M (about where they are now – $22M was the average over the deal) to $50-60M isn’t crazy. Add in the $11M from the ACC, and they match the B10/SEC TV payouts.
LikeLike
Brian: “ND looking to jump from $26M (about where they are now – $22M was the average over the deal) to $50-60M isn’t crazy.”
True, it isn’t crazy and I never said that ND won’t get that much. My argument is that ND home football isn’t worth that much due to the host of factors that I cited: 45% decline in viewers, pathetic home schedule, greatly enhanced game inventory in B1G and SEC, fewer subway alumni, etc.
Grocery stores have loss leaders every week and NBC may decide to pony up for ND football for the same reason. Nonetheless, the VALUE of ND home football games, as determined by viewership and ad sales and traditional marketing metrics, is less and has been declining for years.
LikeLike
Colin:
As others have noted, the cost per viewer had gone up quite a bit.
One aspect you seem not to have noticed is that the previous ND-NBC deal was a very sweet and profitable one for NBC. It essentially assumed that ND would not be a Top-25 team and would pull in poor ratings for pretty much the entirety of the ND-NBC deal, so there was only upside for NBC (and NBC did capture a ton of upside some years). The Domers seemed to have been fine with that just to preserve their special relationship with and coverage by NBC (and thus independence).
So NBC paying $50-60mm/year to ND in the new deal (which is what I believe the Domers will get) is a perfectly reasonable expectation. It may be a slightly worse deal for NBC but would still be a pretty good one, and that type of money + the ACC payout will definitely be enough for ND to keep being independent.
LikeLike
Richard: “One aspect you seem not to have noticed is that the previous ND-NBC deal was a very sweet and profitable one for NBC. It essentially assumed that ND would not be a Top-25 team and would pull in poor ratings for pretty much the entirety of the ND-NBC deal, so there was only upside for NBC (and NBC did capture a ton of upside some years).”
Actually, the polar opposite is true. In 2012, ND was 12-0 in regular season and went to the NC playoff. When extending the ND TV contract in 2013, NBC said “”Coming off one of Notre Dame’s best and most dramatic seasons in decades, we could not be more proud to extend this historic partnership, which continues to be one of the most innovative in sports-media history,” NBC Sports Group chairman Mark Lazarus said in a statement. “We are particularly excited that this extension offers enhanced rights that allow us to bring Notre Dame football to fans on more platforms than ever before.”
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/9186897/nbc-extends-notre-dame-fighting-irish-football-deal-2025
LikeLike
Colin:
???
Nothing in those quotes contradicts NBC getting a sweet deal from ND last time around.
ND brought in a ton of viewers and NBC didn’t pay that much for it.
LikeLike
Richard: “Nothing in those quotes contradicts NBC getting a sweet deal from ND last time around. ND brought in a ton of viewers and NBC didn’t pay that much for it.”
True but now ND football on NBC has lost 48% of its viewers and the Domers want three times as much money for it.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2021/11/29.aspx
LikeLike
ND football on NBC has lost 48% of its viewers and the Domers want three times as much money for it.
You’re cherry-picking one particularly bad year. It’s true that 2021 was down 48% from 2020. But this year the Irish get both USC and Ohio State in South Bend, and both are currently top 10 teams.
As I mentioned upthread, the ND have said that they and NBC have discussed improving the schedule, which the Irish are open to. In the 12-team playoff, ND no longer needs an undefeated regular season to make the field.
Richard is right: NBC got a very good deal, and that was years ago. ND’s rights will go up because all sports rights go up. The only question is by how much.
LikeLike
No, I’m not cherry-picking one year. I’m talking about average number of viewers on NBC for ND home games since 2012. Here’s the numbers:
2012 – 4.6 M
2013 – 3.3 M
2014 – 3.2 M
2015 – 2.9 M
2016 – 2.8 M
2017 – 2.7 M
2018 – 3.4 M
2019 – 2.1 M
2020 – 4.8 M (Covid year, all ACC, 5 home games)
2021 – 2.5 M
2022 – 2.4 M
https://thesportsdespatch.com/notre-dame-fighting-irish-tv-ratings-since-2012
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2021/11/29.aspx
https://www.on3.com/teams/notre-dame-fighting-irish/news/notre-dame-football-tv-numbers-viewership-abc-nbc-ohio-state-usc-2022-fighting-irish/
LikeLike
Colin:
Even if NBC assumes only a 2.0mm average (which would be lower than the average for any year you listed), 7 games controlled by NBC, and $4/viewer (which is the rate Fox is paying the B10 in its new TV contract), that’s 2X7X4 = $56mm/year.
Add on the $17mm ACC distribution, and it’s enough money for ND to choose to stay independent.
LikeLike
Richard: “. . . and $4/viewer (which is the rate Fox is paying the B10 in its new TV contract).”
That is complete nonsense, more fuzzy math. The new Fox contract is for 30-32 football games per year spread over Fox and FS1 plus at least 45 Big Ten men’s basketball games each year plus women’s basketball games and Olympic sports competitions.
LikeLike
Colin:
I took that all in to account. But if you insist, CBS is paying $350mm/year for 15 B10 CFB games a year (but only roughly 4 of the top 27 B10 games in a year and not any of the top 4), 2 B10 CCGs in 7 years, and some basketball games.
I’m attributing $70mm (20%) to MBB (MBB also accounting for $70mm of the NBC contract and $100mm of the Fox contract, so pays out $15mm per B10 team in the original 16-school deal; add in NCAA tournament distributions and it’s about the same as the ACC MBB payout).
So $280 for just CFB. $20mm/year for 2 B10 CCGs over 7 years (so $70mm/game), meaning $260mm for 15 B10 football games.
CBS will pay $260mm/year for 15 B10 football games (and only a handful of the top ones) and you don’t think ND can get $50-60mm/year for 7 football games?
LikeLike
Richard: “I took that all in to account. But if you insist, CBS is paying $350mm/year for 15 B10 CFB games a year.”
No, CBS is paying $350mm/year for 15 B10 CFB games plus multiple men’s basketball games plus multiple women’s basketball games.
LikeLike
Colin:
It’s pretty sleazy to cut off what I wrote in mid-sentence, and you evidently have trouble reading past one and a half sentences. So I’ll repeat (in a way you can not cut off):
“I took that all in to account. But if you insist, CBS is paying $350mm/year for some basketball games, 15 B10 CFB games a year (but only roughly 4 of the top 27 B10 games in a year and not any of the top 4), and 2 B10 CCGs in 7 years.
I’m attributing $70mm (20%) to MBB (MBB also accounting for $70mm of the NBC contract and $100mm of the Fox contract, so pays out $15mm per B10 team in the original 16-school deal; add in NCAA tournament distributions and it’s about the same as the ACC MBB payout).
So $280 for just CFB. $20mm/year for 2 B10 CCGs over 7 years (so $70mm/game), meaning $260mm for 15 B10 football games.
CBS will pay $260mm/year for 15 B10 football games (and only a handful of the top ones) and you don’t think ND can get $50-60mm/year for 7 football games?”
LikeLike
Richard: “CBS will pay $260mm/year for 15 B10 football games (and only a handful of the top ones) and you don’t think ND can get $50-60mm/year for 7 football games?””
Oh, I never said they wouldn’t get it. NBS will probably cave in for altruistic reasons to continue their tradition. My argument is that they aren’t worth it in the marketplace. You seem to believe that all of these ND home games are solid gold with millions of fans tuning in. I’ve already shown that viewership for ND football has been in steady decline for ten years
Five of the 14 ND home games that NBC will be showing in 2023-24 are Central Michigan, Tennessee State, Northern Illinois, Miami of Ohio and Navy. And several more are against the likes of Boston College and Wake Forest.
The Big Ten games that Fox, CBS and NBC will be showing are the pick of the litter among Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Oregon and Washington. That is yet another reason that you are comparing apples to oranges.
LikeLike
NBC will probably cave in for altruistic reasons to continue their tradition.
NBC isn’t in the altruism business. They will re-up with Notre Dame —or not — because they expect to make a profit.
Five of the 14 ND home games that NBC will be showing in 2023-24 are Central Michigan, Tennessee State, Northern Illinois, Miami of Ohio and Navy. And several more are against the likes of Boston College and Wake Forest.
The Big Ten games that Fox, CBS and NBC will be showing are the pick of the litter among Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Oregon and Washington.
Cherry-picking yet again. You are comparing ND’s worst games to the Big Ten’s best. ND does play those opponents. But they also get Ohio State and USC at home.
The Big Ten has great teams. But NBC is also showing Charlotte @Maryland and Syracuse @Purdue.
They are also showing East Carolina @Michigan and Delaware @Penn State on Peacock, which are roughly comparable to ND’s games vs. CMU, Tennessee State, Northern Illinois, and Miami of Ohio — and probably worse draws than ND’s game vs. Navy.
LikeLike
Marc: “NBC isn’t in the altruism business. They will re-up with Notre Dame —or not — because they expect to make a profit.”
We all know that NBC will re-up with ND. The issue we’re debating is whether they will pay three times as much for a product that is steadily losing viewers.
Marc: “Cherry-picking yet again. You are comparing ND’s worst games to the Big Ten’s best. ND does play those opponents. But they also get Ohio State and USC at home.
It’s not cherry-picking at all. I’m not comparing ND’s worst games with the Big Ten’s best, I’m comparing ND’s worst games with the smorgasbord of games that the Big Ten will offer each week. Ohio State will be playing someone every week. USC will be playing someone every week. Fox, CBS and NBC will have their picks among anywhere between 8 and 16 Big Ten games every week. When ND hosts Tennessee State, NBC is stuck with it. Fox, CBS and NBC Night will have their choice of 8-16 Big Ten games to choose from on that day.
Think I’m cherry-picking? Here is 70+% of ND’s home schedule in 2023 and 24: Navy, Tenn St, Central Mich, Pitt, Wake, Northern Illinois, Miami of OH, Louisville and Virginia.
LikeLike
Colin: That is why ND is getting less than half per football game compared to the B10’s top 45-49 picks. But that’s still an average of $8mm/game or $56mm/year total.
Brian has the right idea; there’s no point engaging with someone who only argues in bad faith.
LikeLike
Richard: “Brian has the right idea; there’s no point engaging with someone who only argues in bad faith.”
It isn’t 45-49 picks, it’s 60+ picks plus lots of hoops. I’m not arguing in bad faith. You called my comment “sleazy”. I didn’t return the insult, I presented my case. You seem to take personal offense if I challenge the incorrect information that you present.
LikeLike
Colin: I called you sleazy because you partially quoted a sentence I wrote (instead of a full sentence) to misrepresent what I said, which is indeed a sleazy thing to do.
And the extra 20 or so later picks Fox and NBC have
1. Just aren’t worth that much.
2. I already took in to account anyway.
Regardless, ND will get $50-60mm/year from NBC because that’s what the Domers’ 7 home games are worth, not because of charity from NBC.
LikeLike
Mike, more to the point: Can you imagine a more egregious conflict-of-interest than the Chairman of NBC Sports negotiating the new ND contract after he had been hired as the new AD at ND? Honest to God, that would even be more outrageous than Chad Swofford, Gofer For RayCom, setting up the 20-yr GOR for the ACC, of which his daddy was commish.
LikeLike
Can you imagine a more egregious conflict-of-interest than the Chairman of NBC Sports negotiating the new ND contract after he had been hired as the new AD at ND?
Apparently neither NBC nor the school think so, since the arrangement was highly publicized and is known to all involved.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2023/08/17/ncaa-conference-realignment-impact/70570750007/
USA Today “maps” the footprint of the new P4, and makes comparisons to 1980. They used ovals for the 1980 map which make decent sense, but I disagree with their choices for the modern map. They include most of TX and 1/3 of Canada in the B10 oval – clearly a triangle or egg shape would be more appropriate.
They also report the average distance between schools, when the median might be more appropriate.
One note:
And under current NCAA rules, student athletes cannot leave for a competition more than 48 hours before it starts and must return within 36 hours after the competition. Should that rule stand, it will likely drive some creative scheduling between athletic departments on opposite coasts.
Some sports already do multi-game trips, so the ADs and schedulers know how to do this stuff.
LikeLike
Yeah, B10 baseball teams go on away trips that stretch out over more than a week every year (when it is still too cold for baseball in the Midwest) and read this story several years ago of the Hawaii football team that spent 2 weeks or so on the mainland (instead of taking long flights back and forth from Hawaii).
LikeLike
Schools in HI and AK are actually exempted from these travel rules. Even the NCAA realized that travel for them is a different thing than for schools in the other 48 states.
LikeLike
Teams in some sports at schools in the Lower 48 stretch out some away trips over more than a week, though.
Heck, Pac basketball teams now play 1 away game on Th, take Friday off, then play another away game on Sat roughly 48 hours later. I’m pretty certain the Washington basketball team isn’t flying in to Tucson to play against UofA Th, flying back to Seattle, then flying in to Phoenix to play ASU on Sat.
LikeLike
I wasn’t arguing, just pointing out that HI and AK schools don’t count for this (or trips to those schools, I believe).
LikeLike
Both Jon Wilner and Frank the Tank(!) now predicting on Twitter that Cal and Stanford are probably going to receive ACC invites within the next 24 hours — which most likely means UNC and NC State are on the verge of changing their minds.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t know, since I can’t read Twitter anymore. Maybe he’ll blog about it someday.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-state-in-the-fight
OrSU’s AD also believes we’ll know soon what Stanford and Cal are doing.
Maybe it has very few options, but Oregon State wants to rebuild the Pac-12 Conference one blasted brick at a time.
The Beavers and Washington State would like Stanford and Cal to come in on the plan, too. On Wednesday, OSU Athletic Director Scott Barnes said that clarity on the matter was “days away — not weeks.”
Is Stanford in? Or gone? How about Cal: in or out? Also, can anybody in college athletics be trusted these days?
Barnes spoke candidly in a wide-ranging 1-on-1 interview with me. He vented about seeing 108 years of Pac-12 history blown up. The AD wagged a finger at the stranglehold television has on college football and pushed back against those who argue that anyone in Oregon and Washington’s shoes would have ditched the Pac-12 for the Big Ten themselves.
“No,” said Barnes. “We could have made it work.”
Even after the defection of Colorado to the Big 12?
“Oh, by the way, we got better, not worse when Colorado left,” he said. “We had a chance to add a member that would have made us better.”
This is clearly one of the sources who kept giving him unrealistic views.
Others would’ve turned down the B10 and stayed in the P12, unlike UW and UO? Stanford and Cal were asking for invitations, too. WSU is in big debt. That just leaves OrSU, and their president would’ve said yes too if given his preferred partner (UO presumably).
And just stop with SDSU (or SMU or …) is better than CU. Maybe on the field, but not where it counts (brand for TV, or academics).
LikeLike
With the ACC’s current 3-5-5 scheduling model, I can’t see which teams would be pounding the table to add Stanford and Cal. Who wants to get them as annual games and be stuck playing late night on some streaming platform in a half empty stadium? Great schools and wonderful Olympic sport programs, but I just don’t see the football rationale.
LikeLike
With the ACC’s current 3-5-5 scheduling model, I can’t see which teams would be pounding the table to add Stanford and Cal.
Multiple sources have reported that 11 out of 15 are voting yes, so the vast majority of the conference seems to feel it’s a net positive. I don’t know if they are “pounding the table” but they are in favor.
LikeLike
I very much doubt the ACC would stick to their 3-5-5 scheduling model if they add the Bay Area schools, though (for one, because they can’t with 16 schools and 8 conference games/year).
Most likely, they would switch to Flex Protect like the B10 has.
LikeLike
Bob,
It’s the academics drawing them votes.
ND – already plays in CA annually, USC series may end
Miami, GT, WF, UVA, Duke, BC – recruit students nationally, has plenty of rich west coast alumni
VT – because UVA is
UL. SU, Pitt – ???
LikeLike
UL, SU, and Pitt probably just want numbers. Unlike the Pac Presidents, they don’t have their heads in the sand and are preparing for the day when their top moneymakers leave the ACC. When that happens, they want to be in a position of strength (or at least not a position of weakness) vis-a-vis the B12.
LikeLike
Brian and Richard’s logic is sound. Starting at ND and working down through the list of other schools trying to get to 12 votes is still tough. The extra headaches and cost of travel to Stanford and Cal for what is likely very little new money seems like a tough sell. For the schools in the middle (NC State, VT, etc.) it hardly seems worth it. If no one is able to escape the GOR they’re stuck together for 13 years. They don’t need “numbers” to survive as a conference during that time period, so why make all those trips to CA?
LikeLike
Bob: Well, most of the schools are probably thinking long-term, past 2036. Not everybody is as short-sighted as the Pac leadership.
And many (ND, Miami, GT, WF, UVA, Duke, BC) have good reason to regularly visit the Bay Area for reasons Brian stated (recruit students nationally, has plenty of rich west coast alumni).
As for the burden of extra travel and costs, it seems that Stanford, at least, is willing to put up with the extra travel and costs just to associate with the premier academic schools in the ACC rather than WSU, OrSt., Memphis, and USF.
Stanford also recruits nationally both for its sports and student body and has a national alumni base so may not actually have an issue with not playing any conference games on the WC.
LikeLike
Starting at ND and working down through the list of other schools trying to get to 12 votes is still tough. The extra headaches and cost of travel to Stanford and Cal for what is likely very little new money seems like a tough sell. For the schools in the middle (NC State, VT, etc.) it hardly seems worth it.
They got to 11, and VT was a yes. They just need one more. I am not predicting if they’ll get it, but as of now over 70% of them think it’s worthwhile.
If no one is able to escape the GOR they’re stuck together for 13 years. They don’t need “numbers” to survive as a conference during that time period, so why make all those trips to CA?
On average it’s <1 trip per sport per year, so not particularly onerous. If Cal and Stanford take partial shares (Stanford rumored to accept zero for the first five years), they more than cover the cost.
I am assuming the theory is that you expand when the chance presents itself: make hay while the sun shines. The Pac twice passed on the chance to raid the Big 12, because they felt they didn't need it. Once they needed it, it was too late.
LikeLike
So, any new predictions?
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-finances-estimating-the-ncaa-tournament-cash-available-for-the-remaining-schools/
Wilner discusses the P12’s incoming hoops money and how it may be used.
Those 50 units would result in $17.5 million distributed to the Pac-12 in the 2025 payout cycle.
Were that amount split 12 ways, it would equal $1.46 million per school.
But only the remaining schools would be entitled to the distribution. Split four ways, it’s $4.38 million per school — a difference of about $3 million per campus.
The schools could keep that extra cash for themselves, to offset the loss of media rights revenue, or use it for the rebuilding project.
…
The Pac-12’s remaining schools will have access to units earned by UCLA, Arizona and the other departing programs until 2030.
Based on the units generated by the 12 schools to date — and using our estimated total for 2024 — the conference will receive $65.6 million from the NCAA over the payout period.
Again, we offer the splits:
— With no changes to membership, that would mean $5.5 million per school.
— But if paid only to Cal, Stanford, Oregon State and Washington State, that’s $16.4 million — a difference of $11 million per campus.
If that excess cash were pooled, then used to fund expansion or offset lost media rights revenue, the Pac-12 would have $44 million available to support the renovation.
LikeLike
But what if Stanford and Cal both leave?
I suppose it would still make sense for WSU and ORSt. to keep the Pac alive just to collect those MBB units. For the time being, they’d only be able to poach AAC schools (but would be able to add Boise, SDSU, maybe USU/CSU/Fresno/UNM/UNLV when the MWC GOR expires).
So who would they add? Memphis? SMU? USF? Tulane? Anyone else?
Navy? Wichita St. and Gonzaga in non-football sports?
LikeLike
Who knows? They get a 2 year waiver, and then need 8 members. They could afford some MWC schools by then perhaps. Tulsa is the remaining western AAC school you didn’t name. They could add some CUSA schools to get more TX access – UTEP, UTSA, UNT. TX St from the Sun Belt? NMSU is independent still, right?
West: WSU, OrSU, BSU, SDSU, Fresno, UNLV
East: Tulane, Memphis, Rice, SMU, AF, Navy
Maybe add SJSU for more CA access, and UTSA for more TX access. Army if they want in.
LikeLike
Tulsa’s a tiny private school, however. Fewer students than even Rice so you’d might as well add Rice in that case as they are located in a major talent-rich metro and have a better academic rep.
But big TX/FL publics do make sense, especially if they’re located in major metros, even if they’re mostly commuter schools, but you could potentially convert alums in to fans.
So Memphis + SMU + USF + UTSA + FIU + FAU? Maybe NTU?
LikeLike
The AP’s Ralph D. Russo is reporting that Stanford would accept a much reduced distribution, or even no distribution, for the next several years. That’s how much it wants to be in the ACC.
I suppose it would still make sense for WSU and ORSt. to keep the Pac alive just to collect those MBB units. For the time being, they’d only be able to poach AAC schools (but would be able to add Boise, SDSU, maybe USU/CSU/Fresno/UNM/UNLV when the MWC GOR expires).
A report yesterday said they were looking at a core of Rice, Tulane, USF, and Memphis. That was with Stanford and Cal in the fold: trying to get the best academics (not counting Memphis), even if the football isn’t great.
It’s not clear to me what’s in it for the AAC teams. The AAC has the best media deal of the G5, paying I think $7 or $8mm per school. The Pac has nothing right now. What media partner will pay enough to justify the AAC teams leaving and paying an exit fee?
If WSU and ORSt are the only two left, maybe there is a way for them to reverse-merge with the MWC or AAC, where they still get to keep the tournament credits.
LikeLike
The new Pac (if Stanford and Cal stay) would still make more that $7-8mm/year.
The leftover Pac4 by themselves would command maybe around $60mm/year at least for 4 schools.
LikeLike
When George says “Trust Me” on the media deal not even Rice will. All will say “Show me the money”. Two months ago he could have had any MWC or AAC school. Now these schools are skeptical that any PAC media deal will be able to recover their exit fees. If the PAC can get $15M per school they will get some applications. However, I doubt it will even be $10M for 10-12 members. Even if the 4 left are worth $15M each, the total gets averaged down from the G5 schools that need to be invited to the party. So until the PAC has a fat media deal in hand the question should not be what AAC/MWC school they want but which of those schools will take a chance on the PAC. Everyone saw where that left SDSU. /
As G5 schools the P4 are respected. That is why both the MWC and AAC want all of them. Whatever conference gets the P4 will probably be the top dog among the G5 conferences.
LikeLike
Little8:
Very likely, the Pac would expand to a bare minimum of 8 members.
If the remaining P4 care worth $60mm/year, recall that the AAC is averaging $7-8mm/school, so the top AAC schools probably average $10mm/school, so ($60mm+$40mm)/8 = $12.5mm/school/year.
Would any AAC schools jump for a few million more a year? I believe so.
LikeLike
When George says “Trust Me” on the media deal not even Rice will.
All sources report that George is no longer involved in the future of the Pac-4.
(Of course you are right that nobody is moving without a deal, even if someone more reliable than George is negotiating it.)
LikeLike
If the PAC is reduced to WSU/OSU there will be 67 schools that want it to die so college playoff distributions are cleared up without litigation.
To rebuild the PAC needs to get a media deal first. That was a mistake at 10 teams but is required now. Even at 4 teams there will be few takers from the ACC/MWC if they have no clue what the rebuilt PAC pays. With the AAC at $7M+ moving to a rebuilt PAC may never pay back the increased travel plus the $17M (negotiated by 3 that went to B12) or more exit fee. It not the slam dunk that moving from $10M to $30M was. With a second raid the AAC may be less negotiable now and it has a 27 month notice period that that will put teams from the AAC starting in the 2026 football season without an early out.
Depending on composition a rebuilt PAC may only pay $5M to $10M putting it firmly in the G6 or G5 if it is a reverse merger.
Also UNT, UTSA, Rice, FL Atlantic, UAB, and Charlotte are the new members of the AAC. Probably still paying exit fees from CUSA.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2023/08/18/college-football-realignment-risks-nebraska-big-ten-big-12/70607979007/
A look at how few teams succeed after realignment. I will note that their analysis is not very quantitative since they don’t consider the numbers before the move in the same way they do after the move.
“The reason you’re moving up or moving to a different conference is a lot of reasons, but one of the primary drivers is money,” Perlman told USA TODAY Sports. “And if you’re going to move from a conference that’s making $20 million to a conference that’s making $38 million per team a year, there’s got to be a reason for that difference. And the reason of course is the quality of the competition. Any team that moves ought to understand they’re moving to a higher level of competition.”
Nebraska, he said, does not regret its move and wasn’t concerned about tougher competition when making its decision.
…
Since 2004, 15 football programs in the current Power 5 conferences have realigned to join new leagues, often doing so by adding travel costs and sacrificing a history of success and cherished rivalries in their old leagues.
Those teams then went on to play a combined 183 individual seasons since they changed conferences, including Nebraska, which has played 12 seasons in the Big Ten.
After all that trouble, those teams finished with a winning record in league play only 37% of the time out of those 183 chances, slightly lower than the Power 5 average of 41% in recent seasons excluding the 2020 pandemic year. Only eight of those of 183 chances have resulted in league championships, including four by Virginia Tech in the Atlantic Coast Conference after leaving the Big East in 2004 and two by Utah in the Pac-12 after moving from Mountain West in 2011.
Take those two teams out of the equation and the realigned path has looked far worse, littered with football teams that have struggled for the most part, such as Colorado (Pac-12), Maryland (Big Ten), Syracuse (ACC) and Missouri (Southeastern).
“There absolutely is a cost,” former Fox Sports Networks President Bob Thompson told USA TODAY Sports. “There are few moves in realignment that have been successful in terms of won/loss percentages. Your TV dollars may have gone up, but did your donations to the school fall off because you stink on TV?”
Nebraska’s comedown is among the worst. It has had no winning seasons since 2016, and only five since joining the Big Ten – all after winning at least a share of the national title three times from 1994 to 1997 in the Big 12 and its predecessor, the Big Eight.
So 37% vs 41% in terms of winning seasons. Considering that new members are often behind financially (used to make a lot less, may face a partial share at first) and are facing an entirely new set of teams while everyone else has just 1 new team to plan for, is that 4% meaningful?
Correlation is not causation either. They are careful to note NE has no winning seasons since 2016. Is that because they moved, or because of poor decisions about the HC?
Last 5 years in the B12: 9-5, 5-7, 9-4, 10-4, 10-4 = 43-24 (25-18 in B12 play)
First 5 years in the B10: 9-4, 10-4, 9-4, 9-4, 6-7 = 43-23 (25-16 in B10 play)
Bo Pelini bridged the gap, with the last 3 years in the B12 and first 4 years in the B10 and always went 9-4 or 10-4. Then came Mike Riley, who was around 0.500 at OrSU (93-80, 58-63) and also at NE (19-19, 12-14). Then Scott Frost cratered the program. Remember, Frost had 2 seasons at UCF with another coach’s players. He went 6-7 and then 13-0. At NE he went 16-31 (10-26) and found ways to lose.
UMD?
Last 5 years in the ACC: 2-10, 9-4, 2-10, 4-8, 7-6 = 24-38 (12-28 in ACC play)
First 5 years in the B10: 7-6, 4-8, 6-7, 3-9, 7-6 = 27-36 (13-30 in B10 play)
Again, not much difference.
UMD from 1991 (FSU joined the ACC) to 2013 was a 0.460 team. Since 2014, they are a 0.429 team. Again, not a huge difference.
NE has dropped off from where they were in the 90s and early 00s, but I think a lot of that was the game moving on (triple option/wishbone is mostly gone now) and Osborne retiring.
And if they want to take VT and Utah out of the numbers, how about also removing perennial losers like RU? UMD has always been up and down. SU was up from 1983-2001 and has been down since (and was down from 1970-1982). Maybe that’s just natural for them.
CU is a better example, but their collapse started with Dan Hawkins in 2006 (similar to NE). They won big under McCartney, a little less under Neuheisel, and even less under Barnett but were still having wining seasons. Then they had 5 straight losing seasons before joining the P12.
In return, these newly aligned schools give the TV companies more attractive football games to televise, largely based on the big brand recognition they’ve built in their previous conferences.
But what if they struggle to keep up in their tougher new neighborhoods? What happens to those brands then?
“That will be the question to be answered in this round of moves,” said Thompson, now the principal at Thompson Sports Group LLC. “Will Oregon, USC, Washington and UCLA compete in the Big Ten, or are they going to end up in middle of the pack with no shot at the College Football Playoff? What if they had stayed in the Pac-12, taken less money but at least had a pretty good shot at winning an automatic bid to CFP playoffs? I could make the case that they risk hurting their brands if they fall into the 7-5 yearly record marsh.”
…
“There are so many other variables that you have to take into account, but the biggest decision-maker of them all is the survivability of your program,” said Daryl Gross, the athletic director of Syracuse at the time, now at Cal State Los Angeles. “Trust me, if Connecticut could have traded with us at the time (to join the ACC), they would have gladly. Do the math, and you’re $30 million a year less-resourced (if your program is not invited to a richer league). You’ve got to think in that $30 million maybe there’s a plan to be competitive at this new level you are at, whether it’s the ACC or any other conferences.”
…
Falling fortunes in new leagues also can be costly at the box office. Last season, Maryland had the second-worst average announced attendance in the Big Ten (31,934) despite finishing 8-5, including 4-5 in the league. Of the top 33 biggest home crowds in Maryland history, only four have come since 2014, when the Terrapins moved to the Big Ten from the ACC.
It has never finished with a winning record in league play since then, marking a downfall from its heyday in the ACC, where it was a founding member and won the league title in 2001 under coach Ralph Friedgen. Of the top 33 home crowds at Maryland, 22 came during his tenure from 2001-2010, when his teams went 75-50.
They prove my point. UMD had an unusually good run under Friedgen (2/3 of the top attendance games). That’s not what the program should be compared to, they should be compared to the normal level of UMD football. And note even then, they only won 1 ACC title.
“It seemed to me, and I think most people around our program − and I think most fans – that the benefits far exceeded the risk,” Perlman said of Nebraska’s move to the Big Ten.
“You inevitably compete in football with any teams across the country, whether it’s in a traditional bowl game or now with the College Football Playoff. You’ve got to be able to play at the highest level or fans are never going to be fully satisfied. So you might as well get in and learn how to do it (in a tough league).”
Perlman said his athletic department and coaches supported the move to the Big Ten at the time but didn’t raise the issue of how Nebraska might have a more difficult time on the field.
“There were concerns, but it wasn’t that,” he said. “It was extended travel, the giving up of traditional rivalries. The expectations of our fans would have to change, things like that, but never (concerns about) the level of competition.”
LikeLike
I imagine we’ll see a continuation of this trend when Texas and Oklahoma join the SEC. They weren’t setting the world on fire in the Big XII and obviously the competition will get a lot tougher.
LikeLike
OU may struggle but Texas is as big as any of the big dogs in the SEC.
Texas _has_ underachieved for years in the B12, but that shows that being in a weaker conference doesn’t help you much if you are consistently dysfunctional.
Oh, and OU won the B12 6 straight years from 2015-2020. Your standards must be at ‘Bama levels if that’s unimpressive to you.
LikeLike
Oklahoma was 6-7 in the Big XII in 2022.
LikeLike
Yes, kings have bad years sometimes. Michigan was 3–9 in 2008. That’s not characteristic of either program over the long haul.
LikeLike
Will Oregon, USC, Washington and UCLA compete in the Big Ten, or are they going to end up in middle of the pack with no shot at the College Football Playoff? What if they had stayed in the Pac-12, taken less money but at least had a pretty good shot at winning an automatic bid to CFP playoffs? I could make the case that they risk hurting their brands if they fall into the 7-5 yearly record marsh.
This reminds me of something Frank the Tank said a few years ago. University presidents want certainty. Every time, they will take the higher revenue that’s guaranteed over the variable outcome that depends on the athletic performance of teenagers.
I can’t think of a school that moved to a higher-paying (but more competitive) conference and was sorry they did it. I mean…if you are Rutgers—historically losers no matter where you are—you might as well get paid to lose.
LikeLike
The uncertainty of the CFB format, qualification, and payouts make this point even more valid. Why stay in a “easier” conference based on the possible increased payout for performance when that contract is up in two years? If I’m USC, OR, or whoever that’s an easy decision.
LikeLike
While Rutgers football fans may be very upset, being in the B1G has definitely helped several other sports at RU. More significantly, at RU the academic benefits (plus the money, of course) have been a major factor.
As I posted some time ago, the group of faculty called “the Rutgers 100” (I think) constantly wanted RU to drop all major sports. The group seems to have disappeared since entry in the B1G.
LikeLike
As a Nebraska fan I agree the Huskers record in the B1G is mostly, as you say, “because of poor decisions about the HC”. I don’t think the B1G was a tougher conference than the XII at the time, nor in my opinion do most Nebraska fans.
Pelini and the Huskers recruiting dictated by the overall difference in style of play between the two conferences hurt them on the field when they first joined, as did having to prepare and scout all the new conference foes.
Now, the upcoming version of the B1G is way tougher the XII. But in hindsight, few NU fans – and certainly not the school’s admin – regret the move on any level.
LikeLike
As a Nebraska fan I agree the Huskers record in the B1G is mostly, as you say, “because of poor decisions about the HC”. I don’t think the B1G was a tougher conference than the XII at the time, nor in my opinion do most Nebraska fans.
The Big Ten was a tougher conference. Just going by playoff appearances, the Big Ten has 8 and the Big 12 has 5. In terms of programs who have appeared, the Big Ten has 3 and the Big 12 has 2. In terms of playoff record, the Big Ten is 3–7, the Big 12 is 1–5 — neither stellar, but the Big Ten is better. In terms of championships, the Big Ten has one and the Big 12 has zero.
It clearly would’ve helped to have better coaching. But had the Huskers played up to their historical strength, they would’ve faced a tougher gauntlet in the Big Ten than in the Big 12.
LikeLike
As I said, “I don’t think the B1G was a tougher conference than the XII at the time”, Nebraska moved to the B1G in 2011, a few years before the BCS ended.
You’re referring to the College Football Playoffs, starting ’14-’15.
LikeLike
You’re referring to the College Football Playoffs, starting ’14-’15.
Yes, a period that pretty closely — but not exactly — tracks the Huskers’ time in the Big Ten. I welcome you to try to find a better objective metric.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-god-bless-chip-kelly-but
Canzano and sources tilting at windmills.
Chris Hill isn’t surprised that football consumes all the oxygen in the room when it comes to expansion talk. The former University of Utah athletic director knows where the money is buried in college athletics.
That said, isn’t it time someone in the Pac-12 Conference spoke up on behalf of the 5,000 athletes who play non-revenue generating sports?
Is it even safe to do so?
“God bless Chip Kelly,” Hill told me. “He did what was right. He made people think.”
UCLA’s football coach saw the conference splintering and wondered why football was dragging all the other campus sports along for the ride.
Kelly said: “Our sport is different than everybody else — we only play once a week, travel’s not a big deal for football, but it is a big deal in other sports.”
Hill, 72, spent more than three decades as the AD at Utah. He worked alongside former Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott and a line of conference presidents. In the last two weeks, Hill has been in communication with a number of troubled athletic directors and Olympic-sport coaches across the conference who aren’t happy about being disenfranchised.
So why hasn’t there been more public outcry on their behalf?
“ADs, coaches and players are not going to call out their president,” Hill told me. “If they’re whistleblowers they sure as hell aren’t going to announce their name in the paper. I don’t blame them for that. They’re in a precarious situation. It’s hard unless they’re a superstar coach.”
…
“I’m not being flippant about it,” Hill said. “You’ve got to be a person that supports football. If you start talking about other sports (as an AD) people say ‘Why are you doing that? It’s all just about football.’ I’ve talked to a couple of coaches, not just here (at Utah) that are petrified.
“I just don’t think they can come out and speak because they don’t want their president upset with them and the board of trustees would then be upset with the president if they have unhappy people,” he added.
…
Hill knows he sounds idealistic. But he wondered this week if the Pac-12 presidents might pump the brakes on wholesale departures and hold a candid conversation away from the ears of the television networks and conference commissioners.
“Do the presidents have the guts?” Hill said in a phone call.
The former Utah AD believes nothing is done until it’s done. He wondered if the departing schools might take a few million dollars less in annual media rights distributions and leave the non-revenue sports playing in the Pac-12.
The schools would save a significant amount of money in travel expenses. Could the conference’s network televise the games and generate a small amount of annual revenue, too? Is it a pipe-dream? Would it work? Might the Big Ten and Big 12 schools facing additional travel in those non-revenue sports breathe easier too?
Amid the maniacal focus on football has anyone even considered it?
“I think (expansion) happened so fast that I don’t know how a conversation about volleyball would get a second worth of interest,” Hill said. “Maybe you can go back and say ‘What do you guys think now that we rushed through it? We love where we are in football… but where are we with these other sports?”
Did the Pac-12 presidents think for a second about baseball, volleyball, women’s basketball and golf? Did they consider the travel strain on athletes who play tennis, soccer, softball and gymnastics? In the rush to cash in with FOX and ESPN did the Pac-12’s esteemed campus leaders bother to consider the words of Jordan Acker?
* No, they won’t stop realignment after asking their BoR/BoT to approve it.
* No, they won’t take millions less to play in what’s viewed as a lesser conference.
* UCLA put their extra travel costs at about $8M. It would be much less for the 4C going to the B12, and for any school with fewer teams.
* If the P12N could televise games well, the P12 wouldn’t have imploded in the first place.
* Yes, lots of people have considered football-only conferences. Do a Google search. I don’t know if anyone who matters has given it serious consideration, because they risk losing their brand value.
* UCLA published a whole report about the impacts on every sport. https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/aug22/b1attach.pdf
Minimal impact (play regional meets, then a championship):
Track & Field (indoor and outdoor)
Water Polo
Rowing
M Volleyball
Swim & Diving
Cross Country
Golf
Beach Volleyball
Marginal impacts (already charter):
CFB, MBB, WBB
Impacts:
Baseball
Soccer
Softball
Tennis
Gymnastics
W Volleyball
Tennis
This is why there’s been discussion of travel partners, sharing planes, 2 in 1 trips, etc.
“Maybe I’m a dreamer,” Hill said, “but will any of these presidents actually go public and say ‘I give a s**t about women’s basketball?’”
The CEO of the Knight Commission called the departure of six Pac-12 schools a “tipping point” for college sports. Amy Perko said this week that she’d like university presidents to explain why the current structure of college athletics is still in the best interest of “all” Division I athletes in “all” sports.
Our old pal Chris Hill?
He just wants to know if the Pac-12’s presidents and chancellors give a damn about any of it. And if they do, are they willing to get in a room and talk about it? Is it too late?
“Nothing’s ever over,” Hill said.
The presidents don’t owe Perko an explanation. They don’t work for her. She should blame the government, because anti-trust issues prevent schools and conferences from “colluding” to fix these issues.
LikeLike
She should blame the government, because anti-trust issues prevent schools and conferences from “colluding” to fix these issues.
Even under the current system, the Pac-12 would’ve survived and perhaps even thrived — but for an astonishing sequence of truly bone-headed, catastrophically poor decisions over many years.
The question is, how much do you want the government protecting schools and leagues from their own stupidity? Sometimes, you have to let the idiots fail, as a warning and cautionary tale that actions matter.
LikeLike
The Knight Commission is all about taking the money out of college sports. That requires government intervention.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if SMU and Stanford join the ACC. No TV revenue distribution for 5 years, then slowly up to a full share for Stanford over the remaining length of the current ACC TV contract. Same deal for SMU except the Ponies only get up to a half-share.
Cal needs money coming in even if it’s minimal. The Pac (with Cal+WSU+ORSt.) may add Rice+UTSA (travel pair), Tulane+Memphis (travel pair), and USF for now.
Might ND continue it’s HaH series with Stanford and agree to a home-neutral series (like what the Domers have with Navy) with SMU?
There’s a lot of tradition with the USC-ND series so the Domers might keep that, but it may move off the last weekend of the year. Then ND could alternate between ending it’s season in CA @Stanford and in TX vs SMU in Houston/San Antonio/JerryWorld.
LikeLike
Cal cannot afford to go five years without a distribution. If Stanford is indeed offering to do that, I assume they would borrow from their huge endowment or ride on the backs of well-heeled donors. But it would be passing strange for Cal to be paid more than Stanford for the first five years (or for any period of time), when Stanford is by far the more valuable of the two.
Might ND continue it’s HaH series with Stanford and agree to a home-neutral series (like what the Domers have with Navy) with SMU?
Why would ND want an annual game with SMU? That’s not an opponent that NBC is dying to have on their schedule. If it counts as one of their five ACC games, then it means the rest of the league plays ND less often, which is not what they want.
LikeLike
Adding Stanford, Cal, and/or SMU to the ACC will mean the current 14 would likely get to play ND less. Even if they only add Stanford and the current ND-Stanford game counts as one of ND’s five ACC games that would be true. That is not something any of the current 14 should favor.
LikeLike
“Adding Stanford, Cal, and/or SMU to the ACC will mean the current 14 would likely get to play ND less.”
Not necessarily. ND, the ACC, and Stanford can all agree that ND keeps playing the original 14 ACC schools 5 times a year.
LikeLike
True. However, if ND isn’t going to get to count the Stanford game as one of their five ACC games, why would ND be advocating for Stanford to join the ACC in the first place? They are a great school with a wonderful overall sports program, but since when had that impacted realignment.
LikeLike
Bob: Because ND thinks Stanford is really swell.
Non-monetary concerns have always impacted ND when it comes to conference realignment. If they were concerned solely about maximizing money, they would have joined the B10 a long time ago.
LikeLike
Marc: fair, but ND also wants regular games in TX, and NBC could control the neutral site game as well. I’m thinking the SMU game could replace 1 of ND’s current MAC games (and ND controls the ticket revenues for the neutral site game as well).
Who knows, maybe it won’t happen, but I think it makes sense.
LikeLike
ND has not tried very hard to play many games in Texas. I believe their last regular-season appearance in the state was in 2016 (@Texas), and before that 2001 (@Texas A&M). They have only one future game scheduled there (@Texas A&M, 2024).
SMU would certainly be an upgrade if they dropped a MAC game. But I think NBC is urging the Irish to play more Big Ten opponents.
LikeLike
Doesn’t really change your point, but there were 3 Shamrock Series games in Texas (2009, 2013, 2016)
LikeLike
Yep, from 2009-2016, ND played 4 games in TX and another in adjacent nearby OK. That’s 4 games in 8 years (5 if you count the OK game that is easily reachable from north TX/DFW Metroplex), or the same number/a little more than if they had a HaH/home-neutral series with a TX school.
That was the period I heard ND had a TX scheduling strategy.
Granted, yes, in recent years, the Domers seem not to have emphasized visiting TX as much, though besides the game @A&M in 2024, they also will visit adjacent AR in 2025.
They also seem to have a lot of open slots available. Even if you add in 2 more buy games vs. Mac/equivalent, the Irish have 1 more slot to fill in 2024 and 2 more slots to fill in each of 2027-2030.
LikeLike
My bad: I only searched for true road games. I still tend to think that if TX games were a high priority, they wouldn’t want all of them to be vs. SMU. Those Shamrock games were against top-tier opponents.
They also seem to have a lot of open slots available.
I have noticed that for a while now. ND is usually scheduled at least 5 years in advance. My guess is that NBC is pushing them to toughen up, and they are waiting to see how that negotiation turns out. But the 2024 opening is worrisome (if you are a Domer). When you get that close, there are not a lot of options.
LikeLike
ND’s 2015 schedule is indeed improved although it will be interesting to see who they schedule for those last two games. Also kinda humorous that Swarbrick is toughening up the schedule for the year after he retires.
https://fbschedules.com/2025-notre-dame-football-schedule/
LikeLike
Marc:
Not really top-tier. ND did schedule Wisconsin and Miami (and BYU) for the Shamrock Series, but the other Shamrock Series opponents have been WSU, Army, UMD, ASU, PU, BC, Army, and Syracuse (the ones in TX were against WSU, ASU, and Army).
Not exactly a murderers’ row (hence why the Irish have won every single Shamrock Series game so far).
Yeah, I have heard hints that NBC would like ND to beef up scheduling as well.
UCLA can start an annual series with ND in 2027! In 2027, they have a slot where they can host at home because they visit Hawaii, they have an open slot 2028, and their scheduled premier OOC game each year 2029 and later are all against their B10 buds,
B10 powers tend to be pretty booked but OSU doesn’t play a P5 team and can host in 2029. They can play away in 2024 (if they cancel a home OOC buy game vs a patsy) but they are just coming off a ND HaH.
It’s conceivable that the ND-UMich HaH could be moved up to 2028-2029 from 2033-2034.
MSU is pretty open starting in 2028 (they’re already playing ND in 2026-2027, but I doubt Sparty would object to playing ND more).
Bucky has to replace a UCLA HaH in 2029-2030.
UO has to replace an MSU HaH in 2029-2030.
And hey! UW-Seattle has an open slot with no P5 scheduled OOC in 2024!
ND would want that game to be at home (or Shamrock Series/neutral site, though)
Actually, UW-Seattle has a LOT of slots. They have a P5 slot available every year from 2024-2028 (now that the Michigan game in 2028 is a conference game).
2 Shamrock Series games with UW-Seattle in Lumen Field (or 1 in Lumen Field and 1 in Vancouver ) in 2024 and 2028 with an ND home game in 2025/2026/2027?
LikeLike
OR
ND could host UW-Seattle in 2024, play @UW-Seattle in 2025, and play UW-Seattle in a neutral-site Shamrock Series games in 2026/2027/2028 (Vancouver? LV?) if they can end the 2025 season playing someone somewhere warm (Army/UConn in a Shamrock Series game in CA/TX?)
LikeLike
Not really top-tier.
You’re right…that was very imprecise of me. However, they were all P5 opponents or, in a few cases, opponents that draw like P5 (Army twice, BYU in Nevada).
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-football-preview-the-top-games-each-week-in-a-schedule-loaded-with-marquee-matchups/
Wilner looks at the top games each week in the P12 this year. He had comments about each game. Ironically, the P12 seems poised for a great year in their final year.
Week 1
Top matchup: Florida at Utah (Aug. 31)
Kickoff: 5 p.m. on ESPN
Week 2
Top matchup: Nebraska at Colorado (Sept. 9)
Kickoff: 9 a.m. on FOX
Week 3
Top matchup: Washington at Michigan State (Sept. 16)
Kickoff: 2 p.m. on Peacock
Week 4
Top matchup: Colorado at Oregon (Sept. 23)
Kickoff: TBA
Week 5
Top matchup: Utah at Oregon State (Sept. 29)
Kickoff: 6 p.m. on FS1
Week 6
Top matchup: Washington State at UCLA (Oct. 7)
Kickoff: TBA
Week 7
Top matchup: Oregon at Washington (Oct. 14)
Kickoff: TBA
Week 8
Top matchup: Utah at USC (Oct. 21)
Kickoff: TBA
Week 9
Top matchup: Oregon at Utah (Oct. 28)
Kickoff: TBA
Week 10
Top matchup: Washington at USC (Nov. 4)
Kickoff: TBA
Week 11
Top matchups: USC at Oregon and Utah at Washington (Nov. 11)
Kickoffs: TBA
Week 12
Top matchup: Washington at Oregon State (Nov. 18)
Kickoff: TBA
Week 13
Top matchups: OSU at Oregon (Nov. 24) and WSU at Washington (Nov. 25)
Kickoff: 5:30 p.m. on FOX/TBA
USC/UCLA games – Wk 6*, 8, 10, 11**
* – Wilner notes it’s a soft week in the schedule
** – Wilner lists 2 games and only 1 involves an LA school
P4 games – Wk 5, 6*, 12
All these other good games (and these are only the top picks – USC/UCLA isn’t even on the list), and they couldn’t get a TV deal.
LikeLike
Blockbuster matchups (in terms of talent) weeks 7-11 as the top quartet face each other.
But Utah draws like a UMTC team when they’re good, UO&UW draw eyeballs like Wisconsin&UNL, and USC draws like a PSU.
UCLA draws worse than Iowa.
Annnnnd, that’s it.
The Pac’s problem is that they didn’t have more kings like OSU & UMich or another prince like MSU.
Oh, and a school like UIUC (CU) got an intriguing coach after some disastrous seasons.
After the LA schools left, it would be like if a B10 headlined by UNL & Wisconsin was trying to land a TV deal.
A B10 with only UNL, Wisconsin, UMTC, NU, UIUC, IU, PU, RU, and UMD wouldn’t get a great TV deal either.
LikeLike
The 2023 Pac would be like that league (UNL, Wisconsin, UMTC, NU, UIUC, IU, PU, RU, and UMD) but still with PSU&Iowa and with UNL, Wisconsin, and UMTC all being as good as the 2016 & 2017 Badgers*.
*In overall strength. In style, all 3 of USC, UO, and UW have amazing offenses and defenses that may keep them from the CFP, so the opposite of peak-Bucky.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/mailbag-kliavkoffs-current-role-and-final-grade-options-for-the-pac-4-schools-the-knight-view-and-a-few-words-on-our-coverage/
Wilner mailbag.
What grade do you give George Kliavkoff for his first two-plus years as Pac-12 commissioner? — @Jalex0077
How does Kliavkoff still have a job? — @benwilkinson
Let’s address the second question first: He remains employed because the conference needs someone to handle day-to-day operations for the upcoming competition year.
Also, because his buyout likely would approach $10 million, assuming he signed a five-year deal in 2021 for about $3.5 million annually.
If they have to pay him anyhow, why not let Kliavkoff oversee operations?
He is not heavily involved in strategic matters for the remaining schools, according to sources. Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State are plotting their paths, individually and collectively, without him.
Any serious rebuild of the conference — the next move depends on the Bay Area schools — assuredly would take place under different leadership.
In terms of his job performance, the grade is obvious.
Kliavkoff’s primary task was to secure a lucrative media rights deal that would keep the conference together and position the schools for long-haul success.
…
But Kliavkoff had a singular mission, to land the media rights deal, and he failed. The collapse of a 108-year-old pillar of college sports occurred on his watch. He’s accountable. His grade? F, of course.
In our view, Kliavkoff is a deeply decent individual and smart business executive who was poorly suited for the task assigned by the presidents and the search firm of record, Turnkey ZRG.
The athletic directors, who know the challenges on the front lines, were not heavily involved in the hiring process — yet another blunder by the presidents.
How a collection of super-sharp individuals responsible for multi-billion-dollar universities could make so many bad strategic decisions over so many years would make for a fascinating case study.
Why haven’t Fox and the Big Ten offered membership to Stanford without Cal? The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for many years after Penn State joined in the early 1990s. This would leave an open spot for a better program than Cal. — @tgbegreen
Stanford clearly has more prestige and media value than Cal within the college sports space, and some believe the Big Ten is waiting on Notre Dame before it moves on the Cardinal. Once the Irish agree to give up Independence, they would join the Big Ten along with Stanford.
However, the additions of Washington and Oregon might change the calculation.
For scheduling purposes, a six-team western arm makes more sense than a five-school construction; three sets of travel partners in the Pacific Time Zone would be more efficient than two.
It all depends on Fox, which controls the Big Ten’s media rights and thus directs the expansion strategy.
We suspect the Cardinal and Bears would use invitations from the ACC — if they ever come — to leverage offers from the Big Ten, their preferred destination.
The prospect of the Bay Area schools joining a conference aligned with ESPN could be the only way to lure Fox out of its hole.
What is the minimum media revenue required for each of the ‘Pac-4’ schools to produce a viable athletic department? — @RockDawg3
Depends on how you define viable.
San Diego State’s football program has won 10 or more games five times in the past decade and its basketball team just reached the NCAA Tournament finals. The Aztecs’ operating budget last year was $67 million (according to USA Today’s financial database).
That includes the Mountain West’s media rights contract with Fox and CBS that spins off approximately $5 million per school per year.
Meanwhile, the Cougars and Beavers had operating budgets in the $85 million range with a media deal that paid about $25 million.
The difference? SDSU relied more heavily on support from central campus.
Whether WSU and OSU are members of a rebuilt Pac-12 or enter the Mountain West, their media revenue will plunge.
If the administrations are willing to lend necessary assistance, their budgets should support success in any scenario.
There have been conflicting reports about Oliver Luck and whether or not he is consulting for just one school, multiple schools, or the conference. Who does Luck currently tender services to? — @AmbitiousCoug
My understanding is that Luck has been retained by Washington State and Oregon State, not the Bay Area schools.
Looking back over the Pac-12’s pursuit of a media deal, would you have done anything differently in reporting on the story? — @nickbeatty72
No topic is more difficult to cover than realignment because of the secrecy involved and the complicated decisions that shape the process.
Would we take a few do-overs? Of course.
The Hotline clearly missed on several details (the timing of a resolution, the expansion imperative and Amazon’s role, to name three), but that comes with writing weekly about an intricate topic over the course of 13 months.
On the issues that ultimately shaped the crisis and determined the outcome, we were either spot-on or within reasonable range:
— Despite the noise from the Big 12, we said all along that the Big Ten was the primary existential threat.
This was clearly the case. Without the escape hatch provided by Fox and the Big Ten presidents early the morning of Aug. 4, Oregon and Washington would have signed the grant-of-rights and the conference would be intact.
— We wrote repeatedly that the Four Corners schools wanted to remain in the Pac-12 and would jump to the Big 12 only if they had no choice.
Yes, Colorado, which spent 60-something years in the Big 12, left a little early (after waiting 12.5 months). But the others were prepared to sign the grant-of-rights on the fateful Friday before Oregon and Washington derailed the plan.
(The key to that bond, as we suspected all along, was Arizona State president Michael Crow.)
— We wrote the Pac-12 and Big 12 carried roughly the same media valuation, with a slight edge to the latter because of its basketball brand.
This was certainly the case last fall, when the Pac-12 rejected an offer from ESPN for approximately $30 million per school and the Big 12 signed with ESPN and Fox for $31.7 million. Once the Pac-12 passed, the market moved.
However, it’s difficult to compare Apple’s offer of $25 million in guaranteed cash to the Big 12’s deal because we don’t know the mechanics of the incentive clauses. (Our suspicion: The first subscription trigger would have been easy to reach, thereby placing the Pac-12’s revenue on the same level as the Big 12 schools by Year 3.)
— We maintained throughout the process that the media rights deal would carry a heavy streaming component but needed a linear piece — specifically, a connection to ESPN — or it would be poorly received by the membership.
What happened? Several schools, including Washington, were less than thrilled with the structure of the deal and the lack of guaranteed linear access.
— The Hotline point spread never suggested a deal was guaranteed. We installed survival as a 5-point favorite over extinction through the winter and only a 4-point favorite from March through late July.
That line equates to a probability of 60 percent, or slightly better than 50-50.
Regular readers of our content were aware of the uncertain outcome. That survival was far from guaranteed. That nothing mattered until the schools signed on the bottom line.
As we wrote in January and referenced repeatedly throughout the winter and spring: Time and risk move together in the realignment game.
The longer Kliavkoff waited, the greater the risk of an extinction event … like the Big Ten regaining its thirst for expansion.
LikeLike
Brian: “For scheduling purposes, a six-team western arm makes more sense than a five-school construction.”
For logistics purposes in a 20-team conference, a five-team western arm makes far more sense than a six-school construction. We’d have four very obvious five-team pods and the schedule would rotate pods every year.
LikeLike
For logistics purposes in a 20-team conference, a five-team western arm makes far more sense than a six-school construction. We’d have four very obvious five-team pods and the schedule would rotate pods every year.
It doesn’t work like that. When the Big Ten expected to have 16 teams, it spent a year looking at 3-6-6, concluding that most teams did not have three obvious rivals to lock permanently. That’s why they adopted the so-called “Flex Protect” model, where each team locks only the rivals it truly wants.
If most teams don’t have three desired permanent rivals, they certainly don’t have four. The pod structure you’re suggesting might be great for the Western schools, but only at the expense of creating schedule locks that the other fifteen do not want.
It would also create imbalances. The league wants Michigan to play both Michigan State and Ohio State every year. That means those three must be in the same pod, along with two other more-or-less random schools to make a set of five who would play the two kings every year, meaning the rest of the league plays them less often. This is not what the league wants.
It’s amazing how often writers gravitate to a pod structure, when in fact conferences have rarely adopted it. It’s not a great system at all. Beyond that, conferences don’t expand for travel logistics — if that were the case, the Big Ten would never have taken the L.A. schools. No, they expand for TV money and then have a year of meetings to figure out what it means for the schedule.
Whether the Big Ten has 18 schools or 20 (or 24), I think they’re going to stick with a version of Flex Protect.
LikeLike
The media love pods and ideas like 3-6-6 because it’s easy and simple to explain.
Digging into the scheduling preferences and rivalries for specific schools and working through existing OOC contracts is hard. It’s the same reason some folks keep talking about divisions in future hypothetical expansion scenarios, even though the actual conferences are dropping divisions now.
Since this thread started 5000 comments ago on the topic of B1G scheduling, we might want to post proposed 18 team schedule ideas.
LikeLike
Since this thread started 5000 comments ago on the topic of B1G scheduling, we might want to post proposed 18 team schedule ideas.
Media reports have said that the Big Ten will stick with Flex Protect — the system where each team protects a variable number of games annually between zero and three. I assume the current 14 will stick with the protected games they already announced, and the four incoming Pac schools will protect each other.
So the biggest task is to re-jigger the nonprotected games.
LikeLike
Marc,
I assume the current 14 will stick with the protected games they already announced, and the four incoming Pac schools will protect each other.
We don’t know for sure that the Pac-4 will all play each other. If USC really doesn’t want UO in LA as often, they might only lock UCLA (or UCLA and UW). UCLA probably has to lock all 3 for travel reasons and to show their BoR they are taking that seriously. Which, by the way, they can now redo their report and lower the burden on athletes and the costs of travel with more western teams to play.
Also, they made a point of wanting schedules to be “balanced” and the Pac-4 would have tougher locked rivals than anyone else. Maybe that’s a fair trade for reduced travel, but it might be something they consider.
So the biggest task is to re-jigger the nonprotected games.
Yes, all the “Two-Play” opponents plus how to artfully schedule for the Pac-4 to keep travel within limits.
USC had PSU and WI
UCLA had NE and RU
If all Pac-4 teams are locked with each other, those 4 need to be fixed. PSU already has RU as a 2-play, so the obvious pairings don’t work. Personally I’d prefer PSU vs NE and WI vs RU. Or the B10 can shift even more pairings around trying to make things “fair” to everyone.
LikeLike
The arrival of Oregon and Washington in 2024 is going to require a complete rewrite of the B1G schedule. It may be possible to use the flex-protect approach, but I don’t think that is the best approach for 18 teams. As the number of teams rises, it becomes more and more complicated to customize an ongoing schedule for each team. At some point it is better to use a systematic approach, like pods. My suggestion follows:
The west coast teams form a natural 4-pod. In order to minimize travel, they should play each other every year. Call this the WEST pod.
———
WWWCCEE66
———
Every year the members of this pod play each other (WWW) plus two teams from each of the other pods.
Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota form the “Triangle of Hate” and have played each other regularly since the 1800s (345 games). This grouping has recently been joined by Nebraska (132 games vs Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota). This is another natural 4-pod. Call it the CENTRAL pod.
———
CCCWWEE66
———
Every year the members of this pod play each other (CCC) plus two teams from each of the other pods.
Michigan and Ohio State must play annually. This is arguably the most important game of the year for the B1G. OSU-PSU and Michigan-PSU are also huge games, so it makes sense to include PSU. Add Michigan’s rival MSU to make a 4-pod and call it EAST.
———
EEEWWCC66
———
Every year the members of this pod play each other (EEE) plus two teams from each of the other pods.
All together there are twelve teams in the East, West and Central pods. Over a four-year period, they play each other at least twice.
The remaining six teams can go into a single 6-pod. They play each other (5 games) every year plus four teams from the 4-pods.
———
66666WWCC Illinois and Indiana in years 1,4,7…
66666CCEE Northwestern and Purdue in years 1,4,7…
66666EEWW Rutgers and Maryland in years 1,4,7…
———
The following year, the teams rotate to the next sequence:
———
66666WWCC Rutgers and Maryland in years 2,5,8…
66666CCEE Illinois and Indiana in years 2,5,8…
66666EEWW Northwestern and Purdue in years 2,5,8…
———
And so on. Over a three-year period, every team is played at least once.
There are several good things about this schedule:
*** Most of the traditional rivalries will be played every year.
*** All the kings and princes will play each other yearly or every second year, providing 20+ top games per year. This will put the most compelling matchups on free-to-air TV and enhance the public perception of the B1G.
*** The West Coast teams will only have to travel to Maryland once in six years. The same goes for Rutgers.
LikeLike
Marc,
Writers know that many of their readers think pods make sense, so they give them what they want. People have been trained by the NFL to expect small pods that play each other, and there are more NFL fans than CFB fans.
Pods made sense before the deregulation of CCGs. If you needed division winners for a CCG, then pods were the convenient way to rotate through playing everyone in a large conference.
Even today, there may be some conferences where pods make sense due to geographic rivalries or the financial need to limit travel. The B10’s problems with pods is that they wouldn’t be the same size, not everyone fits, and they are unbalanced.
Simplest groupings:
Pac – UW, UO, USC, UCLA
West – NE, IA, WI, MN
Central – NW, IL, IN, PU
Lakes – OSU, UM, MSU
East – PSU, RU, UMD
LikeLike
Reasonable pods are much easier to form in the SEC and B12 but they haven’t done so yet. As the conferences get bigger locking in fewer annual games makes scheduling the rest of the teams at more frequent intervals possible. Any attempts at a pod structure in the B1G leads back to the OSU, UM, PSU, MSU grouping and the reasons that the divisional structure was so unbalanced.
LikeLike
Bob, even in the SEC, it’s tough to form pods that don’t piss off somebody.
Example:
Bama and Auburn are annual rivals, so they have to be in the same pod. But Auburn and UGa play each other annually in the Deep South’s Oldest Rivalry(tm) and UGa and UF would not want to end the annual Cocktail Party. So now we’re up to 5 schools in the same pod. But wait, Bama and Tennessee also have a rivalry where they’ve played each other annually for a very long time, and Tennessee have annual games with Vandy and UK.
So now we have 1 “pod” with 8 schools.
I suppose the other pod of 8 could include everyone else, but then SC would be in a pod where the 7 other teams are literally the 7 schools that are farthest away from them in the SEC.
Oh, and that would still break up the Bama-LSU rivalry (they’ve played each other annually since 1964).
LikeLike
Reasonable pods are much easier to form in the SEC and B12 but they haven’t done so yet.
That’s because other schedule formats are almost always better. Has any other conference besides the failed 16-team WAC ever done this?
The Big Ten wants to spread around its “king” games, except for those that truly need to be locked, e.g., OSU–Mich. Any type of pod alignment is going to lock those teams in other games that they don’t truly want to play annually.
LikeLike
@Richard
FWIW, the SEC is the one 16+ team conference where 2 divisions would actually work pretty well (at least for FB)
West
Oklahoma
Texas
aTm
Arkie
Mizzou
LSU
Ole Miss
MSU
East
UK
Vandy
Tennessee
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
UGA
SCar
It preserves all the major rivalries with no need for protected crossovers, makes geographic sense, and has good competitive balance.
LikeLike
@frug:
Yeah, I miscounted, though that split would break the Bama-LSU and UF-LSU rivalry games that have been played annually for over half a century now. Bama-LSU has become a really big deal ever since both of them were put in the SEC West, though you can argue that it’s more like OU-UNL; it’s a rivalry mostly because both schools had been the top 2 programs in their division/conference so their showdown was almost always for the divisional/conference title and not because those 2 schools are close by and fans live right next to each other and hate each other (like the Iron Bowl and UMich-MSU).
And that divisional split would make Auburn-UF annual again (it was an annual rivalry game from 1945-2002).
LikeLike
Overall, it seems that WC/Pac fans, reporters, and leadership are all extremely deluded about how much of a TV draw their programs are (and thus how much they are worth).
Even UO and UW are only roughly around the B10 median (UCLA is actually a little below). Small private school Stanford, while a great academic fit, historically had decent viewership due to success before the NIL/transfer portal era and a series with ND that the Domers could end at any time.
Ian Boyd (who has a great CFB Substack) said that when he wrote for SB Nation, he hated writing about Pac teams because nobody would read those articles.
LikeLike
Overall, it seems that WC/Pac fans, reporters, and leadership are all extremely deluded about how much of a TV draw their programs are (and thus how much they are worth).
Fans deluded? Say it ain’t so!
Reporters when not quoting league sources have been remarkably clear-eyed. Canzano and Wilner both published valuation estimates around the $30m-per-school mark that the league turned down.
So that leaves the leadership, and yes, they were way out of touch. It happened repeatedly: 1) Hired Larry Scott; 2) Launched the Pac-12 Networks (P12N) without a media partner; 3) Refused ESPN’s offer to buy the P12N; 4) Forced equal revenue sharing down USC’s throat; 5) Twice declined to expand with Big 12 schools; 6) Hired George Kliavkoff when they could’ve had Oliver Luck; 7) Turned down ESPN’s offer of $30m per school.
While there have been other conferences that collapsed due to their own mistakes, you’d probably struggle to find one that made so many unforced errors over so many years.
LikeLike
The PAC presidents also vetoed adding Oklahoma and Okie St. and the PAC/Big Ten scheduling pact (and did so after Scott had already assured the other parties everything was a “done deal”). Oh, and it is often forgotten that in 2015, Scott actually did secure a deal that would have secured carriage for the PAC-12 Nets on DirecTV, but the presidents also killed that deal.
The height of stupid, short sighted decision making.
LikeLike
Good list Marc but I take exception to # 4) Forced equal revenue sharing down USC’s throat. Unequal revenue distribution does more to harm a conference than good.
LikeLike
Good list Marc but I take exception to # 4) Forced equal revenue sharing down USC’s throat. Unequal revenue distribution does more to harm a conference than good.
There isn’t a lot of data. You are probably thinking of the Big 12, but that is a sample size of one. The Pac-12 is now basically dead. Throwing a bone or two to USC could hardly have made it worse.
In general, both commissioners appear to have underestimated the risk that USC would leave. And then after USC left, Kliavkoff underestimated the risk of further departures. I wish I had a dollar every time they said they were united and aligned.
LikeLike
Marc: “You are probably thinking of the Big 12, but that is a sample size of one.”
That’s true it’s a interesting example. The Big XII caved in to unequal revenue for Texas and OU but they left the conference anyway. Ohio State and Michigan have never even hinted that they want unequal revenue distribution – they know a good thing when they see one.
FSU is currentlyhaving a hissy fit about unequal revenue distribution but it seems they’ll probably bolt the ACC whether they get it or not. The only thing holding them is the GOR. For the two hugely successful conferences, the Big Ten and the SEC, unequal revenue distribution isn’t even a topic of discussion.
LikeLike
Both the Big 12 and PAC had unequal revenue sharing. Both dropped it. 2012ish (I’m not looking up the exact dates). In the PAC’s case it was dropped when Larry Scott and USC/UCLA agreed if equal conference distributions were over X amount they’d do it. Scott delivered with the largest conference media deal (at the time) and got USC/UCLA to agree.
LikeLike
Mike, that’s good info. But back to the original issue that Marc cited, he listed the Pac’s failure to provide unequal revenue sharing as one of the reason’s for the conference breakup. It actually seems like a lose-lose issue. If you do it and the conference breaks up, that’s a reason. If you don’t it and the conference breaks up, that’s a reason.
A forthcoming example is FSU. They’ve been very vocal about unequal revenue sharing in the ACC, but they’re probably gone whether they get it or not. The thing holding them down is the GOR, not revenue share.
LikeLike
The P12 unequal revenue sharing ended when the bylaws could be modified after expansion to the P12. USC, UCLA, and UW the schools that gained the most had blocked previous attempts to end it. Not saying it would change anything if it had been kept to the present day.
However, LA Times reported that if unequal revenue. sharing had been approved for UCLA the PAC would have survived. The deal to have the BoT block UCLA was to have everyone sign a GoR and agree UCLA would receive a minimum of $52M. Oregon lilled that deal although UW might have done the same if Oregon was not so quick, Both were probably still hoping for a B10 invite so were not willing to sign a blind GoR. The BoT then moved on to its tax on UCLA.
LikeLike
But back to the original issue that Marc cited, he listed the Pac’s failure to provide unequal revenue sharing as one of the reason’s for the conference breakup. It actually seems like a lose-lose issue. If you do it and the conference breaks up, that’s a reason. If you don’t it and the conference breaks up, that’s a reason.
Unequal revenue sharing has never broken up a conference. The worst you can say, is that perhaps it wouldn’t have helped very much. But you could say that about many things.
For example, suppose the Pac-12 had taken ESPN’s offer for $30m per school. Would that have truly “saved” the Pac-12, or merely delayed its collapse for another day? There’s no alternative universe where we can try each permutation of decisions and see what happens.
A forthcoming example is FSU. They’ve been very vocal about unequal revenue sharing in the ACC, but they’re probably gone whether they get it or not. The thing holding them down is the GOR, not revenue share.
FSU is perhaps a unique case — I cannot recall a school that has been so vocal about their intention to leave a conference, long before they do so. The gap between FSU’s value in the ACC and its value in the Big Ten is so enormous, that there’s probably no shared revenue proposal that could satisfy them.
If that’s the case, then why share anything? All it means is less money for everyone else, and in the end FSU is gone anyway. But I don’t think USC was dead-set on leaving years before they left: there might be a combination of better decisions that would’ve kept them in the fold.
LikeLike
USC has threatened to leave the Pac for decades but UO evidently wanted to keep the WC gang together so long as they got what they considered a fair/workable amount of money (makes sense as UO recruits NoCal heavily and probably appreciates playing a bunch of other PNW schools).
But Little8, even if the Pac had been able to keep a reluctant UCLA through UC BoR machinations, the B10 would just have invited 1 of UO/UW/Stanford in its stead and it seems extremely unlikely that all 3 of those schools would have turned down a full share in the B10.
All that time wasted by Kliavkoff on trying to keep UCLA against its will was frankly pretty dumb and showed how terrible he was at strategy as a Pac with UCLA but without 1 of UO/UW would still be worth an average of about $30mm/school (if the Pac had accepted the ESPN offer). UCLA is worth roughly $50mm/year, but UW is worth about the same and UO actually a little more than that. Stanford maybe a little less but with the extra payment to UCLA, the rest of the Pac still wouldn’t have come out ahead.
LikeLike
An hour-long interview of WSU’s president on where things stand, how we got here, who to blame, etc.
LikeLike
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/116011/1
Cal insider says maybe the ACC will vote them in on Tuesday.
Optimism is growing.
Tuesday the 22nd looms as the day when the ACC may make an official vote
The economics are continuing to be negotiated. However, the Tweets and rumors that Stanford or anyone else will be taking no revenue are patently false. That’s not to say that Cal and Stanford will get an equal share in year one as the discussion of what that number will be is likely what’s holding up the proceedings at this point. When that is finalized, expect to it be far closer to an equal share than zero. And very likely a plan to get to equality in the not-too-distant future (similar to the UCLA, USC, UW, and OU deals with the B10).
Meanwhile, Cal will continue to have internal discussions about its forward-looking budget which at this point almost certainly requires material cuts to the existing supported sports programs.
Cal Athletics like all FBS schools utilizes football revenue (which for many years now has predominately come from media rights) to support a rich and diverse set of sports. Football is also the lynchpin of broader alumni outreach and academic donor support. In a potential future inside the ACC, it becomes imperative IMO for the University to ensure that Cal Football is well funded in order to be competitive such that it can continue to be the cash cow that supports the rest of the Athletic department. That funding is going to have to come from the University, the UCLA stipend, as well as donors.
More to come . . .
That sounds overly optimistic to me.
LikeLike
Definitely too optimistic about them getting to a full share in the not-too-distance future.
The existing ACC has zero incentive to add the Bay Area schools in at full shares over the (long) timespan of the existing TV contract if the WWL will add those 2 at pro rata but having a Pacific wing means greater travel costs for everyone.
LikeLike
The existing ACC has zero incentive to add the Bay Area schools in at full shares over the (long) timespan of the existing TV contract if the WWL will add those 2 at pro rata but having a Pacific wing means greater travel costs for everyone.
I suspect Cal as a TV draw is no better than an average ACC school, perhaps not even that good. Stanford might be a little better.
I don’t think the travel costs are very significant for the existing ACC members: <1 western trip per sport per year. Still, those costs are nonzero, and nobody expands to lose money.
LikeLike
“When that is finalized, expect to it be far closer to an equal share than zero. And very likely a plan to get to equality in the not-too-distant future (similar to the UCLA, USC, UW, and OU deals with the B10).”
That’s some creative wording there. If equality is $30mil and Cal is offered $15mil+$1, then yes that is technically true that you’re closer to equality than zero. It’s also still only $15mil+$1, when they were looking at $25mil a month ago or $30mil a year ago. That said, it’s also true that’s more than they’ll make in the MWC, so maybe gift horses and all that.
Regardless the whole post sounds overly optimistic, and makes me wonder if it exists more in the hopes of making Fox blink. Or if this is the same type of optimism that had Pac college presidents believing they were going to get $50mil from ESPN earlier.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38234403/sources-michigan-self-imposes-3-game-jim-harbaugh-ban
The NCAA rejected the negotiated 4-game suspension of Harbaugh, so UM has decided to self-impose a 3-game suspension this year instead to reduce the penalty next year. If the NCAA does up it, it will be for OOC games next year. UM’s 2nd OOC game next year is Texas, so they hope it stays at 4.
A source familiar with the case told Thamel that Michigan’s decision to self-impose the three-game suspension of Harbaugh is indicative of the severity of the eventual potential ruling against Harbaugh. It’s a move that shows the school is trying to essentially curry favor for good behavior, a source told Thamel, and mitigate some of the eventual punishment.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2023/08/21/michigan-football-jim-harbaugh-suspension-2023-season/70644343007/
It is unclear if Harbaugh was informed of the decision, or if he was part of a collaborative process, but this is seen as Michigan’s effort at appeasing its governing body with hopes of avoiding further sanctions in the future.
“The more or less logic is 25% is the standard practice here,” the person said. “That’s what Michigan believes is reasonable. It’s defensible. If the NCAA wants more, then that’s going to come out at the hearing. Regardless of what’s right for Jim Harbaugh, what’s right for Michigan is to do the right thing.
“This is clearly the right thing based on the facts of what is known.”
LikeLike
Harbaugh is all in on 2023 anyway.
I would be a tad surprised if he stays after 2023. Especially if he wins the natty, but even if he wins the B10 again and makes it to the national title game.
LikeLike
It also says he’s allowed to coach during the week — he just won’t be on the sidelines for the games themselves.
LikeLike
Free tattoos at Ohio State or free hamburgers at Michigan. Which was more horrific? My God, both schools deserve the Death Penalty for a Thousand Years.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s a trivial punishment unless he misses a huge game. Texas in 2024 is the only chance of that happening.
LikeLike
Free tattoos at Ohio State or free hamburgers at Michigan. Which was more horrific?
NCAA rules prohibit him or the school from commenting on the investigation, so we still don’t know exactly what Harbaugh did. However, this appears to be a preemptive action so that he will not miss the Texas game next year. We’ll see how that works out.
Or, as Brian suggests, maybe he won’t be there at all — in which case one or more of his assistants will have had an audition as coach-for-a-day during the games he sits out.
LikeLike
So maybe we finally get some closure on this:
Wilner (probably lots of others, too) says the ACC has scheduled a meeting for today, and Williams says it can only be to take a final vote on Stanford/Cal/SMU.
LikeLike
So does Fox/Big10 11th hour Stanford and Cal? Or do they figure they’ll still be there in the 2030s when the ACC GOR is up?
LikeLike
If the B1G wanted them they’ve had plenty of chances. Can’t imagine a scenario where Stanford and Cal sign the ACC GOR and then the B1G decides they are top choice when the GOR expires. Other ACC schools would bring more value and jump at the offer.
LikeLike
And again, no resolution. Just tell them “Yes” or “No” already and be done with it.
LikeLike
Here’s a thought:
Everybody assumes that in the 2030’s, the B10 will aim to add FSU + another school, but Clemson isn’t close to AAU (FSU at least is within striking distance), Miami is a smallish private with a fanbase who’s support is an inch deep in a city that will soon be under water, and I don’t foresee the Domers giving up “independence” even then. Also, while Stanford is a possibility, they may not fare that great in the transfer portal + NIL era. The best you can hope for is that the Cardinal aren’t hugely dilutive,
But the B10 could add just FSU to go to 19 and stay there. 10 conference games would mean 2 permanent or rotating rivalry series for everyone. Iowa-UNL would have to end, but that was a forced rivalry in any case, and UNL may actually prefer to have FSU and/or UCLA/some other WC teams as annual rivals (may help in recruiting). FSU could still end the season with UF. UNL would rotate ending the year among Iowa/UMTC/Wisconsin so Iowa doesn’t have to bear the brunt of playing on Black Friday (I believe the Hawkeyes are not so fond of that).
The B10, USC, and ND (and maybe UCLA, at NBC’s urging) may move their annual visit to LA to the weekend before Thanksgiving. The Domers could end their season then
OR
ND could also go back to CA a second time and play Stanford/Cal (alternating) in Levi Stadium in a Shamrock Series game the weekend after Thanksgiving as well.
LikeLike
https://knocking.wiche.edu/data/knocking-10th-data/
A good reminder of one major concern for the B10 presidents when considering expansion. The number of high school grads is predicted to decrease by 6% nationally from 2020 to 2037, but it varies greatly by state. The B10’s larger states are losing the most (for the most part).
IL -24%
MI -15%
OH -11%
WI -10%
PA, IN -7%
NJ -6%
MN -3%
IA +1%
NE +2%
MD +7%
DC +12%
CA -15%
OR -5%
WA 0%
Others:
VA -6%
NC -3%
SC +5%
FL +18%
Suddenly the appeal of FSU (and Miami, and eventually maybe USF) and maybe Clemson become more clear.
LikeLike
Brian: “The number of high school grads is predicted to decrease by 6% nationally from 2020 to 2037, but it varies greatly by state. The B10’s larger states are losing the most (for the most part).”
This will hurt the Bowling Greens and Ball States and Southern Illinois’, not the Ohio States and Penn States and Wisconsins. Last year Purdue had the largest incoming freshman class in the Big Ten, over 10,000. Enrollment at Ohio State is a whopping 66,444.
LikeLike
Colin:
It matters for CFB recruiting as well, though.
So the center of the B10 (and CA) losing a lot, the edges of B10 territory doing alright (but not anywhere to the east and north of PA&NJ). Most of the Mountain West and TX holding up. This projection has FL gaining a ton. Granted, these kids are already been born so the projection probably isn’t too inaccurate.
But they probably aren’t accounting enough for climate change. The Upper Midwest/Great Lakes (so inland NE), Upper Mountain West, and PNW will probably hold up the best under climate change. Also the inland Mid-South.
Would people really keep moving in to the path of hurricanes and wet bulb temperatures that can kill?
LikeLike
Richard: “But they probably aren’t accounting enough for climate change. The Upper Midwest/Great Lakes (so inland NE), Upper Mountain West, and PNW will probably hold up the best under climate change. Also the inland Mid-South.”
Yes, global warming is undeniable. The Corn Belt has been moving north for decades and seed companies in Canada’s western provinces are planning a switch from wheat to corn in less than five years.
Agronomists at Purdue believe that southern Indiana will be warm and wet enough for double cropping by 2050. Plant corn in late winter, harvest in June, replant and harvest a second crop in December. And read this forecast:
“The results suggest that even under moderate-emission scenarios, the cultivation geographies of corn, soy, alfalfa and wheat will all shift strongly north, with the Corn Belt of the upper Midwest becoming unsuitable to the cultivation of corn by 2100. More severe emissions scenarios exacerbate these changes.”
That is a stunning prediction. They’re saying that by 2100 the Corn Belt will have migrated into Canada in its entirety.
https://news.emory.edu/stories/2022/06/esc_climate_change_corn_belt_02-06-2022/story.html#:~:text=The%20results%20suggest%20that%20even,emissions%20scenarios%20exacerbate%20these%20changes.
LikeLike
Pretty wild. Hopefully we don’t allow it to become that bad. The corn huskers of NE may become as extinct as the Nittany mountain lions (or Brooklyn trolleydodgers). But the Midwest could grow rice instead! And Arkansas/Memphis weather isn’t all too bad.
LikeLike
Actually, it looks like the SEC is in far worse shape than the Big Ten. The two links below indicate pretty comfortable economic conditions in the future for all Big Ten schools to include the four on the West Coast. However, increased ‘economic damage’ is forecast for every SEC school.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/29/534896130/mapping-the-potential-economic-effects-of-climate-change
https://impactlab.org/map/#usmeas=absolute&usyear=1986-2005&gmeas=absolute&gyear=1986-2005
LikeLike
Colin, I agree. The South (and AZ) will suffer more from climate change.
The PNW, NE, Mountain West (north of AZ), Upper Midwest/northern Plains and Great Lakes will do best under climate change.
Climate change is also shifting Tornado Alley from the Plains to the SE. centered around the lower Mississippi/delta region.
LikeLike
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/dorrance-i-want-cal-and-stanford-to-die-on-the-vine/21011056/
UNC’s women’s soccer coach is honest – he wants “Cal and Stanford to die on the vine.”
But for us, you know, uh with boots on the ground now, uh this is gonna be horrible for us because then of course, our budgets are extraordinary as it is. And now we would try to add in, you know, flights across the country to play these two schools uh which will be incredibly expensive. And then the fact that now we’re exposing the whole country, not that Stanford and Cal don’t have a national recruiting platform, of course they do. But if you put those two schools in the AC C, it’s going to be so easy for them to recruit nationally. So it’ll just benefit them in my opinion, not us. We’ve built the best women’s soccer conference in the country and there’s no way I want to share the glory of our conference with two schools that could do a very good job recruiting against us. And so basically, I want Cal and Stanford to die on the vine. I look forward to, you know, seeing Stanford, which is a very difficult school to recruit against. I would look forward to them basically having it be so difficult for them to recruit the elite soccer player. And then we would be in a position to obviously gain those kids and, you know, put the AC C in an even stronger position. So I think in some respects, I can see why, um Jim is interested in this, you know, as our commissioner of the AC C but for us that, you know, have to basically do the work and have to pay for it. No. And these are schools that, you know, yeah, they’re in trouble, they’re in trouble. It’s gonna be harder and harder and harder for them to recruit. And that means that benefits the rest of us in the AC C
LikeLike
Hah, wow, I like the honesty there.
LikeLike
Here is some more honesty as told to Canzano by Michigan regent Jordan Acker.
• “The presidents have ceded the power to the commissioners who have ceded the power to networks. If you want to know what the primary problem is in college sports — that’s it — that’s what it comes down to.”
• “(Stanford and Cal) not joining the Big Ten is the biggest indictment of them all. You’re talking about two of the best academic universities in the world and they don’t have a spot in the Big Ten conference. It tells you exactly what it is — a business.”
Let’s stop calling ourselves the Big 10, we are the Big Fox. Waiting for Marc to state ‘it has always been a business’.
LikeLike
“Let’s stop calling ourselves the Big 10, we are the Big Fox. Waiting for Marc to state ‘it has always been a business’.”
I don’t want to come across as cynical, but Marc wouldn’t really be wrong here. It’s been a business for a very long time, predating the SCOTUS 1984 ruling.
Everyone seems to be raking Fox over the coals for something other broadcasters have been guilty of as well. Fox didn’t make the SEC take Texas and Oklahoma, or convince the ACC to shiv the Big East. The Pac dying stinks, but it’s also not the first storied conference to bite the dust due to the machinations of others.
But ignoring all of that, does Michigan’s Board of Regents have no sway with the president of UM? And does UM have no sway with the BigTen, or with Fox? Was UM dragged kicking and screaming into the unanimous votes that admitted UO, UW, UCLA, USC? All of those votes happened while Acker was on the board; was he unable to rally others to his cause? It’s UM — I’d have to think their voice carries more weight in these conversations than Northwestern or Minnesota.
It’s all well and good to bemoan the influence of money in college athletics, but when you’re one of those schools happily benefitting from that money it feels hypocritical. I get that he’s a board member (one of eight) and not the president, but it’s not like he’s totally powerless either.
LikeLike
manifestodeluxe,
I’m happy to blame ESPN/Disney if that helps. They’ve done more of this than Fox has.
It has always been a business, but it wasn’t always the huge business it is now. And athletics didn’t always wag the dog to the extent it does now. OSU’s faculty once prevented a Rose Bowl trip because football was getting too big. They’d lose their jobs now (regardless of tenure) at the least.
I also agree that a UM regent complaining about a lack of input and the influence of money is laughable. How about he asks EMU if they want to switch places? I’m pretty sure the MAC would accept the trade.
LikeLike
Let’s stop calling ourselves the Big 10, we are the Big Fox. Waiting for Marc to state ‘it has always been a business’.
@manifestodeluxe saved me the trouble, so I’ll make a different point. The Pac-12 formed its own network more than 10 years ago without a media partner. Why? Because they thought they’d make more money on their own.
The Pac-12 had an offer from ESPN to buy the network. They turned it down. Why? Because they thought they’d make more money by keeping it.
The Pac-12 had an offer from ESPN for $30m per school. It turns out that offer was pretty close to fair market value, but they turned it down. Why? Because they thought they’d make more money on the open market.
At every turn, the Pac-12 chased the money, getting all of these decisions and many others spectacularly wrong every single time. And now it’s Fox’s fault?
But ignoring all of that, does Michigan’s Board of Regents have no sway with the president of UM?
Of course they do, but there are eight regents. This guy is just one of them.
LikeLike
I agree with Marc. Greed did kill the Pac (as many people are saying), but what virtually all those people bemoaning the impact of greed on CFB miss out on is that it was the greed of the Pac leaders that killed the Pac. In fact, I’ve yet to hear a single national CFB commentator blame the Pac for being too greedy (though rereading a bunch of Dennis Dodd articles over the past year, plenty of people with media industry experience were warning that the Pac seemed too greedy and unrealistic with their expectations–in more polite language).
LikeLike
Greed did kill the Pac (as many people are saying), but what virtually all those people bemoaning the impact of greed on CFB miss out on is that it was the greed of the Pac leaders that killed the Pac.
I think the Pac-12 leaders simply believed that they were worth more—which would have been fine with me, if it were true.
I don’t ask anyone to settle for less than they’re worth, but when you turn down an offer because you think you can get a higher one, you’d better be right.
LikeLike
Also, the PAC was the last to negotiate. Once ABC/ESPN/CBS/NBC/Fox had all of the college football inventory that they needed, The Pac-12 had a lot less bargaining power.
LikeLike
Colin:
Well, the B12 was slated to be last to negotiate, but they jumped the line because the Pac was a combination of greedy/complacent and evidently didn’t think the survival of the conference was at stake or didn’t mind if it died (unlikely).
LikeLike
Also, the PAC was the last to negotiate. Once ABC/ESPN/CBS/NBC/Fox had all of the college football inventory that they needed, The Pac-12 had a lot less bargaining power.
The Pac wasn’t last initially — they turned down ESPN’s $30m offer before the Big 12 signed. They were betting that if they waited, their value would go up. That might have worked in past cycles, given that sports rights fees tend to go up with time.
Unfortunately, they did this right in the teeth of ESPN cutting way back. And to make it worse, they demanded $50m, a figure so far out-of-line that ESPN concluded it wasn’t even worth continuing the discussion.
LikeLike
Nitpicky, but the WWL said they made the last fully-detailed offer in their negotiations with the Pac (maybe it was $30.5mm/school) and the Pac never responded back.
Anyway, its a moot point as that offer was withdraw after the Mouse inked a deal with the B12.
LikeLike
Anson Dorrance is an absolute legend in US women’s soccer. He’s like the John Wooden of women’s college soccer (in achievements; his Heels actually have won more than double the number of NCAA national titles that Wooden’s Bruins won).
As you can tell from this interview, he’s extremely competitive and brutally honest.
Many top athletes probably appreciate a coach like that.
LikeLike
Ohio State has poached Nebraska’s president: https://news.wosu.org/news/2023-08-22/ohio-state-picks-university-of-nebraska-leader-to-be-its-next-president
LikeLike
Beat me by 2 minutes.
LikeLike
https://news.wosu.org/news/2023-08-22/ohio-state-picks-university-of-nebraska-leader-to-be-its-next-president
OSU is stealing UN-L’s president as of 1/1/24, and finally appointing an interim president. I wonder if Carter’s positions on anything in terms of B10 athletics will change as he switches schools. I’m assuming OSU’s interim would vote however Carter votes.
LikeLike
OSU is actually stealing the University of Nebraska system (UNL, UNO, UNK, and UNMC) president.
To tell you what Nebraska thought of Adm. Carter, the Nebraska regents changed the reporting structure of Nebraska-Lincoln’s athletic department so it reported to Adm. Carter, not the UNL Chancellor. This was so Adm. Carter would have a place on the COP/C instead of the UNL Chancellor.
Adm. Carter has a very interesting biography (Navy hockey player, Top Gun graduate) that you can read about in the numerous profiles in the Nebraska media.
Just for fun, here he is with Aerosmith.
LikeLike
Yes, sorry. Saying NE’s president just sounded wrong.
At least as a Navy guy he should appreciate tradition and rivalries in athletics.
I’m sure the chancellor was thrilled not to have to deal with athletics, frankly.
LikeLike
https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2023/08/22/big-12-warned-to-not-get-in-the-way-of-adjusting-cfb-playoff-report/
Sources are at it again. This time, they claim the B10 and SEC are warning everyone else to give them what they want with the CFP. Which is an odd stance, since the B10 and SEC rarely agree on these things. Maybe it’s meant for the G5, telling them a move to 5+7 is coming and they shouldn’t oppose it. But if the B10 and SEC were actually colluding on this, they’d get sued out of existence.
According to a recent report from the New York Post’s Ryan Glasspiegel, sources claim that any conference not named the SEC or the Big Ten attempting to get in the way of how the two leagues construct the future playoff is risking “Pac-12-ing themselves” out of the tournament.
“One source cautioned to The Post that the other conferences risk implosion along the lines of the Pac-12, which greatly overvalued itself in network rights negotiations, if they stand too obstinately in the way of what the Big Ten and SEC want,” Glasspiegel writes.
LikeLike
That reads like someone who has watched too many television dramas.
I don’t doubt that the B10 and SEC have noticed what one another are doing. But the idea that they’re colluding on moves and threatening other conferences mafia-style feels a bit rich for me.
LikeLike
Frank really needs to make a new post. As he noted before, the B10 and SEC really have more shared interests than divergent interests these days.
Sankey and (especially) Petitti will use much more polite language (Petitti may not actually say anything at all; he’s much more suave in his communications than Warren, who had the tact of a bull in a china shop) but you have to think through the BATNA in any negotiations.
What’s the BATNA for the SEC & B10? That there’s no agreement and the SEC and B10 stage a 8-team playoff where the winner of the B10 bracket faces the winner of the SEC bracket in a championship game, making more money than anybody.
What’s the BATNA for the rest of CFB? They stage a playoff and say they’ll crown a “national champion” but their tournament will get far fewer eyeballs and thus money than the B10 & SEC one (and probably won’t be crowned national champ by the AP).
If the other conferences boycott them, the B10 and SEC play each other OOC and give a playoff spot each to the champs of the MAC and Sun Belt and thus ensure regular season buy games that way (it would also give an incentive to win the B10/SEC CCG if the league winners essentially get a first-round bye by facing the MAC/Fun Belt champ in the first round).
And it’s not as if the B10 really has a problem with not joining in a “national playoff”. For years (during the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition years), the B10 sent its champ to play another conference champ instead of a 2-team playoff.
Which would ND choose?
LikeLike
Richard,
Frank really needs to make a new post. As he noted before, the B10 and SEC really have more shared interests than divergent interests these days.
Yes, the page is getting unwieldy.
They have many shared interests as the P2 members, but they also have very different viewpoints (traditionally) on certain topics around the role of sports in academia, professionalism, etc. The B10 supported champion bids in the 12-team CFP, the SEC didn’t. That continued decades of them differing on the best postseason format.
What’s the BATNA for the SEC & B10? That there’s no agreement and the SEC and B10 stage a 8-team playoff where the winner of the B10 bracket faces the winner of the SEC bracket in a championship game, making more money than anybody.
Does the SEC think that, or do they think it’s an 8-team SEC playoff and screw everyone else? Maybe with a +1 vs the B10 playoff champ or someone else.
Does the B10 think that? They’ve never wanted to drive a P2 narrative before.
What’s the BATNA for the rest of CFB? They stage a playoff and say they’ll crown a “national champion” but their tournament will get far fewer eyeballs and thus money than the B10 & SEC one (and probably won’t be crowned national champ by the AP).
Or do they seek legal/governmental remedies instead? That’s something else the B10 and SEC have to consider.
If the other conferences boycott them, the B10 and SEC play each other OOC and give a playoff spot each to the champs of the MAC and Sun Belt and thus ensure regular season buy games that way (it would also give an incentive to win the B10/SEC CCG if the league winners essentially get a first-round bye by facing the MAC/Fun Belt champ in the first round).
Why would others boycott? They want the money from getting a bid just as much as the MAC or SB do. And the B10 and SEC make more money if better teams are in it.
And it’s not as if the B10 really has a problem with not joining in a “national playoff”. For years (during the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition years), the B10 sent its champ to play another conference champ instead of a 2-team playoff.
Is anybody (other than maybe Kirk Ferentz) still in power today in the B10 who was in power back then? Most of the presidents have months on the job, ands even the ADs change,
Which would ND choose?
The one where they get paid the most and have access. They can’t play in an all-B10/SEC playoff.
LikeLike
Well, unless the B10 and SEC allows in anyone who agrees to their system, even if it’s 6 bids for each of the B10 and SEC, 3 bids for the top 3 other league champs, and 1 spot for everyone else (including ND) in a 16-team playoff.
Compared to that, 12 total bids with no automatic spots for champs (or maybe only for the top 2 league champs) sounds pretty good.
As for legal/governmental remedies, remember that the SEC and B10 have lobbying power too.
Anyway, what is the demand of the non-B10/SEC powers in CFB? The default is 6 conference champs and 6 at-large spots. The B10 and SEC wouldn’t be _too_ happy, with that, but they could live with it (as it would make their CCG’s valuable). They’d probably prefer 5&7 or no slots for champs, but 5&7 probably isn’t too different anyway.
The big fight will be over money. The B10 and SEC will want more money to be given for more appearances. They may accept 6&6 to have more of an MBB tournament-style revenue-distribution system.
Finally, as for what the SEC wants, it’s what’s best for the SEC, and that means allying with the B10 (same goes for the B10). The B10 may not have wanted to drive a P2 narrative before, but until relatively recently, there was no P2 so of course they didn’t (in any case, Petitti doesn’t seem to be the type to be in to “driving narratives”; he’ll be happy to let Sankey drive the narrative–and take the arrows–but don’t think for a minute that he’s not looking to maximize CFP spots and money for the B10, which means allying with the SEC even if it is behind the scenes). Anyway, circumstances have changed. After Texas and OU joined the SEC, USC&UCLA joined the B10, and definitely after UW & UO joined the B10, there are now 11 kings&princes in the B10, 10 kings&princes in the SEC, and 3-5 (depending on what you consider UNC and Miami) in the rest of CFB (OK, maaaaaybe 3-6 if you consider OK St. almost a prince but that’s really stretching it).
Before the recent conference realignment, it was 7 in the B10, 8 in the SEC, and the ACC and Pac both had (up to) 4, so there was a difference between the B10/SEC and everyone else, but not a chasm. Now there is a chasm between the P2 and everyone else.
Don’t be surprised to see the P2 cut a deal with the G5 to agree to something beneficial to both sides at the expense of the B12 and ACC (basically a less extreme version of my example B10/SEC tournament where they also let the MAC and Sun Belt in).
LikeLike
So for example, if the SEC and B10 told the G5 and ND:
“OK, each of you G5 get a playoff spot (in a 16-team playoff), there’s another spot for the best non-SEC/B10 team that isn’t a league champ (invariably ND), and each of us P2 will get 5 slots each, oh, and BTW, all CFP money will be split based on games played (so 30 total shares a year)”, do you think the G5 and ND would so “no” out of solidary with the ACC and B12?
Note that these days, both the B10 and SEC have roughly a third of the entire CFB fanbase each while the rest of CFB split the other third.
LikeLike
Richard,
As for legal/governmental remedies, remember that the SEC and B10 have lobbying power too.
They do, but judges have been ruling against the NCAA for years. It only takes one to stop the B10 and SEC. And congress getting more involved is never good.
Anyway, what is the demand of the non-B10/SEC powers in CFB? The default is 6 conference champs and 6 at-large spots. The B10 and SEC wouldn’t be _too_ happy, with that, but they could live with it (as it would make their CCG’s valuable). They’d probably prefer 5&7 or no slots for champs, but 5&7 probably isn’t too different anyway.
My guess is that the AAC will say 6+6 should stay, but ultimately they’re fine with 5+7 and a bit more money. “Top 12 only” is what will draw too much backlash.
The big fight will be over money. The B10 and SEC will want more money to be given for more appearances. They may accept 6&6 to have more of an MBB tournament-style revenue-distribution system.
It will be key, but they often settle these things reasonably. The G5 percentage of any base payout will go up slightly from the CFP (after adjusting for the number of teams that moved up – and maybe down). If they go with the tourney model, it’s hard for the G5 to complain too much because it’s an established model. I think the battle will be what % is based on wins vs what % is shared as base revenue. But my guess is that the negotiations will actually go relatively smoothly because the total money is growing so much.
Finally, as for what the SEC wants, it’s what’s best for the SEC, and that means allying with the B10 (same goes for the B10).
We agree on the first part. I’m not sure about the second part. The SEC separating from the B10 financially may be more important to them than absolutely maximizing their total revenue. It depends on how big the difference would be, in their opinion. If working together means $20M more per school, they’ll do it. If they don’t cooperate and the SEC schools gain $15M each while the B10 gains nothing, the SEC might prefer that.
… but don’t think for a minute that he’s not looking to maximize CFP spots and money for the B10, which means allying with the SEC even if it is behind the scenes).
I’m not saying they would make bad business decisions to spite each other. Of course they’ll work together where they agree and it makes sense. But I think they have some legitimate differences of opinion that they won’t just ignore to collude against everyone else.
Don’t be surprised to see the P2 cut a deal with the G5 to agree to something beneficial to both sides at the expense of the B12 and ACC (basically a less extreme version of my example B10/SEC tournament where they also let the MAC and Sun Belt in).
I actually would be surprised at that. I think the conferences tend to work together better than that on these sorts of things. They still take schools from each other, but most of these post-season decisions have gone fairly genially.
So for example, if the SEC and B10 told the G5 and ND:
“OK, each of you G5 get a playoff spot (in a 16-team playoff), there’s another spot for the best non-SEC/B10 team that isn’t a league champ (invariably ND), and each of us P2 will get 5 slots each, oh, and BTW, all CFP money will be split based on games played (so 30 total shares a year)”, do you think the G5 and ND would so “no” out of solidary with the ACC and B12?
I do think that would get voted down, but I also don’t think it would get phrased that way. The SEC would just say top 16 in that case (maybe 4+12) and trust their quality to get them 5+ spots every year. Locking in multiple bids for just 2 conferences begs for lawsuits.
LikeLike
Brian:
“If they don’t cooperate and the SEC schools gain $15M each while the B10 gains nothing, the SEC might prefer that.”
The issue here is I just can’t see that scenario being in any version of reality. Can you outline a realistic scenario where the SEC gains $15mm each while the B10 gains nothing by not cooperating with the B10? That’s why I’m saying their interests are aligning.
Also, courts have been ruling against artificial (illegal) constraints (such as on NIL payment) imposed by the NCAA. Which is what the SEC and B10 want! The SEC and B10 would love it if every conference was allowed to negotiate who they played a playoff against or if only the 12 best (or 14 best or 16 best) teams were selected in the CFP.
LikeLike
Sankey was okay with 6+6. Actually, he was more than okay—he was on the committee that came up with it. And he did this knowing that Texas and Oklahoma were coming into his league, although others didn’t know that yet.
I believe Sankey knew that 6+6 in practice meant autobids for the Power Five, one guaranteed G5 spot, and six at-large. But by not calling them “autobids” expressly, you get out of anti-trust concerns while getting almost entirely what you want.
The only real difference with “Best 12” is that the G5 are not guaranteed a bid. Sankey is willing to throw 1/12th of the playoff in their direction, to keep them onside and to ensure the support of Senators from states like Idaho that don’t have a P5 team.
So what has changed since Sankey voted for 6+6? Simply that one of the P5 no longer exists. So however much they rattle the saber, all Sankey wants is 5+7, which reflects the reality that the Power Five is no longer five.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think he wants top 12, but he’s fine with 5+7. The threat of top 12 is his leverage point against the G5 trying to force 6+6 to remain the plan.
But for 2026 on, when it only takes a majority, that’s where it gets interesting to me. The B10 and SEC both need to support the final plan, and I’m not sure if they agree on 5+7 vs top 12 for that.
LikeLike
Brian, I’m not sure why they would disagree. The B10 isn’t afraid its champ won’t be in the top 12 and like the SEC, has a loaded lineup now that will get at least 3-4 teams in the CFP every year in a “top 12” scheme.
LikeLike
Why did they disagree about it before? Was the B10 afraid their champ wouldn’t get in then? I doubt it.
The B10 places more value on winning a conference.
LikeLike
Frankly, it didn’t make a whole lot of sense for the B10 to disagree before either. I suppose you could make the argument that Warren wanted to maximize the value of the B10 CCG but, IMO, a lot of it was just ego. From all accounts, Petitti is much more capable of working with other people.
Furthermore, the previous CFP discussion was mostly when the B10 still had divisions and before the B10 added 1 more king and 3 more princes. When circumstances change, interests change.
But B10 obstinance in the past very well could cost them this coming 2023 season. If the B10 had agreed to the 12-team CFP earlier, the B10 could very well have placed 3 existing B10 teams in a 12-team CFP in 2023 with 3 soon-to-be B10 teams (USC, UO, and UW) as well but only 1 B10 team in a 4-team CFP (the SEC looks like they really only have 3 CFP contenders this year, though soon-to-be member Texas is as well).
I don’t see Petitti and Sankey not coming to an agreement quickly (whether that is top 12 or 5&7; as Sankey seems fine with 5&7, that is probably what they will unite on), and then presenting a unified front to everyone else.
Though honestly, the best CFP set-up for the SEC and B10 is probably 2&12 in a 14 team playoff, where the top conference champs (nearly always the P2) get byes to the quarter-finals.
Don’t be surprised if the SEC & B10 unite on that stance in the near future.
LikeLike
I suppose you could make the argument that Warren wanted to maximize the value of the B10 CCG but, IMO, a lot of it was just ego.
Sadly, I think this is the best explanation. Warren dropped his insistence on autobids, with no changes to the underlying facts. He simply “softened his stance on that” [the exact words he used] without explanation.
But maybe he was getting this feedback from ADs who had not thought it through very clearly. When was the last time the Big Ten champ would not have made the field in the 6+6 model? You could construct a far-out scenario where it would happen, but it was always highly unlikely.
LikeLike
I think much of the criticism of Warren is unwarranted. He made the ‘wrong’ call on playing during the COVID pandemic but of course he was simply following the advice of medical advisors. Should he have declared “These doctors are clueless. Let’s play football”? Everyone from Trump to Fauci was lambasted for making the wrong decisions during the pandemic.
He then spoke out of turn on conference expansion. Then the conference expanded – twice. Warren wasn’t Delany but he also wasn’t as bad as John Swofford, Larry Scott, Dan Beebe, Mike Tranghese or George Kliavkoff.
LikeLike
I think much of the criticism of Warren is unwarranted. He made the ‘wrong’ call on playing during the COVID pandemic…. He then spoke out of turn on conference expansion. Then the conference expanded – twice. Warren wasn’t Delany but he also wasn’t as bad as John Swofford, Larry Scott, Dan Beebe, Mike Tranghese or George Kliavkoff.
I am inclined to agree. In terms of what we can see, he didn’t really screw up that badly, especially compared with those other gentlemen. And yet, the presidents in essence fired him. Whatever they were seeing, they didn’t like it.
The reporting was that he pushed aggressive westward expansion and dropped rumors that destabilized the Pac-12, which the presidents didn’t like. But eventually they blew up the Pac-12 anyway — exactly what he had wanted. However, I think he was in favor of adding Cal and Stanford too.
LikeLike
You have to judge a commissioner based on the hand they are dealt as well, though. Heading the B10 (and SEC) is commissisoneering on Easy Mode. Trying to herd the unrealistic cats in the Pac after the mess Larry Scott left is doing it on Extra Hard Mode.
Beebe at least kept the B12 alive and many if not most schools in the ACC are probably thankful that Swofford locked FSU and Clemson in to a super-long deal. GTech, WF, and BC should be sending Swofford gifts every Christmas and most of the rest (outside of FSU, Clemson, and maybe Miami and UNC) probably are about as well off (or at least not really worse off) than if FSU & Clemson (& maybe Miami & UNC) had left the ACC by now, which they likely would have done if they weren’t locked in to that crazy-long GOR.
LikeLike
Marc:
Warren wasn’t exactly A+ in people/communication/soft skills.
With the intrinsic advantages of the B10, the B10 schools can get what they want in a manner that the schools find more agreeable.
LikeLike
Richard,
Frankly, it didn’t make a whole lot of sense for the B10 to disagree before either.
It didn’t make sense to you. That doesn’t mean it didn’t make sense to them.
I suppose you could make the argument that Warren wanted to maximize the value of the B10 CCG but, IMO, a lot of it was just ego. From all accounts, Petitti is much more capable of working with other people.
I don’t think it was about CCG money or ego. Warren seemed to work with people just fine in his other jobs. Presidents might be a unique group to manage.
Furthermore, the previous CFP discussion was mostly when the B10 still had divisions and before the B10 added 1 more king and 3 more princes. When circumstances change, interests change.
They can change, sure,
But B10 obstinance in the past very well could cost them this coming 2023 season. If the B10 had agreed to the 12-team CFP earlier, the B10 could very well have placed 3 existing B10 teams in a 12-team CFP in 2023 with 3 soon-to-be B10 teams (USC, UO, and UW) as well but only 1 B10 team in a 4-team CFP (the SEC looks like they really only have 3 CFP contenders this year, though soon-to-be member Texas is as well).
Having a stance that differs from yours is obstinance? Perhaps the B10 knows more about what is best for it than you do.
I don’t see Petitti and Sankey not coming to an agreement quickly (whether that is top 12 or 5&7; as Sankey seems fine with 5&7, that is probably what they will unite on), and then presenting a unified front to everyone else.
I doubt it takes too long either. They both know the clock is ticking and want to get something done. But as you said earlier, this is half of the negotiation, with the money split being the other. The combination of the two may take a little longer to settle, just due to the details and all the varying opinions that may be presented. A unified G5 on the money split would at least shorten the process.
Though honestly, the best CFP set-up for the SEC and B10 is probably 2&12 in a 14 team playoff, where the top conference champs (nearly always the P2) get byes to the quarter-finals.
I doubt that’s going to happen. Champ bids will either include a G5 slot (5+7) or they will disappear. Just 2 would only cause arguments and probably risk legal/governmental issues.
Don’t be surprised if the SEC & B10 unite on that stance in the near future.
I’d be quite surprised if they settled on that particular stance, actually.
LikeLike
Marc,
Sadly, I think this is the best explanation. Warren dropped his insistence on autobids, with no changes to the underlying facts. He simply “softened his stance on that” [the exact words he used] without explanation.
Warren’s stance was what he was told it should be, by his bosses (the presidents and Fox). It changed when he was told to change it. And the underlying facts did change.
But maybe he was getting this feedback from ADs who had not thought it through very clearly.
Or presidents. Or Fox.
When was the last time the Big Ten champ would not have made the field in the 6+6 model? You could construct a far-out scenario where it would happen, but it was always highly unlikely.
2012 – unranked WI was the 10th champ (SEC, B12, P12, ACC, WAC, MAC, BE, CUSA, SB, B10)
2009 – #8 OSU was the 7th champ (SEC, B12, BE, MWC, WAC, P12, B10)
Are these likely to recur? No. But something like 2009 is still plausible, especially if a bunch of champs go undefeated (or 1-loss) and the B10 CCG is an upset.
LikeLike
Marc,
The reporting was that he pushed aggressive westward expansion and dropped rumors that destabilized the Pac-12, which the presidents didn’t like.
We know he did the second part of that, so the first part seems likely.
But eventually they blew up the Pac-12 anyway — exactly what he had wanted. However, I think he was in favor of adding Cal and Stanford too.
1. Totally different circumstances – CU was gone and the P12 was likely to splinter
2. Fox agreed to pay for them (they wouldn’t before), since they got a half-off deal.
LikeLike
Frankly, it didn’t make a whole lot of sense for the B10 to disagree before either.
It didn’t make sense to you. That doesn’t mean it didn’t make sense to them.
University presidents do dumb things occasionally — or, if you are the Pac-12, that is the only thing you do. Obviously the Big Ten is a far better run conference, but that doesn’t mean they get a free pass on decisions that are unexplained (or barely explained) and don’t make sense on their face.
It’s weak to say it must’ve made sense just because they said so. Sometimes the people in suits are mistaken. Their about-face suggests to me that they realized they had it wrong.
LikeLike
Marc,
University presidents do dumb things occasionally — or, if you are the Pac-12, that is the only thing you do. Obviously the Big Ten is a far better run conference, but that doesn’t mean they get a free pass on decisions that are unexplained (or barely explained) and don’t make sense on their face.
It made sense on its face (multiple arguments supporting the decision were presented here – scroll up and look), you all just didn’t like the rationale because it prioritized different things than you would prioritize. Disagreeing with the reasoning doesn’t make it a bad decision or mean it doesn’t make sense.
It’s weak to say it must’ve made sense just because they said so. Sometimes the people in suits are mistaken.
Sure they are. But they’re also correct sometimes, too. And they have a lot of information that we don’t have access to (numbers, what Fox is saying, etc.).
Their about-face suggests to me that they realized they had it wrong.
You disagreed with it, so of course you see it that way. You refuse to acknowledge the changes in the circumstances between the first decision and the later one.
LikeLike
You refuse to acknowledge the changes in the circumstances between the first decision and the later one.
Name one, other than people realizing they were wrong. I am not aware of any.
An about-face like this is rare. Usually there is at least something that moves. It allows the former no votes to save face, so they can claim that objecting bought them something.
In this case, they simply decided to (or were told to) accept the very plan they had objected to, with no changes to it at all.
LikeLike
Marc,
Name one, other than people realizing they were wrong. I am not aware of any.
The plan at the time for CFP expansion would have given ESPN all the CFP games.
LikeLike
The plan at the time for CFP expansion would have given ESPN all the CFP games.
And you seriously think this was why Kevin Warren suddenly decided that autobids were no longer necessary?
The ACC issued a statement at the time that, “The membership of the ACC is very much aligned in its position that now is not the time to expand the College Football Playoff.” And then they cited a bunch of factors like NIL and athlete health. This is a far cry from, “We would expand, if only the right networks were broadcasting it.”
The Pac-12 issued the most fulsome statement. They said there were six options, they could support any of them, and that every option had at least one no vote. None of those no votes on the structure of the playoff was related to who would broadcast the games.
For some reason you’ve got an idée fixe that the role of ESPN was what blew it up, and this is seemingly backed by no facts at all. No, they lacked agreement on the format. And then, with no change to the underlying facts, decided to support the very same format they had rejected.
LikeLike
Marc,
The plan at the time for CFP expansion would have given ESPN all the CFP games.
And you seriously think this was why Kevin Warren suddenly decided that autobids were no longer necessary?
You didn’t ask that question. You asked me to name one circumstance that changed, because you claimed nothing had changed. That changed, and it was a major change. Fox had all the incentive in the world to ask the B10 to block it at first, but a lot less reason once the games would go out for bid.
I doubt Warren ever cared one way or the other about autobids, but I have no evidence. The presidents may have cared, then seen the numbers showing it wouldn’t matter, and dropped their objection. They tend to be busy people who don’t focus on this stuff as much as they should. Or maybe ADs were pushing for it to help their coaches (so no matter how weak the team was, the B10 champ got a spot), then got overruled. Or maybe Fox stopped asking the B10 to block it.
The ACC issued a statement at the time that, “The membership of the ACC is very much aligned in its position that now is not the time to expand the College Football Playoff.” And then they cited a bunch of factors like NIL and athlete health. This is a far cry from, “We would expand, if only the right networks were broadcasting it.”
And did you believe a word they said then? Most people didn’t seem to.
For some reason you’ve got an idée fixe that the role of ESPN was what blew it up, and this is seemingly backed by no facts at all.
Again, you asked a different question and are reading more into the answer than is warranted.
1. Nothing was blown up. 3 conferences said no until enough things changed that they stopped saying no. There was no explosion.
2. One thing that changed was ESPN getting a sweetheart extension deal. Other things changed too.
3. None of us know which of those things that changed may have mattered to the change of position.
4. Us not knowing the cause doesn’t automatically mean there was no reason, or they were idiots, or any of the other assumptions you keep making.
No, they lacked agreement on the format. And then, with no change to the underlying facts, decided to support the very same format they had rejected.
Underlying facts did change. Stop lying about that. You can argue they shouldn’t have been relevant, but not that they didn’t change.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
ACC brass meeting this week as conference seriously considers adding Stanford, Cal, SMU: Source
By Nicole Auerbach and The Athletic Staff 11m ago
The ACC is seriously considering adding Stanford, Cal and SMU, a source briefed on the discussions confirmed Wednesday. ESPN first reported the news. Here’s what you need to know:
A group of ACC presidents met Wednesday morning to discuss finances, the source said. More meetings, including between athletic directors, are expected to occur this week.
The ACC had a number of meetings earlier this month to discuss expansion and sift through the financial details that could make it possible but did not conduct a formal vote amid pushback from within the league.
The conference would need 12 of 15 member schools to vote “yes” in order to add any new members. Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina and NC State opposed the additions of Cal and Stanford, as of the last discussions.
LikeLike
Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellinger has additional details:
Cal and Stanford would join with 30% media shares for an unspecified number of years. SMU would join with zero media distribution for up to seven years. After paying travel expenses, the league would have about $30m extra to distribute, which would be tied to performance — championships won, poll ranking, bowl participation, and so forth.
LikeLike
If true, then it is going to be very important how long that 30% share is effect. Last year ACC schools received about $39.4 million each in conference distributions. 30% of that is $11.82 million. If we assume that the Bay Area schools would face an additional $10 million in annual travel costs compared to a reconstituted PAC (or even MWC), Cal and Stanford would be losing money compared to just staying where they are.
Stanford can probably afford to absorb that loss in order to get in the ACC, but I’m not sure Cal can (at least not long or even medium term).
LikeLike
I should add that
A. The $10 million was based on Washington expects to pay for joining the Big Ten
B. Joining the ACC does have potential monetary benefits not reflected in conference distributions (more attractive home games which could boost ticket revenue and more donations), but that would be at least partially offset by likely being less competitive in the ACC because of the distribution disparity.
LikeLike
Cal may not have $$$ but if the BoT levies a $10M per year impact tax on UCLA they should be able to get by with a 30% distribution.
LikeLike
Little8: “Cal may not have $$$ but if the BoT levies a $10M per year impact tax on UCLA they should be able to get by with a 30% distribution.”
Is the “Berkeley Tax” still in effect? That was done to offset Cal’s loss of revenue due to UCLA’s departure. But now the whole conference is departing, including (probably) Cal to the ACC.
LikeLike
frug,
UCLA estimated $8M. I think that’s a better match to Cal/Stanford than UW is.
Also, the ACCN distribution might increase a bit and the CFP money will increase.
Still, they won’t make much.
LikeLike
Little8,
How long can Cal count on that?
At some point UCLA is going to defend itself – Cal’s clear lack of value (nobody wanted them), Cal potentially leaving behind all the NCAA money if WSU and OrSU remain (legally) as the P12, Cal choosing to take less money and fly cross country rather than stay localish with the MWC, etc.
LikeLike
The tax on UCLA will last as long as the UC BoT requires it. It might be through the entire new B10 contract. How long is all politics just like imposing this cost on UCLA is.
Cal and Stanford seem to believe they will get the ACC votes. Maybe they turned the UNC vote by agreeing to drop women’s soccer? With Title IX that will also require dropping men’s soccer. Regardless of where these schools wind up they will probably have to trim multiple non-revenue sports to balance reduced budgets.
LikeLike
Fair point, though I just read the Yahoo article again, and it turns out Stanford and Cal wouldn’t even be getting a 30% of share off a full distribution.
Apparently, the pro rata clause in the ACC’s contract with ESPN is only valued at around 70% per school added, and the NoCal would only get 30% of that. So they are only looking at $7-10 million distributions instead of $12 million.
LikeLike
At some point UCLA is going to defend itself – Cal’s clear lack of value (nobody wanted them), Cal potentially leaving behind all the NCAA money if WSU and OrSU remain (legally) as the P12, Cal choosing to take less money and fly cross country rather than stay localish with the MWC, etc.
The MWC pays around $4m per school. Even with a reduced media share and after accounting for travel costs, Cal will be getting significantly more than that from the ACC. Joining the ACC is without question the best financial move for them, whatever its other drawbacks might be.
But it does weaken Cal’s argument, because they criticized UCLA for chasing money while imposing huge travel burdens on their athletes, and now they are about to do precisely that.
Cal athletics is sagging under a mountain of debt that they took on voluntarily. But the rest of the schools in the UC system run their athletics programs without subsidies from the others. Why in this case should one school be forced indefinitely to prop up one of the others?
I am sure UCLA will make that argument. I don’t know if they’ll succeed — California (the state) has a long history of doing things differently.
LikeLike
Marc,
The MWC pays around $4m per school. Even with a reduced media share and after accounting for travel costs, Cal will be getting significantly more than that from the ACC. Joining the ACC is without question the best financial move for them, whatever its other drawbacks might be.
Wilner said it was around $5M, but whatever. Cal only gets 30% of the ACC’s tier 1 deal, not the whole ACC deal including ACCN, so we’re talking roughly $8-10M. Subtract $8-10M in extra travel costs, and they’re at $0. Sure, the new CFP money will go up some but the ACC is not splitting that equally so I doubt Cal sees much of a bump from it. The MWC would increase travel costs less, but it also doesn’t pay much. The big difference is the exposure, and also the prestige of staying P4 vs G5.
I am sure UCLA will make that argument. I don’t know if they’ll succeed — California (the state) has a long history of doing things differently.
Yes, but this was mostly a hissy fit because Drake approved it without asking the regents directly first. They tried to strongarm UCLA into staying or the B10 into inviting both, and it failed. They had to be seen to do something about it. But now circumstances have changed with the P12 dying, and maybe the Calimony drops to the lower end ($2-10M is the official range) or just goes away in a few years.
LikeLike
Frug:
Keep in mind that even a reconstituted Pac would likely have a bunch of schools far away from the WC at first (all the schools talked about were in the Mid-South + USF).
In that article, it says that 30% is of the Tier 1 share that ESPN long agreed to pay pro rata for any new ACC addition ($24mm/year), so $7-8mm/year. That Tier 1 share is 70% of the full ACC media share, the rest being for presumably tier 2 and tier 3 (like the ACCN) that ESPN is evidently not contractually obligated to pay for Stanford+Cal+SMU, so those schools aren’t getting that. That would make a full share of media payout 34.3mm. If the total conference distribution is about $40mm, that extra 5mm or so is for NCAA credits, bowl payouts, etc. that the new members might be able to take in some of.
The article did say “After Cal and Stanford’s share and travel costs are off-set (roughly $1-2 million per school), the ACC stands to earn at least $30 million in revenue to re-distribute, likely through an incentive pool based on athletic success.” Not sure if those travel costs are for only the existing schools, though. If Cal + Stanford + SMU means the ACC gets $72mm more from the WWL, $30mm of that is set aside for incentive payments, and Stanford & Cal get $15mm total, that’s $27mm to cover travel costs, which seems like enough to cover travel costs for both existing ACC members and the Bay Area pair. Maybe 1 plane could take all 4 teams on trips between the east and west coasts for some sports?
The article did say:
“All three new members would join in all sports, would sign the ACC’s grant-of-rights agreement and would see their annual revenue distribution slowly rise to become full share members by the end of the contract.”
The whole article is worth a read.
LikeLike
Last year ACC schools received about $39.4 million each in conference distributions. 30% of that is $11.82 million… Cal and Stanford would be losing money compared to just staying where they are.
“Where they are” goes to zero at the end of this season. Cal and Stanford’s next best option is to rebuild the Pac with a combo of MWC and AAC teams. We don’t know yet what TV would pay for that, but both of those leagues pay a lot less than $11.82 million.
I am a bit unclear on how the ACC would treat other revenue besides the ESPN media payout, which granted is the biggest piece but not the only piece.
LikeLike
Interestingly, Michael Silver is reporting that the ACC is finalizing a deal to add Cal and Stanford for FB and BB only
While that would certainly reduce travel costs and make it easier on non-revs sports (shorter travel), I’m not sure who exactly would add the Bears and Cardinal without BB. WCC? Big West?
LikeLike
And I just checked, and now Silver is backing off a bit. Saying all all sports membership is still in play.
https://nitter.net/MikeSilver/status/1694503702479221017#m
I could see FB membership working, but I just don’t see how FB and BB would work (in fact, I think it might require the joining schools to drop down a division since I don’t think you can have sports in multiple conferences if they both offer a sport)
LikeLike
ACC is finalizing a deal to add Cal and Stanford for FB and BB only
I don’t think that’s a thing. IIRC there is a NCAA rule that says if your conference sponsors a sport, your only other option is to be independent. Could you imagine the single sport realignment chaos that would happen if this was legal?
LikeLike
Hawaii has been a football-only member of the Mountain West Conference for several years.
LikeLike
That’s because the Big West doesn’t sponsor FBS FB. I don’t think Hawaii could play BB in the MWC and Big West for everything else since both conferences sponsor BB.
LikeLike
Hawaii’s main conference is the Big West, which doesn’t sponsor football. If a school plays a sport that their main conference doesn’t have, they can belong to a different conference for that sport.
I have asked a number of times over the years whether it’s a hard-and-fast rule that you must play all your sports in your main conference—if they offer it. Nobody ever seems to find where that is actually written down, if it’s a rule at all.
LikeLike
https://sicem365.com/s/15599/how-the-television-map-influences-realignment
Interactive map looking at CFB TV viewership in various ways.
The data behind it is questionable. In particular, not the difference between AL and GA for supposed fan interest. Just because fans in AL liked things on Facebook more often does not mean fan interest dies at the state border. It just means AL and Auburn fans like memes that mock their rivals a lot. Something like TV ratings for CFP games averaged over a few years
Also, using change in ordinal ranking of metro areas is terrible. The gap between #1 and #2 is as large as the gap between #3 and #18 or between #15 and #210. He should have used change in share (NYC = 6.24% of all US households, but a much smaller share of those who like CFB).
LikeLike
The reddest states have no NFL presence.
LikeLike
Very good analysis. Thanks for the link, Brian.
LikeLike
No Bernie, the difference between AL and GA for supposed fan interest in the survey is due to NFL presence in Georgia vs none in Alabama, not Facebook crap. Brian’s analysis is mistaken. He just made that up.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Colin. Even though UGa and Bama are both CFB kings, AL has another CFB prince in Auburn and no pro sports teams (while GA has a ton of pro sports teams). The same is true of OK and TX. This data is also from 2014, before UGa started winning natties.
The top 10 metros for CFB are:
1 Atlanta
2 DFW
3 Detroit
4 Columbus
5 LA
6 Tampa
7 Cleveland
8 Birmingham
9 Raleigh/NC Triangle
10 NYC
Other than the NC Triangle, they’re all within the footprint of the B10 (6) or SEC (3, but including Atlanta, the top 1) now.
And you can see why the Bay Area teams weren’t deemed attractive by the B10. The Bay Area exhibit less interest in CFB than micro-metros like Huntsville, Columbia SC, Des Moines, Lexington, Tulsa, Little Rock, and Mobile.
The vast majority of CFB fans are in that trapezoid with corners at the Twin Cities, NYC, Tampa, and Austin/San Antonio, encompassing the SEC and B10 heartlands with a few western outposts in LA, Seattle, SLC, Denver, and Phoenix. As the latter 3 are growing metros, don’t be surprised if the B10 adds the 4 Corner schools around 2050 to finally become contiguous coast-to-coast.
LikeLike
Jack Swarbrick, the ND athletic director, has on multiple occasions defined the conditions that would force the football program into a conference. In a recent appearance on the Dan Patrick show, he put it in the starkest terms yet:
Patrick asked Swarbrick point-blank where Notre Dame football would be without a favorable, fortuitous, profitable deal with NBC.
Patrick put it something like this: if NBC didn’t extend the current contract at a much higher price, would Notre Dame join a conference?
“If we didn’t have somebody else that was willing to step up, yes,” Swarbrick said.
Swarbrick also said, “all the major conferences are a possibility.” An interesting comment, given ND’s contractual commitments to the ACC.
My personal opinion is that Swarbrick is preparing the faithful, so that if they ever join a conference, it won’t come out of nowhere. Bear in mind, this article was posted on an ND microsite — its audience is primarily readers who bleed blue and gold. There’s no way Swarbrick says all this if the school’s senior leadership is not of the same opinion.
LikeLike
It seems that ND is in an awkward position with regard to their NBC contract negotiations. Their viewership is in steady decline. We all agree that their 2023 and 2024 home schedule is a few blockbusters plus a lot of eye-glazers. So should NBC give them a pay increase on par with the Big Ten & SEC because they say they’re going to upgrade their schedule? I believe they will, but will the viewers return?
Another concern, how will FSU and Clemson react to ND getting a big pay increase? It seems that would be a stick in the eye since both of them are openly unhappy with their current ACC TV deal. And if the Big Ten and SEC schools get yet another large increase in revenue in 2030, does NBC play catch-up again? Do FSU and Clemson then go berserk?
LikeLike
1. FSU and Clemson can go berserk as much as they want. They’re definitely not NBC’s concern.
2. The B10 gets a new TV deal in 2030. The SEC in 2034. The top ACC teams will leave before 2036 anyway.
LikeLike
Richard: “1. FSU and Clemson can go berserk as much as they want. They’re definitely not NBC’s concern.”
I wasn’t suggesting it was NBC’s concern at all. FSU and Clemson are squealing about their low football payouts. How are they going to feel when the disparity with ND’s payout gets even greater?
LikeLike
FSU and Clemson are squealing about their low football payouts. How are they going to feel when the disparity with ND’s payout gets even greater?
When you invite Notre Dame into your conference as a football independent, you’ve no right to be annoyed when they market their football for more money. It’s what they always intended to do, and they were not secretive about it.
I can’t control for the irrational things that people might squeal about, but complaining about Notre Dame makes no sense and isn’t going to help them solve any of their problems. I think FSU and Clemson know that.
LikeLike
Marc: “When you invite Notre Dame into your conference as a football independent, you’ve no right to be annoyed when they market their football for more money.”
You could just as easily say “When you sign a 20-year GOR, you’ve no right to be annoyed when other conferences subsequently market their football for more money.” That certainly didn’t stop FSU and Clemson from squealing.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this works out. Will NBC pony up what ND wants? If they do, how will FSU and Clemson react?
LikeLike
Happy for the Irish, like you do when your best bud lands a dream job?
Honestly, I’m not sure why their feelings matter to anyone else. They’re gone by 2036 anyway if either the SEC or B10 want them (though Colin, I would rather that the B10 pursues your Mountain West dream of adding CU and UU to partial shares in 2030).
LikeLike
You could just as easily say “When you sign a 20-year GOR, you’ve no right to be annoyed when other conferences subsequently market their football for more money.” That certainly didn’t stop FSU and Clemson from squealing.
There’s an important distinction here. FSU and Clemson aren’t mad because the Big Ten looked out for itself. They are mad at their own conference.
LikeLike
Another concern, how will FSU and Clemson react to ND getting a big pay increase?
Everyone knew that when the ACC accepted ND’s Olympic sports, the Irish were going to monetize football separately, and they were going to make more. If FSU and Clemson didn’t want that to happen, then they should have tried to block ND’s entry into the conference. While the vote to admit them wasn’t made public, I have never read there were any no’s.
There is no reason to be resentful for ND going out and getting the best deal for themselves. The Irish were always up-front about their intentions. It’s not their fault that FSU and Clemson signed a bad grant of rights.
And if the Big Ten and SEC schools get yet another large increase in revenue in 2030, does NBC play catch-up again?
Sports deals go up over time, so very likely yes. If the Irish agree to upgrade their schedule, by 2030 it will be apparent whether that worked or not.
LikeLike
Last year it was widely reported that FOX, NBC, and CBS had specific Notre Dame language in their B1G TV deals to indicate what the payout would be if the Irish joined. The specific values were not made public. If any of these networks opt to bid on the next Notre Dame TV deal it would seem they have a number in mind. Only difference is what’s ND football worth to them playing the B1G schedule vs. the independent/ACC schedule?
The other thing to consider is what linear windows are available for ND and at what price? The logical choice would be for NBC to keep the afternoon window as a lead in to the prime time B1G games. If another network doesn’t offer a reasonable alternative there is no reason for NBC to break the bank.
LikeLike
There’s no reason for another network to not offer a reasonable alternative.
CBS has virtually nothing outside the afternoon B10 window (so both the noon and primetime windows are free). Fox only has a few (mostly poor) B12 picks to show after Big Ten Big Noon. The WWL can always fit in ND games with the many TV slots it has on both ABC and ESPN even with a ton of SEC and the top ACC games.
LikeLike
Well, Marc is correct when he points out that Swarbrick’s comments on independence have now softened considerably. When asked, Swarbrick said “(ND would join a conference) If we didn’t have somebody else (other than NBC) that was willing to step up, yes,”
That is a new condition. In the past ND claimed they the two factors that would make them reconsider independence were (1) reduced access to the CFP or (2) no suitable platform for Olympic sports. They never before said that TV revenue was an issue.
I also agree with Marc’s opinion that Swarbrick is preparing the Domer faithful for the possibility of giving up independence in football. His “any conference” comment seems out of touch with ND’s ACC agreement.
LikeLike
CBS has virtually nothing outside the afternoon B10 window (so both the noon and primetime windows are free). Fox only has a few (mostly poor) B12 picks to show after Big Ten Big Noon. The WWL can always fit in ND games with the many TV slots it has on both ABC and ESPN even with a ton of SEC and the top ACC games.
Fox has MLB playoffs. And while you might consider those B12 games “poor,” Fox is nevertheless contracted to show them. I am pretty sure CBS has some commitments too. Since they’re showing the Big Ten at 3:30 ET, CBS would force ND to start its afternoon games at noon ET, which many other programs already do, but ND has so far always avoided.
ESPN would find a home for ND, but the afternoon games wouldn’t all be on broadcast TV at 1:30 ET, as they are on NBC.
In the past ND claimed they the two factors that would make them reconsider independence were (1) reduced access to the CFP or (2) no suitable platform for Olympic sports. They never before said that TV revenue was an issue.
They’ve said it many times, but they were a little less direct about it. This is the first time (I know of) that Swarbrick has said straight-up that NBC needs to pay significantly more, or independence is in jeopardy.
LikeLike
Fox doesn’t have that many B12 picks, and can put them on FS1. They do have MLB but they are usually at night.
Yes, ND would have to move away from their traditional 2:30PM eastern start time, but they are already doing so for the 2023 season, likely at NBC’s request to lead in to primetime B10 games:
https://fbschedules.com/notre-dame-sets-kickoff-times-for-home-football-games-in-2023/
As you can see, the Domers only have their streaming-only game on Peacock set to start at 2:30PM eastern. 2 more are in primetime. The other 3 will be at a “standard” 3:30PM Eastern slot.
LikeLike
Serves me right for not looking. I didn’t know ND had moved to 3:30. The one thing they don’t yet have is 12:00 ET starts, which they’d require for CBS to be a bidder.
Fox doesn’t have that many B12 picks, and can put them on FS1. They do have MLB but they are usually at night.
In the early playoff rounds, I am pretty sure Fox has some afternoon MLB games. Obviously all of the World Series is at night.
One would need to check, but the economics of Fox’s B12 rights are very likely modeled on a certain number of games over the air, since FS1 ratings are pretty bad. They’d be pissing away money if they pay the Big 12 for OTA exposure and then banish the games to FS1 — and they just agreed to pay for the four corners.
LikeLike
I don’t think Fox is paying that much for the B12, though. The WWL gets over 60% of the inventory and most of the top picks:
“For the “A” package, ESPN gets the top four football picks each season, six of the top eight picks, eight of the top 12 picks and 12 of the top 20 picks. As part of the deal, ESPN also gets the rights to the Big 12 football championship game and the basketball tournament championship game. The Big 12’s parity helped convince Fox, whose package includes 26 football games per season that will run on Fox broadcast network and FS1, to do the deal.”
Also, the 4 Corners schools were willing to jump even though only the ESPN portion guaranteed a pro rata share (Fox might have had some language about “good faith negotiation” or something).
So taking that all in, I have to imagine that Fox is only paying roughly 1/3rd (or less) of the total payout to the B12. It seems like Fox was looking for a lot of FS1 filler as well as a few top B12 games to put on Fox. But possibly not even 1 B12 game on Fox a week. Certainly no more than roughly 1 B12 game a week, and outside of MLB season and playoffs, they’d have both the afternoon and primetime slot open.
But it’s probably unlikely that Fox would bid for ND. But that still leaves CBS and the WWL along with NBC.
Anyway, the Domers will get paid enough to stay independent.
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2023/8/25/big-ten-conference-announces-us-integrity-partnership-and-gameday-availability-report-for-2023-football-season.aspx
Starting this season, the B10 is requiring player availability reports 2 hrs before kickoff. They will publish them, in part to avoid gambling scandals (too late for Iowa).
The Big Ten Conference announced today it will debut a gameday student-athlete availability report for all football competition during the 2023 season. In addition to the conference-wide reporting, the Big Ten has partnered with U.S. Integrity (USI) to enhance monitoring efforts and provide additional educational resources to help prevent student-athletes, coaches, and staff from engaging in prohibited sports wagering.
“The well-being of our students, coaches, and staff, as well as the integrity of our competitions are of paramount importance,” said Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti. “Enhanced transparency through availability reporting and partnering with U.S. Integrity strengthens our efforts to protect those who participate in our games as well as the integrity of the games themselves. I’m grateful for the collaboration of our schools, coaches, and administrators.”
Cue a complaint from Harbaugh in 3, 2, 1 …
My main questions:
1. What does this actually mean? Is it binary, or does it have levels (likely, questionable, …)?
2. What is the punishment if a coach lies on one of them? If it has levels, will coaches be punished for lying about those (like Belichick)?
3. Is this only about injuries, or do they have to factor in red-shirt status? Do they have to be transparent about internal discipline (player got in trouble so could play but coach won’t play him)?
4. Will other P4 conference start doing this, or will the B10 disadvantage itself (major OOC games, bowl games, CFP games)?
LikeLike
This this really that huge of a disadvantage?
I’m not following this aspect closely, but evidently other conferences are prtnering with USI as well.
LikeLike
Huge? Not usually. Most of this stuff leaks out anyway. But if a key player is available or not could easily swing bets, and might influence game prep and some coaching decisions early in a game (presumably it becomes obvious after a while that a player isn’t playing). Teams prepare differently if QB1 or DB1 or DE1 will not play. Why do coaches not name a starting QB before the 1st game every time there’s a QB battle in practice (and didn’t do it long before the portal)?
Harbaugh wouldn’t even release depth charts, so he must think there is some edge to be gained.
LikeLike
What would it cost ND to leave the ACC? ND owns it home games and that is how they sell them to NBC, so it seems to me that there is not GOR issue.
ND also gets about 1/3 of what other ACC teams get from the ACC contract, so if it would cost FSU $120,000,000 (plus GOR) to simply leave, then it seems as though ND could leave for $40 million. If NBC does not offer a huge jump in their deal, that $40 million could be paid off in a very few years.
Of course, if ND leaves, does that open the door for FSU, Clemson, etc., to leave since that is a substantial change in the conference composition?
In some ways, this would be the easiest path out of the ACC (making the huge assumption that ND does it). The remaining ACC teams could gauge interest elsewhere and then move on with the remaining teams as a weaker, but still P4 conference. Add on UConn as a full member and maybe another AAC school and there is a viable conference.
At the very least, BC, Wake, Syracuse. GaTech, probably Duke, and several others will not have better homes unless the SEC and B1G really get huge. With the four corners in hand will the B1g 12 invite logical schools such as Pitt and Lousiville to keep WVa company?
Will Miami get a B1G invite? Will that depend on where FSU lands? I am sure that the B1G will want at least on FL team and kind of doubt any SEC interest in Miami.
LikeLike
The actual contracts ND signed are not public knowledge. A lot would depend on exactly what they say.
Media reports have said that if ND joins any football conference for the life of the deal, it must join the ACC. Suppose ND ignores that and joins the Big Ten. The ACC can sue for damages. If ND’s departure causes the ACC to crash and burn, like what happened to the Pac-12, those damages could be substantial. But it all depends what is in the contract.
ND plays five ACC games per year. If ND joins the Big Ten, then it can’t play those games, and the ACC can sue for damages on that as well.
Swarbrick said, “all the major conferences are a possibility.” He is a lawyer and he knows what ND signed. So I assume he thinks there is a way to get out of this at a reasonable cost, if he had to. We just don’t know what that is.
LikeLike
Bernie, Marc: This quotation is from SB Nation:
“So, Notre Dame is technically in the ACC for all of their sports except football and ice hockey. They negotiated that into their contract with the ACC when their sports got merged with the conference, and that contract expires in 2036.”
If ND is obligated to join no conference other than the ACC thru 2036, then they’ve got a Hobson’s choice if their new NBC contract doesn’t pony up enough money. They can accept low revenue from NBC or they can join the ACC and get low revenue from ESPN.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2023/8/17/23835657/acc-expansion-survival-future-notre-dame-stanford-smu-conference-realignment
LikeLike
All contracts can be exited early at a cost. We just don’t know what that cost is.
LikeLike
Probably far more massive than what ND would be willing to pay to join a conference until it’s close to 2036. In any case,
1. ND will find an acceptable TV deal to stay independent (which is what they prefer anyway) for the coming decade or so.
2. Neither FSU or Clemson will be leaving the ACC until it gets close to 2036 either, IMO, as the cost would be too prohibitive.
3. Colin is a soothsayer (well, on this subject; not much else) and the B10 will add UU and CU before FSU goes to either the B10 or SEC.
I’m not convinced even Clemson finds a home in the SEC or B10, much less Miami and UNC. Everybody else in the ACC is dilutive to the P2.
LikeLike
Well, another factor is the financial condition of NBC Sports. Can they really afford to pay Notre Dame what they are asking? As I mentioned previously, NBC has been carrying the Olympic Games for the past twelve years and it’s been a big loser. They hope to recover with the 2024 Summer Games in Paris but I remain skeptical. As the article below mentions, the London Games were supposed to be a cash cow but NBC just broke even.
https://sports.yahoo.com/nbc-won-t-profit-beijing-175504944.html
LikeLike
ND can schedule 7 football games per year any way they like. They could easily have a scheduling agreement with the B1G (6 B1G plus Navy), without violating their ACC obligations.
LikeLike
Bob Sykes: “ND can schedule 7 football games per year any way they like. They could easily have a scheduling agreement with the B1G (6 B1G plus Navy), without violating their ACC obligations.”
Bob, ND has already two-thirds fulfilled your proposal in 2026: Wisconsin, Purdue, USC and Michigan State.
https://fbschedules.com/2026-notre-dame-football-schedule/
LikeLike
I actually knew that. I was proposing a bridge mechanism to get to 2036 when ND finally becomes available. Their schedule is pretty much settled for the next few years, so they can’t go to 7 B1G per year even if they (and the B1G) wanted it. But no one is getting out of the ACC until 2036, so if the B1G really wants to play ND they need to get creative.
LikeLike
bob sykes: “But no one is getting out of the ACC until 2036,”
I agree that no full members are getting out but ND did not sign that Grant of Rights. The Domers have a contract with the ACC that none of us have seen.
At this point, it appears NBC and ND have not yet reached a kumbaya agreement on their new TV deal, Now, I do not think ND is about to join the Big Ten nor any other conference. My hunch is that NBC will pay them enough to maintain the 30-year status quo but it will nonetheless be not the Big Ten same-same that the Irish are seeking.
LikeLike
Bernie,
The GOR is an issue for all their other sports (except hockey), primarily the hoops rights. So they’d have the exit fee ($40M) plus buying back their rights ($120M?) from the ACC. Then if they wanted to stop playing 5 games against ACC teams every year in football, that would have an additional cost (if they kept the road games and only dropped home football games vs the ACC, the price would be much less).
ND could easily afford it, but they don’t want out. They want east coast exposure and a good home for their other sports. The ACC offers that for a decent payout, and NBC will pay them enough to keep them happy.
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/news/acc-expansion-soft-deadline-week-1-cal-stanford-smu-espn-pete-thamel-conference-realignment/
Week 1 might be a deadline for the ACC to expand or not, claims Pete Thamel.
“Those conversations are ongoing right now,” Thamel said Friday on College Football Live. “The athletic directors from the ACC met last night. They had a phone call and they will meet again. There has been no meeting determined as of yet. But I imagine these conversations are going to spill into next week. A week from today, I feel like there’s a soft deadline of Week 1 and the season starting. We’ll have some clarity on that. There’s still some optimism, there’s still feels like there’s some momentum for this to happen.
“It comes down to money, like most things in realignment, and how that money that SMU and ‘Cal-ford,’ as they’re called — Cal and Stanford — end up getting divided up in a success pool amongst the current ACC teams.”
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/wilner-mailbag-mailbag-desperation-thy-names-are-stanford-and-cal-an-acc-power-play-pac-12-had-no-luck-and-more/
A good Wilner mailbag addressing the relevant issues for P12 schools.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/08/wilner-all-about-washington-state-and-oregon-state-from-the-pac-2-and-a-reverse-merger-with-the-mw-to-the-bylaws-and-war-chest/
And basically part 2 of it, focused more on OrSU and WSU. Lots of financial and legal discussion in this one.
Also this, as part of an answer (about finances after joining the MWC):
And keep in mind: The conference champion would be in line for an automatic berth in the College Football Playoff. Once the expanded format takes hold next season, there will always be one slot reserved for a team outside the Power Four.
The heavyweight leagues will do whatever it takes to avoid a lawsuit, after all.
LikeLike
Wilner doesn’t address the fact that the MWC schools have a big buyout.
If WSU and ORSt. are willing to share a few million from the Pac pot, they can probably entice USF, Memphis, UTSA, North Texas and/or Georgia St. to join in a 6-team mini-conference for 2024 & 2025. All are big/huge publics (albeit mostly commuter schools) in big metros, so it’s potentially easier to grow a fan base.
Towards the end of the current MWC deal, they could nab SDSU, Boise, and maybe other MWC schools (UNLV? SJSU? Fresno?)
With only 6-7 schools in a conference, travel costs are minimized as most games in most sports will be OOC and can thus be local.
LikeLike
Wilner doesn’t address the fact that the MWC schools have a big buyout.
Because of that, I think any deal will be a flavor of “reverse merger,” with the MWC (or most of it) agreeing to join the Pac with no buyout.
If WSU and ORSt. are willing to share a few million from the Pac pot, they can probably entice USF, Memphis, UTSA, North Texas and/or Georgia St. to join in a 6-team mini-conference for 2024 & 2025.
You’re talking about a pretty crappy conference for just a two-year transitional period. What will media partners pay for such a league? I have trouble imagining that the AAC teams would get enough of a pay raise for that (or any raise at all) to cover their exit fee.
(The AAC has a $10m exit fee — lower than the MWC but not chump change either. They also have a 27-month notice period.)
With only 6-7 schools in a conference, travel costs are minimized as most games in most sports will be OOC and can thus be local.
This is true, but there are formidable challenges to assemble a schedule for a 6-team conference on less than 12 months’ notice.
LikeLike
Hmm. Though evidently the AAC gets $7mm/school in TV money, so the best TV draws in the AAC probably are worth a little more than that (though granted, a bunch of them left).
I think I pulled up the right bylaws on grace periods:
https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/bylaw?ruleId=6533&refDate=20200914
So the Pac needs 4 members in 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 to maintain automatic bids. They would need more schools in 2026.
LikeLike
Richard,
Wilner does address the MWC buyout.
Retired Fox Sports president Bob Thompson floated a “reverse merger” scenario between the Mountain West and the “Pac-2” that would allow the remaining schools to keep all the NCAA Tournament cash. A new Pac-12 could get a small media deal and emerge healthy. Thoughts? — @pfnnewmedia
Washington State and Oregon State cannot exist in a two-team conference, of course — they would need other members. And the “reverse merger” concept is much more than a “float.” It’s under serious discussion.
But the process would be massively complicated and require the Mountain West schools to vote to dissolve their league in order to move into the Pac-12.
(If the league isn’t dissolved, then any departing members seemingly would owe exit penalties to those left behind.)
And don’t forget about the media rights piece for the merged conference. Would Fox and CBS, which own the Mountain West’s broadcast rights until 2026, consent to switch their agreement to the reformed Pac-12? Or would the reformed conference seek a new partner? (Hello, Apple!)
There are loads of issues to sort through — the biggest winners in realignment, now and always, are billable hours — but the reverse merger makes sense because the Pac-12’s brand, although battered, would carry more long-haul value than the Mountain West brand.
In our view, it’s better for 12 schools to enter the former than for two schools to join the latter.
Realignment is nuts.
The AAC has smaller, but still sizable exit fees as well.
LikeLike
Here’s a thought about the Pac-12’s disastrous decision to hire George Kliavkoff as Larry Scott’s successor.
I’ve made terrible hires. Nobody who hires with any frequency gets them all right. When you choose Person X and fail, the next person is usually the anti-X. Whatever you do, you do not hire another X.
So it is telling that the Pac-12 hired a college sports outsider, Larry Scott. And after getting that wrong, hired another college sports outsider, George Kliavkoff. You might have imagined that’s the one thing they would not do.
LikeLike
But they did see the B10 hire an outsider and have some success with it.
Then the B10 did it again despite not being thrilled with Warren. Yormark seems to be successful. Bringing in outsiders seems to be the thing now. The P12 just chose the wrong ones. GK might have been fine in other circumstances, but they probably needed someone more like Yormark. It’s not like they could hire a Delaney or Sankey.
LikeLike
The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that Cal and Stanford are in discussions to join the Big 12 if their talks with the ACC don’t bear fruit.
However, Brett McMurphy posted on Twitter that, “Despite various reports to the contrary, Big 12 has not had conversations w/any of the Pac-4 schools & has no intention in engaging w/those schools, multiple Big 12 sources told
@ActionNetworkHQ.”
I believe that the Chronicle had a real source, but I am skeptical that such a move makes much sense for the Big 12.
LikeLike
It looks like Miami has joined FSU, UNC, NC State and Clemson in blocking Stanford and Cal.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/news-cfb-insider-accuses-fsu-dissolving-conference-amid-reports-stanford-cal-waiting-vote-join-acc
https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/news-1-acc-expansion-member-backs-adding-stanford-cal-smu-atlantic-amid-rumors-possible-big-12-intervention-reports
LikeLike
One approach to adapting FP+ scheduling method:
The point of FP+ was to implement the 3/6/6 model without locking too many games. Let’s assume that same basic sentiment remains.
With 16: 9 = 3*100% + 12*50%
With 16: 9 = 3*100% + 10*50% + 4*25%
So with 18 teams, you maintain the existing list of locked games and the concept of 2-plays (2-year locked games that rotate) to get balanced schedules. The new aspect is that there are 4 schools you only play once in 4 years (quarter-plays). For the eastern coastal schools, those 4 should remain constant (based on geography) to reduce travel (USC, UCLA, UO, UW). For the Pac schools, RU and UMD would always be on the list but the other 2 would change over time (they don’t want to miss PSU and OSU). Every 2 years the 2-plays change, and the quarter-play teams can rotate every 4 years. Over time it should all balance out.
UW
Locked – UO, USC, UCLA
Locked quarter-plays – UMD, RU
Rotating quarter-plays – IA, IN
UO
Locked – UW, USC, UCLA
Locked quarter-plays – UMD, RU
Rotating quarter-plays – WI, PU
USC
Locked – UO, UW, UCLA
Locked quarter-plays – UMD, RU
Rotating quarter-plays – MSU, IL
UCLA
Locked – UO, USC, UW
Locked quarter-plays – UMD, RU
Rotating quarter-plays – MN, NW
The rotating quarter-plays avoided the top 4 brands (OSU, UM, PSU. NE) this time. You could mix them in over time.
RU
Locked – UMD
Rotating 2-plays – PSU, NE
Locked quarter-plays – UW, UO, USC, UCLA
UMD
Locked – UMD
Rotating 2-plays – IN, UM
Locked quarter-plays – UW, UO, USC, UCLA
For the first 2 years, you can keep the existing locks and most of the 2-plays with the Pac schools all locked rivals.
LikeLike
It makes much more sense to have 3 opponents that you play 2 times in 6 years for each lock you have beyond 1 (and PSU would play 3 opponents 4 times in 6 years). For instance, UMich, with 2 locked opponents, would have 3 schools they play 1/3rd of the time. NU, with 1 locked rivalry game, would play everybody else half the time. That would match the least frequent amount of time some teams played each other under the divisional setup. I don’t think the B10 has had schools meet as infrequently as once every 4 years in a long long time.
But who know how they will set it up; it will probably be dictated by the TV partners.
LikeLike
It is unusual. I looked at it as a way to reduce travel for teams we know don’t really want to play each other (RU/UMD vs former Pac). It also lets the B10 keep its general idea of 3 special teams for everyone (even if they are only “special” for 2 years) and others you play less. All it means is once every 2 decades or so you miss a game against a school you’d otherwise play half the time. The other upside is they can mostly reuse the existing plan so it can be setup quickly.
LikeLike
Actually, USC just opened a campus in Washington DC. The Trojans might actually want to play at Maryland.
LikeLike
For decades, the University of Maryland has had campuses all over the world on military bases. They claim to be the largest public university in the US.
https://www.umgc.edu/
LikeLike
It’s so important that they’ve never played at UMD, or at Navy, or at VT. They played one home and home with UVA.
The satellite campus is for lobbying, meeting with government officials, and summer interns mostly. Also people studying relevant topics like public policy, etc. A lot of schools have such a campus in DC.
USC has a decent number of alumni in DC, but they’ve shown no desire to play football near them.
LikeLike
It’s practically certain that they will keep FP+. We know that USC — or to be more exact, their former AD — didn’t really want OR/WA in the Big Ten. But still, it would invite ridicule if the four Pacific TZ schools were not locked with each other. I consider that practically certain as well.
Brian’s system has a clear logic and simplicity — or as simple as you’re gonna get with 18 teams. I read Richard’s post several times and couldn’t understand it. Given enough time, I am sure I could figure it out, but the idea of putting that in a press release makes my head hurt.
Do fans even need to know how the schedule is made? I bet many NFL fans could not tell you how the schedule is determined, other than you play your division mates twice. The Big Ten could’ve just posted the list of permanent locks, and then said, “Trust us, the rest will work out.” They exposed more of the detail than they had do. If details matter, I think most people could wrap their heads around Brian’s system.
I don’t think the B10 has had schools meet as infrequently as once every 4 years in a long long time.
If Brian’s system were adopted (or any system), I doubt we’d get through a full rotation before something changes again!
LikeLike
Yes, I was aiming for reduced travel and simplicity while keeping the general concepts of FP+.
Richard’s concept is similar to FP+ in some ways:
0-lock teams: 9 = 0 + 14 * 1/2+ 3 * 2/3
1-lock teams: 9 = 1 + 16 * 1/2 (the simple 1/8/8 model)
2-lock teams: 9 = 2 + 12 * 1/2 + 3 * 1/3
3-lock teams: 9 = 3 + 8 * 1/2 + 6 * 1/3
My plan has a built-in way to minimize coast to coast trips that is a little trickier here, but the Pac schools could all be 3-locks and have RU and UMD always in the 33% group (rotate the other 4). The problem is that RU and UMD were 1-locks, so they should be playing everyone equally.
Do fans even need to know how the schedule is made?
Some people plan around seeing a certain team come to town, so knowing which years to expect that is helpful. But in general, fans don’t really need to know the details. They do like to know big picture facts like how often they’ll play the other B10 members, though.
The Big Ten could’ve just posted the list of permanent locks, and then said, “Trust us, the rest will work out.” They exposed more of the detail than they had do.
Classic mistake. They could’ve just posted the locked games and 2024 and 2025 schedules and people would’ve mostly been fine with it. Getting into 2-plays only helps scheduling geeks like some of us.
[Richard]:
I don’t think the B10 has had schools meet as infrequently as once every 4 years in a long long time.
[Marc]:
If Brian’s system were adopted (or any system), I doubt we’d get through a full rotation before something changes again!
Of course we never used to play as infrequently. Adding 4 teams but no more games forces that. Ideally you could play everyone 53% of the time at best now vs as much as a true round robin in the past.
10 teams/8 games: 89%
10 teams/9 games: 100%
10 teams/8 games: 89%
11 teams/8 games: 80%
12 teams/8 games: 73%
14 teams/8 games: 62%
14 teams/9 games: 69%
18 teams/9 games: 53%
Now add in locked games:
18 teams/9 games 0 locks: 17 * 53%
18 teams/9 games 1 lock: 16 * 50%
18 teams/9 games 2 locks: 15 * 47%
18 teams/9 games 3 locks: 14 * 43%
So as long as IA has 3 locked opponents, some teams will play as little as 3 times in 7 years at best. The question is if there is enough value in other things to reduce that frequency further, to 2 in 6 or 2 in 8.
Normally I’d be all for increasing the frequency of play, but I’m not sure the coastal schools should play as often. Will they ever really feel like conference mates in football anyway? But if it got to be 1/3 at worst, I’m not against that.
But I would go back closer to the FP+ model:
3-lock teams: 9 = 3 + 8 * 1/2 + 6 * 1/3
2-lock teams: 9 = 3* + 8 * 1/2 + 6 * 1/3
1-lock teams: 9 = 3** + 8 * 1/2 + 6 * 1/3
0-lock teams: 9 = 3*** + 8 * 1/2 + 6 * 1/3
* 2 are locked, the other is a 3-play that rotates every 3 years
** 1 is locked, the others are 3-plays that rotate every 3 years
*** All 3 are 3-plays that rotate every 3 years
LikeLike
The arrival of Oregon and Washington in 2024 is going to require a rewrite of the B1G schedule. It may be possible to use the flex-protect approach, but I don’t think that is the best approach for 18 teams. As the number of teams rises, it becomes more and more complicated to customize an ongoing schedule for each team. At some point it is better to use a systematic approach, like pods. My suggestion follows:
The west coast teams form a natural 4-pod. In order to minimize travel, they should play each other every year. Call this the WEST pod.
———
WWWCCEE66
———
Every year the members of this pod play each other (WWW) plus two teams from each of the other pods.
Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota form the “Triangle of Hate” and have played each other regularly since the 1800s (345 games). This grouping has recently been joined by Nebraska (132 games vs Wisconsin, Iowa or Minnesota). This is another natural 4-pod. Call it the CENTRAL pod.
———
CCCWWEE66
———
Every year the members of this pod play each other (CCC) plus two teams from each of the other pods.
Michigan and Ohio State must play annually. This is arguably the most important game of the year for the B1G. OSU-PSU and Michigan-PSU are also huge games, so it makes sense to include PSU. Add Michigan’s rival MSU to make a 4-pod and call it EAST.
———
EEEWWCC66
———
Every year the members of this pod play each other (EEE) plus two teams from each of the other pods.
All together there are twelve teams in the East, West and Central pods. Over a four-year period, they play each other at least twice.
The remaining six teams can go into a single 6-pod. They play each other (5 games) every year plus four teams from the 4-pods.
———
66666WWCC Illinois and Indiana in years 1,4,7…
66666CCEE Northwestern and Purdue in years 1,4,7…
66666EEWW Rutgers and Maryland in years 1,4,7…
———
The following year, the teams rotate to the next sequence:
———
66666WWCC Rutgers and Maryland in years 2,5,8…
66666CCEE Illinois and Indiana in years 2,5,8…
66666EEWW Northwestern and Purdue in years 2,5,8…
———
And so on. Over a three-year period, every team is played at least once.
There are several good things about this schedule:
*** Most of the traditional rivalries will be played every year.
*** All the kings and princes will play each other yearly or every second year, providing 20+ top games per year. This will put the most compelling matchups on free-to-air TV and enhance the public perception of the B1G.
*** The West Coast teams will only have to travel to Maryland once in six years. The same goes for Rutgers.
LikeLike
Though one advantage to using quarter-plays is that you can utilize it in a way where the 14 B10 schools east of the Rockies play each other at least half the time.
If the current annual rivalry games hold:
Iowa would have 4 quarter-play opponents.
UMich, UMTC, Bucky, UIUC, PU would have 2 quarter-plays.
I have PSU playing OSU and MSU 3/4th of the time, which would give OSU and MSU 1 quarter-play opponents each.
If the WC schools all lock and play each other annually, they would have 4 quarter-play opponents each.
So Iowa’s 4 quarter-plays would be the 4 WC schools. Other potential quarter-play matchups:
OSU-UCLA
UMich-UO
UMich-UW
MSU-USC
The final 2 quarter play opponents the WC schools would have are 1 of Bucky/UMTC and 1 of UIUC/PU
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38277062/sources-continued-momentum-acc-add-schools
Another momentum story about Calford + SMU to the ACC.
A decision on ACC expansion is expected this week, and sources told ESPN that there’s “continued momentum” toward the league adding Stanford, Cal and SMU to the league.
Early Monday morning, ACC officials were working on gathering the league’s presidents and chancellors on a call to further discuss and potentially vote on the issue.
After a weekend of conversations, a source told ESPN that the details of the potential additions are “only in pencil,” but it’s trending in the direction of happening. One of four ACC schools that had previously objected to the additions — Clemson, Florida State, NC State and North Carolina — needed to change its vote, and that is expected to happen this week.
EDITOR’S PICKS
Sources: ACC ramps up Cal, Stanford, SMU talks
5dPete Thamel
ACC at a glance: Who can hang with Florida State, Clemson?
7dAndrea Adelson and David Hale
Preseason bowl projections: Matchups for every game, including the CFP
5dKyle Bonagura and Mark Schlabach
Sources cautioned to ESPN that the situation is fluid and nothing is finalized. But the general tenor heading out of the conversations over the weekend is that the league is close to formalizing the additions.
While there’s momentum toward additions, a decision either way is coming in the early part of this week. This is the fourth week that ACC officials have discussed the potential additions, and there’s a now-or-never tone hanging over the next few days.
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips discussed the potential adds with the ACC presidents in small groups last week. Phillips also spent the bulk of the week having smaller conversations with the four “no” schools in an effort to get them on board with the expansion plan, multiple sources told ESPN’s Andrea Adelson. One source indicated Phillips would like to have a unanimous vote on expansion because he sees this as a big win for the conference, particularly as a way to secure its future. After weeks of strife, a unanimous vote would indicate he has every league member committed and on board with the decision.
The ACC officials are still dialing in on how to divide the pool of money that would be split up among ACC members after the three schools join.
SMU is expected to join the league with no broadcast media revenue for seven years, per ESPN sources. Cal and Stanford are expected to initially join at approximately 30% shares.
…
Another source indicated that adding these three schools is essential not only for long-term security but also to help close the revenue gap with the SEC and Big Ten, which is set to grow to roughly $30 million per year. The source said this current plan is “the only thing that gets us closer to closing that gap” compared to other options that have been presented.
All three schools would be expected to enter for the 2024-25 season in all sports.
LikeLike
Only a handful of schools would be able to close the gap with the B10/SEC even with a $70mm/year (or whatever it is) performance pool.
If the ACC is smart, they would give up FSU and Clemson as lost causes and try to keep UNC and friends. That is, make the performance pool dependent more on basketball success. As UNC is a borderline addition for the SEC & B10 anyway, keeping UNC is probably enough to keep the ACC intact.
LikeLike
If the ACC is smart, they would give up FSU and Clemson as lost causes and try to keep UNC and friends. That is, make the performance pool dependent more on basketball success.
Football provides somewhere between 75–85% of the revenue. Allocating based on basketball performance doesn’t move the needle that much, assuming you do it honestly. If you use basketball performance to split football revenue too, I suspect more than just two schools would object to that.
LikeLike
Not sure more than 2-3 schools with places to go, however. FSU, Clemson, and possibly Miami. Anyone else? Schools like UNC and UVa also tend to be strong in MBB. Same with Louisville and Pitt and they won’t be invited to the B10 or SEC anyway. I doubt VTech has a place to go.
LikeLike
The issue is not about whether they’ve got a place to go. Any school that’s historically good at football is going to oppose allocation of football revenue based on basketball success. It’s an obvious non-starter.
LikeLike
Marc:
No so obvious if the schools who benefit more from overweighing MBB can outvote the schools who benefit more from weighing CFB more heavily.
LikeLike
No so obvious if the schools who benefit more from overweighing MBB can outvote the schools who benefit more from weighing CFB more heavily.
It sounds like conference suicide to me, and probably actionable for fraud. Lock someone into a grant of rights, then steal their money?
LikeLike
Also note that while MBB accounts for 20% of the B10’s TV value, ACC MBB draws about as many TV viewers as B10 MBB but ACC CFB draws roughly half as many TV viewers as B10 CFB in total, so for the ACC, the MBB accounts for close to half the conference’s value. Note that ND is getting close to a half-share of the ACC conference payout despite not contributing to CFB.
LikeLike
Richard,
ND contributes 5 football games (2.5 owned by the ACC rights).
I think Swofford said it was an 80/20 split for the ACC.
LikeLike
Brian, I’m not sure how/if ND gets paid for those.
I believe that 80/20 split is only for 1st tier rights. Regardless, ND is receiving a little over 17mm/year when the full ACC distribution is $40mm/year.
LikeLike
I think it’s roughly ACCN = $11M (that’s about what everyone else gets from the ACCN) and 5 football games = $6M to make ND’s $17M.
I was saying 80/20 overall. Maybe it’s as low as 75/25 for the ACC. But ACC football TV money surpassed MBB money not long after FSU was added. Duke and UNC pushed for equal revenue sharing back then (they used to make more than others from MBB on TV), which lost them money for a couple of years and then became a very wise decision for them.
ACCN includes other sports as well, and 1st tier includes some hoops, so clean numbers are hard to get.
LikeLike
For what is worth, there are rumors that ESPN could even promote FSU and Clemson moving over to the SEC and backfilling the ACC with Stanford, Cal and SMU. ESPN would facilitate this by not reducing the total ACC contract, even though FSU and Clemson are the most valuable properties. So with the Bay Area schools and SMU getting much less, all of the other ACC schools would at the least be made whole.
Presumably, that would work for ESPN by the increase in value of the SEC.
FSU might in fact be pushing such a move by making it clear to ESPN that unless the network cooperates, when FSU leaves, they will go to the B1G.
We might know a lot more about this in the next week or so.
If that whole idea is true, what would the impact be on other teams that might want to leave? If the B1G loses FSU to the SEC due to money, would that open the door to Miami to immediately leave and would the B1G take them? I would guess that the B1G would take Miami as a foothold in FL, though not the big prize.
LikeLike
1. Miami can’t immediately leave because of the GOR. The ACC already owns rights to all ACC home games and has already sold them to the Mouse.
2. I really doubt anybody currently working at the WWL cares all that much what FSU does 13 years from now because
a. They wouldn’t know if they’ll still be working for ESPN by that time.
b. They wouldn’t know who owns rights to the ACC or SEC or B10 by that time.
3. So this fantasy scenario has ESPN paying 2 extra full shares to the SEC and still paying the ACC the same amount? Meanwhile, while the value of the SEC games rise, the value of ACC football games craters. How does that help the WWL? they owns rights to the ACC longer than they own rights to the SEC.
I have to say that when it comes to pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that is completely detached from reality, FSU and Clemson fans take the cake. I guess that comes when you have fervent fanbases and can’t escape a reality that your team is handcuffed (handcuffed themselves of their own accord).
LikeLike
Richard: “I have to say that when it comes to pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that is completely detached from reality.”
Yep, I agree. These unicorn scenarios for FSU to weasel out of the GOR are fantasies. Here’s my fearless forecast:
1. FSU will remain locked into the GOR until 2036.
2. Notre Dame will be a big, fat pay raise from NBC.
3. FSU will then become even more hysterical than they are now.
LikeLike
I’m with Richard. I just don’t understand how it more sense for ESPN to severely undercut the value of the their ACC contract (the biggest bargain in the TV sports) just for the right to pay the SEC more money.
And FSU will make a decision on what conference to join in 2036 based on what makes sense for them then, not because of ESPN didn’t give them what they wanted 13 years earlier (especially given that FSU will likely have entirely new leadership at that point).
LikeLike
1. Miami can’t immediately leave because of the GOR. The ACC already owns rights to all ACC home games and has already sold them to the Mouse.
Contingent on Bernie’s rumor being true, Miami could get out of the GOR because it presumes that FSU and Clemson could. But I agree that this rumor seems really hard to swallow.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
For what is worth, there are rumors that ESPN could even promote FSU and Clemson moving over to the SEC and backfilling the ACC with Stanford, Cal and SMU. ESPN would facilitate this by not reducing the total ACC contract, even though FSU and Clemson are the most valuable properties. So with the Bay Area schools and SMU getting much less, all of the other ACC schools would at the least be made whole.
Presumably, that would work for ESPN by the increase in value of the SEC.
Both ESPN and every member of the ACC would have to agree to letting FSU and Clemson out of the ACC GOR, wouldn’t they? And if ESPN allows some schools out, then they have to let everyone who wants to leave out or risk losing a lawsuit.
I also don’t buy the SEC profit side of this. ND plays 2.5 ACC games under the ACC TV deal, and makes about $6M for improving the quality of the inventory in the ACC TV package.
The SEC already has plenty of inventory, so this is mostly improving the quality of games on ABC and ESPN slightly (the SEC already has a lot of great games). FSU and Clemson combined add 11 games (SEC already has half of UF/FSU and SC/Clemson) to the inventory. If ND gets $2.4M per game, let’s say they get the same rate. That’s $26.4M. That would need to roughly double to make up the difference from ACC to SEC rates. So do FSU and Clemson increase value more than twice as much as ND? I don’t think so.
If that whole idea is true, what would the impact be on other teams that might want to leave? If the B1G loses FSU to the SEC due to money, would that open the door to Miami to immediately leave and would the B1G take them? I would guess that the B1G would take Miami as a foothold in FL, though not the big prize.
I don’t see how ESPN could agree to let 2 schools leave but refuse someone else. That seems like a lawsuit waiting to happen to me.
LikeLike
So I was checking to see the effects of realignment on MBB attendance (mostly to see if the Big Ten’s streak of leading the nation in attendance every year since ’78/’79 would hold up) and two things:
1. Based on the ’21/’22 numbers, the Big Ten will only be about 5% (around 650 fans) ahead of the SEC after expansion. That is definitely a narrow enough gap for the SEC close if its happens to have a good season at the same time the B1G has a down year.
2. While I knew that CBB wasn’t that popular on the West Coast, I was still taken back by how bad attendance really is out there. Of the incoming schools, UCLA had best attendance numbers last year at 7,410. That is worse than Rutgers (7559). (For perspective, Penn St. averaged 8512 and none of the other B1G publics were under 10,000.)
(And USC’s numbers are just embarrassing. They only averaged 3860. Yes, it’s a football school and it has competition from UCLA, but even Northwestern got over 4000.)
FWIW, the only schools west of the Great Plains that do decent numbers (at least by B1G/SEC/ACC/XII/BEast standards) are Arizona, (13.414), BYU (13,855) and, surprisingly, SDSU (11,331).
LikeLike
UCLA hoops attendance is really a shocker. Pauley Pavilion capacity is 13,800 and they average only 7,410 ??? It’s half empty.
LikeLike
Seems that Angelenos really don’t turn out for OOC buy games vs. (mostly CA) patsies.
Makes you wonder why the Bruins don’t just schedule a bunch of HaHs vs. attractive opponents. Especially after they join the B10, it may make sense for both LA schools to schedule MBB games vs. a bunch of their old Pac mates (many with a ton of alums in LA so would probably like to have those HaHs).
LikeLike
Wells, since the 2009-2010 season, SDSU has made the Big Dance more often than IU, Louisville, or UConn. And SD doesn’t have an NBA team. Of course, that means UW-Seattle doesn’t have an excuse.
None of the top 13 in MBB attendance are located in metros with NBA teams, but Memphis, BYU, Marquette, and UMich are yet make the top 30, so props to them.
Seattle, Tampa, SD, Baltimore, StL, Pittsburgh, LV, and Cincy are the biggest metros without NBA teams, so UW-Seattle not being good enough/able to pack their arena is pretty shameful. Pitt too.
As SDSU is showing now (and UNLV back when they were good), if you’re in a big metro without an NBA team, you can make a good amount of ticket revenue by having a MBB team that regularly makes the NCAA tourney.
LikeLike
It might be interesting to compare what, if any effect, the Sonics becoming the Thunder had on attendance at Washington and Oklahoma. Maybe, I’ll look into that one day.
Also, a slight correction to my other post the gap between the B1g and SEC will be about 6%, not 5. (That has nothing to do with your post, but I figured this was a chance to correct a typo without adding yet another comment on this already slow loading article.)
LikeLike
FYI, Jersey Mike Arena (formerly the Rutgers Athletic Center) has a capacity of 8,000, so 7,559 is virtually a nightly sell out.
As far as I know, there is no interest in having a larger capacity. RU views the size as a meaningful home court advantage.
LikeLike
I believe all the BIG alumni in the LA area will improve the attendance of the USC and UCLA BB games, only the increase will be for their opponents… 🙂
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2023/08/30/college-football-rivalries-lost-in-realignment/70698857007/
An article about the rivalries revived and potentially lost in this round of realignment.
Revived: TAMU vs UT, BYU vs UU
Lost: OU vs OkSU, UW vs WSU, UO vs OrSU, UCLA vs Cal
Also called lost:
PSU vs OSU/UM/MSU – none of these were rivalries as PSU made clear, though you could make a case for PSU vs OSU
UT vs TCU/TT/BU – none of these were rivalries from UT’s point of view
I think the B10 should follow the SEC’s lead and have some major OOC rivalries the final week. There is no reason why the final weekend of the season can’t continue to include UW vs WSU and UO vs OrSU. Add in ND @ USC and UCLA at Cal, alternating with USC at UCLA every other year. That keeps politicians happy, reduces fan and player travel for Thanksgiving weekend, and keeps important rivalries alive. Add in all the other rivalries (OSU vs UM, NE vs IA, WI vs MN, IL vs NW, PU vs IN, and some rotation of RU vs UMD & PSU vs MSU, RU vs PSU & UMD vs MSU, or RU vs MSU & PSU vs UMD), and the B10 has a great slate of 11 games spread over 3-4 days.
Sure UW vs UO and USC vs UCLA could be the final week every year instead, but why waste good rivalries and further harm the fans of WSU, OrSU and Cal? We know the B10 wants to keep the USC/ND game, so keep all 4.
And welcome to other brian.
LikeLike
Purdue-Illinois was a rivalry revived. Also a trophy game.
LikeLike
https://www.statesman.com/story/sports/columns/2023/08/30/texas-may-not-play-big-12-teams-in-the-future-with-taxing-sec-slate/70710336007/
A columnist feels UT may not play B12 teams in the future, especially on the road. They already play OU in Dallas, but might they consider neutral site games in Houston or Dallas against TT/TCU/BU and even UH?
1. Really cold shoulder: Laugh all you want about Brett Yormark’s apparent rooting interest for Texas Tech in Texas’ Big 12 finale in November, but the fact that it’s the Red Raiders further strains relations between the two schools among the two fan bases on top of the ugly field-storming after Tech’s overtime win in Lubbock last year. I don’t think Longhorns fans want anything to do with any Big 12 teams moving forward, especially now when things are so heated. Plus Texas must deal with perhaps as many as nine SEC games in the future — if that is approved — and the neutral-site game with Oklahoma in Dallas. So as much as Tech would like to continue playing Texas once the Horns head to the SEC, those chances are diminishing by the day. Texas wants to protect its home schedule and might only agree to play Big 12 teams at home. … “I think they lied to us,” one connected Texas Tech source told me. “The governor told us ‘I guarantee Texas is going to play us for 25 years.’ But Texas is doing everything they can to back-walk it.” Texas athletic director Chris Del Conte has told me no such plan was ever agreed upon, but Texas might be open to playing Tech and others in the future as schedules dictate. “I wouldn’t say there’s strained relations,” Del Conte tells me. “We’d be open to Big 12 opponents, but we don’t know our schedule; that shifts the dynamics.” …. However, the Tech source said, “I think it’s slim (that we play the Longhorns). Will Texas play anybody in the Big 12 again? Probably not. UT is going to look at it this way: if we beat (a Big 12 team), we don’t get anything. If we get beat, we look bad.” Maybe it’ll just take five years or more to cool down. After all, Texas eventually wanted to play Texas A&M again before the Longhorns even joined the SEC. You can probably forget any home-and-home series with them. Texas is likely to supplement its SEC slate with a heavy diet of Rice, UTEP and UTSA.
LikeLike
Brian: “A columnist feels UT may not play B12 teams in the future, especially on the road.”
Is anyone surprised with this? Texas totally destroyed the “Big XII five” merger with the Pac-12 because Deloss Dodds couldn’t include his sacred Longhorn Network. The Big XII was disemboweled of half its members because Deloss Dodds couldn’t give up his sacred Longhorn Network. DeLoss is now gone but obviously his lagacy of selfishness lives on in Austin.
LikeLike
The SEC isn’t moving to 9 conference games any time soon if the Mouse isn’t willing to pay up (and they don’t look likely to any time soon).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38293624/cfp-says-no-format-changes-dust-settles-realignment
CFP committee decides to do nothing about the expanded CFP format until the future of the Pac-4 is settled.
For the first time since the Pac-12 was gutted by realignment, the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick met Wednesday to discuss the future of the College Football Playoff in a meeting that was described as “cordial,” but with a backdrop of uncertainty still looming over the league leaders.
…
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips was expected to join them in person but told ESPN he didn’t because of travel issues in Charlotte, North Carolina, caused by Hurricane Idalia. He participated in the five-hour meeting by videoconference and didn’t provide the room any update on possible conference expansion, according to CFP executive director Bill Hancock.
“To the matter of conference realignment, we’re going to have to wait and see,” Hancock said. “We’re going to have to wait until the dust settles before making any decisions about how that might affect CFP. The fact is, we just don’t know yet. No one knows how conference realignment is going to wind up, and it would just be premature to make any decisions about it.”
American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco said his conference should know “fairly soon” if SMU is going to join the ACC, and that his league has “contingency plans.”
“We’re weighing how we’re going to deal with that,” he said. “We had a major meeting today with our ADs and presidents this morning. … It’ll get resolved pretty quickly. I don’t think it can go on too much longer. None of this is really healthy when it drags on, but we have a great relationship with SMU.”
…
Regardless what happens with realignment, Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher said that moving forward, the principle of honoring conference champions should remain important.
“I think that’s a bedrock principle of what we are doing and what we’ve built into this,” he said. “I think it’s important that that is continued as we move forward. Depending on number of conferences we have, I think you can have a legitimate conversations about the number of champions that are set here, as well as the number of at-larges, but to me you start with the bedrock principle and I think it’s important we keep that in there. I felt good coming out of that conversation. Didn’t take any sort of hands, I just felt good about that conversation.”
…
Wednesday’s meeting was previously scheduled for the CFP’s management committee to dig into the nitty-gritty details associated with expanding the field to 12 teams in time for next season. While recent conference realignment obviously added another level to discussions, the focus remained on logistics. The group decided to continue to provide a $3,000 stipend for each of 125 players’ families to travel to all of the games in the playoff. They are also moving forward with a company to help manage lodging on all of the campuses for the first-round games.
…
While starting the season in Week Zero has been a topic of discussion in the past, it has yet to garner much traction, and wasn’t discussed Wednesday. But having recently returned from Dublin, Ireland, where Notre Dame kicked off the season against Navy in Week 0, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick was candid in his support for the idea of it in the future, saying he thinks Week 0 is “really good for the sport.”
“I understand the difficulties, but at a minimum, it always creates a two-bye year, and that’s good for the health of the student-athletes,” Swarbrick said. “Right now, we get a two-year bye every seven years. … If you’re around the locker room, and you see what they’re like by Game 9, 10, a second bye’s so helpful.”
The CFP’s management committee will meet again in September at the Big Ten’s headquarters in Rosemont, Illinois, and is hoping to have more answers in place about realignment by then.
“I think we have to have some clarity, and we don’t have full clarity right now,” Sankey said. “… I want to see what the circumstances are at some point.”
LikeLike
Nebraska volleyball breaks global women’s sports attendance record with crowd of 92K
By Mitch Sherman Aug 30, 2023
LINCOLN, Neb. — Nebraska surpassed the recognized world-record attendance for a women’s sporting event Wednesday night, announcing a crowd of 92,003 at the “Volleyball Day in Nebraska” event that filled its football venue, Memorial Stadium. Here’s what you need to know:
The crowd, calculated by Nebraska as tickets sold for the event in addition to a head count of all team and event personnel — the marching band, media members and others — topped the 91,648 attendance record set on April 20, 2022, when Barcelona beat Wolfsburg in a UEFA Champions League semifinal at Camp Nou in Spain.
The previous U.S. record was established on July 10, 1999, at the Rose Bowl as Team USA beat China in the Women’s World Cup final.
Nebraska — ranked No. 4 in the American Volleyball Coaches Association poll — faced in-state foe Omaha in the second match Wednesday at Memorial Stadium.
The Huskers won in a sweep, 25-14, 25-14, 25-13. Wayne State defeated Nebraska-Kearney in a Division II match to kick off the event.
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/the-last-hurrah-of-college-football-as-you-know-it-b938978f?st=fnklk0ds7toozlf&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-footballs-25-biggest-brands-ranked-214900353/#2223906
Top 25 CFB brands according to HS recruits, based on a 4-yera rolling average of 1000 recruits each year.
B10:
2. OSU
9. UO
13. PSU
16. UM
19. USC
20 UCLA
22. MSU
24. UMD
Missing: NE, WI, IA, UW (plus the expected ones – MN, NW, IL, IN, PU, RU)
Presumably UM’s recent B10 titles will move them up over time. NE just needs to start winning, and so does UW. WI and IA played a style that isn’t appealing to a lot of players (WI is putting in the air raid now).
Relevant to realignment:
5. Clemson
10. Miami
12. ND
14. UNC – Mack Brown getting it done. Shows why UNC >> NCSU for realignment
17. FSU – presumably ascending with their 10-win season last year
LikeLike
Week Zero Viewers Notre Dame-Navy in Dublin, 2023: 3.81 million
Week Zero Viewers Nebraska-Northwestern in Dublin, 2022: 4.42 million
https://www.on3.com/teams/notre-dame-fighting-irish/news/newsstand-notre-dame-navy-drew-nearly-4-million-viewers/
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/08/nebraska-northwestern-ratings-week-zero-college-football-fox-espn/#:~:text=Saturday's%20Nebraska%2DNorthwestern%20college%20football,(1.9%2C%203.27M).
LikeLike
SEC dominates the top. In big part due to the South having more than half the top recruits and NFL draft picks these days.
Realistically, only OSU and USC in the new B10 (possibly UCLA and PSU if they manage to have the success of Clemson/OU) can ascend to the very top (top 5) due to local recruiting grounds. Schools like UMich and UO would have to somehow win with chemistry, scheme, judicious transfers, and talent in key positions (1st round draft pick QB; game-breaking WR; scheme-wrecking DT) but having overall talent that tops out around #10. Both UW’s, MSU, UNL, and Iowa would top out even lower, around #20. Not impossible: Osborne won multiple natties with teams who’s talent rank would have been around #20 with a scheme that could utilize plentiful local short-armed (low recruiting value) big boys, a strength program, and a handful of game-changing speedsters. But hard.
LikeLike
https://thestreamable.com/news/how-to-watch-college-football-if-spectrum-disney-carriage-dispute-causes-espn-and-other-channels-to-go-dark
Spectrum and Disney are in a carriage dispute, with the deal expiring at midnight. Over 30M households may lose all Disney-owned channels tomorrow, including some ABC affiliates. This would really suck for CFB fans.
It’s about price hikes and what is bundled together. Screw both companies in general, but in this case screw Disney more. This is one more reason they shouldn’t have been allowed to buy so much from Fox.
LikeLike
Don’t worry, once Apple buys Disney CFB fans will be able to watch all the ESPN CFB games they want on Apple TV.
LikeLike
YouTube TV is better anyway.
LikeLike
This is so P12. They have a big game on in primetime (#14 UU vs UF) with little competition, and ESPN is blacked out in 32M households with no warning. And most of central FL is Spectrum territory, so there are a lot of angry UF fans right now. Spectrum also has much of OH, MI and WI as well as other pockets in the midwest, so B10 fans will start getting upset soon. Disney would have more leverage if they hadn’t just lost B10 football rights.
LikeLike
ACC meeting rescheduled for tomorrow morning, after the UNC shooting and Idalia delayed it. They may vote, or else it’s probably not happening.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38304694/sources-acc-votes-invite-stanford-cal-smu
Boom! The ACC has approved adding Cal, Stanford and SMU, and it sounds like NCSU is the school that flipped their no vote to yes.
The ACC presidents and chancellors met Friday morning and voted to add three schools — Stanford, Cal and SMU, sources told ESPN. It will bring the league to 18 members — 17 will play football full time in the league. The additions are in all sports and will begin in the 2024-25 school year.
…
In a straw poll more than three weeks ago, four ACC schools dissented — Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and NC State. One of them needed to flip for the vote to pass and all eyes entered the meeting on NC State chancellor Randy Woodson.
The focus on Woodson intensified Thursday night when members of the University of North Carolina’s board of trustees issued a statement to voice their objection to the additions. That move was perceived around the ACC as a political statement to be sure that UNC chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz didn’t flip his vote.
Will the Pac-2 rebuild, or just join the MWC? How will the outstanding monies be split?
LikeLike
So will Stanford, Cal and SMU sign the ACC GOR that will keep them locked in until 2026?
LikeLike
So will Stanford, Cal and SMU sign the ACC GOR that will keep them locked in until 2036?
Of course! What choice do they have? Obviously the risk is that a better offer comes along earlier, and they are unable to take it. But that is pretty unlikely, and they need answers now. This is what happens when you are down to your last puff.
LikeLike
Makes sense that NC-State would be the school to flip; in the event off ACC defections they are the most likely of the 4 to be left behind.
LikeLike
So, UNC and NCSU have different Board of Trustees, but in both cases, 8/13 are appointed by the unified UNC System Board of Governors. But so long as the NCSU BoT is OK with adding, then NCSU will add since, as you said, they’re not assured of any landing spot outside the ACC.
LikeLike
Seems that NCSU realized they have more in common with WSU and oSu than with NC for conference realignment. To join the ACC (or A&PCC?) all 3 schools will need to sign the GoR so they will be locked until 2036. It is not like any of them will have better offers in the next 10+ years.
If the PAC dissolves the NCAA BB money reverts to the schools that earned it. With 2 members it will be hard to rebuild. Best would be to reach a financial settlement with WSU and oSu to make sure it dissolves.
WSU and oSu are still talking to the AAC. Not clear if this is serious or just to get better terms with MWC.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/whats-next-for-the-pac-2-could-washington-state-oregon-state-attempt-a-reverse-merger-with-the-mountain-west/
I don’t think the AAC makes sense for them. The MWC commissioner came to their campuses to give a presentation, while Aresco of the AAC hasn’t bothered.
I think now the lawyers and CFOs need to figure out a reverse merger with the entire MWC.
The most intriguing play is also the most complicated: Rebuild the Pac-12 by raiding other leagues or executing a reverse merger with the Mountain West.
Everything had been on hold as the schools waited for Stanford and Cal to make a decision.
“The rebuild with four (schools) was the best option but also had challenges,” a source said. “Now, it’s time to figure out what it looks like with two.”
“They have to look at the bylaws, just as they would if there were four schools (remaining),’’ an industry source said. “It’s harder, and they don’t have the academic heft of Stanford and Cal.
“But they are committed to getting clarity on the financial and legal pieces. This isn’t an issue for the athletic directors or the presidents. It’s an issue for the financial officers and the attorneys.”
The Pac-12 bylaws suggest Oregon State and Washington State would control the conference’s assets if the legal entity remains intact, but the assets would be split 12 ways if the Beavers and Cougars depart and the conference is dissolved.
“It may not make sense for Washington State and Oregon State to go into another conference,’’ the industry source said. “If you dissolve the Pac-12, then you’d divide by 12.”
The NCAA Tournament units accrued by the conference in the six-year cycle ending in March 2024 are expected to carry a value of more than $60 million through the end of the decade. Depending on how the attorneys interpret the bylaws, the Beavers and Cougars could be entitled to the entire amount.
Other conference assets include the emergency reserve fund, the Pac-12 Networks infrastructure and various sponsorships.
However, there are liabilities, including a recently signed lease on office space in the Bay Area to house the Pac-12 Networks production facility.
(All 12 schools are expected to share the financial hit from the Comcast overpayment scandal via revenue reductions in the current fiscal year.)
“Once clarity comes, and if there’s access to the (NCAA) units, there might be a clear path,” the source said.
But two schools don’t make a functioning conference. The reconfigured Pac-12 would need at least eight members by the summer of 2026 to meet critical NCAA requirements.
…
Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez, a former Pac-12 executive, likely would be appointed commissioner of the rebuilt league.
“The good thing is that Gloria’s willing to be creative, and she’s smart enough to see what’s at stake,” a source said. “You could argue that she knows the Pac-12 better than anyone (currently working there).”
But the reverse merger option and pursuit of a media rights contract are on hold until the Cougars and Beavers decide whether to attempt a reclamation project or simply flee the scene of destruction.
And they won’t make that decision until clarity comes on the assets and liabilities, an intricate process that could take several weeks.
“Washington State and Oregon State are pragmatic schools,’’ a source said. “They don’t have egos. They know who they are, and they have some time.
“Nobody contemplated this when they wrote the bylaws. It’s outside all scenarios.”
LikeLike
A large part of the assets that will be held by the PAC in June 2024 are future payments from the NCAA amounting to about $45M+ the results of the 2024 MBB tournament (the other $15M gets paid to the PAC in April 2024). The past practice of the NCAA has been to pay out the remaining $$ to the school that earned the units if the conference is dissolved. I do not know if there are specific NCAA bylaws that govern this but it will incent the schools that earned the units to go after these $$$ by claiming any reverse merger is a sham and suing the NCAA to stop future payments until settled by courts. Of the remaining payout after 2924 UCLA earned $16.2M, USC $7.6M, AZ $6.1M, UO, oSu, ASU $4.3M each, CO $2.2M. It will be quicker and less expense on legal bills if WSU and oSu reach a settlement with the other 10 schools to just release these for a cash consideration by dissolving the conference. This can also clear up other loose ends such as any PACN assets on school campuses, who has the right to use the PAC name, etc.
Since the AAC stepped out of the way joining the MWC is the only option for WSU and oSu. Even if they keep the PAC name it will still be a G5 conference after this year.
LikeLike
Little8,
They also own the P12N infrastructure (I have no idea what it’s worth).
If the conference dissolves, the money does go to the schools as it should. But as long as they keep the P12 alive, the conference (WSU and OrSU) gets the money unless the NCAA changes from the precedent. The others can call it a sham all they want, but schools leaving a conference leave behind their hoops credits – that’s always been true. They should just be glad the CFP pays out everything annually.
Besides, why is it a sham? There were never 0 members, and expansion is always allowed. CUSA keeps the credits from everyone that leaves, and no school has been in there even 20 years. They’ve added as many as 6 schools at a time. I think they’d easily lose that lawsuit, and might have to pay for the legal fees of the winners for wasting everyone’s time. Considering how thoroughly the rest screwed over WSU and OrSU, I don’t think they want to kick them on the way out. It’s their equivalent of Calimony.
LikeLike
If the legal issues were clear it would not take weeks or months to decide how to go forward. Can WSU and oSu being the only schools with voting rights be challenged. Under B12 bylaws they would have already done enough to lose them.
That is why the PAC bylaws need to be examined. It is very unusual to have a 12 member organization where only 2 can vote.
With the SWC the MBB credits went back to the schools. If the MWC votes to dissolve and then the PAC invites 10 of the former MWC members to join the PAC under the leadership of George Kliavkoff to bring the membership back to 12 it is clear that the PAC will retain the MBB units. That is how all of the conference reloads have been done in the past.
If on the other hand WSU and oSu claim to merge with the MWC keeping all of the MWC members, leadership and bylaws that would be something new. Once merged what is to stop the MWC voting 12-2 in 2025 to split these MBB credits 14 ways? Another reason why it may be better for WSU/oSu to take a settlement rather than risk trying to keep the PAC corporate structure. That would also give oSu $4.3M extra for the credits they earned.
LikeLike
The Pac2 will invite others to join. They won’t be adopting MWC bylaws, etc.
But they certainly could fire their current commissioner and hire the MWC commissioner.
LikeLike
Little8,
If the legal issues were clear it would not take weeks or months to decide how to go forward.
In this country? It might.
Can WSU and oSu being the only schools with voting rights be challenged. Under B12 bylaws they would have already done enough to lose them.
That is why the PAC bylaws need to be examined. It is very unusual to have a 12 member organization where only 2 can vote.
In less than 1 year, it will be a 2 member organization. And by-laws are usually fairly clear about what can cost you your voting rights. Usually you have no say on issues relating to the time after you will be gone.
Click to access 2021-22-P12-Handbook.V1.pdf
2-3. Withdrawal.
No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; provided, that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024, in violation of this chapter, the Conference shall be entitled to an injunction and other equitable relief to prevent such breach, and if a court of competent jurisdiction shall deny the Conference such injunctive relief, the Conference shall be entitled to retain all the media and sponsorship rights in the multi-player video distribution (MPVD) and telecommunications/wireless categories of the member purporting to withdraw through August 1, 2024, even if the member is then a member of another conference or an independent school for some or all intercollegiate sports competitions. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group.
Feel free to parse their legalese.
With the SWC the MBB credits went back to the schools. If the MWC votes to dissolve and then the PAC invites 10 of the former MWC members to join the PAC under the leadership of George Kliavkoff to bring the membership back to 12 it is clear that the PAC will retain the MBB units. That is how all of the conference reloads have been done in the past.
All the reporting has made it clear that Kliavkoff’s only role now is the day-to-day operations of the P12 for this academic year. He won’t be the commissioner of a rebuilt P12. Most likely the MWC commissioner would take over the P12.
If on the other hand WSU and oSu claim to merge with the MWC keeping all of the MWC members, leadership and bylaws that would be something new. Once merged what is to stop the MWC voting 12-2 in 2025 to split these MBB credits 14 ways?
Bylaws are bylaws. They are all fairly similar. What matter is what name the new group legally uses. They are either the P12 or the MWC or something new. I’m guessing they stick with the P12 for brand recognition.
The legal agreement they write up for the merger would be very clear about how those credits will be distributed. Remember, SDSU just earned a ton of credits for the MWC and they will want to control those.
Another reason why it may be better for WSU/oSu to take a settlement rather than risk trying to keep the PAC corporate structure. That would also give oSu $4.3M extra for the credits they earned.
I think you’ll see WSU and OrSU making an effort to be collegial with each other and their new conference mates.
LikeLike
https://gostanford.com/news/2023/9/1/athletics-stanford-to-join-the-atlantic-coast-conference-in-august-2024.aspx
Stanford says 22 of 36 teams will see minimal or no scheduling impacts.
The academic success and personal wellbeing of Stanford student-athletes have been a foremost consideration throughout this process, including managing travel so it remains reasonable for competition. In joining the ACC, Stanford expects 22 of its 36 sports will see either no scheduling changes or minimal scheduling impacts. The university will be working with the ACC to optimize scheduling, much of which will continue to occur over weekends, as well as on other solutions to mitigate the impact of travel and support the continued academic success of student-athletes.
“Throughout this process we have been driven by the imperative to provide excellent opportunities for our student-athletes,” said Bernard Muir, Stanford’s Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics. “Conference affiliations and the broadcast revenue they generate provide key financial support for the wide array of sports that Stanford offers. Joining the ACC will ensure the Power Conference competitive infrastructure and long-term media revenues that are critical for our student-athletes to compete.”
President Emeritus Marc Tessier-Lavigne, who stepped down this week as Stanford president, has led Stanford’s conference realignment discussions and was asked by incoming President Saller to continue leading the effort to its conclusion. Tessier-Lavigne said, “Stanford has had a long and proud history in the Pac-12. With the decision of other Pac-12 institutions to leave the conference, we are extremely fortunate to have found such an exciting new conference home in the ACC. We believe this move will offer excellent opportunities for our student-athletes, and we will continue our commitment to supporting them in their pursuit of both academic and athletic success.”
LikeLike
That’s fine for Stanford but this does nothing to resolve Cal’s horrific debt.
https://www.outkick.com/cal-stanford-acc-tv-media-deal-revenue-share-california-berkeley-money-broke-debt/#:~:text=The%20Bears%20are%20facing%20over,from%20renovations%20to%20Memorial%20Stadium.&text=Cal%20athletics%20needs%20money%20to,keep%20its%20head%20above%20water.
LikeLike
Assuming the ACC expansion deal closes it will be very interesting to see the financials. By my calculations Cal and Stanford need to be making $13-$15 million a year to simply break even compared to what they would make in a rebuilt PAC or the MWC (I’m assuming $8-$10 million in additional travel costs by joining the ACC and $5 million in conference distributions in the MWC or new PAC).
Also, how soon until MWC issues an announcement welcoming their new members Oregon St. and Washington St.?
LikeLike
Frug, I think Calford’s thinking is that over the remaining 12 years of the ACC GOR, they will come out about even financially compared to joining the MWC (whether it’s called the MWC or Pac), but their athletes/coaches/all stakeholders definitely want to still remain part of a power conference (or at least M2). Joining the MWC would kill recruiting in a lot of sports. Honestly, I don’t know why leagues like the B10/ACC/B12 have to sponsor a bunch of non-revenue sports. They could always play in some other conference.
LikeLike
We may see regional non-revenue sports conferences become more common (the west has had the MPSF for a while) as the major conferences are becoming more national. It would make sense, though that rarely seems to matter for college sports.
But until that day, where else can the teams play? The major conferences used to be regional, so they developed the habit of playing each other. OSU wants to beat UM in every sport, not just football. Playing a bunch of MAC schools in all the other sports wouldn’t be as satisfying, plus the MAC can’t financially support their teams as well.
LikeLike
OSU and UMich may _say_ they want to beat each other in all sports, but how many people actually care enough about, say, a OSU-UMich field hockey game to attend? OK, I took a look, and the 2022 OSU-UMich field hockey game drew a grand total of 605 spectators (capacity is 1500), and I’d wager most of those were friends and family.
Plus, nothing prevents OSU and UMich from being in the same field hockey league if they really cared that much. Still, at least none of the western schools play field hockey.
LikeLike
I’m all for the Pac-4 keeping all of their non-revenue teams west of the Rockies. But it doesn’t mean the midwest B10 schools shouldn’t be playing each other in the B10 in all these sports.
Attending a game is different from wanting to beat UM (rather than some random school) in that game. Not everyone has the time, money or availability to attend games. Plus it was at UM on a Friday night in late October.
LikeLike
I don’t know why leagues like the B10/ACC/B12 have to sponsor a bunch of non-revenue sports. They could always play in some other conference.
Brian’s right. Historically most conferences were regional, so it made sense to play that same set of schools in everything.
Almost all commentators now expect that the next logical step is to create football-only leagues (or maybe revenue-only), with the remaining sports going back into leagues that are regional.
LikeLike
SMU will go 9 years without a payout. Good thing they have rich alumni to fund them. Stanford and Cal get 30% for 7 years. 70% Year 8, 75% in Year 9, then finally a full share in Years 10-12.
That’s a significant boost for the ACC members in terms of money to share.
https://nitter.net/NicoleAuerbach/status/1697607923709497612
https://nitter.net/slmandel/status/1697621219494044030
LikeLike
Would be interesting to see a list of every school’s new conference buy-in $$ and full share payout schedule beginning with the realignment avalanche started by Nebraska joining the B1G and Colorado the PAC.
LikeLike
It’s hard to compare them between conferences (or even within a conference). Did the school move up or move sideways? What did they make before the move? Did they gain assets by joining, and if so what was that worth? Did a school take loans and shift money around between years? How did the move change required costs (choosing to pay a coach more is different from having to travel farther)?
I think the best thing might be to plot their payouts over time vs a former conference mate who didn’t move, and see when/if a school becomes net positive.
LikeLike
Speaking of which, CU evidently made less as part of the Pac than if they had stayed in the B12 the whole time.
There are so many counterfactuals so it’s hard to determine what might have been. For example, Calford would definitely have made more if the Pac had been kept alive (which it may have been if academically snobby Calford hadn’t rejected merging with the B12 after Texas and OU left the B12) compared to joining the ACC, but even with the onerous buy-in terms, they’ll not do worse financially compared to being part of the MWC (whether it is called the Pac or not).
LikeLike
CU moved before the B12 got a new and improved TV deal. Also, CU got 1/12 of the P12N as an asset which was thought to be potentially valuable at the time. It didn’t work out, but if the P12N had gotten wide distribution the whole financial picture would look different. Remember that when the P12 signed it’s original deal, it was a record-setting deal. But it was too long so they fell behind.
LikeLike
Calford would definitely have made more if the Pac had been kept alive (which it may have been if academically snobby Calford hadn’t rejected merging with the B12 after Texas and OU left the B12) compared to joining the ACC.
Or if they’d merged with Texas+3 when they had the chance. Or if they had accepted ESPN’s offer to buy the Pac-12 Networks. Or if they’d never insisted on trying to run a network on their own. Or if they simply had accepted ESPN’s offer of $30m per school per year. But no, they demanded $50m, and ESPN walked away, never to return. The list of mistakes goes 0n and on.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
ESPN goes dark on Spectrum amid Disney-Charter dispute: What happens next?
By Richard Deitsch and The Athletic Staff
ESPN and other Disney-owned channels went dark for Charter Spectrum cable subscribers Thursday night due to a carriage dispute. Here’s what you need to know:
Charter Spectrum is the country’s second-largest cable TV provider with 14.7 million subscribers.
ESPN, ESPN2, SEC Network, ACC Network and ESPNU are among the sports channels affected by the dispute.
“We offered Disney a fair deal, yet they are demanding an excessive increase,” Charter said in a message to customers. “The rising cost of programming is the single greatest factor in higher cable TV prices, and we are fighting hard to hold the line on programming rates imposed on us by companies like Disney.”
Disney said in a statement Thursday that “the rates and terms we are seeking in this renewal are driven by the marketplace.”
The Athletic’s instant analysis:
How this is affecting Spectrum subscribers
As longtime cable subscribers know, carriage disputes are an annual rite of frustration as media companies battle regarding who pays the increasing costs related to programming. Thursday night’s fracas saw Disney pull its popular channels (which includes ESPN network channels, ABC and FX and National Geographic) on Charter Spectrum. This obviously infuriated sports fans given the college football opener for Utah and Florida (airing on ESPN) as well as U.S. Open tennis (airing on ESPN2) were live.
Charter is the major carrier in New York and Los Angeles and serves more than 32 million customers in 41 states, so everything about this will be outsized. (The L.A. Times said the service has more than 5 million customers in California alone). — Deitsch
What happens next?
Both sides obviously have an incentive to end the distribution fee dispute given customer outages in an already challenging environment where cable companies are hemorrhaging subscribers due to cord-cutters and cord-nevers. But here’s the rub: What hangs over all of this is ESPN saying it’s a matter of when, and not if, the company will offer all of its sports assets as part of a direct-to-consumer offering (meaning customers paying ESPN directly each month or year for an ESPN+ streaming product that includes everything ESPN offers).
Charter insists that distributors and programmers have to work together because most programmers won’t be able to survive solely on an a-la-carte streaming model. There’s always bluster but this one appears, at least at the moment, that Charter is anticipating a long carriage fight with Disney. Sports fans, as always, are the biggest losers in the fight.
LikeLike
https://ir.charter.com/static-files/05f899dd-7ef3-40d8-84c1-f16a7acfe318
Slides from Charter about their vision of the future.
Charter is worried about what happens when ESPN does go DTC. Charter wants to recreate the bundle by including streaming services in partnership with Disney and others. When ESPN goes DTC, Charter customers would have access for no extra cost. In return, Charter would promote ESPN’s DTC offering.
Charter will not negotiate a long-term deal without addressing the DTC challenges, since Disney has said it is coming in a couple of years.
Webcast of shareholder conference call:
https://edge.media-server.com/mmc/p/cv3ee99q/
LikeLike
https://theamerican.org/news/2023/9/1/general-statement-from-commissioner-mike-aresco.aspx
AAC officially says it isn’t looking to expand in the west.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/stanford-and-cal-join-the-acc-the-challenges-of-a-choice-the-bears-and-cardinal-had-to-make/
The challenges Stanford and Cal face.
Although life in the ACC was a priority for the schools following the Pac-12’s collapse, the Cardinal and Bears will face steep logistical obstacles and have made contractual commitments that could haunt them.
“I question whether this is a good move for Stanford and Cal,” an industry source said. “But they believe it’s the right thing to do.”
…
The primary reason for joining the ACC creates the greatest challenge: The athletes at each school told university leaders that they wanted the chance to compete at the highest level of college sports.
The Big Ten and Big 12 made more sense logistically but did not offer membership, and the SEC was never an option. Among the Power Five conferences, only the ACC extended a life raft.
“We are very pleased with the outcome, which will support the best interests of our student-athletes and aligns with Berkeley’s values,” Cal chancellor Carol Christ said.
The move also works for the Bay Area schools given their large and powerful alumni bases on the East Coast. The ACC’s footprint stretches from Boston to Miami and features numerous high-end academic schools, from Virginia and Duke to North Carolina, Notre Dame and Georgia Tech.
“ACC membership aligns Stanford with a conference of leading peer institutions who share a deep history of athletic success and a commitment to the pursuit of academic excellence,” said Jerry Yang, chair of Stanford’s trustees. “We appreciate the invitation of the ACC member schools, and we are excited to join them.”
…
SMU’s presence could allow the conference to schedule neutral-site games that would reduce travel demands for the teams located on both coasts.
…
Logistically, Stanford and Cal competing in the ACC makes even less sense than USC and UCLA competing in the Big Ten.
What’s more, the Bay Area schools are contractually bound to the ACC until the conference’s grant-of-rights agreement with ESPN expires — in 2036. That’s an eternity in the rapidly changing landscape of college sports.
Yes, the long-term contract provides stability for the Cardinal and Bears. It also takes them off the market.
…
“Do you really want to lock yourselves in for 12 or 13 years?” the industry source said. “That’s two or three generations of students. You might miss an opportunity.”
What’s more, Stanford and Cal are bound to the ACC until 2036 at discounts. They have agreed to take partial revenue shares from the conference’s media rights deal with ESPN.
…
Stanford will seek help from the university administration and its wealthy donor base.
Cal could receive assistance from the UC regents, who have the authority to impose a so-called Berkeley tax on UCLA by which the Bruins would use some of their revenue from Big Ten membership to support Cal.
Will the Bears cobble together enough cash to support all their Olympic sports? The athletic department already receives more than $20 million per year in aid from central campus.
“While I get that this is the deal they probably have to do,” said a source with ties to the Bay Area schools, “I have zero excitement about it.”
It’s funny to see Cal proclaiming this is in the best interests of their student-athletes after everything they said about UCLA’s move. Will this be a bit of the athletes should’ve been wary of what they asked for? They get to keep competing at the top level, but the cost is a lot of eastern trips to play.
Neutral site games at SMU are an interesting idea, but I doubt it happens. But maybe teams from each coast come there to play SMU, and also play each other.
Cal is voluntarily choosing to add $8-10M in travel costs with this move. That’s the most the Calimony was supposed to be, but UCLA can argue that Cal chose to increase their expenses so they shouldn’t have to subsidize that. UCLA can also blame the 4C schools for hurting Cal’s revenue, further reducing their culpability.
If everyone but UCLA, OrSU and WSU left, would would the TV deal have been? It will be interesting to see how this ends up.
LikeLike
“The ACC’s footprint stretches from Boston to Miami and features numerous high-end academic schools, from Virginia and Duke to North Carolina, Notre Dame and Georgia Tech.”
Jeepers, they done furgot Louisville.
LikeLike
It’s 3-5 eastern trips a year for sports that play an ACC conference slate, right?
This isn’t exactly an unprecedented distance and amount of trips for student-athletes to travel. Hawaii is about as far from the WC as the WC is from the EC, for instance, so all student-athletes at Hawaii already have to make trips like that.
Also, while the trips aren’t as far away, all B10 baseball/softball teams have to make 4-5 trips to the south/west to play non-conf games before the Midwest becomes warm enough for baseball/softball.
But someone should ask the UO softball players if they want to play in the MWC. Evidently Calford players don’t.
LikeLike
The grass is always greener. If Calford joined the MWC, the players would complain about the drop in competition. Since they joined the ACC, they’ll complain about the travel. What they want is the P12 to stay as it was.
NE just filled a football stadium for WVB. Now they just need to sell those tickets for $100 a pop and get other schools to follow suit, then the other sports might get more of a say in realignment.
LikeLike
It’s funny to see Cal proclaiming this is in the best interests of their student-athletes after everything they said about UCLA’s move.
I agree that it’s funny, but it’s not comparable either. I imagine Cal still thinks that an intact Pac-12 would have been better than the ACC. That choice isn’t available to them anymore, and beggars can’t be choosers.
LikeLike
I think most people agree that an intact P12 would be better for everyone involved. But for similar money over the next 10-12 years they could be in the MWC and have a lot less travel. Clearly they feel competing at the highest level and for more money (eventually) is more important than athletes dealing with travel. That seems like a change of stance from when UCLA made the same decision.
UCLA will have a lot more money available to help mitigate the effects on their athletes. How will Cal handle it?
LikeLike
Charter – Spectrum is in a major dispute with Disney, so for the moment ESPN has gone dark on 14.7 million cable homes, which is 20% of their total. The dispute centers around Disney cost increases.
I have also read that Spectrum is very unhappy that Disney is openly talking about a ESPN streaming direct to consumer model, while using cable companies to fund the move.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-pulls-channels-off-charter-spectrum-as-negotiation-dispute-escalates-160100358.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
LikeLike
Bernie: ” Spectrum is in a major dispute with Disney, so for the moment ESPN has gone dark on 14.7 million cable homes,”
Well, you’ve gotta admire Disney’s timing. They knew the exact moment to stick it to Spectrum and create huge frustration for college football fans. If they did this four weeks ago, it would have been nothing but women’s soccer and golf.
LikeLike
Charter-Spectrum dispute with Disney continues and may be permanent. Disney is known to be in financial distress. Gotta wonder if this will effect their ability to pony up to that new SEC TV deal in 2024.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2023/09/01/how-to-watch-espn-without-spectrum/70737377007/
LikeLike
Uh, it’s a legal contract. Unless Disney’s going bankrupt and you think they won’t pay the NFL as well, they’re going to pay the SEC.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/09/01/acc-expansion-stanford-cal-smu-ponzi-scheme-college-sports/70739725007/
Dan Wolken doesn’t like the recent ACC expansion.
The most honest thing that will be said about the ACC’s nonsensical expansion gambit that was formalized Friday comes from deep in the heart of Texas: Pony Up.
That’s the mantra from proud new ACC member SMU, but it’s also the ethos that describes exactly what kind of Ponzi scheme the league just ran on college athletics.
In a transparent, desperate, pathetic attempt to take the crumbs of conference realignment and act like they were prepared by a Michelin-starred chef, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips announced Friday that the additions of Stanford, California and SMU would “strengthen the league in all possible ways.”
It’s objectively untrue, but the cost of such shamelessness wasn’t steep: A few more million in television money for each existing ACC school, and perhaps a few more in performance bonuses that will shut Florida State up at least until it makes financial sense for it to bolt to the SEC, Big Ten or some state of private-equity-funded independence.
…
Even in a college sports industry that struggles to find the bottom, this feels like a new low. A healthy industry does not do this. A thriving conference does not run toward this. And yet, it all feels so inevitable because nobody expects anything better from the college presidents and conference commissioners, who have made a series of decisions that codify all the things they say they don’t want college sports to be.
…
Everything that has happened over the last year in conference realignment was a choice. Schools made choices, conferences made choices and television networks made choices that have led to the Pac-12 being wiped off the map, the Big Ten becoming a league that stretches from New Jersey to Oregon and the Atlantic Coast Conference going to the Pacific to add two football programs that have gone a combined 20-38 since 2020.
Ostensibly, this happened because the Pac-12 did not have a good enough television deal to stay together. And yet those same television networks will end up paying hundreds of millions of dollars for 10 of the 12 teams to play in other leagues, while making everything about how those schools operate incredibly more complicated and expensive.
…
But the funny part about all of this is, the ACC doesn’t actually look or act like a conference that is going to be part of the power structure much longer.
When you get these expansion announcements, they are always accompanied by public statements that whitewash the backroom deals and internal politics that got the decision over the line. But this time, we got a statement from North Carolina’s trustees on Thursday night before the official vote, saying the “strong majority” of the board was in opposition and a confirmation from the chancellor Friday that UNC was a no. Florida State president Richard McCullough also issued a statement saying there were “many complicated factors that led us to vote no,” while Clemson’s welcome announcement had all the warmth of a ice cream buffet.
Stop and think about that. For different reasons, North Carolina and Florida State are the two biggest brands in the ACC and the two schools that could easily fit into either the SEC or Big Ten. The third most-valuable brand is Clemson because of its recent football national championships.
…
What does that tell you? It should tell you that the mediocre middle of the ACC cannot count on its football stalwarts to still be around in 2036 when its current TV deal expires. It should also tell you that the unease Florida State and Clemson have felt with the direction of the ACC cannot really be solved without an eventual divorce. There are no more cards to play to make the situation any better than it is now.
Even if Clemson and FSU can’t see a way out contractually in the next few years, their leaders understand that college football is not going to look in the 2030s like it does now. This round of conference realignment may be done for a little while, but it’s only a pause until the next round of television contracts comes up for renewal.
…
The existential problem with college sports is that unlike the pro leagues, conferences and schools treat each other like competitors rather than business partners when it comes to the big stuff. Instead of making decisions that put the interests of the overall business first, college presidents and commissioners focus on what’s good for their fiefdoms and make the necessary apologies later.
That system has created a 40-year see-saw of winners and losers, which isn’t going to end until the most logical evolution: A model where the schools with the most television value band together and sell one big package to the networks for a huge payday, like the NFL does.
Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina and Miami would be part of such a structure. The rest of the ACC might not.
And to prepare for that day, the ACC on Friday added two schools in California that their supposed peer leagues didn’t want and one in Texas that had to buy its way in. No word yet if they’ll be handing out ski masks at the press conference.
LikeLike
Wolken’s argument is muddy because he is conflating too many separate things as if they are one thing.
The existential problem with college sports is that unlike the pro leagues, conferences and schools treat each other like competitors rather than business partners when it comes to the big stuff… That system has created a 40-year see-saw of winners and losers.
All true, but the decision for the ACC today is not whether the right decisions were made over the past 40 years. Right or wrong, they were made. The decision for the ACC right now is quite simply whether to expand with these particular schools—or not.
He doesn’t really spend much time trying to argue how the ACC would have bettered itself by saying no. I’d like to hear that argument, but that’s not where he is. He’s just upset that the situation exists where such a decision is even on the table.
LikeLike
Yes, I get annoyed by people like Wolken who just sound like an old guy yelling at the clouds.
So yes, plenty of terrible decisions have been made (a ton by the Pac). But once all those terrible decisions and bad bets by the Pac came home to roost, everybody made the best decision possible for them. What exactly would he have done instead?
And yes, the ACC looks like a conference which will lose its best draws. Which is exactly why they added Calford & SMU! So what would Wolken have done if he was ACC Commish? Do nothing to add numbers to the league like the Pac did and then eventually dissolve (leaving most of those schools in a situation they didn’t want to be in)? If he was ACC Commish, would he not put on a brave face like Jim Phillips? Would he say “my conference sucks, my best brands will leave, and we don’t actually care for traveling across the country”?
At this point, he sounds like a 3-year old throwing a temper tantrum because he didn’t get the toy he wanted instead of dealing with reality like an adult.
And yes, in CFB, schools are in open competition with one another. It’s actually part of the reason I pay attention.
I don’t see the point of paying attention to cartels like the NFL and NBA where they artificially jerry-rig the rules to incent teams to lose and make teams and players who want to be together and who could stay together under ordinary financial constraints not be able to stay together because of wacky salary cap rules. To me, watching competition (even is pretty unequal), is fun. If I wanted to watch matches under rules that artificially pick winners and losers, I’d watch the WWE.
LikeLike
Marc,
I’d argue that he is also wrong about the nature of college sports. The conferences and schools really are competitors, for students, players, funding, donations, postseason money, etc. The pro sports leagues got anti-trust exemptions that let them collude and have monopolies. Colleges don’t have that option. They may share business interests, but they aren’t partners. What’s good for one conference literally hurts others.
I think his implied argument is that the ACC would be better with no west coast or TX travel for non-revenue sports teams in conference play. Also that the ACC doesn’t need more members now, and these 3 would’ve been just as available in 10 years as they are now. I think he’s also saying that accepting 3 beggars to enrich everyone else, knowing it won’t make a difference in keeping FSU et al anyway, is a bad look for everyone. Why not be more egalitarian, and pay the 3 newbies more equally (SMU buying in a bit makes sense, and keeping some money for travel costs is fair)? Isn’t that what conferences are supposed to be about?
But yes, he’s basically the old man yelling at clouds – which is his usual schtick.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38278920/acc-expansion-cal-stanford-smu-answers
ESPN Q&A article about the ACC expansion. The main points are below.
Why is the ACC doing this now?
There are two primary reasons for expanding. The first is money. The second is security.
…
But the fallout for the Pac-12 also offered its own lesson to the rest of the ACC. As one league administrator said, “no one wants to end up like Oregon State and Washington State.” Jim Phillips routinely touted the ACC’s standing as a clear No. 3 in the conference pecking order, but the Big 12 made waves by adding Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah, and that league also has a chance to negotiate another new TV deal six years before the ACC will. That at least left the door open to a Plan B for schools unlikely to get an offer from the Big Ten or SEC, meaning an all-out collapse of the ACC wasn’t entirely impossible. On the heels of seeing it happen to the Pac-12, a number of ACC presidents wanted assurances against dissolution. Adding three new teams changes the math enough as to make that all but impossible. “It’s strength in numbers,” one AD said and “essentially a math problem,” another added. Even if the big brands ultimately go elsewhere, Stanford, Cal and SMU provide enough of a cushion to keep the league afloat.
How does this affect the short- and long-term plans of FSU and Clemson?
The immediate future for Florida State and Clemson was always going to be murky, and this probably doesn’t change that much.
How will the ACC address travel and logistical issues?
The ACC has run a number of models looking at ways to reduce travel and limit the impact on its athletes, but the reality is impossible to ignore: Stanford’s campus is 3,100 miles from Miami’s, and nothing the ACC does can shrink that distance. In the end, one administrator said, it’s a trade-off that had to be made.
…
What does no TV revenue mean for SMU?
Only the Mustangs and Rice remain from the SWC’s left-behinds. So they’re taking drastic measures, offering to forgo any television revenue for nine years, and are in the midst of a $250 million athletics makeover, including a $100 million expansion of Gerald J. Ford Stadium, sparked by a $50 million donation by the Garry Weber Foundation, the biggest gift in SMU athletics history. The Mustangs’ 1980s financial flex is now a strength in the modern era of college football, and they’re banking on boosters — who have expressed their willingness to help boost SMU back to the Power 5 — becoming reenergized by a return to big-time football and covering the lack of television revenue they’ll be forgoing by leaving the guaranteed AAC money behind and not getting any in return from the ACC.
LikeLike
Last part of the article was pretty funny/true:
“What’s next for Washington State and Oregon State?
The easiest, most obvious option is probably what will happen: go to the Mountain West as a package deal. Culturally, geographically and — what is shockingly rare in realignment — logically, it just makes sense.”
LikeLike
Timeline of ACC expansion from 8/1-9/1.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/09/01/acc-expansion-stanford-cal-smu-ponzi-scheme-college-sports/70739725007/
I don’t want to summarize because the whole thing really is worth a read, but I do have to excerpt one paragraph that jumped out
in a key component to reduce travel, the 15 original ACC members will only be required to send each one of their sports to the Bay Area once every two years. Under another component, eastern members and the two new western members would meet in Dallas to conduct competition in Olympic sports. SMU’s location provides a sensible central hub. It’s unclear if these components have been formalized.
LikeLike
Hmm. Seems possible only if the basketball and volleyball conference slates are only 18 games each (not 20). 2 of Calford’s games will be against each other. Then they face 8 of the other 16 at home and 8 away, alternating each year.
Or unless neutral site conference games are scheduled, which I doubt schools would want to do in MBB at least.
That would make the number of cross-country trips to play conference games for Calford a max of 4 in each sport.
LikeLike
The B10 could also schedule in a way so that each of the original 14 B10 teams only have to travel to the WC once a year in any sport and the 4 WC schools only have to cross the Rockies east at most 4 times a year to play conference games in any sport.
LikeLike
The travel impact for the 15 continuing ACC schools is really de minimus. Those who emphasize that issue are really not doing the math. They say it’ll be at most one western trip per school per sport every two years. That can be mitigated fairly easily.
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more on travel being a non-issue. The big question I have is around the “stability” language being used by the ACC. If the GOR is as iron-clad as everyone thinks why add teams now to stay above 15 in the future? SMU, Cal, and Stanford would be available in 5 or 10 years. I know it was a money grab for marginally more dollars to try and appease the top brands, but is that all? Does the ACC think someone will challenge the GOR?
The other issue that’s been getting some discussion locally in the Triangle area is the fractured expansion vote and what that means for the relationship between UNC and NCSU (and to a lesser degree UVA and Duke) moving forward.
LikeLike
Bob,
My thoughts:
1. All the current members get more money, helping them keep up with people. That helps with stability.
2. It’s more votes against dissolution, just in case schools would try that.
3. They know the big brands are likely leaving eventually, so they want numbers now. 18 is the new 12 in conferences. They don’t want to make the P12 mistake, and only go look for new members after they lose all their brands.
4. The ACC will never have better expansion options than Calford, so take them while the B10 doesn’t.
5. Calford were desperate. You don’t say no to that good of a deal.
LikeLike
The ACC expansion vote was a proxy on how confident the schools are that they will receive a B1G or SEC bid in 2035. Despite the predictions that the ACC will get torn apart with the GOR expiration only 4 schools are confident of getting an invite and one (ND) would rather remain independent. Between Stanford and still needing a home for its Olympic sports ND was the only top brand to vote for expansion.
Four of the 7 that were on the dissolve side a year ago (VT, VA, Miami, NCSU) voted for expansion. It shows how difficult it will be to add value to the B1G or SEC. Miami won 10 or more games 14 of 20 years before joining the ACC but only once in the 19 years since. If they have another 12 years like the past 12 the brand may be diminished such that the best bid they can get is the B12. For travel, rivalry, etc. all of these schools will be better off if the ACC remains at least competitive with the B12. It is true that CA,SUM,Stanford will probably be available in 5-10 years. However, if the ACC is hurting for schools it will not get the discount it is getting now. There is very little cost for taking these schools early with the discounts that the ACC achieved. it
As far as the relationship unless UNC believes they control NCSU vote and hold a grudge I doubt it will have much effect until 2035. As with past realignments if UNC leaves the ACC and these schools behind it hard to keep the rivalry games due to new conference commitments and some or all will be broken.
LikeLike
The big question I have is around the “stability” language being used by the ACC. If the GOR is as iron-clad as everyone thinks why add teams now to stay above 15 in the future? SMU, Cal, and Stanford would be available in 5 or 10 years.
I wouldn’t make that assumption. We all thought the Big Ten would not expand again this cycle—then it did. The B1G at least considered adding Cal and Stanford. If the Big 12 hadn’t just grown by 8 schools in two years, they might have considered it too.
I know it was a money grab for marginally more dollars to try and appease the top brands, but is that all? Does the ACC think someone will challenge the GOR?
I dislike that term—money grab. From time immemorial, when there is money on the table in college sports, it doesn’t stay there indefinitely. The Pac-12 showed that when you pass on the chance to expand when you could, you might not get another.
Besides, the amount of money is around $72 million per year. To some people that isn’t marginal.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/stanford-and-cal-join-the-acc-the-third-newcomer-smu-could-be-the-key-to-reducing-travel-demands-on-the-west-coast-schools/
More from Wilner on this.
“There were countless hours of discussions about how we can schedule in the future,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips said Friday. “It was an amazing exercise. We want to eliminate as much of the burden on the student-athletes as we can. We have to be creative.”
One option under consideration: Turn SMU’s campus, or the Dallas-Fort Worth area in general, into a neutral-site hub for intra-conference matchups, meets and events.
“The ACC is really interested in using Dallas as a place where teams might come together to have games to minimize the impact of travel on both the eastern members and Cal and Stanford,’’ Cal chancellor Carol Christ said.
“We’re working this hard. I don’t minimize the challenge it presents for athletes, but I also think there are things we can do to mitigate it.”
…
The Cardinal stated on its website that 22 of its 36 sports “will see either no scheduling changes or minimal scheduling impacts.”
Meanwhile, Christ said that 19 of Cal’s 30 teams ”will have their travel minimally or not at all affected” by the move into the ACC.
The unaffected or minimally affected sports compete in meets or tournaments during the regular season, like golf, tennis, cross-country and rowing.
“Their patterns of travel essentially are going to be identical (to the current situation),’’ Christ added. “We have a few teams, like field hockey, that already travel to the East Coast. And I’m not worried about football,” which will play a few conference road games per year.
The teams most likely to be impacted are men’s and women’s basketball, baseball, softball and volleyball.
“We’ll be working really hard on that to see what we can do with joint travel with Stanford,” Christ said.
Cal athletic director Jim Knowlton noted that many Olympic sports teams already play non-conference games on the East Coast and explained that men’s soccer, for example, “will probably have two trips and play two games out east, and their non-conference schedule will be far more local.
“So the net travel (impact) they will experience is one additional trip east.”
The scheduling piece consumed many hours during the weeks of negotiations between the ACC and the Bay Area schools. But a firm sense for the sport-specific details could be months away.
“We looked at how many times they were traveling already,” Phillips said. “It was amazing how many times they were coming this way.
“We pressed hard on Cal and Stanford about how they would feel about (the travel).
“We have work to do but feel like we’re headed in the right direction.”
LikeLike
I’ve brought up a similar idea for the B10, playing neutral sites for multiple games. The key is having sufficient facilities, but the sports of concern are MBB, WBB, baseball, softball, and WVB. The downside is the loss of home court/field advantage and fans not getting to watch the games, but I think they could make it work.
But for the B10, just send everyone out west early for B10 games in baseball and softball (rather than down south for OOC games) and then back to the midwest for later in the season. Maybe play in cactus league facilties if you want it warm and neutral site. The 3 gym sports can be played in Chicago and other big cities if the schools can’t handle them. A couple of winter break “tournaments” could knock out a lot of the long trips and give some valuable TV games
LikeLike
No school would want to give up home games and home ticket revenue in revenue sports, which MBB definitely is. WVB also is for some schools (definitely Nebraska, where volleyball always turns a small profit, and almost certainly Wisconsin and UMTC too). In WBB, Iowa, UO, and probably UMD and others also draw enough where they wouldn’t want to give up home games.
That leaves baseball and softball, where Nebraska baseball seems to be the only team that draws decent home attendance. But for sure, those sports could hold B10 tourneys on the WC if they want to. Most B10 baseball/softball teams already make 1 trip out west (and several down south before the weather in the Midwest becomes warm enough for those sports) each year already.
And in a sport like WVB, the B10 certainly could have teams in each region (B10E, B10W, and WC) play each other as often as possible. If the B10 slims down to 18 conference games in WVB (from 20 now) and the WC teams all play each other HaH, then each school would only cross east of the Rockies 3 times a year and none of the original 14 would have to go to the WC more than once a year (12 trips would have to be made total).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38312054/sources-aac-targets-army-join-conference-football
The AAC hopes to replace SMU with Army for football only (just like Navy). The odd thing is that Army-Navy might remain an OOC game, because they don’t want to move it to before the CCG. That feels odd to me, but otherwise they’d have to use W% for Army and Navy when deciding who makes the CCG. Should 7-0 Army get in over a 7-1 team, when they have a good chance of losing to Navy? Or do the academies need to have more wins or else win the tiebreakers, assuming they’d lose their rivalry game?
After a call with AAC presidents and athletic directors Friday morning, it was clear that Army was the league’s top choice to replace SMU, sources said. Commissioner Mike Aresco has begun informally exploring Army as an expansion candidate.
Aresco has engaged with Army athletic director Mike Buddie about potential membership, sources said. The addition of Army would be for football only, an arrangement similar to the one Navy has with the conference.
…
Other schools were discussed Friday, but none gained significant traction and only Army has received outreach from the AAC.
One thing that will be important to Army is keeping the Navy game on the same date at the end of the college football calendar, which would likely mean it’s a nonconference game. The Army-Navy game takes place on the weekend after the conference championship games, a window that ensures large viewership.
LikeLike
I was a US Army officer for 28 years. The Army-Navy game should be on Veteran’s Day, Nov 11th, each year.
LikeLike
??? No need to consider winning percentages. Army and Navy could still play 8 AAC conference games like everyone else in the AAC but play each other OOC. B10 teams have played a regular B10 conference slate as well as played another B10 team OOC before. The only wrinkle here is that Army and Navy would never meet in conference play.
Also, if Army and Navy are placed in different divisions, they could potentially play each other in the AAC title game before meeting each other 1 week later in their regularly scheduled OOC game.
LikeLike
??? That’s what I said. If they don’t count it as OOC, then they’d have to worry about W% for CCG eligibility.
Other schools have occasionally played a conference foe as an OOC game, but this would be doing it permanently. I don’t think anyone has ever never played a fellow conference member in conference play and always played them OOC.
And meeting in a CCG before playing a week later in an OOC game is just silly.
LikeLike
Silly? Eh, welcome to college football. I _like_ the silliness, wackiness, ridiculousness, and everything colorful. If I wanted something more boring, I’d watch the NFL.
BTW, starting next year, a team could potentially play some other team in 3 straight games:
In the regular season finale, the CCG, and CFP quarterfinals (if that other team ended up in the right bracket).
LikeLike
Yes, playing the same team in a meaningless game the week after playing for a title is silly. Nobody should be able to play a non-postseason game after their CCG. Move Army-Navy, or don’t let either of them play for the AAC title (usually not a concern).
Playing 3 times in a row is just stupid (and highly unlikely thankfully). Even the NFL avoids that scenario.
LikeLike
Brian: I want you to go up to a West Point or Naval Academy grad and tell them that the Army-Navy game is meaningless if Army and Navy face off the week before in the AAC CCG. Go ahead. I want to hear what they say.
LikeLike
If they play for an AAC title the week before, it is the definition of meaningless. W or L doesn’t matter – whoever won the week before is the champ and has all the bragging rights.
LikeLike
Brian, you’ve already stated your opinion several times so you don’t have to repeat it again.
But you completely ignored my request so I’ll state it again:
Brian: I want you to go up to a West Point or Naval Academy grad and tell them that the Army-Navy game is meaningless if Army and Navy face off the week before in the AAC CCG. Go ahead. I want to hear what they say.
Point being, I care more what someone with a rooting interest says about whether a game is meaningless, not some rando on the internet who doesn’t have a stake in a game.
LikeLike
Why should I care what some rando on the internet requests?
LikeLike
You seem to care because you keep expressing an opinion that, frankly, no one else cares to hear.
You’re reminding me why I left this site: because you have too much free time and like to engage in pointless argumentation.
LikeLike
I watched the Big Ten’s Peacock debut so you don’t have to. Michigan beat East Carolina 30 to 3, but I won’t cover that here.
It was obviously luxury casting to assign Mike Tirico, NBC’s lead NFL announcer, to the game. I don’t need to tell you he’s good at this. But what about the rest of it? Audio from the booth was lost for several plays in the first half. I could hear the field microphones and the stadium announcer, just not Tirico.
At another point, they brought in Terry McAulay, the rules analyst, but we couldn’t hear him for a good 30 seconds or so. McAulay refereed three Super Bowls, so he would seem to be the right guy for the job. However, he twice predicted incorrectly what the booth review was going to do, and in his view neither was a close call. I don’t know if this means McAulay was wrong or the booth was.
Later, the on-screen score for several minutes showed 36–0, even though a Michigan touchdown had already been (correctly) overturned on review.
So, not a great debut for Peacock.
LikeLike
You’d have to tell me Tirico is good at it. I don’t watch the NFL or ND games. People keep employing and promoting him, so I assume they think he’s good at it and they probably know. But Fox thinks Gus Johnson is good, and I hate it when he calls games.
Allow me to express my shock that Peacock sucks. ND fans having been pointing that out for years. It’s just great that the B10 wants even more games wasted on that outlet.
LikeLike
I love Gus Johnson. In fact, I’m happy with all of the main B10 broadcasting crews on the OTA networks* and am glad I don’t have to listen to Chris Fowler any more. He’s fine outside the broadcast booth but I can’t stand his exaggerated mannerisms in his playcalling.
*Sadly, BTN will keep trotting out Matt Millen; nothing against the guy; he clearly know his football and I do feel sorry for him as it’s pretty obvious he’s suffering from CTE, but the CTE episodes do detract from the viewing experience,
LikeLike
During one sequence, Tirico referred to UM receiver Roman Wilson as “Wilton” several times in a row. After the ensuing commercial break, he didn’t do it, probably having been corrected. I know, mistakes happen…
LikeLike
I didn’t mention that because it had nothing to do with the game being on Peacock. It’s not as if he would’ve known the names better if it were on a different network. It’s just something that happens sometimes, even to competent announcers.
LikeLike
Forgot to mention. . . . I guess NBC will copy ESPN and Fox’s custom of sending their pregame/halftime crew to a college campus. Yesterday it was State College, which makes sense because WVA at PSU was their night game.
I’ve no objection to that, but apparently it wasn’t well publicized, or maybe the PSU students simply didn’t care. When ESPN GameDay comes to a campus, it always looks like a big deal. But the locals basically ignored the NBC set, which looked a bit lonely as only a couple of dozen people on campus had even noticed it.
LikeLike
Yeah, NBC needs to do a better job. They just got started with this “big time CFB investment” thing so I’d expect them to improve.
LikeLike
Fitting?
https://twitter.com/Top10CFBTalk/status/1698038938622124194
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/mailbag-wsu-and-osu-link-arms-as-their-playoff-path-widens-beavers-and-cougars-will-have-a-better-chance-to-reach-the-cfp-despite-carnage-more/
Wilner mailbag. He thinks WSU and OrSU will have a much better chance of making the CFP in the future, regardless of what conference they end up in.
If Oregon State and Washington State go to the Mountain West, do you see their College Football Playoff chances going up, down or staying the same? — @BennyL1986
Before answering, let me state categorically that the Hotline is not minimizing the impact of the Pac-12’s collapse on the Beavers and Cougars in any way, shape or form.
It’s massively problematic for them on multiple levels and could have a deep impact on their ability to fund sports teams and retain current employment levels within their athletic departments.
But as it pertains only to participating in the College Football Playoff — not an inconsequential factor by any stretch — every plausible future scenario is better for OSU and WSU than if the Pac-12 had remained intact.
Whether they rebuild the conference, execute a reverse merger with the Mountain West or join the Mountain West in a traditional expansion move, the Beavers and Cougars will possess a wider path to the CFP when it expands at the end of next season.
The approved format grants automatic bids to the six highest-ranked conference champions, but that could change as a result of the Pac-12’s implosion.
The SEC and Big Ten want more spots for at-large teams, so expect the number of automatic qualifiers (AQs) to drop to five. But there will only be four power conferences. The CFP format must allow for one more AQ spot than there are power conferences in order to provide access to the rest of the FBS membership and avoid a lawsuit.
It doesn’t matter if WSU and OSU join the Mountain West or reform the Pac-12. The champion of their conference will compete for the final AQ berth against the winners of the Sun Belt, MAC, Conference USA and American, which has lost all its top football schools.
In our view, a rebuilt Pac-12 or enlarged Mountain West would clearly be the best of the non-power conferences. The Beavers and Cougars won’t need 12-1 or 11-2 records; they won’t need top-10 or top-12 rankings. They will simply need to be ranked higher than the champion of the MAC, American, C-USA and Sun Belt.
We believe their prospects for winning the new conference, and winning it with some regularity, are vastly better than their chances of winning an intact Pac-12 that featured Oregon, Washington and Utah.
And we believe their prospects for being the highest-ranked champion outside the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten are excellent, so long as the administrations commit the requisite resources.
The expanded playoff will change the sport like nothing before it. In theory, OSU’s Murthy and WSU president Kirk Schulz will recognize that within the carnage is a huge opportunity.
Previously, you cited three options for WSU and OSU, including “rebuild the Pac-12 with teams from the Mountain West.” I am curious about the reasons you did not include a rebuild with “the best of the rest” from the MW and American. — John Lamar
That is an option, but it carries a major obstacle: Exit fees.
We don’t see the American schools as relevant to a rebuild — the geography is poor and the media valuations are low — and any poaching of the Mountain West in time for the 2024 season would require the targeted schools to muster about $34 million in departure fees, which isn’t reasonable.
But if the Cougars and Beavers rebuilt the Pac-12 with the entirety of the Mountain West membership, those schools could simply vote to dissolve their league and move under the Pac-12 banner. Without a conference, there would be no exit fees.
The simplest option for all involved would be a standard expansion move, with OSU and WSU joining the Mountain West. However, it’s quite possible the schools would forfeit tens of millions of dollars in Pac-12 assets — assets they would control if the conference remains a legal entity.
…
Why would the UC Regents not mandate that Cal and UCLA be in the same conference by requiring UCLA to leave the Big Ten at the earliest opportunity, unless Cal has been invited to join the conference by such time? — @RajaMuh16021485
The regents made it clear last year that they won’t mandate conference affiliation. They could have forced UCLA to reverse course or insisted that the Bruins only enter the Big Ten alongside Cal.
The decision looks even more significant now than it did at the time.
With the Pac-12’s collapse and the Bears entering the ACC at a reduced revenue share, the regents will seriously consider slapping UCLA with an annual subsidy to support its sister school’s athletic department. (The payment range is as low as $2 million and as high as $10 million.)
In that regard, the Bruins came out much worse for wear from the tumult of the past month.
Whatever they stand to receive from the Big Ten in annual media revenue, plan to remove at least $15 million — about $10 million in increased travel costs and the high end of the subsidy range — to determine the net amount.
If the Big Ten distributes an average of $65 million to its full-share schools over the course of the contract cycle, the Bruins will pocket just $50 million or so.
LikeLike
Yahoo’s Ross Dellinger has this blow-by-blow of how Cal, Stanford, and SMU wound up in the ACC.
It includes the new (to me) revelation that the ACC had initially wooed not just Cal and Stanford, but also Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah. Commissioner Jim Phillips met with those schools, but the Big 12’s Yormark had been wooing them for a year, and the Big 12 was obviously the better destination for other reasons as well.
LikeLike
Good for Phillips to realize he’s playing Game of Thrones instead of checkers as the Pac leadership seemed to think they were playing.
LikeLike
Of course the Stanford/ND game is OOC, since ND is independent. But if that series continues annually, does that mean the rest of the ACC now splits 4 ND games each year, or is ND committing to 6 ACC games? Did ND have to make that concession to get enough yes votes, or did some schools agree to not play ND as often, or are they all okay with playing ND once every 4 years?
LikeLike
Given how much Stanford and Cal conceded in order to get in the door, I would be surprised if the rest of the ACC will allow ND–Stanford to “count” as one of ND’s five mandated ACC games. After all, ND for years was willing to play five ACC games not counting Stanford.
LikeLike
Marc,
I’d be surprised too. But I’d also be surprised if ND’s fans are happy playing 6 ACC games every year. At first it will seem fine since Stanford doesn’t feel like an ACC member, but I think it will chafe fairly soon. And other ACC members may get frustrated that Stanford is getting annual ND games.
LikeLike
ND’s frantic efforts to get Stanford into the ACC were done with one of two outcomes in mind: (1) Have the annual Stanford game count as one of the five ACC games or (2) Have the Stanford game move into the ACC rotation – approximately once every three years – which maintains a ‘rivalry’ that has gone stale without ending it entirely. And since Cal is also in the ACC rotation now, that would give ND a proxy Stanford game every three years as well.
LikeLike
We’ll see. I’m pretty curious what the final arrangement between the ACC and ND will be.
LikeLike
I mean, at this point, “independence” is just a state of mind or religion in Domers’ heads. It can mean whatever they want it to mean. Other than wanting to play some B10 teams more, I actually doubt most Domers would object. It’s not like ND shares any deep cultural affinity with any B12 or SEC schools, for instance
LikeLike
Richard: “I mean, at this point, “independence” is just a state of mind or religion in Domers’ heads.”
That’s been true for years. Let’s face it, three locked rivals plus five games determined by the ACC – that’s eight games, the same as being in a conference.
LikeLike
Let’s face it, three locked rivals plus five games determined by the ACC – that’s eight games, the same as being in a conference.
Independence is an economic decision. They can’t win a conference, but whatever they earn they don’t have to share.
ND gave the ACC control over 5/12ths of their schedule — but many ACC teams were schools ND regularly played anyway. The typical ND season typically had a couple of ACC schools. They just bumped that number up to five, while dropping Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue as annual (or almost annual) games.
The Irish have always had a tight circle of schools they played regularly. This is not unique to them. Most independents do that.
LikeLike
No school seems more beholden to their alumni’s opinions than ND. The school can’t just keep adding ACC games without risking alienating their donor base. I think the school is fine with a 6th ACC game, but I don’t think the fans are. That’s why I’m curious to see what the resolution is. The tweet doesn’t indicate one way or the other.
LikeLike
Brian, are you an ND alum?
I’m not going to assume that. if ND continues the Stanford series, that their alums would automatically object just because Stanford is in a different conference.
LikeLike
I’ve seen ND alums say it. Presumably they know what they think on the subject.
LikeLike
All the more reason for ND to switch their other annual CA series from being with Stanford to being with UCLA then!
Even if it’s for a stupid reason, but the Domers can be as irrational as they want to be.
LikeLike
I agree with Mark. I really don’t see the original 14 in the ACC allowing an annual ND-Stanford game to take 1 of the 5 ACC game slots (which allows each of the original 14, including schools like WFU, Duke, and Louisville that would otherwise never get the Domers to play away at their home stadiums, to play ND roughly once every 3 years).
So if the original 14 keep those 5 ND games a year:
If I was ND, I would offer each of Stanford, Cal, and SMU 4 neutral site games over the next 12 years. For Calford, they each get 2 games at Levi Stadium, a game in SD, and a game in an adjacent state (1 in LV, the other in AZ). SMU gets 2 games at Jerryworld, another game in TX (Alamodome?), and a game in an adjacent state (New Orleans).
The Irish could call it a Shamrock Series game if they like.
In 2025 and from 2027 onward, that game will end the season and be broadcast by NBC. NBC gets at least 7 ND games a year
To get at least $60mm/year from NBC, the Domers agree to annual HaH series with UCLA to pair with USC. The visit to USC/UCLA would come the weekend before Thanksgiving (the “traditional” rivalry week).
NBC will broadcast ND@USC/UCLA in primetime the Sat before Thanksgiving, UW-UO Black Friday primetime, the Shamrock Series ND season finale the afternoon of the Sat after Thanksgiving and USC-UCLA afterwards in primetime.
Finally, send 2 of OSU/UMich/PSU out west the 2nd Sat of Nov (OSU/UMich/PSU will combine to visit the WC schools at least 16 times in 6 years) to be broadcast by CBS/NBC and then none of the cold weather B10 teams would have to play at night after the first weekend of Nov.
LikeLike
I forgot to add: Another beauty of this arrangement is that the 17-team ACC football conference would always be sure that all 17 of their teams play that final weekend before CCG weekend. Granted, the Irish could just renew their annual series with Stanford but,
1. NBC probably would like ND to exchange their HaH with Stanford with a HaH with UCLA.
2. With that season-ending neutral site game vs. Calford/SMU, NBC would always control the ND season finale. And the ND@USC/UCLA game before that. A big deal any year the Irish are playoff contenders.
LikeLike
If I was ND, I would offer each of Stanford, Cal, and SMU 4 neutral site games over the next 12 years.
Notre Dame only offers what benefits them. What are they getting out of it? The Irish schedule neutral-site games against a variety of opponents, to make those trips interesting for their fans — an important consideration because the ND faithful make up a big chunk of the crowd at such games.
Stanford and Cal fans don’t travel well, and ND fans would get bored of repeated travel games against the same teams. They could play SMU at JerryWorld (which would be a de facto home game for the Mustangs), but I doubt they want repeated games against the (putting it generously) seventh-best FBS team in Texas. Maybe if #1 to 6 repeatedly turn them down, but that has not been the case.
What you are proposing sounds like the emergency solution if they can’t assemble a schedule, but not something they’d actively want.
To get at least $60mm/year from NBC, the Domers agree to annual HaH series with UCLA to pair with USC.
I think you’re right that NBC would love to see more Notre Dame H&H’s vs. Big Ten opponents. But why would they push for UCLA permanently? USC is a sexy annual game, but UCLA is not. The Irish might play UCLA from time to time, but to play them every year does not really move the needle for NBC.
LikeLike
I mean, the Irish are playing Stanford every year currently. Compared to that, an annual game vs. UCLA is an improvement. Also, all of the B10 kings/princes are almost completely booked for the rest of this decade anyway besides UCLA and UDub.
Also,
1. Calford certainly have fans in the Bay Area as well as elsewhere in CA. Same for SMU in the Metroplex.
2. ND has a national fanbase, so a lot of those Irish fans at games far from South Bend aren’t traveling from IN or even the Midwest and are making a much shorter trip from a locale local to that game. When the Irish play in the Alamodome, they fill the place up with almost entirely ND fans. They’ll be able to fill up stadiums in NO (plenty of Catholics in the Bayou), LV, and AZ as well. And yes, up to now, ND has had different opponents for the Shamrock series, but they’re playing ACC opponents roughly every 3 years, which is what my proposed rotation would be as well. I really doubt, for instance, that ND fans in Boston don’t go to ND-BC games in Boston just because the opponent is always BC.
LikeLike
The Irish are playing Stanford every year currently. Compared to that, an annual game vs. UCLA is an improvement.
Replacing Stanford with UCLA is basically a push, so NBC doesn’t get any better of a schedule than they’ve got now. I mean…that’s not the game that would make NBC say, “Now we are happy to pay you $60 million.”
And then, on top of that you suggested locking one more game at neutral sites with opponents that are bad at football or don’t travel well (Cal, Stanford, SMU). It’s hard to see what either the Irish or NBC would love about that. When NBC suggests improving the schedule, I doubt this is what they meant.
LikeLike
UCLA is a bit of a better ratings draw than Stanford, and the Shamrock Series games generally haven’t been against really good teams. Note that a neutral site Shamrock Series game generally replaces a home buy game vs. a patsy.
As I noted, UCLA and Udub are really the only B10 royalty (only princes at this point, no kings) with open slots in the next decade. ND won’t schedule even more games vs the top ACC teams besides the 5 mandated ACC games. That leaves only the SEC, and while I haven’t looked, at this point, I’d bet all the SEC kings are booked for the rest of this decade as well.
So ND can only improve its schedule incrementally, by replacing a buy game against a MAC/FCS patsy with something like a Shamrock Series game vs. Calford/SMU each year, by replacing Stanford annually with UCLA annually, and maybe scheduling a home-away-neutral series with UDub. Replacing Stanford with UCLA also comes with the added benefit that NBC can get the ND away games @UCLA (they obviously can’t get the @Stanford games).
LikeLike
UCLA is a bit of a better ratings draw than Stanford, and the Shamrock Series games generally haven’t been against really good teams. Note that a neutral site Shamrock Series game generally replaces a home buy game vs. a patsy.
Perhaps I am losing the thread of your idea. As I understood, you’re trying to suggest how ND could make their schedule more appealing to NBC, so that they can get the $60m contract they want. UCLA doesn’t really move the needle much; maybe only “a bit”.
As I understand it, the Shamrock games are meant to be be pseudo-home games, where a large proportion of the crowd are Irish faithful. It’s like a regular-season bowl game to them. They don’t necessarily play sexy opponents, but they rotate the opponents so that the fans who travel won’t get bored. That’s why I don’t think they’d be very excited by a closed rotation of SMU, Stanford, and Cal.
I could believe they’d dump Stanford in place of UCLA. As you said, UCLA is a marginally better draw, and NBC would get it annually. But then there’s no reason to play Stanford at a neutral site. Just dump Stanford and keep rotating the neutral-site games as they do now. (This assumes other teams aren’t going to be suddenly unwilling to play Notre Dame — a calamity often predicted by their opponents that never happens.)
LikeLike
Marc: ” As I understand it, the Shamrock games are meant to be be pseudo-home games, where a large proportion of the crowd are Irish faithful.”
Nope. These Shamrock games are supposed to be “barnstorming” the nation.
LikeLike
Nope. These Shamrock games are supposed to be “barnstorming” the nation.
I know you hate ND, but like a lot of fans, you let your hatred get in the way of common sense. I don’t like them either (I’m from Michigan), but I understand the difference between the game and the business of football. The Shamrock series is a business, although it happens to involve a game.
LikeLike
Marc, I don’t hate ND and hate has nothing to do with the issue. The Shamrock games were set up with the intent of renewing the Rockne-era tradition of barnstorming. Read it for yourself.
“The series is meant to be a modern day barnstorming.”
https://www.herloyalsons.com/blog/2016/05/19/case-shamrock-series/
“. . . an annual tradition for Notre Dame to wear emerald for their barnstorming games . . .”
https://www.onefootdown.com/2011/11/7/2545442/shamrock-series-announced-feathers-are-going-to-be-ruffled
LikeLike
Marc, your comment about me ‘hating’ Notre Dame is inappropriate. I don’t hate them. I’ve been to quite a few Purdue away games over the years and the three most gracious home fans were: (1) Penn State, (2) Notre Dame and (3) Illinois.
However, I am annoyed by the kissy-huggy treatment they receive. ND’s AD gets a seat on the CFP committee as though he’s a conference commish. Three decades of being featured on NBC is a huge recruiting advantage. It’s a matter of a level playing field.
LikeLike
I am annoyed by the kissy-huggy treatment they receive. ND’s AD gets a seat on the CFP committee as though he’s a conference commish. Three decades of being featured on NBC is a huge recruiting advantage. It’s a matter of a level playing field.
Swarbrick didn’t employ any dishonesty to get on that committee. The others want him there. Not only that, after they’d come up with a format and needed to present it to their bosses, who did they pick as their spokesman? Swarbrick.
The commissioners and university presidents have nothing like the hatred of Notre Dame that opposing fans do. It is quite the opposite.
Three decades of being featured on NBC is a huge recruiting advantage. It’s a matter of a level playing field.
Who’s gonna level that field? We aren’t going back to the 1970s when the NCAA rationed TV appearances, and Boston College got almost the same coverage as Alabama.
No, we live in a capitalist society, where if some are going to win, others must lose. The Big Ten’s three-headed TV contract is a big recruiting advantage too. After you’ve gone after Notre Dame, are you going after them next?
Of course, any school is free to leave their conference (after their GoR expires) and sell its TV rights separately, as Notre Dame does. That is how a competitive economy works. Notre Dame is doing nothing that others can’t attempt, if they want to try.
LikeLike
Captain Obvious, thanks for the essay concerning ND issues of which we are all well aware. However, this discussion began with your confusion about the Shamrock series being a revival of Rockne-era barnstorming.
I wasn’t insulting the program. Barnstorming was indeed the objective of the Shamrock series although quite a few Domers believe that it’s goofy to compare these contrived games with the real barnstorming of the 1920s.
LikeLike
We can talk about more than one thing at a time. I was replying to your complaint that Notre Dame is not on a “level playing field.”
We aren’t talking about the Shamrock Series anymore. I already explained that one and have no more to say about it.
LikeLike
I was hoping Frank would make a new post but at this point, I might as well put this out here:
In the new world starting 2024, especially if the B10 and SEC manage to get 5+7 approved, it will be roughly twice as difficult to make the B10 CCG as to make the CFP each year, as, under a 5+7 setup, I’d expect the B10 (along with the SEC) to send an average of 4 teams to the CFP each year. Over a 20 year timeframe (if the B10 doesn’t expand again, which, granted, is very unlikely), here are the percentage of times I’m expecting B10 teams to make the CFP:
OSU: 90%
USC/UMich/PSU: 50% each
UO:30%
UNL/MSU/UCLA/Iowa/both UW’s: 20% each
Everybody else: 10% total
So the number of times each will make the B10 CCG:
OSU: 45%
USC/UMich/PSU: 25% each
UO:15%
UNL/MSU/UCLA/Iowa/both UW’s: 10% each
Everybody else: Essentially never (5% total)
LikeLike
In the new world starting 2024 . . . I’d expect the B10 (along with the SEC) to send an average of 4 teams to the CFP each year.
That’s probably a bit high. In the original 6+6 model, eight teams was not the average that the Big Ten and SEC would get. It was the maximum.
In the 5+7 model, it is theoretically possible they could max out at nine bids between them, or 4½ each. But that assumes the ACC and the Big 12 would almost never have a second great team, and you’ve ignored Notre Dame entirely. The ACC and the Big 12 are lesser lights, but they’re not that bad.
More likely, I think the Big Ten and SEC would average about 6½–7 bids per year. There could be exceptional years that they take 8 bids, but it’s unlikely to happen every time. And I think the SEC will get to 4 more often than the Big Ten will.
LikeLike
Marc: “And I think the SEC will get to 4 more often than the Big Ten will.”
I question that now that the Big Ten has 18 schools. The Bamas and UGAs and LSUs and Texas’ and Oklahomas will be playing each other more often than the Ohio States and Michigans and PSUs and USCs.
LikeLike
Marc, I calculated (adding up teams from here: https://www.si.com/college/2022/12/21/college-football-playoff-history-with-12-team-field) and if the 6+6 CFP format had been used since the start of the CFP, the old B10 would have averaged 2.89 teams in the CFP and the old SEC would have averaged 2.78 teams in the CFP. Add in the new additions, and the old+new B10 would have averaged an even 4 participants in the CFP while the old+new SEC would have averaged 3.44 participants in the CFP. Now, granted, there will be some adjustment even with a 5+7 format, so alright, the B10 and SEC should expect an average of around 3.5 teams in the CFP each year. Note that under either calculation, the B10 has been sending more teams to the CFP than the SEC. It actually helps the B10 in that the lower half of the B10 is weaker than the lower half of the SEC as upsets that mar W-L records are less likely in the B10.
Colin has it right: The B10, in adding USC+UO+UW+UCLA, added more playoff contenders than the SEC in adding OU and Texas.
These days, the B10, with OSU, UMich, PSU, USC, UO, both UW’s, UNL, Iowa, MSU, and ULCA has as many potential CFP contenders as the the SEC with Bama, UGa, LSU, Texas, UF, OU, A&M, Auburn, and Tennessee.
The teams in the new ACC would have averaged 1.56 bids over the past 9 years. The teams in the new B12 averaged 2.22 bids. ND averaged 0.44 bids a year.
But there will be more financial disparity between the SEC and (especially) the B10 and the ACC & B12. So probably then, going forward:
B10 & SEC average 3.5 CFP bids a year each.
B12 averages 2 bids a year.
ACC (which really only has 2 schools that can consistently challenge for the CFP every year) average 1.5 bids a year.
ND makes the CFP about half the time.
LikeLike
Marc, I calculated (adding up teams from here: https://www.si.com/college/2022/12/21/college-football-playoff-history-with-12-team-field) and if the 6+6 CFP format had been used since the start of the CFP, the old B10 would have averaged 2.89 teams in the CFP and the old SEC would have averaged 2.78 teams in the CFP.
I realize you have no other data to go on. Still, it’s a bit simplistic to assume they would’ve had the same ranking if they’d played in the Big Ten. I think your model has a higher probability of failing downward, not upward.
LikeLike
Well, sure, caveats and all that. But while averaging 4 might be a tad unrealistic, averaging about 3.5 and placing (a slight bit) more in to the CFP than the SEC over the long-run isn’t.
LikeLike
I’d question the Big 12 at 2 bids a year. This is a year old, but they have 0 kings and 0 barons, with 9 knights, 4 peasants, and 3 unranked former group of 5 schools.
https://theathletic.com/3361576/2022/06/14/alabama-georgia-emperors-kings-barons/
It’s possible 1-2 schools emerge, produce flashy looking 13-0 or 11-2 seasons, and recruit blue-chips at a high level turning themselves into barons. But there are no clear favorites to do that now, and it will be hard to maintain a program if other schools can pay more to hire away the best coaches. If parity reigns and you have a 12-1 champ with the next best at 9-3, does that school get in over kings and barons from the SEC and B10 that have 4 losses? I find it even less likely that they will get 3 schools in a year to offset years with 1.
LikeLike
So, I would agree that the B12 has no kings or princes (“barons” in Mandel’s terminology) but the whole league is full of teams that rely on development and building up, until they get a bumper crop of veteran seniors who win all their games, so teams will constantly reach the top, fall down (as those seniors graduate), rinse and repeat. And with 16 teams, they’re not all playing each other so it’s likely that every year, there will be at least 2-3 B12 teams with 1 loss or less in the 12-game regular season. Parity in the case of the B12 doesn’t mean they’re all the same level year after year but that many teams will take turns reaching the CCG and winning the conference. So would the CFP committee take a 2-loss SEC/B10 team over a 1-loss B12 team? That is the tough question.
LikeLike
Richard: “. . . but the whole league is full of teams that rely on development and building up, until they get a bumper crop of veteran seniors who win all their games, so teams will constantly reach the top, fall down (as those seniors graduate), rinse and repeat. . .”
That was yesteryear. We now have the transfer portal and NIL. Players in the Big-12 will be flowing to P2 Playing Time and NIL Dollars.
LikeLike
Colin: They can also replenish with transfers from even lower levels, though. And if you have a strong enough culture, you can still keep a decent amount of kids. The guys I’m talking about generally aren’t freakish talents so are less likely to get big NIL money, but you get enough veteran overachieving heady disciplined grinders who buy in to, know, and play a system well, and you can come up with a team where the sum is better than its parts. The 2022 TCU team is a prime example.
Also, Utah is at least a prince in the making, OK St. arguably already is a prince, and each of the 4 TX B12 schools, UCF, and even 1 of the 2 AZ schools also have the rich local recruiting grounds to sustain themselves as princes. Recall that when the U was winning national championships, Miami really didn’t have much (being a fairly small private school) besides extremely rich local recruiting grounds to help them rocket up.
Of course, if Prime stays at CU, they could be a prince too (again).
LikeLike
Richard –
Good point on the unbalanced schedules, that’s a change from the current Big 12. You could have 2 schools go 12-0 walking into the Big 12 title game and both will be locks for the playoff.
From a parity standpoint, I still think your senior-laded squad full of 3 star recruits is at a disadvantage when it comes to winning every single game. Winning is hard. Kings with 4- and 5-star recruit rosters can afford to bring their B- or C-game against non-con and lesser conference foes and still get the win. (Look at Georgia last year eking out a win against my Mizzou Tigers). The talent gap between the best and worst in the Big 12 will be much tighter, I think we will see more upsets, particularly on the road with the extensive travel required. Like a 10-0 Texas Tech has to play at 3-8 UCF, that’s not an automatic win.
LikeLike
I think you’re giving OSU a little too much credit, and slightly underrating others with your percentages.
History does not guarantee future results, especially in the changing world of CFB, but here is a similar stat:
Appearances in the AP Final Top 10 (1993 to 2022):
OSU – 70%
PSU – 33%
USC, UO – 30%
UM, WI, NE – 26.7%
MSU, IA – 16.7%
UW, UCLA – 10%
NW – 6.7%
MN – 3.3%
IL, IN, UMD, PU, RU – 0%
That adds up to 3.0 per year on average.
For the SEC:
AL – 60%
OU – 53.3%
UF, UGA – 46.7%
LSU – 30%
UT – 26.7%
AU, TN – 23.3%
TAMU – 13.3%
SC – 10%
MO – 6.7%
AR, MS – 3.3%
That adds up to 3.4 per year on average.
Both totals are probably a touch low, but they might not be. With almost all the big brands in the P2, there will be more conference losses. That may not matter, or it may mean a few more great seasons from ACC, B12 or G5 teams that get in with 0 or 1 loss. We’ll have to see how the committee handles it.
5 champs means 3 non-P2 teams
7 at-larges probably means 2 non-P2s (ND + 1 M2, or 2 M2, or a rare 2nd G5)
That leaves 7 P2 teams, with the SEC probably getting a few more than the B10.
LikeLike
The B10 would have placed more teams than the SEC in a 12-team playoff if the CFP had been 12 teams since the beginning. Plus, the transfer portal + NIL + new B10 TV contract era means
1. The top dogs in the B10 have as much/more money than anyone
2. More than any other time in history, (clean) money matters relatively more than geography for accumulating talent, which is a good thing for the B10 if the B10 powers are willing to spend money on players.
3. As I noted with my “clean money” comment, being able to pay players above-board should be a relative advantage for top B10 programs, who have plenty of money but typically have been more reluctant to utilize bagmen than southern programs.
And as you can see with your own AP top 10 calculations, OSU more than doubles the 2nd best B10 team. I suppose the only criticism you can make is that I have higher odds than warranted for all 4 B10 kings (OSU/UMich/PSU/USC), but it may be warranted after all if the transfer portal + NIL gives an even bigger edge to the kings.
In the old era when your talent pool was almost all just the kids you recruited out of HS, stuff like development and being able to seek out diamonds in the rough mattered more. So programs like Bucky and UNL (and Iowa and MSU) could punch above their recruiting rankings through development and seeking out diamonds in the rough while recruiting a bunch of busts and not being able to develop players would sink king programs. But in the current era, kings can consistently stay at a high level through getting already developed talents through the portal and NIL.
LikeLike
https://frontofficesports.com/expanded-cfp-could-set-the-stage-for-next-media-rights-battle/
Looking ahead to who will pay for the expanded CFP.
When the CFP expands to 12 teams in 2024, ESPN will own the quarterfinals, semifinals, and championship. But the first round, consisting of four games played on college campuses, will be up for grabs.
Only one or two networks will have broadcast rights to the first two years of the expanded playoff, executive director Bill Hancock told reporters on Wednesday. ESPN will either gobble up the first-round games, or one other broadcaster will buy them as a package.
As things stand, ESPN is interested in securing the rights to that inventory, FOS has confirmed — though the network will continue being “disciplined” with its bids.
…
But ESPN will probably have competition. If given the chance, Fox will be interested in those games, an industry source told FOS — though Fox “won’t break the bank” either.
Even a slice of the CFP could be a major boon for Fox, as holding postseason rights benefits regular-season ratings. (ESPN SVP Nick Dawson previously told FOS that it’s more difficult for ESPN to market regular-season Division I men’s basketball than it would be if the network owned men’s March Madness.)
…
A streamer like Apple, which almost bought the rights to the Pac-12, could swoop in. But as industry experts have previously noted, a streamer hasn’t successfully outbid a linear network for top-tier media rights. It’s unclear if NBC or CBS might be eyeing these games.
The winner of the CFP’s early-round prize won’t be able to relax, however.
In 2026, the rights to the entire package will go on the market. A previous estimate put the CFP’s future value at more than $2 billion, though a source recently said that number could be inflated in the current market.
Fox will likely be more aggressive in this round of negotiations than with just the first round in 2024 and 2025, especially if a championship game is involved, the industry source said. ESPN has also expressed its intention to come out swinging in the bidding war.
I agree that $2B seems questionable right now, though a bidding war could push it there. As far as I can tell, that number came from Navigate (https://nvgt.com/blog/the-2-billion-impact-of-a-cfp-expansion/) and was based on assuming the $/viewer would increase from $6.75 to $10.40 (over 54% increase). I agree that amount must increase (consider inflation since the CFP deal was signed), but that might be too much. They also assume a growth to 183M total viewers (25% growth in each round, as seen in current CFP) for the 11 games. But that’s a projection for now. I suspect the networks will be a little conservative, with a base price and then escalators based on viewership since they won’t have data available from a 12-team playoff when they start negotiating.
I expect a shorter deal this time (6 years?), just like conferences are signing, so there is data for a more informed negotiation in a few years.
LikeLike
OK, first off, that dude completely messed up his calcs due to bad assumptions. The $470/year the WWL paid wasn’t for just the 3 CFP games but also the Cotton, Peach, and Fiesta when they don’t host playoff games (from Wikipedia: “In 2012, ESPN reportedly agreed to pay about $7.3 billion over 12 years for broadcasting rights to all seven games, an average of about $608 million per year. That includes $215 million per year which was already committed to the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls, plus $470–475 million annually for the rest of the package.” At $6.75/viewer, the Mouse would have been paying far more per viewer than anyone was paying per viewer for NFL games at that time, which defies belief.
As a benchmark, the B10 TV deals that will pay out $1.2B/year near the end of the deals (without UW+UO, so roughly $1.265B/year with UW+UO) values a viewer at about $4/viewer.
And he has the final and 2 semifinals totaling 70mm viewers but last season, those 3 games totaled barely over 60mm viewers. The final and 2 semifinals the year before totaled even less than that.
If you assume (a little optimistically) that the national title game will draw 25mm, the semis 20mm each, the QFs 17.5mm and the first round games 15mm viewers, that’s 195mm total viewers. Let’s remain a little optimistic and round up to 200mm total viewers. That’s still less than $1B/year. IMO, the conferences and schools will be lucky to get $1B/year but they might because owning the CFP would boost viewership in other assets (CFB games, but also programming surrounding the CFP games).
If a $1B pot, I would give $2mm to each FBS school, $134mm to help out lower divisions*, and then a bonus pool of $600. You earn 2 credits making the CFP field (so that schools that got a bye don’t get punished) and credits for making it to the semis and title game. Total of 12X2+4+2=30 credits, so $20mm/credit. With probably an average of 3.5 CFP appearances, the B10 should pick up an average of at least 3.5X2X20+18X2=$176/18 or roughly $10mm/year per school. If the B12 averages 2 CFP participants, they’d get at least 2X2X20+16X2=$116/16=$7.25mm/year/school on average. ND can expect to make the CFP about half the time, so earn $22mm/year on average, but they may be willing to accept a steep discount ($10mm/year) for consistent revenue). If G5’s decide to split the CFP revenue evenly (to smooth out volatility), that’s at least 2X20+65X2=$170/65=$2.6mm/school/year.
* The $134 could be to pay for FCS buy games, through a matching system that maximizes regionalism, compelling matchups, and TV viewership. Coaches may hate it but it would be better for fans.
LikeLike
I think you’re misreading that. AP also reported it as $470M per year, FWIW.
https://apnews.com/article/college-sports-football-business-entertainment-college-football-e2e2beb24fac0b8782b96e841cfb9b40
ESPN’s current deal with the CFP pays about $470 million per year. ESPN has separate contracts with the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls that up the network’s total layout to more than $600 million annually to be the television home of college football’s most important postseason games.
Games grow in value exponentially with viewership. For the regular season, 4M is a key number to hit and the latest deals are around $4/viewer for the regular season. But 1 10M viewer game is worth a lot more than 10 1M viewer games. Likewise, the CFP semis and finals have to be worth a lot more than $4/viewer, so the reporter’s numbers seem in the ballpark. Whether it should be $7 or $10 or $13, I have no idea. Also, remember that he’s talking the average over a 12-year deal. So the question is what the NFL was getting 6 years later, not right then.
How they split the money will be a significant discussion. Navigate’s numbers assume 63% is split as base revenue, with 37% for winning (like the NCAAT). I don’t know if they’ll match that, go 50/50, or something else. That will be the key point to settle, and it will be interesting to see the positions various conferences take (if we get leaks).
LikeLike
Even in the ESPN reporting, you can infer that the non-CFP Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach bowl games were included in the $470mm/year as they stated the Rose, Sugar, and Orange had separate contracts, meaning the Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach didn’t and were in that package for $470mm.
The last NFL contract covered roughly the same time period as the CFP, and I was comparing averages to averages.
I maintain that with the new, much more cautious spending discipline by the media companies, the conferences and schools won’t see much more than $1B/year. Even that is a pretty hefty figure. Half a billion is what Fox is paying for all its B10 football and MBB games and about what the Mouse is paying for all ACC everything. A quarter package ($250B, which NBC/CBS might spring for) is roughly what CBS is paying for B10 regular season football games (the rest being for MBB and 2 B10 CCGs), but that would only get 1 first round game & 1 QF game a year + 1 semi every 2 years and the national title game every 4 years. A little less than 3 games a year.
LikeLike
I maintain that with the new, much more cautious spending discipline by the media companies, the conferences and schools won’t see much more than $1B/year.
The original $2B figure we heard was before the market for sports rights cooled off. I agree they’re unlikely to hit that right now, though your $1B is probably a lowball.
A quarter package ($250B, which NBC/CBS might spring for) is roughly what CBS is paying for B10 regular season football games (the rest being for MBB and 2 B10 CCGs), but that would only get 1 first round game & 1 QF game a year + 1 semi every 2 years and the national title game every 4 years. A little less than 3 games a year.
I am betting that quarter packages are unlikely to sell. It’s not very desirable to have just one game in isolation. When you carry multiple games, you can cross-promote them. If you’ve got two games and one is a stinker, at least you can use the halftime to promote the other. When your only game is Wake Forest @Iowa, you’re kind of stuck. (This isn’t the NFL, where even the worst playoff game is still pretty good.)
Because a network with multiple games can cross-promote, a half package is worth more than double what a quarter package is worth.
LikeLike
It’s all guesses until somebody actually signs a deal, so we’ll have to wait and see. I said from the start that $2B sounded too high, but I think $1B is too low as well. They’re adding some games, plus the NY6 games are being replaced by “meaningful” games which is supposed to increase viewership. 12 teams also is supposed to mean more fans are invested. And there may be a bit of a bidding war between Fox and ESPN, at least enough to prevent any lowball offers.
The deal should grow again in 2026 when every game is up for bid. With ESPN owning all the big games right now, there is a ceiling on the value to Fox of early-round games.
LikeLike
With even the Super Bowl pulling in (“only”) $500mm in ad revenue for viewership of almost always 100-115mm viewers, I think I’ll turn out to be pretty accurate by saying the CFP just isn’t going to pull in much more than $1B/year (if that). The networks just aren’t willing to subsidize loss leaders these days.
BTW, for the quarter-package idea, I meant starting in 2026 when all CFP games are up for bid. And Mark, even a quarter-package would mean usually 3 games (2 games in 1 out of 4 years), so there are cross-promotional opportunities. Furthermore, having some playoff games does draw more viewers to the regular season package as well, according to sports TV industry people, so CBS and NBC do have some incentive to, together, pay more for half the CFP package (so a quarter-package each) than either ESPN or Fox would for a half-package.
LikeLike
We shall see. I am not going to make a rash prediction ending in “period,” which I will leave to Colin. But my prediction is that no quarter packages are sold. The math is nonsensical. (But people do nonsensical things sometimes, which is why no “period” on the end of it.)
LikeLike
$ 2.2 billion happens to be the amount of money that Charter-Spectrum has been paying Disney-ESPN every year, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that the divorce is final.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-charter-talks-new-distribution-agreement-2023-09-01/
LikeLike
A streamer like Apple, which almost bought the rights to the Pac-12, could swoop in. But as industry experts have previously noted, a streamer hasn’t successfully outbid a linear network for top-tier media rights. It’s unclear if NBC or CBS might be eyeing these games.
Since streaming ratings are always lower than linear (for comparable content), the fair value for a streamer has to be less. On top of that, a streamer wouldn’t be able to promote the playoff all season long, since no pure streamer carries any significant amount of CFB. Hence, the only way a streamer would win is if for some reason they decide to ridiculously overpay, which these days is probably not happening.
If the Pac-12 had stayed together and put their Tier 1 content on Apple, then I think Apple might’ve been a competitive bidder, but not now.
LikeLike
Well, streamers don’t care as much about ratings as they also get subscriber fees. Which is why they like season-long sports. I’m not sure how something like a short playoff would work economically for streamers. For them, selling just playoffs would probably be like selling a PPV boxing match, and they would want the whole CFP package. So they’d charge per sign-up for the whole CFP. If $50/signup and 10mm signups, they’d . . .maybe still lose money? I’m not sure how the economics would work out.
LikeLike
Well, streamers don’t care as much about ratings as they also get subscriber fees.
They actually care about ratings a lot more than you imagine. Streamers have far better metrics than linear TV networks do. They know exactly, down to the minute, precisely which subscribers have watched their shows — and they do a lot with that data.
It probably explains the comment in the article that Brian quoted, i.e., that no streamer has ever outbid a linear network for top-tier media rights. George Kliavkoff presented the Pac-12 with an all-streaming bid from Apple, and six out of ten schools left immediately for leagues that pay more money.
LikeLike
Mark, they left, but in large part for exposure and stability. Both Phil Knight and Apple were excited about the deal and bullish about the Pac hitting that 5mm subscriber number (that would have led to the Pac being paid 50mm/school or more than anyone outside the P2) but Kalen DeBoer at UDub said “no mas” due to the utter lack of exposure leading to Washington bolting. Once the Huskies were adamant they were out the door, UO (somewhat reluctantly) followed. After the big dogs were gone, the rest of the 4Cs weren’t going to stay in a collapsing league but ASU and Utah made it clear that they definitely would have preferred somehow making it work in the Pac if the 2 big dogs hadn’t left.
LikeLike
Yes, we all know that history. But those are precisely the reasons why a streamer won’t win the playoff bid either.
Both Phil Knight and Apple were excited about the deal and bullish about the Pac hitting that 5mm subscriber number (that would have led to the Pac being paid 50mm/school or more than anyone outside the P2)
Apple could say they were bullish, but their actions say otherwise. If they were so sure they could hit $50mm per school, then why was the baseline only half that? You’re never 100% sure of anything, but let’s say they had bid $40mm plus incentives, instead of just $25? At $40mm, I am pretty sure the PNW schools wouldn’t have run out the door quite so fast.
This, of course, is precisely what the PNW schools saw: the projections that went to $50mm were not believable. The fact that Apple bid so low tells you they probably didn’t believe it either. When your purported partner is taking almost zero risk, what does that tell you? Anyone could see through that.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/09/fsu-lsu-ratings-abc-most-watched-sunday-game-seven-years-plus-big-ten-nbc/
Labor Day weekend CFB TV viewership.
It was not nearly as dramatic as their meeting last year, but FSU’s rout of LSU still scored a double-digit bump and seven-year high on ABC.
Sunday’s LSU-FSU college football game averaged 9.1 million viewers on ABC, per Nielsen fast-nationals — up 20% from the same matchup last year (7.6M) and the largest college football audience on the Sunday of Labor Day weekend since Notre Dame-Texas in 2016 (10.9M). Ratings were not immediately available.
Overall, Florida State’s blowout win — which peaked with 10.3 million viewers — delivered the third-largest Labor Day weekend audience since that 2016 game. Notre Dame-Ohio State averaged 10.53 million last year and Alabama-Florida State 12.34 million in 2017, both in ABC’s traditional Saturday night window.
Keep in mind that ABC, like the rest of the Disney channels, was not available to the nearly 15 million subscribers of Charter’s Spectrum cable service.
That is incorrect. ABC was only unavailable in a few markets (LA, SF, Fresno, Chicago, Houston, Raleigh-Durham, NYC), because Disney owns the ABC station. ESPN was unavailable everywhere for Spectrum customers.
In other week one action, NBC averaged 3.7 million for West Virginia-Penn State in the debut of its weekly primetime Big Ten game (including additional streaming data not tracked by Nielsen). NBC said Monday that it was the network’s second-most watched Labor Day weekend game since 2015 (trailing Notre Dame-Michigan in 2018 at 7.2 million), but it was just the third such game over that span. Viewership peaked at 4.4 million.
NBC also said Saturday’s ECU-Michigan game on Peacock was its most-streamed college football game ever. The network did not disclose any viewership figures.
3.7M for an easy win isn’t terrible, but for a Labor Day weekend primetime game it’s not great. ND vs Navy at 2:30 in week 0 drew 3.56M.
I suppose UM’s Peacock game topping any from ND is somewhat notable.
The same guy predicted the ratings for the weekend:
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/09/lsu-fsu-ratings-predictions-college-football-week-one-us-open-tennis/
— College football: #5 LSU-#8 FSU (7:30p Sun ABC). Prediction: 5.2, 9.03 million viewers.
— College football: West Virginia-#7 Penn State (7:30p Sat NBC). Prediction: 2.5, 4.42M.
— College football: #3 Ohio State-Indiana (3:30p Sat CBS). Prediction: 3.0, 5.25M.
— College football: Colorado-#17 TCU (Noon Sat FOX). Prediction: 2.0, 3.61M.
He was pretty close on LSU vs FSU, but optimistic on PSU vs WVU.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/09/college-football-opening-night-ratings-fox-espn-nfl-preseason-nebraska-volleyball/
The other early games:
Thursday’s Nebraska-Minnesota college football game averaged a 1.9 rating and 3.49 million viewers on FOX, down 11% in ratings and 1% in viewership from Penn State-Purdue last year (2.1, 3.51M), but still the most-watched game of opening night.
ESPN’s competing Florida-Utah game averaged a 1.7 and 3.19 million, flat and up 1% respectively from West Virginia-Pitt a year ago (1.7, 3.15M). In a repeat of last year, ESPN lost the overall head-to-head to FOX but came out ahead in adults 18-49 (1.1 to 0.8). Keep in mind that ESPN was pulled from Charter’s Spectrum cable system — and its 15 million subscribers — right before kickoff.
In other opening night action, Kent State-UCF averaged a 0.18 and 317,000 on FS1 — down 22% and 21% respectively from Central Michigan-Oklahoma State last year (0.23, 402K).
LikeLike
UNL-UMTC drawing more than a king vs. a CFP contender is pretty impressive. OK, granted, that was aided by the ESPN/Spectrum spat, and losing the 18-49 demographic isn’t good, though probably should be expected as UT is relatively young compared to other states in the union and FL has a growing youth population.
LikeLike
Oh, and UMich (certainly one that is seen as a national title contender) is a (slightly) bigger draw than ND.
A national-title contending UMich is one of the biggest TV draws out there. Probably only (slightly) lagging national-title contending OSU and Bama teams.
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/college/washington-state/article/kirk-schulz-wsus-legal-strategy-coming-fast-and-fists-will-be-clenched-215540496/
WSU will release their legal strategy in the next week. Going after Scott and others over the Comcast overpayment? Looking to get all the NCAA credits since everyone else is leaving? What else can they fight over? Everyone deserves their share of the TV deal and the CFP money.
ASKED LATE TUESDAY about the Pac-12’s assets and liabilities and how those numbers could shape the where and how of a landing spot for the conference’s last two members, Washington State and Oregon State, WSU President Kirk Schulz told Cougfan.com the university’s legal strategy is coming together quickly and crimson tongues will be wagging when it’s made public.
“The only thing I can really say today is within the next seven days, we’ll have a much more thoroughly announced legal strategy that I’m sure (Cougar Nation) is going to want to talk about once it’s out there,” said Schulz.
…
“I have to be a little careful about where we are with that over the next several days,” said Schulz, declining to get into specifics.
Schulz did, however, reference “our legal strategy” and “legal action” again later in the conversation. Here’s a sampling:
COUGFANcom: At the end of that day, when we know what WSU’s new home will be and also whatever form that ends up taking, can you envision a scenario where Washington State and Oregon State relinquish their membership in the Pac-12 and the conference ceases to exist?
Schulz: “That’s certainly a scenario that could occur based on what happens with our assets, our liabilities, what happens with any legal action that Washington State and Oregon State decides to take and what the outcome of that is …”
COUGFANcom: A week ago you were close to hiring legal experts to dive into the Pac-12 bylaws and other issues surrounding the realignment process WSU is in. Has the hire been made and, if so, who?
Schulz: “We have made a hire of an external firm and we will make an announcement on who that firm is this next week … They’re providing us legal advice on what the best options are for Washington State University moving forward given the bylaws of the conference and things like that — but we’re just at a sensitive point right now where it’s difficult to say too much more … But I think our legal strategy will be pretty plain to the Cougar Nation in the next seven days.”
WHATEVER THE LEGAL STRATEGY Washington State is about to announce, one thing was clear from our talk with Schulz: the strategy is crystalizing quickly.
“I think people are going to appreciate the fact we’re going to fight the good fight,” said Schulz. “We’re going to do everything we can to make sure we’re looking out for Cougar athletics.”
LikeLike
This is same university president who who said in February that the Pac-12 media deal was “close to being resolved,” and then predicted a deal by the end of June. None of which happened.
LikeLike
July 21, 2023, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff: ‘The longer we wait for the media deal, the better our options get.’
LikeLike
Conversely, the deal was as resolved in February as it was ever going to be and they had the same deal in June that they do now – none.
But seriously, he can presumably speak more authoritatively about WSU’s legal team than conference-wide matters.
LikeLike
Meanwhile the NYC vs, Chicago game (AKA Rutgers v. Northwestern) got 2.68 million viewers for the CBS game noon game on Sunday. Not bad for two bottom tier B1G teams.
Of course it was the only noon Sunday game.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2023/09/rutgers-tops-college-football-powerhouses-in-viewership.html
LikeLike
Per CBS Twitter feed, Ohio State @Indiana last weekend was:
— CBS’ most-watched Week 1 Game in 25 years
— Averaged 4.646m viewers, up 39% from the same two teams’ game last year.
— Paramount+’s most-streamed gamed ever.
I have not checked what OSU and IU were up against last year. Still, I wouldn’t have pegged this as a >4mm game. It’s only one week, but so far Kevin Warren’s deal is looking pretty good.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s good, but here are the caveats:
1. CBS hasn’t shown any decent CFB games on Week 1 in decades (their SEC game-of-the-week generally starts Week 3 every season).
2. Week 1 games tend to get a bump.
3. OSU just tends to draw extremely well so I expect over 4mm for any OTA game that is a national-title-contending OSU vs. any P5 team. Last year, OSU-UMD drew 6.6mm and OSU-Northwestern drew 4.76mm.
4. So yeah, the OSU-IU game was the OSU conference OTA game that drew the worse. It was going up against LSU-Arkansas (3.57mm), Tennessee-Mizzou (3.01mm), and ND-Navy (2.07). This past Sat, OSU-IU went up against Texas-Rice (3.21mm), UDub-Boise (1.97mm), ND-Tenn. St. (1.56mm), and Auburn-UMass (1.03mm). Notably, against no SEC conference games and it was the most compelling game on TV.
LikeLike
That’s why the 45 or so games picked by the 3 networks will consist of
–A handful of king-king games (all games between the OSU-PSU-UMich trio picked by Fox)
–Some king-prince games
–A lot of prince-prince games
–All the OSU/UMich vs. peon games they can get (BTN gets 1 of each team’s conference games)
–A handful of others (like PSU vs peon)
LikeLike
Oh, wait, except NBC will put some of their worst pics on NBC and higher picks on Peacock.
LikeLike
Oh, wait, except NBC will put some of their worst pics on NBC and higher picks on Peacock.
So far, they are doing that only once: September 16, No. 10 Washington @MSU, while the mothership gets Syracuse @Purdue.
I think that’ll be pretty rare. They want to make Peacock attractive, but every time they do that they’re pissing money away. And that game has a very odd start time, 5pm ET, meaning it’ll stomp on the end of their Notre Dame game and the beginning of their Purdue game.
LikeLike
Also
Week 2: Delaware@(#7)PSU exclusively on Peacock and Charlotte@UMD on NBC
Week 5: MSU@Iowa exclusively on Peacock and UIUC@PU on NBC
Week 6: UMD@OSU (and RU@Wisconsin) exclusively on Peacock and PU@Iowa on NBC
From
https://www.offtackleempire.com/2023/8/15/23833031/big-ten-college-football-games-named-peacock-exclusive-will-not-be-televised-schedule-announcement
and
https://fbschedules.com/big-ten-football-schedule/
Peacock getting the better game about half the weeks Peacocks gets games.
LikeLike
I’m not sure your sources are accurate. No other source I can find is showing MSU @Iowa or Maryland @OSU as a Peacock exclusive. You are correct about Delaware @PSU, but that’s the type of garbage game you would expect Peacock to carry. It’s not like throwing away Washington @MSU, which could be a >4mm game if it were OTA.
LikeLike
Marc,
He’s probably correct about the Peacock games. But McMurphy does give the caveat of “if no games flexed to other networks.”
LikeLike
Going to be really interesting to follow what happens with Gameday vs Big Noon Kickoff ratings over the next couple of seasons.
As well as ESPN’s ratings generally:
Could really start to see regional weakness for ESPN develop in the Midwest/Northeast/West Coast in terms of CFB ratings given they won’t have access to any of the big brands in those areas outside of the rare non-conference away games.
Big Noon Kickoff really should start to see more weeks where it’s the #1 pre-noon show outside of just Ohio State-Michigan week and some choice others.
LikeLike
Yeah, ESPN really risks becoming just a regional network (for college football). If you can only have one region, they are in the best one. Still, there are huge swaths of the country that are now dead to them.
LikeLike
Well, they also have most of the B12 games and the ACC stretches in to the NE (and Bay Area) now. So it’s really just the Great Lakes region they’ll miss out on. And I suppose most of the WC. Fox missing out on almost all of the SE.
So I suppose you could argue that Fox and the WWL are about equal now, with each dominant in 1 of the 2 regions that care most about CFB and missing out almost entirely on the other one.
LikeLike
Marc: “Yeah, ESPN really risks becoming just a regional network (for college football). If you can only have one region, they are in the best one. Still, there are huge swaths of the country that are now dead to them.”
It may be even worse than that. The Disney-Charter/Spectrum dispute is ongoing and that cable company has 15 million subscribers. I am one of them. All of the ESPN channels are cut for the second week and it increasingly appears that no resolution will happen.
In the past couple of days I have signed up for YouTube streaming so that I can watch the Purdue-Virginia Tech game on ESPN2 this coming Saturday. I have YouTube free for three months and wiil probably drop Spectrum TV.
LikeLike
It looks like Spectrum is essentially deciding to exit video/cable.
LikeLike
They have said they’ll have this same fight with the other content providers as contracts expire, because they see streaming (over their internet) as the future of the business. I think they really want to bundle both. Disney’s talk of turning ESPN+ into the all-sports streaming hub for everyone and selling it DTC probably didn’t go over very well with Charter (and Comcast, etc.).
LikeLike
It’s now a high stakes game of “chicken” between cables and streamers. We saw the beginning of it with the Pac-12 fiasco and it will reach full bloom with Spectrum/Disney.
https://deadline.com/2023/08/disney-earnings-streaming-disney-disney-world-bob-iger-1235458860/
LikeLike
Even better – they are offering their customers an upgrade for just $7/month more to get 15 more sports channels (including NFL Red Zone, NFL, NBA, MLB, etc.). How about you get back all the ESPN channels people already paid for first before asking people to pay more to add sports channels?
LikeLike
Well, they also have most of the B12 games and the ACC stretches in to the NE (and Bay Area) now.
The B12 is predominantly a southern league, and it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Boston College delivers the Northeast.
In the past couple of days I have signed up for YouTube streaming so that I can watch the Purdue-Virginia Tech game on ESPN2 this coming Saturday. I have YouTube free for three months and wiil probably drop Spectrum TV.
That might be bad news for Spectrum, but ESPN still will get paid. It’ll just be another provider paying them.
LikeLike
Marc: “That might be bad news for Spectrum, but ESPN still will get paid. It’ll just be another provider paying them.”
Well, it doesn’t work that way. Let’s say Spectrum loses 3 million of its 15 million subscribers due to the Disney feud. People like me switch to YouTube streaming or something else, so ESPN will still be paid by those 3 million.
However, my previous subscription with Spectrum included ESPN bundled into its basic package. The other 12 million subscribers were paying for it whether they watched it or not. That will no longer happen.
LikeLike
[M]y previous subscription with Spectrum included ESPN bundled into its basic package. The other 12 million subscribers were paying for it whether they watched it or not. That will no longer happen.
Yes, you are correct. ESPN minted money because they charged a huge amount per subscriber, and they were in almost every basic cable package. Once people cut the cord, sports fans like us will still want to have it, but many others won’t. I don’t know if your 3/15ths stat is right, but directionally you are right.
They might be able to make up some of that. Currently, ESPN charges almost $10 per subscriber, but that’s spread like peanut butter across fans and non-fans alike. Thus, it includes people to whom ESPN is worth zero, but also those to whom it’s worth a lot more than $10.
What they need to do is to get the real sports fans to pay a lot more than $10, to make up for those who’ll pay zero going forward. It might work eventually, but it could get ugly while they make that transition.
LikeLike
Marc: ” I don’t know if your 3/15ths stat is right . . .”
Those are just numbers I pulled from thin air to illustrate the example.
LikeLike
Charter should have a good handle on how many of its subscribers are heavy ESPN watchers so I assume they made a good business decision. All cable companies will be watching how many cancellations there are for TV only and TV+Internet. In many areas there is not much Broadband choice so many of the cancellations may become unbundled internet subscribers. The other item being watched is what price adjustments if any Charter makes to its basic cable TV fee. If the price does not come down all the money that was paid to Disney becomes additional profit to offset cancellations.
As far as TV subscribers it is lose=lose for Charter. If they pay Disney and raise prices the cheap (non-sports) ones will continue to cancel while if ESPN is removed more of the cancellations will be from the expensive end. Fubo is offering Spectrum subscribers a 30% discount but that still runs $56 per month for all ESPN plus a bunch of other sports channels. The truth is that DIsney is trying to put all cable TV providers out of business by insisting that ESPN stay in the basic package rather than being premium. That is at least until they pull it entirely and make it streaming only.
Also since there are no contracts the subscribers paid for a basic channel bundle that Charter can change at will and the subscriber can cancel. Also ABC is only dropped in markets where Disney owns the stations (LA, NYC, Raleigh).
LikeLike
Marc:
Pitt and Syracuse are also in the Northeast. You could argue VA (at least the northern part) is too. But practically speaking, there are so few CFB fans north and east of NYC that that area essentially doesn’t matter when it comes to CFB.
Also note that the B12 now includes the 4C’s, so the B12 is now a predominantly south-central/SW/TX + mountain west league.
Regardless, what I said isn’t untrue:
“So I suppose you could argue that Fox and the WWL are about equal now, with each dominant in 1 of the 2 regions that care most about CFB and missing out almost entirely on the other one.”
When it comes to CFB fandom/viewership, the vast majority of CFB fans are in the South and Midwest, with the rest scattered across the major metros of the west, OR, and Greater PA (PA, NJ, NYC, MD, DMV/DC).
The following map is a useful reference:
https://sicem365.com/s/15599/how-the-television-map-influences-realignment
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/inside-smus-pursuit-of-the-power-five–its-a-couple-hundred-million-dollars-im-not-losing-sleep-over-it-125139541.html
The details of how TX billionaires got SMU into the ACC.
David Miller is tall enough not to hide among crowds, particularly this one.
At an impromptu celebration within SMU’s indoor football facility, there is no escape for Miller. He is, after all, the chairman of the school’s board of trustees.
…
Miller spent the last 14 months on what some Texans might describe as a wildcatting adventure, not for unfounded oil wells but for a major conference home for the SMU Mustangs. In his eight-passenger Challenger 300 business jet, he criss-crossed the country on an orchestrated mission to convince influencers at one of three major conferences to invite into their league the school in Uptown Dallas.
Call it an amazing race: Twenty flights, two dozen clandestine meetings, hundreds of secret phone calls, a near-invitation to the Pac-12, an unprecedented revenue proposal and a commitment from a small group of oil executives and business moguls of more than $200 million — the price tag, as one put it, to get into the club.
It is a story straight out of Texas.
“When you really think about it,” Miller says, “this was a business transaction.”
…
“They were interested in trying to understand that, if we are willing to forgo media rights shares, then the commissioner wanted to know, ‘How are you going to compete?’” recalled Miller.
…
Many of the country’s powerhouse athletic programs lean on a small group of millionaires for investments. SMU has billionaires.
Most of them sit on the school’s board of trustees.
…
All of this is why Miller figuratively shrugged at Phillips’ question on that April morning in the downtown Charlotte Westin.
How, if SMU were to take such a reduced share of television money, would they compete?
Miller smiled from across the table.
“It’s a couple hundred million dollars,” Miller said. “I’m not losing sleep over it.”
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/09/04/nfl-season-preview.aspx
The SBJ says one unlikely thing the NFL may try to do in the future – owning a piece of CFB.
Hail Marys
Now for the the real moonshots, ideas that would require fundamental changes to NFL policies:
…
2. College Involvement: A half-dozen sources contacted for this story each broached this possibility: The top 50 teams in college football sign a grant of rights to NewCo., a tripartite partnership of Fox Sports, Disney and the NFL. In one fell swoop, the second most popular sport in America is forever divorced from the mishmash of NCAA, conference, government and university oversight that has led to today’s campus crisis. The NFL’s decades of excellence running football operations and big-ticket events could unlock more value, with extraordinary upside revenue potential.
“The mess that is college football right now is seemingly ripe for some kind of NFL intervention,” said one expert.
Right now, that prospect clearly doesn’t pencil out for the NFL. For all its corporate problems, college football still functions well as a free developmental league for the NFL. (See the “First do no harm” rule.) But if the day comes when NFL coaches, scouts and general managers sense that changing, this could start to make sense in a hurry — and drive billions to the top line. The college crisis could also lay the groundwork for the NFL to pursue its own developmental league, either through its own creation, buying part of the XFL, USFL or Canadian leagues, or even building a business abroad around its nascent international player development program.
LikeLike
I’m not predicting this’ll happen, but it’s not unthinkable either. That is the scary thing.
LikeLike
“I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38346544/oregon-washington-had-inbound-interest-join-big-ten-commish-says
Tony Petitti talked about adding UO and UW. Apparently it isn’t 100% that the Pac-4 will all be locked in football. They also want the coastal schools to play frequently, which sounds like equal frequency for everyone.
“Oregon and Washington, they had, real intent; they were working hard to make it an option for them,” Petitti said in his first extensive comments about the expansion additions. “They really wanted to be in the Big Ten. We felt that throughout the whole process.”
…
Both are set to receive $30-35 million annually, according to sources, a share that will increase by $1 million during the Big Ten’s media contract with Fox, NBC and CBS, which runs through the 2029-30 athletic season.
Petitti said the existing Big Ten members had “receptivity right in the beginning” about adding Oregon and Washington but wanted to see how scheduling, finances and other issues would be sorted out. The scheduling benefits for USC and UCLA in having two more members on the West Coast factored into the Big Ten’s decision.
“We all felt that whatever aspect we looked at, it made us better,” Petitti said. “It just became that process of trying to figure out how. My job is to make sure the conference is as great in the future as it is today. There are opportunities to protect that and make sure that we are going to get better.”
Petitti said the Big Ten is not looking at expanding beyond 18 members at this time. The league is focused on its 2024 and 2025 football schedules, which will maintain the principles of the “Flex Protect Plus” model announced in June. Oregon and Washington will play annually as a 12th protected game for the league, chief operating officer Kerry Kenny told ESPN, and other protected games are possible.
The Big Ten is “days, if not weeks” away from announcing home-and-home opponents for the 2024 schedule, and then will finalize the specific dates. The league will eliminate divisions after the 2023 season and have its top two teams play in its championship game.
Kenny said the Big Ten’s priorities with its schedule are to maximize opportunities to access the expanded College Football Playoff, for each team to play every other team as much as possible, and balancing geography with travel and competitive trends.
“We’re making sure that we don’t have outliers in terms of the hardest schedule or the easiest schedule for any of our teams, and working through how to balance the competitive tiers,” Kenny said. “You’re going to see a lot of what people seemingly liked with the Flex Protect Plus. We’re going through different options of what that could look like to see how we balance not just the travel component of our Eastern and Central time zone schools but also the frequency of how we can get everybody to play both at those four [West Coast] schools.”
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ve worked out the math and the only way the 4 WC schools could be locked against all of each other was if the B10 was willing to go to some schools playing other schools only a quarter of the time (or if a bunch of new locks were created). As B10 schools have not played each other that infrequently for many decades, they would probably ensure that each school plays another B10 team at least 2/6 years.
To me, an interesting question is which 3 teams will play PSU 2/3rds of the time, then. If we take seriously that the B10 will try to make the schools in each tier have roughly the same toughness of schedule, OSU and UMich are already locked with another king. UMich is also locked with prince MSU (though the median B10 team is now a prince) and MSU is locked with a king. The B10 may have to lock USC & UO and UCLA & UW to make the schedules work. So of the kings and princes, these are their current locks (if USC & UO and UCLA & UW are also locks):
UMich: king+prince
OSU: king
USC: prince+prince
MSU: king
Iowa: prince+prince (UNL is essentially a prince these days)+highest peon
UW-Madison: prince+highest peon
UNL: prince
UO: king+prince
UCLA: king+prince
UW-Seattle: prince+prince
BTW, if you consider UO a king, then all the WC schools would be locked king+prince.
If the B10 is going to try to avoid giving royalty extra locks, the royalty left with only 1 lock are OSU, MSU, and UNL (all with at least some rivalry relationship with PSU, to boot), so I’m going to predict they all play PSU 2/3rds of the time.
LikeLike
The Big Ten is “days, if not weeks” away from announcing home-and-home opponents for the 2024 schedule, and then will finalize the specific dates.
This reaffirms my longstanding view that scheduling is not that hard. Granted, they took a year to come up with Flex Protect Plus, but that’s largely because they had the luxury of taking that long, not because it was hard.
Although Petitti mentioned scheduling as one of the points they looked at, I think the difficulty or ease of scheduling is almost never the main reason why conference expansion happens—or doesn’t. It’s largely a secondary thing they confirm once all of the other boxes are checked.
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree it’s never the deciding factor. They always assume they can figure it out. But you’ll note that this is just to release the pairings, not the actual schedule. The details, especially if they are worried about travel, the USC vs ND game, and other specialty requests can become tricky.
LikeLike
They’re big boys. They can figure it out.
Though I am curious about how they will make the ND@USC game work. I still think (even from ND’s perspective), that moving that game to the week before Thanksgiving and ND ending their season in a warm-weather neutral site game vs. an ACC team (I had in mind a rotation of Calford+SMU) makes the most sense.
The other alternative is UCLA ending their season vs. an ACC team (like Cal) on years when ND@USC is the last game of the season.
LikeLike
Richard: “Though I am curious about how they will make the ND-USC game work.”
Bear in mind that the Pac-12 Conference made accommodations for that game when they drew up the conference schedule each year. We have no information that the Big Ten Conference will do the same, and when USC & UCLA came running to join the Big Ten they were hardly in a position to demand special considerations.
In fact, the long-time reason for the USC-ND game in South Bend being in mid-season was because USC didn’t want to play in Indiana in cold weather during late November. Obviously, USC will be playing in places considerably colder than Indiana in November after they join the Big Ten, so that rationale becomes void.
The Big Ten may just tell USC to schedule their OOC games after the conference schedule is set, just like all of the other schools do.
LikeLike
Bear in mind that the Pac-12 Conference made accommodations for that game when they drew up the conference schedule each year. We have no information that the Big Ten Conference will do the same…
The Big Ten wants that game on their home schedule every other year. I don’t know what accommodations they’ll make, but they’re not going to say “f___ you” either. A few seasons ago, the Big Ten moved conference games around so that Michigan could play Notre Dame in October. Granted, that was only once, but they did it.
…the long-time reason for the USC-ND game in South Bend being in mid-season was because USC didn’t want to play in Indiana in cold weather during late November. Obviously, USC will be playing in places considerably colder than Indiana in November after they join the Big Ten, so that rationale becomes void.
The years USC plays at South Bend aren’t the issue — they can easily schedule around that, so there’s no reason not to. It’s the years they play in L.A. that cause the problem. If that game keeps its traditional date, then at least one other Big Ten team would either be idle or would have to find a non-conference game to play. Neither of those situations is ideal for the last weekend of the season.
I lean towards moving ND@USC to the week before Thanksgiving, and then the following week ND could play against any of the ACC teams that does not have a locked Rivalry Week opponent — there are a number of these, and I don’t see why it would need to be confined to SMU, Cal, or Stanford.
LikeLike
Marc, I wasn’t suggesting that the Big Ten would say f*** you to the USC-ND rivalry. Of course they wouldn’t. But wouldn’t it be better for both USC and the Big Ten to make that game like the Red River Rivalry, a mid-season blockbuster at a time when everyone else is beating up cupcakes for homecoming? The RRR has always been more of an archrival game than UO-OSU or UT-A&M. The entire college football world watches it, including me.
As you mentioned, it’s the years they (ND-USC) play in L.A. that cause the problem. As you also mentioned, there is no reason that game couldn’t be played at another time. The Big Ten should simply make USC-UCLA and end-of-season game every year and USC-ND can schedule around it.
LikeLike
Marc,
The years USC plays at South Bend aren’t the issue — they can easily schedule around that, so there’s no reason not to. It’s the years they play in L.A. that cause the problem. If that game keeps its traditional date, then at least one other Big Ten team would either be idle or would have to find a non-conference game to play. Neither of those situations is ideal for the last weekend of the season.
ND @ USC
UCLA @ Cal
UW vs WSU
UO vs OrSU
4 teams playing OOC rivals during rivalry week. All 4 games are tough enough not to feel they get an unfair advantage. All 4 games maintain key rivalries. The ACC lets other teams play an in-state rival that week, so Cal should be allowed. That balances the new ACC out perfectly for that week – 17 teams, 5 playing OOC, 12 playing in conference. Make Stanford and SMU play each other since nobody else wants them that week.
LikeLike
ND @ USC
UCLA @ Cal
UW vs WSU
UO vs OrSU
Make Stanford and SMU play each other since nobody else wants them that week.
Where it comes to scheduling, Brian’s suggestions are usually the best. The only drawback I can see is that it requires 3 conferences to agree simultaneously to do the right thing, and that is a rarity these days.
LikeLike
Though note that the PNW in-state rivalry games (if they even occur; not sure about that) don’t have to take place the weekend after Thanksgiving. They could take place the weekend before Thanksgiving (or some other time) and UW and UO could end their season playing each other.
So really, only the B10, ACC, and ND have to come to an agreement, and happily for the B10, as the ACC now has an odd number of football teams, they’d want an ACC team to end the season playing someone (like ND or a B10 team).
LikeLike
A reverse merger between the MWC and the Pac-12 is now the leading option for Washington State and Oregon State.
This means the Pac-12 would “survive” in name only, but in all other respects it would be the Mountain West plus two. The Pac-12 name still has cachet and is evidently worth keeping around, even 10 of the 12 are gone. The hang-up is who owns all of the Pac-12’s assets: WSU and OSU want to keep as much to themselves as they can.
Then the new conference, whatever you call it, would need to negotiate a media deal. An obvious starting point is that WSU and OSU get a pro rata share of the MWC’s existing deal, which pays its schools about $4m each per year. Naturally, they want more. The MWC’s current deal runs through 2025–26 and is roughly a 50/50 split between CBS and Fox.
Still to be determined is if the Pac-12 would retain autonomy status. Most reports suggest that the other “power four” could strip them of that status if 3/4ths concur. Now the question is if they would do that, and the legal fallout if they do. It’s possible the Big 12 and ACC would oppose such a move, because they’d be thinking, “I could be next.”
LikeLike
Marc,
Hasn’t the reverse merger been the top choice for a while? On the media deal, I’d think they’d get a pro rata deal (CBS and Fox can’t complain that WSU and OrSU aren’t at least median value) plus get to keep some extra money from the old P12. Maybe Fox agrees to give the Pac-2 a little more in exchange for some better picks.
I think the P12 will lose P5 status based on the wholesale membership change. The B12 and ACC would have better chances at an at-large CFP berth if the P12 is not a power conference (hence 5+7 vs 6+6), and that extra money will trump their concerns.
LikeLike
The B12 and ACC would have better chances at an at-large CFP berth if the P12 is not a power conference (hence 5+7 vs 6+6), and that extra money will trump their concerns.
I am referring to NCAA autonomy, which is a completely separate thing from the playoff. Now, it was surely in the back of their minds that the P5 champs would usually take five of the six autobids in the 6+6 model, but there was no assurance of this. In the Covid year, he Pac-12 would not have received an autobid if the 12-team playoff had existed.
Kevin Warren initially wanted P5 autobids, which would have enshrined in the rules a different status for those leagues, but the actual rules they adopted treat all of the FBS leagues the same.
LikeLike
It’s separate, but it kind of isn’t. Officially the CFP treats the conferences with major bowl contracts differently (for payouts), but those are also the autonomous conferences. If the P12 has no more tie-in, do they lose A5 status as well with that loss of tie-in used as evidence that they aren’t at the same level as the other 4 anymore? The number of champion bids is based on the number of power conferences, which is at least related to the number of autonomous conferences.
Honestly, I think they’re much more worried about CFP money than NCAA autonomy right now.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/pac-12-legal-delay-wsu-and-osu-hoped-to-proceed-quickly-but-conference-office-slow-to-move/
Wilner and others lambaste the P12 HQ.
One month later, clarity has not emerged.
Stanford and Cal have fled to the ACC. Only Washington State and Oregon State remain, and they still don’t have the answers needed to take the next step, whether it’s reforming the Pac-12 or joining the Mountain West.
“I’m frustrated that we haven’t gotten the information as quickly as we had hoped,” OSU athletic director Scott Barnes told Oregonlive.com last weekend. “It is trickling in. We need to get that buttoned down.”
The Hotline sought answers from the conference office.
…
The Pac-12 declined to comment.
The same radio silence that defined the Pac-12’s messaging strategy throughout the media rights negotiations is at work in this endeavor. Which is fine — the conference isn’t obligated to share information with the media.
But it’s required to assist Washington State, Oregon State and the outgoing schools by any means necessary. And once again, headquarters has failed to execute at the necessary level.
“Any well-run business should, within 48 hours, have the most up-to-date profit-and-loss statement, balance sheet and liabilities and assets,” an industry source said.
“At the latest, they should have had this at the end of August, knowing the odds were pretty good Stanford and Cal were leaving.”
Are the finances so messy, the bylaws so vague, that the experts are struggling to understand the critical details?
“The conference has been so poorly managed for so long on so many levels,’’ a source said.
One possible cause for the delay: The Pac-12’s CFO, Morane Kerek, was hired in June but did not begin her duties until Aug. 9 — five days after the implosion.
She has been tasked with finding gold coins amid the rubble without a grasp of the landscape.
How much value exists in the emergency reserves? Which schools own the revenue from NCAA Tournament units earned to date? Is there value in the Rose Bowl contract? In sponsorship deals? In the Pac-12 Networks? And what about the liabilities?
But responsibility cannot be left to Kerek alone. What role, if any, is commissioner George Kliavkoff playing? Are the WSU and OSU financial officers being given access to the financial records? Are their general counsels examining the bylaws?
On those matters, too, clarity is lacking.
…
The bylaws indicate that any school providing a “notice of departure” relinquishes its voting rights. That seems simple enough, except the 10 outbound members have not provided the Pac-12 with formal departure notices, according to a source.
Does that mean they have retained voting rights? Or have their public actions served as de facto declarations of intent?
…
“No brand in the Group of Five has the value of the Pac-12 brand,’’ the industry source said. “If you have the brand, you own the history.”
The brand, the history, the assets and voting control — everything is on hold until the Pac-12 provides the Cougars and Beavers with the critical information they requested a month ago but is only “trickling in.”
What a shock. The conference office isn’t adequately serving its members.
LikeLike
UNC is hopping mad at the NCAA for denying a transfer waiver to wide receiver Devontez Walker. Coach Mack Brown issued perhaps the sternest denunciation of the NCAA that I have ever seen from a major institution:
UNC Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham issued a similar statement.
The basic facts are undisputed. Earlier this year, the NCAA — at the behest of its members — clamped down on the unlimited transfer rule. Now, players get one free transfer. But for the second (or later) transfer, the player must sit out a year unless he demonstrates exigent circumstances, and there are very few permitted exceptions.
Walker started his career at NC Central in 2020, but the school’s entire season was canceled due to Covid. Nevertheless, when he transferred to Kent State for 2021–22, the NCAA counted that as his free transfer. He enrolled at UNC in December 2022, believing he’d be immediately eligible under the earlier, more liberal transfer rules. The NCAA’s new guidance came out only after he’d already moved.
UNC says they submitted ample evidence of Walker’s mental health issues — an exigent circumstance that would permit an exception according to the new, stricter guidelines. The NCAA deemed their argument inadequate. Since the details of his mental health have not (understandably) been released, we can’t assess them here.
NCAA president Charlie Baker issued a statement that shows how out-of-touch the institution so often is: “The first-time (rule), I don’t think anybody’s got issues with. But the membership made a decision, and the decision was they don’t want kids to snap from place to place. And if they are going to do a second transfer, they want to make sure they get their feet on the ground, their credits get taken care of and they deal with a lot of issues that might have been involved in why they transferred for a second time.”
Everyone knows that the rule is not “to get their credits get taken care of (etc.).” No, it was because coaches did not like unlimited free-agency. The NCAA is just a pass-through: it implements the rules its own members choose. And according to the very literal rule, this kid apparently didn’t qualify, even though in spirit perhaps he should have. But don’t pretend that it’s about giving players time to get their credits sorted out.
LikeLike
Coaches shouldn’t bitch when the NCAA did what they asked.
Besides, he isn’t losing any eligibility I don’t think, he just has to sit out a year before he can play. After transferring twice, he probably should focus on classes and making actual progress towards a degree as well as his mental wellbeing.
I wonder if the fact he left a school in NC to go to OH impacted the NCAA’s decision on his mental health claim for needing to return to NC. If he’d gone straight to Kent St. that’s one thing, but he made an adult decision after some time in college that playing football was more important than living near his family.
LikeLike
Coaches shouldn’t bitch when the NCAA did what they asked.
I gather UNC is not bitching about the NCAA enforcing the rule the schools asked for. They think they complied with every requirement, and the NCAA said no anyway. It seems to hinge on the “mental health” exception, and we haven’t been provided all the facts around that—not that we should be.
I cannot recall offhand any coach/AD denouncing the NCAA with that much heat, which makes me think they probably have a valid argument.
LikeLike
Possible exemptions are not guaranteed exemptions. The NCAA didn’t say everyone that claims mental wellbeing concerns will be exempted from the rule.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38347273/north-carolina-wr-tez-walker-appeal-denied-ineligible-23
multiple-time transfers who cannot demonstrate and adequately document a personal need for medical or safety reasons to depart the previous school are not eligible to compete immediately following their second undergraduate transfer.
Also note that UNC argued on 3 fronts (meaning they didn’t trust the mental wellness argument to win):
1. He didn’t actually play at the first school, so that transfer shouldn’t count.
That’s BS and they know it. Whether or not he played, he transferred (probably for playing time) and that’s why it counts.
2. The transfer waiver requirements were restricted after Walker moved to UNC.
That’s a legalese argument, but it makes some sense to try. I’m surprised it didn’t work. Maybe they sue the NCAA on this basis (and win).
3. Mental wellbeing. Everyone seems to agree he has some issues, but nobody says why playing UNC football will help.
Walker has said he has received mental health counseling since he arrived at North Carolina. Cunningham said North Carolina and Kent State “have provided overwhelming evidence detailing his mental health needs” …
…
Walker grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina, and served as the primary caregiver for his grandmother when he was in high school.
“Just imagine what it is like for Tez to be so excited to come home and have a chance to fulfill his childhood dream of playing for North Carolina in front of all of his family and friends, only to have it taken away despite doing nothing wrong,” Brown said in his statement.
a. If playing in front of family was so important, why’d he go to Kent State? NC is full of schools that play football.
b. Disappointment over not playing for UNC is his mental wellbeing issue? Apparently he also had issues at KSU. So again, why will playing football for UNC this season fix anything?
c. Taken away? He just has to wait 1 year.
LikeLike
Oregon State and Washington State filed a legal complaint against the Pac-12 and commissioner George Kliavkoff on Friday, seeking an emergency temporary restraining order to protect what the schools see as an “imminent and existential threat” to the future of the conference.
LikeLike
The issue is that Kliavkoff is trying to call a meeting at which all 12 current members would appear. Nine out of 12 could vote to disband the league, and under the bylaws the remaining assets would be distributed equally. WSU and OSU believe that ten out of 12 have given notice of leaving, meaning that the league survives with two members who own all the remaining assets.
LikeLike
When Brian posted that article about WSU saying they would be announcing their legal strategy soon, this was the first thing that came to mind. They want to keep all the league’s assets, so they need to prevent the league from voting to dissolve. I question if the departing members would actually do so (if for no other reason than it would be pretty bad PR to kick WSU or OSU while they are already down, plus Cal and Stanford are the only departing members who really have a strong need for more revenue right now) but I guess they want to play it safe.
(I would, however, be interested in finding out what liabilities the PAC still has, since WSU and OSU would, presumably, have to inherit all those as well).
LikeLike
Wilner has an article about this. Kliavkoff keeps trying to schedule the meeting with all 12 members. WSU/OSU keep asking him to delay, and he refuses. I don’t exactly know who GK is getting his direction from, but I can see why the the schools felt they had to sue.
LikeLike
My FTTS buddies, I believe college football is headed for an epiphany. Most TV cable companies will no longer pay for sports programming in their basic bundles. The streamers will gobble up those who leave the cables and then get into a dog fight over the scraps. The exception is Fox.
My hunch (Marc, I’m not saying “period” here) is that Fox will dominate both cable and streaming. Disney is clearly on the ropes right now, laying off employees and losing Charter/Spectrum.
LikeLike
I thought WSU/OSU wanted nothing more to do with GK. Per reports at least 8 other schools have not notified the PAC that they are leaving. So the MWC said SDSU resigned without an invite it may be the PAC schools contention that they did not resign even though they have/accepted invites. It is nice to have a home court advantage but I am not sure a Spokane based Washington State court jurisdiction will be honored by a California based organization. Maybe they can order Washington not to attend and prevent a Quorum.
LikeLike
Little8,
Nobody wants anything to do with GK, but it’s his job to be COO of the P12 for another year. Someone has to run things for this last year, and he is solely focused on that. He may feel obligated to have a meeting, and he’s inviting everyone because the lawyers tell him he has to.
The argument is about what constitutes giving notice. All 10 schools have publicly announced they are leaving and have been accepted by other conferences. One could argue that a public notice is also notice given to the P12, depending on what the bylaws specify for notice.
A TRO would likely be upheld by another state. Whether or not they eventually get the relief they want, they’d get a couple of days. The bylaws should say what state’s laws the ultimate issue is decided in. Otherwise it might move to federal court with a WA state entity suing a CA entity.
LikeLike
Click to access complaint_for_breach_of_bylaws_declaratory_judgment_and_injunctive_relief_1.pdf
WSU’s court filing.
Interesting note:
13. Defendant Pac-12 Conference is a California unincorporated association. The Pac-12, which has been known by different names throughout its history, has been the western United States’ preeminent intercollegiate athletics conference since it was founded in 1915. Under its Constitution and Bylaws, the current members of the Conference are the University of Arizona; Arizona State University; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of Colorado, Boulder; the University of Oregon; Oregon State University; the University of Southern California; Stanford University; the University of Utah; the University of Washington; and Washington State University. As of June 2023, the Conference has given up its permanent headquarters and has moved to a “remote work environment.” As an unincorporated association, the Pac-12 is a citizen of each state where at least one of its members is a citizen, including Washington.
So a WA court should have jurisdiction. At least enough that the P12 can’t ignore it.
LikeLike
Nobody wants anything to do with GK, but it’s his job to be COO of the P12 for another year. Someone has to run things for this last year, and he is solely focused on that. He may feel obligated to have a meeting, and he’s inviting everyone because the lawyers tell him he has to.
It’s fairly apparent that GK is being a jerk about this. He knows perfectly well what the two schools are worried about and has called the meeting anyway with all 10 of the departing members invited. Perhaps one of these days we’ll find out who he is getting his direction from. Granted that OSU and WSU already made it clear they have no loyalty to him, but what loyalty do other 10 have?
Am I right that this is the first conference realignment dispute that has gone to court? (At least, the first in the modern era — maybe someone sued a hundred years ago.)
LikeLike
Marc,
It’s fairly apparent that GK is being a jerk about this. He knows perfectly well what the two schools are worried about and has called the meeting anyway with all 10 of the departing members invited. Perhaps one of these days we’ll find out who he is getting his direction from. Granted that OSU and WSU already made it clear they have no loyalty to him, but what loyalty do other 10 have?
How is it apparent? He has said nothing publicly. All we know is that he asked for a board meeting, and Schulz refused to call one. So GK tried to arrange one. It is entirely possible that GK has issues on which he needs input from the board (legal, financial, personnel, etc.). His job is to run the P12, which currently has 12 members. Nobody has officially declared that the departing 10 have no right to vote, so GK has to invite all of them. He doesn’t owe WSU and OrSU anything special. The fact they’ve all but fired him doesn’t endear them to him, either.
Am I right that this is the first conference realignment dispute that has gone to court? (At least, the first in the modern era — maybe someone sued a hundred years ago.)
UConn and Pitt sued BC and the ACC. The ACC and UMD sued each other before settling.
LikeLike
How is it apparent?
People don’t like to get sued, and almost nobody goes to court unless they have first tried to resolve the problem by gentler means.
He doesn’t owe WSU and OrSU anything special. The fact they’ve all but fired him doesn’t endear them to him, either.
WSU and OrSU are the only two schools that didn’t leave. Granted they’ve all but fired him, but the other ten walked out entirely.
It is entirely possible that GK has issues on which he needs input from the board (legal, financial, personnel, etc.).
The Brooklyn Bridge would like a word with you. It’s on sale for a very low price.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/pac-12-chaos-inside-the-11-days-that-led-to-wsu-and-osu-taking-legal-action-against-the-conference/
More details.
Here’s a look at the 11 days that led to an internecine feud, based on legal filings obtained by the Hotline:
Aug. 29: Commissioner George Kliavkoff calls Washington State president Kirk Schulz and asks Schulz to convene the board of directors to “discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12.”
Schulz declines, citing “the rapidly evolving situation concerning the departing members.”
Following the call, Kliavkoff writes to the 12 presidents and chancellors and proposes a “meeting of all ‘Conference CEOs’ to discuss ‘complex issues facing the Conference.’”
The complaint states that “by characterizing the meeting as a ‘meeting of all Conference CEOs’ rather than a Board Meeting, the Commissioner sought to circumvent the clear language of the Withdrawal provision and empower the departing members to decide matters that properly may be decided only by the Board.”
Aug. 30: Kliavkoff’s assistant (unnamed) follows up to schedule a “Pac-12 Board Meeting” for the week of September 11.
The complaint states that WSU and OSU were “understandably concerned that the Commissioner’s August 29 communication proposing a ‘meeting of all Conference CEOs,’ and his assistant’s subsequent communication describing this meeting as a ‘Board Meeting,’ created the false impression that representatives of all twelve Conference members remain eligible to serve on the Pac-12 Board and to vote on Board matters.”
Aug. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer “to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week.”
Sept. 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. 13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and “We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach.”
Sept. 6: WSU’s Schulz and OSU president Jayathi Murthy send a letter to Kliavkoff and the 10 departing members “demanding that the Commissioner and other members confirm:”
— The Sept. 13 board meeting would be canceled.
— The 10 departing schools have relinquished their voting rights.
— The presidents of WSU and OSU are the “only duly authorized Board members.”
In addition, the complaint states that on Sept. 6:
“One representative of a departing Pac-12 member threatened that the departing members of the Conference were poised to take immediate action to seize control of the Pac-12. The representative wrote: ‘It seems obvious that any 9 Members can declare the fate of the Conference at any time.’”
If the P12’s legal counsel is telling GK that all 12 members have rights, he has to invite them all. And that list of topics seem like important things that need to be discussed. Personnel need to know what happens to them in 2024. The P12 office needs clarity on who still has which rights for governance, as he has to get legal approval of various things.
Could GK have delayed calling this meeting? Probably. But how long can the P12 go without knowing who is in charge? How is that decided without trying to discuss it first?
Of more concern is the P12’s inability to provide financial numbers almost immediately when WSU and OrSU asked for them. I know they just hired a new CFO, but any organization should have up-to-date financials every month (at least every quarter).
LikeLike
If the P12’s legal counsel is telling GK that all 12 members have rights, he has to invite them all. And that list of topics seem like important things that need to be discussed.
USC and UCLA stopped attending board meetings after they announced they were leaving. There was only one board meeting after Colorado announced it was leaving, and Colorado didn’t attend it. So it would be a bit peculiar if suddenly all 12 schools need to be there now. The article doesn’t say what advice the P12’s legal counsel gave GK.
LikeLike
Marc,
USC and UCLA stopped attending board meetings after they announced they were leaving.
And they’re getting full B10 shares, so they don’t need to consider fighting over the P12 scraps.
There was only one board meeting after Colorado announced it was leaving, and Colorado didn’t attend it. So it would be a bit peculiar if suddenly all 12 schools need to be there now.
You can have meetings where everyone attends for certain parts, and only a subset for other parts. Things germane to the operations this year should have all eligible voters present. I leave it to the lawyers to figure out who has a vote on what.
The article doesn’t say what advice the P12’s legal counsel gave GK.
“Aug. 31: Oregon State general counsel Rebecca Gore writes to Kliavkoff and Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer “to confirm that the contemplated meeting would not be a meeting of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. Presumably concerned with the governance issues raised herein, Mr. Petersmeyer failed to respond for nearly a week.”
Sept. 5: Petersmeyer responds and indicates the Sept. 13 meeting will, in fact, be a board meeting and “We anticipated voting on certain matters including the retention plan and having a discussion and possible vote on our go forward governance approach.””
That’s the P12 general counsel saying it is a board meeting with all 12 invited. He clearly thinks all 12 need to be there and have a say.
LikeLike
Am I right that this is the first conference realignment dispute that has gone to court?
In addition to the examples Brian cited, I believe WVU and Rutgers both filed lawsuits against the BEast (or possibly the other way around, I don’t recall exactly) when they left.
LikeLike
That’s the P12 general counsel saying it is a board meeting with all 12 invited. He clearly thinks all 12 need to be there and have a say.
There are about 10 different flavors of advice I can think of that he might’ve given GK, that are consistent with the above. For instance, GK wants a meeting. Counsel says, “It’s a close call, but you probably can’t do that.” GK says, “Since you say it’s close, let’s try anyway.”
I believe WVU and Rutgers both filed lawsuits against the BEast (or possibly the other way around, I don’t recall exactly) when they left.
I’d forgotten all of these, I think because they were all (ultimately) settled quietly. If this actually goes to trial, then every email comes into discovery, and oh Lordy, can you imagine what those emails will be.
LikeLike
I believe college football is headed for an epiphany. Most TV cable companies will no longer pay for sports programming in their basic bundles.
The Disney–Charter fight is not unprecedented — other providers have had such disagreements, only to reach a settlement. Charter is just one cable company, albeit a big one. But I have long been amazed at the high tariff Disney gets for ESPN. I agree this could be a tipping point.
My hunch . . . is that Fox will dominate both cable and streaming. Disney is clearly on the ropes right now, laying off employees and losing Charter/Spectrum.
The worst thing that happens to Disney is that they are no longer in the basic cable bundle. But then, FS1 probably wouldn’t be either. Disney and Fox would each would have an OTA network and a sports network that people pay extra for. But among sports networks, ESPN is a far more successful brand than FS1. It’s not like they’re out of business if they’re booted out of basic cable.
ESPN laid off a lot of people because they had become too heavy. But leaving that aside, which brand would you rather have, ESPN or FS1? There’s no contest. I don’t see what would be the driver for Fox to dominate, unless Disney hires Larry Scott and George Kliavkoff to run it.
LikeLike
I believe FS1 is much cheaper. OK, this is from 2020 but I imagine FS1’s carriage fee is still only a small percentage of ESPN’s: https://variety.com/vip/pay-tv-true-cost-free-1234810682/
LikeLike
Oh yes, for sure. FS1 is a lot cheaper because it is worth a lot less. What I am saying is, the worst thing that happens to Disney is that both ESPN and FS1 get booted from the basic cable bundle nationwide. Should that happen, Disney still has the far better brand. They’d need to make a lot more mistakes before Fox would eat their lunch.
LikeLike
According to the article provided by Richard, only 22% of those who pay for ESPN watch it regularly so that was pretty close to my estimate that 3 million of Spectrum’s 15 million subscribers would quit.
But the thing that sticks out in that chart is the cost of ESPN, waaaay more than any other channel. And remember that Spectrum dropped Disney because ESPN wanted even more money. Tell ya what, if Disney is losing 15 million Spectrum subscribers who were paying circa $7.64/month and is only gaining back 3 million who go to streamers, that’s a huge lose of revenue.
LikeLike
But the thing that sticks out in that chart is the cost of ESPN, waaaay more than any other channel.
Well…there is a reason for that. ESPN is the most watched of any cable channel except Fox News. (And the amount that cable companies pay for ESPN includes other networks in the family.)
ESPN’s prime-time ratings were up 14% last year, and ESPN2’s were up 8%, while Fox Sports 1 was down 7%. Among all channels (broadcast or cable), ESPN is 6th in the ratings list, ESPN is 41st, and FS1 is 48th.
Yeah, there will be some adjustments because in the cord-cutting world you can’t collect $10 per cable subscriber when only 22% are watching it. But if you had to start building a new business model without cable, whose hand would you rather play, ESPN’s or Fox Sports 1?
LikeLike
From Fact 1 (FS1 is a lot cheaper than ESPN), it does not follow that Proposition 2 (if ESPN goes on a premium tier, so will FS1) has to be true. In fact, we see many cases in the cable world where that is not true. For instance, HBO wasn’t on the basic tier almost anywhere (when I still had cable and paid attention to what was on where) but channels with less premium content that charge much less were on the basic tier.
LikeLike
Richard: “From Fact 1 (FS1 is a lot cheaper than ESPN), it does not follow that Proposition 2 (if ESPN goes on a premium tier, so will FS1) has to be true.”
I agree and it seems that the Fox channels may be better off by keeping prices low and staying in the basic package. The footprint of the the Big Ten Network is now all of California, Oregon and Washington. If all of those TV sets get bundled with Fox, FS1 and FS2 at basic package rates and they don’t price themselves out of the market like ESPN seems to be be doing, they won’t need the premium tier.
LikeLike
I agree and it seems that the Fox channels may be better off by keeping prices low and staying in the basic package. The footprint of the the Big Ten Network is now all of California, Oregon and Washington. If all of those TV sets get bundled with Fox, FS1 and FS2 at basic package rates and they don’t price themselves out of the market like ESPN seems to be be doing, they won’t need the premium tier.
FS1 and FS2 are indeed priced lower than ESPN, but you are comparing the 6th-most watched network and the 48th-most. ESPN charged the prices it did because of the content it had. It’s not as if Fox has a cunning strategy to outwit Disney by charging less for FS1 — they don’t have the content.
Fox got BTN onto basic cable in Big Ten footprint states because there were enough sports fans who considered it essential. It would take a real magician to get BTN onto basic cable in California, where fan engagement is much weaker.
LikeLike
Marc, ESPN’s large volume of content is both an advantage and a problem. This gift article from the WSJ discusses the problems that ESPN faces, including this possibility: “. . . ESPN is working to make a stand-alone version of its flagship TV channel available to cord-cutters in two to three years.”
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/disneys-espn-plots-its-streaming-future-seeking-tie-ups-with-leagues-and-rivals-25041a41?st=1m2hzfgqyngihdk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Marc: “It would take a real magician to get BTN onto basic cable in California, where fan engagement is much weaker.”
Don’t forget the power of bundling. Fox News is #1 and they could package it with Fox, FS1, FS2 and the BTN together.
LikeLike
Hey everyone! Been following your discussions.
ESPN and Disney possibly not getting a deal with Spectrum is really, really, REALLY bad for every other owner of cable networks. Disney has the most leverage by far – they have a major OTA network plus a sports network with the NFL, the other 3 pro sports leagues, and every power college conference other than the Big Ten.
The most powerful force in television is the NFL, NFL, and more NFL. If Spectrum and Disney can’t get a deal done when both ABC and ESPN are showing the first Aaron Rodgers game with the Jets on September 11th and most of NYC itself can’t see it because Spectrum is the dominant cable provider there, then all of Fox, CBS and NBC are terrified because the leverage of their NFL games is the best card that they have against the cable companies.
Let’s put it this way: if Spectrum is willing to move forward without the Disney networks, then what they’re saying is that they’re simply willing to let their cable TV business die entirely. There’s no “Fox can get in by offering their channels cheaper” scenario here – Spectrum is straight up waiving the white flag on the cable TV business entirely if they can’t get a deal done with Disney.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank: “There’s no “Fox can get in by offering their channels cheaper” scenario here.”
Frank, I don’t think that’s a done deal. ABC could not possibly bundle all of the ESPN channels with ABC, either cable or streaming, because they are way too expensive. But Fox really could bundle FS1/FS2/BTN because it is chup change compared to the ESPN ransom. Fox may well be offering their channels cheaper and that could indeed make the difference of cable/streaming keeper vs cable/streaming loser.
LikeLike
This simply hasn’t been how the cable networks have negotiated. ABC, ESPN and the other Disney channels all put together is exactly how they have negotiated for the past 40 years – you either get all of those channels or you get none of them. Same thing with Fox, Comcast/NBC, and Viacom/CBS – they negotiate all of their channels together and very intentionally don’t let them ever to be separated out channel-by-channel.
The dirty secret in all of these media company financials is that even the OTA networks are highly dependent on cable affiliates fees for the bulk of their profits. The OTA channels at Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC can’t afford to lose their cable affiliate fees almost as much as ESPN and the pure cable networks.
Regardless, it’s not an accident that the stock prices in all public companies that own cable networks got hammered in the past couple of weeks. They’re all going to face the same situation as Disney and Charter soon enough.
What makes this Charter/Spectrum situation different from past carriage disputes isn’t that they’re standing up to Disney, but rather they are saying that they don’t care if their cable TV business dies as long as they keep their broadband Internet customers (and it doesn’t sound like posturing). That type of position hurts all cable network owners (not just Disney) and that’s getting reflected in the downgrade in stock prices across the industry.
Believe me – Fox does NOT want Disney to lose here. Their whole business is predicated on being able to raise per subscriber prices further to compensate for cord cutting, so being the cheapest doesn’t help and frankly doesn’t matter. As long as FS1 doesn’t have the NFL and is generally low-rated outside of a handful of college football games and MLB postseason games, they simply don’t have that much leverage. At the end of the day, the interests of all of the media companies are aligned on this matter with the exception of maybe NBC/Comcast (who is on both sides of the fight as both a network owner and cable company).
I have every fan self-interest to say that this is good for the Big Ten for ESPN to have carriage issues because they’re not on that network as of now, but objectively as a close observer of the media industry, this is awful long-term for the Big Ten and every sports league outside of the NFL (who has enough power to go it alone if they really needed to).
LikeLike
The cable bundle is in a death spiral so Charter is only trying advancing what has to happen by a few years. Cable TV existed long before ESPN. The first customers could not get good reception OTA. Then came movie channels and live sports. Netflix has done a good job at eliminating customers that were only interested in movies with cheaper options. Charter wants to eliminate the hard core live sports customers. That may allow it to hold on to the 70%+ that do not care about ESPN longer and make more profit on the pay TV business as it winds down. The NFL is OTA for all games local with ESPN and Amazon having one game per week (M & Th). So the NFL is not going to be a prime driver in Charter losing clients. That will be ESPN especially for football in the SE and the loss of ABC in its two largest markets (NYC, LA). Since these are direct owned by Disney there is no separate affiliate agreement.
Assuming Charter holds to its stated direction the losers in this dispute will be any sports entity on cable that does not have a long-term media deal. Even those with long term deals will need to reset expectations for future cable revenue. Future deals that do not get OTA type ratings may look more like what Apple offered the PAC: streaming with payout based on subscribers. These are likely to be much more expensive than fans currently pay for cable.
This may speed Disney’s move of ESPN to streaming especially if Comcast follows suit when its Disney contract expires. The cable companies will adjust to being broadband internet providers. They should stay in business since they have monopolies on the last mile in most areas and cellular broadband is still expensive and slow compared to cable. Charter charges $50-$90 per month for internet service which they bundle in their cable packages or sell ala carte.
LikeLike
Don’t forget the power of bundling. Fox News is #1 and they could package it with Fox, FS1, FS2 and the BTN together.
Gobsmacks! I forgot people can sell bundles of things!!
Seriously…you are right that Fox can give it away as a K-Mart blue light special. But ultimately they’ve got the same challenge ESPN has: they have committed to pay big heaps of money years into the future, and they need somehow to find the revenue to cover it. As ESPN loses revenue due to cord-cutting, so does BTN.
LikeLike
Frank, I don’t think you can conflate OTA with cable. The mostly-OTA companies (Fox, CBS, and NBC) are mostly about ad revenue, and they can get that even if cable dies (as digital antennas exist). The WWL cares the most about high carriage fees.
LikeLike
Marc, CFB fan engagement in LA is as weak as CFB fan engagement in NYC, DC, Philly, or even Chicago, and the B10 managed to get the BTN on the basic tier in all those locales. Though I agree with you if you’re talking about the rest of CA outside LA. BTN won’t get on the basic tier in those places.
LikeLike
CFB fan engagement in LA is as weak as CFB fan engagement in NYC, DC, Philly, or even Chicago, and the B10 managed to get the BTN on the basic tier in all those locales.
I don’t think L.A. and Chicago are comparable in that regard, but let’s imagine that they are. It’s been said before — and by others far more savvy about this than me — that BTN got basic carriage in NJ and greater D.C. at almost the last moment that such deals were available to be had. If Rutgers and Maryland were coming into the league today, BTN probably would not get basic carriage anymore. Or at least, not without making significant concessions.
LikeLike
Little8: T-Mobile Internet is $50/month and seems to work perfectly fine. but cable/broadband companies are and will be in wireless too.
LikeLike
T-Molile has a special deal right now for $30/month.
LikeLike
BTW, Frank, since you’re reading this:
WE NEED A NEW POST.
It’s been almost a year and its takes too long to load this page.
LikeLike
This is almost beyond belief. Five U of CA campuses perform an initial screen of faculty applicants using only their statements on diversity, equity and inclusion. All other credentials are ignored until they pass the DEI screening. This is from a gift article in the NY Times but the link is too large for Frank’s spam filter.
“So in 2016, at least five campuses — Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Riverside and Santa Cruz — decided their hiring committees would perform an initial screening of candidates based only on diversity statements.”
“Candidates who did not “look outstanding” on diversity, the vice provost at U.C. Davis instructed his search committees, could not advance, no matter the quality of their academic research. Credentials and experience would be examined in a later round.”
“At Berkeley, a faculty committee rejected 75 percent of applicants in life sciences and environmental sciences and management purely on diversity statements.”
“According to a report by Berkeley, Latino candidates constituted 13 percent of applicants and 59 percent of finalists. Asian and Asian American applicants constituted 26 percent of applicants and 19 percent of finalists. Fifty-four percent of applicants were white and 14 percent made it to the final stage. Black candidates made up 3 percent of applicants and 9 percent of finalists.”
LikeLike
I would be a lot more impressed with this post if you were also posting about states where purportedly liberal books are being banned from schools on the flimsiest of excuses.
LikeLike
I assume you’re talking about books in elementary schools promoting Critical Race Theory, white shaming and encouraging gender dysphoria in third graders. With follow-up gender-affirming care, of course.
LikeLike
While that might have been intent, the orders were worded much more broadly, and as a result many more books were removed than just the ones you mentioned. One district restricted “Romeo and Juliet” because it contains the suggestion that the characters had premarital sex. Another district removed a biography of Roberto Clemente because it said he had been a target of racism (they later reversed the decision, after protests).
LikeLike
Marc, rather than cherry-picking a couple of weak examples, let’s look at the majority of the books that are actually being banned.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article277873768.html
https://www.bradenton.com/news/local/education/article278071372.html
LikeLike
Did you, by any chance, actually read the articles you linked? The examples cited in them support my point, and not yours. They are not books on “critical race theory” and “encouraging gender dysphoria in third graders.”
LikeLike
Of course I read them. I cannot reopen the Miami Herald article because I’ve used up my “free articles” but both contained comments like this:
“Educational standards have been politicized in Florida under Gov. Ron DeSantis, particularly content involving Black history, sex and the LGBTQ+ community.”
“On the Manatee County list of banned or restricted books, eight books have gay, transgender or gender-fluid characters, and three books are about families with LGBTQ+ parents. Other content in some of the books include graphic language, incest, rape and sexual abuse, drug use, violence, animal abuse, underage drinking, prostitution, suicide, domestic violence, puberty, sexual harassment, racism or communism.”
LikeLike
This is standard practice at nearly all (>99%) American colleges and universities, and it has been so for 20 years, or so, predating the DEI name. It was happening when I served on search committees in the early 00’s. The result is that the American education is in free-fall collapse. Collapse of the economy and political system will ensure.
LikeLike
Only if the economy and political system was completely dependent on higher ed. In the hard sciences and management, many of the most talented can find roles in private industries, where they can arguably do even more good for society.
LikeLike
That is a huge (and ridiculously incorrect) assertion. Do you have any evidence to support that >99% of schools have ever done anything remotely similar, let alone for 20+ years? How can the practice of assessing applicants solely on DEI statements first possibly predate DEI?
Free-fall collapse? Again, what is your evidence for that?
LikeLike
Cal Berkeley (as is the whole CAL system) is now SAT optional and CalTech is SAT optional until at least 2025.
How long will it be before both of them start seeing a dramatic decrease in academic abilities of students? Cal may get away with it, but how does CalTech ignore SAT scores?
MIT tried test optional for two years and then realized that it was hurting the readiness of the incoming classes. Now MIT is reverting to saying that one just needs to reach their minimum score. In the real world that is something like a 1520 or maybe higher. (Subject to special exceptions of course). The MIT average is higher than 1530.
How can CalTech academically compete with that with no SAT/ACT?
https://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/we-are-reinstating-our-sat-act-requirement-for-future-admissions-cycles/
LikeLike
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-announces-updates-to-admissions-practices
Caltech doesn’t see a problem with it. Their data doesn’t find the tests to be predictive of success.
The current decision to extend the testing moratorium to five years is supported by a rigorous internal analysis of the academic performance of the last seven undergraduate first-year cohorts, representing classes that matriculated before and after the moratorium went into effect. The study, conducted by members of the Caltech faculty supported by professional staff, indicates that standardized test scores have little to no power in predicting students’ performance in the first-term mathematics and physics classes that first-year students must take as part of Caltech’s core curriculum. Further, the predictive power of standardized test scores appears to dissipate as students progress through the first-year core curriculum. The extension will allow for the collection of additional data from students enrolled under the moratorium, including one class that will have graduated from the Institute, and will facilitate a more extensive examination of academic performance and its relationship to standardized test scores.
“A consensus has developed among faculty and professional staff involved in admissions at Caltech. That is, that numerous other key attributes of applications serve as stronger indicators of the potential for student success here,” says Jared R. Leadbetter, professor of environmental microbiology and chair of the first-year admissions committee that recommended the extension to the Institute’s faculty board and senior leadership.
“The moratorium on our evaluation of standardized test scores has reinforced our intention to read deeply and review all substantive materials provided in applications. It is critical that we reach a deep and broad understanding of applicants, including their STEM interests, aspirations, and potential for continued intellectual growth, should they be admitted to Caltech,” he says.
LikeLike
Interesting that CalTech which has no choice in the matter and has a political interest in no SAT score can conclude that the scores do not matter. What other choice did CalTech have? The cannot reinstate scores and any attempt to do so would be widely denounced in CA.
MIT, on the other hand, which has no motivation to go in either direction, tried it for a couple of years and concluded differently.
Let’s face it, a kid who gets a 780 or higher on math is much more likely to be able to do the work required at MIT than a kid who gets straight A+ in high school math and sciences, but can not break 720 on the SAT in multiple tries. That kid would be in great shape for CalTech and not have a chance to get into MIT.
In individual cases, the kid with the 720 might turn out to be the best STEM major in the country. Over a large number of kids, the odds are pretty high that the vast majority of 720s will not perform with the 780s.
Prior to policy ruling, many studies showed the SAT/ACT a better predictor of college success than grades. It is no longer politically expedient to accept that, so things have changed.
LikeLike
Bernie, of course you are right. When Caltech says “Their data doesn’t find the tests to be predictive of success.” then they obviously cooked their numbers until they got the out come that they wanted. To suggest that kids with 600 in math have the same outcomes as those who score 780 is absurd.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
Interesting that CalTech which has no choice in the matter and has a political interest in no SAT score can conclude that the scores do not matter. What other choice did CalTech have? The cannot reinstate scores and any attempt to do so would be widely denounced in CA.
Who says they have a political interest in it? You’re assuming they do, but you know none of the people who were involved in their study.
What other choice did they have? That assumes they didn’t follow the data. Did you even consider that their interpretation of the data might be correct? If the data showed otherwise, they could say so and discuss improved admissions procedures to handle the issue without exams.
MIT, on the other hand, which has no motivation to go in either direction, tried it for a couple of years and concluded differently.</i.
Right, because nobody at MIT has any political opinions – only scholars in CA do.
It is entirely possible for both groups to be correct – perhaps the scores are predictive at MIT and not at Caltech. They are different schools with different student bodies and different approaches to teaching.
Studies are all over the places in terms of the power of test scores.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
UChicago found GPA 5x as powerful as ACT scores, and they published their study in 2021.
https://www.manhattanreview.com/sat-predictor-college-success/
A past study of test-optional policies found no difference in student performance, but CollegeBoard studies have found test scores to be very important (shocking, right?).
Prior studies in the UC system found the SAT scores were the least predictive metric of all the things they looked at.
Let’s face it, a kid who gets a 780 or higher on math is much more likely to be able to do the work required at MIT than a kid who gets straight A+ in high school math and sciences, but can not break 720 on the SAT in multiple tries. That kid would be in great shape for CalTech and not have a chance to get into MIT.
At that level of score, the difference is often not ability but focus and test-taking skills. SAT math is fairly simple, but the test is a race and a slog that wears you down.
In individual cases, the kid with the 720 might turn out to be the best STEM major in the country. Over a large number of kids, the odds are pretty high that the vast majority of 720s will not perform with the 780s.
Except the data don’t necessarily support that conclusion.
Prior to policy ruling, many studies showed the SAT/ACT a better predictor of college success than grades.
And many don’t. And you seem to forget that admissions considers a whole lot more than just GPA and test scores anymore.
It is no longer politically expedient to accept that, so things have changed.
Perhaps because studies have shown how strongly other factors impact test scores.
LikeLike
We all know why colleges are dropping the SAT/ACT and Bernie is right, it is ‘politically’ motivated.
https://19thnews.org/2022/03/colleges-admissions-dropping-sat-exam-gender-gap/#:~:text=For%20SAT%20critics%2C%20test%2Doptional,at%20a%20disadvantage%20for%20years.
LikeLike
Colin: Caltech isn’t taking in any kids scoring 600 on the SAT Math anyway. Virtually everyone they admit would be top-tier academically and they have ways to assess that besides the SAT.
Bernie:
Caltech is private, and while they are in a deep blue state, so is MIT.
Also, Caltech has an absolutely tiny student body. Even more so that MIT, which at least offers some non-STEM majors, so in that regard is more like GTech than Caltech. Caltech is essentially a research institute with some faculty and grad students that also has a few undergrads tag along. They could probably fill their class just with kids who have qualified for the USAMO or already published research papers, regardless of their standardized test scores.
Brian: While studies have found that there is more of a correlation between HS GPA and college GPA, there is more of a correlation between SAT scores and future earnings than there is HS GPA and future earnings. Maybe having the focus to slog through a test is beneficial in life.
LikeLike
Richard: “Caltech isn’t taking in any kids scoring 600 on the SAT Math . . . ”
Caltech isn’t taking in any kids scoring 600 on the SAT Math because Caltech doesn’t require SAT tests.
LikeLike
BTW, Brian, those “other factors” seem to impact pretty much everything else in an college application (besides GPA) even more than test scores.
LikeLike
There have been dozens of studies over the years showing that SAT/ACT scores are better predictors of success in college. Here is just one.
https://www.collegexpress.com/articles-and-advice/admission/blog/what-more-important-your-gpa-or-sat-scores/
Now that more schools want to have no SAT scores, suddenly studies support that. Surprise.
You cannot even start to compare politics in CA to MA. Yes both are blue, but MA is pretty well center blue, while CA is off the left edge of the scale. The political pressure on CalTech would be huge if they were suddenly the only school in CA to start using the scores. For you to ignore that shows that you refuse to look at the political pressures in CA vs. MA.
The people at CalTech can never admit that they have little choice, so make the best of it.
How do you know that kids with what would be 650 math SATs are not now being admitted to CalTech. Kids could get straight A’s (or A+s – whatever) and not be strong enough in math to compete with top kids throughout the country.
We have an instance of a school in a blue state but extraordinary requirements that realized that test optional did not work. Though MIT states that they do not require perfect scores, more than half the class had a 800 in the math SAT.
When your admissions percentage is under 7%, you can be picky. By the way the median at MIT is around 1550, the same as Harvard.
2+2 equals 4. You can argue that it does not. In fact, there are college professors claiming that 2+2=4 is wrong. I do not know whether you agree with them.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“There have been dozens of studies over the years showing that SAT/ACT scores are better predictors of success in college. Here is just one.”
And lots that don’t show that. All of them can be nitpicked. There is no definitive evidence in just one direction.
“Now that more schools want to have no SAT scores, suddenly studies support that. Surprise.”
Suddenly. Like that CA study from the 90s. This topic has been debated for decades.
“You cannot even start to compare politics in CA to MA.”
I didn’t compare them. At all.
“The political pressure on CalTech would be huge if they were suddenly the only school in CA to start using the scores.”
Pressure on CalTech is different from the people actually doing the study feeling pressured to fudge their work. They gathered data and analyzed it. Feel free to show where they screwed up their statistics, or argue other methodology flaws, but accusing them of falsifying their results because you don’t like them is BS.
“For you to ignore that shows that you refuse to look at the political pressures in CA vs. MA.”
No, it shows I’m not the one trying to inject their personal politics into this. We weren’t discussing CalTech’s decision about using test scores or not. You can’t seem to separate CalTech the school from employees of CalTech who did the study.
“The people at CalTech can never admit that they have little choice, so make the best of it.”
The admin are not the people who did the study. The admin may decide not to use test scores for political reasons, sure. That’s why I said their option would be to implement changes in their admissions process to account for not using test scores. Many schools went to more holistic processes during COVID because people couldn’t test.
“How do you know that kids with what would be 650 math SATs are not now being admitted to CalTech.”
Other than their ~5% acceptance rate?
I don’t know that people with 400 math scores aren’t being admitted, not do I care. But I do know there are lots of ways besides SAT scores to assess people, and CalTech is small enough that they can take the time to assess people individually (much smaller than MIT – less than 1/4 as many students).
https://www.admissions.caltech.edu/apply/first-year-applicants/academic-requirements-for-first-year-applicants
And not accepting ACT/SAT scores doesn’t mean they ignore everything. AP and IB exams can be submitted, for example. It’s not like SAT math involves calculus anyway.
“Kids could get straight A’s (or A+s – whatever) and not be strong enough in math to compete with top kids throughout the country.”
They could. They could also get an 800 in math and not be able to compete. CalTech looks at the curriculum, not just your grades. And they have high standards. It seems to work for them. That’s not saying it would work for everyone else.
“By the way the median at MIT is around 1550, the same as Harvard.”
And CalTech’s used to be higher than MIT’s (1555 in 2018, when MIT’s was 1535). Maybe the staff at CalTech is smart enough to find their own solution to the problem that works for them. They accept fewer than 250 students a year, so they can have a different approach than a big school. MIT likes test scores and uses them – that doesn’t make it the only correct solution.
“2+2 equals 4. You can argue that it does not. In fact, there are college professors claiming that 2+2=4 is wrong. I do not know whether you agree with them.”
They can really only argue that if they want to discuss what base you are working in, or if they are playing math games like this one:
-1 * -1 = 1
sqrt(-1 * -1) = sqrt(1)
sqrt(-1) * sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1)
i * i = 1
i^2 = 1
-1 = 1
-1 + 1 = 1 + 1
0 = 2
0 + 2 = 2 + 2
Therefore 2+2 does not equal 4
LikeLike
“The study determined that both a student’s ACT score and their high school GPA (HSGPA) effectively predicted long-term success during college. Overall, they found that ACT scores were a more accurate predictor, and that ACT benchmarks also provided compelling evidence.”
https://www.piqosity.com/are-act-scores-correlated-to-college-success/#:~:text=The%20study%20determined%20that%20both,benchmarks%20also%20provided%20compelling%20evidence.
LikeLike
This lunacy goes far beyond that. Here’s a list of test optional colleges for 2024 admissions and it includes Notre Dame and Big Tenners Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Michigan and – hate to be the messenger, Bernie – Rutgers.
https://thecollegecurators.com/test-optional-colleges-for-fall-2024/
LikeLike
A school like Caltech can actually deal with no standardized test scores better than large state schools as they can review each app more fully.
If you qualify for the USAMO, for instance, SAT math would seem like 1st grade math to you.
I suppose the big state schools would just lean much more heavily on GPA.
LikeLike
Here’s the problem with not requiring the SAT or ACT. Florida colleges are now accepting the Classic Learning Test, which designed to boost home-schooled kids or those who attended “faith-based” schools. From the article:
“The CLT is based on a classical education model. Like the name suggests, it focuses on classical texts like Shakespeare and Aristotle.”
“In a practice test provided by the CLT, passages are used from Plato’s The Republic, Cicero’s On Friendship and Thomas à Kempis’ Imitation of Christ.”
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/10/1198638538/what-to-know-classic-learning-test-florida-sat-act-colleges#:~:text=Students%20applying%20to%20Florida's%20state,private%20schools%20or%20home%2Dschooled.
LikeLike
If Fox keeps the price of FS1 at a manageable level for cable companies, there may be an opportunity for FS1 to become much more important than it is now.
If ESPN leaves, or is forced out of, the cable space, that leaves a big opening for FS1 on basic cable.
Of course, if ESPN makes a deal with Charter, then that may dramatically impact Disney, but might be the best way out for the mouse. In any event, it appears that everything will be changing.
How might this impact the ESPN bid for the NBA, when cable coverage (and money) is not clear?
As an aside the ABC stations owned directly by Disney, NYC, LA and maybe a couple more, are also blacked out. Other ABC stations are apparently still live.
I admit that I know little to nothing about the economics of stations like FS1, but I would think that being alone on cable, obviously with the networks, will allow FS1 to get good sports viewership and higher rates for in game advertising. (Of course, I have no idea how the in show advertising works. I assume that they share with cable co.)
Meanwhile, I have Spcctrum and support them. They cannot have ESPN say every other day that it will go to a streaming model, while income from the cable channels funds those efforts. I assume that Comcast and others are just sitting back watching before making a decision whether to join in.
I have not researched this at all, but I assume that the contract between Disney and Charter was up for renewal and that dictated the timing.
LikeLike
Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker accused of sexually harassing rape survivor.
Tucker admits he had phone sex with a woman who was brought in as a guest speaker to educate the MSU football team about the impact of sexual violence. He says their relationship was consensual. She says it was not.
Tucker has a 10-year, $95m contract to coach the Spartans through the 2031 season. The contract is guaranteed unless he is fired for “conduct which, in the University’s reasonable judgment, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt or ridicule on the University.”
LikeLike
You know, it would be great if the B10 could stop having issues like this. Let other conferences embarrass themselves for a while instead. Granted, this is nowhere near the level of the other scandals, but this is the expert brought in to help the culture after Nassar.
LikeLike
Tucker is fired according to McMurphy.
LikeLike
MSU handed a free exit to a bad contract and they took it immediately.
LikeLike
This photo won’t help Mel . . . .
https://blacksportsonline.com/2023/09/photos-of-brenda-tracy-who-accuses-of-michigan-state-hc-mel-tucker-of-masturbating-on-phone-with-her/
LikeLike
Pretty sure they would’ve taken the same action regardless, but yes, it is arguably the worst college football head coach contract ever: $95m guaranteed over 10 years for a coach with just one winning season.
LikeLike
Listening to the press conference. It’s an unpaid leave, but he is not actually fired yet. (But I would be surprised if he ever coaches another game at MSU.)
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38371116/sources-michigan-state-suspends-tucker-amid-harassment-case
Yes, the people’s hero McMurphy was wrong (again).
[MSU AD Alan] Haller said he was first made aware of the complaints in late December, shortly after Tracy filed the claims. Michigan State hired a third-party investigator to decide if Tucker had violated the school’s sexual misconduct policy. The investigator finished her report July 25, Haller said, and recommended that the school hold a hearing to decide if Tucker violated any policy. That hearing is scheduled for the first week of October.
University leaders did not know any details about the complaint — including Tucker’s admission that he did have a sexual encounter on the phone with Tracy — until they were published early Sunday morning, according to a university spokeswoman. The spokeswoman said Sunday night that Tucker’s suspension was specifically for “unprofessional behavior and not living up to the core values of the department and university.”
Michigan State’s policy for handling sexual misconduct cases requires an employee’s superior to be made aware of any ongoing complaints about them but to prevent the superior from knowing any of the details about the complaint until the case has been closed. Experts say this firewall between employees and their bosses is part of a trauma-informed best practices approach to protecting the integrity of an investigation.
Any formal decision on Tucker’s job status, and the more than $77 million that remains on his contract, isn’t expected to be decided until the hearing concludes.
The university had some interim measures in place during its monthslong investigation — including a no-contact order for Tucker and increased oversight of the program and the head coach, Haller said Sunday. He said he decided not to suspend Tucker in July after the investigator had completed her report because he wanted to allow the full process to come to a conclusion. He said the school decided to increase those interim measures to include a suspension Sunday because of new information coming to light.
When asked after a brief news conference what new information the school received, he declined to answer.
Haller and Woodruff said they were limited in the information they could share because the case is an ongoing investigation.
“This morning’s news might sound like the MSU of old. It was not,” Woodruff said. “An independent, unbiased investigation is and continues to be investigated.”
LikeLike
McMurphy agrees with you. I guess if he posts enough different takes on this, he has to be correct eventually.
LikeLike
Yes, the people’s hero McMurphy was wrong (again).
Who considers him a hero? I must’ve missed that.
I guess if he posts enough different takes on this, he has to be correct eventually.
As far as I can tell, he made one error — and even that error was part of a post which said several other things that were correct, and that he was the first to report.
As errors go, “fired” and “suspended without pay” are pretty similar. I mean…it’s not on the level of “Florida State and Clemson leaving the ACC next week.” I don’t follow the guy, so I don’t know if he has a history of such errors.
LikeLike
Marc,
Who considers him a hero? I must’ve missed that.
Lots of realignment followers insist that everything he says is TRVTH and all other reporters work in his shadow. Lots of referring to him as the gold standard and such.
As far as I can tell, he made one error — and even that error was part of a post which said several other things that were correct, and that he was the first to report.
As errors go, “fired” and “suspended without pay” are pretty similar. I mean…it’s not on the level of “Florida State and Clemson leaving the ACC next week.” I don’t follow the guy, so I don’t know if he has a history of such errors.
I think that’s a large error. Fired or not is a huge difference, especially to the legal side of this in the future.
LikeLike
Hiring mistakes will be made. Sexual harassment and other type of misconduct have taken place at various places in academia and outside academia as well. I don’t see any particular reason why the B10 would be more immune from dumb/malicious individuals than any other league.
Honestly, while nobody wants to see stuff like this occur, most of Spartan nation is probably breathing a sigh of relief right now.
LikeLike
Richard: ” . . . most of Spartan nation is probably breathing a sigh of relief right now.”
Humorous insight and probably true. Now Sparty can fire a black coach for a reason other than losing.
LikeLike
Full props to MSU for ending it today. I didn’t expect Tucker to survive this, but I thought they’d drag it out. The thing is, it doesn’t really matter if the relationship was consensual, as Tucker has claimed. Even the things he admitted are firing offenses for most executives these days. Heck, even I would probably be fired for that, and I am not the public face of my employer.
Granted, this is nowhere near the level of the other scandals, but this is the expert brought in to help the culture after Nassar.
Yeah…I mean, of all the people to choose, he chooses her? And of all the schools, he does it here? At roughly $80 million, it’s likely the most expensive phone sex ever.
LikeLike
Yes, of course. Also, why masturbate on the phone when we now have YouTube on the internet? Brian, give us your insights here.
LikeLike
Shame. SHAME!
(BTW, Colin, you have a wicked sense of humor.)
LikeLike
It’s only day one, but so far MSU’s press conference has not been well received. The athletic department knew of the allegations since July. Tucker’s Title IX hearing is scheduled — conveniently! — for MSU’s bye week.
The AD was asked, if you’ve known about this since July, why did it take until today to suspend Tucker? He replied that there was an unspecified “process” that had to be worked out — a process that conveniently came to a close on the very day that USA Today reported on it.
One is left with the unfortunate impression that, had there been no news story, MSU was planning to let Tucker keep coaching.
LikeLike
I’m not sure anything MSU did would be considered correct in this case by the public. The experts say this is actually the correct approach – his superiors were made aware that a complain was made, but they shouldn’t be given any details until the case is resolved. He is innocent until proven guilty and shouldn’t be punished by his bosses if the investigation turned up nothing.
But then “new information” came to light this weekend. This is the first MSU became aware he admitted to the phone sex, and that by itself was sufficient for suspension. But if they tried to shortcut the Title IX process and fire him, they know they’d get sued and probably lose. I’m sure their lawyers are making sure they have all their ducks in a row and are following every procedure so they can fire him for cause and not owe him a penny.
LikeLike
You might be correct about all of that. If so, their mistake was fumbling the announcement. They were extremely vague about what they had known and when they’d known it. Then, the AD took a grand total of three questions while the interim president took none.
USA Today article seems to have received a copy of the actual complaint and the internal investigator’s report from someone at MSU itself. It shows correspondence that Tucker’s lawyer sent to the university. If these were unauthorized leaks, then I am not entirely persuaded that MSU’s Title IX program is functioning quite the way experts recommend.
LikeLike
If we have learned nothing else the past few years, we should know that universities are the worst at PR. Which is a bit ironic since so many of them teach it.
I’d guess the announcement was mealy-mouthed because the lawyers beat it into their heads about not saying anything that could hurt them in court. So they went pure politician/coach, using a lot of words to say almost nothing and not answering questions.
I’m sure more will come out about the leaks and how this all became public. Then we might be better placed to make judgements of who screwed up (other than Tucker – that’s obvious).
LikeLike
https://themessenger.com/sports/fox-sports-mens-college-basketball-proposed-tournament-las-vegas
Fox wants its own hoops tourney to rival the NIT.
Fox Sports is in negotiations with several power conferences to hold a postseason men’s basketball tournament in Las Vegas featuring teams that did not qualify for the NCAA tournament, multiple sources told The Messenger.
Discussions are ongoing, but the current vision is for the event to include 16 teams that would play at T-Mobile Arena during the final week of March following the NCAA tournament’s Elite Eight games. If the tournament happens, Fox plans to encourage its corporate partners to set up Name, Image and Likeness deals for players who are competing; the network will not be able to pay players directly due to NCAA rules.
Under terms of the proposed arrangement, the top 16 teams in the Big 12, Big East and Big Ten that did not qualify for the NCAA tournament — as ranked by the NET — would be required to play in the Fox event even if they are invited to the NIT. Those three leagues have rights deals with Fox. The network also has a rights agreement with the Pac-12, but it is unclear whether that league would be added due to complications arising from the Pac-12’s impending realignment defections.
Discussions about this new postseason tournament began during the 2022-23 season and have been led by Fox Sports’ executive vice president Jordan Bazant, who joined the network in early 2022 after spending the previous six years as the co-head of WME Sports. Bazant hosted a Zoom call over the summer with power conference commissioners and staff members, including those from the ACC and SEC, but sources said those efforts stalled when newly hired NCAA president Charlie Baker asked the commissioners to back away from Fox’s proposal. The idea was revived in the last few weeks around Bazant’s refashioned proposal to create an event that includes only teams from the Big 12, Big East and Big Ten.
One of the appeals of the Fox tournament is that it would take place in one city. Under the current NIT format, all games are played at campus sites until the semifinals and final, which were held last season in Las Vegas for the first time. “We like the idea of it, although there are some details that need to be ironed out,” one league source told The Messenger. “This would create more postseason opportunities in men’s basketball, and it would also open up more spots for mid-major schools to play in the NIT.”
LikeLike
https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/disney-charter-spectrum-agreement/
Charter and Disney reached an agreement.
* In the coming months, the Disney+ Basic ad-supported offering will be provided to customers who purchase the Spectrum TV Select package, as part of a wholesale arrangement.
* ESPN+ will be provided to Spectrum TV Select Plus subscribers.
* The ESPN flagship direct-to-consumer service will be made available to Spectrum TV Select subscribers when it launches.
* Charter will maintain flexibility to offer a range of video packages at varying price points based upon different customer viewing preferences.
* Charter will also use its significant distribution capabilities to offer Disney’s direct-to-consumer services to all its customers – in particular its large broadband-only customer base – for purchase at retail rates. These include Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+, as well as The Disney Bundle.
Effective immediately, Spectrum TV will provide its customers widespread access to a more curated lineup of 19 networks from The Walt Disney Company. Spectrum will continue to carry the ABC Owned Television Stations, Disney Channel, FX and the Nat Geo Channel, in addition to the full suite of ESPN networks. Networks that will no longer be included in Spectrum TV video packages are Baby TV, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FXM, FXX, Nat Geo Wild and Nat Geo Mundo.
LikeLike
Seems pretty mundane. I’ve been a Spectrum customer for years and was totally unaware of Baby TV, Disney Junior, Disney XD, Freeform, FXM, FXX, Nat Geo Wild and Nat Geo Mundo.
LikeLike
I read it a few times and it is still not obvious to me if they met in the middle, or if one side got more of what they wanted than the other.
LikeLike
We won’t know until we see the pricing agreement. Spectrum gets to drop some channels and to bundle some streaming services, so that’s pro-Spectrum. Disney is getting more subscribers, and maybe the missing channels are used to push viewers to Disney+ to view that content instead.
As usual, I’d guess both businesses won and the customers get the short end of the stick. Non-streaming Charter customers lose channels and probably have to pay more, because they now get streaming services they won’t use. Streaming Charter customers still need to pay for cable to get certain key channels.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/09/disney-charter-dispute-over-espn-returning-spectrum/
Marc, here is the SportsMediaWatch expert’s opinion.
The key point of contention between the sides was the inclusion of Disney’s direct-to-subscriber platforms ESPN+, Disney+ and Hulu, which Charter wanted to bundle with the linear networks free-of-charge. Under the agreement, which was officially announced Monday morning, Charter will bundle Disney+, ESPN+, and the eventual ESPN direct-to-subscriber service with its existing packages. ESPN+ will be on the Spectrum TV Plus tier, while the other two will be included with the basic Spectrum TV Select package.
Those services will not be provided to Charter for free, however. The Wall Street Journal said Monday that Charter has agreed to pay Disney higher rates for its channels in order to distribute the streaming services and CNBC separately reported that Charter would pay a discounted wholesale rate for the services.
(It stands to reason that even if Charter subscribers receive ESPN’s streaming services with their existing services, they will eventually pay some price in the form of higher monthly bills.)
…
In the comments:
I don’t think either side really ‘won’ but I would lean toward Charter if I had to. Even though they are paying a price for them, to be able to bundle the direct-to-subscriber services with the linear networks is a big change in my view. Could keep the bundle going for a little bit longer, though it is not a long-term solution.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38380648/judge-grants-temporary-restraining-order-prevent-pac-12-meeting
WSU and OrSU won in court and got the TRO. Next is the hearing to decide who is actually in control.
I sympathize with both sides here. Obviously they all need to know who is in charge now, but GK also needs guidance to make daily decisions.
What they really need is a non-voting meeting where they act like adults and try to settle the issues privately. Maybe they could at least agree on guidance for GK on certain day-to-day operations matters.
A state judge in Washington granted a temporary restraining order on Monday to prevent the Pac-12 conference from meeting as a board later this week.
…
The ruling for the temporary restraining order both prevents a Pac-12 board meeting scheduled for Wednesday and also sets up a preliminary injunction hearing that is expected to determine who comprises the voting members of the Pac-12 board of directors.
That hearing has not been set, but would likely be scheduled in October. It could include document and e-mail discovery from the Pac-12 and member schools and live witness testimony from prominent officials in and around the Pac-12.
…
Oregon State and Washington State filed supporting exhibits that included a letter from the Pac-12’s general counsel to Colorado in July that informed them explicitly that effective immediately “CU no longer has the right to vote on any matter before the Board.” In the hearing on Monday, attorney Eric MacMichael argued on behalf of Oregon State and Washington State that all the schools want is “to see if they can save this conference and allow it to move forward.”
The Pac-12’s attorney present at the hearing, Mark Lambert, argued for the meeting to be held in order to conduct league business. He said the league has nearly 200 employees and is working to “keep its lights” on and keep “critical employees in place.” He added that commissioner George Kliavkoff, who was not present at the hearing, is in a terrible position and is just trying to keep league business moving smoothly.
“Every Saturday until June of next year, he’s responsible for all [league] activity,” Lambert said.
LikeLike
I sympathize with both sides here. Obviously they all need to know who is in charge now, but GK also needs guidance to make daily decisions.
The trouble is, there are at least three sides. OrSt and WSU want to preserve the ability to keep the league intact with its assets. The 10 departing schools want to take some of those assets with them. Nobody knows yet if the 10 are in agreement, but if they have voting rights then any nine of them could strip the league down to its last dime.
One would like to think that GK just wants to do his job for the next nine months. That would be groovy. But on August 29, GK asked Washington State president Kirk Schulz to convene the board of directors to “discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12.” (Wilner).
If all GK had needed was “guidance to make daily decisions,” I am sure he could have gotten that somehow — maybe with the friendly nonvoting meeting that Brian has suggested. Amending the bylaws is not an everyday decision. I assume GK knows perfectly well that a bylaw proposed by someone who is leaving is going to be favorable to themselves. If this case goes to trial, we will find out whom he is taking his orders from, and it might not be pretty. A retention plan for the Commissioner, as if anyone would care if he is retained? I am dying to know whose idea that was.
LikeLike
Marc,
The trouble is, there are at least three sides. OrSt and WSU want to preserve the ability to keep the league intact with its assets. The 10 departing schools want to take some of those assets with them. Nobody knows yet if the 10 are in agreement, but if they have voting rights then any nine of them could strip the league down to its last dime.
I wasn’t counting the schools (Stanford and Cal most likely) trying to raid the cupboard on the way out as a side I sympathize with.
One would like to think that GK just wants to do his job for the next nine months. That would be groovy. But on August 29, GK asked Washington State president Kirk Schulz to convene the board of directors to “discuss matters related to the departing members, proposed amendments to the Bylaws, a proposed conflicts of interest plan for Pac-12 members, and an employee compensation and retention plan for the Commissioner and other employees of the Pac-12.” (Wilner).
If all GK had needed was “guidance to make daily decisions,” I am sure he could have gotten that somehow — maybe with the friendly nonvoting meeting that Brian has suggested. Amending the bylaws is not an everyday decision. I assume GK knows perfectly well that a bylaw proposed by someone who is leaving is going to be favorable to themselves. If this case goes to trial, we will find out whom he is taking his orders from, and it might not be pretty. A retention plan for the Commissioner, as if anyone would care if he is retained? I am dying to know whose idea that was.
Even the judge said they could meet to decide things like the employee retention plan, they just need to be unanimous. That’s the sort of daily decisions I’m talking about. GK can’t do that on his own, and the employees have to be nervous and looking for new jobs due to the uncertainty. He needs a staff until 7/31 at least. GK is entering year 3 of a 5 year contract, so it’s reasonable for him to seek some clarity on his financial future.
Issues related to departing members do need to be discussed, but they likely can’t agree on the solutions (such as a COI plan). The alleged proposed amendment is not normal business, but I could imagine amendments that are (adjusting language based on legal counsel’s advice, etc.).
It’s really a bad look for the any of the exiting 10 schools to try to take the P12’s assets on the way out. But they contend WSU and OrSU are trying to deny them their fair share of revenue. As a layman, it sure seems like WSU/OrSU’s position makes more sense but perhaps the law has loopholes that keep them from winning entirely.
LikeLike
Not really a surprise, but the Washington state judge issued a temporary restraining order against the Pac-12, preventing it from holding the board meeting that Kliavkoff called for Wednesday. He also ordered the parties to conduct expedited discovery in advance of full hearing where WSU and OrSU would seek a permanent injunction or other relief.
The attorney representing WSU and OrSU pointed out that USC and UCLA were banished from board meetings after they announced they were leaving. It is therefore peculiar that the 10 departing schools want to change the precedent now that they have the power to do whatever they want to the conference.
It came out that the 10 schools are seeking to raid the Pac-12 treasury for transition expenses to help fund the moves to their new conferences. You can imagine how irregular that is — conferences don’t typically fund the expenses of schools wishing to leave.
The judge said that he is not preventing the Pac-12 from transacting business, only from transacting contested business. If Kliavkoff wants to institute a retention plan for its 192 employees, for example, he can do so as long as all 12 schools approve it. Canzano says that this “seemed to appease both sides.”
Kliavkoff didn’t bother to attend, which the judge took notice of. He was at his home in Montana, perhaps planning his move to the Big Sky conference. (That’s someone else’s joke, not mine.)
LikeLike
The Week 2 CFB ratings are in. The big winners were ESPN (Texas @Alabama) and Fox (Nebraska @Colorado), both of which attracted almost 9mm viewers. Texas A&M @Miami on ABC was the only other game to crest the coveted 4mm mark. UNLV @Michigan garnered a hair under 3mm viewers on CBS.
The big loser was NBC. Charlotte @Maryland in prime time attracted just 665k viewers, worse than Youngstown St. @Ohio State on BTN, Illinois @Kansas on ESPN2, and UCLA @San Diego St. on CBS. Even the three Pac-12 after dark games did better.
LikeLike
Well, NBC decided to put their top-3-round pick (actually, it’s a top-2.5-round pick this year) that would have drawn at least around 2mm viewers (Delaware@PSU) on Peacock and their garbage round pick on NBC, so serves them right.
LikeLike
And remember, almost 15M Charter subscribers couldn’t watch ESPN on Saturday.
NBC chose to put a bad game on, so I hope they think the Peacock subscribers were worth it. UMD vs Charlotte did beat out Pitt vs UC (CW), which nominally is a better game. But getting almost doubled up by a BTN game has to sting.
It wasn’t a great slate of B10 games to choose from, and Week 3 is worse:
UVA @ UMD F 7:00, FS1
PSU @ IL 12:00, Fox
GA So. @ WI 12:00, BTN
UL @ IN 12:00, BTN
WKU @ OSU 4:00, Fox
WMU @ IA 3:30, BTN
VT @ RU 3:30, BTN
UW @ MSU 5:00, Peacock
SU @ PU 7:30, NBC
NIU @ NE 7:00, FS1
BGSU @ MI 7:30, BTN
It’s not a great slate nationally either, but look for the SEC to win the ratings (AL vs USF, SC vs UGA, TN vs UF, LSU vs MsSU). Pitt vs WV might do okay with its rivalry aspect and no huge national games to steal the spotlight.
LikeLike
The B10 actually owns a better slate of games in Week3 compared to last week. UIUC@PSU beats anything B10 played at home in Week 2. NBC again puts their top-2(.5) pick on Peacock and their garbage round pick on NBC.
Anyway, when you’re comparing with the SEC, you really should only compare conference games as the networks heavily discount OOC games (as they can’t count on them).
LikeLike
I wasn’t really comparing, just guessing they had a stronger slate with AL’s rebound game and 3 decent conference games. It seems like a pretty soft week all around.
The B10’s Week 3 would be better except for Comcast burying the one good game on Peacock. I think UM vs UNLV from Week 2 may end up with more viewers than PSU vs IL. WKU vs OSU may draw reasonably well, especially if OSU struggles and it becomes an upset alert type of game. WKU is a high octane offense, so more entertaining than OSU’s first 2 opponents.
LikeLike
BTW, looking at that slate, if I were to bet, I’d actually bet on the B10 having slightly better odds of ending up with the top-rated game. Bama, LSU, and UF are all carrying losses (and FL CFB fans tend to be fickle so the Gators draw poor viewership when they’re down) and UGa-SC probably is even with PSU-UIUC as a ratings draw.
LikeLike
I thought it made sense to put Delaware @PSU on Peacock. You want to give the the big PSU fanbase a reason to subscribe, and this is their worst game of the season. It figures that if you put any PSU game on Peacock, it should be this one.
LikeLike
Yep. ND’s cupcake games end up on Peacock for the same reason.
LikeLike
Marc,
It doesn’t make sense to put any game on Peacock if you want to maximize viewership. But of course they did it to try to get a king fanbase to subscribe for a month (and hopefully longer). And they’ll do the same to UM and OSU, except OSU is getting a B10 game put on Peacock. And since they get 9 games, soon they’ll start doing it multiple times per season to kings hoping fans will be too lazy to keep unsubscribing each time (unless the contract forbids it).
LikeLike
I don’t know the economics of Peacock, but the idea is similar to BTN: you have to put something there, or else why would anyone subscribe? I wish Peacock didn’t exist, but given its existence, the Delaware game strikes me as the sort of thing you’d put there.
I don’t know if the money they make from subscribers offsets the advertisers they lose, especially for a good game like Wash @MSU that might get 3–4mm viewers if it were on OTA. But if it doesn’t pay off for them, at some point the Peacock package will go away, and I will be very happy.
I assume it’s a loss leader right now.
LikeLike
Why would anyone subscribe, period? Their content in garbage, and they have technical failures during games. I’ll skip the OSU game rather than pay a penny for that.
They’re convinced streaming is the future, despite having no idea how to make it profitable. Say they get 500k viewers for the MSU game – maybe 300k of those are new subscribers. That’s $1.8M in fees (assuming they all pay for a month and then drop). Comcast paid roughly 10x that for each B10 game they air on NBC (not counting the CCG and hoops). Even counting on many to be lazy and forget to unsubscribe, that’s a tough way to break even.
As for the “you have to put something there” theory:
1. No, you don’t. Fox doesn’t bother trying to compete with real streamers.
2. It doesn’t explain UW vs MSU. They are burying a good game with national interest. That’s very different from putting UM’s worst game on it.
LikeLike
Why would anyone subscribe, period? Their content in garbage, and they have technical failures during games. I’ll skip the OSU game rather than pay a penny for that.
I know you won’t buy it, but do you not believe there are OSU fans who’ll subscribe — and, having subscribed, will keep it for more than a week? Of course there are.
I’ve cut the cord now, but in my former wired home I paid extra for a sports package for literally no reason except to get the two Michigan games that are on BTN per year. I doubt I am the only one who did. That sports package had other networks in it, but I didn’t watch them.
My cable company charged a lot more than double for the sports package than what Peacock now charges for the one Michigan game they will show this year. If they keep putting good games there, I might even watch it more than once. Peacock’s technical coverage is the worst of any network I have seen, but it is not unwatchable.
As for the “you have to put something there” theory:
1. No, you don’t. Fox doesn’t bother trying to compete with real streamers.
I stipulated that this was contingent upon having done the deal. The better move is never to have it at all. But if you’ve sold it, then you have to put something there. PSU’s worst game is what belongs on Peacock, assuming anything does.
2. It doesn’t explain UW vs MSU. They are burying a good game with national interest.
I agree…that one is a real head-scratcher, and if I were the Big Ten or either of the two schools I would not be happy about it. Thank you, Kevin Warren.
LikeLike
Marc,
I know you won’t buy it, but do you not believe there are OSU fans who’ll subscribe — and, having subscribed, will keep it for more than a week? Of course there are.
Sure. I know of several groups:
* Those who refuse to buy it
* Those who already have it (included with their cable or phone, or they subscribed for other reasons)
* Those who will subscribe for a month and then drop it.
* Those who will keep it all football season, then drop it.
* Those who will mean to drop it, but either forget or get overruled by a family member.
* Those who will subscribe permanently just to make sure they don’t need to scramble to catch an OSU (or other B10 team) game in the future.
The size of each group is open to debate.
I agree…that one is a real head-scratcher, and if I were the Big Ten or either of the two schools I would not be happy about it. Thank you, Kevin Warren.
Exactly. The B10 shouldn’t want this sort of game buried like this. I assume this is one of NBC’s top picks to take a game this good.
LikeLike
Yes, Comcast is putting a game they paid an average of over $17mm for Peacock and a game they paid maybe $1mm for on NBC, and they’re doing that 4 times this season.
Granted, these aren’t the very best of their top-3 picks, so say they’re sacrificing 3mm viewers per game or 12mm total. At a $4/viewer valuation, they’d have to recoup $48mm. Cheap Peacock is $6/month, so Comcast would need 8mm new subscriber-months to breakeven. TBF, that’s 667K new subscribers if they stay for 12 months. I suppose it’s possible some people would stay on for some B10 football & basketball games as well as the random entertainment that Peacock offers.
LikeLike
Oh, and Premier League soccer, the Olympics, and WWE. Maybe there are some folks who are dedicated fans of their B10 team but may also keep Peacock for the EPL and/or WWE?
LikeLike
Since the EPL season already started, wouldn’t those fans already have subscribed most likely? Same with WWE.
Some will stay for the hoops and any other B10 sports.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. For instance, I’ll likely subscribe to Peacock for NU-Iowa (assuming that’s a Peacock exclusive) but then keep Peacock on for the year for old Office re-runs and because my oldest son is gonzo about soccer, so that’s more soccer he could watch, (and I may watch some too) but I don’t have a rooting interest in the EPL or am _that_ interested in The Office so I wouldn’t have gone out of my way to subscribe to Peacock.
LikeLike
That’s certainly possible. Time will tell how many people do what. It will be interesting to see how this number changes each month and over the years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1246902/number-sign-ups-peacock-united-states/
As of the second quarter of 2023, the number of Peacock’s paid subscribers amounted to 24 million, marking an increase compared with the previous quarters. By comparison, the streaming service owned by Comcast had a subscriber base of nine million in the fourth quarter of 2021.
+15M in 1.5 years. Some of that may be the inclusion of Peacock with certain wireless providers or cable companies, others might be the EPL deal.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/finally-thriving-in-its-dying-season-was-pac-12s-demise-simply-bad-timing-183059129.html
Did the P12 die do to bad timing? Dan Wetzel wonders.
In the spring of 2022, as the Big Ten approached USC and UCLA about possibly leaving their historic Pac-12 home and joining the Midwest-based league, economic concerns were everywhere.
All the accounts I’ve seen say USC reached out first, not the B10. It’s not the focus of the article, but I think it needs correction.
And you have to wonder, if the 2023 season had occurred in, say, 2019 or 2020 or 2021, would any of this realignment happen? Wouldn’t a network, or multiple networks, have offered enough to keep the league intact?
“It’s the million-dollar question,” one Pac-12 associate athletic director said. “We were discussing this last week. We are a great television product right now. The last season is, ironically, our best season.”
If only the Pac-12 could have gone to market pitching the deepest and most exciting league in the country (even if just for one year). After all, none of the departing teams wanted to leave. They felt they had to for financial reasons.
So did an athletic conference that dates its roots back to 1915 wind up perishing because of … bad timing?
This may not be just some fluke year. Arguably no conference has benefited more from the relaxing of the transfer portal, which allowed players to switch schools without penalty.
For years the Pac-12 had seen top high school talent from its West Coast footprint flock toward the bigger brands and stadiums of the SEC and Big Ten. Now the trend has reversed with older players.
…
Where reigning national champion Georgia and No. 2 Michigan aren’t slated to face a ranked team until Nov. 11 (Ole Miss and Penn State, respectively), it’s quite possible the Pac-12 will have at least one game featuring ranked teams every week of the season.
The league that has sat out the last six playoffs will fight to get two bids this year (the mighty SEC doesn’t look as mighty this season). It’s conference title game in Las Vegas will almost assuredly have two top-10 teams.
A resurgence is here. The stars are here. The transfer portal is here. An automatic bid to the playoff would have been coming. The viewers are here.
Yet the league is going away, all because of money.
If only this were a couple seasons ago, the money (or enough of it) likely would have been there.
LikeLike
IMO, no. Like most sports journalists, Wetzel doesn’t really understand economics/business. Media companies wouldn’t pay a ton more just based off of 1 season of on-the-field performance or a coaching hire striking ratings gold (since that, especially, isn’t replicable and there’s no guarantee that Prime will even stay in CU for the length of the TV contract).
The Pac’s best offer would still have been the ESPN one of roughly $30mm/school. Like with the PTN, the Pac bet on themselves and lost because they consistently had an over-inflated unrealistic view of their worth in the TV marketplace.
LikeLike
I agree that one good year wouldn’t have saved them, but being in a down cycle certainly hurt them. If the P12 had been making the CFP most years, they would have gotten a better offer this time (maybe $35M) and might have stuck together (even if the LA schools still left). It’s hard to be sure since the P12 countered at $50M and might have asked for $60M if they’d been better lately.
Certainly a lot of other things were bigger drivers than timing of success. The timing of when their deal ended was unfortunate, just missing window when TV rights were high by a few months. But the P12N and lack of expansion decisions ultimately hurt them a lot more. And just the nature of P12 fans being less committed to watching games.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 has suffered because of many years of subpar performance in football. One great season doesn’t flip the narrative entirely. It would require a string of them — and obviously that ship has sailed.
But Wetzel ignores the Pac-12’s own mistakes. When it went to market, the Pac-12 was worth about $30m per school. Most of the departing schools are getting not much more than that in their new leagues, and several are getting less. If they’d simply accepted ESPN’s fair offer, the league would still exist.
And that was merely the Pac-12’s latest huge mistake, of many.
LikeLike
Not entirely on topic, but this is funny.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38387565/ncaa-received-violent-threats-wake-denying-tez-walker-eligibility
The NCAA told Mack Brown to shut up.
The NCAA Division I board chair and vice-chair said in a statement Tuesday that “violent and possibly criminal threats” have been directed at committee members in the wake of a high-profile decision denying immediate eligibility for North Carolina receiver Tez Walker.
In the statement, Division I board chair/Georgia president Jere Morehead and vice-chair/Evansville president Christopher Pietruszkiewicz also said they were “troubled” by public remarks North Carolina leaders have made about the case. Coach Mack Brown and athletic director Bubba Cunningham both slammed the decision last week in pointed comments taking direct aim at the NCAA.
Morehead and Pietruszkiewicz said in their statement the national office is coordinating with law enforcement on the threats and “will continue to do whatever possible to support the volunteers who serve on these committees.”
…
“The Division I Board of Directors believes that NCAA staff and the committee are applying transfer waiver guidelines as intended by member schools and giving proper and full consideration to individual cases, including consulting a panel of licensed mental health experts for cases in which mental health is cited as a reason for transfer,” their statement said. “The DI Board last year directed the DI Council to refine the guidelines for transfer waivers and apply those guidelines to the 2023-24 academic year. These new guidelines were supported unanimously by all 32 Division I conferences in January, and prior to that were widely supported by member schools and coaches associations.”
…
In the statement, Morehead and Pietruszkiewicz said, “Citing extenuating factors, such as mental health, does not necessarily support a waiver request but instead may, in some situations, suggest a student-athlete should be primarily focused on addressing those critical issues during the initial transition to a third school.”
Their statement goes on to make pointed comments directed at North Carolina for waging a “public relations campaign” against the NCAA. For over a month, Brown has been publicly lobbying for the NCAA to approve Walker’s waiver.
…
Morehead and Pietruszkiewicz said in their statement, “Those comments directly contradict what we and our fellow Division I members and coaches called for vociferously — including UNC’s own football coach. We are a membership organization, and rather than pursue a public relations campaign that can contribute to a charged environment for our peers who volunteer on committees, we encourage members to use established and agreed upon procedures to voice concerns and propose and adopt rule or policy changes if they are dissatisfied.”
The North Carolina board of trustees met Monday in a closed emergency session to hear from in-house and outside legal counsel about possible options for Walker to take. No timetable for a decision has been made.
LikeLike
This is a tough one. I’ve no doubt that there are rabid UNC fans who have severely overreacted. I agree with a point that Brian made upthread, that the coaches who supported this rule have only themselves to blame if they don’t like its consequences.
But I do think one is entitled to cry foul publicly when a school feels the NCAA has not properly followed its own rules — as UNC apparently does in this case. I don’t know if they are right.
LikeLike
The issue is that UNC has done nothing to try to change the rule, just jumped straight to public complaints. Since the NCAA is self-governing, that’s inappropriate. I’d understand if fans do that, but not the school (and a coach who called for such a rule).
UNC has the ability to try to persuade other schools to change the rule and how it is enforced. This has been through multiple rounds of appeals, all of which UNC lost. They could’ve used that time to get support for changing the rule or providing new guidance on how to apply it. Instead, they incited their fans to violence.
LikeLike
Two things could simultaneously be true — that the rule is a good one, and that the NCAA enforced it badly. That is what UNC is alleging, and it wouldn’t be the only time that ever happened.
They aren’t saying, “We hate this rule…change it.” They are saying, “We think we complied and you said no anyway.” I don’t know whom to believe. The NCAA has made a career of blundering even the easiest things, but obviously the coach’s interests are self-serving.
So, you’ve got two parties, neither of whom is very credible. Anyhow, rules don’t change mid-season, so to suggest that isn’t credible either — at best, it could make life better for the next person who needs it, but not for this guy.
LikeLike
Marc,
Two things could simultaneously be true — that the rule is a good one, and that the NCAA enforced it badly. That is what UNC is alleging, and it wouldn’t be the only time that ever happened.
They aren’t saying, “We hate this rule…change it.” They are saying, “We think we complied and you said no anyway.” I don’t know whom to believe. The NCAA has made a career of blundering even the easiest things, but obviously the coach’s interests are self-serving.
I disagree. I think they are saying they hate the rule. They want it to be that anyone who can demonstrate mental wellness issues at the previous school gets a waiver. The letter of the rule says that is one of two possible exceptions (the other is physical safety), but it does not say it is an automatic waiver. They didn’t spell out what criteria might qualify for the exception and what wouldn’t, probably because they felt it needed to be done on a case by case basis. The NCAA is applying the rule as written, and now UNC hates it.
So, you’ve got two parties, neither of whom is very credible. Anyhow, rules don’t change mid-season, so to suggest that isn’t credible either — at best, it could make life better for the next person who needs it, but not for this guy.
Sure rules can change mid-season. It’s not likely this year, but it could happen.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-rescinds-guidance-on-midseason-transfers-that-confounded-coaches-compliance-personnel/
In 11/2022 the NCAA changed guidance on transfers between semesters.
https://www.footballzebras.com/2022/05/usfl-makes-a-midseason-rule-change-for-jeff-fisher-who-could-not-change-his-point-after-attempt-option-last-week/
The USFL changed extra point rules mid-season.
The NCAA was going to change testing rules midseason in swimming and then changed their mind again during the season.
LikeLike
That’s interesting but largely fictitious. They didn’t ask to change the rule. They asked the NCAA to enforce what it already had, fairly. We don’t have the information to know if it actually was fair, only two sides yelling about a case whose details are not public.
LikeLike
Brenda Tracy, who has accused Mel Tucker of sexual harassment, says she had not planned to go public with her accusations until her name was leaked to a local news outlet. She does not suggest who the leaker was.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine why she would want her name out there linked to this. It doesn’t help her in any way.
LikeLike
I see it the same way, which means someone very likely leaked it with malign intent.
LikeLike
Wonderful thing to do to a former gang rape victim. I hope that person is really proud of themselves.
LikeLike
The UC BoR will discuss the details of Calimony at their 9/21 meeting. I’m curious what the impact of Cal’s choice to join the ACC and incur higher costs while making less revenue is. We know the P12 had an offer from Apple ($25M + incentives) until more schools left, so anything below that is not UCLA’s fault.
Also, remember that Cal gets a full share of CFP and NCAAT money from day 1, it’s only TV money they get a partial share of. That means they’ll make about 50% of the total other ACC schools get, so about $22M before CFP expansion and over $30M after.
Some think the BoR will set the Calimony to last as long as Cal is taking a partial share, and that it will be near the maximum $10M annually.
The University of California regents will discuss Cal’s move into the Atlantic Coast Conference next week on UCLA’s campus. It’s an appropriate location given that the governing board is expected to consider whether to impose a subsidy on the Bruins — the so-called Berkeley tax, or Cal-imony.
The agenda for the Sept. 21 meeting describes the session in this manner: “Discussion: UC Berkeley Atlantic Coast Conference Membership.”
Because the session is closed to the public, the regents won’t vote on whether to eventually force UCLA to turn a portion of its Big Ten jackpot into an annual “contribution” to Cal’s athletic department.
But sources believe it will be discussed in detail.
…
Cal described the situation in the following manner on Sept. 1:
“The university will receive a full share of all revenues, including media revenue, while contributing back a portion of its media revenue to support and strengthen the conference and its current member institutions. UC Berkeley’s membership contribution will taper off until the 10th year, at which point it will begin retaining 100% of its media revenue share.”
Instead of the $25 million to $30 million they would have received annually from the Pac-12 — or as a full-share member of the ACC — the Bears are staring at just seven figures in media rights revenue into the early 2030s.
This, for an athletic department that requires more than $20 million annually from central campus just to balance its books.
(Cal and Stanford will receive full shares of the ACC’s revenue from the NCAA Tournament and College Football Playoff, which currently constitute about one-third of the conference’s total annual intake.)
“There certainly are financial challenges to this agreement,” Cal chancellor Carol Christ said the day the Bears joined the ACC. “We believe this was the best agreement in financial terms that we could have made and look forward to working through the challenges.”
How might Cal “work through” the challenges? Christ declined to provide details.
“We’ve barely begun to think about strategy,” she said. “There’s a piece of it that’s missing, which is what the regents decide about UCLA’s contribution to Cal.”
UCLA isn’t on the hook to cover the entire discrepancy. As the measure indicates, the maximum “contribution” is $10 million annually. (It was set for $5 million until a last-minute suggestion to double the ceiling was approved by the full board.)
It’s possible the regents will mull the issue for several months, then decline to slap the Bruins with the Berkeley tax.
Possible, but unlikely.
Both campuses expect the subsidy to be imposed — one’s relieved; the other’s frustrated — but neither of them knows the amount.
Clarity might begin to emerge next week.
LikeLike
We know the P12 had an offer from Apple ($25M + incentives) until more schools left, so anything below that is not UCLA’s fault.
The flaw of that reasoning is that $25m was only available if all nine schools accepted (Colorado already gone at that point). Cal very likely would have taken it, since they didn’t have a Big Ten or Big 12 option, but they needed the other eight.
I suppose UCLA could argue that anything below $30m isn’t their fault, because that was the ESPN offer that they turned down. But Cal could argue that if the two L.A. schools hadn’t left, they’d be getting $40m+, or whatever you think the intact Pac-12 was worth.
LikeLike
Yep. UCLA can’t help that the rest of the P12 said no to the ESPN deal.
Sure, Cal will make that argument. UCLA mitigates it a bit by pointing out that USC was most of that value, and they had no control over USC’s decision to leave. The question is what the Pac-11 would’ve been worth. ESPN offered $300M for the Pac-10, so the Pac-11 was worth $350M ($31.8M per school – essentially the B12 deal) to maybe a max of $400M ($36.4M per school). So at most, UCLA cost them $6.4M per year. Anything beyond that was due to other schools turning down the ESPN offer. The BoR doesn’t have to buy it, but that’s the argument from UCLA’s POV.
LikeLike
Matt Hayes of Saturday Down South argues that UNC should just play Tez Walker, and dare the NCAA to try to stop them.
I cannot imagine UNC doing this unless there was a groundswell of other schools (or at least ACC schools) agreeing with them, and so far I don’t see any indication of that. But I could see it happening at some point.
LikeLike
The NCAA has a lot of ways to punish UNC for this. UNC would risk their NCAA membership for willfully breaking the rules – it’s different than getting caught cheating. No NCAAT invitation in any sport, official forfeits in every game, no NCAA money, potentially prohibitions on others scheduling them. And they’d put the ACC in a bind, because the NCAA could punish it for allowing a rogue member.
Unlike the writer, the schools understand that the NCAA is founded on schools agreeing to follow the rules they help establish. And don’t assume a bunch of other schools want to help UNC get a player back (and risk losing to UNC because of it). They might get schools to support changing the rule, but not going rogue.
LikeLike
The only way it would work is if, for instance, the entire ACC announces that they are not going to do what the NCAA says. Then the NCAA is faced with kicking out a whole conference (and very likely falling apart very quickly after that), or folding. One school alone can’t do it: they would be on an island, and that is not going to happen.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2023/09/13/deion-sanders-colorado-chancellor-phil-distefano-pac-12-big-12-realignment/70826223007/
USA Today interviewed CU’s chancellor. Some highlights:
Is Colorado putting too many eggs in Sanders’ basket? Does he view Colorado’s time in the Pac-12 as a big mistake? Didn’t the league’s presidents and chancellors turn down a good deal last year that could have kept the league together? And why did he pull the plug on the Pac-12 before he even knew for sure what the league could offer Colorado in revenue-sharing for the future?
…
DiStefano and his athletic director, Rick George, had decided they couldn’t wait forever on the Pac-12 to give them concrete projections for what the league could provide them in revenue under a new media rights deal starting next year.
So they bailed and signed a grant-of-rights agreement with the Big 12 that lasts through June 2031.
He previously told USA TODAY Sports he would wait to see the numbers from the Pac-12 before making any decision and even expressed confidence that the Pac-12 would rank third among the Power 5 conferences in revenue sharing.
All that changed in July, when Colorado faced a decision: Take a concrete offer from the Big 12 to join as a full member with a $31.7 million share of media rights revenue. Or keep waiting on the Pac-12 to show them the money.
“I was chancellor when we moved to the Pac-12 (in 2011), and it was one of the things I wanted to do, but personally I couldn’t see a deal in the Pac-12 coming through of any significance,” he said. “I could have been wrong.”
Did he see any numbers from the Pac-12 before deciding to leave?
“Actually, I didn’t,” he said.
…
“What we knew was what the Big 12 could offer and that ESPN could pick up any, if it’s a Power 5 conference team, their share,” he said. “And Fox, it would be negotiated with the Big 12. And we were confident about that just because it was Colorado and having Coach Prime (Sanders).”
…
Did DiStefano know at the time that the Pac-12 deal would not focus on linear TV?
“Well, no, because I believed there were still discussions going on with linear,” he said. “But I think that’s where the risk (for Colorado) might have come in. But again, I think the stability outweighed the risk.”
…
Washington and Oregon also decided to leave the Pac-12 for the Big Ten, forcing their athletes into a series of cross-country trips to Big Ten destinations in the Midwest and East instead of shorter trips in the West with the Pac-12. Similar long-distance travel awaits California and Stanford, which since decided to bail on the Pac-12 for the Atlantic Coast Conference based in North Carolina.
“It’s definitely going to be difficult on student-athletes,” DiStefano said of those schools. “Personally, what I would hope is the presidents and chancellors in the ACC and Big Ten, and athletic directors in those two conferences, really look at some creative scheduling so that these students aren’t flying to Rutgers one weekend and flying back to Indiana or Ohio State the second one.”
…
What do you think of the Pac-12’s demise?
Only two Pac-12 teams remain for 2024: Oregon State and Washington State.
“It’s confirmation of how college sports are changing,” he said.
Is it progress?
“Probably progress in some ways,” he said. “In some ways, kind of in the middle.”
…
“TV is obviously running the show,” DiStefano said. “And that’s how it is.”
…
What about that ESPN offer?
“I read the same thing,” he said. “To be honest, I don’t’ remember being offered $30 million from ESPN. I really don’t.”
Would that ESPN offer have made a difference?
“If it happened, and we looked at it, it could have made a difference,” he said. “I go to all the (Pac-12) meetings (but don’t remember it).”
Who’s to blame for what happened to the Pac-12?
“I’m not in the blame game at all,” he said. “The presidents and chancellors in this case, No. 1 they do what’s good for their institutions. And I don’t know (USC president Carol Folt’s) motivation or (UCLA chancellor) Gene Block’s motivation. My motivation was stability for our student-athletes, making sure they had the opportunity to be on ESPN, Fox. That’s how I looked at it.”
Was it a mistake for Colorado to join the Pac-12 in 2011?
Colorado’s football team, the cash cow of its athletics department, has been mostly terrible in the Pac-12. Its record in the league in the past 12 years is 27-76. It has had only two winning seasons in that time, including the pandemic-shortened season of 2020. In 2016, it won the South Division of the league in football but last year hit bottom again.
“I don’t think it was a mistake,” DiStefano said.
Why not?
“There were key visits and meetings with alumni in Southern California, parents of students – that’s our largest state for out-of-state students,” he said. “That helped on the fundraising side. To give you an example, when I became chancellor in 2009, we were raising about $86 or 87 million a year. After we joined the Pac-12, it’s up to $120, 150 (million) … We had one year of over $200 (million). That was a key area.”
Won’t that dry up by moving to the Big 12?
“The reason I don’t think it does is we’ve really tried to cement relationships in Southern California, Northern California, those areas,” he said. “Plus, obviously, unless if we added teams if we stayed in the Pac-12, and we added teams for Southern California … with UCLA and USC leaving, that was huge (as a loss for Colorado).”
One reason their departures hurt Colorado is because he said pregame events at USC and UCLA would draw around 2,000 of CU fans and alumni, which helps drive engagement and donations.
LikeLike
Fellow Tankers: I have recruited a buddy as subscriber # 500 to FTTS forum. His name is Larry, he lives in Washington and is an Oregon alumnus and football fan. He was originally from Minnesota and is also a lukewarm Gopher fan.
I am posting this to introduce him to the gang and also to see if he receives my message via email. Larry, please post a reply if you can see this……Colin
LikeLike
https://www.washington.edu/regents/meetings/september-2023-regular-meeting-of-the-board-of-regents/
UW’s BoR will vote tomorrow to approve key financial transactions for UW athletics, including those necessary to join the B10:
1. UW giving their AD $5,678,500 (over 2 years) to cover the loss due to P12N overcharging Comcast and Dish.
2. $15M application fee to the B10 (refunded once they join).
3. UW moving B10 revenue from FY2031-36 forward to FY2025-30.
So the school is picking up the tab for Larry Scott’s screwup, and UW is following the RU/UMD plan of moving B10 money forward.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/adhering-to-court-order-pac-12-approves-staff-retention-plan-to-stave-off-possible-mass-exodus/
So the reasonable part of the P12 board meeting happened, with an employee retention and severance plan getting approved unanimously. That will help them maintain a staff through the end of the fiscal year. These issues are why I supported GK wanting to have the meeting. You can’t leave all the staff in the lurch and assume they will hang around.
The Pac-12 presidents approved an employee retention-and-severance plan Tuesday designed to ensure the collapsing conference remains staffed to the level necessary to produce roughly 1,000 live events and meet contractual obligations to its media partners, according to a source with knowledge of the development.
With 10 schools departing for other leagues next summer, executives are concerned that a mass exodus of conference employees could jeopardize the production of competitions worth more than $400 million in media rights revenue from ESPN, Fox and other partners. A significant decrease in staffing also could undermine the experience for thousands of Pac-12 athletes across all sports in 2023-24.
All 12 presidents and chancellors signed off on the retention and severance plan but did not take a formal vote, per court order.
…
The retention-and-severance plan requires significant administrative work and likely will be rolled out at the end of the month:
— The severance component applies to all 192 full-time employees and includes both COBRA and outplacement support, according to the source.
— The retention piece applies to more than 90 percent of the employees.
Commissioner George Kliavkoff, who reports directly to the board of directors, is not included in the retention-and-severance plan.
A separate scope-of-services plan, to determine which Pac-12 services should be continued as normal, downsized or eliminated, has not been approved by the schools. It will require a formal board vote once the restraining order is lifted.
The Pac-12 hired an independent, outside firm to advise Kliavkoff on the retention-and-severance plan.
LikeLike
So the reasonable part of the P12 board meeting happened, with an employee retention and severance plan getting approved unanimously. That will help them maintain a staff through the end of the fiscal year. These issues are why I supported GK wanting to have the meeting.
If GK had sought a meeting carefully limited to that, he might very well have gotten it without a lawsuit.
LikeLike
Lawsuit probably is the better way to go. With disagreement on who actually is a member of the Pac-X and has voting rights, I don’t see how you could hold a meeting.
LikeLike
Agreed. Without clear knowledge of who has a vote, anybody could have proposed something like dissolution.
LikeLike
As Richard notes, I don’t think he could have limited the meeting that way. Once it starts, nothing prevents some schools from proposing dissolution and voting on it.
It’s why I said I sympathized with both sides (vs you saying he was being a jerk about it) – GK had legitimate reasons for this meeting, but the risk was too large for WSU and OrSU.
I don’t know why the other schools think they should get something nobody else has ever gotten in realignment – a share of the assets on the way out the door.
LikeLike
If WSU/OSU establish they are the only schools with votes they can change the bylaws to have schools leaving forfeit any distribution from the conference. This will make the P12 more like the B12 and ACC. This may be just round 1 in the legal battles. Now if WSU/OSU win the first round they can offer to settle with the other schools at 50% of a share or some number that ends the litigation.
LikeLike
Little8,
If WSU/OSU establish they are the only schools with votes they can change the bylaws to have schools leaving forfeit any distribution from the conference.
I don’t think they could get away with that. The bylaws in place at the time they left would apply. The other schools would easily win that in court. Besides, I don’t think WSU and OrSU are looking to screw over the other 10. They want their fair share of the revenue through this year, and believe that the residual assets belong to them.
Now if WSU/OSU win the first round they can offer to settle with the other schools at 50% of a share or some number that ends the litigation.
What’s to settle? Everyone gets an equal share of any revenue paid out for this year (TV deal, bowls, NCAAT). Going forward, only the remaining 2 get the money. That’s the deal they all signed up for.
LikeLike
As Richard notes, I don’t think he could have limited the meeting that way.
They obviously could have, because they have just done it. Brian himself suggested that, “What they really need is a non-voting meeting where they act like adults and try to settle the issues privately.”
I am not sure that would’ve worked, but they never even tried. Instead Kliavkoff proposed a meeting to revise the bylaws, among other things, which the two remaining schools obviously could not allow.
Most people don’t hang out the “Please sue me” sign right away. Usually they evolve to that only after they’ve first tried gentler means. Kliavkoff went straight to lawsuit without passing Go.
LikeLike
Marc,
They obviously could have, because they have just done it. Brian himself suggested that, “What they really need is a non-voting meeting where they act like adults and try to settle the issues privately.”
I am not sure that would’ve worked, but they never even tried.
The difference is that the judge ordered them to not vote on anything, so everything must be unanimous. GK doesn’t have that power, so any meeting he called risked the departing CEOs going rogue.
Instead Kliavkoff proposed a meeting to revise the bylaws, among other things, which the two remaining schools obviously could not allow.
That part I can’t defend, unless the legal counsel told him he had to allow it. Really hard to explain is why the departing schools think they deserve it.
Most people don’t hang out the “Please sue me” sign right away. Usually they evolve to that only after they’ve first tried gentler means. Kliavkoff went straight to lawsuit without passing Go.
Maybe GK wanted this in court, to force a decision on who has voting power. I think it was clear to him that the 12 schools would never reach consensus on that point. He knew the other decisions couldn’t just keep getting delayed, so he forced things to a head. He could’ve not mentioned topics like changing the bylaws, and then have them come up as a surprise if he wanted to screw over WSU and OrSU. As it was, he gave them advanced warning so they could get a TRO.
LikeLike
Redacted article from The Athletic:
Paul Finebaum on SEC realignment: FSU is ‘third’ of 3, behind North Carolina
By Bruce Feldman and Stewart Mandel Sep 13, 2023
But Finebaum also weighed in on the potential for SEC expansion and what he’s heard about where Florida State and North Carolina stand.
Finebaum: Yeah, well, you know, I think as you look ahead … I think we’re getting into realignment. I think FSU has started winning at the right moment, even though we all know Greg Sankey is not going to bring a team — or, excuse me, a school, student-athletes, of course — a school in just because they’re winning games. It helps their stock and I think that’s a big deal, with FSU finally being on the national stage.
Although I think of the three schools that matter in the ACC, I think FSU is at the bottom of the most desired, favored nation list.
What I keep hearing from people is that nobody in the league that matters liked what they did at that board of trustees meeting and they felt like, do you want to invite a group that, you know, has an “Animal House” toga party right in the middle (of realignment) for everybody to see on Facebook Live? And that really went down poorly. I know I don’t think anyone really thought that was a great idea. But I think at least in the moment, it hurt FSU.
And I think another thing — and this is where North Carolina shines — is that I really think the SEC likes the idea of these prominent, premier state universities, like Oklahoma, like Texas, like Florida, like the University of North Carolina.
LikeLike
Administrations come and go. The B10 would take FSU (and likely Miami, though I do have trepidations about climate change and also it’s CFB market size; though it is an absolute HS football talent hotbed, Miami is NOT a hotbed of CFB interest and interest in the Canes is a mile wide and an inch deep) if the SEC passes over them for UNC and Clemson.
The SEC is already in the 2 huge FB talent states and markets of FL and TX while the B10 is not. The B10 now has CA (the 3rd huge FB talent state) but CA is far away from the bulk of the B10. IMO, the B10 would definitely want to break in to FL if TX isn’t possible.
LikeLike
What I keep hearing from people is that nobody in the league that matters liked what they did at that board of trustees meeting and they felt like, do you want to invite a group that, you know, has an “Animal House” toga party right in the middle (of realignment) for everybody to see on Facebook Live? And that really went down poorly.
This is real silliness. FSU is likely about decade away from leaving the ACC at a manageable cost. Nobody will say, “We’re not inviting you because of that one board meeting you had 10 years ago.”
LikeLike
Marc: “This is real silliness. FSU is likely about decade away from leaving the ACC at a manageable cost. Nobody will say, “We’re not inviting you because of that one board meeting you had 10 years ago.”
I agree but the comment about the SEC targeting state flagship schools was interesting. Recent additions UT, OU and Mizzou seem to confirm that. UNC also expands the conference footprint while Clemson and FSU do not.
LikeLike
I totally get that the SEC might not add FSU because it wants state flagships that expand the footprint. That’s a valid strategy. “You had a dumb board meeting 10 years ago” is not.
LikeLike
Marc: “I totally get that the SEC might not add FSU because it wants state flagships that expand the footprint. That’s a valid strategy. “You had a dumb board meeting 10 years ago” is not.”
Marc, no one here disagrees with you. That was Finebaum’s opinion. I do not endorse it.
However it does present an interesting scenario for any future expansion of both the SEC and the Big Ten. Would the SEC be better off with flagships UVA and UNC, or with football heavyweights Clemson and FSU? And would the Big Ten be better off with flagships UVA and UNC, or with football heavyweights Clemson and FSU?
You can make a very reasonable argument that the SEC would gain more from expanding its footprint with two flagships who are academic stars that the Big Ten would with two Little Brothers that are not academic stars.
LikeLike
You can make a very reasonable argument that the SEC would gain more from expanding its footprint with two flagships who are academic stars that the Big Ten would with two Little Brothers that are not academic stars.
Athletics revenue is almost always the primary driver of expansion, not academics. For example, the Big Ten took Washington and Oregon, while leaving Stanford and Cal behind. Had academics been the primary driver, they would’ve done the opposite.
The Big Ten has an academic floor below which it won’t go. But UW, UO, Stanford and Cal are all AAU schools — in other words, good enough. And then, among those good enough, they took the two best football brands.
Whether the Big Ten would consider FSU and Clemson “good enough” is unknown. We know they would’ve taken Notre Dame anytime in the past 30 years (at least), and ND was not in the AAU until quite recently. In 10 years FSU could be in the AAU — we know they desperately want to be — which would all but end the debate.
How much that matters to the SEC remains to be seen, Even if Finebaum got it exactly correct, it’ll be different people deciding by the time the ACC GOR is approaching expiration a decade from now. Like the Big Ten, they’ll probably take guidance from their media partner. Would you rather have a strong football school in a state you’re already in, or to go into a new state (or states) where basketball rules?
Florida is enormous, so the SEC could probably justify having two schools there, just as they justified adding a second Texas school. South Carolina is a very different story.
LikeLike
“Athletics revenue is almost always the primary driver of expansion, not academics.”
Oh Marc, thank you so much for this pearl of wisdom. All of us Opey Taylor hicks out here didn’t understand that until you shared your insight.
LikeLike
BTW, NC actually has about as many dedicated CFB fans as GA and neither trail FL _that_ much in CFB fans (because Tampa and Orlando have a smaller percentage of CFB fans than N FL or the rest of the 12-school SEC, and S FL has an even smaller percentage). But CFB fans in NC are divided among 4 home-state teams while GA has 1 premier CFB power. While you could argue that Wake and Duke have football fanbases similar in size to GTech (small), UGa’s fanbase probably is as big as UNC’s and NCSU’s added together. If NC had 1 public playing P5 football (UNCSU), that school would be a CFB juggernaut like UGa as well.
LikeLike
“Athletics revenue is almost always the primary driver of expansion, not academics.”
Oh Marc, thank you so much for this pearl of wisdom. All of us Opey Taylor hicks out here didn’t understand that until you shared your insight.
The inaccurate perception that academics drive realignment is often encountered both here and elsewhere. I’ve no idea what you (Colin) know, but certainly that claim is out there and is repeated relatively often.
LikeLike
The SEC does not need FSU. UF gives the SEC just about everything that they need from the State of FL. Yes a top notch FSU team will have great viewership numbers, but is that enough to justify a full share in the SEC?
On the other hand, FSU would be a very valuable foothold in FL for the B1G. I may be wrong, but I think that most B1G schools get a lot more recruits from FL than they do from TX or CA. Having a FL school, even in the Panhandle, can only help that.
As far as AAU, both Delany and Petitti have said that AAU status is nice, but not a prerequisite to B1G membership. Was that only for ND? I doubt it.
The primary motivation for the SEC to go after FSU is to block the B1G. Is that enough?
I think that the flagship state U argument makes sense for either league, but FSU is close enough for the B1G? I think so.
As far as Clemson, I am not totally sure where they fit if they are not in the national title hunt pretty much all of the time. The SEC has the flagship school. And the State of SC is not nearly as attractive as FL
LikeLike
Bernie,
ESPN’s president has said that what matters now is rivalries. I think the SEC sees FSU vs UF, UGA, AL, AU, LSU, TN, UT and OU (plus FSU vs Miami every other year) all as games that will drive big ratings every time. That equates to money. I agree that the SEC doesn’t need FSU, but I think they see more value than just blocking the B10. Every non-FL/TX school wants more games in FL to help them recruit there, so FSU helps spread that wealth.
LikeLike
Interesting article about location of the Chicago Bears’ new indoor stadium, which will probably become the site of the Big Ten CCG. Note Kevin Warren appears to be calling the shots on this.
This link may be behind a paywall. If so, you can subscribe to the Chicago Tribune online right now for $1 for six months. That’s not $1/month for six months, it’s one dollar for six months, cancel anytime.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bears/ct-chicago-bears-soldier-field-arlington-heights-liststory-20211001-owp3umg4b5e6nnducymdcldmsa-list.html
LikeLike
Given that Jerry Reinsdorf is again making noises about moving the White Sox out of state (this time to Nashville – perfect timing!) and has a lot of clout with Illinois politicians (something the Bears demonstrably lack) one can safely bet that both the Bears (in Arlington Heights) and White Sox (likely in Arlington Heights) will get a new stadium built. The state of Illinois will provide support for infrastructure improvements and guarantee zoning (to protect against avaricious mayors and county authorities) while Chicago will be placated in some way.
LikeLike
The clock changes have cost us 1.4 offensive plays per team on average so far (so 2.8 plays per game total). It’s been much higher for OSU, at 3.9 plays lost on offense, but that was largely due to opponents bleeding the clock intentionally and a struggling offense.
LikeLike
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/disney-holds-talks-with-nexstar-abc-sale-bloomberg-news-2023-09-14/
Disney is looking to sell ABC to Nexstar.
LikeLike
I bet North Carolina is the next move sought by both SEC and BIG.
LikeLike
My question is will UNC leave Duke behind. That is the preeminent rivalry in college basketball and hugely important in North Carolina, more so than any other rivalry that has been lost with conference expansion. I just can’t see it being lost even though every expansion “expert” doesn’t think Duke gets into either the SEC nor Big Ten.
With cord cutting increasing and a direct to consumer model coming down the line, I wonder if there will be a reevaluation on the worth of major college basketball schools like Duke and Kansas.
LikeLike
The great thing is that it’s easy to keep a hoops rivalry alive OOC. They have plenty of games to maintain that, and could even keep playing twice per year. Football is where it would go away, and Duke doesn’t really care about that (except for the $$$).
Maybe, but if they expand the NCAAT even more the regular season will only be for diehard fans and gamblers. If every power school that’s over 0.500 gets in, why watch any regular season game?
It’s the growth of other sports (WBB, lax, WVB, etc.) that might cut into football’s dominance of TV money, but for now it’s 80% and growing.
LikeLike
Die hard fans are where the subscriptions will come from. Having lived in both the triangle in North Carolina and Lexington Kentucky, there is a large group of fans that would pay to watch Duke, UNC, or Kentucky play all of their basketball games including the ones against garbage opponents. I would think the same for Kansas. The question is does those possible subscribers pay enough for the Big Ten or SEC to at least break even or get close on a school like Duke.
UNC is going to have its choice of SEC or Big Ten. The decision could come down to which conference is willing to take one or more if its rivals in Duke and or UVA.
LikeLike
I don’t see the UNC-Duke rivalry being much of a factor in conference realignment. If you were the prez/AD of UNC and UVA, would you be better off in the SEC or the Big Ten assuming TV revenue was ballpark equal?
VA has 8.6 million people, NC has 10.5 million. UVA and UNC are both academic gems. It would be a nice expansion of footprint for either conference and contiguous with either.
Meanwhile, FSU is not the same FSU as yesteryear and Clemson’s dynasty may be starting to crumble. Hard to say where they will be ten years from now. Both are Little Brothers.
And maybe the SEC would take all four. That would expand their footprint and keep the Big Ten out.
LikeLike
There’s a slight possibility that the B10/SEC takes 1 of UVa/NCSU/Duke along with UNC to get UNC, but it’s slight. Put simply, UNC isn’t USC or even A&M. And both UNC and UVa are pretty small state schools (obviously Duke is even smaller), so even though their home state has a decent-sized population, they’re not getting the vast majority of the eyeballs in their state, unlike a UGa or OSU.
The most likely scenario, if UNC isn’t willing to go alone, is that UNC stays in the ACC and lords it over the peons there.
Recall that the SEC really sees no need to expand and the B10 may want to expand due to demographics, but a king (and semi-king) in FL is more attractive than 2 non-kings in NC and VA that don’t bring the entirety of either of those states.
LikeLike
Remember, NC was willing to vote against ACC expansion, while Duke voted in support. Similarly UVa voted in support. The binding ties of those two school with UNC may have frayed a bit in light of the money involved. All of them voted in what they perceived as their own best interests, which is totally reasonable.
While UNC, UVa, and Duke are excellent academically, none of them totally dominates their own home state in any major sport. Duke v. UNC is great basketball, but does either alone dominate the state of NC? VaTech and NCState have major footprints in football. (This ignores the in-state football significance of Duke or Wake).
As far as comparing the financial impact of FSU versus UNC, UVA, or Duke, the TV ratings are there. Even the past few years when FSU was lousy, it still got much better ratings than any other ACC, with the possible exception of Clemson when it was on top.
If FSU goes back to regularly win 10 games in the ACC, it will be by far the most valuable ACC TV team. In addition, of course, to adding FL footprint.
LikeLike
psuhockey,
Die hard fans are where the subscriptions will come from. Having lived in both the triangle in North Carolina and Lexington Kentucky, there is a large group of fans that would pay to watch Duke, UNC, or Kentucky play all of their basketball games including the ones against garbage opponents. I would think the same for Kansas. The question is does those possible subscribers pay enough for the Big Ten or SEC to at least break even or get close on a school like Duke.
Most likely not, at least not for a while. Streamers can’t get enough subscriber money to support CFB, so it won’t happen for MBB. The best MBB regular season games draw maybe 2M viewers now. CFB games use 4M as a threshold for being a big game, but can top 10M. Things may change by 2034.
UNC is going to have its choice of SEC or Big Ten. The decision could come down to which conference is willing to take one or more if its rivals in Duke and or UVA.
They’ll likely go to the SEC because their donors say so. That older generation is more southern-influenced, and they’ll want the more regional and southern conference. The SEC would likely also take UVA if necessary, since they at least add territory and the NOVA/DC market.
LikeLike
UNC has a bunch of rivalries (besides Duke, also NCSU and UVa), but as Brian said, the UNC-Duke MBB rivalry could be kept alive OOC. More pertinently, is that rivalry (or any of UNC’s rivalries) bigger than the Backyard Brawl, Texas-A&M, Bedlam, the Border War, Apple Cup, Civil War or even before that, PSU-Pitt and Arkansas-Texas? OU was also willing to sacrifice the RRR if the Pac had been willing to take just the 2 OK schools. We have seen schools consistently sacrifice regional rivalries to join conferences. Granted, in some cases, they did not (definitely UVa and probably GTech turned down the B10) but ask those schools these days if they regret that and they’d likely answer “yes”.
LikeLike
Duke UNC with both teams unranked brought in 2.6 and 2.8 million viewers last year. That absolutely gets crushed by college football, but compared to winter sports like the regular season NBA and NHL, it performed very well. With FOX essentially running the Big Ten and ESPN running the SEC, I could see that rivalry being very attractive when football season is over. The question is do the numbers work for the networks to pay Duke a hefty sum of money. FOX is in negotiations to start it’s own alternative to the NIT. If there is money to made with that, then there has to be money to be made with men’s college basketball.
Imagine if FOX/Big Ten got it choices of schools in 10 years going to a 24 team league with FSU, Miami, UNC, Duke, UVA and Kansas. The football ratings are fed with FSU and Miami while having UNC, Duke, Kansas, UCLA and Indiana in one conference would give FOX all but one of the legacy basketball schools. There has to be money in that.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/04/nba-ratings-viewership-past-30-years-analysis-where-league-stands/
Duke/UNC games are outliers.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the NBA continues to outpace its actual competition, which is most assuredly not pro or college football. Major League Baseball games averaged 936,000 viewers across its national partners in 2022 and 760,000 the year before. The NHL regular season is averaging 470,000 this season, up from last year (444K). Men’s college basketball regular season games averaged 371,000 across all networks during 2022-23, compared to 363,000 the year before.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/03/duke-unc-ratings-near-season-high-mens-womens-college-hoops/
Only 7 games all season hit 2M viewers.
The Duke-North Carolina rivalry continues to deliver the biggest audiences in college basketball.
Saturday’s Duke-North Carolina men’s college basketball game averaged a 1.3 rating and 2.63 million viewers on ESPN, marking the third-largest audience of the season. The Duke-UNC rivalry accounts for two of the three largest audiences thus far, with their February meeting (1.4, 2.86M) trailing only DePaul-Creighton on FOX Christmas Day (2.99M).
The Blue Devils’ win, which peaked with 3.4 million viewers, declined 31% in ratings and 34% in viewership from the rivals’ second meeting last season — the final home game in the career of former Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski (1.95, 3.98M).
It ranked as the day’s top sporting event on Saturday, topping ABC’s Sixers-Bucks NBA game (1.35, 2.24M).
In other action, CBS drew a 1.2 and 2.21 million for Michigan-Indiana on Sunday — the fifth-largest audience of the season. Indiana has played in three of the six most-watched games this season, more than any other team. Ratings soared 49% and viewership 57% from Maryland-Michigan State in the same window last year.
LikeLike
Yeah, there’s some money in UNC and Duke MBB, but there’s some money in Stanford and Cal football too, yet the B10 didn’t add them. As you’re probably aware, the bar isn’t “some money” but “enough money”, and while UNC might cross the bar for the B10/SEC, I doubt any of UNC’s traditional rivals do for the B10 (though the SEC _might_ add UNC + 1 even if it isn’t net additive for them because they get to unify the South and add some top academic schools).
LikeLike
My question is will UNC leave Duke behind.
We’ve seen variations of the “X won’t leave Y behind” argument, and it often fails. Texas A&M left Texas, and then Texas left Texas Tech. Oklahoma left Oklahoma State State. UCLA left Cal. Oregon and Washington left OrSU and WSU.
All of these moves were in the “they’d never do that” category, and then they did that.
Over a year ago, the former UNC chancellor said that they considered moving to the SEC or the Big Ten in the early 2010s. He mentioned Duke, but he actually saw NC State as the bigger sticking point:
Ultimately, they decided not to pursue it. There was a money gap between the ACC and the Big Ten/SEC at the time, but the gap wasn’t as wide as today. If there wasn’t a GoR, I suspect they’d see it differently now.
LikeLike
Yep, most schools have forsaken rivalries for money and stability though note that UVa and probably GTech turned down the B10 before while UNC essentially turned down the B10 and SEC (well, decided not to go down that road; same thing).
And I would note a couple differences between UNC and all the schools who forsook a major rivalry to join a conference:
1. Other than arguably PSU when it ended independence (which obviously ended a ton of annual rivalry series against local programs), virtually everyone who left had/have to end only 1 major rivalry:
UMD (UVa)
A&M (Texas)
Mizzou (KU)
OU (OKSt.)
UCLA (Cal)
UO (ORSt.)
UW (WSU)
UVa is rivals with both VTech and UNC. UNC has 3 major rivalries.
2. Besides UCLA, nobody who jumped was a MBB blueblood. Specifically, an ACC MBB blueblood. And as MBB is much lower cost, the ACC could survive (even if FSU, Miami, and Clemson left) and still be a MBB power.
3. The only schools we know of who spurned the B10/SEC when they had a chance to move have been ACC schools and UNC knows that separating from NCSU will be politically difficult so long as the ACC is viable.
So I feel pretty confident (90% confidence) in stating that either UNC leaves alone or (most likely), UNC and all the rest of the NC/VA schools stay in the ACC and keep it alive. Only way they leave is if the core NC/VA schools in the ACC get too greedy, they don’t get a long-term TV deal to stabilize the conference, and some schools that the B10/SEC don’t want start jumping to the B12 in search of stability (the Pac incompetent implosion scenario).
LikeLike
Besides UCLA, nobody who jumped was a MBB blueblood. Specifically, an ACC MBB blueblood. And as MBB is much lower cost, the ACC could survive (even if FSU, Miami, and Clemson left) and still be a MBB power.
The question is not if UNC could keep their MBB program alive — they clearly could. But even in the basketball-rich ACC, football provides the majority of the media revenue, which the schools use to subsidize their nonrevenue sports. Without its three best football schools, the ACC’s football revenue would crater, which is an existential problem — even for UNC.
The only schools we know of who spurned the B10/SEC when they had a chance to move have been ACC schools and UNC knows that separating from NCSU will be politically difficult so long as the ACC is viable.
Texas did the same (the famous “Tech problem” email). Of course, Notre Dame has spurned the Big Ten many times.
Now, I am not predicting which moves will happen, but there is a difference here. When UNC “spurned” (technically: elected not to pursue) the B10/SEC, there was a revenue gap, but it was not that huge. By the mid-2030s, Big Ten schools could be earning more than double what ACC schools are getting.
Then you are faced with the choice of remaining at the power conference level or stepping down to a de facto mid-major. That’s a different calculation.
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/which-colleges-have-conferred-the-most-bachelors-degrees
Which colleges have granted the most degrees in 32 different disciplines (all of engineering is 1 discipline, for example) over 2018-2022. B10 schools (and incoming B10 schools) show up a lot in the top 5.
UCLA – 8
PSU – 5 (business, communications/journalism, CIS, engineering, physical sciences)
IL – 4 (ag, architecture, engineering, math)
UW – 2 (area/cultural/ethnic/gender/group studies, physical sciences)
IN – 2 (parks & rec, public admin)
UMN – 1 (English/literature)
OSU – 1 (foreign languages)
PU – 1 (engineering)
UM – 1 (CIS)
UMD – 1 (CIS)
MSU – 1 (communications/journalism)
UO, NE, IA, WI, NW, RU, USC – 0
3 of the top 5 for CIS (4 if you count UMD Global).
Notes:
They show some disciplines twice, so I corrected the numbers for that. There are also some other errors, so take the results lightly.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/pac-12-chaos-is-commissioner-george-kliavkoff-siding-with-the-10-or-the-two-court-records-reveal-his-strategy/
Details on GK and the P12’s BoR issue. It sounds like he was trying to get consensus on all 12 having a say in some things (those relevant to the current year), just the 2 on others (things related to the future). That’s a reasonable position, even if he didn’t go about it the best way.
Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a named defendant in the complaint filed against the conference by Oregon State and Washington State, did not attend the hearing Monday in which the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order was granted.
…
Kliavoff is attempting to stay neutral as the 10 departing universities and the two remaining schools plot their divergent futures and determine control of the conference, according to documents obtained by the Hotline.
In a declaration to the court on Sept. 11, the day of the hearing, Kliavkoff stated:
“Neither the Conference nor I have a position with respect to the proper composition of the Pac-12 Board. This is fundamentally a dispute among members. As Commissioner, I will follow lawful directives of the Board pursuant to the Constitution and Bylaws and consistent with my duties in the best interests of the Conference.”
…
Where does Kliavkoff stand on the makeup of the board?
…
Kliavkoff has not spoken publicly since Aug. 4, Black Friday, when his plans to finalize a media rights deal imploded and five schools withdrew. But his view of the board’s makeup is outlined, in detail, in a letter to Washington State and Oregon State that was included in his court declaration.
…
In a letter to WSU and OSU (via email), he disputed the notion that the 10 outbound schools have relinquished their board positions:
“Your suggestion that ten of the Conference’s 12 members have ‘withdrawn’ from the Conference within the meaning of the Bylaws is mistaken. Not one member school has signaled any intention — or actually attempted — to leave Conference play at any time prior to the end of the current fiscal year on July 31, 2024, or to take back and exploit their media rights.
“We simply cannot accept the suggestion that only two members. — Oregon State University (OSU) and Washington State University (WSU) — now have the right to determine by themselves all issues affecting the Conference, and determine the course of all revenue coming into the Conference, to the exclusion of the other ten member schools.”
The wording is important, and it undoubtedly will be discussed in upcoming court hearings intended to determine the makeup of the board.
…
What accounts for the apparent discrepancy between Kliavkoff’s declaration of neutrality — “Neither the Conference nor I have a position with respect to the proper composition of the Pac-12 Board” — and the Sept. 8 letter in which he states the 10 schools have not “withdrawn” and WSU and OSU are “mistaken”?
In the letter, he was stating the position of the outgoing presidents, who are contesting the notion that they have withdrawn, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
…
Key point: The bylaws do not define “notice of withdrawal” and whether it must come in writing.
…
After explaining that the 10 have not “withdrawn,” Kliavkoff then acknowledges the nuanced nature of the situation. The letter continues:
“That said, I do have the view that there are decisions (for example, which, if any, schools to invite to join the Conference after July 1, 2024) that should solely be made by OSU and WSU, to the exclusion of our ten other members.”
Then he addresses the middle ground:
“There may also be other decisions that don’t clearly fall within the purview for either all 12 or just the 2 to decide and will be contested. Regardless, it is the Board that should and will determine its governance pursuant to the rules set forth in the Bylaws.”
Finally, he points to a scheduled meeting of the presidents and chancellors on Sept. 13:
“My recommendation is that all 12 Presidents and Chancellors should use the opportunity of next week’s Board meeting to see if we can agree on which decisions get decided by all 12, which get decided by just OSU and WSU, and further discuss whether the 12 can agree on a process to consider and decide the contested issues.
“We also plan to distribute, in advance of Wednesday’s Board meeting, a suggested conflict of interest policy that addresses how we might think about the 12 schools agreeing on governance issues to avoid conflict.”
LikeLike
Well, if Kliavkoff is speaking for some of the 10 outgoing schools, which I assume that he is, the next step for WSU and OSU is to now seek an injunction prohibiting the complaining schools from leaving for at least one more year. They could be given the choice of affirming their exit or denying it. If they deny it, they cannot leave.
I am not familiar with any of the by-laws or other documentation, but it may follow that if a school has not yet given notice, then their departure could be delayed until they do. On the other hand, there may not be a specific notice requirement, but any leaving schools that try that are on the very wrong side of any equitable argument.
Remember that they are in a Washington State court and it does not appear that the other schools have questioned the jurisdiction of that court. The perfect forum shopping for a court or a judge. I have read that the PAC is an association of schools and there is no jurisdictional requirement in any paperwork. The suit could have been brought in any of the states. Since there has been no motion to dismiss and no action brought in CA, I kind of believe that.
I am also guessing, and this is a total guess, that the PAC is a citizen of each state in which it has a team, so there is no diversity to move to Federal court. Beyond that, at least for the moment, UW is involved and certainly a citizen of the same state. (Of course, I would also expect a Federal judge sitting in Western WA to also be very sympathetic to WSU.)
I find it beyond inconsistent that at the least AZ, AZState and UT can argue that they have a commitment to join the Big 12, while they are entitled to stay in the PAC for some things.
I pick those three since it is inconceivable that any of the four schools moving to the B1G would do anything to create even a tiny doubt as to their ability to move.
As far as Stanford and Cal, would they really take a chance of staying in the leftover PAC after they begged to get into the ACC? Maybe. Stanford has tons of money and could wait and Cal is desperate for every penny. Live dangerously?
CO was very vocal about going the Bi 1,2 so could they possibly disclaim that now? I have a feeling that Coach Dion would not like that uncertainty.
It appears that some of the schools leaving want to use PAC money to facilitate their move. Is anyone familiar with any case where anything like that has ever happened? The league harmed by the departure has to help teams leave?
As an aside, I wonder if WSU and OSU can argue that by making that statement and taking a position, Kliavkoff can be fired for cause and not get paid out of the remainder of his contract. Can he be neutral then opine on this issue? If this gets any uglier, I would not be shocked to see the remaining two do something like that. And it will legitimately be argued before a judge very sympathetic to WSU.
Any appeals of the judges orders will also be within the WA state court system.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
Well, if Kliavkoff is speaking for some of the 10 outgoing schools, which I assume that he is, the next step for WSU and OSU is to now seek an injunction prohibiting the complaining schools from leaving for at least one more year. They could be given the choice of affirming their exit or denying it. If they deny it, they cannot leave.
I thought it was fairly clear GK was taking a middle ground.
I don’t see how they could get an injunction against schools leaving. The P12 has no advanced notice requirement nor exit penalties, and the GoR and media deal end next summer. Nobody is obligated to remain after that.
Once Board membership is clear, they could require schools to declare if they are staying (as part of seeking a new media deal, they need to know the membership).
Remember that they are in a Washington State court and it does not appear that the other schools have questioned the jurisdiction of that court. The perfect forum shopping for a court or a judge. I have read that the PAC is an association of schools and there is no jurisdictional requirement in any paperwork. The suit could have been brought in any of the states. Since there has been no motion to dismiss and no action brought in CA, I kind of believe that.
Yes, it is an unincorporated association, so every state housing a member is a valid jurisdiction apparently. Bad management on the P12’s part (again).
I am also guessing, and this is a total guess, that the PAC is a citizen of each state in which it has a team, so there is no diversity to move to Federal court. Beyond that, at least for the moment, UW is involved and certainly a citizen of the same state. (Of course, I would also expect a Federal judge sitting in Western WA to also be very sympathetic to WSU.)
That’s what I read. I defer to the lawyers on that one.
I find it beyond inconsistent that at the least AZ, AZState and UT can argue that they have a commitment to join the Big 12, while they are entitled to stay in the PAC for some things.
I pick those three since it is inconceivable that any of the four schools moving to the B1G would do anything to create even a tiny doubt as to their ability to move.
As far as Stanford and Cal, would they really take a chance of staying in the leftover PAC after they begged to get into the ACC? Maybe. Stanford has tons of money and could wait and Cal is desperate for every penny. Live dangerously?
None of them want to stay, they just want to take everything that isn’t nailed down on their way out the door. My guess is that Cal is driving this as they face the worst financial situation among the 10.
The fight is basically about splitting the emergency fund and other assets (P12N infrastructure), as well as future CFP and NCAAT money.
It appears that some of the schools leaving want to use PAC money to facilitate their move. Is anyone familiar with any case where anything like that has ever happened? The league harmed by the departure has to help teams leave?
It is unprecedented and unconscionable.
As an aside, I wonder if WSU and OSU can argue that by making that statement and taking a position, Kliavkoff can be fired for cause and not get paid out of the remainder of his contract. Can he be neutral then opine on this issue? If this gets any uglier, I would not be shocked to see the remaining two do something like that. And it will legitimately be argued before a judge very sympathetic to WSU.
The 12 could all agree to fire him, too. But his contract may require that he gets paid out regardless. I’m not sure anything he’s done counts as cause yet.
LikeLike
Key point: The bylaws do not define “notice of withdrawal” and whether it must come in writing.
I believe it’s a well known principle of law that where a contract is open to interpretation, a court can look to the parties’ behavior historically to infer what they believed it to mean. Per Canzano in his newsletter today:
Kliavkoff and his board appeared strong in booting UCLA and USC from CEO Group meetings in the summer of 2022 after those schools announced they were leaving for the Big Ten. The commissioner was just as clear in removing Colorado’s chancellor from decisions after the school announced it was leaving for the Big 12. And after the defections of five more schools in early August, Kliavkoff told at least one person that his conference was down to only four board seats — Stanford, Cal, Oregon State and Washington State.
Now, with only two members left, he’s gone neutral?
So there’s the rub. If historically the conference treated a public announcement as “notice” that a school was withdrawing, then why would it be any different now that they are down to two members? Just why Kliavkoff had this sudden change of heart is one of the big mysteries of this lawsuit.
Remember that they are in a Washington State court and it does not appear that the other schools have questioned the jurisdiction of that court. The perfect forum shopping for a court or a judge.
Any litigant with a choice of forum will pick the friendliest one. With that said, this does not mean this judge will get the law wrong.
I wonder if WSU and OSU can argue that by making that statement and taking a position, Kliavkoff can be fired for cause and not get paid out of the remainder of his contract.
We don’t know what his contract says, but I suspect that they’d need proof that he did something nefarious, not merely that he took the wrong side of a lawsuit.
LikeLike
UCLA’s Martin Jarmond (on Jim Rome’s podcast), discussing the B10 exposure opportunity and more. It’s 33 minutes.
UCLA AD Martin Jarmond on Chip Kelly’s best quality, Mick Cronin and the Bruins’ hoops future in the Big Ten, the impact of NIL on the athletic program, Deion’s success at Colorado, prepping Westwood for Olympic Village duties in 2028 and much more.
LikeLike
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/02/07/future-of-tv-predictions.html
Media execs on the future of TV and streaming.
LikeLike
https://link.chtbl.com/OGLivePodCo
Podcast on how tech companies will decide the future of sports on TV.
O+G OT: ESPN, cable & future of sports television w/ Stratechery’s Ben Thompson
The battle between #Disney and Charter Spectrum has been settled, but the war between cable and big #contentcreator companies is far from over. Joe Ovies interviewed #technology and #business expert Ben Thompson, who runs the popular Stratechery newsletter.
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 – Intro
01:30 – Winners & losers from Charter, Disney dispute
03:00 – Bundle 2.0 & #sports
09:30 – Getting young fans to watch #livesports
12:30 – Big Tech & sports
16:30 – #SEC, #BigTen & #collegefootball brands will win
20:00 – Future of #ACC & ESPN
22:45 – #NFL will survive TV disruption
LikeLike
“The B10 is the richest conference by far” –Ben Thompson (tech strategy savant and Wisconsin grad)
He says the B10 has by far the most viewers. That part is untrue as the SEC draws as many eyeballs in football (though granted, the B10 draws much better in MBB so that does create a gap) but he makes some other key points (that several others on here have made) which is that the B10 has the biggest aggregate alumni base of any conference (probably by far) and some pretty elite academic schools, meaning a lot of high-earning grads who fan out to both coasts. That means money. He notes that while people tend to lump the B10 and SEC together in the P2, when it comes to sheer money, the gap between the B10 and SEC will probably be as large as between the SEC and everyone else. The 16 fully-vested B10 schools will make $75mm/year in just tier 1 TV money close to 2030. SEC schools won’t be making that much. More like $50-60mm/year. Clearly above the ACC and B12 but clearly below the B10 schools.
He also noted that part of the reason Taylor Swift’s tour has gotten bonkers attendance is because in this era when anyone can watch anything any time, there is a clear yearning for a communal experience. That is one big reason why the NFL has become the monster it has. Sadly for the traditionalists like Brian, that also adds impetus to something like a CFB Champions League. Conferences may not cooperate, but a B10 Champions League with promotion/relegation would allow the B10 to add FSU, Miami, UNC as well as schools that are worse TV/streaming draws but academically elite like Stanford, Cal, Duke, and UVa because the B10 could have 5 tiers of 5 teams each in CFB where the 5 teams in each tier play each other HaH for 8 games + 2 more conference games that can fit in annual rivalry games (for Iowa, they would be against UW-Madison and UMTC) or just parity-based games between teams on different tiers set each year by TV partners for a total of 10 conference games. So Brian would hate it, but OSU and UMich could play each other 3 times in 1 season before the playoffs (TV execs and the B10 administrators who always want more money would love it, though).
The the worst team in each tier above the bottommost tier gets relegated, the top team in each tier below the topmost tier gets gets promoted, and the 2nd-best team in a lower tier and 4th-placed team in an upper tier can play in a pro/rel playoff (so 4 pro/rel playoff games).
The B10 would draw in enough money to distribute to the 15 teams in the bottom 3 tiers at least as much as the SEC average while still paying the schools in the top 2 tiers more (with teams in the topmost tier earning the most), which would incent getting promoted.
At that point, the SEC could also construct 4 tiers of 4 (who play each other HaH + 2 more conference games to fit in rivalries for 8 total conference games) or the B10 could draw in a bunch/all of the SEC schools it wants.
LikeLike
Sadly for the traditionalists like Brian, that also adds impetus to something like a CFB Champions League. Conferences may not cooperate, but a B10 Champions League with promotion/relegation…
All options are on the table, but I’ll give two reasons why I think this is exceedingly unlikely to happen in the next quarter-century.
First: CFB has been imitating the NFL in recent years—precisely what Brian doesn’t like. If past is prologue, you’ll sooner see CFB continue to become gradually more NFL lite, before they institute something radical that no major league in the U.S. does. My crystal ball doesn’t extend out to infinity, but nobody running the sport is saying, “Let’s be more like Europe.”
Second: college sports tends to move in incremental steps. If they ever did something like what you’re suggesting, it would be only after a series of much smaller moves that you haven’t spelled out, each taking years. A lot would need to change gradually, before they’d even be open to discussing that, much less to actually do it.
LikeLike
I also see no evidence that people are looking for a communal experience more in sports than they have previously. Most people don’t watch sports at all. Those who do often follow the local team, so they already have that communal experience of discussing the team at the water cooler. CFB attendance is down, not up, so people are not choosing the in-person communal experience more, probably due to the cost and hassle factor.
TV viewership for sports is down as a percentage of the population, and the audience is aging. Younger fans want highlights, not full games with communal experiences.
As for relegation, I fail to see why anyone in power here would choose to give up that power by allowing relegation. The financial model in the UK makes it possible over there, plus their belief in all teams having a shot at the title. The US has generally moved the other way, breaking into separate divisions. Only the NCAA makes it possible for teams to move up, the pros don’t.
LikeLike
Re: Communal experience:
The highest Super Bowl TV viewership have all been since 2010. Granted, it has dipped in recent years and the country’s population has increased, but while the top TV viewership for the NBA, MLB, and college MBB are all in the past, the NBA has maintained strong viewership.
Likewise, TV viewership numbers for the B10 has gone up over the past decade as it has grown and become stronger.
Basically, like everything else in this economy/world, there has been a winner-take-all bifurcation where the most popular has gone to (or maintained) at the very top while everything else sinks lower.
Re: Pro/rel:
The only alternative scenario I see is that eventually the top football brands in the B10 break off and combine with the top brands in the SEC in a CFB Super League. Mind you, that is NOT something I want to happen, but the top brands will want to capture more of the money so eventually, it’s either break off or pro/rel.
LikeLike
Yes, MORE communal experience!
LikeLike
*The _NFL_ has maintained strong viewership.
LikeLike
” . . . communal experience . . .”? Yeah, I’m feeling groovy now.
LikeLike
A break away seems more likely to me. Relegation would have to be legally forced on the sport.
LikeLike
The only alternative scenario I see is that eventually the top football brands in the B10 break off and combine with the top brands in the SEC in a CFB Super League.
Candidly, I am not sure you’re using the full power of your imagination if this and promotion/relegation are literally the only conceivable scenarios you are able to see.
LikeLike
” . . . the B10 break off and combine with the top brands in the SEC in a CFB Super League. . . .”
I don’t think they’re dumb enough to do something like that. Do you think Bama really wants to play a steady string of Texas, Ohio State, Georgia, USC, Michigan, Oklahoma, etc?
LikeLike
Wow, only four Big Ten teams in the top 25 and Iowa just barely made it. We could claim eight if we include USC, Washington, Oregon and UCLA.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/alabama-drops-out-top-10-georgia-remains-no-1-latest-ap-college-football-rankings
LikeLike
Marc & Colin:
It all depends on how much of the value they generate the kings want to capture and how willing they are to subsidize peons. As we have seen with Texas, OU, and USC (as well as FSU and Clemson trying to get out of the ACC) and before that, Miami leaving the BE, the answer has been: Not much.
Granted, as the B10 will likely lead in payout, it may be the kings in the SEC who face the decision first of whether to (permanently) make less than the B10 or to stop subsidizing peons. And this won’t happen soon; it will be after the ACC collapse around 2036, but, IMO, either pro/rel or a SuperLeague is the end-state. Mind you, I would HATE the idea of the SuperLeague and like pro/rel just slightly better, but I don’t see USC/OU/FSU being willing to subsidize Northwestern and Vandy for ever and ever.
BTW, Colin, yes, currently, really only the 3 kings in the (original 14) B10 are CFP contenders now and in the near future while the princes in the new WC4 are better situated to contend for CFP spots because all the princes in the (original 14) B10 have issues:
MSU needs a new HC
UW-Madison has an OC who’s offense does not play to Bucky’s natural recruiting strengths
Iowa has a very limited offense
UNL is in a (long) rebuilding mode (again)
LikeLike
Promotion/relegation would end the league that tried it.
How could any school facing potential relegation set a budget? A relegation to what? How can players be recruited? Well we are in the B1G for at least two more years. Of course, by the time that you graduate, we might be in some sort of never never land between full P5 or something less.
Good luck with that.
In fact, I can hardly imagine how a league could survive. If it is your plan to get teams to quit the B1G = in other words be forced out – this would do it.
If Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State decide that they want unequal distributions, what league has ever survived with that model? New teams buying in is a very different issue.
Imagine the conversation with Indiana explaining that they will not really be a full member of the B1G – over more than 100 years.
LikeLike
Pro/rel would be _within_ the B10.
But if no pro/rel, then what will happen is that the kings/princes in the B10 and SEC (by that time, the kings in the ACC will have left) will leave to form the Superleague.
Then, for sure, IU could set an annual budget. A permanently lower annual budget.
LikeLike
Yes, within the B1G would destroy the B1G. It makes no sense for any teams other than the top 5 or 6 to consider this. It would totally destroy all of the teams in the bottom quarter.
Say Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Purdue Illinois are always on the edge of being downgraded. How do they budget? How do that recruit? If those questions are irrelevant, the B1G should simply disband. Interestingly there has never been a word from Ohio State, Michigan, etc., showing a desire to do this.
What about the B1G Academic Alliance, which is a very big deal? Should schools that do not contribute to this sufficiently be relegated out of the Alliance? If not, why not?
It would make more sense for the top 8 teams or so to start a new league, and that is not likely to happen for many years or ever.
LikeLike
Bernie: ” . . . Say Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Purdue Illinois are always on the edge of being downgraded. . . .”
Don’t forget Purdue.
LikeLike
The point is to have pro/rel only in CFB in order to keep other structures in the B10 intact.
If you are NU/UIUC/PU/IU/RU/UMD (and maybe UMTC), would you rather that all the kings and princes leave weakening the B10 both athletically and academically or would you prefer to have pro/rel in CFB and keep the B10 intact everywhere else?
As I said else where (I’ll copy and paste):
It all depends on how much of the value they generate the kings want to capture and how willing they are to subsidize peons. As we have seen with Texas, OU, and USC (as well as FSU and Clemson trying to get out of the ACC) and before that, Miami leaving the BE, the answer has been: Not much.
Granted, as the B10 will likely lead in payout, it may be the kings in the SEC who face the decision first of whether to (permanently) make less than the B10 or to stop subsidizing peons. And this won’t happen soon; it will be after the ACC collapse around 2036, but, IMO, either pro/rel or a SuperLeague is the end-state. Mind you, I would HATE the idea of the SuperLeague and like pro/rel just slightly better, but I don’t see USC/OU/FSU being willing to subsidize Northwestern and Vandy for ever and ever.
LikeLike
Richard, this idea of a super-conference is not going to happen. The Buckeyes and Bamas are doing very well right now without straight eight games against Georgia, LSU, Michigan, etc. Ohio State and Michigan have NEVER expressed any interest in unequal revenue distribution. They know a good thing when they have it.
LikeLike
Interestingly there has never been a word from Ohio State, Michigan, etc., showing a desire to do this.
There is always belly-aching and complaining before a radical change. If anything like Richard’s idea were going to happen, you’d hear them grousing about it first, and probably for many years. Since you’ve heard nothing, I’d say this is well outside the Overton Window — so far untenable that no one would even think to say it.
By the way, you are hearing no such thing in the SEC, either.
I suspect the reason is that the kings actually want a schedule where they can pencil in 8+ wins a year as practically automatic. In the 54 years since Michigan hired Bo, they’ve won 8+ in ~85% of seasons. Ohio State is similar over that period. And bear in mind, to OSU and Michigan fans, 8 or 9 wins is a bad year; they want 10+. That’s clearly not gonna happen if most of their schedule is kings vs kings.
Currently, they are very happy to pay equal freight to Northwestern and Rutgers in exchange for the privilege of beating them up all the time, and there’s no indication they want it otherwise.
LikeLike
Northwestern and Rutgers are also the NYC-Chicago that made the media companies so happy with NYC-Chicago-LA. And yes, next weekend, Rutgers goes to Michigan. I am sure that the Wolverines are very much looking forward to the visit and would seriously miss having Rutgers on the schedule.
The naming of Purdue twice was unintentional, but perhaps somewhat of a Freudian slip. If the B1G actually eliminated members (which I do not believe will happen within any foreseeable future), Purdue would have to be vulnerable. With two teams in Indiana, Purdue is not the flagship and absent some unusual years, not an athletic superstar.
After all, Purdue has only been in the B1G for nearly 130 years and is an excellent academic institution. What is mare than a century in a conference to mean? It appears that there are actually people who believe that Ohio State and Michigan would be willing to break those relationships to make an extra few million per year.
I do not believe that university presidents view the B1G in that manner. The B1G prides itself as being an academic conference with high level sports. Not a football league like the SEC. (By the way, the SEC is not kicking out Mississippi State as superfluous nor Vandy as not being good enough and also the number two team in its state).
Of course, I have been wrong before – but not this time.
LikeLike
Bernie: ” . . . With two teams in Indiana, Purdue is not the flagship . . .”
By what metric? Purdue leads the football series 73-42-6, leads the basketball rivalry 125-96, and ranks well ahead of Indiana on any academic ranking that you’d care look at, e. g. Wall St Journal public universities Purdue # 10, Indiana # 26.
You might also note that Purdue was not only a charter member of the Big Ten, it was the founding member. Purdue President James Smart convened a meeting of university presidents at the Palmer Hotel in Chicago in 1896. They were Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and Northwestern. No Indiana.
LikeLike
Bernie, note that as more schools are brought in, USC, UCLA, UO, UW, UNL, and certainly FSU and whoever else (Miami?) wouldn’t have a long relationship with NU/UIUC/IU/PU and nobody in the B10 (besides maybe PSU) does with RU and UMD.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/mailbag-future-schedules-for-the-four-corners-schools-pac-12-bylaws-mw-dissolution-wsu-ratings-and-more/
A Wilner mailbag, where he looks at some OOC scheduling issues and the legal issues in the P12.
I think the UC BoR might force the series to continue, perhaps as part of Calimony, and the OR and WA politicians do so as well.
Some of the departing Pac-12 schools have games scheduled against teams that will soon be conference opponents. Will the newly-created openings for non-conference dates be filled by matchups against former Pac-12 teams? Are certain teams likely to avoid each other in the future? — @DOUGINTUCSON
I’m not sure Cal is eager to schedule UCLA anytime soon, and relations in the Pacific Northwest are a bit rocky. But generally speaking, the Hotline hasn’t detected a level of animosity that would preclude Pac-12 football programs from scheduling home-and-home series with each other.
As we see it, three issues will govern non-conference strategy:
— The impact on College Football Playoff access, which won’t be clear until the selection process is finalized for the CFP contract cycle that begins in the 2026 season.
— The desire to play non-conference road games as close to campus as possible given the long trips so many schools must make within league play.
— The need for a regular presence in California generally, and Southern California specifically, because the state will remain the primary recruiting ground for most schools in the western third of the country.
Washington and Oregon will have conference games in Southern California and face pressure to continue their annual dates with Washington State and Oregon State.
Cal and Stanford could be leery of flight time. As the only members of the ACC’s western wing, they will have massive travel commitments.
In our view, the Four Corners schools carry the greatest amount of schedule intrigue.
The Arizona schools and Utah, in particular, will be eager to play in Los Angeles.
…
There’s no guarantee the Big 12 will decide to turn those matchups into league games; they might remain on the schedule as non-conference matchups, thus limiting Arizona’s ability to schedule the California schools.
Utah’s situation is more complicated — and potentially more advantageous.
The Utes are scheduled to play Baylor next season and Houston in 2026-27, and they have six games against arch-rival BYU — a total of nine dates that could be turned into conference affairs.
Would Utah prefer a few home-and-home series against USC or UCLA, or even San Diego State? Probably. But it’s not that simple. Everyone is wary of schedule overload.
Many high-level football programs follow the A-B-C model in which a balanced non-conference schedule features a Power Five opponent, a Group of Five opponent and an FCS opponent.
The Utes went A-A-C this season with both Florida and Baylor, but that isn’t necessarily optimal.
Given the presence of Arkansas and Wisconsin on the schedule in upcoming years, coach Kyle Whittingham and athletic director Mark Harlan will have to be judicious if the Big 12 schedule creates non-conference flexibility and the California schools have an interest in home-and-home series.
…
It looked like the Pac-12 Network would be a casualty of the conference implosion. But could it be an asset going forward in media rights talks with Apple, CBS Sports and other streamers looking to carry college sports? — @pfnnewmedia
The Pac-12 Networks have the infrastructure to produce all the football games a streaming partner would want and could be an attractive piece of any negotiations.
Of course, that process would depend on WSU and OSU deciding to rebuild the conference, and we are a long way from that point.
Certainly, the legal action is an obstacle. But the conference office has been slow to provide the Cougars and Beavers with the essential financial information — the Pac-12 Networks’ assets and liabilities are part of the calculation — needed to make their decision.
Is the holdup due to murky bookkeeping, a procedural matter, obstinance or incompetence? We cannot say. But the two schools are frustrated.
…
Conferences like the Mountain West and American have early departure fees/fines. Does the Pac-12 have such language in its bylaws? If not, why? Is it smugness, thinking no one would want to leave the “Conference of Champions”? — @cubsfan7331
There are no exit fees or penalties in the bylaws, which could be viewed, as you noted, as another sign of Pac-12 arrogance and mismanagement.
The only financial stipulation calls for departing members to forfeit their media rights revenue from the time of departure to the end of the grant-of-rights contract on Aug. 1, 2024.
But none of the outgoing schools are leaving before the contract term expires, so they won’t forfeit any cash.
Has the upper limit of so-called Cali-mony been set? Or is it possible to go over $10 million? — @JackDorseysmok1
…
The regents can do whatever they want within the framework of their policies and procedures. Since they voted to create the so-called Berkeley tax (or Cal-imony) in the first place, there’s nothing stopping them from raising the ceiling beyond $10 million.
But the Hotline doesn’t expect that outcome. What we expect, rather, is a subsidy in the upper half of the established range.
Do you think Washington State and Oregon State will eventually prevail in their legal dispute? — @TWamsgans
The attorneys are attempting to schedule a preliminary injunction hearing, which is designed to clarify the makeup of the Pac-12 board, for late September or early October.
But the smart money is on a negotiated settlement.
Neither wants discovery.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mailbag-deals-with-hatssunglasses
Canzano mailbag.
Q: If WSU/OSU reverse merges with the Mountain West Conference do you think they take all of the schools or just some of them? — @c_rog6
A: I don’t think the Pac-2 would want all the MWC schools. I’d take San Diego State, Boise State, Fresno State, Colorado State, Air Force and UNLV in time for the 2025 season. That gets the Pac-12 to the NCAA-mandated minimum of eight teams. The NCAA provides a two-year grace period to reach that threshold.
I might also look at the American Athletic Conference and see if there’s anything I liked there. Would you take the University of Texas-San Antonio and Memphis or Tulane? Or maybe you’d stand at eight? You tell me in the comment section. The goal should be to position the Pac-12 as the clear No. 5 football conference. So tell me how you do that.
…
Q: How will the liability of ~$70 million owed to Comcast be dispensed in the dissolution of the Pac-12? — @pdxtrojan
A: The conference told me weeks ago that the Comcast debt would be divided equally among the 12 schools. It works out to ~$5.83 million per school. I’m told the expense will be deducted from the revenues earned in this fiscal year and paid back to Comcast. Nobody is leaving without paying it off.
However, if the 10 departing members get control of the board seats through litigation they could vote to use the conference’s emergency fund (~$40 million) to offset that debt. It’s why the tug-of-war over the assets is so interesting.
…
Q: Has the Chip Kelly idea of separating football conferences from all other sports’ conferences gained any momentum? I think it’s a great idea!!! If not, it’s too bad the university leadership (and media?) don’t care more about the students compared to the athletes. It could save the Pac-12. — Arnie Lowder
A: I think it’s a great idea, too. So do lots of people in college athletics. And I’m told the country’s top athletic directors kicked this exact scenario around last year at an annual meeting. The ADs emerged from that talk convinced that separating football came with too many complications (Title IX among them). One AD told me this week: “After a while we realized it caused more problems than it solved.”
I do think it’s worth revisiting. Particularly, if the players unionize or are paid. I think it’s silly to pretend that football is the same as other sports. It’s just not.
Q: Who should the Pac-2 add first in rebuilding the conference? — Luke Weirup
A: San Diego State. But not until the 2025 football season. I’d try to make it as a conference of two in 2024. The Beavers and Cougars already have three non-conference games scheduled. They could add a home-and-home series vs. each other. That’s five total games for each. Then, I’d turn to the scheduling consultants and have them find another five games. As difficult as that sounds, I’m told it’s plausible.
…
Q: Will any of the presidents of the 10 departing universities show their faces as part of the lawsuit and ‘try’ defending the Pac-12? Or are they too scared to do so because they know the public relations would be terrible? — Joe Clark
A: I don’t think anyone wants discovery. I smell a settlement coming.
LikeLike
It’s possible for WSU and ORSU to put together a 12-game schedule for 2024 as a Pac2 where they play HaH against each other and with UW and UO continuing the Apple Cup and Civil War, especially if some of their future conference mates from the MWC help them out (some of them can go to 13 regular season games due to the Hawaii exemption). If Army joins the AAC in 2024, they would have to cancel a bunch of games and that would open up even more slots.
But they may each have to host 2 or more FCS teams.
LikeLike
Canzano has reported a couple of times that WSU/OSU feel they can assemble a full schedule. I think there’ll be a decent amount of sympathy for their plight, and other teams will be fairly open to scheduling them.
FYI, Rutgers has an opening. Oregon’s non-conference slate is full unless they cancel so0mething. Washington does have an opening where they could play WSU.
The funny thing is, WSU/OSU could play each other H&H in the regular season, and then schedule a CCG where they’d automatically qualify since no one else is in the conference.
LikeLike
Didn’t they also feel the P12 could sign a better TV deal than the B12?
I’m sure they could create schedules, but the bigger question is how much they’d have to pay (in guarantees, fees for breaking contracts, etc.) to do it.
LikeLike
FBS schools may schedule multiple FCS teams, right? You rarely see more than 2 (except for schools who are transitioning from FBC to FCS) but I don’t believe there is a prohibition.
LikeLike
Didn’t they also feel the P12 could sign a better TV deal than the B12?
I imagine expect the backbone of such a schedule would consist of very cooperative Mountain West schools whom they are effectively merging with; not with other schools canceling games they’re contractually committed to. (Surprising to see that Rutgers still does not have a 2024 schedule nailed down. I have not checked the whole country, but I imagine there must be others.)
I have not forgotten all the times Canzano was wrong (or his sources were). I still think the leading contender is that the Pac-2 are absorbed in the MWC, with MWC management running it. If they keep the Pac-12 name, it’ll just be a technicality for legal reasons.
FBS schools may schedule multiple FCS teams, right? You rarely see more than 2 (except for schools who are transitioning from FBC to FCS) but I don’t believe there is a prohibition.
I believe that no more than one FCS game can count towards the six required for bowl eligibility. So you’re really throwing away a game if you play more than one of them.
LikeLike
The NCAA requires FBS’ schools to play a minimum of 5 home games at least 4 of which have to be against other FBS schools. So while there is no prohibition against playing 2+ FCS teams (that I know of at least) it does make it very difficult to reach the 4 FBS home game requirement.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info, Frug.
Assuming WSU and ORSU play a HaH every year:
In 2024:
WSU has SJSU at home and will have ORSU at home. If UW continues the Apple Cup (as they said they’re willing to), they also get UW at home. So WSU would need 1 willing MWC team to travel to Pullman.
ORSU faces the exact same situation (need 1 willing MWC team to travel Corvallis) except they host PU in 2024 and UO currently has a completely full schedule even with the Hawaii exemption, but if Boise is willing to move their visit to UO from 2024 to 2030, that both allows UO@ORSU and Boise@WSU (ORSU already @Boise in 2024).
Marc: I know the bowl eligibility rules but that’s probably down the list of concerns for WSU and ORSU right now. Still, so long as WSU & ORSU get 4 FBS home games, they can play 2 FCS home games and fill out the rest of their schedule with away games (or play even more FCS schools at home). Several MWC schools have the Hawaii exemption that they haven’t taken advantage of yet and and may not mind an extra home game especially as it means helping out a future conference mate.
LikeLike
I know the bowl eligibility rules but that’s probably down the list of concerns for WSU and ORSU right now.
It’s probably more important than you think. How do they recruit and keep their kids out of the transfer portal if they put together a garbage schedule that kneecaps their bowl eligibility before they have even played a down? What value do they get out of that?
Still, so long as WSU & ORSU get 4 FBS home games, they can play 2 FCS home games and fill out the rest of their schedule with away games (or play even more FCS schools at home).
The problem selling a media deal. Even in the old Pac-12, these two were pretty close to the bottom of the barrel in media value. We’re talking about a 2-team conference where the CCG participants are known before the season even begins, and they’re loading up their home dates with FCS opponents. What is the media value of that? They might as well just reverse-merge with the MWC and get it over with.
LikeLike
Marc:
Well, I don’t believe they can reverse-merge with the MWC by 2024 because of the onerous MWC exit fees. Though in theory, the MWC could dissolve itself, but I doubt they can pull that off by 2024. And if they don’t reverse merge with the MWC until 2026, the Pac2 can keep 2 years worth of Pac Big Dance and CFP distributions to itself as I don’t think there’s a mechanism for kicking out a recipient P5 conference from the CFP contract even if they are down to 2 members.
LikeLike
Well, I don’t believe they can reverse-merge with the MWC by 2024 because of the onerous MWC exit fees. Though in theory, the MWC could dissolve itself, but I doubt they can pull that off by 2024.
I don’t see why not. Exit fees apply if individual members leave. If the whole conference dissolves to join the PAC, the exit fee doesn’t apply—or, if it does, they can vote unanimously to waive it.
The MWC would gladly take this deal, as their new conference is simply their old one with two former P5 teams. It’s run by MWC leadership but legally the PAC’s successor, so that it can retain the PAC’s NCAA tournament credits and assets. The MWC schools would of course agree to let WSU and OrSU retain any value the PAC had accrued, which the MWC was never going to have anyway.
Since WSU and OrSU are better properties than the average MWC teams, I suspect TV would happily pay at least pro rata for the two new schools, maybe even a bit more. Can WSU and OrSU can do better than that in a “conference of two”? I doubt it.
So they all gather, and within a few minutes:
1. The MWC votes to cancel their exit fee and dissolve.
2. The PAC-2 votes to welcome the MWC and install the MWC commissioner.
3. They sign their new TV deal, which is identical to the MWC’s old TV deal plus whatever is the kicker for WSU and OrSU.
You think they could not get that done by 6/30/2024?
LikeLike
Marc, we’ll see but yes, I don’t think the reverse-merger with the MWC will take place by 2024.
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal . . .
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/pac-12-college-deion-sanders-colorado-b29fb722?st=6b1ss7b9pw3z1sj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
I don’t think the reverse-merger with the MWC will take place by 2024.
I’ve no idea if it will happen, but the reason you stated—exit fees—won’t get in the way because they can easily be waived.
LikeLike
Richard, ORSU and WSU are finished. Mousemeat. Done. Losers. G5 fodder, Of no interest to any conference with any credibility.
LikeLike
They are of interest to the Mountain West. This is the first I am hearing that the Mountain West doesn’t have any credibility.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Pac-2 would want all the MWC schools. I’d take San Diego State, Boise State, Fresno State, Colorado State, Air Force and UNLV in time for the 2025 season
I mean that sounds great in the abstract, but part of the reason for a reverse merger is to get around exit fees (which no MWC school is going to pay), so unless WSU and OSU can convince enough MWC schools to vote to dissolve the league, wouldn’t the PAC-2 have to take everybody?
LikeLike
I agree…here Canzano lapses into catnip for the irrational fan. We don’t have the MWC bylaws, but I would guess that 3/4ths need to agree to disband the league, which they’d only do if they were all joining the new entity, the Pac-whatever.
LikeLike
Right, a bunch of MWC schools will have to come on board, even if it’s not everyone. The more I read Canzano and Wilner, the less I respect their analysis.
LikeLike
The more I read Canzano and Wilner, the less I respect their analysis.
The one thing they’ve got that we haven’t got, is senior sources within the Pac-12 schools. They have both said, basically, that if a Pac-12 president or AD says something, it’s news by virtue of who they are, even if it’s later proven wrong. But it can create the appearance that they are getting played by their sources.
For me, it’s worthwhile simply to know how wrong the Pac-12 sources were, which we know because Canzano and Wilner were parroting what they said. OTOH, when C&W are just providing “analysis,” I don’t think they are any better at it than most of the folks who regularly post at FTT.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/pac-12-chaos-court-documents-show-washington-oregon-expected-to-be-removed-from-key-board-discussions/
Wilner got some letters between P12 schools and the P12 from the court documents.
Executives from Washington and Oregon acknowledged in writing that they would be excluded from decisions related to the future of the Pac-12 — a potentially critical piece of evidence as Washington State and Oregon State, the only remaining schools, wage a legal battle for control of the conference.
The letters were written by Washington president Ana Mari Cauce and Oregon vice president Kevin S. Reed to Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff. They are dated Aug. 4, the day the Huskies and Ducks agreed to join the Big Ten, and were obtained by the Hotline this week from Whitman County (Wash.) Superior Court.
Except for the first six words, the letters are identical. (Cauce’s version is below.) They begin by explaining that the Pacific Northwest powers would not sign “a grant of media rights authorization” — the move that sent five other schools fleeing to other leagues and triggered the Pac-12’s collapse.
The letters then state that Washington and Oregon expected “to remain an active and participating member in the Conference until” next summer. But both Cauce and Reed, who doubles as Oregon’s general counsel, seemingly acknowledged that they were relinquishing their board authority on long-term strategic matters:
“I understand that the University will be excluded from Conference discussions pertaining to matters occurring after August 1, 2024, such as media rights agreements and new Conference member considerations.”
…
While it seems simple enough for the outbound members to participate in discussions about issues impacting the conference during the 2023-24 sports season but not matters affecting the future, there’s a hitch: The present and future are inseparable from a monetary standpoint as WSU and OSU consider whether to rebuild the conference.
“Every dollar spent now is one dollar less that would be available to Washington State and Oregon State,” a source said.
…
The central question: What constitutes delivery of notice of withdrawal from the conference, which triggers immediate removal from the board of directors?
Cauce and Reed took care in their Aug. 4 letters to state: “For the sake of clarity, the University is not delivering a notice of withdrawal from the Conference at this time in contravention of Chapter 2, Section 3 of the Conference bylaws.”
But the Cougars and Beavers believe the 10 outgoing schools delivered notice with their public announcements of plans to join other leagues. One day after Cauce stated her letter was not a notice of withdrawal, she held a news conference with reporters to discuss the move to the Big Ten.
…
However, Kliavkoff’s position seems to contradict the Pac-12’s official stance, which was initially established 14 months ago following USC and UCLA announcing that they would join the Big Ten.
On July 14, 2022, then-Pac-12 general counsel Maggy Carlyle wrote to UCLA attorney Bobby Swerdlow that the conference expected UCLA representatives to serve on committees focused on student-athlete well being “and other matters that do not create an inherent conflict of interest.”
But Carlyle’s letter continued:
“On the other hand, it is clear that UCLA’s participation in certain meetings and committees will create a material conflict of interest and it will therefore be inappropriate for UCLA to participate. For instance, the Pac-12 recently publicly announced that we would be exploring membership expansion options and that we would immediately begin negotiations for our next media rights agreements.
“The July 1st and 5th Board meetings alluded to in your letter addressed those specific issues. It would have been a direct conflict and contrary to the best interests of the Pac-12 membership as a whole, to allow UCLA to participate in these discussions or have a vote on such topics, as information discussed and votes which occurred at such meetings was directly related to competing with the Big Ten, and could be used by UCLA, the Big Ten or any third party affiliated with the Big Ten, to the Pac-12’s detriment.”
That same day, July 14, Carlyle wrote an identical letter to USC’s senior vice president and general counsel, Beong-Soo Kim.
The schools’ attorneys took issue with the notion that they had delivered notice of withdrawal. But neither UCLA chancellor Gene Block or USC president Carol Folt participated in Pac-12 board meetings from that point forward.
Colorado became the third school to depart, on July 27, 2023, as chancellor Phil DiStefano sent Kliavkoff the following text message, according to court documents:
“Our Board will vote this afternoon at 3:00 to join the Big 12 Conference. It was not an easy decision and I realize its impact on the other members. If there is a time you are available today, I am happy to call you. Phil.”
DiStefano was subsequently removed from the Pac-12 board, per a letter from Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer to Colorado’s senior counsel, Katie Gleeson:
“Under Section CB 2-3 of the Pac-12’s Constitution and Bylaws, Chancellor DiStefano and CU’s representation on the Pac-12’s Board of Directors automatically ceases effective immediately, and CU no longer has the right to vote on any matter before the Board.”
Now, just two schools remain. The Cougars and Beavers are mulling whether to rebuild the Pac-12 — a decision that hinges, to a large extent, on the assets available in the Pac-12. The board controls the assets, but which schools control the board? All 12, or just the remaining two?
…
Letter from Washington president Ana Mari Cauce to Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff on Aug. 4:
Dear George,
The University of Washington will not be delivering a grant of media rights authorization to the Conference for any time beyond August 1, 2024. For the sake of clarity, the University is not delivering a notice of withdrawal from the Conference at this time in contravention of Chapter 2, Section 3 of the Conference bylaws. The University shall comply with all obligations, and expects to continue receiving the benefits, related to being a member of the Conference through August 1, 2024. While the University expects to remain an active and participating member in the Conference until that time, I understand that the University will be excluded from Conference discussions pertaining to matters occurring after August 1, 2024, such as media rights agreements and new Conference member considerations.
It seems fairly clear – the departing schools should have a say on things only impacting this year (daily operations, etc.) and should get an equal share of revenue this year. The remaining 2 have the say on everything beyond that. You’d like to think they can be reasonable adults about this, but clearly not.
LikeLike
Brian: “You’d like to think they can be reasonable adults about this, but clearly not.”
Why should WSU and OSU be reasonable adults? After all of this abandonment and betrayal, I’d be in the Scorched Earth, Take No Prisoners mode.
LikeLike
It seems fairly clear – the departing schools should have a say on things only impacting this year (daily operations, etc.) and should get an equal share of revenue this year. The remaining 2 have the say on everything beyond that.
As usual, the Pac-12 has responded with a sphynx-like silence. So if there is a plausible argument contrary to what you’ve said, they aren’t sharing it with us.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2023/09/18/michigan-state-fire-mel-tucker-sexual-harassment-investigation/70894957007/
Mel Tucker is officially fired for cause.
The school released a statement Monday announcing that it intends to terminate Tucker’s contract.
“I, with the support of the administration and board, have provided Mel Tucker with written notice of intent to terminate his contract for cause,” Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller said. “This notification process is required as part of his existing contract. The notice provides Tucker with seven calendar days to respond and present reasons to me and the interim president as to why he should not be terminated for cause.
“This action does not conclude the ongoing Office for Civil Rights case; that rigorous process will continue.”
…
Haller notified Tucker of the university’s intentions, required as part of his contract, in a letter dated on Monday. The letter indicates the university intends to fire Tucker for cause, for violating a provision of his contact that allows them to do so, without paying the remainder of his salary.
The specific section of the contract says the university can fire him if he “engages in any conduct with constitutes moral turpitude of which, in the University’s reasonable judgement, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt, or ridicule upon the University,” according to the letter.
“At this point, the University has amassed a body of undisputed evidence of misconduct that warrants termination for cause,” Haller wrote.
He added that Tucker’s behavior, even if the investigation doesn’t find that he committed sexual harassment, would have breached his obligation to conduct himself professionally and ethically.
LikeLike
I thought MSU might wait until after the Title IX hearing in October. However, this was always going to be the outcome, because Tucker has already admitted to more than enough to be fired for cause. Heck, I would probably be fired from my job for the identical behavior—and unlike Tucker, I don’t represent my employer publicly.
I do believe the Title IX hearing will be resolved against him, as there are a lot of inconsistencies in his story. But as the AD made clear, they have more than enough justification to remove him for cause even if he is found innocent of the harassment charge.
It just might be the most expensive phone sex call ever: about $80 million worth.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38439040/mel-tucker-says-other-motives-play-michigan-state-decision
Tucker fights back by asking for medical leave for a serious health condition in the days between being suspended and getting notice of termination. He also hinted at plans to sue for the money (of course).
Tucker said MSU ignored his request for a medical leave, with the notification of his firing coming soon after that request.
“MSU sent its notice of intent to terminate just days after I emailed [Michigan State athletic director] Alan Haller requesting a medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act for a serious health condition,” Tucker said in the statement. “I can only conclude that MSU does not care about my rights, the truth, or its future liability for policing its employees’ private lives.”
So he conveniently became too ill to coach just as this all came out? Or is he claiming mental health problems caused by the scandal itself?
LikeLike
Well, I had to guffaw at that. Nine days ago, he was planning to coach his team vs. Washington, and then only after he’s suspended requests leave for a previously unclaimed serious health condition. But yeah, he will sue and will get something.
LikeLike
This is exactly what I surmised was happening when I wrote that none of the 4 new B1G schools would come near this mess. Similarly, Colorado was much too public and noisy about leaving.
That leaves the three corners. Why would any of them take a chance and push this to the end? Say, AZ, decides the fight against WSU and OSU is worth pursuing. The two schools should then seek an injunction prohibiting AZ from leaving the PAC for an extra year. The argument would be that AZ is taking factually contradictory positions – they are leaving, but they are not. Legally contradictory are OK, but not factually.
Would WSU and OSU win on that argument? Not likely, but not totally impossible based on a lot a documents, emails, etc. that none of us have seen, or ever will. Even if there is a 5% chance of losing, would AZ be messing up its entry to the Big 12 for a year? Probably not, but I am familiar with much crazier ideas being accepted. (How about one million for being dumb enough to drive with a hot cup of McDonald’s coffee between your knees?) Would AZ or the other two take that chance?
As far as the forum shopping and home court advantage, someone said in response to that the WA state judge would not ignore the law. I do not know how that could happen as this might be a case of first impression, where schools that are leaving want the conference to help pay for their movement. In addition, despite my total lack of documents, I think that the two remaining schools have a great equitable argument and a very good legal argument.
Obviously, there are details such as which income streams or debts stay or go, but again, close questions will be held in favor of the “home team”. Which is very normal and the entire basis for forum shopping.
Back to Kliavkoff. He is taking a public position, contrary to that of PAC legal counsel, which happens to be detrimental to the two schools that may control the board. He is not being neutral. I would try to fire him for breach of something in his contract, then settle rather than pay him two more years. He has been such a bad commissioner, I think that he owes a refund to the league from prior salary.
LikeLike
I believe Kliavkoff makes $3.5m per year for the next two years. The guy literally was hired to do one thing and couldn’t have done it worse. I am sure that if there is any imaginable basis to fire him for cause, the two remaining schools will move mountains to find it.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Week 3 ratings. Pretty blah outside of CU-CSU. The SEC won the week outside of CU.
CU-CSU @10pm ESPN – 9.30M
UGA-SC @3:30 CBS – 5.42M
UTN-UF @7:00 ESPN – 5.30M
AL-USF @3:30 ABC – 4.84M
FSU-BC @12 ABC – 3.48M
B10:
12 Fox: PSU-IL 3.22M
4 Fox: OSU-WKU 2.82M
7:30 NBC: PU-SU 1.25M
3:30 ESPN: MN-UNC 1.58M (ACC-owned game)
7:30 BTN: UM-BGSU 1.32M
F 7:00 FS1: UMD-UVA 776k
But Week 4 features 7 ranked matchups, led by OSU@ND:
12:00
ABC – 3. FSU vs 23. Clemson
3:30
ABC – 11. UO vs 19. CU
Fox – 10. UU vs 25. UCLA
CBS – 12. AL vs 16. MsSU
7:00/7:30
Fox – 15. OrSU vs 24. WSU
NBC – 4. OSU vs 9. ND
CBS – 7. PSU vs 22. IA
LikeLike
2 random points.
1. CU-CSU was the highest rated ever 10 PM ET CFB game is ESPN history and the fifth highest rated for any time slot on the network.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38439185/csu-colorado-draws-late-night-record-93m-viewers-espn
2. Saturday’s OSU-WSU will be the teams’ 97th ever meeting, but the first when both teams are ranked
LikeLike
https://www.ralphiereport.com/2023/9/19/23880579/colorado-colorado-state-sets-viewership-records
More on the CU vs CSU ratings:
The only top market for the game from the west was Denver. All the rest were in the south and southeast, with 2 in OH (Columbus, Dayton). The article lists the top 5, but I heard a longer list on the radio. Phoenix and Sacramento were the only other western markets in the top 20 for the game. Only 14% of the viewers were in the Pacific time zone. This lack of western interest is what killed the P12.
Also:
* CU vs USC is Fox’s noon game next week. Supposedly USC and UCLA were told that won’t happen to them in the B10, but Fox isn’t as nice to them in the P12.
LikeLike
NBC drew the short straw once again, though it was a self-inflicted wound as they put their best game on Peacock, for which ratings aren’t disclosed.
The CU-CSU numbers are stunning. It would have won any timeslot in most weeks, and it was on at 10pm ET. I was one of those watching it, by the way. It was a fantastic finish if you rode it out to the end, but the middle two quarters were not very good. I assume a lot of people gave up on it before the end.
LikeLike
Well, Marc, as I said, Comcast seems determined to put their top 2.5 pick on Peacock which leaves their trash pick for NBC several times a year. Maybe it makes financial sense for them?
And I agree. I can not recall a new CFB coach that has drawn TV viewership like Prime. Or any new coach in any sport. He’s like Money Mayweather at getting people to watch fights (I mean games).
Though note that 7/8PM are primetime in the WC and mountain timezones and not extremely late for central either. Most viewers in those 3 timezones likely stayed until the end.
LikeLike
This is always the challenge when you launch a new product. You often have to lose money at first. We don’t know, and may never know, how much money NBC has budgeted to throw away by putting games on Peacock. If their projections don’t come through, when do they wave the white flag?
I believe Washington @MSU is the only confirmed “good game” on Peacock, though there are rumors of others. We shall see if they go through with it. I don’t mind bad games like Delaware @PSU, though as I said upthread I would prefer it had never existed at all. For this, we have Kevin Warren to thank.
LikeLike
I wonder how much the upset potential factored into keeping the viewership high. CU should’ve blown CSU out based on their hype, and if they had I suspect many viewers in the east would’ve tuned out. As it was, many CU anti-fans probably stuck around hoping to watch CU lose (same with AL vs USF, FSU vs BC, etc.).
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/xfl/2023/09/19/xfl-usfl-discussing-merger/70899491007/
Realignment may be coming to pro football, too. The USFL and XFL are discussing a merger before next spring. The government would need to okay it, but I think it will pass since both are tiny compared to the NFL.
The XFL and USFL are exploring a potential merger, according to multiple news outlets.
Axios first reported the news Tuesday, describing the two spring football leagues as being in “advanced talks” to merge their operations. The outlet added that the merger would require regulatory approval and the leagues hope to finalize the deal ahead of the 2024 season.
LikeLike
In a story that will set Richard’s pulse racing, Yahoo’s Ross Dellinger reports that the Pac-2 and MWC are considering a promotion-relegation system for football (and maybe for basketball too).
How would that work? Combined, the two leagues have 14 members. Add North Dakota State and South Dakota State to reach 16. Then split into two sub-leagues: the Pacific division (the Pac-two plus 6 MWC teams) and the Mountain Division (the rest of the MWC plus the Dakota schools).
Every year, the two best Mountain teams step up to the Pac, and vice versa. The rub is that the Pac teams make a lot more money. This, of course, raises the problem that Bernie mentioned — your budget gets cut by $5 million because a teenage kicker missed an extra point in overtime.
This is merely an idea they’re discussing, and it might not happen. It strikes me as the kind of wacky idea that a failed league would try, to make their product more relevant. Far more plausible than blowing up the Big Ten or the SEC, which are working fantastically the way they are. If it works, then maybe other leagues would take a sniff. If it fails, you’d add it to the ranks of dumb ideas that the Pac has produced with astonishing frequency.
LikeLike
While I think that the relegation model would destroy and league that tried it, the PAC – MWC might have nothing to lose. The MWC conference teams get well less than $10 million per team average, so they are budgeted for that level.
Not much to lose by trying something that would destroy any other P5 conference.
I have heard of at least one unnamed G5 conference coach who supports this. Sure he would love to have his G5 league hook up with a P5 and have a shot at winning the lottery and moving up. Why not? Which P5 team could live with moving down?
Seems a lot like Mike Aresco claiming that the AAC should be treated like a P5. Maybe it was not a coach. Maybe Aresco was the source of the comment.
LikeLike
The basic problem is that I fail to see how it is solving more problems than it creates.
Pros:
* Better teams playing each other more enhances the TV package
* A team that sweeps that conference schedule has better odds of making the expanded CFP
Cons:
* You added 2 I-AA schools from small states, lowering the average value
* Nobody outside the fan base can keep track of who is in which division
* Schools have changing budgets, making long-term planning difficult
* Better teams playing each other more spreads more losses among them
* Worse teams playing each other more lowers the value of that part of the inventory
* Half the teams can’t compete for a title even if they have a great year
* The NCAA and CFP may not acknowledge them as separate conferences
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just use parity-based scheduling, with the top teams playing each other more often? Maybe add in some flex games at the end of the year. They could still have a sliding scale of revenue payout if they want to reward performance.
LikeLike
OK, it’s clear that I’m dealing with a bunch of folks who have never seen pro/rel in action in their life.
Brian, you left out another pro:
Virtually every game (that counts towards pro/rel) matters and all teams are incented to win. Granted, this is not as big a deal in CFB as over half the teams go to a bowl so teams have that to aim for, but in European pro leagues, almost every team has a big reason to battle every game from the start as for almost the entire season, teams are either trying to win the title/qualify for European competition(/money) or stay out of relegation. As opposed to American pro sports where teams in the lower third/quarter are just playing out the string (and actually are incented to lose as much as possible to get good draft picks) and really, there’s not a huge incentive to win the regular season.
As for some of your other points:
–WY has a much smaller population than ND or SD and supports a MWC team.
–Not many people are paying attention to the MWC right now anyway.
–For a smaller club in European soccer, finishing high enough to get promoted to the top-level division is as big a deal as winning the top-most league is for a big club. Speaking personally, in the new B10, there is roughly 0.0% chance that NU will ever win the B10 again, while we certainly could aspire to get in to the top tier.
–Worse teams would have more wins, making their fanbase happier.
–Top brand names will face more top brand names, which many fans want.
–Budgets would be affected, though note that differential payouts are really no different from the ACC incentive payouts, except to a different number of schools. And like the English Premiership, payouts could gradually decrease for a school that drops down. For example, say a school that is always in the top division gets $7mm/year and a school always in the bottom division gets $5mm/year/ Then the first year a school that drop to the second division, they still get $7mm/year. If they stay down a second year, they get $6mm/year. Third year they stay down in the lower division, they’re at $5mm/year.
BTW, I agree that pro/rel doesn’t make much sense for MBB.
LikeLike
So when people disagree with your plan it because they just do not understand how it works. Arrogant much?
LikeLike
Yeah, I had the same reaction. When someone disagrees with you, you decide they must not have understood it — as opposed the much more likely case. They understood and just do not agree.
LikeLike
Richard,
Brian, you left out another pro:
Virtually every game (that counts towards pro/rel) matters and all teams are incented to win. Granted, this is not as big a deal in CFB as over half the teams go to a bowl so teams have that to aim for, but in European pro leagues, almost every team has a big reason to battle every game from the start as for almost the entire season, teams are either trying to win the title/qualify for European competition(/money) or stay out of relegation. As opposed to American pro sports where teams in the lower third/quarter are just playing out the string (and actually are incented to lose as much as possible to get good draft picks) and really, there’s not a huge incentive to win the regular season.
That’s fair. A November RU vs IL (just an example) game might have more meaning to their fans if relegation was on the line. I’m not convinced other B10 fans or neutral fans would care. For that, you’d need a king (the equivalent of an EPL club like Everton which has never been relegated) having a terrible season (like fans tuning in to watch AL or ND or OSU lose in an upset). That does happen on occasion, but not often. OSU last finished in the bottom 2 of the B10 in 1959, for example.
You also pointed out how it is not much of a pro for CFB, so I didn’t leave out a major advantage. I wasn’t discussing pro/rel overall, just this specific instance of it, so professional sports are irrelevant here.
As for some of your other points:
–WY has a much smaller population than ND or SD and supports a MWC team.
–Not many people are paying attention to the MWC right now anyway.
–For a smaller club in European soccer, finishing high enough to get promoted to the top-level division is as big a deal as winning the top-most league is for a big club. Speaking personally, in the new B10, there is roughly 0.0% chance that NU will ever win the B10 again, while we certainly could aspire to get in to the top tier.
–Worse teams would have more wins, making their fanbase happier.
–Top brand names will face more top brand names, which many fans want.
–Budgets would be affected, though note that differential payouts are really no different from the ACC incentive payouts, except to a different number of schools. And like the English Premiership, payouts could gradually decrease for a school that drops down. For example, say a school that is always in the top division gets $7mm/year and a school always in the bottom division gets $5mm/year/ Then the first year a school that drop to the second division, they still get $7mm/year. If they stay down a second year, they get $6mm/year. Third year they stay down in the lower division, they’re at $5mm/year.
* I didn’t say ND and SD couldn’t support a team, I said they’d lower the average value. Do you have any evidence that is untrue?
* Low viewership currently doesn’t mean it can’t get worse, but of course the risk is less for them than a power conference.
* NW still leads PSU (and IU, NE, UMD, RU, USC, UCLA, UW, UO) in B10 titles. Granted only 3 have come after 1936 (1995, 1996, 2000), but that’s still better than PSU over that period. I agree it may not happen again. Every team can at least aspire to be 10th in the B10, I just don’t know how energizing that would actually be for fans. It would mean a lot of years with weak schedules (not playing OSU, UM, etc. nearly as often) – PU, IN, RU, UMD, MN and IL every year. And if you move up, suddenly it’s OSU, UM, PSU, USC, UW, UO, WI, MSU and IL with a high likelihood of dropping back down. Do fans want that? I don’t know. NW’s AD probably doesn’t.
* More wins is better of course, but being in a lower caste isn’t. That might cancel out, especially when the money is less as well (which impacts all the sports). Winning in JV is not the same as playing in varsity.
* Some fans always want big games, but teams can’t sustain that. OSU fans would not enjoy returning to 9-3 seasons, let alone 7-5. The coaches would hate it for the job risk and the injuries to players. Teams would be worn out before the CFP even starts. Meanwhile the SEC would do the opposite and schedule as many cupcakes as possible so their top teams can breeze to CFP titles.
* Differential payouts are very different from an incentive plan. ACC teams can plan for the base payout and then the rest is a bonus. This pro/rel would mean the base amount being cut, so AD’s would have to plan for capital improvements and coaching salaries assuming the lower number. That hurts them in comparison to other schools.
* I’m missing the part where TV says there will be significantly more money available for them if they implement this plan. The B10 dropped parity-based scheduling because it didn’t pay more and teams like NE complained about playing OSU annually. The B10’s new schedule is all about trying to balance SOS to be fair, because unbalanced didn’t pay more. The SEC stayed at 8 games because TV wouldn’t pay more. Is anyone looking to throw millions at the MWC for some slightly better games?
LikeLike
And if you move up, suddenly it’s OSU, UM, PSU, USC, UW, UO, WI, MSU and IL with a high likelihood of dropping back down.
An important point I had not thought about. The kings and princes have structural advantages that almost never go away. That’s why, when USC had a string of bad years, you knew it wouldn’t last. Pro teams can buy players, which means you can purchase your way to excellence. Purdue can’t buy its way into the upper half, so after a year of king/prince games they’d drop right back down again.
Differential payouts are very different from an incentive plan. ACC teams can plan for the base payout and then the rest is a bonus.
Crucially, the ACC is not re-cutting the pie for money they already get. They’re proposing a split of new money coming in from the CFP and the newbies who are accepting lower distributions. No school will take a pay cut.
The B10 dropped parity-based scheduling because it didn’t pay more and teams like NE complained about playing OSU annually.
I didn’t like parity scheduling, but I am pretty sure they never even tried to get more money for it. It’s possible that NBC would pay more if they knew they’d never again be stuck with a turkey like Purdue–Syracuse or Charlotte–Maryland.
LikeLike
Marc: “It’s possible that NBC would pay more if they knew they’d never again be stuck with a turkey like Purdue–Syracuse or Charlotte–Maryland.”
That should have happened with the new TV contracts that kick in for 2024. The Big Ten should be scheduling a few conference games in September so that those types of match-ups will get buried on the BTN.
FYI, Prudue probably has the toughest OOC schedule in the conference for the next five years:
2024 – ND and Oregon St
2025 – UConn and ND
2026 – ND and Wake
2027 – UNC and ND
2028 – ND and Wake
LikeLike
Someone who thinks that fans of teams subject to relegation would find those situations interesting has zero knowledge of those fans (or zero interest in how they feel). Richard you must be an OSU, Michigan, or PSU fan – or have no rooting interest. Fans of schools with that risk would hate it.
Perhaps my last comment did not post, but it is really arrogant to think that all that who disagree with you do so since they do not understand the concepts involved.
Trust me the fans of Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, Maryland (after their QB graduates this year). and others. would understand and hate the entire thought with a burning passion. I cannot imagine a majority of the B1G, SEC, ACC, or Big 12 teams would ever vote to agree to this concept.
And if by some miracle such a “knockout” game were interesting, for the that team lost and was relegated, attendance would collapse for the next year and any good player with chance to bail out would transfer. Period. A year or two of that and relegation is permanent. Attendance and viewership interest would be totally gone, since there is not real way back after the loss of revenue (and top coaches) and players.
As others have said, Illinois, etc., cannot simply hire a top striker, goalie, and a couple of wings and then rise like a Phoenix. (OK mixture of soccer and football, so?) Yes, NIL is there, but could Illinois, etc., outbid other teams for those players?
I cannot imagine a favorable response toward the idea from any school in a major conference with even a small chance of relegation.
As to the B1G in particular, it is often stated the B1G is special because it is an academic conference with sports. As FtheT frequently said, think like a school president – not like a fan of top ranked football school. Would the presidents of say Ohio State or UM want to substantially destroy 100 year plus relationships with other schools, such as Northwestern, Purdue, or Indiana, etc.?
If so, then simply dissolve the conference and the rightly vaunted B1G Academic Alliance. I have never been an academic, or university president, (just a poor old country lawyer), but I really believe that in the B1G those academic relationships are very important. I know that, at least at Rutgers, the academic part of the conference is viewed as extremely valuable.
In fact, there was group of RU professors who objected to sports and constantly argued that Rutgers should have joined the Ivy League many years ago, when that option was apparently discussed. It would have been similar to Cornell, part private, part state school. With the B1G Academic Alliance, that group has disappeared. If no Ivy, then stay with the schedule including, Lehigh, Lafayette, some Ivies, etc.
As a total aside, would networks give six year contracts for billions of dollars without certainty as to the makeup of the league? The networks were very clear that B1G was special because it went from NYC to Chicago to LA. How would relegation work, if they are not sure about Chicago or NYC? If you believe that NYC and Chicago are no longer important, please refer your comments to the networks paying billions of dollars in part due to the nationwide league, with all of the top markets in the footprint.
If the SEC wants Vanderbilt out, then change the league and throw out the top academic school in the SEC. Vandy would be permanently relegated and essentially no longer part of the SEC anyway. After all Vandy was only a founding member and has been in the SEC since 1932. No big deal to drop them.
For the PAC 2 and some G5 conferences this might work, since the P5s make very little money and have no academic ties to each other. Maybe they have little or nothing to lose. Their TV contracts cannot get much worse that $7 million or less per year per team. The PAC 2 teams are grasping for any piece of driftwood in an ocean of problems.
LikeLike
That should have happened with the new TV contracts that kick in for 2024. The Big Ten should be scheduling a few conference games in September so that those types of match-ups will get buried on the BTN.
Most non-conference match-ups are planned years in advance. When the TV deal was announced, it was too late to upend all of them. What you’re suggesting could be a strategy longer-term.
LikeLike
Marc,
I didn’t like parity scheduling, but I am pretty sure they never even tried to get more money for it. It’s possible that NBC would pay more if they knew they’d never again be stuck with a turkey like Purdue–Syracuse or Charlotte–Maryland.
I didn’t like it either, but the goal was to have more big games and get more TV money in the new TV deal. But then they dropped it. If TV was willing to pay a lot more for it, it wouldn’t have disappeared and been replaced with an even more balanced scheduled than divisions offered. They dropped OSU vs PSU rather than chasing more big games, which tells me Fox and friends didn’t care enough to pay more for it. They think there will be enough big games as is, apparently.
NBC stuck themselves with those games. Once all 18 teams are playing, it will be less of an issue anyway. 2023 is an odd year with CBS only partially in and only 14 teams.
LikeLike
Bernie, I’m a Northwestern fan. I only skimmed over the rest of your loooong post because you make a bunch of assumptions that I don’t think is worth responding to.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
Someone who thinks that fans of teams subject to relegation would find those situations interesting has zero knowledge of those fans (or zero interest in how they feel). Richard you must be an OSU, Michigan, or PSU fan – or have no rooting interest. Fans of schools with that risk would hate it.
Richard is a NW alumni IIRC. Maybe he views it as there is no risk if your team is always expected to be in the lower tier.
The kings wouldn’t want to face the risk, small as it may be, because the reward isn’t big enough. Losing a game is bad enough, but being publicly put into a lower tier? Fans would go nuts. The real problem would be the princes, who would face the greatest risk of yo-yoing back and forth. It’s hard to recruit as a lower-tier team, and players would leave through the portal if their team got relegated. This would basically force coaches to follow the CU plan and cut their whole team and bring in 80 transfers after being promoted, and then bring in 80 more after getting relegated because all the good players left. I don’t want to incentivize that.
As a total aside, would networks give six year contracts for billions of dollars without certainty as to the makeup of the league? The networks were very clear that B1G was special because it went from NYC to Chicago to LA. How would relegation work, if they are not sure about Chicago or NYC? If you believe that NYC and Chicago are no longer important, please refer your comments to the networks paying billions of dollars in part due to the nationwide league, with all of the top markets in the footprint.
This is a big point. Richard just noted how OSU and UM have 3 times as many fans on reddit as the typical P2 school. What happens to a TV deal when RichRod gets UM relegated, or Luke Fickell get OSU relegated, or Clay Helton gets USC relegated? TV ratings plummet, and the next TV deal is much smaller.
As I said, I could see using 2 tiers for parity-based scheduling and you could shift teams between tiers every 2 years (like pro/rel) without publicly labeling schools as second tier. I’m not in favor of that for the B10, but maybe it would suit the Pac-2/MWC.
LikeLike
Richard, of course the balance of my response is not worthy of mention because I foolishly thought that you were a fan of a top school.
Clear evidence that I do not understand your position and therefore any commentary is inherently irrelevant.
LikeLike
https://frontofficesports.com/first-proposal-for-relegation-in-college-football/
Details on the proposal from BSU.
Boise State associate athletic director Michael Walsh has created what is believed to be the first formal proposals on the subject. He has written an in-depth plan for a three-tiered alliance of 24 FBS football teams in Pacific, Mountain, and Central time zones, with the opportunity for promotion and relegation at the end of each season.
The 22-slide PowerPoint, obtained and reviewed by Front Office Sports, has been shared with athletic directors in and outside of the conference, as well as with Mountain West Commissioner Gloria Nevarez.
“Many, many folks are kicking around concepts of relegation/promotion, or mega-leagues,” Nevarez told FOS. But “this is probably the first I’ve seen of someone really putting pen to paper, and looking at it comprehensively.”
Walsh’s goal: to create a lucrative football package while allowing Olympic sports to avoid the coast-to-coast travel now required in Power 4 leagues.
…
Walsh suggests the Mountain West and Pac-12, as well as regional teams from the AAC, Conference USA, or WAC, could participate. All other sports, including men’s basketball, would remain in their current conferences in order to “maximize” the opportunity for NCAA postseason automatic qualifiers.
…
The first football tier could be a fifth Power conference, though Walsh noted that decision would ultimately lie with the College Football Playoff and NCAA, who award the designation for voting power and revenue distribution.
The proposal suggests modest bonuses based on a base sum for each tier, performance bonuses, and a specific bonus for ”tier status.” The amount of this revenue, however, would depend on the media contract. Walsh suggested the alliance target NBC/Peacock, Apple, and Amazon as partners — given they’ve all shown an interest in football, but have much less inventory than Fox, ESPN, and CBS.
…
Meanwhile, the Mountain West has already begun considering more traditional scenarios. It has courted Oregon State and Washington State and explored taking on the Pac-12’s name and intellectual property, as FOS previously reported.
“It’s the right time to think differently and consider what the next generation will wish we had done, rather than putting a bandage on yesterday’s problem,” Walsh said.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2023/09/20/miami-cam-mccormick-applying-ninth-year/70908041007/
A Miami football player is petitioning for a 9th season. How is he still in school? He should be well on the way to a PhD or second Master’s by now.
LikeLike
Anybody can pick up an unlimited number of masters degrees, so long as they’re not in the same field.
LikeLike
For employers, the general rule is that any number of BS degrees equals only one BS degree; any number of MS degrees equals only one MS degree; any number of PhD degrees equals only one PhD degree.
The issue from the point of view of the employer is how high did you get, not how many time you reached the same level.
I don’t know how many times I had that discussion with students who thought more is more.
LikeLike
So, I discovered this delightful subreddit called /cfb. Posters may attach (multiple) flairs to their ID to show who they support. But that isn’t the interesting part.
Someone aggregated how many users had each flair. In current (2023 season) conferences, the B10 (85K total) and SEC (80K total) more than double both the current Pac and current ACC (almost 40K each). The current B12 is at 48K.
So the average B10/SEC team has around 6K supporters (say 5K-7K), which I’ll call the P2 benchmark. MSU, UNL, Wisconsin, UO, USC, Auburn, FSU, & Clemson are at the P2 benchmark while A&M is slightly above, ND, PSU, UF, LSU, Tennessee, OU are barely above and Iowa, Washington, & SCarolina are slightly below the P2 benchmark.
Texas is around 10K.
Bama and UGa are about double the P2 Benchmark.
But the amazing thing is that OSU is triple the P2 Benchmark while UMich only trails OSU slightly.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/media/2023/09/21/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-corp-steps-down/70918213007/
Rupert Murdoch is finally stepping down. Will this lead to any changes in Fox’s approach to sports?
LikeLike
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/21/wwes-smackdown-to-return-to-nbcuniversals-usa-network.html
In that same vein, starting next fall Fox will have openings in its Friday night schedule. Some of that will be used for MLB playoffs, but maybe a few B10 games as well. Wil they try MBB in winter?
LikeLike
Brian: “In that same vein, starting next fall Fox will have openings in its Friday night schedule. Some of that will be used for MLB playoffs, but maybe a few B10 games as well. Wil they try MBB in winter?”
Long ago in a galaxy far, far away, Friday nights were sacred for high school football and no college would even think about playing of Friday. Nowadays it’s not even a minor consideration.
LikeLike
Article about the finances of UT/OU leaving the Big 12. Its the first I’ve heard that UT/OU won’t be getting full shares in year one.
Oklahoma and Texas will be getting no money from the SEC’s primary revenue sharing pool in 2024-25, according to the schools’ entry agreements. However, they stand to collect millions through football- and men’s-basketball-specific distributions that already existed under the SEC’s bylaws. They could receive additional money through other specially negotiated terms. And they will get what their agreements describe as “transition” payments being funded by ESPN.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2023/09/22/texas-oklahoma-big-12-sec-espn-role-realignment/70910157007/
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, Mike. There is also this line regarding the by-laws
The settlement left the athletics directors at some of the continuing Big 12 schools “kind of dumbfounded,” Kansas State athletics director Gene Taylor said. “We fought back as hard as we could,” but he said the conference’s lawyers advised them, Yormark and the schools’ presidents and chancellors that the bylaws were “not as rock-solid as everybody thought and we could be tied up on lawsuits forever.”
I wonder if there is any relevance here to the ACC/FSU/Clemson situation. I know that the big issue there is the GOR, but if FSU is actually serious about a move in the next year or two, might this be connected in some way?
By now I take for granted that many of you understand that I try to suggest creative legal ways around these sports issues. That does not mean that I am right (or wrong), but just throwing it at the walls to see if anything sticks.
LikeLike
I wonder if there is any relevance here to the ACC/FSU/Clemson situation.
Bylaws are here. https://static.big12sports.com/custompages/pdfs/handbook/bylaws.pdf IANAL so I can’t really tell you why they’d say that.
LikeLike
Honestly, I am not trying to analyze either the Big 12 or ACC by laws. My question is whether someone at FSU might see a light in the tunnel here.
I do not pretend to know whether there is a light, or even a tunnel. That is why I specifically stated that I am trying to come up with creative, even if wrong, legal theories. It is shocking how often a creative and stupid legal theory winds up being accepted by some court or some jury.
LikeLike
There was also this:
There is one additional wrinkle to the wrap-up of Oklahoma’s agreement with ESPN: The school agreed that, except under specific circumstances, it will not cancel or delay its future two-game, home-and-away football series with Michigan and Nebraska. The Michigan games are set for September 2025 and 2026, the Nebraska games for 2029 and 2030. The Big Ten and Fox hold the rights to Nebraska’s and Michigan’s home games. Those OU home games will be part of the SEC’s TV inventory for ESPN.
It looks like both networks wanted those games to continue. But nothing about UT’s games vs OSU and UM.
LikeLike
Brian: “But nothing about UT’s games vs OSU and UM.”
The published future schedules of UT, OSU and UM all include those games.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/09/22/michigan-state-mel-tucker-false-claims-sexual-harassment/70922038007/
Mel Tucker apparently misled investigators and changed his story.
On a sunny Thursday morning, Michigan State University football coach Mel Tucker strolled through tomato fields at a farm in Immokalee, Florida, toured its processing plants and loaded baskets of bright green fruit into a truck.
It was a private event thrown by the school to promote its migrant student services program, which provides financial aid and support to farmworkers seeking college degrees. After the April 28, 2022, tour, disclosed in records obtained by USA TODAY this week, Tucker met with community leaders and alumni.
That night, Tucker would make the now-infamous phone call from his hotel room in nearby Naples, during which he is accused of masturbating and making unwanted sexual comments to Brenda Tracy, a prominent rape survivor and activist he had hired to speak to his team about sexual violence.
Yet, when Tucker met with the university’s outside investigator in March for his interview in the sexual harassment case against him, he insisted the trip was not work-related – a claim the investigator would disprove in her report.
It’s just one example of Tucker failing to keep his story straight at the most consequential moment of his career.
With his job, reputation and the roughly $80 million left on his contract at stake, Tucker repeatedly made false statements to the investigator and misled her about basic facts, such as his location during the phone call and the date it occurred, a USA TODAY review of more than 1,200 pages of case documents found.
The investigator, Rebecca Leitman Veidlinger, and the news organization both obtained documents and witness statements that discredit key aspects of Tucker’s version of events.
Lying to investigators is a good way to get fired for cause.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/09/22/amazon-prime-video-ads/70931266007/
Streaming prices continue to climb, as more streamers add ads. The cable bundle will end up looking reasonable.
Streaming video without ads is getting more expensive, with yet another company making changes to push customers toward ad-supported subscriptions.
Starting early next year, Amazon plans to add advertisements to Prime Video, although the company said it aims to have “meaningfully fewer” commercials than its competitors.
The shift comes as more streaming services push customers toward ad-supported tiers, which tend to be more lucrative. Disney+ and Hulu on Oct. 12 will each raise prices for their ad-free tier by $3, while their ad-supported tier prices will remain unchanged at $7.99.
And Netflix in July switched up its offerings, dropping its $9.99-per-month ad-free plan for new members so that the cheapest ad-free tier for newcomers is $15.49 per month.
Other subscription services like Spotify and Peacock have also been hiking up prices.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/mailbag-the-problem-with-promotion-and-relegation-options-for-wsu-and-osu-kliavkoffs-duties-the-pac-12-networks-future-and-more/
Wilner mailbag:
What are your thoughts about the promotion/relegation idea that leaked? Is it a unique approach that could help draw more attention to the conference(s)? Are there blockers that will prevent it from getting done? — @BennyL1986
Before we address the specific proposal, two points to frame the discussion:
— The concept of a promotion-and-relegation structure in college football, in which schools would change divisions from year-to-year based on performance, has been discussed for years and is viewed by many as inevitable.
— The decision-makers in college sports, particularly the university presidents, are inherently risk-averse. And nothing is riskier than not knowing your division/conference and revenue base from year-to-year.
…
We won’t rule out any scenario, not yet. But this one is difficult to envision. The American’s media partnership with ESPN pays a reasonable sum (approximately $7 million annually) and lasts into the early 2030s.
To join the coast-to-coast consortium, AAC schools would have to break their arrangement with ESPN and suffer the consequences (financial and otherwise).
In that regard, a regional configuration makes more sense: The Mountain West’s media deal with Fox and CBS expires in the spring of 2026, so the extraction process in just two years would be clean, simple and cheap.
However, the legal piece could be problematic.
Major issues within the 12-team Mountain West require super-majorities (i.e., nine votes). Would the schools at the lower end of the conference’s food chain (San Jose State, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah State) agree to a system in which they were cast down to the second division and likely to receive lower revenue shares than in a traditional conference structure?
In other words, a promotion-and-relegation system that offers the upper division schools more cash, better TV exposure and stronger competitive matchups (think: ticket sales) doesn’t necessarily work for enough Mountain West members to clear the voting threshold.
Could they sweeten the system to pick up the necessary votes? Perhaps.
But specifics aside, the promotion-and-relegation structure requires the one element that administrators in higher education are typically loath to accept, no matter how dire their situation: risk.
If a “Pac-2” was to exist for a season or two, would any potential TV suitors be the usual suspects (Fox/ESPN), or something rather different (Apple, etc)? — @AmbitiousCoug
Perhaps Apple or a linear network would be interested, but we’re skeptical.
One of many issues: The game inventory.
If the Cougars and Beavers remain under the Pac-12 banner for the 2024-25 seasons — before combining with the Mountain West — they would need complete 12-game schedules.
No major media company would be interested in broadcasting a handful of matchups against FCS teams. Could they find enough quality FBS opponents to provide an enticing lineup of home games? (The road games would belong to the opponents’ broadcast partners.) We aren’t certain.
It’s possible Apple would be interested for pennies on the dollar, if for no reason other than to dip its toe in college football and test the technology and production pieces in anticipation of a broader move in the future.
Another option: OSU and WSU could sell their home games to regional/local media companies, a page from the Pac-12’s broadcast playbook prior to the deal with ESPN and Fox in 2012.
Presumably, the schools would plow forward as the Pac-2 with enough financial assets to minimize the loss of massive media rights revenue.
…
Should “Cal-imony” be enforced and the amount is on the high side, say $10 million per year, any chance UCLA sues to prevent it? After all, Cal’s money woes are almost all due to bad management. — @Douglas79390104
For those unfamiliar, the University of California regents are expected to require UCLA to provide financial assistance to Cal using revenue from the Big Ten’s media deal.
The maximum approved “contribution” — that’s the term used by the regents — is $10 million per year.
Granted, the Hotline did not attend law school; nor do we watch Law and Order, Boston Legal, The Practice, Matlock or Perry Mason. But we can’t envision a scenario in which UCLA could sue the regents because, after all, they are one in the same. The regents are the governing board for the 10-campus UC system, which includes Westwood.
They aren’t competing or independent entities. They’re connected to each other like a finger to the hand.
The Bruins will make their case against the subsidy and, if it’s imposed, they will argue for something near the low end ($2 million). But the campus will do as it’s told.
Any chance Washington would owe money to Washington State, like UCLA does to Cal? If so, how much are we talking? — @CelestialMosh
The Bruins and Bears are part of the same university system. The Huskies and Cougars are different systems.
Unless state politicians get involved, we don’t foresee a similar agreement.
And that goes for Oregon and Oregon State, as well.
Given early buzz around the conference, and the realities of the costs (financial, physical and mental) from longer travel, is there any chance, however remote, that the recent realignment of Pac-12 schools could be unwound through agreements with the Big Ten, Big 12, media partners, etc.? — @astolli
In other words, could they roll back the clock to its mid-July existence, before Colorado left the Pac-12 for the Big 12 and the others eventually followed?
The Hotline never says never. But on that matter, we’re saying never … at least for the rest of the decade.
Once the Big Ten’s media contract expires in 2030, the sport could undergo another round of massive realignment in which an upper tier emerges and some semblance of regionality returns.
But until then, the structure in place for next summer should hold.
…
How lame is rebranding Cal to UC Berkeley? — @Wondertaker1
On a 1-to-10 scale of lame, we would ‘Cal Berkeley’ a 17.
How can so many smart people select such a dumb option? (Don’t answer.)
If the Hotline were advising — and if the school insisted on rebranding — then ‘California’ is the only option worthy of consideration.
LikeLike
Gift article NY Times – everyone is streaming except Boomers like me.
I believe this gives some insight how the Big Ten and SEC TV contracts might be different when they come up for renewal circa 2030. The networks may have a lot less money to throw around if most cables are cut and the whole world is streaming.
LikeLike
Saturday night’s thriller between Ohio State and Notre Dame attracted an average of 10.5m viewers, with 14.2m watching the Buckeyes’ last-minute drive to win with one second left.
It was NBC’s most watched regular season game since 1993’s “Game of the Century,” when 22 million viewers watched No. 2 ND topple No. 1 Florida State 31–24. NBC is understandably happy after several weeks of duds, but I don’t know how good that is when Colorado–CSU the prior weekend got to 9.3 million in the after-dark slot on cable.
LikeLike
Marc: “. . . Saturday night’s thriller between Ohio State and Notre Dame. . . ”
It was indeed a thriller, a great game throughout. I was sprinting to the bathroom and back during commercial breaks so that I wouldn’t miss the next snap.
LikeLike
Marc,
There were 3 concurrent games featuring 2 ranked opponents, and 5 of the top 10 playing at the same time in 4 games, splitting the audience:
7:00/7:30
Fox – 15. OrSU vs 24. WSU
NBC – 4. OSU vs 9. ND
CBS – 7. PSU vs 22. IA
Plus:
ESPN – 12. LSU vs AR (34-31)
ESPN2 – 1. UGA vs UAB (28-14 at half)
ABC – 3. UT vs BU (blowout)
And the NBC coverage is weak, especially their pre-game/half-time/post-game group. It was enough to make me switch channels.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Colorado’s blowout loss to Oregon was the top ratings draw in week four of the season — at least going by the traditional Nielsen viewership — edging Ohio State’s nailbiter against Notre Dame later in the night. (Unlike the other networks, NBC’s streaming viewership is not included in its Nielsen estimates and is measured separately by Adobe Analytics. Including the Adobe Analytics streaming audience of 605,000, Ohio State-Notre Dame had the larger audience.)
The Nielsen-measured audience for Colorado-Oregon is the largest of the season, and Colorado has now played in four of the top seven games this season.
CU vs UO – 10.03M (3:30)
OSU vs ND – 9.98M (7:30)
FSU vs Clemson – 6.73M (12:00)
MS vs AL – 4.61M (3:30)
IA vs PSU – 2.75M (7:30)
Other primetime games:
TX vs Baylor – 2.63M
AR vs LSU – 2.44M
NCSU vs UVA – 1.59M
OrSU vs WSU – 1.48M
WI vs PU – 1.19M
UAB vs UGA – 1.08M
others under 1M
That’s 24M or so viewers watching primetime games, split over 8 games with at least 1M viewers (4 featuring kings, 6 with a ranked team, 3 with ranked vs ranked). I think the low score of OSU vs ND hurt it as well. A lot of people apparently enjoyed watching CU get blown out.
605k streaming on Peacock seems fairly high.
LikeLike
Marc,
Excluding the Labor Day holiday weekend, Saturday night’s matchup is the most-watched primetime regular-season college football game on any network since 2018.
That sounds pretty good, especially with all the other good games on at the same time.
TOP METERED MARKETS FOR OHIO STATE-NOTRE DAME (based on 44 markets available):
1. Columbus, OH 29.9/65
2. Cleveland 21.1/54
3. Cincinnati 12.8/33
4. Indianapolis 11.6/33
5. Detroit 11.0/32
6. Chicago 7.0/24
7. West Palm Beach 6.6/19
8. Tampa 6.2/19
T9. Nashville 6.1/18
T9. Norfolk 6.1/17
Notice the lack of the usual southern markets for top games, due to SEC games at the same time. Chicago is ND’s market (besides Indy), and pulling a 24 share there is very good for CFB. If more markets were included, Dayton would be high on that list as well. Look at the older alumni/fans in FL tuning in, too.
LikeLike
Click to access 2023_Composite_Schedule.pdf
Fox has decided to air OSU vs UMD next week at noon, taking it away from Peacock. The trickle-down effect:
Week 6 (10/7):
F night 8:00
NE @ IL – FS1
12:00
UMD @ OSU – Fox
RU @ WI – Peacock
3:00/3:30
Howard @ NW – BTN
PU @ IA – Peacock
7:30
UM @ MN – NBC
What a soft week. Only 6 games, including a cupcake OOC game. No CBS game, no ranked vs ranked game, PSU has a bye, and there’s a Friday night game further diluting the options. All of October has at most 6 games per week (only 5 the final weekend), the typical lull in the season, with 7 games every week in November. Expanding to 18 will at least help with this aspect of B10 football.
LikeLike
What a royal screwing. Purdue-Illinois is on Peacock Sept 30 and Purdue-Iowa is on Peacock the following week.
LikeLike
If they don’t want to be on the garbage networks, they need to get better at football.
LikeLike
Marc: “If they don’t want to be on the garbage networks, they need to get better at football.”
That’s why we have the Big Ten Network. NBC is using Peacock for a few ND and Big Ten games to force fans to subscribe to their streamer for a month. It’s purely a money grab.
LikeLike
That’s why we have the Big Ten Network. NBC is using Peacock for a few ND and Big Ten games to force fans to subscribe to their streamer for a month. It’s purely a money grab.
The phrase “money grab” describes the subset of capitalism that a particular observer doesn’t like. What do you think the rest of the Big Ten TV contract is—a charity? If I recall correctly, people who didn’t like BTN called it a “money grab” too.
Whatever you call it, the Big Ten is complicit, since nobody made them take the deal. They could have put those games on BTN, taken less money from NBC, and distributed less money to their member schools.
LikeLike
Mark, first and foremost, thank you so much for explaining capitalism to us dumb hicks, especially our cluster of retards in southern Indiana. Now, NBC televises almost all ND home games on both NBC and Peacock. However, for the third year in a row, they have one and only one ND game on Peacock ONLY, not simulcast with NBC. This year it’s Central Michigan.
Your analogy of Peacock being like the Big Ten Network is nonsense. The BTN obviously covers thousands of games in football and hoops and everything else that presents all sorts of programming to Big Ten alumni and fans year-round. Not one person on planet earth would subscribe to the crap on Peacock if we weren’t forced into what is essentially an occasional one-game pay-per-view.
LikeLike
NBC televises almost all ND home games on both NBC and Peacock. However, for the third year in a row, they have one and only one ND game on Peacock ONLY, not simulcast with NBC. This year it’s Central Michigan.
Yes, because that is what the Irish agreed to. The Big Ten games on Peacock are what the Big Ten agreed to. They could have turned down the money, but they didn’t because they usually don’t.
Your analogy of Peacock being like the Big Ten Network is nonsense.
Reactions to BTN when it was new were exactly what I described. It was described as a “money grab,” the phrase sports fans routinely use for capitalism they don’t like.
Funnily enough, the consensus on this forum is that NBC is losing money by putting good games on Peacock.
LikeLike
Marc, the polar opposite is true. The Big Ten Network made millions of dollars from something that was previously worthless. Those Iowa-Illinois and Indiana-Northwestern games were NEVER on TV. Ditto 50% of Big Ten basketball. The BTN took that unseen programming and made money from it.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38491036/mel-tucker-responds-formally-msu-attempt-fire-cause
Mel Tucker argues MSU doesn’t have cause to fire him (of course he’d claim that).
“[Tucker] did not engage in unprofessional or unethical behavior or ‘moral turpitude’ by any stretch of the imagination,” the letter from Tucker’s lawyers on Monday states. “In fact, as discussed below, under Michigan law, assault and battery does not even constitute ‘moral turpitude,’ and the flimsy foundation of the university’s finding — a private relationship involving mutual flirting and one instance of consensual phone sex — falls far short of the mark.”
1. How sad is it that assault and battery isn’t “moral turpitude” under MI law?
2. Is sexual harassment “moral turpitude” in MI? The legal definition in MI:
https://www.notafraidtowin.com/glossary/crime-of-moral-turpitude/
A Crime of Moral Turpitude (CMT) is a crime that is committed recklessly or with evil intent, and that shocks the public conscience because it is inherently base, vile, depraved, or contrary to rules of morality between people. Some examples include fraud, theft, aggravated assault, receiving stolen property, perjury, retail fraud, murder, and kidnapping.
3. Phone sex with a work colleague isn’t “unprofessional”?
4. Lying to investigators isn’t “unethical”?
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-winning-on-field-and
Canzano shows his lack of understanding of CFB TV deals.
Colorado’s football game at Oregon won the day on Saturday. Despite the lopsided result, the ABC broadcast attracted 10.03 million viewers and edged the NBC offering of Ohio State vs. Notre Dame as the highest-rated game of the weekend.
The Buckeyes-Irish drew an audience of 9.98 million.
Why again is the Pac-12 breaking up?
Yes, because 1 highly viewed game 1 year changes everything.
…
USC’s win over Arizona State at 7:30 p.m. PT (FOX) was the sixth most-watched game and had 2.63 million viewers. Oregon State-Washington State (4 p.m. on FOX) garnered an audience of 1.48 million and UCLA-Utah (12:30 p.m. on FOX) had 1.32 million. Cal-Washington ended up with 1.16 million on ESPN at 7:30 p.m.
I have to wonder if the Big 12 noted the ratings for Washington State’s home game vs. Oregon State and had some second thoughts. The Oklahoma and Texas games did very well with TV audiences. Those schools are always strong draws, but they’re leaving for the SEC next season.
The Beavers-Cougars game not only beat a Pac-12 game being played in the Los Angeles TV market, it outperformed every other Big 12 game on the slate.
Yes, because 1 highly viewed game 1 year changes everything. How about all those years of OrSU being horrible? WSU pre-pirate?
…
• FOX’s 7:30 p.m. USC-ASU game (2.63 million viewers) doubled up the Cal-Washington offering (1.16 million) in the same time slot on ESPN. Both games moved the needle. Those late kickoffs stink… except when they don’t.
• Lots of fierce competition during the day, as noted with the OSU-WSU comparison. The 7 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. PT window is far less cluttered. The Pac-12 dominated it again on Saturday. The Big 12 will love that late time slot, but could enjoy it even more with two additional ranked teams playing in it. Anyone know where they might find them?
It’s less cluttered because most of the country is in bed and not watching CFB. Since most of the B12 is in ET or CT, I’m thinking they and their fans will largely hate that late window. If the Pac-2 could guarantee being ranked every year (perhaps with a track record of that level of success), they’d have a home. But their histories say otherwise.
• If you’re the Big 12 (Read: ESPN/FOX) why wouldn’t you want the leftover Pac-2 schools?!?! The viewership is there. The teams are really good. In fact, if the season ended today… based on 2024’s new conference affiliations the Big 12 (No. 10 Utah/No. 24 Kansas) and Pac-2 (No. 16 Washington State/No. 19 Oregon State) would have the same number of Top-25 ranked teams.
The viewership is there compared to what standard? WSU is mid-pack in the P12 for TV ratings, but OrSU is dead last.
The 2023 teams being good is meaningless. OrSU is just barely over 0.500 since 1998 (BCS era), similar to MN. WSU is below 0.500, similar to PU.
• Washington State and Oregon State belong in a Power 5. We all know it. It makes no sense to leave the schools out. But as one Pac-12 source told me on Tuesday: “There’s no logic behind anything that has happened. It’s crazy we’re here.”
They did and do belong in a P5. Their problem is that the P5 ends after this season, and geography and other factors (like their mediocre track records) dictate that they don’t belong in a P4. If there was still a western power conference, they would deserve to be in it.
• Apple’s bid for the Pac-12 was a guaranteed base of $25 million a year per school for five seasons. The subscription-based tier increases would have taken the payouts to above $32 million per school (1.7 million new subscribers) and $50 million per school (5 million subscribers).
Those subscriber targets would be doable this year with CU in the fold. In the future?
LikeLike
Canzano shows his lack of understanding of CFB TV deals.
I always wonder if he’s that dumb or if he is just telling fans what they want to hear.
Apple’s bid for the Pac-12 was a guaranteed base of $25 million a year per school for five seasons. The subscription-based tier increases would have taken the payouts to above $32 million per school (1.7 million new subscribers) and $50 million per school (5 million subscribers).
There was a lot of debate about just how realistic the $32 million was. I am still not sure. Larry Scott had huge theoretical projections for the Pac-12 Networks that they never came close to achieving. The other issue is that Apple did not guarantee any linear TV. They would have had the right to sublicense games, but the actual deal had nothing.
LikeLike
I think he lets himself fall into fan mode sometimes, more like a radio sports talk host than a reporter. It may be a result of him reporting on just UO and OrSU and the P12 for so long. He’s attached to them emotionally.
I think 1.7M would normally be unobtainable for the P12, but this year CU might have gotten them there.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38499787/aac-commish-favors-cfp-model-5-highest-ranked-champions
AAC commissioner Aresco supports the 5+7 model for the next CFP contract. That pretty much settles the issue, since he was the only one still pushing for 6+6.
The remaining issue is the financial split. When the CFP formed, the P5+ND made up essentially half of I-A and got 80% of the CFP revenue. The fraction will be similar in 2024, but in a larger I-A (it was 120 teams in 2012, 133 this year). I think the G5 will get a larger % of the base pay, due to the 5+7 model guaranteeing them a spot, but the P4 will get a larger % of the total money due to game winners earning more.
Say the CFP goes from $700M now to $1.5M, just to have numbers.
Now:
P5 = $560M
G5 = $140M
2026:
P4 = $750M + $700M (usually)
G5 = $250M
American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco said a playoff model that rewards the five highest-ranked conference champions is something “we have to have” in the new 12-team College Football Playoff format if the Pac-12 dissolves.
…
“I’m fine myself with the 5+7, assuming we stay at 12 teams,” Aresco said. “The 5+7 is something we really have to have, because otherwise, what’s the point of all the work we did for 6+6? If there’s no Pac-12, you’ve got four [power conferences], but you still want that fifth [spot] so that our group — 65 schools — has a shot at the playoff.”
Aresco’s public support for the 5+7 model is a critical component to the closed-door discussions because he has been vocal in his urging to consider staying at the 6+6 model even if the Pac-12 dissolves because it would give the Group of 5 schools two guaranteed teams in the CFP. Even with what appears to be overwhelming support for 5+7 within the room, though, there is hesitancy to commit to it with so much uncertainty looming in the Pac-12.
…
Multiple sources indicated they don’t even know if Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, who attended the meetings but didn’t speak to reporters, has a vote. There’s still a possibility the Mountain West schools merge with the Pac-12 to try to benefit from its brand and possible assets, but that opens the difficult question of whether the Pac-12 would still be considered a Power 5 conference, which gets the benefit of 80% of the CFP revenue. The Group of 5 schools receive 20%.
According to the NCAA, a conference’s status as an autonomy conference is determined by the Division I Board of Directors.
“It’s going to have to be subject to a serious discussion,” Aresco said. “Without question. Absolutely. You’ve heard the notion of playing as a two-team conference, and what are your voting rights? There’s a material change here. There are things that weren’t contemplated in the agreement. All of those things have to be discussed.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38491515/what-relegation-college-football-look-like
Bill Connelly on what relegation could look like in CFB.
I do not say this as a brag — the opposite, perhaps — but I’m confident in saying that I have thought more and written more words about relegation in college football than anyone on the planet. (So, so many words.) As a frequent writer in both the college football and European soccer realms, I feel the two sports are ridiculously similar. Both are territorial sports, and in both, the historical rabbit holes are almost as endless as the financial inequalities and endlessly disappointing leadership.
…
I have waited a long time for this moment. If you’ve wasted countless hours of your life thinking about something, the least you can do is share some of those thoughts when they become even slightly relevant. So let’s talk about how relegation could work in college football.
…
What’s the draw of relegation?
The existential tension emanating from a relegation scrap can be almost as gripping and must-watch as a good title race. There is nothing comparable in American sports. Behold, these scenes from when Leeds United clinched 17th place with a win at 13th-place Brentford on the final day of 2021-22.
Imagine something like a 3-8 team playing at a 5-6 team on the final day of a college football season. Barring a Hail Mary or something, this would be completely unmemorable for all but the most hardcore of fans. Now imagine if the 3-8 team was an SEC team trying to avoid getting relegated to the Sun Belt. This tension is certainly unbearable for fans of the teams involved, but it adds an extra layer of importance and watchability to the home stretch of a given season.
That sounds fun, but college football is already pretty exciting and watchable. What else might this offer?
It also adds a word we rarely associate with college football: merit.
…
To play in the top level of soccer in a given country, you have to earn your spot and re-earn it every season. Novel, huh?
With promotion and relegation, cream rises. And it makes conferences better. Take, for instance, the Big 12 and AAC. Let’s pretend for a moment that those leagues had a “top two AAC teams move up, bottom two Big 12 teams move down” arrangement. At the end of this season, Houston (No. 70 in SP+) and Baylor (No. 66) might be replaced by Tulane (No. 38) and Memphis (No. 41). As a result, the Big 12 improves. And while the AAC technically gets worse, it might also improve from adding the best teams from, say, the Missouri Valley (NDSU and SDSU). The circle of life.
Interesting. So what exactly is the MWC considering?
…
You could craft a conference schedule around the seven other teams in your tier, with a spot or two remaining for opponents in the other tier. (That’s important for assuring that major rivalries remain continuous.) Championship Weekend could include not only a Pac-12 championship game but also a “relegation game” between the sixth- and seventh-place teams in the Pac-12 — with the last-place team automatically dropping — and a “promotion game” between the second- and third-place teams in the MWC after the champ earns an automatic bump.
…
If the three-tier, 24-team vision were to come to fruition, it could also include some combination of top-100 FBS teams on or west of the Mississippi River, such as Memphis, Tulane, UTSA and Texas State, plus perhaps top-100 caliber Big Sky programs like Montana, Montana State, Sacramento State, Weber State or Idaho. Within a couple of years, you could have a top tier of Oregon State, Washington State, Memphis, Tulane, Air Force, Boise State, Fresno State and someone like UTSA, San Diego State or one of the Dakotas. Is that a power conference? Not quite, but at worst it’s easily the best of the non-powers. It would produce a top-25 caliber champion more often than not.
OK, sounds great, but how would the money work?
That’s a very good question, one that’s impossible to answer just yet.
In theory, a Mountain West with more good programs and more high-interest matchups commands a better media rights deal than what it is currently working with, but the league would have to figure out what percentage to distribute to each tier. It would also have to decide on things like “parachute payments” — a Premier League system in which relegated teams receive a percentage of top-tier money (diminishing each year) to assure that the financial impact of falling off the ladder isn’t quite as much of a shock.
There’s also the issue of a school trying to draw up an athletic budget flexible enough to account for the sudden loss of a few million dollars it was planning on having. Obviously soccer clubs do this annually — sometimes they do this very poorly and end up with serious issues — and everyone would adapt, but there would be quite a bit of short-term awkwardness.
What are some drawbacks?
…
OK. Since we’re treating this idea as a realistic one for this moment, we should probably acknowledge that there are quite a few drawbacks of the more and less obvious varieties.
Schools take fewer risks when relegation is on the line. Remember when Kentucky hired Valdosta State’s Hal Mumme in the 1990s, setting into motion a chain of events that led to Mike Leach’s emergence as a major college football coach and college football’s evolution into something far more interesting and pass-happy? UK almost certainly doesn’t consider making such an outside-the-box decision if the punishment for it going wrong is relegation to the Sun Belt.
Granted, the Wildcats had enjoyed one winning season in 12 years before hiring Mumme. They’d have already been in the Sun Belt. And those hires are rare anyway. But in soccer, tactical innovation often comes from the top of the sport and trickles down. It sometimes happens that way in college football — the Wishbone revolutionized the sport in the late 1960s and originated at Texas — but some of the sport’s biggest innovations have trickled upward, and that would be more difficult to pull off.
There’s also the whole matter of panic firings: College football programs already make increasingly rash decisions of this nature, and that’s without the fear of relegation.
Promotion and relegation have in no way prevented top-down inequality in soccer. It’s great to actually introduce merit and reward the programs that have been most well-run for a long period of time. But in a relegation structure, a sport’s middleweight or light-heavyweight programs often bounce between levels while the heavyweights are rarely threatened with falling to a lower division. Over time, the less monied clubs end up making less than the clubs that already had more money. Granted, this isn’t as much of an issue with the current MWC example, but if this were to catch on throughout the sport, it wouldn’t do anything to address what is already far too much of a haves-over-have-nots situation.
Goodness, can you imagine the transfer portal in a universe with relegation?
Right? Admittedly, things can only get so much wilder than they already are, but “43 San José State players enter the transfer portal the day after a season-ending loss clinches relegation” is one way to do it.
Wouldn’t the NCAA also have to change some rules to allow something like this?
Yes. And needing the NCAA’s help to do anything (A) helpful and (B) in a timely manner is generally a fraught proposition.
This isn’t going to happen, then, is it?
It seems like the primary decision-makers involved are very much open to new ideas, and let’s be honest, it would be poetic if the first conference to move in this incredible direction was the MWC. The Mountain West is the spiritual home of the original WAC, the first conference to attempt mega-conference status when it expanded to 16 teams in 1996. It was a mess, and eight programs quickly broke off to form the original MWC — Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV, Utah and Wyoming, six of whom remain in the conference. But if anyone has proved unafraid of thinking outside of the box and risking being ahead of its time, it’s this collection of schools. And implementing it on a smaller scale like this, instead of in some FBS-wide structure, is the only way it will ever happen.
That said … no, I’m not expecting this to actually happen. I’ll keep my fingers crossed, but I assume the complicated nature of the change — the weird budgeting, the required rule changes, etc. — prevent it from happening anytime soon, even with a less change-averse crowd. But I can dream.
LikeLike
Well this news out of Clemson is interesting.
https://www.postandcourier.com/sports/carolina/sapakoff-clemsons-acc-departure-may-be-sooner-as-gamecocks-fret/article_844ab88a-5b9d-11ee-bf7f-13daaf7cde8d.html
School administrators indicate an announcement about a Clemson bolt from its growing financial disadvantage in the ACC relative to SEC and Big Ten schools is coming soon, probably along with Florida State and North Carolina and perhaps another ACC school or more — even as University of South Carolina officials try to block Clemson from the SEC.
“Sooner than later,” a Clemson senior administrator said last week when asked about a timetable.
Sometime in 2023?
“Stay very tuned,” the administrator said.
It’s possible this is about pressuring the ACC into more incentive-based action.
But it’s certain Clemson officials believe the ACC’s grant of rights agreement that theoretically ties member schools to the conference through 2036 can be negotiated. Or as another Clemson official said, “there is strength in numbers if we’re not the only (departing ACC school) doing the negotiating.”
LikeLike
Interesting but I don’t buy it. I think Clemson and FSU are squealing to help placate alumni and fans who don’t want to be in GOR purgatory until 2036. Obviously the majority of ACC schools – the GTs, Wakes, Pitts and BCs – don’t want the conference to lose its top brands.
LikeLike
More from Clemson, FWIW
LikeLike
Clemson “Insider” FWIW
LikeLike
Mike,
That’s odd. SC used to support adding Clemson, presumably because it moved that rivalry into conference play and would lighten their schedule. Also, the state legislature could make the school support the move to protect Clemson.
It’s one thing for a state to let a school leave for greener pastures and leave another school behind, it’s another to allow one school to block the other from the greener pasture.
LikeLike
Brian: “It’s one thing for a state to let a school leave for greener pastures and leave another school behind, it’s another to allow one school to block the other from the greener pasture.”
I live right on the Ohio River between Indiana and Kentucky. Many UK and U of L fans in the area. Kentucky would fight like hades to keep Louisville out of the SEC. The Cats would claw tooth and nail, call in all of their chits with the state legislature and rally their large alumni base to block it. South Carolina might be a different situation.
LikeLike
I do not think South Carolina would be successful at blocking Clemson if the rest of the SEC really wanted them, much as Texas A&M was unable to block Texas.
There is no believable universe where the SEC wants Louisville, so UK fans have nothing to worry about.
LikeLike
The question is whether a group of SEC schools will get together to jointly stop some new members. SCarolina (I refuse to call them USC on this forum) wants to block Clemson. UK wants to block Louisville (as unlikely as an invitation might be). GA and maybe others want to block FSU. Tallahassee is 20 miles from the GA border and FSU has a huge following in South GA.
UF might be able to vote against FSU, since FSU has a B1G landing spot. If FSU did not have a soft landing, no chance of UF SEC membership opposition due to FL politics.
There may be others too. I read somewhere that other SEC schools are against adding FSU. (Have no idea if true). I have no idea whether UGa is also against Clemson due to its proximity.
The point is that if these schools group together to block their particular school of choice, jointly they might be able to block several.
I have not heard any suggestion of opposition to UNC to the SEC and it would give the SEC a spot in a major southeastern state. Maybe the SEC would want UVa to come along, so that they have pretty much the flagship in every southeastern school.
Still not sure if the B1G wants Clemson for academic reasons. For money reasons, Clemson certainly works. FSU is a slam dunk in any event (yes I am not a neutral observer with two sons who are FSU grads).
LikeLike
Bernie,
You can use USCe (e for east) if you want an abbreviation other than SC.
There have been rumors of a gentleman’s agreement within the SEC to keep in-state schools out, but SEC insiders say that was never true. UF wanted FSU in, but was told the SEC needed to add new markets (TAMU, MO) first. Fans like to imagine these deep animosities because they have them, but school leaders act much more professionally.
LikeLike
It’s one thing for a state to let a school leave for greener pastures and leave another school behind, it’s another to allow one school to block the other from the greener pasture.
If Clemson was as far down the road as the article seems to imply they are, I would have guessed the major stakeholders (gov,, leg, etc) of South Carolina would have already let the U of SC president know they can’t be the one that causes Clemson to “die on the vine.”
I’m not confident the Big Ten would add Clemson, but I would think U of SC would want Clemson in the SEC instead of the Big Ten. Clemson using the Big Ten as a differentiator could be problematic. i.e. “Do you want to play the regions best or the whole nation’s best”
LikeLike
The NY Times has updated its graphic showing all conference realignment since 1965.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38506062/cfp-shelves-talk-changes-pac-12-situation-plays-out
The CFP punted on discussing any changes to the 12-team format until the P12 fate is settled.
They are open to streaming some of the games (I’m guessing they’d want a huge check for that). Moving the BCS to cable hurt viewership at least 10%. Streaming only would ruin the numbers.
The College Football Playoff management committee shelved any talk of format changes to the expanded 12-team field that will begin next season, opting instead to continue to wait to see what the future of the gutted Pac-12 will look like, CFP executive director Bill Hancock said Wednesday.
…
Hancock, who has spent five decades in college athletics, called it “the most unthinkable” scenario.
“One thing that happened that I never would’ve dreamed would ever happen, happened,” Hancock said. “… It’s totally weird and everybody knows it.”
Hancock also said that just because there’s never been a two-team conference “doesn’t mean there can’t be.” He wouldn’t speculate on whether the CFP would still recognize the winner of a two-team league.
Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, who attended the meetings but didn’t speak to reporters, participated in votes “on everything relevant to this season,” Hancock said. …
…
Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick said the CFP’s management committee hasn’t discussed the potential FBS status of the Pac-12 — with or without a Mountain West merger.
“We haven’t spent any time on it,” Swarbrick said.
The bulk of the two-day meetings at the Big Ten headquarters, Swarbrick said, were spent listening to potential television partners. ESPN is currently the sole rights holder through the current 12-year deal, which expires following the 2025 season, and it has first rights to the new first-round games, which will be held on campuses. The general consensus amongst the CFP leaders, though, is to have multiple broadcast partners when the next contract begins.
Hancock said five television companies sent executives to make presentations, and “four or five others have expressed interest, and that streaming is an option.
“Streaming adds another element,” Hancock said. “We are not averse to streaming some of the games. I wouldn’t expect us to stream all of them, but right now nothing’s off the table.”
The question is if they will change the format again before the end of this contract.
…. The current model was agreed upon before realignment decimated the Pac-12. If the Pac-12 folds, sources have indicated to ESPN there is a strong preference to change the model to 5+7, meaning the five highest-ranked conference champions plus the next seven highest-ranked teams.
For the format to change in time for the 2024 season, though, it would have to be unanimous, and American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco on Wednesday said he will currently vote against changing the current contract.
“[I] will vote 6-6 for now,” Aresco said. “If a nuanced proposal that is different should develop, I would consult with my conference membership.”
…
“We’re on track to implement two years early, which is great,” Swarbrick said. “Yeah, there are details to be worked out. Some of them are painstakingly small details and others are big details, but we’re on track. No one thinks we’re not going to expand in [years] 11 and 12.”
LikeLike
Sorry if already posted but I just noticed that Saturday’s USC at Colorado game on Fox starts at noon Eastern Time. That will be 10:00 am in Boulder. I assume a tailgate breakfast would be eggs, bacon and a bloody Mary.
LikeLike
Second 10AM start in Boulder this year.
LikeLike
The alternative is to stay bad football, and then they could have as many after-dark kickoffs as they wanted.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2023/09/27/taylor-swift-tomahawk-chop-kansas-city-chiefs/70979559007/
Uh oh, the indigenous activists are pulling out the big guns. They are asking Taylor Swift (and her 94M Twitter followers) to help end the use of the tomahawk chop.
“We remain hopeful that an outside influence like Ms. Swift could be an ally for us in moving the conversation forward on why the chop is a racist act,” said a statement issued Monday by Not In Our Honor, a coalition of local Native American leaders and American Indian organizations in the Kansas City metro area.
…
“To us, that hand gesture is synchronized racism,” Not In Our Honor’s statement said.
…
Swift shared a suite with Kelce’s mom, Donna Kelce, during the game. Though the pop star has not commented on the matter, videos show that she did not join in the tomahawk chop when others around her did.
…
“We ask for people to learn about our shared history, the real history of this country, not the sanitized version many learned in school,” said Not In Our Honor’s statement. “Our culture was stripped from us and we were not allowed to practice it for hundreds of years, yet our culture continues to be mocked for sport and profit despite decades of protest by Natives and Native organizations and recommendations by national psychological, educational and sociological associations.”
For many Native Americans, the chop has been appropriated from old Hollywood Westerns.
“When I see something like a tomahawk chop, which is derived from television and film portrayals, I find it incredibly offensive because it is an absolutely horrible stereotype of what a native person is,” Vincent Schilling, associate editor of Indian Country Today, told the Associated Press in January 2020 as the Chiefs appeared in their first Super Bowl in 50 years.
“It’s not much more than a cartoon,” Schilling said. “My people are not a cartoon. My community is not a cartoon. My heritage is not a cartoon.”
Following the backlash and calls for change, the team made some improvisations, with cheerleaders required to use a closed fist rather than an open palm to do the chop.
…
Blackhorse told USA TODAY last year that the fist motion, supposed to symbolize beating a drum, is not much of an improvement.
“Banging drums in this way is a mockery of our Native communities and Native religions,” said the activist. “I cannot believe that they still get away with all this.”
…
The Chief have previously banned fake headdresses and Native-themed war paint and initiated a working group of local Native people to advise them.
The Chiefs had said that they had discouraged fans from wearing headdresses for years but that the change officially banned anyone from entering Arrowhead Stadium if they have them on.
“These cheesy images are a major reason why people don’t want to get to know us,” Michael Spears, an actor from a South Dakota tribe, told The Arizona Republic earlier this year. “People think they’re honoring us with these mascots and logos, but they’re mocking us.”
…
“It never hurts to have allies that can start a conversation like what we are trying to do,” said LeValdo, in an email to USA TODAY. “Sometimes it even helps to have someone from the outside explain why this type of cultural appropriation is problematic.”
“In seeing some of Ms. Swift’s advocacy for the LGBTQ+ community and what we are trying to do, is be seen as human beings and not relics of the past.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38515019/oregon-state-washington-state-pac-12-hearing-set-nov-14
WSU/OrSU vs P12 hearing set for 11/14. That’s a long time to wait with the conference imploding.
A hearing has been set for Nov. 14 in Oregon State and Washington State’s legal fight with the Pac-12 and its departing members to gain control of the conference and its assets.
The preliminary injunction hearing will be held in Washington Superior Court in Whitman County in front of the same judge who granted a temporary restraining order to the two schools earlier this month.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-lawmakers-will-hear
The OR legislature is calling in UO’s and OrSU’s presidents and ADs along with others for a meeting. No Calimony-equivalent is expected to come from this.
The presidents at the University of Oregon and Oregon State will give public testimony Thursday in the Oregon State Capitol about the impact of the downfall of the Pac-12 Conference.
The agenda and list of invited speakers includes the presidents and athletic directors of both schools. Also among the guests are a couple of deans, an analyst, a student-athlete, and a professor of economics from West Virginia University.
The hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. There’s bound to be finger pointing and questions. There may be some public scolding, too. The financial impact of Oregon’s departure to the Big Ten is staggering to OSU. Oregon may present a compelling case, too. But I’m told by involved sources that nobody thinks a “Calimony” tax for the Ducks is likely.
Still, what are lawmakers up to?
Public posturing? Just listening? Or preparing to act?
The Governor has been silent. Lawmakers don’t appear to have any fresh legislation on college athletics cooking for the upcoming February session. I was told by a source that there aren’t any new bills in the works “officially.” But when I ran that tidbit by retired president of the Oregon Senate Peter Courtney on Thursday he quipped: “They’re not officially doing anything until they are.”
…
It could just be that Oregon State wants to lay groundwork for additional financial assistance from the state. OSU president Jayathi Murthy wrote in an open letter earlier this week that athletic department revenue could fall by 44 percent for the fiscal year 2025. The Beavers likely need help to stay afloat.
On Thursday, Murthy gets the platform to make that pitch directly to state lawmakers. She’ll do it with her counterparts at Oregon listening and watching. As OSU athletic director, Scott Barnes, told me on Thursday morning: “Financial assistance from the state is critical as we craft a new path forward for our student athletes.”
The whole thing has me thinking about Senate Bill 242. Remember it? I’ll bet you don’t. But it’s the bill that sailed through Oregon legislative session in the winter of 2011.
It passed 29-1.
Lawmakers decentralized the state’s higher education system with that vote. Each public school got its own board of trustees instead of having a single board that oversaw all of the state-funded schools. Legislators believed that doing so would help the larger public universities save time and money.
“The discussion didn’t include athletics,” one lawmaker who worked on that bill told me.
…
In August, the Arizona Board of Regents directed the presidents of Arizona and ASU to stick together — because that board is charged with acting in the best interest of BOTH schools, not just one. The Big 12 eventually took both Arizona schools.
The public universities in Oregon and Washington have their own separate regents. They think with the best interests of the individual schools in mind. And that’s exactly what happened in August when trustees at UW and UO cleared the way for those two schools bolt to the Big Ten.
The Big Ten wanted the Ducks and Huskies. What would the conference have done if it were faced with having to also take the Beavers and Cougars? Would it have added all four? Just the two Oregon schools? Or two Washington schools? Or none of them?
Thursday’s committee meeting may just amount to some posturing. Maybe Oregon gets publicly reprimanded for leaving its rival behind. Or maybe this is really more about OSU raising awareness and paving the way for some future assistance.
The politicians have been quiet since August. Sports is not their groove. Also, elected officials stand to alienate about half the state if they pick a side. It’s late in the game. But I find it interesting that folks in Salem suddenly want to talk things over.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2023/09/29/deion-sanders-value-contract-colorado-buffaloes-football/70985907007/
USA Today estimates Coach Sanders has been worth at least $280M to CU. Maybe GK had a point when we all mocked him for saying Coach Sanders raised the value of the P12 – he just raised it too late to matter.
LikeLike
USA Today estimates Coach Sanders has been worth at least $280M to CU.
They’ve estimated the hard dollar value at $31m (ticket sales, donations, memorabilia). His contract is $29.5m, so for sure they have already paid for that.
The remaining $249 million is the soft value of all the media exposure that he has brought. This is clearly worth something but is difficult to estimate. I have trouble believing that you earn a quarter-billion dollars because you won three football games—even if that’s two more than everyone expected. In the extreme case where he never wins another game (unlikely though that is), they’ve still got the $31m hard dollars, but some of the $249m probably dissipates.
Still, it is an extraordinary story. I don’t quite get why so many people were happy to see him lose last week. This is a team that has one winning season in the last seventeen. They don’t compete against my school, so I don’t mind seeing them experience a little prosperity, for a change.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s “paper” value that can’t be realized for the most part.
Why were people happy they lost? Let’s ignore the racists and look at other reasons:
1. He basically fired a team of college students and talked poorly about them well doing so, then replaced them with mercenaries
2. His braggadocio
3. The team complained about CSU defacing their logo on the field, then they did it to UO
4. The incessant media coverage, well above and beyond what their success had earned (see Tim Tebow for a precedent)
People don’t root against CU in general, they root against this specific CU team. A lot of people didn’t like him as a player either because of his behavior/style.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/2023/09/mailbag-stanford-and-cal-caught-in-acc-breakup-big-ten-revenue-shares-the-pac-2-lawsuit-media-decisions-and-more/
Wilner mailbag.
With news of schools in the ACC possibly leaving soon, is there a chance the conference will be no more? Or will enough schools stick around? Also would Stanford and Cal look to work back to the Pac-12? — @ag10899
So much to unpack with this topic, but let’s start with the core issue: The use of the word “news.”
The Hotline is aware of the noise on social media. But we have yet to read or hear anything that resembles hard news about the imminent breakup of the ACC.
It will happen, eventually. But the timeframe is more likely years than months or weeks.
…
That said, there are cracks in the ACC’s foundation that will be difficult to repair. And those same cracks are inevitable in the Big Ten and SEC, although they might take longer to appear.
Eventually, the top football brands in the heavyweight conferences will revolt against equal revenue distributions.
Ohio State and Michigan aren’t going to accept the same payments as Rutgers and Purdue forever.
Alabama and Georgia aren’t going to share equally with South Carolina and Mississippi State for time immemorial.
And with economic forces pressuring athletic department budgets — the tipping point will be a court-ordered revenue-sharing agreement with the athletes — the move to unequal shares is fast approaching.
At that point, the conference structure will liquefy.
“This is a bigger-picture issue, and the ACC is going through it earlier than everyone else,” an industry source told the Hotline.
We cannot offer a prediction for Stanford and Cal specifically, for their fate would hinge on the amount of ACC wreckage.
If FSU and Clemson buy their way out of the GOR, the conference potentially could remain intact. If a larger group of schools move to dissolve the league, the Bay Area duo would have to find a new home.
That could be a reconfigured Pac-12 … or perhaps the Big Ten.
With USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington in the Big Ten, a six-school western arm makes loads of sense.
It’s one of the few things about realignment that would make sense.
Any chance that Washington and Oregon are getting half shares from the Big Ten so the conference has the cash to assist a couple ACC schools in getting out of the grant-of-rights deal? — @brycetacoma
The Huskies and Ducks are getting half shares for one reason and one reason only: Because that’s all the Big Ten’s media overlord, Fox, was willing to pay.
Do we believe Fox would like a presence in the football-crazed, heavily populated southeast quadrant of the country? Absolutely. And we offered that theory a year ago while sketching out the future of college football.
…
What’s your gut feeling on how this lawsuit will turn out for Washington State and Oregon State? —@WHS1969
We always lean toward disputes of this sort ending in settlements. Neither side wants to deal with the repercussions of an expedited discovery process during which the dirtiest of laundry could become public.
That said, the stakes are high enough that the Cougars and Beavers might risk discovery. If the 10 outgoing schools decide they have nothing to lose, then maybe the process will extend to the preliminary injunction hearing, which has been scheduled for 2 p.m. on Nov. 14.
…
I find it disrespectful that commissioner George Kliavkoff was not at the ‘Pac-2’ championship game. This was a game he should have attended. — @cubsfan7331
That’s a natural sentiment, but I would pose this question in response: Was he invited?
My guess is that WSU and OSU want nothing to do with Kliavkoff, who presided over the collapse that left the two schools in this brutal position.
They blame him for the mess as much, if not more, than they blame Oregon and Washington.
If the Pac-12 was still intact and had its TV contract expiring in 2025, instead of 2024, would it be more attractive to the networks given the on-field improvement and the Deion Sanders effect? — @bbison724
Had this uptick in on-field success and Sanders’ arrival all unfolded a year ago, the conference might have secured a lucrative deal.
The same would have been true if the presidents had bet on themselves and waited for the 2023 season to play out before negotiating a media deal.
Or if COVID had happened one year earlier. After all, it engulfed the Pac-12 for two seasons, with one (2020) directly affected by the pandemic and the other (2021) impacted by the lingering toll.
In addition to all the self-inflicted wounds over the years, the Pac-12 is also the victim of terrible timing.
Was there ever an agreement in the Pac-12 to pay the $50 million to Comcast out of the emergency funds? Would Comcast have even agreed? — @ChrisFaithful49
There is a fair amount of confusion on this topic, so let’s attempt to clarify.
First, the Pac-12 isn’t reimbursing Comcast for the $50 million in overpayments. Instead, Comcast has reduced its monthly payments to the Pac-12 until the total amount withheld reaches the correct amount.
As a result, the conference has an internal issue to settle: How to offset the reduced revenue within the year-end distributions made by the conference to the campuses?
Our understanding is that the emergency funds are one piece of the compensation process.
Your thoughts on the latest theory that ESPN owes the ‘Pac-2’ the full share of College Football Playoff money — $320 million — regardless of membership? WSU president Kirk Schulz is on CFP’s board of managers, so they can’t change the rules. (The vote must be unanimous.) — @Smittytheclownn
The CFP distributes a base share of $80 million to each Power Five conference. Additional revenue is hooked to participation, but the total is nowhere near $320 million per conference.
Could the Cougars and Beavers make a claim on a full share, then each pocket $40 million?
They could try. Any changes to the CFP’s revenue sharing model for the 2024 and 2025 seasons require unanimous approval of the board, and Schulz is a member.
But in the real world, that ploy probably won’t work.
Remember, the Power Five conferences receive the bulk of the CFP revenue, and the CFP determines which conferences receive Power Five designation.
If the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 vote as a bloc, the ‘Pac-2’ schools would lose the coveted status.
We expect the CFP to delay any decision on revenue changes until the Pac-2 situation is resolved, then negotiate a change.
Let’s just say Oregon State and Washington State go forward as the ‘Pac-2’ for one or two years. Which media companies would be interested in a partnership? Are we talking about the CW and Lifetime? Or is there really room on ESPN? — @BakerMeow
Well, if WSU and OSU have access to enough Pac-12 assets, they wouldn’t necessarily need a media deal during the bridge seasons (2024-25).
Also, I’m skeptical that any national media company would pay to broadcast games against the greatly diminished schedules the Cougars and Beavers would be forced to create. Instead, the schools could sign Tier 3 (local) media deals, so their games are available in-state.
However, when they join with Mountain West schools — and regardless of the name of the league — there assuredly will be interested media buyers.
ESPN always has room for content, thanks to ESPN+.
Fox and CBS, which own the Mountain West rights through the 2025 football season, might renew that deal with WSU and OSU included.
And perhaps Apple would agree to dip its toe into college football, knowing bigger deals are looming with the power conference media contracts expiring early in the 2030s.
None of the deals will come close to matching what WSU and OSU have received in the Pac-12. But there should be something available when the new league rises.
Husky fan here planning to attend my first game at the Coliseum in November. Any advice for the trip? — @LocustAutoX
The Coliseum atmosphere is fantastic when the venerable stadium is full, and it should be jammed for that game.
Our advice: Fly into Burbank, not LAX, grab dinner at Versailles (on Venice Boulevard), enjoy the weekend … and consider betting the Over, whatever it is.
The defenses stand no chance.
…
What is your coverage plan once the Pac-12 schools go their separate ways? — @tubingtyler1
The Hotline will continue covering the schools and the issues that matter to them, on the field and off, regardless of the banner under which they compete.
Starting next summer — before next summer, actually — we’ll plunge into comprehensive coverage of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-2/Mountain West.
There will be plenty of topics to address, on the field and off, and loads of new markets for our product.
College sports are evolving rapidly, with the breakup of the Pac-12 serving as fuel for the Darwinian changes on the horizon.
LikeLike
Wilner: “Ohio State and Michigan aren’t going to accept the same payments as Rutgers and Purdue forever.”
He’s wrong on this prediction. OSU and UM have never even hinted of unequal revenue distribution. They know thay have a good situation right now. Also, both make a lot more than other Big Ten schools due to more ticket sales and alumni donations.
Wilner: “the tipping point will be a court-ordered revenue-sharing agreement with the athletes ”
Again, there is nothing to suggest that this will happen and no reason to assume that it will.
Wilner: “At that point, the conference structure will liquefy.”
There is no logical sequence of events that would lead to that scenario.
LikeLike
Many supposedly “unthinkable” things have already happened. Remember, the Big Ten wasn’t going to expand again in our lifetimes. Period.
So, although I don’t necessarily buy into Wilner’s scenario, especially in the near future, I could imagine a “logical sequence of events” where it does happen. We have already amply demonstrated our inability to predict the future.
LikeLike
Yes, there have been some surprises and there will be more on the future. But Wilner’s train of thought here is mindless and irrational. None of his predictions leads logically to the next step:
(1) “. . . there are cracks in the ACC’s foundation that will be difficult to repair.”
(2) “And those same cracks are inevitable in the Big Ten and SEC . . .”
(3) “Eventually, the top football brands in the heavyweight conferences will revolt against equal revenue distributions.”
(4) “. . . the tipping point will be a court-ordered revenue-sharing agreement with the athletes . . .”
(5) “. . . the move to unequal shares is fast approaching.”
(6) “At that point, the conference structure will liquefy.”
LikeLike
Wilner is not taking the advice of Frank the Tank by thinking like a university president.
He does not consider that most teams have been in the B1G for 100 plus years. Will the presidents of OSU and UM really want to dump the relationship with Purdue? Something very very dramatic and totally unforeseeable would need to happen. I do not believe that such a thing would happen for many many years, if ever.
The PAC was also very old, but made a series of incredibly stupid moves causing self immolation.
Wilner also totally ignores the claim by the B1G that is an academic conference. I wonder if Wilner has even heard of the B1G Academic Alliance? Probably not.
As far as the Rutgers comment, apparently Wilner is not thinking like a network exec either, paying billions of dollars for a conference from NYC to Chicago to LA.
The SEC has every flagship U in the southeast (other than NC and UVa). B1G has every flagship in the mid-west and northeast (and now the two in the northwest). I kind of think that both conferences are pretty happy. I think that UGa. Bama, etc. would need a lot of motivation to break up their league.
LikeLike
Also, look at Wilner’s first two talking points:
(1) “. . . there are cracks in the ACC’s foundation that will be difficult to repair.”
(2) “And those same cracks are inevitable in the Big Ten and SEC . . .”
This is nonsensical gibberish. The reason there are “cracks in the ACC’s foundation” is, of course, because the TV contracts of the Big Ten and SEC are far more lucrative and the ACC’s top brands are squealing. To then declare that those same cracks are inevitable in the Big Ten and SEC is a classic non sequitur.
LikeLike
Bernie,
The big brands will chase the money if/when they feel a financial pinch. If players are employees, is there a salary cap? Do scholarship limits apply if you can pay people anyway? Walk-ons would be employees too, right? What about Title IX?
These sorts of questions could force OSU to chase the money to keep our 36+ varsity sports. I don’t expect it to happen any time soon, especially with the new TV deal plus the CFP expansion about to bring in a lot more money, but if someone offered a big financial bump to the top 32 brands, people would consider it.
LikeLike
Will the presidents of OSU and UM really want to dump the relationship with Purdue? Something very very dramatic and totally unforeseeable would need to happen. I do not believe that such a thing would happen for many many years, if ever.
Wilner does say that his prediction is “years” away.
Before almost every move in conference re-alignment, there are cracks in the foundation. For instance, although you might not have predicted Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC at the exact moment it happened, it was well known that Texas had repeatedly considered switching conferences, and hence predictable that they would do it again.
Currently there is not the slightest hint that OSU and UM are unhappy sharing media revenue equally with Rutgers and Purdue. I think before that would change, you’d start to see the “cracks” that Wilner referred to, and I have no idea when or if that would happen. But it’s not unimaginable either.
Wilner also totally ignores the claim by the B1G that is an academic conference. I wonder if Wilner has even heard of the B1G Academic Alliance? Probably not.
Remember, the B10 AA was formerly the CIC, and they quietly dumped the University of Chicago. The Big Ten is a sports league. They clearly value the academic alliance but it is not immutable. (And yes, I am sure he has heard of it.)
LikeLike
Marc: “I agree with Bernie, Wilner comparing the Big Ten and SEC to the dysfunctional ACC is flat-out goofy. Wilner’s logic is “. . . there are cracks in the ACC’s foundation that will be difficult to repair.” And therefore “. . . those same cracks are inevitable in the Big Ten and SEC . . .”
Classic apples and oranges. The ACC’s problems are, of course, the result of their 20-year GOR, which came from the reptilian brain of John Swofford. The Big Ten and SEC are basking in fat new TV contracts that are the envy of all others in college football, including Notre Dame. Suggesting that the ACC’s mess will lead to disruption of the Big Ten and SEC is asinine.
LikeLike
NBC has decided it’s time to punish OSU fans, so the OSU vs PU game on 10/14 will be on Peacock only. That will make 3 straight Peacock games for PU (Purduecock?). This will be OSU’s first game not on linear TV since 1997.
LikeLike
Brian, it’s not a matter of “Purduecock”. NBC is obviously targeting games that will essentially force Big Ten fans to sign up for Peacock for at least a month at $5.99 each. They’ll probably get an additional five or six million Buckeye fans subscribing to Peacock for that Purdue game.
Just look at the games that NBC is targeting for Peacock ONLY. That is the key. Many of their top ND-Big Ten games are on both NBC and Peacock games but if you want to see (Oct 7) Rutgers-Wisconsin or Purdue-Iowa or (Oct 14) OhioState-Purdue, then you to pony up and pay $5.99/mo for Peacock.
LikeLike
Given that Peacock exists, this is exactly what you or I would do if we were running it — put every team on there at least once. (Wishing it didn’t exist is a whole other matter.)
The Peacock load won’t be shared proportionately. BTN is practically the RTN (Rutgers Television Network), given how often the Scarlet Knights appear there. Some years, as many as 9 out of 12 Rutgers games were on BTN. Purdue historically averaged 4–5 BTN games a year. So now, some of those are going to Peacock.
I suspect the kings will go on Peacock only once, and for Ohio State this was as logical a game as any to put there. The Rutgers game will probably be the Buckeyes’ obligatory BTN appearance during the conference season.
LikeLike
Actually, Purdue fans are fortunate to have three games on Peacock in succession rather than spread around during the season. My one-month subscription of $5.99 will capture three games: PU-IL, PU-Iowa and PU-Ohio State. If they were dispersed over Sept-Oct-Nov, I’d need to sign up for three months of that Turkey – er, Peacock.
LikeLike
Upon further review (no pun intended) of Peacock scheduling, my hunch is that Purdue fans better get used to it. Purdue plays ND in 2024, 5, 6, 7 and 2028. Those games are at WL, SB, WL, SB and WL. NBC will get a “two-fer” if they televise those games, an ND game plus a Big Ten game. It’s an old rivalry but certainly not the same caliber of game as Southern Cal or Michigan. I wouldn’t be surprised to see all five of those games ending up on Peacock.
LikeLike
Purdue plays ND in 2024, 5, 6, 7 and 2028… I wouldn’t be surprised to see all five of those games ending up on Peacock.
NBC shows only one ND home game per year exclusively on Peacock, and to date it has always been a buy game. Since Purdue isn’t a buy game, I would not expect that to happen when they play in South Bend.
Since the Big Ten just started on NBC, it’s too soon to discern a pattern, but they are pissing money down the toilet every time they put Notre Dame on Peacock. They need a few loss leaders there, but to do it every time would be surprising.
LikeLike
Marc: “NBC shows only one ND home game per year exclusively on Peacock, and to date it has always been a buy game. Since Purdue isn’t a buy game, I would not expect that to happen when they play in South Bend.”
That isn’t what I meant. When the game is in South Bend, that would be NBC’s ND home game selection for Peacock. When the game is in West Lafayette, that would be NBC’s Big Ten selection for Peacock.
LikeLike
When the game is in South Bend, that would be NBC’s ND home game selection for Peacock. When the game is in West Lafayette, that would be NBC’s Big Ten selection for Peacock.
Yes, that is precisely how I understood you. My reply was that Peacock has never shown (exclusively) ND hosting a Power Five opponent. It has only shown lower-grade ND opponents like UNLV or Toledo.
Since the selection rules are not public knowledge, it is unclear that NBC always has first rights when a Big Ten team hosts ND. Perhaps CBS or FOX would take that game sometimes. But even if NBC gets them all, I think they will put kings on Peacock very sparingly. I don’t see any basis to suggest that ND@PU would go there every time, even if NBC had the contractual rights to do it.
LikeLike
Plus the Purdue v. Arizona BB game is going to be a Peacock exclusive this year along 6 other Purdue BB games including Purdue at Indiana. https://www.nbcsports.com/college-basketball/news/purdue-michigan-state-lead-peacocks-2023-24-big-ten-mens-basketball-schedule
LikeLike
No, it isn’t what I’d do (not that I’d accept, or be accepted for, that job). This goes back to our previous discussion – their game selection strategy isn’t coherent.
I’d only show every team if I’m required to do so. Otherwise, what business sense does it make to show the worst programs with the fewest fans more than necessary? The brands have enough fans that even when only a small fraction are willing to pay for my terrible and overpriced service, it’s enough people to be meaningful. Having a few teams with multiple games might entice those fan bases to sign up and keep the service for several months – one offs get a 1 month payment and angry consumers.
NBC is also new to showing the B10, and I would put much more emphasis on developing that side of the business first. Push shoulder programming to Peacock to draw hardcore fans (coaching shows, replays, talking head shows, etc.) and develop a deeper talent pool first before putting good games on it.
3 in a row for PU? That’s bad business. Every other week at most, so they have to pay for more months of service.
If they use up the king games early, what are they going to show in November? Two small programs with bad seasons playing each other? Or will they use up the 9 games before then? OSU vs PU is #7:
Sept 2 at 12p ET: East Carolina vs. (2) Michigan
Sept 9 at 12p ET: Delaware vs. (6) Penn State
Sept 16 at 4:30p ET: (7) Washington vs. Michigan State
Sept 30 at 3p ET: Illinois vs. Purdue
Oct 7 at 12p ET: Rutgers vs. Wisconsin
Oct 7 at 3p ET: Purdue vs. Iowa
Oct 14 at 12p ET: (4) Ohio State vs. Purdue
3 Top 10 games, then 3 weak games, then back to a top 10 team. Why double up on 10/7?
LikeLike
I know it’s hard how you’d make a success of something you hate. Some of the above is just baffling, and I can only assume derives from your hope that it will fail.
The exact rules of selection have not been made public, as far as I know. But clearly Peacock does not have unconstrained choice, since they are competing with CBS, FOX, and BTN. I am assuming they would not choose to show two games on 10/7 if they had their pick of the basket.
But showing at least one game per team is just bleeding obvious. It is exactly what BTN does. (In that case the rule is known: BTN gets at least two games per team, of which at least one must be a conference game.)
LikeLike
It is already a failure and always will be.
Of course they don’t have infinite choice, but NBC/Peacock have at least the same choices as CBS. This year may be wonky due to CBS’s SEC commitments shifting when Peacock would get games, though.
My point about 10/7 is that they have 9 games over 14 weeks. Why double up any week, but especially one of the slowest weeks of the season? There are more games every week in September and November than in October (due to byes). They doubled up to get 2 mediocre games. They will end up with 2 games in the final 6 weeks of the season, when games matter more.
One game per team with BTN makes sense for multiple reasons:
1. The B10 owns a big share of it
2. Nobody else wants the kings to be able to avoid it – too big of an advantage. It’s not like OSU or UM wants to be on BTN rather than a real network.
3. It is literally in the contract
4. Cable bundles and long contracts
5. BTN was better than the alternative at the time – not being shown
The Peacock situation is different – just companies paying for rights, no specific contract rules about showing everyone, monthly fees but no contract for signing up. Nobody wants to be on Peacock. The other channels could carry all the games just fine. Peacock is a demotion for the game from the previous options.
If I’m Peacock, I only want to show the best games available. One of each meant BTN got annual fees from everyone in the region. Peacock only gets monthly fees, and those only from fans willing to pay for it. One PU game doesn’t get them 12 months of everyone in IN paying for it, it maybe gets two hundred thousand paying for 1 month. One PU game every other week (or every 3rd week) gets more people to pay (better value), and they pay for multiple months. That strategy might end up airing everyone once, but it doesn’t have to. Few neutral B10 fans are signing up to watch B10 games of other teams. So if they can’t get the king games, they should chase the princes as often as possible and otherwise focus on a few of the smaller programs.
The confounding factor is that NBC also needs to build their B10 coverage. This is where their decisions are all over the map to us. I’m sure they think they have a strategic plan for how they pick and assign games for NBC and Peacock.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-revisionist-history-is-an
UW’s president says the P12 president’s aren’t as dumb as has been reported, but other sources disagree. Wilner wrote the original piece, but it’s paywalled.
Some of the presidents and chancellors of the soon-to-be defunct Pac-12 Conference are in full-blown “Cover Your A—” mode. They want to revise history and walk away with clean hands. Either that or the University of Washington president just has a poor recollection of the events that led to the downfall of her soon-to-be former conference.
I reported last month that ESPN made an offer of $30 million per school to the Pac-12 in October of 2022. The conference presidents met and instructed commissioner George Kliavkoff to counter at $50 million.
ESPN’s response?
“Goodbye.”
Ana Mari Cauce, UW’s president, told Jon Wilner of The San Jose Mercury News in a piece published this week that she doesn’t remember it going down that way. That it would have been “stupid” to counter offer that high.
“I cannot tell you for sure that (Kliavkoff) asked for $50 million per school, but I would be very surprised if that was a serious counteroffer,” Cauce said. “I have notes, and $50 million is never something we were told. I don’t believe that ever happened.”
Multiple Pac-12 sources refute Cauce’s account. One campus president insisted that the conference was worth $50 million per school, I’m told. A couple of other board members quickly joined the chorus. Others didn’t have strong feelings either way but followed the herd anyway. Welcome to the world of academia.
Kliavkoff took the fateful counteroffer to ESPN, I’m told. The network ended the negotiations, pivoted to the Big 12 and spent its money there. Wilner’s subsequent reporting in the very same piece shot holes in Cauce’s claim.
Per the story:
Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.
…
I listened carefully on Thursday as a legislative committee at the Oregon State Capitol met with the presidents of Oregon and Oregon State. The public hearing was mostly just for show. Oregon State may be positioning itself to ask the state for financial assistance. But my ears perked up when UO president Karl Scholz said: “We had only one choice.”
Scholz was talking about the proposed $23 million Apple deal vs. the $32.5 million per school his school will make in the Big Ten. Be clear, Oregon had a choice. Neither of the options were ideal given the shifting sands and travel expenses. But it definitely amounted to a fork in the road.
Washington had a choice, too. The Ducks and Huskies did what was best for themselves. I might have done exactly the same in their shoes, but let’s not pretend realignment isn’t a dirty, messy, back-stabbing business. There was a lot of collateral damage. And the whole thing could have been prevented with better leadership.
Ever heard of “The Great Man Theory”?
Yes, and it’s been largely discredited.
…
But when I look at the Pac-12 CEO Group through that prism I don’t see much in the way of inspiring leadership.
…
It helps explain the Pac-12’s ridiculous $50 million counter offer. Also, why the identity of the board members who strongly supported it still haven’t gone public. They’re still protecting each other, even as they just finished stabbing each other in the backs.
Cauce got one thing right — it was stupid to counteroffer that high. So out of line that it demanded push back from the commissioner and other board members, including her. But it’s just not the world the presidents and chancellors live in.
The commissioner failed the Pac-12.
The board failed it, too.
Let’s not try to make it pretty.
LikeLike
Sorry, I screwed up my italics there.
I added “Yes, and it’s been largely discredited.” as a side comment. Everything after that was Canzano again.
But Wilner’s piece had a different slant.
Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.
“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”
Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”
“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights….”
…
Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.
Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.
Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.
According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”
So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?
Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.
“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”
It makes me wonder if some presidents were confusing the numbers for the overall revenue and just the TV deal in their heads.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-mailbag-begins-with-letter
Canzano also had this before his paywalled mailbag:
The first letter in this week’s mailbag comes from a reader in Seattle who read my Friday column about the failure of leadership in the Pac-12 Conference.
The presidents and chancellors flopped.
The commissioner wilted.
University of Washington President Ana Mari Cauce wrote to tell me she agrees with much of what I wrote. She thinks I am “100 percent correct” about who bears the responsibility for the break-up of the Pac-12. And that there was nothing pretty about the way things ended.
Last month, I reported that ESPN made an offer of $30 million per Pac-12 school in October of 2022. I’m told the conference presidents instructed the commissioner to make a counteroffer at $50 million per school, essentially nuking the negotiation.
Cauce initially refuted that report, telling Jon Wilner of The San Jose Mercury News in a piece published on Wednesday: “I don’t believe that ever happened.” But in her letter to me on Friday, she walked it back and clarified.
“I do not believe many of us expected that we would obtain a basic media-rights offer of $50 million, regardless of what counteroffer was proposed,” Cauce wrote.
Many of them didn’t expect to get $50 million per school from ESPN, she says.
They instructed the commissioner to ask for it anyway, I’m told.
Cauce owned her part in the Pac-12 breakup. I’ll give her that. The UW president also said the second guessing is an endless circle. Whether the Pac-12 should have or shouldn’t have taken ESPN’s first offer “— or any other decisions along the way that can be second-guessed now — is not directly relevant to what transpired in the days before eight teams exited the Pac-12,” she wrote.
“That offer was no longer on the table.”
Read Cauce’s letter for yourself: [go to the link to read the letter]
LikeLike
Colorado again topped the CFB ratings, with their game vs. USC attracting 7.24m viewers in Fox’s noon window. That won’t happen again this week, as the Buffs’ next game is on the Pac-12 Network.
Others surpassing the 4m mark were Georgia @Auburn (6.4m, CBS, 3:30pm), Notre Dame @Duke (5.32m, 7:30pm, ABC), and Michigan @Nebraska (4.48m, 3:30pm, Fox). NBC again had mediocre ratings: 2.16m for what would normally be a pretty good game in the 7:30pm window, MSU @Iowa.
LikeLike
MSU @ IA was a miserable game between inept offenses. At least they both have partial excuses, but still.
LikeLike
https://frontofficesports.com/apple-amazon-have-discussed-acquiring-college-football-playoff-rights/
Front Office Sports says the CFP may sell first-round games to a streamer.
Both Apple and Amazon have had preliminary discussions with the College Football Playoff about acquiring rights to the 12-team slate, sources told Front Office Sports.
The CFP has begun looking for media partners for its next contract for the expanded playoff starting in 2026, and held its first formal meeting last week. Amazon was one of the networks in the room.
Beyond usual suspects ESPN and Fox, who comprise college football’s broadcast duopoly, NBC has also had conversations and attended the meeting in person, FOS reported earlier this week. But executive director Bill Hancock noted that there was mutual interest in a streaming element for the now-11-game slate.
…
It’s unlikely that they’ll receive the semifinals or championship game. But the CFP’s new first round, which will include four games played on college campuses, could provide an opportunity for experimentation with streamers.
Earlier this year, the NFL inked a $110 million deal with NBC to stream a wild card game exclusively on Peacock in January 2024.
However, no streamer has successfully outbid a linear broadcaster for Tier 1 inventory, an expert industry source previously noted.
While original estimates suggested the CFP’s 12-team format could be worth $2 billion annually, sources are now telling FOS the number will be much lower.
But bringing in multiple rights partners, like the NFL, would likely increase the CFP’s ultimate payout.
LikeLike
The NCAA has granted eligibility to UNC WR Tez Walker, who will suit up for the Tar Heels’ game this weekend against Syracuse. Walker was previously denied eligibility to play this season because the NCAA said that he had transferred twice, and that he did not qualify for one of the few permitted exceptions under new, stricter rules in effect this year.
UNC leadership blasted the NCAA publicly for their initial decision denying eligibility, saying they believed it had enforced the rules unfairly. The NCAA blames UNC, saying that new information changed the decision on Walker’s eligibility. “It is unfortunate that UNC failed to provide this important information previously,” they said.
These cases are adjudicated confidentially, so it’s not known exactly what the NCAA found wanting in the initial submission, or what the new information was that justified changing their minds.
LikeLike
From The Athletic . . .
Big Ten reveals new football scheduling model for 18-team league: How this changes the conference
By Nicole Auerbach and Scott Dochterman 3h ago
The Big Ten conference announced Thursday each school’s home and away Big Ten opponents for the 2024 through the 2028 football seasons, underscoring how challenging these schedules are going to be for all teams in the new 18-team league.
USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington all become official Big Ten members next summer. The league had to revise its previously announced scheduling model and pairings after adding to the two Pacific Northwest schools in August.
Here are the highlights of the updated schedule:
Michigan will play three of the former Pac-12 schools in 2024, with a road trip to Washington to go along with home games against Oregon and USC. Ohio State will travel to Eugene to play Oregon in the Ducks’ first year in the Big Ten.
USC will play either Michigan or Ohio State each of its first five years in the league.
Conference schedules include 12 protected annual matchups: Illinois-Northwestern, Illinois-Purdue, Indiana-Purdue, Iowa-Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska, Iowa-Wisconsin, Maryland-Rutgers, Michigan-Michigan State, Michigan-Ohio State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Oregon-Washington and UCLA-USC.
There will be no divisions, and the Big Ten Championship Game will include the top two teams in the overall conference standings.There were 262 versions of the schedule before the office found the one that matched its preferences.
“You look at it, and you see the quality of the matchups,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said. “We just couldn’t be more excited about what you see on paper, what it really looks like.”
Each Big Ten member school will play every other conference opponent at least twice — once home and once away — over a five-year period, and each will play rotating opponents no more than three times in a five-year period.
There were some significant changes. Every team changed at least four games from the original schedule. Ohio State, for instance, plays only two of the originally scheduled home opponents (Michigan and Iowa) and two of the original road foes (Michigan State and Penn State). The Buckeyes will travel to Oregon instead of UCLA and there was a location change with Northwestern (was home, now away).
“If you look at a five-year snapshot, it’s 405 total games,” Big Ten chief operating officer Kerry Kenny said. “What we wanted to try to do was make sure that we showed our work this time. So it takes a five-year rotation to make sure that everybody plays at least once home and once a week against every other Big Ten opponent. That was a principle that was really important the last time around to our ADs and our coaches and still remains at the forefront of those conversations.”
Tiebreaking procedures for the Big Ten championship game will be announced later, as will the actual dates of games for the upcoming 2024 season. The first year of the 18-team Big Ten will also be the first season of the expanded 12-team College Football Playoff.
West Coast influence
The four newcomers each will make at least four trips to the East Coast (Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers) over the five-year period. UCLA is the only school making five. Big Ten scheduling consultant Kevin Pauga said he tried to balance time zones in addition to other travel concerns.
Kenny said Thursday the Big Ten will not have 9 a.m. PT local games in Los Angeles, Pasadena, Calif., Eugene, Ore., or Seattle, although teams from the West Coast may play in games that kick off at 11 a.m. CT or noon ET on the road.
There was consideration of having all four West Coast teams play one another annually but that was discarded in favor of protecting only USC-UCLA and Oregon-Washington. Instead, the non-protected West Coast series will compete three times over the five-year period.
“We looked at a variety of different options,” Kenny said. “It included games against one another each year as all being protected opponents. It involved only having the UCLA-USC and Oregon-Washington games protected and somewhere in between with a couple of other different versions where we landed on it.
“Looking at it from a bigger picture perspective, we felt that it still met the the outcome of keeping West Coast football important for those four schools and creating some of those matchups that have done so well competitively and historically from a tradition perspective within those four teams in the past, but also really looking at our integration process as a whole in the Big Ten.”
Competitive balance
There is a hierarchy of the 18-team Big Ten football conference consisting of historic powers like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC, annual competitive programs like Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin and Iowa plus others such as UCLA, Michigan State and Northwestern which routinely have competed for league titles.
In order to provide balanced scheduling, a scheduling matrix was developed. It first included two tiers of nine teams, then three tiers of six teams and finally six tiers of three teams.
“Our goal was to try and create those opportunities where we eliminated the outliers,” Kenny said. “So the hardest schedule and the easiest schedule on paper should all be around a consistent equator line as you look across all 18.”
The 262nd schedule was the only one in which all 18 teams had four or five games against each of the nine-team tiers established.
Scheduling with a CFP emphasis
It’s no secret that the Big Ten wants to make sure it has multiple CFP contenders each year, now that there will be more at-large access than ever before in a 12-team bracket. So, the conference wants to ensure that its best teams have challenging schedules that give them plenty of opportunities for resume-boosting wins — and also the opportunity to make up for losses. The key, of course, is to have the CFP selection committee value schedules like these. Teams that challenge themselves deserve to be rewarded for it, and teams with a couple of losses need to stay in CFP contention. Strength of schedule is on the list of criteria for CFP selection, though it’s been harder to lean on in a four-team model than a 12-team model.
“The schedule has to matter when teams are qualifying for the postseason, and that’s our job,” Petitti said.
Translation: The commissioners and presidents who oversee the CFP have to make sure that’s emphasized.
Still to come
There are opponents for the 2024 schedule, but there are no games scheduled quite yet. The work on a full schedule already has started.
“If you ask our athletic directors, they would have said we need that schedule yesterday,” Kenny said. “We’ve been building this model in the background as we’ve been building the actual opponent rotation. And so there’s already a model.
“We’ve got a call scheduled (Pauga) and I (Friday) afternoon to really start to go through some of, we call them pain points. Things that if we can avoid them, let’s avoid them, but at least have some defensible rationale of why things ended up the way that they did if it needs to be a certain way.”
Background reading
On June 8, the Big Ten unveiled a two-year scheduling model for 16 teams that included every school playing one another at least once. Like in the 18-game model, there are an uneven amount of rivalries but over the two-year frame, each program faced three teams twice and the remaining 12 teams once.
A key tenet was to allow every four-year player to compete at least once on every campus. But when the Big Ten welcomed Washington and Oregon on Aug. 4, that model became obsolete. Instead of forfeiting the Flex Protect-Plus plan, which then kept 11 historical or geographic rivalries intact each year, the league chose to stretch some campus visits beyond four years. Now, every school will play every other schools twice — home and away — over a five-year period.
“That was a principle that was really important to our ADs and our coaches and still remains at the forefront,” Kenny said.
LikeLike
The Big Ten has announced the home & away football opponents for the 2024–2028 seasons. They are calling it Flex Protect XVIII, and no, that is not a joke.
The stated goals are:
— “Balance of annual travel by distance, regions of the conference, and time zones.
— “Maintaining control and flexibility as the college football postseason format evolves, with the goal to create access for programs into an expanded College Football Playoff.
— “Balance of historic competitiveness and recent competitive trends, including home/away balance of traditionally competitive schools.”
The twelve protected games (contested annually) are: Illinois-Northwestern, Illinois-Purdue, Indiana-Purdue, Iowa-Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska, Iowa-Wisconsin, Maryland-Rutgers, Michigan-Michigan State, Michigan-Ohio State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Oregon-Washington and UCLA-USC.
The new kings are not getting it easy. In 2024, Oregon gets Michigan and Ohio State. Washington gets Michigan, USC, and Penn State. USC gets Michigan, Washington, and Penn State.
This is just a list of opponents. Dates to be announced later.
LikeLike
Marc,
What is it with the B10 and names? Even worse is that ESPN’s article accidentally called it “Flex Protect XVII” which really confused me.
Big note: Only the local rivalries out west got locked, not all the possible western games. That means more travel for everyone. It’s consistent, but doesn’t minimize travel which they say is important.
Each member institution will continue to play nine intraconference games per season, and teams will play every other conference opponent at least twice – once home and once away – and will play rotating opponents no more than three times in a five-year period.
100%, 60% or 40%? Not great, but not terrible.
OSU:
2024 – @UO, @PSU
2025 – @UW, UCLA, PSU
2026 – @USC, UO
2027 – @UO, USC
2028 – @UCLA, UW, @PSU
UO, IL, MN, NE, NW, PSU, PU, RU – 3 (5 B10W teams + 1 P12 team + 2 B10E )
UW, UCLA, USC, IA, WI, MSU, IN, UMD – 2 (2 B10W teams + 3 P12 teams + 4 B10E)
3 games against PSU, UO, NE = 9
2 games against USC, UCLA, UW, IA, WI, MSU = 12
5 games against UM = 5
26 brand games in 5 years
Why do we get stuck with the Ducks and the B10 West? Why so few games against big brands? I’ll need to see the numbers for everyone else, but it seems like it should be a more even split (9 other brands – play 5 twice, 4 thrice).
Speaking of ESPN’s article:
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38574959/big-ten-reveals-new-football-schedules-2024-28-seasons
“We added two more [teams], but that changes everything. We got to go back to the drawing board and do this rotation again,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said on a conference call. “We’re staying with a lot of the principles that were in place when we did the original announcement back with USC and UCLA being integrated, the core concepts, competitive balance, connecting the whole conference. Trying to be mindful of travel, all those things are still in place here, protecting the traditional rivalries, all of those things are in this process.”
…
Distance and travel have been a big part of the process for Petitti and Big Ten chief operating officer Kerry Kenny, as adding four West Coast teams created logistics questions that needed to be balanced for student-athletes and budgets. The conference worked with athletic directors on finding that balance and ensuring that things were working in the most efficient way for everyone involved.
“There’s an overall narrative that’s being painted that every competition that’s going to occur in the Big Ten is going to be a midweek game involving a team from Eugene against a team from Piscataway. That’s not really what we’re looking at here,” Kenny said. “We’ve taken a really thoughtful approach, not just to football but sport by sport, that’s going to be impacted by adding these four schools. And what is the most efficient way to create schedules, create opponent rotations in formats that try to minimize, to the extent possible, that time away from campus.”
Kenny said the mental and physical well-being of the athletes was at the forefront of the sequencing — things such as making sure that if a team is playing an away game two time zones over, it won’t also be playing a noon away game at a Central time zone school the next week. The conference took into consideration the weekly ebbs and flows of a season as well as bye weeks and Friday night games that might affect travel.
LikeLike
Why do we get stuck with the Ducks and the B10 West?
They balanced it pretty well. Michigan has Washington 3x and Oregon twice. OSU has Oregon 3x and Washington twice. But Michigan has USC 3x whereas the Buckeyes only 2x. So over 5 years, OSU has one less game against the big brands out west.
OSU can’t play themselves and they’re locked into Michigan annually. That leaves 12 schools from the current league to play in rotation, of which 7 are in the west and only 5 in the east. So it makes sense that there’d be more games vs. the west.
I would’ve thought you’d like it that way, since 6 of the 7 west teams are from the Big Ten we grew up with, but only 3 of the east teams are. Of course, the fact that Indiana is an “east” team is fairly random anyway. Among the remaining east teams, two are Rutgers and Maryland, which I would have assumed OSU fans don’t much care whether they play or not.
As an aside: Michigan and Washington were supposed to play a home & home in 2020–21. The 2020 game @Washington was cancelled due to the pandemic and rescheduled for 2028. That game is now on the conference schedule, so both teams now have a gap that year. The Huskies have work to do, as they do not have a complete non-con schedule for any season in the future, not even for 2024. The Ducks are fully scheduled out to 2028.
It will be interesting to see if Washington schedules WSU, for any of those gap years. I think the Cougars could squeeze them in.
LikeLike
OSU gets 1 western team 3x, and they picked UO?
If WSU and OrSU can (theoretically) play each other 6 times to make a schedule, certainly OSU can play itself once. We could start counting the spring game and get an extra bye in fall.
OSU was supposed to play @ UO in 2020 as well, before that was cancelled for COVID. We paid them $3.5M for the 2021 game rather than re-schedule.
OSU has “OOC” games with UO in 2032-33 on the books, too. UO has MSU in 2029-30.
Yes 12 left, 7W and 5E. But we got 5/7 from the W (more travel, and with time zone changes) and 2/5 from the E (4/7 and 3/5 seems more “fair”). We also got 3 of the 4 most recent additions (all but UMD). Part of this is me trying to look from the neutral POV – isn’t OSU vs USC better than OSU vs UO? Why wouldn’t you put your best foot forward when trying to onboard new TV partners? Isn’t OSU vs MSU better than OSU vs PU?
I didn’t say this was a terrible schedule, just that it wasn’t great. The name is terrible, but you pointed that out first.
LikeLike
Brian: “. . . isn’t OSU vs MSU better than OSU vs PU?”
Why would it be? Since 2000, MSU is 3-16 vs OSU (16%) while Purdue is 5-9 (36%) vs the Buckeyes.
LikeLike
Why would it be? Since 2000, MSU is 3-16 vs OSU (16%) while Purdue is 5-9 (36%) vs the Buckeyes.
Your math is right, but OSU–MSU does better on TV. It might not be fair, but there is a reason why Purdue is on Peacock and BTN so often.
It seems the Buckeyes sometimes let their guard down vs. Purdue, because they don’t think of it as a big game. Coaches will tell you never to disregard an opponent, but players cannot help treating some as more important than others. I think this is why Purdue has a better record against OSU than it “should have,” given the two teams’ playing strength against other opponents.
LikeLike
Marc: ” . . . but OSU–MSU does better on TV.”
The data supports that thesis but it’s misleading and probably not realistic. The reason that MSU, UMD and Indiana have so many TV viewers is because they all play OSU, UM and PSU every year.
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
The data supports that thesis but it’s misleading and probably not realistic. The reason that MSU, UMD and Indiana have so many TV viewers is because they all play OSU, UM and PSU every year.
There is also the fact that MSU was a plausible contender in ~9 of the past 15 seasons, whereas Purdue usually was not. (I know Purdue won the West last year, but that was not typical.)
LikeLike
Marc: “There is also the fact that MSU was a plausible contender in ~9 of the past 15 seasons, whereas Purdue usually was not.”
Again true but misleading. Brian was arguing that OSU-MSU was ‘clearly’ a better TV game than OSU-Purdue. It isn’t. Probably about same-same in consideration that Purdue’s black HC hasn’t yet been caught masturbating into the telephone. Also note the Boilermaker fans and alumni aren’t in sticker shock about the HC salary.
LikeLike
Marc,
History says that winning the West doesn’t really make you a contender either. They’ve been the higher ranked team in the CCG 3 times and gone 0-3. They’re 0-9 overall in the CCG, and PU wasn’t even ranked last year (only B10 CCG team to be unranked in E/W era).
LikeLike
I prefer “Leaders Flex Legends Protect Losers XVIII”.
LikeLike
All home ND hockey games will be on Peacock this year (also were last year). What’s the point in allowing them to be a hockey-only B10 member if BTN can’t even show their home B10 games? It’s good the real B10 teams can get more coverage, but it removes the only real reason to have ND in the conference.
https://bigten.org/news/2023/10/5/mens-ice-hockey-big-ten-conference-announces-2023-24-hockey-television-schedule.aspx
Only 28 B10 hockey games will be directly broadcast by the B10 TV deal – 27 on BTN , 1 on FS1. The rest go to B1G+. With the death of RSNs, that mostly means no more local broadcasts (like WI – 4 BTN games and all the rest on B1G+ only).
LikeLike
In The Athletic, Scott Docterman has a press release, I mean an article, about the new Big Ten schedule format. If Tony Petitti wrote it himself, I doubt it could have been any more favorable.
I do like the new format — it’s what I advocated on this forum, long before I thought there was any chance they would really do it. But still, this is over the top:
No growing conference has mastered navigating the confluence of providing electrifying high-profile national matchups yet perfectly retaining historical rivalries like the Big Ten. Thursday, as it unveiled conference opponents for the next five years, the Big Ten never wavered from its tenets or what made it special, even as it adds four schools from the West Coast. The conference that boasts the most revenue also does the best job of preserving its history.
And:
Even when it was a 14-school conference, Big Ten officials and school administrators sought a way to eliminate divisions, syndicate matchups on a consistent basis and keep impactful series.
Divisions could have been eliminated years ago, had not Jim Delany spearheaded a move to derail it.
There’s a funny typo that might be fixed by the time you read this:
“It takes a five-year rotation to make sure that everybody plays at least once home and once a week against every other Big Ten opponent,” said Kerry Kenny, the Big Ten’s chief operating officer. “That was a principle that was really important the last time around to our ADs and our coaches and still remains at the forefront of those conversations.”
While I think his purple prose is silly, his main point is that he prefers (as I do) locking unequally, rather than trying to find exactly the same number of annual games that make sense for every team. He contrasts it to the SEC, which considered lock-one or lock-three as the only options.
But sports is a copycat business. If the Big Ten’s system works, you will see other leagues adopt it. I think the SEC will be looking at their schedules again in another year or two.
LikeLike
Marc,
That’s not purple prose, it’s pure fiction.
No growing conference has mastered navigating the confluence of providing electrifying high-profile national matchups yet perfectly retaining historical rivalries like the Big Ten.
Historical rivalries? The Little Brown Jug and Illibuck must be key parts of this new plan then. No? Well, at least they kept the vital Purdue Cannon game.
High-profile national matchups? Like OSU vs PSU, and OSU vs USC, and UM vs USC, and USC vs UO? No? Okay, he must have meant RU vs UMD.
…the Big Ten never wavered from its tenets or what made it special, even as it adds four schools from the West Coast. The conference that boasts the most revenue also does the best job of preserving its history.
What made it special (and its history) was being midwestern with an academic focus, not having eastern or western members.
The B10 earns the most media revenue, but the combined SEC schools might average more total revenue due to larger stadiums on average.
Even when it was a 14-school conference, Big Ten officials and school administrators sought a way to eliminate divisions, syndicate matchups on a consistent basis and keep impactful series.
1. No they didn’t. They could’ve eliminated divisions at any time and didn’t do it. They even waited until 2024 to do it now. There were no divisions for over 100 years, and they were not forced to ever create them. And when they did create them, they did a poor job.
2. Keep impactful series? Like OSU vs PSU? Or is the 2nd-highest rated B10 game on average (often an elimination game for the division title, and thus the B10 title) not “impactful”?
3. “syndicate matchups on a consistent basis”? I don’t even know what he means by that. Nobody wants to syndicate games (sell them to local stations directly), you want them on national networks.
LikeLike
In order to provide balanced scheduling, a scheduling matrix was developed. It first included two tiers of nine teams, then three tiers of six teams and finally six tiers of three teams.
At each level, they were looking for balance. I’d love to know how they decided on those tiers. A couple of schools (OSU, RU) are easy, but the rest would be highly metric-dependent. Linked is one possible metric, but you’d have to fold in the 4 newbies (I eyeballed it).
Current 14 in order (1-7, 14-8)
Tier 1 = OSU, UM, PSU, WI, IA MSU, NW
Tier 2 = RU, IL, UMD, IN, NE, PU, MN
All 18 in order (1-9, 18-10)
Tier 1 = OSU, UM, USC, PSU, WI, UW, UO, IA MSU
Tier 2 = RU, IL, UMD, IN, NE, PU, MN, NW, UCLA
Tier 1 = OSU, UM, USC, PSU, WI, UW
Tier 2 = UO, IA MSU, UCLA, NW, MN
Tier 3 = RU, IL, UMD, IN, NE, PU
Tier 1 = OSU, UM, USC,
Tier 2 = PSU, WI, UW
Tier 3 = UO, IA MSU
Tier 4 = UCLA, NW, MN
Tier 5 = IN, NE, PU
Tier 6 = RU, IL, UMD
But many of these are very close, especially in the middle of the pack. And if you look over different time periods, teams move around (except OSU and RU).
LikeLike
I’d also love to see the tiers.
I’m not sure the close calls matter very much. You’ve got the protected games, which for the most part are based on geography or history, not playing strength. Beyond the protected games, you play every other opponent either twice in five years or thrice in five years. And there are other factors that determine the schedule besides what tier you’re in.
So it probably doesn’t make a huge difference if, for example, you swap Oregon and Washington between tiers 2 and 3.
LikeLike
Marc,
It matters for trying to understand what they did. In the short term, past performance is not indicative of future performance for college teams anyway. Even over the long term, most programs go up and down. Will they do redo the tiers every 5 years? Does anyone believe that NE will stay in Tier 5 (and behind IN) for a prolonged time?
OSU’s 5-year schedule:
Tier 1 = OSU, UM, USC, PSU, WI, UW, UO, IA MSU = 21
Tier 2 = RU, IL, UMD, IN, NE, PU, MN, NW, UCLA = 24
Tier 1 = OSU, UM, USC, PSU, WI, UW = 14
Tier 2 = UO, IA MSU, UCLA, NW, MN = 15
Tier 3 = RU, IL, UMD, IN, NE, PU = 16
Tier 1 = OSU, UM, USC – 0, 5, 2 = 7
Tier 2 = PSU, WI, UW – 3, 2, 2, = 7
Tier 3 = UO, IA, MSU – 3, 2, 2 = 7
Tier 4 = UCLA, NW, MN – 2, 3, 3 = 8
Tier 5 = IN, NE, PU – 2, 3, 3 = 8
Tier 6 = RU, IL, UMD – 3, 3, 2 = 8
That’s fairly simple since OSU has 1 locked rival and they share a tier, giving 5 combined games. If this is what they were looking at for equity, though, swapping UO and UW (or USC and PSU, or MN and IN) would matter. OSU’s schedule looks a little lopsided with weaker programs using this tiers. But if you shift a few, that appearance will change.
This is why I’d like to see their tiers, and all the “equity” numbers crunched for every team.
LikeLike
In the short term, past performance is not indicative of future performance for college teams anyway. Even over the long term, most programs go up and down.
College sports teams tend to revert to their long-term performance, even if they have a period that deviates from it. The Big Ten scheduled Michigan like a king even during the 7-year Rodriguez/Hoke era when they performed abysmally (by their standards).
PSU went right back to contender status after a few fallow post-Paterno years. It is pretty unlikely that OSU would ever be bad long enough to be in Tier 4, 5, or 6. Could they have a bad year, or three? Sure, but they’d regroup.
Will they do redo the tiers every 5 years? Does anyone believe that NE will stay in Tier 5 (and behind IN) for a prolonged time?
I didn’t question your tiers, but I would guess that they have Nebraska higher than Tier 5 even now, although if you only looked at their recent record it would be justified.
I suspect that the tiers are not meant to endure. They were just a method of divvying up the games for this 5-year period. By the time they do this again, there will probably be different people in the room and a modified set of criteria based on how this schedule works out.
LikeLike
Marc,
College sports teams tend to revert to their long-term performance, even if they have a period that deviates from it. The Big Ten scheduled Michigan like a king even during the 7-year Rodriguez/Hoke era when they performed abysmally (by their standards).
PSU went right back to contender status after a few fallow post-Paterno years. It is pretty unlikely that OSU would ever be bad long enough to be in Tier 4, 5, or 6. Could they have a bad year, or three? Sure, but they’d regroup.
What is NW long-term, the terrible team of the 70s and 80s, or the decent team before and since? Likewise WI (good pre-1933, terrible until 1993, really good since), and MN (the early power, or the modern mediocre team) just to name 2 more.
I didn’t question your tiers, but I would guess that they have Nebraska higher than Tier 5 even now, although if you only looked at their recent record it would be justified.
My tiers were entirely based on Fox’s tweet of conference W% since 2015. The P12 teams I had to do mental math, and obviously they assume equal difficulty.
By brand NE is higher, and I would treat them as such. That’s why I asked what metrics they used.
I suspect that the tiers are not meant to endure. They were just a method of divvying up the games for this 5-year period. By the time they do this again, there will probably be different people in the room and a modified set of criteria based on how this schedule works out.
Why do 5 years when the TV deal ends just after that? It’s not like it’s a 5-year cycle for everyone.
LikeLike
Using logic, I believe I figured out the top 9 and bottom 9 tiers. The starting assumption is that Michigan, OSU, PSU, USC, Washington, and Oregon are all top 9. Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Maryland, Illinois, and Northwestern are all bottom 9. That leaves MSU, Nebraska, Iowa, UCLA, and Wisconsin as our contenders for three spots in the top 9.
The Athletic article states that every year, every team plays either 4 or 5 teams in the top 9 (and also, either 4 or 5 teams in the bottom 9).
If you look at MSU’s 2024 schedule, they only play three top 9s (Michigan, OSU, Oregon). Therefore, IOWA must be in the Top 9.
If you look at UCLA’s 2024 schedule, they play five top 9s (Penn State, Washington, Iowa, USC, Oregon). Nebraska is also on their schedule, therefore, NEBRASKA must be in the Bottom 9.
Finally, is you look at Washington’s 2024 schedule, they also play five top 9s (Iowa, Oregon, Penn State, Michigan, USC). UCLA is also on their schedule, therefore, UCLA must be in the Bottom 9.
By process of elimination, MICHIGAN STATE and WISCONSIN are the other two schools in the Top 9.
LikeLike
Canzano is out with new reporting on the failed Pac-12 media negotiation. It’s behind a paywall but here are a few tidbits:
1. The Pac-12 had been led to believe (by Kevin Warren?) that the Big Ten deal was for $70 or $80 million per school. This number was inflated, but it informed what the Pac-12 presidents thought they were worth.
What the president and chancellors did do, however, was attempt to double check the work that Kliavkoff and his consulting firm were doing. It’s why a number of them hired their own consultants, Utah included. And almost everyone, at least initially, was operating from the Big Ten’s inflated valuations.
2. Utah president Taylor Randall was behind the decision to demand $50 million, although several other presidents (unnamed) supported this.
Records show that Utah hired three consultants. Other schools weren’t far behind. Randall, I’m told, also wasn’t alone in pushing for the $50 million valuation. At least three others in the Pac-12 board room were also enthusiastic about it. The other campus leaders were indifferent and went along with it.
3. However, Randall tells Canzano that this was meant to be just a starting point to reach what they felt was the true valuation of $40–50m.
Several conference schools retained their own consultants to value the league, which resulted in a range of estimations. It is my understanding that any mention of $50 million, which was higher than any valuation, was only as a potential starting point in negotiations to help get us to the estimated true value.
Presidents now say that George Kliavkoff misplayed it:
One Pac-12 president told me Kliavkoff and Sports Media Advisors [their consultant] completely misplayed the $50 million counteroffer: “The instructions were to negotiate. This wasn’t supposed to be a ‘take your ball and go home’ scenario.”
LikeLike
“Randall tells Canzano that this was meant to be just a starting point to reach what they felt was the true valuation of $40–50m.”
I believe that is true. They perceived it to be a starting point for negotiations rather than a “take it or leave it” offer. And why wouldn’t they? They had just finished watching the Big Ten and SEC do that for months.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-truth-behind-the-pac-12s
Marc, it wasn’t paywalled for me. Maybe he changed it to be free?
I’ll look at a different section first:
The Pac-12 presidents and chancellors couldn’t wait to see it. After all, months earlier they’d watched their Big Ten counterparts announce a deal that would potentially distribute as much as $70 million or $80 million or even $100 million per school annually.
“Nobody was up for $30 million,” one Pac-12 president later told me.
The world would eventually find out that the Big Ten figures were inflated by those initial news reports. The actual budgeted media-rights distribution disclosed by UCLA last December during the UC Regents meetings was $62.5 million per year. It will grow to $65 million in year two with another jump in year three.
“There was a crash once we got the real number,” the president said, “once Kevin Warren left the Big Ten we found out the number wasn’t real.”
I’d like to see a link to where the B10 presidents announced the TV deal was worth that much. I don’t recall any official statements about the money, just speculation/reporting from writers. And they were all talking about the average annual value, not the starting value. I only ever saw $100M as fan speculation, or for the total distribution including the CFP and NCAAT.
For simplicity, let’s assume 4% growth (that’s standard, and 65/62.5 = 1.04) and that Canzano’s numbers are correct:
2024-25 – $62.5M
2025-26 – $65M
2026-27 – $67.6M
2027-28 – $70.3M
2028-29 – $73.1M
2029-30 – $76.0M
Average = $69.1M – regular folks calling that $70M wouldn’t be ridiculous
But I haven’t seen evidence for his number, just speculation. I’ve also seen the B10 TV deal valued from $7B to $8B, which tells me people don’t know. $7B/7 years/16 schools = $62.5M. That number is too round to be 100% accurate. UCLA had $62.5M in debt – that number shows up a lot in Google.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/35254728/uc-regents-approve-ucla-big-ten-move-include-conditions
UCLA, which has been plagued by $62.5 million in debt, according to the Los Angeles Times, has said it would be in line to earn up to $70 million annually in media rights and the subsequent exposure.
Now, back to the other stuff:
Bob Thompson, the retired Fox Sports Networks president, told me in the summer of 2022 that he believed the 10 remaining Pac-12 schools were worth $300 million total per year. That matches the $30 million per school that ESPN offered. But the valuations that the Pac-12 members came up with and talked about in their board meetings consistently came in between $40 million and $45 million per school annually.
Also, there was a complicating factor — the Pac-12 wanted UCLA back. The Bruins were expecting a $10 million per year increase in annual travel costs in the Big Ten. In the days before the December meeting of the UC Regents, the Pac-12 believed that $50 million per school was the number that would make the Bruins think hard about a reversal.
Adding UCLA back into the Pac-12’s media rights deal raised the value of the conference by 10 percent to 15 percent, the Pac-12’s consultants told the presidents. It presented a strong argument for unequal revenue sharing of media rights. But there was a looming Oregon problem on the horizon. Everyone believed the Big Ten and FOX were still whispering in UO’s ear and possibly talking with Washington as well.
“If you pay UCLA $50 million,” one president told me, “Oregon’s going to want $50 million or FOX will just swap them. And if you end up too low, you lose both the Huskies and the Ducks. FOX would have just come in, made the offer they made, and they’re gone anyway.”
Ana Mari Cauce, Washington’s president, wrote me a letter last week. Cauce said that she didn’t “believe many of us expected that we would obtain a basic media-rights offer of $50 million, regardless of what counteroffer was proposed.”
Umm, UCLA being the 11th school would add 10-15% to the value because they’d increase the size of the conference by 10%. $330M/11 = $30M each, just like without UCLA. $345M/11 = $31.4M, so at the upper end UCLA leaving cost them $1.4M per year. Or is he trying to claim they were worth $33-34.5M with UCLA? Either way, that’s saying USC was worth $120-170M.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/mailbag-marquee-big-ten-matchups-on-the-west-coast-pac-2-legal-affairs-cfp-access-hotline-coverage-plans-and-more/
Wilner mailbag
The new, restructured Big Ten schedule came out Thursday, and Washington’s travel has almost tripled from this year. How do the Huskies afford this on the halved revenue until the next media rights deal in 2030? — @Cargoman0363
Ask Ana Mari Cauce.
Washington’s president signed off on the Big Ten move knowing that her athletic department would receive half-shares (approximately) of the media rights revenue — or about $32.5 million, on average, through the 2030 fiscal year.
She also approved the move knowing how much travel would be involved in the move.
And knowing the cost of charter flights is rising.
And knowing UW’s football program must be funded at levels that allow the Huskies to compete for the Big Ten title and College Football Playoff berths.
Otherwise, Washington might as well be Maryland — a coastal school that’s just happy to be a member of the Chicago-based conference but has little chance to make an impact in the sport that matters most.
Is it historically more difficult for East Coast teams to play in the Pacific Time Zone than for West Coast teams to play in the Eastern Time Zone? Follow up: Did USC torpedo the Big Ten’s West Coast quartet being protected matchups? — @keithdennis
To address the second question first: I have no knowledge of that situation. None whatsoever.
However, Big Ten executives were extremely convincing Thursday when they explained that greater scheduling immersion for new members helps facilitate conference cohesion. The more the West Coast schools play the likes of Purdue and Illinois and Iowa, the better.
We suspect the decision to limit the protected West Coast matchups to USC-UCLA and Oregon-Washington emanated from the conference office.
As for the impact of travel on performance, our unscientific view is the following: It depends on the kickoff time.
Nothing is more difficult than West Coast schools playing at 12 p.m. in the Eastern Time Zone.
But late games on the West Coast (7:30 p.m. kickoffs locally) aren’t necessarily easy for teams from the Eastern Time Zone. The players are up early because of the body clock disruption and have to wait 15 or more hours to take the field.
Can Oregon State and Washington State really wait things out for legal action against the outgoing schools? If so, how much do they realistically stand to claim? If not, how do you see it playing out money-wise for all involved via a negotiated settlement? — @jjfuller72
They can wait a few more months and are hoping that’s all the situation requires.
A hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for Nov. 14 in Whitman County (Washington) Superior Court. The two sides could settle before then, of course. But if clarity comes in November, there’s probably enough time for the Cougars and Beavers to make whatever moves are required.
If the dispute goes to trial, which assuredly would stretch into 2024, then the timing gets tricky because of all the issues that must be resolved over and above the name and makeup of their conference.
The two schools need schedules for 2024; they need a media contract for 2024; they need clarity on NCAA governance matters for 2024. And the Mountain West needs answers, too.
There are 14 schools, not two, waiting for the Pac-12 to provide the needed documents and for the legal process to unfold.
We don’t have enough information to make an informed guess on the assets and liabilities other than the NCAA Tournament units, which translate to more than $60 million over the six-year payout period starting in the spring of 2025.
The Hotline will have estimates on the finances as soon as there’s clarity on the structure of the conference and the assets and liabilities. It’s simply too early to know, even though it’s starting to get a bit late.
…
What are the voting margins required for College Football Playoff changes by the board of managers? I keep hearing decisions must be unanimous, but that seems odd. Are the votes required for changes different for the 2024/25 editions of the CFP than in 2026? — @AmbitiousCoug
All major issues, including revenue sharing, require unanimous approval by the College Football Playoff’s Board of Managers. (The Pac-12’s representative is Washington State president Kirk Schulz.)
However, the CFP contract with ESPN expires after the 2025 season, so the slate is blank for 2026 and beyond. If the SEC and Big Ten felt the need, they could create their own playoff and partner with ESPN or Fox, leaving everyone else behind.
My advice to WSU and OSU fans is to assume the playoff will rewrite the revenue sharing policy and the format, with an eye on diminishing the role of the reconfigured conference that houses the Cougars and Beavers.
However, it’s safe to assume that an automatic bid will be reserved for the top-ranked team from outside the power conferences.
Put another way: In a Power Four world, there will be five AQ spots and seven at-large berths.
If WSU or OSU wins either the Mountain West or the rebuilt Pac-12, it will have an excellent chance to qualify for the playoff.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/big-ten-coo-talks-football-scheduling-strategy-friday-games-730-p-m-kickoffs-placement-of-non-conference-games-and-more/
Wilner interviewed B10 COO Kerry Kenny. Wilner apparently wants the B10 to stoop to chicken scheduling like the SEC, and Kenny is open to it. OOC rivalry games in November are fine with me, but G5/I-AA game are not.
The Big Ten is open to playing non-conference games in November as it moves into the expansion era, with the conference growing to 18 schools next year and the College Football Playoff to 12 teams.
“It’s a conversation we’re open to,” chief operating officer Kerry Kenny told the Hotline on Thursday following the release of the Big Ten’s conference schedule rotation for a five-year period.
“We haven’t had any in-depth discussions, but we want to be thoughtful.”
Reconfiguring the Big Ten schedule to accommodate a non-conference game in November would be a deeply complicated process that could take years to implement because of non-conference matchups under contract for the opening weeks of future seasons.
…
Creating a late-season Saturday for non-conference games could allow Washington and Washington State to play the Apple Cup in a more traditional window once the schools are in different leagues. The same goes for Oregon and Oregon State. (The status of both rivalries is uncertain beyond this season.)
But Kenny said there’s a strategic consideration that would impact every school: Putting as many teams as possible in position to reach the playoff — and be fresh enough to thrive in the postseason.
…
For years, the SEC has carved out the first Saturday in November for non-conference cupcakes with the express purpose of keeping its teams fresh for stretch-run showdowns — this, in addition to playing only eight league games.
…
Of course, the media partners would push back on any plan that left them with no high-level matchups on a given Saturday. So the conference couldn’t allow everyone to step outside of league play on the same day. (Not even the SEC does that.)
But the Big Ten should consider hitting the refresh button in some manner — late-season byes are another option — to even the field with its rival.
The changes in conference composition combined with the difference in the number of league games and the SEC’s November cupcakes could create a marked competitive disadvantage for the Big Ten that impacts CFP participation, seeding and success.
…
Kenny addressed several other topics related to scheduling:
— On the release of the 2024 football schedule: “Our athletic directors have charged us with getting them a draft for review this month,” he said. At that point, there could be multiple revisions before a final version is approved.
— On guardrails for teams playing on Friday nights, specifically regarding what would be asked of the team the previous Saturday. “We’re working with our network partners to nail down what all those parameters would look like.”
Kenny added that first and foremost, the Big Ten would apply the “common sense test” so the schedule “doesn’t undermine, on paper, a team’s ability to compete for the championship.”
— On the West Coast teams playing home games at 7:30 p.m.: “That’s a topic of conversation not just with the schools on the East Coast but our 14 members in the Eastern and Central Time Zones,” he said. “We need to be strategic.”
— On whether the Oregon-Washington game would be played on the final weekend of the regular season given that it qualifies as a protected rivalry game under the Big Ten’s format: “We haven’t in earnest put pen to paper,” he said. “We’re still discussing the model with both institutions.”
— On the release of the home-road opponents in men’s and women’s basketball for the 2024-25 season: “There is no definitive timeline,” he said, “but for the non-football sports, our goal is to have the schedule formats pinned down by the end of the calendar year.”
LikeLike
Wilner interviewed B10 COO Kerry Kenny. Wilner apparently wants the B10 to stoop to chicken scheduling like the SEC, and Kenny is open to it. OOC rivalry games in November are fine with me, but G5/I-AA game are not.
I’m not in favor of a week in November where every team plays a body-bag game, the way the SEC does it. But selected non-conference games late in the season could be a way of spreading out the “desirable” inventory, so that there is something great on TV every week.
LikeLike
Recap of yesterday’s Miami-Georgia Tech game. This is karma for Miami’s hideous all-black uniforms.
“The No. 17 Miami Hurricanes were leading three-loss Georgia Tech, controlling the ball with 33 seconds to go. The Yellow Jackets had no timeouts left, which meant the Canes could’ve kneeled and clinched the victory. The fact that we’re talking about this indicates they didn’t.
“Confusing the entire stadium, Miami ran the ball up the middle and — yep — fumbled. Strange choice, immediately punished.
“But all wasn’t yet lost. Simply prevent the Jackets, who’d thrown for 75 yards all day to that point, from … okay, you guessed it. In the final half-minute, Miami gave up 76 passing yards, capped by this easy-button 44-yarder. 23-20, Tech. Thanks to one of the least probable collapses imaginable, the U’s comeback season detoured into comic-relief territory. Miami should be 5-0 this morning. They aren’t.
“Asked about the sequence, Canes coach Mario Cristobal said, “We should’ve taken a knee.” Tend to agree!
“(It gets even worse: In 2018, Cristobal’s Oregon Ducks lost to Stanford in very similar fashion, fumbling instead of kneeling away as much of the clock as possible.)”
LikeLike
Cristobal blamed the running back for not having two hands on the ball.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/and-utah-makes-10-how-every-departing-pac-12-school-drove-a-knife-into-the-conference/
Wilner details how 10 schools and 2 commissioners were complicit in killing the P12. Bonus points for his “Murder on the Orient Express” references. The whole thing is a worth reading, but I’ll just highlight the 4 B10 newbies.
It takes a lot to kill a pillar of college sports; in this case, it took 10 schools.
No single individual is to blame for the death of the Pac-12. Rather, it was a conspiracy of the witless and the unwitting.
The two commissioners, Larry Scott and George Kliavkoff, have plenty of blood on their hands; both made a series of gross strategic miscalculations. If we’re identifying suspects, they are the first to be rounded up and cuffed.
But as in Murder On The Orient Express, there are many accomplices in the demise of a 108-year-old college sports institution — a demise that began before USC and UCLA bolted for the Big Ten in June 2022 and the Pac-12 entered its media rights negotiations in a weakened state.
Each of the 10 outbound schools, in fact, drove a knife into the body.
…
USC
Given her objections to adding Big 12 schools in the summer of 2021 — expansion at that point would have fortified the conference — and the decision to leave for the Big Ten a year later, USC president Carol Folt not only sliced open the Pac-12, she methodically described the act in real time without a hint of regret or remorse.
Some fans might feel inclined to arrest the Trojans for murder, toss the key in the Pacific and not bother tracking down the other conspirators.
But the circumstances that led to USC’s actions were years in the making and the result of an upside-down culture in which Arizona State and Oregon State had more influence in the boardroom than the L.A. schools. (Imagine Purdue and Minnesota, not Ohio State and Michigan, dictating policy in the Big Ten.)
If the Trojans had been managed properly prior to the fateful expansion decision in August 2021, the internal alignment would have been much stronger and the outcome far different.
UCLA
The Bruins left on the same day as USC — a two-for-one deal that gave Fox exclusive access to the L.A. market. But their decision never made as much sense because of the public school component and their direct link to a conference peer (Cal).
UCLA could have stayed behind, wished USC well, and anchored the conference for years to come. Instead, the Bruins became an accomplice.
Do we blame them? Nope. It’s shortsighted to blame any participant in the realignment game — every school ultimately does what’s best for its future without regard for its conference partners.
But make no mistake: Had the Bruins stayed, the Pac-12 would be alive and well today. Upon arrest, UCLA has blood splattered all over its face.
…
Oregon
As the University of California Board of Regents debated whether to approve UCLA’s move to the Big Ten throughout the fall of 2022, the Pac-12 formulated a plan: Kliavkoff would offer the Bruins an outsized share of the conference’s annual revenue in exchange for reversing course.
That figure: $52 million. But before he could cut the deal, Kliavkoff needed unanimous approval from the board of directors. One president refused, according to multiple sources: Oregon’s Patrick Phillips, who was serving in an interim role.
“The regents said to George, ‘If we can get to $52 million, we’ll send them back,’” a source said. “But Oregon said, ‘There’s no way we can be in a conference where UCLA is making more money than (we) do.’ So (Phillips) shot it down.”
Would the regents have stuck to their word and forced UCLA to stay if Kliavkoff had secured the $52 million? We’ll never know. But this much is certain: Without UCLA and the Los Angeles market, the Pac-12’s challenge was far more daunting.
…
Washington
Darkness arrived at dawn on Aug. 4.
Seven of the nine remaining schools had woken up believing everyone was committed to signing the grant-of-rights agreement that was essential to survival.
But Washington was deeply unhappy with the proposed media deal, which guaranteed just $25 million annually from Apple — with incentives to push the figure above $30 million — and did not guarantee exposure on linear television.
Although Oregon had been portrayed as the linchpin to Pac-12 survival, Washington was, in reality, the prime mover in the Pacific Northwest during those crucial overnight hours, according to sources.
“The schools were a ‘yes’ on Thursday night,” a source said. “But once Washington flipped, Oregon had to leave.”
Some thoughts:
USC wasn’t the only one to reject expansion with B12 schools. Look at the Bay Area schools for that, too.
Could UCLA really have anchored the P12? I just don’t see their football program of being capable of that. Without an elite team in LA, the fans don’t pay attention. How much would ESPN have offered if UCLA was still there? $35M? $38M? Would the P12 have signed on, or would they have countered at $55-60M and end up at the same place as now?
If the P12 could’ve paid UCLA $52M (leaving the rest at $30M each?), how long would that have been stable? UO and UW and even UU would’ve rebelled eventually since they are the football powers. Maybe uneven CFP splitting would’ve appeased them, but then how does UA feel? I think this plan was doomed. I certainly could see the regents making them stay at $52M, and I think UCLA would have preferred it too.
Even if UW hadn’t flipped, how long could this group have survived intact? The B12 would keep pressure on the 4C teams, and the lack of visibility would’ve ruined things anyway.
LikeLike
The first and foremost thing that screwed the pooch for the P12 was Larry Scott’s decision to go it alone with the P12 Network. If Scott had signed on with a Sugar Daddy like the Big Ten did with Fox or the ACC did with ESPN, the P12 would all have been locked into a GOR many moons ago and they all would be stuck right now like the ACC schools are.
If that had happened, the other events described by Wilner either wouldn’t have happened or would have been of little consequence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pac-2 and departing 10 agree to mediation.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, UW moved for a dismissal with the other 9 supporting them.
They gave this as their legal reasoning:
No irreparable harm? The 10 could dissolve the P-12 to loot the assets.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-popping-popcorn-for-pac-12
Canzano has some quotes from sources at the Pac-2 schools.
I spoke with a number of involved sources at the left-behind schools who told me that Monday’s court activity was not unexpected. UW’s motion is largely centered around procedural matters, jurisdiction and sovereign immunity vs. the merits of the case.
…
An involved party at Oregon State called the UW court filing a “stall tactic” and added: “This whole thing is uniquely bizarre. These 10 schools have told the world they’re leaving the conference. They’re going to competing conferences. They can no longer act in the interest of the Pac-12.”
…
Said one source: “There’s a huge lack of transparency from the departing schools.”
…
A source familiar with the lawsuit told me: “If you think you have an interest in this case, feel free to get involved, file your motions, and make your arguments. But just like every other party to the case, that means that you’re going to be involved in discovery.”
While discovery might be interesting for us, I doubt this gets that far. The lawyers will push to settle before that happens.
LikeLike
https://fbschedules.com/fresno-state-adds-stanford-ucla-to-future-football-schedules/
Now we know how the B10 plans to deal with USC vs ND in the short term.
The Fresno State Bulldogs have added the Stanford Cardinal and UCLA Bruins to their future football schedules, the school announced on Tuesday.
…
The Bulldogs were already scheduled to visit the UCLA Bruins on Sept. 14, 2024 at Rose Bowl Stadium in Pasadena, Calif., but that contest has been rescheduled as part of a new agreement and will now be contested on Nov. 30, 2024. Additionally, UCLA will make their first-ever trip to face Fresno State eight seasons later on Sept. 4, 2032.
USC hosts ND that same day. So 2026 is the next sticking point, as USC again hosts ND. The game is not scheduled beyond 2026 at the moment.
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/artificial-turf-grass-college-football-345b555ae64e96873dc3d2677ecc779d
A look at grass vs turf in CFB. Many factors have to be considered, including that turf keeps improving and that schools want to use stadiums for more things.
Of the 133 schools that currently compete in the top-tier of NCAA Division I, 94 have artificial surface football fields (71%) and 39 have grass (29%), most of those at Power Five schools that can afford the upkeep and maintenance. A half-century ago, there were 74 such schools playing on natural grass and the number actually peaked at 75 around 20 years ago.
…
The topic is a complicated one with some schools (Arkansas and Mississippi, for example) switching four times in the past century and others such as Michigan and Ohio State changing surfaces three times.
Many schools find turf is cheaper to maintain, particularly for concerts or other non-athletic events, even though there are concerns about athlete injuries.
…
“I would much rather (play) on grass,” said Wisconsin quarterback Tanner Mordecai, who has played on turf for the Badgers and at SMU and on grass for Oklahoma. “I don’t know all the studies and all that, but I do know that it feels better. Just feels better on your joints and your bones. It doesn’t feel like you beat yourself up as much.”
Some studies — including one using NCAA injury surveillance data from 2004-14 — have concluded playing football on artificial surfaces increases the frequency of certain lower body injuries. Experts, though, are hesitant to draw definitive conclusions.
“The preliminary studies have shown that there is an increase in injury risk to the lower extremity on synthetic surfaces vs. grass,” said Bud Cooper, clinical professor in the department of kinesiology at the University of Georgia . “Now, is that the Bible? It is not.”
Most of the grass fields in top level of Division I are in the South, Southwest and California, including San Diego State’s new $310 million stadium that opened about a year ago. Derek Grice, the former associate athletic director at San Diego State, said climate was a key factor in choosing grass. The growing season is relatively constant.
…
Grice has worked at other schools where determining what surface to use in a facility wasn’t so clear cut. Ideal conditions don’t always exist and the quality of artificial turf is improving, he said.
“I believe if you look at it a majority of athletes are going to prefer to play on grass. If it’s a well-maintained surface,” Grice said.
And there’s the catch.
“I think it honestly depends on the grass,” Ohio State quarterback Kyle McCord said. “I feel like the turf — especially around the Big Ten — is pretty consistent. I would say good grass is better than turf, but I think overall just turf because you know what you’re going to get with it.”
First-year Nebraska coach Matt Rhule, who has also coached in the NFL, had the practice fields in Lincoln changed to grass. The Cornhuskers’ Memorial Stadium has artificial turf.
“Injuries happen on everything. I don’t ever like one thing to be the end all, be all. But I’m a grass fan,” Rhule said. “That’s why I made the practice fields grass so that we can have more reps on the softer surface.”
South Alabama’s Hancock Whitney Stadium opened in 2020. Athletic director Joel Erdmann said the school went with FieldTurf, the most common artificial surface among Bowl Subdivision schools, in large part because Mobile, Alabama, gets so much rain.
“If you’re going to have a natural grass field, especially in our climate, you’re going to have to have a very robust drainage system,” he said.
Erdmann said the cost of the synthetic surface South Alabama uses was about $1.6 million and estimated the initial cost of a grass field would have be similar.
“But then I think what you run into is the annual maintenance costs,” he said. “Instead of having two grounds guys, you’ve got six. And you’ve got a $60-, $70,000 mower that needs to have maintenance.”
In the future, weighing the cost of turf vs. grass might also include legal fees.
Jennifer Steinmetz, an attorney with Tucker Ellis who has defended manufacturers and distributors against product liability claims, said in email that turf fields in football and other sports could be ripe for litigation.
“While we anticipate that turf manufacturers will be the primary target, colleges do face potential liability,” she said.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/10/barry-melrose-retires-espn-parkinsons-big-ten-friday-games-fox-ligue-1-rights/
More Friday night games are coming in 2024, probably led by Pac-4 teams.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti told The Athletic in a piece published Tuesday that the conference will play nine or more Friday night games on the Fox networks during the 2024 season. It was not clear whether those would be on FS1, FOX or both. The Big Ten will play five Friday night games on Fox properties this season (excluding Black Friday).
Fox, who recently decided not to renew Friday Night Smackdown with WWE, now has scheduling inventory open on Friday evenings. With Fox paying a pro rata fee to the Big Ten for the addition of USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington, the network would like to add more primetime single game windows.
According to the report, some schools like Michigan will not play in Friday evening games. Further, the report mentions Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa have “logistical challenges that prevent them from hosting except in specific circumstances.” The implication: the Friday night window will see a heavy dose of the new west coast additions to the conference, along with smaller Big Ten brands like Nebraska, Maryland, or Rutgers.
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo . . . https://wapo.st/3tqPqtt
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2023/big-ten-comissioner-petitti-delany-warren-1234741694/
Sportico article about the B10 and Tony Petitti, and the factions within the B10 (pro-Delany vs pro-Warren, basically). It’s a long piece worth reading in its entirety.
A few excerpts:
“What I always loved about Jim—and I maybe have even a greater appreciation about it now than when I was a younger person back then—is his understanding of history, tradition and also change,” said Petitti, who took over the Big Ten post in May. “That’s this job. You’ve got to respect how certain things have meaning to people in the conference, tradition, all of these things. At the same time, you have to change and innovate as the landscape around you changes.”
Change was the mission for Petitti’s immediate predecessor, and Delany’s successor, Kevin Warren, who left in April to become president of the Chicago Bears. An outsider to college sports, with a law degree and an NFL background, Warren pushed aggressively to shake up the century-old conference in spite of the pandemic, trying to modernize and centralize operations of an entity approaching a billion dollars in annual revenue.
Both Delany and Warren succeeded wildly in the job, at least by financial measures and media metrics. But their different philosophies left competing factions in the conference, including within the walls of its suburban Chicago headquarters. As Petitti stepped into his new role, he was faced with the question of whose footsteps he would follow in.
Like Warren, Petitti came to the Big Ten without previous college athletics administrative experience, having spent the previous eight years as chief operating officer for Major League Baseball. But where Warren often upended Delany’s approach, Petitti has largely reified it—as well as the man himself.
Beyond a series of notable personnel and strategic decisions, Petitti’s first five months on the job have seen a recasting of the league office’s role into Delany’s post-Penn State-acquisition model: an organization expressly subservient to its members. Consequently, Petitti has shown much less interest in, if outright indifference to, Warren’s view of a more top-down organization that comported itself like a billion-dollar corporation.
…
Petitti says that his immediate priority, upon taking over, was to shore up the Big Ten’s “core functions,” such as figuring out the scheduling quagmire next year that will accompany the additions of four new Pacific coast schools to the conference’s existing 14.
In pursuing this goal, Petitti, 62, has leaned heavily on the 75-year-old Delany, who since retiring at the start of 2020 has remained on contract as a Big Ten advisor, earning around $400,000 per year, according to the league’s tax returns. In the last fiscal year, Delany’s payment alone exceeded the compensation of any other Big Ten employee, aside from Warren.
Multiple sources tell Sportico that Delany’s agreement runs through next June, although another source familiar with the situation said the deal was effectively “indeterminate” in length and could automatically be extended. The conference declined to confirm the terms.
Delany’s renewed influence at the Big Ten, sources say, has manifested in both his day-to-day interactions with Petitti, as well as a number of key personnel moves and strategic emphases.
…
More than the actual financial cost to the league, Warren’s potential bonus carries heavy symbolic currency in what sources describe as an ongoing legacy battle between Petitti’s two predecessors over, among other things, who deserves more credit for the recent media rights agreement. Looming over the decision about how much to pay Warren is the $20 million-plus “success fee” the Big Ten is still in the process of paying off to Delany, for the conference’s previous media rights deal in 2015.
When asked about press portrayals of the situation in which Warren dropped the ball on his way out the door—ESPN described Petitti as “sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor”—the new commissioner diplomatically demurred.
“There are things and initiatives that Kevin did (with) the media deal, the configuration about what we have on Saturday night was remarkably great,” said Petitti. “Of course, it leads to all these networks fighting with each other. That’s perfectly fine, I’ve seen that my whole career. Did it lead to certain things? Yeah, we had to fix a few things, but at the end of the day, the overall vision of that distribution was remarkably well done…Kevin deserves tremendous credit in having done it.”
…
One strategy for maintaining your position high atop the heap is to not fall off while reaching for something new. Conversely, there’s the idea that if you aren’t constantly at the cutting edge, you will eventually be consumed by the heap. Warren, who previously served in three NFL front offices, embodied the latter view.
High atop his list of pet projects was the launching, in late 2021, of the conference’s sports data and analytics department, which he described as anchoring his “bold vision to create competitive advantages” by using the latest technology to benefit the Big Ten and its membership.
Warren put the analytics shop under the leadership of Nate Schnader, his newly installed chief information officer, and named Jessica Palermo—who Delany originally hired in 2013—to be vice president, sports data management & analytics.
Like other Warren initiatives, this new department embodied a larger vision of turning the conference office into something more than just a proxy and pass-thru for its member schools. This approach aggravated a number of the Big Ten schools’ athletic directors and presidents, who had grown comfortable with the conference’s position of subservience.
…
As Sportico reported last week, under Warren, the Big Ten had been at the forefront of Power Five conferences in pursuing an official partnership with a sports betting data company. These talks led late last year to an unsigned term sheet with Genius Sports, for a 12-year, $240 million deal that included equity provisions. But Petitti has not pursued it further, likely leaving it to the Big 12 to be the first P5 league to do so.
Moreover, sources say, Petitti has effectively shuttered the conference’s analytics and data department.
“There are no active initiatives of collection and trying to organize data on behalf of membership,” he said in a phone call last week, explaining that this decision came after receiving “feedback from membership” who didn’t feel it should be among the conference’s priorities.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sec-greg-sankey-texas-oklahoma-alabama-texas-a-m-college-football-empire-121928036.html
This article is mostly about Greg Sankey, but touches on how Sankey and Petitti want to collude to ruin college sports.
How do you further modernize college athletics, acquiescing to understandable demands over the industry’s money-making giant (football) while preserving the uniqueness of Olympic-style college sports? And can you do it before others — federal judges, state lawmakers and plaintiff lawyers — do it for you?
“That question,” Sankey says, “is as important as any right now.”
“People say college athletics has been slow to adapt. Well, yes, but it has adapted,” he continues. “I’ll accept the finger pointed at us in college athletics, but that finger points back at society. Not everything should change quickly.”
…
The passion, pageantry and people of college football on full display.
“You don’t get this in the NFL,” Sankey says, the second time he’s uttered such a phrase on this Saturday.
Is that coincidence? Or is it a strategically positioned comment at a time when college athletics finds itself stuck in a sort-of purgatory, still clinging to amateurism principles while outside entities shove it toward professionalism?
“College athletics has stood apart from pro football,” Sankey says. “People will disagree and that’s fine, but there are differences and we saw them today.”
Many within college athletics claim that the industry is under attack from external forces. Many of those external forces say that the industry — a booming billion-dollar business because of football — is operating as a cartel, illegally price-fixing and refusing to directly pay players.
Imagine college athletics as a sheep in the middle of a green pasture — a fat sheep, plump on years of million-dollar television contracts — that now finds itself surrounded by encroaching wolves.
Will it be devoured?
Sankey chortles at the analogy. But it’s true.
“I’m not living in fear,” he says, “but yes, I’m concerned.”
While name, image and likeness gripes garner most attention, the more impactful external forces exist not in statehouses, but in courthouses.
…
The House case could be “catastrophic,” Mississippi State president Mark Keenum said in the spring.
“We don’t generate enough revenue to cover the operations — billions of dollars,” said Keenum, a power player in the industry and the chair of the College Football Playoff’s primary governing body. “If everything went against the universities being sued, you’re going to have major ramifications. Where do those dollars come from and what’s left after you make those payments?”
…
The cost of such cases may be steep enough to finally trigger the long-talked-about split, when the 133 FBS schools or 69 Power Four programs part from the association.
But the cost of athlete employment may bring even more change. Most college athletic departments rely on subsidies from their state and school to keep afloat. An employment edict will not only result in the discontinuation of athletic teams but the shuttering of entire athletic departments.
So, what’s the solution?
Before a room of athletic directors three weeks ago in Washington, D.C., Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy was asked such a thing.
“Frankly, I think that question is irrelevant,” he deadpanned. “I think it is too late. Big-time college sports is professional sports. … The appellate courts and the Supreme Court are going to strike down the existing system and paradigm sooner rather than later.”
…
In one of the most significant developments in the college athletics world, commissioners from the Big Ten and SEC, the two most influential leaders presiding over the two richest conferences in America, are not only in regular communication — they are, together, exploring the future landscape of the industry.
Conference leadership has been discussing “the big issues that face college athletics,” Petitti told Yahoo Sports this summer. “There are so many things going on and we are so like-minded. We have a lot more to do together than we don’t.”
In a few months, the Big Ten and SEC’s relationship has turned from frosty to warm, sparked by the leadership change from Kevin Warren to Petitti in the spring. What the future holds is somewhat unclear, but both Sankey and Petitti have expressed an intent to both accelerate NCAA governance and condense the amount of schools operating under a single umbrella.
“How do you take larger groups and make them smaller to drive forward?” Petitti asks.
Over the course of Saturday’s parade across Texas, Sankey speaks candidly and suggestively about this growing topic in college athletics: the long-discussed Power Four or FBS split from the NCAA.
Is it a solution for some of the legal entanglements? Maybe. Will it cause other issues? Probably.
But Sankey is reaching the point of exhaustion in the NCAA’s governance model, where the more than 350 programs legislate together despite drastically different missions and resources.
…
Having a subsection of programs governing themselves does not require small-league programs losing their golden goose: the automatic qualifying spot in the NCAA basketball tournaments.
“There is something healthy about March and non-conference scheduling in college football,” he says. “The breadth has meaning. But we have to look at the governance structure. Is this the best way to do it, to put Fordham and Florida in the same room to discuss issues?”
…
He’s lobbed subtle jabs at various entities, his primary targets include the Knight Commission, the slow-moving NCAA committees on which he sits and the now-defunct Alliance between the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12. He has even not-so-subtly made a crack at Warren, the former Big Ten commissioner who, Sankey says, saw the world differently than him.
That’s not the case with Petitti, like Sankey a fellow New Yorker. The two leaders have “touched on key issues” together, Sankey says.
One of those is NIL.
Sankey declines to reveal details of their discussions, but many within college sports believe that an SEC and Big Ten-led NCAA split may be the answer to NIL, opening the door for a more direct system of pay to players.
In an interview with Yahoo Sports last month, outgoing Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith suggested a change to the scholarship structure to include the addition of NIL payments in a similar way that schools pay cost of attendance. Smith also continues to believe that the CFP should govern college football, not the NCAA.
Meanwhile, Sankey’s league continues to explore a way to govern the concept from the conference level by having all 12 SEC state laws mirror one another — a tall task but not impossible, Sankey says.
…
The pressures will only mount from here. The College Football Playoff is in the late stages of landing what will likely be a $1 billion-a-year television contract, having already received presentations from at least five networks: Fox, ESPN, Amazon, Turner and NBC.
As more money gushes into the industry, the external forces will grow.
…
On the second one, he’ll be damned if the history books purport that his league’s decision to add Oklahoma and Texas set off the current chain of realignment madness.
“That is an inaccurate evaluation of reality. It assumes some of the other moves were not going to happen,” Sankey said. “I don’t believe that’s true.”
In denial much Greg?
LikeLike
In denial much Greg?
I mean Sankey may not be totally wrong. While the SEC’s expansion certainly made the PAC exodus (PACsodus?) more likely, you can make a pretty decent case it would have happened anyways.
USC and UCLA were not going to happy with their PAC revenue regardless of what conference UT and OU were in (unless it was the PAC, but obviously that wasn’t going to happen), and it is hard to see the B1G turning down the LA schools even if the SEC had stayed at 14. And while it’s true that the Big XII probably wouldn’t have opened contract negotiations early if Texas and Oklahoma stayed, which could have helped the PAC 10 secure a better TV deal, that factor is more than offset by the fact that a Big XII with UT and OU would have been in an even stronger position to raid the PAC after the LA schools departed.
So while Sankey’s hands are not exactly clean, he does have a point.
LikeLike
frug,
I mean Sankey may not be totally wrong. While the SEC’s expansion certainly made the PAC exodus (PACsodus?) more likely, you can make a pretty decent case it would have happened anyways.
Yes, he is, and no, I don’t think you can.
USC and UCLA were not going to happy with their PAC revenue regardless of what conference UT and OU were in (unless it was the PAC, but obviously that wasn’t going to happen), and it is hard to see the B1G turning down the LA schools even if the SEC had stayed at 14. And while it’s true that the Big XII probably wouldn’t have opened contract negotiations early if Texas and Oklahoma stayed, which could have helped the PAC 10 secure a better TV deal, that factor is more than offset by the fact that a Big XII with UT and OU would have been in an even stronger position to raid the PAC after the LA schools departed.
* Without the SEC’s move, CFP expansion doesn’t get delayed. The Alliance never forms, giving the B10 and P12 more reasons to talk. The P12 would probably have already known how much extra revenue was coming their way. They would still be behind, but with a big bump in revenue assured it would be harder to justify the move at that time.
* Without the SEC’s move, they wouldn’t be so far ahead of everyone in football brands and success, and thus USC would feel less pressure to move to a “relevant” league.
* Without the SEC’s move, they wouldn’t be so far ahead of the P12 in revenue and thus USC would feel less pressure to move.
* Without the SEC’s move, the B10 wouldn’t have felt any pressure to “keep up” and Warren would’ve really struggled to push through expansion with so much travel involved. Thus the B10 wouldn’t have been as far ahead in revenue, so USC would feel less pressure.
* Without the SEC’s move, the B12 is still highly valuable and Yormark doesn’t jump the line to accept a lowball offer because he was worried about stability. There’s no way UT is taking $31.7M. So that means the B12 negotiations take longer and/or are more expensive, leaving an opening for the P12 to get a deal that is acceptable to them.
* Without the SEC’s move, the B12 doesn’t expand. Even if the LA schools still move, the P12 has more viable replacement options to choose from and it would not fully implode.
* Without the SEC’s move, USC doesn’t have an example set for them of an active king leaving their region to chase the money in a new conference.
* Without the SEC’s move, USC boosters don’t have an example set for them of an active king leaving their region to chase the money in a new conference so they don’t consider the B10 an option and continue to say independence isn’t worth it for them.
So while Sankey’s hands are not exactly clean, he does have a point.
No, he doesn’t. He wants it to be true, but it isn’t. USC had been unhappy for years, just like UT was. But it took UT leaving to start this ball rolling.
LikeLike
Without the SEC’s move, CFP expansion doesn’t get delayed.
CFP money hasn’t been a significant factor in expansion.
The Alliance never forms, giving the B10 and P12 more reasons to talk.
Talk is cheap.
The P12 would probably have already known how much extra revenue was coming their way. They would still be behind, but with a big bump in revenue assured it would be harder to justify the move at that time.
Justify to who? USC is a private school, and by all accounts, the school’s BOT was just as frustrated with the PAC 12 as the administration was. Plus, Texas didn’t even wait for the CFP negotiations to finalize before committing to the SEC. If Texas didn’t care, I doubt USC would.
Without the SEC’s move, they wouldn’t be so far ahead of everyone in football brands and success, and thus USC would feel less pressure to move to a “relevant” league.
Texas wasn’t under any more pressure than USC to move to a more relevant league and they still did. (Actually, they were probably under less pressure since they were making more money in the Big XII than USC was in the PAC and UT at least got to boss everybody around.)
* Without the SEC’s move, the B12 is still highly valuable and Yormark doesn’t jump the line to accept a lowball offer because he was worried about stability. There’s no way UT is taking $31.7M. So that means the B12 negotiations take longer and/or are more expensive, leaving an opening for the P12 to get a deal that is acceptable to them.
* Without the SEC’s move, the B12 doesn’t expand. Even if the LA schools still move, the P12 has more viable replacement options to choose from and it would not fully implode.
I already conceded that the PAC might be able to get a better TV deal if UT and OU had stayed in the Big XII, but I also noted, that was offset by the fact that if the LA schools had still departed (and I think there is a pretty good chance they would have) the Big XII would have had an even easier time raiding the PAC. Plus, even if they hadn’t joined the Big XII, it is still tough to see the PAC adding Cincy, UCF and BYU.
* Without the SEC’s move, USC doesn’t have an example set for them of an active king leaving their region to chase the money in a new conference.
* Without the SEC’s move, USC boosters don’t have an example set for them of an active king leaving their region to chase the money in a new conference so they don’t consider the B10 an option and continue to say independence isn’t worth it for them.
Again, all that was true of UT and Oklahoma and they jumped to SEC anyways.
…..
Bottom line is, USC and UCLA had already informed the PAC by 2020 at the latest (well before the news broke that UT and OU were moving to the SEC) that they would not be extending the GOR when it expired (it was actually a major factor in killing Scott’s plan to sell an equity stake in the PAC 12 Network), which is a pretty strong sign that they were already toying with the idea of leaving. So while SEC expansion certainly made the PAC collapse more likely, I think there is still decent chance it would have happened anyways.
LikeLike
frug,
CFP money hasn’t been a significant factor in expansion.
Of course it has. Schools keep talking about how far behind they will be financially. If the CFP expansion would close that gap (as a percentage) they wouldn’t feel as much concern. But since they know the CFP expansion will increase it, the pressure is increased.
Talk is cheap.
Talk is what got USC into the B10. Months and months of talking. It’s also what got UW and UO in to the B10.
Justify to who? USC is a private school, and by all accounts, the school’s BOT was just as frustrated with the PAC 12 as the administration was. Plus, Texas didn’t even wait for the CFP negotiations to finalize before committing to the SEC. If Texas didn’t care, I doubt USC would.
To the fans, and the athletes about to travel a whole lot more and not play near their families as often. See all the complaints from non-revenue athletes at the Pac-4 schools.
Texas wasn’t under any more pressure than USC to move to a more relevant league and they still did. (Actually, they were probably under less pressure since they were making more money in the Big XII than USC was in the PAC and UT at least got to boss everybody around.)
UT barely shifted their conference footprint. They regained 2 old rivals in the move, and they never much cared about most of the schools they left behind (former Big 8 schools). USC moved across the country and lost all but 1 conference rival.
UT also had been looking at moving since the 1990s at least, and came close multiple times. They were way ahead of USC on that path. And until UT moved, there had been only relatively small gaps financially. Then NIL kicked in just as UT and OU joined the SEC and took a big step up financially, leaving USC as the lone blueblood stuck in an underpaying conference. Look how much more ACC schools wanted out after UT moved.
I already conceded that the PAC might be able to get a better TV deal if UT and OU had stayed in the Big XII,
Which would’ve killed the momentum for USC to move.
but I also noted, that was offset by the fact that if the LA schools had still departed (and I think there is a pretty good chance they would have) the Big XII would have had an even easier time raiding the PAC.
And I categorically disagree with your opinion about that chance. They would’ve complained and ended up getting something like the ACC’s keep what you kill financial incentives for postseason success. UCLA may not even end up making more money than that hypothetical better P12 deal after Calimony, increased travel costs, and increased student wellness benefits. Even USC would’ve only made a little more, and it would’ve required leaving UCLA behind.
Plus, even if they hadn’t joined the Big XII, it is still tough to see the PAC adding Cincy, UCF and BYU.
Sure, but they would’ve applied for it anyway. And that makes the P12 look more desirable, which helps their image. And since the P12 apparently considered SMU, UH might have made sense for them.
Again, all that was true of UT and Oklahoma and they jumped to SEC anyways.
And until they did, USC wasn’t going anywhere. UT had spent decades actively looking for new homes, USC hadn’t. Geography also matters in this case: UT and USC are not interchangeable in this discussion.
Bottom line is, USC and UCLA had already informed the PAC by 2020 at the latest (well before the news broke that UT and OU were moving to the SEC) that they would not be extending the GOR when it expired (it was actually a major factor in killing Scott’s plan to sell an equity stake in the PAC 12 Network), which is a pretty strong sign that they were already toying with the idea of leaving.
To go where? The B10 wasn’t looking. Were they going to the B12? They wanted to kill the P12N because it had been a financial disaster, that’s why they balked at the GOR. It’s not like other schools wanted the P12N.
So while SEC expansion certainly made the PAC collapse more likely, I think there is still decent chance it would have happened anyways.
And I don’t.
There’s no way we’ll ever know for sure.
LikeLike
@frug has it right. Conference realignment has been a constant in the history of college athletics. I once tried to find a 10-year interval where there were no changes to the “power” leagues (however defined at the time), and maybe it happened once in the last century. Change is constant.
Furthermore, there was never a more roving eye than Texas. I don’t know of a P5 school that has more often kicked the tires on other conferences besides the one they were in. If you are open to cheating on your marriage that often, sooner or later you are going to do it. It is only a matter of when.
Lastly, Brian is assuming that none of the other realignment pressures would have existed, had not the SEC made the “first” move. That seems to be an awfully generous lean towards the proposition he wishes to prove.
LikeLike
Marc,
Conference realignment has been a constant in the history of college athletics. I once tried to find a 10-year interval where there were no changes to the “power” leagues (however defined at the time), and maybe it happened once in the last century. Change is constant.
That’s true, but irrelevant to this discussion. I didn’t argue that no change would happen for a prolonged period. I didn’t even claim that USC would never have left the P12. I stated that this particular change would not have happened at this particular time without the precipitating event of UT and OU joining the SEC, and I stand by that statement.
Furthermore, there was never a more roving eye than Texas. I don’t know of a P5 school that has more often kicked the tires on other conferences besides the one they were in. If you are open to cheating on your marriage that often, sooner or later you are going to do it. It is only a matter of when.
Agreed, but that bolsters my point. UT leaving was always much more likely than USC leaving. If UT didn’t leave, it shouldn’t be assumed that USC would have.
Lastly, Brian is assuming that none of the other realignment pressures would have existed, had not the SEC made the “first” move. That seems to be an awfully generous lean towards the proposition he wishes to prove.
No, I’m not. I’m saying everything would have been different, so the pressures would also have been different. None of them would have been increased, though. The SEC wouldn’t have been as far ahead financially or competitively, so the B10 wouldn’t have felt pressure to catch up. That would mean a smaller gap from the P12 to the top, so less financial pressure (esp. when you consider the travel and wellness costs to joining the B10).
If you want to argue CU would still have left the P12, that’s perfectly reasonable.
LikeLike
Well the NFL beat out common sense yet again; flag football is, almost certainly, going to be an Olympic event in 2028.
https://apnews.com/article/oiympics-flag-football-cricket-baseball-a3412d3f4e87563ede4c369f21b6c765
Flag football, along with bseball/softball, cricket, lacrosse, and squash were all recommended to added to the LA Olympics. While the IOC still technically has to vote on the proposed additions, it is largely expected to simply rubber stamp the recommendations.
LikeLike
We all need to keep in mind that the total number of Olympic sports does not change. If flag football is added, some other sport is gone.
I believe that it was in 2016, there was serious discussion of dropping the discus throw from the Olympics. Totally insane since the discus goes back forever. The famous statue of the discus thrower is from the 5th Century BC.
LikeLike
Bernie,
They allow the hosts to choose a certain number of provisional sports each time, though.
https://swimswam.com/la28-olympic-organizers-name-5-new-sports-for-2028-olympic-games/
Los Angeles Olympic organizers have named five provisional spots that it plans to add for the 2028 Games. Baseball/softball, American flag football, cricket, lacrosse, and squash were chosen by organizers, with the IOC having the final vote at its session in Mumbai on October 16.
The vote by the IOC is expected to be a rubber stamp, with organizers working closely with the Olympic organization on selecting the finalists.
Among a shortlist of nine sports vying to be added to the schedule, breaking, kickboxing, motor sport, and karate were excluded.
Every four years, Olympic hosts are given the opportunity to add provisional sports to the core 28 sports that are included in every Olympic Games. The system is different than the “demonstration” sports in years past in that they’re given full event status, funding, and awards, but are not guaranteed continued inclusion.
Surfing, skateboarding, and sport climbing were included in Tokyo and were kept on the schedule by the IOC going forward. Breaking, or break-dancing, is being included in the Paris 2024 Olympic schedule but was not picked up by LA28 organizers, in spite of checking an important box of appealing to the youth demographic.
LA28 chairman Casey Wasserman said they favored sports that could be played at existing venues in Southern California, which has been one of the core tenets of organizers’ planning of the Games.
He has also emphasized the importance of choosing sports that are “played in backyards, schoolyards, community centers”.
That said, from frug’s article:
Unclear is whether other sports will have to trim the number of disciplines to help the IOC adhere to the limit it set of 10,500 athletes at a Summer Olympics. The addition of five team sports will inflate the number of participants.
So maybe swimming or track & field will suffer some cutbacks on events.
According to Wikipedia:
On December 9, 2021, the IOC executive board proposed that skateboarding, sport climbing, and surfing—which successfully debuted as optional sports at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and are expected to return in the same capacity in 2024—be promoted to the core program of the 2028 Summer Olympics to replace boxing, modern pentathlon, and weightlifting. These three sports were provisionally dropped from the program pending the resolution of governance issues, with the IOC setting a deadline of 2023
It’s a shame boxing is going, but it needs a real governing body. Weightlifting needs to fix doping problems. The modern pentathlon wants to drop horse riding and put in running an obstacle course instead.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38644056/deion-sanders-calls-late-start-s-stupidest-thing-ever
Deion Sanders wasn’t the center of attention all week, so he announced he hates late game starts. I’m sure he’ll enjoy the new B12 TV deal then. Without the P12 around, which major conference does he think will get that window the most?
Coach Prime isn’t the biggest fan of those late prime-time kickoffs, either. The Buffaloes will play well into the night once again Friday when they host Stanford at sold-out Folsom Field. The game won’t start until at least 8 p.m. MT and doesn’t figure to finish until after 11:30 p.m., maybe even carrying into early Saturday.
“Who makes these 8 o’clock games? Dumbest thing ever. Stupidest thing ever invented in life. Who wants to stay up until 8 o’clock for a darn game?” Sanders said Wednesday on “Buffs PrimeTime.” “What about the East Coast — do they even care about ratings? Is anyone watching it? What are we supposed to do with the kids all day until 8 o’clock? What are we supposed to do in the hotel?”
…
When the Buffaloes (4-2, 1-2 Pac-12) played Colorado State on Sept. 16 — kickoff was at 8:21 p.m. Mountain — the game didn’t finish until 12:25 a.m. It did go two overtimes, though, and lasted a little over four hours as the Buffaloes rallied for a 43-35 win. It was the longest game in Buffaloes history, the school reported.
Up ahead is another late one for Colorado on Nov. 17 at Washington State, which is set for an 8:30 p.m. MT kickoff. It’s a far cry from the early part of the season, which saw three kickoffs at 10 a.m. MT (the Buffs won the first two).
Sanders has already had enough with games carrying into the wee hours of the evening. It’s not uncommon in the Pac-12, where conference teams have a history of playing long after dark.
“Thank God we’re not going to be in this conference,” Sanders said on his radio show as the school prepares to move from the Pac-12 to the Big 12 next season.
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2023/10/13/columbus-bars-must-pay-for-license-to-show-osu-purdue-game/71155571007/
This Columbus Dispatch article is behind a paywall, but it’s about the cost for businesses to show Peacock games, so I wanted to quote it.
Tony Mollica, owner of Varsity Club Restaurant & Bar, 278 W. Lane Ave., found out firsthand the cost of offering patrons a gathering place when he contacted Peacock about obtaining a license to stream the game.
“I just spent $3,600 in order to access Peacock in my restaurant, so we will be showing the game Saturday. I had to get a commercial to legally show the game,” he said.
…
Businesses are permitted to stream Peacock sports with the Peacock Sports Pass, a package made available through the streamer’s partnerships with EverPass and UPshow.
Peacock is owned and operated by Peacock TV, LLC, a subsidiary of NBCUniversal Television and Streaming, which sealed a multi-year deal in August to give EverPass the exclusive rights to distribute Peacock’s sports content to commercial venues.
EverPass will distribute Peacock’s exclusive first-run live sports content library, including the NFL Wild Card Playoff game on Jan. 13, and select events from: Big Ten football and basketball; Notre Dame football games; the Tour de France; Indycar races; SuperMotocross World Championship; Preakness Stakes; 2023 Rugby World Cup; the Ryder Cup and U.S. Open; Spanish-language U.S. National Team soccer matches; and more than 180 Premier League matches.
EverPass also reached its first distribution agreement with UPshow, an on-premise marketing and entertainment platform for branded TV networks. UPshow will offer Peacock’s exclusive sports content to commercial establishments nationwide.
These agreements came as bar and restaurant owners face the challenge of much-anticipated sporting events moving to streaming platforms.
“It’s unfortunate that showing games on TV has come to this. It is a huge expense and one that many small businesses simply cannot afford,” Mollica said.
“I’m sure many businesses will be streaming the game without (a) license, but we felt like we needed to comply.”
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/college/football/2023/10/13/how-watch-ohio-state-football-game-streaming-peacock-purdue-nbc-sports/71124038007/
And a tidbit from this one:
The prevalence of streaming will also increase across college football next season when the Southeastern Conference’s TV deal with ESPN takes effect. One nonconference game for every SEC team will air exclusively each season on the ESPN+ app at $9.99 a month.
There are no minimum requirements for Big Ten teams to appear on Peacock as NBC goes through the selection process with CBS, FOX and BTN, the league’s other partners, 12 or six days in advance of kickoffs.
But a majority of the conference’s teams will end up on Peacock this fall, with the Buckeyes becoming the ninth out of the 14 teams to make an appearance.
…
The network could end up benefiting by the Buckeyes being away from the Horseshoe. It won’t have to compete with fans buying tickets. There was an announced crowd of 104,974 in the stands of Ohio Stadium last weekend. Unless they make the drive to West Lafayette, they’ll be streaming this week’s contest.
“That’s big,” Miller said. “A lot goes into it, but those are the kind of things that the data comes back and says you’ll probably have a lot more fans that might have not signed up for Peacock, will now sign up for Peacock.
“Ohio State has such a huge national following that our feeling is that it enhances our ability to be successful with the game.”
Miller said the aim is that the presence of big brands on Peacock in the early weeks of the football season will also allow fans to acclimate to the platform ahead of the basketball seasons that begin next month.
“There’s no difference in quality than what you would watch on regular television,” Miller said. “I think people will find it a pretty good experience.”
Yes, there is a quality difference. Feel free to check the online comments about the quality of Peacock games. And what most fans will get is a little angry because they can’t find the game, and won’t pay to watch it. This game will have a fraction of the viewers of a typical OSU game.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/inside-oregon-and-washingtons-jump-to-the-big-ten–it-was-both-of-us-or-none-of-us-141725222.html
Ross Dellinger on UO and UW joining the B10. It’s a long piece and worth reading.
“It was both of us or none of us,” [UW BoR chair Dave] Zeeck said earlier this week in an interview with Yahoo Sports. “The consensus was that if Oregon came along, we’d do it.”
…
Pete Shimer, a long-time booster and season-ticket holder who played basketball at Washington in the 1980s, describes the two schools as “frenemies.” And while such a description is disagreeable to most around this rivalry, his statement is fitting given their Big Ten package deal.
“Washington and Oregon,” Shimer said. “Together they were likely to have a better chance at a move elsewhere.”
…
Washington and Oregon administrators began “scrambling,” says one official. For three days, they balanced intense negotiations with Big Ten officials while having ongoing discussion with Pac-12 colleagues over the Apple deal, keeping both doors ajar, uncertain of which they’d march through.
…
“It was on and off at different degrees,” said an industry source with knowledge of the negotiations. “Every hour, it changed.”
Talks with the Big Ten moved rapidly. And there was a reason for that. Discussions between the two programs and the Big Ten began months prior, after the announced departure of USC and UCLA.
In August of 2022, one month after the Trojans and Bruins’ news emerged, Washington and Oregon each sent to Big Ten headquarters a 40-plus page slide presentation in an attempt to convince the league to acquire them. Yahoo Sports obtained both slideshows.
“The case for Oregon to the Big Ten,” the Ducks’ presentation slideshow kicks off.
“Advancing academic, athletic and financial prosperity: a partnership between the Big Ten Conference and University of Washington,” the Huskies’ first slide reads.
They were far from alone.
Within the Big Ten office last summer, then-commissioner Kevin Warren led an expansion exploration that spanned more than a dozen schools, many of whom reached out to the league about an acquisition after the Los Angeles schools joined. Conference office administrators created a list of desired programs thought to be attainable, according to multiple sources who have seen the list.
They included Notre Dame, North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Pitt, Kansas, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Virginia and, of course, Oregon and Washington. In fact, outside counsel for UO and UW met with Big Ten administrators twice last year — once in Chicago and another in New York.
That’s a terrible list for both “desirable” and “attainable”
Not attainable: ND
Not currently available: ACC members
Not valuable enough to B10: Pitt, KU, Cal, Stanford, UAZ
“We had this list of schools and went through it with the chancellors and presidents,” said a conference official who wished to remain anonymous. “Kevin wanted them [Oregon and Washington] to come in with USC and UCLA, but for whatever reason, the L.A. schools didn’t want to create a West Coast pod. He wasn’t able to convince them.”
Was it really that hard to understand? They had an advantage by joining the B10 without them, and neither is deeply tied to them.
During that Aug. 1 meeting, athletic directors and presidents learned of the details of the Apple deal [offer to the P12], all of which failed to live up to expectations.
One Pac-12 administrator described it thusly: “It was sh**.”
…
Through the months, Kliavkoff juggled conversations with a host of networks. CBS wanted a small piece of basketball games. Talks with Amazon never really materialized because the streamer wanted exclusive rights to all games for a paltry fee.
Fox and ESPN were open to a small piece of the package, but together were not enough to get near the Big 12’s number. There were even talks with The CW, which ultimately struck a sub-licensing agreement with ESPN to televise ACC games this season.
And then there was NBC.
The league entered deep enough negotiations that NBC and USA Network were presented as legitimate places for the Pac-12’s A-package of football games. And then, during a meeting in late spring or early summer, the bad news arrived.
“Hey, guys, NBC is out,” one person says describing the meeting.
“Poof, it was gone,” says a person who had knowledge of the call. “The presidents had to be leaving these meetings going, ‘What the f*** is going on?’ The league lost all credibility. Schools lost faith.”
And yet, there was still a chance for the Pac-12 to be salvaged.
In fact, Oregon mega-booster Phil Knight supported the streaming deal, maybe not the distribution amount, but the concept at least.
…
“On that Wednesday, it was shared with us that Fox was in the mix offering more money,” a Big Ten source said. “It would not be dilutive. It was new money. We’d already studied the demographics and realities [on UW and UO] last year, so it moved quickly.”
That doesn’t mean all schools agreed. Ohio State, Michigan and especially Penn State were at first against more expansion. Though they eventually voted for the move, leaders in State College expressed disappointment to the point that one administrator described their feelings on adding Oregon and Washington as “no f****** way.”
…
There are other financial matters. [UW] used much of its reserves — nearly $40 million — during the pandemic; there’s a department deficit of nearly $8 million in the next fiscal year; and there will soon be an increase in debt services payment on Husky Stadium renovations.
There’s also the matter of current head coach Kalen DeBoer, a former NAIA coach whose career in Seattle has started by winning 16 of his first 18 games. One of the most attractive names in America as the coaching hiring cycle fast approaches, DeBoer earns $4.2 million a year, which ranks 44th nationally. That figure would put him 12th in the Big Ten, only higher than coaches at Purdue and Rutgers.
…
There are plenty of positives to this Big Ten move, of course. The $30 million in distribution next year is more than what the school would have made in the Pac-12, for one. Also, through the Big Ten, UW and UO both have the option to use an annual $10 million interest-free loan paid back in installments once they begin to receive full shares.
The most significant aspect of the move, though, is the visibility — playing in central and eastern time zones on major networks.
“The financial situation going forward is going to be bright just given the additional markets,” said Pete Shimer, the booster and former UW basketball player. “It will open up recruiting and create some brand and marketing opportunities for a university tucked into the northwest corner of the country.”
…
Asked about how to survive in the Big Ten, [former UW coach Chris] Petersen deadpanned, “It’s called your collective and your NIL program.
“It always comes back to recruiting,” Petersen continued. “Now, you get into the Big Ten and you win in that conference, OK, the game is going to change. And Washington does turn into a national brand.”
The move to the Big Ten remains a touchy and sensitive subject here. Washington State and Oregon State are engrossed in legal proceedings with Oregon, Washington and the other eight Pac-12 programs over the lingering assets in the conference.
A reason for the Pac-12’s collapse has evolved into a finger-pointing, speculative blame game.
Those at Washington and Oregon believe they have unfairly been targeted as the culprits, as their decision that Friday morning set off a cascade of moves: Arizona, Arizona State and Utah to the Big 12; Stanford and Cal to the ACC; Oregon State and Washington State, for now, operating as a two-school conference starting next year.
However, without the additional money from Fox, the Big Ten does not have the cash to add the Huskies and Ducks, a nugget not lost on one Pac-12 administrator, who told Yahoo Sports, “Any way you cut it, Fox destroyed the Pac-12.”
Others contend that without Colorado’s departure, Pac-12 leaders would have agreed to a more traditional television package and remained together, at least for a few more years. Colorado may point the finger toward the league office and its commissioner, Kliavkoff, who in turn could very well put blame at the feet of the men and women for which he works: the Pac-12 presidents.
But most agree that the exit of the Los Angeles schools — roughly 35-40% of the conference’s market value — began this fateful fall. Others go back years, to the shaky foundation that former commissioner Larry Scott constructed.
So which is it?
In truth, there is plenty of blame to go around, says Pat Chun, the Washington State athletics director.
“It’s our own fault we got ourselves to this place,” Chun said. “It’s a byproduct of how dysfunctional the Pac-12 had been for over a decade.”
LikeLike
However, without the additional money from Fox, the Big Ten does not have the cash to add the Huskies and Ducks, a nugget not lost on one Pac-12 administrator, who told Yahoo Sports, “Any way you cut it, Fox destroyed the Pac-12.”
I can’t buy that, as there was a long string of unforced horrendous mistakes, without which Fox would not have even been in that position.
LikeLike
Marc,
I can’t buy that, as there was a long string of unforced horrendous mistakes, without which Fox would not have even been in that position.
I don’t think that administrator would disagree with you. I think he’s just saying that Fox lit the match, not that the P12 didn’t create their own vulnerability. Without the money from Fox, the B10 doesn’t expand. The P12 still would’ve been hovering on the brink of disaster, but Fox pushed it over the edge.
LikeLike
Not attainable: ND
Not currently available: ACC members
Not valuable enough to B10: Pitt, KU, Cal, Stanford, UAZ
Many who post here thought the Big Ten would be seriously tempted to take Cal and Stanford if they were ever available. FTT had a few relevant tweets about this yesterday:
If he’s right, that basically means UNC, ND, FSU, and Miami — and that’s it. Not that all four are joining eventually, but that you could forget about practically everyone else—barring a dislocation of college sports that changes the the calculus from what we now know.
LikeLike
Marc,
Many who post here thought the Big Ten would be seriously tempted to take Cal and Stanford if they were ever available. FTT had a few relevant tweets about this yesterday:
Sure, but we don’t work for the B10 and have access to the info they have about the value of different schools. And many of us argued that Cal and Stanford weren’t valuable enough, they would have to rely on the SF market and academics being important enough to get them in. We quickly learned that Fox didn’t value them, and they had to take a tiny share to join the ACC.
But I was referring mostly to the other schools who were either clearly unavailable (ND, all ACC schools) and/or not that desirable (Pitt, AZ). You could at least make some type of case for Cal, Stanford and KU. If you’re going to list Pitt, why wouldn’t you include FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, …? That’s why I said it’s a terrible list.
And with today’s hindsight, clearly Cal and Stanford aren’t valuable enough now.
If he’s right, that basically means UNC, ND, FSU, and Miami — and that’s it. Not that all four are joining eventually, but that you could forget about practically everyone else—barring a dislocation of college sports that changes the the calculus from what we now know.
Yep. But a change in the legal framework could easily cause that dislocation. Many people expect a breakaway for football (at least, maybe MBB too) at some point in the near-ish future.
LikeLike
Honestly, I’m not sure even Miami would be a serious candidate. 20 years they would have been, but there lackadaisical fanbase means they are just not all valuable unless they are a national title contender, and they haven’t proven they are capable doing that consistently (at least not since they started trying to clean up the team’s image).
FWIW, 538 tied to break down statistically who the Big Ten’s best expansion candidates were after the LA schools announced they were joining. They found 5 “No Brainers”, 2 of whom were Oregon and Washington (ND, UNC, and FSU were the others).
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/
Miami was in the next tier of teams along with Clemson, Utah, Stanford, and Cal (though if my math is correct Miami’s addition to the AAU does push them to #2 in that tier behind only Clemson).
Obviously if FSU or, less likely, ND were to insist on inviting the ‘Canes as a condition of themselves joining the Big Ten, the B1G would do it without a second thought (though I find that scenario pretty unlikely). Without being paired with one those two though? I kind of doubt it.
(If you wondering, UVA is at the top of the next tier of schools just ahead of ASU and Duke).
LikeLike
Probably more noteworthy than relevant, but I will add that ASU’s admission to the AAU actually pushes them into the same tier as Clemson, Miami, Utah, Stanford, and Cal.
(Obviously ND’s admission to the AAU helped their case as well, but Big Ten would have added them anyways)
LikeLike
If Miami gets in, I suspect they’d be the school that gets you back to even numbers after one of the top-tier candidates agreed to move, and assuming there isn’t another top-tier school willing to do so.
Let’s say FSU and Clemson join the SEC, UNC applies to the Big Ten, and ND says “no” yet again. That would leave Miami as UNC’s best dance partner. (That’s just one way it could turn out.)
I do not see FSU or ND insisting on Miami as the 20th school. FSU is probably the most desperate of anybody to get out of the ACC; they’d be in no position to demand anything. Miami isn’t that important a rival to ND anymore. The two teams met 19 times in 20 years from 1971–1990, but only four times since then.
LikeLike
Frug, I’ll propose another Big Ten expansion candidate that I’ve supported for years with considerable ridicule from my fellow Frank’s Tankers and this year has emerged as one of the top TV viewed teams in the nation – Colorado. AAU, state flagship, excellent academics, top TV market and archrival of Nebraska.
As for ND insisting on Miami or any other school as a condition for the Irish joining, I don’t believe they’d be too concerned who their expansion ‘partner’ was, or if there was one at all. Why would they care? If they got to choose one, it would probably be Navy.
LikeLike
One would think that when major conferences repeatedly don’t do the things you predict, it would suggest that your analysis methods are faulty. You could keep making the same suggestions and facing general ridicule, or you could ask yourself why you are wrong so often.
To the Big Ten, Colorado was apparently no better than the fifth-best Pac-12 school. I do not recall any report in the last 20-odd years that suggested Colorado was ever close to an invitation. It likely will never be, unless the Big Ten and the SEC expand to 32 teams like the NFL (which some columnists think could happen eventually).
The Big Ten doesn’t care about giving its second-tier programs more rivals. Yes, Colorado is one of the most-viewed teams this year, but that is probably not sustainable. CFB teams tend to revert to the mean. Colorado indeed has excellent academics, but Cal and Stanford with even better academics were already passed over. Missouri and Kansas are also state flagships in the AAU, and they were passed over.
LikeLike
Well, Frug’s comment concerned Miami as a Big Ten expansion candidate, not Cal or Stanford or Missouri or Kansas. So let’s compare Colorado with Miami.
Nielsen TV Market – Denver # 16, Miami # 18.
Culture – Colorado is a contiguous, public flagship with a Big Ten rival. Miami is none of those things.
Logistics – Colorado would obviously be preferred by the four West Coast schools and that is now the Western Division schools. Miami would be an isolated outlier.
And then there’s this: “The tide is coming in and eventually it’s not going to go back out,” says Dr. Harold Wanless, a Geologist and Professor of Geography and Sustainable Development at University of Miami. . . . So what does that mean for us? According to Dr. Wanelss’s research, by the year 2060, nearly 60% of Miami-Dade county will be underwater.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/scientists-warn-south-florida-coastal-cities-will-be-affected-by-sea-level-rise/
“Miami will be 60 percent under water by the year 2060, according to researchers. The main culprit: climate change. Scientists at the University of Miami predict the Magic City has a little over 30 years before the water takes over.”
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/will-miami-be-underwater-someday/3119902/#:~:text=Miami%20will%20be%2060%20percent,before%20the%20water%20takes%20over.
LikeLike
Well, Frug’s comment concerned Miami as a Big Ten expansion candidate, not Cal or Stanford or Missouri or Kansas. So let’s compare Colorado with Miami.
The Big Ten has already passed over Colorado multiple times without so much as a serious sniff, so we know it is not a high priority for them. How they would look at Miami remains to be seen, but if it ever happened, it would be a recruiting play for the state of Florida — a factor you didn’t mention.
Culture – Colorado is a contiguous, public flagship with a Big Ten rival. Miami is none of those things.
The Big Ten used to say it was only interested in adding schools contiguous with the existing footprint. Your point would’ve had more strength then, but that clearly is out the window. USC is not a public flagship, so that is not one of the criteria either.
If the Big Ten cared about giving Nebraska another rival, it would have taken a closer look at the Buffaloes at any of the various times it could have had them.
Logistics – Colorado would obviously be preferred by the four West Coast schools and that is now the Western Division schools. Miami would be an isolated outlier.
The Big Ten didn’t lock USC/UCLA with Oregon/Washington, which tells you how much they care about that. There is no Western Division anymore (after this year). Of course, Miami wouldn’t be joining by itself — at least one other ACC school would almost certainly be coming along with it.
LikeLike
frug,
Honestly, I’m not sure even Miami would be a serious candidate. 20 years they would have been, but there lackadaisical fanbase means they are just not all valuable unless they are a national title contender, and they haven’t proven they are capable doing that consistently (at least not since they started trying to clean up the team’s image).
Yes, it’s really hard to know with them. Market, recruiting grounds, brand, academics (now) – they have it all on paper. But coaches have continued to struggle there, when NIL should make them a monster now. Their fans are fair-weather at best, and their smaller size hurts them.
FWIW, 538 tied to break down statistically who the Big Ten’s best expansion candidates were after the LA schools announced they were joining. They found 5 “No Brainers”, 2 of whom were Oregon and Washington (ND, UNC, and FSU were the others).
Miami was in the next tier of teams along with Clemson, Utah, Stanford, and Cal (though if my math is correct Miami’s addition to the AAU does push them to #2 in that tier behind only Clemson).
Yes, and if you look at 538’s methodology, they also considered AP poll rankings all they way back. That hurts Miami and FSU, which rose in the 70s and 80s. Miami is only a 7 in historical football performance, the same as Clemson? With 5 titles? 538 also valued all NCAA titles, so OkSU’s 34 wrestling titles (27 of them more than 50 years ago) carry a lot more weight than Miami being great in baseball (“only” 4 titles, though). I don’t think that’s fits how the B10 would view things. 538 rates Stanford’s sports above Miami’s, and I just don’t buy that. And Cal is almost double the fit that Clemson or Miami are? I don’t think the gap is that large.
I’m not saying Miami would or even should get accepted, but 538’s methodology is shaky in my opinion. Still, they say anything over 50 is replacement level, with 65 being average among the current members, and Miami is a 56 or 57 now (Stanford and Cal were 53 and 52). The B10’s desire to have access to FL, for recruiting of students and athletes as well as donor visits also boosts Miami’s case.
Obviously if FSU or, less likely, ND were to insist on inviting the ‘Canes as a condition of themselves joining the Big Ten, the B1G would do it without a second thought (though I find that scenario pretty unlikely). Without being paired with one those two though? I kind of doubt it.
I doubt Miami would want to come without FSU, or maybe ND. They don’t want to be on an island with no rivals.
Probably more noteworthy than relevant, but I will add that ASU’s admission to the AAU actually pushes them into the same tier as Clemson, Miami, Utah, Stanford, and Cal.
But still an unlikely option die to geography (in my opinion). They’d only rise to the level of Cal/Stanford, and we know the B10 (or Fox) wasn’t interested in them.
LikeLike
All make one reply to everyone
@Marc
As I said, I doubt either of them would insist on the U either, that was more of a “for instance”
@Colin
Colorado looks great on paper, the problem is their FB program has been in decline for a quarter of a century and have never been a BB power, so they don’t really do much TV wise. For all the hype around Coach Prime, I really think the Big Ten would take ASU, and even Utah, before they would grab the Buffs.
You do make a good point though about Miami and climate change though.
@Brian
I agree there are some methodological issues with the 538 study (giving “fit” equal weight in particular) but I did think it was interesting to look at.
LikeLike
I agree there are some methodological issues with the 538 study (giving “fit” equal weight in particular) but I did think it was interesting to look at.
One interesting point about the 538 study: it was “reverse-engineered” based on what Nate Silver perceived the Big Ten’s criteria to be at that time. This is always an evolving concept. The Big Ten wanted contiguous schools, until it didn’t. The Big Ten took only two Pac schools, until it took four. AAU membership is either a must-have, or it isn’t. The Big Ten doesn’t want to be a conference-killer, and then it does. Sixteen is the maximum, and then it isn’t.
You could criticize Silver for giving “fit” equal weight, but there were a lot of people here who argued strenuously that the B10 presidents would surely want Stanford and Cal in the club, if they got the chance. If Silver were doing it again, perhaps he’d de-emphasize Fit, because we now know the B10 let those two schools go when it could’ve had them almost “for free.”
LikeLike
Stanford and Cal are in a college football dead zone. Steller academics do not make up for abysmal attendance and few TV viewers. In 2021, average attendance for both was about 36,000 per games and as the article below points out, neither school was able to bring in 32,000 for any game that wasn’t against another California college. Cal’s stadium was at about 60% capacity.
As a contrast, a bad (4-8) Colorado team prior to Coach Prime averaged 45,000 and the Buff’s stadium was at 95% capacity.
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/pac-12-football-attendance-oregon-usc-2021-covid
LikeLike
Frug: “You do make a good point though about Miami and climate change though.”
The problem isn’t limited to rising seawater. Climatologists have coined a phrase “Extreme Heat Belt” to indicate areas where there will be some days during which the temperature will rise to 125 degrees F or higher. That temperature is life-threatening even for passive people at rest, so you can imagine that the NCAA won’t have student-athletes out playing football in that weather.
https://bgr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/extreme-heat-model-first-street-foundation.jpg?quality=82&strip=all
LikeLike
frug,
I agree it was interesting, and at least 538 was willing to put numbers to things and let the algorithm results stand (very similar to Frank’s blog post that drew so many people here). Any such method will have flaws, not least of which is because they are trying to predict future human behavior based on past decisions by other people in different circumstances. As Marc notes, the B10 keeps moving the goalposts for expansion to fit the times.
Marc,
There’s a decent chance the presidents still did want Can and Stanford in, but not enough to take a pay cut and Fox refused to pay more for them.
LikeLike
https://footballscoop.com/news/nick-saban-comment-indicates-sec-eight-game-conference-schedule-nine-game
Nick Saban seems to indicate the SEC is going with the 1/7/7 scheduling model.
It’s presented as a false dichotomy: 1/7/7 or 3/6/6. They could use a flex model and not play everyone twice in 4 years with just 8 games, or they could step up and play 9 games.
Now, the comment came nearly an hour into Saban’s weekly coaches show, and it was a response to a question that wasn’t even about the SEC’s future scheduling format. Guest Dusty Dvoracek, an ESPN analyst and a former Oklahoma defensive lineman, asked Saban’s opinion about the oncoming addition of the Red River rivals, and in turn Saban praised how the SEC has expanded by adding quality programs without changing its geographic footprint.
He then said this:
“The way we’re going to do our 7-team, 1-team fixed, you’re going to play everybody every four years, so almost every guy at your school is going to get to play every team in your conference.”
Again, this is far from official, official confirmation. But the way Saban speaks matter-of-factly, and the fact that he’s likely to be kept informed of internal league deliberations, certainly indicates the SEC is leaning toward a 1-7 format, rather than 3-6.
In a 1-7 format, the following rivalries would not be played annually:
Alabama-Tennessee
Florida-Tennessee
Auburn-Georgia
LSU-Ole Miss
Texas-Texas A&M
Texas-Arkansas
Ironic, considering preserving the Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-Tennessee rivalries are a large reason why the SEC employed a 6-1-1 format (six divisional games, one permanent inter-division game, one rotating inter-division game) from 2012 through this season. That format is responsible for the astounding fact that Georgia will somehow visit Texas, joining the SEC in 2024, before it visits Texas A&M, despite the Aggies joining the SEC in 2012.
…
“I may be saying more than Commissioner Sankey would want me to say, but obviously if you go to a nine-game schedule, you have to be compensated for going to a nine-game schedule,” Georgia President Jere Morehead said back in May. “There’s still some dynamics that have to play out with our media partners.”
Sankey has downplayed the financial significance of eight games versus nine. “Money will follow,” he said around the same time. “It doesn’t lead.”
LikeLike
So the Oldest Rivalry in the Deep South and the Third Saturday in October have to die just because the SEC is still too afraid of a 9th conference game?
Interestingly, with Texas and Oklahoma joining, they could go straight E/W divisions (Auburn and ‘Bama going East and Mizzou joining UT and OU in the West) preserve all the major rivalries, get excellent competitive balance, and still play their non-division conference mates once every 4 years if they would just go to a 9 game conference schedule.
LikeLike
I am not sure “afraid” is the word. As I recall, when the Big Ten went to nine games, it was not to show their bravery. It was because they thought the inventory would be more valuable to TV. Most of the time, no one changes without getting paid for it.
LikeLike
Marc,
I am not sure “afraid” is the word. As I recall, when the Big Ten went to nine games, it was not to show their bravery. It was because they thought the inventory would be more valuable to TV. Most of the time, no one changes without getting paid for it.
Afraid is a pretty good word for it. Many of the no votes for a 9th game came from the lesser programs, worried about bowl eligibility. Coaches worried about job security also complained.
Sure, people also said ESPN should pay them more for it, but I’m not 100% sure that math really holds up. ESPN has all their rights (as of 2024). A 9th game means 16 OOC games replaced by 8 SEC games, so a loss of 4-8 games from the inventory. So the extra money would need to be for improved quality, but how much better would those games be for the slots that matter? The SEC has so many big brands now, the schedule will be loaded with good game anyway. Plus SEC teams are likely to drop P5 OOC games, not cupcake games, so the quality would only improve a little bit and would lose importance in other regions.
Considering how much ESPN will end up paying them for UT and OU, I’m not sure a 9th game really should add much.
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2023/10/13/ohio-state-vs-purdue-peacock-senator-wants-rules-to-stream-college-games/71172765007/
An Ohio state senator wants to ban OSU having games exclusively on Peacock. I don’t think this will go anywhere, since OSU already approved the deal. I think the B10 GOR is the contract at issue here, so the state would have to stop OSU from signing a GOR extension in the future unless it contained a clause allowing for a local broadcast. But by the time the GOR ends, I doubt people will be as upset about this as streaming will be more common than cable so BTN would be a bigger issue. But still, you never want the government interfering with contracts so maybe the media companies should pay a little attention top the anger of people.
A Columbus state senator wants to stop public colleges and universities in Ohio from airing their sporting events exclusively on paid streaming services.
Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, said Friday that he’s looking for solutions because of Saturday’s Ohio State game against Purdue, which will be streamed only on Peacock. It will be the first time since 1997 that the Buckeyes aren’t on traditional TV.
DeMora said it’s ridiculous that fans and local businesses are being “blackmailed” into paying for the service for one game. Peacock does not offer a free trial.
…
DeMora plans to introduce legislation and has asked the Legislative Service Commission to look into the issue. That means details are scarce at this point. Because schools like Ohio State are publicly funded, DeMora believes they should be required to provide a local viewing alternative when games air on paid streaming services.
LikeLike
I agree that the legislature would not be able to get OSU out of the current deal. But several articles have mentioned that the schools signed off without realizing all the details of what Warren had gotten them into — November night games being an example. I wouldn’t be surprised if they assert more control next time.
LikeLike
And to make things better, it was a terrible “broadcast.” OSU fans were lambasting Peacock all over social media, enough so to get articles written about it. I’m not sure this sort of PR is helping NBC really gain financially.
https://sports.yahoo.com/ohio-state-fans-hated-peacock-200506278.html
Indeed, fans who wanted to tune in and watch the Big Ten action were left frustrated from numerous issues with the Peacock-exclusive broadcast. According to tweets from several dissatisfied customers, the broadcast started off on a bad foot, featuring no pregame show (which comes with a Peacock Premium subscription).
It also reportedly experienced graphics errors, lagged and froze outright. The broadcast team reportedly made errors on the call, as well. It all led to what was a largely unsatisfactory viewing experience for Buckeyes fans who wanted to watch Ryan Day and Co. advance to 6-0 on the season (3-0 in Big Ten).
https://www.si.com/college/2023/10/14/ohio-state-buckeyes-purdue-boilermakers-peacock-fans-livid
This one is full of tweets as well.
https://awfulannouncing.com/peacock/ohio-state-fans-peacock-experience-problems.html
So is this one (between all the 1-line paragraphs below).
Having your game broadcast on the Peacock streaming service isn’t anything new to the Purdue Boilermakers. However, this weekend marks the first time for Ohio State Buckeyes fans.
And boy did they hate it.
The OSU faithful were predisposed to dislike the experience of watching their Buckeyes on a streamer, if we’re being fair. So mad were they that it inspired a state senator to look into legislation to tamp down the number of times Ohio State games can appear on a streaming-only option in the future. It also caused issues at local bars and restaurants that didn’t want to pay exorbitant fees in order to broadcast a handful of games per year.
So they were already in a bad mood by the time Saturday rolled around. That made any problems or microaggressions caused by Peacock’s offerings seem even worse than they might have otherwise.
That includes graphics errors…
The lack of any pregame programming…
The stream constantly buffering or freezing…
The quality of the broadcasting crew…
And just general disdain for the entire ordeal…
…
As of right now, Ohio State is not scheduled to have another game on Peacock this season. And quite frankly, everyone would probably be wise to make sure that doesn’t change.
LikeLike
One probably ought to distinguish the coverage and the delivery mechanism. Good announcers don’t suddenly get bad at sportscasting because they are on Peacock. A graphic showing “TD” when it was actually a fumble would be wrong no matter how the broadcast was transmitted.
My guess: since NBC never covered this much CFB, they’ve got a bunch of new hires who never worked together before. These crews are not the brightest lights, since NBC had to find people lower in the profession who would consider it a step up to work for Peacock. I recall that BTN broadcasts in the early years were at times excruciating, for much the same reason. They got better.
I suspect that with more experience these crews will improve. Obviously there are also some technical issues specifically due to Peacock, but even that does not require rocket science to figure out, which means they eventually will. Not that it excuses what happened yesterday, which sounds similar to the Michigan–UNLV game I watched earlier in the season.
LikeLike
Marc,
Sure, the coverage and the mechanism are separate things. But both are terrible with Peacock, so they get lumped together.
NBC has been covering a wide variety of sports for decades. They should have a bench of people by now, or be able to steal them from other places. BTN was a startup. It’s apples and oranges.
The crews can’t get worse, so improvement is about the only option.
Obviously there are also some technical issues specifically due to Peacock, but even that does not require rocket science to figure out, which means they eventually will. Not that it excuses what happened yesterday, which sounds similar to the Michigan–UNLV game I watched earlier in the season.
Will they? NBC has been covering sports for decades, and Peacock has been streaming for 3 years. If all you do is stream, shouldn’t 3 years be long enough to figure it out? They have had ND games since 2021, so they’ve faced this exact scenario before and still haven’t fixed it. How many times do they have to face the exact same problem before they learn to fix it?
And charging people for a pre-game show that doesn’t exist? That’s pure fraud.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/court-documents-reveal-pac-12-schools-to-pay-well-beyond-50-million-in-comcast-overpayment-scandal/
Lawsuits bring out details – in this case, the P12 Comcast overpayment will cost them $72M, not just $50M. And the emergency reserve is spent. Comcast also looks really bad for not noticing this error for years, since they keep all their data private so the P12 couldn’t catch it.
The future of the Pac-12 hinges, in part, on the two remaining and 10 departing schools gaining clarity on the conference’s assets and liabilities.
One of those liabilities has come into focus.
The conference is taking a $72 million budget hit as a result of the Comcast overpayment scandal, according to commissioner George Kliavkoff’s court declaration in a lawsuit filed against the conference by two former executives.
…
Under penalty of perjury, Kliavkoff stated “the Pac-12 will (have) distributed more than $72 million less than previously budgeted … to our member institutions.”
The decrease comes in two forms, according to a source:
— Distributions withheld by Comcast to offset 10 years of overpayments (2013-22) based on the company’s flawed tracking of Pac-12 Networks subscribers. That total is $58 million.
— Reductions in distributions in the 2023-24 fiscal years to account for a correction in the subscriber figures. That total is $14 million.
“It typifies 12 years of neglect,” a source said.
The withholding and reduction of $72 million (or $6 million per school) is already underway and expected to be finalized before the end of the current fiscal year.
…
Multiple sources said the emergency reserves — a potential asset for the Cougars and Beavers if they attempt to rebuild — are fully exhausted.
“There’s nothing left,” one source said.
…
What caused the $72 million mistake?
In his declaration, Kliavkoff said the company was “employing a calculation for license fees owed to the Pac-12 that double-counted certain subscribers.”
“Given the systemic nature of the error,” Kliavkoff added, “it was reasonably certain that Comcast had been making this error prior to 2016, and would continue to make this error after 2016 and through the life of the Comcast distribution agreement unless alerted to it or until Comcast discovered the error.”
The Pac-12 was made aware of the error in late 2017, following an audit, but never alerted Comcast. The media giant discovered the overpayments years later, in the summer of 2022, following an internal audit.
…
The audit showed Comcast was overpaying the Pac-12 Networks by $5 million annually, but the conference had no way to confirm the findings because it lacked access to Comcast’s proprietary subscriber data.
“Due to Comcast’s own ability to determine proper payment and its own sophisticated infrastructure and internal controls,” Willman, the former CFO, said in his court declaration, “this raised extreme skepticism within Pac-12 about the audit findings.”
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/mailbag-pac-2-leadership-options-the-blame-game-scott-vs-kliavkoff-pac-12-board-moves-cfp-scenarios-emergency-funds-and-more/
Wilner mailbag.
So it seems we may have a two-team conference next year while things play out. If that happens, who is going to be commissioner? Do they even need one? — @brycetacoma
…
The two remaining schools aren’t relying on Kliavkoff for strategic advice as they plot their future.
And the 10 outgoing schools don’t need him for strategic advice as they transition into new leagues.
But all 12 schools need someone to oversee the Pac-12’s current competition season and represent the conference on national committees (e.g., the College Football Playoff).
Also, Kliavkoff would be owed $10 million (approximately) if terminated, and nobody wants to pay something for nothing and toss that cash in the trash.
So he remains in place due to inertia, essentially.
What about leadership of the ‘Pac-2’ conference if the Cougars and Beavers compete alone in the 2024-25 sports season?
True, they might not need a league. Everything about their athletic existence would be streamlined, to the point that they potentially could handle operational matters like officiating and cut their own broadcast deals with local television stations.
But if a conference structure is deemed necessary, the obvious candidate is Teresa Gould, the Pac-12’s current deputy commissioner.
Gould has been an athletic director (UC Davis), she worked for a Pac-12 school (Cal), and she understands campus challenges. She’s more than qualified to oversee a scaled-down conference.
Heck, she’s plenty qualified to step in today and run the 12-school league.
That said, it seems unlikely that Gould would be the commissioner of a fully rebuilt Pac-12. Our presumption is that a reconfigured conference with several or all of the Mountain West schools would feature current MW commissioner Gloria Nevarez as the top executive.
And Nevarez knows the Pac-12 well, having served as an executive under former commissioner Larry Scott.
Put another way: Whatever form the conference takes starting next summer, there are two good leadership options.
Who is more culpable in the Pac-12’s demise, former commissioner Larry Scott or current commissioner George Kliavkoff? — @NILvsNLI
…
Scott and Kliavkoff are certainly culpable, although not nearly to the same extent as the university presidents who ran the conference and produced an astounding mix of indifference, ignorance and incompetence.
They deserve the majority of the blame and, in our humble opinion, that’s beyond dispute.
Scott took the keys to the car, put pedal to the metal and headed for the cliff.
Kliavkoff took over with a quarter mile to go and finished the job, failing to take advantage of several off-ramps in that crucial final stretch.
Both made one wrong move after another.
What’s truly remarkable is the presidents, upon cutting Scott loose in the winter of 2021, ignored the warning signs and hired a replacement who was equally unqualified.
They needed someone who understood college athletics, possessed deep industry contacts and recognized the value of relationships. In Kliavkoff, they went 0-of-3.
So we would offer the following breakdown of blame:
Presidents: 51%
Kliavkoff: 25%
Scott: 24%
What happened to the $40 million emergency fund, and who authorized tapping it? — @scottsdaleazwsu
The presidents control the emergency reserves (and all financial assets) and must authorize the use of the funds.
At the end of the 2022 fiscal year, the Pac-12 had $42.7 million in net assets. The reserves were part of that sum, but we don’t know the percentage.
What we do know, according to multiple sources, is that the presidents approved the use of reserves to offset the revenue lost in the Comcast overpayment debacle. As a result, the emergency cash has been exhausted.
With the news about Kliavkoff removing USC and UCLA from the Pac-12 board, what do you expect from the lawsuit Washington State and Oregon State filed against the conference? — @ryan_silva88
Some readers might be unfamiliar, so allow us to summarize the latest development:
While plowing through court records in a lawsuit related to the Comcast overpayment scandal, the Hotline discovered that Kliavkoff, under penalty of perjury, stated in July that the Los Angeles schools had been removed from the Pac-12’s board of directors.
The revelation is potentially significant in the lawsuit filed by Oregon State and Washington State over control of the board.
Why? Because it establishes precedent.
OSU and WSU believe the makeup of the board should not change based on the number of schools that have announced their departures:
If USC and UCLA were removed after announcing they were headed to the Big Ten, as Kliavkoff’s court declaration indicates, the other eight schools should be removed following their announcements, as well.
As for the outcome of the lawsuit, we continue to believe a settlement is the most likely endgame — especially given that the two sides have entered mediation.
However, it’s clear to us that the 10 outgoing schools are attempting to slow the legal process.
Time is essential for WSU and OSU, which must make plans for the 2024 season. (Atop their priority list: a 12-game football schedule.)
A trial would take months. By dragging out the litigation, the defendants seemingly hope to force the plaintiffs to settle.
If Washington State and Oregon State were to rebuild the Pac-12, are there enough schools they can add that will make it Power Five worthy? — @CelestialMosh
Doubtful.
The Power Five designation is controlled by the College Football Playoff. We don’t foresee an outcome in which whatever conference houses the Beavers and Cougars — whether it’s a ‘Pac-2’ or ‘Pac-8’ or fully rebuilt Pac-12 — maintains that categorization.
The Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 would object, and that would be enough to strip the league of the coveted designation.
But don’t forget: The CFP will carve out an automatic bid for the top-ranked school outside the Power Four. Whichever team wins the reconfigured league would have a terrific chance to claim a spot.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/38668171/iowa-draws-55646-set-record-women-basketball-game
Over 55,000 fans turned out for an outdoor Iowa WBB game. It shows the potential to grow the sport, and maybe eventually monetize it more. But the season is not well suited to outdoor games. In the midwest, that really should be in the summer to have the best chance at good weather.
I do wonder how much tickets cost, though. Apparently $10 for outdoors only, $20 for indoor (in case of rain) or outdoor. That’s a far cry from football prices, but they weren’t free so the event should be profitable.
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo. Women’s college basketball may indeed flourish but here’s an article that boasts about the opening three games of the WNBA Finals averaging 673,000 viewers on ABC and ESPN. It appears they do not understand how pathetic those numbers are.
I do not know one person who has ever attended a WNBA game or women’s pro soccer game, or has watched one on TV. These women do not understand how self-defeating these kneeling protests are.
https://wapo.st/3S0ADQl
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/olympics/story/_/id/38670676/cricket-flag-football-5-sports-added-2028-olympics
As expected, baseball/softball, cricket, flag football, lax, and squash were all officially added to the 2028 Olympic program. (I’m still surprised they added so many team sports. Lots of athletes.) Breakdancing (breaking) is out.
Weightlifting and modern pentathlon get to stay, but MP is replacing the horse riding with an obstacle course.
Boxing has been assured it has a spot , but it currently lacks a governing body recognized by the IOC, so who knows….
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-weak-leadership-enables-campus-scandals
This is an opinion piece about campus leadership, and supports firing accused employees early and taking the legal risk. It’s about Mel Tucker, but references the recent past as well.
This is what bothered me, and I alluded to it above about the B10 having all the major scandals lately:
In recent years several well-known universities have been at the center of horrific acts perpetrated by employees that have harmed students, tarnished institutional reputations, and resulted in millions of dollars in expenses and settlements. The list includes:
* Michigan State University, which paid victims over $500 million and spent over $60 million on legal fees associated with the former doctor Larry Nassar, who assaulted hundreds of university and outside athletes.
* Ohio State University, which spent over $75 million in legal fees and payments to approximately 200 victims of Richard Strauss, who was accused of assaulting them in his role as a team doctor.
* Pennsylvania State University, which spent over $300 million in legal fees and settlement costs stemming from the former football coach Jerry Sandusky’s assaults on young boys on campus.
* The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, which paid victims of the campus doctor Robert E. Anderson, who treated many athletes, almost half a billion dollars.
* The University of Southern California, which paid $1.1 billion to the victims of the campus gynecologist George Tyndall, who assaulted hundreds of women over the course of decades.
Michigan State University, where the Nassar scandal took place, is now facing another scandal. …
Five major scandals, and all will be B10 schools next year. That is a coincidence, not cause and effect, but it’s also not a good look. If another scandal has to come to light in the next few years, I really hope it isn’t yet another B10 school.
The writer isn’t blaming the B10, or even big-time athletics.
The careful reader will note that all five of those institutions have nationally prominent athletic programs, and at four of the five (all but USC) the scandals were explicitly tied to athletics. But it is too easy to blame big athletic programs for a culture that enabled those scandals.
The University of San Francisco is a Division I institution in a mid-major conference, but it has no football program, and athletics play a very minor role on campus. And yet this university too has had its share of problems in its sports programs, including a head baseball coach who was fired for creating an “intolerable sexualized environment,” a (still-employed) head women’s basketball coach whose “intentional infliction of emotional distress” on a player resulted in a $750,000 jury award, and a men’s soccer program that harbored 11 players “accused of engaging in sexual misconduct over the past decade,” according to a university investigation.
Leaders must take action even when there are only rumors of bad behavior.
In every one of the cases at those six universities, complaints — either formal or informal — had been filed by victims or other employees of the institution who had raised questions about the behavior of the perpetrators. But in every case the problems continued for years, and in some cases decades, before the universities took action to deal with them and truly listen to the victims.
I was associated with four of the institutions, having been a professor at the University of Michigan, a professor and research-center director at Penn State, a college dean at Michigan State, and the provost at the University of San Francisco. I have witnessed proclamations of zero-tolerance policies, the establishment of whistle-blower hotlines and anonymous reporting websites, and trainings on sexual harassment and how to establish a safe and supportive workplace.
But none of those actions can substitute for strong and proactive institutional leadership, leadership that reacts swiftly and forcefully to signs something inappropriate is happening. Leaders must take action even when there are only rumors of bad behavior; they can’t wait around for victims to file formal complaints. Too often administrators get paralyzed by arguments of due process, the need to protect the rights of the accused, and the importance of adhering to human-resources policies.
Leaders might be afraid that if they move too quickly to suspend or fire an accused employee, they will face a lawsuit alleging the employee’s rights have been violated. That is a risk, but it is hard to imagine that any suit of this type could cost institutions — in legal fees and any potential judgment or settlement, not to mention bad publicity — anywhere near what they have ultimately paid out after the assaults have gone on for years and involved scores or even hundreds of victims in the wake of ignored or neglected information.
Institutional structure can play a role too. At the University of San Francisco, the athletics program reports to neither the president nor the provost, both of whom have responsibility for the academic and co-curricular standards and lives of students, but to the vice president for business and finance, a position that has no responsibility for students. It’s hard not to think that a different structure would have provided more proactive and intensive oversight, and possibly would have prevented the problems there.
LikeLike
There is another risk of acting merely on “rumors”. It’s not just that a falsely-accused employee might sue. If a mere rumor is enough to get an employee suspended, it becomes very easy for someone with a vindictive streak to file a specious complaint against someone they don’t like. And accusations can trail someone for many years, even when they are untrue.
There’s a huge gulf between “a rumor,” and doctors like Nassar, Anderson, or Tyndall, who abused hundreds of people. The conduct their universities ignored, and failed to act on, was far more than just the odd rumor or two.
By the standards of those three doctors, MSU acted against Mel Tucker relatively quickly. But it’s kind of funny that they had to get the details from USA Today, because the university’s confidentiality process withheld the details from his line of management. Perhaps that’s confidentiality in excess. MSU winds up looking bad, because there’s the perception that they were not intending to act until the media forced their hand.
The article doesn’t even mention Pat Fitzgerald, who seems to have presided over many years of abuse that he either condoned or willfully pretended not to notice. I wonder if Northwestern will have any payouts to those victims? They’re private, so it might be harder for us to ever know.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/4969028/2023/10/17/college-football-media-reader-survey/
The Athletic’s CFB media survey, with over 3100 responses about TV coverage.
What network do you prefer for national game broadcasts?
ESPN/ABC: 57.7 percent
CBS: 20.3 percent
Fox/FS1: 18.3 percent
NBC: 3.7 percent
What is your favorite conference network for games?
Big Ten Network: 41.3 percent
SEC Network: 39.8 percent
ACC Network: 11.5 percent
Pac-12 Network: 7.5 percent
That probably tells you whose fans responded.
How would you rate the quality of NBC’s Big Ten prime-time broadcasts this year? (1 = hate it, 5 = love it)
1: 3.2 percent
2: 11.6 percent
3: 42.2 percent
4: 35.7 percent
5: 7.4 percent
What is your favorite broadcast announcer team?
Chris Fowler and Kirk Herbstreit (ABC): 38.3 percent
Gus Johnson and Joel Klatt (Fox): 21.9 percent
Brad Nessler and Gary Danielson (CBS): 12.1 percent
Sean McDonough and Greg McElroy (ESPN): 10.2 percent
Bob Wischusen and Robert Griffin III (ESPN): 3.1 percent
Noah Eagle and Todd Blackledge (NBC): 3 percent
Joe Tessitore and Jesse Palmer (ESPN): 2.9 percent
Jason Benetti and Brock Huard (Fox): 2.7 percent
Tim Brando and Spencer Tillman (Fox): 1.5 percent
Mark Jones and Louis Riddick (ESPN): 1.1 percent
Tom Hart and Jordan Rodgers (SEC): 1 percent
All others: Less than 1 percent
Do you prefer ESPN’s “College GameDay” or Fox’s “Big Noon Kickoff”?
“College GameDay”: 77 percent
“Big Noon Kickoff”: 23 percent
The king remains the king. Last year, “GameDay” had an 82-18 edge. This year, it’s a bit closer. But it’s not all rosy …
How do you feel about Pat McAfee on “College Gameday”?
Like it: 30.1 percent
Don’t like it: 48.9 percent
No opinion: 21 percent
Do you watch pregame shows more or less than you used to?
More: 8.4 percent
Less: 63.3 percent
No change: 28.3 percent
Do you believe TV networks are biased toward certain conferences?
Yes: 82.7 percent
No: 17.3 percent
Do you believe TV networks play an active role in driving conference realignment?
Yes: 95.5 percent
No: 4.5 percent
What form of TV do you typically use to watch college football?
Cable: 37.2 percent
YouTube TV: 37.1 percent
Hulu + Live TV: 8 percent
DirecTV Stream: 5.2 percent
Antenna: 2.8 percent
Fubo: 2.3 percent
Sling: 2.2 percent
All others: Less than 1 percent
Have you paid for a streaming-only service (like ESPN+ or Peacock) specifically to watch college football?
No: 61.5 percent
Yes: 38.5 percent
Nearly an equal amount of you watch on cable/satellite as do on YouTube TV. I’m not sure whether that’s bad news for cable (more than 60 million homes), good news for YouTube TV (6.3 million users) or just the result of this being an online survey. Cable being less than a majority of viewership is a major shift in viewing habits from even a few years ago.
But crossing into paying for streaming-only games remains a hurdle. It’s a flip from last year when 63 percent of respondents said they would pay for a service like ESPN+ for games. Now, a majority say they don’t, even though many top programs play at least one streaming-only game now.
There were many other questions, plus comments for all of them.
LikeLike
What form of TV do you typically use to watch college football?
Cable: 37.2 percent
YouTube TV: 37.1 percent
Nothing else is even close, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see YouTube TV in the #1 position by next year.
What is your favorite conference network for games?
Big Ten Network: 41.3 percent
SEC Network: 39.8 percent…
That probably tells you whose fans responded.
If B10 and SEC fans replied in about equal numbers, then the disparity in some of the other questions is pretty telling, e.g., that 77% prefer ESPN’s College GameDay to 23% who prefer FOX’s Big Noon Kickoff.
If there’s a big SEC lean in the responses, then it’s not good news for Brad Nessler and Gary Danielson, who have called all the big SEC games in recent years. They were the favorite announcing team of just 12.1% of voters. To the question “Who is your favorite college football TV analyst?” Danielson didn’t even register, which seems very strange. He’s not my favorite—but zero???
LikeLike
My hunch is that 80% of college football viwers are like me and pay no attention to who the announcers are and they didn’t respond to the question.
LikeLike
It appears this was a voluntary survey, so naturally it pulled in only the most engaged fans. I think that most fans pay do attention to the announcers, which is why the top ones get multi-million dollar contracts. If you don’t realize who is calling your games, you are probably in the minority.
LikeLike
The only two announcers worth remembering were Bob Griese and Keith “Whoa Nellie, FUMMMBULLL” Jackson. Off the top of my head I could name Herbstreit, Blackledge, Danielson, and that’s about it. Also Drew Brees but obviously he flopped.
LikeLike
Off the top of my head I could name Herbstreit, Blackledge, Danielson, and that’s about it.
Who just so happen to be the #1 color analysts for three of the top four media companies that carry college football (ESPN, NBC, and CBS respectively). You missed only Joel Klatt (FOX). So the names you recognize happen to correlate exactly with the people those companies assign to their biggest games.
Now, that doesn’t prove they chose the best ones — maybe you recognize them because they are on the top games, not because they are good. However, it’s an interesting correlation.
LikeLike
Herbstreit, Blackledge andDanielson all had solid reputations as athletes before they became announcers. As far as being a pure motormouth, about the only one I can think of is Howard Cosell.
LikeLike
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/heres-one-ohio-senator-wants-end-paywalled-college-football-ohio
Matt Brown interviewed the Ohio state senator who wants to ban streaming-only games.
But other Ohio State fans were really upset. One of those fans is Ohio Sen. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus), whose district includes Ohio State’s main campus.
DeMora announced that he plans to introduce legislation to “stop Ohio’s public colleges and universities from airing sporting events exclusively on streaming platforms.”
“I’ve gotten 98% positive feedback on this idea,” he told me. “I heard about this all weekend. Fans complained about the service, the broadcast quality, the picture, everything.”
“You and I both know that the Big Ten isn’t getting this huge TV deal without Ohio State. And because of that, Ohio State is able to dictate some concessions. Ohio State tells the Big Ten that they’re not going to play the Michigan game at night. They tell the Big Ten they’re not going to host Friday football games, because they don’t want to compete with Ohio high school football.”
If Ohio State has the leverage to secure those kinds of concessions from the Big Ten and media partners, wonders DeMora, why not on this?
…
A compromise, according to DeMora, would be require streaming broadcasts to also allow linear distribution on local television. “Let NBC4 in Columbus pay to distribute the game here in Columbus. Let the local affiliates in Toledo or Athens broadcast the MAC game. It’s not rocket science—I’m sure it’s possible.”
I asked DeMora what he would say to somebody who accused him of grandstanding or pandering.
“This isn’t pandering. It’s a legitimate local economic issue. We’ve got bars out here that are asked to pay thousands of dollars to broadcast this game. I know of bars that decided not to show the Ohio State game, and others who pirated the stream, or bought log-ins from home. That’s screwing the little guy.”
He also got particularly animated about the idea of college students having to pay an additional fee. “I hope that these broadcast companies make it so college students do not have to pay anything extra to watch their classmates. It should be free in dorms, or they should give out unique codes, or something else. College is expensive enough as it is. If nothing else comes from this effort, that’s a win.”
…
It’s also why intellectually, I don’t have a problem with ESPN+, FloSports, or anybody else that paywalls niche college sports content. Broadcasting events, especially at a high quality, takes money, and asking people to pay for it is the most sustainable way of earning enough to pay for that quality. We can quibble over the pricing or the quality or the customer service, but I don’t have a problem with the core concept of paywalling a broadcast.
Ohio State football, however, is not a niche broadcast property. It is perhaps the least niche event possible in all of college sports. You do not paywall Ohio State football out of economic necessity. You do it to prop up the value of the broadcast package. Good for the folks in Rosemont, but I get why consumers would be pissed.
I actually think two of DeMora’s proposed remedies here would be a net positive for consumers. Requiring streaming-only games to also be available locally via linear distribution will decrease the total value of a TV deal, but removes the economic hardship on bars and protects local consumers. Requiring schools to offer paywalled broadcasts to college students for free also seems reasonable. Most broadcasts already are free for students, and at many schools, athletic tickets are also free.
LikeLike
Brian: “Matt Brown interviewed the Ohio state senator who wants to ban streaming-only games.”
What a bunch of spoiled brats.
LikeLike
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this (these comments have become extremely long), but in August of last year, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight did an analysis of expansion candidates for the Big Ten. He did an analysis of sports, fit, and markets, for all schools in the ACC; Big XII (except Texas and Oklahoma); PAC12 (except for USC and UCLA); ND and UConn; Missouri and Vanderbilt; and Cinci, Houston, Rice and SMU, assigning points for different metrics within those categories, and then averaging the three categories together. The Big Ten average (including UCLA and USC) was 65; all but two teams were above 50, and the lowest was Rutgers (42) (Northwestern was 44). Under his analysis, the next five teams were ND (73), UNC (68); Oregon (67); FSU (65) and Washington (65). The teams above 50 were Clemson (59), Utah (54), Miami (53), Stanford (53) and Cal (52). However, this was before the recent AAU vote. Because he awarded 10 points under “fit” for AAU membership, this would increase ND’s numbers (to 76), but also Miami’s (to 57) and ASU’s (from 48 to 52).
As with any analysis of this type, you can disagree with the metrics that he used, but I haven’t seen any detailed analysis like this, since Frank’s analysis way back in 2010 (which also suggested why Maryland and Rutgers were added later). And they support the additions of Oregon and Washington and not Stanford and Cal.
LikeLike
Unproductive,
Welcome.
We discussed it when it first came out, but that was multiple blog posts ago (https://frankthetank.org/2022/07/22/dissolution-is-not-a-solution-to-break-a-grant-of-rights-agreement/#comment-378614).
It came up again this August (https://frankthetank.org/2022/09/20/geography-or-trophy-games-proposed-annual-rivals-in-the-future-big-ten/#comment-397318) and have actually been discussing it again just the past few days (https://frankthetank.org/2022/09/20/geography-or-trophy-games-proposed-annual-rivals-in-the-future-big-ten/#comment-400113).
We mostly reached similar conclusions as you did. In this latest round we’ve been discussing whether 538’s metrics still apply, and if the weighting of each factor is correct.
It is refreshing to see someone willing to use hard numbers and an objective algorithm to reach a conclusion rather than just opinion.
The big discussion now seems to be about whether the B10 would consider adding Miami (say as #20 along with ND). It is a borderline case depending on what metrics you value, much like UNC or UVA.
The regular commenters here have already established opinions on many of these things, though those opinions do change over time. What do you think? A fresh voice is always welcome.
LikeLike
Sounds like the NCAA has pretty much given hope on Congress doing anything about NIL deals are now just trying to make sure athletes are not declared employees.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/38678809/ncaa-focused-employment-status-athletes-senate-hearing
At a Senate hearing Tuesday, NCAA president Charlie Baker shifted the focus of college sports’ needs toward the possibility of athletes being deemed employees of their schools and away from federal legislation to regulate how they can be compensated for their fame.
…
He also told the committee the NCAA was moving forward with its own regulations for name, image and likeness compensation deals for athletes.
…
Meanwhile, legal threats to the collegiate model have emerged. An antitrust case could force schools and conferences that compete at the highest levels of the NCAA into professional-sports-style revenue sharing of billions in media rights dollars with football and basketball players.
…
“To enable enhanced benefits while protecting programs from one-size-fits-all actions in the courts, we support codifying current regulatory guidance into law by granting student-athletes special status that would affirm they are not employees,” Baker said.
Baker said athlete representatives from all three NCAA divisions have stated they do not want to be employees of their schools. He said that without congressional action, Division II and III schools might abandon their athletic programs.
Whole article is worth a read.
LikeLike
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) pushed back on some of the panicked rhetoric about the state of college sports and cautioned against too much government regulation.
“I’d be real careful about inviting Congress to micromanage your business,” Kennedy told Baker.
This is probably the closest to my own view. Also, Congress can’t even do the things it’s required to, such as funding the defense department. I don’t imagine it reaching consensus on college athletics in the near future, and then if they get it wrong you could be stuck with it for a very long time.
And I don’t think it’s credible to suggest that “the sky is falling” in Division III, to the extent they’d be forced to give up athletics because of things happening in Division I revenue sports.
LikeLike
Marc,
If the courts decide, there’s no reason to assume their decision would draw any distinction between P5 football/MBB and D-III golf. The decision would be about the control of the athlete the school has, not how much money is made (you don’t stop being an employee because your employer loses money). D-III schools can’t afford to pay all their athletes even minimum wage for 20 hours per week, plus the required uncounted hours (travel, games).
And if it it does draw a distinction, how does that work with Title IX?
LikeLike
Just stop giving out football scholarships. The school’s control starts with the scholarship – “we will give you a scholarship if you come and play football for us”, so that further control over the student’s time and sports requirements (supposedly) makes the student an employee. If there is no scholarship and football is entirely voluntary, I fail to see how the player is an employee. “Normal” students are required to attend classes and maintain minimum GPAs, but that doesn’t mean that they are employees just because the school may make lots of money (there may be no profit, but that’s because schools spend it on building and professors and administrative salaries, so that they don’t). NIL also allows players to attend a school even without a scholarship, and needs-based scholarships (and student loans/grants) would also remain. This also gets rid of Title IX issues.
But it will not happen, because no school wants to put itself at a competitive disadvantage.
LikeLike
A walk-on player faces all the same rules and time restrictions as a scholarship player. If the lawsuit is based on the level of control, I don’t see how dropping the scholarships would change anything.
LikeLike
Brian (I can’t figure out to respond to your post, so I’ll just add to mine) –
The level of control is used to determine whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. But the key to both is that the person receives some sort of consideration for performing the required functions. Without a scholarship, there is no financial consideration given by the school for the athlete to play. It’s entirely voluntary by the student. If the athlete doesn’t want to play, he doesn’t lose anything valuable. Without any consideration, I don’t see that the athlete is employed, since he/she isn’t getting anything (from the school) for playing. In fact, when the NLRB declined to rule on Northwestern’s petition to unionize, the very first sentence says:
“In this representation case, the Petitioner asks the Board to find that Northwestern University’s football players who receive grant-in-aid scholarships are employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act and direct an election in a unit of these grant-in-aid players.
The key for the right to unionize was grant-in-aid (athletic) scholarships.
LikeLike
Unproductive,
After a certain number of levels, WordPress stops giving you the “Reply” link and you have to go up to the prior level.
The level of control is used to determine whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. But the key to both is that the person receives some sort of consideration for performing the required functions. Without a scholarship, there is no financial consideration given by the school for the athlete to play. It’s entirely voluntary by the student. If the athlete doesn’t want to play, he doesn’t lose anything valuable.
They get free gear, free tutoring, free training, free meals, …. Is that not financial consideration?
Without any consideration, I don’t see that the athlete is employed, since he/she isn’t getting anything (from the school) for playing.
I don’t see a scholarship as any different consideration from their other perks.
In fact, when the NLRB declined to rule on Northwestern’s petition to unionize, the very first sentence says:
“In this representation case, the Petitioner asks the Board to find that Northwestern University’s football players who receive grant-in-aid scholarships are employees within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act and direct an election in a unit of these grant-in-aid players.
The key for the right to unionize was grant-in-aid (athletic) scholarships.
So they draw the line at D-II golf instead of D-III? And everyone with a partial scholarship (most sports) is employed but the rest of their team isn’t? I get why they argued it that way, but I’m not convinced a legal decision would actually be construed that narrowly. Otherwise, with NIL every school would just drop scholarships and re-route the money in other ways to avoid being an employer.
LikeLike
As I posted previously, Charlie Baker was babbling nonsense when he advocated a “uniform standard” for NIL established by the clowns in Congress. They can’t even elect a speaker and there is no way they’d come to an agreement with a federal law to regulate NIL compensation. Baker was flat-out ducking the issue as he settled into his new job.
LikeLike
Asking Congress costs nothing, so I can see why he asked — you might as well throw the Hail Mary. The NCAA didn’t want NIL to be legal at all, and they still don’t—they only allowed it because they were forced to, kicking and screaming the whole way. To them, any imaginable restrictions (even terrible ones) would be favorable, since if it were up to them you the whole thing would still be prohibited.
LikeLike
Baker was asking for a “uniform standard” for NIL and then in the next breath he said he also wanted the polar opposite, no cap on an individual’s NIL earnings. He reminds me of George Kliavkoff.
https://frontofficesports.com/ncaa-president-charlie-baker-wants-standard-nil-contracts-with-no-earnings-cap/
LikeLike
And guess what? Charlie Baker also weasels on the other major NCAA controversy.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/riley-gaines-unimpressed-ncaa-president-charlie-bakers-senate-testimony
LikeLike
Gift article WSJ. Interesting that this academic ranking has BYU ahead of USC, Cal or UCLA.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/top-colleges-by-size-western-u-s-1a773ff9?st=xjq428m9rl8dxpb&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
ESPN is on track for its most-watched CFB season in 7 years. However, a big chunk of that is due to Texas and Florida State being relevant again plus the Deion phenomenon at Colorado that is very likely unsustainable.
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-lies-damned-lies-and-the
An analytics expert explains the CFP rankings, and what they would be right now.
Dave Bartoo runs Matrix Analytics, a consulting firm that works with a number of college conferences and schools. As a hobby, he likes to crunch numbers on the College Football Playoff front because, as he put it, “we’re a bunch of data nerds.”
…
“In the last decade, if you give me 25 teams and remove the names of the schools and just label them ‘A’ and ‘B’ and ‘C’ and ‘D… E… F… G…’ and if that’s all you gave us we would nail the playoff rankings every year — dead on.”
There are seven variables involved in the ranking, Bartoo said. They are: championship wins, quality wins (above-.500 team), Top-25 wins, margin of victory, margin of loss, bad loss (sub-.500 team), and strength of schedule.
“That’s the whole formula,” Bartoo said. “The secret is in knowing how to weigh it. For example, USC’s 48-20 loss to Notre Dame last weekend came by too many points. That margin of defeat eliminates the Trojans the same way Oregon’s 49-3 loss to Georgia in 2022 knocked the Ducks out before the season even really began.”
I asked Bartoo to examine the current college football season and tell me how the selection committee would rank the teams. Not in two weeks when the initial CFP ranking comes out — but here and now.
His current top four:
1. Oklahoma
2. Ohio State
3. Washington
4. Florida State
“If the regular season ended today,” Bartoo said, “there’s no question in my mind that Georgia and Michigan are not in the top four.”
Georgia and Michigan will have opportunities to play their way up the ranking and into the playoff. Also, if Ohio State beats Penn State on Saturday, Bartoo said that the Buckeyes would move in front of the Sooners and assume the No. 1 spot.
Other interesting observations by Bartoo:
• ON THE ‘EYE TEST’: “There is no ‘eye test.’ People always talk about the ‘eye test.’ It’s a bunch of crap. Look at these people on the committee. How many of them have the football IQ? They don’t. I don’t. Barry Alvarez might. I’ll buy that. But most of the others just don’t. The other thing is, the committee members don’t have the time to watch 50 hours of football every week. There is no ‘eye test.’”
• ON TWO PAC-12 TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF: “Washington is No. 3 on my list right now and if they win out they’re in the playoff. Everyone is asking could the Pac-12 get two teams in? I don’t think so, particularly if that second candidate is Washington. The Huskies got a Top-25 win and a quality win against Oregon. Their margin of victory is good. The Huskies have the No. 2 offensive scoring efficiency in the country. But what’s hurting Washington is the non-conference schedule. Boise State (3-4) is freaking killing them. Boise State is the No. 1 recruiter in the Mountain West. That should be a Top 25 team annually and it’s teetering on not being a quality win. If you’re a Washington fan you need Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State to keep winning. Beyond that, one of the big ones is Boise State. Boise State needs to win some games for Washington. That is a quality win the Huskies can not lose.”
• ON OREGON’S PATH TO THE PLAYOFF: “If Oregon wins out, they’re in the playoff. There’s not even a question. Absolutely are in. Oregon’s only loss would be on the road to Washington by three points in a game that it should have kicked field goals. The committee has told you in prior years that it will recognize that and value the conference championship game. If Oregon beats Washington on a neutral field for the Pac-12 championship, Oregon is in. Win out and the loss to last weekend at Washington is a nothing-burger.”
• ON OREGON STATE: “Right now, if the College Football Playoff committee met we think Oregon State would be ranked ahead of Oregon. We’d have Oregon State at No. 9 and Oregon at No. 13 if the rankings came out now. The Ducks have one quality win and no Top-25 wins. Oregon State has two Top-25 wins as of now. That could change. But if they were ranked today, we believe the committee would put the Beavers in front of Oregon.”
My one follow-up question:
Top 25 win now, or at the time of the game (esp. if the starting QB got injured later in the season or something)? What if that win knocked the other team out of the top 25?
LikeLike
Next year Purdue plays Notre Dame, Oregon State, Oregon, Ohio State and Penn State.
LikeLike
NBC is winning Saturday primetime.
With the new B1G Saturday Night college football package and high-profile Notre Dame Football primetime games, coupled with Sunday Night Football continuing its unprecedented run, NBC Sports has dominated weekends in primetime through mid-October – ranking No. 1 in viewership on both Saturday and Sunday nights.
On Saturday nights, NBC Sports is averaging 4.1 million viewers across NBC, Peacock and NBC Sports Digital platforms through seven college football games (9/2-10/14). That figure includes 3.84 million viewers measured by Nielsen and an Average Minute Audience of 231,000 across Peacock and NBC Sports Digital measured by Adobe Analytics. Both the 4.1 million and 3.84 million figures rank number one in Saturday primetime, which includes all sporting events beginning between 6:30-8:30 p.m. ET. (Note: Nielsen measurement does not include streaming across NBC Sports’ platforms but does include streaming figures across most other networks/media groups).
That’s despite some pretty weak B10 games this year. Next year the numbers should be better with 18 members and 4 more decent+ brands (as well as fans getting used to NBC having primetime games every week), unless they keep putting their good games on Peacock.
By weeks (Nielsen numbers only):
1. WVU @ PSU – 3.50M (P had ECU @ UM)
2. Charlotte @ UMD – 665k (P had DE @ PSU – would’ve topped other game)
3. SU @ PU – 1.25M (P had UW @ MSU – would’ve topped other game)
4. OSU @ ND – 9.98M (P had nothing)
5. MSU @ IA – 2.17M (P had IL @ PU)
6. UM @ MN – 3.06M (P had PU @ IA)
7. USC @ ND – 6.43M (P had OSU @ PU)
It’s more like their 2 ND games did really well, and that’s covering up for the weaker B10 games. Normally MSU @ IA should do better than that, and they could’ve had better OOC games in weeks 2 and 3.
I’m surprised that 2 big games out of 7 has them at #1, but I guess a lot of the other big games have been at 12 and 3:30 (or 10:30).
LikeLike
https://fbschedules.com/2024-sec-football-schedule-release-likely-in-december-per-source/
The B10 claims it will release its 2024 schedule in a few weeks, but apparently the SEC will wait until after the regular season to release theirs.
According to a source with knowledge of the plan who confirmed it to FBSchedules.com, the 2024 SEC football schedule will likely be released between the end of the 2023 regular-season and the start of bowl season. It obviously would not be released on Selection Sunday (Dec. 3), so that would put the schedule release somewhere between Monday, Dec. 4 and Friday, Dec. 15.
…
Back in June, the SEC revealed the opponents and locations for all 16 teams in 2024, plus additional scheduling details.
For the 2024 season, SEC teams will play an eight-game conference schedule with four non-conference opponents. One of those four non-conference opponents is required to be from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 or Pac-12 or be a major independent (i.e. Notre Dame).
Additionally, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey stated that the 2024 slate will be a “…one-year schedule.” That means the opponents and rotations will likely change for 2025 and beyond.
…
* The slate of conference home and away designations in 2024 was built with the provision that no school will travel to the same location to which it traveled in 2023.
The 2024 SEC opponents were determined based on two primary factors: traditional opponents and balance of schedule strength.
* Balance of schedule strength was based on each school’s conference winning percentage since the last expansion of the SEC in 2012. The winning percentages for the performance of Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12 since 2012 were included in determining 16 positions ranked by winning percentage.
* Each school’s schedule in 2024 will include four opponents – two home and two away — whose winning percentage ranked among the top eight conference winning percentages since 2012. Also, each school’s 2024 schedule will include four opponents – two home and two away — whose winning percentages ranked among the second eight conference winning percentages since 2012.
* While no school will travel to the same location to which it traveled in 2023, it should be noted that when a long-term schedule format is determined, it may not be possible to structure a schedule that does not include some schools playing at the same location in back-to-back years in the first year of a new format.
I like that the SEC is willing to explain their process, unlike the B10 who insists on keeping every detail secret.
LikeLike
https://www.nj.com/sports/2023/10/big-east-notebook-4-teams-in-top-25-gavitt-games-in-doubt-hurley-on-back-to-back-title-quest.html
The Gavitt Games (B10 vs BE) may be going away, in part because the B10 may move to 22 MBB games.
Just last month the Gavitt Games between the Big East and Big Ten appeared “likely” to continue beyond this season, per league sources, but now the future of the Games is in doubt.
Jon Rothstein reported the two leagues were at an “impasse” and Big East sources confirmed the future is cloudy, largely due to uncertain future of the Big Ten schedule. With the league set to add UCLA, USC, Oregon and Washington next season, it’s possible the Big Ten may go to a 22-game schedule. And if that happens, Big Ten schools would have less flexibility to schedule non-conference battles with leagues like the Big East.
“We need to figure out if we are going to 22 games,” one Big Ten head coach told me. “That’s the major issue. Can’t have Gavitt Games with a 22-game schedule.”
UCLA coach Mick Cronin, whose team will join the Big Ten next season, told the Field of 68: “We don’t have our schedules. I don’t know how many games we’re going to play in the Big Ten. Are we in the Gavitt Games or not?”
The other issue is that the Big Ten will have 18 schools and the Big East has 11, making scheduling the Gavitt Games somewhat difficult.
Said one Big Ten coach bluntly: “I don’t think we will do it anymore.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38696639/ncaa-investigating-no-2-michigan-amid-sign-stealing-allegations
More cheating allegations against UM. Does this (in part) explain their recent success?
The NCAA is investigating the No. 2 Michigan Wolverines football program amid allegations of sign stealing, the school announced Thursday.
…
The University of Michigan and the Big Ten were both notified by the NCAA of the investigation Wednesday, and the conference said it had notified the Wolverines’ future opponents.
“The Big Ten Conference considers the integrity of competition to be of utmost importance and will continue to monitor the investigation,” it said in a statement.
A source told ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg that the NCAA’s investigation also includes allegations of similar violations by Michigan before the 2022 season. Upcoming opponents have not expressed opposition to playing Michigan after being notified by the NCAA, sources told ESPN.
…
According to a report by Yahoo Sports, Michigan allegedly had people attending games of future opponents as well as possible College Football Playoff opponents to gather information on signs used to call plays on offense and defense.
A source confirmed to ESPN that in-person scouting is the focus of the NCAA investigation.
If true, the Wolverines would have violated NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1, which states: “Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited.”
U.S. Integrity, a Las Vegas firm that monitors the betting market, sent out an alert to its sportsbook clients regarding the Michigan controversy Thursday, ESPN confirmed.
LikeLike
Wow, Michigan sign-stealing goes all the way back to the 2021 OSU-UM game.
https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2023/10/michigan-cheating-allegations-reportedly-start-in-2021-when-wolverines-finally-beat-buckeyes.html
LikeLike
More cheating allegations against UM. Does this (in part) explain their recent success?
I will tell you my two Bayesian priors. One is that college sports programs tend to revert to their historical mean after a period of abnormal performance. Thus, whether cheating or not, you would have expected that Michigan’s performance from 2007–2017 was probably not a permanent new normal.
The second is that most NCAA rules violations do not actually produce much of a competitive advantage. Because there are so many factors influencing sports performance, one’s cheating really needs to be on an enormous scale before it starts to make a measurable difference. SMU in the 1980s might have done it; very few others have.
That is not to say that I condone violating the rules, but most violations turn out to be very minor things that matter only at the margins, if at all. Michigan’s last major violations (in football) came down to about 20 minutes of extra stretching exercises in the Rodriguez era that the coaches failed to count as practice time, and of course despite that unfair advantage, the team was still terrible anyway.
And this is talking about violations that directly affect game preparation. I don’t think Ohio State got any competitive benefit whatsoever from the illegal tattoos that several players received, although in the NCAA’s eyes it was enough to vacate the entire 2010 season.
I am not judging this particular case yet, because it is still unclear what the now-suspended assistant coach actually did or how prevalent it was. I am just saying that it’s my Bayesian prior that most NCAA violations don’t actually produce a competitive advantage.
LikeLike
Marc,
I will tell you my two Bayesian priors. One is that college sports programs tend to revert to their historical mean after a period of abnormal performance. Thus, whether cheating or not, you would have expected that Michigan’s performance from 2007–2017 was probably not a permanent new normal.
Yes, that’s very true. But the past 2 years have been a bit above their historical mean, which is why I asked if this partially explained it.
The second is that most NCAA rules violations do not actually produce much of a competitive advantage. Because there are so many factors influencing sports performance, one’s cheating really needs to be on an enormous scale before it starts to make a measurable difference. SMU in the 1980s might have done it; very few others have.
Most NCAA violations are related to recruiting, but this is directly related to game play. If programs didn’t think it would help, they wouldn’t cheat and risk the penalties.
The Patriots did something similar, and had much less postseason success after they were caught which shows illegal video scouting does matter.
LikeLike
The Patriots did something similar, and had much less postseason success after they were caught which shows illegal video scouting does matter.
I am not so sure about that. The Spygate scandal was in 2007. Up to and including that year, Belichick and Brady won six out of seven AFE East titles. After Spygate, they won the next 11 out of 12.
Four of their Super Bowl appearances (including 3 wins) preceded Spygate. Five more of their SB appearances (and 3 more wins) followed it.
Basically, it didn’t make a difference. They were dominant either way.
LikeLike
The Pats won Super Bowls in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2014, 2016 and 2018. Note the long drought after Spygate.
AFC titles: 1996, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018
Again, note the relative drought after 2007. The AFC East was just plain bad for years, so winning it didn’t mean much.
They thought it would help them win, so they did it. They didn’t win as much for quite a while after they got caught.
LikeLike
Apples and oranges Marc. This isn’t stretching exercises or tattoos. A highly-sophisticated sign-stealing system – and that is what Michigan is accused of – would notify the defense what to expect on the next play. It would be a HUGE advantage.
LikeLike
A highly-sophisticated sign-stealing system – and that is what Michigan is accused of – would notify the defense what to expect on the next play.
I did stipulate that if you cheat on a broad enough scale (i.e., SMU in the 1980s), it could possibly make a difference. But in this case the actual accusation is not public knowledge, but so we don’t know how “sophisticated” it was. Remember, it is not illegal to steal signs; what is illegal is scouting future opponents in person. How much of an actual advantage you might get by doing that (as opposed to the other ways that are legal) is far from clear; nor is how prevalent it was, assuming they did at all.
Yesterday’s game perhaps gives an idea of how little difference it makes. Michigan State was notified of the accusation, and as a precaution they switched up how they get plays into their QB. They still lost 49–0. What difference do you think it made? (Again, this is not about whether cheating is OK — it is not.)
LikeLike
Marc, your anecdotal references to SMU in the Middle Ages and yesterday’s MSU game are again apples and oranges irrelevant.
If Michigan has studied opponent’s signals and that technology plus their spy system can read the opposing OC’s signal to the offense on the field and then immediately convey that to the UM defense prior to the snap, that is obviously an overwhelming advantage.
You appear to be more obsessed with being contrary than you are with honestly debating the issue.
LikeLike
If Michigan has studied opponent’s signals and that technology plus their spy system can read the opposing OC’s signal to the offense on the field and then immediately convey that to the UM defense prior to the snap, that is obviously an overwhelming advantage.
I am not disagreeing, assuming for argument’s sake that this is what Michigan actually did. But my Bayesian prior is that sophisticated cheating that confers an overwhelming advantage is very rare, and in fact I was able to think of only one proven college football example in my lifetime: SMU in the 1980s. I say this without knowing what Michigan actually did. Maybe, when the facts are known, they’ll turn out to be the second one. I don’t rule that out.
King programs tend to win most of their games fairly easily. Thus, Saturday’s lesson is somewhat relevant. Even after MSU was alerted to the alleged cheating scheme and took steps to thwart it, they still lost anyway. We already knew—from MSU’s earlier games against opponents who presumably weren’t cheating—that they are a bad team this year, and so this is the outcome you would’ve expected against any good opponent.
If Michigan won 49–0 after their alleged cheating mechanism was taken away, what do you think the outcome would’ve been if they played a week earlier?
LikeLike
Marc,
I did stipulate that if you cheat on a broad enough scale (i.e., SMU in the 1980s), it could possibly make a difference. But in this case the actual accusation is not public knowledge, but so we don’t know how “sophisticated” it was. Remember, it is not illegal to steal signs; what is illegal is scouting future opponents in person. How much of an actual advantage you might get by doing that (as opposed to the other ways that are legal) is far from clear; nor is how prevalent it was, assuming they did at all.
If they didn’t think it would help, why would they risk it? It is legal to steal signs visually from the sideline. It is not legal to use technology or advanced in-person scouting. Having time to analyze data of course gives you the chance to break a code that you couldn’t crack “live”. It was prevalent enough that UM already put someone on leave for it.
See quotes below for some idea of the sophistication and advantage.
Yesterday’s game perhaps gives an idea of how little difference it makes. Michigan State was notified of the accusation, and as a precaution they switched up how they get plays into their QB. They still lost 49–0. What difference do you think it made? (Again, this is not about whether cheating is OK — it is not.)
MSU also initially considered not playing the game because of this. As for crushing a bad team, I’m not sure that’s evidence in UM’s favor. I believe UM was a 25-point favorite, so a blowout was expected with or without cheating.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38700739/michigan-staffer-eyed-center-elaborate-scouting-scheme-sources-say
The allegations have rattled coaches and administrators around the Big Ten.
“This is worse than both the Astros and the Patriots — it’s both use of technology for a competitive advantage and there’s allegations that they are filming prior games, not just in-game,” a Big Ten source said. “If it was just an in-game situation, that’s different. Going and filming somewhere you’re not supposed to be. It’s illegal. It’s too much of an advantage.”
https://sports.yahoo.com/big-ten-opponents-were-aware-of-elaborate-scheme-and-michigan-assistant-at-center-of-it-144142698.html
A Michigan hat tugged low, dressed all in blue and gripping a white playsheet — or is it? — the Wolverines analyst and Naval Academy graduate paces the sideline behind more prominent coaches Jim Harbaugh and defensive coordinator Jesse Minter.
At various points, Connor Stalions would make a signal: point to his shoulder, gesture to the ground, tap his head. He was in constant communication with the full-time assistants around him, whispering to them as the opposing offense broke the huddle.
“He spearheads the operation,” one Big Ten school coach told Yahoo Sports in an interview Thursday. “I once told (Stalions), ‘We know what kind of sh** you are doing and it’s f***** up.’”
…
“We were told to be careful because they had a guy who could pick plays,” says one Big Ten head coach. “It was too late in the week to change our signals, but another staff did tell us about (Stalions).”
…
If the school learned information through in-person scouting of future opponents’ games, that violates a near 30-year-old NCAA rule. If the school learned information through the use of recording or video devices, that violates another NCAA bylaw.
…
One Big Ten school source described Michigan’s sign-stealing system as an “elaborate scheme” that relied on a combination of video footage and in-person recordings and something that should be banned.
“Some things are so obvious you don’t do it. It doesn’t need to be written down,” said one source.
…
“We heard they had a guy pick plays pretty good and had all this information from not your typical ways of getting the signals,” the staff member said. “We get into the game and it’s the second quarter. I see him across the field and he’s checking his 11×17 sheet.”
One Big Ten school coach said Michigan used “backdoor” methods to obtain signage information. Word had spread enough that one Big Ten school feared Michigan staff members were in attendance at one of their games earlier in the season capturing signals.
A few weeks later, in the game against the Wolverines, that same team called the game mostly using wristbands. However, some plays were signaled in. On those plays, staff members spotted Stalions either signaling into the game or gesturing to another assistant.
“As soon as we flashed something, he knew it right away,” one coach said. “You go through the film and you start seeing a trend of certain coverages versus run and pass. They’re getting into the best looks you can get into.”
Why would an off-field analyst have a 11×17 sheet on the sideline and be talking to the coaches during the plays?
LikeLike
The way to stop signal-stealing is to simply have a player run a play in from the sidelines. That’s a simple way to resolve the problem.
Years ago, Bama used to run a player in, convey the play to the QB, and then the same player would run off the field without participating. The NCAA made this illegal but they could and should reverse that decision.
Another option is the NFL helmet radios that are now used. However, I won’t be surprised when someone figures out a way to intercept those electric signals.
LikeLike
If they didn’t think it would help, why would they risk it?
You could ask that about every NCAA violation in the history of violations. One popular hypothesis is that the NCAA catches a tiny fraction of what goes on, so from a utilitarian perspective the risk actually is worth it. The proven violations are pretty common, so despite the perceived risk people nevertheless keep doing it. While I don’t defend any type of cheating, my hypothesis is that the violators don’t actually get much of a benefit by doing so. Maybe it’s because much of the competition is doing it too, in some form.
As for crushing a bad team, I’m not sure that’s evidence in UM’s favor. I believe UM was a 25-point favorite, so a blowout was expected with or without cheating.
Well, that is sort of exactly the point. There are very few CFB games with a margin more than 49 points. So if you lose 49–0 after the opponent’s alleged cheating mechanism was defeated, how much more realistically could they have lost by if the alleged cheating were still going on?
LikeLike
Marc,
Well, that is sort of exactly the point. There are very few CFB games with a margin more than 49 points. So if you lose 49–0 after the opponent’s alleged cheating mechanism was defeated, how much more realistically could they have lost by if the alleged cheating were still going on?
We all know blowouts in CFB are possible, even without cheating. I fail to see how it provides any evidence for cheating not mattering.
UM had some close games last year. Are you saying cheating of this type couldn’t have made a difference in a 2-point come from behind win (IL)? Or inflated their leads in other games they won? I’m not asking did/didn’t, but could have/couldn’t have.
LikeLike
UM had some close games last year. Are you saying cheating of this type couldn’t have made a difference in a 2-point come from behind win (IL)? Or inflated their leads in other games they won? I’m not asking did/didn’t, but could have/couldn’t have.
My Bayesian prior is that it probably didn’t, though of course it could. Bayes is about probabilities, not certainties.
If the more extreme versions of the accusation are true, they should be in practically every opponent’s hip pocket from the opening gun. Now look at the actual game. It’s true that they only won by 2 points. But if they knew every Illinois play before it was run, then why were they trailing 17–10 after three quarters, in a game where they were 17½-point favorites?
LikeLike
Marc: “If the more extreme versions of the accusation are true, they should be in practically every opponent’s hip pocket from the opening gun.”
With today’s technology, stealing signals would be very easy. Clandestinely record a team’s sideline activity from the stands using an iPhone, then sync that recording with the game film. And if you did that for three or four games, you’d probably know their offensive signals as well as they do.
LikeLike
Marc,
My Bayesian prior is that it probably didn’t, though of course it could. Bayes is about probabilities, not certainties.
Your prior is biased by you not wanting it to matter.
If cheating didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be rules.
If the more extreme versions of the accusation are true, they should be in practically every opponent’s hip pocket from the opening gun.
Sort of like how they’ve played the last few years, suddenly becoming dominant?
2023 – #1 ppg defense
2022 – #7 ppg defense
2021 – #8 ppg defense
2020 – #95 ppg defense
2019 – #25 ppg defense
2018 – #16 ppg defense
Now look at the actual game. It’s true that they only won by 2 points. But if they knew every Illinois play before it was run, then why were they trailing 17–10 after three quarters, in a game where they were 17½-point favorites?
Because they cheated enough to stay close, when IL should’ve been winning by a lot more?
LikeLike
Yep, what Michigan has been doing is the caliber of cheating that deserves the Death Penalty.
LikeLike
If Michigan gets the Death Penalty, perhaps the Big Ten could replace Michigan with Penn State as Ohio State’s end-of-season rival. PS is the only other team in the conference that would be worthy, PS has no annual rival right now and Michigan could get hooked up with Michigan State as their end-of season opponent when they are allowed to field a team again.
LikeLike
Your prior is biased by you not wanting it to matter.
No, not true. I looked back at a bunch of NCAA violations, and I could not find any regardless of the school that mattered very much competitively since SMU in the 1980s. Your only counterexample, and very tenuous one at that, was the New England Patriots.
In the meantime, I found that the NCAA staff proposed to abolish this exact rule two years ago because they concluded that there is “minimal competitive advantage gained by scouting future opponents in-person.” Precisely what I am saying. (But of course, even rules that have minimal effect do have to be followed. I don’t deny that.)
If cheating didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be rules.
I’ve said a bunch of times, and will say probably every time I post on this topic, that rules must be followed and there need to be consequences when they are not.
Because they cheated enough to stay close, when IL should’ve been winning by a lot more?
Well, Michigan has beaten Illinois 75% of the time over the past 100 years, so unless you think they’ve been cheating the whole time, you would expect them to win this game.
Yep, what Michigan has been doing is the caliber of cheating that deserves the Death Penalty.
Opposing fans always say that. It never happens. Many Michigan fans (but not me) thought that Ohio State should get the death penalty for the Tressel violations. Yes, it’s true. I might be one of the few Michigan fans who feels OSU was over-penalized for that incident. I also recall that many fans (but not me) thought Penn State should get the death penalty for the Paterno violations. They didn’t, and many of penalties they got were later rescinded.
The only time the NCAA imposed the DP in football was when SMU was penalized for directly paying their players, and then continued to do that exact thing. There is also the fact that the entire SMU administration, right up to the chairman of its Board of Governors, knew about the payments and condoned them—a situation that nobody has suggested exists here.
LikeLike
Again, the Tressel violations and the Paterno case are not comparable to Michigan’s cheating. Selling memorabilia and getting free tattoos do not provide a direct, on-field advantage. The Sandusky case involved flat-out felonies which had nothing to do with on-field performance. It was criminal activity.
Signal-stealing corrupts the play of the game on the field. It’s a huge advantage to know what play the opposing team intends to run. I’ll say it again, this type of cheating deserves the Death Penalty. It is worse than SMU’s violations in the 1980s.
LikeLike
Again, the Tressel violations and the Paterno case are not comparable to Michigan’s cheating. Selling memorabilia and getting free tattoos do not provide a direct, on-field advantage.
The NCAA has always believed that it did. I don’t agree, but that is their theory. This is one of the reasons why they vacate the entire game if even one ineligible player participates.
Signal-stealing corrupts the play of the game on the field. It’s a huge advantage to know what play the opposing team intends to run. I’ll say it again, this type of cheating deserves the Death Penalty. It is worse than SMU’s violations in the 1980s.
NCAA rules limit the Death Penalty to repeat violators, and even then it is discretionary. Since Michigan is not a repeat violator in this case, they would not be eligible for the DP, even if everything else you say is true.
LikeLike
Marc, there are exceptions to the “repeat violator” rule. Read it for yourself:
“However, if the NCAA finds a school has engaged in a “pattern of willful violations,” it can look back to when the violations first occurred, even if they are outside the five-year window.[3] It also still has the power to ban a school from competing in a sport without any preliminaries in cases of particularly egregious violations.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_(NCAA)
LikeLike
Marc,
No, not true. I looked back at a bunch of NCAA violations, and I could not find any regardless of the school that mattered very much competitively since SMU in the 1980s. Your only counterexample, and very tenuous one at that, was the New England Patriots.
Most violations relate to recruiting, which is clearly a different issue. But still, those cheaters did it to gain an advantage, not because it didn’t matter. Having better players helps you win more.
How do you determine their cheating didn’t help them much? You have no way of knowing how they would’ve performed without the cheating.
In the meantime, I found that the NCAA staff proposed to abolish this exact rule two years ago because they concluded that there is “minimal competitive advantage gained by scouting future opponents in-person.” Precisely what I am saying. (But of course, even rules that have minimal effect do have to be followed. I don’t deny that.)
The rule was primarily to prevent an arms race of scouting, helping small budget programs stay competitive. In a free for all, schools like UM gain an edge because they devote more resources to it. Like AL having 30 non-coaching analysts who are all former NFL coaches or CFB head coaches.
I’ve said a bunch of times, and will say probably every time I post on this topic, that rules must be followed and there need to be consequences when they are not.
I’m not saying you are defending cheating, I’m saying cheating matters to the outcome. Even if UM only learned 1 sign for 1 play in 1 game, that’s an advantage that matters.
Well, Michigan has beaten Illinois 75% of the time over the past 100 years, so unless you think they’ve been cheating the whole time, you would expect them to win this game.
Usually, yes. But maybe this should’ve been one of the 25% – it’s almost always an upset when IL beats UM. This game had that possibility, so even a small illegal edge for UM could’ve made the difference.
Opposing fans always say that. It never happens. Many Michigan fans (but not me) thought that Ohio State should get the death penalty for the Tressel violations. Yes, it’s true. I might be one of the few Michigan fans who feels OSU was over-penalized for that incident. I also recall that many fans (but not me) thought Penn State should get the death penalty for the Paterno violations. They didn’t, and many of penalties they got were later rescinded.
And to be clear, I haven’t called for any specific penalties. It won’t get the DP because the prior case isn’t big enough and hasn’t been finished yet. This by itself could show an institutional problem, though, if the staffer was getting reimbursed for tickets and travel from someone in the AD. There is no gray area about the violation if it is proven – Stalions clearly would have broken 2 rules unequivocally. That would require a serious penalty.
LikeLike
Be aware that now that we are in the NIL era, loss of scholarships is no longer a penalty at all.
“Bubba, we got our scholies cut from 25 to 15, but we’re gonna give you $10,000/month for NIL so you can join the team as a walk-on. You’ll need to pay your own tuition, room and board so we’ll throw in a Corvette to get you to football practice every day.
LikeLike
However, if the NCAA finds a school has engaged in a “pattern of willful violations,” it can look back to when the violations first occurred, even if they are outside the five-year window. It also still has the power to ban a school from competing in a sport without any preliminaries in cases of particularly egregious violations.
Now, good luck finding where they have actually done that. Fans who dislike particular schools seem to be under the impression that the DP is meted out far more often and more easily than it actually is. It just doesn’t happen.
How do you determine their cheating didn’t help them much? You have no way of knowing how they would’ve performed without the cheating.
True, but you can look for cases where teams suddenly got way better than they used to be, at around the time of the violations, especially where there’s no other reasonable explanation for it. This clearly did happen at SMU. It is hard to find others. Ohio State didn’t suddenly get better when Terrelle got tattooed. (The Michigan case of course remains to be determined, because unlike those other cases the facts are not all out there yet.)
LikeLike
Marc,
True, but you can look for cases where teams suddenly got way better than they used to be, at around the time of the violations, especially where there’s no other reasonable explanation for it. This clearly did happen at SMU. It is hard to find others. Ohio State didn’t suddenly get better when Terrelle got tattooed. (The Michigan case of course remains to be determined, because unlike those other cases the facts are not all out there yet.)
If there aren’t similar prior cases in terms of alleged actions, this is irrelevant. Just because type-A cheating didn’t help them win doesn’t mean type-B cheating doesn’t. It helped the Astros, Yankees, and Patriots – why not UM? Their performance did jump up a notch (from good to elite) all of a sudden.
LikeLike
Just because type-A cheating didn’t help them win doesn’t mean type-B cheating doesn’t. It helped the Astros, Yankees, and Patriots – why not UM?
The NCAA’s own staff proposed abolishing the rule because they thought it wouldn’t provide much of an advantage. I saw articles in the last several days quoting Kirby Smart, Deion Sanders, and Aaron Rodgers, all of whom thought it would not matter very much. (Again, this does not excuse cheating, as the schools are not free to choose which rules they will follow.)
Now you might say, if it did not matter then why did he do it? I don’t know, but given the shockingly amateurish way in which this was purportedly done (buying tickets in his own name and reimbursing with his own Venmo account), maybe this guy is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
LikeLike
Marc,
The NCAA’s own staff proposed abolishing the rule because they thought it wouldn’t provide much of an advantage.
Because they thought people were stealing the signs in legal ways anyway, not because stealing signs is ineffective. Also because it was initially created to save money, but now that’s less of an issue.
I saw articles in the last several days quoting Kirby Smart, Deion Sanders, and Aaron Rodgers, all of whom thought it would not matter very much.
Are any of them willing to tell the opposing team what they will do in advance? If not, then their quotes are BS. I don’t recall CU or UGA playing against UM lately. Maybe they’d something different if they had. Rodgers’s answer may be relevant to the NFL, but he’s been out of CFB for 20 years.
Knowing where to pre-position your players, which fakes to ignore, etc. all make defense easier. Likewise, knowing defensive calls makes it much easier on the OC and QB. You still have to execute, but UM has enough talent to execute any play if they know what the other side is doing. That’s certainly enough edge to swing what would be a close game.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/college/football/2023/10/25/browns-dawand-jones-ohio-state-football-lineman-suspected-michigan-osu-signs-2022-sign-stealing/71320536007/
OSU players have said they saw it, and it mattered.
Jones said Ohio State made some changes but couldn’t change all the signals they used to call plays. He said seeing Michigan line up and know what was coming was “a little demoralizing.”
Even just that emotional impact could change a game.
Now you might say, if it did not matter then why did he do it?
I don’t believe it didn’t matter, you do. Most coaches can’t say it does because they’ll get accused of sour grapes. And yet lots of coaches made changes to their signals because of this. And UM coaches interacted with him during games as he referenced an 11×17 sheet after the other team signaled in plays. If it doesn’t matter, then why would they do that?
I don’t know, but given the shockingly amateurish way in which this was purportedly done (buying tickets in his own name and reimbursing with his own Venmo account), maybe this guy is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I can’t wait to see his 600 page “Michigan Manifesto.”
LikeLike
I propose that the Paul Bunyon Trophy, which is the traveling trophy of the Mecheatin’ – Masturbate State football rivalry, be updated in light of recent events. With one hand Paul could be holding up an iPhone to record a team’s signals, and with the other he could be choking his chicken.
LikeLike
NCAA investigating Michigan football amid sign-stealing allegations
By Brendan Quinn
Editor’s note: A previous version of the story reported that the Big Ten was investigating and compiling evidence. The NCAA is investigating and compiling, and alerted the conference.
The NCAA is investigating the University of Michigan football program amid allegations of sign-stealing, the Big Ten announced Thursday.
“U-M Athletics will offer its complete cooperation to the NCAA in this matter,” athletic director Warde Manuel said in a statement Thursday. “At the University of Michigan, all of us are committed to the highest standards of ethics and integrity for all members of our community. This is the same expectation I have of all coaches, staff, and student-athletes.”
The Big Ten approached Michigan State on Wednesday, ahead of this weekend’s matchup between the rivals in East Lansing, saying it’s been made aware of “credible evidence” that exists suggesting the Wolverines have successfully stolen signs called by opposing teams’ coaches this season.
The NCAA is investigating Michigan “over possible rule-breaking around in-person scouting of opponents,” according to an industry source briefed on the matter. According to NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1, off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited. An issue with the bylaw would mean a case that would likely proceed through the traditional infractions process.
Manuel spoke with conference commissioner Tony Petitti on Wednesday. According to a source briefed on the allegations, as of noon Thursday, Michigan had yet to be presented with the evidence compiled in the investigation.
One source who was briefed on the allegation said Michigan is being accused of using a “vast network” to steal opposing teams’ signs. The alleged evidence appears to suggest UM had knowledge of what play an opposing team was going to run before the play occurs.
“The Big Ten Conference considers the integrity of competition to be of utmost importance and will continue to monitor the investigation,” the league said in a statement Thursday.
Upon learning of the pending investigation, Michigan State initially warned the Big Ten it might consider not playing Saturday’s game out of concern for health and safety for its players, according to two sources briefed on those conversations. On Thursday morning, MSU confirmed it will play the game. Michigan’s upcoming opponents were notified of the allegations and games are expected to take place as planned, an industry source said Thursday.
“As we look forward to the football game this Saturday, we are chagrined by the news of the NCAA investigation and we echo the Big Ten Conference’s commitment to integrity. The allegations are concerning, but will be handled through the NCAA’s processes. MSU has no further comment on that matter. The university is focused on supporting our own team and preparing campus for a safe game-day environment,” read a statement from Michigan State interim president Teresa Woodruff.
Sign-stealing is not prohibited by the NCAA, unless a team intercepts in-game electronic communication. But it has a long history, with decades of accusations and allegations in college football.
Prominently, in 2020, Clemson was touted as the best sign-stealing program in college football. Prior to the 2020 Sugar Bowl, Ohio State head coach Ryan Day said Clemson defensive coordinator Brent Venables “seems to always know exactly what the other team is doing.”
Arizona State coach Todd Graham was accused by both Washington and Utah of signal-stealing in 2015. At halftime of a 2014 game, Kansas State coach Bill Snyder accused Auburn of sign-stealing. A year prior, Auburn was accused by Florida State of sign-stealing in the BCS championship game. The list goes on.
The question facing Michigan is if these recent allegations go beyond on-field sign-stealing.
Michigan is currently under NCAA investigation for a series of Level II rule violations relating to recruiting during a COVID dead period and statements to NCAA investigators. Coach Jim Harbaugh served a university-imposed three-game suspension.
LikeLike
You wonder if someone at the NCAA has a vendetta against Harbaugh. The enforcement folks had reportedly worked out a four-game suspension deal on the COVID- hamburger issue) which the NCAA Committee on Infractions turned down (supposedly because Harbaugh was being uncooperative). So, the school suspended him for three games, essentially putting a big hole into future penalties. Shortly thereafter, this surfaces (and again, based on history, Harbaugh will be uncooperative). Meanwhile UNC gets no penalties for setting up classes that benefit athletes (because anyone could have taken them), and Tennessee doesn’t get a post-season ban due to Jeremy Pruitt’s violations, even though the NCAA rules required a ban, because Pruitt was already gone and it would have hurt the players (as well as prevent Tennessee from playing in the CFP).
Full disclosure – I graduated from Michigan many many years ago.
LikeLike
I don’t know if the NCAA enforcement has “vendettas”. I know that it is widely perceived that they do, and not just by the partisans of the particular school that is being investigated at a given time. But then, the NCAA in general does not have a good reputation, regardless of the subject. The whole enforcement mechanism is widely seen as opaque and inconsistent.
As I recall, the NCAA changed their standards for imposing post-season bans. The typical investigation is seldom resolved in the season that the wrongdoing occurred. By the time the ban is imposed, the perpetrators are usually long gone, and the ban falls on people who did nothing wrong. So they made an intentional decision to impose that type of punishment in fewer cases.
That seems to me like a positive development, though it makes them look capricious, since bowl bans used to be routine in cases like that. Unlike most Michigan fans, I did not agree that Ohio State should be banned from the postseason in 2012 for things Jim Tressel did in 2010, nor that Penn State should have been banned in 2012–15 for things Joe Paterno did many years earlier. (A big chunk of the PSU sanctions were later rescinded—quite properly, in my view.)
LikeLike
John U. Bacon, a journalist, commentator and author and a Michigan insider said in an interview with a Columbus radio station today: “They’re getting leaks like crazy from the NCAA. Watch a guy named Jim Stapleton. Jim Stapleton is a Michigan alum who blackballed Harbaugh when he was [interviewing] with the Minnesota Vikings because [Stapleton] was on the board for the Minnesota Vikings. He now got himself onto the NCAA Infractions Committee and he hates Jim Harbaugh. It doesn’t matter who the source is or if it’s right or wrong. If Michigan did it, they’ll still pay a price. That’s not the point. You can’t kill the messenger. But as far as the leaking goes, I would guarantee you that’s where it’s coming from.”
LikeLike
Gift link WaPo:
https://wapo.st/3tMSZdt
LikeLike
You hardly need that guy as a source. There is video of him interacting with coaches during games. B10 coaches mentioned UM stealing signs in press conferences last year. Schools have found his name on their lists of ticket buyers. There are photos of people filming from the seats he paid for. He used Venmo to pay people. TN fans texted about it last year. It’s not like there is a lack of evidence, and the reporting is citing multiple sources in multiple places.
https://www.si.com/college/2023/10/25/michigan-connor-stalions-texts-stolen-signals
Stalions texted about being tight with UM coaches, and stealing signals in the past.
It did not take Connor Stalions long into the text conversation to start boasting about his connections to the Michigan football team: “I’m close with the whole staff,” he wrote. Particularly, he said, he “became close with CP and Jay Harbs,” apparently referring to current linebackers coach Chris Partridge and running backs and assistant special teams coach Jay Harbaugh, who is the son of head coach Jim Harbaugh.
“Pre-covid, stole opponent signals during the week watching tv copies then flew to the game and stood next to [then Michigan offensive coordinator Josh] Gattis and told him what coverage/pressure he was gettin,” Stalions continued.
These texts are part of a lengthy back-and-forth in January and February 2021 between Stalions and a then student at a Power 5 school who was looking to break into the college football industry. The specific act Stalions described—deciphering opponents’ signals off of TV footage—is not against NCAA rules. In the last week, though, the now suspended Michigan staffer has become a household name across college football following accusations and reports that he orchestrated an elaborate scheme to place unnamed associates of his in stadiums of Michigan’s opponents to scout and, in some cases, film opposing coaches’ signals (both acts very much against the rules).
The former Power 5 student shared the full text conversation with Sports Illustrated, verifying the messages’ origin by removing Stalions’s name in his contacts to reveal a phone number. That number was linked to Stalions’s name on the public database WhitePages. There was no response when SI called and texted the number. Stalions’s text messages to the student provide a vivid picture of his motivations, revealing an aspiring coach obsessed with helping Michigan while looking to build his own career and one day lead the program.
…
SI could not independently confirm the veracity of Stalions’s claims about his relationships with Michigan coaches. Several pictures of him have emerged in recent days, though, of him standing in prominent positions on the Wolverines’ sideline. A review of Stalions’s now deleted Venmo account did show that Jay Harbaugh sent Stalions money in 2017, with the O.K. hand gesture emoji in the memo line, though no purpose or amount for the transfer was indicated.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2023/10/25/michigan-football-investigation-outside-firm-alleged-evidence-ncaa/71321294007/
An outside company brought the issue to the NCAA.
The NCAA’s investigation into the Michigan football program over alleged sign-stealing and in-person scouting began after an outside investigative firm approached college sports’ governing body with videos and documents detailing the reported scheme that were discovered on computer drives maintained by multiple Wolverines coaches, according to a report Wednesday from The Washington Post.
The firm’s findings to the NCAA on Oct. 17 suggested that suspended Michigan staffer Connor Stalions, who has emerged as a central figure in the alleged operation, didn’t act alone, according to the report.
The Wolverines expected to spend more than $15,000 this season sending scouts to more than 40 games played by 10 different opponents, with Ohio State and Georgia being the two most commonly targeted programs. Michigan scouts planned to attend as many as eight Buckeyes games and “four or five” Bulldogs games, with the combined cost of tickets and travel exceeding $3,000 for each program’s matchups. Stalions made $55,000 in 2022.
No evidence from the firm directly linked Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh to the scheme.
Photos from the firm’s probe showed individuals believed to be Wolverines scouts seated at games of upcoming Michigan opponents with phones aimed at the sidelines, where coaches were using signals and signs to call plays for the offense and defense. Those videos, according to the report, were then uploaded to a computer drive maintained by Stalions and “several other Michigan assistants and coaches.”
LikeLike
Unproductive,
You wonder if someone at the NCAA has a vendetta against Harbaugh.
I don’t wonder that. He’s earned every investigation that’s taken place, and probably a few more that haven’t. It’s not like UM/Harbaugh has ever been fully cleared in any of these cases.
The enforcement folks had reportedly worked out a four-game suspension deal on the COVID- hamburger issue) which the NCAA Committee on Infractions turned down (supposedly because Harbaugh was being uncooperative).
Are innocent people usually uncooperative?
So, the school suspended him for three games, essentially putting a big hole into future penalties. Shortly thereafter, this surfaces (and again, based on history, Harbaugh will be uncooperative).
Guilty is as guilty does. He denies all knowledge while lots of evidence turns up.
Meanwhile UNC gets no penalties for setting up classes that benefit athletes (because anyone could have taken them), and Tennessee doesn’t get a post-season ban due to Jeremy Pruitt’s violations, even though the NCAA rules required a ban, because Pruitt was already gone and it would have hurt the players (as well as prevent Tennessee from playing in the CFP).
Everyone knows NCAA enforcement is terrible and inconsistent. But they did recently revamp their punishment system with a goal of not punishing innocent players if the perpetrators are gone, so the TN case actually followed their new guidelines. I think the NCAA should move to large fines based on a program’s athletic revenue, so the school suffers more than the players.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38727023/u-m-staffer-bought-tickets-11-schools
More details on the breadth of this.
Connor Stalions, the suspended Michigan staffer at the center of the NCAA’s sign-stealing probe, purchased tickets in his own name for more than 30 games over the past three years at 11 different Big Ten schools, sources at 11 different league schools told ESPN.
The scope of the University of Michigan’s alleged sign-stealing operation includes both video evidence of electronics prohibited by the NCAA to steal signs and a significant paper trail, sources told ESPN. Stalions forwarded the tickets he bought to at least three different people in different areas of the country, sources say, which hints at the breadth of the operation.
The NCAA is expected to receive video evidence this week of illegal technology used in scouting tied to tickets purchased by Stalions, according to sources. An opposing Big Ten school looked up in-stadium surveillance video from a game earlier this year, and sources said the person in the seat of the ticket purchased by Stalions held his smartphone up and appeared to film the home team’s sideline the entire game.
Sources confirmed to ESPN that Stalions purchased tickets on both sides of the stadium — across from each bench — for Ohio State’s game with Penn State on Saturday. Michigan plays both teams in upcoming weeks. According to sources, the tickets purchased by Stalions were not used Saturday. Stalions’ name emerged publicly in an ESPN story Friday. He was suspended with pay by Michigan.
None of the tickets that the 11 schools told ESPN about involved Michigan as an opponent, per sources. The games involved either one or both of the teams that the Wolverines were playing later that season, according to sources.
…
It’s uncertain who was funding the purchases. Stallions makes $55,000 per year, according to the University of Michigan’s website. But the operation included thousands of dollars in ticket sales and the cost of travel to the stadiums.
He was buying tickets between the 45 yard lines, which tend to be very expensive. And the report says he sometimes bought multiple seats together. If the money trail leads back to UM, they could be in big trouble.
LikeLike
” . . . sources said the person in the seat of the ticket purchased by Stalions held his smartphone up and appeared to film the home team’s sideline the entire game. . . .”
Hey, that sounds a lot like what I said three hours ago.
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with the Big Ten but you gotta see this free link from WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-invasion-urban-warfare-4d1052b6?st=efbl699gwyrbdm3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Gift article NY Times about NIL. This is a sad state of affairs . . . .
LikeLike
Since we have a big wave of P5 realignment coming next year, I was curious how teams do after switching conferences. As a metric, I’m choosing conference W% over their last 5 years in their former conference and their first 5 years in the new one.
Last wave:
2011 – NE, CU, UU
2012 – MO, TAMU, WV, TCU
2013 – SU, Pitt
2014 – UMD, RU, UL
P5 schools (before vs after):
NE: 0.581 (25-18) vs 0.610 (25-16)
CU: 0.300 (12-28) vs 0.109 (5-41)
MO: 0.628 (27-16) vs 0.452 (19-23)
TAMU: 0.463 (19-22) vs 0.525 (21-19)
UMD: 0.300 (12-28) vs 0.302 (13-30)
Average: 0.459 (19.0-22.4) vs 0.392 (16.6-25.8)
3 of 5 schools improved slightly, while 2 did much worse. Maybe this shows the B12 was slightly easier than other P5 leagues, but I think that is reading too much into it. CU had bigger issues than which conference they were in.
AAC:
WV: 0.714 (25-10) vs 0.489 (22-23)
RU: 0.444 (16-20) vs 0.163 (7-36)
UL: 0.583 (21-15) vs 0.525 (21-19)
SU: 0.343 (12-23) vs 0.275 (11-29)
Pitt: 0.629 (22-13) vs 0.525 (21-19)
Average: 0.542 (19.2-16.2) vs 0.397 (16.6-25.2)
All 5 schools did worse, showing the BE/AAC wasn’t a power conference.
G5:
UU: 0.775 (31-9) vs 0.444 (20-25)
TCU: 0.872 (34-5) vs 0.556 (25-20)
Average: 0.823 (32.5-7.0) vs 0.500 (22.5-22.5)
Both schools did much worse, but were still around 0.500. Clearly the P5 was a step up from the MWC.
This wave:
2023 – BYU, UC, UH, UCF
2024 – UT, OU, USC, UCLA, UW, UO, ASU, UA, CU, UU, Stanford, Cal, SMU
So we should expect the new B12 members to struggle significantly (2-11 this year so far). Most of next year’s moves should do a little worse, but not a lot. SMU is likely to really struggle.
All of that seems obvious, but I wanted to run the numbers to see if the facts supported common belief.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa-football/news/realignment-ranking-power-5-schools-2000/p0b2llixfwo5lvzedfvgf2ra
Sporting News did something similar for P5 schools, looking at all the years since the teams moved and the same number of years before. They went back to 2000, so they had more schools, and they used multiple factors (overall W%, conf. W%, titles) to rank the schools.
LikeLike
This is consistent with other studies I have seen. In general, teams struggle after switching conferences.
I suppose the comparison window matters. For instance, Brian’s study shows that Utah and TCU have done worse since moving. But with Utah coming in 1st or tied for 1st in its division five of the past eight seasons, you’d have to say they’ve proven they belong.
TCU is a tougher case, because although they were a playoff team last year, in the ten seasons before that they were just average in the Big XII, whereas in the MWC they had dominated.
LikeLike
Marc,
The window certainly matters. I specifically chose a short window to evaluate the claims of G5 fans that their top teams are underrated in the CFP/polls and would do just as well in the P5. 5 years doesn’t allow the program to change significantly, so it is about the same before and after the move. I think the evidence is pretty clear that the P5 is a step up.
I agree that a program can grow to fit their new league, with Utah as a good example. But even their W% is down, though in fairness it was so high it wasn’t sustainable without them turning into OSU/AL/UGA. But I think even being average in a P5 league is fine for a G5 program, so TCU is doing fine. But it makes me question what a program like UCF can do, though the B12 is greatly weakened.
LikeLike
The largest study ever on the midwestern identity.
What percentage of residents in each state think they live in the midwest?
Over 90% (in descending order): IA, MN, MO, IL, ND, MI, WI, NE, SD, IN, KS
Over 75%: OH
Over 50%: OK, WY
Over 25%: CO, KY, MT, AR, ID
Around 10%: WV, TN, PA
This is similar to studies that asked people which states are in the midwest, but they were only asked about their own state.
Notes:
* I can understand OH being lower if it’s due to people in the southeast of the state feeling Appalachian and not midwestern
* Apparently a lot of people don’t think of the great plains as a region
* The people in CO, KY, MT, AR, ID, TN and WV are just wrong. You can make a case for the very western part of PA being in the midwest, which would match the low % that made that claim. States containing Rocky Mountain ranges are not in the midwest, KY, TN and AR are Appalachian or southern.
Emerson College Polling and the Middle West Review are excited to share the findings from the largest-ever study on Midwestern boundaries and identity. The study surveyed 22 states, including those that are traditionally considered to be the Midwest, but also surveyed its surrounding states including Arkansas, West Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, among others. Over 11 thousand responses were collected.
This study finds a majority of residents in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, South Dakota, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wyoming consider themselves to “live in the Midwest.” Similarly, the majority of people in the same states consider themselves to be “Midwesterners, ” though at a lesser intensity.
…
Iowa and Minnesota residents have the strongest sense of Midwestern identity, with 97% of respondents in each state considering themselves to live in the Midwest.
Interestingly, Oklahomans also identify with the Midwest. The survey found that 66% of Oklahomans identity as Midwesterners, undermining the idea of a great plains identity.
Those who identify themselves as Midwesterners are slightly lower than those who consider themselves to live in the Midwest. For example, 90% of Iowans consider themselves to be Midwesterners compared to 97% who say they live in the Midwest.
The Midwest extends farther west than its conventional boundaries. “It is traditional to use the 100th meridian as a dividing line between the agrarian Midwest and the high plains,” Lauck noted. “But this data indicates that the Midwest extends farther west toward the Rockies and that few people identify as plainsmen. More than 40% of Coloradoans, mostly on the Eastern slope and closer to the Midwest, consider themselves Midwestern. Over half of Wyomingites do.”
LikeLike
I’m pretty surprised about the Oklahoma number. Even growing up in the northeastern portion of the state (Tulsa), which is geographically the closest to the “traditional” Midwest, we were taught in school that while the northern Great Plains were part of the Midwest, Oklahoma was in the Southwest.
On the KY number, I Iived in Lexington for 4 years also, and everyone there seemed to embrace the idea of being the most northern Southern state, though I could see the 25% representing the population of the northern/western portions that border Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
LikeLike
frug,
I wonder if this shows a preference for being “midwestern” rather than being associated with the other states they are often grouped with. Maybe some in OK don’t want to be grouped with TX, and some in KY don’t want to be with TN.
I’d love to hear why people in Idaho think they are in the midwest. I guess the CO, WY, and MT folks could be from the eastern sides of their states before the big mountains start.
LikeLike
I almost joked that the OK numbers could be the result of Oklahomans who don’t want to be viewed as “Texas’ hat”.
LikeLike
When I was growing up in Mass. during the 40’s thru 60’s, the Midwest was defined to be essentially the Big Ten of that era plus, maybe Kansas. The Dakotas, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma weren’t
LikeLike
https://collegehoops.today/rothstein-files/gavitt-games-will-not-played-during-2024-25-season/
The Gavitt Games are likely dead after this year. I don’t think they ever caught on with fans as much as the ACC/B10 Challenge did, so I doubt all that many people are upset about it. It could be a sign the B10 is moving to 22 conference games, but even then you’d think they still need some quality OOC games.
The Gavitt Games will not be played during the 2024-25 season and while beyond that is uncertain, the future of the event is doubtful as of today, a source told College Hoops Today.
This is the final year of the agreement between the Big East and the Big Ten, who have participated in the Gavitt Games since 2015.
College Hoops Today previously reported that the two conferences were at impasse after nearly finalizing an agreement to continue the Gavitt Games.
LikeLike
From a NJ reporter who wrote about the Gavitt Games ending:
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2023/10/24/ohio-state-ryan-day-helmet-technology-sign-stealing-michigan/71306251007/
Ryan Day wants helmet speakers like the NFL to prevent sign stealing. Some high schools also already have them. College has been slow to adopt them out of fear of violating the helmet warranties and any incipient liability concerns, as well as cost.
At his weekly news conference four days ahead of the Buckeyes’ visit to Wisconsin, Day said the sport should look into adding helmet communication, a technology that has been used in the NFL for decades.
“It doesn’t really matter right now,” Day said. “What matters is playing this game. But we should definitely consider that, because it would certainly help.”
It followed a proposal raised a day earlier by Matt Rhule, the coach at Nebraska who led the Carolina Panthers for the previous three seasons.
The technology was introduced in the NFL in 1994, leaving speakers to be planted inside the helmets of the quarterbacks, and expanded to include a defensive player in 2008. The communication system has allowed coaches in that league to radio play calls to their quarterbacks or defender over a headset rather than signal them from the sideline at the risk of interception.
LikeLike
I also read that they were concerned about voiding the helmet warranty, which is remarkable. The NFL has had helmet speakers for years. You’d think they would’ve worked it out with the manufacturers by now.
LikeLike
Brian: “The technology was introduced in the NFL in 1994, leaving speakers to be planted inside the helmets of the quarterbacks, and expanded to include a defensive player in 2008. The communication system has allowed coaches in that league to radio play calls to their quarterbacks or defender over a headset rather than signal them from the sideline at the risk of interception.”
The problem already has a low-tech solution. We don’t need a high-tech solution. As I mentioned previously, about 30 years ago Bama used to run a player in from the sideline, convey the play to the QB and then run off again. Every team in college football could implement that policy tomorrow and have it in effect this Saturday.
The ‘runner’ could have a different colored jersey, or no helmet, to distinguish him from a substitution. It wouldn’t even need to be a team member. One of the female student managers could do it, or a fan.
LikeLike
Not sure that is super feasible now with so many teams running no huddle offense.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t really take any additional time at all. The few seconds that it takes for an OC to decide a play, convey it to three signal callers (two of which are fake), and for all of them to go through the gymnastics (or select and hold up printed signs) would be no longer than having a runner sprint onto the field. In fact, the runner could just call the play in the huddle without whispering it to the QB beforehand.
Also, teams wouldn’t be required to use a play runner. It would simply be an option if they chose to do so.
LikeLike
The problem already has a low-tech solution.
The word “already” is doing a lot of work there, given that there is no team that “already” does what you are saying.
LikeLike
Marc, as I said previously this was done by Bama, and I think some other SEC schools, several decades ago. The NCAA then passed a rule banning the practice. However, in light of the current situation with Michigan, the easiest way to resolve the issue is to reverse that rule and use a play runner as I described.
LikeLike
Teams already have a variety of ways to combat this, because there are numerous ways of stealing signs that are perfectly legal. The coaches can send a guy onto the field who participates in the next play. The QB can also run to the sideline and get the call directly.
What they can’t do is send out a player on who delivers the play call and then runs off. The NCAA outlawed that because it could deceive the defense: they would see 12 men on the field and wouldn’t know which 11 were really in the game.
Your proposal to send a guy onto the field wearing a different color or without a helmet hasn’t been done at any level of football. But if the guy who comes on is clearly a non-player, then why not send one of the coaches on? The OC himself could deliver the play to the huddle and then run off, which would change the sport rather significantly.
LikeLike
Marc: “Your proposal to send a guy onto the field wearing a different color or without a helmet hasn’t been done at any level of football.”
Your circular logic does not provide a valid reason why teams cannot use a designated play runner, just like Bama did years ago, to bring in a play and then run off the field. It is a very simple and straightforward way to address the problem of signal stealing.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38736903/michigan-staffer-bought-tickets-non-big-ten-games
Meanwhile, the UM scandal grows. ESPN is now reporting Stalions also did this to non-B10 teams, including at the SEC Championship, and now 12 of 13 B10 teams. Plus, the B10 can act before the NCAA finishes its investigation.
The scope of the alleged illicit scouting ring being orchestrated by suspended Michigan analyst Connor Stalions continues to grow, as sources told ESPN on Tuesday that he bought tickets for games at four schools outside of the Big Ten that were either in College Football Playoff contention or playing contenders.
There also is record of Stalions buying tickets to the 2021 and 2022 SEC title games, sources told ESPN. The tickets to the SEC title games were purchased on the secondary market, according to sources.
ESPN also learned that Stalions, who is at the center of an NCAA investigation into Michigan’s alleged sign-stealing operation, bought tickets to a 12th Big Ten school, as sources at 12 of the 13 possible Big Ten schools have a record of Stalions buying a ticket there. ESPN reported on Monday there were 11 schools.
According to four sources, all of the tickets for games outside the Big Ten involved CFP contenders and were purchased either toward the middle or end of the 2022 season, as Michigan was headed to the College Football Playoff for the second consecutive season.
…
ESPN has confirmed that Stalions has purchased tickets to more than 35 games at 17 stadiums around the country. He has used a network of at least three people, who were forwarded the tickets to attend games.
A source told ESPN on Tuesday that the NCAA has been sent at least an hour of video evidence that shows a person sitting in a seat appearing to video the home sideline with a smartphone. Stalions purchased the ticket for that seat. The video is expected to be used as part of the investigation to show that electronics were used in the signal-stealing ring, according to sources.
“Unless something happens right now, it’s irrelevant,” a source on a Big Ten campus said, underscoring the frustration around the league. “Everyone is mad. This is not right. But what is the NCAA going to do about it?”
Although the NCAA is leading the investigation into Michigan, the Big Ten could take action against the school before the probe is complete, sources told ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg on Tuesday. The Big Ten’s sportsmanship policy states that commissioner Tony Petitti has the “exclusive authority to determine whether offensive actions have occurred” and to impose discipline for members.
The policy lists “integrity of the competition” as a fundamental element that all Big Ten schools are expected to uphold. Institutions are responsible for “the actions of its employees” and for cooperating with the league during an investigation.
The Big Ten has two categories for discipline. The first includes fines that don’t exceed $10,000 and suspensions of no more than two contests. The second, for major disciplinary action, requires approval from an executive committee made up of representatives of different schools, which can deny proposed penalties or reduce them but not add to them. The Big Ten’s penalties for Michigan State from the fight with Michigan in the Michigan Stadium tunnel in 2022 were an example of major disciplinary action.
A source told ESPN that the Big Ten would want to have “as full of a picture of what the facts actually are if we were to act” before the NCAA completes its investigation, which likely would not occur until sometime in 2024.
…
After ESPN reported on Monday that sources at 11 of the possible 13 Big Ten schools had confirmed Stalions bought a ticket in his name at their stadium, another source at a 12th Big Ten school found a record of Stalions purchasing a ticket at their stadium. The school that didn’t find Stalions in their records does not have access to search names in secondary markets.
According to the source, the ticket was purchased across from the visiting sideline for a game against Ohio State. It’s the fourth Ohio State-related game that ESPN has confirmed, three of which were in opposing stadiums where the tickets were purchased across from the visitor’s sideline. The fourth was OSU’s game against Penn State on Saturday, for which Stalions had purchased tickets across from both sidelines, according to sources. Michigan still must play both of those teams this season.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
OSU vs PSU won the ratings battle with 9.96M viewers, #3 for the year (just behind CU vs UO at 10.03M, and OSU vs ND at 9.98M + streamers).
TN vs AL drew 8.01M hoping to see Saban lose again in the 3:30 window.
The primetime window split more evenly:
FSU vs Duke – 4.08M
UM vs MSU – 3.73M
USC vs Utah – 3.23M
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38741191/army-set-join-aac-football-sources-say-navy-game-intact
Actual realignment news – Army will join the AAC for football only. Army-Navy will stay on its own weekend and be an OOC game (which is weird – 2 conference teams will never play a conference game against each other).
Army has been independent in football except for 1998-2004 in CUSA. Hopefully this run in a conference goes better for them.
The American Athletic Conference has voted to add Army into the league as a football-only member, sources told ESPN’s Pete Thamel on Wednesday, with the sides working toward the Black Knights joining in 2024.
Army will serve as a replacement for SMU, which is joining the ACC next year, to keep the AAC at 14 teams for football.
The football-only addition follows a similar arrangement to the one Navy has with the conference. Ensuring that the longstanding rivalry game between Army and Navy is played at the end of the college football season was an important detail to solve as part of Army’s addition.
A source told ESPN’s Heather Dinich that the Black Knights and Midshipmen will not face [each] other in an AAC regular-season conference game and that the rivalry would continue as a nonconference matchup. In a scenario in which Army and Navy finish in the top two in the conference standings, matching them up in the league’s title game, they would play each other in back-to-back weeks — first for the AAC title, and then in the rivalry game the following week, the source said.
Army and Navy both play in the Patriot League in sports other than football.
A traditional matchup with Air Force in early November will stay part of Army’s football schedule, the source said.
Other schools had been discussed to join the AAC, but none gained significant traction and only Army had received outreach from the conference, sources told Thamel last month.
LikeLike
Fantastic
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/michigan-wolverines-jim-harbaugh-sign-stealing-spying-c75b0b4a?st=263ym7jtxaija95&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo
https://wapo.st/3FueUIS
LikeLike
Bill Connelly ranked all 760 CFB teams, from I-A through NAIA. I think the mixing of ranks is interesting:
bottom I-A is #194 (behind 8 D-II schools)
top I-AA is #36, bottom is #394 (behind 15 NAIA and 28 D-III schools)
top D-II is #143 (ahead of 14 I-A schools) bottom is #631
top D-III is #204, bottom is #760
top NAIA is #252, bottom is #749
OSU would be a 145.5 pt favorite over Oberlin (last in-state school to beat OSU, 7-6 in 1921). I’d take the under with the new clock rules.
LikeLike
TN fans knew about Stalion’s scheme months ago.
And apparently Vegas is not happy with UM right now either.
LikeLike
This won’t happen, but it would be the most fitting ending for the B10 West:
LikeLike
In leagues without divisions, I think multi-way ties for first are going to be more common.
LikeLike
Certainly, but not with losing records. It will be interesting to see what conferences push as a solution:
* 4-team conference playoff
* Flex games the final (or penultimate) week to act as conference semi-finals
* CFP rankings tiebreaker
LikeLike
The Big Ten’s existing tiebreaker seems pretty good to me. It has to be revised to remove references to things like “winning percentage within their division,” but otherwise I am fine with it.
* 4-team conference playoff
* Flex games the final (or penultimate) week to act as conference semi-finals
I’ve always felt that this would spoil the end of the regular season for everyone else. Let’s say the penultimate week is a flex week. This means that until the week before, nobody knows who they are playing or even if they have a home game.
Now, for teams with a plausible shot at the championship, they won’t have any trouble getting their fans excited. But for the random Indiana-Northwestern type of game that has no relevance and that nobody knew would be played until a week in advance, I bet you would have near-empty stadiums.
* CFP rankings tiebreaker
I think the Big 12 formerly had the BCS rankings as a tie-breaker, but it only applied after several other criteria failed to eliminate anyone. It was used in 2008 when Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech had identical 7–1 records in the conference, with each going 1–1 against the other two. Oklahoma was the top team in the BCS ranking, and went to the CCG. I don’t recall any other conference where BCS or committee rankings were used in this way — and a lot of people (except Sooner fans) questioned if it was fair.
If the CFP rankings were used, the committee would need to push up its schedule, as in current practice the rankings are not announced until Tuesday evening each week—except for the final weekend after the CCGs, when they are announced on Sunday.
I prefer tie-breakers where the decision is entirely mathematical, so you go into your final game knowing exactly what you need to do—or what help you need. Coin flip or random draw is always the last one, but it almost never comes to that.
LikeLike
Marc,
The Big Ten’s existing tiebreaker seems pretty good to me. It has to be revised to remove references to things like “winning percentage within their division,” but otherwise I am fine with it.
https://bigten.org/news/2011/8/10/Big_Ten_Conference_Football_Divisional_Tiebreaker.aspx
This is the current procedure summarized:
A. 2-way tie
Head to head
B. 3-way (or more) tie
If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 8 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step (or sub-step), the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative. If three or more teams remain tied after any step, move to next step in tiebreaker with remaining tied teams.
1. W% in games between the tied teams
2. W% in division (essentially a bunch of common opponents) – irrelevant
3. Records against next highest teams in order (lump together tied teams) – no mention of using W% (see note below: 2-0 tops 1-0 tops 0-0)
4. W% against all common conference opponents – might this move to #2?
5. Cumulative conference W% of non-divisional opponents – would this become of all non-common B10 opponents, or all B10 opponents?
6. Records against the highest placed non-divisional teams in order (lump together tied teams)
(b) When comparing records against a single team or a group of teams, the record will prevail, even if the number of games played against the team or group are unequal (i.e. 1-0 is better than 0-0, 2-0 is better than 1-0, etc.)
7. Overall W%
8. Random draw
If the championship game cannot be played
Declare co-champions and use tiebreakers to pick the champ for the CFP:
a. Teams ranked No. 1, 2, 3 or 4 in the final College Football Playoff poll will automatically be placed in the College Football Playoff.
b. If the two divisional representatives met previously in the season and neither is ranked No. 1, 2, 3 or 4 in the final College Football Playoff poll, the team ranked highest in the final poll shall be the representative to the College Football Playoff, unless the other team is ranked within five or fewer places of the higher ranked team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the two teams shall determine the conference’s representative.
c. If the two divisional representatives did not meet previously during the season, the team ranked highest in the College Football Playoff poll shall be the representative.
d. If the two teams are tied in the College Football Playoff poll, the team with the best overall Big Ten record shall be the representative.
e. If the two teams remain tied after d), the team with the best combined record of the tied teams against all common Big Ten opponents each team played that season shall be the representative.
f. If the two teams remain tied after e), the representative will be the team with the best overall winning percentage.
g. If the two teams remain tied after f), the representative will be the team furthest removed from College Football Playoff, Bowl Championships Series or Rose Bowl Game participation (as appropriate).
h. If the two teams remain tied after g), the representative shall be determined by a random draw.
So if 2 tied teams didn’t play each other, then I assume the B10 would follow the same process as when 3 or more teams are tied.
My preference:
1. Head to head
2. W% among tied teams
3. Cumulative W% of B10 opponents
4. Eliminate team with the worst B10 loss
5. Cumulative W% of all opponents (rewards tough OOC games)
6. Overall W%
7. CFP ranking (opinion poll is always last, but better than random draw)
8. Random draw
They treat the no-CCG scenario very differently (trying to determine a division champ has more value – after declaring co-champs they move on). CFP ranking is step 2. My preference is to treat it just like the tied teams to make the CCG:
1. Head to head
2. Cumulative W% of B10 opponents (rewards tough B10 schedule)
3. Eliminate team with the worst B10 loss
4. Cumulative W% of all opponents (rewards tough OOC games)
5. Overall W%
6. CFP ranking (opinion poll is always last, but better than random draw)
7. Random draw
me: * Flex games the final (or penultimate) week to act as conference semi-finals
I’ve always felt that this would spoil the end of the regular season for everyone else. Let’s say the penultimate week is a flex week. This means that until the week before, nobody knows who they are playing or even if they have a home game.
Now, for teams with a plausible shot at the championship, they won’t have any trouble getting their fans excited. But for the random Indiana-Northwestern type of game that has no relevance and that nobody knew would be played until a week in advance, I bet you would have near-empty stadiums.
And those stadiums are full now?
There are ways to mitigate these concerns:
* Pre-schedule the flex week, so at most 4 of 9 games change. As teams are eliminated from contention, their games get locked in.
* Pre-determine the 9 home teams for flex week. As teams are eliminated from contention, their games get locked in. This at least lets fans know they should have a shot at winning the last game no matter what.
* If you do it during rivalry week, then you know you either play your rival or you are in the running for the title. The huge downside is that this could eliminate key rivalry games. I’d move those back to the penultimate week and flex the Thanksgiving weekend games instead.
I think the Big 12 formerly had the BCS rankings as a tie-breaker, but it only applied after several other criteria failed to eliminate anyone. It was used in 2008 when Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech had identical 7–1 records in the conference, with each going 1–1 against the other two. Oklahoma was the top team in the BCS ranking, and went to the CCG. I don’t recall any other conference where BCS or committee rankings were used in this way — and a lot of people (except Sooner fans) questioned if it was fair.
As I showed above, it was step 2 for the B10 if the CCG wasn’t played. But it matters less now (in some ways), so maybe they change the order for that too. Time is certainly not a factor in that case.
LikeLike
They treat the no-CCG scenario very differently (trying to determine a division champ has more value – after declaring co-champs they move on). CFP ranking is step 2.
I am fine with that, as it’s contingent on a never-cancelled event being cancelled, and yet the playoff is still happening. It’s probably less likely than the coin-flip that’s at the bottom of every tiebreaker list.
And those stadiums are full now?
I meant, even emptier than they are now.
* Pre-schedule the flex week, so at most 4 of 9 games change.
* Pre-determine the 9 home teams for flex week.
I am not sure how you’re envisioning that would work: teams you’ve pre-scheduled to be both at home (or both on the road) could be the very teams that need to face each other in order to resolve a tie-breaker.
Let’s say it’s OSU and PSU. Now you need a new tie-breaker to decide which one will get home field for their previously unscheduled game. Maybe the tie-breakers favor OSU, but this was going to be PSU’s fourth home game. As a result, they are stuck with a 3–6 home–road split that season.
PSU has a lot of fans who plan well in advance to travel to their games and stay overnight (because State College is in the middle of nowhere). All those plans are now worthless, the hotels suddenly empty, etc. It’s not a very fan-friendly solution.
You could minimize the impact on the rest of the league by having OSU and PSU’s formerly scheduled opponents play each other. This means 7 out of the 9 scheduled games are unchanged. But maybe those two already played each other. Or maybe one of them gets a 6th home game and a bonus win that gets them into at-large playoff contention.
That’s just a sampling of the strange things that could happen.
LikeLike
Marc,
I said:
* Pre-schedule the flex week, so at most 4 of 9 games change.
* Pre-determine the 9 home teams for flex week.
You said:
I am not sure how you’re envisioning that would work:
Poorly, most likely. But I’ve seen people mention it so I threw it out there.
teams you’ve pre-scheduled to be both at home (or both on the road) could be the very teams that need to face each other in order to resolve a tie-breaker.
Those were 2 separate ideas, and don’t have to be combined. But if they did, you do the best you can with the pairings while maintaining the 9 home teams. You may still need tiebreakers after that, but it could resolve many issues on the field.
PSU has a lot of fans who plan well in advance to travel to their games and stay overnight (because State College is in the middle of nowhere). All those plans are now worthless, the hotels suddenly empty, etc. It’s not a very fan-friendly solution.
When was the last time anyone made a CFB decision in the best interests of the fans rather than based on the bottom line for the schools?
LikeLike
When was the last time anyone made a CFB decision in the best interests of the fans rather than based on the bottom line for the schools?
That is a valid point, but when they screw the fans, it’s usually to make more money. This is just another method of breaking ties while getting paid the same. If the media partners offered to pay extra for it, I am sure they would listen.
LikeLike
John Canzano has gotten a look at the Pac-Two’s request for a preliminary injunction.
There seems to be plenty of evidence that, up until now, the Pac-12 kicked departing members off the Board once they announced they were leaving. In fact, Kliavkoff himself texted Canzano on August 5, “As of today we have 4 board members.” There are numerous other examples where departing members were treated this way.
Brian hypothesized that maybe Kliavkoff received advice of counsel that the departing members were required to be at Board meetings. If so, one has to wonder where the same counsel was before. Kliavkoff’s rather sudden decision to align himself with the departing members is one of the oddest puzzles in this whole thing. Perhaps we will soon know the reasons for it.
LikeLike
Yes, it is certainly murky why he did what he did. I said advice of counsel might explain it, but I’m not claiming that is for sure why he did it.
It’s interesting UW still hasn’t submitted anything in discovery in their side of the case, which seems a little odd.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38750516/ncaa-michigan-sign-stealing-investigation-sources-say
The NCAA is already on campus at UM investigating.
An NCAA enforcement staff has been at the University of Michigan this week to look into the sign-stealing probe, sources told ESPN.
…
A source confirmed to ESPN that the NCAA has begun to search the electronics of Michigan football staff members, which was first reported by the Detroit News. ESPN reported last week that the NCAA had immediate interest in Stalions’ computer, and it appears that the scope of the NCAA’s interest has expanded.
…
The Washington Post reported this week that an outside investigative firm approached the NCAA on Oct. 17 and presented extensive evidence on Michigan’s signal-stealing operation. The NCAA investigation officially began the next day, and the Post reported it’s not known who hired the outside firm that presented it to the NCAA.
Some have said its tied to one of the gambling irregularity companies, but that’s rumor.
This comes when the Wolverines are ranked No. 2 in the country and recently became the betting favorite to win the College Football Playoff. ESPN sources indicated that Stalions bought tickets beginning with the first week of the 2021 season, and since then Michigan has gone 33-3 overall and 22-1 in the Big Ten. Michigan made the College Football Playoff in 2021 and 2022.
Convenient timing.
The time frame of the NCAA’s investigation is uncertain, but multiple people familiar with NCAA investigation timelines have told ESPN that it’s logistically impossible for the Michigan case to play out before the end of the football season.
Considering that the NCAA still hasn’t completed Michigan’s other outstanding NCAA case, which is tied to recruiting allegations during the COVID-19 dead period, the timeline of this case being finalized before the start of the 2024 season would be unlikely.
Once the NCAA investigation ends and a notice of allegations is sent, Michigan would have 90 days to respond, according to NCAA bylaws. That would mean if the investigation ended this week — which is virtually impossible — Michigan would not be required to respond until well after the College Football Playoff.
Any action this season would have to come from the Big Ten, as the league has a Sportsmanship Policy that includes the authority for commissioner Tony Petitti to take disciplinary action.
I get the feeling the B10 will be under serious internal pressure to do something about this. Probably external as well.
LikeLike
Just so you’ll know that I am capable of objectivity — Michigan fansites are now overflowing with meticulous parsing of the NCAA rules/bylaws in an attempt to demonstrate that this was all perfectly legal. I do not buy that whatsoever.
It’s unfortunate that this is incapable of resolution this season, at least not by the NCAA. The Big Ten could do it. There is a huge red line between a goofball low-level assistant acting on his own (what Michigan fans are hoping); and any knowledge (or willful ignorance) by others on the staff, including of course Harbaugh himself. I suspect that is what the Big Ten wants to know.
Under current NCAA rules, the head coach is presumed to be responsible for what his assistants have done. If the school wants to claim that the head coach didn’t know and couldn’t possibly have known, it has the burden of proof—not the NCAA. Remember, Northwestern fired Pat Fitzgerald (not an NCAA case) for what it concluded he should have known. Fitzgerald was a perfect example of someone whose denials didn’t pass the laugh test.
Now remember, sign-stealing is legal, and there are a whole bunch of legitimate ways to do it. Harbaugh has been in football his entire life and has worked/played at every level of the sport. He surely has some sense of what a good legal sign-stealer can do. I mean, it’s a bit implausible that a $55k assistant with minimal experience shows up out of nowhere and is suddenly better at this than everyone else in the business.
LikeLike
Marc: “. . . it’s a bit implausible that a $55k assistant with minimal experience shows up out of nowhere and is suddenly better at this than everyone else in the business.”
Exactly. Brian has already posted the statistics that demonstrate how much Mecheatin’s defense improved in the three seasons that the sign-stealing transpired. It is inconceivable that the head coach had no inkling what was going on. This isn’t free tattoos or free hamburgers. This guy was on the payroll.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-tcu-knew-of-michigans-sign-stealing-scheme-prior-to-cfp-game-used-dummy-signals-to-dupe-wolverines-224848698.html
Yes, unfortunately for those fans the evidence is piling up. And since it is coming from non-NCAA sources, they can’t even blame an NCAA vendetta.
TCU was warned by multiple B10 teams about it, and caught Stalions getting it wrong several times.
TCU coaches, having gained information on Michigan’s elaborate sign-stealing scheme, changed many of their play-call signals before kickoff. However, head coach Sonny Dykes and the Horned Frogs staff had grander ideas than just changing signals.
They pulled a fast one on the Wolverines.
They mixed in new play-call signals with old ones, using what one TCU staff member described as “dummy signals” in an effort to trick the UM staff. The dummy signals were old play-calls that had since been changed. Players were told to ignore the dummy signals and run the original play as called with the new signals.
“Sometimes we froze a play before the snap,” said one TCU coach. “We’d call a play and then we’d signal in another play with an old signal but we told players to run the original play.”
…
Most recently, the Washington Post reported Wednesday that an outside investigative firm first tipped off the NCAA last week to Michigan’s sign-stealing scheme, presenting officials with documents uncovered from computers maintained and accessed by UM coaches that outlined the system, including travel schedules and expenses for future trips.
…
In one instance, Stalions bought a ticket to Tennessee’s game against Kentucky last season in view of the Volunteers’ sideline. Three minutes after the purchase, he transferred the ticket, presumably, to an associate or friend designated to record the game.
…
Not long after the CFP unveiled the 2022 semifinal matchups — Georgia vs. Ohio State and TCU vs. Michigan — the Horned Frogs staff began receiving phone calls from coaches across the country about what was a well-known fact in the Big Ten coaching community: that Michigan had an elaborate sign-stealing system.
Many of those on the TCU staff were unaware before the calls. Coaches from several Big Ten schools, including Ohio State, informed TCU coaches of the scheme.
“Literally everybody we talked to knew,” said one TCU coach. “They’d say, ‘Just so you know, they steal your signals and they’re going to have everything so you better change them.’”
One coach told the staff that Michigan “has the most elaborate signal-stealing in the history of the world.”
…
“The guy [Stalions] was wrong a couple of times,” one TCU staff member said. “We rewatched the TV version of the game. You can see him standing next to the defensive coordinator. He tells something to the coordinator and he points in the air to mean pass. You can see the playsheet he’s holding with our hand signs on them.”
TCU did a variety of measures to avoid the issue beyond changing some signs. The staff purposely signaled in plays late as to not leave enough time for Stalions to relay the signal to coaches.
“There are some times in the game that they still got us,” a TCU staff member said, “especially on short-yardage.”
…
The Michigan case represents the largest scale sign-stealing scheme ever publicized in the recent history of college sports. It’s no surprise that the system eventually leaked because of its sheer size and foolish moves.
Stalions bought tickets in his own name and Michigan staff members used large white playsheets during games on the sideline that showed the opposing team’s hand signals in black — still shots of which have made their way across the internet.
Big Ten coaches caught on long ago.
As Yahoo Sports reported last week, news of the sign-stealing spread enough that multiple Michigan opponents this season dropped their signaling and used wristbands for much of the offensive play-calling during the game against the Wolverines.
LikeLike
The Death Penalty for Mecheatin’ is clearly warranted here. Football program terminated for five years, no football games until 2028. Zero football scholarships, all current players granted “infinate portal” access. All Mecheatin’ football staff on the NCAA “S” list for thirty years. They need jobs selling used cars and flood insurance. Expulsion from the Big Ten should also be considered by the conference.
LikeLike
The NCAA has never done that to anybody, so they won’t here. It’s pretty typical to allow unlimited transfers if a team is penalized, so you might have that one right. But transfers are already wide open except for players who transferred once before, and Michigan doesn’t have a lot of those.
The conference isn’t going to expel Michigan because it’s one of their cash cows.
LikeLike
Many of those on the TCU staff were unaware before the calls. Coaches from several Big Ten schools, including Ohio State, informed TCU coaches of the scheme.
If Ohio State already knew Michigan was doing this, then why didn’t they switch up their signals when they played the Wolverines? Assuming they did so, then it would imply that Michigan won the game without benefiting from what Stalions allegedly did. (Which of course still does not excuse it.)
Someone (who is partisan) said on Twitter:
So let me make sure I understand:
Everyone in the Big Ten knew Michigan was stealing signs. They told TCU. TCU made one simple change, and they scored a billion points and won.
I am compelled to ask: why did those Big Ten teams still get stomped?
There’s a video making the rounds where Connor Stalions is standing next to Michigan’s DC as OSU faces 3rd & Goal from the 4. It appears Stalions tells the DC that pass is coming, and this is signaled out to the defense.
What’s not mentioned, though, is that OSU scored on that play despite Michigan supposedly knowing it was coming. It was also a formation and situation in which OSU usually passed, so signaling “pass” represented no great insight either.
LikeLike
Marc, you seem to be in deep denial about Mecheatin’s creating. The Mecheatin’ defensive players on the field do not know exactly what play OSU will run. That info couldn’t possibly be conveyed to them. Each defender would need to know the entire OSU playbook. They were simply told to go into a formation that would defend ‘run left’ or run right’ or ‘pass play’.
LikeLike
Marc,
If Ohio State already knew Michigan was doing this, then why didn’t they switch up their signals when they played the Wolverines? Assuming they did so, then it would imply that Michigan won the game without benefiting from what Stalions allegedly did. (Which of course still does not excuse it.)
OSU did change some of their signals – see the quote from Dawand Jones. But they couldn’t change all their signals in less than a week because there wasn’t time for everyone to learn all the new signs. Remember, players have to know them by heart so they can clearly recall each play even when tired. Pros can do that quicker than college players.
And if they did keep changing signs regularly and UM repeatedly stole them during the season, at some point you’re chasing your own tail.
TCU had more time to prepare with the layoff before the semifinal, so they could change everything.
There’s a video making the rounds where Connor Stalions is standing next to Michigan’s DC as OSU faces 3rd & Goal from the 4. It appears Stalions tells the DC that pass is coming, and this is signaled out to the defense.
What’s not mentioned, though, is that OSU scored on that play despite Michigan supposedly knowing it was coming. It was also a formation and situation in which OSU usually passed, so signaling “pass” represented no great insight either.
Good execution can still defeat a team who knows what is coming on some plays – that doesn’t mean the D didn’t gain an advantage from knowing. But knowing a play is a run vs a play-action pass can be very helpful to the D for example. OSU having success on some plays doesn’t mean that it didn’t help on other plays, or even make highly successful OSU plays normally become just marginally successful.
LikeLike
Marc, you seem to be in deep denial about Mecheatin’s creating.
I think there’s more than enough undisputed public information to confirm that Stalions broke the rules brazenly and flagrantly. The fact Michigan suspended him is probably all one would need to know — and in fact, we know much more.
But unsourced college sports rumors are often exaggerated — just like the ones that say FSU is joining the Big Ten next Monday.
We are told that Big Ten schools have all known for quite a while that Michigan was stealing signs. This would imply that they had plenty of notice to switch up their signals, thereby defeating what Stalions is alleged to have done. (Which still doesn’t excuse it.)
And supposedly they’ve known this all along, but they do not tell the Big Ten or the NCAA? But after Michigan reaches the playoff the first people they tell are TCU? Something about that timeline does not seem believable.
LikeLike
As Brian pointed out, switching signals isn’t that easy. If you have a couple of weeks before a playoff game, it could be done but to change signals before every game throughout a season is unrealistic.
The most reasonable way to resolve this is a nonparticipating play runner. My hunch is that the NCAA will reverse the rule that currently prohibits this.
LikeLike
Not to belabor this, but take a look at the photo of the Clemson sideline in the Wall St Journal gift article attached below. To send in one play, Clemson has two players and an asst coach making arm signals, and behind them are three more guys holding up signs. It’s a circus of six guys going through antics and gyrations to do something could be done a lot easier and faster with a designated play runner sprinting onto the field.
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/michigan-sign-stealing-harbaugh-ncaa-12fb8a3f?st=eu7pj86y9kjx2ir&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
As Brian pointed out, switching signals isn’t that easy. If you have a couple of weeks before a playoff game, it could be done but to change signals before every game throughout a season is unrealistic.
Perhaps, but if you believe the media — which you apparently do — this has been common knowledge in the Big Ten for a couple of years. The media say that this was a “well-known fact in the Big Ten coaching community,” and TCU received calls from multiple coaches around the country.
If you believe that, then Ohio State would have been well aware of this long before their Michigan game in late November 2022, but let’s say they didn’t know what the rest of the league did. Certainly the long offseason gave Michigan’s opponents plenty of time to switch up how they signaled plays, which means Stalions would probably have had no impact on games played so far this year. (Not that this excuses what he did.)
I already pointed out that Michigan State, having been alerted to it, still lost 49–0.
The most reasonable way to resolve this is a nonparticipating play runner. My hunch is that the NCAA will reverse the rule that currently prohibits this.
If that is the most reasonable way, then where are the coaches calling for it? What I see is coaches are calling for the helmet communication system the NFL uses.
LikeLike
Marc: “What I see is coaches are calling for the helmet communication system the NFL uses.”
The logical course of action if for the NCAA to approve both play runners and helmet communication systems. The expense of the latter will be troublesome for some schools and the helmet warranty issue is not yet resolved. Also, if the bench is sending an electromagnetic signal to players on the field, it too can be intercepted.
LikeLike
The logical course of action if for the NCAA to approve both play runners and helmet communication systems.
That’ll never happen, because nobody wants a game where one team has the advantage of the electronic helmet system and the other doesn’t. It’ll either become standard across (at least) Division I or nobody will have it.
I will believe they are considering your play runner system when I see a bunch of coaches demanding it, which so far has not happened.
The expense of the latter will be troublesome for some schools and the helmet warranty issue is not yet resolved.
Given that the NFL has had it for years, I’ve got to think that’s solvable.
Also, if the bench is sending an electromagnetic signal to players on the field, it too can be intercepted.
And yet, the NFL apparently remains convinced this is the best system. They clearly could afford whatever they want, and still this is what they use.
LikeLike
https://vicis.com/pages/warranty
LikeLike
Marc,
I don’t know why you’ve chosen this hill to die on, but okay.
Perhaps, but if you believe the media — which you apparently do — this has been common knowledge in the Big Ten for a couple of years. The media say that this was a “well-known fact in the Big Ten coaching community,” and TCU received calls from multiple coaches around the country.
If you believe that, then Ohio State would have been well aware of this long before their Michigan game in late November 2022, but let’s say they didn’t know what the rest of the league did. Certainly the long offseason gave Michigan’s opponents plenty of time to switch up how they signaled plays, which means Stalions would probably have had no impact on games played so far this year. (Not that this excuses what he did.)
It doesn’t matter if you changed signals over the off-season if Stalions just steals the new signals. By the time OSU plays UM, any new signal set from the summer/fall camp would be cracked.
As for this year, we’ve played 8 games. Your reasoning might apply to weeks 1-3 (when UM played the juggernauts of ECU, UNLV and BGSU), but after that Stalions had plenty of time to have stolen the signals. He apparently planned to attend 8 OSU games this year, so at least 3 of those would have already happened before this became public for example (he skipped OSU vs PSU because this made the news, and presumably also OSU vs WI).
I already pointed out that Michigan State, having been alerted to it, still lost 49–0.
I don’t know why you insist on thinking this means anything. MSU is terrible and was probably going to get blown out no matter what, but that same blowout can vary in score tremendously just based on the day. Sometimes in a rivalry the game stays close anyway. The score says nothing about whether UM cheated or not.
LikeLike
I don’t know why you’ve chosen this hill to die on, but okay.
I am just pointing out an obvious inconsistency in what has been reported. If it was well known for the last couple of years that Stalions was doing this, then teams would’ve had ample opportunity to adopt a different system that he could not illegally steal — in other words, precisely what MSU did a couple of weeks ago, and what TCU also says they did. Nobody walks straight into a booby trap when they’ve known for a long time that it exists.
LikeLike
Marc,
I am just pointing out an obvious inconsistency in what has been reported. If it was well known for the last couple of years that Stalions was doing this, then teams would’ve had ample opportunity to adopt a different system that he could not illegally steal — in other words, precisely what MSU did a couple of weeks ago, and what TCU also says they did.
It is not inconsistent. If he is continually stealing signals (again, he planned to attend 8 OSU games this season), then you only have the week before the game to change them. That is not enough time for a college team to completely change all of their signals. Teams would need to fundamentally change how they get signals to their players (helmet speakers, etc.) or return to huddling and rotating in players with each play. But if your offensive scheme is based on controlling tempo to your own advantage by preventing defensive substitutions, then you are basically giving UM what it wants anyway.
Nobody walks straight into a booby trap when they’ve known for a long time that it exists.
Sure they do. People still run red lights when they know there are red light cameras, they speed in areas known for speed traps, swim in shark-infested waters, etc. It’s all about weighting pros and cons. Confusing your own team by changing signals after 12+ weeks of another system (and risking wrong routes and interceptions, or missed blocks and fumbles) may be a bigger risk than letting UM steal signs.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38751270/fbi-joins-probe-ex-michigan-assistant-football-coach
Meanwhile at UM, the FBI is now getting involved in investigation of the previous scandal with a now-fired assistant who is accused of computer access crimes.
And the NCAA is still dealing with Harbaugh’s infractions case.
Busy times in Ann Arbor. Sorry Marc.
The FBI has joined the University of Michigan police department’s investigation of former Wolverines assistant football coach Matt Weiss, who was fired in January following a report of unauthorized computer access crimes at the school’s football building.
Deputy chief Melissa Overton confirmed the FBI’s involvement to ESPN on Thursday, adding that the investigation is “extensive, ongoing and is of the utmost priority,” and covers multiple states.
Weiss, who spent the 2021 and 2022 seasons with Michigan and most recently served as co-offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach, has not been charged with any crime.
In a letter to Weiss obtained by the Associated Press, Michigan executive associate athletic director Doug Gnodtke wrote that the school had evidence he had “inappropriately accessed” accounts at Schembechler Hall, which houses the school’s football offices.
LikeLike
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2023-10-27/nit-board-announces-changes-nit-and-use-experimental-rules
The NIT will no longer give auto-bids for teams that win their conference regular season but lost in their tournament. They will give auto-bids to the top 2 NET ranking teams in each P6 league that miss the NCAA (12 total), and they will all host games. The other 20 will be at-larges with the “first 4 out” from the NCAAT getting deference. The top 4 at-larges will also host games.
For the 2024 NIT, conference regular season champions that do not win their conference tournament or are not otherwise selected to the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Championship will not receive an automatic bid to the NIT. Instead, the NIT will guarantee two teams (based on the NET rankings) from each of six conferences (Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern). The top two teams in the NET rankings not qualifying for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament from each conference, regardless of won-loss record, will be selected. Additionally, the 12 teams automatically selected will be guaranteed the opportunity to host a game in the first round of the NIT.
Once the 12 automatic qualifying schools have been selected, the NIT Committee will select the 20 best teams available to complete the tournament’s 32-team field. Based on the NIT Committee’s evaluation, the best four teams of the 20 at-large teams selected will complete the 16 first round hosts, with deference given to the “first four teams out” of the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship, as determined by the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball. Additional teams from the six conferences with AQs are eligible to be selected as at-large teams and can be selected as hosts.
LikeLike
I saw someone pose the question online elsewhere: would the Pac-10 still exist if they had voted out WSU and OrSU 2+ years ago (before USC and UCLA decided to leave)?
Rough math:
The P12 was estimated to be worth $500M before the LA schools left and the market crumbled. That would be $50M per school assuming they didn’t expand, vs the $41.7M a P12 might get.
The B10 was on pace to earn over $60M per school before the LA schools joined. But with the LA schools, that number jumped to over $70M (average) we think. Call that a $30M gain for USC.
Would USC still have left for ~$20M per year? Maybe. Assume travel and related costs take $10M of that (roughly what UCLA and UW and UO have said). Now it comes down to CFP and NCAAT money. USC would have a much greater chance of winning the P10 than the B10 (16). That would narrow the gap if unequal postseason revenue sharing was approved.
Would UCLA still have left? I don’t think so. I believe there was a quote from a CA BoR member that they wouldn’t have allowed it if the P12 could promise UCLA $50M.
But the problem is that WSU and OrSU gave the P12 no cause to vote them out and it would just be a terrible look to kick out members in good standing. It’s especially bad since WSU had better TV ratings than many remaining members.
LikeLike
I think you are right about the math. It’s about $10m net per year, which is probably not enough to consider leaving. But not even USC — who was the most restless of the members — ever suggested kicking schools out. And I agree, if it ever came to that, it’s far from clear that WSU is the one you’d want to get rid of.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38758564/ex-d-iii-coach-says-u-m-staffer-hired-record-future-big-10-foes
One of the people paid to film games for UM comes forward to ESPN.
Suspended Michigan football staffer Connor Stalions compensated at least one person for recording future Wolverines opponents with “a couple hundred dollars” and a ticket to a Michigan home game, according to the person.
The man, a former Division III football player and coach, spoke to ESPN on the condition that his name not be published because he was concerned about his privacy. He is the first person who was involved in the alleged cheating scheme to publicly share details about their role.
He said he attended three Big Ten games during the past two years to record the sideline of a future Michigan opponent. He said he uploaded the videos he took on his personal cellphone to a shared iPhone photo album but does not know who else other than Stalions had access to the album.
He said he was wary of Stalions’ plan “to a degree” when he was first approached to record the games but felt that if someone from Michigan’s staff was asking him to do this that it must fall safely in the gray area of college football’s sign-stealing rules.
“I didn’t like it, but it’s a gray line,” he said. “You can call me naive, but no one is reading the bylaws. I’m not a contractual lawyer. … I just felt like if you’re not doing it, you’re not trying to get ahead.”
…
The source who spoke to ESPN on Friday said he attended games at Rutgers and Penn State last season and another game at Penn State last month.
“I only did a half because it was pouring rain and they were playing UMass,” the source said. “It didn’t pay well enough so I was like, ‘Yeah, I’m not staying here.'”
He said that before the news of the investigation was made public, Stalions also provided him a ticket to Saturday’s game between Indiana and Penn State. He does not plan to attend.
He said at the games he attended he recorded every drive from his seat in the stands about 15-20 rows above field level. He said he tried to record wide enough to include the sideline and the majority of the team’s on-field formation so members of the Michigan staff would be able to sync his videos with others and decode the team’s signals. He said he was able to capture enough of the coaches on the sideline that their signals were visible for someone who zoomed in on the recorded video.
“A lot of people may say you can just rip that from the All-22 [wide-shot game film]. Well, it’s not that easy,” he said. “This makes it easier to mirror things up and get those tendencies.”
He said for the three games he recorded he received roughly $1,000 to cover his travel expenses and pay for his time. He said Stalions paid him from a personal Venmo account.
…
The source said he has not yet been contacted by any investigators from the NCAA or elsewhere.
ESPN contacted several other individuals this week whose names were connected to ticket purchases made by Stalions. One woman based in Jacksonville, Florida, said she was friends with Stalions from their time together in the military but hung up abruptly when asked about attending last year’s Florida-Georgia game in Jacksonville. One other former Michigan staff member, Andrew Barlage, was among the names connected to tickets purchased by Stalions. According to Barlage’s LinkedIn page, he was the head recruiting intern at Michigan in 2021 and worked as a graduate assistant for Akron’s football program in 2022. He did not respond to multiple phone calls seeking comment.
He’s a former D-III coach so he should have actually read the bylaws. He was responsible for knowing them, and that rule was implemented in 1994.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38781798/acc-unveils-7-year-football-slate-new-17-team-league
The ACC is also adopting a variable locked rivals plan. Some rivalries are being ended along the way, with oithers renewed.
The league will continue to play eight conference games without divisions. All 17 teams will play each other at least twice over the next seven seasons — once at home and once on the road. The 14 current ACC teams will play a total of three times each in California through 2030, and none will travel to California in back-to-back seasons.
…
In a change from the current 3-3-5 scheduling model, which the ACC adopted for this season, not every school has the same number of protected rivalry games. Some schools have three; the majority have two; Clemson has one; Georgia Tech and Louisville have zero.
Eleven of the 16 protected games have been retained from the current model. Miami-Virginia Tech and NC State-Wake Forest are restored from the previous divisional format, while Cal, Stanford and SMU will all play each other.
How novel, the new members from the far west all play each other every year rather than forcing western travel on more eastern teams.
The annual protected matchups are: Boston College-Syracuse, Boston College-Pitt, Syracuse-Pitt, North Carolina-Virginia, North Carolina-Duke, North Carolina-NC State, NC State-Wake Forest, NC State-Duke, Duke-Wake Forest, Virginia Tech-Virginia, Florida State-Clemson, Miami-Florida State, Miami-Virginia Tech, Stanford-Cal, Stanford-SMU, and Cal-SMU.
…
Though Clemson and Georgia Tech will go away as an annual rivalry after their 89th matchup later this year, the teams will play four times between 2024 and 2030. Clemson-NC State, which has been played 91 times, also goes away as an annual game to allow the Wolfpack to play Duke, North Carolina and Wake Forest on an annual basis. But in a nod to that series history, Clemson-NC State will play three times over seven years.
I understand NCSU having to drop Clemson, but GT?
With the league now spanning the East Coast to the West Coast, geography was taken into consideration in this new model. The league wanted to minimize the number of repeat trips to the same geographic region in the same season, and maximize the percentage of games against teams within close proximity.
For example, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Miami play each other in 24% of their games between 2024 and 2030. Boston College, Pitt, Louisville and Syracuse will have 32% of their games against one another. The Carolina and Virginia schools also will play each other more frequently.
4 schools play 24% of the their games against each other? 19% would be equal among all teams so 24% isn’t much of a bump, it’s just FSU having 2 rivals.
32% is more meaningful.
“We play each of the [existing] ACC schools three times in the next seven years, and we have fans who are really excited for trips to Boston or Syracuse, North Carolina and Florida,” Knowlton told ESPN. “I think there’s a chance to develop rivalries that will grow on every Cal alum and fan.”
The one school not included in the schedule release Monday is Notre Dame, which plays a set of nonconference games against ACC schools annually. That rotation will be determined at a later date, but it remains unclear whether future Notre Dame-Stanford games will count as an ACC game or remain nonconference.
ND isn’t in the ACC, so why would those count as conference games? The real question is whether they count as part of ND’s 5 ACC games or not (basically reducing everyone else’s ND access).
LikeLike
ND isn’t in the ACC, so why would those count as conference games? The real question is whether they count as part of ND’s 5 ACC games or not (basically reducing everyone else’s ND access).
I think that’s what they meant, as no other meaning makes sense.
LikeLike
Iowa has fired offensive coordinator Brian Ferentz. He’ll coach the team through the bowl game but won’t return.
Ferentz, the son of head coach Kirk Ferentz, led one of the worst offenses in FBS last year. Instead of firing him, as most teams would when their offense is that bad, former AD Gary Barta gave the younger Ferentz one of the dumbest contracts I have ever seen. It gave him one more season to prove himself, stating that Iowa needed to average a meager 25 points per game this year, which included points scored by the defense.
Even with that generous deal, Ferentz didn’t deliver. So far this season, Iowa is scoring 19.5 PPG, good for 120th in FBS. In total offense, they’re at 232.4 yards per game, good for 134th. They’re 132nd in third-down conversions and 127th in time of possession. Despite all that, they are 6–2 because their defense and special teams are so strong. With even an average offense, imagine how good they’d be.
By announcing his departure now, Iowa gets a head start on searching for a new OC, and perhaps gives offensive players on the roster a reason to stay, in advance of the portal opening up in early December.
LikeLike
I fail to see how Iowa gets a head start on hiring an OC. It’s not even remotely similar to hiring a head coach and getting ahead of the competition. Kirk isn’t going to be interviewing candidates in November. The timing of the firing doesn’t make much sense since Brian will continue coaching through the bowl game. Contracts for coordinators or assistants do not have nearly the same level of buyout concerns.
LikeLike
The timing of the firing doesn’t make much sense since Brian will continue coaching through the bowl game.
I think everyone at Iowa just wants all of the silliness around BF (AI versions of BF, the Cameo trolling, etc.) to stop. Iowa has a decent chance to win the west but the negativity from its own fanbase has to exhausting.
The Iowa admin didn’t do BF any favors with making the incentives in the contract public. They really should have done what Nebraska did in a similar situation with Scott Frost and Fred Hoiberg last year. The AD basically stonewalled and delayed releasing the “mutually agreed upon metrics” until a court forced them to after it no longer mattered.
LikeLike
The head start was mentioned as a reason in a couple of articles, the transfer portal being another. Kirk is not likely to formally interview anyone during the regular season. But announcing that Brian is gone means that people can start openly campaigning for the job.
Beyond that, firing him now ends the weekly ridicule that the program was subjected to. When you publicly announce that there’s a specific number he has to hit, much of the media and fan attention is about the number, and it overshadows the team.
LikeLike
Oddly, this incentivizes Kirk to to continue running the same offense and prove Brian wasn’t the problem. What OC wants to work at IA knowing Kirk will force the same hyper-conservative offense on them?
Maybe they did this to keep someone on staff from leaving, since now there will be a chance for promotion. More likely, it was about keeping players out of the portal.
Or maybe the interim AD just was sick of dealing with it and refused to keep putting up with the nepotism. By doing it publicly, Kirk can’t push back very hard since the offensive numbers are so terrible. He never should’ve been allowed to hire Brian in the first place, as clearly he would never have fired him despite the horror show of an offense.
I think Barta would’ve made excuses (injured QB, etc.) to keep Brian around to appease Kirk.
LikeLike
What OC wants to work at IA knowing Kirk will force the same hyper-conservative offense on them?
Probably one of his current assistants or someone at a lower-level program for whom a P5 OC job is a step up.
I can see a case for running a conservative offense when you have that defense. The strategy did work, in a way. Iowa went to a bowl 18 out of the last 20 years, which is better than most teams in the Big Ten West.
It’ll be interesting to see if they change their philosophy after Ferentz retires (he is 68). This is the program that sells t-shirts that say, “I root for the punter.”
LikeLike
Iowa has had 3 offensive coordinators under Ferentz – Ken O’Keefe (’99-’11), Greg Davis (’12-’16), and Ferentz the younger (’17-’23). All were basically career assistants and didn’t move up after coaching at Iowa – O’Keefe assisted some more then retired, Davis retired.
Their TE coach Abdul Hodge might be a popular choice, but he just joined the staff in 2022 (and is a former LB). The question is if Kirk is given free rein to make a choice or if the AD wants to micromanage and maintain veto power.
After Ferentz, they will definitely want fresh blood and new ideas even if they keep a pro-style offense. Even Iowa fans complain about their terrible O costing them games. Especially since they used to be decent on O.
LikeLike
The question is if Kirk is given free rein to make a choice or if the AD wants to micromanage and maintain veto power.
It most likely will be Kirk’s choice especially since Iowa currently has an interim AD. The only reason BF reported to the AD and not his dad was due to Iowa nepotism laws.
LikeLike
The question is if Kirk is given free rein to make a choice or if the AD wants to micromanage and maintain veto power.
I can’t imagine anything good happening if the AD crams down a coordinator Ferentz doesn’t want. Either Ferentz is your head coach; or he isn’t. Ferentz has been a relatively successful, by Iowa standards, when not hiring relatives. (Ferentz’s son-in-law is Iowa’s director of recruiting, and there’ve been controversies around him too.)
After Ferentz, they will definitely want fresh blood and new ideas even if they keep a pro-style offense. Even Iowa fans complain about their terrible O costing them games. Especially since they used to be decent on O.
I think it’s absolutely possible to be successful enough on offense with that style. You won’t be putting up 40 points a game, but with Iowa’s defense and special teams you don’t have to.
LikeLike
Sure the pro-style IA has favored can work. It used to work for them just fine. It’s the Ferentz the younger version that has to go, but part of it is also Kirk making them punt from the +39 on 4th and 1 rather than going for it and other such super-conservative decisions. I think he’s gotten worse about that over time. Hayden Fry used to have a good offense there, and even in Ferentz’s early years they did. But lately it’s been the exception (2015, 2018) rather than the rule.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38787197/cmu-investigating-michigan-connor-stalions-potential-sideline-presence
CMU is investigating whether Conor Stalions was on their sideline during the MSU game. If so, they have some explaining to do as well.
Central Michigan is investigating photos that show a man resembling Michigan Wolverines staff member Connor Stalions on its sideline for the Sept. 1 opener at Michigan State.
Athletic director Amy Folan, in a statement to ESPN, said the school became aware of the photos late Monday. The man resembling Stalions is dressed in Central Michigan-issued gear and standing alongside several of the team’s coaches, while wearing a bench credential.
The credential reads “VB” and appears to be designated for the visiting bench area, which is different from a general sideline pass. It gives access to the designated area between the 20-yard lines, which is reserved for players, coaches, trainers and equipment staff. Schools are given a finite number of passes for each game.
“We are in the process of determining the facts surrounding them,” Folan’s statement reads. “As this process is ongoing, we have no further comment at this time.”
…
Photos obtained by ESPN show a man wearing sunglasses — during a night game — and holding a possible play sheet. The man, who was standing near offensive line coach Tavita Thompson and CMU director of recruiting Michael McGee for much of the game, was shown by FS1 cameras several times during the game broadcast and appeared to shield his face any time a play ended near where he was standing.
According to NCAA rules, the “team area” during games includes a maximum of 50 non-squad members “directly involved in the game.” Those not in full uniform wear special credentials assigned to the team area that are numbered 1 through 50.
“No other credential is valid for the team area,” according to NCAA Rule 1-2-4-b.
Michigan State is aware of Stalions’ potential presence at the opener, and sources at MSU told ESPN that the school is discussing potential next steps and is prepared to cooperate with any formal investigation that arises from this.
LikeLike
This is the oddest Stalions news yet.
I wonder if the Big Ten will act on its own, which I think is justified. I am struggling to imagine a scenario where Michigan does not vacate games. If the Big Ten thinks that’s inevitable, it would be far better to disqualify Michigan from the CCG now, rather then to risk sending a tainted champ into the playoff. (I am not taking it as given that Michigan will run the table, only that it is possible.)
LikeLike
Marc,
It is weird. How did CMU not notice a stranger on their sideline if they only get 50 of these passes? Or why did CMU allow it?
I think the B10 will be forced to do something, but there are limits to what they can do quickly. The CFP clearly couldn’t care less about it.
UM should probably voluntarily disqualify themselves, so they can look better and make this seem more like a rogue actor. Barring that, I’m not sure the B10 would go that far. They might just impose a giant fine (like no CFP money this year even if UM goes).
LikeLike
UM should get a five-year Death Penalty from the NCAA and the Big Ten should permanently expel them from the conference.
LikeLike
The DP is obviously not going to happen. That is simply not what the NCAA does.
The Big Ten’s media partners have the right to re-open their deal if the composition of the conference changes. Your proposal would mean less money for everyone, because I guarantee you TV is paying less for a conference that doesn’t include Michigan. Hell would freeze over before the league votes for that. I do think the Big Ten will impose a significant fine, which would be more than justified.
Brian suggested that U-M should self-disqualify for this year’s championship, which makes sense to me. When the outcome is inevitable, you might as well be perceived as having taken the action on your own. I am not sure there’s much in the way of brownie points to be earned, but whatever there is they might as well do it.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think it might appease the presidents and ADs to see UM self-impose something. The B10 doesn’t want to be the punishment source. Small acts of attrition matter for this.
I was a little surprised Manuel didn’t join the start of the ADs call just to apologize for what happened before leaving so they could discuss it.
LikeLike
I agree. If Michigan had the balls and dignity to come out and said “We’re guilty. We will fire the entire coaching staff, refuse post-season play for three years and vacate all wins for the past three years.” then they might reduce the heat. Right now all we have is Harbaugh saying “I didn’t know nothin’. Me innocent.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38789171/ohio-st-georgia-michigan-florida-st-atop-cfp-rankings
And the CFP committee again shows how pointless they are, ranking the top 23 teams in order of their number of losses. Only the last 2 teams break the trend, with #24 7-1 Tulane and #25 8-0 AF behind all the 2-loss P5 teams.
We need a committee to do that?
LikeLike
How would you rank them?
LikeLike
I haven’t studied the teams, but consider this:
#14 LSU lost to #4 FSU and @ #10 MS, but won @ #12 MO. MO’s best win is vs #23 KSU. So why is LSU behind MO?
LikeLike
https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2023/10/northwestern-announces-100-million-community-benefits-agreement-proposal-for-the-city-of-evanston/?fj=1
NW has successfully bribed Evanston into allowing them to build the new Ryan Field. Now they just need to make sure the Ryans still donate the money for it after the firing of Fitzgerald.
LikeLike
Evanston is frothmouth rabid woke. It was the first US city to pay reparations to blacks, and don’t be surprised to see some of Northwestern’s money go into that.
https://blackboardmag.com/the-reality-of-evanstons-reparations-program/
The Evanston school district is hysterical about getting the same proportions of black and Hispanic kids into AP classes as the white kids.
https://dailynorthwestern.com/2023/01/18/city/district-202-board-of-education-discusses-equity-of-ap-enrollment-access/
https://evanstonnow.com/district-65-ends-year-focused-on-equity/
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/carnegie-is-changing-how-it-classifies-r1-institutions-will-your-university-make-the-cut
The Carnegie school classification method is changing, reducing the importance of research.
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education is making changes to its most closely watched college labels.
The American Council on Education, which helps manage the classifications, is making several revisions, effective in 2025. The one that will capture the most attention is its drastic simplification of the criteria that determine what caliber of research university an institution is. Carnegie Classification analysts have long used a complex formula, involving 10 factors and calculations that compare universities, to decide which ones will get the coveted “doctoral universities — very high research activity,” or “R1,” label. Now, just two factors distinguish that designation from the R2 level (“high research activity”): how much money an institution spends on research, and how many doctorates it awards in a year.
In 2025, the cutoff for the R1 label will be spending $50 million on research, and awarding at least 70 doctorates, in any research field, in a year. For R2, it’s $5 million in research expenditures, and 20 doctorates. There will also be a new category, “research colleges and universities,” for colleges with at least $2.5 million in research expenditures annually.
…
For decades, those who have run the classifications insisted that their categories are merely neutral descriptors, not a ranked hierarchy that colleges are supposed to try to ascend. Nevertheless, many college leaders seek to lift their institutions to R1 status, or whichever category they see as a step above their own. Aspirations to reach R1 status appear frequently in colleges’ strategic plans and initiatives. Many in higher education believe that being classified as an R1 helps colleges land research funding and attract faculty members.
Now ACE says it wants to lower the temperature around the research categories; to disincentivize institutions from making decisions based on achieving R1 status; and to recognize a wider variety of institutional accomplishments, including improving students’ socioeconomic fortunes and research done outside of doctorate-granting universities.
For starters, Carnegie’s next round of classifications will no longer list research activity as part of the main label that all colleges get, called the “basic classification.” Instead, research designations will become separate lists for those colleges that qualify.
…
Because the research-classification formula doesn’t go into effect until 2025, Carnegie Classification staff members don’t yet have a list of who the new R1, R2, and “research colleges and universities” will be. But what would the list look like if it were assembled with today’s data? The Chronicle ran the numbers using the data sources Carnegie does — the National Science Foundation’s Higher Education Research and Development survey and the Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System.
The R1 list would be larger, although not vastly so. There are 146 R1 universities in the current classification. The Chronicle projects 168 members with today’s data.
Some colleges would break through with the new metrics. No historically Black colleges or universities are currently classified as R1s. If the list were redone today, Howard University, in Washington, D.C., would make it, for the first time since Carnegie’s 2000 revision. In addition, Northwest Indian College, in Bellingham, Wash., would be categorized as a research college or university. As a tribal college, it’s ineligible for research designations currently.
LikeLike
Interesting gift article from WaPo: If we had the 12-team playoff this year . . .
https://wapo.st/3SjBNXn
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38794541/big-12-unveils-16-team-conference-football-matchups-2027
B12’s matchups for 2024-2027 are out.
The Big 12 said this schedule, featuring nine conference games, prioritizes geography, historic matchups and rivalries as well as competitive balance. Each team will play every other at least once at home and away — some over three seasons, others in all four.
Matchups in 2024 that were played in 2023 will not repeat at the same site.
The Big 12 joins the Big Ten in continuing to play nine conference games. The SEC and ACC both have adopted an eight-game league schedule for 2024.
…
Utah’s 2024 game against Baylor, which was previously scheduled, will remain a nonconference matchup on Sept. 9.
Since ESPN gave no details:
https://big12sports.com/news/2023/11/1/big-12-announces-football-scheduling-matrix-for-2024-2027-seasons.aspx
LikeLike
So the ACC and the Big 12 have both gone with a version of the Big Ten’s idea to protect an uneven number of games. I am not suggesting that the Big Ten inspired them; they just happened to announce it first. I always thought that something resembling this would be inevitable as leagues got larger. Your move, SEC.
The Big 12 is protecting the fewest rivalries, with just four of them: AZ–ASU, BYU–UT, KU–KSU, and Baylor–TCU. KSU–ISU (contested annually since 1917) and KU–ISU (annually since 1932) will no longer be annual. The four Texas schools have a long history together, but only Baylor and TCU will play every year.
LikeLike
I also think they were too minimalist in terms of preserving rivalries. There were historical ties they should’ve honored more:
WAC/P12: UA, ASU, UU, BYU
SWC: TT, TCU, BU, UH
B8: ISU, KSU, KU, OkSU
BE: UC, WV
CU was in B8, and in P12 with 3 of the WAC schools, but it wants into TX.
Maybe the problem is that it almost forms pods and CU didn’t like that.
LikeLike
The B12 just has 8 schools that do not have anyone they want to play every year.
PSU is the same in the B10 and they have been a member much longer than most schools have been in the B12. If CO and UT (contrived P12 rivals) wanted that game protected I am sure it would have been. Same with UT-TT, Cin-WV, or any of the old B8. It seems ISU is more interested in IA than the 3 remaining B8 teams in the B12. Shows what realignment does to rivalries.
LikeLike
My guess is that many of them were 1-sided games. You’ll note I didn’t try to lump CU in with UU, but I did include the AZ schools who were in the WAC for decades with UU and BYU plus are geographical neighbors. It would also reduce travel.
I don’t think the other TX schools want to help elevate UH in-state, so they didn’t ask to lock them, and everyone else wants more TX games for recruiting so they helped keep those schools available.
UC and WV make too much sense not to lock, especially for reduced travel. And both recruit in FL a lot so UCF would’ve fit in with them decently.
I don’t think KSU wanted to play ISU, and I don’t think OkSU wanted to play any non-TX schools. But again, sometimes an authority figure needs to step in and force the better decision on people.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/38796141/legendary-basketball-coach-bob-knight-dies-83
RIP Bob Knight, the B10 has lost a legend. #6 in all-time wins, and he coached and was assisted by #1. His 1976 team is still the last undefeated team. 3 national titles – the B10 has only 2 since his last in 1987 (UM in 1989, MSU in 2000). Before him it was 1960 OSU, 1953 IU, 1941 WI, 1940 IU.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38798293/big-ten-coaches-urge-conference-take-action-michigan-sign-stealing-emotional-call
The B10 coaches want something done about UM’s cheating.
A vast majority of the Big Ten coaches expressed their frustrations with the ongoing signal-stealing investigation at Michigan in a video call with commissioner Tony Petitti on Wednesday, sources told ESPN.
The call, which took 90 minutes, included nearly an hour without Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh, who hung up after the regularly scheduled Big Ten business to allow the conference’s coaches to speak freely about the NCAA’s investigation into Michigan.
According to five sources familiar with the call, a chorus of voices encouraged Petitti to take action against Michigan in a call that was described as both intense and emotional.
“Collectively, the coaches want the Big Ten to act — right now,” said a source familiar with the call. “What are we waiting on? We know what happened.”
The Big Ten scheduled a call with athletic directors and Petitti for Thursday afternoon, sources told ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg.
…
The coaches in the Big Ten laid out to Petitti, who was hired in April, just how distinct of a schematic advantage Michigan has held the last three years by illegally obtaining the opposition’s signals ahead of time, as has been alleged.
Coaches used words like “tainted,” “fraudulent” and “unprecedented” on the call to describe Michigan’s signal-stealing scheme, as has been alleged. Much of the call, according to sources, was coaches explaining to Petitti both how it worked and how it impacted them and their programs. Both in-person opponent scouting and using electronic equipment to steal signals are not allowed by NCAA rules.
In the three years that Stalions left a paper trail of purchasing tickets to games of Michigan opponents, the Wolverines have gone 33-3 overall and 22-1 in Big Ten play. In the prior three years, they were 21-11 overall and 16-8 in league play.
“People don’t understand the seriousness of it,” said another source. “How it truly impacted the game plan. To truly know if it’s a run or a pass, people don’t understand how much of an advantage that was for Michigan.”
There was anger interspersed throughout the call, as one source described the sentiment as: “Every game they played is tainted.”
…
Sources described Petitti as listening carefully to the coaches, but not tipping his hand in what direction he may go. Sources expressed curiosity as to whether the Big Ten is truly interested in taking action or just listening to coaches so they can be heard.
…
“I don’t think the Big Ten understood how upset everyone was,” said another source. “The tenor of the call was asking the Big Ten to show leadership — the conference and the presidents. An unprecedented violation of the rules would require unprecedented action from the Big Ten.”
LikeLike
I said in reply to a different post that I think the Big Ten should preemptively declare Michigan ineligible for the Big Ten championship this year. The basic facts are not disputed. If Ohio State had to vacate a season because of tattoos, the penalty here is going to be at least that—and could be worse. Doing it now seems to be better than letting them play for a championship, and then (if they win) vacating it later.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38804628/ads-offer-support-tell-commissioner-big-ten-step-up
The ADs also asked the B10 to step up. The next step is the presidents forcing the B10 to step up.
Big Ten athletic directors met with commissioner Tony Petitti on a video call Thursday without Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel present, and sources told ESPN the call about Michigan’s alleged sign-stealing operation took on a distinctly different tenor than when they met a week ago.
Sources said the athletic directors left the call with the notion than Petitti is taking the Big Ten’s ability to punish Michigan over the allegations more seriously than before.
While no potential punishments were discussed, Petitti acknowledged speaking with the NCAA about its investigation, although he refused to divulge any details of that conversation, sources said. One of the issues Petitti brought up with the athletic directors was that he couldn’t make a decision on Michigan this season based on a whim, that he would need a set of facts to go off of.
The conversation with the NCAA hints at his willingness to find out what fact set the NCAA could be working toward. It’s not known whether the NCAA would be willing to share information, but it’s telling that the organization gave the Big Ten an initial heads-up on what was alleged, an action taken in part to protect the integrity of games.
As we have both mentioned, there is a pretty substantial set of facts already. More may be forthcoming, but it is not in doubt that these actions took place. Now it’s just about how extensive it was and who all knew or should have known.
“The athletic directors had a clear message — we believe the conference needs to step up,” a source familiar with the call said.
…
The most powerful message, according to sources familiar with the call, came from Michigan State athletic director Alan Haller. He mentioned the alterations Michigan State needed to undergo in order to prepare for its game with Michigan after receiving a call Wednesday of that game week about Michigan having Michigan State’s signals.
Haller worried about players potentially getting hurt because Michigan players, in theory, knew where they’d be going on plays.
He also referenced last year, when he said the Big Ten forced Michigan State to suspend numerous players after the tunnel incident in Ann Arbor before the league finished investigating the incident. He pointed out that it was hypocritical that this year, with Michigan under investigation, the league is now waiting for an investigation to unfold.
Haller is not typically one of the more vocal athletic directors on calls, so both his voice and the passion he spoke with resonated with the athletic directors and Big Ten officials on the call, sources said.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2023/11/02/ryan-walters-purdue-michigan-football-scandal/71430328007/
PU’s coach spoke out a bit.
During his weekly radio show Thursday, Purdue football coach Ryan Walters came forward publicly on the topic ahead of the Boilermakers’ Saturday night game at second-ranked Michigan.
“It’s unfortunate,” Walters said when radio host Tim Newton inquired about preparations for Michigan based on the allegations. “What’s crazy is they aren’t allegations. It happened.
“There’s video evidence. There’s ticket purchases and sales that you can track back. We know for a fact that they were at a number of our games.”
…
Walters said during his Monday press conference Purdue would “plan accordingly.”
During Thursday’s radio show, Walters provided more details.
“We’ve had to teach our guys a new language in terms of some signals and we’ll operate different offensively,” Walters said. “You might see us in a huddle for the first time this season. So it is what it is, but we’re excited to go play and I think it would make for a great story.”
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/11/02/big-ten-commissioner-tony-petitti-michigan-sign-stealing-scandal-allegations/71431132007/
Dan Wolken says Petitti has no good options.
So much about the Michigan sign-stealing scandal is still unclear, but one key piece has become obvious: Tony Petitti, the new Big Ten commissioner, has only a series of bad options to deal with the growing calls for punishment from inside the league.
Petitti could choose to do nothing, citing the need for the NCAA to finish its investigation, and deal with any fallout after the season.
He could invoke the league’s sportsmanship policy and do something drastic like make Michigan ineligible for the Big Ten title.
Or he could find some sort of middle ground like suspending coach Jim Harbaugh, which would suggest the seriousness of the allegations against Michigan but not prevent the team from pursuing its competitive goals.
But all of those options, and perhaps some others being discussed among Big Ten administrators right now, are problematic.
If Petitti stands down on this, he will look like a weak leader and suffer a massive credibility hit with the coaches and athletics directors who are rightfully aggrieved by an alleged sign-stealing operation that would absolutely impact competition if it was as elaborate and brazen as it seems thus far.
If Petitti concludes that Michigan’s conduct was egregious enough to forfeit games or be banned from the postseason, he risks being accused of overreach and punishing players who — at least to this point — likely have no culpability in the ethical breach that was committed.
And even if he were to put the punishment on Harbaugh, which might be the path of least resistance, there’s a huge risk in sparking an ugly legal fight that would leave everyone sullied to some degree.
…
And making this worse for Petitti is that it’s all unfolding in real time, with just a month left in the season. That’s not a lot of runway to figure out what’s fair for Michigan while also showing the rest of the Big Ten that he cares about justice for them.
…
This has to be an uncomfortable position for Petitti, a longtime sports and television executive who took over at Big Ten headquarters earlier this year. This is supposed to be his honeymoon phase. Instead, he’s been placed squarely in the middle of a situation that will make important constituents mad no matter what he does and will force him to act with incomplete information.
What many people forget, though, is that sports aren’t the American legal system. You aren’t innocent until proven guilty, and you don’t have to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless Stalions and/or Michigan have some alternate explanation for why he was paying his buddies to be at games with cell phones pointed toward sidelines, Michigan is responsible for violating an NCAA rule and should pay a price this season. That’s black and white.
What that price should be, though, is almost impossible to say because there’s no precedent and no punishment that will seem proportional.
…
At best, Michigan’s only real defense here is that Stalions was a lone wolf and the coaches, including Harbaugh, didn’t know how he was getting his extensive scouting reports on other teams. The school would then have to hope that any links proving involvement from coaches would come out much later.
But that’s a risk for the Big Ten, too, if Petitti doesn’t punish the Wolverines. Imagine Michigan celebrating a national championship, only to have an investigation reveal months later that Stalions’ plan was being endorsed at a higher level. The taint of that would stick to Michigan and the Big Ten for generations, especially when the conference would have had a clear opportunity to prevent it from happening.
On the other hand, if Petitti chooses the nuclear option and shuts Michigan down, it could end up in an embarrassing legal fight. If Michigan, say, went to court and got an injunction that allowed it to play for the Big Ten title, Petitti might as well hand in his resignation on the spot. How could he possibly lead the conference under those circumstances?
LikeLike
If Petitti concludes that Michigan’s conduct was egregious enough to forfeit games or be banned from the postseason, he risks being accused of overreach and punishing players who — at least to this point — likely have no culpability in the ethical breach that was committed.
But this is how NCAA enforcement has always worked. When a win is even slightly tainted, they take the victory away from everyone on the team. It’s not a system I have ever liked, but apparently the membership feels there is no better way.
He could find some sort of middle ground like suspending coach Jim Harbaugh, which would suggest the seriousness of the allegations against Michigan but not prevent the team from pursuing its competitive goals.
That doesn’t seem like a very good option to me. The coaches’ complaint is that the wins Michigan already accumulated are tainted. Suspending Harbaugh doesn’t address that. Too few of the facts are known for me to say if Harbaugh has done anything that warrants suspension under Big Ten rules, but even assuming he has I don’t think it’s a great option unless more is done.
…if Petitti chooses the nuclear option and shuts Michigan down, it could end up in an embarrassing legal fight. If Michigan, say, went to court and got an injunction that allowed it to play for the Big Ten title, Petitti might as well hand in his resignation on the spot.
The Big Ten is a private organization, and the league already has broad authority to discipline members, which it has used in the past. I doubt that a court will second-guess how the league decides who is eligible for its championship. Discovery in such a case would probably be very unfavorable for Michigan.
LikeLike
Marc,
But this is how NCAA enforcement has always worked. When a win is even slightly tainted, they take the victory away from everyone on the team. It’s not a system I have ever liked, but apparently the membership feels there is no better way.
There is no better way when the team cheated. You can’t just punish Stalions when the team benefitted from his efforts.
That doesn’t seem like a very good option to me. The coaches’ complaint is that the wins Michigan already accumulated are tainted. Suspending Harbaugh doesn’t address that. Too few of the facts are known for me to say if Harbaugh has done anything that warrants suspension under Big Ten rules, but even assuming he has I don’t think it’s a great option unless more is done.
Agreed. He can be punished by the NCAA for what he should have known, but that’s not the B10’s place at this point. Maybe after a full investigation – a culture of non-compliance should be punishable if the facts support it.
The Big Ten is a private organization, and the league already has broad authority to discipline members, which it has used in the past. I doubt that a court will second-guess how the league decides who is eligible for its championship. Discovery in such a case would probably be very unfavorable for Michigan.
For just the title game, I agree. But if he meant end their season today as the nuclear option, that might be too much and risk a TRO. I think what the B10 hopes for now is that OSU or PSU wins the east and makes this a non-issue.
LikeLike
It’s not a system I have ever liked, but apparently the membership feels there is no better way.
There is no better way when the team cheated. You can’t just punish Stalions when the team benefitted from his efforts.
I was referring generally to the NCAA practice of vacating games. For instance, I don’t think Ohio State should’ve vacated its 2010 season because four or five players received illegal tattoos. The team didn’t have any advantage because of it. In a case like this, vacating games is a sanction I could support, because the intent was to give Michigan an advantage in the games themselves.
For just the title game, I agree. But if he meant end their season today as the nuclear option, that might be too much and risk a TRO.
Oh, I cannot imagine that the Big Ten has considered canceling the rest of Michigan’s season, which includes two games likely to be among the highest-rated of the season (PSU, OSU). That would very likely prompt a revolt from its TV partners.
The only sanction I can imagine imposing now is declaring the team ineligible for the championship. This seems to me far better than allowing Michigan to (potentially) compete for tainted championship that is later vacated.
LikeLike
2024 Schedule is out. I find it very interesting that there is a max of 8 conference games (B1G v B1G) a week. Probably means the weekly minimums will be 3 OTA, 2 FS1, 1 Peacock, and 2 BTN.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38803993/big-ten-sked-usc-open-u-m-24-ou-uw-tops-rivalry-weekend
Travel accounted for – check. But 2024 and 2025 both have double byes, while 2026 and 2027 won’t. How will that change things?
Opening the season with a big game to celebrate the new additions – of course not. Have MSU play UMD instead, then UCLA vs IU the next week. Did they think they were making the MBB schedule?
The talk about wanting to have USC vs UCLA in Rivalry Week is interesting – are they pressuring ND to move their game up a week in the future? I think we know what the final game will be for them in 2025. But in 2026, will UCLA still be looking for an OOC game?
Weekly Friday games? There are only so many disposable games on the schedule that you can waste in that slot. Is that statement a hint for Fox to open the checkbook up if they want more Friday games?
The Big Ten also ensured that any team from the Eastern or Central time zone traveling to the West Coast, and any of the four West Coast additions — USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington — traveling east would have either a home game or an open week following the lengthy trips. Both the 2024 and 2025 seasons contain two open weeks per team, which made the scheduling process easier, Big Ten chief operating officer Kerry Kenny told ESPN.
…
Eight teams in the Eastern or Central time zones have open weeks after their only West Coast trips, and the other six have home games. The four West Coast teams will not play consecutive road games in 2024. UCLA, which opens its season Aug. 31 at Hawai’i, will travel to Penn State on Oct. 5 and to Rutgers on Oct. 19, but will host Minnesota on Oct. 12 and have an open week after the Rutgers game.
…
The USC-UCLA game will take place Nov. 23 so that USC can finish its regular season by hosting rival Notre Dame. Kenny said, “in a perfect world,” the Big Ten would love to have USC-UCLA on rivalry weekend, alongside Ohio State-Michigan, Purdue-Indiana, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Iowa-Nebraska and now Oregon-Washington. UCLA, which traditionally plays a Pac-12 opponent in years where USC finishes with Notre Dame, moved a nonleague game with Fresno State to Nov. 30, and will open Big Ten play in Week 3 when it hosts Indiana.
…
“We’re making assumptions based on teams on paper right now and brands, but that’s always a consideration,” Kenny said. “But that’s always a consideration, trying to spread the inventory throughout the season in a way that works for each individual program, but also for the conference as a whole.”
The Big Ten schedule includes only one confirmed Friday game in Iowa-Nebraska, which has traditionally taken place the day after Thanksgiving and will occur Nov. 29, 2024. But the Big Ten will fill additional Friday slots, despite some opposition from its coaches because of traditional high school games.
“Technically we can go to a game a week on Fridays,” Kenny said. “Whether or not that actually gets activated is all dependent on some of the conversations between us, and primarily Fox is our Friday partner. But the ability to have a game each week on a Friday would be there with this new schedule.”
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t know if it will be quite that simple. I’d expect BTN tripleheaders in some weeks, and more FS1 games in others. Fox still has MLB commitments early on plus B12 games to air, so they may not want 2 FS1 games every week. Peacock only gets 8 games per year.
Fox + FS1 is capped at 32 games, or 2 per week on average combined. That means 1 FS1 game per week on average, with 0 some weeks and doubleheaders others.
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/BigTen/2023
FOX Sports Rights Notes
* Up to 27 total games to air on FOX & FS1 in 2023. Starting in 2024, the maximum number will increase to 32 games.
* Most games on FOX broadcast network will air at 12pm Eastern time.
* FOX Sports will have the first choice of the weeks they want the top choice of games.
* Four Big Ten Championship games, all in odd numbered season (2023, 2025, 2027 and 2029)
CBS Sports Rights Notes
* 7 games to air on CBS in 2023. Starting in 2024, the number will increase with up to 15 games starting in 2024.
* At the moment, it is unknown when most games be scheduled in 2023. In 2024 and future seasons, games will usually air at 3:30pm Eastern.
* CBS will carry one Black Friday game per season during the afternoon.
* Two Big Ten Championship games: 2024 and 2028.
NBC Sports Rights Notes
* 15 games to air on NBC per season.
* In addition to the games on NBC, 8 additional games per season will air on Peacock. In 2023, NBC intended to air 16 games. Instead of that, they will air an additional game exclusively on Peacock meaning nine games will air on Peacock for 2023 per NBC Sports president Rick Cordella.
* Most NBC games will air in primetime on the east coast while games on Peacock could be scheduled for any game window or start time.
* NBC will carry one Black Friday game per season in primetime.
* NBC has rights to the 2026 Big Ten Championship.
Every Big Ten school must make two appearances on BTN. At least one of those appearances must be from a conference game. In 2023, BTN will carry up to 41 games and the maximum will increase to 50 in future seasons.
LikeLike
I don’t know if it will be quite that simple. I’d expect BTN tripleheaders in some weeks, and more FS1 games in others. Fox still has MLB commitments early on plus B12 games to air, so they may not want 2 FS1 games every week. Peacock only gets 8 games per year.
Fox + FS1 is capped at 32 games, or 2 per week on average combined. That means 1 FS1 game per week on average, with 0 some weeks and doubleheaders others.
I wasn’t clear on it, but I was thinking “normal conference weeks,” the nine weeks next year (8 with a single bye) weeks before thanksgiving week (a “not normal” tv week). The “you’ve bought these selections, now go work out your conflicts amongst yourselves” in the contract. I’m sure there will be some horse trading among the networks.
It appears that Matt Sarz’s info is from before Washington and Oregon joined the league. It would surprise me if they didn’t get something like extra FS1 games for their $60 million in “new” money. I don’t recall seeing what that is.
LikeLike
Mike,
I’m starting to wonder if we’ll ever really know what’s in the TV deal. The B10 doesn’t even have all the details ironed out yet I don’t think.
LikeLike
@Brian – I’m wondering how you deciphered what I was trying to say at the start. Goodness, I need to do better.
I do agree we’ll probably never know all the ins and outs of it. I have a lot of respect for Matt Sarz for even trying to keep up on it in his spare time.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38804334/departing-pac-12-schools-oppose-oregon-st-washington-st-motion
The P12 deserters are supposedly worried that WSU and OrSU will keep all of this year’s TV contract and use it schedule OOC games and pay exit penalties for new members.
In the ongoing legal battle for control of the Pac-12, the 10 departing universities expressed concern in a filing opposing a motion for preliminary injunction that if Oregon State and Washington State were to obtain complete control of the conference board, they could attempt to withhold revenue distribution from the 2023-24 school year from the departing members.
…
A joint statement from the departing 10 schools, in part, said: “Granting OSU and WSU unilateral authority over hundreds of millions of dollars in 2023-2024 revenue needed this year to run our athletics programs would harm our universities, including our ability to provide critical resources and opportunities for our student-athletes.”
The original lawsuit came, in part, due to OSU’s and WSU’s fear that if given the right to vote in a board setting, the departing schools could effectively decide to shutter the conference and split the remaining assets, limiting OSU and WSU’s options for how to move forward.
In the latest filing, the departing schools insinuated there were no plans to do that.
“The way to satisfy that duty [of loyalty to the Pac-12] is to recuse from decisions that, unlike those involving withholding 2023-2024 revenue distributions, impact only the post-August 1, 2024, future of the Conference,” the filing said. “UW has already assured the Conference that it would not seek to vote on certain matters affecting only the Plaintiffs, such as future media rights agreements and new Conference member considerations.”
So everyone should trust the 10 of you, but WSU and OrSU aren’t trustworthy? I’m pretty sure you all have a contract that says you have to get paid. I’m also pretty sure you gave up your rights when you said you were leaving.
But if this is so clear, how about both sides put it in writing and go about your business rather than suing each other and paying huge court costs?
If the court grants OSU’s and WSU’s request for preliminary injunction, UW requested the TRO be extended in order to seek a review in Washington Supreme Court and to prevent OSU, WSU and the Pac-12 from using 2023-24 revenue for purposes that do not benefit the 12 current members. Specifically, UW asked funds not be used to schedule games with nonconference opponents or be used to add new conference members.
…
In a joint news conference with the university presidents and athletic directors in September, the leaders said they expected to have a better sense of what remaining assets OSU and WSU would have a right to within roughly a month. Neither school has since made a public comment about what those figures have looked like, but the departing schools estimated it could be nearly $200 million.
…
A hearing for a preliminary injunction is set for Nov. 14, at which point the court would likely determine who has voting rights on the Pac-12 board.
Just get it over with already.
LikeLike
The P12 deserters are supposedly worried that WSU and OrSU will keep all of this year’s TV contract and use it schedule OOC games and pay exit penalties for new members.
The departing schools offer no evidence that they are entitled to board seats after announcing they’re leaving. The league’s clear precedent was that departing schools are no longer allowed to vote. That’s the argument WSU and OrSU are making, and the other schools don’t appear to contest it. Instead, they just invoke the supposedly horrible things that WSU and OrSU might do if they controlled the league by themselves. That complaint won’t fly. The court will assume that WSU and OrSU intend to abide by existing contracts — they have done nothing to suggest otherwise.
LikeLike
Here’s a novel idea: Anonymous NIL. It’s already happened at Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan.
Gift article WaPo: https://wapo.st/40kBAVP
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38810531/michigan-football-analyst-connor-stalions-resigns-amid-investigation
Stalions resigned. Too bad he didn’t love UM enough to not cheat and drag the program down.
Both Stalions and his attorney issued statements to The Athletic on Friday night, saying in part that his decision to resign was to keep from being a distraction to the team, which is unbeaten (8-0) and plays host to Purdue on Saturday.
“I love the University of Michigan and its football program,” Stalions told The Athletic. “And I am extremely grateful for the opportunity I’ve had to work with the incredible student athletes, coach (Jim) Harbaugh and the other coaches that have been a part of the Michigan football family during my tenure. I do not want to be a distraction from what I hope to be a championship run for the team, and I will continue to cheer them on.”
His attorney, Brad Beckworth, added, in part: “Connor also wants to make it clear that, to his knowledge, neither Coach Harbaugh, nor any other coach or staff member, told anyone to break any rules or were aware of improper conduct regarding the recent allegations of advanced scouting.”
According to a source, Stalions did not attend a meeting Friday with Michigan officials, possibly on advice of counsel. Sources are unsure whether he will cooperate with the NCAA investigation, which is examining whether Stalions and Michigan orchestrated in-person scouting of Michigan’s future opponents, violating a rule established in 1994.
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal about Conner Stalions . . .
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/conor-stalions-michigan-jim-harbaugh-sign-stealing-c3847d9b?st=tyl00ysw4gofctd&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Stalions resigned. Too bad he didn’t love UM enough to not cheat and drag the program down.
He is not the first person to have cheated out of “love” for his favorite school. It happens remarkably often. Years ago, Michigan basketball vacated portions (or the entirety) of three basketball seasons because of improper benefits provided by a “booster” named Ed Martin.
Both Stalions and his attorney issued statements to The Athletic on Friday night, saying in part that his decision to resign was to keep from being a distraction to the team.
Shutting the barn door after the Stalions, er, the horses, have run away.
According to a source, Stalions did not attend a meeting Friday with Michigan officials, possibly on advice of counsel.
As an employee of the football program, he’d be obligated to cooperate with any NCAA investigation. As a private citizen he is not.
One of the many open questions is how, exactly, this scheme was discovered. Several articles have referred to a private investigator who leaked details to the media. It so happens that Ryan Day’s brother is exactly that: a private investigator. Maybe a coincidence and maybe not. (This is not to deny that what Stalions did is against the rules, no matter how it was found.)
LikeLike
Marc,
I’m pretty sure it would’ve leaked if Day’s brother in law was the one bringing the evidence. An outside 3rd party paid for the investigation, and presumably used an outside firm to do the work. Rumors say this was done by the gambling industry because they can’t properly handicap games if a team is cheating.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-ncaa-says-ohio-states-ryan-day-has-no-known-ties-to-michigan-sign-stealing-probe-232306097.html
The NCAA has told the B10 that neither Ryan Day nor any of his family have any connection to the UM probe.
One problem for UM’s supposed legal action is that the NCAA holds the head coach responsible for the actions of his staff, and there is no doubt someone on his staff broke the rules flagrantly. Thus a B10 punishment of Harbaugh would be in line with that approach. In addition, the NCAA would probably consider that punishment when deciding on any future punishment of their own.
The NCAA notified the Big Ten on Monday that there are no known connections between Ohio State head coach Ryan Day or his family and the conference’s investigation into Michigan, senior officials at both the association and conference told Yahoo Sports.
…
Over the weekend, one particular story gained attention in a viral nature. The story targeted Day and his family members for their involvement in the NCAA’s investigation. Day and family members have received threats as a result of the story, those with knowledge of the issue told Yahoo Sports.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti contacted NCAA officials on Monday in an effort to seek answers over the claim, senior officials at both the Big Ten and NCAA told Yahoo Sports. The NCAA confirmed that Day nor his family members had any involvement.
…
The NCAA has turned over its latest findings in the investigation to the Big Ten as Petitti considers a multi-game suspension of head coach Jim Harbaugh, Yahoo Sports reported Monday. Over the weekend, the Big Ten gave Michigan a two- to three-day window to mount a response to the sign-stealing allegations before any potential penalty is levied.
Meanwhile, school officials are gearing up for legal action tied to a significant fact in the case: The NCAA’s findings do not connect the alleged in-person scouting and recording of opponents’ sidelines to Harbaugh, sources say. A resolution around the issue is expected by the end of this week and as soon as Wednesday.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
More on Michigan
Does legal battle loom?
Our Nicole Auerbach and Austin Meek reported yesterday evening that Michigan received a formal notification letter of potential disciplinary action from the Big Ten during the weekend, and league sources have said a suspension of coach Jim Harbaugh is among the possibilities.
Michigan will have time to respond before any punishment is imposed, but it’s clear the school’s leaders want the conference to defer to the NCAA investigation, and Michigan likely will take legal action if the Big Ten attempts to suspend its coach.
The Wolverines, ranked third in the first College Football Playoff rankings last week, are 4.5-point favorites on Saturday at No. 11 Penn State and still the favorites to win the national title, according to BetMGM.
Call me tainted, but I can’t bring myself to put Michigan in my top four knowing it may have had an unfair advantage during its successful run the past 2 1/2 years (and that’s on top of this year’s weak strength of schedule).
End of quotation.
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal. Michigan confirms it is taking the low road.
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/michigan-big-ten-jim-harbaugh-sign-stealing-c1db82b7?st=2u6tqz10svem67s&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
One problem for UM’s supposed legal action is that the NCAA holds the head coach responsible for the actions of his staff, and there is no doubt someone on his staff broke the rules flagrantly.
Besides that, the Big Ten is a private organization, and I doubt that any court would consider itself authorized to second-guess its decisions about sportsmanship and fair play.
(This is assuming they don’t find a judge with Michigan season tickets somewhere in Washtenaw County. Maybe someone here knows if a Big Ten school can forum-shop the way Washington State and Oregon State did.)
In addition, any lawsuit would be open to discovery that I do not believe will be favorable to U-M. They might be rattling the saber but I would be a little surprised if they actually sue.
LikeLike
Just last year, UM fired president Mark Schlissel from his position “effective immediately” following an anonymous complaint suggesting that he “may have been involved in an inappropriate relationship with a University employee.” The investigation hadn’t even begun yet they canned him immediately.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/16/us/university-of-michigan-president-mark-schlissel-fired/index.html#:~:text=The%20University%20of%20Michigan%20removed,%2C%E2%80%9D%20the%20university%20said%20Saturday.
Also this: “The university says the fired president’s interactions with a subordinate “were inconsistent with promoting the dignity and reputation of the university.”
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/01/18/university-michigan-fires-president#:~:text=Michigan%20Fires%20Mark%20Schlissel,glad%20to%20see%20him%20gone.
Now we have this spineless worm, UM prez Santo Ono, saying that the snail-paced NCAA investigation must be completed before any action is taken against UM football???
LikeLike
Just last year, UM fired president Mark Schlissel from his position “effective immediately” following an anonymous complaint suggesting that he “may have been involved in an inappropriate relationship with a University employee.” The investigation hadn’t even begun yet they canned him immediately.
That isn’t true. There was a published investigation that ran to, as I recall, hundreds of pages. I read the whole thing because the details were hilarious. He was as incompetent at conducting a covert love affair as Connor Stalions was at covert scouting. It was publicly released at the same time as they announced his firing.
LikeLike
Marc, that is not true. UM fired him as soon as they learned of his nefarious emails. Google it for yourself.
https://ground.news/article/university-of-michigan-president-removed-over-alleged-inappropriate-relationship-with-school-employee_f89782
LikeLike
Do you even read the pages you link to?
Exactly as I said.
LikeLike
Mark, the entire timeline for the Schlissel firing was 40 days. That includes initial accusations, complete ‘investigation’, email release, BOR voting, firing.
https://www.detroitnews.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.detroitnews.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fmichigan%2F2022%2F01%2F20%2Fmark-schlissel-university-of-michigan-president-fired-in-40-days%2F6563456001%2F
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo: “Big Ten should throw the book at Jim Harbaugh. He’ll never see it coming.”
https://wapo.st/465INdA
LikeLike
Here’s my hunch about the NCAA penalty for Michigan – When the dust settles, Jim Harbaugh will have been punished more severely for buying four hamburgers for recruits than for his a three-year cheating scandal.
https://clutchpoints.com/could-ncaa-hit-michigan-football-program-death-penalty-sign-stealing-scandal
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38818654/michigan-urges-big-ten-respect-due-process-ncaa-investigation
UM’s president wants the B10 to wait for the NCAA’s process to end (so probably some time in 2027) before punishing them. This is a bad look for Ono.
Clearly the concept of UM self-imposing a penalty is out the window.
Michigan president Santa Ono urged Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti to respect due process and the ongoing NCAA investigation into the football program as Petitti mulls potential discipline for the Wolverines for alleged off-campus scouting and signal stealing, according to a letter obtained by ESPN on Saturday.
Ono emailed Petitti on Thursday night, in advance of their meeting Friday in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where Petitti was attending the Big Ten field hockey tournament. Petitti and Ono discussed the allegations against Michigan, as well as the information Petitti has obtained from the NCAA, sources told ESPN.
In the email, Ono noted that no program would want to be in Michigan’s position and that he’s “deeply concerned” about the allegations, adding that the school is “committed to ethics, integrity, and fair play.” But Ono encouraged Petitti to let the NCAA’s investigative process play out before imposing discipline, which other Big Ten coaches and athletic directors have encouraged him to do.
Ono also shared the email with the other Big Ten presidents and chancellors.
UM is so “committed to ethics, integrity, and fair play” that they didn’t even fire the guy despite indisputable video, photographic and electronic evidence of his guilt.
“It’s precisely at these times — when all key facts are not known but others are all too comfortable offering strongly held opinions — that it is essential for everyone to ensure that investigations are conducted fairly and that conclusions are based on what actually happened,” Ono wrote to Petitti. “The reputation and livelihoods of coaches, students, and programs cannot be sacrificed in a rush to judgment, no matter how many and how loudly people protest otherwise. Due process matters.
“We, as would any other member of the Big10, deserve nothing less. Our students, our coaches, our program — all are entitled to a fair, deliberate, thoughtful process.”
Nobody has accused any students of anything, so their reputations are not impacted and neither are their livelihoods. That doesn’t mean they didn’t benefit from the cheating.
Programs don’t have livelihoods, and UM’s reputation is already compromised by this because there is zero doubt a UM employee cheated. The only remaining question is if others knew or should have known.
The only ones who benefit from this statement are the coaching staff, and that comes at the cost of the president making UM look worse.
“We are aware that other representatives of the Big10 are demanding that you take action now, before any meaningful investigation and full consideration of all the evidence,” Ono wrote. “That is not something our conference rules permit. And we both know it is not what any other member would want if allegations were raised against their people or programs.
“The Big10 has not informed us of any investigation of its own, as would be required under conference rules. And, to be clear, oral updates from NCAA enforcement staff do not and cannot constitute evidence, nor do we think the NCAA would ever intend for an oral update to be given that meaning or weight.”
The evidence is all over the internet. It doesn’t require much of an investigation. And the rules actually do seem to permit him to do exactly that as commissioner.
Ono wrote that the “best course of action” would be to let the NCAA complete its investigation and that the Big Ten could not act against Michigan without launching its own probe first, which would give the university a chance to provide its position. The Big Ten’s sportsmanship policy states that the league commissioner “has the discretion to pursue, or choose not to pursue, an investigation as to whether an offensive action has occurred.”
What did Ono think talking to the commissioner was, if not a chance to present UM’s side?
Sources told ESPN that if Petitti takes action, he likely would target Harbaugh rather than a team-related penalty. If discipline exceeds a two-game suspension, Petitti would need approval from the Big Ten’s Joint Group Executive Committee, which can approve, deny or reduce a proposed penalty.
This is stupid. The team benefits from cheating, and you suspend the coach again this season (maybe even fine him)? You might as well invite every team to cheat as much as possible, and just have a decent associate coach on staff ready to take over for a few games. Let the NCAA deal with Harbaugh. The B10 should deal with UM’s cheating, and do so promptly.
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal; “Michigan Rescinded Contract Offer to Jim Harbaugh After Sign-Stealing Allegations”
A deal was on the table to make the 59-year-old the Big Ten’s highest paid coach until allegations of wrongdoing in the football program scuttled talks
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/jim-harbaugh-michigan-contract-sign-stealing-21d5e1b6?st=yqjpin92qg35xvy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
[O]ral updates from NCAA enforcement staff do not and cannot constitute evidence, nor do we think the NCAA would ever intend for an oral update to be given that meaning or weight.
I am not sure what Ono even means by this. The NCAA does not normally provide an oral update to anybody. If it did in this case, it must’ve believed that the Big Ten might act on it before the full investigation is completed.
Nobody has accused any students of anything, so their reputations are not impacted…
I certainly think that if Michigan vacates games — as I expect it will — the players’ and coaches’ reputations will suffer. It might not be entirely fair, but if you are on a team where one person cheated, it calls every one of its accomplishments into question, even those that were achieved honestly.
What did Ono think talking to the commissioner was, if not a chance to present UM’s side?
I think he means that UM is entitled to know what evidence the the Big Ten is relying on, and to be given a chance to reply to it — as it would in any other enforcement case. At the time Ono wrote that, they hadn’t met yet and he didn’t know yet what Petitti was going to say, so I think it is a fair comment.
Sources told ESPN that if Petitti takes action, he likely would target Harbaugh rather than a team-related penalty.
I also think it’s stupid. If you believe that Harbaugh didn’t know and couldn’t have known what Stalions was doing, then a suspension is probably not justified. If you believe that he knew or should’ve known, then he should be fired. A fine or a two-game suspension that falls in the middle is meaningless. The school already suspended him for three games for an infraction that was (by multiple orders of magnitude) far less significant.
By the way, Purdue’s head coach refused to shake Harbaugh’s hand after Saturday’s 41–13 Michigan win.
LikeLike
Marc: “By the way, Purdue’s head coach refused to shake Harbaugh’s hand after Saturday’s 41–13 Michigan win.”
That might well have been the last chance that the Purdue coach gets to shake Harbaugh’s hand. I see no scenario in which Harbaugh keeps his job. He’s probably headed back to the NFL.
LikeLike
One potential issue for Harbuagh is the fact the NFL said it would start honoring NCAA penalties for coaches (and players) after Tattoogate to stop them from “escaping” punishment by going pro. If he gets hit with a show cause order he would like be blocked from coaching the NFL until it expires.
LikeLike
Marc,
[oral updates]
I am not sure what Ono even means by this. The NCAA does not normally provide an oral update to anybody. If it did in this case, it must’ve believed that the Big Ten might act on it before the full investigation is completed.
Petitti said he had been talking to the NCAA. I assume that’s what Ono meant.
I certainly think that if Michigan vacates games — as I expect it will — the players’ and coaches’ reputations will suffer. It might not be entirely fair, but if you are on a team where one person cheated, it calls every one of its accomplishments into question, even those that were achieved honestly.
Coaches yes, but not the players. The accomplishments of the players will be questioned, but nobody thinks they did anything wrong. Coaches call plays, players execute them. They don’t know or care why a specific play was called.
I think he means that UM is entitled to know what evidence the the Big Ten is relying on, and to be given a chance to reply to it — as it would in any other enforcement case. At the time Ono wrote that, they hadn’t met yet and he didn’t know yet what Petitti was going to say, so I think it is a fair comment.
1. The evidence is public.
2. He knew he was going to meet with Petitti.
The sentiments aren’t bad, but it comes across poorly – like he’s trying to claim UM is already being railroaded despite the B10 not actually doing anything yet.
By the way, Purdue’s head coach refused to shake Harbaugh’s hand after Saturday’s 41–13 Michigan win.
No coach should. Nor should their players shake hands. Just go to the locker room. Handshaking is about sportsmanship, and Ono has made it clear UM doesn’t value it.
Also this:
LikeLike
As you probably know, NCAA rules prohibit its member schools from replying publicly to ongoing investigations. This is arguably unfair, because the NCAA is allowed to leak what it wants, and the school can’t respond to it. But that is how it works, and this is one rule that Michigan is following.
The upshot is that most of what we know is from news reports, many of them relying on anonymous sources, where Michigan cannot give its side. I will admit, I am struggling to imagine what Michigan’s defense is, even assuming that some of the news reports are likely exaggerated. (The exact reason why most non-sports journalists don’t use anonymous sources to anywhere near this extent.) But whatever the school’s defense might be, they are not allowed to tell us, so we are in the dark as to what evidence Ono thinks he has in his favor.
LikeLike
Marc,
As you probably know, NCAA rules prohibit its member schools from replying publicly to ongoing investigations. This is arguably unfair, because the NCAA is allowed to leak what it wants, and the school can’t respond to it. But that is how it works, and this is one rule that Michigan is following.
Yes, but Ono responded to a potential B10 investigation on the same subject so the loopholes are nearly infinite. You just can’t refer to the NCAA investigation itself.
The upshot is that most of what we know is from news reports, many of them relying on anonymous sources, where Michigan cannot give its side. I will admit, I am struggling to imagine what Michigan’s defense is, even assuming that some of the news reports are likely exaggerated. (The exact reason why most non-sports journalists don’t use anonymous sources to anywhere near this extent.) But whatever the school’s defense might be, they are not allowed to tell us, so we are in the dark as to what evidence Ono thinks he has in his favor.
But he can tell us in response to the B10 investigating, apparently. But facts are facts – Stalions was a paid employee. He bought those tickets. People sat in those seats and filmed games. Stalions was on the sidelines with an 11×17 sheet showing signals and talking to the coaches during games.
There are questions. There was talk of files on a shared drive that all coaches could access. How was that found? Who all had access? Who used their access (I couldn’t begin count the number of folders that have been shared with me at work – I have never opened most of them)? Who knew/suspected what Stalions was doing? How could they not wonder how he suddenly had all this great intel on every opponent?
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/11/06/college-basketball-season-ncaa-tournament-future/71467833007/
Dan Wolken is worried about the NCAAT. Personally, I don’t think the P6 want to mess with the NCAAT. They may adjust the money split over time, but the event is too popular and profitable to completely eliminate the little guy.
But this year, there’s real angst about a new and even more important one: How much longer is the NCAA tournament going to be the NCAA tournament as we know it?
Or, put another way, how much longer can one of the most popular events in American sports remain unblemished by the legal and financial cross-currents that are roiling all of college sports?
…
If you’ve been paying close attention, the signs of trouble are everywhere.
Gonzaga, the most important and successful mid-major brand of the last 20 years, is desperate to get into the Big 12 because it is afraid of being on the wrong side of the divide if the power conferences eventually split off from the NCAA.
…
And if you dig even deeper, the NCAA’s recent decision to make a big change to the NIT, which it owns and operates, is telling about the mindset these days in Indianapolis. They’re scared, and they probably should be.
…
In a briefing with several media outlets (USA TODAY Sports was not among them), NCAA vice president of basketball Dan Gavitt basically admitted that the change was made because the new Fox tournament poses a threat.
“The very viability of (the NIT) could be in jeopardy,” Gavitt said, according to ESPN.
…
So think about all of this taking place in an environment where the power conference schools are frustrated at the slowness and ineffectiveness of the NCAA to enact major changes because the majority of its governance is in the hands of small-school administrators who want to be part of Division I basketball but whose budgets are often a fraction of those in the SEC and Big Ten.
Think about the power conferences girding themselves for the possibility that they will be forced by the courts to share revenue with athletes and make them employees.
…
Nobody knows what’s going to happen in a year, much less over the next five or 10. But there’s a very real possibility that all of these factors are going to pull the current structure of Division I apart in some way.
Though Gavitt shot down the idea that the NIT changes were a precursor to altering the NCAA tournament in some way, it would be foolish to believe that March Madness is immune from getting swept into all these other issues.
And if there is some big split between the haves and have-nots, administrators across the country are wondering where that leaves the NCAA tournament. Everyone recognizes the value of Cinderella and a school like Maryland-Baltimore County (athletic budget of $23.5 million) having access to the same tournament as Virginia (athletic budget $162 million) and becoming the first No. 16 seed to knock off a No. 1.
But if we get to a point where paying players a salary is the new dividing line, does a program like UMBC come along or do they play amongst more like-minded schools with similar resources?
That’s why the Fox postseason tournament is, in some circles, viewed as an existential threat. What you’ll essentially have is a major network and the three conferences under its umbrella building the infrastructure for an event where they choose who gets invited and they choose who gets the money.
If the NCAA goes away or splits up or evolves into something different than what it is now, college basketball’s postseason suddenly becomes the Hunger Games. And the competition between Fox and ESPN and maybe other networks like CBS and Turner to win that battle − likely in accordance with the conferences they partner with − is going to be absolutely fierce. And as usual, the little guys who give the sport so much flavor and character won’t come out as winners.
LikeLike
One thing to consider is that the MBB Tournament accounts for 90% of the NCAA’s annual operating revenue. If the Power Conferences start to mess around with it, they are going to have to either find another way to fund the NCAA or be prepared to start taking over its responsibilities.
LikeLike
I think some of the big schools believe the NCAA is a money pit, and that its necessary functions could be accomplished a lot more economically. I am not taking sides on that, because I don’t know enough, but that is their argument.
I do know the NCAA has a huge reserve fund for litigation, because they get sued a lot, and their track record in big lawsuits is not great.
LikeLike
I think the major complaint is that it’s too democratic, so the small schools have too much control over what the big schools can do.
The other is that it’s too bureaucratic because too many schools are involved at each level, with too many committees. But that’s how everything in academia operates.
LikeLike
Yes, another good reason not to mess with success. Besides, it’s good PR to play nice with hoops so they can be more demanding about football without turning off the public.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38833288/ncaa-joins-central-michigan-investigation-sideline-staffer
The NCAA is also looking into the Stalions at CMU event.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38834919/big-ten-informs-michigan-face-disciplinary-action
The B10 officially informed UM it may face discipline.
The Big Ten formally notified Michigan that it could be facing disciplinary action from the league, a Michigan official told ESPN.
The letter sent to Michigan is part of the Big Ten’s sportsmanship policy, which requires a notice of disciplinary action “in the event it becomes clear that an institution is likely to be subjected to disciplinary action.”
…
Michigan has until Wednesday to respond to the Big Ten, according to sources. Athletic director Warde Manuel on Monday said he will not travel to Texas for College Football Playoff selection committee meetings, and will remain on campus “attending to important matters regarding the ongoing investigation into our football program.”
…
Potential Big Ten discipline for Michigan likely would be a suspension for coach Jim Harbaugh rather than any team-related punishment, according to sources. The league’s sportsmanship policy allows Petitti to impose up to a two-game suspension and a $10,000 fine as standard discipline. Any discipline exceeding those marks would fall under major disciplinary action, and would require approval from the joint group executive committee, which includes officials from several Big Ten schools.
If the Big Ten imposes discipline, Michigan and Harbaugh are expected to explore all legal options to push back against the league, according to sources. Although the sportsmanship policy grants Petitti the authority to “determine whether offensive actions have occurred,” the Big Ten’s handbook also cites “NCAA initiated cases” and notes that in those cases, its compliance and reinstatement committee “may impose additional penalties, if warranted, subsequent to the NCAA action.”
“We’re going to explore every single option to make sure Michigan is treated fairly,” a source told ESPN.
LikeLike
Free link WaPo: https://wapo.st/45ZmTIN
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-arizona-has-a-major-problem-with-finances-its-president-says
The U of AZ is facing financial issues, and expects to make some major cuts to athletic funding and financial aid. Moving to the B12 won’t help the AD much.
In June the university reported to the Arizona Board of Regents that it expected to have 156 days of cash on hand, amounting to about $6 million per day. In October officials realized their financial model had “miscalculated” the projection.
In a meeting with the board last week, the university reported that the actual amount was 110 days for this fiscal year — a $240-million miscalculation, according to Robbins. And the revised model projects just 97 days’ worth of reserves for the next fiscal year.
…
Robbins cited two major problem areas: the athletics department and financial aid.
During the Covid pandemic, the university lent $55 million to the athletics department, using money from cash on hand. The loan has not been paid back fast enough, Robbins said.
Now the athletics department “is going to require some draconian cuts, and we’re just going to have to live with that,” Robbins said. It’s possible Arizona will eliminate some of its 23 sports programs.
In addition, Robbins said, the university has been losing money from its generous financial-aid policies. It costs around $20,000 a year to educate each student, but in-state students pay an average of $5,000, Robbins said. And students with high-school grade-point averages above 3.75 pay nothing.
“We lose money on everyone,” he said. “I have not really understood that as well as I should have.”
…
Robbins said during the faculty meeting that the university’s tuition-guarantee program, in which students pay their first-semester rate for all eight semesters, should stop “immediately.”
Hiring freezes are on the table, but only in colleges that are “in structural deficit,” Robbins said.
LikeLike
“We lose money on everyone,” he said. “I have not really understood that as well as I should have.”
Rather an understatement, I would say. If you are president of a university, how do you not know that?
LikeLike
He’s been there since 2017, too. How did his financial people not notice and tell him? How did the Board not say something? Do they not ever get audited?
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/draft/2023/11/08/2024-nfl-draft-underclassmen-can-participate-in-all-star-games/71511320007/
The NFL will start allowing all draft-eligible players into the post-season all-star games (Senior Bowl, etc.). Most of the top 3rd players will sit out anyway, but it could help a lower pick.
LikeLike
Gift link WaPo – ESPN will launch streaming service in 2025.
https://wapo.st/49xxmhR
LikeLike
As of late this morning, the over-under for the Iowa-Rutgers game is 28, which would be the lowest of any college football game since at least 2000. Indeed, it would be the first game with an O/U under 30 in ESPN’s database.
https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/38856054/rutgers-iowa-betting-sitting-historic-low-28
Two fun facts contained in the article:
1. In the last five years alone, over 1500 games have had O/U over 28 for just the the first half.
2. Six games since 2000 have had a total less than 34, and Iowa has been involved in five of them, including the Hawkeyes’ past two games
LikeLike
Hammer the under with these two defenses, and Iowa’s offense. The only chance to hit 28 is if the defenses and/or special teams score multiple times.
This game has 6-4 written all over it. Maybe 5-3. Even 3-2 wouldn’t shock me.
LikeLike
https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/disney-buys-hulu-stake-comcast-1235776557/
Disney to buy out Comcast’s 33% share in Hulu for at least $8.61B. That moves all the NBC content to Peacock, and adds Hulu to the Disney+ bundle.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
CBS dominated last weekend in the CFB ratings.
1. LSU @ AL – 8.82M (7:45)
2. MO @ UGA – 7.00M (3:30)
4. OSU @ RU – 3.96M (12:00)
Probably a lot of hate viewers, hoping for the upset after seeing the halftime score
For comparison:
9.PU @ UM – 2.60M (7:30) NBC
10. PSU @ UMD – 2.39M (3:30) Fox
ABC:
3. UW @ USC – 4.45M (7:30)
5. OU @ OkSU – 3.76M (3:30)
6. ND @ Clemson – 3.24M (12:00)
Fox:
7. KSU @ UT – 2.95M
ESPN:
8. OrSU @ CU – 2.77M (10:00) – CU still driving ratings
Also this tidbit – 2023 is on track to be by far the most viewed season ever. I credit CU and the new B10 TV deal a little, but also the relative parity and the rise of the P12 so interest is national.
LikeLike
Notice this was one of ND’s top three games of the season and they only drew 3.24M in what was a very competitive game? I have harped on this before, but ND and NBC have not yet come to terms on their new TV contract. We have seen throughout the year that they do not bring in the viewers like the top games in the Big Ten and SEC. Their schedule is mostly crap and they should be paid accordingly by NBC.
LikeLike
What did I tell you? What did I say? “Jim Harbaugh will be punished more severely for buying four hamburgers for recruits than for his a three-year cheating scandal.” And here it is, free link WaPO:
https://wapo.st/3ui07i7
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2023/11/10/general-big-ten-conference-announces-violation-of-sportsmanship-policy-by-university-of-michigan-football-program.aspx
The B10 says UM cheated and suspends their “Head Football Coach” for the rest of the regular season. Note Harbaugh is not named, the CCG is not mentioned, and there is no fine or ineligibility for the B10 title.
UM should’ve been stripped of their B10 titles the past 2 years and made ineligible for the CCG this year. UM will now seek a TRO, and could potentially change Harbaugh’s title – officially promote someone else to HC and then suspend them for the games.
The Big Ten Conference announced today that the University of Michigan has been found in violation of the Big Ten Sportsmanship Policy for conducting an impermissible, in-person scouting operation over multiple years, resulting in an unfair competitive advantage that compromised the integrity of competition.
Big Ten Conference Agreement 10.01 states in part that “The Big Ten Conference expects all contests involving a member institution to be conducted without compromise to any fundamental element of sportsmanship. Such fundamental elements include integrity of the competition, civility toward all, and respect, particularly toward opponents and officials.”
As a penalty imposed on the institution, the University football team must compete without its Head Football Coach for the games remaining in the 2023 regular-season, effective immediately. This disciplinary action shall not preclude the University or its football team from having its Head Football Coach attend practices or other football team activities other than the game activities to which it applies. For clarity, the Head Football Coach shall not be present at the game venue on the dates of the games to which this disciplinary action applies.
LikeLike
Totally shameful ‘punishment’. What a sniveling worm of a boy. Big Ten commish Pettitti should be bitch-slapped out of his office and spat upon as he goes out the door. Then dump feces on his car as he leaves the parking lot.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38864724/sources-big-ten-ban-michigan-jim-harbaugh-field
“This is not a sanction of Coach Harbaugh,” the conference said in its report. “It is a sanction against the University that, under the extraordinary circumstance presented by this offensive conduct, best fits the violation.”
Harbaugh’s suspension only bans him from the sideline on game day, as he’s allowed to coach the team the remainder of the week.
His status for Michigan’s game against Penn State could come down to a court ruling. In a statement, Michigan president Santa Ono said the school seeks to get a court order “preventing this disciplinary action from taking effect.”
I find it interesting UM will spend so much on lawyers, including paying for 1/14th of the other side’s legal fees as well. If the B10 wins, does UM have to pay the B10’s legal bills? Shouldn’t the B10 have fined UM the cost of their investigation and legal fees at least?
Even UM doesn’t deny that Stalions broke the rules. The B10 clearly has the right to penalize for violations of their sportsmanship policy. So why would a judge issue a TRO when UM’s chances to prevail in a lawsuit are basically zero?
And UM showed they don’t feel their HC is all that important by rotating 4 different people through the job in 3 games to start the season, all blowouts. So what irreparable damage do they suffer here?
Interesting note:
The suspension was more than 2 games, which means it counts as “major disciplinary action” and required approval by the joint group executive committee, which includes officials from several Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
This piss-ant of a man, Petitti, is a spineless coward. This shithead needs to have his head served up on a platter.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38865267/big-ten-explains-penalty-michigan-jim-harbaugh-13-page-letter
The B10 sent UM a 13-page letter. Petitti even played the player-safety card.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said he believed immediate action was necessary because of “the extraordinary nature of the offending conduct.”
In the letter, which is addressed to Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel, the sign-stealing scheme allegedly organized by former Michigan staffer Connor Stalions is termed as an “organized, extensive, years-long in-person advance scouting scheme that was impermissible.”
Later in the letter, Petitti writes that evidence gathered by the NCAA and corroborated by other Big Ten members leads him to believe that a significant portion of the violation has been “proven,” with details of scope, intent and individual knowledge yet to be determined for potential additional penalties.
…
“Competition that is only about winning while disregarding the rules of fair play diminishes all of us, including our institutions,” Petitti wrote. “The integrity of the competition must be preeminent.”
Michigan president Santa Ono said Friday evening in a statement that he was dismayed by Petitti’s “rush to judgment” and accused him of reacting to pressure from other conference schools. Ono said Michigan plans to pursue a court order to keep Harbaugh on the sidelines Saturday, and that he believes the timing of the Big Ten’s decision was intended to hurt the school’s chances in court.
…
Petitti said in his letter that it was notable that Michigan was not denying the existence of an impermissible scheme but “instead it offers only procedural and technical arguments designed to delay accountability.”
Petitti wrote that he first learned the NCAA was investigating Michigan during a phone call on Oct. 18 set up by NCAA president Charlie Baker. Baker’s personal concern, Petitti said, gave him additional cause for concern. He said during subsequent videoconferences with the NCAA he viewed images of a “master spreadsheet” that Stallions used to coordinate which games his network of helpers were attending in his video-gathering scheme.
Petitti said the conference also gathered more information from its other member schools that corroborated evidence the NCAA had shown him. Based on the evidence they have gathered, the NCAA has informed the Big Ten that the existence of an impermissible scheme was “uncontroverted,” according to Petitti’s letter.
Friday’s letter by the Big Ten says “the conference takes exception” to Michigan’s assertion in its letter this week that its concerns are based largely on “rumors.”
…
Petitti wrote that the Big Ten’s rules “could not be clearer” when it comes to his authority to act by using the league’s sportsmanship policy.
“When sportsmanship issues, including the integrity of competition, are implicated by the offensive conduct, the Commissioner is authorized to use the procedures and authority prescribed by the Sportsmanship Policy, even if that offensive conduct also may involve a violation of NCAA or Conference rules,” Petitti wrote.
…
Petitti wrote Friday that the Big Ten has not received any information about other schools using “impermissible advanced in-person scouting, let alone a scheme of the size and scale like the one at issue here.”
He said the conference would take appropriate action if the Big Ten is made aware of any other schools engaged in impermissible behavior.
Petitti concluded his written case in the letter to Manuel by saying that he found it credible that the advantage Michigan gained from its sign-stealing scheme increased the risk that players on other teams could suffer injuries.
“Although the University attempted to downplay and disregard these safety concerns in its response, I am not willing to do so,” he wrote.
LikeLike
Could Michigan possibly be more spineless and evasive? They deserve the Death Penalty and expulsion from the Big Ten. Ono needs a public bitch-slapping and a golden shower.
LikeLike
B10 CCG history (winner vs loser):
2011: WI vs MSU
2012: WI* vs NE
2013: MSU vs OSU
2014: OSU vs WI
2015: MSU vs IA
2016: PSU vs WI
2017: OSU vs WI
2018: OSU vs NW
2019: OSU vs WI
2020: OSU vs NW
2021: UM** vs IA
2022: UM** vs PU
2023: OSU/PSU/UM** vs IA/MN/NE/WI
* WI got in due to OSU and PSU being ineligible for off-the-field issues, but apparently actual cheating doesn’t make you ineligible
** Cheated – should be invalidated
What if the B10 split East/West in 2011?
2011: WI vs MSU – same
2012: UM vs NE – UM replaces 3rd place WI
2013: OSU vs WI – 8-0 MSU out and WI in
UM: +1
WI: +0
MSU: -1
Fox would’ve loved to have UM vs NE in 2012, but losing out on 8-0 MSU in 20-13 hurts a little.
What if the B10 kept Leaders/Legends?
2014: OSU vs MSU – MSU replaces WI
2015: OSU vs IA – OSU replaces MSU
2016: PSU vs UM – UM replaces WI
2017: NW vs WI – NW replaces OSU
2018: OSU vs UM – UM replaces NW
2019: OSU vs MN – MN replaces WI
2020: OSU vs NW – same
2021: UM** vs OSU – OSU replaces IA
2022: UM** vs OSU – OSU replaces PU
2023: OSU vs UM** – OSU in, UM replaces IA/MN/NE
UM: +2.5
OSU: +2.5
MN: +0.75
MSU: +0
NW: +0
NE: – 0.25
PU: -1
IA: -1.5
WI: -3
Fox would’ve loved to have 4 OSU/UM rematches, 2 more OSU visits, and 2 more UM visits. PSU vs UM would’ve been big for them as well.
LikeLike
Fecal filth Tony Petitti needs to be removed immediately. My God, what a spineless coward. Git shed of him. Git shed of him.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cfp-leaders-moving-closer-to-adjusting-12-team-playoff-format-230208506.html
CFP is coming closer to changing to 5+7 for 2024 season and beyond, and the Pac-2 champ could not get an autobid.
The CFP Management Committee, the 10 FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame, is recommending that college football’s expanded playoff field encompass five automatic qualifiers (5) and seven at-large berths (7). The 5+7 format would be a change from the originally approved 6+6 model.
At their meeting Thursday in Dallas, commissioners cast votes to send a recommendation to the CFP Board of Managers — their corresponding school presidents — to make the change. Several people with knowledge of the discussions spoke to Yahoo Sports under condition of anonymity.
More discussions are necessary, and a final, unanimous vote is needed from the Board of Managers to make the decision final.
Commissioners also established a new policy requiring a league to have eight members to be eligible for an automatic qualifying spot to the 12-team playoff.
…
No commissioner voted against the format change, sources tell Yahoo Sports, though discussion was robust and at times lively.
The decision now goes to the Board of Managers, the CFP’s highest governing body which consists of one school president from the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame. The format change needs unanimity to go into effect with the first expanded playoff next year. It’s an interesting and important note since the Pac-12 retains its voting privilege on the Board of Managers.
The Pac-12’s representative on the board, Washington State president Kirk Schulz, could prevent the change. However, those at OSU and WSU are aware that a 6+6 model in a nine-conference FBS could impact the “integrity” of a playoff, Cougars athletic director Pat Chun has told Yahoo Sports in the past. “Both schools respect the playoff and understand the need to keep the integrity of the playoff,” he said last month.
…
Applying a 5+7 format over the previous decade produces interesting results. The SEC and Big Ten dominate the field. Between them, they would have accounted for 73 of the 120 spots (61%) in a 5+7, 12-team playoff. The latest realignment has left a weakened Group of Five, which lost some of its highest-revenue producing schools to the Big 12 (Cincinnati, UCF and Houston). In four of the 10 years, the Group of Five auto bid would have gone to a team ranked No. 19 or worse in a 5+7 model.
However, that logic has its flaws. Those calculations were made assuming there was no Pac-12. Pac-12 teams were counted as part of their new leagues.
A graphic in the article gives the breakdown by conference (CFP bids over the past decade, using the 2024 alignment):
SEC – 38
B10 – 35
B12 – 17
ACC – 14
G5 – 12 (10 is fewest possible)
ND – 4
LikeLike
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DcEyaHmOUqxOmZ9QF8XephcIYsHOLhy_/view
Lest we forget, the P12 has a lawsuit ongoing. The link is OrSU/WSU’s response, filed yesterday (26 pages).
Some highlights of their 150 pages of exhibits:
Kliavkoff texting with John Canzano. People made fun of his columns, but you can’t expect him not to publish things he is hearing from the commissioner.
This letter from the UW president to 2 trustees, discussing blame for hiring Kliavkoff, for the media deal, and the internal mistrust after USC and UCLA said they were leaving (among other issues).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38867625/michigan-court-filings-seek-block-jim-harbaugh-suspension
UM went the legal route.
The B10 followed its rules as far as I can tell, so I don’t see how the TRO gets granted unless the judge is biased. Conveniently for UM it could delay any decision for up to 2 weeks, right when the season ends. I also don’t see how the B10 is breaching a contract here.
Attorneys representing the University of Michigan and football coach Jim Harbaugh filed a breach of contract complaint Friday night, asking a judge in Michigan to prevent the Big Ten from imposing a suspension on Harbaugh this weekend.
Along with the initial complaint, Michigan and Harbaugh filed an additional motion asking for an emergency temporary restraining order. They argued that keeping Harbaugh away from the No. 3-ranked Wolverines for Saturday’s top-10 game against Penn State would cause irreparable harm to the coach, the players and the university.
The two documents — each more than 20 pages long — were filed hours after Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti announced that the conference was suspending Harbaugh for the final three games of Michigan’s regular season due to the football program violating the league’s sportsmanship policy.
Michigan’s attorneys wrote that the Big Ten did not provide Harbaugh or the school the due process protections outlined in its own rules. They said the disruption to a season in which the team could contend for a national championship is “threatening the loss of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for dozens of student athletes and irreversible harm to the University’s and Harbaugh’s reputation.”
…
Judge Carol Kuhnke of Washtenaw County Trial Court will make a ruling on the restraining order, according to a source. To grant a temporary restraining order, Kuhnke must determine that Harbaugh and Michigan have a reasonable chance of proving that the Big Ten is breaking its own rules and that the two parties would suffer “irreparable harm” without an immediate response from the court.
If the judge does issue a restraining order before Saturday’s game, both sides would then get a chance to argue their case during an injunction hearing at some point in the next 14 days. Michigan wraps up its regular season 14 days from Saturday with a home game against rival and No. 1-ranked Ohio State.
LikeLike
Even better, UM’s regents discussed leaving the B10 if Harbaugh was suspended. Apparently they really want to make it everyone against UM. Do they expect the other 13 members to roll over and let them blatantly cheat in games? Have fun in the SEC – they like cheating, too.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38870601/source-michigan-jim-harbaugh-coach-vs-penn-state
There will be no decision on the TRO until Friday morning.
An in-person hearing for the temporary restraining order is scheduled for Friday at 9 a.m., according to a person familiar with the court filings.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the TRO gets granted unless the judge is biased.
I don’t see it either.
Even better, UM’s regents discussed leaving the B10 if Harbaugh was suspended.
From the report, it’s a bit unclear if they actually had a serious discussion, or if just one regent threw out a stink bomb. The Big Ten has a grant of rights, so obviously Michigan is not leaving the conference now, even if it otherwise made sense (which it doesn’t).
LikeLike
Does anyone else think it’s odd that Michigan is acting like they are victims rather than cheaters who were caught red-handed? This is from The Athletic:
Odd Harbaugh rants are back
Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh called his Wolverines “America’s team” yesterday in his first news conference since being suspended for the final three games of the regular season.
Harbaugh said that he was “five inches from the TV” to watch Sherrone Moore’s emotional postgame interview after Michigan beat Penn State on Saturday.
Of course, there were other quotes (tangents), which we will emoji rank from off the wall 👀 to please look away 👀 👀 👀.
Harbaugh said he will attend Friday’s hearing, which could allow him back on the sidelines, but he isn’t sure if he will testify: “That’s not my dance floor. … I’ve watched a lot of shows. I’ve watched ‘Judge Judy’ a lot.” Cue Harbaugh’s “Judge Judy” cameo. Rank: 👀 👀
Harbaugh’s voice sounded raspy, but he maintained he wasn’t sick: “I’m the iron wall that viruses bash against and shatter. … Something’s going on there, but I’ll get it worked out, work it out of my system. Do some more pushups, eat an apple.” Rank: 👀
On handling his emotions, Harbaugh said he uses work and his flock of chickens as an outlet: “These chickens are low maintenance and high production. They lay an egg every 26, 27 hours. They need water, they need food. I play with them, too. I let them out in the yard to run around. They’re happy to see me.” Rank: 👀 👀 👀
LikeLike
Does anyone else think it’s odd that Michigan is acting like they are victims rather than cheaters who were caught red-handed?
Two things can be true at the same time. Michigan doesn’t deny that Connor Stalions cheated. They are challenging the suspension given that the Big Ten does not claim any direct connection between Stalions and Harbaugh.
I think it’s odd to suggest that Stalions carried out this brazen scheme and nobody on the coaching staff ever suspected it. But the Big Ten does not say it’s suspending Harbaugh because it thinks he knew. The actual justification is kind of flimsy.
And it is a very bizarre suspension anyway, given that Harbaugh is still allowed to do everything a coach does all week except to be on the sideline on game day. A suspension that bars him from all contact with the team would’ve had a lot more teeth. Oh, and if they beat Ohio State he gets to return to the sideline for the CCG.
I am still wondering how they arrived at this particular sanction. If you think Harbaugh is culpable, then why is he allowed to coach the team all week and to return for the post-season? Did the league consider banning Michigan from the CCG?
LikeLike
Marc,
Two things can be true at the same time. Michigan doesn’t deny that Connor Stalions cheated. They are challenging the suspension given that the Big Ten does not claim any direct connection between Stalions and Harbaugh.
I think it’s odd to suggest that Stalions carried out this brazen scheme and nobody on the coaching staff ever suspected it. But the Big Ten does not say it’s suspending Harbaugh because it thinks he knew. The actual justification is kind of flimsy.
NCAA rules specifically say that the head coach is held responsible for the actions of his staff, whether he knew about them or not. And as you say, his denial isn’t really plausible. Someone was reimbursing Stalions. Stalions was talking to coaches during the game, telling them what was coming. Someone doesn’t magically get better at translating signs during a game.
And it is a very bizarre suspension anyway, given that Harbaugh is still allowed to do everything a coach does all week except to be on the sideline on game day. A suspension that bars him from all contact with the team would’ve had a lot more teeth. Oh, and if they beat Ohio State he gets to return to the sideline for the CCG.
I am still wondering how they arrived at this particular sanction. If you think Harbaugh is culpable, then why is he allowed to coach the team all week and to return for the post-season? Did the league consider banning Michigan from the CCG?
It’s weird, but his first suspension was the same way. I think it’s because it’s almost impossible to enforce no contact during the week in an era of Zoom and other electronic communication, especially with a program that clearly doesn’t respect the rules. Also, it reduces the chances for lawsuits since he still gets paid.
I agree the CCG should’ve been included, or even better UM should’ve been ineligible for it since Stalions was still there for the early B10 wins.
At least it is on the record that UM cheated.
LikeLike
Actually, the most bizarre thing about the suspension is that it doesn’t include Michigan’s DC. To say that Harbaugh didn’t know is thinly plausible, but there is no way on God’s Green Earth that Michigan’s DC didn’t know what was going on.
LikeLike
The AP is reporting that Connor Stallions filed no expense reports with the University during the time that he was at Michigan.
Petitti had no power to suspend Harbaugh. He could only sanction the University. So, he did so by suspending the University’s head coach – which basically means that he is suspending Harbaugh. Which is what the NCAA wants, but couldn’t get to for at least a year (and after a bunch of litigation or threatened litigation that it would fold under – see UNC and Tennessee). And it’s really funny that he did so under the guise of sportmanship, when ESPN was already reporting it before Michigan had received it.
This would NEVER have happened in the SEC.
LikeLike
The AP is reporting that Connor Stallions filed no expense reports with the University during the time that he was at Michigan.
If true, this only means that Stalions was not funded through official university channels. This doesn’t mean they are off the hook. Many programs have received severe NCAA sanctions when the money came from boosters. But it wouldn’t matter if Stalions paid for it himself on a $55k salary. The scheme was against the rules, regardless of how it was paid for.
Petitti had no power to suspend Harbaugh.
Seems like wishful thinking. Of course he had the power. The beautiful thing about a sportsmanship policy is its infinite flexibility to do just about anything, provided the council of presidents (or whatever its formal name is) agrees.
This would NEVER have happened in the SEC.
This is truly hilarious. Big Ten fans are always turning their noses against the (supposedly) ever-cheating SEC. So now, suddenly the SEC is the example they want to emulate???
LikeLike
Marc, the Washington Post tends to agree with you. This gift article is quite harsh on Petitti . . .
https://wapo.st/3stuBNT
LikeLike
Unproductive,
The AP is reporting that Connor Stallions filed no expense reports with the University during the time that he was at Michigan.
I saw that. There is also a spreadsheet showing a $15,000 budget for scouting this season alone. For someone who was paid about $55,000 per year that seems like a lot to spend out of pocket. Maybe a donor or the boosters club reimbursed him. Maybe a coach did on the side rather than through channels. Maybe he was fanatic enough to self-fund it.
Petitti had no power to suspend Harbaugh. He could only sanction the University. So, he did so by suspending the University’s head coach – which basically means that he is suspending Harbaugh.
Obviously untrue. Read the B10’s sportsmanship policy. But he did need approval to suspend him for more than 2 games.
Click to access 2022_23_Big_Ten_Handbook_Sportsmanship.pdf
10.2 Authority of the Commissioner
10.2.2 Authority to Take Disciplinary Action.
In the event the Commissioner determines that an offensive action has occurred, the Commissioner shall have the authority to impose any disciplinary action in response to the offensive action, subject to the provisions of Agreement 10.3.3.1 below.
10.3.1 Commissioner’s Discretion, Timeliness, and Due Process.
The Commissioner has the discretion to pursue, or choose not to pursue, an investigation as to whether an offensive action has occurred. In the event the Commissioner decides to pursue such an investigation, the Commissioner shall commence the investigation as expeditiously as possible upon notification that such an offensive action may have occurred. Upon commencement of such an investigation, the Commissioner shall determine, as expeditiously as possible, whether an offensive action did occur. Any involved institution or individual at risk of disciplinary action shall be provided an opportunity, which may be waived, to offer its or his or her position as to whether an offensive action occurred. The timeframe within which an institution or individual shall provide its or his or her position shall be set by the Commissioner, and shall be reasonable in light of the circumstances. Upon determination that an offensive action did occur, the Commissioner shall, as expeditiously as possible, determine whether disciplinary action should be imposed, and if so, what it should be.
10.3.3 Categories of Disciplinary Actions.
10.3.3.1 Standard Disciplinary Action.
Standard disciplinary actions shall include admonishment, reprimand, fines that do not exceed $10,000, and suspensions from no more than two contests. Any combination of the preceding actions shall be considered to be a singular standard disciplinary action. Decisions by the Commissioner to impose a standard disciplinary action shall be final and
are not subject to appeal.
10.3.3.2 Major Disciplinary Action.
Disciplinary actions exceeding those listed in Agreement 10.3.3.1 above must receive prior approval by the Joint Group Executive Committee (JGEC). In any case for which prior approval is sought, the JGEC shall be provided, in writing, the involved institution’s or individual’s position as described in Agreement 10.3.1 above. The JGEC may only approve, deny, or lessen the proposed penalty; it shall not increase the proposed penalty. Further, the JGEC may not lessen the penalty to a level lower than that for which its approval is required. Review and action by JGEC shall occur as expeditiously as possible, and its decisions shall be final and are not subject to appeal.
Back to your writing:
Which is what the NCAA wants, but couldn’t get to for at least a year (and after a bunch of litigation or threatened litigation that it would fold under – see UNC and Tennessee).
The NCAA doesn’t want to punish anybody. They just want people to follow the rules, or at least cheat quietly and don’t get caught.
And it’s really funny that he did so under the guise of sportmanship, when ESPN was already reporting it before Michigan had received it.
??? Reporting what before who had what? The punishment? How can we know who knew at UM knew what when? Take their word for it? And what does any of that have to do with sportsmanship. Punishment isn’t a game.
This would NEVER have happened in the SEC.
Because they are more competent at cheating. Nobody down there would be as obvious as Stalions. They used to rat each other out to the NCAA all the time until Mike Slive turned into the godfather and made that stop. I agree the SEC probably wouldn’t punish anyone for cheating, but I don’t see them as a standard I want to follow in anything to do with sportsmanship or following the rules.
LikeLike
Which is what the NCAA wants, but couldn’t get to for at least a year (and after a bunch of litigation or threatened litigation that it would fold under – see UNC and Tennessee).
The NCAA process often takes years—by design. It is not a system designed to work fast. But make no mistake about it: the NCAA has often thrown the book at major programs. Everyone says they’re toothless, but many of the major programs have been through major sanctions.
Alabama vacated a bunch of games in 2005–06. Ohio State in 2010. Notre Dame in 2013. USC in 2004–05. Tennessee in 2019–2020. And that’s just football; there are a bunch of big-time basketball examples and in other sports too.
You could argue whether the NCAA does enough, but if you think they never do anything, then think again.
LikeLike
Two gift articles Wall St Journal, both quite interesting:
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/michigan-jim-harbaugh-suspension-sign-stealing-law-a775f60b?st=rc375gqclnw39u0&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/big-ten-tony-petitti-michigan-harbaugh-eb3100c4?st=xu3mlne2oamopx4&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo: https://wapo.st/47gNvGQ
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo: https://wapo.st/47gNvGQ
The article says that Michigan and the Big Ten reached a “settlement,” and Harbaugh will serve the full three-game suspension.
But what is described as a “settlement” sounds more like capitulation to me, since the Big Ten is getting more-or-less exactly what it wanted. You could split hairs, but basically the league won. This is not a settlement that Michigan would be likely to accept if they expected to get a TRO.
LikeLike
Marc, Michigan is getting a trivial slap-on-the-wrist for YEARS of cheating. Maybe Petitti saved some face with this ‘settlement’ but if that is the only penalty that UM gets, they’re really away with murder.
LikeLike
Marc, Michigan is getting a trivial slap-on-the-wrist for YEARS of cheating. Maybe Petitti saved some face with this ‘settlement’ but if that is the only penalty that UM gets, they’re really away with murder.
But I don’t expect this to be the only penalty. Nobody does. I expect the NCAA will throw the book at Michigan. People like you who want the death penalty will be disappointed, because the NCAA doesn’t do that. But as realistically-available NCAA sanctions go, I think this will be pretty severe.
LikeLike
Hmmmmmm. Don’t recall your calls for Urban Meyer to be fired during his rogue reign at your alma mater. Nor do I hear anything about throwing out MSU for far more grotesque misbehavior, not to mention the worst of all. . . . .Penn State. And then there’s Nebraska, the school that built its reputation by allowing every illiterate player who could stay out of jail onto their team. . . .What a bunch of whiners!!!
LikeLike
Almost every fan defends their school while complaining that all the other schools have gotten off too lightly.
NCAA punishment is for violations of specific rules, not for every random bad thing that might happen. A Michigan football staff member cheated, and Michigan itself does not dispute this.
Jerry Sandusky was of course far worse, but the NCAA doesn’t have a specific rule about employing pedophiles as assistant coaches. And we don’t really need the NCAA to police things the legal system already knows how to punish—although they tried anyway. The Sandusky scandal cost PSU over a quarter billion (with a B) dollars, and there were also four criminal convictions. Nobody can say they got off easily.
LikeLike
Marc,
Unusually, Redwood’s comment made no sense to me.
Talking about Meyer makes it seem directed to me, but I haven’t called for Harbaugh to be fired. Besides, Meyer wasn’t accused of breaking any B10 or NCAA rules, just OSU’s HR policy.
Likewise, MSU and PSU (and UM and OSU) were legal issues with 1 person committing horrible crimes (and in the distant past in OSU and UM’s cases). Those shouldn’t be lumped in with sports violations.
NE simply made full use of the rules at the time. I don’t recall them being accused of breaking any rules, they just used prop 48 a lot. They had some bad people come through (Phillips, etc.), but they didn’t break rules.
I don’t recall the last time a college program was accused of athletic cheating that would directly impact the game like this. Paying players, sure. Point shaving off and on in hoops, yes. But blatant cheating to win games?
LikeLike
Jerry Sandusky isn’t an appropriate analogy. Horrific crimes but no competitive advantage. What Michigan did wasn’t a crime at all but there was a huge competitive advantage.
LikeLike
TAMU will pay $76 million for Jimbo Fisher to not coach them for the next 8 years.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38880082/jimbo-fisher-expected-fired-texas-sources-confirm
It’s believed to be almost triple the next largets buyout in NCAA history, and there are no offsets or mitigations.
LikeLike
Speaking as a retired TAMU faculty member and football fan, that contract was wacko over-the-top. Now that we are in an era of NIL and the portal, those booster bucks should be dedicated to recruiting (NIL) rather than coach salaries.
In addition, I doubt A&M gets a new coach who will be more successful than Jimbo.
LikeLike
In any future litigation or legislative where schools claim that they can not afford to provide athletes within further compensation, the fact that one school is paying $76 million to someone to do anything he watns to except coach said school will be the first thing mentioned in any counter argument.
LikeLike
frug,
It must be nice to have all that oil money to spend on CFB. Mitigation/offset clauses are typical, so I’m surprised they signed such a big deal without one.
Fisher will go sign another multi-million dollars per year deal and keep getting his TAMU salary. Just to tick them off, he’ll probably accept a lower salary in favor of more resources at his next job. Which SEC school hires him?
According to the terms of the contract, Texas A&M will owe Fisher $19.2 million within 60 days and then pay him $7.2 annually through 2031. There is no offset or mitigation on those payments, and the annual payments start 120 days after termination.
…
“The assessment that I delivered was that we are not reaching our full potential,” Bjork said in a news conference. “We are not in the championship conversation and something was not quite right about our direction and the plan.
“We should be relevant on the national scene.”
…
The upcoming decision over whom to hire at Texas A&M marks a collision of a school with among the highest resources in college football that has consistently failed to maximize them at the sport’s highest level.
Oregon’s Dan Lanning and Washington’s Kalen DeBoer might be targets in the Aggies’ search.
“They’re going to go big,” a source told ESPN.
LikeLike
I understand why they’re doing this. They paid for a national championship contender and didn’t get one. But A&M has always been a second-tier program — a “baron” in Mandel’s terminology. They could re-hire Bear Bryant and they are probably not going to be a year-in, year-out powerhouse.
I doubt A&M gets a new coach who will be more successful than Jimbo.
The problem with Jimbo was that he didn’t win the games he “should win”. A&M will never be Alabama or Ohio State, but they shouldn’t lose to Appalachian State either.
In any future litigation or legislative where schools claim that they can not afford to provide athletes within further compensation, the fact that one school is paying $76 million to someone to do anything he wants to except coach said school will be the first thing mentioned in any counter argument.
The top programs could pay their players. The problem is what it does for the mid- and low-end programs whose athletic departments barely break even, and don’t have Texas oil money to fall back on.
LikeLike
The $76 million dollar from oil billionaires to one coach is irrelevant to the rest of the football world and certainly does not mean that other schools can obviously afford to pay players.
Where could anyone have more resources than at TAMU? De facto, they have unlimited money to buy players. They have accused of buying their recruiting classes. According to someone (247?), TAMU has the fourth most talented team in the country by rankings. Only behind tOSU, Bama and GA.
On paper, TAMU has all the talent it needs.
Jimbo had one transcendent QB, Jameis Winston, at FSU so TAMU gave him a gazillion dollar contract.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t you love to be Jimbo? Here’s $76 million. Go away. Do nothing.
LikeLike
Jimbo had one transcendent QB, Jameis Winston, at FSU so TAMU gave him a gazillion dollar contract.
Not only that, they extended him after he went 9–1 in the Covid year — the only season in his last nine that he had fewer than 3 losses. Thanks to that one exceptional year, he’s getting an extra four seasons’ worth of pay for doing nothing.
LikeLike
Washington DB ruins 80-yd pick-six by dropping football before crossing goal line. Two other UW players run past ball on one-yard line before opposing player jumps on it.
LikeLike
Sad to say, that’s not very unusual. It happens at least once a year in CFB, where someone ruins a sure TD by dropping the ball just shy of the goal line.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/cfp-expansion-wsus-schulz-could-block-format-changes-but-willing-to-negotiate-on-behalf-of-pac-2/
WSU’s Schultz is willing to accept the move to a 5+7 CFP, for a price.
Washington State president Kirk Schulz on Saturday signaled a willingness to work with his peers on the College Football Playoff’s governing board to identify a “financial arrangement” suitable for the remaining Pac-12 schools in exchange “for a yes vote” on proposed changes to the event.
…
* Shift the access to five automatic bids and seven at-large bids from the format that had been previously approved (six automatic bids and six at-large bids).
* Require a conference to have at least eight members in order to qualify for an automatic berth.
…
He planned to chat with Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff over the weekend to settle on a strategy that suits WSU and Oregon State, the two remaining members of the Pac-12 as of next summer.
The schools might operate as a two-team conference in 2024-25, a period that coincides with the final two years of the CFP’s media contract with ESPN.
“We’ll make a judgement about what we want to do, or if there’s a request to make of our partners in return for a yes vote,” Schulz said.
…
The conference is retaining its board seat despite the collapse, and the Beavers and Cougars want to keep their revenue shares.
“Financial resources are important,” Schulz said. “We need to define what it means to be a Power Five conference. There is no NCAA guideline.
“And we need to figure out what’s reasonable for the next couple years in terms of a financial arrangement.”
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-2-heads-to-court-amid
Canzano interviewed a lawyer as pre-coverage of the Pac-2 hearing today.
Matthew Wand is an attorney who specializes in cases involving business transactions and litigation. I spoke to him on Monday in a wide-ranging interview. I won’t get too far in the legal weeds, but Wand was terrific in laying out what could happen in court and what he’ll be listening for during the hearing.
What’s at stake on Tuesday?
“This isn’t the only kick of the can. The question before the judge (Tuesday) will be to decide for the next 14 days or two months who is on the (Pac-12’s) board of directors. The judge is going to make that call.”
…
If Oregon State and Washington State do get control, what keeps them from taking all the revenue?
“If there are questions about how Oregon state and Washington State are exercising their power there are plenty of future of opportunities for the departing members to be heard on those issues. They can come back to court and say ‘We don’t like this decision’ and the judge can rule on it. But the key problem right now is that the Pac-12 is paralyzed because they don’t know who is in charge. What the judge needs to prevent is a very important, multiple-state organization being totally paralyzed with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line.”
On what OSU and WSU must think about:
“Oregon State and Washington State have to think about potential liabilities from the lawsuit in the Bay Area and the Comcast overpayments. All of those things have to be talked about and considered. The board of directors is not only entitled but obligated to hold back whatever money is necessary in order to cover those debts and obligations. The notion that the departing schools can take their normal percentage like they always would and move along their happy merry way, that doesn’t make any sense at all because nobody knows how much revenue the Pac-12 will have in the future to cover those unknown liabilities.”
…
Any predictions?
“I think the judge rules that the two are in charge. I think he probably opens the door for some sort of expedited ‘Hey, if you departing schools think you’re being treated unfairly come see me and I’ll give you a hearing within 24 hours’ type of thing. I think that’s the most likely outcome. The arguments about the calendar and Dec. 4 (transfer portal opening) being a real thing and ‘We need to make decisions now because if we don’t college athletes will be negatively impacted’ those are so compelling in terms of irreparable injury I just don’t see this dragging out. I don’t see him allowing those 12 schools get in a mud-wrestling match all the while seeing student-athletes getting hurt. I think he’s going to make that call. I think he’s going to remind them of their fiduciary duty… the worst outcome would be this limbo they’re all living in the last eight weeks. That’s the worst outcome. I don’t think this judge is going to let that happen.”
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-state-and-washington-cb2
The Pac-2 won control of the conference (pending appeal), and Canzano was there. He live-tweeted during the hearing, too.
Judge Gary Libey — Trudy’s husband — ruled in favor of Oregon State and Washington State on Tuesday. He granted the Beavers and Cougars voting control of the Pac-12 board and added “I grew up where conduct spoke louder than words.”
The judge’s words hit like a hammer, didn’t they?
Attorneys for the University of Washington and Pac-12 immediately announced their intent to appeal. But Tuesday’s ruling was a nice victory for a couple of schools that desperately needed one.
Before leaving for the night, Libey said that it wasn’t a total “shutout” for the 10 departing members. They’ll still get to see Pac-12 board agenda items and offer input and arguments. But what they don’t get are votes. OSU and WSU now hold the only two that count.
A few things struck me on Tuesday:
— The hearing spanned two hours and 44 minutes. The event included more than a dozen lawyers. Judge Libey surveyed the crowded courtroom and said he believed there were probably more attorneys in the courtroom than the sum of all the attorneys in the five neighboring counties.
— I sat in the second row, immediately behind Washington State president Kirk Schulz and his athletic director Pat Chun. Oregon State AD Scott Barnes was across the aisle.
— After the hearing, Barnes said: “It’s vindication for our student athletes.”
— Chun said: “It was a positive step, one we were hoping for and expecting.”
— Schulz offered: “We’ve got to get the football schedule done.”
College football still sits at the core of the conversation, doesn’t it? The season is waning and the transfer portal opens on Dec. 4. The Pac-2 leaders told me they remain in lockstep, focused on finding a solution for the 2024 season. I asked Barnes whether he’d had conversations with Oregon State football players about where the school might play next season.
Said Barnes: “We’ll have all the information for them when Jonathan (Smith) has his 1-on-1 sit-downs with the players.”
…
Weeks ago, I asked Judge Libey how he could objectively hear a case involving Washington State. It’s his alma mater, after all, and he once served as president of the Whitman County Cougar Club.
Libey told me: “I hear cases in Whitman County all the time that involve WSU. WSU has been a party in a bunch of cases in my courtroom over the years. Here’s what I do: I treat them like anybody else.”
Libey was careful and patient on Tuesday. The hearing was only slotted for 60 minutes in length. He allowed the lawyers more than double that time.
The attorneys for the “Pac-2” — led by Eric MacMichael and Nicholas Goldberg — presented simple, logical and legally sound arguments. They spoke the love language of a small-town judge.
“They care about one thing and one thing only, draining all the money out of the conference and leaving no money for the liabilities on their way out the door,” said, MacMichael about 10 departing schools.
“Just imagine what they’re going to do if they are the board,” he added.
…
Oregon State and Washington State still have lots of work to do. They’ll need to fend off an appeal and find a schedule for the 2024 football season. Meanwhile, the attorneys for the University of Washington argued that the case belonged in the United States Supreme Court given that the Pac-12 involves six jurisdictions.
That elicited a chuckle in the courtroom.
I was surrounded by a bunch of intelligent, well-dressed people on Tuesday. No doubt, had they harnessed all that brainpower in one direction a year ago they might have been able to save the Pac-12. On Tuesday, they were in a tug-of-war over it.
Oregon State and Washington State have control.
Can’t wait to see what they do with it.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38913428/big-12-wwe-pairing-hands-title-belt-conference-championship-mvp
Brett Yormark and the WWE seem like a perfect match.
I’m trying to picture the looks on the faces of the presidents at NW, UM, WI, etc. if Petitti wanted to connect their schools to pro wrestling. They’d take the money, but I think they’d give the idea an icy reception.
WWE and the Big 12 have formed a new partnership around the Big 12 championship game that will include a custom-made championship title belt going to the game’s most outstanding player.
The new pact will include blended Big 12-WWE logos on the field at AT&T Stadium, a new Big 12 merchandise line and WWE superstars presenting the most outstanding player belt and participating in events around the title game, which takes place Dec. 2.
…
WWE has taken a more active role in college football in recent years. The promotion’s name, image and likeness program, “Next In Line,” has included football players and other college athletes and put some on track for professional wrestling careers. WWE also finalized licensing agreements with all 14 SEC programs to create championship belts with each school’s logo on the side plates.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/oregon-state-washington-state-moving-forward-with-future-plans-after-victory-in-court-134733816.html
The Pac-2 is working out a scheduling alliance with the MWC for 2 years.
The P2 get 6 games each against MWC teams, and the MWC drops to 7 conference games. The MWC gets a financial incentive plus a long-term commitment to a reverse merger. Basically this gives the P2 time to settle their legal issues before the reverse merger happens. And this is how the P2 want to spend some of the P12’s resources.
The schools have re-engaged with Mountain West officials over a two-year football scheduling alliance with the league in an agreement that may serve as a first step in a long-term partnership or even merger, sources tell Yahoo Sports.
…
Though there are many scheduling models, the most likely is what’s termed a “7+1” format where Mountain West teams play seven conference games — not eight — plus one game against either Washington State or Oregon State. They would rotate the game against either OSU or WSU home-and-away over the two-year cycle.
Games against OSU and WSU are not expected to count toward the league standings. The two Pac-12 members will not be eligible for the MWC championship and will compete as quasi-independents under the Pac-12 banner.
…
The agreement, expected to include a lucrative financial package for Mountain West members, is likely to feature a long-term commitment to the conference with an intent at a full merger beyond this two-year cycle. Part of the agreement includes a financial penalty that can be levied upon Oregon State and Washington State if the two programs attempt to acquire only a portion of MWC schools in the future.
As for broadcasting rights, Mountain West home games against OSU and WSU will be televised in regular fashion by MWC TV partners Fox and CBS Sports Network. The league expects to receive extra media rights revenue from those games to be distributed across the conference.
Oregon State and Washington State are likely to negotiate separate broadcasting agreements with those networks and potentially others to televise their own home games. The Pac-12’s TV deal with ESPN and Fox ends after this academic year.
For now, the scheduling alliance is football only. Oregon State and Washington State are in discussions with other leagues to create affiliate memberships for their other sports.
…
In the short term, Oregon State and Washington State need to complete their 2024 and potentially 2025 football schedules. An arrangement with the Mountain West provides them with as many as seven opponents each year. The two programs have already scheduled three non-conference games — some against MWC teams — and may pick up other games, including continuing their in-state rivalry series with Washington and Oregon. The Oregon-OSU and Washington-WSU games are not, however, guaranteed to continue.
…
Commissioners also established a policy requiring a conference to have eight members for its champion to be eligible for an automatic qualifying spot. That policy does not need presidential approval, multiple CFP officials told Yahoo Sports.
Such a policy change eliminates Oregon State and Washington State from an automatic bid into the playoffs for winning a Pac-2 league. They would only be eligible for an at-large berth.
LikeLike
https://footballscoop.com/news/the-big-12-could-be-about-to-change-its-tiebreakers-in-the-middle-of-the-season-oklahoma-oklahoma-state-kansas-state
The B12 “clarified” its tiebreakers to deal with an unfortunate circumstance that could happen this year. Conferences really need to put some thought into these tiebreakers as conferences expand and divisions go away.
Here are the Big 12 standings, as of today:
Texas — 6-1
Oklahoma State — 5-2
Oklahoma — 5-2
Iowa State — 5-2
Kansas State — 5-2
If the favorites win out over the season’s final two weeks, the final standings would look like this:
Texas — 8-1
Oklahoma State — 7-2
Oklahoma — 7-2
Kansas State — 7-2
Here are two related items to the standings above:
[images showing OkSU beat both KSU and OU head-to-head]
Since Oklahoma State owns head-to-head over both of the other tied teams, this seems easy: Oklahoma State advances to the Big 12 Championship. Right? Not necessarily.
Oklahoma and Kansas State did not play each other, which, as currently written, means Oklahoma State’s head-to-head wins over OU and K-State would be thrown out as the conference moves to its next tiebreaker scenario.
…
What’s worse: not changing your rules to reward the team that obviously should be rewarded, or recognizing your mistake and changing your rules mid-season?
…
As pointed out by Sellout Crowd, here’s how the Mountain West adjudicates the exact scenario the Big 12 could face: “Winning percentage of the tied teams are compared in a mini round-robin format. If, within the mini round-robin, any of the tied teams did not play each other, the group of teams shall remain tied, unless one team defeated all other tied teams.”
…
Update: The Big 12 sent this to FootballScoop on Wednesday:
Regarding Step 1 of Multiple-Team Ties in Conference Tiebreaker Procedure: in the event of a multiple-team tie, head-to-head wins takes precedence. If all the tied teams are not common opponents, the tied team that defeated each of the other tied teams earns the Championship berth.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38915165/washington-court-puts-temporary-pause-control-pac-12
As expected, the WA SC granted a temporary stay in the P12 case, buying them time to appeal the original decision.
Thursday’s procedural ruling was not exactly what Washington requested, but it does have a similar impact in the short term as OSU and WSU will not control the conference board beginning Monday. Instead, both parties have been asked to file briefs regarding Washington’s emergency stay request, with the court asking for those to be filed by Nov. 28 and a reply by Dec. 8.
It’s possible that filing schedule could be expedited.
This process is independent from the departing schools’ intent to appeal Tuesday’s ruling in state Supreme Court and is not an indication of how the court may view the merits of the case. It is unclear when that appeal will be filed or how quickly the court will rule on whether to take the case.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38914714/michigan-jim-harbaugh-accepts-big-ten-3-game-suspension
UM gives up their legal battle against the B10 in exchange for the B10 dropping its investigation.
Basically they admit they cheated, but they don’t want the B10 to know how much just yet. The NCAA investigation remains ongoing, but won’t end until after Harbaugh’s shot to win a national title this year (and Jim running to the NFL to avoid NCAA punishment).
And thus even UM admits the B10 has the right to suspend Harbaugh for this.
“This morning, the University, Coach Harbaugh, and the Big Ten resolved their pending litigation,” the university’s statement read. “The Conference agreed to close its investigation, and the University and Coach Harbaugh agreed to accept the three-game suspension. Coach Harbaugh, with the University’s support, decided to accept this sanction to return the focus to our student-athletes and their performance on the field. The Conference has confirmed that it is not aware of any information suggesting Coach Harbaugh’s involvement in the allegations. The University continues to cooperate fully with the NCAA’s investigation.”
…
“Today’s decision by the University of Michigan to withdraw its legal challenge against the Conference’s November 10th Notice of Disciplinary Action is indicative of the high standards and values that the Conference and the university seek to uphold,” the Big Ten’s statement read. “The University of Michigan is a valued member of the Big Ten Conference, and the Conference will continue to work cooperatively with the university and the NCAA during this process.”
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
It’s no surprise that UM/PSU dominated the ratings last week. PSU’s 2 losses are both in the top 6 for ratings this season. P12 after dark on Fox topped the best B12 game in primetime. I’m surprised OSU blowing out MSU did that well.
Only 6 games have topped 9M so far:
CU vs UO – 10.03M
OSU vs ND – 9.98M
PSU vs OSU – 9.96M
CU vs CSU – 9.30M
FSU vs LSU – 9.17M
PSU vs UM – 9.16M
2 B10 games, 1 P12 game, 3 OOC games
Week 11 ratings:
1. UM @ PSU – 9.16M, 12:00, Fox
2. UU @ UW – 5.17M, 3:30, Fox
3. MS @ UGA – 4.83 M, 7:00, ESPN
4. Miami @ FSU – 4.14M, 3:30, ABC
5. TN @ MO – 3.62M, 3:30, CBS
6. MSU @ OSU – 3.57M, 7:30, NBC
7. USC @ UO – 3.01M, 10:30, Fox
8. UT @ TCU – 2.82M, 7:30, ABC
LikeLike
Michigan has fired linebackers coach Chris Partridge. ESPN repors that he did not cooperate with the NCAA investigation into Connor Stalions.
One of the Michigan sites mentioned that Stalions reported to Partridge — thus, if any Michigan coach was aware of the scheme, or should’ve been, it would most likely be Partridge.
LikeLike
SI reports that, before Partridge was implicated, the Big Ten and Michigan were negotiating a reduction of Harbaugh’s suspension to two games, which would’ve put Harbaugh back on the sideline for the Ohio State game. The article suggests that the Big Ten might’ve been willing to consider this, but of course no sources are cited, so we don’t know whose impression that is. Once the parties learned of Partridge’s involvement, that was the end of that.
The article mentions that the team has already left Michigan for Maryland, and Harbaugh was on the plane. It really shows how empty a suspension it is. He’s literally doing everything he’d do in a game week, other than the 3½ hours of the game itself.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-ncaas-evidence-vs-michigan-included-booster-involvement-in-scouting-scheme-attempted-destruction-of-evidence-171243435.html
Yahoo has more to say. Apparently he tried to destroy computer evidence. Also a booster was involved in the scheme, paying the bills.
The NCAA presented the University of Michigan with new evidence this week, including that a Michigan booster may have at least partially funded Connor Stalions’ advanced scouting operation and an assistant coach allegedly participated in the destruction of evidence on a computer after the scandal broke, industry sources tell Yahoo Sports.
The revelations altered Michigan’s and Jim Harbaugh’s legal approach.
…
Multiple sources say that Partridge is not alleged at this time of knowing about the advanced scouting by Stalions, but acted after the fact to cover up evidence. Sources tell Yahoo Sports that a booster — named in the NCAA report as “Uncle T” — helped fund the alleged scheme, giving Stalions thousands of dollars for expenses.
LikeLike
https://news.osu.edu/football-ticket-prices-for-2024-approved/
OSU released 2024 ticket prices, and they give a good idea of why OSU doesn’t consider PSU a rivalry.
Cheapest PSU game ticket in 2023 = $119
Cheapest UM game ticket in 2024 = $192
Cheapest IA game ticket in 2024 = $91
Cheapest NE game ticket in 2024 = $85
Cheapest PU game ticket in 2024 = $85
Cheapest IN game ticket in 2024 = $69
Cheapest OOC game tickets in 2024 = $54/52/46
PU’s proximity makes it as expensive as NE, with IA slightly higher (closer than NE, similar brand value now). It’s interesting how much cheaper IN tickets are than PU – a clear indicator of past success.
The PSU game was much more like IA/NE/PU than UM in terms of price (and demand). TV loves it, but the fans not so much.
LikeLike
Noted during today’s ND-Wake Forest game. An ‘unbiased’ NBC announcer squealed “It’s our ball!” when ND recovered a WF fumble.
LikeLike
That’s more brazen than they usually are, but with NBC covering a lot more college football than it used to, that broadcast no longer gets their best talent.
By the way, ND and NBC renewed their deal through the 2029 season. Terms were not disclosed, but Jack Swarbrick said he was happy.
The previous extension was for ten years. If you want to get cynical about it, this extension is just for five-years, with the end date aligning with the end of the current Big Ten contract.
LikeLike
Marc,
Front Office Sports is reporting that the value is double the current payout, so $50M per year. Add in their $17M from the ACC, and they’re on par with the P2.
Also, ND is the 4th-most watched team this season, behind CU, AL and OSU. They are getting paid like it, apparently.
LikeLike
Well, that ranking is skewed by the huge audience for ND-Ohio St game this year. ND has a solid fan base but the 2022 numbers are more realistic. This year’s ND-Clemson game was seen by only 3.24 million viewers.
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
ND has a solid fan base but the 2022 numbers are more realistic.
How do you know what is realistic? I would assume that NBC has better data than the rest of us put together.
LikeLike
Marc,
How do you know what is realistic? I would assume that NBC has better data than the rest of us put together.
NBC Sports’ Notre Dame Football games are averaging 5.1 million viewers this season – the largest audience through five game broadcasts since 2005 and up 86% from last year at this point. The Fighting Irish’s Sept. 23 primetime thriller against Ohio State averaged 10.6 million viewers across NBC, Peacock and NBC Sports Digital, ranking as NBC Sports’ second-most watched regular season college football game of all-time, behind only then-No. 2 Notre Dame’s “Game of the Century” 31-24 defeat of No. 1 Florida State on Nov. 13, 1993 (22 million viewers).
None of us knows what’s realistic for their future viewership, but the past gives reasonable guidance. ND’s numbers are up 86% this year over last year after 5 games (and the best since 2005), and the OSU game is the top reason for that. That was NBC’s second-highest viewed ND game ever (game of the century vs FSU is #1). I think it’s fair to say that game is skewing their average this year.
View at Medium.com
From 2015-19, ND averaged 3.61M viewers (#4).
2021: 2.84M (#9)
2022: 3.30M (#6)
2023: 5.1M through 5 games (#4)
They played WF yesterday, which should lower that average. If that game drew 2M, their average will drop to 4.58M (1M -> 4.42M).
Over 8 years, that’s 3.59M on average. That seems like a reasonable number to work with – 3.6M, and roughly #4 or 5 in CFB.
LikeLike
I confidently predict a drop in ND’s TV viewers on NBC in 2024. Here are the Irish home games:
Northern Illinois, Miami of Ohio, Louisville, Stanford, Navy, FSU and Virginia.
LikeLike
I confidently predict a drop in ND’s TV viewers on NBC in 2024. Here are the Irish home games: Northern Illinois, Miami of Ohio, Louisville, Stanford, Navy, FSU and Virginia.
That seems like a stinker of a schedule, on the face of it, but that’s still on the old deal. It would be interesting to know if ND committed to improve their future schedules. The Irish have at least two open dates every year from 2025 on.
LikeLike
After your comment I glanced through some of ND’s future schedules and noted something odd. In 2031 they play three Florida teams: USF, Florida and Miami. Then in 2032 they also play three Florida teams: Florida, FSU and Miami.
https://fbschedules.com/2031-notre-dame-football-schedule/
https://fbschedules.com/2032-notre-dame-football-schedule/
LikeLike
The end date of the new NBD-ND deal was the first thing that came to mind. Interesting coincidence to be sure.
No cynicism required to look at that.
LikeLike
Yes, it is certainly notable. Historically they have done 5 year deals with NBC, with the recent one being 10 years. Dropping to 4 years may mean something, but likely it’s just NBC wanting to align its 2 big CFB deals. ND likely also wanted back into the market a little quicker than last time. The other factor is that Belivacqua had to recuse himself since he’s about to become ND’s AD, so maybe neither side wanted a really long deal in place with this leadership change coming.
https://news.nd.edu/news/notre-dame-and-nbc-extend-football-contract-to-2025/
The University of Notre Dame and NBC Sports have reached agreement on a new 10-year contract giving NBC the rights to televise Irish home football games from 2016 to 2025 and extending the partnership between the University and network to 35 years.
…
NBC has been televising Irish home games since 1991, and this marks the sixth of a series of agreements with Notre Dame. The original agreement covered the seasons from 1991 through 1995. The first five-year extension (announced in 1994) covered 1996 to 2000, the second extension (announced in May 1997) covered 2001 to 2005, the third extension (announced in December 2003) covered 2006 to 2010, and the fourth (announced in June 2008) covered 2011 to 2015.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/apple-cup-wsu-and-washington-agree-to-continue-series-after-pac-12-breaks-apart/
UW and WSU have agreed to continue the Apple Cup. The Platypus Cup is expected to follow suit. It just makes too much sense to play an OOC game that is close to home for them while keeping politicians and fans happy.
An ancient West Coast football rivalry will continue into the next era as the Washington schools on Sunday announced an agreement to continue the Apple Cup following the breakup of the Pac-12.
The Cougars and Huskies signed a five-year contract that begins next season with a neutral-field matchup, followed by four games played on a home-and-home basis.
…
The Apple Cup matchup scheduled for Sept. 14, 2024 will be played at Lumen Field, the home of the Seahawks.
…
The dates have not been finalized for 2025-28, but the series likely will be played in September because of Washington’s commitment to Big Ten games in October and November.
…
The 2024 matchup proved a sticking point. It was supposed to be in Pullman based on the current site rotation, but UW wasn’t in position to play a road game because of the Big Ten schedule.
Seahawks president Chuck Arnold provided a neutral-field option.
“This wouldn’t be happening next year without him,” a source said.
The other traditional Pacific Northwest rivalry thrust into disarray by the collapse of the Pac-12, Oregon State’s annual date with Oregon, is also expected to continue into the next era, although a formal announcement has not been made.
LikeLike
The other traditional Pacific Northwest rivalry thrust into disarray by the collapse of the Pac-12, Oregon State’s annual date with Oregon, is also expected to continue into the next era, although a formal announcement has not been made.
The main sticking point is that Oregon’s non-conference schedule is full from 2024–2028, so they’d need to buy out some games. The Ducks have a 2-for-1 with Boise State from 2024–2026. According to Canzano, they’re looking to cancel the 2024–2025 games.
However, the Ducks also have Big 12 games in those years: Texas Tech in 2024, Oklahoma State in 2025–26, Baylor in 2027–2028. Would they really agree to play the equivalent of 11 “Power Five” games per year, for the next five seasons?
LikeLike
Marc,
BSU has incentive to work with them on this if they just want to delay the games a few years. After all, they’ll be in the same conference soon.
Maybe BSU can play TT and OkSU instead of UO.
UO will be on a limited budget the next few years. They may not have the money to spend on buying out of those games. They could try to push them back a few years, or consolidate some of them into a single neutral site game rather than a series.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38936576/ohio-state-no-2-ap-football-poll-washington-rises-no-4
A couple of fun facts about the greatest rivalry in CFB came out with the AP poll this week.
Most frequent AP top 5 pairings in CFB:
OSU-UM: 13, OSU is 7-4-1 (Wikipedia shows 13 played already)
OU-UT: 10
OU-NE: 8
Discussion point:
Is that harder to do for a rivalry week series, or for a mid-season series like the RRR?
Also, kudos to OU for having 2 of the top 3 series on that list.
National titles from those years:
OSU – 1942, 1968, 1970*
UM – 1997
OSU-UM also leads in ranked matchups (49) and top-10 matchups (26).
This will be the 5th meeting as top 3 teams:
1974: #3 OSU 12 – #2 UM 10
2006: #1 OSU 42 – #2 UM 39
2016: #2 OSU 30 – #3 UM 27 (2OT)
2022: #3 UM 45 – #2 OSU 23 (cheating)
2023: #2 OSU ? – #3 UM ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan%E2%80%93Ohio_State_football_rivalry#Top-5_games
Wikipedia shows 13 top-5 matchups already played, with OSU leading 7-5-1. The underdog is 7-5-1 as well. More importantly, the home team is 10-2-1.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
For just the second time since week zero, no college football game last weekend managed to hit the six million viewer mark. Georgia-Tennessee topped the charts with 5.73 million on the SEC on CBS, followed by Michigan-Maryland on FOX “Big Noon Saturday” at 5.43 million.
Other notables in week twelve include season-highs for both BTN and The CW, which averaged 2.02 million for Ohio State-Minnesota and 1.33 million for South Alabama-Florida State respectively.
Week 12 ratings show 3 games leading the way:
1. UGA vs TN – 5.73M, 3:30, CBS (blowout)
2. UM vs UMD – 5.43M, 12:00, Fox (hate watching for a UM loss?)
3. UW vs OrSU – 4.73M, 7:30, ABC (good game)
9 games had 1.76M – 2.89M viewers (2 at noon, 4 midafternoon, 3 primetime)
10. OSU vs MN – 2.02M, 4:00, BTN (season high)
LikeLike
In at least one ranking, Purdue had the toughest schedule in the nation in 2023.
https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings/college-football-schedule-rankings-easiest-to-hardest-1-133
Next year looks even tougher for the Boilermakers. Five opponents in the current top 25. The Notre Dame series resumes and Purdue is the only team in the nation that plays both Oregon (now # 6) and Oregon State (now # 15).
https://fbschedules.com/2024-purdue-football-schedule/
LikeLike
Even better, OSU vs MN was an all-time high for BTN. It’s their first game with over 2M viewers. Both their #1 and #3 games of all time coming this season, it seems a little odd. Is the upcoming B10 expansion already driving an increase in viewers?
This is putting BTN games at the level of the late night window on ESPN.
Last Saturday’s matchup between No. 2 Ohio State and Minnesota delivered 2,015,000 viewers, making it the most-watched broadcast in Big Ten Network history. It is also the first event in network history to surpass two million viewers.
BTN’s previous record, a 2021 Black Friday matchup between Iowa and Nebraska, brought in 1.99 million viewers.
No. 3 all-time occurred earlier this fall, when 1.93 million viewers tuned in for Michigan vs. Rutgers on Sept. 23.
All viewership data is attributed to Nielsen Media Research.
LikeLike
OSU vs MN was an all-time high for BTN. It’s their first game with over 2M viewers. Both their #1 and #3 games of all time coming this season, it seems a little odd. Is the upcoming B10 expansion already driving an increase in viewers?
The following is just a hypothesis. It used to be that BTN had basic carriage only within the Big Ten footprint. Everywhere else, you had to buy an expanded package to get it.
Today, a number of “cable replacement” streaming bundles now carry BTN as part of their basic offering, such as YouTube TV and Hulu Live TV. This means people who might not have cared enough to pay extra for it, are getting BTN “automatically”.
The bundling services also have intelligence built into them that the cable remote never had. For instance, YouTube TV shows me all of the active games, and it can show four games at a time in one window. I might look in on an interesting SECN or ACCN game occasionally because it happens to be there, although I probably wouldn’t have sought them out.
So, my hypothesis is that these channels are becoming easier to find and they are available to more out-of-footprint viewers who no longer have to specially order them.
LikeLike
Marc, I agree with you about the BTN on the streaming channels. The fly in the ointment is Peacock. I previously complained that three Purdue football games were on Peacock only. Now the mommy humpers are screwing with basketball. Two of the very best Big Ten Conference games are Peacock only: Purdue at Indiana on Jan 16 and Michigan at Purdue on Jan 23.
LikeLike
Yes, we’ve discussed that a lot here. NBC is putting real value on Peacock, as opposed to BTN which is heavily weighted to the leftovers after the OTA networks have had their picks. One of Kevin Warren’s parting gifts.
LikeLike
https://fbschedules.com/ohio-state-kentucky-swap-2024-non-conference-football-opponents/
Earth-shattering scheduling news:
OSU and UK have swapped OOC opponents for 2024 – OSU will now host Akron on 8/31 while UK will host Southern Miss. Apparently UK asked for this switch as a way to get out of their road game at Akron in 2024 (who agrees to a 2-for-1 with Akron?).
No financial details were explained, but I’m guessing Akron gets a bigger paycheck to drop their home game and play at OSU, OSU gets an in-state buy game and maybe saves some money on it, UK pays more but gets a home game, and USM probably gets paid a little less but for a better chance at winning against a P4 team.
Southern Miss was set to receive a $1.9 million guarantee for the game at Ohio State, according to a copy of the contract.
Instead of playing at Ohio State, Southern Miss will now travel to take on the Kentucky Wildcats at Kroger Field in Lexington, Ky., on Aug. 31, 2024. Kentucky was previously scheduled to travel to face the Akron Zips on the same date.
As part of a four-team non-conference switcheroo, Akron will now travel to take on the Ohio State Buckeyes in place of the Kentucky contest on, you guessed it, Aug. 31, 2024.
The Kentucky at Akron contest in 2024 was part of an amended three-game football series between the two schools. The two schools played the first game of the series earlier this season in Lexington, with the Zips receiving a $750,000 guarantee for the contest, per a copy of the documents.
Akron was set to receive a $750,000 guarantee from Kentucky for the 2024 contest in Akron as well as an additional $550,000 for a contest in 2026 in Lexington. The current status of the financial guarantees, including the game in 2026, is now in question.
On the surface, the impetus for this four-team switch appears to be that Kentucky wanted out of the road contest against Akron. The three-game series was originally scheduled back in 2017 and was supposed to begin in 2021. The contract was first amended only one year after it was signed before being changed a second time in early 2021.
LikeLike
Ohio State’s three OOC opponents for 2024 are now Akron, Western Michigan and Marshall, all in Columbus.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/11/21/college-seminoles-ctv.aspx
This will make all the difference – FSU is starting a streaming sports-only service. It will be all FSU-original programming.
Florida State is teaming with Connected Television Group to create the Seminole Sports Streaming Network, a video-on-demand product that is expected to launch on Dec. 4 with exclusive FSU all-sports content.
The Seminole Sports Streaming Network will be available via Apple TV, Fire TV, Google Play, LG, Roku and Xbox as well as desktop and mobile devices.
AD Mike Alford cited the network’s capability “to elevate the distribution” of FSU’s original content globally as a primary factor in the initiative. The streaming network will distribute all aspects of digital content, including podcasts and other radio offerings.
Jim Lindell, CRO of Connected Television Group, ran point on the deal with the Seminoles. The Las Vegas-based company also has streaming network deals with Texas A&M as well as USA Swimming and The Volume, Colin Cowherd’s network of premium podcasters.
CTV can distribute content that’s either live or on-demand. These networks feature advertising and sponsorship revenue models. The company has been working with motorsports and collegiate marketing veteran Patrick Wood as a consultant on the networks.
LikeLike
This is the streaming version of the DeLoss Dodds’ dickhead Longhorn Network, which was a flop for ESPN. FSU may call it ‘all-sports” but we all know that the football and men’s hoops content is locked up with the ESPN/ACCN GOR until 2036. Good luck to the Noles streaming women’s soccer, tennis and baseball.
LikeLike
Happy Thanksgiving.
FSU has nothing to lose by doing this. They may get some revenue.
I would expect FSU baseball and softball to get viewership. They are generally very good and not otherwise broadcast.
LikeLike
ESPN already owns all their games for ESPN+ I think, unless they choose to sublicense them. This would have to be coach’s shows, radio shows, interviews, etc. – things created by FSU and not included under the GoR.
LikeLike
This will make all the difference – FSU is starting a streaming sports-only service. It will be all FSU-original programming.
Isn’t this somewhat similar to what Maryland wanted to do, but the Big Ten forced them to shut down? I thought Maryland got jobbed, but that was the end of that. I realize…different leagues, different rules.
This is the streaming version of the DeLoss Dodds’ dickhead Longhorn Network, which was a flop for ESPN.
They are probably not comparable. LHN struggled initially for carriage (not relevant in streaming), and ESPN vastly overpaid (not relevant because FSU is producing this itself).
LikeLike
Marc,
Isn’t this somewhat similar to what Maryland wanted to do, but the Big Ten forced them to shut down? I thought Maryland got jobbed, but that was the end of that. I realize…different leagues, different rules.
Similar, yes. But UMD wanted to show things that BTN had the rights to. Presumably FSU is showing original programming Disney doesn’t own the rights to (coach’s shows, talking head shows, etc.). They mentioned it would include podcasts and radio content.
https://awfulannouncing.com/streaming/florida-state-seminoles-fast-channel.html
There are several interesting aspects to this. One is that the ACC as a whole already launched FAST channel ACCDN Confidential in April 2021 as a football-focused offering in partnership with Syncbak and long-time ACC broadcaster Raycom Sports, and quickly expanded to cover basketball and more that summer. ACCDN content from Raycom is also available on YouTube. And that’s before we get into the linear ACC Network from ESPN, which has featured the Seminoles heavily (including with a docuseries on the 1999 team this fall).
…
A FAST network itself for a school doesn’t necessarily mean all that much. While FAST networks are an important part of the strategy for many media outlets, they’re largely not a landing place for too many live games right now. And this is unlikely to spawn any level of the outcry we saw with, say, Texas’ Longhorn Network (which didn’t even live up to the hopes or fears many had for it); this is a supplemental, free, ad-supported product for shoulder programming for dedicated fans, not a linear network showing up on cable bills and prompting carriage disputes and/or realignment. And some of this is only just new distribution for content they were already creating.
And, as noted in Smith’s piece, this has already happened with some other schools. That includes Texas A&M (interestingly enough, one of the chief objectors to The Longhorn Network way back when). And other schools, like LSU, are taking a different subscription-focused approach to school-specific content. But it is notable to see this FAST move from Florida State, especially while the school is talking about enlisting private equity funding for realignment and continuing to make those loud noises about realignment.
Marc,
They are probably not comparable. LHN struggled initially for carriage (not relevant in streaming), and ESPN vastly overpaid (not relevant because FSU is producing this itself).
They are apples and oranges. This is a free ad-supported streaming channel getting the stuff even the ACC’s digital network doesn’t want. It’s away to get more access for uberfans and maybe spread some viral graphics/clips/soundbites.
LikeLike
Isn’t this somewhat similar to what Maryland wanted to do, but the Big Ten forced them to shut down? I thought Maryland got jobbed, but that was the end of that.
Similar, yes. But UMD wanted to show things that BTN had the rights to.
Maryland wanted to offer an ancillary service that would provide “behind-the-scenes videos, interviews and film breakdowns.” BTN was correct on the law that they hold exclusive rights to all of that, but they’re never going to show so much of one school when they’ve got 17 others.
So BTN squashed Terps+ not because they were already offering (or intended to offer) the identical thing themselves, but simply to reserve their rights. Of course, this is what rightsholders commonly do — what if they say yes, and then realize belatedly that they would’ve preferred to do it themselves?
LikeLike
Well, you can’t really fault the BTN for putting the clampers on the Terps’ plans. That would set the precedent for Penn State hockey or Nebraska volleyball to run hog wild with similar ventures.
LikeLike
Marc,
Maryland wanted to offer an ancillary service that would provide “behind-the-scenes videos, interviews and film breakdowns.” BTN was correct on the law that they hold exclusive rights to all of that, but they’re never going to show so much of one school when they’ve got 17 others.
So BTN squashed Terps+ not because they were already offering (or intended to offer) the identical thing themselves, but simply to reserve their rights. Of course, this is what rightsholders commonly do — what if they say yes, and then realize belatedly that they would’ve preferred to do it themselves?
What’s your point? Intending to offer it is irrelevant. The BTN owned the rights to that material, and thus Fox owned 61% of those rights. UMD can’t show someone else’s content to make a profit.
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2022/10/27/introducing-terps/
Launching this fall, Terps+ will include the full library of content that has been produced via Terrapin Club + and will continue to expand through the addition of brand new features such as a new behind-the-scenes access series, exclusive interviews with coaches and student-athletes, film room sessions breaking down the Xs and Os of the games, archival footage showcasing iconic moments, and lots more.
This new editor is horrible.
Fox does provide streaming through their app for stuff like this. And who knows what they may decide about streaming in the future?
LikeLike
Marc,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/05/10/maryland-big-ten-terrapin-plus/
And this plan, according to a letter sent from Big Ten Network President Francois McGillicuddy to Maryland Athletic Director Damon Evans, would “flagrantly violate” the assignments of rights among the school, the conference and the Big Ten Network. That forced Maryland to remove its news release published Oct. 25, 2022, and tweets about the launch.
…
In the emailed letter, McGillicuddy cited the Big Ten Media Agreements Reference Manual and mentioned how those guidelines warn “in all bold, after the heading ‘Important,’ ” that schools cannot license ancillary programming to third parties. (Maryland announced Terps Plus as a partnership with Sport & Story, which has built subscription platforms at several other schools but none in the Big Ten.)
McGillicuddy continued to cite this manual, noting that on the internet, the Big Ten Network “owns distribution rights to all Ancillary Programming beyond distribution on the Member Institution’s official athletic website.” McGillicuddy wrote that Maryland described Terps Plus content “in almost the same words” as the manual’s examples of ancillary programming. (Video content that is not game action is considered ancillary programming.)
There’s no gray area here. And the guidelines probably exist to keep the big boys from monetizing their brands without everyone getting a piece, and turning into competition with BTN and the streaming apps.
LikeLike
There’s no gray area here.
Why, of course there is no gray. We all understand that. Why do you think Maryland caved without a peep? That doesn’t make it right. The Big Ten should have been in its members’ camp, instead of Fox’s.
Go to Fox, BTN, or whoever the hell it is, and say: “Look, the letter of the deal says you own this, but you’ve done nothing with it. You’ve failed. Our members do not benefit from rights you hold but do not use. Sure, you can stick to that right now because the contract says so, but you’d better start looking for other content because you’re never getting a deal like this again.”
This is where Kevin Warren needed to be, instead of in Rupert Murdoch’s hip pocket.
LikeLike
Marc,
Why, of course there is no gray. We all understand that. Why do you think Maryland caved without a peep? That doesn’t make it right. The Big Ten should have been in its members’ camp, instead of Fox’s.
I was just clarifying, since most people probably didn’t know, that what UMD attempted was specifically mentioned as not allowed. They weren’t trying a creative reading of the rules, they were directly breaking them. Of course the B10 would stop that. After all, all 14 schools helped create those rules in the first place.
Go to Fox, BTN, or whoever the hell it is, and say: “Look, the letter of the deal says you own this, but you’ve done nothing with it. You’ve failed. Our members do not benefit from rights you hold but do not use. Sure, you can stick to that right now because the contract says so, but you’d better start looking for other content because you’re never getting a deal like this again.”
You are assuming the schools feel that way. I don’t think they do, or you’d see a bunch of schools pushing to do this and Fox likely giving in. I think the schools want things to run through BTN so they all benefit equally. They don’t want OSU and UM monetizing football content elsewhere, or MSU hoops, or MN hockey, etc. Schools are free to do this through their official website, just not a 3rd party channel.Perhaps the schools will view streaming differently as the Fox deal ends and push to get some changes, but I think they are happy with the status quo for now.
This is where Kevin Warren needed to be, instead of in Rupert Murdoch’s hip pocket.
Only if most of the schools wanted him there. Besides, the BTN deal was Delany’s and the schools all approved an extension in 2017 (until 2032).
LikeLike
It is all theoretical now, but I could imagine a system where the schools are free to offer a service similar to what Terps+ was meant to be, but BTN has first dibs on content. As I am imagining it, BTN could show what it wanted, but it couldn’t indefinitely reserve rights it has no plans to use.
Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi State, South Carolina, and now FSU have done similar things, so it’s not necessarily incompatible with a conference network.
LikeLike
I can imagine lots of things, but that doesn’t make them legal. The BTN agreement expressly forbids this. Could they change that agreement? Perhaps in the future (2036ish), but maybe the B10 wants everything to go through HQ rather than having 18 separate outlets for content and further dividing the interests of the members. You keep blaming BTN, but it’s really Fox and the other B10 schools who created the rule.
LikeLike
I can imagine lots of things, but that doesn’t make them legal. The BTN agreement expressly forbids this. Could they change that agreement? Perhaps in the future (2036ish), but maybe the B10 wants everything to go through HQ rather than having 18 separate outlets for content and further dividing the interests of the members. You keep blaming BTN, but it’s really Fox and the other B10 schools who created the rule.
I said “BTN” because technically it holds the Grant of Rights, even though Fox controls it via majority ownership. The GoR was signed quite a few years ago, and this scenario was probably never considered because streaming was not “mainstream” then. I would be very surprised if the Big Ten passed a “rule” as such, because nobody has ever mentioned any such “rule”. Fox simply offered a huge sum of money for a basket of rights, and the Big Ten said “Yes, best offer we’ve got.”
But of course, parties change deals all the time. When someone is sitting on rights that it is not using, my priorities lie with the party who wants to do something useful over the party who wants to do nothing. If Fox launches a service comparable to what Terps+ would’ve been (they’d need to have 17 more of them too), then I pledge to withdraw the comment.
LikeLike
Marc,
I said “BTN” because technically it holds the Grant of Rights, even though Fox controls it via majority ownership. The GoR was signed quite a few years ago, and this scenario was probably never considered because streaming was not “mainstream” then. I would be very surprised if the Big Ten passed a “rule” as such, because nobody has ever mentioned any such “rule”. Fox simply offered a huge sum of money for a basket of rights, and the Big Ten said “Yes, best offer we’ve got.”
Fox does now, but the B10 had the majority when that contract was first written. Streaming wasn’t common, but PPV and local deals were. You can quibble over terminology, but they expressly wrote it into deal that certain things were not allowed. Clearly someone foresaw that as a potential issue in the future. The B10 could’ve fought the language over time if it wanted to.
But of course, parties change deals all the time. When someone is sitting on rights that it is not using, my priorities lie with the party who wants to do something useful over the party who wants to do nothing. If Fox launches a service comparable to what Terps+ would’ve been (they’d need to have 17 more of them too), then I pledge to withdraw the comment.
What about B1G+? It has separate channels for each school.https://www.bigtenplus.com/en-int/page/what-you-getLive streaming of non-televised games, next day on-demand archives, and access to Big Ten Network’s library of previous season classics and originals.And UMD is free to show/air all that other stuff, they just need to do it through their official website.As for parties wanting to do something, I only see 1/14th (soon 1/18th) of a party wanting to do something. If a majority of B10 schools wanted to do this, they’d make it possible.
LikeLike
Marc: “They are probably not comparable. LHN struggled initially for carriage (not relevant in streaming), and ESPN vastly overpaid (not relevant because FSU is producing this itself).
The LHN was a far better deal for viewers. It carried two UT football games each year plus virtually every men’s & women’s hoops game. There was no Big XII GOR and no Big XII Network to pick up Tier 3 content. FSU has all of those issues with their streaming thingy.
This is FSU’s cop-out. After all fo their screaming tantrums, they know they can’t beat the abysmal ACC GOR so they are pretending that this goofy streaming of volleyball and golf will compensate.
LikeLike
The LHN was a far better deal for viewers.
You can’t evaluate what kind of deal it is until you know what they are charging.
This is FSU’s cop-out.
I call it making lemonade from lemons. Can you think of a better thing for them to do?
LikeLike
Marc: “I call it making lemonade from lemons. Can you think of a better thing for them to do?”
We are basically in agreement. After screaming and squealing about the ACC GOR with threats to bolt the ACC, their course of action is now to start up a meaningless streaming service with volleyball, soccer and other eye-glazing Nole athletics.
LikeLike
Marc,
You can’t evaluate what kind of deal it is until you know what they are charging.
It’s free, according to the Awful Announcing article. It’s ad-supported.
LikeLike
After screaming and squealing about the ACC GOR with threats to bolt the ACC, their course of action is now to start up a meaningless streaming service with volleyball, soccer and other eye-glazing Nole athletics.
You are obviously not a ’Nole fan (nor am I), but if your school started such a service, I imagine you’d look in occasionally. I don’t see any reasons to criticize it.
I never understood the saber-rattling about leaving the ACC, which seemed impossible, but this little idea is entirely independent of that.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/11/nfl-thanksgiving-ratings-viewership-giants-cowboys-regular-season-record-high/
We discuss tradition vs money in CFB a lot on here, but I want to shift the discussion to the NFL. They will sell their souls to make an extra dollar, and yet they persist in letting Detroit always host a Thanksgiving game.
Last year:
early game (Lions) – 31.8
afternoon game (Cowboys) – 42.1M (41 share)
night game (Patriots) – 24.8M (29 share)
Much of that disparity is probably due to the time windows, but brands also matter.
Why is the league keeping the Lions in a starring role? This year it should be fine, but most years they are terrible.
LikeLike
Tradition. The Lions have played on Thanksgiving since 1934.
LikeLike
That just repeats my question. Why is this one tradition important to the NFL when nothing else is? There is money to be made by changing it which is usually all it takes for the NFL to change. They even openly discussed changing it as recently as 2008.
LikeLike
“Why is this one tradition important to the NFL when nothing else is? There is money to be made by changing it which is usually all it takes for the NFL to change.”
FWIW my understanding (from discussion over the years on Chicago sports talk radio) is that image and money are a concern.
Games in Detroit and Dallas (generally) sell out; the league is loathe to disrupt this and fears ticket sales may prove difficult in cities which lack any Thanksgiving tradition.
Night games are different in that they are less likely to be disruptive of existing traditions for those who plan to attend.
LikeLike
Does anyone else even want to? From an operations perspective, getting enough people willing to work a holiday is hard. Fans probably don’t like it, because of family obligations. For Detroit/Dallas its probably become enough of a tradition that stadium employees and fans are used to it and plan for it annually.
LikeLike
It was a subject of discussion 15 years ago within the league, so at least some people used to want to. I doubt the financial situation has changed on it since then.
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/25-new-rules-for-thanksgiving-family-touch-football-8205f210?st=eohhrppsyhpeo7t&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/pac12/2023/11/24/college-football-realignment-ncaa-president-charlie-baker-washington-state-oregon-state/71682042007/
A nice piece about Charlie Baker visiting WSU to understand the impacts of realignment.
NCAA President Charlie Baker made a special trip here last week, more than 2,000 miles from his home on the East Coast.
After starting his new job in March, the former governor of Massachusetts was on a mission – to tour the conference realignment wreckage at Washington State University, sort of like how U.S. presidents often visit cities recently clobbered by hurricanes.
He wanted to help and show support.
But how? Washington State is in crisis mode, along with Oregon State, the two schools left behind after the rest of the Pac-12 Conference realigned with the Big Ten, Big 12 and Atlantic Coast conferences starting next year.
“We’re gonna try and do what we can to help them deal with the circumstance as they go forward,” Baker told USA TODAY Sports in an interview during his visit Nov. 17. “I do think also, having talked to a bunch of the student-athletes here, they really love the place. I think it would be unfortunate if we can’t find a way to help these guys find a way, along with Oregon State.”
The problem is there’s not much he can do. Media companies and the people in charge of those other Power Five conferences decided which schools would be left without a place to sit after this latest high-stakes game of musical chairs. The NCAA president doesn’t have the authority to change it.
But what he can do is listen – and then take what he learns to Congress. There was plenty to hear. Ask Pat Chun, the Washington State athletic director, who said he invited Baker to campus to “get a feel” for how realignment has impacted a school.
“This is just more education for him about all the failings of our current model” in college sports, Chun said.
LikeLike
Look, don’t pretend that this assclown has done something worthwhile. Charlie Baker is a complete loser as NCAA prez. He refused to move near the NCAA HQ in Indpls and pretends that he has control over the organization from his home near Boston. He doesn’t.
The 900-lb gorilla in the room was of course the NIL issue, which Baker weaseled and ducked by saying he was going to ask Congress to resolve it. Of course, Congress did nothing because they have no authority and no consensus. Now the NCAA is still as Square One on NIL.
Baker’s trip to WSU was a nothingburger. When I was in the Army, we called meaningless official business trips “boondoggles”. Charlie Baker’s tenure in the NCAA has been nothing but boondoggles.
LikeLike
A nice piece about Charlie Baker visiting WSU to understand the impacts of realignment.
I tend to agree with Colin that this was basically a photo-op. Baker didn’t need to visit WSU to understand the impacts of realignment, and there is nothing he could do about it anyway. But I wouldn’t criticize him for it either. When you are president of something, photo ops are a part of your job.
LikeLike
Of course it was a photo op. He’s a politician, and visiting disaster sites is something they do. Presidents can’t magic away hurricane damage but they do a visit every time. Emmert wouldn’t even have bothered to do that much. Baker at least had the PR sense to go be seen talking to people at all levels (athletes up to AD/pres.) about it.
LikeLike
https://footballscoop.com/news/central-michigan-document-reveals-connor-stalions-official-sideline-status-vs-michigan-state
CMU released their official field pass list for the MSU game, and Stalions isn’t listed. That means 1 of those 50 people gave theirs to him, or he had a fake pass. Either way this could potentially turn into a criminal trespass case, meaning law enforcement could get involved. That could lead to subpoenas and all sorts of things UM probably doesn’t want.
LikeLike
Trespass is not very frequently prosecuted on its own. For it to get a D.A.’s attention, the trespasser would usually need to have done or attempted something else illegal besides the bare act of trespassing itself. As this case is so unusual, you could perhaps imagine a hotshot trying to make a case they wouldn’t typically take because of the free publicity they’d get—although I wouldn’t bet on it.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen the comment from Baker referenced in this tweet, but the data is interesting anyway. Remember this is FY22 data, so the new B12 members have G5 money and Pac-2 still have P12 money.
G5 schools making the cut:
none
UConn is close at $92.5M
Pac-2 are below $90M and that is with P12 money
P4 schools missing the cut:
SEC – none
B10 – PU
ACC – BC, GT, WF, SU, SMU
B12 – TT, WV, CU, UU, ISU, KSU, BYU, UH, UCF, UC
https://twitter.com/Genetics56/status/1727787829084782601/photo/1
LikeLike
If the NCAA passed a new division that required $100M+ AD spend I expect a lot of schools in addition to Purdue would find the $$$. The G5 to B12 difference will put BYU and UH over the mark. TT, WV, and CU were all within $4M in 2022. Utah will find the $10M before they get demoted while BYU retains a higher status (money is never an issue for the LDS and BYU is run by the church). If SMU was able to buy its way in the ACC I suspect it could get a little more from those donors to maintain its status since it spent over 30 years trying to get back there after the SWC dissolved.
On NFL Thanksgiving football I suspect a lot of teams do not want to play a second game on 4 days rest. All 6 of the teams that played Thanksgiving have 2 Thursday games this year (3 for Lions). Only 3 other teams in the NFL were scheduled for 2 Thursday night games. It is easy to keep a tradition going if the other owners do not believe the money is worth the cost.
LikeLike
Purdue will automatically be bumped over $100M when the 2024 TV contract kicks in. Also note that there are only 22 Division I athletics departments that are entirely self-sustaining. Purdue’s athletic dept and 21 others do not receive any taxpayer dollars, general fund support from the academic university or student fees.
https://businessofcollegesports.com/finance/self-sustaining-athletic-departments-more-than-what-meets-the-eye/
LikeLike
Here is an updated list of Division I athletics departments that are entirely self-sustaining for 2023. Now there are only twelve: Ohio State, Texas, LSU, Texas A&M, Penn State, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arkansas, Nebraska, Purdue, Miss State, & Kansas State. In the following link, you need to click on the “Total Allocated” tab to get a consecutive list of the colleges with $0 contributed from the academic university.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
LikeLike
Little8,
If the NCAA passed a new division that required $100M+ AD spend I expect a lot of schools in addition to Purdue would find the $$$. The G5 to B12 difference will put BYU and UH over the mark. TT, WV, and CU were all within $4M in 2022. Utah will find the $10M before they get demoted while BYU retains a higher status (money is never an issue for the LDS and BYU is run by the church). If SMU was able to buy its way in the ACC I suspect it could get a little more from those donors to maintain its status since it spent over 30 years trying to get back there after the SWC dissolved.
I think drawing a line like that would be pointless. As you note, any P-level school will already be spending that or will spend more to make sure they cross that mark. And once players get paid, it will be a low bar. You’d also have to keep raising it to keep the G5 out. An arbitrary number like that would never get approved by the NCAA (the little guys get a vote, no?), and would probably get tossed out in a court case anyway. The NCAA seems much more likely to require a certain number of sports, or % of scholarships, or something indirect.
On NFL Thanksgiving football I suspect a lot of teams do not want to play a second game on 4 days rest. All 6 of the teams that played Thanksgiving have 2 Thursday games this year (3 for Lions). Only 3 other teams in the NFL were scheduled for 2 Thursday night games. It is easy to keep a tradition going if the other owners do not believe the money is worth the cost.
Wouldn’t they rather host the game than always giving Detroit that advantage? They don’t have to have a permanent host – the primetime game doesn’t.
LikeLike
I think drawing a line like that would be pointless. As you note, any P-level school will already be spending that or will spend more to make sure they cross that mark.
Nobody seems to have found exactly what Baker said, and in what context. I suspect if they ever did that, the dividing line would not actually be in dollars, as otherwise it’s too easy to game the system.
The breakaway, if it happens, is probably going to be by league, and not by school. Thus, assuming the ACC joins the party, its laggard schools will come along for the ride.
But it does remind me of the I-A/I-AA split, where football attendance was one of the criteria, and there were some schools pretty close to the borderline either way.
Wouldn’t they rather host the game than always giving Detroit that advantage? They don’t have to have a permanent host – the primetime game doesn’t.
Do the Thanksgiving hosts get any advantage? The Lions are arguably the most pathetic franchise in any of the four major sports. The primetime game is a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas Detroit and Dallas as hosts go back decades. As you pointed out, the NFL has never hesitated to cast aside tradition if they could make a few bucks, yet they keep this one.
LikeLike
On a short week, not needing to travel is an advantage. Playing at home is always an advantage. The data shows a slight W% advantage as well:
Lions:
Thanksgiving W% = 0.452 (37-45-2)
Overall W% = 0.449 (559-688-27)
Cowboys:
Thanksgiving W% = 0.598 (33-22-1)
Overall W% = 0.592 (511-352-2)
But the biggest advantage is publicity (with money a close second). If Detroit can sell tickets even while stinking, I’d think any of the large market franchises could sell them.
LikeLike
The data shows a slight W% advantage as well:
Lions:
Thanksgiving W% = 0.452 (37-45-2)
Overall W% = 0.449 (559-688-27)
It is perhaps more relevant to look at their all-time home record, which is 360-300-14*. So they are, on average, worse on Thanksgiving than on other days at home. I can’t think of a good reason for that, but I am not seeing a competitive advantage either. (You could be right about publicity and revenue—I don’t know.)
* That record includes four seasons that they played in Ohio as the Portsmouth Spartans. I couldn’t find their home record excluding those four seasons, but I can’t imagine it changes the analysis very much.
LikeLike
Gift link WaPo: https://wapo.st/47NTmTH
LikeLike
It’s appropriate that the final year of the four-team playoff is the most chaotic. I am pretty sure this is the first time that there would potentially be four undefeated teams in the playoff. That’s if Georgia, Michigan, Washington, and FSU all win their conference championships. (The odds of that actually happening are pretty low.)
In total, there are eight teams with a realistic chance to make the playoff, with seven of them playing this week. The Athletic’s Stewart Mandel says <a href=”https://theathletic.com/5094409/2023/11/27/college-football-playoff-scenarios-2/“>that’s the most there’ve ever been at this date</a>. Ohio State is the only team not playing that has a shot. This assumes the Committee would under no circumstances choose a two-loss team, which it has never done.
Mandel painfully wrote out all sixteen scenarios based on the potential results of this Saturday’s games. He rather generously assumed that there was no way Michigan would lose to Iowa, words no prognosticator should ever utter, because anybody can lose to anybody. All of the other P5 CCGs he assumed were winnable by either side.
In his opinion, Ohio State only gets in if Georgia, Washington, Louisville, and Oklahoma State win. He predicts that the 11-1 Buckeyes would get the nod over the 12-1 Seminoles who would be without their starting QB. The interesting case is if Oregon beats Washington, and the other results are as above. Mandel predicts the Committee would take two Pac-12 teams in that case, so the four-team field would be Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington, but Ohio State fans would have an argument.
The most difficult scenario is if Alabama, Washington, Florida State and Texas win. Mandel thinks the field would be Michigan, Washington, Alabama, and FSU. (Remember, he assumes Michigan wins every time.) But this would mean choosing 12-1 Alabama over 12-1 Texas, even though Texas owns the head-to-head and both would have conference championships. If you like chaos, this is probably the most challenging scenario for the committee.
Should Michigan lose to Iowa, there are still ways it could make the field, but it would have a very narrow path to do so. The cleanest possible case is if Georgia, Washington, FSU, and Oklahoma State win, which would leave Michigan as the highest ranking team with one loss. If Georgia, Washington, Texas, and Louisville win, the committee would have to choose between 12-1 Michigan and 12-1 FSU, and I think Michigan would likely be picked, assuming their starting QB is still upright.
LikeLike
For all of the justified criticisms of Kirk Ferentz, he has his Iowa Hawkeyes in the Big Ten CCG for the third time in the ten years since the East–West split was instituted. Only Wisconsin has been better, with four trips.
The West has never won a game, but Iowa had the best shot in 2016. The Hawkeyes had a 13–9 lead in the 4th quarter (a very Iowa score) before they surrendered a touchdown to MSU in the final minute. That was also the only time the East representative was not one of the three kings (OSU, UM, or PSU).
In the new system, I have to think the vast majority of the CCGs will feature two of Michigan, OSU, PSU, Washington, Oregon, or USC. This year, Ferentz only had to be the best of the West, which gives him the proverbial “puncher’s chance” to beat Michigan. In the new system, he’d need a lot of chaos to reach the top two. Ferentz’s best year was 2016, when he went 12–0 in the regular season but didn’t face Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State.
LikeLike
Winning a terrible division isn’t much to brag about, but yes he has done it where others have not. It’s often been a clown show of errors and bad football in the west, with IA’s no risk and no points offense sufficient to win when other teams implode. Balanced divisions would’ve prevented 2 of his 3 CCG trips, though.If he was just willing to employ an average offense, his teams could be much better.
LikeLike
Sometimes you have to tip your cap. The Hawkeyes have had six one-score games, going 5–1. They scored 20 points or less in seven games, going 6–1. By my count, ten of their games were still competitive in the 4th quarter, and they went 9–1. That is either incredibly lucky or just plain incredible.
One of their two losses was a real fluke. With under a minute left vs. Minnesota, Cooper DeJean returned a punt for a TD that would have given them the win. Because he caught the ball near the sideline, replay checked whether he stepped out of bounds—he didn’t. But while reviewing the play, they noticed he had given an “invalid fair catch signal” that negated the TD. DeJean was trying to wave other Iowa players away from the ball. But by rule, any kind of waving below the head is considered an invalid fair catch signal. Ferentz is still livid about the call, although it appears to have been correct. (Once the booth starts looking at a play, they can look at everything that is reviewable, even though a different issue may have prompted the review.)
But for that fluke, Iowa would be 11–1 with most of their wins coming in close games where they scored under 20 points or less.
The Iowa offense wasn’t always like this. It was never a juggernaut, but in 2015, when they went 12–0, they scored 28 or more in ten games, and they even had four games with 40+. Even by Iowa standards, the Brian Ferentz offense has been way below acceptable. Imagine how good they’d be if it were merely average.
LikeLike
The new playoff rankings have Oregon #5 and Ohio St at #6. That would seem to indicate that the Washington-Oregon winner gets in ahead of OSU regardless of who wins the P12 conf champ game. Semms like the Buckeyes only realistic hope is for Louisville to knock off FSU.
https://wapo.st/3Glppif
LikeLike
The new playoff rankings have Oregon #5 and Ohio St at #6. That would seem to indicate that the Washington-Oregon winner gets in ahead of OSU regardless of who wins the P12 conf champ game.
Mandel had an article on Monday, before the committee rankings, and he reached the same conclusion: the Oregon/Washington winner is IN. Of course, Washington is obvious: they would would be 13–0, and the committee has never snubbed an undefeated P5 champ.
Seems like the Buckeyes only realistic hope is for Louisville to knock off FSU.
OSU needs more than that. If the favorites all win, the top four seeds are probably: Georgia, Michigan, Wash/Ore, and FSU, with Texas the first out.
If FSU loses, Texas takes their place, not OSU. Thus, OSU almost certainly needs Texas to lose as well. The field would then be: Georgia, Michigan, Wash./Ore, and OSU.
The interesting case is if FSU, Texas, and Washington lose. Buckeye fans would perhaps be hoping for a field of: Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, OSU. But would the committee choose 11–1 OSU over 12–1 Washington? Not necessarily.
All of the above scenarios assume Georgia and Michigan win. But if either of them lose, those two schools at 12–1 most likely push OSU a notch farther down the ladder. So, for once in their lives, OSU fans need to root for Michigan.
In short, there is probably only one (reasonably probable) way OSU gets in: Georgia, Michigan, Washington, Oklahoma State, and Louisville all have to win.
LikeLike
Marc,
So, for once in their lives, OSU fans need to root for Michigan.
No, we really don’t. We don’t deserve a CFP spot and would lose the semifinal anyway. What we need to root for is better OL and QB play, a coach that doesn’t play to not lose, and the NCAA to eventually seriously punish UM for cheating.
Frankly I think the schadenfreude of IA beating UM in the B10 West’s last game, and the P12 winning the national title in their last year as a conference would be an outstanding way to close this era of CFB.
LikeLike
a coach that doesn’t play to not lose…
That used to be the rap on the Michigan coaches. In 2005, Lloyd Carr punted on 4th & 4 from the Ohio State 35-yard line with 2:12 remaining and a two-point lead at home. After a 23-yard punt, OSU marched down the field and won by four.
But in an eerie repeat last Saturday, Michigan had 4th & 4 from the OSU 19 with 1:10 to play and a 3-point lead at home. Not even Lloyd Carr would have punted from there, but Michigan eschewed the 4th-down try that would have effectively ended the game if it succeeded. Instead, they took the points, leaving OSU with the same chance the 2005 team had (albeit with a little less time and no time-outs).
Frankly I think the schadenfreude of IA beating UM in the B10 West’s last game, and the P12 winning the national title in their last year as a conference would be an outstanding way to close this era of CFB.
I certainly agree with the last half of that, and you better believe I am not comfortable with the large universe of pundits who are saying Iowa has no chance. In fact, I can easily see ways that Iowa wins that game. We’ve been saying that Ferentz’s style of play often produces ugly wins that are statistically improbable. They get a couple of short fields on turnovers, maybe a punt return TD, and Michigan’s offense bogs down—that sort of thing.
LikeLike
Marc,
I certainly agree with the last half of that, and you better believe I am not comfortable with the large universe of pundits who are saying Iowa has no chance. In fact, I can easily see ways that Iowa wins that game. We’ve been saying that Ferentz’s style of play often produces ugly wins that are statistically improbable. They get a couple of short fields on turnovers, maybe a punt return TD, and Michigan’s offense bogs down—that sort of thing.
Barring major injuries (like QB), there is no way IA can win this. I might buy it if it was a night game at IA – the weather, the crowd, etc. can combine to let them get upsets. But in Indy with a UM-dominated crowd? Nope. IA can potentially muck up the game and keep it close, yes, but there’s a reason PSU beat them 31-0 (and they had McNamara to start that game) and UM dominated PSU.
LikeLike
Sometimes you have to tip your cap. The Hawkeyes have had six one-score games, going 5–1. They scored 20 points or less in seven games, going 6–1. By my count, ten of their games were still competitive in the 4th quarter, and they went 9–1. That is either incredibly lucky or just plain incredible.
History shows those types of numbers generally aren’t sustainable and will revert to about 50%. There’s a reason the AD put BF on a points-per-game counter.
One of their two losses was a real fluke.
1. Applying the rules isn’t a fluke. The coverage pulled up in fear of getting a late hit out of bounds call, so they collectively let him escape. The call was correct – there is no doubt he was waving his arm (I know it isn’t always called, but it is the rule). Winning on that punt return would be more of a fluke than losing because of the call.
2. How fluky were some of IA’s wins? They beat ISU by 7 with a late stop on 4th and 1 and had a pick 6 along the way. They beat MSU by 10 with a late 4th quarter punt return TD to take the lead and got 4 TOs along the way. They beat WI by 9 and had an 82-yard rushing TD as part of that and got 2 TOs as well. They beat NW by 3 with a 53-yard field goal with 00:14 left. They beat IL by 2 with a late 30-yard TD run and had a safety earlier. They beat NE on a walk-off field goal. A bunch of those could easily have gone the other way, and they were against bad teams (the bets of those listed finished 7-5).
The Iowa offense wasn’t always like this. It was never a juggernaut, but in 2015, when they went 12–0, they scored 28 or more in ten games, and they even had four games with 40+. Even by Iowa standards, the Brian Ferentz offense has been way below acceptable. Imagine how good they’d be if it were merely average.
Agreed, and I’ve said as much multiple times here. The nepotism has been incredibly strong to allow BF to stay OC this long.
LikeLike
History shows those types of numbers generally aren’t sustainable and will revert to about 50%.
I entirely agree. Some the points you mentioned are things Iowa has done well for years (collecting turnovers, scoring on defense), so we could infer they are likely repeatable. But without improving the offense, nobody could keep winning at that rate.
One of their two losses was a real fluke.
1. Applying the rules isn’t a fluke.
Oh, I am not saying it’s a fluke when rules are followed. The fluke is that the officials had missed it, and the review was for a completely unrelated purpose. If he gave the identical signal but was just slightly farther away from the sideline, it probably does not get reviewed.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
No shock, The Game won the weekend ratings battle. The total viewers were the most since 2006.
OSU vs UM – 19.07M
AL vs AU – 9.09M
WSU vs UW – 5.85M
GT vs UGA – 5.33M
UF vs FSU – 5.07M
The Ohio State-Michigan rivalry game averaged more than 19 million viewers on FOX, the largest audience for the matchup since their #1 vs. #2 meeting in 2006 and the second-largest on record. Even just on a household rating basis (e.g. excluding out-of-home viewing), the game’s 9.0 rating ranks as the third-highest on record.
Placing a distant second for the holiday weekend, the Alabama-Auburn Iron Bowl scored 9.0 million viewers — the largest audience for an SEC conference game this season and eighth-largest overall.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/11/ohio-state-michigan-ratings-prediction-history-preview-tv-channel-start-time/
SMW predicted 20.0M viewers, so pretty close. The actual 19.1M would top last year’s CFP title game and only trail the 2 semifinals (22.5M & 21.7M).
There is no greater rivalry in college football than Michigan-Ohio State, at least if one judges by the television ratings. “The Game” is regularly the most-watched game of the season. Last year’s audience of 17.14 million viewers came to within 10,000 of the eventual national championship (Georgia 65, TCU 7: 17.22M). It has been nine years since the rivalry last averaged fewer than ten million viewers (2014: 8.23M), and at least 33 since it averaged as few as 6.27 million, or the audience of last year’s Iron Bowl.
…
Given the storylines and the stakes, the question is not whether this will be the rivals’ most-watched matchup outside of 2006 (a virtual given), but whether that 2006 number could be in play. The answer to that hypothetical is almost certainly no, but with out-of-home viewing juicing the numbers, a close game could have a real shot.
As mentioned previously, last year’s game averaged 17.14 million viewers, the highest for the rivalry outside of 2006.
CFB: #3 Ohio State-#2 Michigan (Noon Sat FOX). Prediction: 20.02M.
Most-watched Ohio State-Michigan games dating back to 1991
2006: #2 Michigan 39, #1 Ohio State 42: 21.04M, ABC
2022: #3 Michigan 45, #2 Ohio State 23: 17.14M, FOX
2016: #3 Michigan 27, #2 Ohio State 30: 16.84M, ABC
2021: #2 Ohio State 27, #5 Michigan 42: 16.47M, FOX
1995: #18 Michigan 31, #2 Ohio State 23: 14.27M, ABC (regional window)
These past 3 years have given Fox 3 of the top 5 most watched games in the rivalry ever (or at least in modern history).
LikeLike
The most watched game since 2011 (LSU vs AL), and it peaked at 22.9M viewers.
LikeLike
Another wild finish to the Auburn-Bama game. Over the years, that rivalry has provided some of the wildest games. Here’s the “Kick Six” play that won the game in 2013.
LikeLike
How do you make a giant Pop-Tart thin enough for players to bite through it but thick enough to have structural integrity? And more importantly, will it be heated or room temperature? (Raspberry flavor for the win)
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-oregon-state-washington-state-finalizing-scheduling-alliance-with-mountain-west-conference-180632163.html
OrSU and WSU are looking to pay the MWC $14M for a 1-year scheduling agreement of 6 games per team (every MWC team plays 7 MWC game + either OrSU or WSU). That’s about the going rate for a G5 OOC game, especially on short notice, so a reasonable deal for both sides in my opinion.
Key points:
* There’s an option for a second year
* No contractual requirement for a future merger, but it is understood that is the plan for the future (merger or reverse merger)
* The MWC will keep any extra media rights money they get from this
* OrSU and WSU will negotiate their own TV deal
* This deal is for football only, but they are working on scheduling deals for hoops as well. The other sports would likely become affiliate members of other leagues (MPSF for several presumably)
LikeLike
That’s a pretty favorable deal for OrSU and WSU, considering that they don’t have a lot of options, and they are running out of time to clarify their future before the portal opens in a few days.
I assume the MWC pushed hard for a written commitment to merge or reverse-merge. There are must be legal reasons (related to the ongoing litigation) why they couldn’t formally agree to that, even though everyone thinks it’s inevitable.
LikeLike
I think both sides’ lawyers said it was too early to lock in a merger. Until the P12 legal battle is settled and there is more clarity on assets vs liabilities (esp. how a reverse merger could open the MWC members to a P5 lawsuit), you can’t commit to anything. Normally you’d just wait to sign the deal, but they needed the games scheduled ASAP.
LikeLike
Nathan Baird at cleveland.com laments that the Big Ten’s lack of foresight leaves Ohio State on outside looking in at playoffs. His complaint is that the Big Ten did not take advantage of the NCAA rule change that would’ve permitted it to drop divisions, like most of the other FBS conferences. Had it done so, Ohio State would be Michigan’s opponent in the CCG, not Iowa.
I don’t think “lack of foresight” is quite the right phrase. The league surely knew there was a decent chance that Ohio State and Michigan would again be the two best teams. It just didn’t want the headache of creating a schedule format that would only be used once. If the league didn’t have new members coming in 2024, I suspect they would have made this change starting in 2023.
The SEC also kept divisions this year, likely for the same reason as the Big Ten: it had new members coming in 2024. The MAC and the Sunbelt kept divisions, simply because they like what they’ve got. In none of those conferences would the CCG participants have changed if divisions were eliminated; that, of course, is assuming the same schedule.
LikeLike
Correct. Laziness is the word for it. They didn’t even need to change the schedule. They could’ve played the games as scheduled and still taken the top 2 teams.
But I’ll be consistent and say that would be terrible. The Game should not become The Rematch the following week, making the first result irrelevant for the B10 title. It will happen eventually in the new system, and it will suck. And then they might meet again in the CFP to make the previous 2 encounters both meaningless.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39007978/nebraska-matt-rhule-prefers-developing-own-players-portal
“Make no mistake that a good quarterback in the portal costs, you know, a million to $1.5 million to $2 million right now, just so we’re all on the same page,” Rhule said Wednesday while discussing the state of the program with reporters. “Let’s make sure we all understand what’s happening. There are some teams that have $6 [million] or $7 million players playing for them.”
Remind me why players need scholarships?
LikeLike
Remind me why players need scholarships?
Because the NCAA always figures things out twenty years too late?
Seriously though, could we be reaching a point where 4* and 5* players volunteer to walk on, so that the scholarships can go to others? If that happens on a broad enough scale, the scholarships could become almost irrelevant for most of the team.
Or perhaps better still, the scholarships will go to kids who historically wouldn’t have received them, such as scout team players, the backup punter, and so forth, who aren’t getting multi-million-dollar NIL deals.
And there are probably a lot of schools lower on the totem pole than Nebraska where the scholarships still matter, even to quarterbacks.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/racing/nascar/story/_/id/39007786/nascar-include-streaming-new-7-year-media-rights-deal
Amazon will exclusively stream 5 NASCAR races starting in 2025. Also some practice and qualifying coverage will move to streaming. I think some of their rural fans are going to have an issue with poor internet connections.
Warner Bros. Discovery and Amazon also both obtained exclusive rights to practice and qualifying sessions for the entire Cup Series schedule through 2031. Prime Video will stream practice and qualifying live for the first half of the season through their last race of the midseason series — except for the exhibition Busch Light Clash, the Daytona 500 and NASCAR All-Star Race, which will be aired by Fox Sports.
TNT Sports’ portion will stream the remainder of the season’s practice and qualifying sessions on Max while they also air on truTV. NASCAR in July announced a deal to move the second-tier Xfinity Series to CW, which will air 33 live races from 2025 through 2031. The CW also will televise practice and qualifying events each weekend.
The previous deal gave the first 18 races to Fox while NBC aired 20 races.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/the-end-of-pac-12-football-our-qa-with-alabama-ad-greg-byrne-who-grew-up-in-the-conference-and-witnessed-the-beginning-of-the-demise/
Jon Wilner interviewed Alabama’s AD Greg Byrne about the demise of the P12 (he has a long P12 background pre-AL).
When did you first start to suspect the conference was headed down a troubling path? Which other athletic directors shared your concerns?
Over time, more of the athletic directors were concerned, but initially, it was Utah’s Chris Hill, Oregon State’s Bob De Carolis, a couple of others and me.
One of the first surprises was when we found out that the ADs and presidents/chancellors would no longer meet together. Traditionally, it was considered normal for there to be collective voices at the table to ensure those who were closest to the daily athletics experience could inform decisions that affected their programs directly.
This change siloed off the ADs, and the perception was things would be managed at the conference and CEO level without AD input. We finally pushed for time together at least once a year, but the narrative in the room was often controlled by only a few voices.
The next thing that got our attention was the spending on the conference office and the move to downtown San Francisco. We were very aware that every dollar spent at the conference level was a dollar that didn’t get to our student-athletes. When asked to review the expenses for the new conference offices, we were not given any pertinent information.
We recognized the need for a stable conference to support us, and we had secured the largest television agreement that, for a very short time, put us ahead of our peer conferences. From my previous time in the SEC, I knew that commissioner Mike Slive, along with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, would not sit idly by and not respond. And they did respond, to the benefit of the SEC and Big Ten, respectively.
…
The other red flag was when we were given high, medium and low financial projections for the Pac-12 Networks — and none of them were ultimately met.
From there, two narratives began to emerge: 1) The Pac-12 Networks were focused on exposure, and there wasn’t any promise of significant revenue, and 2) The Pac-12 Networks were turning a profit.
Many of us did not believe those two narratives. We agreed exposure was an important part of the plan, but so was prioritizing a positive revenue stream for our campuses. We believed that the Networks were not actually turning a profit and were never given a clear answer on revenues vs. expenses, no matter how much we pushed.
The schools also bought back our Tier 3 rights from our multimedia rights partners for the Pac-12 Networks, so the Networks could show our Tier 3 games. That was never accounted for when we would ask what net revenues were, no matter how many times we insisted that should be part of the equation.
What issues became the most worrisome to you?
There was a real disconnect between the conference office and us. It felt like our opinions were not valued, and there was a lack of collaboration with the athletics directors since we worked with the student-athletes, coaches, staff and fans on a daily basis.
While there were some positive and innovative steps taken by the conference — for instance, moving the men’s basketball tournament to Las Vegas — you still have to keep the main thing the main thing: Serve the campuses, athletics departments and the young people in our programs.
…
What internal characteristics/weaknesses have made the Pac-12 vulnerable to collapsing under the shifting dynamics of college football?
It’s hard to pinpoint one thing, but I think as the Pac-12 struggled on the football field, the interest simultaneously waned in a few other areas.
First, fans weren’t showing up with the same fervor. Secondly, local kids may not have been exposed to football as much and didn’t play in the same numbers as compared to the rest of the country. That has an effect on the number of future recruits and high-level athletes who are playing the game, as well as the alumni and fan base who follow the teams.
…
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/pac-12-championship-game-preview-uws-comfort-zone-the-lanning-factor-and-radio-silence-from-the-pac-12-networks/
In a fitting farewell to P12 football, the P12N will have zero on-site coverage of the CCG – no pregame, halftime or postgame shows, player interviews, etc.
I can understand if for legal reasons they couldn’t get approval to spend the $100k to send people to Las Vegas, but it sure is a bad look.
The final Pac-12 championship game will feature two playoff contenders with a combined record of 23-1, two Heisman Trophy candidates, ABC’s top broadcast crew and a sold-out stadium Friday night in Las Vegas.
Not in attendance: the Pac-12 Networks.
The conference’s wholly-owned media company will have no linear television presence in Allegiant Stadium, where No. 3 Washington and No. 5 Oregon collide with a College Football Playoff berth at stake.
No Pac-12 Networks pregame show.
No Pac-12 Networks halftime update.
No Pac-12 Networks postgame show.
Anyone tuning into the networks Friday at 9 p.m. will see a women’s volleyball match (USC vs. UCLA), not interviews with the Huskies and Ducks.
The on-site football coverage was swallowed up by cost cuts as the conference downsizes operations. The scope-of-services plan crafted by commissioner George Kliavkoff and approved by the presidents did not bother to include expenses for a Pac-12 Networks presence at the championship game.
According to multiple sources, it would have cost a maximum of $100,000 to send the on-air talent to Las Vegas and provide the production support. That was too much to bear, apparently. (Also not in the budget this year: Pac-12 basketball pre- and postgame studio shows.)
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/should-conference-title-games-continue-in-playoff-expansion-era-commissioners-mulling-future-of-college-football-133030050.html
Should CCGs go away? Conference commissioners are discussing it.
But in an expanded playoff era, a question looms for some of the sport’s most influential leaders: Are conference championship games necessary?
…
In an expanded postseason, many of the stakes in conference title games are built around attaining one of the four first-round byes designated for conference champions — something that could be determined during the regular season. Is the 13th game really worth it?
As playoff expansion draws closer, it’s a question asked more and more by those in charge.
“The championship game is a huge part of our season,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said. “Deciding a champion on the field, there is history to it. It means a lot. It’s been the right way to do things for a while.
“But down the road as the playoff changes, are there other ideas to consider?” he asked. “Yes.”
…
Coaches have informed their corresponding commissioners and athletic administrators about their feelings, even suggesting they bench players in a conference championship game to avoid injuries ahead of a playoff run, multiple stakeholders told Yahoo Sports.
…
“Whether the playoff is the current 12 or if it goes to 16, I think the enthusiasm for conference championship games will begin to wane,” Washington athletic director Troy Dannen said. “You’ll start to feel a little different about conference championship games even though they are play-in games for some.”
…
“There’s a real issue there in terms of how much you put your guys through,” Aresco said.
“It’s something we need to look at,” Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez said. “Number of games and numbers of plays is a direct correlation to student-athlete health.”
There are, of course, plenty of drawbacks to eliminating a conference title game, the financial piece being one of them.
Championship games are often incorporated into a conference’s television package. The SEC and Big Ten championship games are estimated to hold a television value of more than $40 million, experts say. Even the Big 12 championship game is priced at about $25 million-$30 million.
…
“Is that what’s best for college football, to eliminate conference championship games?” asked Judy MacLeod, commissioner of Conference USA. “What about the other 100-plus teams who don’t play in the playoffs? You are taking away championship opportunities.”
…
“You really want your championship decided by a computer rating?” asked Jon Steinbrecher, MAC commissioner. “We made decisions on the expanded playoff thinking we’d all have championship games. I don’t know why we’d back away from those now.”
…
With the elimination of conference title games, could college officials shift the Army-Navy game to what is now championship weekend and begin the 12-team playoff in the second week of December?
“The second weekend of December is a gold mine,” said retiring Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, a member of the CFP Management Committee of commissioners. “The NFL can start to go on Week 3. We are starting on Week 3. Figuring out how to capture the second weekend in December has to be a high priority for the future leadership of the CFP.”
LikeLike
Couple of issues. (1) The Army-Navy game should be played on Veterans’ Day, Nov 11.
(2) It doesn’t need to be all or nothing for the CCGs. The Big Ten and SEC could eliminate them while the Conference USA caliber conferences could continue them.
LikeLike
It’s all about the money. They can cry all they want about injuries and the demand on players’ bodies, but they are not going to expand to lose money. If they eliminate CCGs, something needs to replace the lost revenue. A playoff expansion to 16 or more is the only way to do it. (FCS now has 24, so it clearly can be done, whether or not you want that.)
Tony Petitti is a bit challenged when it comes to history:
“The championship game is a huge part of our season,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said. “Deciding a champion on the field, there is history to it. It means a lot. It’s been the right way to do things for a while.
True only for 13 of the league’s 128 years. For decades, the league had no qualms with shared titles, even if one of the tied teams had beaten the other(s). Of course, with conferences a lot larger now, it becomes much more probable that shared champs won’t have faced each other, and you’d be picking a champ with formulas.
If they expand the playoff again, they’d probably eliminate the first-round bye for the top four champs. I don’t know if they ever get to 20 or 24, but the next step will be 16, meaning that everyone plays. In that event, winning your conference would not confer the huge concrete advantage that it does now. But people still want bragging rights.
The current generation of fans is growing up, or perhaps already has grown up, conditioned to want a singular champ decided on the field. A return to shared championships, as in the pre-CCG era, is probably not going to be broadly popular. Brian will rend garments, but even he would likely concede that the leaders aren’t designing the system anymore for people like him.
It doesn’t need to be all or nothing for the CCGs. The Big Ten and SEC could eliminate them while the Conference USA caliber conferences could continue them.
That won’t happen. The leaders of the sport want to be able to start the playoff the second week of December, when there’s no NFL competition on Saturday. This means you’ve got to know the field after Thanksgiving weekend. In your scenario, the Big Ten and SEC would cancel their games, and yet they can’t start prepping for their first-round opponent because it depends on CCGs in lower leagues that haven’t been played yet. There’s no way they are doing that.
LikeLike
Marc, there is a reasonable argument that the Big Ten and SEC will make more money by getting more teams in the 12-team playoff than they will with a CCG. If we look at the current rankings, the neo-Big Ten has five teams in the top ten: Michigan, Washington, Oregon, Ohio St and Penn St. All a CCG will do is knock someone out. Similarly, the neo-SEC has five teams in the top twelve: UGA, Bama, Mizzou, Ole Miss and Oklahoma. Again, all a CCG will do is knock someone out.
And it’s not just gaining one playoff berth in exchange for losing one CCG. Obviously, any of those teams could win and play another game in the next round of the playoff, and then win again and play the next. To assume that a CCG will bring in more revenue than getting more teams into the playoff is specious.
LikeLike
Marc, there is a reasonable argument that the Big Ten and SEC will make more money by getting more teams in the 12-team playoff than they will with a CCG. . . . To assume that a CCG will bring in more revenue than getting more teams into the playoff is specious.
That would be a lot more believable if the conferences themselves were saying so. They are not. Heck, what you just said is not even consistent with itself. A “reasonable” argument (even if plausible) does not mean the contrary argument is specious.
If we look at the current rankings, the neo-Big Ten has five teams in the top ten: Michigan, Washington, Oregon, Ohio St and Penn St. All a CCG will do is knock someone out. Similarly, the neo-SEC has five teams in the top twelve: UGA, Bama, Mizzou, Ole Miss and Oklahoma. Again, all a CCG will do is knock someone out.
Obviously wrong. If we consider the Big Ten, for example, the CCG would be the UM–OSU re-match if next year’s rules were in place. Regardless of outcome, the loser would still be the second-highest ranked team in the Big Ten. Thus, unless you believe that the Big Ten doesn’t get a second team in the playoff at all, the loser would still be assured of a berth.
Same story in the SEC. The loser is still going to be the SEC’s second-best team, and thus is assured of a berth unless you think the SEC only gets one team in.
Many media outlets have shown hypothetical brackets if we had a 12-team playoff this year. Every one I’ve seen believes both the Big Ten and SEC get 3 teams in — their two CCG participants (regardless of winner) and one more.
Now, in lesser leagues it’s true that the CCG will function as an elimination game, but the CCGs are only going away if the two Big Boys want them to. Those other leagues (in most years) are getting a maximum of one team in, regardless of what they do. The lack of a CCG just changes how that team is picked.
LikeLike
Marc: “If we consider the Big Ten, for example, the CCG would be the UM–OSU re-match if next year’s rules were in place. Regardless of outcome, the loser would still be the second-highest ranked team in the Big Ten. Thus, unless you believe that the Big Ten doesn’t get a second team in the playoff at all, the loser would still be assured of a berth.”
That is not true. There are only seven at-large berths in the 12-team playoff and the Big Ten doesn not decide who gets in as the Big Ten # 2. If OSU lost a UM-OSU rematch in the CCG, the 10-2 Buckeyes would not be chosen over an 11-1 Penn State, 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Washington, 11-1 Bama, 11-1 Texas, etc. In fact, there is no guarantee they get in over a 10-2 Notre Dame, 10-2 LSU or 10-2 Oklahoma.
LikeLike
If OSU lost a UM-OSU rematch in the CCG, the 10-2 Buckeyes would not be chosen over an 11-1 Penn State, 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Washington, 11-1 Bama, 11-1 Texas, etc. In fact, there is no guarantee they get in over a 10-2 Notre Dame, 10-2 LSU or 10-2 Oklahoma.
This flunks basic math, because if OSU loses the rematch they cannot be 10–2, as they would’ve played 13 games. I assumed we were talking about the actual season that just happened, where Notre Dame and LSU are both 9–3, not 10–2. Bama has a game yet to play, so they are either going to be 12–1 or 11–2,. etc. It is almost impossible create a real season with the numbers you have just come up with.
LikeLike
Oops, obviously I meant an 11-2 Ohio State. But the same logic applies. The playoff committee looks at two consecutive OSU loses to Michigan. Do they then and put the Buckeyes in the playoff ahead of 11-1 Penn State, 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Clemson, 11-1 Bama, 11-1 Notre Dame, 11-1 LSU or 11-1 Texas? And there may also be an SEC CCG loser that is also 11-2 with a stronger SOS.
The Yahoo link that Brian provided above said it flat-out: ” . . . six of the 10 commissioners feel like it should be examined pretty seriously and explored. There’s a camp that thinks conference championship games should be, you know, eliminated or seriously looked at elimination.” Now those commissioners may cite the problems with the extra game and late-season injuries but they’re really thinking “The last thing I need is for my two best teams to be playing each other right before the playoff teams are selected. And especially the week after all of those titanic rivalry games: Bama-Auburn, Mich-Ohio St, Texas-TAMU, etc.”
This “all about the money” mentality is too simplistic. A conference that gets more teams into the playoff will make money from doing so and more teams in also increases that conference’s chances of winning a NC.
LikeLike
Marc,
Obviously wrong. If we consider the Big Ten, for example, the CCG would be the UM–OSU re-match if next year’s rules were in place. Regardless of outcome, the loser would still be the second-highest ranked team in the Big Ten. Thus, unless you believe that the Big Ten doesn’t get a second team in the playoff at all, the loser would still be assured of a berth.
Same story in the SEC. The loser is still going to be the SEC’s second-best team, and thus is assured of a berth unless you think the SEC only gets one team in.
Many media outlets have shown hypothetical brackets if we had a 12-team playoff this year. Every one I’ve seen believes both the Big Ten and SEC get 3 teams in — their two CCG participants (regardless of winner) and one more.
Now, in lesser leagues it’s true that the CCG will function as an elimination game, but the CCGs are only going away if the two Big Boys want them to. Those other leagues (in most years) are getting a maximum of one team in, regardless of what they do. The lack of a CCG just changes how that team is picked.
The B10 and SEC make over $50M (some say $70M) from their CCGs and don’t have to share. The other power conferences probably make $30M+, with the G5 making a few million each. If the CFP expansion the replaces the CCGs made $200M more, would it be split that same way regardless? Why would the SEC and B10 risk getting less in any given year than the CCGs could have made them? Presidents tend to be very risk averse. If they would make more 9 out of 10 years, making less that 1 year scares them.
For the P2, usually the CCG wouldn’t change who makes the expanded CFP. Both teams will get in, it just impacts the seeding of the loser. For the ACC and B12, it might be an elimination game in some years but not others. For the top of the G5 it may change which champ is rated highest and thus makes the CFP. It is probably irrelevant to the MAC almost always.
It’s not like anyone is required to hold a CCG. Those worried about the wear and tear on players can drop them at any time and just name a champion. You don’t need to ban them.
LikeLike
This is nonsense. If the the CCG loser – let’s say it’s Penn State – is 11-2 and the conference also has 11-1 USC and 11-1 Michigan, Penn State is not getting in ahead of USC and Michigan.
LikeLike
This is nonsense. If the the CCG loser – let’s say it’s Penn State – is 11-2 and the conference also has 11-1 USC and 11-1 Michigan, Penn State is not getting in ahead of USC and Michigan.
Basic math again. In your scenario, Penn State must’ve won a tiebreaker against USC and Michigan, so they played in the CCG vs. (let’s say) Ohio State, while USC and Michigan stayed home. You haven’t stated OSU’s record, but they’d have to be 12–1 or 13–0.
Now, you can look it up — how often does any conference have four teams with 11 or 12 wins at the end of the regular season? Almost never. While mathematically conceivable, it’ll rarely happen. There are 7 at-large playoff spots. It’s pretty likely that if somehow the Big Ten manages to have 4 teams that good, all four get in. (This assumes that such a rarity is not simultaneously occurring in the SEC as well.)
Besides that, in your scenario PSU would’ve played a 13th game vs. a very good OSU team, while Michigan and OSU didn’t put their record at risk at all. The committee (and poll voters) would likely take that into account. In other words, if PSU was better than Michigan and USC after 12 games, then they don’t become worse by losing to Ohio State while those other programs did nothing. (On top of that, Michigan would’ve already lost to Ohio State too.)
If the CCGs are regularly costing the Big Ten and the SEC a playoff bid, they might change their stance. But it would need to happen fairly often, not just in the rare season where every star misaligns in some strange way.
LikeLike
The Yahoo link that Brian provided above said it flat-out: ” . . . six of the 10 commissioners feel like it should be examined pretty seriously and explored. There’s a camp that thinks conference championship games should be, you know, eliminated or seriously looked at elimination.”
Did you notice which three are not saying that? The Big Ten, the SEC, and the Big XII. When they start saying it, you will know it’s serious.
Among the Power Four, it appears only the ACC’s Phillips is in favor of examining this. (You said “6 of the 10 commissioners,” which means the now-irrelevant George Kliavkoff must have been surveyed, but the article didn’t say what position he took.)
But in any case, it’s clear most of the six had to have been Gang of Five commissioners. And for them, you are correct. Since the G5 will have only one playoff team in most years, their CCGs could indeed knock out their one and only contender. But the rules aren’t going to change because the G5 wants them to.
The Big XII is a more interesting case. Their CCG winner is practically guaranteed a playoff spot. But that game could knock them out of a second bid, so I could see them changing their tune at some point.
LikeLike
Marc,
Basic math again. In your scenario, Penn State must’ve won a tiebreaker against USC and Michigan, so they played in the CCG vs. (let’s say) Ohio State, while USC and Michigan stayed home. You haven’t stated OSU’s record, but they’d have to be 12–1 or 13–0.
History has shown that the committee doesn’t punish CCG losers much. When OSU blew out WI in 2014 59-0, WI only went from #13 to #18. That same year MO lost the CCG to AL 42-13 and stayed #16. Over time, conferences are just as likely to benefit from these results as suffer.
B10 CCG CFP ranking changes (winner/loser)
2014: +1/-5
2015: +2/-1
2016: +1/-2
2017: +3/-2
2018: +0/-1
2019: -1/-0
2020: +1/-0
2021: +0/-2
2022: +0/NR
Average: +0.8/-1.4
And based on history, the B10 and SEC would expect to put at least 3 teams each into the CFP each year. This is why a CCG loss isn’t a huge deal for them. The ACC and B12 have more to gain and more to lose (a second bid).
Now, you can look it up — how often does any conference have four teams with 11 or 12 wins at the end of the regular season? Almost never. While mathematically conceivable, it’ll rarely happen. There are 7 at-large playoff spots. It’s pretty likely that if somehow the Big Ten manages to have 4 teams that good, all four get in. (This assumes that such a rarity is not simultaneously occurring in the SEC as well.)
It has been basically impossible to have 4 11-win teams due to scheduling, but will be slightly more common with 18 teams in the P2. But as you note, the 7 at-larges could include 3 from the B10 in a remarkable year.
If the CCGs are regularly costing the Big Ten and the SEC a playoff bid, they might change their stance. But it would need to happen fairly often, not just in the rare season where every star misaligns in some strange way.
And the financial loss would need to be significant. If the CCG earns $70M, a CFP spot would need to be worth at least $80M guaranteed for them to consider dropping the CCG. The CCG brings coverage and prestige to the conference, plus the B10’d look bad if they drop their CCG while the SEC keep theirs.
Did you notice which three are not saying that? The Big Ten, the SEC, and the Big XII. When they start saying it, you will know it’s serious.
Among the Power Four, it appears only the ACC’s Phillips is in favor of examining this. (You said “6 of the 10 commissioners,” which means the now-irrelevant George Kliavkoff must have been surveyed, but the article didn’t say what position he took.)
Or GK didn’t answer. He probably considered it irrelevant since it will be a Pac-2 at this point, and not have a CCG. And the ACC has been the worst CCG of the remaining P4 in terms of viewership and thus TV value.
But in any case, it’s clear most of the six had to have been Gang of Five commissioners. And for them, you are correct. Since the G5 will have only one playoff team in most years, their CCGs could indeed knock out their one and only contender. But the rules aren’t going to change because the G5 wants them to.
The Big XII is a more interesting case. Their CCG winner is practically guaranteed a playoff spot. But that game could knock them out of a second bid, so I could see them changing their tune at some point.
It seems just as likely to add a bid via an upset as cost them a bid. And it makes them seem more like the P2 if they keep it.
LikeLike
Marc,
It’s all about the money. They can cry all they want about injuries and the demand on players’ bodies, but they are not going to expand to lose money. If they eliminate CCGs, something needs to replace the lost revenue. A playoff expansion to 16 or more is the only way to do it. (FCS now has 24, so it clearly can be done, whether or not you want that.)
Exactly. The G5 commissioners can talk about it all they want, the B10 and SEC aren’t giving up $50M+ every year that nobody else gets a piece of. Even with expansion, you’d need all that extra money to go to the P4 to replace the CCG payouts. And those 4 extra games would largely be the equivalent of the CCGs anyway, just with less branding. I suppose you could just call the CCGs half of the first round of a 16-team playoff, but that favors #3 in the B10 and SEC over the #2 team in each league
Tony Petitti is a bit challenged when it comes to history:
“The championship game is a huge part of our season,” Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said. “Deciding a champion on the field, there is history to it. It means a lot. It’s been the right way to do things for a while.”
True only for 13 of the league’s 128 years. For decades, the league had no qualms with shared titles, even if one of the tied teams had beaten the other(s). Of course, with conferences a lot larger now, it becomes much more probable that shared champs won’t have faced each other, and you’d be picking a champ with formulas.
“Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.”
It’s been true for Petitti’s entire reign as commissioner.
Out of pure irony, how about CCGs go away and we use the BCS computers to pick the conference champs in order to facilitate settling things on the field and not using computers?
If they expand the playoff again, they’d probably eliminate the first-round bye for the top four champs. I don’t know if they ever get to 20 or 24, but the next step will be 16, meaning that everyone plays. In that event, winning your conference would not confer the huge concrete advantage that it does now. But people still want bragging rights.
It’s one reason I don’t think 16 is likely for a while unless they count the CCGs as part of the CFP (while still letting the conferences own them and keep the TV rights). Then you’ve got 8 P4 teams in and playing CCG weekend. Two weeks later, the 4 lowest at-larges play at the G5 champ (so they play 1 extra game) and 3 highest at-larges. Then proceed as planned. The only real change is that both CCG teams are automatically part of the 16 teams and the winners get a bye 2 weeks later.
Brian will rend garments, but even he would likely concede that the leaders aren’t designing the system anymore for people like him.
They never designed it for people like me, it just happened that way. All the changes have been to make it less of what I prefer. They will always chase the dollar while ruining the sport I loved.
That won’t happen. The leaders of the sport want to be able to start the playoff the second week of December, when there’s no NFL competition on Saturday. This means you’ve got to know the field after Thanksgiving weekend. In your scenario, the Big Ten and SEC would cancel their games, and yet they can’t start prepping for their first-round opponent because it depends on CCGs in lower leagues that haven’t been played yet. There’s no way they are doing that.
They can’t start that week unless they get over the special treatment for Army/Navy, or start the season a week earlier.
If anything, it would happen the other way since the P2 are the ones making huge profits from those games.
LikeLike
Deion Sanders, coach of a 4-8 team, wins SI Sportsperson of the Year
Gift link WaPo: https://wapo.st/3RjbxeF
LikeLike
AKA “Clickbait sportsperson of the year”
LikeLike
https://collegehoops.today/rothstein-files/momentum-growing-for-big-ten-to-only-have-14-or-15-teams-in-big-ten-tournament-when-league-expands-in-2024-25/
The B10 may only expand the B10 hoops tournaments to 15 teams, or even stay at 14 teams, in 2024-25.
Current bracket (14):
No byes: 11-14
Single bye: 5-10
Double bye: 1-4
Possible bracket for 15:
No byes: 10-15
Single bye: 5-9
Double bye: 1-4
That means adding a 3rd game on Wednesday. I don’t think they want 4 games on Wednesday, so they can’t go to 16. They also don’t want to add a 5th day, so 17 and 18 are out.
They could also eliminate some byes and use a conventional bracket but with #1 getting a bye, and split the first round. That would have 2 vs 15, 3 vs 14 and 4 vs 13 on Wednesday with 5 vs 12, 6 vs 11, 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9 on Thursday. That keeps them at 4 games per day (no overlap). But I think they like favoring the higher seeds, so they’ll probably keep the byes like they have now.
LikeLike
Lots of posters here, and pundents everywhere seem ready to crown the new west coast B1G members as kings or barons…..Watching OR-WA right now reminds me that like the Big 12 – defense, field position, punting, running the damn ball generally has always been lacking as part of their game , let alone November cold weather and howling winds.
I suppose the B1G might bend over and schedule their Nov games favorably, but still….
LikeLike
Discussion of kings and barons (or princes) is about brand, and a proxy for TV viewership and thus value to the TV deal. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that USC football isn’t a king, or that UO and UW football aren’t barons. UCLA is on the borderline in football, but their hoops is a clear blueblood and UCLA football was strong not that long ago.
As for how they will do in the B10, there’s no reason USC can’t be at PSU’s level. UW and UO are playing above their usual level and will return to their typical levels, but that’s still pretty good. Are they not better than RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL, NW and MN as programs? If they are, then they are in the top 10 in the B10. That’s about where I’d put UCLA. Then you are into the kings (OSU, UM, PSU, USC) and barons (WI, MSU, IA, UW, UO, NE).
The clash of styles will be the most interesting part of this expansion. It will be like the true Rose Bowls of yesteryear. USC’s defense against IA’s offense (the moveable object vs the resistible force)? 3 yards and a cloud of dust vs Team Nike?
What will their fans think when they play Iowa and see Ferentz punt on 4th and 1 from the +40 yard line? How will they handle a mediocre B10 team running the ball downhill 50 times per game? How will they adapt to November games in the midwest? How will midwestern teams handle warm weather games in good weather in November?
I think you’ll see both sides change a bit, probably for the good of everyone.
LikeLike
View at Medium.com
For example, this list of most-watched teams for 2015-19. The 4 P12 newbies did pretty well considering their TV deal and opponents. Add in playing on the B10’s TV deal, the extra eastern time zone exposure, the huge fan bases of B10 teams and you’ll see those 4 move up.
1. Ohio State (5.19M)
3. Michigan (4.18M)
10. Penn State (2.55M)
12. Wisconsin (2.27M)
15. Michigan State (2.20M)
16. Southern Cal (1.98M)
21. Iowa (1.57M)
22. Nebraska (1.51M)
26. Oregon (1.34M)
28. Washington (1.32M)
32. UCLA (1.25M)
34. Indiana (1.17M)
40. Northwestern (867K)
43. Minnesota (803K)
54. Maryland (681K)
55. Purdue (620K)
70. Illinois (401K)
75. Rutgers (266K)
LikeLike
That list is skewed by Mich St, Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana each playing Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State every year in the Eastern Division. When we drop divisions in 2024, those teams will be the four lowest in viewers.
LikeLike
You are correct about Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana. Michigan State is a different story: this survey includes the late Dantonio era when they were actually a strong program, which did in spite of having to play three kings every year. They likely can’t sustain that (and haven’t), but there’s no reason to imagine them dropping to the bottom of the list either.
LikeLike
Next year Purdue plays Notre Dame, Oregon State, Oregon, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Penn State. They’ll jump from the bottom third to the top third in viewers.
LikeLike
Marc,
You are correct about Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana. Michigan State is a different story: this survey includes the late Dantonio era when they were actually a strong program, which did in spite of having to play three kings every year. They likely can’t sustain that (and haven’t), but there’s no reason to imagine them dropping to the bottom of the list either.
Don’t forget that all BTN games counted as a 0 in that analysis. The numbers will be a little more accurate going forward since the BTN is now rated by Nielsen. Disney does not pay for the SECN, ACCN or LHN to be rated, nor did the P12N.
I point this out because OSU vs RU is often on BTN, as is UM vs UMD, etc. IU is higher than expected in part because it includes one of their better recent stretches, with 3 bowl trips in those 5 years.
MSU will probably drop a little with the end of divisions, but they are a big brand and if they return to 9+ win seasons they will draw eyeballs.
LikeLike
Next year Purdue plays Notre Dame, Oregon State, Oregon, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Penn State. They’ll jump from the bottom third to the top third in viewers.
Now that’s hilarious. When it suits you, you always point out how terrible Notre Dame’s TV ratings are. Now suddenly they are good enough to catapult Purdue into the top third???
All of the other games mentioned above are irrelevant, because every school in the league will rotate through the same opponents — PU’s only locked opponent is Indiana. Thus, to the extent Purdue benefits by playing those teams, so does everybody. Notice that the survey that Brian cited was over a 5-year period, which smooths out single-year anomalies.
Even with that schedule, I bet a few of those games will end up on lower-rated platforms like Peacock and BTN.
LikeLike
Marc: “When it suits you, you always point out how terrible Notre Dame’s TV ratings are.”
That isn’t true. I point out how bad ND’s ratings are when they are playing Tennessee State, Navy and Wake Forest.
Marc: “PU’s only locked opponent is Indiana.”
That isn’t true either. Purdue is locked with Illinois and Indiana.
LikeLike
Marc: “PU’s only locked opponent is Indiana.”
That isn’t true either. Purdue is locked with Illinois and Indiana.
You are right, but correcting me harms your case. Instead of one locked game the rest of the country doesn’t care about, they’ve got two — making it harder for them to get into the top 1/3rd, as you suggest they will.
LikeLike
It won’t be Purdue fans getting the Boilers into the top third. It’ll be the fans of Notre Dame, Ohio State and Penn State. And bear in mind the viewers of Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan State and Indiana will drop considerably when divisions are eliminated.
LikeLike
or a natl champ since 2004……
LikeLike
How many has the B10 won since 1950 outside of OSU?
The SEC could talk that way, but not the B10.
LikeLike
vacated due to infractions……
LikeLike
Site has every CFB team’s historical data, easy to compare teams over any given time, head-to-head records, etc, all easy to navigate and sort:
https://www.winsipedia.com/nebraska
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/wilner-vision-for-the-future-of-pac-12-football-its-2033-and-the-conference-has-reformed-with-the-old-guard/
Jon Wilner’s vision for the future of college sports.
LikeLike
Wilner pines for a Pac-10/12/14 of significance to cover and you can’t have that at this point without another FBS breakup.
Maybe it happens and maybe it doesn’t, but I’ll lean against.
Most of the value is efficiently captured by the Big Ten and SEC which don’t have much deadweight; they’re efficiently distributed across the country while still letting Alabama/Georgia/Ohio State/Michigan/etc. win 10+ games every year.
If we’re seeing Ohio State fans lose their minds over going 11-1 with a loss to Michigan what happens if they go 6-6 or 7-5 in a bunch of years?
Even in a NFL-style FBS, why watch that instead of just the NFL?
LikeLike
z33k,
Wilner pines for a Pac-10/12/14 of significance to cover and you can’t have that at this point without another FBS breakup.
Maybe it happens and maybe it doesn’t, but I’ll lean against.
I pine for it too. FBS is crap anyway, so break it up again/some more. When NFL Lite starts, there will be a lot of teams left over to reform a sane CFB scene with regional conferences.
Most of the value is efficiently captured by the Big Ten and SEC which don’t have much deadweight; they’re efficiently distributed across the country while still letting Alabama/Georgia/Ohio State/Michigan/etc. win 10+ games every year.
If we’re seeing Ohio State fans lose their minds over going 11-1 with a loss to Michigan what happens if they go 6-6 or 7-5 in a bunch of years?
Even in a NFL-style FBS, why watch that instead of just the NFL?
I don’t think it’s very efficient, it’s just what we have. They’d make a lot more money without the dead weight (1/3 -1/2 of each conference at least), or at least without them getting an equal share.
The NFL does fine even with prolonged down periods for certain teams. The Browns and Lions have tried everything to kill off their fan bases, but they can’t manage to do it. Why watch NFL Lite? Because it plays on Sunday and the NFL can’t, and/or you’re a gambling addict. For every true CFB fan they lose, they’ll gain 1.5-2 NFL/casual fans. That’s why the viewership numbers keep going up.
LikeLike
Now the debate begins. The CFP committee is charged with selecting the four best teams, not the four most deserving teams. Clearly better teams should be ranked higher while things like head-to-head and conference titles are used as tiebreakers between roughly equivalent teams.
So how should the top teams be ranked, and how will they be ranked (if different)?
Rankings are from last week:
13-0 UM is B10 champ and has wins over #6, 10 and 16
13-0 UW is P12 champ and has wins over #5, 5, 15 and 20
13-0 FSU is ACC champ and has wins over #13, 14 and 23
12-1 UT is B12 champ and has wins over #8 AL, 18 and 25, and lost to #12
12-1 AL is SEC champ and has wins over #1 UGA, 11, 13 and 21, and lost to #7 UT
12-1 UGA lost their CCG and has wins over #9, 11 and 21, and lost to #8 AL
11-1 OSU has wins over #10 and 17 and a loss to #2 UM
I think they should be:
1. UW – played a tougher schedule
2. UM
3. UT – next 3 are based on head-to-head results
4. AL
5. UGA
6. FSU – at best will have to use their backup QB who didn’t look good last week
7. OSU
I think they might be:
1. UM
2. UW
3. AL
4. FSU – forcing in an undefeated P5 champ
5. UGA
6. UT – they couldn’t leave the SEC out so they use the excuse of AL beating UGA while UT only beat OkSU to bump AL over UT
7. OSU
If they the CFP let in the most deserving, then it should be:
1. UW
2. UM
3. UT
4. FSU
5. AL
6. UGA
7. OSU
Under “most deserving” you have to include 13-0 FSU, which means UT gets in over AL due to the head-to-head win since neither had a bad loss.
I’ll be curious to see if they are consistent between the top teams and what they do for the G5 champs. Liberty played a terrible schedule, but is 13-0. Tulane was the only G5 ahead of them but they lost to SMU. The AP poll had SMU 5 spots behind Liberty – would their win over Tulane be enough to move them up, even at 11-2?
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2017/9/20/selection-committee-faq
What is the mission of the College Football Playoff Selection Committee?
The selection committee’s task is to select the 25 best teams in college football, rank the teams for inclusion in the playoff and selected other bowl games, and then assign the teams to bowl sites.
…
What criteria does the selection committee use to rank the teams?
The selection committee ranks the teams based on the members’ evaluation of the teams’ performance on the field, using conference championships won, strength of schedule, head-to-head results and comparison of results against common opponents to decide among teams that are comparable. The selection committee is comprised of experts in college football, and they use their expertise in the deliberations.
Selection committee members examine statistical data, and they also review a significant amount of game video. The CFP retains SportSource Analytics to provide the statistical information for the committee’s use. This platform allows the selection committee members to compare teams on every possible level. Each member evaluates the data at hand, and then the individuals produce a group decision through the seven rounds of voting.
LikeLike
There are a bunch of never-evers at stake:
1. No team has gone from #1 in the penultimate ranking to eliminated—as Georgia will be.
2. No team has gone from lower than 6th in the penultimate ranking to the top four—as Texas (7), Alabama (8) or both, will be.
3. No undefeated P5 champ has ever been left out—as FSU might be.
4. No SEC champ has ever missed the playoff—as Alabama might be.
But these aren’t rules — they’re just conditions that were never met.
I believe the Committee is allowed to consider injuries. Without its starting QB, FSU is not the team that beat LSU and Clemson earlier in the year. That leaves you with the following four in some order: UM, UW, UT, AL.
I think the Committee is permitted to disregard the head-to-head, and put Alabama higher than Texas based on more recent results. That doesn’t mean they’ll do it. Results still matter, and Alabama hasn’t been dominant enough justify overlooking their home loss to the Longhorns. Texas ought to be 3rd.
I don’t know whether the Committee will swap Michigan and Washington. The thing is, for whatever reason it put Michigan higher every week, starting in Week 9 — when Michigan still hadn’t played Penn State, Ohio State, or Iowa. UW had already beaten Oregon once, a far better win than any that Michigan had, and yet they were two spots lower. (Both obliterated Michigan State, the only common opponent.)
So if the Committee thought Michigan was better before it had reached the meat of its schedule, were the CCG results enough to change their minds?
LikeLike
Marc,
There are a bunch of never-evers at stake:
1. No team has gone from #1 in the penultimate ranking to eliminated—as Georgia will be.
2. No team has gone from lower than 6th in the penultimate ranking to the top four—as Texas (7), Alabama (8) or both, will be.
3. No undefeated P5 champ has ever been left out—as FSU might be.
4. No SEC champ has ever missed the playoff—as Alabama might be.
But these aren’t rules — they’re just conditions that were never met.
Correct, and 3 of the 4 happened this time.
I believe the Committee is allowed to consider injuries. Without its starting QB, FSU is not the team that beat LSU and Clemson earlier in the year. That leaves you with the following four in some order: UM, UW, UT, AL.
Yes, they are supposed to consider missing players and coaches. And yes FSU looked worse the past 2 games (though the CCG was with the 3rd stringer and they should have their 2nd stringer back for the postseason). But they beat #14 at a neutral site with their 3rd string QB using a dominant defense against a highly-rated passing offense. They beat their rival with their backup QB. They might not win as pretty this way, but they’ve been winning. AL lost at home with their starting QB.
I think the Committee is permitted to disregard the head-to-head, and put Alabama higher than Texas based on more recent results. That doesn’t mean they’ll do it. Results still matter, and Alabama hasn’t been dominant enough justify overlooking their home loss to the Longhorns. Texas ought to be 3rd.
They have to decide a team is clearly better to do that. For comparable teams, they have to consider head-to-head and other “tiebreakers.” But to be clear, consider does not mean blindly follow.
I don’t know whether the Committee will swap Michigan and Washington. The thing is, for whatever reason it put Michigan higher every week, starting in Week 9 — when Michigan still hadn’t played Penn State, Ohio State, or Iowa. UW had already beaten Oregon once, a far better win than any that Michigan had, and yet they were two spots lower. (Both obliterated Michigan State, the only common opponent.)
So if the Committee thought Michigan was better before it had reached the meat of its schedule, were the CCG results enough to change their minds?
I said the committee would keep UM above UW. I just think they are wrong to do so. UW played a tougher schedule and should be rewarded for it. Plus they didn’t get caught cheating along the way.
LikeLike
I said the committee would keep UM above UW. I just think they are wrong to do so. UW played a tougher schedule and should be rewarded for it.
I don’t see how they could have coherently explained swapping them when the same set of people — for whatever reasons — thought Michigan was better before it had played any ranked teams. Your point is well taken, but by the same argument Washington should’ve been ranked ahead of Michigan from the start.
Plus they didn’t get caught cheating along the way.
The Committee has a set of things it’s supposed to consider, and that isn’t one of them. I get that this will rub a lot of people the wrong way, especially if Michigan eventually vacates most of those games, which I think it will.
But it’s a very slippery slope if, in addition to all of the other things they consider, the Committee procedures are changed to require them to weigh NCAA investigations that haven’t been adjudicated yet.
LikeLike
Marc,
I don’t see how they could have coherently explained swapping them when the same set of people — for whatever reasons — thought Michigan was better before it had played any ranked teams. Your point is well taken, but by the same argument Washington should’ve been ranked ahead of Michigan from the start.
They have made the swap before, and the explanation is simple – UW beat a tougher team in their game so their SOS went up enough to justify the swap. #5 UO was the hot team out west and favored to win the P12CCG with a Heisman-candidate QB. #16 IA was terrible on offense even before they lost their starting QB and was probably overrated coming in due to a soft schedule.
Yes, UW always should’ve been ahead of UM. UM got ranked higher based on last year’s success and they let it stand all season. Beating OSU was considered a more impressive win than UW beating UO the first time (at home also, but OSU was ranked higher) so swapping after last week might’ve made sense. But the second time around UO was playing better and was favored, so UW should’ve gone back in front.
The Committee has a set of things it’s supposed to consider, and that isn’t one of them. I get that this will rub a lot of people the wrong way, especially if Michigan eventually vacates most of those games, which I think it will.
But they do consider coaches being absent, so one might say considering the reason why he was absent is relevant here. But I know they ignored it and hid behind their guidelines.
But it’s a very slippery slope if, in addition to all of the other things they consider, the Committee procedures are changed to require them to weigh NCAA investigations that haven’t been adjudicated yet.
UM admitted Stalions’ guilt by taking the B10’s punishment, plus there is a giant pile of unquestionable evidence. It’s not just an unresolved NCAA case.
Isn’t that the whole point of the human factor of the committee? To consider things that computers can’t? Otherwise, bring back the BCS computers to rank the teams.
Speaking of which:
LikeLike
UM admitted Stalions’ guilt by taking the B10’s punishment, plus there is a giant pile of unquestionable evidence.
That doesn’t quite characterize what UM thought of the Big Ten’s punishment. Under Big Ten rules, the punishment is unappealable, and I always thought they had a very steep uphill climb to persuade a court to intervene. UM has certainly not conceded that their wins are invalidated, even though I think they eventually will be.
Isn’t that the whole point of the human factor of the committee? To consider things that computers can’t?
Yes and no. Someone decided that a committee could do better than polls. However, there’s a list of enumerated factors that the committee considers. I haven’t heard of a generalized “get-out-of-rules free” card that allows them to bring in other factors. Unresolved NCAA allegations aren’t on the list. You seem to think the Committee is lawless and doesn’t follow its own rules consistently, and yet want it to invent a rule that isn’t there.
I still wonder if the Big Ten considered declaring Michigan ineligible for the CCG. But the Big Ten allowed Michigan to play, and it won. Now you are suggesting the committee should invent a new rule that the win somehow doesn’t count, even though the Big Ten said it counted?
LikeLike
Regardless of what the Committee does today, playoff expansion will have the salutary effect of reducing its influence. Never before have there been so many potential outcomes that rational and informed people believe to be correct. Thus, whatever it does, a big swath of the country will think it was wrong.
The Committee will always make mistakes, but among the top teams it will be about seeding, not whether they deserved to be in it at all. There will always be a 13th team who thought they were as good as the top 12, but you’re talking about someone that probably had multiple losses and didn’t win its conference — not the same magnitude as leaving out the SEC champ or Florida State at 13–0.
LikeLike
Marc,
Regardless of what the Committee does today, playoff expansion will have the salutary effect of reducing its influence. Never before have there been so many potential outcomes that rational and informed people believe to be correct. Thus, whatever it does, a big swath of the country will think it was wrong.
The Committee will always make mistakes, but among the top teams it will be about seeding, not whether they deserved to be in it at all. There will always be a 13th team who thought they were as good as the top 12, but you’re talking about someone that probably had multiple losses and didn’t win its conference — not the same magnitude as leaving out the SEC champ or Florida State at 13–0.
Yes, the debate will shift to the byes and to the last at-large in which are both less important decisions. But seeding will become a much bigger debate with home games for #5-8. The order of 5-8 and 8 vs 9 will be hotly contested and have real impacts on the final outcome. That said, usually #1-4 will contain the eventual winner.
Of course, this comes at the price of a lot of games mattering a whole lot less. The CCGs become mostly about seeding, as do rivalry week games like OSU vs UM. Early season OOC games become almost meaningless. Instead the games of smaller brands on the fringe of making the CFP get more value, but that is spread across a lot more games so the public won’t be that invested in any game.
The fundamental issue has not been resolved, though. The committee tries to rank the teams based on who is “best” (which they are poor at – see below) but the system is setup to reward “most deserving” (byes for champs).
My question: If they think AL is better than FSU, isn’t UGA also better than them? Did they say FSU without their starting QB is comparable to UGA, so the conference title makes the difference? That makes no logical sense to me. If you’re truly saying “best” then FSU should have dropped well below 5.
History shows the committee is not great at ranking:
Champ’s CFP seeding:
#1 – 3
#2 – 3
#3 – 1
#4 – 2
Semifinals:
#1 vs #4: 7-2
#2 vs #3: 4-5
Finals:
#1 vs #2: 0-3
#1 vs #3: 3-1
#2 vs #4: 0-1
#3 vs #4: 0-1
So they can tell 1 from 3 or 4, but get 1 vs 2 wrong a lot. 2 vs 3 is a coin flip.
The top teams tend to have more separation than those lower in the rankings. So if they are more often wrong than right with 2 vs 3, how will they do at 8 vs 9 and 12 vs 13? And with the new system, we know lower-ranked teams may get byes.
LikeLike
History shows the committee is not great at ranking.
I liked the BCS ranking system better: the two traditional polls plus computer. But they kept tweaking the BCS formula when it was perceived to have produced the “wrong” outcome. I don’t think the committee has improved on it enough (or frankly, at all) to justify all the time and money they spend on it.
I know there were some worries that the polls/computers could be corruptly manipulated. Suppose it turned out that someone fat-fingered an input to one of the computer polls, and that turned out to be decisive in a close case? Or suppose the Clemson coach votes FSU 10th (because he just doesn’t like FSU), and that’s just enough to cost the Seminoles a berth?
LikeLike
The polls and computers might be corrupt, but a completely opaque cabal of 13 that meets in secret to “discuss” the teams can’t be? For all we know, ESPN secretly contacted each member and said they wanted AL over FSU and were given what they wanted.
You can check the input file the computers use, and there’s a long track record of the results to verify that the codes are working. You could even test them with a fake input file to see what results they output.
1 voter can only skew a large poll so much, and anything could decide a close call. You could throw out outlier votes (there are mathematical tests for outliers) and drop those people from the poll in the future.
How about we try an AI? Or be really crazy, and try objective metrics?
LikeLike
“But seeding will become a much bigger debate with home games for #5-8. The order of 5-8 and 8 vs 9 will be hotly contested and have real impacts on the final outcome.”
Indeed.
It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which the playoff seeding committee works to avoid a third successive (for one of the schools) Michigan-Ohio State or Washington-Oregon (perhaps even UCLA-USC) matchup.
LikeLike
I think it will be:
1 Washington
2 Michigan
3 Texas
4 FSU
*Right now, I think Washington looks better than Michigan so I bumped them up.
*Texas won the Big 12 and beat the SEC champion on the road so they are in. They are also going to be an SEC team in a few months so is the SEC really being left out this year?
*The eye test supports Alabama over FSU but at the end of the day, FSU went undefeated and won the ACC. The SEC may be the best conference but this is the weakest it’s been in recent years.
*Let’s not forget that Alabama required a borderline hail mary to beat a 6-6 Auburn team, so I don’t think they are as deserving as everyone thinks.
LikeLike
Let’s not forget that Alabama required a borderline hail mary to beat a 6-6 Auburn team, so I don’t think they are as deserving as everyone thinks.
We have not forgotten. But I don’t recall that the committee has ever discounted a win because a miraculous play contributed to it. That’s something fans do.
LikeLike
They do whatever it takes to fit their personal narratives. They discount the wins of teams they don’t like as much and exaggerate the value of the wins of the teams they favor. They talk about strength of schedule, but that has no bearing on “best.” The 49ers would be the best team in CFB even if they played a MAC schedule. But the SOS argument gets ignored if an SEC team plays a crappy OOC schedule with a late cupcake then a weak rival and only 8 conference games. Then they’ll pull out strength of record and game dominance if that better supports their agenda, but ignore it if their pet team had a lot of close wins. Instead their “eye test” will tell them how great that team is, and how all those close wins show moxie/maturity/leadership/etc.
They’ve talked before about teams barely winning games mattering in their debate, it just never is used against an SEC team.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39035032/fsu-play-georgia-orange-bowl-liberty-gets-group-5-bid
So we know the NY6 games now:
Rose: 1. UM vs 4. AL (semifinal)
Sugar: 2. UW vs 3. UT (semifinal)
Orange: 5. FSU vs 6. UGA (ACC champ vs highest ranked B10/SEC)
Cotton: 7. OSU vs 9. MO (at-large vs at-large)
Peach: 10. PSU vs 11. MS (at-large vs at-large)
Fiesta: 8. UO vs 23. Liberty (at-large vs G5 champ)
This is where their insistence on following seeding annoys me. As I posted above, the committee isn’t that good at getting the order correct. So why insist on 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 with pre-selected sites, and other such pairings? UT gets a homefield advantage over UW by playing in nearby New Orleans, which seems unfair to #2 (who should actually be #1 anyway).
Doesn’t this look better?:
Rose: UM vs UW (semifinal)
Sugar: UT vs AL (semifinal)
Two southern teams play in the south, and a traditional Rose Bowl out west.
As for the NY6, the same sort of problems exist. MO gets homefield advantage over OSU in Dallas. MS gets homefield advantage over PSU in Atlanta. Why did UO draw the short straw and get stuck playing Liberty? Shouldn’t that be the lowest ranked at-large team?
The Orange matchup is set by contractual obligations, but the rest could be improved. I get they want UO to stay out west for travel, and OSU played in the Peach last year and the Fiesta several times recently. So let’s leave those two in place. Both MO and MS would have homefield advantage in Dallas over OSU, so put Liberty there instead. MS would also have homefield advantage in Atlanta over PSU, so have MO travel to Atlanta and MS to Phoenix.
Orange: 5. FSU vs 6. UGA
Cotton: 7. OSU vs 23. Liberty
Peach: 9. MO vs 10. PSU
Fiesta: 8. UO vs 11. MS
That is more fair to the higher seeds.
LikeLike
The playoff seedings are logical and prevent a rematch until the championship game. Few are interested in a last classic Rose Bowl with both teams being 2024 B10 members.
I do not think there are as many Missouri fans in the Dallas area as you think. It will be more of what fan base travels best. It is 9 hours driving from Columbia and 15 from Columbus so there is that advantage.
As far as the Cotton hosting Liberty the G5 host seems to be rotated and the Cotton had it last year with Tulane-USC. If the committee had selected SMU instead of Liberty than the Cotton may have been willing to sell the local team. As it is the Fiesta was stuck with Liberty and had to get the best opponent to sell tickets, that being Oregon.
We may be seeing Liberty a lot in NY6 bowls now that they know the formula. They are in the weakest G5 league and are rich enough that they do not have to schedule away buy games. In Liberty’s defense they did have the same signature OOC win as Michigan. Michigan beat 7-5 Bowling Green by 24 points vs. 10 for Liberty.
LikeLike
Little8,
The playoff seedings are logical and prevent a rematch until the championship game. Few are interested in a last classic Rose Bowl with both teams being 2024 B10 members..
Are they logical? Lots of people are saying UW is the worst of the 4, and Las Vegas agrees. That would set up the traditional Rose Bowl.
As for interest level, did anybody ask? You have 3 huge brands and a big brand with a Heisman candidate QB. I think almost any pairings would draw interest. I doubt the rematch would turn many people off, and the CFP better hope that’s true in the future.
I do not think there are as many Missouri fans in the Dallas area as you think. It will be more of what fan base travels best. It is 9 hours driving from Columbia and 15 from Columbus so there is that advantage.
They claim to have over 3700 alumni in the area, and it’s their 2nd largest out of state city for alumni after Chicago. Plus there are the B12 ties and now SEC ties. But mostly I was referring to physical proximity. If we’re energized, OSU will out-travel MO to Dallas.
As far as the Cotton hosting Liberty the G5 host seems to be rotated and the Cotton had it last year with Tulane-USC. If the committee had selected SMU instead of Liberty than the Cotton may have been willing to sell the local team. As it is the Fiesta was stuck with Liberty and had to get the best opponent to sell tickets, that being Oregon.
I figured they had some rule like that to spread the pain, but it does make for worse games and punishes the B10 schools. Why should the bowls get more consideration than the teams and fans?
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Football_Playoff
Some fans are not happy, and used Wikipedia to make their point (emphasis mine).
The College Football Playoff (CFP) is an annual postseason knockout invitational tournament to determine a national champion for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), the highest level of college football competition in the United States to determine which SEC or Big Ten team will be a national champion. Four teams play in two semifinal games, and the winner of each semifinal advances to the College Football Playoff National Championship game.
LikeLike
What would the 12-team playoff look like in the 5+7 format?
Byes: 1. UM, 2. UW, 3. UT, 4. AL
1st round:
23. Liberty @ 5. FSU – winner plays 4. AL
11. MS @ 6. UGA (conf. game) – winner plays 3. UT
10. PSU @ 7. OSU (rematch) – winner plays 2. UW
9. MO @ 8. UO – winner plays 1. UM
At least it wouldn’t be the winner of OSU/PSU vs UM, or else it would basically be the B10 season repeated.
Missed out: 12. OU so G5 champ can get in
What would the 12-team playoff look like in the 5+7 format and 2024 alignment? And yes, I realize you couldn’t have 2 13-0 B10 teams and other things would also change.
Byes: 1. UM, 3. UT, 5. FSU, 20. OkSU (the Pac-2 doesn’t count)
1st round:
23. Liberty @ 2. UW – winner plays 20. OkSU
10. PSU @ 4. AL – winner plays 5. FSU
9. MO @ 6. UGA (rematch) – winner plays 3. UT
8. UO @ 7. OSU – winner plays 1. UM
Look how easy that path is for #2 – beat #20 and #23 to make the semifinals. I think that’s easier than 1 game against a top 10 team. It would help if they re-seed after each round, or at least after the 1st round (1 vs 20, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5).
Missed out: 11. MS, 12. OU so B12 and G5 champs can get in
Again I will say that ranking is not the exact science they pretend, so games should be more based on geography and history than strictly rankings.
Byes: 1. UM, 3. UT, 5. FSU, 20. OkSU
1st round:
8. UO @ 2. UW – winner plays 20. OkSU
23. Liberty @ 6. UGA – winner plays 5. FSU
9. MO @ 4. AL – winner plays 3. UT
10. PSU @ 7. OSU – winner plays 1. UM
The downside is all the rematches, but that could be eliminated easily in this case if that is people’s preference:
Byes: 1. UM, 3. UT, 5. FSU, 20. OkSU
1st round:
10. PSU @ 2. UW – winner plays 20. OkSU
23. Liberty @ 6. UGA – winner plays 1. UM
9. MO @ 4. AL – winner plays 5. FSU
8. UO @ 7. OSU – winner plays 3. UT
LikeLike
Interesting comment in WaPo:
““Unfathomable,” ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips stated of Florida State’s exclusion, but some might shovel some of that blame upon Phillips himself, who counted among three conference commissioners who slowed the process of expansion from four to 12 teams.”
LikeLike
Again I will say that ranking is not the exact science they pretend, so games should be more based on geography and history than strictly rankings.
I am not sure who is saying it’s exact. But I would suggest a rule that a team’s seeding can be adjusted, within certain limits, to avoid regular-season rematches. This would make sense, given that as you’ve pointed out the seeds are highly imprecise anyway. I think the basketball committee has a rule about avoiding rematches, but with 68 teams they have a lot more flexibility.
“Unfathomable,” ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips stated of Florida State’s exclusion, but some might shovel some of that blame upon Phillips himself, who counted among three conference commissioners who slowed the process of expansion from four to 12 teams.
Yes, exactly. In the original proposal, the 12-team format would have started this year. Phillips is one of those who slowed it down. Maybe others would’ve dragged their heels anyway, but he helped do it.
LikeLike
Marc,
I am not sure who is saying it’s exact.
The CFP committee and those who designed the CFP. Because games have to be 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 (and so on down through the first round), and they can determine the “best” teams.
But I would suggest a rule that a team’s seeding can be adjusted, within certain limits, to avoid regular-season rematches. This would make sense, given that as you’ve pointed out the seeds are highly imprecise anyway. I think the basketball committee has a rule about avoiding rematches, but with 68 teams they have a lot more flexibility.
Why restrict it to rematches? Why not simply prefer a traditional Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl and know that the champ has to beat 2 of the other 3 anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter how you pair them?
The NCAAT avoids/delays conference rematches among the top 4 seed lines I think.
Yes, exactly. In the original proposal, the 12-team format would have started this year. Phillips is one of those who slowed it down. Maybe others would’ve dragged their heels anyway, but he helped do it.
Blame the SEC, their underhanded dealings (trying to lock in an ESPN-only extension and add UT/OU while defining the expanded CFP rules) is what started the whole response.
Blame the B10 and P12, they would’ve said no anyway.
Philips did was his presidents wanted. How is that his fault? Especially since they were fundamentally correct.
The committee screwing them is not Philips’ fault, it’s the committee’s. Trying to pass the blame is typical for the CFP. They screwed the ACC because they couldn’t escape their own narrative of SEC greatness and refused to consider a CFP without the SEC champ. They were looking for excuses to leave FSU out, and Travis’s injury provided one. They will hide behind the guidelines and any other excuse they can think of, but it fundamentally comes down to their bias. They never would’ve done the same thing to a 13-0 SEC champ regardless of the injuries.
LikeLike
I am not sure who is saying it’s exact.
The CFP committee and those who designed the CFP. Because games have to be 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 (and so on down through the first round), and they can determine the “best” teams.
They never said it’s exact. In fact, quite the opposite: the inexactitude of it is the reason they decided to use a committee instead of computers. I was never a fan of the committee. Given that it’s inexact, you might as well just use the BCS mechanism—but you don’t like that either.
Why restrict it to rematches? Why not simply prefer a traditional Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl and know that the champ has to beat 2 of the other 3 anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter how you pair them?
What do you think a “traditional” Rose Bowl would be in a world that has no Pac-12 anymore?
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/5108154/2023/12/03/cfp-playoff-rankings-right-wrong/
Bruce Feldman on how the CFP ruined the season.
Next year, all this College Football Playoff arguing will be moot with the CFP expanding to 12 teams. Arguing over Nos. 3, 4 and 5 is very different than 10, 11, 12 and 13. You lose your benefit of the doubt when you lose games. Even in the SEC.
But this year is still a four-team field, and with so many variables factoring into the decision, there is a lot to dissect. And to state it plainly: the College Football Playoff committee got it wrong. College football has, or at least it used to have — up until right now — the best regular season in sports because the games mattered most. We have a smaller sample size in this sport than in any other.
Will SEC teams ever lose that benefit of the doubt? I’ve seen no evidence for that. The complaints may be less, but they’ll still get favored for that last slot over others.
Bruce is wrong about the season, though. It got ruined once the BCS started. The focus on “determining a champ on the field” is misguided and undermines the season. The playoff system has always been highly flawed, too.
The CFP rankings often devolve into an argument over “best” versus “most deserving.” Best is usually the get-out-of-jail free card whenever your team loses or has a bad loss that it can’t explain. Similar to the nonsense of, “Well, Vegas would make so-and-so more than a touchdown favorite against them.” Great. But tell that to Washington. The Huskies were almost a double-digit underdog against Oregon last week, a team they’d already beaten this year. … Well, the Huskies beat the Ducks again.
I get it. The SEC has been the most dominant conference in college football for the past two decades. But this year hasn’t been like those other years if you’ve been paying attention. It’s simply been a down year for the SEC. The ACC actually went 6-4 against the SEC this year. If this was a one-loss FSU team, I’d say the Seminoles didn’t earn their way in, but they did. Texas should not have been left out either for a team it beat in its own place.
As colleague David Ubben wrote Saturday night, the games have to matter. What’s the point of playing them if we’re going to try and rationalize them away?
LikeLike
(Haven’t posted in a minute)
Initial thoughts on a CFP of Michigan/Washington/Texas/Alabama:
Really cements how this is now a Power 2 conference sport. Look at the top 13 rankings in 2024 terms: 5 Big Ten schools and 7 SEC schools alongside FSU.
The CFP 4 of course features 2 Big Ten vs SEC matchups in 2024 terms; this might as well be the dreaded Big Ten-SEC playoff year.
I think today more than anything is the nail in the coffin of the ACC. Yes today’s exclusion of FSU is a one off because of the soon-to-be implemented 12 team format, but the division of the sport as a Power 2/everyone else has revealed itself today more meaningfully than in any other way. And as the money divides along those lines, eventually it will affect recruiting (in terms of schools paying recruits out of conference distributions and all the rest).
I think FSU alums/fans will always hold this against the ACC even if the ACC isn’t specifically responsible for this. If there was ever a “the ACC is holding back FSU moment” (however justified or unjustified) it’s today.
Of course, FSU can’t leave the ACC until the 2030s, but I think we all know the next realignment discussions will start as soon as we get to the next television contract discussions.
LikeLike
z33k,
I think FSU alums/fans will always hold this against the ACC even if the ACC isn’t specifically responsible for this. If there was ever a “the ACC is holding back FSU moment” (however justified or unjustified) it’s today.
Of course, FSU can’t leave the ACC until the 2030s, but I think we all know the next realignment discussions will start as soon as we get to the next television contract discussions.
They probably will, but I think that anger should be split:
Blame Philips for not campaigning for them harder. Sankey was making his case before the CCGs were played – where was Philips? And why was ESPN giving Sankey that platform but not Philips?
Blame the other ACC teams for being bad this season. If FSU’s SOS was higher, the committee would’ve found it harder to exclude them.
Blame the committee and those who set it up and let it continue to be such a horribly flawed system. The guidelines should have always been the 4 most deserving teams, and biased people never should’ve been making these decisions. Define the entire set of criteria in advance, banning “the eye test” as nothing but an instrument of bias, and get rid of people who do a bad job of it.
LikeLike
The ACC has a long history of blunders:
– early expansion without independents Penn State or South Carolina.
– cutting a TV deal with John Swofford’s son, Chad.
– signing a 20-year grand of rights.
– Notre Dame without football.
– losing Maryland and replacing them with Louisville instead of WV.
– opposing earlier playoff expansion to 12 teams.
– expansion with Stanford, Cal and SMU
LikeLike
There are accuracies and clunkers in that list.
Notre Dame without football.
Notre Dame was never joining with football. If the ACC had said, “all sports or nothing,” the answer would have been “nothing”. Would the ACC have been better off spurning the half-a-loaf that ND offered? I can’t see how it would.
Losing Maryland and replacing them with Louisville instead of WV.
By the time they lost Maryland, WV had already joined the Big 12 and was not available.
Expansion with Stanford, Cal and SMU.
There is no fact base for this, since they haven’t yet played a game. It’s hard to judge without facts. When Jim Delany launched the Big Ten Network, not everyone thought it was the brilliant move it turned out to be. It’s not like the 20-year ACC TV deal, which we now know was horrific.
I think that standing pat and waiting for implosion in the 2030s would have been a worse move than taking these 3 schools on financial terms that were very favorable to the ACC.
LikeLike
Marc, you ask ” Would the ACC have been better off spurning the half-a-loaf that ND offered?”
As we go forward with the 12-team playoff, the ACC probably would have a better chance of getting two teams in if they didn’t have 4-5 losses to ND every year. And another question, what would ND be doing with all of its Olympic sports right now if they were not playing in the ACC? Big East? Back to the Horizon League again?
Marc: “By the time they lost Maryland, WV had already joined the Big 12 and was not available.”
WV had a high buy-out but the ACC should have paid it.
Stanford, Cal and SMU are football lightweights and for logistics, they are extreme outliers for the ACC.
LikeLike
As we go forward with the 12-team playoff, the ACC probably would have a better chance of getting two teams in if they didn’t have 4-5 losses to ND every year.
And yet, you think ND should be in the ACC for football, in which case the league would be playing 9 games a year vs. the Irish, not 5. By the way, the Irish went 3–2 vs. the ACC this year, losing to the two best teams it played, Clemson and Louisville (FSU not on their schedule).
And another question, what would ND be doing with all of its Olympic sports right now if they were not playing in the ACC? Big East? Back to the Horizon League again?
ND joined the ACC because it allowed them to remain independent. If they had to join a league in football, they would join the one that is offering the most money, which is the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Marc, I’m not arguing that ND should be in the ACC for football. I’m arguing that the ACC shouldn’t have allowed them in without football. Your comment about the league would be playing 9 games a year vs. the Irish instead of 5 is misleading if the ND is a full football member of the conference. Obviously full membership would enhance the stature of the ACC.
And you can probably add yet another ACC blunder to that list that I posted. ND’s new TV contract with NBC provides them with Big-Ten-caliber revenue while FSU and Clemson are still stuck with Swoffordian chump change. Maybe they should have planned on some more equitable revenue sharing?
LikeLike
The ACC was going to get plucked anyway. Ten years from now, when it finally happens, this won’t be the major reason, because there are so many others.
The guidelines should have always been the 4 most deserving teams, and biased people never should’ve been making these decisions.
I am not exactly sure where you would find a committee so pure that everyone would agree it was unbiased. If you look at the bios of the committee members, I am not sure where you think the purported SEC/ESPN bias is coming from. Yeah, there’s one SEC guy on it, but he couldn’t have swayed the result unless many others agreed. The committee chair is an ACC guy.
And you can’t seem to take a consistent position. Is the problem that the guidelines should’ve been different? Or is the problem that the committee didn’t follow those that exist?
Define the entire set of criteria in advance, banning “the eye test” as nothing but an instrument of bias…
Have you ever seen such criteria? The traditional polls — which I believe you still favor as a method of determining a national champion — are infested with voters applying eye tests tests.
LikeLike
Marc,
I am not exactly sure where you would find a committee so pure that everyone would agree it was unbiased.
I wouldn’t have a committee. If you do, then don’t use CFB people because they can’t avoid their biases.
If you look at the bios of the committee members, I am not sure where you think the purported SEC/ESPN bias is coming from. Yeah, there’s one SEC guy on it, but he couldn’t have swayed the result unless many others agreed. The committee chair is an ACC guy.
My statement of their bias is based on their decisions, and those are driven by ESPN’s coverage of the sport. People can claim they don’t pay attention to it, but psychology shows that isn’t true. People say the same things about ads, and yet those messages get through and change consumer behavior.
And you can’t seem to take a consistent position. Is the problem that the guidelines should’ve been different? Or is the problem that the committee didn’t follow those that exist?
Yes. Both are problems. The guidelines have always been wrong and logically inconsistent, but even if they weren’t the committee does not consistently apply them. If they can pick the best teams in rank order, then there is no need to play the games. Just name the champion. If you can’t do that, then you are really picking the most deserving anyway and using SOS, SOR, eye test and other BS to pretend that humans can discern the best team.
Have you ever seen such criteria? The traditional polls — which I believe you still favor as a method of determining a national champion — are infested with voters applying eye tests tests.
I don’t favor determining a national champion at all. If the polls wish to unofficially do it, then I don’t care how they choose to do it. But the BCS and CFP try to make it official (without actually being an NCAA title), so their methods matter.
Have I seen such criteria? Yes, of course. Every computer poll uses them.
LikeLike
My statement of their bias is based on their decisions, and those are driven by ESPN’s coverage of the sport.
If you’re going to accuse someone of bias — and you are being at all credible — you have to demonstrate that their actions are so far beyond the pale that they never would have reached those decisions honestly.
Well, I looked at the Massey composite, which is a huge conflation of every rating out there, most of them computers. Lo! and behold, what are their top six:
1. Michigan; 2. Washington; 3. Texas; 4. Ohio State; 5. Alabama; 6. FSU.
Thus, the consensus top three are exactly what the Committee did, and Massey also has Alabama ahead of FSU. Massey’s consensus would put Ohio State in the playoff rather than the Crimson Tide, something that nobody is suggesting the Committee should’ve done. Other than that, it’s exactly the Committee order.
I can respect not wanting a playoff at all. But on the understanding that others made that decision and the committee had the narrow task of ordering teams, they appear to have done it well. This is not to say it’s beyond all argument, but it’s not biased either.
LikeLike
Marc,
If you’re going to accuse someone of bias — and you are being at all credible — you have to demonstrate that their actions are so far beyond the pale that they never would have reached those decisions honestly.
No, I don’t. Reaching the right decision for the wrong reasons is still bias. When they explain their reasoning behind their decisions, it is logically inconsistent. Being human, they have bias. I’m not saying they are making their decisions out of intentional bias (it isn’t a conspiracy either), I’m saying they have unconscious bias which impacts their decision making process.
Well, I looked at the Massey composite, which is a huge conflation of every rating out there, most of them computers. Lo! and behold, what are their top six:
1. Michigan; 2. Washington; 3. Texas; 4. Ohio State; 5. Alabama; 6. FSU.
Thus, the consensus top three are exactly what the Committee did, and Massey also has Alabama ahead of FSU. Massey’s consensus would put Ohio State in the playoff rather than the Crimson Tide, something that nobody is suggesting the Committee should’ve done. Other than that, it’s exactly the Committee order.
And they did it objectively. You don’t see me advocating for OSU to get in because of this, though. The computers mostly don’t factor in conference titles, but humans are supposed to.
I said from the start that if you asked me to pick the 4 best teams right now, I’d also leave FSU out. But I recognize that I’m biased and am making that decision on an uninformed whim.
A question I don’t think the committee considered but should: Who will be the 4 best on 1/1? FSU’s backup QB should improve a lot with weeks of practice as QB1.
But on the understanding that others made that decision and the committee had the narrow task of ordering teams, they appear to have done it well. This is not to say it’s beyond all argument, but it’s not biased either.
Well? Based on what? Their process is opaque, and history shows they don’t do it all that well. They are no better than the polls or computer rankings.
Are there rankings reasonable? Sure. Any idiot can come up with reasonable rankings.
Did they use a logically consistent process? No.
Did they use a data-driven approach? We don’t know since there is zero transparency, but their explanations indicate they did not.
Does history indicate their top 4 rankings tend to be correct? No. #1 over #4 yes, but that’s about it.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39033710/cfp-anger-index-unpacking-outrage-florida-state-snub-2023
A good description of why the CFP is terrible and so is everyone involved in it or supporting it.
Then we moved to a four-team playoff, and the whole point was to eliminate the hypotheticals and let a champion be crowned by the actual results on the field. If you won your games, you had a chance to win a national title.
Turns out, all of that was a charade. None of it mattered. The games are pointless. What happens on the field is less important than what a committee thinks might happen in a future matchup.
It is an absolute slap in the face to every player who has ever put on a helmet, laced up cleats and marched onto the field to battle for a victory, because a bunch of folks in a conference room in Texas decided their sacrifice was not as important as the Las Vegas line on a potential playoff matchup.
It’s a joke.
Yes, Florida State is without starting QB Jordan Travis, meaning it would have to play with a quarterback who wasn’t its opening-week starter in order to win a national title, and of course that couldn’t happen. After all, only 2014 Ohio State, 2017 Alabama, 2018 Clemson and 2021 Georgia did that. What are the odds that something that’s happened 44% of the time would happen again?
And sure, FSU’s passing game was a mess in the ACC championship game. No argument there. Funny thing though: FSU won its title game by more than Alabama did. In fact, FSU has won its past two games by more than Alabama has. And since Travis got hurt in Week 12 against North Alabama, the Seminoles have thrown for just 8 fewer yards than Michigan has in that same stretch, but there was no debate about Michigan.
Oh, and this is probably irrelevant in the face of such a poor quarterback performance against Louisville, but there’s also the small matter that the QB who started that game, Brock Glenn, wouldn’t be the QB starting a playoff game (since Tate Rodemaker would be out of concussion protocol by then).
The committee cared about one stat when making this decision: FSU’s 55 passing yards against Louisville.
Here are the stats it ignored: Seven sacks, 14 tackles for loss, 10 passes defended, 189 rushing yards against a stacked box, a 10-point win over a top-15 team with a QB making his first career start.
Let’s be real about what happened here: The committee members couldn’t leave the SEC out of the playoff. They didn’t care that Alabama needed a miracle to avoid a loss to 6-6 Auburn two weeks ago. They didn’t care that Georgia’s own injuries — playing with a banged-up Ladd McConkey and Brock Bowers — likely played a large part in why the Tide won Saturday. They didn’t care that the ACC has a winning record, head-to-head, against the SEC this season. They didn’t care that Alabama beat 2023 Georgia, not 2021 or 2022 Georgia. They cared that Alabama and the SEC had to have a spot in the playoff by birthright. And as a result, they sent a message that what happened on the field — the blood, tears and sacrifice that players made all season to win every game on their schedule — was less important than getting the most compelling TV matchup.
…
Give the committee this: At least it was consistent. In snubbing Florida State, it determined the “eye test” was more important than the results, and they held true to that philosophy in ranking Washington behind Michigan in spite of the Huskies’ overwhelmingly more impressive résumé.
…
The committee, of course, is also allowed to weigh “other factors,” which it did for Florida State. Apparently “having your head coach suspended twice for subverting two separate NCAA rules” does not count as an “other factor.”
The end result: Washington has to travel 2,600 miles to play in the Sugar Bowl rather than giving the Pac-12 its proper send-off in the Rose Bowl.
…
It was a terrible day for ACC teams current and future.
After all, if the committee is only interested in “best” teams, well are we really taking Liberty over the Mustangs?
Look, we’re not here to argue against an undefeated team (Liberty) missing out on the big time. We’re fully #TeamNoLosses. But the committee split hairs to go with the eye test at the top of the rankings, then went the other direction at the bottom of the top 25.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/page/cfpbowls2023/college-football-bowl-schedule-2023-24-dates-matchups-every-game
Looks like a tough bowl season for the B10 to me:
Rose: UM vs AL – loss
Cotton: OSU vs MO – loss after a bunch of OSU players opt out and/or transfer
Peach: PSU vs MS – loss
Las Vegas: NW vs UU – loss
Quick Lane: MN vs BGSU – win
Pinstripe: RU vs Miami – loss
Music City: UMD vs Auburn – loss since it’s not September
Outback: WI vs LSU – loss
Citrus: IA vs TN – loss
I don’t think most of those games will even be that close. I’d guess at least 5 10+ point losses. The B10 will likely win more than 1, I don’t see it. Especially after OSU loses most of its stars (2-3 WR, 2-3 RB, some defenders).
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/college-football-bowls-odds-schedule-every-game
B10 odds:
OSU -7
MN -5.5
UM -1.5
PSU -1.5
UMD +3
RU +4.5
IA +7.5
NW +9.5
WI + 11.5
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39040106/ohio-state-starting-qb-kyle-mccord-enters-transfer-portal
The OSU exodus has begun. QB McCord is the 9th OSU player to enter the portal this season. OSU has only 3 on scholarship for the bowl, 2 with almost no experience and a transfer. There are some good QBs in the portal, so OSU might get one (OU’s Gabriel, WSU’s Ward, Duke’s Leonard, …) though they have a 5* recruit joining next year.
Add in the likely players opting out for NFL draft prep (1-2 WR, 1 TE, 1-2 RB, 1-2 DL, 1 LB, 1-2 DB) and this is setting up for a dud of a bowl performance by OSU.
LikeLike
The Committee took the easy way out; given the Seminoles QB troubles it was much easier to justify their exclusion than it was to choose between Alabama and Texas and explain/justify that decision.
LikeLike
Jog, the committee’s decision could have been justified by strenght of schedule:
#2 Texas
#6 Bama
#55 FSU
http://powerrankingsguru.com/college-football/strength-of-schedule.php
LikeLike
“the committee’s decision could have been justified by strength of schedule”
Agreed. The committee has instead focused on FSU’s QB situation in their public comments; if SOS was mentioned I missed it.
Though I disagree with it the committee arguably made the best decision; I think it was the one easiest (for them) to publicly justify.
To my recollection this is the first time the 5 P5 champs obviously deserved the top 5 spots in the rankings.
LikeLike
The problem with using the injury as an excuse is that FSU won’t be the same team on 1/1 as they are now either. It will be their backup QB starting in the bowl with a month of practices as QB1. The ACCCG was their 3rd string QB playing with little notice, so you can’t use that to evaluate FSU. The UF game was also his first start and with only 1 week to prepare as the starter.
Will the 1/1 version of FSU be as good as the team was with Travis? No, but you don’t know how good they will be. Their defense looked good enough to keep them in almost any game.
LikeLike
ACC Commish Jim Phillips delaying the implementation of the 12-team playoff is full justification in itself for FSU to be passed over.
LikeLike
By selecting the 4 “best” teams rather than the 4 most accomplished/deserving teams it’s obvious that the Committee views the playoff as a spectacle unto itself; the season is just a prelude. Good business perhaps but not good for the sport.
Re injury excuse… it’s just that – an excuse. They could make a merit based case for excluding FSU but they don’t.
What would happen if any of the 4 selected teams were to loose their starting QB to injury between now and 1/1… would the committee re-evaluate or replace them with the next best team at that given moment? Obviously not.
LikeLike
Jog, at least the 4-team playoff is a lot better than it used to be. In 1943, a 9-1-0 Notre Dame team was voted national champs and a 9-0-0 Purdue team finished # 5 in the AP poll. ND’s only loss was 14-19 to Great Lakes Navy, a team that Purdue beat 23-13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_NCAA_football_rankings
LikeLike
By selecting the 4 “best” teams rather than the 4 most accomplished/deserving teams it’s obvious that the Committee views the playoff as a spectacle unto itself; the season is just a prelude. Good business perhaps but not good for the sport.
The postseason rules for college football have changed about a billion times (OK, a slight exaggeration). The one constant is that whenever it changes, people rend garments and say the old way was better. If all these changes were so terrible for the sport, college football should have expired in about 1920, or so.
LikeLike
Marc,
The postseason rules for college football have changed about a billion times (OK, a slight exaggeration). The one constant is that whenever it changes, people rend garments and say the old way was better. If all these changes were so terrible for the sport, college football should have expired in about 1920, or so.
Apples and oranges. The sport is different from the business. The business of CFB is doing well (depending on which spot in the business you have). The sport has radically changed (for the worse in many ways, but that is dependent on your POV). The sport of NFL lite is growing, the sport of college football isn’t. One group of fans is being spurned, but it is getting replaced by others.
That said, attendance is down. TV viewership had been down until this season. CFB faces huge legal and structural upheaval. It could collapse from all this, and will certainly emerge a different entity. So will the fan base. I’ve certainly lost interest, and I know a lot of others who have as well. We will see how it works out for school donations over the next few decades.
LikeLike
To my recollection this is the first time the 5 P5 champs obviously deserved the top 5 spots in the rankings.
Depends how you are defining that. In 2014, TCU and Baylor were Big XII co-champs at 11–1. The rules at the time prohibited them from playing a CCG. Both were passed over.
In 2018, Ohio State was the Big Ten champion at 12–1. It was passed over because Notre Dame was undefeated that year.
Along with FSU this year, those were the main examples of a P5 champ excluded based on an “eye test” of some kind. All of the other excluded P5 champs had two or more losses.
LikeLike
Agreed, though saying UT was better than AL because they proved it on the field isn’t all that difficult.
I hear so many people using these arguments for AL:
1. The SEC is the toughest conference and they won it, so they can’t be left out.
2. Their win over UGA was the best win all season, so they can’t be left out.
3. The SEC won most of the previous titles, so they can’t be left out.
Refutations:
To 1. Yes they probably were the best conference, but not by as much as in previous years. It also depends on how you measure it. But the CFP is about ranking teams, not conferences. If the 49ers joined the MAC, they’d still be the best team in CFB. A bunch of very good teams doesn’t make their champ great.
To 2. Was it the best win? UT beat #4 AL in AL by 10 points. AL beat #6 UGA by 3 at a neutral site. Also, it is entirely possible that UGA was overrated all season based on past performance, so “beating #1” doesn’t necessarily mean all that much. They beat nobody OOC and their best win was over #9 MO.
To 3. Prior years should have no bearing on this year’s teams.
LikeLike
This just proves what everyone felt in the 4-team CFP era:
LikeLike
The importance of OTA games:
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/college-football-playoff-8ba4760536ee1f8645a20a2227f1c0b3
I can mostly agree with Ralph Russo here – good riddance to the 4-team CFP. I just prefer 0 teams to 12.
I think the big issue this year is that there was elite top tier of 1-3 teams like their usually is. The top 8 are all fully capable of winning the title this year because the there isn’t much separation.
There will be plenty to miss when college football undergoes myriad changes next season.
A traditional Pac-12. Regional conferences and rivalries. The Rose Bowl kicking off on New Year’s Day, just about the time the New Year’s Eve hangover fades away.
A College Football Playoff with not enough spots to accommodate deserving teams? Good riddance.
…
It was not so much that the 13-member selection committee got it wrong by putting Alabama in over the Jordan Travis-less Seminoles. It is difficult to argue the Seminoles in their current state are better than any of the four playoff teams. Alabama or Texas would have been deservedly frustrated if they had been snubbed.
Still, keeping Florida State out feels worse. Cold. Almost heartless.
…
It generally did it’s main job — crowning a champion — fairly well in part because over the 10 years the CFP has been in the place there has been a consolidation of power at the very top of college football.
Most years, only two or three teams were real threats to win a national title. But the CFP devalued the rest of the postseason: Highly ranked teams left out are tossed into what are sold as marquee bowl games — the New Year’s Six — but with low stakes and limited reason for the best players to play.
College football will never eliminate player opt outs or interim coaches in bowl games. But the four-team model severely marginalizes really good teams that deserve better.
The 12-team model won’t necessarily produce better champions, but if Florida State and Georgia were playing in playoff games in December we’d all be better off.
…
When a matchup of top-10 teams in a bowl game is announced and the first thought is, “Wonder if the NFL-bound quarterbacks will play?” there is a problem with the postseason.
…
The top tier of college football and the number of playoff contenders was bigger this year than ever before in the CFP era.
“We’ve never had a year with eight teams at the top as good as these are. And the five conference champions (ranked) one through five, we’ve never had it come out that way,” CFP executive director Bill Hancock said.
In other words, it would have been a great year for a 12-team playoff.
It should be noted, expansion would have been in place this season if not for the Southeastern Conference, with Texas and Oklahoma setting off the latest round of realignment and sparking mistrust among the conference commissioners who run the CFP.
“Twelve is going to be great, and we’re all looking forward to it. But there will be issues with 12,” Hancock said. “People look for perfection, and there will be some teams that don’t quite make it in 12 who are going to be asking some serious questions.”
…
Hancock is right. The 12-team version won’t be perfect. There will still a committee, subjectively selecting some of the teams. Critics are correct to say it will lower the stakes of the biggest regular-season and conference championship games.
LikeLike
It all goes back to ACC Commish Jim Phillips screwing up the 12-team playoff.
“Unfathomable,” ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips stated of Florida State’s exclusion, but some might shovel some of that blame upon Phillips himself, who counted among three conference commissioners who slowed the process of expansion from four to 12 teams.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/12/03/college-football-playoff-selection/
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39041535/college-football-playoff-committee-selection-process-florida-state-alabama-texas
ESPN’s story of how tough it was to be on the CFP committee and make several terrible decisions in one day. Boo freaking hoo for them.
As difficult as it was for them to remove their emotions from the process, the sinking feeling about excluding an undefeated Power 5 conference champion was tempered by the belief that they did what they were tasked to do — vote for the four best teams.
“All of us had the emotional tie, like, ‘Holy s—, this is really going to suck to do this,'” one committee member told ESPN. “We talked about that over and over, and we just kept coming back [to] are they good enough with what they have to win a national championship, and it just kept coming back [to] we didn’t think they could.”
Nice to know that “we didn’t think they could win the title” is now a criterion. I don’t think UM can – does that exclude them?
There wasn’t any discussion about the SEC being left out because the committee maintains that it talks about teams, not conferences. There wasn’t any serious consideration to include Alabama without Texas because there was so much respect in the room for the Longhorns’ Week 2 win in Tuscaloosa. There also wasn’t enough support in the room to deem Georgia “unequivocally” one of the four best teams in the country — the standard for teams that don’t win their conference title.
Right, they all magically forget that AL is the SEC champ and that teams 1-3 aren’t in the SEC. Just because nobody says it out loud in the room doesn’t mean they didn’t consider it.
Instead, the crux of the debate into the wee hours of Sunday morning centered on how to evaluate Florida State, which beat Louisville with its third-string quarterback after both Jordan Travis and his backup, Tate Rodemaker, were sidelined by injuries. While the Seminoles’ defense impressed the committee — and had all year — there were significant concerns about FSU’s offense.
But they only saw 1 game with the backup as the starter. He’d have a month of extra practice before the CFP. The UL game should be completely irrelevant since that was their 3rd string QB.
The committee is steadfast in its belief it got the decision right.
“At the end of the day, everybody had the same goal in mind — do we have the four best teams?” a committee member said. “And we all felt pretty good that we do.”
And yet the article later says they had to vote multiple times to break a tie. How can they feel pretty good about it if they were basically equally split?
It wasn’t until the ACC championship game began to unfold, though, that the members’ opinions began to truly take shape. The group grew concerned as it watched the Noles struggle to get a first down in the first half. There is a section in the committee’s protocol that specifically refers to the “unavailability of key players … that may have affected a team’s performance during the season or likely will affect its postseason performance.” That allowed the committee to do something it intentionally avoids every other week: look ahead.
“People really wanted to talk about it,” a committee member said. “We don’t really have that conversation while we’re watching games. But we’ve got to talk about the elephant in the room. What just happened? We talked about 13-0. We talked about the teams they beat. And they were a conference champ. All of that. It took a while.”
And that’s the BS. That UL game was not the offense FSU will field in January. They are supposed to consider what it will be with the backup, not the 3rd stringer. FSU still put up better offensive numbers than UM.
“People may not believe it, but we don’t say, ‘Oh gosh, if we vote this way, the SEC is going to be left out,” one source said. “That never came up. Ever. We literally look at teams, put them up against each other, and say, ‘Who did they beat? Who did they not beat? Who have they beaten on the road? What’s their strength of schedule?’ Look at the matrix and all the data.”
Exactly – they say it without saying it by listing all the SEC teams AL beat. If they really did what that quote claims, UW would be #1 and SMU would be the G5 champ in instead of Liberty.
The only time the committee members know the vote is when it’s a tie, because they have to vote again. There was a sense within the room Saturday night, though, that the more they voted, the closer the group came to agreeing that Florida State should be No. 5.
So peer pressure wore down the FSU advocates.
Boo Corrigan, the chair of the committee and the athletic director at NC State, said the group voted six to eight times on the top four, and there was “never a moment of rushing it.” One source said the conversations were “tense” at times. Another said it “never got heated, never got ugly,” but it was “way more complicated and way more agonizing than some people may think.”
Needing 6-8 votes is not a way to run a championship. That’s a hint the people are not capable of doing the job.
In the end, though, the difference between Alabama and Florida State boiled down to the committee’s written protocol, particularly the emphasis on strength of schedule — which gave Alabama the edge — and the section that allowed committee members to project what Florida State might look like in a semifinal without their star quarterback.
Not having Heisman hopeful starter Travis “changes their offense in its entirety,” Corrigan said, “and that was really a big factor with the committee as we went through everything.”
Conveniently, they focused on the part that favored AL and ignored the rest. Not having JT Barrett changed OSU’s offense completely in 2014 and that worked out okay. Iowa went 10-2 with essentially no offense all year. It is possible to win with defense.
It wasn’t just the committee’s decision to exclude Florida State that drew criticism Sunday afternoon.
The group rewarded undefeated No. 23 Liberty with a New Year’s Six bowl bid instead of two-loss No. 24 SMU, which beat a ranked team in its AAC title game. In addition to voting multiple times at the top of the ranking, the committee also voted repeatedly at the bottom, which pushed the morning meeting to its cutoff time of 11 a.m. CT. The results kept flipping between Liberty and SMU, but ultimately, the group deemed Liberty better.
And here was a huge piece of hypocrisy. SMU had a better SOS and SOR and was a conference champ, but 13-0 Liberty got in for winning all their games. Suddenly 13-0 with a worse schedule was better.
BIAS!
LikeLike
Again, ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips was among the three conference commissioners who slowed the process of playoff expansion from four to 12 teams. There is a word to describe FSU’s exclusion: Karma.
LikeLike
Herewith your reminder that the Massey composite of dozens of ratings—primarily computers that have no built-in affinity for ESPN or the SEC—came up with the identical ranking the Committee did. Except that it had Ohio State in the top four, which not even Brian is saying would be justified.
Sure, I get the argument that Washington should’ve been ranked higher than Michigan, and I wouldn’t have cared. But the computers, none of which graduated from Ohio State, had Michigan #1, which suggests to me the Committee’s decision was more than reasonable, which is all you can ask of it.
Likewise, the computer composite also had Alabama ahead of FSU, suggesting this decision too was more than reasonable.
Given that computers can produce the identical output with less emotion, I’d scrap the committee and just use the computers. But all of this vitriol directed at the Committee makes no sense. They did their job.
And yet the article later says they had to vote multiple times to break a tie. How can they feel pretty good about it if they were basically equally split?
I sat on a criminal jury that started out equally split and eventually reached a unanimous verdict. In fact, if you read any news reports of jury deliberations, this is fairly common. It’s not unusual at all for a group to begin divided and to end with consensus.
Needing 6-8 votes is not a way to run a championship. That’s a hint the people are not capable of doing the job.
This is such a ridiculous statement that I cannot even imagine where it comes from. Are you saying that unless they are unanimous on the first vote, they are incompetent?
Again, ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips was among the three conference commissioners who slowed the process of playoff expansion from four to 12 teams. There is a word to describe FSU’s exclusion: Karma.
Yes, I entirely agree. Especially because Phillips got nothing by delaying. If he’d gotten something from it, we could weigh if it was worth it, but the calculation is easy: he got nothing. Zippo. (However, the Big Ten and the Pac-12 were probably going to delay it anyway, even if Phillips hadn’t.)
But what about the idiots who designed a four-team playoff when there are five power conferences? Was it not obvious that this had to happen eventually?
LikeLike
Marc,
Herewith your reminder that the Massey composite of dozens of ratings—primarily computers that have no built-in affinity for ESPN or the SEC—came up with the identical ranking the Committee did. Except that it had Ohio State in the top four, which not even Brian is saying would be justified.
The exact same, but 25% different?
In the previous 9 years the BCS rankings and the CFP rankings were the same 4 teams, too. So why do we need this committee if it is no better than pre-existing systems? It’s really just the Harris poll with a lot fewer people and thus less validity.
Herewith your reminder that the CFP committee is explicitly told to consider conference championships, head-to-head, results against common opponents, and missing coaches/players. The computers don’t have to do any of that (and mostly they don’t). If the computers get the same place without those factors, then why involve people?
Sure, I get the argument that Washington should’ve been ranked higher than Michigan, and I wouldn’t have cared. But the computers, none of which graduated from Ohio State, had Michigan #1, which suggests to me the Committee’s decision was more than reasonable, which is all you can ask of it.
No, I can ask it to be correct. Or at least better than the pre-existing systems it is replacing.
Given that computers can produce the identical output with less emotion, I’d scrap the committee and just use the computers. But all of this vitriol directed at the Committee makes no sense. They did their job.
Any list of 25 teams would be them “doing their job.” They didn’t do it well, or transparently, or consistently. The committee members deserve a lot more vitriol, and I hope FSU fans make their lives miserable for years.
I sat on a criminal jury that started out equally split and eventually reached a unanimous verdict. In fact, if you read any news reports of jury deliberations, this is fairly common. It’s not unusual at all for a group to begin divided and to end with consensus.
And often people will then admit they just wanted to go home, so they agreed with whomever seemed most adamant or most likely to win the fight eventually. Juries are also required to reach unanimity or proclaim a deadlock. The CFP just need to break a tie. If it takes 8 votes to change someone’s mind, then I doubt that process. Their process devolves into whichever team has better spin-masters in the room advocating for them, and politics, and relationships.
This is such a ridiculous statement that I cannot even imagine where it comes from. Are you saying that unless they are unanimous on the first vote, they are incompetent?
I meant to say “that people” are incapable of the job, not “the people” are. But yes, it should be one vote only. They don’t need to be unanimous, just not have a tie. The data isn’t changing so they should deliberate up front and then the vote is the vote.
[the ACC was in the Alliance, so it’s their own fault]
Yes, I entirely agree. Especially because Phillips got nothing by delaying. If he’d gotten something from it, we could weigh if it was worth it, but the calculation is easy: he got nothing. Zippo. (However, the Big Ten and the Pac-12 were probably going to delay it anyway, even if Phillips hadn’t.)
1. As you note, the ACC being in the Alliance had no impact on the outcome.
2. The delay was a response to the SEC’s double dealing, trying to lock in ESPN-only for the expansion and sneak in adding UT & OU while setting up the new format. Fox wanted pushback on ESPN automatically getting the whole expanded CFP, and 3 conferences wanted a pause to deal with changes in the landscape. Look at how people want to change the CFP now because the P12 imploded – that all started with UT & OU to the SEC. The point is, all the conferences were involved in the process and all share the blame.
But what about the idiots who designed a four-team playoff when there are five power conferences? Was it not obvious that this had to happen eventually?
Political theory says having 4 spots naturally will lead to having 5 conferences. In practice, usually at least 1 conference has a down year so it works okay. On occasion, nobody does and then there is tension. But if you only have 4, there is an incentive to form a 5th or bring a 5th to that level. But having 5+ spots every year leads to a lot of bad games and undeserving teams getting a chance. Even with 4 that has been true. Plus, the presidents were not prepared to accept extending the season more than that.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-ducks-face-future
Fun fact from Canzano: the loser of the P12 title game is 0-11 in bowl games
SEC loser: 18-13
B12 loser: 12-9
B10 loser: 6-6
ACC loser: 8-10
P12 loser: 0-11
LikeLike
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/p/college-football-playoff-rankings-even-worse-thought
Matt Brown on how how bad the CFP is.
The rationale, of course, is that Florida State isn’t a playoff-caliber team after their starting QB, Jordan Travis, suffered a season-ending injury.
…
Here’s the thing. This argument absolutely sucks.
Is Florida State’s passing offense as good without Travis? No, of course not. But so what? Florida State still won those games, beating Florida on the road and beating Louisville, (who is good, btw), by double digits in the ACC Championship game.
As Travis himself alluded to in his heartbreaking tweet, Florida State was always more than just its quarterback. Florida State has the 5th best defense in the country per F+, (better than Alabama or Texas), allowing under 16 points per game. This was always a team built to win games in a defensive slugfest, something the team could still have very well done without Travis, just as they demonstrated on the field.
If we’re going to ding teams for sometimes playing with a horrific downfield passing attack, why the hell would you put Michigan as your top seed? It’s almost as if that shouldn’t be the only metric to judge a football team.
We also already have evidence that a team could be very competitive in the Playoff with a backup, or even third-string, QB. …
Yes, Ohio State demolished Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game, and yes, Cardale Jones put up a substantially better stat line, but I think there’s been some real revisionist history about that playoff run for Ohio State.
The Buckeyes crushed Wisconsin because their defense forced four turnovers (and scored a touchdown), and because they rushed for over 300 yards and 8 YPC. Cardale Jones was awesome, but he only completed 12 passes in that game, and wasn’t the primary offensive threat during Ohio State’s upsets of Alabama or Oregon. That was running back Ezekiel Elliott. Ohio State had the opportunity to complete easier downfield passes because they could build around the true strength of that team…their running game.
I mention this only to point out that championship-caliber teams, especially with weeks to prepare, can build gameplans around injuries. The committee decided to ignore what actually happened and substitute what they thought would happen. That’s fanfiction, not football.
Other points he makes:
That’s a stupid standard, and it isn’t even one the committee consistently applied
* They didn’t consistently apply “best” anyway – all the advanced stats say OSU should be top 4, but the games have to matter and nobody thinks OSU should be in. Same thing with UGA.
* Same thing with Liberty in over SMU.
* If rankings are about “best” then how did FSU stay 5th? If AL is better than them, isn’t UGA as well? OSU? UO?
This sucks for Florida State. But I’m legitimately concerned about what happens next.
For one, this episode could provide a powerful example of why a program should not be honest and forthright about injuries. Professional gamblers already get more accurate information than what teams elect to provide, creating a marketplace that is ripe for corruption. Now, why would a school confirm the severity of a late-season injury, knowing that Playoff committees could use that information to punish them, regardless of what actually happens on the field?
In the press conference, when asked about this, Corrigan said: “That’s not a topic that ever came up.” If that’s true, it speaks to how out of touch these committee members must be with the actual blood and guts of their football programs. There’s no fine any conference could impose that would compel a coach or football program to be honest if they believe these are the consequences of honesty.
But this also throws gasoline on some existential problems facing college football
Florida State made sure everybody knew that they were very unhappy with the status quo in the ACC, and they were not afraid to investigate other options. They’re unhappy with the revenue generation, the revenue distribution, and their ability to compete at the highest level under this current league structure. Clemson (and others), feel the same way.
Well, Florida State just went undefeated in ACC play. They beat Clemson, Miami, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and a good Duke team. They also won at Florida and beat the hell out of a very good LSU team. And that still wasn’t enough. The committee just confirmed every argument made by every Warchant poster about the ACC.
Maybe peace was never an option, but how can anybody feel good about even the immediate stability of the ACC now? Why wouldn’t Florida State, Clemson, and anybody else with the means and interest redouble their efforts to raise the funds needed to buy their way out of the league? When Jon Wilner says the ACC’s extinction timeline just got expedited, what is the meaningful counterargument?
This year might already be a preview of our grim college football future. All four Playoff teams this year will be in the Big Ten or SEC next year. Outside of the contractually mandated ACC champion (Florida State), and G5 champion (Liberty), so is every single other New Year’s Six participant. The next highest-rated team outside of that group is Arizona, way down at #14.
Over the next five years…I suspect that’s going to be more of the rule, rather than the exception. The new Big Ten and SEC are likely to completely dominate the expanded Playoff field, creating additional incentives for further consolidation and separation.
…
And since the only way for Florida State (or Clemson, or UNC, or Miami) to leave the ACC is by raising a massive amount of money, the committee may have very well pushed schools further along the path of private equity purchasing ownership stakes in their athletic departments. I don’t know about you, but I view this as a singular threat to almost everything I enjoy about the industry. I think it would be a terrible, terrible event for fans and most athletes.
LikeLike
Maybe peace was never an option, but how can anybody feel good about even the immediate stability of the ACC now? Why wouldn’t Florida State, Clemson, and anybody else with the means and interest redouble their efforts to raise the funds needed to buy their way out of the league?
Simply because these events cannot be repeated. From now on there will be a 12-team field—or more when they expand it yet again—and FSU would have been a playoff team in the new system. I think they’re leaving the ACC in the 2030s, but that was going to happen anyway, not because of this.
And since the only way for Florida State (or Clemson, or UNC, or Miami) to leave the ACC is by raising a massive amount of money, the committee may have very well pushed schools further along the path of private equity purchasing ownership stakes in their athletic departments.
As it is, Brian thinks the Committee was infested with unacknowledged biases. So now they’re supposed to choose teams based on whether they think schools will switch conferences as a result of it?
LikeLike
Marc,
Simply because these events cannot be repeated. From now on there will be a 12-team field—or more when they expand it yet again—and FSU would have been a playoff team in the new system. I think they’re leaving the ACC in the 2030s, but that was going to happen anyway, not because of this.
Not repeated exactly, but being dropped to the #5 champ is possible. Having 1 loss as a non-champ put you below 2-loss teams and possibly out could happen.
I agree that this won’t increase their desire to leave because that was already so high, but now they don’t have to only make a financial argument. They have proof that being in the ACC hurt them on the field.
And since the only way for Florida State (or Clemson, or UNC, or Miami) to leave the ACC is by raising a massive amount of money, the committee may have very well pushed schools further along the path of private equity purchasing ownership stakes in their athletic departments.
As it is, Brian thinks the Committee was infested with unacknowledged biases. So now they’re supposed to choose teams based on whether they think schools will switch conferences as a result of it?
Was, is, always has been, and always will be. All people are “infested with unacknowledged bias.” It is a part of being human.
No, he’s just saying that is a logical consequence of their decision. If it gets them more interested in leaving, it pushes them down that path and may entice them to consider options they wouldn’t before. That’s how USC joined the B10 – dissatisfaction forced them to consider things they previously wouldn’t. That’s basically how the BCS expanded into the CFP, and the CFP from 4 to 12 – unsatisfying outcomes forced the presidents to accept an extra game for 2 teams, then COVID financial losses forced them to accept an extra round of games.
LikeLike
Was, is, always has been, and always will be. All people are “infested with unacknowledged bias.” It is a part of being human.
You have accused the committee of gross incompetence due to bias. I assumed this means they have more than just the usual bias that every human has.
If all you mean is “they’re human,” that problem would infest any system no matter how well designed. But it infests message board posts too.
LikeLike
Fun stat since FSU’s offense was such a concern:
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39047353/ncaa-proposes-rule-let-schools-athletes-enter-nil-deals
The NCAA wants to let schools pay players via NIL money put in a trust fund.
Baker shared the proposed changes in a letter sent to member schools. If Division I schools choose to adopt the rules, they would be allowed to enter into name, image and likeness deals directly with their athletes. The new rules would also create a trust fund for athletes at the richest tier of athletic departments and allow each of those schools to create its own set of rules for recruiting, transfers, roster size and a wide range of other policies.
“[It] is time for us — the NCAA — to offer our own forward-looking framework,” Baker said. “This framework must sustain the best elements of the student-athlete experience for all student-athletes, build on the financial and organizational investments that have positively changed the trajectory of women’s sports, and enhance the athletic and academic experience for student-athletes who attend the highest resourced colleges and universities.”
…
He wrote that the new policy would help gender equity by demanding that schools provide equal NIL investments for their men’s and women’s teams. The proposed new model would require schools in the top tier to set aside at least $30,000 per year for at least half of their athletes in “an enhanced educational trust fund.”
The letter doesn’t define a line for which schools would fall in that top-earning subdivision but instead says the new framework would give schools the option to decide. The top schools, which according to the letter are more impacted “by collectives, the Transfer Portal and NIL,” would be allowed to create their own set of rules to help police those areas of the market for college athletes in unique ways.
…
“[This proposal] kick-starts a long-overdue conversation among the membership that focuses on the differences that exist between schools, conferences and divisions and how to create more permissive and flexible rules across the NCAA that put student-athletes first,” he said. “Colleges and universities need to be more flexible, and the NCAA needs to be more flexible, too.”
1. He thinks this starts a conversation? I hate to break it to him, but people have been discussing it for years/decades.
2. The need to disambiguate the terms they use here. TV money is different from NIL deals with individuals.
3. This is a terrible idea for actual NIL. Do NOT put schools into the role of middlemen. They can hold/manage the accounts for players (basically be the bank), but it should be entirely on the players and their agents and lawyers to set up the deals.
4. “equal NIL investments for their men’s and women’s teams” – Is that in the same sport? On average across all sports? Normalized for roster size (differs, even in the same sport)?
5. Athletic donations should stop counting as charitable donations if this happens. I’m sure there is some legal BS that will protect them, but it shouldn’t.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/12/05/ncaa-proposal-athletes-compensation-trust-fund-new-subdivision/71811018007/
Under Baker’s plan, “within the framework” of Title IX, the federal gender-equity law, schools in this new group would have to “invest at least $30,000 per year into an enhanced educational trust fund for at least half of the institution’s eligible student-athletes.”
Baker’s proposal also involves the schools in the new group committing to work together to “create rules that may differ from the rules in place for the rest of Division I. Those rules could include a wide range of policies, such as scholarship commitment and roster size, recruitment, transfers or” policies connected to athletes’ activities making money from their name, image and likeness (NIL).
1. Nobody knows what the framework of Title IX allows in this space, so how do you stay within it?
2. So a new division with a whole separate set of championships? Or will the elite schools get to have 25-man MBB rosters of professional athletes going up against the rest of D-I? How artificially large will they make a bunch of the women’s rosters just to balance numbers for Title IX? 100-women field hockey rosters?
3. All of this still requires federal law to stop antitrust suits for any sort of rules (on transfers, pay limits, etc.
This will officially mark the end of college athletics for the top schools, and begin the college-affiliated pro lite athletics world. Count me out.
LikeLike
1. Nobody knows what the framework of Title IX allows in this space, so how do you stay within it?
They’ve repeatedly increased the amount of money athletes can get. Scholarships were formerly not “full cost of attendance” — now they are. Whatever number they come up with, whether it’s $30,000 or thirty cents, women need to get the same amount.
2. So a new division with a whole separate set of championships?
That is a very strange omission from the proposal. I can’t see how that would work.
3. All of this still requires federal law to stop antitrust suits for any sort of rules (on transfers, pay limits, etc.).
They are carrying that risk already. I think they have despaired of Congress bailing them out. Congress can’t even pass an Agriculture bill.
LikeLike
Marc,
Title IX is about opportunities for students. Sure, 1 scholarship = 1 scholarship regardless of gender. But the TV revenue is coming 75% from CFB, 15% from MBB, 5% and growing from WBB, and 5% other (baseball/softball, wrestling, hockey, lacrosse, etc.). Why should the TV money for CFB be split equally per athlete across genders? It’s not clear that Title IX requires that, since the extra money is NIL money and not part of the scholarship.
Another article said they will all compete within D-I, just as a separate division for CFB. That may make sense for minor sports, but not things like MBB. Or even baseball or hockey, where the P4 schools could buy much better teams than the little guys could. I’m guessing AL can afford to outspend Dallas Baptist for pitchers, and MN can buy better 3rd lines than Maine.
LikeLike
Brian, you continue to echo my comments. I already made those observations. This has happened on multiple occasions. Would you please stop repeating me?
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-proposing-new-college-athletics-subdivision-rooted-in-direct-athlete-compensation-145051537.html
More details from Yahoo.
There is no cap on the amount of funds that a program can provide an athlete.
….
Entry into the subdivision requires a school to invest, at minimum, $30,000 per year per athlete into what is termed an “enhanced educational trust fund” for at least half of a school’s countable athletes. Schools would determine when athletes receive the amount, which, for four-year athletes, will total at least $120,000. Schools must continue to abide by the framework of Title IX, assuring that 50 percent of the investment be directed toward women athletes.
The new subdivision will remain under the umbrella of the NCAA, and its members will continue to compete for NCAA championships with others in Division I. Under the proposal, the NCAA maintains oversight of the existing national championship model across all Division I sports, except FBS football, which continues to operate under the rubric of the College Football Playoff, Baker writes in the letter.
…
The proposal is not meant as a final product ready for legislative approval but is more of a conversation-starter to an end product that could look vastly different. The proposal is expected to be a leading topic at a gathering of athletic administrators in Las Vegas this week as well as at the NCAA convention in mid-January. Baker himself is scheduled to speak in Las Vegas on Wednesday as part of the Sports Business Journal’s annual summit.
…
It would be extraordinarily costly for college athletics departments and feels like a step toward what many believe to be an inevitably — revenue sharing with college athletes. The numbers could be stunningly high.
The NCAA does not describe the model as revenue sharing and does not support that concept.
There are 133 FBS programs and 69 in the Power Five. Schools sponsor different numbers of sports, some as few as 18 and others as many as 35. Athlete populations range greatly by institution, but a sensible average is around 350-400 athletes on some portion of a scholarship.
A school depositing the minimum of $30,000 each year per athlete for half of their athletes would spend about $6 million a year. Schools would not be required to deposit the same amount for each athlete. The model leaves that to the discretion of the institution.
LikeLike
Here is the fly in the ointment; “ . . . the newly developed trust fund would also be required follow Title IX law by equally distributing money to men and women. Any NIL payments made from schools to their athletes would also be subject to Title IX rules.”
That isn’t going to happen and Title IX doesn’t dictate that it should. Title IX states: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” That law does not demand equal revenue distribution. It also fails to address transgender issues.
Right now we have male athletes in NCAA schools receiving a whale of a lot more NIL than female athletes. No one is bemoaning this as a Title IX violation. We won’t end up with an NCAA rulw that stipulates the women’s volleyball team should be paid the same as the football team.
LikeLike
It also fails to address transgender issues.
This proposal has nothing to do with transgender issues. The NCAA already has multiple divisions playing under different rules. This is just a proposal to create one more division, something the NCAA has done before.
Right now we have male athletes in NCAA schools receiving a whale of a lot more NIL than female athletes. No one is bemoaning this as a Title IX violation.
NIL today is paid by third parties outside of the school’s control. Those third parties are not “any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” so Title IX doesn’t apply to them. If NIL money were paid by the schools directly, then it would.
LikeLike
Marc: “NIL today is paid by third parties outside of the school’s control. Those third parties are not “any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” so Title IX doesn’t apply to them. If NIL money were paid by the schools directly, then it would.”
That’s what I said. There will be an in-house chump change NIL fund that will distribute the chump change ‘equally’ IAW Title IX and outside-the-box NIL funding that will be paying QBs $2 million/yr.
LikeLike
He thinks this starts a conversation? I hate to break it to him, but people have been discussing it for years/decades.
And yet, this counts as forward thinking by an organization that is notoriously backwards, reactive, and self-absorbed. I am not sure whether I like it, but I suppose it’s a half-step better than the usual NCAA posture: to stonewall, get sued, and lose.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/college-football/2023-college-football-announcer-rankings.html
CFB announcer rankings:
Their top 10:
1. Fowler/Herbstreit ESPN
2. McDonough/McElroy ESPN
3. Benetti/Huard Fox
4. Nessler/Danielson CBS
5. Eagle/Blackledge NBC
6. Tesitore/Palmer ESPN
7. Pasch/Dvoracek ESPN
8. Johnson/Klatt Fox
9. Brando/Tillman Fox
10. Wischusen/Griffin ESPN
Assuming the pairings stay the same next year, the SEC gets 6 of the top 10 with #1 and/or #2 every week while the B10 gets #4, 5, and 8 for their top games with #3 getting lower tier games. Johnson and Klatt are polarizing, with lots of high and low marks (As and Fs). Personally I like Klatt but Johnson is just a noise maker. Put Huard’s pair on the Big Noon games instead.
Of note:
11. SECN
13. ACCN – Wes Durham is a great radio voice and should be higher than this
15. BTN – Provus/Butt
Breakdown: This season, the Big Ten Network has paired up analysts and play-by-play broadcasters willy-nilly from two different pools, but the Provus and Butt duo seems like it was getting the most reps and worked the network’s biggest games. Provus has more experience than the younger Butt, and it would suit everyone better if BTN let them work together each week to build chemistry.
LikeLike
The list is somewhat correlated with the announcer pairs who get the most exposure, with the outliers being Benetti/Huard (higher than you would expect) and Johnson/Klatt (lower). Perhaps this means the networks are pretty good at identifying the best people to call their games. But the animosity towards Gus Johnson is clearly a very real thing.
Assuming the pairings stay the same next year, the SEC gets 6 of the top 10 with #1 and/or #2 every week while the B10 gets #4, 5, and 8 for their top games.
I think you mean 5 out of 10, but ESPN and Fox have other leagues they cover. There will be ACC and Big 12 games that draw announcers from this list. For instance, I think FSU-Clemson will get ESPN’s #1 or #2 crew a high percentage of the time. For the first 3 weeks of this season, Johnson/Klatt were assigned to Colorado games. That phenomenon probably won’t be repeated, but there will be something else.
LikeLike
Yes, I was going to say say 6 of 11 but then changed to top 10 and didn’t change it back to 5. The SEC will have access to half of the top 10.
Sure Disney also covers the ACC and others, but I said 1 and/or 2 each week for the SEC. I think it will be very rare when the SEC isn’t one of their top 2 games in a week, and sometimes they’ll get both.
Other than FSU vs Clemson, the ACC lacks big games. The B12 has none left. They can get the #3 and 4 ESPN teams which are both pretty good (higher than Klatt and Johnson).
Will the BTN push for better announcing? Or do they assume it’s a captive audience and just ignore the fans?
LikeLike
Will the BTN push for better announcing? Or do they assume it’s a captive audience and just ignore the fans?
Announcing for BTN is like coaching for North Dakota State. It’s not a job where you want to stay. If you are any good, you will be moving up.
LikeLike
If you read the article, they note that BTN doesn’t use consistent pairings but seemed to randomly match up 2 people each week (play-by-play person from column A, analyst from column B). Just keeping a pair together all season would be a step to better announcing.
LikeLike
If you read the article, they note that BTN doesn’t use consistent pairings but seemed to randomly match up 2 people each week (play-by-play person from column A, analyst from column B). Just keeping a pair together all season would be a step to better announcing.
I did read the article, and I also watched BTN throughout the season. I had already noticed they were doing this. The pairings are not quite random, as certain teams are together a majority of the time. But it’s not like other networks, where the pairings never change during the season. I don’t know the reason for it, and I don’t know if it makes the announcing better or worse.
LikeLike
Teamwork seems to be a real thing for broadcasting. The major networks all do it, and perhaps the list means the networks are pretty good at knowing the best people to pair to call their games.
If you’ve followed a sport as a new broadcast team took over you can track the improvement over time as they learn how best to work together. It’s also true in (almost) every other job out there where people work in teams.
My guess is that BTN would prefer to do that, but have availability conflicts with certain people (many of them have other media jobs as well) on certain dates.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/espn/florida-politicians-florida-state-cfp-snub-lawsuit.html
I think we all know it is unlikely to happen, but Ron DeSantis asked the FL legislature to budget $1M to sue the CFP. Even if the money came through, it would be many months from now anyway.
FL senator Corey Simon upped the ante by connecting ESPN to this.
“The corruption of college football rears its ugly head again,” Simon tweeted Sunday. “ESPN and Disney have a vested interest in the SEC participating in the CFP. Lawsuits should be filed tomorrow.”
So if said lawsuit happens, might the state of FL include Disney in the lawsuit? DeSantis certainly would love to get discovery against Disney. Or maybe the state holds hearings? Could they subpoena witnesses?
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/acc/2023/12/06/florida-state-should-leave-acc-over-cfp-snub-ex-school-president-says/71822953007/
FSU’s former president is fired up by the exclusion, and believes ESPN is partially to blame.
Former Florida State President John Thrasher believes the Seminoles’ exclusion from the College Football Playoff shows the school needs to leave the Atlantic Coast Conference.
Thrasher also believes the CFP committee caved in to pressure from ESPN and the Southeastern Conference when it announced its four playoff teams Sunday.
…
“It gives me hope the leadership at FSU will look at other places to be. I think it shows we are a secondary-level conference,” Thrasher said.
…
Thrasher, who retired from FSU in 2021 after nearly seven years as the university’s president, also pointed to the power that ESPN and the SEC wields in college football.
“I believe the committee caved into pressure from a couple different levels – with ESPN and the SEC the two levels they caved to,” Thrasher said. “I’ve been in those management meetings. …. The SEC has incredible power.”
ESPN, which is set to enter into an exclusive broadcasting deal with the SEC in 2024, is the exclusive rights holder of the College Football Playoff.
…
FSU is the first undefeated team from a major Power Five conference to be excluded from the playoffs since its inception in 2014.
The Seminoles’ omission also has financial implications.
A potential $6 million ACC payout had the Seminoles been included drops to $4 million as FSU plays No. 6 Georgia in the Orange Bowl Dec. 30. The exclusion also nixed expected revenue generated from the chance to compete for a national title and bumped other ACC teams in the bowl lineup. An educated guess is the CFP committee’s decision cost FSU around $30 million.
It could also impact FSU recruiting. Don’t believe for a second rival coaches won’t remind Seminole recruits that FSU and the ACC didn’t have the juice to secure a playoff berth for an undefeated conference champion. There’s a chance even some current FSU players feel the same way.
…
Thrasher believes FSU’s options for recourse are limited at best.
“As much as I hate it, I think they have to move on,” Thrasher said.
“I was disappointed as anybody. They deserved to be in the playoffs. The committee should have been fighting over Texas and Alabama.
“Not us.”
LikeLike
This is actually quite comical. Former Florida State President John Thrasher is the guy who signed on to the ACC’s pathetic 20-year Grant of Rights and he was also on board when ACC commish Jim Philips opposed playoff expansion from 4 to 12. This is the Mother Of All Karma.
LikeLike
It’s not inconsistent to be opposed to the Committee decision, while also being at fault for earlier choices that led (indirectly) to it. But if Thrasher has any regrets about his own actions, he’s not admitting it.
I personally don’t believe ESPN corruptly influenced the proceedings. If you look at the committee bios, it’s a pretty wide range of folks, many of whom have no good reason to be beholden to anyone. All it would take is one of them to leak, and that has not happened.
It reminds me of the newscaster who said something like: “The Democrats think I am taking orders from Republicans, and the Republicans think I am taking them from Democrats, when in fact I’m taking them from nobody.”
LikeLike
Marc,
The idea is that ESPN doesn’t have to openly and intentionally tip the scales. When you constantly repeat certain messages, they sink in for people. When all your talking heads repeat the same talking points and you are the one dominant sports network, the public believes that message. The committee members aren’t sequestered all season. Even at the meetings they probably turn on ESPN in their rooms to get other sports news.
Thrasher is saying that ESPN has made it clear that the SEC is more important than the ACC in meetings, but without ever stating it outright. Their actions show it, and people internalize it.
One of them just leaked it, and your impulse is to tell him he’s wrong about what he experienced in meetings with ESPN.
LikeLike
One of them just leaked it, and your impulse is to tell him he’s wrong about what he experienced in meetings with ESPN.
Thrasher is not on the Committee. He has had meetings in other contexts and just assumes those were the dynamics in a room he was not in.
By the way, the ESPN experts weren’t unanimous. On their selection show, they had a talking head who vigorously argued the pro-FSU, anti-Alabama case, and they gave him plenty of airtime.
LikeLike
He didn’t say he was in the committee meetings, nor did I. He said he was in meetings with ESPN where they made the pecking order clear. Many people on the committee have also been in various meetings with ESPN. But more importantly for my point, they all watch ESPN. When ESPN spends every Saturday for decades saying how great the SEC is and how much better they are than anyone else, that narrative takes root. ESPN now has the additional financial incentive to support that narrative even more.
Yes, 1 person arguing the other side compared to how many on the anti-FSU side? That’s tokenism as its finest.
LikeLike
My only point is that most of the computers had the order you are arguing so vigorously was grievously wrong — both Michigan > Washington and Alabama > FSU.
There’s no need to imagine an unfair influence that the Committee participants would adamantly deny, when the same data the computers use leads to exactly the same outcome without any such influence. Unless you think the computers “watched” EPSN too.
Of course the retired FSU president is going to claim unfair bias. It’s no different from the Iowa State fans claiming the refs are from Texas when a penalty call goes against them. When the facts are not in your favor, you pound the table and get emotional.
LikeLike
My only point is that most of the computers had the order you are arguing so vigorously was grievously wrong — both Michigan > Washington and Alabama > FSU.
Wasn’t the whole point of the committee to do better than the BCS computers and human polls did? Why make a third thing that gives the same incorrect results?
My point was that the computers get there very differently than the humans do. The computers crunch the numbers they are given and the results are what they are. Humans start with a result in mind and find reasons to justify it.
There’s no need to imagine an unfair influence that the Committee participants would adamantly deny,
There you go again. The other side is “imagining” things because they disagree with you.
when the same data the computers use leads to exactly the same outcome without any such influence. Unless you think the computers “watched” EPSN too.
You disproved your own point. They aren’t using the same data, precisely because the computers can’t watch ESPN. Humans have to ignore most of the numbers because our brains can’t handle them, so we construct narratives to relate things to past experiences.
How many talking heads discussed UGA being 2-time defending champs, or their 29-game win streak win praising AL? How many mentioned the SEC being the strongest conference? But that was the talking heads, not the committee you say. Sure. And that’s who the committee has spent years listening to before they go into their meeting room. The influence is baked in.
Of course the retired FSU president is going to claim unfair bias. It’s no different from the Iowa State fans claiming the refs are from Texas when a penalty call goes against them. When the facts are not in your favor, you pound the table and get emotional.
Sometimes the playing field really isn’t level, too. Implicit bias is real, and in CFB it works in the SEC’s favor.
I’m neutral and I think ISU gets screwed by the refs against UT a lot. Every top program gets some calls in their favor (Duke in hoops, etc.), especially at home as shown by actual research. That’s part of the home field advantage.
LikeLike
After all of the recent conference realignment, here’s an update on academics. Using the US News rankings – yes, their metrics have some fuzzy math – here’s how the top 20 public schools stack up by P4 conferences:
Big Ten – nine of the top 20
ACC – five of the top 20
SEC – four of the top 20
Big XII – none
Looking at the top 30:
Big Ten – twelve of the top 30
ACC – seven of the top 30
SEC – four in the top 30
Big XII – none
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39055471/florida-state-wr-johnny-wilson-skipping-bowl-entering-draft
FSU is so excited for the Orange Bowl that a player is already sitting out to prepare for the Senior Bowl instead.
LikeLike
Charlie Baker details NCAA proposal on athlete compensation, commissioners react
By David Ubben
LAS VEGAS – NCAA president Charlie Baker has taken a step to begin the conversation about athlete compensation. Now, he’s looking to have the conversation that shapes the future of college sports. “This is a conversation we need to have. It’s a conversation the folks in Division I and the NCAA want to have,” Baker said Wednesday. “Now, we need to actually have it and get somewhere with it.”
Tuesday morning, Baker set a letter to NCAA membership outlining a number of recommendations based on a listening tour he underwent through his first three months as president of the organization.
Within it, Baker recommended a system of direct compensation from schools to athletes. Within a new subdivision, members would be required to invest at least $30,000 per year per athlete for each of the school’s eligible athletes in an “educational trust fund.”
“Some people will say I’m going too far. Some people will say I didn’t go far enough,” Baker said.
NCAA’s Charlie Baker calls for new subdivision with direct NIL payments to athletes
Members of the new subdivision that met those requirements could agree to their own rules regarding name, image and likeness, scholarship limits, roster sizes and any other number of issues that arose, giving them greater autonomy to govern themselves with schools more aligned in resources and mission.
“We’re trying to be supportive as to a big tent approach but, as you saw yesterday with Charlie’s memo, there’s a new reality here,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said.
College sports is facing necessary reforms and Sankey pointed to the five arenas where change will have to be addressed: courts, Congress, state legislatures, conferences and the NCAA.
Under Baker’s proposal, schools could enter into NIL deals directly with athletes, which is currently not permissible. That would bring much of the NIL space under university control, rather than the current system where many efforts are outsourced to third-party organizations known as collectives.
Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark lauded Baker’s leadership.
“This was a preemptive and very proactive moment,” he said. “Charlie is leading us through a very transformative moment and I think we have to embrace his vision and energy and do it in a thoughtful way.”
Multiple athletic directors raised eyebrows at Baker’s letter coming with little warning or input on details before it was sent to membership.
Sankey said commissioners weren’t sent the letter and he received it as a forward from his legal counsel. He expressed frustration at facing questions about a letter he had yet to see.
“Why wasn’t our Board brought into this conversation sooner?” he said. “We were all a little bit late relative to the rest of the world.”
The most frequent phrase from administrators in Las Vegas this week for the National Football Foundation’s College Football Hall of Fame inductions and the Sports Business Journal’s Intercollegiate Athletics Forum has been “conversation starter.”
Multiple athletic directors were appreciative of Baker for taking a coherent step — albeit a small one — toward a possible solution to the existential issues that have frequently landed the NCAA and its members in court more than ever.
“What we’re doing right now is not sustainable. I think everybody realizes it. So how do we get to a better place and open that dialogue to have some real conversations?” Sun Belt commissioner Keith Gill said. “This conversation has to be had. We’ve gotta create a structure that’s sustainable and doesn’t have us in court every six months with a new case that has potential for crushing judgments. So having that conversation is really important.”
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2023/12/06/ncaa-president-charlie-baker-payments-athletes/71826615007/
More from Baker on his plan to destroy college athletics with a 100-school breakaway.
On Wednesday, he explained the rationale for his proposal in fairly stark terms, all but saying that the best way to keep the NCAA’s top-level Division I together is to allow schools that can provide more benefits to their athletes to do so.
“There are some things where there is a difference between what I would describe as the top hundred schools in terms of resources in (Division I) and the other 250. And what happens is the NCAA ends up in one of these collisions that takes place because you have one-third of the schools who have the ability to do more for student-athletes. They just do. If you just look at just look at their budgets, they do. … But in pursuit of what we would call competitive equity, there’s a restraint there. And, you know, once upon a time, the pursuit of competitive equity — that was considered to be okay. It’s not really anymore. …
“If we really want to have a set of rules and a set of sort of operating standards, we need to figure out some way for the folks who want to do a lot more to be able to do a lot more while maintaining what I would describe as the beauty of the distributed competition model that exists. … We, the NCAA, need to be more flexible and so do the schools.”
…
As for where his proposal goes from here, Baker said: “Tee it up and have a conversation through our existing governance structure and try and move with I would describe to be urgent patience. … After eight years in government, I know what urgent patience looks like.”
…
Late Tuesday night, groups representing athletics directors at schools in the Football Championship Subdivision and schools that do not have football teams issued a statement saying that they have been “working diligently to ensure our voices will be heard as the college athletics environment continues to evolve at an historic pace. The time is now for us to double down on our connection to education and our alignment with our institutional missions. We have an opportunity for clarity within Division I, and Charlie Baker’s letter brings that opportunity to the forefront.”
…
In an interview, Stephen F. Austin AD Ryan Ivey, who is president of the FCS AD’s group, said the statement is “not meant to be combative. I don’t think anyone is casting stones, but we want to know where we fit within the college athletic eco-system right now. …
“Maybe (Tuesday) was a shock, but anyone who has been paying attention at all could have seen something like this was coming.”
Stephen F. Austin has had notable successes recently in men’s basketball, including NCAA tournament first-round wins as a No. 12 seed in 2014 and as a No. 14 seed in 2016. The Lumberjacks also recorded an upset of then-No. 1-ranked Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium in November 2019.
“We want to continue to play those teams,” Ivey said. “And access to championships is really important. … I don’t think anyone wants to be left at the side of the road when the bus is leaving the station.”
…
But that does concern Big West commissioner Dan Butterly, whose conference includes Hawaii, which plays Bowl Subdivision football in the Mountain West Conference; two schools that that play FCS football; and schools that don’t have football teams.
“The Big West is nationally competitive in many sports,” Butterly said. “What is doing (what Baker is proposing) going to do to schools in the Big West or the Coastal Athletic Conference or the (Atlantic 10)? What happens to them? And, really, what happens to two, three to five of the conferences in the Group of Five?” the FBS conferences other than the Power Five.
…
Jon Steinbrecher, commissioner of the Mid-American Conference, said that among schools he represents, “I don’t see a lot of additional benefits (being provided to athletes) over and above what we do now. And that’s OK. That’s OK. … It’s easy to get to extremes (right now). Take a deep breath.”
Steinbrecher noted that while Baker is proposing a new competitive subdivision, as a practical matter, “there already is a subdivision” of schools within the FBS that is functioning at a different level from the others. “This would just define it.”
“Look,” he said, “we’ve got small group of institutions (within the NCAA) that really have pressure on them because of the resources they create – and our rules (regarding athlete compensation) get in the way of that. We can de-regulate that and let them do what they may do. That’s been coming. So, let’s have this conversation. …
“This is an effort to preserve (the NCAA), as opposed to destruct. At least I hope so. I’m not really fearful at this point, absent more details. It can be constructive if we manage it properly.”
LikeLike
More from Baker on his plan to destroy college athletics with a 100-school breakaway.
I’m undecided on the proposal, as I don’t feel like I have enough information yet.
But how is this more “destructive” than when the FBS schools kicked FCS to the curb? Or when the NCAA first split into divisions? Or when it split the former “college division” into Division II and Division III? Subdividing the members is a very old idea.
The one new thing is that schools in the highest division would now be allowed to pay NIL money directly. But the NCAA opposed NIL in any form for decades as being purportedly destructive, until they were forced to accept it. The amounts that schools are allowed to “pay” their players have repeatedly gone up, although described as being part of the “scholarship”.
The list of things the NCAA once prohibited but now accepts would make for a very long post, the one common thread being that someone always says, “We can’t do that, it would ruin college athletics.” When it’s been said so often, and been wrong so often, how could anyone believe it the next time?
LikeLike
Marc,
I’m undecided on the proposal, as I don’t feel like I have enough information yet.
It’s not a full plan, more of a sketch of an outline of an idea. He said he intended it as a jumping off point for discussion, not as a proposal.
But how is this more “destructive” than when the FBS schools kicked FCS to the curb? Or when the NCAA first split into divisions? Or when it split the former “college division” into Division II and Division III? Subdividing the members is a very old idea.
It didn’t kick them to the curb, they largely chose it. And competition improved by forming divisions (just like in high school sports – even Indiana eventually realized not all schools should compete on the same level).
My objection isn’t to the concept of splitting off another subdivision, it’s to what he suggested to do and how (having schools pay unlimited NIL money direct to players while somehow still satisfying Title IX, etc.). Then the top level gets to make whatever rules they want, but compete in the same championships with the rest?
The list of things the NCAA once prohibited but now accepts would make for a very long post, the one common thread being that someone always says, “We can’t do that, it would ruin college athletics.” When it’s been said so often, and been wrong so often, how could anyone believe it the next time?
Professional athletics is not college athletics to me, so the instant schools pay players directly (via NIL or as employees makes no difference to me) it is finished to me. Where others draw the line for the destruction of college athletics is irrelevant to me.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
CCG viewership:
The SEC Championship Game dominated college football championship weekend as more than 17 million tuned in for Alabama’s upset of #1 Georgia — the largest audience for the SEC title game since 2018 and third-largest since CBS began airing it in 2001. (Keep in mind out-of-home viewing was not included in Nielsen’s final nationals prior to 2020.)
The Big Ten title game ranked a distant second with just over ten million, down from last year (10.7M). The Pac-12 Championship ranked third with 9.25 million viewers, easily the largest audience ever for the game.
For those inclined to believe that the television ratings play a role in which teams make the playoff, Florida State’s win over Louisville in the ACC Championship was the least-watched of the “Power 5” title games with 7.03 million viewers — still more-than-double last year’s Clemson-North Carolina matchup (3.47M).
1. SEC – 17.52M (3rd best ever)
2. B10 – 10.02M (down from UM’s blowout of PU)
3. P12 – 9.25M (highest ever)
4. B12 – 7.89M
5. ACC – 7.03M (more than 2x last year’s)
As a reminder OSU @ UM averaged 19.07M.
The best B10CCG was 13.9M in 2013. The end of divisions will help that. The SEC has benefitted from having big brands on each side (AL vs UGA, UF). OSU has played NW and WI twice and MSU once. UM has played IA twice and PU once.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-civil-war-is-on-for-2024
The Platypus Trophy game is on for 2024 (and beyond). Yay!
There was lots of shuffling, involving TT, BSU, SDSU, and WSU. In addition, OrSU is working with Cal for a series. It makes perfect sense for Cal/Stanford to play series with OrSU/WSU if other former P12 schools (esp. the B10 4) aren’t available.
Operation ‘Preserve the Civil War’ is nearing completion. The rivalry game between Oregon and Oregon State will continue in the 2024 football season and beyond, per sources.
The Ducks will travel to Corvallis to play the Beavers on Sept. 14 next season, continuing the alternating home-and-home series that started in 1894. In 2025, Oregon will host Oregon State at Autzen Stadium.
Count me among those who like the idea of the two high-profile football programs in the state continuing to play each other. There’s mutual benefit. OSU needs a “Power 4” home game. Oregon needs a home opponent every other year (the Big Ten plays a nine-game conference schedule). And both sides save on travel expenses given that the rival schools are only 44 miles apart.
It took work.
Multiple schools were involved, I’m told.
Texas Tech helped, for example. The Red Raiders were originally scheduled to play at Oregon on Sept. 7 next season. They’ll instead play at Washington State on that same date. WSU was previously scheduled to play on Sept. 7 at San Diego State. That game will move to a date later in the season.
Boise State also helped. It was UO’s originally scheduled opponent for Sept. 14. The Broncos State will instead play in Eugene one week earlier (Sept. 7).
Boise State was supposed to play at home vs. Oregon State on Sept. 7 but will instead travel to Autzen Stadium on that date. The Beavers will still make a trip to Idaho, but later in the season.
…
The Beavers’ long-awaited football schedule is starting to materialize. It would include six Mountain West Conference opponents in addition to home games at Reser Stadium vs. Purdue, Oregon and Idaho State.
Oregon State is also negotiating with Cal for a home-and-home series that would begin in 2024, I’m told. Throw in a game vs. Washington State (home or away?) and another vs. Cal (home or away?) and that makes 11 total games for OSU in 2024. The Beavers are also involved in negotiations with one other “Power 4” opponent, believed to be the University of Virginia.
A source familiar with the negotiations told me that Oregon State has been focused on securing a 2024 football schedule that features seven home games — a rarity in the school’s history. Those seven games would be packaged and sold to a media-rights partner.
Scott Barnes, the athletic director at Oregon State, told me 10 days ago that his staff was working on the schedule.
Said Barnes: “We’ll have six ‘group of five’ games, we’ll have five ‘power 5’ schools, and an FCS that we’ve always had. Some of those are already booked, additional ones will be announced very very soon, and some of the ink won’t be dry on a couple of those. It may linger a little further. Until you have the ink dry on the contract you can’t really say.”
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2023/12/06/heisman-finalist-jayden-daniels-on-fsu-and-cfp/71825942007/
LSU’s QB has an opinion on FSU being left out of the CFP.
Speaking about Florida State’s absence from the playoffs, Daniels said, “We played them in Week 1, and losing Jordan was a big deal for Florida State. I personally think they did it for ratings and viewership.”
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2023/12/college-football-cbs-fox-most-watched-networks-sec-big-noon-abc-espn-nbc/
Final CFB average viewership by network and package.
1. CBS 5.07M
2. Fox 4.03M
3. ABC 3.95M
4. NBC 2.80M
5. ESPN 1.96M
6. BTN 605k
7. FS1 587k
8. CW 492k
9. ESPN2 417k
10. FS2 171k (only 4 games)
11. NFLN 88k
12. ESPNU 65k
1. Fox Big Noon 6.74M (includes non-B10 games)
2. SEC on CBS 6.73M
3. ND on NBC 4.27M
4. ABC primetime 4.11M
5. B10 on CBS 3.55M
6. B10 on NBC 2.41M (price paid for Peacock games)
We won’t have a real feel for how the B10 deals compare until next season, when all 3 networks get about 14 games and in their normal time slots. Clearly NBC chose to take a hit to build up Peacock some this year. Next year will be more clean with the SEC on Disney to bolster ABC and the B10 owning Big Noon every week.
All B10 game son Fox combined to average 6.22M.
CBS and FOX finished one-two for the college football season.
CBS was the highest rated and most-watched college football broadcaster during the 2023 season, averaging a 2.7 and 5.07 million viewers for a 26-game slate consisting of the SEC, Big Ten and Mountain West. In its final season, the “SEC on CBS” averaged a 3.5 and 6.73 million, second only to FOX “Big Noon Saturday” as the most-watched window of the season. While the network’s overall viewership declined 4% from last year (5.30M), its SEC slate increased 2% (from 6.60M).
The aforementioned “Big Noon Saturday” averaged a 3.6 and 6.74 million on FOX, the highest average yet for the series. Viewership increased 8% over last season (6.23M). FOX averaged a 2.1 and 4.03 million for its full, 44-game slate of Big Ten, Pac-12 and Mountain West games, ranking second to CBS.
ABC placed third with a 2.2 and 3.95 million, marking its second-most watched season in the past six years. The network’s “Saturday Night Football” slate averaged a 2.2 and 4.11 million, a 5% decline in viewership from last year (4.34M). Keep in mind this season was a gap year of sorts for ESPN/ABC between the end of its Big Ten rights deal and the start of its exclusive SEC contract.
NBC took fourth place with a 1.5 and 2.80 million, including a 2.3 and 4.27 million for six Notre Dame games and a 1.3 and 2.40 million for its new Big Ten package. (Those figures are Nielsen-only. NBC streaming viewership is measured by a separate company, Adobe Analytics.)
In the first year of the new Big Ten rights deal, NBC trailed the conference’s two other over-the-air partners. CBS averaged a 1.9 and 3.55 million for its seven Big Ten games and FOX — buoyed by Ohio State-Michigan — averaged a 3.2 and 6.22 million for its 13.
LikeLike
Brian – the Ohio State/Michigan game greatly skews averages for the B1G & FOX.
LikeLike
It does, but it consistently does that every year. It is the metric for total viewers for each network over the season on a per game basis. In a more typical year when the B10’s 3 partners all get 14 games, you might just compare total viewers but that’s the same thing. Fox pays the B10 knowing it will get The Game to skew the average. It’s not like the other averages aren’t skewed by certain games, just not to the same extent.
The value of a game is not linear with the viewership (it goes up exponentially) but the average is the simplest stat to use. What else should they have calculated?
If you want to know other things, the median might be more useful. But SMW didn’t calculate that and I’m not going to. Standard deviation (or a histogram) would also be informative.
LikeLike
I am guessing Thamel is talking to the Big Ten presidents here? For pure TV value I think UNC Football is overrated. I guess the basketball value helps there. Virginia doesn’t move the needle at all IMHO.
LikeLike
Mike,
I will counter with this tweet about FSU as an option (I’m not claiming he’s accurate):
LikeLike
FSU’s buyout presumes that the Noles have somewhere else to go. Right now they don’t and there is no guarantee that the Big Ten or SEC would want them. Both FSU and Clemson are in the SEC footprint and if the pecking order for expansion actually is UNC and UVA followed by FSU/Clemson, FSU may not be going anywhere.
LikeLike
Genetics can be all over the place, at times but I don’t see this happening:
The GOR value will end up being a network based resolution and games can be moved around to make everyone whole – just as FOX and ESPN did with the exit of OU and UT from the Big 12.
There’s a huge difference in one year vs 12ish years.
LikeLike
Agreed. He’s doing a running series of tweets supposedly explaining how FSU to the B10 will happen and when, so stay tuned.
LikeLike
Mike,
Maybe B10 and SEC presidents?
UNC and UVA are desirable to the B10 for demographic, geographic and academic reasons, not athletic value. They are sources for out-of-state students (a big concern for midwestern schools), sources for athletic recruits, tie in UMD better, close the gap to the SEC border, bring solid athletic programs across the board (esp. MBB, W soccer, and lacrosse), and are elite public academic schools. They also solidify the DC market, add Charlotte, and provide access to many B10 alumni in the mid-Atlantic.
But CFB value? They’re like UMD.
LikeLike
Well, to say that getting out-of-state students is a big concern for midwestern schools is not true for the Big Ten. The Ball States and Hanover Colleges may be having trouble but Purdue has been swamped with applicants for the past ten years. They are forced to be increasingly selective because they can’t expand much more. Illinois and Penn State are in similar situations.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2023/Q3/purdue-welcomes-its-most-selective-incoming-class.html
LikeLike
There are reports that in Virginia that UVa cannot go anywhere and leave VaTech behind. If true, neither the SEC nor the B1G will accept the pair. I cannot see the B1G going after VaTech and leaving UVa for the SEC. Similarly, I would guess that the SEC would have minimal interest in VaTech, particularly if leaving VaTech blocks the B1G from UVa.
There have also been reports that the NC legislature is taking a similar position with UNC and NC State. If so, the issue is the same as with UVa.
The SEC claims to be quite happy with its 16 teams and honestly has little use for FSU, other than to block the B1G. I could see the B1G “loaning” FSU enough money to take care of the GOR problem too.
There have been huge anti-ESPN and also some major anti-SEC rumblings on FSU fan sites, since the playoff pairings come out. Many (if not most) fans hold ESPN at least largely responsible and resent/blame the SEC.
There has long been a split at FSU. Most fans and alums prefer the SEC, while many administrators (in a position to matter) and many academics prefer the B1G – for obvious reasons. On this issue, I do have very good sources of info. This situation might give the administration the ability to smoothly go B1G.
As far as FSU (or Clemson) having nowhere to go, of course they do not at this time since the school must make the first move. Does anyone seriously doubt that the B1G would not take FSU if available?
I have no idea why Clemson would be higher the list than FSU, unless that list is not
reflective of what appears to be a revival of FSU football. Clearly for a while Clemson was the far superior program, even though South Carolina hardly compares to Florida for the B1G. The SEC is in both already, so it is not the same for them.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
There are reports that in Virginia that UVa cannot go anywhere and leave VaTech behind. If true, neither the SEC nor the B1G will accept the pair. I cannot see the B1G going after VaTech and leaving UVa for the SEC. Similarly, I would guess that the SEC would have minimal interest in VaTech, particularly if leaving VaTech blocks the B1G from UVa.
I’ve also heard that, but we use to hear similar things in other states and then the schools split. What if one went north and the other south? Would the state really prevent that as long as they played annually? Would they really hold both schools back rather than let one move up? Even CA let UCLA leave. WA, OR, TX and OK also all let their schools split recently.
There have also been reports that the NC legislature is taking a similar position with UNC and NC State. If so, the issue is the same as with UVa.
Again, it’s easy for them to say now but if UNC is falling behind and is offered a lifeline would the state really hold them back? I can see forcing rivalry games to remain, and even saying UNC can’t vote to break up the ACC. But what if the ACC falls apart on its own (say FSU, Miami and Clemson leave and then UNC is offered a spot elsewhere)?
The SEC claims to be quite happy with its 16 teams and honestly has little use for FSU, other than to block the B1G. I could see the B1G “loaning” FSU enough money to take care of the GOR problem too.
The SEC also said it was happy at 12, and then at 14. FSU would make them money. It’s not a critical addition for them (FSU has more value for the B10), but it would be additive.
I don’t think the B10 could afford a loan for the whole GOR, especially post-COVID and after all the major lawsuits adding up liabilities. FSU would need a bank/venture capital/Saudi fund/billionaire to loan it to them. The B10 would be happy to move TV money forward like it did for UMD and RU and do low/zero interest loans, maybe even enough to cover a big chunk of the exit penalty ($120M or so). But the GOR takes much deeper pockets.
There have been huge anti-ESPN and also some major anti-SEC rumblings on FSU fan sites, since the playoff pairings come out. Many (if not most) fans hold ESPN at least largely responsible and resent/blame the SEC.
Of course they do, but long term they won’t blame AL for accepting the spot. If the SEC offers them a huge pay increase, they’d say yes. Otherwise the fans would lambaste the administration for failing to take it.
There has long been a split at FSU. Most fans and alums prefer the SEC, while many administrators (in a position to matter) and many academics prefer the B1G – for obvious reasons. On this issue, I do have very good sources of info. This situation might give the administration the ability to smoothly go B1G.
I’ve heard this as well, but until proven otherwise the rich donors always get their way in realignment. FSU’s donors want the SEC.
As far as FSU (or Clemson) having nowhere to go, of course they do not at this time since the school must make the first move. Does anyone seriously doubt that the B1G would not take FSU if available?
I wonder if they’d take them right now, mostly because the B10 needs a few years to digest adding the western branch. But also because Fox is the decision maker for this – they have to be willing to pay pro rata for it. The rumor is that they have already agreed that they would, but we don’t know for sure. Bigger picture, I’m 99% sure the B10 would say yes in a few years.
I have no idea why Clemson would be higher the list than FSU, unless that list is not reflective of what appears to be a revival of FSU football. Clearly for a while Clemson was the far superior program, even though South Carolina hardly compares to Florida for the B1G. The SEC is in both already, so it is not the same for them.
Agreed, having Clemson that high makes no sense. FSU is much more valuable overall, and better in every aspect.
LikeLike
The SEC claims to be quite happy with its 16 teams and honestly has little use for FSU, other than to block the B1G. I could see the B1G “loaning” FSU enough money to take care of the GOR problem too.
The SEC also said it was happy at 12, and then at 14. FSU would make them money.
The Big Ten was happy at 12, and then at 14, and then at 16, and now at 18. Conferences don’t usually announce that they are interested in expanding. The Big Ten did that once, before they added Nebraska, and I doubt they will again.
I agree with Brian that the Big Ten probably can’t afford to advance money for the GOR buyout; FSU would have to figure that out some other way. Let’s say they do that, and come knocking with funding in hand and a plausible partner, such as Miami or Clemson. Would the Big Ten take them now? I am not sure, but I am betting they’d rather not. I still think the most likely scenario is that FSU does not budge until the 2030s.
There have been huge anti-ESPN and also some major anti-SEC rumblings on FSU fan sites…
Rumblings on fan sites are typically the least useful source for predicting what is going to happen next.
LikeLike
I realize I’m in the minority here but I don’t think FSU joining the Big Ten would be a no-brainer. If I think like a college president instead of a meathead football fan, FSU is not AAU, it isn’t a UNC/UVA caliber academic school and it will be yet another outlier for the center of mass of the conference, this one in the opposite direction of the other four. ND AD Swarbrick has openly complained about the difficulty of getting Olympic teams to Tallahasse.
Also, would revenue per school increase? And is academic skank Clemson their sidekick in joining?
LikeLike
It is both ingenious and accursed that Frank the Tank once said, “Think like a university president, not like a fan.” He had that insight when almost no one else did. But now people quote him while doing exactly the opposite. Frank himself has said that FSU is a no-brainer. Either he forgot his own mantra, or he is not the meathead fan you’re saying he is.
The decision to add new members has always been about athletics first. That is why Oregon and Washington got invitations, while Cal and Stanford did not.
There is a level of academic excellence below which the Big Ten won’t go, but nobody knows where that is. By the time FSU gets out of their GoR, it’ll probably be different people deciding, since the average university president last under seven years. We know the Big Ten would have taken Notre Dame at any time in the past three decades, and they weren’t in the AAU until quite recently.
I agree it depends who the 20th school is, since they’re not going to expand to odd numbers. But FSU is not necessarily tied to Clemson, just because some reporter posted a tweet without named sources.
LikeLike
(1) Frank has pretty much abandoned this forum. He is focused on his tweets.
(2) It doesn’t make any difference if Frank said that FSU is a no-brainer. That doesn’t make FSU a no-brainer.
(3) You agree it depends “who the 20th school is”. Yep, that is yet another variable. Thus FSU is not a no-brianer.
LikeLike
I don’t think it is incorrect to point out potential issues with FSU joining the Big Ten, as others have done. Where you are incorrect, as you so often are, is to portray the question as one-sided. Your inability to imagine that other rational possibilities exist is what leads you to be so wrong, so frequently.
It is true that Frank seldom posts here anymore, but I don’t think he has changed his views. Whatever Frank might be, he isn’t “a meathead football fan.” He still looks at realignment through a business lens as a university president would. That doesn’t make him always accurate, and anyhow university presidents do not think 100% alike. This means there’s some uncertainty about what they’d do, especially as the presidents eventually deciding probably won’t be the same ones we have now.
LikeLike
Marc, you again distort my comments. I didn’t “portray the question as one-sided”, I did the opposite. I said it wasn’t a no-brainer for FSU to join the Big Ten. Those who claim that FSU to the Big Ten is a no-brainer suggest there is no other reasonable option, and this of course portrays the question as one-sided.
LikeLike
UVA to cover all costs – tuitions and fees – for in-state students of families making less that $100K/yr: https://wapo.st/3Rzw3b6
LikeLike
Total viewership by school this season:
1. OSU 62.7M
2. AL 60.9M
3. UM 57.3M
4. CU 54.0M
5. UGA 47.8M
6. ND 45.0M
7. UT 42.9M
8. FSU 42.4M
9. PSU 40.3M
10. LSU 34.2M
It is a rapid drop with #10 barely above 50% of #1 (54.5%). That same percentage drop gets you to #25 (MSU – 18.2M). Even RU, IL, PU and NW (and the bottom of the SEC – SC, MsSU) were well ahead of the bottom of the ACC, B12 and P12.
NE continues to outperform its record.
LikeLike
NE continues to outperform its record.
If you’re going to be terrible, at least play entertaining games. 18 one score losses in the last three years.
How can you not be entertained?
LikeLike
Mike,
How can you not be entertained?
Pretty easily, actually. The quality of “football” demonstrated in those games was really only entertaining in a 3 Stooges sense, and you end up feeling bad for the players as their QBs find yet another way to turn over the ball and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
LikeLike
We’ve discussed that the CFP selection committee will never again have to consider leaving out an undefeated power conference champ. But instead it will have a series of “smaller” decisions that will get a lot more scrutiny.
The Committee publishes a “top 25,” even though most of that list is entirely irrelevant to its mission of filling the playoff and the other major bowls. As a result, most people historically have not paid a lot of attention to its rankings below the top handful. The Athletic has summarized the ranking decisions that now will be a lot more consequential:
— 4 vs. 5, the difference a bye and playing in the first round
— 5 vs. 6, in most years the difference between hosting a G5 opponent or a P4 opponent in the first round
— 8 vs. 9, the difference between being the home team or the road team in the first round
— 11 vs. 12, the difference between the last team in and the first team out
All of this assumes that the token G5 team will usually be the 12th seed, and yet below 12th in the Committee rankings. For example, this year the 12th seed would’ve been Liberty, because they were the 5th of five conference champs that would receive an autobid, although they were ranked 23rd.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s the same as what will happen to regular season games. The most important decisions with 4 teams will lose some/most of their importance with 12 teams, but more decisions will become somewhat important.
Under 4:
Vital: 4 vs 5
Important: 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4
Irrelevant: 2 vs 3, everything below 5th (except top G5 champ)
Under 12:
Vital: 11 vs 12, 5th champ vs 6th champ
Very Important: 8 vs 9, 4th champ vs 5th champ (not strictly 4 vs 5)
Important: 3 vs 4 (might get G5 champ off an upset)
Irrelevant: everything else below 12th
Since more teams will get in, it would be better to remove the committee and rank by objective criteria. Nobody will get death threats if a handful of computer polls rank FSU over AL or vice versa. All 12 get a chance to prove it on the field.
Or maybe use the committee like a replay official – it can only change clear and obvious errors made by the computers.
LikeLike
Brian, give it a rest. Nothing is “vital”. The P4 champs will get the top four spots and everything else will fall into place. Don’t get yout panties up in a wad.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/pac-12-legal-saga-osu-wsu-block-mid-year-revenue-payments-to-12-campuses-as-massive-liabilities-loom/
OrSU and WSU block a traditional (but not mandatory) revenue distribution in the P12. The departing 10 say the Pac-2 are abusing their position to hurt the programs at the 10 schools. But the Pac-2 also aren’t getting that payout, so they’re hurting themselves as well.
On Dec. 5, commissioner George Kliavkoff notified the 12 campuses that, in accordance with past practice, the conference was prepared to distribute 15 percent of its annual revenue to the schools.
For the 2023-24 fiscal year, that split is approximately $61 million, or just over $5 million per campus, according to a memo obtained by the Hotline.
Kliavkoff explained that the 15 percent distribution is “not expressly required under our bylaws” but “traditionally” has been sent to the schools in December.
…
The 12 schools agreed recently to allow Washington State and Oregon State to enter a scheduling agreement with the Mountain West starting next fall. And although the Cougars and Beavers are paying the MW a fee for the series, the cash needed will come from future Pac-12 assets, not the 2023-24 revenue.
On the use of current revenue, there is no agreement.
In response to a query from the Hotline about their decision to block the mid-year distribution, OSU and WSU issued a joint statement:
“As the only two remaining members, OSU and WSU are the only schools committed to the best interest of the Pac-12. That means taking responsible steps to protect the assets of the Conference and plan for the future.
“No member acting in the Pac-12’s best interest would allow departing schools to drain the Conference’s assets on their way out the door, while they refuse to pay their fair share of the liabilities.”
…
“The departing schools have not committed to a plan for addressing the liabilities,” a source said. “If there’s a judgment (in the House case), the named entities would be responsible. And the Pac-12 is a named defendant.”
But the 10 outbound members took exception to WSU and OSU blocking the December revenue payments, issuing the following joint statement:
“A decision to distribute 15 percent of the more than $400 million in net revenues to the members now to support student athletes, as the Conference has always done in December, has nothing to do with the future of the Conference. Instead, OSU and WSU’s refusal to agree to it shows that the two schools are abusing their position to injure our programs and athletes in violation of all prior precedents.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39099729/florida-ag-investigating-cfp-florida-state-exclusion
The FL AG is opening an antitrust investigation of the CFP. This could get ugly quickly if the AG can actually get access to all the things she wants, and she might end up destroying the CFP.
[Ashley] Moody said the state’s antitrust division is sending a civil investigative demand to the committee for “more information about the nature of possible contracts, conspiracies in restraint of trade or monopolization of trade and commerce relating to anticompetitive effects of the College Football Playoff.”
…
“My office is launching an investigation to examine if the committee was involved in any anticompetitive conduct. As it stands, the committee’s decision reeks of partiality, so we are demanding answers — not only for FSU, but for all schools, teams and fans of college football. In Florida, merit matters. If it’s attention they were looking for, the committee certainly has our attention now.”
Afterward, College Football Playoff executive director Bill Hancock issued a statement that read: “We will carefully review this demand for information, but it sure seems to be an overly aggressive reaction to a college football ranking in which some fans somewhere were bound to be disappointed.”
…
As part of the investigation, Moody wants communications between the SEC, ACC, NCAA, ESPN Group of 5 and Power 5 conferences as it relates to deliberations, compensation of committee members, how individual committee members voted, the names of those present during any vote and information related to the software used to record votes, in addition to several other requests.
LikeLike
Brian, don’t get your panties up in a wad. This Florida AG’s investigation is going nowhere. She’s just harvesting FSU votes.
LikeLike
This could get ugly quickly if the AG can actually get access to all the things she wants, and she might end up destroying the CFP.
Sorry, but a return to the old bowl system is not an imaginable outcome of this lawsuit. If they could prove corruption, they might succeed in destroying the committee, which wouldn’t be so bad, but you’d still have the same playoff with a different selection mechanism.
My guess is they won’t find anything. The choice of Alabama at #4 has perfectly logical explanations. This doesn’t mean with 100% certainty that nobody was corrupt, but I wish them good luck at proving that.
LikeLike
You’re creating a false dichotomy. There are a lot of other potential outcomes than just the CFP (mostly as is) or the old bowl system. I certainly didn’t mention a return to the bowl system. But an end to the CFP with the postseason forced to run through the NCAA like all other NCAA sports? The elimination of P5 conferences for revenue distribution purposes? No special revenue deals for ND, etc.? No special voting privileges for ND? The end of autonomy status for certain conferences?
I doubt there’s anything to find in terms of direct collusion with ESPN. They have also probably been smart enough to not keep written notes of any meetings that aren’t shielded by attorney-client privilege. Brainwashing the public for over a decade isn’t illegal.
I will dispute your assertion that there are “perfectly logical explanations” for their decision, because that same logic didn’t apply to other similar decisions by the same group. But there are arguments to be made in support of their decision.
So I’m not saying her claimed thrust of investigation will bear any fruit, but she might accidentally upset the apple cart by bringing CFP issues into a court room. Maybe a G5 conference jumps on something from discovery and files a suit against the CFP itself. Or players do, with a class action suit.
LikeLike
Marc, why dignify Brian’s gibberish? The CFP isn’t going to be abolished by some silly c-word lawyer in Florida. Brian’s comment was absurd.
This is just the throes of FSU temper tantrums. The Noles are doing it to show their fans how they hate that Swoffodian 20-yr GOR that they stupidly signed onto.
LikeLike
This is just the throes of FSU temper tantrums.
Yes, most likely. But if the state is able to get all the discovery it is asking for, it’s possible that something embarrassing will come out. All it takes is for one idiot to have put something in email that they shouldn’t. Would it have the devastating impacts Brian is forecasting? Probably not.
LikeLike
Marc,
I’m not “forecasting” anything. The most likely outcome is that it’s all bluster. I’m just saying it’s possible there could be unintended consequences of getting the courts involved, especially if they actually can get discovery of all those things they requested. The CFP system could be found to be an anti-trust violation, forcing a different playoff system. In this rare case, the NCAA’s system may be a better plan from a legal standpoint (all champs get in, equal baseline payouts for everyone).
LikeLike
Just think of the ramifications if this lawsuit succeeds. We could have a dozen bubble schools make charges against the March Madness selection committee, saying they were discriminated against. Ditto women’s hoops tourney and the Frozen Four. One can of worms after another.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-2-asking-questions-network
Canzano with some tidbits about the Pac-2’s future. I could see the P12N facilities having a valid business model producing for others. If the Pac-2 office is to remain open, it will have to be with a true skeleton crew – they can’t afford 20 employees. Maybe 5, plus interns?
Does the Pac-12 Network have a future?
Oliver Luck is still consulting with the ‘Pac-2.’ I’m told by a source on the OSU/WSU front that Luck has been focused on the future of the Pac-12 Network. He did not return messages seeking comment.
Last January, the Pac-12 signed a five-year lease for 42,000 square feet of office space at Bishop Ranch, in San Ramon, Calif. The conference built out a state-of-the-art production facility. Network staffers tell me the facility is an upgrade of the downtown-San Francisco studio. The new facility wasn’t just equipped to serve the Pac-12 (or Pac-2), but also operate as a production arm that could produce live-sports programming for other entities.
Amazon? Apple? MLB? The new National Women’s Soccer League?
“It’s an incredible set-up,” said one person familiar with the facility.
Luck and his team have been charged with exploring whether there’s a business model that would support keeping the Pac-12 Network operating beyond this summer. One question that continues to come up in my conversations with leaders at the 10 departing schools is whether they’ll need production services themselves. They previously relied on the Pac-12 Network, which was linked directly to each campus.
“All of the departing members will have obligations to produce content,” said one campus administrator, “the Pac-12 Network handled all of that for so long.”
Oregon State and Washington State will have at least 13 home football games next season that may need production. Also, it’s possible the Pac-12 Network could pick up contract work on some ESPN football events in the Pacific Time Zone.
What is the 2024 ‘Pac-2’ football schedule worth?
…
Industry insiders tell me that they think OSU will try to sell the games a la carte. There’s a market for Oregon State football games, but everyone I spoke with was skeptical that one media entity would go all-in and take all seven home games.
The Civil War game vs. Oregon is a premium event. OSU’s home games vs. Purdue and Cal would be attractive as well. Those 2-3 games are desirable. The remaining OSU schedule could end up alongside the Mountain West Conference games on CBS, FOX or even land on a regional network such as ROOT.
Estimated revenue: $5 million to $7 million, most agreed.
One source told me: “I’d think Oregon State might value the exposure more than the money.”
Pac-12 may retain operational staff
…
Oregon State and Washington State are busy exploring how many employees might be needed to keep the lights on for the “Pac-12” after August 1 of next year, a source told me. Deputy Commissioner Teresa Gould is part of a small team exploring whether a ‘skeleton crew’ might stay on. It’s unknown if Gould would remain employed.
The conference’s employee retention plan was put together, per an involved source, “with optionality for OSU and WSU to reconstitute the conference.”
How many sports will be managed by the ‘Pac-2’ office? How quickly are OSU and WSU going to rebuild? Is this just someone opening mail and picking up the telephone or are there other responsibilities such as the Pac-12’s website, social media accounts, etc.? And how much will the Mountain West Conference handle as part of its scheduling partnership?
Some of the people I spoke with thought the “Pac-12” would need somewhere between 10 and 20 full-time employees to continue to function. By comparison, the MWC has 23 full-time employees. The Big Sky Conference has 12.
LikeLike
Last week, seven states filed a federal lawsuit against the NCAA alleging that the transfer rule violates the Sherman Anti-Trust act. The state plaintiffs are: Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia. You can read the full complaint here. The rule is the one that requires second-time transfers to sit out a year of competition.
Yesterday, a federal judge in West Virginia granted a temporary restraining order against the NCAA that suspends the transfer rule (and the related Rule of Restitution) for the next 14 days. This gives the court time to decide whether to enter a longer-lasting injunction.
The case comes in the wake of several high profile cases in which the NCAA seemed to enforce the transfer rule inconsistently, denied some transfers and then reversed itself, and was opaque about the conditions for getting an exception. I can’t say for sure that the states will prevail, but parties suing the NCAA for antitrust violations have been winning—a lot. I think that the NCAA is vulnerable because the stated reasons for the transfer rule are pretty weak.
The NCAA claims that the rule “helps athletes maintain their academic progress and avoid falling behind due to the logistics and change that come with transferring schools.” But it doesn’t apply the rule to freshmen or first-time transfers. And the athletes are allowed to participate in every team activity except the game itself, so it’s pretty hard to argue that “getting their credits sorted out” (the NCAA’s rationale in one of these cases) is the real reason for it. No, the real reason is simply that the coaches and schools don’t want full-on free agency.
LikeLike
The MAC commissioner has suggested eliminating the waiver system as a response to this issue. Everyone would have to sit out the year after a second transfer no matter what.
I think their problem will be NIL. While players could still theoretically earn NIL sitting out, keeping them out of games hinders their earning potential. Some judge will object to that, because they don’t actually care about the students or their success.
The only way to win it not to play the game. All intermural athletics in college should be eliminated. Students can self-fund club sports to compete outside of intramurals and outside organizations can pay for whatever they want, but schools should have zero involvement in it and refuse to license school names/logos/etc. for it.
LikeLike
The MAC commissioner has suggested eliminating the waiver system as a response to this issue. Everyone would have to sit out the year after a second transfer no matter what. I think their problem will be NIL. . . .
The MAC is in so many ways an atypical league. Even if the courts were not involved, I would be surprised if any idea that originates with the MAC commissioner is adopted. I think almost everyone agrees that athletes should be eligible for immediate eligibility at least some circumstances. Heck, even the old transfer system before the portal had hardship waivers, though they were extremely difficult to get.
The trouble is, you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. For a couple of years, transfers were basically unlimited. Now the NCAA limits them again, while maintaining the facade of the academic reasons that were alleged to justify the old system, where athletes needed their coach’s permission to transfer. To pass antitrust muster, the NCAA would need to come up with a far better explanation for why the rule is needed, something it has always struggled with, because the real reason is: “we don’t want free agency”.
And of course, if they change their explanation, that will itself be open to attack, as it’ll look like they are doing it as a legal strategy. Most likely, if the 7 states get an injunction, the NCAA will just cave as they did with NIL. I doubt that they want to litigate it up to the Supreme Court again and risk another adverse ruling at that level.
LikeLike
We now have “NIL agents” and they seem to be crawling all over the place. What a monster NIL has created for college athletics. Gift article WaPo: https://wapo.st/48gt3G4
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/5128957/2023/12/12/college-football-playoff-24-team-tournament/
Scott Dochterman looks at what an NCAA-style I-A playoff would look like this year. He chose the I-AA size with 24 teams. DII uses 28 teams and DIII 32.
I-AA only seeds the top 8 teams with the rest paired by geography while avoiding conference rematches in the first round, and 10 conferences have autobids.
DII has no autobids, instead using 4 superregionals which seed the top 4 in each region. DIII has 28 autobids and 4 at-larges (from those 28 conferences).
Here is his version:
Region 1
Byes: 1. Michigan, 2. Oregon
5. Oregon State at 4. LSU, 8 p.m. ET, ESPN/ABC
6. SMU at 3. Missouri, 3:30 p.m. ET, CBS
Region 2
Byes: 1. Washington, 2. Ohio State
5. Liberty at 4. Louisville, 6 p.m. ET Friday, ESPN/ABC
6. Troy at 3. Ole Miss, Noon ET, ESPN/ABC
Region 3
Byes: 1. Texas, 2. Georgia
5. NC State at 4. Arizona, 9:30 p.m. ET Friday, Fox
6. Miami (Ohio) at 3. Penn State, 3:30 p.m. ET, Fox
Region 4
Byes: 1. Alabama, 2. Florida State
5. Iowa at 4. Notre Dame, Noon ET, Fox
6. Boise State at 3. Oklahoma, 8 p.m. ET, NBC
I want to steal the geographic idea from the lower levels (and the way hoops used to be), and use autobids. I’ll also stop at 24 because the CFP rankings only go to 25.
Champ auotbids (# is CFP ranking):
1. UM
2. UW
3. UT
4. AL
5. FSU
23. Liberty
24. SMU
NR. Troy
NR. Miami (OH)
NR. BSU
At-larges:
6. UGA
7. OSU
8. UO
9. MO
10. PSU
11. MS
12. OU
13. LSU
14. AZ
15. UL
16. ND
17. IA
18. NCSU
19. OrSU
First 4 out: 20. OkSU, 21. TN, 22. Clemson, 25. Kansas State
Bracket:
West:
Byes: 2. UW, 8. UO
12. OU vs NR. BSU
14. AZ vs 19. OrSU
East:
Byes: 5. FSU, 6. UGA
10. PSU vs 23. Liberty
16. ND vs 18. NCSU
North:
Byes: 1. UM, 7. OSU
9. MO vs NR. Miami (OH)
15. UL vs 17. IA
South:
Byes: 3. UT, 4. AL
11. MS vs NR. Troy
13. LSU vs 24. SMU
In 2024 and beyond, you could use the P2 conferences as regions:
That keeps national interest at the cost of not being quite fair for semifinal access.
Champ auotbids (# is CFP ranking):
1. UM
3. UT
5. FSU
14. AZ
23. Liberty
NR. Tulane
NR. Troy
NR. Miami (OH)
NR. BSU
At-larges:
2. UW
4. AL
6. UGA
7. OSU
8. UO
9. MO
10. PSU
11. MS
12. OU
13. LSU
15. UL
16. ND
17. IA
18. NCSU
19. OrSU
First 4 out: 20. OkSU, 21. TN, 22. Clemson, 24. SMU
Bracket:
B10:
Byes: 1. UM, 2. UW
7. OSU vs 17. IA
8. UO vs 10. PSU
SEC:
Byes: 3. UT, 4. AL
9. MO vs 13. LSU
11. MS vs 12. OU
West:
Byes: 14. AZ, 15. UL
16. ND vs NR. Miami (OH)
19. OrSU vs NR. BSU
East:
Byes: 5. FSU, 6. UGA*
18. NCSU vs NR. Troy
23. Liberty vs NR. Tulane
As the 3rd-highest SEC team, they become the odd school out to fill the East bracket and get a bye.
LikeLike
Gift article WSJ with two words you don’t see very often: Pusillanimity and poltroonery.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/college-presidents-flunk-courage-101-harvard-penn-speech-codes-israel-antisemitism-5802b185?st=x8quo2u6r0iu9jg&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://www.secsports.com/article/39107852/sec-releases-2024-football-schedule
The SEC released their full 2024 schedule.
Notable:
* Penultimate week (Wk 13) only has 4 OOC cupcake games (AR, UGA, SC, TN). Everyone else has an actual SEC game. Week 12 also has 4 OOC games, so they are spreading the cupcakes out a bit. Maybe Disney told them they didn’t want a throwaway week now that they owned all their rights.
* Non-obvious rivalry week pairings: OU/LSU and AR/MO. Those are better quality games, but LSU/AR and OU/MO both have more history to them. The rest are in-state games (UT/TAMU is back).
LikeLike
UT/TAMU is back.
But the SEC has not committed to contesting it annually, because they can’t agree to play 9 games. In an 8-game schedule, they lock TX/OU, and TX/TAMU would take some years off.
LikeLike
UT ended that annual rivalry when TAMU joined the SEC. The Aggies wanted the game to continue but DeLoss Dodds refused.
LikeLike
We can’t have everything. At least they are playing again. The last one was 2011, so 13 years between games.
UT vs OU is the bigger rivalry, so if one had to go intermittent this one makes sense. At least now every player gets a chance to play in the rivalry going forward.
LikeLike
https://collegehoops.today/rothstein-files/mountain-west-in-discussions-with-both-oregon-state-and-washington-state-to-join-league-for-2024-25-basketball-season/
John Rothstein reports that the Pac-2 are talking to the MWC about them joining for next hoops season.
That opens many questions:
* What does this mean for the legal status of the Pac-12? If the Pac-2 agree, is the P12 officially disbanded since nobody is left on the board?
* What does this mean for the conference status of the Pac-2? Don’t you have to host hoops to be an NCAA conference? Would this end the 2 year waiver?
* Just hoops, or all/most Olympic sports? Where would the remaining sports go?
LikeLike
https://www.espn.co.uk/college-football/story/_/id/39121069/washington-supreme-court-declines-review-pac-12-appeal
The Pac-2 win again in court, as the WA supreme court refuses to hear the appeal of the decision to grant the Pac-2 control over the P12.
The Washington state supreme court will not review a lower court’s decision that granted control of the Pac-12 board of directors to Oregon State and Washington State, the court ruled Friday.
With the ruling, a previous stay of the lower court’s decision has been lifted, granting immediate control of the board to OSU and WSU.
…
The ruling allows OSU and WSU full discretion to operate the conference as they see fit, including as it comes to revenue distributions. Last week, OSU and WSU voted to block a midyear conference-wide revenue payment, a move they said was made to protect the conference against pending liabilities.
It is unclear what immediate steps OSU and WSU will take now that the departing 10 universities have seemingly exhausted their legal remedies.
In a Whitman County courthouse last month, an attorney working on behalf of Washington, Dan Levin, raised the possibility that the departing schools could attempt to dissolve the conference.
“It’s simply the fact that the members could decide to dissolve that they wanted,” Levin said. “Of course, in all this time during these proceedings and before, no member has called for such a vote.” Lawyers for OSU and WSU disagreed vehemently with Levin’s interpretation of the law and said they are confident such action is not legally possible.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/wilner-hotline-mailbag-ucla-realignment-case-study-media-options-for-pac-14-expansion-whiff-latest-on-the-lawsuit-and-more/
Wilner mailbag about the fate of the Pac-4 in the B10, and a bad prediction.
Do Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA have any chance of getting to the College Football Playoff once they enter the Big Ten, or will Michigan and Ohio State dominate? Will the Pac-12 teams regret the move over competitive reasons? — @BakerMeow
Our best guess is yes, the West Coast teams will have a decent chance to reach the 12-team CFP, and Michigan and OSU will dominate the expanded Big Ten.
First, the basic math: The ACC, Big 12, Big Ten and SEC winners will receive automatic bids, along with the highest-ranked Group of Five champion, leaving seven at-large spots each year.
Of those seven, it’s reasonable to assume the Big Ten and SEC will combine to gobble at least five and, given the selection committee’s expected emphasis on strength of schedule, perhaps six.
So let’s game out the Big Ten’s situation using an average of 3.5 playoff teams per year (the conference champion and two or three at-large teams).
Another reasonable assumption: The Wolverines and Buckeyes will take two of those bids — not every season, of course, but more often than not.
That leaves an average of 1.5 spots for Big Ten teams not located in Columbus or Ann Arbor.
Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA will be competing with Penn State and perhaps one other team — Wisconsin one year; Iowa the next, etc. — for those remaining CFP slots.
The Hotline believes Oregon and USC are best equipped to succeed immediately in the Big Ten because of their football infrastructure, resources and, above all, the institutional commitment to winning.
Washington is thriving under coach Kalen DeBoer but, in general, lacks the football machinery found in Eugene, Los Angeles and State College, PA. Let’s place the Huskies a quarter-step behind those three in the Big Ten football food chain.
UCLA isn’t close to that group.
The Bruins haven’t won a Pac-12 title in a quarter-century and are reeling from a late-season skid under Chip Kelly, whose record in conference play over six years is just 26-26.
But it’s not just about Kelly. The Bruins have steep financial challenges, as well, with tens of millions of dollars in accumulated debt and little campus support.
Plus, UCLA likely will enter the Big Ten at a significant revenue disadvantage due, in part, to the so-called Berkeley tax.
While the University of California Board of Regents has not officially slapped the Bruins with a subsidy for Cal, our assumption is the annual figure will be closer to the ceiling ($10 million) than the floor ($2 million).
UCLA could very well generate more net revenue from the Big Ten than Washington and Oregon, which are entering the conference with half shares.
But those schools are better equipped to manage the challenge because they care more about football than UCLA. (In Oregon’s case, much more.)
In fact, the Hotline views UCLA as the single most interesting case in the realignment game that has played out over the past few years.
Are the Bruins any more equipped to win in the Big Ten (in football) than Maryland was a decade ago? At the time, the Terps were a mid-level program in the ACC with financial constraints.
(Also, UCLA chancellor Gene Block doesn’t care about football and is retiring next summer, so there’s a leadership void atop the university.)
The other notable piece of the Bruins’ move is the fate of their prized Olympic sports, which will have significant logistical and travel obstacles in the Big Ten.
USC also cherishes its Olympic sports, but the Trojans have the wherewithal to provide needed support and, oh-by-the-way, care far more about football.
Meanwhile, the Olympic sports in Eugene and Seattle don’t carry nearly the same weight within the university’s athletic culture that they do in Westwood.
Combine the value of Olympic sports with the athletic department’s financial challenges and the mediocre football program, and UCLA’s next chapter will be equally challenging and fascinating.
…
Do you expect a resolution to the Pac-12 lawsuit before Aug. 1, 2024? — @Chad_Rice
I envision a resolution by the spring, when the Pac-12 is expected to distribute the bulk of its annual revenue.
However, the current situation suggests the process could take months to play out.
The Washington Supreme Court is expected to rule today (Friday) on whether it will take the case. All signs point to a review, either by the high court in Olympia or an appellate court in Spokane.
…
Swing and a miss on that one.
LikeLike
The Washington Supreme Court is expected to rule today (Friday) on whether it will take the case. All signs point to a review, either by the high court in Olympia or an appellate court in Spokane.
The Court’s ruling was a slap in the face to UW and the rest of the Pathetic-8, basically saying their case was so frivolous that it didn’t even merit a closer look. WSU and OrSU didn’t immediately issue any kind of statement exulting in victory, but it will be interesting to see what they do.
I have to think a decision on George Kliavkoff’s fate cannot be far off. His bizarre decision to side with the departing schools remains one of the oddest quirks of the case—why did he do it? Kliavkoff is under contract and has to be paid, but I suspect they will lock him out pretty soon.
LikeLike
I think Kliavkoff’s actions are the only surprising thing here:
Obviously, UW and the rest had to try to at least contest WSU/OrSU taking control of the Pac-12, but given the history of how the conference has behaved (with prior acceptance of USC/UCLA being removed from the governance), it was pretty clear that they were going to lose.
Kliavkoff though had to have realized that the Pac-2 was going to take control… so why go against them? He obviously doomed himself but you’re right that he has a contract with years and money on it, so he’ll get a Golden Parachute either way.
LikeLike
There’s some talk that they may try to disband the P12 in CA where it’s registered, but I think that is fan speculation rather than legal theory. On the face of it, the departing schools never had a case. The treatment of USC, UCLA and CU clearly established how the rules were meant to be interpreted. It is important to remember that the original court decision requires the Pac-2 to make reasonable decisions for the good of the conference. They can’t just keep everything for themselves.
Kliavkoff’s fate seems pretty clear. He runs the day-to-day operations (and nothing else) of the P12 until the end of the TV contract in summer, then he gets a golden parachute. I assume an underling will be promoted to “commissioner” of the Pac-2 for the next couple of years until the merger with the MWC is complete and Gloria Nevarez becomes commissioner.
LikeLike
Kliavkoff’s fate seems pretty clear. He runs the day-to-day operations (and nothing else) of the P12 until the end of the TV contract in summer, then he gets a golden parachute. I assume an underling will be promoted to “commissioner” of the Pac-2 for the next couple of years until the merger with the MWC is complete and Gloria Nevarez becomes commissioner.
My prediction is that the underling (or Oliver Luck) is promoted before the end of January. I cannot imagine that the presidents of WSU and OrSU want this guy to have access to the car keys for even a day longer. What essential function does he perform that cannot be done by someone else who hasn’t already sided with the opposition?
LikeLike
1. He’s under contract, so they might as well get some work from him since they have to pay him. He is not going to settle for less than his full deal.
2. He can handle all the little details needed to make this year run smoothly so the underling can focus on the future. A ton of work needs to be done to prepare for 2024-25, so you need people available to focus on that. GK has the time to handle their normal duties to free them up.
LikeLike
I’m bullish on a Power 2 future; it’s really the best solution for enabling the non-Southern powers to keep bulked up win totals while engaging with the Southern powers in a playoff format.
I know the notion of a “super conference of just top 20 schools” is brought up repeatedly, but until somebody shows me a workable recruiting/draft/talent dispersion for it, I won’t believe it’s realistic.
The reason the NFL works (or any professional league) is that the bottom teams get the best young talent through the draft.
There’s no draft in CFB. It’s the exact opposite of a professional setup: the best teams get the best recruits in CFB.
Beyond just needing 10+ wins every year to keep the boosters happy, I just don’t see how a team can ever get out of a decade of losing seasons in a theoretical “top 20-25 only conference”.
That’s a risk that nobody would slide into a Nebraska situation, but at least Nebraska has much more forgiving schedules and a resources balance in favor against half the Big Ten.
Nebraska in a “top 20-25 only conference” would never be able to get out of a rut. Until somebody solves that problem, I’m a believer that a Big Ten/SEC (each with 18-22 schools) is the permanently stable future of CFB.
LikeLike
I think a P2 focus horribly undermines the game as we know it, but also undersells what the rest of I-A will be capable of. With free agency, there will always be players looking for a chance to start somewhere else to earn more NIL money. Big brand (or well coached) ACC/B12/ND teams can stay competitive that way. And a school dominating in one of those conferences will become more and more powerful as other schools in that conference lose players to them for the CFP chances.
NFL Lite will be more than the top 20. It would need to be at least NFL size and probably a little larger (32-40). Players will be unionized employees, perhaps with a draft just like the NFL. Plenty of leagues thrive without a draft to distribute players (see pro soccer in other countries).
In any system, bad teams can rise up to become good. It takes the right management (GM, coach) and some luck, but it happens everywhere. But every league has its perennial powers, too.
NFL Lite could preserve team W% by allowing them some non-league games as a pseudo-preseason. They get 2-3 home games against college teams then play their NFLL season. Bad NFL teams still keep strong fan bases, and the whole premise is driven by TV and gambling money anyway.
Maybe at some point the schools cut ties to that and re-start actual collegiate sports again while watching NFLL wither on the vine like every sub-NFL league does.
I’m still amazed the law say the NCAA system is illegal, but the NFLPA can bar younger players from having a chance at a job and that’s just fine.
If we have learned nothing else, we should know there is no such thing as a “permanently stable future of CFB.” Change is the one constant.
LikeLike
All fair points, and I think a 12 team CFP offers a good route to top-flight Big 12/ACC (post-FSU/Clemson/Miami/UNC/etc. exodus)/G5 to keep competing.
Take Utah or Oklahoma State, those 2 would be the best bets to get the most CFP bids from the Big 12 over the next 10-15 years given their institutional setup and success over the past 20 years with their current coaches.
If they get a bunch of CFP bids, that will support recruiting at a higher level than their peers and enable them to keep winning.
Of course, it’s hard to sustain like the huge schools can, but at least there will be a path.
Bigger question to me is what the future looks like in the mid-2030s once FSU/Clemson/Miami/UNC/etc. leave the ACC.
At that point you really have just 2 superconferences, a third laggard, and then a bunch of G5 conferences.
Maybe at that point you shift to just 4 conference champs and 8 at-large bids or if we move to 16, you go 4 conference champs and 12 at-large bids.
LikeLike
Have no fear, they will further ruin CFB by expanding the CFP a lot more. The lower levels started at 4/8/8 teams and are now at 24/28/32. I-A has already gone from 2 to 4 to 12. It’ll be 16 within 8 years, and probably 32 within 25 years (unless the breakaway happens – then it’d stay at 12-16).
With superconferences forming (18+), look for divisions to eventually reappear. Not for the CCG, but as ways to give CFP autobids like the NFL. It will also keep scheduling simpler as geographic groupings play each other more often. It could look roughly like this:
B10:
Pacific – 10 western schools
Midwest – 10 midwestern schools
SEC:
South – 10 southern/plains schools
Eastern – 10 southeastern schools
Other:
Atlantic – 12 east coast schools
Southwestern – 12 southern/plains schools
Notre Dame
LikeLike
Have no fear, they will further ruin CFB by expanding the CFP a lot more.
I am sure the playoff will expand, because that is what playoffs invariably do. But to the extent the playoff “ruined” CFB, I don’t think expansion can “damage” it much further.
The NC formerly rewarded the team with the best overall season from beginning to end. Once you get to 12, it’s something fundamentally different: a tournament where a mediocre seed can win it all, even though they by no imaginable definition had the best season.
Having done that, there isn’t much of a difference between 12, 16, and 24 etc. It’s just more games, and there is already a long history of playing more games over time.
LikeLike
Why not expand the playoffs and reduce the meaningless bowl games?
LikeLike
But to the extent the playoff “ruined” CFB, I don’t think expansion can “damage” it much further.
Famous last words. Hoops fans probably said that decades ago, and now hoops is just the NCAAT. Every expansion of the postseason removes importance from the regular season, often to the point where fans stop caring because the games don’t really matter. The players may not much care either since they are just there for a paycheck. How long until players sit out regular season games to avoid the injury risk?
Having done that, there isn’t much of a difference between 12, 16, and 24 etc. It’s just more games, and there is already a long history of playing more games over time.
With more teams comes more autobids and blatantly undeserving teams in the playoff. It may also require shortening the season (I-AA = 11 games, DII = 10, DIII = 10), killing off even more rivalries for the sake of some blowout playoff games.
LikeLike
Why not expand the playoffs and reduce the meaningless bowl games?
The calculation for the non-playoff bowl games is pretty simple. ESPN has the TV rights to nearly all of them, and quite a few are owned by ESPN outright. The vast majority don’t have long histories — they exist only by the grace of those who decide they are meaningful enough to provide ESPN a return on investment.
LikeLike
Last night (Sat Dec 16), number one ranked Arizona played number three ranked Purdue in what was clearly the top college basketball game of the weekend. The game was on Peacock only.
Looking ahead on Purdue’s schedule, the following games are Peacock only: Maryland on Jan 2, Nebraska on Jan 9, Indiana on Jan 16, Michigan on Jan 23 and Illinois on March 5. Then the first round of the Big Ten Tournament is Peacock only.
The Big Ten sold it’s soul to the devil when we hooked up with NBC.
LikeLike
The Big Ten sold it’s soul to the devil when we hooked up with NBC.
I remember there was a lot of hand-wringing when college sports started to appear on cable for the first time. People didn’t like that either. The difference here is that the Big Ten is letting Peacock take some of its best games.
LikeLike
Cable was an equity concern – not everyone could afford it, and not everyone had access to it. But it became nearly ubiquitous, reducing one objection. More importantly, cable increased availability of games. Streaming doesn’t do that.
Streaming still has technical issues on a regular basis, is not accessible to everyone, and is rapidly growing in cost (esp. when you include the cost of the underlying internet/cell plan) and ads. Beyond that, streaming is inconvenient for changing channels (a plus for the content providers, a huge negative for viewers).
We’ve been down this road and know it leads to consumers getting screwed. Again. The providers take viewership hits to grow their businesses. Cable viewers always lagged OTA for big games by about 10%, but Disney (and now Fox) didn’t care. They’d rather restrict access and make more profit. Streaming will intensify that, as numbers drop to 10% of an OTA game.
The NFL has Peacock-only games including a playoff game. They don’t care if nobody watches as long as Comcast pays them well to bury the games. Being like the NFL is not a good thing.
LikeLike
Cable was an equity concern – not everyone could afford it, and not everyone had access to it. But it became nearly ubiquitous, reducing one objection.
This is what happens with any new technology, right? Initially it is overpriced and not everyone has access. Streaming will moderate in price, because the status quo is unsustainable. There will surely be a point where almost everyone has it, because eventually nobody will sell you a cable box anymore.
More importantly, cable increased availability of games. Streaming doesn’t do that.
This is largely true, but didn’t BTN take out Tier 3 regional sports packages that were OTA? For me (selfishly) BTN is better because I don’t live in-region, but there were some for whom it was a step backwards.
Streaming still has technical issues on a regular basis…
I don’t like it, but the tech will get better. Your current phone is not the one Alexander Graham Bell invented.
Beyond that, streaming is inconvenient for changing channels (a plus for the content providers, a huge negative for viewers).
I predict that this will improve, because there are providers like Roku which produces almost no notable content itself but exists mainly to facilitate switching among other providers. When streaming was mainly for movies and longform TV, you didn’t hear as much about needing to change channels quickly.
Cable viewers always lagged OTA for big games by about 10%, but Disney (and now Fox) didn’t care. They’d rather restrict access and make more profit.
There are a lot of valid accusations you could lay at Disney’s door. Restricting access is not one of them, given the lengths to which they’ve gone to ensure ESPN would be in every cable household. For a bunch of economic and regulatory reasons, nobody creates new OTA channels anymore. You write of profit as if it’s a dirty word, but they are not running a charity. And as you well know, the exorbitant sums they pay for football and basketball funds the non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
This is what happens with any new technology, right? Initially it is overpriced and not everyone has access. Streaming will moderate in price, because the status quo is unsustainable. There will surely be a point where almost everyone has it, because eventually nobody will sell you a cable box anymore.
No, that doesn’t happen with everything. Plenty of new technologies are only realistically available to the rich. Billions of people don’t have indoor plumbing.
Streaming is getting more expensive, not less.
https://getstreamwise.com/tv-streaming-services-increased-costs/
It’s basically doubled in price over the last 5 years.
This is largely true, but didn’t BTN take out Tier 3 regional sports packages that were OTA? For me (selfishly) BTN is better because I don’t live in-region, but there were some for whom it was a step backwards.
Some tier 3 games were available locally OTA, some by PPV, and many not at all. OSU had 3 games on ESPN+ in 2002. IU had 6 games not televised and 4 on ESPN+. BTN made more games available and to more people, but yes some lost out.
I don’t like it, but the tech will get better. Your current phone is not the one Alexander Graham Bell invented.
Netflix streaming launched about when BTN did. The infrastructure still isn’t there to stream a major event cleanly. And since they’re moving more things to streaming, the stresses on the system will only get worse.
I predict that this will improve, because there are providers like Roku which produces almost no notable content itself but exists mainly to facilitate switching among other providers. When streaming was mainly for movies and longform TV, you didn’t hear as much about needing to change channels quickly.
It was a known use case for TV for decades, but there is no incentive for the streaming providers to fix it. The more inconvenient it is, the more likely they profit.
There are a lot of valid accusations you could lay at Disney’s door. Restricting access is not one of them, given the lengths to which they’ve gone to ensure ESPN would be in every cable household.
They moved the BCS and CFP to ESPN knowing they’d lose at least 10% of their viewership from ABC to ESPN. But they profit more, so that’s all that mattered. They chose to restrict access to maximize profit. And they still keep the CFP there despite much lower subscription percentages.
You write of profit as if it’s a dirty word, but they are not running a charity.
Many of the world’s ills can be directly traced to someone seeking profit, so it’s not a great word. It is an amoral goal and the only thing Disney cares about. If you care about what they are covering, then profit is the enemy since they are willing to completely exploit and change the content to maximize profit.
And as you well know, the exorbitant sums they pay for football and basketball funds the non-revenue sports.
That’s up to the schools to decide. That money could be spent differently. Disney isn’t paying it as charity to support those sports.
And Disney doesn’t care what happens to student-athletes, or the schools, or how many of those non-revenue sports get cut, or anything else but their bottom line. They are perfectly happy to run CFB into the ground then stop signing contracts to televise it.
LikeLike
Gift article Wall St Journal about big time college doners:
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/college-donors-school-presidents-athletics-f2eb3c91?st=6phhd4k1j3vzo1e&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gift article WaPo: https://wapo.st/3GQhcmx
LikeLike
This is an older tweet, but interesting in looking ahead to 2024 – a comparison of the 18 B10 stadiums to scale. It’s amazing how large the Coliseum is in comparison.
LikeLike
Altimore has been on an kick about academics of schools lately, so here’s the 35 most applied to schools for 2022-23. CA schools dominate, along with schools in major east coast cities (NYU, Northeastern, etc.) and the B10.
B10:
1. UCLA
9. PSU
10. UM
16. USC
18. PU
21. OSU
23. IL
26. WI
29. UMD
LikeLike
Last one: admissions yield vs selectivity for P5 schools and the Ivy League. There are 3 clear clusters:
* Elite private and public schools (the Ivies form a cluster within that cluster)
* Very good public schools and the other private schools
* The rest of the publics
There are also 3 outliers – Texas, TAMU, and BYU. UT and TAMU both have higher yields than you’d expect, presumably from in-state students thrilled to be accepted. BYU is off the charts in yield (almost 80% – only Stanford and Harvard top it) due to its unique religious standing.
LikeLike
https://billfarley.substack.com/p/the-ducks-big-10-agreement-has-a
A former USC professor used FOIA requests to get UO’s new member agreement with the B10 (and UCLA’s before that) – all 22 pages are available for download. Nothing earth-shattering, but a few key points:
* They are getting basically a half-share ($30M in year 1, $31M in year 2, …, $35M in year 6) in the current TV deal, with a full share after that. We already knew that.
* They got the application fee down to $7.5M (was $15M for UCLA). Presumably UW also got that break, so the B10 is already up $45M.
* They can borrow $10M per year from future revenue (from Fox, with 0% interest). UW has already exercised their rights to this, so both schools will really make $40M+ per year. That helps them in comparison with the B12 and ACC. This was known before, but didn’t get a ton of coverage since the season was about to start. The money gets paid off at the same rate ($10M per year over the next 6 years).
LikeLike
https://billfarley.substack.com/p/did-ucla-and-usc-work-with-fox-to
From the UCLA agreement, he wonders how much input USC and UCLA had on the fates of UW, UO, Stanford, and Cal.
Two sections of the agreement between UCLA and the Big 10 suggest UCLA and USC (since both agreements are similar) were active participants in adding the Ducks and Huskies – and perhaps blocking Calford from joining the Big 10. The full agreement is found here for your review and so you can draw your own conclusions. Here are the two sections that drew my attention:
Section 4.04 Obligations of the Conference. From and after the execution of this Agreement through the Closing, Conference shall reasonably consult with and notify University of the entry into any media rights agreements and amendments that would affect the terms, conditions or benefits available under the Grant of Rights, as well as any changes or revisions to the Governing Documents or other agreements by which University will be bound once it joins the Conference.
Section 6.01 Termination. (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, this
Agreement may be terminated and the Transactions abandoned at any time before the Closing:
(ii) by University if … (C) the composition of the membership of the Conference is materially
different from the composition of the membership on the date hereof, or (D) there has been
any change in the rights or obligations attendant to membership in the Conference that is
reasonably likely to materially and adversely impact the expected benefits to University of
joining the Conference;
Taken together, I see it unlikely that the Big 10 and Fox would risk giving UCLA even a narrow opening to terminate, and therefore likely consulted with UCLA and USC on their courting the Ducks and Huskies. Furthermore, it indicates the UCLA and USC could block new members from joining. The extent of any communications on this front are hidden for now, protected from public disclosure by university lawyers, but could be revealed if the case of WSU/OSU v. Pac 12 heads to disclosure.
LikeLike
It was widely reported that USC didn’t want any more “West Coast schools” to join the Big Ten. I think that was code for not wanting Stanford or Cal. The Trojans probably don’t give a hoot about Washington or Oregon.
LikeLike
It’s also been widely reported that USC was very happy when Oregon wasn’t initially invited to the Big Ten.
If I remember correctly, one of the requirements of the four California schools when the PAC12 divisions were set up was that USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal wanted to play each other every year. The founding members of the PAC conference (after the Pacific Coast Conference was disbanded) were USC, UCLA, Cal and Washington, and Stanford joined very shortly thereafter.
LikeLike
Those 4 founded the AAWU in 1959 with Stanford joining in 1 month. But WSU joined in 1962 and UO and OrSU in 1964, so it was the Pac-8 within 5 years. There wasn’t much of a lull between them all being in the PCC and all in the Pac.
But of note, the AAWU played a varying number of conference games from 1958-1965. Some teams only played 3, others all 7. So USC and UCLA took about a decade break in playing UO, while UW played everyone every year.
From 1950-1969:
USC played UCLA, Cal, Stanford, UW and ND annually (20 times). OrSU – 15, WSU – 11, UO – 9
UCLA played USC, Cal, Stanford and UW annually (20 times). OrSU – 12, WSU – 9, UO – 9
So bad feeling still lingered between the LA schools and some of the PNW schools, especially UO. I assume WSU was as much about inconvenience as anything.
But the 55 years since then probably resolved most of their issues. Any modern concerns were more about recruiting and performance.
LikeLike
It was widely reported that USC didn’t want any more “West Coast schools” to join the Big Ten. I think that was code for not wanting Stanford or Cal. The Trojans probably don’t give a hoot about Washington or Oregon.
In conference realignment, anything “widely reported” without a named source is usually incorrect — as it turned out to be here. Nobody thought at the time that it referred only to Stanford and Cal.
Many “widely reported” things are actually “reported” only once and then repeated. Or, it could be the same isolated anonymous source feeding the same information to multiple outlets. The reader can be lulled into thinking those reports are independently verified, when they are not.
LikeLike
How about “repeatedly reported”?
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39150367/florida-state-discussing-future-acc-following-cfp-snub
FSU is getting antsy about leaving the ACC (again).
Florida State has had renewed in-depth discussions about its long-term future in the ACC in recent weeks, sources told ESPN, with talks reignited following the Seminoles’ omission from the College Football Playoff earlier this month.
That snub, which occurred after the Seminoles completed a perfect 12-0 regular-season record before winning the ACC championship game, angered many at the university and among its board of trustees, essentially the last straw after a year spent voicing their displeasure with the conference.
The situation is expected to come to a head in the near future and be formally discussed soon, sources indicated to ESPN. While there has been renewed discussion, no board of trustees meeting has been called.
To be clear, Florida State is not leaving the ACC in the near term but is merely weighing its options — a difficult task that also has come with trepidation among some involved in the talks.
LikeLike
To be clear, Florida State is not leaving the ACC in the near term but is merely weighing its options — a difficult task that also has come with trepidation among some involved in the talks.
Nicole Auerbach of The Athletic is out with a similar story today. But neither story is clear about what realistic options FSU has, short of a very expensive GoR exit or a long and nasty legal fight with the outcome far from certain.
LikeLike
I think the story is that the powers that be at FSU are going to “openly” discuss actual options and potential action items to assess those options. I say “openly” because I assume most of it will be behind closed doors and legally protected from disclosure, but they are willing to let people know that they are discussing it.
I’m sure they are looking at multiple things:
* Fox is loaning $10M per year interest free to both UW and UO for 6 years, with the money coming from future earnings over the following 6 years. So how much similar help might FSU get from Fox or Disney? $20M/year for 6 years would cover their entire exit penalty (if they even have to pay the full value).
* How much might venture capital or banks make available to them, and at what interest rates?
* Might the state help out (bonds, etc.)?
* How much would boosters commit to pay? Or maybe they buy those bonds (or FSU-issued bonds, or whatever)?
* What legal attacks might they bring?
* What are the odds the ACC and/or Disney would rather negotiate than go through disclosure and a lawsuit?
* What are the risks to FSU? What legal exposure would they have? What financial penalties might they incur? What dirty laundry of theirs might get exposed?
* What’s the worst case scenario, and how can they improve that? Say the ACC still owns all of their home game rights. FSU only has to play 5 home games per year. The other 7 can be road games in the new conference.
Options:
1. Play big name opponents from the new conference at home. Either Disney airs those games or they show lesser games instead. If FSU joins the SEC, will Disney sit on an AL @ FSU game just to appease the ACC? I don’t think so. Would they sit on UM @ FSU? Slightly more likely since they don’t own B10 rights, but still doubtful. Either way Disney has to pay the ACC for them (I think), then each ACC team earns slightly more.
2. Play bottom tier new conference games and/or cupcake OOC games at home. If FSU joins the SEC, will Disney want to air Vandy @ FSU? I don’t think so. Would they show RU @ FSU? Highly doubtful. Would Disney want to air FAMU @ FSU? No.
At some point perhaps Disney would just settle rather than keep paying to air good B10 games or crappy OOC games. Or they’ll show the games and not care, which will anger the ACC.
* Can they play Disney off against the ACC? Disney owns the rights to both the SEC and ACC. Can they leverage that somehow?
LikeLike
Sports reporters won’t be candid about it but FSU’s problems are mostly self-generated. Signing a 20-year GOR was mindless, and the resulting ACC Network is of little value. Commish Jim Philips was instrumental in delaying the 12-team playoff. Notre Dame football revenue should have been part of the equation when they signed on as a partial member.
LikeLike
Sports reporters won’t be candid about it…
I think many sports reporters have noted these same things, other than the point about Notre Dame which exists only in your head.
There is pretty wide-spread and almost universal acknowledgment that the 20-year GOR was a mistake. Heck, I think even Phillips has admitted that the league would not sign that deal today. However, that is hindsight bias. A bunch of very smart people fell for Swofford’s swindle, not just the then-president of FSU.
Phillips’ opposition to the 12-team playoff turned out badly, and multiple news stories have mentioned it. But remember the Big Ten and Pac-12 opposed it then too. A different position from Phillips probably would not have changed the outcome.
LikeLike
Marc,
There is pretty wide-spread and almost universal acknowledgment that the 20-year GOR was a mistake. Heck, I think even Phillips has admitted that the league would not sign that deal today. However, that is hindsight bias. A bunch of very smart people fell for Swofford’s swindle, not just the then-president of FSU.
I think most such people fail to consider the alternative. ESPN wasn’t offering the ACCN without that extension. The ACCN is paying out something like $7-10M per year per school, plus providing exposure to other sports. Would they really be better off financially so far without the ACCN? And only the GOR has prevented multiple schools from leaving the ACC. Would the ACC be better off without FSU, Clemson, and maybe others? The ACC deal is on par with the B12 and topped the P12. Isn’t that what they should be making?
Was the GOR extension a bad idea for FSU and a few others with options? Maybe, but they didn’t necessarily have options at that time. Did the SEC or B10 want them in 2016? If not, then what alternative did they have? Go independent and hope for an invitation later?
Phillips’ opposition to the 12-team playoff turned out badly, and multiple news stories have mentioned it.
That’s “the ACC’s opposition” not Phillips’. He was just following orders.
But remember the Big Ten and Pac-12 opposed it then too. A different position from Phillips probably would not have changed the outcome.
Exactly.
LikeLike
I think most such people fail to consider the alternative. ESPN wasn’t offering the ACCN without that extension. The ACCN is paying out something like $7-10M per year per school, plus providing exposure to other sports. Would they really be better off financially so far without the ACCN?
It’s hard to say for sure, because we don’t know how much wiggle room there was in ESPN’s negotiating position. Was it a best-and-final offer, or did Swofford cave too easily?
I can’t prove this, but I think Swofford caved too easily. In my four decades in business, I’ve seen no deals that require a twenty-year payback. There is very little in life that is worth doing if it takes multiple decades to earn a fair rate of return. And certainly not in media, where nobody can make reliable forecasts even 10 years out, much less 20. So if ESPN said, “I need 20 years or this deal doesn’t make financial sense for us,” I call B.S. I think they were bluffing.
So it’s not just a question of taking the deal as it stood, or walking away. Did Swofford negotiate the best deal that could be had? For the above reasons, I am doubtful.
LikeLike
Marc: “Did Swofford negotiate the best deal that could be had? For the above reasons, I am doubtful.”
There really is no question that Swofford was pathetic at negotiating the ACC’s TV rights contracts. This article from Forbes is over ten years old and the author nails it, including the part about John Swofford’s son Chad, now a VP at Raycom.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/06/04/the-accs-third-tier-rights-and-why-theyre-killing-the-conference/?sh=e4768e563753
LikeLike
Marc,
It’s hard to say for sure, because we don’t know how much wiggle room there was in ESPN’s negotiating position. Was it a best-and-final offer, or did Swofford cave too easily?
I can’t prove this, but I think Swofford caved too easily. In my four decades in business, I’ve seen no deals that require a twenty-year payback. There is very little in life that is worth doing if it takes multiple decades to earn a fair rate of return. And certainly not in media, where nobody can make reliable forecasts even 10 years out, much less 20. So if ESPN said, “I need 20 years or this deal doesn’t make financial sense for us,” I call B.S. I think they were bluffing.
Well, ESPN continues to say that was the case. They were not going to create the ACCN without that extension. Remember, they had zero need for the ACCN. They had said no to the ACC for years about it. It was all risk for them, within minimal potential return. The only way it made sense to them was to get the locked in extension to control costs. It also guaranteed FSU and Clemson and others not leaving and devaluing the conference.
So did they need 20 years to make a profit from it? No. But maybe they needed that long of a deal to make the reward worth the risk and the cost to them. It definitely had a large opportunity cost for Disney.
So it’s not just a question of taking the deal as it stood, or walking away. Did Swofford negotiate the best deal that could be had? For the above reasons, I am doubtful.
Show me any evidence ESPN was willing to bend on this.
ESDPN originally wanted 3 more years than they got, so Swofford did make some gains in negotiations.
Also, I’ll remind people that many thought sports rights were a bubble that was about to burst due to cord cutting. The ACC gambled they were locking in top dollar for an extra-long time. If rights had started to decrease, everyone would be praising the ACC for their great deal.
LikeLike
Marc,
Re: the extension for the ACCN
LikeLike
FSU attorney says that ESPN came to the ACC in 2016 and presented an ultimatum to either extend Grant of Rights until 2036 or the network would not discuss any further media deal with conference
Yes, so it was claimed — part of the reasoning for strongarming the schools into signing a GoR they probably never should’ve signed. But was it true? FSU’s argument is a variation on what I have been saying: that the ACC gave away the 20-year GoR without receiving comparable value in return.
FSU makes the argument a lot more forcefully than I could, because they have facts I didn’t know when I wrote that yesterday. But in the thrust of it I was exactly right: the 20-year GoR made no economic sense. (This of course assumes FSU’s allegations as fact — we have not seen the ACC’s answer.)
This does not mean FSU will win. FSU is claiming that the ACC managed the league incompetently, but they are not alleging outright fraud. This is a tough hill to climb. Many deals eventually turn out better for one side than the other. That doesn’t mean they were unfair at the time they were done.
LikeLike
Marc, you may not agree but that kissy-huggy deal that the ACC made with ND could easily be considered further evidence that the ACC managed the league incompetently.
LikeLike
Marc, you may not agree but that kissy-huggy deal that the ACC made with ND could easily be considered further evidence that the ACC managed the league incompetently.
I do disagree, because I think the ACC got the best deal from ND that they were going to get. The ACC didn’t lose anything by signing ND as a partial member unless you think they could’ve gotten ND as a full member, and that’s pretty unlikely.
If the ACC had insisted on full membership, ND probably would’ve gone to the Big 12. If no league (or none that’s acceptable) would take them on that basis, then they might as well join the league offering to pay the most, which was and still is the Big Ten.
LikeLike
That’s a different issue. I’m saying that in FSU’s fight with the ACC, the FSU lawyers could argue that the deal that the ACC made with ND could be considered further evidence that the ACC managed the league incompetently.
LikeLike
Marc,
No, no, no. You don’t get to spin this as supporting your position when it directly supports what I said.
Yes, so it was claimed — part of the reasoning for strongarming the schools into signing a GoR they probably never should’ve signed. But was it true? FSU’s argument is a variation on what I have been saying: that the ACC gave away the 20-year GoR without receiving comparable value in return.
True? It’s more evidence than you have for your supposition that they could’ve gotten a better deal with better negotiating.
Comparable value? They got the ACCN, which they desperately wanted and is making them all millions per year plus adding exposure. That may be fair value for locking in your rights.
The problem was/is the TV deal, not the GOR. The B10’s GOR runs just as long, and I don’t hear any complaints.
This does not mean FSU will win. FSU is claiming that the ACC managed the league incompetently, but they are not alleging outright fraud. This is a tough hill to climb. Many deals eventually turn out better for one side than the other. That doesn’t mean they were unfair at the time they were done.
Fraud? No. But they do say Phillips signed the shift of ESPN’s decision date on picking up the ACC’s TV rights from 2027 on from 2021 to 2025 without getting a 2/3 vote from the schools. And Swofford’s cozy relations with Raycom are likely to come up if it goes to court.
LikeLike
Last week, I mentioned that seven states had sued the NCAA over the rule that requires second-time transfers to sit out a year of competition. A federal court in West Virginia had granted a two-week temporary restraining order against the NCAA, with a hearing on a preliminary injunction to follow next week.
The NCAA has now agreed voluntarily to a preliminary injunction that will last the rest of this academic year. This means that athletes will be free to transfer between now and June without any “restitution” (against them or the schools) if the NCAA eventually wins.
I suspect this reflects a calculation by the NCAA that the preliminary injunction was very likely to be granted. They’ll keep their powder dry until trial. But in the meantime, maybe by then the members will just change the rule again, making the case moot. I suspect there will be a strong push to do so, as the NCAA probably does not want another losing anti-trust case on its resume.
Brian asked the interesting question why the NFL can prohibit its teams from drafting players until they are three years out of high school, but the NCAA cannot restrict transfers. A big part of the states’ lawsuit is that the NCAA’s rule is arbitrary, pretextual, and inconsistently enforced. The beauty of the NFL rule is its simplicity. It comes across simply as a minimum age requirement. If they were ever sued, a court would very likely find that this was a legitimate business decision, and not just a pretext to restrict competition. The NCAA, with its reams of exceptions, committees, shifting explanations, and rules that change every couple of years or so, has put itself in a far weaker position.
LikeLike
Marc,
The key to the NFL rule is that the US’s stupid labor laws allow the NFLPA to negotiate away the rights of potential players in favor of their existing members. A union shouldn’t have the right to age/experience discriminate that way. The better player should always get the job in the NFL. Especially now, because teams could draft 12-year-olds and pay them NIL money until they are ready for the NFL (or soon straight pay them). The NFLPA should want as many people getting paid as possible, and they shouldn’t get to choose who gets in. But the veterans want to get paid until they’re old, so no group is willing to endure the short transition period until the few young players become veterans and a new equilibrium is reached.
The union claims the owners would always replace expensive veterans with cheaper young players, and that’s true if the veteran isn’t better. The same is true in other jobs – if you demand higher pay based on experience, then that experience needs to bring value to the employer. But other than a few years of transition, I don’t see how that matters here. So players get paid from 18 to 23 instead of 21 to 26. That means more time on the NFL pension plan. What’s the problem?
To me, the law allowing that sport of blatant age discrimination is much worse than a voluntary association of college athletics making student-athletes sit out a year for transferring multiple times. Educational research shows the negative impacts of multiple transfers on student success, and getting an education is supposed to be the priority in college.
LikeLike
The key to the NFL rule is that the US’s stupid labor laws allow the NFLPA to negotiate away the rights of potential players in favor of their existing members. A union shouldn’t have the right to age/experience discriminate that way.
Perhaps not, but I think your question was why they are allowed to get away with it. Apparently the answer is that labor laws allow it.
Educational research shows the negative impacts of multiple transfers on student success, and getting an education is supposed to be the priority in college.
I am not familiar with that research — not that I am doubting you — but it is hard to look at the NCAA’s repeatedly shape-shifting rules and explanations and conclude that this was ever their primary motivation.
It was not very long ago that a transferring player had to get their coach’s permission, and the coach could limit which schools the player could transfer to. It was pretty clear that coaches often made that decision for competitive reasons, rather than an earnest concern about the athlete’s education.
Obviously that has changed, but the NCAA was content for years to have a rule like that, and never admitted the disconnect between its purported purpose and the way it actually worked.
LikeLike
Philosophically that was my question, but I knew the practical answer was because US labor law is stupid and says that is okay because a union negotiated it.
The academics may well have asked for that rule for that reason back in the day, and then it got co-opted by coaches for other means.
That permission was for playing immediately rather than having to sit a year. The coach couldn’t prevent the transfer.
LikeLike
The key to the NFL rule is that the US’s stupid labor laws allow the NFLPA to negotiate away the rights of potential players in favor of their existing members.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the NFL was pretty supportive of the 3 year rule to the extent the NFL wants it more than the NFLPA does. The three year rule gives them:
1) A free minor league football league
2) More “proven” players with less risk when signing large contracts
The NFL draft is still a bit of a crap shoot, but it looks like a science compared to college recruiting. The NBA experienced this when they started drafting out of HS. The GMs were so afraid of missing out on the next big thing, so they were taking players not ready for the NBA in hopes they would be. They made the “one and done” rule to save them from themselves.
LikeLike
Mike,
I agree the GMs (and owners) like being protected from themselves by this rule. But the labor agreement is why it is allowed (see the Maurice Clarett case), and the NFLPA fights to protect it.
I wonder if today’s entitled players will pose more legal challenges or raise a media ruckus against the NFLPA for restricting their right to earn a livelihood. Especially if they get declared employees at colleges, in which case they can say they’re already pro players so why should the NFLPA get to bar them from higher-paying jobs.
LikeLike
I wonder if today’s entitled players will pose more legal challenges or raise a media ruckus against the NFLPA for restricting their right to earn a livelihood.
I don’t follow it closely, but I don’t hear about it from NBA players too much. Granted there is a huge difference between one year and three. I guess if the NFL doesn’t want them and the NFLPA got something from the owners for not allowing them in, I’m not sure what they can complain about.
LikeLike
Well, they could suffer a career ending injury in college and never get to the NFL. Having others bargain away your right to get paid for the years in that circumstance could be very damaging. They could’ve at least gotten their rookie deal.
LikeLike
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/20/13-media-executives-make-2024-predictions.html
Media executive predictions for 2024.
Executive 1: Comcast will spin off NBCUniversal and merge it with Warner Bros. Discovery
What might that means for NBC/Peacock?
Executive 7: The College Football Playoff won’t get the rights fee increase it wants as ESPN will be the only significant bidder
Other than the NBA, the CFP may be the next most important rights deal to be renewed next year. The CFP’s current 12-year deal with ESPN expires after the 2025 playoff.
At that time, the college football playoffs will expand from four teams to 12. That may sound enticing as a new live sports behemoth, but this executive guesses that potential bidders Amazon and Apple will balk at the price CFP wants for the games. ESPN is desperate for live rights as it prepares a direct-to-consumer service and will renew the package, this executive predicts.
All the experts are saying the CFP will struggle to sell their new games for the next 2 years. ESPN has the semifinals and NCG, so why would others pay big money to only get quarterfinals? They need bigger games to gain leverage with distributors (the reason why they buy live sports rights). So the money should be there for 2026 and beyond, but ESPN may be the only real bidder for the next 2 years.
Executive 9: Warner Bros. Discovery’s Max, Netflix and Disney will offer the first significant streaming bundle
People keep predicting streaming bundles, but it has yet to really happen.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39156187/oregon-state-washington-state-agreement-join-west-coast-conference-affiliate-members-sources-say
OrSU and WSU are close to joining the WCC as affiliate members in hoops and other sports.
Oregon State and Washington State are nearing an agreement to join the West Coast Conference as affiliate members next year in multiple sports, most notably men’s and women’s basketball, sources told ESPN, confirming multiple reports.
It is an agreement similar to the one the schools reached with the Mountain West to play six football games against MW teams next year but with a major difference. While the Beavers’ and Cougars’ games against MW schools in football will not count toward the conference standings, there is an expectation their games will count toward the standings for other sports in the WCC. They are also expected to be eligible to participate in conference tournaments and eligible to represent the WCC in NCAA championship events.
The deal has not been finalized, but university presidents from the WCC schools are expected to meet by Thursday to consider it, according to multiple reports.
…
OSU and WSU intend to rebuild the Pac-12 and will keep the conference’s branding on their football fields next season despite operating as a two-team conference.
For a conference to exist, the NCAA requires “at least seven active Division I members,” all of which must sponsor men’s and women’s basketball, and for the conference to sponsor at least 12 Division I sports, among other requirements. In the case of departures, the bylaws allow a conference a two-year grace period in which it can exist without the minimum number of schools.
The WCC agreement, like the one in football, is viewed as a short-term solution that will buy the schools time to rebuild the Pac-12. There had been similar discussions with the MW for an affiliate agreement beyond football, but those talks fell through, sources said.
Can they also have less than the minimum number of sports for those 2 years?
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-state-and-washington-f8e
Canzano has more details.
… It would include men’s and women’s sports such as soccer and basketball, among others. The Beavers and Cougars would be eligible to win conference championships and earn automatic NCAA championship berths in those sports. CBS Sports first reported the talks.
WCC schools have not yet seen a formal agreement, I’m told, but multiple sources told me that a vote will be held on Thursday. Track and field, baseball, gymnastics and wrestling are not included in the proposed deal. Some of those sports at OSU and WSU may continue to compete against the departing “Pac-12” schools, I’m told.
“Baseball is a different animal,” one source said.
The Beavers and Cougars baseball teams could decide to play as independents in the next two seasons or under the banner of the “Pac-12.” It would not be difficult for the baseball programs to piece together a schedule that includes several traditional conference opponents (i.e. Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington) and add weekend series vs. WCC schools (i.e. Pepperdine, Santa Clara, University of Portland, etc.), for example.
…
A potential two-year affiliation with the WCC solves a short-term problem for Oregon State and Washington State in the Olympic sports. It keeps athletes competing in the Pacific Time Zone and gives them access to postseason events and all-league honors while limiting travel.
I’ve talked with the parents of several players and recruits who are eager to get clarity on where they’ll see their children play in 2024 and 2025. I find it interesting that the people I’ve talked with appear more focused on the travel component than the competition. They mostly just want to see their kids play.
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/Season/2024-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/
Today was national signing day. It means a lot less than it used to, especially with the portal and a second signing day in February. But with the upcoming conference expansion, the relative class ranks might be somewhat informative.
National:
1. UGA
2. AL
3. Miami
4. OSU
5. UT
6. UO
7. Auburn
8. OU
9. FSU
10. ND
New B10 (# is average score per player)
4. OSU 92.9
6. UO 91.9
14. PSU 90.6
15. UM 90.2
18. USC 90.4 (20 commits vs 27 for UM)
19. NE 88.3
22. WI 89.1
29. PU 86.9
33. IA 87.9
36. UW 88.8
37. RU 87.0
38. UMn 87.5 (19 commits vs 24 for RU)
39. UMd 86.6
43. IL 86.8 (19 commits vs 22 for UMd)
48. MSU 86.6
59. IU 85.9
68. UCLA 88.2 – only 11 commits
95. NW 84.9
USC is a little lower than I’d expect. UW traditionally isn’t a recruiting power, but UO is and showed it. UCLA has a tiny class, because apparently Chip Kelly prefers to use the portal to find his players.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2023-12-19/signing-day-will-be-sighing-day-for-ucla-fans-eager-for-more-high-school-talent
LikeLike
Obviously the SEC did well as always, so I won’t recount that.
Non-P2 (and ND) in the top 40:
3. Miami
9. FSU
12. Clemson
23. TT
26. UNC
27. NCSU
30. Stanford
31. TCU
32. UCF
34. GT
That’s 10 non-P2, 13 B10, 16 SEC, and ND in the top 40. And most of those top teams are realignment candidates (all but TT in the top 5).
4* & 5* players (aka blue chips):
SEC – 200 (12.5/team)
B10 – 137 (7.6/ team)
ACC/B12/Pac-2 – 109 (3.0/team)
The talent differential will only grow.
LikeLike
Top ten portal transfers:
1. Colorado
2. Louisville
3. Ole Miss
4. AZ State
5. Tx Tech
6. South Carolina
7. NC State
8. Miss State
9. Syracuse
10. Purdue
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2024/all-teams/football/transfer
LikeLike
https://piped.video/watch?v=OFsjBCGklv0
NC governor says he wants to keep UNC and NCSU together and that the state can pressure the school leaders to keep them together rather than chasing the money (starts around 9:55).
https://piped.video/watch?v=98atdMGLeag
UNC’s AD on ACC expansion, Baker’s superleague idea, and more.
LikeLike
The NC governor isn’t going to say anything different, but I imagine he’ll end up in a similar boat as the Oregon, California and Washington pols who couldn’t do much of anything.
LikeLike
The California pols did half-of-something, with the “Calimony” they imposed on UCLA. There are murmurs suggesting that UCLA’s competitiveness in the Big Ten will suffer because so much of their revenue is going to a sister school. No other school in the country that I am aware of, and certainly none in the Big Ten, has a similar liability.
The former UNC president said that he believed UNC could’ve had a Big Ten or SEC invitation, and didn’t pursue it because of the political backlash that he anticipated. But the revenue gap wasn’t as big then. Eventually, I think it will be hard to say no.
LikeLike
Marc,
There are murmurs suggesting that UCLA’s competitiveness in the Big Ten will suffer because so much of their revenue is going to a sister school. No other school in the country that I am aware of, and certainly none in the Big Ten, has a similar liability.
They haven’t been all that competitive in the P12 in football despite no financial gap. UCLA was 7th in the P12 (out of the 10 public schools) last year in total revenue. By expenses they were 3rd out of 10 (hence their huge deficit). Even with maximum Calimony and added travel expenses, they’ll be making considerably more than they did in the P12.
UCLA averaged just 47,950 in attendance this year and that’s the 2nd best in 5 years and best without a USC home game (best = 51,164). If joining the B10 bumps that up (Rose Bowl seats over 92k), and maybe lets them raise ticket prices as well, they could pay for Calimony from that alone.
10,000,000/7 games = 1.43M per game
1.43M/$50 per ticket = 28,571 tickets
And if they can raise prices even 10%, that drops to below 26k more tickets per game to cover Calimony.
And remember, Calimony has not been given a value yet. Maybe it won’t be the full $10M.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/5154574/2023/12/21/florida-state-acc-board-meeting-realignment/
The FSU board has called an emergency meeting tomorrow morning.
Florida State has scheduled an emergency meeting of its Board of Trustees for Friday morning, the first concrete step needed in any effort to enable the school to take legal action against the Atlantic Coast Conference.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-florida-state-expected-to-soon-start-process-of-leaving-acc-140050710.html
More on FSU’s escape attempt. It includes something relevant to another discussion ongoing here. The legal theory may be based on sovereign immunity, though I’ve seen others discredit that approach as not applicable.
If FSU could get out, the questions become:
1. Where do they go?
Independent? I doubt it, unless it’s just for a year or two.
SEC? They already have UF and may not want to add another school in their prime recruiting territory (AL, UGA and AU all thrive in the same areas as FSU). Would ESPN pay for it when they already have FSU for much less in the ACC and have to keep paying the ACC regardless?
B10? Supposedly Fox has pre-approved a pro rata bump for them (and UNC as well). But does the B10 want to go to 19, and add a non-AAU school on an island?
2. Do they have a partner?
Would Miami also get out? They aren’t a state school, so FSU’s legal approach might not work for them. They also might not be able to afford the cost.
UNC is rumored to be the B10’s preferred option, but they don’t really want to leave the ACC and the state wants them to stay with NCSU. The SEC would also likely take UNC.
Clemson wants out, but does anyone want Clemson? Also non-AAU and in a smallish state, but a good recruiting ground and somewhat near Tallahassee. Fox is not said to have pre-approved pro rata for them.
Maybe it takes a few years to get a partner, like when the B10’s TV deal is ending or when the SEC’s is.
Florida State is expected to soon start the process of its long-discussed divorce from the ACC, multiple sources told Yahoo Sports.
The Seminoles’ conference affiliation is at the center of a scheduled meeting Friday of the FSU Board of Trustees, and the result of the meeting could produce a formal legal filing in what many describe as the first step to achieving an exit from the ACC’s binding grant-of-rights agreement.
…
Details around the specific legal step in which FSU leaders plan to take is unclear, but legal experts say that the school could seek what’s called a “declaratory judgment action” in an effort to get a judge to rule that the school is not bound to its contract with the ACC.
…
This week’s potential legal move is not expected to serve as a notice of departure to the ACC. Any departure from the ACC would be at least more than a year away. However, such a legal foray could set the stage for more ACC programs to follow suit, challenging the league and its grant of rights.
…
While the 20-year agreement was thought then to be a positive, the deal’s length has caused upheaval within the ACC as other power conferences, namely the Big Ten and SEC, have signed new, more lucrative media rights contracts. Over the next decade, SEC and Big Ten schools are projected to earn considerably more in revenue distribution — as much as double — as those in the ACC, figures that have rankled ACC members, none more than Florida State.
…
In signing a grant of rights, schools acquiesce the rights to televise their home games to the league and partner ESPN. Florida State’s home competitions are owned not by the school but by the league over the next 13 years — if they don’t find a way out of it.
…
As far as exiting the ACC, schools must notify the conference of their departure at least a year before a move. For example, FSU is guaranteed to compete in the ACC next academic year and would have to notify the conference by Aug. 15, 2024 if the school wanted to leave in time to compete elsewhere in the 2025 football season.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/florida-state-leaving-the-acc-would-have-massive-ramifications-for-the-future-of-college-athletics-154632042.html
More about FSU’s options. The articles gives reasons for and against the B10 and SEC to add FSU but I just excerpted the quotes.
The question for Florida State is what if this works? What if they are the proverbial dog that catches the car? Then what?
There is no clear-cut landing place, but there is plenty of talk among SEC and Big Ten administrators that despite Florida State football’s storied past and present strength, FSU wouldn’t be a serious candidate for expansion. Same for Clemson even with its recent national titles.
On a competitive level, it doesn’t make sense, but the repeated conventional wisdom is that if ACC schools were available for poaching then North Carolina and Virginia might be the first choices. Academics, demographics and the ability to extend a league’s footprint into new territory would win out.
…
“Everything changes if schools are truly available,” one Big Ten source said. “Despite what is said, there has been no reason to examine all of this, so [it’s] hard to know.”
…
“My sense is there is more opposition than interest,” one SEC source said.
…
An ACC breakup could also force Notre Dame, the most coveted television property, to, if not come aboard full-time, at least set up some kind of scheduling agreement with the Big Ten like it currently has with the ACC.
…
“Florida State would appeal to television and get us into the state of Florida; there is something there,” said a separate Big Ten source.
Then there is the Big 12, which would gladly snap up just about any and every ACC school it could to build a massive, nation-wide operation.
LikeLike
2. Do they have a partner?
Would Miami also get out? They aren’t a state school, so FSU’s legal approach might not work for them. They also might not be able to afford the cost.
Conference switches are like Lays potato chips: you can’t have just one.
If FSU somehow gets out of the ACC, I am sure it would trigger a contractual clause that invalidates their ESPN deal, making every member of the league a de facto free agent. It is hard to say how that ends, especially as we don’t know FSU’s legal strategy. But one can say with near-certainty that if they succeed, other dominoes have to fall.
Of course, if FSU can show that the GoR is invalid, then others are sure to say the same. FSU is not the only school unhappy with the GoR; they are just the only one currently considering the legal and financial risks to challenge it. But if FSU does that and wins, it becomes a lot easier for everyone else.
I feel like this ends with FSU taking a deal from private equity to buy out their GOR obligations.
I don’t believe it. Private equity generally looks to make a 20%+ IRR within seven years. Spin up a spreadsheet and try to make that work. It cannot be done, assuming that the GoR remains in force and FSU needs to pay a substantial amount of it. Texas and Oklahoma paid $100 million combined to exit the Big 12 grant of rights just one year early. Now try to do the math where a school leaves 13 years early.
LikeLike
Marc,
Conference switches are like Lays potato chips: you can’t have just one.
Sure you can, if they are valuable enough. Now that divisions are gone, one major obstacle to odd numbers is gone. You still can’t have an odd number of teams play an odd number of games, but you can work around that. The B10 could count the FSU/UF game as FSU’s 9th game (or USC vs ND, or IA vs ISU, or …).
If FSU somehow gets out of the ACC, I am sure it would trigger a contractual clause that invalidates their ESPN deal, making every member of the league a de facto free agent. It is hard to say how that ends, especially as we don’t know FSU’s legal strategy. But one can say with near-certainty that if they succeed, other dominoes have to fall.
It might give ESPN the option of cancelling the deal, but I doubt it compels them to drop it. If Disney stills sees value in the deal without FSU, they could probably keep it.
Some have said FSU will try to use sovereign immunity, which only state schools could attempt. Most people say that won’t fly, though. Lawyers are suggesting they’ll ask for a declaratory judgement up front, basically deciding if the GOR is binding or not. That will decide who has more leverage for negotiations (there’s still an exit fee).
Of course, if FSU can show that the GoR is invalid, then others are sure to say the same. FSU is not the only school unhappy with the GoR; they are just the only one currently considering the legal and financial risks to challenge it. But if FSU does that and wins, it becomes a lot easier for everyone else.
What is the financial risk of challenging it, beyond court costs? If they lose, they stay in the ACC and get paid what every other member gets. They may lose their vote on governance issues, but so what?
Or they lose and decide to buy out of the GOR anyway (plus exit fee). Or they leave anyway and the ACC stops paying them but their conference does despite the ACC keeping FSU’s home game rights.
[Mike said this]
I feel like this ends with FSU taking a deal from private equity to buy out their GOR obligations.
[Marc]
I don’t believe it. Private equity generally looks to make a 20%+ IRR within seven years. Spin up a spreadsheet and try to make that work. It cannot be done, assuming that the GoR remains in force and FSU needs to pay a substantial amount of it. Texas and Oklahoma paid $100 million combined to exit the Big 12 grant of rights just one year early. Now try to do the math where a school leaves 13 years early.
They can’t leave until 2025, so it’s only 12 years. That makes all the difference. 🙂
Fox might cover $120M. The state or FSU might cover a chunk with bonds (or something similar). The B10 could (in theory) help out. It might not leave a ridiculous amount to finance privately.
LikeLike
Conference switches are like Lays potato chips: you can’t have just one.
Sure you can, if they are valuable enough.
You are right that the ability to compete without divisions has eliminated one of the reasons for expanding to even numbers, but it hasn’t eliminated all of them. In practice, every move (at least since Nebraska joined the Big Ten) has always precipitated other moves — not necessarily to the same conference.
For instance, it’s pretty unlikely that Colorado would’ve left the Big 12 originally if Nebraska hadn’t. But if Colorado hadn’t left, that would’ve left the Big 12 with 11 members, which they surely would’ve remedied by poaching from somewhere else. But that would in turn have left another conference down a member, and so on.
When a fish as big as FSU moves and nothing else happens, I will be happy to say that my comment is no longer applicable.
What is the financial risk of challenging it, beyond court costs?
Legal fees could be pretty steep, even if there were no other consequences. I think ACC GoR or bylaws (not sure which) states that if a school challenges it, they immediately lose their seat on the conference Board of Directors. The remaining members could then make financial decisions adverse to FSU. I suspect their distributions might be held in abeyance while the lawsuit was pending—exactly what happened in the Pac-12 case.
LikeLike
Marc,
You are right that the ability to compete without divisions has eliminated one of the reasons for expanding to even numbers, but it hasn’t eliminated all of them. In practice, every move (at least since Nebraska joined the Big Ten) has always precipitated other moves — not necessarily to the same conference.
I agree that more movement is likely if FSU leaves the ACC. I’m just saying FSU could move without a partner and still find a home (like if nobody else could afford the ACC’s exit cost for a few years). The B10 or SEC would deal with the hassles it creates if they wanted them enough, just like if ND suddenly wanted to join someone.
Legal fees could be pretty steep, even if there were no other consequences. I think ACC GoR or bylaws (not sure which) states that if a school challenges it, they immediately lose their seat on the conference Board of Directors. The remaining members could then make financial decisions adverse to FSU. I suspect their distributions might be held in abeyance while the lawsuit was pending—exactly what happened in the Pac-12 case.
Yes, but legal fees are manageable. Nobody thinks FSU needs private equity to pay for that. I wonder about making adverse decisions, though. FSU wouldn’t get what they want, but if the others singled them out wouldn’t they have a case for the conference not doing their duty to look out for the best interests of all members? It might well hand FSU the legal fig leaf they need to escape. It’s basically what the judge in WA explicitly told the Pac-2 they can’t do.
LikeLike
I feel like this ends with FSU taking a deal from private equity to buy out their GOR obligations.
LikeLike
I think the tantrums by the FSU brass are all being orchestrated to show the fans and alumni that the Nole brass are fighting tooth and nail, but that doesn’t mean they’re going anywhere. That GOR was a condition for the founding of the ACC Network. I think they’re stuck until circa 2036.
LikeLike
https://frontofficesports.com/cbs-tnt-sports-interests-could-come-together-under-mega-merger/
Warner Bros Discovery and Paramount are discussing a merger. That would mean CBS and TBS/TNT/TruTV under the same roof. What might that means for the B10 in the future? Would some lesser games be on TNT or TBS in the future? Streaming on Paramount+/Max? Is it bigger for hoops than football?
LikeLike
I think we have to really wait and see what Comcast decides to do.
Everyone in the media industry has been predicting Comcast to try take over Warner and combine it with NBCU for at least 5+ years, so if they ever want to do it, the moment is now when they’re giving their Hulu stake to Disney and when there’s real questions about whether NBCU with just Peacock is strong enough to compete with Disney/Netflix/Amazon Prime/etc.
I’d put Comcast first in line for Warner and then Paramount if Comcast goes in a different direction.
Either way one of the Big Ten’s major partners will be involved.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39164107/oregon-state-washington-state-settle-departing-pac-12-schools
Pac-2 and departing 10 have reached a settlement. The 10 will forfeit a partial share this year and provide guarantees against future liabilities from their time in the P12. Now everyone can move on.
As part of the agreement, the 10 departing schools will forfeit an undisclosed portion of revenue distributions over the rest of the 2023-24 school year and have provided “specific guarantees against potential future liabilities.”
…
The Pac-12 will retain all its assets and future revenues, the presidents added.
This development allows all involved parties to move forward and, for OSU and WSU in particular, a better sense of what their financial picture will look like as they begin the process to rebuild the Pac-12.
…
Earlier this month, OSU and WSU announced it had come to a scheduling agreement with the Mountain West Conference to play six MWC opponents in football during the 2024 season. They are also close to finalizing an affiliate agreement with the West Coast Conference to host most of their other sports, most notably men’s and women’s basketball. It’s possible the agreement with the WCC could be announced as early as this week, sources told ESPN.
Neither of those arrangements are expected to last beyond two seasons, while the OSU and WSU keep the Pac-12 afloat.
For a conference to exist, the NCAA requires “at least seven active Division I members,” all of which must sponsor men’s and women’s basketball, and for the conference to sponsor at least 12 Division I sports, among other requirements. In the case of departures, the bylaws allow a conference a two-year grace period in which it can exist without the minimum number of schools.
After the two-year period, it is expected that OSU and WSU will have been able to recruit enough new members to meet NCAA requirements, with one possibility being a so-called reverse merger with teams from the Mountain West.
…
There are other arrangements that will need to be made for both athletic departments for next season. For example, the WCC does not offer track and field or swimming, meaning those sports still do not have a clear landing spot.
One possibility for the WSU women’s swimming team would be for the Cougars to compete in the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation, which hosts 11 sports and has affiliate members from schools all over the country – including Cal, Stanford, UCLA and USC — but is mainly made up of schools on the West Coast.
LikeLike
https://billfarley.substack.com/p/utah-utes-agreement-with-the-big
Utah’s agreement with the B12, including the GOR (for lawyers who like to read those things).
The business terms of the agreement differ from UCLA and Oregon’s agreement with the Big 10 in the following way:
* Utah pays no application fee to the Big 12 versus Oregon paying $7.5 million and UCLA paying $15 million to the Big 10. I’m guessing the Big 10 fans will say it’s like joining a league at the local muni versus joining a private country club.
* There is no out-clause if the Big 12 makes changes in conference membership that negatively impacts Utah’s revenue. UCLA and Oregon both have such a termination clause.
* Full membership in Big 12 versus partial membership for Oregon in the Big 10
* No provisions to borrow against future media revenue as included in Oregon’s agreement.
* Utah has a “One foot out the door” clause. The Utah Chancellor is given the right to attend Big 12 Board meetings as a non-voting member with access to all information presented to the Board. Oregon and UCLA may have this access but I did not see a similar provision in their agreements.
LikeLike
FSU board meeting today. Some news is coming out:
* ESPN gave them an ultimatum in 2016 about extending the GOR 20 years to get the ACCN, and any future deals
* ESPN has an option to extend the deal from 2027 to 2036, which hasn’t been executed yet. Maybe FSU will argue if they leave now they only owe for the deal through 2027?
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39167937/florida-state-sue-acc-grant-rights-withdrawal-fee
The board granted FSU permission to challenge the deal in court. They will sue in FL, claiming the GOR violates state law.
The Florida State board of trustees voted unanimously Friday to sue the ACC to challenge the legality of the league’s grant of rights and its $130 million withdrawal fee, a necessary first step to plot the school’s future and potential exit from the conference.
The 38-page lawsuit, filed in Leon County Circuit Court in Tallahassee, Florida, seeks a declaratory judgment against the ACC to void the grant of rights and withdrawal fee as “unreasonable restraints of trade in the state of Florida and not enforceable in their entirety against Florida State.”
The university alleges “chronic fiduciary mismanagement and bad faith” in the way the ACC has handled its multimedia rights agreements and undermined its members’ revenue opportunities. Florida State is also accusing the ACC of breach of contract and failure to perform.
“I believe this board has been left no choice but to challenge the legitimacy of the ACC grant of rights and its severe withdrawal penalties,” board chair Peter Collins said. “None of us like being in this position. However, I believe that we have exhausted all possible remedies within the conference and we must do what we believe is best for Florida State not only in the short term but in the long term.”
…
ACC commissioner Jim Phillips and Virginia president Jim Ryan, chair of the ACC board of directors, lamented Florida State’s “unprecedented and overreaching approach” in a statement.
“Florida State’s decision to file action against the Conference is in direct conflict with their longstanding obligations and is a clear violation of their legal commitments to the other members of the Conference,” the statement said. “All ACC members, including Florida State, willingly and knowingly re-signed the current Grant of Rights in 2016, which is wholly enforceable and binding through 2036. Each university has benefited from this agreement, receiving millions of dollars in revenue and neither Florida State nor any other institution, has ever challenged its legitimacy.”
LikeLike
The full 38-page lawsuit.
Click to access 12.22.2023-Final-Complaint-4.pdf
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/acc/2023/12/22/florida-state-acc-lawsuit-exit-fees-grant-of-rights/72008839007/
As part of their filing, FSU asked the court to declare the official date of their notice of withdrawal from the ACC as 8/14/2023 which is apparently 1 day before the deadline to be able to leave for next year.
I don’t see any court approving that without some overt act on that date (maybe there was and I don’t remember it).
LikeLike
As part of their filing, FSU asked the court to declare the official date of their notice of withdrawal from the ACC as 8/14/2023 which is apparently 1 day before the deadline to be able to leave for next year.
That one is a real head-scratcher. FSU is saying that they could not have given notice on 8/14 because they cannot do so without knowing the financial repercussions—the entire point of this lawsuit. But I don’t understand how you file a lawsuit on 12/22, and try to make it retroactive to August. They’d have a point if they’d filed on 8/13.
But suppose FSU wins this argument: what does that get them? This lawsuit is probably not getting resolved in time for them to join a new conference in 2024. The worst possible outcome is that they are deemed to have withdrawn, and they have nowhere to go. That is why no school has ever given notice before nailing down their destination, other than San Diego State and you know how that turned out.
LikeLike
Marc,
But suppose FSU wins this argument: what does that get them? This lawsuit is probably not getting resolved in time for them to join a new conference in 2024. The worst possible outcome is that they are deemed to have withdrawn, and they have nowhere to go. That is why no school has ever given notice before nailing down their destination, other than San Diego State and you know how that turned out.
I can only think of a couple of ideas:
1. It’s the ridiculous demand you fully expect to not have fulfilled while you get everything else you want.
2. They want to apply pressure to reach a resolution quickly. In theory they could leave for 2024 if they get this approved.
3. Combine those 2 – it makes the ACC seem like they’re winning on something if they make FSU stay around until 2025 or beyond.
If they are deemed withdrawn, then the ACC has to let them go. Someone will say yes (B10, SEC or B12). At worst they go independent.
LikeLike
Thanks. The tick-tock is fascinating stuff, and already much more than we knew. And discovery hasn’t even started yet. I have to think this will flush the ESPN contract and the Grant of Rights out of ACC HQ and into the public eye, to say nothing of all the emails over the years.
LikeLike
GOR was attached to the ACC’s lawsuit.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-defends-wholly-enforceable-grant-of-rights-amid-florida-state-lawsuit-challenging-deals-legitimacy/
The ACC proactively filed suit yesterday in a NC court against FSU to protect the GOR. It was determined when UMD left the ACC that any lawsuit regarding ACC membership belongs in a NC court. With two competing lawsuits in different states now, I’m not sure what will happen.
“Florida State’s decision to file against the conference is in direct conflict with their longstanding obligations and is a clear violation of their legal commitments to the other members of the conference,” ACC commissioner Jim Phillips and ACC board chair Jim Ryan said in a statement. “All ACC members, including Florida State, willingly and knowingly re-signed the current Grant of Rights in 2016, which is wholly enforceable and binding through 2036. Each university has benefited from this agreement, receiving millions of dollars and neither Florida State, nor any other institution, has ever challenged its legitimacy.”
…
“We are confident that the Grant of Rights, which has been honored by all other universities who signed similar agreements, will be affirmed by the courts and the conference’s legal counsel will vigorously enforce the agreement in the best interests of the ACC’s current and incoming members,” Phillips and Ryan said.
LikeLike
The ACC proactively filed suit yesterday in a NC court against FSU to protect the GOR. It was determined when UMD left the ACC that any lawsuit regarding ACC membership belongs in a NC court.
I believe that when UMD and the ACC sued each other, it was ultimately settled out of court with no adjudication that would govern the outcome of future cases. UMD had sued the ACC unsuccessfully in Maryland state court, but that was based on Maryland law. I doubt that would be binding on a Florida court.
LikeLike
Yes they settled, but the courts had to decide which lawsuit to adjudicate first and the ACC’s in NC was chosen. How/why I don’t know. Whether that is meaningful in this case, I don’t know.
But it’s about as close to a (layman’s) precedent for this situation as we have.
LikeLike
This will get settled for a large exit fee. None of the conferences wants a Grant of Rights challenged in court in case it does come back null and void. The ACC and ESPN also don’t want a ton of discovery to be made to the public. The ACC gets nothing by a long protracted legal battle when FSU, and maybe a couple of other schools, are leaving regardless when the GOR is officially up in 2036 no matter what. How many ACC schools have spots in the Big Ten/SEC anyway? Four total maybe? No worth the fight.
LikeLike
Psuhockey: This will get settled for a large exit fee.
The ACC/GOR already has a large exit fee. That’s not the solution, that’s the problem. This will get settled by FSU kicking and squealing and lawyer tantrums all the way to 2016.
FSU is laying out bait to keep the alums and fans on the hook until circa 2036. Can’t you see that?
LikeLike
This will get settled for a large exit fee. None of the conferences wants a Grant of Rights challenged in court in case it does come back null and void. The ACC and ESPN also don’t want a ton of discovery to be made to the public.
You’re right that the ACC and ESPN don’t want that, but they they are caught in a vise. Florida State can leave right now for “a large exit fee”. If the ACC and ESPN want a settlement without public discovery, they’d need to reduce that fee by quite a lot. To the extent they do, they create a hole that other schools will plow through.
As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there’s almost no way the ACC loses just one school. Do you think UNC and Clemson will consent to lower the exit fee for FSU without reducing it for themselves as well? This is an existential threat.
We will have to see what kind of procedural rulings the court makes early on. You can sometimes tell from the court’s action on pretrial motions whether it’s favorably disposed towards one side or the other. You could say this is a friendly forum, but remember Michigan recently sued the Big Ten in a friendly forum (on a completely different issue), and got almost nothing.
FSU is laying out bait to keep the alums and fans on the hook until circa 2036. Can’t you see that?
The legal system is slow, but it’s not that slow. There is no way they can spin this out for 13 years.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
This will get settled for a large exit fee.
Most likely, yes. Unless FSU somehow gets a huge win in court to say the penalties are unenforceable.
None of the conferences wants a Grant of Rights challenged in court in case it does come back null and void.
Only the ACC has any input on that. I’d think it’s Disney and Fox that are more concerned about it, since the conferences don’t really want to hold members hostage. But the networks risk losing all the value (what if the B10 powers all left for a Disney-owned conference? or vice versa).
The ACC and ESPN also don’t want a ton of discovery to be made to the public.
Probably true, but just the 2 lawsuits already brought out a lot.
The ACC gets nothing by a long protracted legal battle when FSU, and maybe a couple of other schools, are leaving regardless when the GOR is officially up in 2036 no matter what.
Nothing but maybe $570M in penalties. That is worth a lot of legal fees.
How many ACC schools have spots in the Big Ten/SEC anyway? Four total maybe? No worth the fight.
You’d have to ask Fox and Disney. At full share: FSU and UNC for sure, likely Clemson and Miami. But might borderline cases (UVA, VT, NCSU, Duke, GT) make sense for other reasons, or at partial shares? I’ve seen people make the argument.
But perhaps that’s the wrong question. What if the next step is a new NFL lite league? Then getting out of the ACC is the first step to being included, and that league might have reasons to want more schools.
LikeLike
FSU-ACC lawsuit – gift link WaPo: https://wapo.st/41xFJq2
LikeLike
None of the conferences wants a Grant of Rights challenged in court in case it does come back null and void.
Only the ACC has any input on that. I’d think it’s Disney and Fox that are more concerned about it, since the conferences don’t really want to hold members hostage.
The ACC wants to hold FSU and a few others hostage, without a doubt. There’s really no other conference right now with the combination of members who’d leave if they could, and a plausible belief that a conference higher in the food chain would take them.
I don’t fully understand the legal picture, but a big part of FSU’s claim is that the ACC egregiously mismanaged the rights, and that the current exit penalties are grossly out of proportion to the actual value. It’s doubtful that any Big Ten or SEC member would have that complaint today, but if the ACC GoR goes down, it is always a possibility in a future case.
The difficulty in the case is that FSU did agree to most of what it is now objecting to. The ACC might’ve managed the rights poorly, but the lawsuit does not allege outright fraud—only ineptitude.
The ACC gets nothing by a long protracted legal battle when FSU, and maybe a couple of other schools, are leaving regardless when the GOR is officially up in 2036 no matter what.
This is not the Big 12, where only a year separated the GoR end date and the early departure that UT/OU eventually settled for. And yet, UT and OU paid $50 million apiece. In the ACC, we are talking about over a decade, and ESPN is not on the hook past 2026. If FSU leaves, ESPN could walk away.
LikeLike
Marc,
The ACC wants to hold FSU and a few others hostage, without a doubt.
No, I mean they want them to be happy enough in the ACC to stay. ESPN doesn’t seem to care if they’re happy, they just want FSU on the cheap. Same with Fox, they wanted UW and UO on the cheap.
I don’t fully understand the legal picture, but a big part of FSU’s claim is that the ACC egregiously mismanaged the rights, and that the current exit penalties are grossly out of proportion to the actual value. It’s doubtful that any Big Ten or SEC member would have that complaint today, but if the ACC GoR goes down, it is always a possibility in a future case.
Yes, and that scares the networks a lot more than the conferences. I never said the ACC did a job job with their TV deal. The Raycom deal is questionable, the GOR extension without a rights deal extension is questionable. But even still they are making about what the B12 is, so they aren’t that underpaid.
The difficulty in the case is that FSU did agree to most of what it is now objecting to. The ACC might’ve managed the rights poorly, but the lawsuit does not allege outright fraud—only ineptitude.
They didn’t agree to all of it. They voted against raising the exit fee, for example. They didn’t like the GOR but signed it because they feared the alternative.
LikeLike
ESPN doesn’t seem to care if they’re happy, they just want FSU on the cheap.
I have done a few deals. You always prefer that your partners are happy. Of course, a competently run business generally wants to minimize costs and maximize revenues. That’s called doing your job.
I have said many times that I thought this deal was a swindle, but you have always disagreed. Just search for “swindle” in this thread. Every time I say that, you reply that it was a fair deal at the time, and all parties were taking balanced risks.
Subsequent events have shown that ESPN got a bargain, but suppose it had gone the other way, and ESPN was paying way above market. Would the ACC be graciously volunteering to get paid less?
Same with Fox, they wanted UW and UO on the cheap.
Um…no. Fox made an offer, and the schools accepted. Perhaps Fox took advantage of the fact that UW and UO had no realistic alternative, but they are not running a charity shop. It’s not Fox’s obligation to bail out former Pac-12 members who grossly mismanaged their league. Decisions have consequences, and the Pac-12 made a lot of bad ones.
LikeLike
Marc,
I have said many times that I thought this deal was a swindle, but you have always disagreed. Just search for “swindle” in this thread. Every time I say that, you reply that it was a fair deal at the time, and all parties were taking balanced risks.
I didn’t say it was a good deal, I said it may have been the best the ACC could get at the time. And that was about the GOR extension. They had no leverage and they really wanted the ACCN.
I’m unsure if the financial value was good or not. They’ve been on par with the B12, which is about where they belong. They traded more money for getting the exposure of the ACCN and security.
Subsequent events have shown that ESPN got a bargain, but suppose it had gone the other way, and ESPN was paying way above market. Would the ACC be graciously volunteering to get paid less?
Did they get a bargain? Based on the P12 negotiations and the recent B12 deal, I’m not so sure. FSU is underpaid, but that doesn’t mean the ACC is. They have lot of lower value schools and smaller fan bases, so the average value is lower.
And yes, ESPN had all the costs and risk of starting the ACCN. Reports from the time show people generally thought the ACC got a good deal.
It is key to note that nobody knew about the unilateral ESPN option in 2027.
Um…no. Fox made an offer, and the schools accepted. Perhaps Fox took advantage of the fact that UW and UO had no realistic alternative, but they are not running a charity shop. It’s not Fox’s obligation to bail out former Pac-12 members who grossly mismanaged their league. Decisions have consequences, and the Pac-12 made a lot of bad ones.
How does any of that disagree with what I said? Fox wanted them on the cheap, so they only offered a half share. They’ll get full shares in 6 years, and the rest of the B10 isn’t expecting to take a haircut to get UW and UO paid. That tells me Fox thinks UW and UO are worth at least about the average in the B10, and that’s what the experts have said too. Fox just didn’t want to pay full price right now, and a B10 half share was still
more than they could get in the P12.
LikeLike
They’ll get full shares in 6 years, and the rest of the B10 isn’t expecting to take a haircut to get UW and UO paid. That tells me Fox thinks UW and UO are worth at least about the average in the B10, and that’s what the experts have said too. Fox just didn’t want to pay full price right now, and a B10 half share was still more than they could get in the P12.
If you are a Fox executive and can get UW and UO at half price, why would you pay full price? That’s not doing your job.
LikeLike
Marc,
You say it like you are disagreeing with me in some way, but you’re just supporting my point. Fox wanted them on the cheap and got them on the cheap because Fox had all the leverage.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
Recruiting thoughts: Ohio State’s save, Miami’s surge, Georgia’s crown, Colorado’s confusion
By Ari Wasserman
Dec 21, 2023
We’re just about halfway through the early signing period. There was some drama on Day 1, as usual, but it wasn’t complete chaos. Here are some thoughts on what’s transpired.
• There seems to be this notion that the NIL era is leading to more parity in college football because the top 10 players in the 2024 recruiting cycle in the 247Sports Composite are going to nine different schools. It’s nice to see teams like Missouri, Auburn, Nebraska and Texas Tech land some of the most elite prospects, but is the top talent actually being spread out to more programs?
• In the 2021 recruiting class — the last full cycle before the introduction of NIL — 23 different teams signed at least one top-100 player. In the 2024 cycle, in the heart of NIL chaos, 25 different teams signed at least one (with two prospects still uncommitted). So while there were some different programs making splashes in the top 10, the total number of schools that signed at least one top-100 player didn’t really seem to be impacted.
• Here is where things are different: In that 2021 recruiting cycle, Ohio State and Alabama combined to sign 30 of the top 100 players. In this cycle, the four programs that signed the most top-100 players (Georgia, Alabama, Miami and Ohio State) combined for 33. That’s still somewhat lopsided, but it isn’t as drastic as in 2021 or even 2022 when Texas A&M alone signed 18.
• We’ve had cycles in the recent past in which roughly half of the top 100 players in the country went to a group of five schools. This year, it takes seven schools to get to 50 top-100 signees. Again, still lopsided, but not as stark.
• It’s going to take more statistical analysis once the dust settles and all of the signees are in, but in this one set of data, there aren’t necessarily more schools getting a seat at the table. But the programs that were already at the table (the cool kids, as I have referred to them) now have fewer servings on their plates. They are no longer hoarding as much of the talent, which makes classes in the top 10 more equitable than they’ve been in the past. (Note: We’re going to have a deeper statistical dive into the concept of recruiting results, NIL and parity in the coming weeks.)
• Georgia has 10 top-100 players signed and got to that number when it landed five-star safety KJ Bolden of Buford (Ga.) High. It is the only program in this cycle to sign double-digit top-100 players, which is why the Bulldogs won the recruiting crown.
• Three different programs have won the recruiting crown in the 14 cycles since 2011 — Alabama (10), Georgia (three) and Texas A&M (one). No program has battled Alabama on the recruiting trail as consistently as Georgia, which is a direct correlation to the program’s improvement on the field.
• Georgia won the recruiting crown in such a unique way. This was as national of a class as possible. Even with Bolden in the fold, Georgia signed only two of the top 15 players in the Peach State. That isn’t because the talent was weak in the state. Each of the top 15 players in Georgia is ranked in the top 115 nationally. Georgia signed top-100 players from Florida, Texas, Virginia, Missouri, California, Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee. Just pure domination from coast to coast.
• Has any program in the country had more year-over-year improvement than Auburn? Though the Tigers moved up only 11 spots in the rankings from No. 18 in 2023 to No. 7 in this cycle, it goes deeper than statistics. That’s a whole new range of class depth. Hugh Freeze took Auburn out of the dark recruiting times of the Bryan Harsin era and made the Tigers relevant with the most elite-level players in the country. Though Auburn failed to flip Bolden — there was some smoke around that — it still signed two five-star prospects and six top-100 players. If you ever questioned how much a coach’s mentality actually impacts the roster, this would be Exhibit A.
• What should we make of Michigan? The Wolverines have won the Big Ten and beaten Ohio State three years in a row, yet their class currently includes only two top-100 players, both of whom are outside of the top 75. If any program in the country has defied the recruiting results to achieve great things, it’s Michigan. I want to say it’s yet another underwhelming class when compared to what is happening on the field, but maybe it’s just time to say Jim Harbaugh and his staff are playing chess in evaluation, development and the transfer portal. Michigan legitimately may win the national title this year, which I thought was impossible — literally impossible — for a team that ranks No. 14 in the 247Sports Team Talent Composite.
• When is the pain going to go away for Florida State? Isn’t it bad enough the Seminoles were left out of the College Football Playoff as an unbeaten Power 5 conference champion? Now Florida State lost both of its five-star prospects on the first day of the early signing period when defensive end Armondo Blount flipped to Miami and Bolden flipped to Georgia. This is two years after five-star cornerback Travis Hunter flipped to Jackson State to play for Deion Sanders. Florida State’s class will likely still finish in the top 10 for the first time since the 2017 cycle — so improvement under Mike Norvell is tangible — but the momentum of the program really took a hit in the last three weeks.
• Was there a bigger winner Wednesday than Miami? After flipping five-star defensive tackle Justin Scott away from Ohio State on Nov. 29, the Hurricanes followed that up on the first day of the early signing period by flipping Blount from Florida State and top-100 linebacker Adarius Hayes from Florida. On Monday, it flipped top-150 running back Jordan Lyle from Ohio State. Miami’s class currently ranks No. 3 overall and includes seven top-100 players.
• Miami showed why it’s so difficult to evaluate recruiting classes in the middle of a cycle. In the span of a month, the Hurricanes landed enough talent to change the entire trajectory of how we view their program. It was a very impressive finish. Now it’s time for Mario Cristobal, who has proven to be an incredible recruiter, to finally start putting something special together on the field.
• Miami’s day was so close to being even better. Five-star receiver Jeremiah Smith, the nation’s No. 1 overall player, brought Ohio State and Miami hats to his announcement ceremony. Even after Smith announced in favor of Ohio State in the morning, it took him until late in the evening to send in his national letter of intent. Ohio State ultimately hung on, but it feels like Miami was close to doing something downright absurd.
• Ohio State is the only program with five five-star prospects in its 2024 class. The Buckeyes’ day started poorly by watching top-100 receiver Jeremiah McClellan flip to Oregon, but they were able to keep Smith and five-star edge rusher Eddrick Houston in their class. Though Ohio State would have preferred to hold on to a few other key pieces — Scott, Lyle and McClellan — Ryan Day’s program ultimately had a successful Wednesday.
• Five-star offensive tackle Jordan Seaton of Bradenton (Fla.) IMG Academy didn’t sign despite committing to Colorado on national television a few weeks ago. There were some rumblings that Seaton was thinking about signing with Maryland — which is close to his home — but he hasn’t put pen to paper yet. He’s the No. 1 offensive tackle in the country and plays a position of great need for Deion Sanders at Colorado. Nebraska also seems to be trying to get involved here, too.
• Colorado signed five high school players Wednesday, two of whom were big-time targets in receiver Drelon Miller (No. 65 overall) and athlete Kamron Mikell (No. 103 overall). But five players? What is Sanders doing in Boulder? I understand that he is going to be heavy in the portal as he tries to create a winner fast, but if you had shown everyone this class a year ago when he took the job, I think most of us would have been mortified. Sanders asked everyone in the media after Colorado beat TCU a simple question: “Do you believe?” Honestly, I don’t anymore.
• The biggest recruiting win of the cycle was Nebraska flipping five-star quarterback Dylan Raiola from Georgia on Monday. It gets lost in the shuffle because it didn’t happen Wednesday, and Raiola sent his letter to Nebraska first thing in the morning to eliminate any drama. What a recruiting win for the Cornhuskers, who may be able to use this commitment as a jumping-off point to bigger and better things.
• What the heck is going on at USC? Not only has there been a mass exodus of former five-star signees, but the Trojans also saw top-100 Southern California receiver Ryan Pellum flip to Oregon. Lincoln Riley’s class currently ranks No. 18 overall and includes four top-100 players, but this program is not accumulating talent even close to the level I thought it would. If USC were a stock, I would have taken a beating on it.
• Texas was like Georgia. It signed an elite-level class without dominating its own state. Texas is a different animal because of the size of the state, but the Longhorns signed only three of the top 50 players in Texas and are still in position to end the cycle with a top-five class. National recruiting at its finest.
• Ten programs signed more than one five-star prospect. South Carolina was one of them. Kudos to Shane Beamer.
• All three of the top-100 players in Texas A&M’s class have yet to sign their NLI. That’s something to watch for Mike Elko as he tries to put the finishing touches on his first class in Aggieland.
• After flipping McClellan from Ohio State on Wednesday, Oregon has six top-100 players and has a class that ranks No. 6 nationally. The Ducks don’t have a five-star prospect in the fold after a rankings change bumped defensive end Elijah Rushing to a high-end four-star, but they are stacking talent as they get ready to join the Big Ten. USC and Oregon seem to be heading in opposite directions.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why so many are bullish about a quick settlement here:
The ACC doesn’t have a locked in contract past 2027; they absolutely cannot allow FSU to leave before ESPN locks in terms at the very least.
And I don’t see why ESPN would be willing to pay the same amount to an ACC that loses 2/4/6 schools (the ones that bring value) while also paying those schools more in the SEC.
To me, this is a lot more similar to the Pac-2 lawsuit for control which basically got to the very end and several court smackdowns on the “other 10” before a settlement.
This feels a lot more similar to that; the ACC needs a bunch of victories in court before they agree to any sort of settlement imo or they need to see an imminent major loss.
Either way, the ACC moving first in NC feels very important here to establishing venue.
I think the ACC will basically “win the case” outright and there isn’t likely to be any sort of settlement that lets FSU out before 2030. That’s my early take based on the facts and likely NC venue.
LikeLike
z33k: “I think the ACC will basically “win the case” outright and there isn’t likely to be any sort of settlement that lets FSU out before 2030.”
I agree. It’s inconceivable to me that the ACC could be found guilty of malfeasance when FSU willingly signed onto every decision the conference made, including the addition of Stanford/Cal/SMU. I don’t really see why the ACC will let FSU off the hook in 2030. I think the Noles are stuck until 2036.
And as I said before, I think the FSU brass are aware that their case has little merit. It’s just a dog and pony show to convince their fans and alumni that they’re “doing something”.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why so many are bullish about a quick settlement here.
Actually, I do not envision any settlement whatsoever, at least not for a very long time. If the ACC racks up early procedural wins, it has no incentive to settle for anything at all. If FSU racks up early procedural wins, the ACC will press on anyway, because the stakes are so high.
To me, this is a lot more similar to the Pac-2 lawsuit for control which basically got to the very end and several court smackdowns on the “other 10” before a settlement.
The big difference being: I was sure from the beginning that the departing Pac schools had no case whatsoever. The conference had already established the precedent that once you announce you are leaving, you lose your seat at the table.
This case is less clear, because it turns on interpretations of Florida law that nobody here has seen before. You’d expect one of the media outlets to interview a couple of lawyers not connected with the case for an expert opinion, but so far I haven’t seen that.
Either way, the ACC moving first in NC feels very important here to establishing venue.
I am not so sure the timing is relevant. FSU is claiming violations of Florida law. As far as I can tell, FSU never consented to be bound by North Carolina law, and there is no binding precedent that NC law is binding upon ACC members to the exclusion of other states. But if the timing matters, then FSU might regret that they signaled so conspicuously that they were planning to sue. Indeed, that decision might be second in stupidity only to signing the GoR extension in the first place.
It’s inconceivable to me that the ACC could be found guilty of malfeasance when FSU willingly signed onto every decision the conference made, including the addition of Stanford/Cal/SMU.
FSU didn’t sign onto every decision the conference made, and they voted no on Stanford, Cal, and SMU.
LikeLike
IF it true that the current contract ONLY extends until 2027 and ESPN has an option which it has not exercised, FSU has a strong case. FSU is claiming that the extension to 2036 was given unilaterally and without consideration to the league by the president of the ACC, without a required team vote, then I think that FSU has a strong case for fraud.
Obviously I have no clue if the allegations are true, but if they are I will layout the fraud case.
The leadership of the ACC acted dishonestly when John Swofford arguably put the interests of his son and Raytheon above those of the league when negotiating the ACC-ESPN deal. While the original deal was accepted, the unilateral extension given to ESPN was not.
FSU had the right to rely upon ACC leadership to act in the interests of the league. By granting the extension, without a required vote of the schools, the ACC breached its duty to the schools with arguably was done to aid the son of John Swofford. As a result of that fraud, FSU was severely damaged. If the GOR was to expire in 2027, any damages from FSU would be much smaller. ESPN was obviously a willing beneficiary of any such fraudulent scheme.
If the facts are as stated by FSU (always a very tricky thing to believe based on the contents of litigant’s complaint), then at the least FSU has much stronger arguments than we realized.
As always, I have no idea where this goes, but it is my creative approach.
On another FSU front, there have been numerous comments about academics. If US News is to be believed, FSU is tied for 23rd among public universities, which puts it right in the middle of the pack in the B1G.
As far as AAU, which the B1G has said multiple times is not an absolute requirement, FSU does not have its own engineering school. It shares a school with Florida A&M in Tallahassee. I do not know how research dollars are divided, or whether included with FSU in any event. Their medical school is relatively new, 20 years or so old, and is starting to get more research dollars.
Right now UF is ranked 6th by US News and has more than one billion in research grants. I do not know how much the FL state government has to do with that or can influence it, but if the AAU issue were a major problem, someone could certainly figure out a way to move research to FSU.
UF and FSU have jumped in rankings as the state grows in population. Neither of those schools are increasing in size, so population growth means more applications for the same number of seats available.
LikeLike
z33k,
I don’t understand why so many are bullish about a quick settlement here:
Fear of discovery? Both sides may have emails, notes, or dirty laundry they don’t want aired.
The ACC doesn’t have a locked in contract past 2027; they absolutely cannot allow FSU to leave before ESPN locks in terms at the very least.
They can’t make FSU stay, they can only keep their media rights. Do they want to be showing FSU’s B10 or SEC games under the ACC package? Or would they just sit on those games as punishment of FSU? FSU’s road games would still belong to their new conference, and they only have to have 5 home games by rule.
And I don’t see why ESPN would be willing to pay the same amount to an ACC that loses 2/4/6 schools (the ones that bring value) while also paying those schools more in the SEC.
They still save money by paying fewer teams, plus it’s like giving the rest a raise. Based on how undervalued some claim the current deal is, maybe keeping it the same would be closer to fair market value. And it would keep those schools from leaving, so they have some decent content at a moderate price. The B10/SEC price is what those schools are worth in terms of viewership.
To me, this is a lot more similar to the Pac-2 lawsuit for control which basically got to the very end and several court smackdowns on the “other 10” before a settlement.
This feels a lot more similar to that; the ACC needs a bunch of victories in court before they agree to any sort of settlement imo or they need to see an imminent major loss.
But this could be a one and done decision, and by the time they see how the judge is leaning it may be too late to settle if FSU think’s it’s about to win outright.
Either way, the ACC moving first in NC feels very important here to establishing venue.
I think the ACC will basically “win the case” outright and there isn’t likely to be any sort of settlement that lets FSU out before 2030. That’s my early take based on the facts and likely NC venue.
I have no idea on the legal side. But the ACC is giving up a lot of money in penalties to force a miserable FSU to stay. That gives FSU 12+ (or 6+ in your 2030 example) years to stir the pot, file more lawsuits, air dirty laundry, and generally undermine the ACC. Is “winning” really worth it?
LikeLike
But the ACC is giving up a lot of money in penalties to force a miserable FSU to stay.
We don’t know what FSU would settle for. The lawsuit says that $500+ million is too much. The more they reduce it, the more likely it is that they lose others.
LikeLike
True, but they can all leave in 2036 for nothing. At some they are better off taking the reduced amount.
LikeLike
The key to the entire case is the allegation by FSU that the ACC president unilaterally gave ESPN an option to move from 2027 to 2036. FSU claims that there was no vote of the schools. If true, big IF, then FSU has a good case that the GOR will end in 2027, which makes the cost much less.
I think that the rest of their case is problematical for them, unless, as others have said there is something in Florida law that protects them. I have no idea whether Florida or NC courts will wind up with jurisdiction. As a sovereign state entity, will FSU win its argument that they do not have to accept NC jurisdiction? I have no clue.
The request to retroactively declare that FSU acted months ago is ridiculous. If, again, the 2027 argument is correct, then FSU can stay in for another year (as they must) then negotiate the last three years.
LikeLike
Merry Christmas to all.
LikeLike
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/college/inside-the-frantic-final-days-of-the-pac-12/
A look at the final days of the P12 from the UW point of view. They really didn’t want to leave, but the TV deal was just too weak.
This account of the Pac-12’s demise — a behind-the-scenes look at how the frenetic quest for TV dollars undid a century-old partnership — is drawn from hundreds of previously unreported emails and text messages, obtained from UW and the University of Oregon through public records requests.
…
WSU President Kirk Schulz went for gallows humor.
“Remaining institutions are fighting for our athletic lives right now. Our financial modeling of a 40% budget reduction in athletics is tough and will certainly be career ending for much of our current leadership,” he wrote in response. “If I deliver a pizza to your door on my next job — please give me a nice tip!!”
OSU President Jayathi Murthy was not in the mood, not ready to crack jokes on the havoc that the billion-dollar business of college football was about to wreak on her students, her school, her community.
“As with WSU, the consequences for OSU, for our athletics program and for the city of Corvallis are devastating,” she wrote. “If our current system of priorities cannot take this devastation into account, we have truly lost the thread.”
…
“Now we’re at the table able to have some influence on future,” Cauce wrote to David Zeeck, chair of UW’s Board of Regents, nine days after her decision. “The PAC-12 of last month was in a reactive, not proactive situation. It’s interesting when people say ‘it’s all about money’ as an insult, at the same time as schools, universities, hospitals, etc are dealing with strikes or threats of strike for higher pay. Truth is, it’s not ONLY about money.”
Dual Obligations
The Pac-12 crumbled because the tentative deal the conference negotiated to televise its college football games, in the eyes of UW and Oregon, didn’t give the universities enough money and put the games on a streaming network, instead of regular TV.
…
Cauce, as chair of the Pac-12’s board for the 2022 academic year, helped lead the search for a deal. But she was, of course, wearing two hats: leader of the Pac-12 and leader of UW.
“I was always 100% clear about the fact that I had these dual obligations and pledged that I would be very transparent if or when there were any conflicts between these roles,” Cauce said this month.
…
But, it seemed, the Pac-12 had a ready replacement for Colorado.
Later that day, Cauce was texting with then-Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, who told her he was on a plane and couldn’t talk, but could still text.
Stanford’s athletic director, he wrote, “gave my vote for San Diego State.”
The vote, which likely would have led to adding San Diego State once a new media deal was reached, was essentially unanimous, Cauce told him, with just Cal’s chancellor absent.
…
Cauce and then-UW athletic director Jen Cohen begin texting before the virtual meeting even ends.
Cohen: “this isn’t going to work”
Cauce: “It’s not what we wanted for sure.”
Cohen: “he went backwards on benefits of this since friday”
Cauce: “We need to weigh against other options. But yes not what we wanted”
Cohen: “its not close. this is bad !”
(Media reports later put Apple’s offer at $23 million per school, per year, with more money tied to subscription incentives.)
Cauce shares her thoughts with Utah President Taylor Randall.
Cauce: “I’m not happy”
Randall: “Tough to analyze, but does have upside.”
Cauce: “Agreed. My fear is short term.”
(Cauce said this month that an offer from Apple of at least $30 million, with one or two games a week on regular TV, “would have been more seriously considered.”)
But there still seems to be hope. Later that morning, Kliavkoff texts Cauce.
Kliavkoff: “We have to get this over the finish line”
Cauce: “Yes!!!!”
The next day, Aug. 2, WSU’s Schulz, who needs the Pac-12 to stay together as much as anyone, texts Cauce.
Schulz: “Thanks for your leadership this week — it is making a significant difference”
Cauce: “There might be xtra meaning to our rivalry game”
On Aug. 3, the activity starts early.
…
Shortly before 5 p.m. Cauce tries to call Robert Jones, the Big Ten chair. Jones is busy; Cauce says she’ll call back in an hour.
There’s a 5 p.m. Pac-12 conference call. On the agenda: voting on San Diego State.
…
Five minutes later, she texts Oregon’s Scholz: “Feel free to call me after 6am if you’d like. About to go to bed. Nothing new but will keep phone on”
Scholz (at 2:10 a.m.): “Thank you. I’ll call shortly after 6 after huddling with my AD.”
At 2:23 a.m., Hardenbergh, the Pac-12 vice president, emails the college presidents the agreement with Apple for each school to sign.
But as dawn breaks, it’s all done.
(“The final decision was made very early the morning of the 4th,” Cauce said this month.)
At 7 a.m. Cauce tries to call WSU’s Schulz. Twenty minutes later she tells Utah’s Randall she can talk if he’d like. She misses a call from Stanford’s Tessier-Lavigne and tries to call him back.
At 8:35 a.m. she texts WSU’s Schulz.
Cauce: “I’m here to talk if you’d like”
Schulz: “Thanks. Give me a couple of days. We are fighting to remain a power 5 school right now. Apple deal is off.”
…
At 10 p.m., Apple’s Cue emails her: “I really appreciated your support for us. It is a sad day and I am truly sorry we couldn’t get this done. I do wish you well in the Big-10. And yes you do owe me a Cuban dinner!”
Late that night, Cauce gets an email from Linden Rhoads, a member of the UW Board of Regents.
“If I needed a reminder of how much Husky Athletics means to our community — and I probably did,” Rhoads writes, “I have it in the form of my phone blowing up with inquiry, anxiety, excitement, and jubilation as it hasn’t over any other issue UW faces.”
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/florida-state-to-be-without-at-least-14-players-in-orange-bowl-due-to-opt-outs-and-transfers
Don’t expect much from the Orange Bowl. FSU will be missing at least 15 players (several more haven’t decided yet), including their backup QB who would be starting the game. The freshmen who played late against UL and stunk will start, and is also the only remaining scholarship QB they have.
UGA had 19 players enter the portal, thought only a few big names.
LikeLike
https://nvgt.com/podcast/?ppplayer=98f56b6dd6dca41729f186d12a4d1251&ppepisode=5a7928eec786137cdf7c90201ccd5dc7
I don’t think anybody linked this. It’s a podcast from Navigate with Jim Delany from 11/1/2023.
Jim Delany – Former Commissioner of the Big Ten – debates NIL, realignment, and the future of college sports. He and AJ discuss the factors that impact major decisions at the collegiate level, and set a reminder to have another conversation 5 years down the road.
LikeLike
Needless to say, NIL is the fly in the ointment. NCAA prez and weasel-in-charge Charlie Baker ducked the issue for one year by asking Congress to address it, and now he is he is ducking it for a second year by asking for a NIL “standard”. We need to cut this loser loose.
LikeLike
https://nvgt.com/blog/seizing-opportunity-in-a-changing-media-landscape/
Navigate looked at the changing media landscape. There’s a helpful graphic showing when all the sports media rights deals end.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-running-toward-2024-with
Canzano looks ahead to 2024, reminisces about his time covering the B10 in the past, etc. Nothing vital to read, but it’s not focused on the death of the P12.
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/biggest-sports-law-controversies-2023-ncaa-amateurism-1234760591/
Part 1 of a 3-part series on the year in college sports law.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2023/12/27/college-bowl-games-transfers-playoff-expansion/72041156007/
Dan Wolken wonders if bowls are still worth the hassle, especially after CFP expansion.
For all of its warnings of doom and gloom, the bowl industry in America is so healthy that you could practically put any two teams in a stadium in December and there will be a TV network willing to show it and fans willing to pay for it. If that system hasn’t already collapsed in the College Football Playoff/transfer portal/opt-out era, it’s probably not going to anytime soon. There’s always somebody out there who can make a buck selling a bowl game.
But it’s not really the schools and it’s definitely not the players, which begs an important question: When the Playoff expands to 12 teams next year, will all of these other games really be worth the hassle?
Among coaches and administrators across college sports, you’ll find no shortage of bowl-system defenders who cannot conceive of a world in which college football junks a 120-year-old tradition that began as a way for warm-weather cities to boost tourism in the winter. When you ask them why it’s important to preserve bowl games, they will mostly cite the importance of positive momentum to carry into the next season, the value of rewarding players for a job well-done and the extra practice time afforded to their coaches.
Those plus tradition are the key points, yes. I don’t really buy into momentum for teams, but it can be true for players. Especially a young player getting his first significant playing time because the starter opted out. I would also point out advertising, for both the school and the program. Recruits want to join good teams, and students need to be aware of your school to apply to it. And we shouldn’t forget that many of these players have never had the chance to travel to other parts of the country before, so some of these trips are educational and eye opening.
But when you start asking people around the sport if they’re actually enjoying what this part of the year has become, that’s where you start to see some cracks in the foundation.
I think that’d also be true if you asked about what the sport has become, not just the bowl season. And two of the biggest pain points are the portal and players opting out for the NFL draft.
As a business, the bowl system still works. As a worthwhile undertaking for everyone who isn’t participating in the CFP, there is more conflict than there ever used to be.
…
With players now having the ability to transfer freely after the season and opting out no longer seen as a character flaw by NFL teams, most teams will show up to their bowl games as a shell of what they were during the season. When the playoff expands to 12 next year, the sense that these other games don’t matter to the players and the general public will only become more pervasive.
There is money to be made, so ESPN will keep making it. They need content in December and bowls provide it. Teams will keep going because payouts will keep rising, and bowls will start paying players to appear vis NIL.
So what happens? Does college football just keep going on like this, squeezing the last bit of life out of a system that is stale and outdated just because it can? Or at some point, will they just chuck it because the returns keep diminishing year after year?
College sports have more inertia than almost anything. It won’t change until money or the law forces it to change.
“It’s a terrible system,” Mississippi coach Lane Kiffin told reporters Wednesday at the Peach Bowl in Atlanta. “I wouldn’t think any other sports, professional sports, have ever set up a system where free agency starts while the season is still going. It really makes no sense.
“You can leave, you can stay, you can go other places, coaches can call you and our season is still going. It would be like before the NFC or AFC playoffs start in a couple weeks, all of a sudden, hey, free agency the week before opens.”
Kiffin is right, but he left out the most important reason it doesn’t happen in the NFL: The players are compensated in a way that compels them to play and contractually obligated not to look for new employment until it’s time for free agency. And that part of the year doesn’t conflict with the playoffs because all of the stakeholders have agreed to that mutually beneficial arrangement through a collective-bargaining process.
I can excuse a coach for being self-centered enough to view that way, but a journalist should know better. The most important reason is because they are students so transfers need to happen between terms. Winter break is one of the rare times all schools are out of session, especially when you consider that football players take summer classes and quarters vs semesters calendars are quite different.
College administrators understand this is a problem without a great solution. Any attempt to further restrict transfers is off the table because it won’t hold up in court, and there’s urgency for most of these transfers to find new homes during the semester break, which happens to coincide with bowl season.
Meanwhile, coaches are distracted and overworked. Bowl prep is secondary to managing the transfer portal and securing high school recruits during the signing period that began last week.
…
Those attitudes have shifted some during the 10-year run of the College Football Playoff in its current form. I’m wondering if the mentality is going to accelerate even further away from the bowl system over the next decade as the 12-team playoff takes up even more of the oxygen and creates a wider divide between those who play in the real postseason and those who don’t.
The last generation of college administrators had a deep affinity for the bowl system and worked hard to make those games matter as much as possible. The next generation or two probably won’t be as kind.
The bowls have lost about as much value as they can. All their upsides still apply, even if they have less value. Players clearly care less, and so do fans. But motivation depends greatly on the season and the school:
OSU only sold 7500 of its 12,000 tickets to the Cotton Bowl, and OSU has only played there twice before. MO sold out in a day because they haven’t gone to a NY6 game since 2014 and Dallas is closer to their fan base. OSU has played in 11 straight and wanted the CFP this season. But at least most of OSU’s players are playing, unlike FSU.
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2023/college-football-playoff-payouts-1234761185/
The counterpoint – how much did conferences make from the CFP bowls?
Since the inception of the CFP in 2014-15, the SEC has earned $765 million from annual distributions of CFP bowl revenues. The Big Ten closely follows with $734 million, trailed by the ACC at $677 million, the Big 12 at $663 million and the Pac-12 bringing up the rear among Power Five conferences with $650 million. These figures were calculated using projections from the annual CFP media guides and do not include the 2023-24 base payout, the value of which has not yet been disclosed.
SEC $765M ($54.6M/school*) – 12 participants
B10 $734M ($52.4M/school) – 9
ACC $677M ($48.4M/school) – 7
B12 $663M ($66.3M/school) – 7
P12 $650M ($54.2M/school) – 3
* – I’m saying they all split it equally, I just wanted to normalize based on conference size
The per school numbers are why they moved to doing the payouts per P4 school equally and not per P4 conference. They range of participants is why autobids but also some payout based on performance.
The financial hierarchy broadly mirrors the success of these conferences, or lack thereof, in the national semifinals and finals. Over the past 10 seasons, the SEC has claimed 12 semifinal berths and six national titles, more than any other conference in each category. The Big Ten has generated nine semifinalists, and the ACC and Big 12 have each produced seven. In contrast, just three semifinalists have emerged from the Pac-12.
The revenue distributions for the five conferences, however, are all relatively close. That’s because the majority of the money goes toward equal base payouts received by all Power Five conferences, regardless of on-field performance. In the system’s inaugural year, that payout was $50 million, and it has risen to $79.4 million in the most recent season.
A smaller payout of $6 million is awarded to conferences for each of their schools that reaches a national semifinal bowl, plus an additional $4 million for each team that plays in one of the other CFP-operated bowls (Cotton, Peach or Fiesta). The New Year’s Six bowls rotate hosting the national semifinals, meaning that in some years sending a team to the Orange, Sugar or Rose Bowl yields a $6 million payout, while in other years, when those bowls are not semifinals, those bowls operate independently of the CFP system.
The payouts for those bowls are actually quite substantial, by comparison. For instance, last year the SEC pocketed $27.5 million from Tennessee’s Orange Bowl appearance and another $40 million from Alabama’s Sugar Bowl bid. If we include payouts from all New Year’s Six bowls in the total since 2014-15, the SEC’s lead over the Big Ten expands, with the former having raked in more than $1.1 billion, and the ACC falls into last place.
LikeLike
Purdue seems to be doing well in the transfer portal with two good gets from Georgia and one from Notre Dame. Big Ten Rankings:
5. Purdue
7. USC
13. Indiana
24. Oregon
28. Wisconsin
31. Minnesota
32. Michigan State
39. Washington
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2024/all-teams/football/transfer
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2023/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/
Sportico updated their college AD financial database for 2021-22. PU should spend a little more based on their top 5 profits.
Total expenses:
1. OSU $226M
2. UT $225M
3. AL $196M
4. UM $194M
9. PSU $171M
12. MSU $156M
15. IA $151M
19. WI $148M
26. RU $138M
27. IU $132M
28. NE $131M
30. MN $130M
31. IL $129M
38. UMD $114M
50. PU $93M ($22M in profit)
Ave = $147.2M
Profits:
1. IU $34M
2. UGA $34M
3. OSU $26M
4. Auburn $23M
5. PU $22M
6. UCF $20M
7. KSU $19M
8. AL $18M
9. UM $17M
10. IL $17M
11. MSU
18. NE
20. PSU
33. MN
43. WI
61. IA $0.3M
105. UMD -$6.9M
107. RU -$28.8M
LikeLike
Brian, I don’t think any of those numbers are meaningful. We all know that NIL has now totally dominated recruiting and the transfer portal. The University of Miami, Texas, Texas A&M, etc. are running hog wild on NIL for recruiting and transfers and this is well documented.
According to Rivals’ rankings, Purdue is #34 in recruiting and #5 in the transfer portal this year. That’s a good start for a black head coach who openly states that he was the child of two unmarried 16-yr-olds. I’m happy with the progress that Purdue is making, regardless of your childish squealing.
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/business/team-sales/2023/sports-valuation-bubble-divest-1234761131/
Is the sports rights bubble about to burst?
We’re in the middle of a lengthy bull market for sports franchises, with average valuations in the major U.S. leagues up more than 12x since 2000. In the past year alone, according to Sportico expert Kurt Badenhausen, NHL team values jumped 29%. NBA teams jumped up 33% (!). Franchises are now an asset class, and the market is white hot. But for me, 2023 was the year the underlying economics really stopped making sense; the year I began to wonder whether very smart and very wealthy people are heading for a massive market correction.
…
[skipped RSN collapse]
The Disney-Charter feud didn’t kill the cable bundle like some predicted, but it did shift my perception of where the power lies. There will be much uglier carriage fights in the future, and networks are losing their leverage. (One less covered carriage fight, between DirecTV and Tegna, is currently more than three weeks in without resolution).
ESPN is not alone in its financial concerns. Paramount stock has fallen nearly 66% in the four years since CBS and Viacom agreed to merge. Warner Bros. Discovery, whose portfolio includes Turner Sports and Eurosport, has a market cap of $28 billion and debt of $45 billion.
We’ll learn a lot about these companies’ appetite for top-tier rights in 2024, when both the NBA and College Football Playoff are hoping to finalize new long-term deals. For years, the industry expected the NBA to at least triple its current deals, which pay $2.6 billion per season. Now many experts, such as New York Post media reporter Andrew Marchand, are projecting something closer to 2x.
To recap, sports teams are seeing their local media revenue collapse and their national media partners are losing their ability to pay up for future rights. That’s pushed leagues into the arms of streaming giants that have no need for sports and a history of squeezing the economics of any business they enter. All the while, franchise valuations are soaring to tech bubble-sized revenue multiples. It’s not a good combination.
…
As companies like ESPN, Turner and CBS lose capacity to keep paying up for sports rights, leagues are increasingly turning to streaming giants like Amazon and Apple to maintain the upward trajectory of those media deals. And that, in my opinion, is the biggest danger facing major U.S. sports.
…
“Sports have gone from being vital to the success of the linear TV enterprise to being a ‘nice to have’ for the streaming companies,” Pyne said in an interview. “Sports has a very different value proposition for Amazon than it does to Fox. And that’s where the problem begins.”
…
I also question the longevity of sports interest from companies with other, larger business aims. Earlier this year Sky Sports landed ATP and WTA rights in the U.K. and other parts of Europe, some of which were previously held by Amazon. If Amazon’s goal is to convert tennis fans into Prime buyers, I’d argue that Jeff Bezos’ company needs only a few years of big-time tennis rights to extract its value. If Pyne is right, and quantitative ROI is the operative goal, Amazon likely won’t back the 10- or 12-year deals that have become popular in linear media, and are the preferred set-up for many commissioners.
…
[new money sources]
But I’m skeptical about this idea more broadly, particularly given the generational changes in how fans consume sports. Older fans are easy to monetize—they attend live games and watch them from their couch. Ticket sales and media, simple. Younger fans are congregating via social media, YouTube and video games, none of which have direct pathways to billions in untapped income for leagues.
…
To recap, sports teams are seeing their local media revenue collapse and their national media partners are losing their ability to pay up for future rights. That’s pushed leagues into the arms of streaming giants that have no need for sports and a history of squeezing the economics of any business they enter. All the while, franchise valuations are soaring to tech bubble-sized revenue multiples. It’s not a good combination.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/kliavkoff-on-the-clock-with-the-lawsuit-settled-pac-12-schools-can-determine-whether-or-when-to-fire-the-commissioner/
Wilner wonders if the P12 will fire Kliavkoff for cause, or pay him his full contract. My guess is that they settle, because neither GK nor the schools want everything aired publicly.
Kliavkoff has been “on the clock” since the 10 departing schools agreed to a settlement with the two remaining schools, according to a source.
The outbound universities have little need for him.
The remaining universities have no regard for him.
He has been a zombie commissioner since early August, when he failed to secure a media rights deal and the conference collapsed.
Kliavkoff remained in place through the fall as the schools engaged in a legal fight to determine responsibility for a litany of financial liabilities facing the conference.
One of those liabilities: Kliavkoff’s contract.
…
That’s an $8.75 million liability if the schools move to dismiss Kliavkoff this winter.
…
If we divide Kliavkoff’s remaining compensation by 12, the cost of paying him to go away is $729,000 per school.
Unless, of course, he’s fired for cause.
It’s easy to argue that Kliavkoff was negligent, or broadly incompetent, as he first failed to keep USC and UCLA in the conference, then embarked on a misguided media rights strategy that led to the Aug. 4 collapse. But that might be a difficult case to prove when Kliavkoff inevitably fights back.
After all, the university presidents set the agenda and drove the negotiating strategy. He reported to them frequently throughout the 13-month saga.
Ultimately, the conference collapsed because of the governing board’s lethal mix of ignorance, arrogance and incompetence.
…
When USC and UCLA left for the Big Ten, their board seats were removed — Kliavkoff admitted as much under oath in a separate legal case, as the Hotline first reported.
And yet, after 10 schools had announced their departures, Kliavkoff disputed the interpretation of the bylaws that he had already followed.
…
Kliavkoff seems to be contradicting his previous position in claiming the 10 departing schools had, in fact, retained their board seats.
And so we ask: Did he effectively commit an act of treason against the Pac-12? Did he act in a harmful manner?
After all, Kliavkoff sided with the departing schools in his letter. But according to the courts, WSU and OSU were the conference. Their presidents were the board.
So was he working against the best interest of his employer? And if so, is that grounds for termination with cause?
We have no insight into the legal strategy, but the potential for the process to turn messy is clear:
— The schools attempt to fire Kliavkoff with cause.
— He responds with a wrongful termination lawsuit.
— The presidents fear discovery.
— Everyone settles for a buyout that’s considerably less than $8.75 million but substantially more than $0.
Would the difference between the total amount owed to Kliavkoff and a settlement figure be worth the resources and legal costs?
Fans might support the fight. But university presidents, one of the most risk-averse groups on the planet, would inevitably prefer the path of least resistance.
So in the coming weeks, if not days, don’t be surprised if the schools dismiss Kliavkoff, pay him the full buyout, promote deputy commissioner Teresa Gould — she is both highly competent and fully qualified — and move on.
LikeLike
Wilner wonders if the P12 will fire Kliavkoff for cause, or pay him his full contract. My guess is that they settle, because neither GK nor the schools want everything aired publicly.
This is my guess too. There is no way OrSU and WSU want Kliavkoff in a position of authority after he sided with the departing schools. Even if they had to pay him the full $8.75 million, I think they want him out of there.
Wilner mentioned that the departing schools are on the hook for liabilities, but I am not sure the commissioner’s salary is one of these. If they could fob off 10/12ths of his salary on the other schools, then I think he would be fired already.
Can they fire Kliavkoff for cause? Wilner catalogues Kliavkoff’s mistakes, but he is stretching the point. Losing USC and UCLA isn’t a firing offense. It happened relatively early in his tenure, and the seeds were sown under Larry Scott.
Kliavkoff may have badly botched the media negotiation, but the Pac-12 presidents’ hands weren’t clean either, after they insisted on an insanely high valuation that caused ESPN to walk away.
So if they fire him for cause, it would probably come down to his bizarre decision to back the departing schools in the recent litigation. But backing what turns out to be the losing side in litigation amongst members is not necessarily a treasonous act — it would depend on why he did it, which has yet to be explained.
Kliavkoff probably wants to work again, which means it’s in his interest to settle this for a reasonable amount and without discovery that can only damage him further.
LikeLike
ACC football media exposure value in 2023-24 according to Nielsen (TV & social media).
FSU has a huge lead over #2, though that may be driven by news coverage of their attempted escape.
LikeLike
Nice comparison of 2022 graduates from all 19 B10 schools (incl. JHU). USC’s graduate program (esp. Master’s) is much larger than I knew. OSU needs to increase its MS (and MBA, MFA, etc.) programs. That’s over 200k new alumni in one year (not counting JHU).
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1740793628744687807/photo/1
LikeLike
I’m a retired US Army officer, 28 years active duty. Please understand that those USC graduate degrees are overwhelmingly distance education on military bases and has been for decades. All military bases have education offices where local troops, including officers, can enroll in classes, usually with tuition paid by DOD. USC has had a huge presence for decades and I know several officers who received MS degrees from USC in this manner.
LikeLike
Tony Pettiti and the Big Ten brass have to be thrilled with how the CFP semifinals went as well as the championship matchup itself:
Showcasing the new Big Ten and an early regular season matchup will be the Michigan at Washington rematch.
All 4 new schools won their bowl matchups as well with Oregon winning Fiesta and USC/UCLA winning Holiday and LA bowls.
Those 4 are far better positioned to shake up the Big Ten’s hierarchy as compared to the previous trio of additions.
Big Ten West teams will all need to step up (though at least Northwestern and Minnesota continued their bowl winning streaks up to 5 and 6 respectively).
As we move into the Power 2 landscape, this is about as good of an outcome for showing that the Big Ten will be a peer competitor to the SEC with everyone else fighting for a distant 3rd.
Of course, one single year doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of CFB, but this CFP is about as good of an advertisement for the new Big Ten as it could be.
LikeLike
There is an element of luck to it. Both semi-finals came down to toss-up plays that could easily have produced an Alabama–Texas rematch. That they went the opposite way isn’t down to anything Petitti did. But he’ll take it.
All 4 new schools won their bowl matchups as well with Oregon winning Fiesta and USC/UCLA winning Holiday and LA bowls.
Those 4 are far better positioned to shake up the Big Ten’s hierarchy as compared to the previous trio of additions.
UCLA historically is better than Maryland but not as good as the Big Ten thought it was getting with Nebraska. Since joining the Big Ten, Maryland and Rutgers have been about as good as you’d expect, given their history, while Nebraska has been a lot worse.
I expect UCLA will play at approximately the MSU / Iowa / Wisconsin level: an occasional playoff guest when they have a very good year, but not a regular power. It will be extremely difficult to break through the quintet of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington. (And don’t sleep on Nebraska if they ever get out of their own way.)
LikeLike
Marc: “It will be extremely difficult to break through the quintet of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington.”
You should probably make that a sextet with USC. The Huskies have had a great year with Penex and the Trojans did not, but the previous ten years went like this:
UW: 11-2, 4-8, 3-1, 8-5, 10-4, 10-3, 12-2, 7-6, 8-6, 9-4
USC: 11-3, 4-8, 5-1, 8-5, 5-7, 11-3, 10-3, 8-6, 9-4, 10-4
Considering both teams play essentially the same opponents each year, they were 2-2 playing each other during that decade and that USC’s schedule includes a game with ND every year, that’s pretty much even.
LikeLike
Yes, that was a brain freeze. I agree, it’s a sextet.
LikeLike
Marc,
There is an element of luck to it. Both semi-finals came down to toss-up plays that could easily have produced an Alabama–Texas rematch. That they went the opposite way isn’t down to anything Petitti did. But he’ll take it.
Oddly, the last 2 years are the only years the CFP had 2 close games in the semis.
2022: 6 pt win, 1 pt win
2023: 6 pt win, OT win (7 pts)
Last year’s title game was a blowout. For once, can the 4-game CFP have 3 close games? Have the most controversial decision of entrants lead to the best set of games?
Those 4 are far better positioned to shake up the Big Ten’s hierarchy as compared to the previous trio of additions.
UCLA historically is better than Maryland but not as good as the Big Ten thought it was getting with Nebraska. Since joining the Big Ten, Maryland and Rutgers have been about as good as you’d expect, given their history, while Nebraska has been a lot worse.
I expect UCLA will play at approximately the MSU / Iowa / Wisconsin level: an occasional playoff guest when they have a very good year, but not a regular power. It will be extremely difficult to break through the quintet of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington. (And don’t sleep on Nebraska if they ever get out of their own way.)
USC, UO and UW are better placed than RU and UMD, sure. NE was a king program coming in off of 4 9+ win seasons in their last 5 in the B12 (9-5, 5-7, 9-4, 10-4, 10-4). There was no obvious reason they would have 6 more solid years (5 9+ win years out of 6) and then drop off a cliff.
As for UCLA, I think they are overrated. They have a huge deficit and will struggle to climb out of it with the extra travel costs plus Calimony. Even then, they’ve never fully committed to football and Chip Kelly is not interested in NIL or recruiting battles. Over the past 50 years they have a solid track record (top 30 sort of program), but it’s much worse post-Donahue. They are barely top 50 since then and not much over 0.500. Think NCSU and GT for comparisons. I think the B10 will be a rude awakening for them. Put them more in the NW category of performance (ignoring last year’s NW team).
And let’s make that at least a sextet (with USC), and maybe a septet with NE. But that’s on average, and in any given year there will be shuffling. The top 3-4 B10 teams will make the CFP each year most likely (2 in a down year). I can see MSU/WI/IA getting in sometimes, but UCLA seems less likely. Especially with the tougher competition now.
Years UCLA ended up in the AP top 10 in the pre-bowl poll:
1998, 1997, 1988, 1987, 1982, 1975*, 1966, 1965, 1955, …
* – #11
Estimated CFP appearances per decade:
OSU – 8
UM – 6
USC/PSU – 5
WI/IA/MSU/NE – 2
UCLA – 1
Others – less than 1
That adds up to roughly 3.3 teams per year plus the others
LikeLike
z33k,
I’d think the P12 fans are in a bit of a quandary. They want to blame UW (and UO) for killing the P12, but the P12 also has a chance to go out on top and beat the B10, (who they definitely blame) to do it. So beyond team meteor, who do they root for?
I’d be happy to see UW win and have the P12 end on a high note.
But yes, seeing B10 over SEC and new B10 over new SEC in the CFP is a positive for the B10’s reputation. It was a tough call, but even I wanted UM top win over AL (because I believe UM’s cheating ended, and AL is AL). But after the Orange Bowl, I’m sure many SEC fans are saying UGA was better than AL anyway and would’ve won it all again.
That Fiesta Bowl was a sign of things to come with the G5 promised a CFP slot each year. Unfortunately, so was the Orange Bowl with over 45 players missing. I have never watched less college football than I did this year, and it’s only going to get less interesting for me.
Yes the West needs to improve, but mostly that’s NE. The rest were about typical. The East also needs to improve outside of the 3 kings. Maybe the new scheduling will let that happen for RU and UMD (IU is a lost cause I think). I think Rhule will at least make NE solid again.
LikeLike
That Fiesta Bowl was a sign of things to come with the G5 promised a CFP slot each year.
Even before playoff expansion, the G5 were guaranteed a New Year’s Six spot — and over ten years they have not done badly at all. They’ve won a fair number of them, most recently Tulane over USC a year ago. The games have often been competitive, even when the G5 team lost. Obviously Liberty was not competitive.
I realize that playoffs aren’t directly comparable. There are higher stakes, the G5 team will most likely be playing a road game at a hostile stadium, and their P4 opponent probably won’t have players opting out. Also, some of the programs that played well in NY6 bowls as a G5 representative have since been promoted to the P4.
LikeLike
Brian: “Yes the West needs to improve, but mostly that’s NE.”
Call me a hopeless optimist but I think the most improved team in the former West Division will be Purdue. This year their OL was pathetic, palm-in-face shameful. Dog meat.
But thru the transfer portal, Purdue has gotten a 4-star OL from ND, the best OL in the MAC conference and a couple of other 6’6″ guys to replace the runts that we had this past year. Our starting center, who missed the season with an September injury, also returns for another year. So I think the OL will upgrade from “Sniveling Nancyboys” to “Competent” in 2024 and the rest of the team looks pretty solid.
LikeLike
Those 4 are far better positioned to shake up the Big Ten’s hierarchy as compared to the previous trio of additions.
There are a lot of players and a lot less P2 programs out west than there were P5. If we end up in a P2 world, expect the west coast teams to do very well.
LikeLike
Agreed, and my post wasn’t a shot at Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland.
Nebraska had to re-orient its whole recruiting situation away from Texas and towards Big Ten territories as well as national, which has proven to be difficult (but Rhule seems to be up to the task). In the longer term, Nebraska will be fine in a Power 2 world with their resources. They should be a stable upper half competitor with the right coaches.
USC, Washington, Oregon, and UCLA are going to be the de facto Power 2 programs of the Western half of the country with the resources to match. That really makes them “special” in that part of the country; it’s a huge differentiator versus Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, etc.
It may even allow them to take better Texas recruits from Big 12 schools, as well as more regularly get top 300-500 recruits and protect their regions.
We’ve seen that regular pipeline of West Coast recruits to the SEC, that obviously won’t stop, but if there’s Power 2 programs over there that offer a regular playoff opportunity and national stage, it’s a whole different ballgame to stay home. You can stay on the West Coast and play Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and in nationally relevant games.
And ultimately, that’s what Power 2 status can enhance, it’s about enabling Big Ten schools that haven’t traditionally been national recruiters to try to be.
That’s why I actually think this also helps the Big Ten’s “bottom half” as well.
All those programs should be a clear step above the Big 12’s programs as well as the ACC’s programs (outside of FSU, Clemson, Miami).
When we get to a point where that $100 million in conference distributions is going to players, that’s where the Big Ten’s lower half can outbid programs they regularly recruit against.
LikeLike
z33k,
You’ve been reading too many internet theories.
Nebraska had to re-orient its whole recruiting situation away from Texas and towards Big Ten territories as well as national, which has proven to be difficult (but Rhule seems to be up to the task).
Number of TX players on the NE roster:
1995 (their peak) – 7
2005 – 9
2007 (Callahan’s last year) – 11
2008 (Pelini’s first year) – 17
2010 (last year in B12) – 23
2012 – 18
2014 (Pelini’s last year) – 11
2016 (all B10 recruits) – 7
2023 (now) – 11
Having a lot of TX players was a temporary thing under Pelini. Osborne didn’t rely on it. He had at least as many from CA and NJ as from TX, and almost as many from FL. So yes they had to change from Pelini’s recruiting, but going national was not new to NE.
USC, Washington, Oregon, and UCLA are going to be the de facto Power 2 programs of the Western half of the country with the resources to match. That really makes them “special” in that part of the country; it’s a huge differentiator versus Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, etc.
Yes, but it means fighting amongst themselves and vs the midwest powers now. It certainly gives UCLA no edge over USC.
It may even allow them to take better Texas recruits from Big 12 schools, as well as more regularly get top 300-500 recruits and protect their regions.
TX has oil money to throw at paying players. They’ll be as competitive as their boosters choose to let them be. Playing closer to home still matters to many players too.
We’ve seen that regular pipeline of West Coast recruits to the SEC, that obviously won’t stop, but if there’s Power 2 programs over there that offer a regular playoff opportunity and national stage, it’s a whole different ballgame to stay home. You can stay on the West Coast and play Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and in nationally relevant games.
https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=highschool&State=ca
There isn’t a huge pipeline to the SEC from CA. A few big names every year, but not many of the top players leave for the SEC. You can change the year to look at the history.
https://www.al.com/sports/2015/02/2015_sec_recruiting_maps_find.html
In 2015, only 9 players from CA went to the SEC.
Or they can go to OSU/UM/PSU and still play some west coast games.
And ultimately, that’s what Power 2 status can enhance, it’s about enabling Big Ten schools that haven’t traditionally been national recruiters to try to be.
That’s why I actually think this also helps the Big Ten’s “bottom half” as well.
All those programs should be a clear step above the Big 12’s programs as well as the ACC’s programs (outside of FSU, Clemson, Miami).
It’s not just where you can recruit, it’s at what level. The bottom of the B10 won’t spend what it takes to be highly competitive in football regardless of how much the B10 TV deal pays.
When we get to a point where that $100 million in conference distributions is going to players, that’s where the Big Ten’s lower half can outbid programs they regularly recruit against.
Can and will are different things. IU will save it for hoops. PU will just sit on the money. IL will waste it somehow. RU will need to pay down their debt. UMD will buy more uniform combos.
LikeLike
But my point is that you’re comparing what programs like Illinois or Maryland spend versus similar peers (at least competitively in CFB) like say TCU or Oklahoma State or Virginia or Va Tech.
If you’re going to have to give say 20-25% of AD revenue to players because of court rulings, the Big Ten West’s lower half will be giving say 10-15 million per year more to the players than their peer competitors from the ACC or Big 12 eventually.
At some level, that has to help win some recruits over that can make a difference; if the differential is larger then it should matter more.
Won’t make them automatically win more games, that will have to come with better coaching as well (and in the case of the Big Ten West – modern offenses with quality QB play).
LikeLike
z33k,
That depends how it has to be spread. Baker proposed paying at least 50% of athletes. Well, B10 schools have more teams than B12 schools so some of that extra money will go to Olympic sports.
The average D-I schools has 19 sports. The B10 average will be 22.1. The B12 average will be 20.3. Who knows how many teams may get cut if athletes need to be played?
If you’re going to have to give say 20-25% of AD revenue to players because of court rulings, the Big Ten West’s lower half will be giving say 10-15 million per year more to the players than their peer competitors from the ACC or Big 12 eventually.
Of all AD revenue? Why are they entitled to that? I’ve only seen people discussing a share of media rights. No school can break even if 25% of all revenue (donations, ticket sales, concessions, parking, merchandise, etc.) goes to athletes.
So let’s say the B10 gets $70M/school/year from TV plus $30M/school/year from CFP plus another $30M from bowls/NCAAT. That’s $130M/school/year.
For the B12, let’s say it’s $35M + $10M + $30M = $75M
That’s $55M per year in difference. 20-25% of that is about your $10M more to spend. Does that only get spent on the 3 “revenue” sports, or across all athletes (Title IX, etc.)? If you pay 250 athletes equally, that’s $40k each (but compared to $200k or so in total). And that’s before donors step in. I’m not sure how much difference that money makes. It certainly shouldn’t hurt, but it may be hard to get a lot of return on it. People will just portal in and out to get a bigger paycheck for 1-2 years.
LikeLike
Nebraska had to re-orient its whole recruiting situation away from Texas and towards Big Ten territories as well as national, which has proven to be difficult (but Rhule seems to be up to the task). In the longer term, Nebraska will be fine in a Power 2 world with their resources. They should be a stable upper half competitor with the right coaches.
IMO the recruiting problem was overblown. In the Big Ten era. Nebraska has recruited well enough to be a consistent (247 rankings: 16, 32, 22, 35, 29, 26, 22, 23, 18, 20, 24, 32, 31, 23) top 25 team. Nebraska’s problem was misalignment and leadership failures. Nebraska’s Chancellor hated Bo Pelini. The Chancellor’s hand picked AD fired Bo and hired Mike Riley. The AD meddled with Riley’s program until the AD was fired. Bill Moos was hired to fire Riley and hire Frost. Moos then checked out. The lack of supervision exasperated some of Frost’s personal issues and led to a maddening few years. Nebraska looked like it was finally in alignment this year with President Ted Carter (Athletic Dept reports to system President now), Trev Alberts, and Matt Rhule. Ohio St has since hired Carter, so we’ll see if the next President can keep things aligned. IMO, if everyone at Nebraska is pulling the same way, there’s enough built in advantages to make it a consistent winner.
USC, Washington, Oregon, and UCLA are going to be the de facto Power 2 programs of the Western half of the country with the resources to match. That really makes them “special” in that part of the country; it’s a huge differentiator versus Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, etc.
I agree. The four corners and the bay area schools are not on the same footing anymore. The rest of the P2 have to fly (at least) half way across the country to recruit CA.
And ultimately, that’s what Power 2 status can enhance, it’s about enabling Big Ten schools that haven’t traditionally been national recruiters to try to be.
That’s why I actually think this also helps the Big Ten’s “bottom half” as well.
It will be interesting to see if the old Big Ten West teams take advantage of it. Phoenix, SLC, California, and the PNW have probably never been as open to them as they are now. Coach Prime forgetting about Colorado area HS recruits is an opportunity too.
When we get to a point where that $100 million in conference distributions is going to players, that’s where the Big Ten’s lower half can outbid programs they regularly recruit against.
We’ll see how it shakes out, but that’s big threat for any non-P2 school.
LikeLike
IMO the recruiting problem was overblown. In the Big Ten era. Nebraska has recruited well enough to be a consistent (247 rankings: 16, 32, 22, 35, 29, 26, 22, 23, 18, 20, 24, 32, 31, 23) top 25 team.
Yes, exactly. There was no excuse for them to be as bad as they were, with the talent they had and the Big Ten West schedule they played.
The data show overwhelmingly that recruiting rankings are an accurate predictor of long-term success. But programs can over- or under-perform their recruiting—occasionally for years at a time—due to management, coaching, or luck.
LikeLike
Marc: “Yes, exactly. There was no excuse for them (Nebraska) to be as bad as they were, with the talent they had and the Big Ten West schedule they played.”
Nebraska was in the Big XII North Division. Here were their division annual opponent buddies: Missouri, Kansas State, Kansas, Colorado and Iowa State. The Big Ten West didn’t match up to the Big Ten East but they were a heck of a lot better than the Big XII North.
LikeLike
Mike,
IMO the recruiting problem was overblown.
Agree. I pointed out that NE didn’t use to recruit TX all that much back when NE was elite, and you make another valid point.
I agree. The four corners and the bay area schools are not on the same footing anymore. The rest of the P2 have to fly (at least) half way across the country to recruit CA.
And yet UW hasn’t been a power out west until this year, and UO has been down from their peak under Kelly until the past 5 years. The 4C and Bay Area schools were never really competitors to them (except Stanford for a few years) even when in the same conference, yet neither could stay a power consistently.
10 win seasons:
UW – 2022-23, 2016-18, 2000, 1991, 1990, 1984, …
UO – 2021-23, 2019, 2008-14, 2005, 2001, 2000 (2000 was 1st one ever)
I’m not sure how much that will change, especially once Phil Knight passes. Even USC couldn’t stay dominant.
I still see the midwestern schools (ND, B10 brands) and SEC powers recruiting the west coast just fine. There will always be a school willing to offer more NIL money to an individual.
LikeLike
And yet UW hasn’t been a power out west until this year, and UO has been down from their peak under Kelly until the past 5 years. The 4C and Bay Area schools were never really competitors to them (except Stanford for a few years) even when in the same conference, yet neither could stay a power consistently.
I was thinking from now on where UW, UO, USC and UCLA are no longer on the same footing as the rest of the old PAC12. They can walk up to any prospect in the west and say, “do you want to play P2 football?” Yes, any of the B1G/SEC schools can do that too, but location matters. I see those four schools winning recruiting battles (both HS and portal) against their old PAC mates more often, resulting in a higher concentration of talent in those four (cumulatively) than has happened historically. If the money gap (employment, NIL, etc) continues to widen, I would expect the concentration of talent to stay above historical norms. I think we’ll really see it at the bottom of the commit lists, where the floor of prospects those four are taking will be higher.
I still see the midwestern schools (ND, B10 brands) and SEC powers recruiting the west coast just fine. There will always be a school willing to offer more NIL money to an individual.
I think they will, they might even do a little better, just because the USC/UCLA/UO/UW cant take every player who wants to play P2 football. Matt Rhule has mentioned that Nebraska is eyeing opportunities out west.
LikeLike
Mike,
I was thinking from now on where UW, UO, USC and UCLA are no longer on the same footing as the rest of the old PAC12. They can walk up to any prospect in the west and say, “do you want to play P2 football?” Yes, any of the B1G/SEC schools can do that too, but location matters. I see those four schools winning recruiting battles (both HS and portal) against their old PAC mates more often, resulting in a higher concentration of talent in those four (cumulatively) than has happened historically. If the money gap (employment, NIL, etc) continues to widen, I would expect the concentration of talent to stay above historical norms. I think we’ll really see it at the bottom of the commit lists, where the floor of prospects those four are taking will be higher.
I know that’s what you meant, I’m just not sure it will translate that cleanly. First, how many modern players care about being in the P2 versus their amount of playing time and the size of their NIL check?
Location does matter, but maybe it means a little less out west due to the distances and how many players have been willing to leave the region. This is where locking the 4 Pac schools as rivals would’ve helped them – more guaranteed regional games.
I do agree the other former P12 schools will lost out a little because of this. I’m just not sure the benefits will be as concentrated to those 4 schools as you are. It may be that all of the B10 and SEC starts recruiting the southwest and west coast more. Also the TX B12 schools.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl was the most-watched non-NFL sporting event since Alabama’s national title game win over Georgia in 2018, with an average audience of 27.2 million viewers and a peak of almost 33 million. It was the most-watched CFP semi-final since Ohio State beat Alabama in the 2014 Sugar Bowl in the first year of the playoff.
The other semi-final had an average audience of 18.4 million and a peak of 24.5 million, making it the fourth most-watched Sugar Bowl in the past twenty years. Those aren’t bad numbers, but they might’ve been better if kickoff had not been delayed past 9pm due to the late end of the Rose Bowl.
Strong ratings will no doubt warm the hearts of playoff administrators who are going to market with a bunch of new games to sell. But media partners know the matchups and the games won’t always be as good.
LikeLike
Marc,
The Rose Bowl was the most-watched non-NFL sporting event since Alabama’s national title game win over Georgia in 2018, with an average audience of 27.2 million viewers and a peak of almost 33 million. It was the most-watched CFP semi-final since Ohio State beat Alabama in the 2014 Sugar Bowl in the first year of the playoff.
Well, the Rose is always the most-watched bowl among its peers so that part isn’t surprising. Neither is the high number considering the teams and the fact it was a rare CFP semi that was actually competitive. Add in all the controversy this year so plenty of people probably hate-watched (UM cheating, AL getting in over FSU).
It shows the power of tradition – the Rose Bowl at 5pm on 1/1 draws.
The other semi-final had an average audience of 18.4 million and a peak of 24.5 million, making it the fourth most-watched Sugar Bowl in the past twenty years. Those aren’t bad numbers, but they might’ve been better if kickoff had not been delayed past 9pm due to the late end of the Rose Bowl.
Yeah, that was ridiculous. Just start the game. It does show how much more powerful the Rose Bowl brand is than any other bowl, though.
Strong ratings will no doubt warm the hearts of playoff administrators who are going to market with a bunch of new games to sell. But media partners know the matchups and the games won’t always be as good.
And they know the NFL will be a future competitor depending on game scheduling. This year ESPN flexed the MNF game to Saturday so they could show the bowl games. That won’t be an option if Fox has the games instead. Plus the earlier rounds have much less value and more NFL games to avoid.
Right now nobody seems to want the extra games in 2024 and 2025, they are waiting until they can get a piece of the NCG and semis as well.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
The other NY6 games did well, too.
Despite Georgia’s 60-point win, the Orange Bowl was the top bowl game for the week ending December 31 with 10.39 million viewers on ESPN — the largest audience for the game (excluding playoff editions) since 2017. The previous night’s Missouri-Ohio State Cotton Bowl ranked second for the week with 9.72 million, the top audience for that game (again excluding playoff editions) since 2013.
That’s impressive for 2 terrible games. At least the Orange makes some sense with it being on Saturday afternoon with little sports competition. Who wasted their Friday night on that terrible Cotton Bowl? I certainly didn’t.
Rounding out the New Year’s Six slate, the Mississippi-Penn State Peach Bowl opened Saturday’s slate with 7.77 million, up from the previous non-playoff edition.
As for the non-New Year’s Six slate, the Kansas State-NC State Pop-Tarts Bowl topped the charts with 4.31 million viewers, followed by its Alamo Bowl lead-out at 3.93 million.
It should be noted that the calendar may have helped with 1/1 on a Monday. Also, ratings have only recently (started in 8/2020) included out-of-home viewers which helps sports a lot, especially during the holiday season. Streaming and same-day DVR are also included. Those can combine for a significant increase in who gets counted.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl should have started at noon PT, 3:00 ET. The Rose Bowl ‘traditions’ are now moot with the collapse of the P12.
LikeLike
I’ve found an analysis of FSU’s lawsuit against the ACC by an actual lawyer who appears to have relevant expertise in Florida. The article is on the website of DarrowEverett, a national firm that does business in seven states including both Florida and North Carolina.
Main take-aways, all the writer’s opinion:
1) FSU’s anti-trust claim will fail. Florida anti-trust law is meant to protect the public. It is not meant to protect parties to a contract that was a fair bargain at the time, but due to normal market events has evolved to favor one side.
2) A court could rule the liquidated damages of the GoR + Exit Fee as unenforceable, because they are grossly out of proportion to the actual damages the ACC would suffer if FSU left. Florida courts have ruled in the past that although liquidated damages don’t need to be exact, they do need to have a relationship to actual damages.
3) Florida courts normally step aside when there is an earlier suit in another venue between the same parties and raising the same issues. As a result, the case will likely be held in North Carolina because the ACC filed there first.
If #3 above proves to be correct, FSU may sorely regret that they were so blatant about their intention to sue and forfeited the advantage of surprise.
LikeLike
I’ve wondered about #2. The ACC exit fee has rather quickly gone from 1x to 3x (right before UMD left) the ACC’s annual operating budget. How can that fit the actual damages?
2011: $12-14M -> $20M (when they expanded to 14 with Pitt and SU)
2012: $20M -> $50M (when they added ND and just before UMD was about to leave)
2023: $50M has now grown to $130M
It’s hard to justify a 10-fold increase in the exit fee in 12 years.
As for the GOR, that’s completely separate. FSU doesn’t even need to but those rights back technically. They could play 7 road games with the ACC owning their 5 home games. Then I think the ACC should be required to pay them something for their rights, even if not the same as ACC members. I could see the courts saying you can either have the rights and pay FSU for them or forfeit the rights for some reasonable GOR exit fee.
As for #3, the ACC’s suit doesn’t make sense to me. They filed it before FSU had done anything but complain. Can you pre-emptively sue for damages?
LikeLike
The ACC lawsuit is for 3 reasons: 1) to pre-empt on jurisdiction by moving in NC first, 2) for a declaratory judgment that the Grant of Rights is valid and enforceable against FSU, and 3) that FSU can’t legally challenge the GoR because they’re accepting benefiting ($) from the ESPN contract that underlies it.
They’re not suing for damages here (except maybe they’ll ask for legal fees to be paid by FSU at the end of this); they’re suing for a judgment that the GoR is legally valid and none of the conference members can challenge it.
LikeLike
z33k,
Thanks.
I don’t see how they can pre-empt jurisdiction for FSU’s first complaint, that the GOR violates FL law. A NC court shouldn’t determine that. The other things might be subject to courts in both states (and thus perhaps end up in federal court at some point).
They aren’t suing for damages, but they are suing to set the size of any potential penalty (and whether its reasonable), which seems like it shouldn’t be decided until and unless FSU actually left the ACC.
The ACC also sued on whether FSU can even break the GOR. It seems like anyone should always be able to break a contract, the question is just what the price should be.
LikeLike
The ACC might be able to pre-empt jurisdiction since they argue that the contract is based on and in NC law and that Florida law doesn’t apply since FSU doesn’t have any Florida-based sovereign rights as a contractual party and isn’t entering the contract as a state-based body rather as a private party agreeing to a contract under NC law.
They also have a reasonable case for pre-emption here given that FSU was planning to challenge the GoR and has been making a ton of noise and actually went through with the lawsuit (feels as if both parties forced each others hands).
I think the question isn’t so much whether the contract is breakable as you note, it’s what the damages should be.
Should FSU’s TV rights for home games remain with the ACC through 2036 if they try to leave? What is the actual damages owed to the conference?
The one wrinkle in all of this is ESPN’s option to pick up 2027-2036 TV rights; that takes a huge value hit without FSU, so that creates a huge problem.
Specific performance: FSU’s home TV rights remaining with the ACC may be the only way that FSU can hold up its end of its bargain agreed to when it signed on the GoR extension.
That’s a huge problem for FSU. Say the court ultimately agrees that the GoR is valid but that FSU can leave the ACC: that would end up with a result where FSU can pay $120-140 million (3 years of revenue) to leave, but their home TV rights for all sports stay with the ACC.
At that point, they have to negotiate some way out of that, but 10+ years of those rights is probably worth $400+ million. That’s a long and tough negotiation and FSU will be way behind SEC/Big Ten conferencemates for 10-20 years if that has to be paid up front by a Private Equity firm and then paid back for 10-20 years.
It’s why I’ve been so skeptical on GoRs being broken; it makes no sense unless you’re talking about 1-2 years left on the GoR and it’s a negotiated settlement.
I think FSU loses this case handily, so that obviously colors my outlook on all of this.
They agreed to a GoR for a TV contract which was perfectly valid at the time but became skewed to ESPN over time.
That’s no different from the SEC’s contract with CBS that was signed during the 2008 recession: $50 million for the SEC game of the week was laughable as early as 2013-2014, let alone in 2022-2023 when that game was worth 5-6x as much.
Doesn’t mean there’s any way out of that contract.
LikeLike
z33k,
The byzantine nature of the law and the ways it can be manipulated will never make sense to me. I’ll wait for the dust to settle, then explain why the judges got it wrong. 🙂
I think the question isn’t so much whether the contract is breakable as you note, it’s what the damages should be.
And yet, the ACC made the claim that FSU shouldn’t be able to break it and leave the ACC. I think it would be big legal news if that was upheld, rather than just saying FSU can leave the ACC but their TV rights don’t.
Should FSU’s TV rights for home games remain with the ACC through 2036 if they try to leave? What is the actual damages owed to the conference?
That’s what the GOR says, right? The rights have to stay, but the school can leave. I could see a court saying the ACC either has to release the rights for a fee, or has to pay FSU if they keep them. The middle ground of keeping the rights but not paying FSU seems shaky legally. It has that odor of slavery that courts don’t like.
The one wrinkle in all of this is ESPN’s option to pick up 2027-2036 TV rights; that takes a huge value hit without FSU, so that creates a huge problem.
It does, or maybe ESPN keeps the payout constant because fair market value has risen over the past decade. Or maybe since ESPN hasn’t picked it up yet, the courts say FSU is only responsible for the contracts that have already been signed. The last thing ESPN wants is to have to show in court how it values one school vs another in determining conference payouts.
Specific performance: FSU’s home TV rights remaining with the ACC may be the only way that FSU can hold up its end of its bargain agreed to when it signed on the GoR extension.
That’s a huge problem for FSU. Say the court ultimately agrees that the GoR is valid but that FSU can leave the ACC: that would end up with a result where FSU can pay $120-140 million (3 years of revenue) to leave, but their home TV rights for all sports stay with the ACC.
At that point, they have to negotiate some way out of that, but 10+ years of those rights is probably worth $400+ million. That’s a long and tough negotiation and FSU will be way behind SEC/Big Ten conferencemates for 10-20 years if that has to be paid up front by a Private Equity firm and then paid back for 10-20 years.
1. I don’t think the exit penalty gets fully upheld. It has gone up 10x in 12 years, plus the ACC has a precedent from UMD of negotiating it down.
2. FSU only has to play 5 home football games. Make that 2 OOC cupcakes, the UF/FSU game every other year, and 2 weak B10 (or SEC) games and you’ve fulfilled the rules. Play 7 B10 road games on top of that and the B10 is also getting full value from it. ESPN wouldn’t dare sit on the UF/FSU game, and the other 4 you can afford not to have shown.
Or make it 5 B10 brands at home so the games are so valuable that ESPN feels compelled to air them, and then has to pay FSU for them (ND payout as precedent for 5-game value).
It’s why I’ve been so skeptical on GoRs being broken; it makes no sense unless you’re talking about 1-2 years left on the GoR and it’s a negotiated settlement.
Generally I agree, but money talks louder than the law in the US anymore. Especially in FL.
I think FSU loses this case handily, so that obviously colors my outlook on all of this.
They agreed to a GoR for a TV contract which was perfectly valid at the time but became skewed to ESPN over time.
On the surface, I agree 100%. But law doesn’t really seem to apply to FL – DeSantis will just find another judge who will side with him.
That’s no different from the SEC’s contract with CBS that was signed during the 2008 recession: $50 million for the SEC game of the week was laughable as early as 2013-2014, let alone in 2022-2023 when that game was worth 5-6x as much.
Doesn’t mean there’s any way out of that contract.
There should always be a way out, the price may just be too high to pay. You can’t force FSU to stay in the ACC. You can say that their TV rights remain in the ACC, though.
LikeLike
Lets go back to the fact that the GOR may only apply through 2027. If the allegations of FSU are correct (big if with any litigant) that the president of the ACC gave ESPN an option to 2036 without a required vote of the teams, then FSU wins that point and the GOR expires in 2027.
This may all happen behind closed doors without any public admissions by anyone. That would mean that any other team that wants to go down the same road as FSU might have to file its own litigation to access all documents.
The intervention of the FL Atty Genl might be important, though that is also not clear. I understand that the SC AG has already stated that the state will not get involved on behalf of Clemson.
No one on this board knows the actual facts, since all documents are hidden. How exactly can anyone reasonable project the results of this case without knowing the actual underlying facts?
I do not presume that the FSU allegations re: 2027 are accurate, but will also not presume that they are not.
As far as jurisdiction, I would not assume that the FL courts will surrender that to NC, without regard to the preemptive strike. I would imagine that this case will wind up in Federal court, probably in NC, but possibly in FL.
I am also not sure whether there is actually diversity of citizenship of the parties. If it is the ACC as an entire entity, then there is. If the members are considered, then does Miami create problems with diversity? Again, none of us have any idea what the documents say, except that is apparently no jurisdiction set.
Who drafted the agreements? Presumably ACC lawyers. If so is contra preferentum relevant? (Ambiguity construed against party that drafted contract). Again no one here has ever seen any documents, so how can we reasonably predict anything?
LikeLike
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2023-12-31/rose-bowl-michigan-alabama-fox-espn-college-football-2024
CFB = ESPN vs Fox, Tim Brando says the fix was in, and other things.
Looking back, the surprising darkness and dampening of Penn State’s win over Utah was a portending moment. Yes, a disruptive and disheartening 2023 for our beloved sport was truly just getting started.
Seven months later, there wouldn’t even be a Pac-12 to speak of. After Colorado’s departure for the Big 12, stoked by the bravado of new coach Deion Sanders, Fox saw a window to finish what it started a year prior when it encouraged the additions of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten, bringing along Washington and Oregon. This 18-team “super conference” presumably would go toe-to-toe with the ESPN-backed 16-team SEC — toe-to-toe, at least, in the TV rating metrics, the only competition that seems to matter these days.
…
Michigan-Alabama is a dream matchup for ESPN, and it doesn’t take one wearing a tinfoil hat in Tallahassee to at least wonder what role the network played in making sure the SEC champion was included.
“It’s pretty clear to just about anyone that covers college football that the decision was made without a doubt that there had to be a Southeastern Conference team in this playoff, that they would not have a four-team playoff without an SEC team,” says Tim Brando, the longtime college sports commentator who calls games for Fox. “And it would have been much easier for them if Georgia had just won, but they didn’t. Alabama did. If Georgia wins, it’s Georgia 1, Michigan 2, Washington 3, and Florida State 4. Everybody knows this. Everybody. But if Alabama wins, and you got to take an SEC team, you’ve come to that decision already, then you know you cannot take Alabama without also taking Texas, which won in Tuscaloosa by double digits. So if you’re taking Alabama, you got to take Texas.”
I called Brando to gain his perspective because few have had as prime of a view of how TV has shaped college football over the last four decades.
He got his start at ESPN just a few years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Georgia and Oklahoma in their landmark case against the NCAA, which until 1984 held a monopoly over the broadcast rights to college football games. Before that ruling, ESPN was an upstart, small-time operation looking for footing, and it seized on college football’s popularity at the right time.
“Absolutely it helped ESPN become what it is in this generation, the 1,200-pound gorilla of sports television,” Brando says. “When I was working there, we were the little cable that could. We had like 25 million homes, and most of them were in the Sun Belt, Rust Belt and Midwest. Major cities like New York and Los Angeles and San Francisco, the fight to get cable wired in metropolitan cities was still going on. ESPN and college football grew together.”
…
His issue with the CFP isn’t that it landed on Alabama as Michigan’s opponent in the Rose Bowl.
“It was the process taken and how they got to this matchup,” Brando says. “It’s difficult to look at it and not get very hot under the collar about it. That lack of transparency is what’s corrupt. It’s absolutely corrupt. That’s not too strong a word.”
Only the principal players know how much influence ESPN used as the lone broadcast partner for the CFP. But Brando notes that the day before Championship Saturday, the network provocateurs began discussing whether the CFP committee should select the “best four teams” or the “most deserving,” and gave SEC commissioner Greg Sankey a long interview to make the case for his teams. Once Alabama beat Georgia, the debate went into hyperdrive, and one prominent ESPN voice stood above them all in pushing for the Crimson Tide: Kirk Herbstreit.
…
Fox has been playing catch-up to ESPN from the moment it got involved in college sports in the early 2000s.
“We had a belief that college sports were undervalued,” says Bob Thompson, the retired Fox Sports Networks president who remains an authority on media rights negotiations. “There was a belief within folks at Fox that you could do what you did on Sunday on Saturdays, so much so that, you look now at the Big Ten, it looks just like a Sunday, right? Early-window game, late-window game, and a prime-time game.”
I wanted to get Thompson’s take on how the sport has evolved to a place where the perception is that networks are openly rooting for the teams from the conferences they’re in business with. He pointed out that Fox made the first move in that direction by owning 51% of the Big Ten Network. Of course, the SEC responded by allowing ESPN to own its SEC Network.
“I’m convinced that if the Pac-12 had partnered with a network on their channel, they would still have a Pac-12,” Thompson says.
…
Fox has made up a ton of ground, but it has one more mammoth move to make in the coming months (and no, I’m not talking about adding Florida State to the Big Ten).
The rights to the College Football Playoff are up for grabs after 2025, and those negotiations already are getting started. For the health of the sport — to avoid the perception of one network pulling the strings to crown its champion — the CFP needs to split the rights between ESPN and another partner, presumably Fox.
“It’s vital,” Brando says. “Full disclosure, I don’t say that because I work currently for a competing network. But because, much like the NFL, the blueprint for being successful being national is to have talking points being made everywhere about your sport.”
Says Thompson, “It would be smart for the CFP to bring additional players in, if only for, no [network] likes to have the regular season and none of the playoffs. You want to have the marquee event if you’re going to support the sport all season long.”
…
Indeed, college football in 2024 mirrors the nation. Naturally, we are now being asked to root not just for our school — or our “way of life,” as Brando says — but also for the TV network that is willing to wage war to support it.
On New Year’s Day, Michigan might as well be wearing a Fox jersey, with Alabama repping ESPN.
As a Big Ten alumnus who reports on college football in Los Angeles and wants what is best for the next incarnation of the sport I’ve loved from birth, I don’t have much of a choice. In 2024 and beyond, it’s go Fox or go home.
LikeLike
It was the process taken and how they got to this matchup,” Brando says. “It’s difficult to look at it and not get very hot under the collar about it. That lack of transparency is what’s corrupt. It’s absolutely corrupt. That’s not too strong a word.
I think that is too strong a word. Corrupt means “dishonest,” not just “an outcome I don’t agree with.” Choosing the arguably wrong 4th team is not a crime that one must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but still you shouldn’t make that accusation without a shred of evidence.
If the fix was in for Alabama, it’s what you call a grand conspiracy theory. A lot of people would’ve need to have known it was fixed, on the understanding they would all agree to it and never divulge the corruption they were a part of. That’s hard to pull off, because all it takes one person to blow the whole thing up.
Hard to believe that ESPN has something on the President of Utility Operations for Entergy Corp (yes, he is on the committee). Or the retired director of athletics for the University of Nevada. Or the current AD of the Naval Academy, to give but three examples.
LikeLike
I agree, “corrupt” isn’t the correct word. The conflict of interest combined with a complete lack of transparency generates the appearance of impropriety.
Note that Brando doesn’t disagree with the outcome, though. It’s the process he disliked.
No conspiracy is needed. I’ve explained it multiple times and you continue to refuse to listen – ESPN is a propaganda machine for the properties they have the rights to. The sing the praises of and give disproportionate airtime to the things of value to them. Notice how their NHL coverage has changed from when they had them, then didn’t (dropped almost all mention, barely even giving scores on SportsCenter), and now have them again.
So ESPN can crank up the propaganda machine to support the SEC getting into the CFP for multiple reasons (they own the SEC rights, they own the CFP rights), and people use propaganda because it works. When they’ve spent decades singing the praises of the SEC and continue to do so, it sinks into everyone’s minds. Even the President of Utility Operations for Entergy Corp and ADs. Nobody is immune to it, because ESPN coverage of CFB is ubiquitous.
Was it the determining factor? We’ll never know, though I doubt it. Was it a factor? We’ll never know, but it probably played a minor role. To dismiss outright the idea that propaganda works is to dismiss history.
Nobody every claimed blackmail or threats or other nefarious actions by ESPN, but you keep throwing that strawman out there.
LikeLike
No conspiracy is needed. I’ve explained it multiple times and you continue to refuse to listen – ESPN is a propaganda machine for the properties they have the rights to.
Yes, you’ve said it many times, but it runs up against an obvious logic flaw. You are presuming that even though you are smart enough to see through it, yet the members of the Committee — who are no less well educated or sophisticated than you, and none of whom you know personally — cannot.
If it is that obvious, you’d think at least one of those smart people would call B.S.
Nobody every claimed blackmail or threats or other nefarious actions by ESPN, but you keep throwing that strawman out there.
When Tim Brando said “corrupt,” that’s what I took him to be saying: that ESPN did a lot more to dishonestly influence the outcome than simply to run programming that promotes the sports properties that they own the rights to — something you would expect any broadcaster to do.
LikeLike
Marc,
Yes, you’ve said it many times, but it runs up against an obvious logic flaw.
No, it doesn’t.
You are presuming that even though you are smart enough to see through it, yet the members of the Committee — who are no less well educated or sophisticated than you, and none of whom you know personally — cannot.
That’s the beauty of propaganda (and advertising). Everyone knows what is happening, but nobody is immune to its effects. If you ask people, they’ll claim ads don’t influence them. But companies don’t spend billions of dollars on ads to get no return. Even if what you say is a complete lie, repeating it often enough will make people start to believe it. So if ESPN spouts a plausible stance that happens to benefit their bottom line, and shifts TV coverage to benefit their bottom line, it works.
If it is that obvious, you’d think at least one of those smart people would call B.S.
You are busily mocking someone who did exactly that, so maybe they don’t see a point in doing it.
When Tim Brando said “corrupt,” that’s what I took him to be saying: that ESPN did a lot more to dishonestly influence the outcome than simply to run programming that promotes the sports properties that they own the rights to — something you would expect any broadcaster to do.
That’s you reading things into his poor word choice. He didn’t actually say any of that. He cited the lack of transparency in the process. When you combine that with ESPN’s classic conflict of interest between covering the “news” and being the broadcaster for the CFP, it creates the appearance of impropriety.
Did actual impropriety happen? I don’t think so. But people have said from the beginning that the CFP being opaque about their actual process was a bad thing, and this time it bit them. Since nobody else is in the room, how do people know ESPN wasn’t in the room or calling people (perhaps through intermediaries to avoid a paper trail)?
Worse is that the CFP committee was given vague instructions, and people agreed to the wording to mention “best” but not how to gauge that. They said that missing players or coaches could be considered (note: not that they had to be, just could be), but things like conference championships were only tie-breaker level criteria. The CFP was perfectly setup to have exactly this sort of controversy. That’s what happens when you let the SEC dictate the CFP rules.
LikeLike
Welcome to our new P2 future.
AP/Coaches national titles by non-P2 teams:
ND – 8
Miami – 5
FSU, Clemson – 3
Army, Pitt – 2
BYU, SU, TCU, CU*, GT* – 1
If you think the cream of the ACC will eventually join the P2 and treat ND as a P2 peer, that just leaves the last 7 schools (8 titles) and most of their titles are ancient (1990 CU/GT split, 1984 BYU, 1976 Pitt, the rest pre-1960).
LikeLike
https://frontofficesports.com/cfp-committee-got-it-right-and-fox-mounting-massive-rights-bid/
This article wrongly supports the selection committee based on the Rose Bowl (there is no way to know how FSU would’ve done, and 9 times out of 10 the Rose Bowl might’ve been a terrible game with AL).
But the second part of the article is worth noting:
I’m hearing that Fox Sports is weighing a “massive” bid to snatch all or parts of the College Football Playoff away from ESPN. The strategy would make sense for Fox. The network’s Big Noon Kickoff pregame show has closed the TV ratings gap against ESPN’s iconic College GameDay. And Fox’s gambit to place its top games in the noon Saturday window, rather than in primetime, has proven to be a brilliant programming stroke by the company’s head of strategy and analytics, Mike Mulvihill.
The tell here came when Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch warned Wall Street that it was “highly unlikely” he’d bid on the NBA against ESPN and Warner Bros. Discovery Sports. According to sources, Murdoch and Co. are building a war chest for other rights negotiations. (At the same time, another source vowed that Fox would not overpay for the CFP. The network is counting on ESPN’s newly disciplined approach to rights negotiations.)
Fox and other networks will take their shot as the CFP expands to 12 teams in 2024. In ’26, the rights to the entire package will go up for bid, including for the CFP National Championship. Coming up on the outside is NBC Sports, which added Big Ten Conference rights to its existing Notre Dame package. Along with the NBA’s rights, the CFP’s will be among the most eagerly sought-out sports rights in 2024.
LikeLike
This article wrongly supports the selection committee based on the Rose Bowl (there is no way to know how FSU would’ve done, and 9 times out of 10 the Rose Bowl might’ve been a terrible game with AL).
It’s very muddy thinking on his part. Whether a team wins their semi-final—or loses valiantly, as Alabama did—has nothing to do with whether the committee should’ve picked them given the facts on the selection date.
I’m hearing that Fox Sports is weighing a “massive” bid to snatch all or parts of the College Football Playoff away from ESPN.
Call me very surprised if Fox manages to shut ESPN out of the playoff entirely. CFB is a tentpole sport for ESPN. I don’t see them letting that go, and administrators are probably going to want a split model, much like the NFL.
LikeLike
Agreed. I assume he was thinking that if ESPN pays a ton for the NBA, maybe they wouldn’t have the cash to pay for the CFP. But even if that happened, I think at least 1 other player would get involved (NBC, CBS, WBD, Apple, etc.). I don’t see all 11 games going to 1 network.
If the CFP had their choice, I think they’d prefer Fox and Disney with Disney not putting all the games on ESPN. That has limited viewership, and more so as cable cutting continues. If CBS and NBC and others also want in, they wouldn’t say no.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2024/01/03/jj-mccarthy-michigan-sign-stealing-ohio-state/72098943007/
JJ McCarthy admits UM stole signs. Note that he doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal sign stealing for what UM did, but did say what OSU and others did was legal. He says the players didn’t cheat (nobody ever said they did).
When answering a question about Michigan’s sign-stealing scandal on Wednesday’s College Football Playoff teleconference, Michigan quarterback J.J. McCarthy said most college football programs legally steal signs, including Ohio State in 2019 and 2020.
“I also feel like it’s so unfortunate because there’s probably – I don’t want to say a crazy number, but I’d say a good number, 80 percent of the teams in college football steal signs,” McCarthy said. “It’s just a thing about football. It’s been around for years.
“We actually had to adapt because in 2020 or 2019 when Ohio State was stealing our signs, which is legal and they were doing it, we had to get up to the level that they were at, and we had to make it an even playing field.”
…
When asked about potential punishments due to Michigan’s sign-stealing scandal such as vacated wins, McCarthy said it would be “unfortunate” to not be recognized for the work he and his team put in.
“But at the end of the day, it’s not going to change the amount of accomplishment and the amount of pride for being on this football team and just everything that we accomplished because we know what we put in, we know the work that we’ve put in, and we know that we did things the right way as players,” McCarthy said.
LikeLike
JJ McCarthy admits UM stole signs. Note that he doesn’t distinguish between legal and illegal sign stealing for what UM did, but did say what OSU and others did was legal.
McCarthy is saying an unremarkable thing that is disputed by no one — that sign-stealing is legal and most teams do it in some way. I wouldn’t expect him to acknowledge that Michigan did it illegally. Anyhow, Connor Stalions worked on the defensive side of the ball, so McCarthy probably doesn’t know much about what happened there, even if he were allowed to talk about it.
I do think the Alabama game reinforces what I said originally — that Michigan probably did not gain much, or anything, by what Stalions did. Here you had a game against top-tier competition that Stalions didn’t scout, and it basically looked like the same Michigan team as usual.
Herewith your usual reminder that rules must be followed even if you gain very little or nothing by breaking them. I still expect the NCAA to throw the book at Michigan, even though the NCAA itself had previously proposed to rescind this exact rule because the staff concluded that teams would get very little benefit from in-person scouting.
LikeLike
Marc,
McCarthy is saying an unremarkable thing that is disputed by no one — that sign-stealing is legal and most teams do it in some way. I wouldn’t expect him to acknowledge that Michigan did it illegally. Anyhow, Connor Stalions worked on the defensive side of the ball, so McCarthy probably doesn’t know much about what happened there, even if he were allowed to talk about it.
The part that interested me was that he made sure to say that others did it legally, but didn’t use that term about UM doing it. He also said the players did nothing wrong. What he didn’t say was anything about the coaches/staff doing nothing wrong. He also said UM had to step up their sign stealing as a response to losing to OSU. That indicates a clear motivation to hire and retain Stalions to do exactly what he did.
Stalions stole signs for both sides, but was mostly shown helping the DC (is this a pass or a run?). That doesn’t mean he didn’t give signal info to the OC or HC in advance, or just “tells” based on his illicit scouting videos combined with signals. Maybe that helps JJ “read” the defensive alignment pre-snap and make better audibles.
I do think the Alabama game reinforces what I said originally — that Michigan probably did not gain much, or anything, by what Stalions did. Here you had a game against top-tier competition that Stalions didn’t scout, and it basically looked like the same Michigan team as usual.
Or UM is just a better team this year than in the past. One could equally argue that a weak OSU keeping it close this year showed not having Stalions hurt UM’s performance noticeably. UM went from getting crushed by OSU repeatedly to winning, and that change happened with Stalions there, as did UM barely beating a weak OSU with Stalions out.
Herewith your usual reminder that rules must be followed even if you gain very little or nothing by breaking them. I still expect the NCAA to throw the book at Michigan, even though the NCAA itself had previously proposed to rescind this exact rule because the staff concluded that teams would get very little benefit from in-person scouting.
Coaches all seem to disagree with the NCAA about that. I doubt the penalty will be big – another slap of the wrist and a show cause for Stalions. And they can vacate their recent wins, but not the national title (if they win it) since it isn’t an NCAA title. I don’t think they can prevent UM from hoisting a banner for the same reason, though that was one of the penalties with the Fab 5. I doubt the B10 has the guts to deny UM the B10 title either.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/george-kliavkoff-speaks-pac-12-commissioner-blames-the-schools-for-lacking-patience-takes-credit-for-pac-12-football-success/
Kliavkoff finally speaks.
In his first public comments in months, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff did not express sorrow over the downfall of the conference or accept responsibility for his role in the collapse of a century-old college sports institution.
Instead, Kliavkoff appeared to take credit for the Pac-12’s successful football season and blame the schools for the failed media rights negotiations.
…
He told Yahoo:
“Happy for the kids. They don’t deserve all the nonsense going on around them. We were focused on rebuilding football. Took 2 1/2 years. I wish it would have happened quicker. If some of our schools would have been a little more patient, it would have paid off.”
Seconds later, in a subsequent interview, he told 247Sports:
“Surreal. It’s surreal. It’s upsetting that some of our schools weren’t more patient because if they saw what we were building it would have paid off.”
First, let’s hit the easy target:
Blaming the schools for not being “more patient” epitomizes the complete disconnect between Kliavkoff and his campuses that ultimately doomed the negotiations and fractured the conference.
University presidents and athletic directors aren’t built to wait 13 months for a media rights deal, especially when the process is delayed repeatedly and the final offer isn’t what they anticipated.
In an alternate universe, sure, the Pac-12 could have bet on itself in the fall of 2023 and signed a lucrative deal this winter. But in the real world, with risk-averse presidents and athletic directors facing daily pressures on the front lines, the strategy was all wrong.
(Kliavkoff didn’t have the requisite urgency last winter and, apparently, hasn’t learned from the mistake.)
Before we plunge into the legitimacy of his view on the football “rebuilding” process, understand the circumstances under which Kliavkoff offered his comments.
It was not a formal session with the media. It was impromptu and brief and not the place for Kliavkoff to provide a detailed assessment of any topic.
Could Kliavkoff have declined to comment? Sure. But he’s an affable guy who probably didn’t want to snub familiar reporters.
Also, Kliavkoff absolutely believes what he said.
The Hotline has engaged in enough conversations over the years with Kliavkoff and various Pac-12 and campus officials to be fairly certain that he’s convinced of his own role in the conference’s on-field success — and wants credit for it.
…
Forget the subsequent ash and ruin. The conference is on the brink of a football championship — its first since USC in 2004 — and the opportunity comes on Kliavkoff’s watch.
Does he deserve any credit?
Not in our view.
Why? Because Oregon and Washington were primarily responsible for the Pac-12’s success this season, and neither situation fits neatly into Kliavkoff’s narrative.
…
As best we can tell, only one school reset its football spending and (potentially) did so in response to Kliavkoff’s case for more football resources.
That school, Colorado, finished last.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39241071/ncaa-espn-extend-broadcast-deal-8-more-years
The NCAA sold its soul to ESPN for 8 more years. The price went from $500M/12 yrs ($41.7M/yr) to $115M/yr (25% of that is production and marketing, not money, so more like $86M/yr). They also get 16 more sports than before, including international rights to the NCAAT. With the growth in popularity of WBB and WVB, the doesn’t sound like a very good deal to me.
The NCAA and ESPN announced Thursday that 40 NCAA championships, including women’s basketball, volleyball, baseball and softball, will be on ESPN networks for the next eight years.
The agreement includes rights to 21 women’s championships and 19 men’s. Division I women’s basketball, women’s volleyball, women’s gymnastics and the Football Championship Subdivision title game will all be on network television (ABC). More than 800 hours of NCAA championships will appear on ESPN linear networks throughout the year, with more than 2,300 combined on linear and digital platforms.
…
The agreement includes all 24 sports covered in ESPN’s previous agreement and adds coverage of the NCAA Division I tennis championships (men’s and women’s) and men’s gymnastics, among others. It also extends international rights to the Division I men’s basketball championship.
The NCAA hired Endeavor’s IMG and WME Sports as a media adviser for the negotiations, which were the first since ESPN and the NCAA agreed to a 12-year, $500 million deal in 2011. NCAA president Charlie Baker told the Sports Business Journal that the new deal is worth $115 million annually; an NCAA spokesperson told SBJ that 25% of that cost includes production and marketing.
…
Men’s championships included in the agreement include soccer, football (non-Football Bowl Subdivision), cross country, water polo, indoor and outdoor track and field, swimming and diving, wrestling, ice hockey, gymnastics, fencing, volleyball, lacrosse, tennis, baseball and Division II and III basketball (other than the Division II title game).
Women’s championships included are soccer, field hockey, all divisions of volleyball, cross country, indoor and outdoor track and field, swimming and diving, all divisions of basketball, ice hockey, bowling, gymnastics, fencing, beach volleyball, lacrosse, tennis, softball and water polo.
The National Invitation Tournament for men’s basketball and the new Women’s Basketball Invitation Tournament are also included.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/01/04/michigan-washington-national-championship-game-college-football-changes/72103891007/
Dan Wolken is wrong in so many ways. Here’s the latest:
In a sport that has grown accustomed to recycling its national champion from the same small pool of programs, the final game of this college football season will offer something that hasn’t been seen for more than three decades and will sadly never be seen again.
Big Ten vs. Pac-12.
Midwest vs. West Coast.
And perhaps most surprising of all given the modern history of the sport, Michigan vs. Washington.
Since the start of the BCS era in 1998 and extending all the way until the last year of the four-team College Football Playoff, Ohio State was the only Big Ten program to win a national title while Southern Cal was the only program from the Pacific time zone to actually finish the job.
That’s going to change Monday thanks to this matchup. And then, for better or worse, conference-based chest beating is going to be just one more relic of the sport’s past.
…
The fact is, conference pride — including those cringeworthy “S-E-C!” chants — is a huge part of what has made college football interesting for decades. But it wasn’t just about which logo your team happens to wear, it was a symbol of shared traditions and idiosyncrasies that everyone within a conference understood.
B10 vs P12?
The Rose Bowl (by season): 2021-22, 2018-19, 2016, 2011-13, 2006-09, 2003, 1946-2000
CFP (by season): 2023, 2014
Midwest vs. West Coast?
See all the games listed above.
UM vs UW?
2021, 2001-02, plus Rose Bowls in 90s, etc.
Yes, a new B10 or P12 team will win a title in the BCS/CFP era. But that should happen again, too.
No more conference chest beating? Is he insane? Has he not met any SEC fans?
That is exactly why the BCS ruined CFB, because it started that whole thing. Pre-BCS, you just wanted to beat UM, win the B10, go to the Rose Bowl, and hope to win it and maybe a national title if you were that highly ranked. But suddenly you had to care how other teams did all year, because conference reputation mattered. The CFP actually made that worse with 4 spots and 5 major conferences. Now it will be comparing how many at-larges each conference gets and whether your #2 can also get in, and who is seeded above whom, and what’s the conference W% in the CFP, …
But these leagues we’re about to get next season?
They aren’t a conference in any sense that we’re familiar with. When Texas and Oklahoma arrive to bring the SEC to 16 members, some of the great backyard brawls that made the league what it is will be turned into expendable games that rotate on and off the schedule. And when the Big Ten adds Washington along with Oregon, USC and UCLA to become an 18-team monstrosity, the only thing that will unite them culturally will be the relentless pursuit of dollars.
…
These are no longer cohesive leagues that were built on academic and cultural commonality, they’re chain restaurants trying to plant their flag in every suburban shopping center with foot traffic and good parking. You might as well root for Chipotle and Starbucks.
That’s probably been true since at least the 90s, it just keeps getting worse (PSU, then RU/UMD, then the Pac 4). Rooting for a conference never made sense.
But what does any of that really mean when college football is no longer a sport where regionality matters? What’s the fun of comparing one conference to another when we now know the real argument is about which one makes the most money from its television contracts?
Sure, they’ll continue to keep score, but the most important game — the SEC vs. Big Ten — is going to continue until they finish consuming whatever parts they want from the rest of college sports. A few years ago, fans from both leagues could get into any SEC-Big Ten matchup because it was a clash of styles and ideologies.
Now it’s a fight for TV windows and the scraps of other leagues that might collapse in the near future (looking at you, ACC). That’s not nearly as charming.
But on Monday, before college football goes completely corporate, we’re going to get a national champion that truly represents a conference and a region of the country. Sadly, it’s the last time that will mean anything.
I think he’s wrong here too. The conferences are losing regionality, but that doesn’t mean that fans are. We don’t support all teams in our conference equally, but we have been forced to have to support our conference’s reputation vs others.
LikeLike
Yeah he’s completely wrong about that:
Big Ten vs SEC is about to go to another level now starting next year. Fans are going to be rooting more for the top teams of their conference to beat the top teams of the other conference. That rivalry goes up another step after this year imo.
That will only accelerate as it becomes a “national conference” vs the “Southern conference”.
I think it actually helps that you have 2 completely different models now: a national league vs a regional league for supremacy.
The Big 12 will all be rooting for their conference champion to try to win games in the CFP as will all the other non-Big Ten/SEC leagues.
I actually think this *strengthens* the “league-ization” of cfb where everyone roots for the conference’s teams because now you’re going to have 3-4 SEC teams, 3-4 Big Ten teams, 1-2 Big 12 teams, 1-2 ACC teams, 1 G5 in the playoff, so there’s somebody for everyone to support.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/college-leaders-to-discuss-further-exploring-charlie-bakers-new-proposal-at-ncaa-convention-next-week-141729628.html
Baker’s plan will get discussed next week by the NCAA.
At its meeting next Thursday, the Division I Board of Directors is scheduled to review the proposal and determine whether to charge the Division I Council, or another body, with developing recommendations related to the framework of the proposal — a decision that will initiate a potentially yearlong activation process and chart a course for one of the most radical changes in NCAA history.
…
Convention documents lay out a potential timeline for the activation process of Project DI, suggesting that the three-part proposal be bifurcated. The initial focus would be on the first two concepts that permit schools to (1) strike NIL deals with athletes and (2) offer enhanced educational benefits to athletes. The process around adopting (3) the new subdivision would follow the adoption of the other two concepts.
According to the timeline, the DI Council, if given authority to further explore the proposal, will produce final recommendations to the board by its June 25-26 meeting. By August, the board will take action on those recommendations. The timeline targets next January’s NCAA convention for action on the new subdivision structure.
The timeline is meant only as a suggestion and might be adjusted, documents say.
…
College leaders are also expected to examine modifications to two other topics next week: NIL and transfers.
…
The panel is also considering changes geared toward mitigating “the potential impact transfer behavior may have on graduation rates over time,” according to documents. The panel has suggested adjusting the eligibility requirement, such as the number of credits needed for athletes to be eligible at their next school (from six hours to nine).
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2024/nfl-posts-93-of-top-100-tv-broadcasts-2023-1234761753/
Just a reminder how far ahead the NFL is to anything else on TV. The NFL had 93 of the top 100 most-viewed broadcasts last year, up from 82 in 2022. 3 CFB games also made it, the first time only 1 sport has been represented in the top 100.
1. Super Bowl – 115.1M
100. NFL (Browns vs Jags) – 15.0M
Other shows:
21. SotU Address – 27.3M
45. Macy’s Thanksgiving parade – 22.3M
58. OSU/UM – 19.1M
60. Oscars – 18.8M
71. SECCG – 17.5M
74. CFB NCG – 17.2M (TCU/UGA)
92. Next Level Chef – 15.7M
It’s also a good idea for how playoff viewership scales (all in M):
SB – 115.1
AFCCG – 53.1
NFCCG – 47.5
Total = 100.6
Average = 50.3 (43.7% – roughly 1/2)
NFCDR – 45.7
AFCDR – 39.3
AFCDR – 32.3
NFCDR – 28.6
Total = 145.9
Average = 36.5 (31.7% – roughly 1/3)
NFCWC – 33.2
NFCWC – 31.1
AFCWC – 30.9
NFCWC – 27.5
AFCWC – 26.9
AFCWC – 20.6
Total = 170.2
Average = 28.4 (24.6% – roughly 1/4)
So what should a 12-team CFP have done this year, assuming the CFP follows similar trends except for the title game (SB is an event above and beyond the game)?
Semi = 27.8
Semi = 18.8
Total = 46.6
Average = 23.3
NCG ~ would extrapolate to about 50M, but we know the CFP isn’t an event like the SB so 30M seems more reasonable (+25-30% over semis).
Quarters: 15.5
1st round: 11.7
P5 CCGs:
SEC – 17.5
B10 – 10.0
P12 – 9.3
B12 – 7.9
ACC – 7.0
Average = 10.3
That’s similar to the 1st round estimate, and we know this year’s semifinals were abnormally popular.
The safe estimate for CFB is to say each round goes up by 25% (projects 29M for the NCG).
Tortured martial-arts metaphors aside, 2023 was the year the NFL swallowed our collective frame of reference. Per Nielsen, the league accounted for 93 of the year’s 100 most-watched TV broadcasts, an improvement on 2022’s already impressive tally (82) and a huge leap forward compared to the 61 slots the NFL commandeered just five years ago. If it’s widely accepted that TV is now merely a delivery system for live sports and insurance commercials, last year’s deliveries suggest that the rest of the so-called Big Four leagues have been remanded to a shadow tier.
With three college football games thrown into the mix, 2023 marked the first time a single sport registered in the top 100. Basketball just missed the cut, as CBS’ presentation of the San Diego State-UConn title tilt was the year’s 101st most-watched broadcast. The ponies also had a good run, with NBC’s coverage of the race segment of the 149th Kentucky Derby claiming the 106th spot, while the NBA notched its biggest draw for Game 5 of the Heat-Nuggets Finals (No. 120). The concluding round of the 87th Masters Tournament landed at No. 131, while Game 5 of the World Series earned bragging rights as the year’s 140th most-watched televised event.
Outside of the usual non-sports outliers—the State of the Union Address and the 97th Annual Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade were the only non-football outings to crack the top 50, while the Academy Awards clawed its way back into TV’s upper echelon—the 2023 list was marked by the conspicuous absence of regularly-scheduled entertainment programming. The fifty-sixth season premiere of CBS’ flagship newsmagazine, 60 Minutes, was the highest-ranking non-sports program (No. 136), while the lone scripted highlight of the strike-blighted fall season was CBS’ encore presentation of the Yellowstone pilot, which fell just shy of the top 200 with an average draw of 6.83 million viewers. For the sake of comparison, that repurposed Paramount+ IP scared up 3.1 million fewer viewers than the LSU-Iowa women’s hoops final (No. 161).
…
As much as Lowe would have us root for all things NFL, the Dallas Cowboys were the biggest ratings drivers in 2023. With an average draw of 25.2 million viewers per game across its 13 national TV appearances, America’s Team accounted for no fewer than 18 of the year’s 100 biggest audiences. Also putting in the work were the Kansas City Chiefs, who claimed 16 of the top slots, edging their Super Bowl LVII opponents in Philly (15). Meanwhile, the NFL’s top-rated local team also proved to be a big national attraction, as the Buffalo Bills closed out the year with 13 showings.
LikeLike
Where did those shows air?
Broadcast Exclusive – 82
Broadcast/Cable Simulcast – 16
Cable Exclusive – 1
Streaming Exclusive – 1
Chicken and egg, but it makes OTA look better than ESPN going forward.
LikeLike
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2024/1/5/media-center-new-ncaa-historical-resource-details-membership-history-of-schools-conferences.aspx
The NCAA created a sortable historical database of its membership that plots to a map in Tableau.
The NCAA has released a historical membership dashboard, a first-of-its-kind resource that includes high-level details and summary information on every NCAA member school and conference. This interactive dashboard, displayed as a map, provides a comprehensive visual catalog of member schools and conferences throughout the NCAA’s history. The map allows users to view historical membership data by year, division, school, region, conference and state.
The resource, created by the NCAA research and library staffs, enables users to find information more efficiently on topics such as a school’s membership history, including its conference affiliation, or a conference’s composition in any given year, among others. It also showcases the NCAA’s growth over time. The resource includes data from 1906, when the NCAA was founded, to the current academic year for the NCAA’s 1,221 historic active and past members and 276 unique conferences.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cfp-may-withhold-added-revenue-from-smu-despite-power-five-move-145230576.html
SMU may not be getting the CFP payday they expected.
[Leaders of the College Football Playoff] are expected to formally approve format changes to the expanded playoff in light of the Pac-12’s disbanding, moving to what’s termed a “5+7” format that features five automatic qualifying spots for conference champions and seven at-large spots for the next highest-ranked teams (the previous format was a 6+6). And they are also expected to adopt a policy requiring a league to have at least eight members to be eligible to earn an automatic qualifying spot in the playoff.
But there is something else on the docket. It involves a school located just 250 miles from Houston.
SMU, the latest Group of Five program to elevate to the Power Five next year with its jump to the ACC, is at the heart of a CFP money fight.
In the past, schools making the jump from Group of Five to Power Five also saw a leap in their distribution from the College Football Playoff. The difference in annual payout between G5 teams ($1 million) and P5 teams ($6 million) is substantial.
However, after a discussion among CFP commissioners on Nov. 9, SMU did not garner the necessary support for additional revenue distribution. The issue has now been shifted to the commissioners’ corresponding presidents on the CFP Board of Managers, the playoff’s highest governing body made up of a school president from each FBS conference and Notre Dame.
Multiple conference commissioners declined comment on the matter as well as CFP executive director Bill Hancock. In a brief interview with Yahoo Sports, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips expressed disappointment on the issue but declined to elaborate on the details. SMU athletic director Rick Hart declined comment when reached this week.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey pointed toward the CFP’s long-standing rules around modifications to revenue policies.
“You have to have a unanimous vote to alter revenue distribution and diminish somebody else’s revenue,” Sankey said. “That’s it.”
A formal vote is possible Monday among the 11-member CFP Board of Managers following a scheduled gathering of the commissioners. CFP leaders could push the topic to another time or, possibly, reach a compromise by agreeing to grant SMU a portion of the Power Five revenue.
In many ways, this fight over revenue is a precursor to the looming money battle among the 10 FBS conferences after the current CFP contract expires following the 2025 playoff. The CFP’s television contract with ESPN is what binds the leagues together under a previously agreed upon revenue distribution model.
The CFP is in the midst of negotiating a new television deal, and a new revenue distribution model is expected to start in 2026, at which point, presumably, SMU will be granted a full Power Five payout.
For the next two years, however, the school could be out $6 million that officials expected to receive. That includes the $1 million CFP share from the Group of Five as that, too, is at stake.
…
Making the situation especially painful is the unique arrangement that SMU made with the ACC. Heavily motivated to be in the Power Five and backed by a plethora of mega-boosters, SMU agreed to accept no television revenue from the ACC in its first nine years in the conference. That said, school officials expected to receive non-television ACC payouts that total at least $10-12 million annually — roughly half of which, it thought, would come from the CFP.
Without the CFP, SMU’s first nine years in the ACC may generate annually roughly half of what it earned in distribution while in the American Athletic Conference (about $9 million).
…
If the CFP does deny SMU’s Power Five funding, the association sets a moratorium on additional revenue for those schools elevating from Group of Five to Power Five — a policy likely to even span into a new CFP contract starting in 2026. The move is yet another sign that college leaders are attempting to restrict Division I’s highest body from further expansion.
LikeLike
Youth sports participation changed during the COVID years. That’s bad for baseball but good for tennis and golf. I wonder if that’s COVID-related (golf and tennis keep people far apart so parents were more likely to let them play) and might revert to more typical numbers soon. I think the 2023 numbers might be more telling.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/with-big-ten-sec-poised-to-dominate-college-football-playoff-bids-nit-like-tournament-could-offer-solution/
Does their need to be an NIT-equivalent in CFB?
Sean Frazier is an idea guy. A former Alabama walk-on, the Northern Illinois athletic director is working overtime trying to find a place for marginalized schools like his to matter.
“There has to be somewhere for those teams to pursue their dreams,” Frazier said.
…
It is becoming increasingly apparent that — even with the expanded 12-team playoff — access will remain an issue for pretty much any school not in the Big Ten or SEC.
CBS Sports ran the numbers. Conference realignment and consolidation will make Monday’s result — a conference being guaranteed a national championship before the ball is kicked — more frequent. Using 2024 conference affiliations, one league would have been guaranteed a title prior to the CFP National Championship four times in the 10-year existence of the CFP.
2014: Oregon vs. Ohio State (Big Ten)
2017: Georgia vs. Alabama (SEC)
2021: Alabama vs. Georgia (SEC)
2023: Michigan vs. Washington (Big Ten)
Expect it to happen more often. With 34 of the biggest, best brands now further combined in the Big Ten and SEC, those two conferences are almost certainly going to account for a majority of playoff berths going forward.
Since the CFP started in 2014, 72.5% of playoff participants (29 of 40) would have represented the Big Ten and SEC based on the leagues’ 2024 configurations. If the expanded playoff been in place this season with conferences already in their 2024 alignments, 10 of 12 participants would have come from Big Ten and SEC — five from each conference.
Most telling: Teams that will be part of the Big Ten and SEC in 2024 would have combined to average 7.6 of 12 spots if the expanded playoff had been in place over the last 10 seasons. This despite the 34 combined teams in those conferences making up just 25.6% of FBS competitors.
The remaining average of 4.4 playoff spots per season would be divvied up among the remaining 99 FBS programs.
At least for the next two seasons, one of those spots is guaranteed to the highest-ranked Group of Five champion. This season, the only 12-team playoff bids taken by teams other than those in the Big Ten and SEC would have gone to Florida State and Liberty.
“That scares me,” said Frazier, now entering his 12th year at NIU.
That’s where his idea takes shape. For those marginalized teams, he is proposing a sort-of college football NIT — a tournament featuring the best of the rest, including schools in both the Power Four and Group of Five.
…
“You’re always going to have significant bowl games left out of the CFP,” Frazier said. “What I’m proposing is, let’s look at the P5 and G5 institutions and their bowls and their tie ins. Let’s put them in [their own playoff].”
…
“I think there will be a lot of conversation on alternatives,” said Gator Bowl executive director Greg McGarity, who is not familiar with Frazier’s plan. “The tried-and-true system now, it works, but again, there is so much emphasis put on the negative, the opt outs, the kids that don’t want to play. It’s a way to increase the value if those kids play in a game.”
…
It got personal for numerous Group of Five ADs when Liberty got into the Fiesta Bowl despite a schedule strength ranked 109th by SportsSource Analytics, one of the metrics used by the CFP Selection Committee.
“Since I’ve been here, we knocked off Purdue, Nebraska, Georgia Tech,” Frazier said. “We have a history of doing that. You’re telling me that those are not going to be valued [by the committee]? Why the hell would I play them if I have an inside track playing Little Sisters of the Poor?”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39241522/bowl-game-overreactions-2023-2024-season
Bowl game overreactions. Most are about specific teams, but a couple are bigger picture ideas.
There aren’t too many bowls
To Hale’s point, the members of the “too many bowls” industrial complex seized on the Orange Bowl as an example of all that is Very Bad. And that was a very bad game. But starting next year, in a 12-team field, nearly the entire Top 25 will be playing in a meaningful postseason game. That leaves the smaller bowls that will still be meaningful to those teams, with history on the line.
…
It’s not just for the little guys, either. Kentucky and Clemson combined for 42 points in the fourth quarter of the Gator Bowl, including the Tigers scoring a game-winning touchdown with 17 seconds left. What else would you rather be doing on a Friday morning on Dec. 29?
The small bowls may not mean anything to you, but they do to the players and coaches who get one last chance to play together. And for fans: Who hates extra football every day of the week when you’d be talking to your in-laws instead? Who hates fun? Who hates edible mascots and a flood of memes afterward? Who hates trophies? Who hates making snow angels in toast? — Dave Wilson
There are too many bowls if you believe bowls should be a reward for good teams, but even I don’t suggest getting rid of them – I just ignore them. ESPN needs content in December so they are willing to pay for them. Cities want tourists in December, so they are willing to host them. Players can opt out if they think the risk of injury is greater than the reward of one last game with their teammates plus whatever swag/NIL/paycheck they get.
I would suggest that schools should not lose a lot of money to attend a bowl, and players should get more than a small swag bag in today’s semi-pro world if there is a profit being made by ESPN, but otherwise it’s a bunch of extra practices and a chance for young players to get some experience if veterans opt out. Let redshirts from that season play in them, since they’re really part of the pre-season in many ways. My one strict rule – they must be played before the next academic term begins for the teams involved. Preferably they’d be done by 1/1 (1/2 when 1/1 is a Sunday).
Honestly, I don’t see why there should be a limit on bowl games at all. They aren’t an NCAA post-season championship – those should always be limited in size. Every team should be allowed to go to one as long as they meet the academic standards. Sure, two 3-9 MAC teams may have to play a home/road game in an empty stadium for no money and with no TV coverage, but let them make that choice. At least everyone should get the option to have those extra practices. The bad teams need them more than the good ones do.
Every NCAA sport should have this – if there is an official postseason, then teams that don’t qualify for it should get 1 exhibition as an alternative. If hoops is allowed the NIT, why can’t other sports do the same? And at all levels. That doesn’t mean they will or that anyone would pay for them, just make it legal and let the market and schools decide.
But I want to argue with this statement:
“But starting next year, in a 12-team field, nearly the entire Top 25 will be playing in a meaningful postseason game.”
No, exactly 12 teams will be playing in a meaningful post-season game (assuming we aren’t counting CCGs). No bowl game outside of the CFP will ever be meaningful again. The NY6 really aren’t meaningful even now (look at the Orange this year – over 40 players opted out) except to the one G5 team that gets in, but they were pre-portal/NIL.
There should be a playoff for the Group of 5
Let’s not talk problems. Let’s talk solutions. As the playoff expands and devalues the rest of the bowls to a certain extent, it’s baffling that we haven’t had a serious discussion about a playoff for teams from the Group of 5. In this era, there is a bigger gulf between Group of 5 schools and Power 5 — Power 4? — schools than ever, so we should stop pretending they should be considered the same division of college football. Based on what we saw in the Fiesta Bowl, Liberty would have lost to Oregon approximately 100 times out of 100. That’s not a team that would have belonged in a 12-team playoff. It makes no sense that teams in every tier of football now — NFL, Power 5, FCS, NCAA Division II, NCAA Division III, NAIA, various enrollment levels in high school, etc — can aspire to a playoff against their peers except FBS Group of 5 teams.
There are obviously financial implications in play here that might be tough to sort out, but from a competitive standpoint, this feels like a no-brainer. There can be a provision that allows a Group of 5 team to opt into the playoff with the bigger schools if it’s ranked high enough, but, again, let’s not get held up by small details.
In addition to Liberty, the three other Group of 5 champions that played a Power 5 team in their bowl game also lost: SMU lost to Boston College (3-5 in ACC); Troy lost to Duke (4-4 in ACC); Boise State lost to UCLA (4-5 in Pac-12). Miami (Ohio), which won the MAC, lost to Appalachian State. A playoff would be more meaningful for the players, has the potential to generate more revenue and, most importantly, would be the result of the application of common sense. — Kyle Bonagura
People always bring up money as an objection to this. It’s not like the I-AA, D-II and D-III playoffs make big money, but the NCAA still runs them and ESPN pays for them. ESPN runs bowls that are worse than these G5 games would be. It wouldn’t be a huge revenue source for the G5, but it would give them a legitimate title shot.
But I think you need an official new subdivision for this to occur. If you do it now, then everyone teams might want to be the 2nd-best G5 champ so they can win the G5 playoff rather than getting crushed in the CFP. The fix to that would be adjusting the CFP money distribution within the G5 to strongly reward the team that qualifies (not its conference, the team). And if the best G5 team is never in the bracket, you can’t really call it a G5 championship – unless the winner plays the G5 team from the CFP for the actual title.
Otherwise you are making the CBI to the CFP’s NIT (there is no NCAAT equivalent), where it’s just the next best group. I don’t see why they need a playoff for that rather than just bowl games.
LikeLike
Brian, the problem with the non-playoff bowls is the opt-outs. FYI, FSU had 19 players opt out of the Orange Bowl and that’s why it was such a blowout. Kirby Smart explains the problem in this link.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39212869/kirby-smart-laments-fsu-opt-outs-georgia-orange-bowl-rout
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/how-would-college-football-react-to-michigan-as-champ-after-sign-stealing-scandal-its-not-good-for-the-game-223302445.html
The world wants UM to lose (which all but guarantees they win).
The Wolverines, 14-0 and the No. 1 seed in the CFP, meet No. 2 Washington (14-0) on Monday night while under NCAA investigation for an alleged sign-stealing scandal that rocked the college football world this season and left many angry, frustrated and even miffed that Michigan is eligible for the title at all.
“That’s a good football team. They are a very good football team,” said one Power Five athletic director, “but this shows my concern with the NCAA process. This is our system and it’s unfortunate. The system allows it, which is why we’ve got to change so much.”
“It’s ridiculous that they are there parading around,” said one Power Five head coach. “It’s not good for the game.”
…
Those with intimate knowledge of the investigation believe the evidence indicts the program enough for CFP leaders, independent of the NCAA, to have ruled Michigan ineligible. And they point to an event in November for such a stance, when, hours before a court hearing, the school dropped its lawsuit against the Big Ten after the league revealed a portion of that evidence to the university’s leadership.
“There will be a robust conversation about it being Level I violations,” said a former NCAA investigator who spoke to Yahoo Sports based only on public evidence in the case. “Without a lot of precedent, it’s tough to say, but you’ve got a competition advantage and it would be significant here.”
Vacated wins? Head coach suspension? Scholarship reductions? Future postseason bans? All are possibilities, the investigator said.
But, if the Wolverines claim the title to complete a 15-0 season, will it matter in retrospect?
“There ought to be a damn asterisk next to it,” said one longtime college football assistant coach. “It’s not fair. It ain’t right.”
…
Two administrators from the SEC who spoke to Yahoo Sports under condition of anonymity shrug at the scandal.
“If they win, it doesn’t diminish anything,” said one.
“I don’t have a problem with them being there,” said the other. “There are much more egregious things going on right now in college football.”
Gee, I’m shocked that people from the conference of cheaters don’t consider cheating to be a big deal.
But off to the side, away from the podium, Michigan offensive lineman Trevor Keegan provided a passionate defense of his team in light of the scandal.
“We’ve proved these allegations wrong,” Keegan told Yahoo Sports. “Ever since the thing blew up, we beat our in-state rival 49-0. We beat Penn State basically just running the football without our head coach after finding out the day before. We beat our biggest rival in Ohio State. We beat Iowa. And we beat Alabama.
“What else do we have to do?”
No, you disproved nothing. UM has all but admitted that Stalions broke the rules. He was still cheating into this season.
Stalions got suspended just before the MSU game, and PU the following week was the last time UM got 400 yards of offense. MSU stunk, everyone crushed them (OSU 38-3, for example). UM had less than 300 yards of offense against PSU, UMD and IA, and not much over 300 vs OSU (OSU had over 350 against PSU and UMD, for example). This was with a returning QB, WR and RB who were all highly hyped, and an elite OL. Part of that was just the step up in competition, obviously, but it could also have been impacted by less free info on signs.
He only impacted defense, you say? MSU and PSU had the same yardage against UM and OSU. UMD had about 40 more yards against OSU. RU (who UM played with Stalions) had about 100 more yards against OSU. So maybe there is a trend there too. But with injuries, games at different locations and times of year, etc. it’s hard to really know.
But there certainly wasn’t clear disproof of the efficacy of cheating.
The accusations “disrespect” the Wolverines players and coaches, Keegan said. The allegations are an assault, he said, on their preparation and abilities. On Twitter, he’s seen the videos of specific plays from Michigan’s past games that suggest Wolverines’ players identified an opponent’s playcall before the snap.
“My whole Twitter was flooded with Ohio State and Michigan State doubting our program and being like, ‘We only won the last two seasons because of cheating,’” he said. “I really do think this was blown out of proportion.”
I agree that “only because of cheating” is out of proportion. UM was still a good team. “In part because of cheating” is plausible.
Keegan says players and coaches were not aware of an elaborate in-person scouting scheme carried out by a former low-level staff member, Connor Stalions.
“I can damn sure say that our coaches and players had no idea. It’s us doing film work,” he said.
He has no idea what the coaches knew or didn’t know. They certainly aren’t going to tell the players if they’re cheating. There is clear evidence of Stalions on the sidelines during games talking to coaches. I doubt they were just chewing the fat.
Meanwhile, the college football world watches another potential champion on a run to a title while under investigation — not such an uncommon event. Less than two years ago, Kansas basketball marched to a championship while under NCAA investigation. LSU won the 2019 football championship while under NCAA investigation for recruiting violations that occurred under the previous coaching staff.
The investigation into Michigan, however, is somewhat unusual. While many NCAA investigations focus on a school offering impermissible recruiting benefits, the Wolverines are charged — or at least will be charged — with allegations that impact game play.
There is very little precedent. Years ago, a Baylor assistant attended the game of an upcoming opponent. Though he was not recording, the assistant was recognized and the school self-reported the violation. The coach was given a half-game suspension.
However, the scope of this in-person scouting is the largest in college sports history.
So, when will the Wolverines be charged? The NCAA, which began its inquiry in the fall and is just fourth months in, is only in the investigation stage. The entire process to completion can range from six to 18 months, according to former NCAA investigators who spoke to Yahoo Sports.
In order to complete the investigation, interviews with coaches are likely necessary. Those have not happened as the Wolverines’ season has continued.
…
“Michigan still playing speaks to how the NCAA chooses when to take action and when not to take action,” said another Power Five athletic director. “As an industry, we need to be better at it and quicker. President Baker says he wants to speed things up. Well, when is that starting?”
Perhaps soon enough. In October, the NCAA announced changes to the infractions process “intended to bring about more timely outcomes in infractions cases,” it said.
…
“If they win it,” said another Power Five athletic director, “it’s going to be tainted in a lot of people’s eyes.”
LikeLike
“We’ve proved these allegations wrong,” Keegan told Yahoo Sports.”
Holy Cow, what a clueless meathead. Hey, I was accused of beating my wife but I went to church this morning. That proves I didn’t do it.
LikeLike
Holy Cow, what a clueless meathead.
I’m gonna guess he has more of a clue than you do. If the identical thing happened at one of your schools — let’s say Purdue — what would you expect one of the current players to say? It’s not meant to be a scholarly, peer-reviewed analysis. Any kid is going to support his own team.
LikeLike
Marc, the issue isn’t about a player supporting his team, it’s about the absurd illogic of his comment. And judging from your response, you too may share this childish mentality. Do you think Michigan’s win over Washington for the NC is proof that UM didn’t do any illegal sign-stealing?
LikeLike
Marc, the issue isn’t about a player supporting his team, it’s about the absurd illogic of his comment. . . . Do you think Michigan’s win over Washington for the NC is proof that UM didn’t do any illegal sign-stealing?
I think you are well aware that outside of legal and academic circles, people frequently misuse the word “prove” or “proof” when they mean something a lot less rigorous. And of course, this is sports commentary, a journalism category more prone to exaggeration than almost any other.
If you check out the article, you’ll see that it is not specified what he was asked. You are reacting as if he was asked, “Did Connor Stalions illegally scout your opponents?” But I bet that wasn’t the question.
It was probably something more like, “What’s your response to critics who say that Michigan never should have won all of those games?”
I will grant you that the last several games clearly don’t prove anything, given a strict dictionary definition of proof. But it’s pretty common, even among informed people, to abuse the word “prove” in this way, especially in a setting like sports journalism that is not renowned for learned precision.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39262086/greg-sankey-disappointed-backlash-final-cfp-ranking
Greg Sankey can’t stand the SEC not being in the spotlight for the NCG, so he had to rehash old grievances. In this case, how put upon the poor SEC has been by the CFP committee. Also how mean fans are.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey told ESPN he was “disappointed in the acrimony” that ensued following the College Football Playoff selection committee’s controversial final ranking last month, which for the first time excluded an undefeated Power 5 champion in Florida State.
…
Committee members have received significant backlash, including threats, since the group’s most debatable decision in a decade of the CFP and conspiracy theories have run rampant on social media platforms.
“I didn’t need so many incoming emails I received,” Sankey said. “I can only imagine hearing from those on the selection committee who are volunteers what they received. I think some of the statements made in the immediacy of selection were disappointing to me as a colleague, and I would maintain that the strength of our league — sure we lost some games — but as I look at what were the four best teams, I would maintain that we had two of those four.
“But again, the selection committee makes that decision, and we respect the decision.”
…
On Sunday, Phillips told ESPN by text that he will continue to defend the conference.
“As the ACC Commissioner, I am absolutely going to support our student-athletes, member schools and our conference at every moment. Period. That was precisely what occurred. This was an historic decision. For the very first time an undefeated, Power Five conference champion was excluded. To be certain, I look very much look forward to working with my colleagues to continue to refine the CFP and shape the future of college football.”
Sankey contributed to the controversy on championship weekend when he appeared on ESPN’s “College GameDay” show and lobbied for his league’s continued representation in the CFP. In reference to other teams competing with Georgia and Alabama for top-four spots, Sankey said, “Let’s go back to like Sesame Street … one of these things is not like the other, and that’s the Southeastern Conference.”
On Saturday, Sankey said he respected the committee’s decision to exclude two-time defending national champion Georgia, which sank from No. 1 to No. 6 after losing to Alabama 27-24 in the SEC title game.
“The morning of selection we had prepared a statement that said we have a different view, but we’re not going to point fingers and cast blame,” he said. “We’re going to focus on how do we improve and prepare for the 12-team playoff? That’s it. … I think three or four times we’ve had the fifth-ranked team. Do I think every decision has been perfect? No, but that the authority we allocated.”
…
Still, Sankey wondered if it would become more challenging for the CFP to recruit people to serve on the 13-member committee tasked with choosing the best teams in the country.
“Are people going to want to serve in that capacity given the level of vitriol directed?” he said. “They’re volunteers. They fulfilled their charge. There’s always disagreement, but it shouldn’t sink to the level it has.”
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said he doesn’t think the aftermath of this selection day will prevent others from serving on the committee.
“At the end of the day people really respect the process and realize how important it is,” he said. “Whether you’re an athletic director or someone who’s played and has been asked to join or may not be a current administrator, I think there’s so much love for the game and how important the job is people will always stand up to do it. It’s our job to make sure those people feel safe and comfortable.”
…
Mountain West Conference commissioner Gloria Nevarez said this year’s controversy prompted her to rethink the “small data set” of a football season, and wondered if there were a better way to determine strength of schedule.
“Right now strength of schedule spits out a number, but you can’t lean on it like you do in basketball because there’s so much less data going into that number,” Nevarez said. “That’s from my mind the core of the issue for the debate that happened this year both with Liberty and Florida State. If we could figure out a way to get a metric that we feel better about — no one is going to agree with it, someone is always going to be upset — but to me that was the weakness in this year’s argument, the ability to feel good about strength of schedule.”
LikeLike
“Right now strength of schedule spits out a number, but you can’t lean on it like you do in basketball because there’s so much less data going into that number,” Nevarez said.
She is spot on. The foremost problem is that the dropoff in talent from #1 to #30 is far, far greater than from #60 to # 90. Yet the metrics of strength of schedule rankings don’t accommodate this.
SOS rankings should weigh opposing teams in the top ten and top 20 with a degree of difficulty considerably greater than a linear numerical average.
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/os/news/keeping-womens-basketball-tournament-part-of-ncaa-media-rights-bundle-right-move/
Like I said, the NCAA got a weak deal from ESPN for their championships.
After the wildly successful NCAA women’s basketball tournament concluded with the most-watched women’s game ever – 9.9 million viewers for LSU–Iowa – a critical question loomed: How best to financially capitalize on the increasing value of the event?
More specifically, was it time for the NCAA to unbundle the women’s tournament from 28 other championship events (all except FBS football and men’s basketball) in the media rights package with ESPN, which pays the NCAA only $34 million annually in a deal that expires this year?
…
As it turned out, the NCAA kept the women’s tournament as part of a bundle – a larger bundle that will generate significantly more revenue in a $920 million, eight-year deal with ESPN to broadcast 40 championships. That equates to $115 million per year.
“I’m sure ESPN used its leverage with the other NCAA championships – which have only limited revenue prospects – to make the deal for the women’s basketball tournament that is a nice increase but not what the NCAA could have realized if it had bid out those rights separately,” Neal Pilson, the former longtime president of CBS Sports told On3 on Thursday.
“For major sports properties – and I consider the women’s tournament a major property – the bid process almost always generates more revenue than simply re-negotiating with the current rightsholder. I expect women’s sports groups will make that point and criticize the deal. However, all the other women’s sports under the NCAA umbrella will benefit from the package with the tournament.”
…
Justin Beitler, senior analyst, media rights consulting at Octagon, told On3 in recent months, “The solution is to keep it all together, but at the same time, have a specific public allocation for the women’s basketball championships piece, so everyone understands the kind of value or the going rate of this tournament.”
That’s exactly what happened.
Consulting firm Endeavor, which worked with the NCAA, valued the NCAA women’s tournament at $65 million annually. Other third parties have given the women’s tournament a higher valuation.
The Kaplan Report, whose authors the NCAA enlisted to investigate gender equity issues, estimated that women’s tournament rights alone are worth between $81 million and $112 million annually.
Navigate, which specializes in college and pro sports rights valuations, provided On3 last spring with data that indicated fair market value for the women’s tournament as a standalone property is $105 million annually.
Also of note: NCAA members will finally explore revenue distribution units for the women’s basketball tournament, a potential policy change leading stakeholders have long endorsed.
Interesting that Endeavor valued the WNCAAT so much lower than the others did.
LikeLike
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article283647773.html
Duke’s former AD Kevin White worries about sports splitting from colleges.
On Nov. 17, he joined a Knight Commission panel in Washington, D.C., where college athletics were the topic. With conferences realigning with coast-to-coast membership, players now able to freely transfer and Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) payments creating unregulated free agency, White realized he had the freedom to offer thoughts without professional blowback.
“I was determined to be a ‘truth teller,’“ White said, “and as we often quip within sport, my mission was to disentangle myth from my perceived reality, and as they say, move the pile.”
The truth, in White’s opinion, is college athletics arrived at this confusing, crucial point through its own actions and, too often, inaction.
“In quiet moments, perhaps late at night, I find myself pondering with both total dismay and serious discontent, how college athletics arrived at this highly disjointed place,” White said. “My personal hypothesis suggests that as operators of the collegiate system, we have been horrendous communicators. Moreover, we have been held hostage via our inability to publicly tell the story relative to modern day college athletics; and, in the same breath, the NCAA has become toxic, for highly ineffective communication always tends to breed contempt.”
…
White shared the essay, in which he calls the current situation as “an arms race to construct the next paradigm/model,” with the News & Observer.
“There is undeniably a need to recreate, perhaps relaunch the NCAA,” White said. “This parent organization needs to become far more contemporary, if not anticipatory, for the world is clearly ever changing.”
Follow the link to read all the excerpts from his essay. I’ll just post the topics he addresses here:
THOUGHTS ON THE CURRENT STATE OF COLLEGE ATHLETICS
Summary: Not good
SHOULD COLLEGE ATHLETICS SEPARATE FROM ACADEMIC PURSUITS?
Summary: No
HOW ARE CHANGES IMPACTING ATHLETES IN SPORTS BEYOND FOOTBALL?
Summary: Not positively
WHAT SHOULD THE NCAA’S ROLE BE?
Summary: The one thing they do decently at – running championships
WHO SHOULD LEAD COLLEGE ATHLETICS, AND WHO SHOULD NOT
Summary: By practitioners
LikeLike
*
LikeLike
I see what you did there.
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39267884/college-football-playoff-espn-discuss-6-year-rights-contract
ESPN is trying to monopolize the expanded CFP. It will be criminal mismanagement if the CFP doesn’t go to the open market, and Hancock should be tarred and feathered.
People had been throwing around numbers like $2B for the CFP, but ESPN is offering just $1.3B (about triple the current deal, for almost quadruple the games) with the ability to sublicense to Fox (and others).
The College Football Playoff and ESPN are in the midst of negotiations to maintain the network as the sole rights holder of the event for the next eight years, sources told ESPN on Monday.
The deal would include the final two years on the current CFP contract plus a new six-year agreement for the next iteration of the playoff, sources told ESPN.
If ESPN remains the sole rights holder, it would be a significant change from what the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick had originally wanted, as all had been in agreement that multiple broadcast partners — a model similar to what the NFL has — would be best for college football.
While nothing has been finalized and negotiations are ongoing, sources indicated that ESPN is considering paying approximately $1.3 billion for the rights to the new six-year deal starting in the 2026 season.
…
CFP executive director Bill Hancock said the organization is no longer in the exclusive negotiating window with ESPN.
“I have to say, this is a negotiation, and so I’m not going to be able to tell you much about it,” Hancock said. “We’re happy with where we are and not quite to the finish line yet.”
A sublicense agreement was a sticking point that has been settled, according to sources. The agreement would give ESPN the ability to sell the rights to some of the games — something Fox Sports would be interested in, sources indicated.
Hancock said that if ESPN were to sublicense any games, the presidents would have to approve it.
…
While nothing concrete has been settled about the future TV rights in the new contract, sources told ESPN that it’s something that all parties are eager to finalize.
“Don’t have a timeline,” Hancock said. “We’re getting close.”
LikeLike
…about triple the current deal, for almost quadruple the games
I’m not endorsing the idea of ESPN getting the whole deal again. But triple the current deal for quadruple the games is not prima facie ridiculous. Brian himself has said that the early-round games are likely to be a lot less valuable than the later ones. Even before this story, many commentators had said that the original estimate of $2.0B was probably very optimistic.
LikeLike
Marc,
The 3x $ for 4x the games ratio is reasonable. It’s the fact that it “only” tripled with over a decade to grow and projections of great ratings that is troubling.
Let’s assume each round is watched about 25% less than the next:
NCG = 30M
Semis = 22.5M each
Quarters = 16.9M each
1st round = 12.7M each
So we are going from 75M viewers to 193M by expansion, or 2.57x. But we know viewers don’t scale linearly, so I’ll take a square root and call it 1.60x increase in ad value. So to get to roughly a tripling, that would be roughly 7% growth per year. If viewers count linearly, then the rights grew about 1.5% per year. When you consider inflation over the past decade and over the additional years of the deal, that’s pretty weak growth compared to other sports rights. I always thought $2B was a stretch (I thought $1.5B seemed more likely), but this is underwhelming.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2024/01/08/college-football-rankings-top-25-2024-sec-big-ten/72095586007/
Lots of way-too-early top 25’s for next year are out, and they seem to agree on the basics: the top 10 is all P2 plus ND with some subset of Clemson, FSU, Utah and AZ close to the top 10.
So the CFP may look like this:
6. B10 at-large vs 7. SEC at-large / 1. SEC champ
5. SEC at-large vs 8. ND / 2. B10 champ
4. B10 at-large vs 10. B10 at-large / 9. ACC champ
3. SEC at-large vs 25. G5 champ / 13. B12 champ
B10, SEC – 4
ACC, B12, Indy, G5 – 1
Yawn!
LikeLike
ESPN’s SP+ ranks hardest 2024 college football schedules
ESPN’s SP+ has offered a look at which schools are going to have the toughest schedules next year, and many of them are in the SEC. Florida took the top spot and was 1 of 7 SEC teams to make the top 15, along with Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Texas, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, and Auburn.
*(Colin inserting text here. Hey dumbo, the Big Ten also has 7 teams in the top 15.)
The Big Ten and ACC were the other conferences to have schools listed. Here’s the teams with the 15 hardest schedules based on 2023 results:
No. 1: Florida
No. 2: USC
No. 3: Northwestern
No. 4: Mississippi State
No. 5: Purdue
No. 6: Georgia Tech
No. 7: Oklahoma
No. 8: Washington
No. 9: Vanderbilt
No. 10: Texas
No. 11: South Carolina
No. 12: UCLA
No. 13: Oregon
No. 14: Auburn
No. 15: Michigan State
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/espns-sp-ranks-hardest-2024-college-football-schedules/
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/rankings
Polls are stupid:
1. UM
2. UW
3. UT/UGA
4. UGA/UT
5. AL
6. FSU & UO/FSU
7. – / UO
So AL beating UGA in the CCG means less than UGA blowing out a depleted FSU in the bowl while AL played UM close in their semi?
How is FSU #6 after that bowl performance?
LikeLike
The symmetry of the 4-team CFP era is interesting:
First year – B10 champ beats SEC champ AL then whips P12 champ to win the title, FSU’s ranking is (slightly) controversial
Final year – B10 champ beats SEC champ AL then whips P12 champ to win the title; FSU’s ranking is controversial
Champs: B10, SEC, ACC, SEC, ACC, SEC, SEC, SEC, SEC, B10
Final stats:
AL – 9-5, 3 titles
Clemson – 6-4, 2 titles
OSU – 3-4, 1 title
OU – 0-4
UGA – 5-1, 2 titles
UM – 2-2, 1 title
UW – 1-2
ND – 0-2
LSU – 2-0, 1 title
UO, TCU – 1-1
FSU, MSU, UC, UT – 0-1
SEC – 12 appearances, 3 teams, 16-6, 6 titles (3 schools)
Big Ten – 9 appearances, 3 teams, 5-7, 2 titles (2 schools)
ACC – 8 appearances, 3 teams*, 6-6, 2 titles (1 school)
B12 – 6 appearances, 3 teams, 1-6
P12 – 3 appearances, 2 teams, 2-3
Ind. – 1 appearance, 1 teams, 0-1
AAC – 1 appearance, 1 teams, 0-1
* ND was a full ACC member for 2020
The SEC clearly dominated the decade of the CFP, with the B10 2nd (2 different title winners, 3 true members appeared) and the ACC a close 3rd. The B12 was a distant 4th with the P12 a distant 5th.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/01/michigan-washington-cfp-national-championship-ratings-espn-most-watched-four-years/
The nation was glad to see new blood in the title game I guess. Maybe the end of the P12 helped, too. And having the west included and the SE not.
Still, the Rose Bowl topped the NCG (for the 3rd time in 4 years a semi has topped the NCG).
It was not as big a draw as the Rose Bowl, but college football’s national championship nonetheless hit a four-year high.
Monday’s Michigan-Washington College Football Playoff National Championship averaged 25.05 million viewers across ESPN (24.28M), ESPN2 (596K), ESPNU (150K) and ESPN Deportes (30K), up 45% from Georgia’s 45-point rout of TCU last year (17.22M) and the most-watched title game since LSU-Clemson in 2020 (25.59M). Ratings will be added when available.
The Wolverines’ win delivered the second-largest audience of the college football season, trailing only Michigan-Alabama in the Rose Bowl a week earlier (27.76M). In the four years since Nielsen began including out-of-home viewing in its final nationals, the national title game has trailed a semifinal three times.
Overall, Michigan played in the three most-watched games of the season, with their regular season matchup with Ohio State placing third (19.07M).
The title game averaged a combined 6.8 rating in adults 18-49, up 40% from last year and the highest since ’20 (7.7).
LikeLike
They added a graphic to the article showing all the viewership and ratings numbers for the NCG since 1992. Also seen here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GDfw_12XUAAA80n?format=jpg&name=large
You can see the ratings drop from a 17 or so for OTA Bowl Coalition NCGs to now closer to 13 or 14. Viewership is down too. Why keep letting Disney bury the game on ESPN?
LikeLike
Viewership for the 10 CFP NCGs. It started great but the 4 lowest are the past 4 years (the bottom 5 are 5 of the last 6). 2020-2022 were all bad, with 2023 okay. That trend may not have helped the negotiations for a new deal.
LikeLike
Why keep letting Disney bury the game on ESPN?
Anyone know why the game is on ESPN in the first place? I assume Disney is not trying deliberately to “bury” a valuable product.
LikeLike
Because Disney wanted to raise the price of ESPN even higher, and they needed valuable content to justify it?
Because there were too many weeknight BCS games and ABC wanted to show regular programming instead?
Because Swofford was the BCS coordinator, and somehow this deal helped Raycom?
Because people didn’t foresee cord cutting?
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2008/11/18/espns-bcs-deal-moves-college-football-championship-to-cable/
“We think this partnership is a natural fit,” says John Swofford, BCS coordinator and ACC commissioner. “ESPN has created a great culture around college football, promoting the college platform across all of its platforms. We think the multiplatform that ESPN is able to bring to the table is unlike anything else in sports.”
Cross-Platform Coverage
Although Fox Sports, which owns broadcast rights to the games through 2010, has digital rights bundled into the current agreement, the network has not exercised them to the degree that ESPN plans to. No formal streaming arrangements have been made, but simulcasts of the games on ESPN360.com are a possibility, along with simulcasts on ESPN Mobile TV.
“This agreement goes well beyond a three-hour-window TV agreement,” says George Bodenheimer, president of ESPN and ABC Sports. “It’s a multimedia agreement and an international agreement. This is a tremendous opportunity to enhance the growth of college football.”
ESPN.com will also operate the official BCS Website, bcsfootball.org, and the language of the deal is such that future multimedia rights have been wrapped in as well.
“Our negotiating team does a great job of setting these contracts up so that we have rights to fuel not only the businesses we’re in today — broadband, ESPN.com, mobile — but also technologies that aren’t even contemplated today,” Bodenheimer says. “We have plenty of rights to grow our digital media that are in existence today and that will be in existence down the road.”
No ‘ESPN on ABC’ Here
Although ESPN routinely brands regular-season college football games as “ESPN on ABC” presentations, Bodenheimer has no intention of moving any of the BCS properties to that format.
“We have a 365-day-a-year commitment to the sport,” he says. “Bringing an event of this stature to ESPN really complements our year-round and extensive college programming.”
No surcharges will be passed on to any distributors of the BCS product, and Bodenheimer is confident that bringing the BCS properties to a cable network will allow them to enjoy the resources, time, and media that they deserve.
“We expect that the relatively small differential that exists today between broadcast and cable is going to continue to dissipate, not only after the digital transition in 2009 but with the continued growth of multichannel television in the United States,” Bodenheimer explains.
“The number of people who distinguish between broadcast and cable will decrease as well,” Swofford says.
As Cable Becomes Broadcast…
…
“People who truly follow college football are extremely well tuned into ESPN,” Swofford says. “They see ESPN, in essence, as the television home for college football because of the number of games that are on for college conferences across the country.”
Indeed, according to Bodenheimer, 95% of those who viewed the national championship game in 2008 were connected to either a cable or satellite hookup.
LikeLike
https://www.d1ticker.com/2023-fbs-attendance-trends/
2023 and 5-year average attendance, with trends and % of capacity.
# School 5 Year Average
1 Michigan 110,559
2 Penn State 106,410
3 Ohio State 102,849
4 Alabama 100,420
5 Texas A&M 100,070
6 LSU 99,114
7 Texas 95,796
8 Georgia 92,760
9 Tennessee 92,709
10 Nebraska 88,198
11 Auburn 85,604
12 Florida 85,216
13 Oklahoma 83,628
14 Clemson 80,445
15 Notre Dame 76,108
16 Wisconsin 76,015
17 South Carolina 75,139
18 Michigan State 70,414
19 Iowa 67,193
20 Washington 66,221
21 Florida State 63,837
22 Arkansas 62,496
23 USC 61,638
24 Virginia Tech 60,833
25 Iowa State 58,357
P2 = top 13 (4 B10, 9 SEC), and 20 of 25 (9 B10, 11 SEC)
The depth of the top is where the SEC’s strength lies.
Rest of the B10:
35 Oregon 53,302
36 Purdue 53,297
42 UCLA 47,694
47 Indiana 43,999
48 Minnesota 43,924
54 Rutgers 40,603
56 Illinois 38,112
59 Maryland 36,210
62 Northwestern 35,368
Based on capacity:
Oregon 103.51%
Michigan 102.20%
Penn State 101.72%
Nebraska 101.57%
Ohio State 100.98%
Iowa 100.00%
Wisconsin 99.05%
USC 98.30%
Washington 98.11%
Minnesota 95.37%
Purdue 94.80%
Rutgers 93.89%
Michigan State 93.78%
Indiana 84.73%
Illinois 81.91%
Maryland 77.82%
UCLA 52.61%
Northwestern 44.13%
That’s pretty good. The Rose Bowl is just too big for UCLA. Look how small the Coliseum is compared to what it used to be (capacity = 77,500 now, was 93,607).
LikeLike
Purdue will have a considerable increase in attendance in 2024 due primarily to the quality and proximity of opponents.
2023 home schedule: Fresno St, Syracuse, Wisc, Illinois, Ohio St, Minny, Indiana
2024 home schedule: Indiana St, Notre Dame, Nebraska (they show up in WL big time), Oregon, Northwestern, Penn State.
LikeLike
The Rose Bowl is just too big for UCLA.
That, and also a considerable distance from campus. But they never managed to get an on-campus stadium built when it could’ve been done. With their financial issues, it’s hard to imagine it happening anytime soon. Also, they have a long-term lease through 2024.
LikeLike
Sorry, that’s 2042.
LikeLike
The neighborhood and politicians won’t let them build a new stadium anyway. The state owns the Coliseum and would make UCLA go back there again before they would pay for a new stadium. That’s half as far away as the Rose Bowl, too.
LikeLike
Actually, UCLA screwed the pooch five years ago when they built a new soccer stadium on campus. They could have expanded the seating to accommodate football for dual-purpose with soccer. That would have taken a bit more room but the space was available.
https://recreation.ucla.edu/facilities/wallis-annenberg-stadium
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39281202/alabama-crimson-tide-football-coach-nick-saban-retiring
Ding-dong, the witch is dead!
He’s one of the all-time great college* football coaches.**
* You have to qualify that, because he proved to be terrible at the NFL level.
** Thanks in some part to some rich booster help and the SEC’s blind eye for ethics and rules (cash bags, roster “management”, etc.).
Conveniently he waited until after the transfer portal window closed, so AL has until April to shore things up and bribe their players to stay. He was on an 8-year contract (until 2030) and I’m sure made some promises to players about sticking around.
For a rarity, I agree with Deion on this. NIL and the portal drove Saban away.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39281202/alabama-crimson-tide-football-coach-nick-saban-retiring
It’s nice that he told his players before it leaked, but this seems odd to me:
For just about everybody in the program, the timing of Saban’s announcement was a surprise. He was interviewing potential assistant coaches via Zoom an hour before telling his players that he was retiring.
Why would you do that if you’re going to quit?
In the meeting, Saban thanked his players for the way they bought in and told them that he’d thought out his decision carefully. But with the way college football has changed in terms of the transfer portal and tampering, NIL being used as a guise for bidding for high school players and transfers, and the recruiting calendar being extended, he told his players that the time was right for him to retire.
Sources told Low that Saban had grown increasingly frustrated with “what college football had turned into. He’s all about team and building a team and developing players, and now the only thing that seems to matter is who can get what in the NIL and who can get the biggest deal.”
When CFB is so seedy that it drives out even someone like Saban, maybe some of us old-school fans aren’t entirely wrong with our complaints. The business of CFB may be doing well, but the sport is dead.
LikeLike
When CFB is so seedy that it drives out even someone like Saban, maybe some of us old-school fans aren’t entirely wrong with our complaints.
On the other hand, he is 72. Even assuming no changes to the sport, how much longer was he going to coach?
LikeLike
See quotes from when he signed his extension, and what he told every recent recruit. He basically said if he wasn’t dead he expected to still be coaching in 2030. Bowden and Paterno went much longer, and Saban was only 2-3 season from breaking Bryant’s record for wins at AL. If you can be president at 82, you can coach at 82.
LikeLike
Now the sources will be tested.
McMurphy says it’ll be Lanning from UO. Thamel has a longer list which also includes Lanning. Somebody’s gonna lose their coach and be upset. For fun, how about Harbaugh? We know a little cheating won’t stop them from hiring him.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39287274/dan-lanning-amid-alabama-rumors-says-staying-oregon
Lanning says he’s staying at UO, so the “top target” is out.
Belichick is available. So is Pete Carroll, and he is a proven college coach who doesn’t mind paying players.
LikeLike
My hunch on Saban’s replacement is Dabo Swinney. He played football for the Tide and was an asst coach there for several years. The only places that he’s ever coached were Bama and Clemson. And this might be a good time to get out of the ACC.
LikeLike
Dabo is high on a lot of people’s lists, and it makes sense. He has an Alabama background and is the only coach who’s defeated Saban twice in a national championship game. Not only is it a good time to get out of the ACC, but it’s also very likely that Dabo’s peak value is now. If he is ever going to leave for more money, this is the time.
If Alabama wants him, they can probably get him. His buyout is a very manageable $7.5m, a sum that would give Alabama no pause whatsoever. There is obviously no active coach with Saban’s record, but Dabo and Kirby Smart are the only two whom the Tide faithful would consider a remotely comparable replacement — and Kirby is obviously not leaving Georgia.
But replacing a legend is never easy. Dabo is just one season into a 10-year, $115 million deal. He earned $10.5m last year, good for third in the country behind only Saban and Smart. He can stay where he and retire a Clemson legend; or go to a place where he is unlikely to replicate his predecessor’s record (because probably no one ever will).
LikeLike
Twice in the NCG, sure, but that’s a pretty small set of games. Urban Meyer twice beat #1 AL teams coached by Saban in the postseason (2008 SEC CG, 2014 CFP semifinal) on the way to winning a national title, which is a similar feat.
LikeLike
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/klatt-why-all-signs-point-to-kalen-deboer-replacing-nick-saban-at-alabama
Joel Klatt says it’s Kalen DeBoer. The new B10 just can’t catch a break. Who’s the next rumor – Chip Kelly or Lincoln Riley?
Alabama is moving pretty swiftly in its search to replace Nick Saban, and there’s a clear front-runner for the job.
At this point, I would be pretty surprised if Washington’s Kalen DeBoer isn’t the next head coach at Alabama.
DeBoer, who just led Washington to the national championship game before losing to Michigan on Monday night, has quietly been looking at the job, I believe. Now, I don’t believe DeBoer’s interest in Alabama or elsewhere is no slight at Washington. But the athletic director who hired him, Jen Cohen, is now USC’s athletic director.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39294498/deboer-negotiating-contract-alabama-replace-saban
ESPN now says it will be DeBoer.
Washington’s Kalen DeBoer, who guided the Huskies to a Pac-12 championship and a spot in the College Football Playoff National Championship game this past season, is negotiating a contract to replace Alabama’s Nick Saban, sources told ESPN on Friday.
…
Washington athletic director Troy Dannen has made an aggressive pitch to keep DeBoer, sources told ESPN’s Pete Thamel, with a new contract that would make him one of the 10 highest-paid coaches in the FBS and more than double his current annual salary of $4.2 million.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39294498/deboer-alabama-replace-saban-head-coach
And it is. UW couldn’t pay enough to overcome the allure of AL. Getting a B10 half-share didn’t help them, but even with a full share AL is likely to win that battle. I think he knew the program could only go down after a great season where all the breaks went their way until the NCG, and with Penix leaving.
So who does UW hire, and how many players leave before next season?
https://sports360az.com/huffman-on-recruiting-pac-12-recruiting-wsu-osu-land-impact-transfers-while-washington-secures-top-in-state-player-for-the-first-time-in-years/
And UW had just gotten the top player in WA to commit, the first time since 2018 that’s happened. What are the odds he stays?
LikeLike
Addendum:
While the transfer portal did close and AL did pick up 3 players, the portal opens for all enrolled players for 30 days to leave. The only ones who can’t are the 4 who signed letters of intent in December but didn’t enroll early. They’ll need to ask AL for a release from their NLI.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39285303/bill-belichick-leaving-patriots-24-seasons-sources-say
Perhaps the biggest cheater in NFL history is gone, too. What a great day for football.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigten/2024/01/11/dug-mcdaniel-suspended-michigan-basketball-road-games/72186001007/
Marc, I need you to explain this one to me. UM’s leading scorer is having academic problems, so he will not travel for road games for a while but can still play at home. I get the travel exacerbates the issue, but shouldn’t he also skip home games until he gets his grades in order?
How does this just come out on 1/10? A new semester just started. How far behind can he be in one week? Last semester’s grades have been out since before Christmas, so shouldn’t it have been announced back then and have included winter break if it is a punishment? Conveniently Howard kept him playing and is only starting the punishment now that classes are back in session.
If it’s not a punishment but an academic aid, what does this say about players on coastal teams playing midweek in the B10?
Dug McDaniel, the team’s leading scorer and starting point guard, has been suspended for the team’s road games “until further notice,” according to a statement from Michigan. Though no specific reason was given why, head coach Juwan Howard’s statement indicates it is so McDaniel can remain home to focus on his academics.
“We have very high standards within our program, culture and university,” Howard said in his statement. “Serving as mentors, we need to set the standards and pathways for our young men to succeed. Beginning with our game at Maryland, Dug McDaniel will not travel to road games until further notice.
“Dug will dress for home games, however, when we are away from Ann Arbor, he will work towards meeting several academic goals he has set and needs to meet.”
LikeLike
Marc, I need you to explain this one to me. UM’s leading scorer is having academic problems, so he will not travel for road games for a while but can still play at home. I get the travel exacerbates the issue, but shouldn’t he also skip home games until he gets his grades in order?
This is a punishment I have never heard of. As you said, a normal suspension usually includes all games, not just road ones.
How does this just come out on 1/10? A new semester just started. How far behind can he be in one week?
Whispers of academic problems for this player have been circulating for a while. There are two rumors that would explain the timing. Bear in mind these come from Michigan partisans, and I always mistrust stories that don’t have a quoted source. But anyhow, here they are:
1) He skipped classes, after having been warned about that in the past. That’s the sort of infraction that could materialize within one week of a new term.
2) He was given make-up work or extra work to do over the semester break that he failed to complete.
LikeLike
NCAA President Charlie Baker says that, “At the end of the day, <a href="no one believes at this point that Michigan didn’t win the national title fair and square.”
That’s generous. Heck, even I wouldn’t claim that no one believes that.
But unless Baker is freelancing (always a possibility), it probably signals that he doesn’t expect the most extreme penalties that some of Michigan’s opponents would probably love to see (Harbaugh show-cause, death penalty, bowl ban, entire season vacated, etc.).
LikeLike
I don’t believe it, but not in the way he means it.
Do I think UM stole AL’s and/or UW’s signals with advanced scouting? No I do not. There is no evidence to support that practice continuing after Stalions was fired.
Do I think their previous sign stealing laid a foundation for UM to win the title this year, including perhaps helping them against PSU and OSU? Yes I do. They potentially won more games over the past few years because of it and built momentum, and that helped players decide to stay rather than transfer or enter the NFL draft. That helped them win the title. That is not winning fair and square.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39289391/ncaa-penalizes-florida-state-football-nil-rule-violations
FSU managed to get busted by the NCAA for NIL violations. How bad do you need to be at that to actually get caught and punished?
The NCAA on Thursday announced significant penalties for the Florida State football team — including two years’ probation and disassociating with its NIL collective for one season — for violating rules on using name, image and likeness offers as a recruiting inducement.
The NCAA says a Florida State coach drove a prospect to a meeting with the head of the program’s most prominent NIL collective during the prospect’s official visit to campus. At the meeting, the booster offered the prospect $15,000 per month and encouraged him to play for the Seminoles.
The prospect, who was not named by the NCAA, removed his name from the transfer portal shortly after the meeting and remained at his previous school.
The coach in question was Florida State offensive coordinator Alex Atkins and the booster involved was one of the leaders of Florida State’s Rising Spear collective, according to a Yahoo Sports report.
In a resolution negotiated with the university, the NCAA suspended Atkins for three games. The school must also disassociate with their collective for a year and from the specific booster for three years.
3 whole games for trying to bribe a player. Gee, look how tough the NCAA is. Blatantly violate one of the fundamental rules and you might miss 3 OOC cupcakes.
LikeLike
3 whole games for trying to bribe a player. Gee, look how tough the NCAA is. Blatantly violate one of the fundamental rules and you might miss 3 OOC cupcakes.
This is ticky-tack stuff. NIL is legal now. Everyone knows, and nobody disputes, that NIL collectives are offering financial inducements — what you call bribes — for players to attend particular schools. This was why the NCAA opposed NIL for so long, but the horses are out of the barn.
Of course, I understand that the rules currently do not allow the assistant coach to drive the prospect to this meeting. But it’s hard for me to get worked up about it.
LikeLike
Travis Smith, the Director of Student Athlete Academic Services at Indiana State University, is the host of the Higher Ed Athletics podcast and wrote (in Matt Brown’s free Extra Points newsletter) about whether quarter-system schools might have some advantages with the transfer portal.
I think it’s more theoretical than actual, since the vast majority of schools are on semesters and the first portal window is in December to early January which works fine for both calendars and is when most players enter the portal. The next window opens in April, and everyone wraps up spring practice in April sometime so I don’t see much advantage to be had.
December is a very crowded month for college football programs. You have to prepare for postseason competition, you have the bulk of high school players signing during the early National Signing Period, you have the coaching carousel, major holidays, and most recently, the opening of the transfer portal.
The dates for NSD, bowl games, and coaching hires could potentially be changed or adjusted, but it will be much harder to substantially change the dates around the transfer portal.
That’s because the portal window is tied to the academic calendar. Based on Bylaw 14.2.1 Requirement for Practice, athletes must be enrolled in a minimum full-time courseload to participate in practice. In practice, that means if an athlete transfers three weeks after the semester starts, they may have missed too much class to satisfy the bylaw, if the institution decides to admit them at all.
But every FBS school doesn’t operate on the exact same academic calendar. Some schools start earlier, some start later, and some don’t operate on the semester system at all.
Academic calendars have not been discussed as an advantage or disadvantage in the transfer portal. I decided to look up the spring start dates of the autonomy institutions in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Notre Dame.
What I found was a clear advantage for a handful of these institutions. A later start date for the spring term could allow a program to take its time with the players left without a new home.
Schools with earlier start dates could miss out on recruits still in the transfer portal because of the amount of time it takes to process a transfer evaluation, admit them, and get enrolled in a full-time course load,
A congested transfer portal will likely continue as the CFP extends to 12 teams. This could result in a delay of portal additions from teams competing in the CFP that are given an extended period than the normal winter entrance deadline.
Five schools have a quarter with a spring start date that would allow an athlete to still be admitted and start classes to satisfy NCAA bylaws and be eligible to practice in spring ball.
• Northwestern, Big Ten, March 26th
• Oregon, Big Ten, April 1st
• Stanford, ACC, April 1st
• UCLA, Big Ten, March 27th
• Washington, Big Ten, March 25th
The schools above also have winter quarter terms that are underway now, so athletes who decided to transfer there in December could still be practicing and taking classes today. Offering a spring quarter could potentially be an advantage for prospects who want to graduate on time, but weren’t able to make a transfer decision in December.
Semester-based schools with an earlier spring start date could also still enjoy this flexibility if they offer 2nd 8-week class options in their regular spring term, which has become more of a trend in higher education. Athletes could still be admitted and have their transfer evaluation process completed early enough to sign up for these classes and begin participating in spring practice. The challenge is that calendar speeds up course material, which may not be ideal for a student in a new environment. These schedule options are also typically only available for a handful of classes, which significantly shrinks the ability for transfers to be in enough degree-applicable courses to meet NCAA progress toward degree rules entering the next season.
…
I expect there will be conversations with coaches or administrators around the country already upset about the start dates on their academic calendars. It’s also possible that the flexibility for spring quarter institutions is more theoretical than practical, as we’ll need more data to study how impactful a March enrollment period actually is.
LikeLike
I think having Lanning at Oregon is more important to the Big Ten than having DeBoer at Washington, so if one was going to go, DeBoer was probably the one you’d have wanted.
Yes I realize the head-to-head record over the past 2 years and feat of Washington getting to the national championship game, but once those 5-6 year seniors are gone, Washington was going to take a huge step back to closer to the middle of the Big Ten than the top, even with a great coach.
And their recruiting the past 2 years didn’t show evidence of being able to sustain that, though they had gotten a good number of portal transfers.
Lanning on the other hand has top 10 recruiting classes coming into Eugene, which feels a lot more sustainable; he’s been grabbing top flight recruits out of SEC territory along with cleaning up in CA (much to the chagrin of USC/UCLA fans).
But yeah no way to slice it other than it’s a tough day for UW; they may not find another coach who can pull of what he and Petersen did before in getting to the CFP and DeBoer felt a lot closer to being able to win the whole thing though he did all this with players mostly already on the roster.
DeBoer’s move made sense; you never know what may happen to them (see Campbell who should have taken an offer to leave Iowa State after the top 10 finish during Covid season) as years pass if the program takes a step back.
Getting Alabama now feels like cashing in at the top.
LikeLike
Agreed. Now its all about the domino effects and waiting to see who UW’s new coach is and how many players they lose along the way. Their transfer QB is back in the portal, and the stars from this year are turning pro.
AL already lost their top recruiter to UGA, so the power shift in the SEC is underway. UGA will be the undisputed top dog in the SEC until someone steps up to challenge them. Will that be one of the newbies? LSU? TAMU? UF? Or AL?
LikeLike
In the near term, Texas probably looks most likely given the QB room there and what that can attract as well as the pieces they have and their 2023 campaign.
But yeah it could be any of those; I wouldn’t count out LSU with Kelly fresh off a Heisman winner.
Texas and LSU would probably be the 2 I’d choose as challengers to UGA other than Alabama (still loaded with talent even if DeBoer takes a bit of time to try to get that rolling).
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/whats-next-for-washington-after-kalen-deboer-bolts-for-alabama-we-have-a-few-candidates-and-loads-of-questions/
Wilner on UW’s coaching search.
Other questions in the wake of DeBoer’s departure:
— How late will the celebrations last tonight in Pullman and Eugene?
— Was the prospect of losing DeBoer on the mind of former UW athletic director Jen Cohen when she left for USC in August?
— Did Washington have a chance to lock up DeBoer months ago, before he became the hottest coach in the game and hired super-agent Jimmy Sexton (who is also Saban’s agent)? In other words, did UW wait too long to get serious? If so, that’s on Cauce.
— What is former Oregon State coach Jonathan Smith thinking right now? If Smith had passed on Michigan State, a mid-level job in the Big Ten, he would be the obvious candidate to replace DeBoer in Seattle.
— Lastly, where do the Huskies turn for their fourth football coach in just over four years?
…
The first decision, of course, is whether to hand the program over to offensive coordinator Ryan Grubb, who has been at DeBoer’s side for years. His promotion would ensure continuity of culture and scheme.
…
If they don’t promote from within, the Huskies should have a solid pool of candidates interested in taking charge of a Big Ten program coming off a playoff run.
Our list of possible candidates is heavy on coaches who have proven they can compete against programs that have greater resources. Why? Because UW will be playing from behind in the Big Ten.
…
UW’s next coach will have to do more with less. The school should hire someone familiar with that challenge, such as:
Arizona coach Jedd Fisch. …
UNLV coach Barry Odom. …
Washington assistant JaMarcus Shephard. …
Michigan offensive coordinator Sherrone Moore. …
Kansas coach Lance Leipold. …
LikeLike
https://nypost.com/2024/01/12/sports/espn-nfl-in-advanced-talks-on-agreement-that-could-give-league-equity-in-tv-giant/
The NFL is considering buying a stake in ESPN. This can’t be good for the consumer, especially B10 fans.
ESPN and the NFL are in advanced talks that could result in the league taking an equity stake in ESPN, The Post has learned.
As part of a potential agreement, Disney-owned ESPN would take control of NFL Media, which includes NFL Network, and the league would receive equity in ESPN.
For the long-term viability of ESPN aligning with the most powerful sports league would enhance its position as the network plans to move to direct to consumer by 2025.
While the idea of an ESPN-NFL alliance has been mentioned before, discussions between Disney-owned ESPN and the NFL are far enough along that sources said that owners and the Players Association are being informed about the talks.
…
It still could take months for a deal to be finalized. Both ESPN and the NFL declined comment.
The NFL has been trying to unload its network for years now. In its recent talks that resulted in its $110-plus billion deals with ESPN, Amazon, CBS, Fox, NBC and YouTube, the NFL searched for a buyer, but was unsuccessful.
Since ESPN covers the league thoroughly, there would be synergies if the two sides are able to reach an agreement. Disney/ESPN might be able to secure better carriage arrangements for NFL Network.
…
As it turns to direct-to-consumer, ESPN ideally wants a league partner and one of the top digital players, such as, but not limited to Apple, Amazon or Verizon, so it can leverage its content with the best distribution channels.
In June, CNBC reported that ESPN held talks with the NFL, NBA and MLB.
ESPN currently pays the NFL around $2.6 billion per year for rights that include 25 games, highlighted by its weekly Monday Night prime time schedule.
LikeLike
I feel like the Big Ten will be fine regardless now; the move from Power 5 to Power 2 was essential to enabling the Big Ten to remain alongside the SEC regardless of whether it has a TV deal with ESPN.
Even ESPN getting the full CFP for the next 2 + 6 years isn’t as big of a deal anymore in a Power 2 landscape.
The biggest problem was in the Power 5 landscape, ESPN could easily make “SEC = CFB” the narrative because there was no equal heft elsewhere, the SEC was winning championships and their opponents in BCS/CFP ranged from Big Ten to ACC to Pac-12 to Big 12.
In the future, that’s completely different with the Big Ten adding the West Coast for much needed top-end depth along Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State and with the new TV deals with FOX/CBS/NBC.
Of course we have to see where media goes, but all these rapid changes that we’re seeing (TNF going to Amazon Prime, Peacock getting exclusive NFL Playoff game, NFL potentially merging NFL Network with ESPN), just make clear that the Big Ten had to bulk up with USC/UCLA/Oregon/Washington.
If you don’t have nationally relevant matchups every week, you’re not relevant. Now the Big Ten can guarantee that alongside the SEC.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re only relevant if people believe you are. West coast exposure in and of itself doesn’t help with that any more than adding the east coast did. The B10 needs USC and UO to be good, but even then many people don’t consider them real contenders until they prove otherwise. UW is about to fall back to decent, and UCLA isn’t normally a power.
OTA is great for exposure, but ESPN is the daily coverage of sports and the voice most casual fans listen to. When they extol everyone but the B10, that has impact. When they show everyone but the B10, that has impact. And if the get NFL money to bolster their position, they are that much better placed for the future than Fox is. As for the CFP, even if they sublicense games to Fox and others it does matter that ESPN is the home of the entire CFP. If they cover all the CFB games that matter, and that never includes the B10 in the regular season, that sends a message.
It’s not a big deal, but these little things add up. Especially since the SEC has been dominant on the field. If this latest title was the beginning of a change on that front, that’s much more significant than the media side.
LikeLike
Sure but I feel like GameDay is the most important part of the equation at funneling fans to ESPN/ABC games, and now there’s a legitimate competitor to that in Big Noon Kickoff.
You are 100% right that we need to see 3-4 Big Ten teams in the playoff hunt every year and need to be winning championships.
OU or USC or Penn State winning a national championship soon (or 2 of those 3) would be a huge boost to the Big Ten in terms of public perception.
The reality is just that everyone says “5-6 SEC programs have won BCS/CFPs in the past 20 years”… that is really hard to combat until you have your own group of 4-5 programs that are there.
Ohio State and Michigan are there now, the question is whether anybody else can join them.
LikeLike
I always felt it was a strategic blunder for the Big Ten to walk away from ESPN. This is with the caveat that we don’t know what kind of deal they could’ve had. The rumor was that Warren gave ESPN a “screw you” offer that he knew they probably wouldn’t take. Like all rumors, that might not be true. Still, it’s the only one we’ve got.
The rumors of ESPN’s SEC bias are somewhat overstated. Michigan fans were shocked — shocked! — that Fowler and Herbsteit did a fair broadcast with no snide comments about the bad Big Ten schedule that the Wolverines played. Obviously there was no SEC team on the field, but there were plenty of chances to stick the knife in, if they had wanted to.
Now, is ESPN going to promote the SEC? Surely, to some extent. You would expect any network to promote their own games. If you’d paid what they paid, you’d do it too. But they’ve always said they’d be fair to other leagues, and at least in this instance they lived up to it.
In the future, that’s completely different with the Big Ten adding the West Coast for much needed top-end depth along Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State and with the new TV deals with FOX/CBS/NBC.
I’m with Brian that this warrants a heavy dose of skepticism. USC has zero playoff appearances to date, Washington is now a re-build, and it’s not like they have a second Michael Penix waiting in the wings. UCLA has never been a regular national power. It remains to be seen how Oregon does with a Big Ten schedule. Almost nobody thinks the Big Ten improved itself as much as the SEC did by adding Texas and Oklahoma.
LikeLike
I would have agreed with it being a strategic blunder maybe 5 years ago, certainly 10 years ago, but I think the emergence of Big Noon Kickoff was the game changer.
For most CFB fans, ESPN dictated your Saturday starting from Gameday, but the move to a Power 2 and development of a viable morning challenger in Big Noon Kickoff means that the Big Ten’s broadcasting strategy is a viable alternative at funneling its portion/near-half of CFB viewers from FOX to CBS to NBC with stops at FS1/BTN in-between.
For basketball it is obviously worse but nobody really cares about that.
As far as Texas/OU goes, the proof will be in the pudding, but I think I might take my chances on USC/Oregon/Washington matching Texas/OU CFP production or at least coming close.
Oregon is not on the same brand level as Texas, USC, and OU, but I don’t think it’s a given that OU will outproduce Oregon in the future with NIL a huge factor in recruiting and retaining players.
Oregon has been recruiting at a top 10 level the past 5-6 years under Cristobal and Lanning and has basically attained parity with OU in talent composite rankings through its recruiting/transfer success.
Can that translate into championships? Oregon would be considered a similar probability contender to Texas, USC, OU based on blue chip ratios and the like.
If you asked me to predict which program would win a championship next among Penn State, OU, and Oregon, I probably would say the odds are similar for all 3.
Is that sustainable for Oregon? I don’t know but with NIL and in the Big Ten, it might be as long as they keep their “cool/Nike branding” and Knight leaves a plan in place to keep them rolling.
I think the nationalization of recruiting helps Oregon/Washington (and Big Ten West) programs the most given their distance from hot recruiting zones, and I think NIL/$ can enable programs like Oregon to punch way above their normal weight as long as we keep moving towards a semi-pro version of CFB.
LikeLike
z33k: “. . . but I think I might take my chances on USC/Oregon/Washington matching Texas/OU CFP production or at least coming close.”
I tend to agree. However the foremost boost to the Big Ten will be the TV market. We gain a population of 52 million within the Big Ten footprint with the addition of the West Coast schools, and it will benefit the Big Ten Network in addition to the major networks, essentially giving the BTN a fourth time slot on football Saturdays.
In contrast, the SEC gains only 4 million with Oklahoma since the SEC footprint already has Texas with A&M. For that reason, the SEC may be leary about further expansion with FSU and Clemson.
LikeLike
What matters is not just the size of the TV market, but also the level of passion for CFB. This is why ESPN didn’t mind letting the Pac-12 die. There are a lot of eyeballs out west, but fan engagement is relatively low.
I am not criticizing the Big Ten’s additions — they chose the best programs out there. But I don’t think ESPN would rather be out west. You know exactly how much they value it, because they are the one entity that could’ve kept the Pac-12 together, and instead they walked away.
The fourth window makes a relatively small contribution, and I don’t think Big Ten teams will be in it very often.
LikeLike
Marc,
The fourth window makes a relatively small contribution, and I don’t think Big Ten teams will be in it very often.
I think FS1 will show a few of those every year, especially in September when there are 15 or so games per week. Maybe one per Pac4 team, with the Pac2/MWC getting the rest.
The problem is TV windows. With 18 teams, there are over 10 games in the early weeks and 6-8 B10 games per week later. BTN can show 2 or even 3 games at once, but that’s not ideal. OTA windows are exclusive, but BTN and FS1 can overlap them and Peacock can hide any game at any time.
https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/BigTen/2024
FOX Sports Rights Notes
* At least 32 total games to air on FOX & FS1 in 2024.
CBS Sports Rights Notes
* 15 games per season starting in 2024.
NBC Sports Rights Notes
*15 games to air on NBC per season.
* In addition to the games on NBC, 8 additional games per season will air on Peacock.
* Every Big Ten school must make two appearances on BTN. At least one of those appearances must be from a conference game. At least 50 games will air on BTN.
There are roughly 125 games to air. Fox/FS1 = 32+, CBS = 15, NBC = 15, Peacock = 8, BTN = 50+ Those add up to 120+.
3 OTA + 1 FS1 + 4 BTN + 0.5 Peacock per week on average.
Fri:
7:30 – FS1 or BTN
Sat:
12 – Fox, BTN (maybe x2)
3:30 – CBS, BTN and/or FS1
7:30 – NBC, BTN and/or FS1
10:30 – FS1 and/or BTN
There are up to 5 windows for FS1/BTN, and they need to show 5 games per week on average. That will necessitate some mix of Friday nights and Saturday late nights.
LikeLike
I think that fourth window might be a real boost to the BTN (and possibly FS1). It will always be games involving Wash, Oregon, UCLA or USC and it’s 7:30 Pacific Time. There is zero competition from the SEC. The Pac-12 Network was a disfunctional train wreck so it will be something of a novelty to the West Coast fans to have those games available. And if you get a game like Indiana at UCLA (Sept 14), all of those Hoosier fans will be tuned in. That’s why the BTN was created, to market games like that which wouldn’t be shown by the major networks.
LikeLike
I would have agreed with it being a strategic blunder maybe 5 years ago, certainly 10 years ago, but I think the emergence of Big Noon Kickoff was the game changer.
The emergence of Big Noon is what made it possible, but I agree with Brian that there are a bunch of “little things” (besides the pregame show) that add up.
If there is something better than being on one of the two major pre-game shows, it’s being on both of them. Sure, there’s a chance that it won’t matter in the end. But if the Big Ten were on ESPN, it would be beyond debate.
As far as Texas/OU goes, the proof will be in the pudding, but I think I might take my chances on USC/Oregon/Washington matching Texas/OU CFP production or at least coming close.
You could be right about that. However, it’s not just about winning. The knock on West Coast football is that they don’t have a big national following that stays with them in the lean years. The Red River Showdown would be a big game even if TX and OU have losing records. There isn’t any West Coast game comparable to that.
Think of it this way: I don’t think there’s anyone in ESPN HQ who is saying, “Damn! I would have rather had USC and Oregon.” Could those programs step up and make regular, deep playoff runs? Yes, of course. The beauty of covering Texas and Oklahoma football is that they are money-spinning machines whether they make the playoff or not.
LikeLike
Yeah, USC/UCLA especially and UW to an extent get lost in the shuffle of being located in massive pro sports markets where it’s really hard to keep local interest unless they’re good.
USC/UCLA fans can easily just focus on the Lakers or Dodgers or now Rams (and Chargers and Raiders) or Kings or Angels or Clippers or Galaxy, etc.
Oregon is probably the only one of the 4 that mostly avoids that; I’d guess that Oregon’s probably the only Pac-12 team (other than Utah) where the fans say “that’s my favorite sports team” like they do in Oklahoma or Nebraska or Iowa or Alabama or Arkansas or South Carolina, etc.
But of course they’re young in terms of success; they’re like Iowa in
It’s partially why I’ve come around on Oregon, with NIL/semi-professionalization and with Nike and Knight’s $, it’ll be interesting to see if they can keep building as they have over the past 20 years.
I assume their next stadium renovation will put them in the 65-70k attendance bracket.
To me, Oregon is just a young version of those other programs in terms of sustainable success but it’s not clear that UW would be able to keep pace to make it a continually interesting rivalry like it was this year. Texas/OU have that in the same way that Florida/Georgia does or Ohio State/Michigan or Alabama/Auburn.
But Oregon’s the one to watch of the 4, if they can keep the top 10 classes rolling in and keep deepening local fan loyalty, it’s the most likely to look like those other programs where fan intensity is extremely high year round.
LikeLike
z33k,
I would have agreed with it being a strategic blunder maybe 5 years ago, certainly 10 years ago, but I think the emergence of Big Noon Kickoff was the game changer.
For most CFB fans, ESPN dictated your Saturday starting from Gameday, but the move to a Power 2 and development of a viable morning challenger in Big Noon Kickoff means that the Big Ten’s broadcasting strategy is a viable alternative at funneling its portion/near-half of CFB viewers from FOX to CBS to NBC with stops at FS1/BTN in-between.
GD still wins most Saturdays by quite a bit, and that’s just among hardcore CFB fans. The vast majority of viewers don’t watch either show, certainly not casual viewers. Most of them have probably never watched FS1 in their lives. They watch whatever ESPN shows because that’s the sports channel. Streamers don’t stream Fox content. Web users don’t go to Fox’s website.
As far as Texas/OU goes, the proof will be in the pudding, but I think I might take my chances on USC/Oregon/Washington matching Texas/OU CFP production or at least coming close.
When is the last time those 2 groups were on par?
CFP teams:
Big2 = 4+1 = 5
Pac4 = 2+1+0+0 = 3
BCS teams:
Big2 = 9+4 = 13
Pac4 = 7+5+1+1 = 14
Rose/Major Bowl teams during previous 25 years (1973-1997):
Big2 = 11+7 = 18
Pac4 = 12+9+7+2 = 30
W% during CFP:
Big2: 0.779, 0.579 = 0.679
Pac4: 0.703, 0.696, 0.637, 0.525 = 0.640
W% during BCS:
Big2: 0.786, 0.767 = 0.777
Pac4: 0.748, 0.717, 0.550, 0.469 = 0.621
W% during previous 25 years (1973-1997):
Big2: 0.739, 0.654 = 0.697
Pac4: 0.691, 0.683, 0.650, 0.449 = 0.618
Oregon is not on the same brand level as Texas, USC, and OU, but I don’t think it’s a given that OU will outproduce Oregon in the future with NIL a huge factor in recruiting and retaining players.
OU has oil money fans and many more hard core fans than UO does. Once Knight dies, where will UO find the money?
Oregon has been recruiting at a top 10 level the past 5-6 years under Cristobal and Lanning and has basically attained parity with OU in talent composite rankings through its recruiting/transfer success.
Can that translate into championships? Oregon would be considered a similar probability contender to Texas, USC, OU based on blue chip ratios and the like.
If you asked me to predict which program would win a championship next among Penn State, OU, and Oregon, I probably would say the odds are similar for all 3.
Let’s see what happens in recruiting with the move to the B10 and getting a half-share vs USC’s full share. 247’s team talent rater had USC, UO, UT and OU all in #6-10 nationally, with UCLA and UW both around #25.
The difference is that those other schools have done it before, and have higher expectations. How much of UO’s success is from being in the P12? How will they fair against the B10? UW got beaten up by UM. USC is more used to playing power teams.
Is that sustainable for Oregon? I don’t know but with NIL and in the Big Ten, it might be as long as they keep their “cool/Nike branding” and Knight leaves a plan in place to keep them rolling.
That’s a big if with Knight’s money. Plus if we move beyond NIL to actual pay, that half share will hurt. And let’s see what travel and winter weather do for various schools.
I think the nationalization of recruiting helps Oregon/Washington (and Big Ten West) programs the most given their distance from hot recruiting zones, and I think NIL/$ can enable programs like Oregon to punch way above their normal weight as long as we keep moving towards a semi-pro version of CFB.
I’d say it helps the great plains schools the most, but all less populous/more rural states benefit. The problem for the PNW is that nationalization also means the B10/SEC powers can steal the best recruits from Seattle and Portland, not just that they can steal players from CA (esp. NorCal, but also SoCal). What they really should want is regionalization, so it’s just western schools they have to fight. That means USC might take the elite western players, but leaves a lot of CA talent for them.
LikeLike
Marc,
I always felt it was a strategic blunder for the Big Ten to walk away from ESPN. This is with the caveat that we don’t know what kind of deal they could’ve had. The rumor was that Warren gave ESPN a “screw you” offer that he knew they probably wouldn’t take. Like all rumors, that might not be true. Still, it’s the only one we’ve got.
Agreed. In theory, you want to be on the by far #1 sports network. More importantly, on their ecosystem (website: Fox’s is garbage; streaming: Fox doesn’t really; TV: ESPN trumps FS1, more people get ESPN2 than FS2; radio: lots of local sports radio stations are ESPN XXXX and air their national shows). The B10 loses all of that. ESPN will cover them when they have to – big news stories, CFP & other events ESPN airs – but otherwise ignore them (or mock them). They did it to the NHL.
The rumors of ESPN’s SEC bias are somewhat overstated.
Meh. Depends on who and when. Trev Alberts and Mark May and Paul Finebaum said incredibly biased things with no repercussions. They spent more than a decade touting “SEC speed” and SEC superiority. They also spend more time on coverage of the SEC. You can say coverage follows fan interest, or maybe coverage creates fan interest.
Michigan fans were shocked — shocked! — that Fowler and Herbsteit did a fair broadcast with no snide comments about the bad Big Ten schedule that the Wolverines played. Obviously there was no SEC team on the field, but there were plenty of chances to stick the knife in, if they had wanted to.
I didn’t watch, but they should’ve commented on UM’s terrible OOC schedule. That was the embarrassing part. The B10 schedule mostly just had the tough games late rather than early.
Now, is ESPN going to promote the SEC? Surely, to some extent. You would expect any network to promote their own games. If you’d paid what they paid, you’d do it too. But they’ve always said they’d be fair to other leagues, and at least in this instance they lived up to it.
Well, it was B10 (who they don’t cover) vs P12 (who they are dropping this summer) so they didn’t have a rooting interest. Did the UGA vs UM semi 2 years ago feel as neutral?
I’m with Brian that this warrants a heavy dose of skepticism. USC has zero playoff appearances to date, Washington is now a re-build, and it’s not like they have a second Michael Penix waiting in the wings. UCLA has never been a regular national power. It remains to be seen how Oregon does with a Big Ten schedule. Almost nobody thinks the Big Ten improved itself as much as the SEC did by adding Texas and Oklahoma.
Plus ESPN valued west coast viewers so much that they low-balled the P12 and caused it to fracture.
LikeLike
Did the UGA vs UM semi 2 years ago feel as neutral?
Michigan got boatraced in that game. Even if the broadcasters were neutral, what exactly were they supposed to say? The competitive part of the contest was over after about the first 10 minutes. If Paul Finebaum ever has a valid point, this game would have been Exhibit A in his defense.
LikeLike
UM dominated UW and you said the coverage was neutral. I only had one choice for a CFP game UM didn’t win to compare it against. In theory both games should’ve seemed equally neutral.
I’ve had to sit through a lot more big OSU vs SEC games and be told by others how neutral ESPN supposedly is. I just wondered if maybe UM fans had a different view after experiencing it for themselves. Did ESPN crap on UM when it was getting blown out more than necessary? Did they not speak as highly of UM this year as they did that UGA team?
I seem to recall SEC champs being lauded as all-time great teams while B10 teams win in “crazy” years full of parity with no great teams. I also recall ESPN hiring blatantly anti-OSU personalities like Trev Alberts and Mark May and keeping them on air for years and years.
LikeLike
UM dominated UW and you said the coverage was neutral.
What I said, was that a lot of Michigan fans were surprised that the coverage wasn’t anti-Michigan, because that’s what they expect from ESPN. l have never found Fowler and Herbstreit to be anti-anybody, so there was nothing for me to be surprised about. Finebaum, Mark May, et al, are different — but they don’t call games.
Obviously, in a Big Ten vs Pac-12 matchup, ESPN would’ve had to go pretty far off script to somehow bring up SEC superiority. Still, some fans evidently expected that.
Did ESPN crap on UM when it was getting blown out more than necessary? Did they not speak as highly of UM this year as they did that UGA team?
My memory of the Georgia game from two years ago isn’t that nuanced. But it would have been hard for any announcers not to notice that the Georgia team was simply way, way better. I don’t consider that to be biased. When the game is that lopsided, what else can you say?
But fans being fans, naturally some saw that as “biased” at the time. Remember, the word “fan” is short for “fanatic” — their views are not always logical.
LikeLike
Marc,
What I said, was that a lot of Michigan fans were surprised that the coverage wasn’t anti-Michigan, because that’s what they expect from ESPN. l have never found Fowler and Herbstreit to be anti-anybody, so there was nothing for me to be surprised about. Finebaum, Mark May, et al, are different — but they don’t call games.
During a game, Herbstreit once said if his son was a QB he wouldn’t let him go to OSU and play for Tressel because of the offense. I’m biased, but that seems like an unnecessary comment while calling a game. I’ve never heard anyone else say it about any other team during a game.
Obviously, in a Big Ten vs Pac-12 matchup, ESPN would’ve had to go pretty far off script to somehow bring up SEC superiority. Still, some fans evidently expected that.
They’d just need to wax poetically about how it’s a shame the 12-team CFP doesn’t start until next year, because that would’ve given UGA the rightful chance to win it again because look how dominant they were against FSU – nobody else has looked that dominant all season.
My memory of the Georgia game from two years ago isn’t that nuanced. But it would have been hard for any announcers not to notice that the Georgia team was simply way, way better. I don’t consider that to be biased. When the game is that lopsided, what else can you say?
It’s fine to comment on what happens on the field. It’s when they start bringing in the conferences, or games played by other teams in their conferences, or previous seasons, or anything else not actually relevant that it gets annoying.
LikeLike
The viewership issue is 2-fold:
1) East/Central viewers largely being fans of Big Ten/SEC/ACC/etc. just don’t watch much Pac-12 unless the games are relevant in the national picture: USC-Notre Dame games generally meet that requirement and a game like Oregon-Washington does this year as well. Colorado with Prime was pushed everywhere early on by FOX this year (but that isn’t sustainable since Prime is a unicorn-like figure).
So when those teams are good as Oregon/Washington are in a CFP relevant way, they’ll draw viewership. Oregon/Washington regular season was 7 million, Pac-12 championship was 9 million, USC-ND was 6 million.
Of course, the Pac-12 has largely been irrelevant for a while in national terms outside of 2 CFP bids by Washington over the past 9 years; that’s a big part of why the Pac-12 has fallen out of the national consciousness. Stanford pulling back a bit from the Harbaugh/Shaw highs, USC struggling to rebuild, Oregon going through tons of coaching changes until Lanning, even Washington had to deal with Petersen’s abrupt exit. Utah won the conference twice of late and lost to the Big Ten’s 2nd or 3rd best team in the Rose Bowl.
2) 2/3 to 3/4 of the US population lives East of the Rockies. If you aren’t relevant to that part of the country, then you aren’t going to generate enough viewership on your own, especially with a weakening of the conference brand due to the reasons I stated above and just more casual cfb viewership out West outside of some parts of it.
But the question that matters for us is whether this is fixable. Does attaching Oregon/Washington/USC/UCLA to the Big Ten make Big Ten fans care about their matchups more?
We won’t know for a while, but if Oregon-USC is a pivotal game for the Big Ten championship berth, that might draw higher viewership than otherwise, ditto for Oregon-Washington.
And I think all 4 will draw solid ratings (especially when ranked) against highly ranked current Big Ten teams as “national/cross-country games”.
The 2nd part is more complex, will people in Oregon or Washington or LA care more about those teams because they’re on a bigger stage playing bigger brand opponents? Or will they actually lose local viewership because casual Pac-12 fans who graduated from other Pac-12 schools that end up in the Big 12/ACC not care about USC/UCLA/UW/Oregon.
Of course, the Big Ten itself has lots of alums out West as well, so that should be a mitigating factor as those areas become Big Ten-ish.
Overall, the Big Ten is betting that West Coast viewers have value as part of a national grouping like other professional leagues as opposed to just a regional Pac-12. I think that makes sense. In a lot of ways, USC/UCLA/Oregon/Washington going to the Big Ten unlocks their value and the value of West Coast FB. We’ll see over the next 10-15 years.
LikeLike
z33k,
The viewership issue is 2-fold:
1) East/Central viewers largely being fans of Big Ten/SEC/ACC/etc. just don’t watch much Pac-12 unless the games are relevant in the national picture: USC-Notre Dame games generally meet that requirement and a game like Oregon-Washington does this year as well. Colorado with Prime was pushed everywhere early on by FOX this year (but that isn’t sustainable since Prime is a unicorn-like figure).
So when those teams are good as Oregon/Washington are in a CFP relevant way, they’ll draw viewership. Oregon/Washington regular season was 7 million, Pac-12 championship was 9 million, USC-ND was 6 million.
That’s exactly the difference – UT and OU draw viewers no matter what, and they are both more likely to be very good. USC isn’t as consistently excellent, and has fewer hard core fans.
View at Medium.com
Average viewers for 2015-19 among P5 only (I-A rank by W%):
8. OU 2.90M (#4)
13. UT 2.27M (#61)
16. USC 1.98M (#28)
26. UO 1.34M (#32)
28. UW 1.32M (#15)
32. UCLA 1.25M (#101)
Some of that is the TV deal but the P12 and B12 both were split between Fox and ESPN.
Of course, the Pac-12 has largely been irrelevant for a while in national terms outside of 2 CFP bids by Washington over the past 9 years; that’s a big part of why the Pac-12 has fallen out of the national consciousness. Stanford pulling back a bit from the Harbaugh/Shaw highs, USC struggling to rebuild, Oregon going through tons of coaching changes until Lanning, even Washington had to deal with Petersen’s abrupt exit. Utah won the conference twice of late and lost to the Big Ten’s 2nd or 3rd best team in the Rose Bowl.
Rank by total AP poll points, 2014-2023 (CFP era):
5. OU
8. UO
12. UW
16. USC
24. UT
30. UCLA
They were relevant (often around the top 10), they just missed the CFP. One thing that hurt was UU often was the best team and they just have no brand. USC would be good and then flop. They needed an elite team and just couldn’t get one.
2) 2/3 to 3/4 of the US population lives East of the Rockies. If you aren’t relevant to that part of the country, then you aren’t going to generate enough viewership on your own, especially with a weakening of the conference brand due to the reasons I stated above and just more casual cfb viewership out West outside of some parts of it.
But the question that matters for us is whether this is fixable. Does attaching Oregon/Washington/USC/UCLA to the Big Ten make Big Ten fans care about their matchups more?
We won’t know for a while, but if Oregon-USC is a pivotal game for the Big Ten championship berth, that might draw higher viewership than otherwise, ditto for Oregon-Washington.
It’s more like 80% east of the 100th meridian now. Brands are relevant, and that’s USC and a little bit of UO.
The big problem has been the postseason. The BCS and CFP made it so only the top 2/4 mattered. Before that, the P10 always mattered because their champ played in the Rose Bowl and the all the major bowls mattered. Nobody had to root against the teams in other regions just to help your own team, so you could enjoy big OOC games involving USC.
Is it fixable? Not really. You can officially call them B10 teams, but they don’t belong and all the fans know it. They will be slightly more popular than RU and UMD, but nobody in the midwest is tuning in for UWA vs MN. USC vs someone? Okay. UO or UW? Maybe. UCLA? No.
They will get watched when they’re good. In that sense, it’s fixable. The 12-team CFP will also give them more chances to be on the big stage or at least playing against those who will be.
And I think all 4 will draw solid ratings (especially when ranked) against highly ranked current Big Ten teams as “national/cross-country games”.
I think you’ll get the worst of both worlds, not the best. They are conference games, not “national/cross-country games” as far as non-B10 fans are concerned. That will lower casual interest, especially in the south. Inside the footprint, they’ll be “national/cross-country games” rather than true B10 games so you’ll lose another chunk of fans.
They’ll do fine when ranked, and tank when not.
The 2nd part is more complex, will people in Oregon or Washington or LA care more about those teams because they’re on a bigger stage playing bigger brand opponents? Or will they actually lose local viewership because casual Pac-12 fans who graduated from other Pac-12 schools that end up in the Big 12/ACC not care about USC/UCLA/UW/Oregon.
Of course, the Big Ten itself has lots of alums out West as well, so that should be a mitigating factor as those areas become Big Ten-ish.
LA fans only care when USC is elite. UW and UO need to be good but not great to draw local interest. I think you’ll lose net interest because of the matchups – casual western fans prefer west vs west and casual B10 fans prefer midwest vs midwest, and that will trump western B10 fans added. All those games against MN, NW, IL, PU, IN, RU, and UMD (even WI, IA and MSU) will draw little attention unless rankings make it matter.
Overall, the Big Ten is betting that West Coast viewers have value as part of a national grouping like other professional leagues as opposed to just a regional Pac-12. I think that makes sense. In a lot of ways, USC/UCLA/Oregon/Washington going to the Big Ten unlocks their value and the value of West Coast FB. We’ll see over the next 10-15 years.
Fox is making that bet. The B10 just followed orders. I don’t thin kit makes sense in today’s CFB world, but might if the breakaway happens. Then having the only western brands will add value. But the fundamental problem of western fans being less rabid will never change, nor will the smaller size of UO.
More games in better windows will help them recover their brands a bit, but winning will help even more.
LikeLike
East/Central viewers largely being fans of Big Ten/SEC/ACC/etc. just don’t watch much Pac-12 unless the games are relevant in the national picture: USC-Notre Dame games generally meet that requirement and a game like Oregon-Washington does this year as well.
Broadcasters will never have trouble attracting viewers to truly relevant games — it’s the irrelevant ones that tell the tale. Most of the Big Ten schools have passionate fan bases that keep watching even when their team is mediocre or terrible. This is why the Big Ten has the highest media payout of any conference, despite having only 3 teams that contend with any regularity.
The Pac-12 didn’t have that kind of brand equity, which is why nobody was willing to pay them what they imagined they were worth. Broadcasters want games that have proven value over time that is not entirely dependent on the unpredictable athletic performance of teenagers.
What do you get when you take the four best programs out of the Pac-12? My view is somewhere between z33k’s optimism and Brian’s pessimism. I think most fans of the four incoming schools are happy to be no longer playing a Pac-12 boat-anchor schedule with so many games in the 4th window. Initially, there will certainly be a novelty factor. But their enthusiasm could wane rather quickly if they are not competitive.
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/ap-basketball-poll-alltime-kentucky-carolina-duke-kansas-5d7f3925faf7eac465979d8f5abe3310
The AP released their all-time top 25 based on total AP poll points. It’s a rapid drop-off after the top 3-4.
1. UK – 17,852
2. UNC – 17,268
3. Duke – 16,897
4. KU – 15,430
5. UCLA – 13,073
6. UL – 9493
7. UAZ – 9277
8. IU – 8796
9. SU – 7890
10. MSU – 7263
11. OSU
12. IL
14. UM
16. UMD
19. PU
Given current conference configurations, the ACC had the most schools in the all-time top 10 (four) and was tied with the Big Ten for the most in the Top 25 with seven apiece. The Big East was next with four, followed by the Big 12 with three.
Kansas and Michigan share the record for the biggest poll jump, going from out of the rankings to No. 4 the following week. The Jayhawks accomplished the feat on Nov. 27, 1990, while the Wolverines did it on Dec. 2, 2020.
Maryland is the highest-ranked team in the all-time poll never to reach the top spot in the AP Top 25, though the 16th-ranked Terrapins have spent 25 weeks at No. 2. Next on the list of never-No. 1s is Utah at No. 43 in the all-time poll.
No preseason No. 1 team has won the national championship since North Carolina in 2009. Kentucky in 2012 was the last No. 1 entering the NCAA Tournament to cut down the nets. Each of the last eight champions have been in the top 10, though.
Seven schools have spent a single glorious week at No. 1: Oklahoma State (1951), Wichita State (1964), South Carolina (1969), Georgia Tech (1985), Iowa (1987), Saint Joseph’s (2004) and Wisconsin (2007).
LikeLike
Tidbits from The Athletic on a chilly Sunday afternoon . . .
Michigan QB J.J. McCarthy, RB Blake Corum declare for 2024 NFL Draft
Florida State and coach Mike Norvell agreed to a new contract, the school announced Friday. The eight-year deal is worth more than $10 million per year, a source briefed on the negotiations told The Athletic on Friday.
Miami has landed its next quarterback. Former Washington State starter Cameron Ward announced his commitment to the Hurricanes on Saturday, less than two weeks after he had announced he was entering the 2024 NFL Draft.
Texas & coach Steve Sarkisian agree to 4-year contract extension
LikeLike
Fisch to Arizona.
I like the hire for UW; I think he might be able to rebuild there better than DeBoer could’ve even if he isn’t as good of a gameday coach as DeBoer.
The big question: how much of Arizona’s players can he bring to UW? If he brings a lot of guys over, that could be a quicker rebuild than if DeBoer had stayed.
We’ll see though, that’s a program that will look so different from this past year, but at least he took a pretty decimated program under Sumlin and went winless in Covid and 1-11 in Fisch’s first year and transformed it into a good team the past 2 years.
Right fit for what they need and he’s been in LA/AZ and should be able to better recruit those areas for UW.
Of course the future issue is that he’s never stayed in one place for any length in time and has jobs in different cities almost every year or two for the past 20 years. There’s no stability there and his alma mater Florida may have an opening in the next year or two (though he didn’t play there so who knows what his actual ties are to that program).
But for now, I think UW fans would be happy if he can bring a lot of Arizona’s players over and rebuild fast as they enter the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Bringing the QB would be a big help. Keeping UW players from leaving will also help. Maybe they can steal some backups from AL?
Which coaches does he keep at UW, and which follow him from UA? UW’s OC is really good, but he got overlooked for the HC job.
UW stepped up financially at $7.75M per year, which is impressive with their half share of revenue. Being decisive about the search was important.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/jim-harbaugh-remains-engaged-in-contract-talks-with-michigan-amid-nfl-swirl-142158946.html
Harbaugh is hedging his bets, negotiating with UM while interviewing in the NFL. None of that is surprising, but some of his contract requests with UM are.
Even as Jim Harbaugh meets with NFL teams about coaching opportunities, specifically the Los Angeles Chargers early this week, he remains engaged in discussions with Michigan about a contract extension that includes unusual termination clauses should he choose to stay in Ann Arbor, according to industry sources.
Specifically, sources said Harbaugh is seeking language that would grant him immunity from termination from any finding or sanction that could arise from multiple current NCAA investigations into the football program.
Harbaugh is also seeking a delay in the start date of the new contract to maintain a lower buyout that NFL teams would have to pay Michigan to hire him away. The buyout in his current contract dropped from $2.25 million to $1.5 million on Jan. 11. Michigan is seeking that to increase to about $4 million in a new deal. Harbaugh has sought to have the new deal not start until Feb. 15, thus maintaining the lower and more favorable buyout number until after the NFL hiring cycle has concluded.
Harbaugh is seeking a matrix of fines be spelled out if there are any future NCAA violations as well as prohibiting the school’s athletic director from firing him “for cause” and instead having that decision, should it ever arise, rest in a three-member arbitration panel, sources said.
…
Michigan has already offered to make Harbaugh the highest-paid coach in college football via a guaranteed six-year deal worth $11.5 million annually. There would be additional performance-based bonuses.
While the financial terms between the coach and the school are either fully or mostly ironed out, the termination language remains a sticking point.
…
He is also seeking to have any decision involving “for cause” termination — whether for NCAA violations or anything else — determined by a three-member arbitration panel, rather than the school’s athletic director, a role currently held by Warde Manuel. Traditionally, for-cause termination of a coach would be determined by his direct supervisor. The athletic director would still be able to fire him for performance-related issues.
The arbitration panel is a system used by the university’s president. It is common in university executive contracts, but not with coaches, according to numerous college administrators.
Thoughts on those requests, Marc?
LikeLike
These seem like “F.U.” demands, and in his head he’s already more than half out the door. He has flirted with the NFL repeatedly, and if he was ever going to jump, then I cannot imagine a better time. I am sure he wants the one last thing not on his coaching resume: a Super Bowl win.
Even ignoring the NCAA investigations, Michigan is not built to repeat as national champs. Now consider the NCAA overhang, and I’ve predicted all along that the sanctions are going to be fairly severe. Not program-crippling, but severe enough to make an impact. Harbaugh likely knows that too.
A year ago, Harbaugh thought he was going to get the Minnesota Vikings job, only to return to Michigan after it was not offered. So it does make sense to have two irons in the fire. The more irrational demands can always be scaled back if he finds out the NFL doesn’t want him.
On the basis of his coaching ability, Harbaugh does deserve to be one of the highest paid in the sport. But he’s asking for a lot of perks I have never heard of in a coaching contract. If Nick Saban didn’t have such a deal, why should he? It’s hard to see him getting all of that.
LikeLike
I especially like his boss not having the power to fire him for cause. He could do it for lack of performance, but not for cause. Why in the world would UM agree to that?
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/39327963/amazon-invest-diamond-sports-part-bankruptcy-deal
Amazon is buying a minority stake in Diamond Sports Group and will make their RSN content available over Prime Video. It’s an interesting way for them to add sports content.
Amazon will partner with Diamond Sports as part of a restructuring agreement as the largest owner of regional sports networks looks to emerge from bankruptcy.
Diamond owns 18 networks under the Bally Sports banner. Those networks have the rights to 37 professional teams: 11 MLB, 15 NBA and 11 NHL.
Diamond Sports has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the Southern District of Texas since it filed for protection last March. The company said in a late 2021 financial filing that it had debt of $8.67 billion.
The terms of the agreement were announced by Diamond Sports on Wednesday morning. Amazon had no comment. It remains subject to approval by the bankruptcy court.
The agreement with Diamond Sports’ largest creditors allows it to emerge from bankruptcy, continue operations and prevents a total collapse of the regional sports network system where the NBA, NHL and MLB would have to step in to take over production and distribution of most of their teams.
Amazon will provide access to Diamond Sports’ content on Prime Video, where customers will be able to watch their local team’s games.
…
Under the terms of the restructuring agreement, Amazon will make a minority investment in Diamond and enter into a commercial arrangement to provide access to Diamond’s content via Prime Video.
Customers will be able to access their local team’s content on Prime Video channels where Diamond has rights. Pricing and availability will be announced at a later date. Regional sports content will also remain available on cable and satellite providers.
Amazon Prime already carries some New York Yankees and Brooklyn Nets games produced by the YES Network.
Diamond also has an agreement in principle with Sinclair, to settle the pending litigation between the companies and the other named defendants, which settlement is supported by Diamond’s creditors that are parties to the RSA.
LikeLike
This might explain realignment, especially the demise of the P12.
Most wins since 2000:
1. Ohio State 259
2. Oklahoma 255
3. Alabama 252
4. Boise State 249
5. Georgia 248
6. Clemson 236
7. LSU 233
8. Oregon 224
9. Wisconsin 215
10. USC 213
11. Florida State 212
12. TCU 211
13. Michigan 208
14. Florida 206
15. Virginia Tech 204
16. Notre Dame 202
17. Utah 200
18. Auburn 198
19. Oklahoma State 197
20. PSU 196
Current alignment:
SEC (5) – 3, 5, 7, 14, 18
B10 (4) – 1, 9, 13, 20
B12 (3) – 2, 12, 19
ACC (3) – 6, 11, 15
P12 (3) – 8, 10, 17
Other (2) – 4, 16
The lack of an elite program out west vs Clemson in the ACC and OU in the B12 set the stage for P12 implosion with the 4-team CFP.
2024 alignment:
SEC (6) – 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 18
B10 (6) – 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 20
B12 (3) – 12, 17, 19
ACC (3) – 6*, 11*, 15
Other (2) – 4, 16
* – have made noise about leaving
The new separation between the P2 and M2 becomes very stark. 2000 is an arbitrary start and 20 is an arbitrary number, but the point is clear.
And in typical OSU fashion, we are #1 in wins but only won 2 national titles while AL won 6 and LSU won 3. Clemson and UGA also won 2. At least we topped #2 OU who only won 1.
LikeLike
Very interesting gift article from WaPo. They compute what it would it cost each P5 school to join Charlie Baker’s proposed elite subdivision of P5 schools plus ND. These are then ranked by cost as a percentage of revenue. Note that the imbedded Table has seven pages and you’ll need to click to go through all of the schools.
https://wapo.st/47zMcC1
LikeLike
https://www.kagr.com/ncaa-partners-with-kagr-kraft-analytics-group-to-innovate-fan-experience/
The NCAA now wants to mine all your personal data and monetize it. What could possibly go wrong?
Today, the NCAA and KAGR, a leading sports data technology and analytics firm, announced a new business deal that will use data to provide unprecedented support to collegiate athletic conferences and athletic departments nationwide, empower student athletes, and enhance fan and alumni engagement. After conducting a competitive procurement process, NCAA President Charlie Baker announced the deal at the 2024 NCAA Convention in Phoenix, Arizona.
“Developing a comprehensive database that will better inform current fans–and hopefully generate future college sports fans–about NCAA championships and events is a win for the NCAA, its membership and certainly student-athletes, so we are pleased to collaborate with KAGR, a leading sports data firm, to build this platform,” said NCAA president Charlie Baker. “KAGR has proven success with developing relationships with fan bases and with bringing an organization’s goals to fruition. Properly managed and constructed, we should be able to provide timely, useful, actionable information to our membership, and especially to our dedicated fan base.”
“The NCAA’s arrangement with KAGR marks a significant milestone in its evolution, as it endeavors to grow its digital strategy and connect to fans in new and innovative ways using technology and data,” said Jessica Gelman, CEO of KAGR. “From championing equality in women’s sports to strategically selecting championship locations and setting bold targets for audience growth, we are confident that the impact will be felt across the NCAA’s various dimensions and are proud that this collaboration will help provide college sports fans and student-athletes with the best possible experience.”
LikeLike
A well-written and comprehensive preview of the 2024 Big Ten football schedule from The Athletic.
Big Ten football in 2024: 10 key topics for beginning of conference’s new era
By Scott Dochterman Jan 16, 2024
Michigan held its championship celebration on Saturday in Ann Arbor, capping a 15-0 season and its first College Football Playoff title. For many schools, including Michigan, classes either have begun or will start today. Related to football, the new era provides the perfect opportunity to look forward to the football offseason.
The Wolverines face several challengers nationally and within the Big Ten to their supremacy as a 12-team Playoff takes flight. A combination of returnees and portal additions has Ohio State poised to regain its perch atop the Big Ten. Penn State loses some valuable defensive pieces but brings back its offensive core, while Iowa returns almost its entire defense. Newcomers Washington, Oregon, USC and UCLA all have championship aspirations while Wisconsin and Nebraska eye major strides by their second-year coaches.
To kick off the offseason discussion, here are 10 topics for 2024 ranging from expansion to television to the transfer portal. As always, it’s a snapshot and not a film strip; much of this can change by the hour, let alone the day.
Expansion
During the past 75 years, the Big Ten dabbled in expansion by adding a single school three times (Michigan State in 1953, Penn State in 1993, Nebraska in 2011) and once adding two schools (Rutgers and Maryland in 2014). All of them were full of intrigue and difficulties, but each included flagship institutions in contiguous states.
This fall, the Big Ten figuratively becomes the Big Tent. West Coast schools USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon become members on Aug. 2, which immediately elevates the league’s football roster. There are obvious logistical hurdles associated with travel in all sports, but adding four respected programs — three of which have played for football national titles in the last two decades — bolsters the conference’s lineup and football reputation.
To alleviate some travel concerns, the four West Coast newcomers picked up a bye or a home game following a trip to the Eastern or Central time zones. Of the 14 teams located in the Eastern and Central time zones, eight have a bye and six have home games.
No divisions
The decade-long split between the East and West divisions ended with a thud when Michigan shut out Iowa 26-0 in the Big Ten Championship Game. The East won all 10 title games and finished 103-86 against the West in cross-divisional matchups. Iowa (17-10) and Wisconsin (15-12) were the only West teams to have winning records against their East foes.
The top two teams will qualify for the Big Ten Championship Game this fall. Only 12 rivalries were preserved annually, and every team will face the other 17 at least twice every five years. The league’s traditional regionality will fade, which will cause some lament among fan bases. The championship tiebreaker could get messy. But the opportunity for must-see regular-season games overrides cycling through second-tier rivalries a little more often.
Grand slam games
My apologies for mixing metaphors, but the Big Ten hit a home run, flipped the bat and is still circling the bases when it comes to the 2024 schedule. As always, Michigan-Ohio State provides the backbone as the rivalry renews in Columbus on Nov. 30. But there’s so much more than “The Game.” There is a Playoff championship rematch on Oct. 5 with the Wolverines traveling to Washington. USC’s first Big Ten game is set for Sept. 21 at Michigan, then the Trojans’ first home Big Ten contest is against Wisconsin one week later.
UCLA’s inaugural Big Ten game is Sept. 14 against Indiana, which will make its first trip to the Rose Bowl since Jan. 1, 1968. Washington plays host to Northwestern on Sept. 21, while Oregon travels to UCLA then faces Michigan State in Eugene on Oct. 5.
Two weekends stand out as eye-poppers. The first is Oct. 12 in a trio of cross-country matchups. Ohio State travels to Oregon in a clash of programs that competed in New Year’s Six bowls a few weeks ago. Then Penn State heads to the L.A. Memorial Coliseum to face USC. In addition, Playoff runner-up Washington flies to Kinnick Stadium to battle 10-win Iowa.
No weekend has as much brand power as Nov. 2 with Oregon traveling to Michigan and UCLA playing at Nebraska. Then in traditional rivalries, Ohio State plays at Penn State, Wisconsin rides the bus to Iowa and USC flies north to Washington. The networks will buzz for that weekend.
As a cap tip to the Big Ten’s past, Michigan travels to Illinois on Oct. 19, which makes a century plus one day from Red Grange’s legendary performance. The Galloping Ghost scored four touchdowns in the game’s first 12 minutes and six overall on Oct. 18, 1924 — the day the Illinois formally dedicated Memorial Stadium.
How different will Michigan look in 2024? 10 thoughts after the championship celebration
Nonconference power games
It’s not just the new series and rivalry matchups that will garner excitement. Most league schools are invested in some powerhouse national and regional games that will be the talk of the nation.
On Sept. 7, Playoff semifinalist Texas travels to Michigan in what nearly was a championship clash. The following week, Playoff semifinalist Alabama, which Michigan beat in overtime, heads to Wisconsin. USC opens against LSU in Las Vegas, and UCLA faces the Tigers in Death Valley on Sept. 21. Minnesota kicks off the season in Dinkytown against North Carolina on Aug. 31 — if it’s not moved up to Aug. 29.
Longtime rivalries renew on Sept. 14 between Oregon-Oregon State (Corvallis, Ore.), Washington-Washington State (Seattle), Notre Dame-Purdue (West Lafayette, Ind.) and Maryland-Virginia (Charlottesville, Va.). In bitter feuds, Iowa State plays at Iowa and Colorado travels to Nebraska on Sept. 7. The season concludes in the historic cross-country rivalry with USC hosting Notre Dame.
TV and the Big Ten
The Big Ten’s television slate becomes consistent this fall with the SEC leaving CBS. The Saturday slate opens with Fox’s Big Noon Kickoff, then CBS airing a 3:30 p.m. ET game and NBC broadcasting a 7:30 p.m. ET matchup. The only shift will come on days when NBC airs two Notre Dame home games in prime time. At first blush, those could come on Sept. 28 (Louisville) and Nov. 9 (Florida State). Fox likely will shift its Big Ten games to prime time on those dates and NBC will move its contests to noon ET.
In a spring draft among the three networks — and also involving BTN, FS1 and Peacock — Fox has the first selection, but then it becomes convoluted. CBS and NBC will have top choices on some weekends. CBS and NBC are on the books for 15 games, while Peacock will stream nine games. Fox, FS1 and BTN will combine for about 90 games.
Fridays and holidays
The Big Ten’s additions of Washington and Oregon last summer led Fox to pick up much of the payment for those schools and opened up multiple viewing windows. Big Ten games will air on a Fox-owned network on at least nine Friday nights. The games and dates for those matchups are not revealed, and it’s a major change from the two league games that aired on FS1 in late September and October.
A few schools with logistical hurdles like Michigan and Penn State won’t host a Friday night game. But it will become a weekly occurrence involving nearly every school this fall. There will be a few late Saturday night kickoffs, too, on a Fox platform.
The Big Ten plans for an expansive presence on Labor Day weekend with prime-time kickoffs on Thursday, Friday and Sunday to go along with a full Saturday slate. Like last year, there will be two games on Black Friday but an additional prime-time Saturday game.
Rivalry returns
The Big Ten formed at Chicago’s famed Palmer House in 1896, and rivalries are deeply embedded in the league’s culture. For more than a year, league and school administrators debated the scheduling patterns with some schools (Iowa) wanting three permanent rivals while others (Penn State) wanting a true rotation. Ultimately, both got what they wanted.
Iowa was the only program to secure three annual foes while Penn State was the only school to become officially unrivaled. In a plan the league office called “Flex Protect Plus,” 12 rivalries were considered important enough to remain annual: Michigan-Ohio State, Michigan-Michigan State, Indiana-Purdue, Purdue-Illinois, Illinois-Northwestern, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Minnesota-Iowa, Iowa-Wisconsin, Iowa-Nebraska, Maryland-Rutgers, Washington-Oregon and USC-UCLA.
New coaches
While the college football universe awaits Michigan’s Jim Harbaugh future between the Wolverines and the NFL, the Big Ten will have at least four new head coaches entering the offseason.
Northwestern named David Braun as permanent coach following a successful campaign in an interim role. Michigan State landed Oregon State’s Jonathan Smith, and Indiana inked James Madison’s Curt Cignetti as their leaders following the season. This weekend, Washington hired Arizona’s Jedd Fisch to replace Kalen DeBoer, who left for Alabama.
Nearly as interesting are the coordinator moves throughout the conference. After he was fired at Indiana, Tom Allen replaced new Duke head coach Manny Diaz as Penn State’s defensive coordinator. The Nittany Lions hired Kansas offensive coordinator Andy Kotelnicki to replace Mike Yurcich, who was fired. Michigan State snagged successful Minnesota defensive coordinator Joe Rossi, and the Gophers replaced him with Rutgers linebackers coach Corey Hetherman.
Braun landed up-and-coming offensive coordinator Zach Lujan from two-time FCS champion South Dakota State and elevated longtime Northwestern assistant Tim McGarigle to defensive coordinator. Cignetti brought offensive coordinator Mike Shanahan and defensive coordinator Bryant Haines from James Madison, while Smith brought offensive coordinator Brian Lindgren from Oregon State.
In a rivalry move, USC’s Lincoln Riley replaced Alex Grinch as defensive coordinator with UCLA’s D’Anton Lynn. UCLA elevated Ikaika Malloe, who served as Lynn’s replacement during bowl preparation.
Finally, Iowa is nearly three months removed from school officials announcing offensive coordinator Brian Ferentz would not return. Although there have been discussions between head coach Kirk Ferentz and former Wisconsin coach Paul Chryst for that job, nothing has been decided.
Key departures, returnees
At least 10 first-team All-Big Ten performers return, including six on defense. Iowa linebacker Jay Higgins, Michigan cornerback Will Johnson and Ohio State defensive end J.T. Tuimoloau are back after earning first-team honors from both the media and coaches. Michigan defensive lineman Mason Graham, Penn State linebacker Abdul Carter and Ohio State cornerback Denzel Burke were coaches’ first-team selection and return.
On offense, a pair of unanimous first-team selections from Ohio State return — running back TreVeyon Henderson and offensive lineman Donovan Jackson. Ohio State tackle Josh Fryar (media) and Michigan tight end Colston Loveland (coaches) return. The other impact returnees include Michigan running back Donovan Edwards, Michigan defensive lineman Kenneth Grant, Ohio State defensive linemen Jack Sawyer and Tyleik Williams, Ohio State receiver Emeka Egbuka, Wisconsin defensive backs Hunter Wohler and Ricardo Hallman, Rutgers running back Kyle Monangai, Penn State running backs Nick Singleton and Kaytron Allen and Iowa defenders Sebastian Castro (defensive back) and Nick Jackson (linebacker).
Among the four new schools, quarterbacks Caleb Williams (USC), Bo Nix (Oregon) and Michael Penix Jr. (Washington) all are likely top-100 draft picks with Williams a heavy favorite to go No. 1 overall. Oregon loses top offensive threats Troy Franklin and Bucky Irving but brings back tight end Terrance Ferguson and receiver Tez Johnson. USC brings back leading pass rusher Jamil Muhammed while UCLA and Washington have plenty of revisions to make.
Portal pirates
As of Monday afternoon, 259 players from the 18 programs entered the portal during this cycle, according to On3. Of those players, 139 have found new homes and 19 withdrew from the portal. According to On3, Big Ten programs added 130 players from the portal while 25 were from within the conference.
Among the most interesting trends, five Big Ten programs had more than 20 players enter the portal — Michigan State (30), Indiana (28), Purdue (26), Ohio State (21) and USC (21). Ten former Spartans withdrew from the portal while 13 have found new homes. Indiana had 28 enter the portal with five withdrawing, and it added 21 players, including 10 from James Madison. Purdue had 26 enter the portal and has added 15 players.
Penn State (six), Iowa (seven) and Michigan (seven) had the fewest players enter the portal. The Hawkeyes and Northwestern were the only teams to not sign a player from the transfer portal.
The most interesting moves involve former UCLA five-star quarterback Dante Moore leaving for Oregon to battle with Oklahoma transfer Dillon Gabriel and former Ole Miss running back Quinshon Judkins joining Henderson at Ohio State to form the most incredible backfield combination in recent memory. Other key additions include Ohio State quarterback Will Howard (Kansas State), Michigan State quarterback Aidan Chiles (Oregon State), USC defensive back Kamari Ramsey (UCLA) and Wisconsin quarterback Tyler Van Dyke (Miami).
LikeLike
Finally, Iowa is nearly three months removed from school officials announcing offensive coordinator Brian Ferentz would not return. Although there have been discussions between head coach Kirk Ferentz and former Wisconsin coach Paul Chryst for that job, nothing has been decided.
Nick Saban surprised the football world with his retirement, and Alabama made a strong hire within 72 hours. Iowa’s season ended 6½ weeks ago, and they still have not hired an offensive coordinator that they’ve known they’d need since October.
LikeLike
They’re probably waiting to interview Steve Ferentz, or maybe the highly touted Frian Berentz. Matt Patricia is probably available, too.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39331484/acc-court-filing-accuses-fsu-breach-contract-seeks-damages
The ACC is suing FSU for damages now. They can make a decent case for kicking FSU off of committees, but I don’t know why they need a lawsuit for that. Don’t their bylaws give them that power?
The Atlantic Coast Conference filed an amended complaint in North Carolina Superior Court on Tuesday seeking damages from Florida State for “serial breaches of critical legal promises and obligations” and questioned FSU’s right to have leadership in ACC positions.
…
The ACC filing on Tuesday includes six claims, including FSU breaching its contract with the ACC, breaching confidentiality in the media rights agreement and breaching fiduciary obligations and obligations of good faith.
The complaint includes a new claim for potentially “substantial” damages from alleged contract breaches: “The Conference have and recover of Florida State damages for its breach of the ACC Constitution and Bylaws in an amount to be proven at trial but which the Conference believes will be substantial.”
The filing also challenges FSU’s ability to have school officials in conference leadership positions, which includes FSU president Richard McCullough being on the ACC’s board of directors and the finance committee.
It asks for a “permanent injunction barring Florida State from participating in the management of the affairs of the Conference while it has a direct and material conflict of interest” with the conference’s objectives.
If the entire legal process plays out, it’s expected to take years. The next key date is Feb. 16, when both sides have agreed to respond to the initial filings.
How can the ACC claim they are damaged by FSU leaking the media deal? Because they are embarrassed by the details of the terrible deal Swofford negotiated? It’s a lawsuit, FSU had to reveal the details to make their complaint. Besides, any contract with a state school should be public, especially if it’s being debated in court. And the ACC is already having to file tax forms with the government about the dollar amounts in the deal.
LikeLike
Forgive me but I’m getting some nice warm schadenfreude from all of this FSU/ACC squealing.
LikeLike
How can the ACC claim they are damaged by FSU leaking the media deal? Because they are embarrassed by the details of the terrible deal Swofford negotiated? It’s a lawsuit, FSU had to reveal the details to make their complaint. Besides, any contract with a state school should be public…
FSU is not a party to the media deal. FSU signed a GoR with the ACC, and the ACC did the deal—the same arrangement the other conferences have. This is why the details of these media contracts almost never reach the public.
I think the schools are well aware that this is a deliberate strategy to ensure the media deals are not discoverable under open records / FOI laws. I don’t know whether the ACC has a valid legal claim, but all the conferences have the identical approach of keeping the media deal under wraps.
What has always amazed me is that the schools don’t keep copies of the Grant of Rights, which I think the public should be able to see. Have we ever seen the current Big Ten GoR? Not that I recall.
LikeLike
Marc,
They are party enough to be sued for leaking details of it.
I know they hide them legally, I just don’t think they should be allowed to do so. No state government contract should be able to be hidden, and that includes indirect ones like this. What the school gives and gets in the contract should be public.
LikeLike
Click to access fy22ncaamembershipreportfinal.pdf
NCAA financial reporting forms give a lot of detail. This is OSU’s for FY2022, not that I think any of you particularly care about OSU’s details per se. But I think there are some generally relevant numbers that can be calculated from it.
Total Operating Revenues: $251,615,345
FB: 109,176,080 (43.4%)
MBB: 23,640,053 (9.4%)
Wrestling: 1,549,834
M Hockey: 880,716
WBB: 693,032
WVB: 566,098
Baseball: 563,488
MLAX: 528,305
Other sports: below $310,000 each
Unspecific Sport: 110,156,200 (43.8%)
Contributions: $62,982,851 (25.0%)
Revenue Not Related to Specific Teams: 59,776,979 (94.9%)
Those are the mandatory donations to get football/MBB season tickets plus general donations to the AD. Teams get very small direct donations, with football the highest at $549,085. I wish the mandatory donations for tickets was lumped in with ticket sales for more truth in reporting.
Ticket sales: $59,649,921 (23.7%)
FB: 47,673,299 (79.9%)
MBB: 5,198,379 (8.7%)
M Hockey: 434,254
Wrestling: 300,184
WBB: 282,590
WVB: 188,284
Baseball: 61,260
MLAX: 47,073
WGymnastics: 51,895
M&W T&F: 6,289
All other sports (OSU has 36): 0
Unspecific Sport (fees, etc.): 5,400,125 (9.1%)
Football is more like 88% if you assume the same proportion of the “unspecific” revenue is also football related. Obviously the numbers will vary by school, but it shows how unimportant ticket sales in all but the revenue sports are.
Media Rights $48,908,898 (19.4%)
FB: 36,489,974 (74.6%)
MBB: 12,418,924 (25.4%)
Others: 0
It looks like the B10 (or at least OSU) uses a 75%/25% split.
Various Minor Revenues $44,635,175 (17.7%)
Royalties, Licensing, Advertisement and Sponsorships: $30,088,073
Unspecific Sport: 27,444,427 (91.2%)
FB: 1,002,690 (3.3%)
Program, Novelty, Parking and Concession Sales: $7,865,926
FB: 5,984,906 (76.1%)
MBB: 730,582 (8.7%)
M Hockey: 174,412
WBB: 63,964
WVB: 47,273
MLAX: 26,704
Baseball: 26,305
Other sports all below $12,000 each
Athletics Restricted Endowment and Investments Income: $4,810,589
Sports Camp Revenues: $1,870,587
Other B10/NCAA Revenues: $23,006,314 (9.1%)
Conference Distributions (Non Media and Non Football Bowl): 4,600,196
FB: 3,600,158 (78.3%) (subset of above)
MBB: 966,416 (21.0%) (subset of above)
Conference Distributions of Football Bowl Generated Revenue: 7,272,697
Football Bowl Revenues: 5,657,760
NCAA Distributions 5,475,661
NCAA for MBB: 3,883,993 (70.9%) (subset of above)
This is why I don’t see “fully monetizing” the NCAAT as a major payday for schools. It just isn’t a big enough fraction of total revenue to matter all that much.
Other Operating Revenue: $11,828,809 (4.7%)
There is equally detailed info about expenses, but I’ll skip that. Roughly OSU spends $24.6M on student aid and $10.5M on travel for 981 athletes in 34 NCAA sports + 2 non-NCAA sports (pistol, synchronized swimming). The rest goes to the expected things – coaches, staff, facilities, debt service, etc.
Profits:
Overall: $25,881,927
FB: $40,048,169
MBB: $11,519,053
WBB: -$4,543,105
All other sports: -$43,846,728
Nonspecific: $22,704,538
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39337111/miami-te-cam-mccormick-granted-ninth-year-eligibility
This is ridiculous. A player was granted a 9th year of eligibility. I don’t care how many injuries he’s had and that a pandemic happened, nobody should get 9 years. 5 years to play 4 no matter what (redshirt, injuries, etc.) – they are students first, and then should get on with their lives.
LikeLike
Is it any surprise that the NCAA has such a poor reputation? There’s simply no defense for this, assuming one believes their pablum that the athletes are students first.
The “five to play four” formulation is a myth, as the rules have been relaxed many times. In the current version of them, a football player can appear in up to four games and still redshirt. I would support “five to play five,” since the majority of college students (including non-athletes) do not graduate in four years. But at the same time it would be fine with me if the hardship waiver were eliminated entirely.
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo about Congress & NIL
https://wapo.st/3O4WpzK
LikeLike
I’m saying 5 to play 4 should be the rule, not that it is one. It has been the general guideline with 1 redshirt year, but never carved in stone. They do require academic progress such that a student will graduate in 5 years or less, though.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_326.10.asp
The majority of first-time, full-time students at nonprofit schools (the pool I’d argue we should be comparing to) graduate in 4 years from their first school since the 2000 cohort (give or take a year). It’s the for-profit schools and part-time students who lower the overall percentage. Transfers also lower it significantly. But you need to pass 15+ credits per term to graduate in 4 years while many athletes take the minimum of 12 (https://www.unlv.edu/asc/student-athlete/ncaa-requirements)
To maintain eligibility for competition and athletic financial aid, each student-athlete must meet several institutional, conference, and NCAA requirements. In general, student athletes must:
* Be enrolled and attending as a full-time student each semester (12+ credits for undergraduate; 9 credits + for graduate)
* Each semester, you must earn 6 credits of coursework that apply to graduation in your designated academic program (Football Only: nine hours completed during the Fall term)
* Earn a minimum of 24 hours of coursework in your academic program during the first year in order to be eligible to compete the next year
* Earn at least 18 hours in your major every academic year, (fall and spring semesters)
* Declare a major before the third year or 5th semester of your enrollment in college
* Make sure all of your courses are applicable toward your academic degree program in order to be used for eligibility purposes
* Beginning with your 3rd semester of enrollment, you must meet GPA requirements as indicated below. Your GPA will be checked at the beginning of each term. Beginning with your 5th semester of enrollment, you must meet percentage-of-degree requirements as noted in the chart below as well.
LikeLike
Gift article WaPo: Bye bye S. I.
https://wapo.st/3SmUVDo
LikeLike
Let’s think about the unthinkable: Only three (3!) ACC teams make it into March Madness. Well, this week’s Bracket Watch field includes just three ACC teams. From The Athletic:
2024 NCAA Tournament Bracket Watch: Lean times for the ACC — at least for now
By Brian Bennett
Jan 19, 2024
The ACC’s NCAA Tournament hopes are looking awfully thin. Because for fans and those of a certain age who remember the conference’s (long-lasting!) glory days, the following is going to hurt like a jab in the thigh: This week’s Bracket Watch field includes just three ACC teams.
North Carolina and Duke, it should come as no surprise, are in great shape and look like national title contenders. Clemson, which at one point was 11-1 and debuted in this space as a No. 3 seed, has gone 1-4 in 2024 with the sole win coming at home over Boston College. The Tigers are still solidly in the field thanks in large part to nonconference wins over Alabama and TCU, but at No. 38 in the NET, their team sheet looks a little flabby around the edges.
And that’s … all there is for ACC teams in the top 40 of the NET. Let’s peek into the rest of the pantry:
• Wake Forest has played well since transfer Efton Reid became eligible. But the Demon Deacons have no Quad 1 wins, are 47th in the NET and haven’t beaten a top-85 team away from home. It’s not enough to get off the bubble yet, especially since they lost to Georgia, LSU, Florida State and NC State, and one of their most notable wins came against …
• Miami. Metrics have never loved the Hurricanes, even as they went to the Final Four last year. But the team’s performance is making the computers look smart. The Canes have lost three of their last four, including a resume-killing Quad 4 setback against Louisville at home, and have twice as many losses in the bottom two quadrants (two) as Quad 1 wins. Miami, with its athleticism, is still a team you wouldn’t want to see in the bracket, but at 66th in KenPom, it’s not on track to get there.
• Florida State and NC State are tied for second in the league, a half-game ahead of Duke. FSU’s turnaround has been impressive — Leonard Hamilton’s team started 4-5 and has won seven of its past eight, including at Miami and against Wake Forest. But the one loss in there was at home against Lipscomb, and an earlier setback against South Florida will leave a mark. The Seminoles have at least given themselves a shot to get into the mix, but at 79th in KenPom and 88th in the NET, there’s much work to do. NC State has been respectable but has no Quad 1 wins and metrics in the 60s and 70s.
• Virginia beat Virginia Tech on Wednesday in a game that was painful to watch (it was 25-18 at halftime). UVa has thrown out some real stinkers this year, including a 23-point loss to Memphis and a still-hard-to-believe 22-point blowout to Notre Dame. With no Quad 1 wins and shaky metrics, the Cavaliers still have a lot to prove. The Hokies have been on the edge of our field thanks to out-of-league wins against Iowa State and Boise State, but they’ve now lost four of their last five and are clearly on the outside looking in.
• Syracuse? All but two of the Orange’s wins came in Quads 3 and 4, and they lost by a combined 56 points to Duke and North Carolina. Empty calories here.
This is not just a one-year burp, either, as the ACC has not ranked higher than fifth in KenPom’s conference ratings since 2020. Last year, it was seventh, behind the Mountain West. Success in March — the league has produced four Final Four teams in the past four tournaments, including Virginia’s 2019 title — has masked a stark decline in regular-season prowess. Jokes were going around last year about a #OneBidACC, but the conference ended up with five teams in March Madness and posted a 7-5 record.
The news isn’t all bad. ACC teams notched some good wins in the nonconference, and mild improvement in the bottom of the league reduces the risk of devastating losses the rest of the way. Games against UNC or Duke, meanwhile, provide major statement opportunities. There are still 58 days until Selection Sunday, and this current three-bid status will almost certainly improve. But if you see an ACC fan, don’t be surprised if they’re a little sick to their stomach right now.
Some other notes on this week’s bracket:
• If these are lean times in the ACC, the Mountain West is looking robust. The MWC has five bids this week, which would match its previous high set in 2013. Getting six bids is not entirely out of the question, either, as Boise State — which is 6-4 in the first two quads — is lurking on the bubble despite a Quad 3 loss to UNLV on Tuesday. The Mountain West has four teams in the top 28 of the NET (twice as many as the ACC).
• As we project automatic qualifiers from the likely one-bid conferences, we lean on metrics and current standings. And thus, we no longer can ignore that Saint Mary’s, not Gonzaga, sits in the driver’s seat in the WCC. So for the first time, we have the Zags out of the field. We wrote two weeks ago about how strange this is and Gonzaga’s challenges ahead.
• We’re sticking with the same four No. 1 seeds this week, but UConn moves to No. 2 overall. Kansas remains on the No. 2 line, but its metrics are inching closer toward the profile of a No. 1. The hardest call this week was the final No. 2 seed. We settled on a controversial choice: Auburn, which has no Quad 1 wins but has been utterly dominant. The metrics are elite: fourth in KenPom, sixth in BPI, seventh in the NET. The big wins, we believe, are coming soon.
• The complaints from ACC fans and Auburn fans should be interesting, but bring your questions to the comments section, and we’ll do our best to answer them as long as things remain civil. Just because Ozempic injections are prickly doesn’t mean we need to be.
First Four
Dayton
16
Southern
16
Norfolk State
Dayton
12
Providence
12
New Mexico
Dayton
16
Saint Peter’s
16
Merrimack
Dayton
12
Kansas State
12
South Carolina
Midwest Region (Detroit)
Indianapolis
1
Purdue
16
Southern
Norfolk State
Indianapolis
8
St. John’s
9
Cincinnati
Salt Lake City
4
Baylor
13
Akron
Salt Lake City
5
Colorado State
12
McNeese State
Pittsburgh
3
Marquette
14
Drexel
Pittsburgh
6
Oklahoma
11
Saint Mary’s
Charlotte
2
North Carolina
15
Kennesaw State
Charlotte
7
Seton Hall
10
Oregon
South Region (Dallas)
Memphis
1
Houston
16
Sam Houston State
Memphis
8
Utah
9
Nevada
Spokane
4
Creighton
13
Samford
Spokane
5
Dayton
12
South Carolina
Kansas State
Omaha
3
Wisconsin
14
Morehead State
Omaha
6
San Diego State
11
Ole Miss
Charlotte
2
Tennessee
15
Oakland
Charlotte
7
Clemson
10
Texas Tech
West Region (Los Angeles)
Salt Lake City
1
Arizona
16
Saint Peter’s
Merrimack
Salt Lake City
8
Texas A&M
9
Northwestern
Spokane
4
Illinois
13
UC Irvine
Spokane
5
Iowa State
12
Drake
Brooklyn
3
Duke
14
Eastern Washington
Brooklyn
6
Memphis
11
Nebraska
Memphis
2
Auburn
15
Colgate
Memphis
7
Villanova
10
TCU
East Region (Boston)
Brooklyn
1
UConn
16
Denver
Brooklyn
8
Mississippi State
9
Michigan State
Pittsburgh
4
Alabama
13
Appalachian State
Pittsburgh
5
BYU
12
Providence
New Mexico
Indianapolis
3
Kentucky
14
High Point
Indianapolis
6
Florida Atlantic
11
Princeton
Omaha
2
Kansas
15
Vermont
Omaha
7
Utah State
10
Grand Canyon
Gonzaga
Colorado
Providence
Texas Tech
Wake Forest
Miami
Kansas State
Oregon
Boise State
Xavier
New Mexico
Nebraska
James Madison
Indiana State
South Carolina
Ole Miss
Multi-bid conferences
Big 12
10
SEC
8
Big East
7
Big Ten
6
Mountain West
5
ACC
3
Pac-12
3
AAC
2
Seed list
1
Purdue
AQ
2
UConn
AQ
3
Houston
AQ
4
Arizona
AQ
5
Kansas
6
North Carolina
AQ
7
Tennessee
AQ
8
Auburn
9
Wisconsin
10
Duke
11
Kentucky
12
Marquette
13
Baylor
14
Illinois
15
Creighton
16
Alabama
17
BYU
18
Dayton
AQ
19
Iowa State
20
Colorado State
AQ
21
San Diego State
22
Oklahoma
23
Memphis
AQ
24
Florida Atlantic
25
Villanova
26
Seton Hall
27
Utah State
28
Clemson
29
St. John’s
30
Utah
31
Mississippi State
32
Texas A&M
33
Michigan State
34
Nevada
35
Northwestern
36
Cincinnati
37
TCU
38
Grand Canyon
AQ
39
Texas Tech
40
Oregon
41
Nebraska
42
Princeton
AQ
43
Ole Miss
44
Saint Mary’s
AQ
45
Providence
46
Kansas State
47
New Mexico
48
South Carolina
49
Drake
AQ
50
McNeese State
AQ
51
UC Irvine
AQ
52
Appalachian State
AQ
53
Samford
AQ
54
Akron
AQ
55
High Point
AQ
56
Drexel
AQ
57
Eastern Washington
AQ
58
Morehead State
AQ
59
Vermont
AQ
60
Oakland
AQ
61
Colgate
AQ
62
Kennesaw State
AQ
63
Sam Houston State
AQ
64
Denver
AQ
65
Southern
AQ
66
Saint Peter’s
AQ
67
Norfolk State
AQ
68
Merrimack
AQ
LikeLike
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-system-president-board-could-stop-unc-nc-state-from-changing-conferences/21244582/
Next week the NC Board of Governors will consider a proposal to give it and the system president the power to block a conference change for any NC system school.
If approved, UNC may have to take NCSU with them to the P2 if they want to go.
North Carolina or NC State won’t be able to leave the ACC without approval from the UNC System president and its board of governors under a proposal to be considered by the board next week.
The policy change would allow either the president or the board of governors to stop a conference change. It comes at a time when Florida State is challenging the conference in court and the biggest brands in college athletics are concentrating in two major conferences — the SEC and the Big Ten.
An initial draft of the policy change was first considered in October. It would have given the president “the opportunity to weigh in.”
The current version gives the president and board explicit power to approve or thwart a move.
The proposal — a change to the “Policy on Intercollegiate Athletics” — is on the agenda for next week’s Board of Governors’ meeting in Raleigh. It will first be considered by the university governance committee.
Chancellors must give the UNC System president “advance notice prior to executing any agreement which would result in the constituent institution’s transfer, removal, or joining of an athletic conference association. The notice to the president shall include for the president’s approval or disapproval a financial plan related to the proposed action.”
If the president approves the financial plan, the board would then get a chance to weigh in and could vote no.
“If the Board of Governors votes down the financial plan, the chancellor may not proceed with the proposed action unless the chancellor presents a new financial plan for the president’s approval or disapproval,” according to the proposal.
LikeLike
If approved, UNC may have to take NCSU with them to the P2 if they want to go.
This might have less significance than it first appears. There is always a state apparatus of some kind that could prevent such a move if they truly wanted to. This would just make it explicit.
LikeLike
I don’t think either UNC or NC State is P2 caliber. UNC # 46, NC St # 59.
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
I don’t think either UNC or NC State is P2 caliber. UNC # 46, NC St # 59.
Just about every analyst to have considered it has UNC on the Big Ten’s short list. They are one of about four non-ridiculous additions the Big Ten could make from the ACC. It’s possible the Big Ten won’t expand again in our lifetimes, but that was your prediction four schools ago, and you saw how inaccurate that was, so a bit of humility is called for.
If UNC brought their exact TV ratings with them, they’d be at the lower end of the Big Ten but still plausible. Their ratings would go up, just as those of Rutgers and Maryland did. Then you add academics, demographics, and basketball, all of which are above the Big Ten average.
If you assume, as most people do, that Notre Dame is forever unavailable and that there is no further expansion without Florida State, the question is who the 20th school would be. Assuming the Big Ten could have any school they wanted, I think it’d come down to UNC or Miami for #20 and there are good arguments for both.
I don’t see any scenario where the Big Ten would want NC State, so if the state requires them to stay together, then they will be tethered to the ACC for all time.
LikeLike
Marc: “It’s possible the Big Ten won’t expand again in our lifetimes, but that was your prediction four schools ago, and you saw how inaccurate that was. . . “
Speaking of inaccuracies, that was my prediction two schools ago, not four. USC and UCLA were already heading into the Big Ten at the time. To refresh your memory, it was about the same time that you said Kevin Warren would need a lobotomy if Ohio St and Penn St were not paired as annual rivals.
The last six additions to the Big Ten were all schools that brought robust TV markets in one form or another. There is no combination of UNC + UVA or NC State or Duke or VT that does that.
LikeLike
Speaking of inaccuracies, that was my prediction two schools ago, not four. USC and UCLA were already heading into the Big Ten at the time. To refresh your memory, it was about the same time that you said Kevin Warren would need a lobotomy if Ohio St and Penn St were not paired as annual rivals.
No, that is inaccurate. It’s amazing how often you are wrong about things that can easily be looked up. What I said was that Warren would need a lobotomy if he implemented your suggestion that: “USC and UCLA will get locks with schools now in the Western Division.”
I usually suggest caution and humility in sports predictions. That one was so absurd that I gave it a near-100% chance of being wrong (i.e., as probable as Kevin Warren’s lobotomy). And wrong it was.
LikeLike
Marc: “No, that is inaccurate. It’s amazing how often you are wrong about things that can easily be looked up. What I said was that Warren would need a lobotomy if he implemented your suggestion that: “USC and UCLA will get locks with schools now in the Western Division.”
No no no, that isn’t accurate. You appear to be in deep denial about the sequence of events. This was back about a year ago when we were still kicking around the idea that the Big Ten would go with a 3-6-6 format and three locked annual rivals. You felt the pairings would be driven by TV ratings and you stated that Warren would need a lobotomy if he didn’t pair up the LA schools with Ohio State and Michigan plus Penn State with Ohio State, and you then cited the high annual viewership of the PS-OS game.
I responded that I didn’t think any of that would happen because it would diminish the number of schools that the Big Ten sends to the 12-team playoff and that it would be more logical for the two LA schools to be paired with schools in the Western Division. My comment was in response to your loony prediction.
That discussion is now pretty much moot because of course the conference didn’t go 3-6-6 but if you want to scroll up through the 7,000+ comments that are now in this thread and read it for yourself, our discussion transpired circa March 30, 2023.
LikeLike
You appear to be in deep denial about the sequence of events…you stated that Warren would need a lobotomy if he didn’t pair up the LA schools with Ohio State and Michigan plus Penn State with Ohio State, and you then cited the high annual viewership of the PS-OS game.
Well, I just went back and read it again. And no, I didn’t say that. Find the exact post if you can. Good luck.
I did say that PS-OS has high viewership and I’d be surprised if they didn’t preserve that rivalry. (They didn’t preserve it, and I am still surprised.) I did say that I thought USC/UCLA would likely be locked with the Eastern powers, assuming 3-6-6 scheduling. (Irrelevant, we both agree, because they didn’t adopt that model.)
But there was only one thing I said was so egregiously stupid that I was positive (to within lobotomy certainty) they’d never do it, and you can look it up.
LikeLike
Marc,
This might have less significance than it first appears. There is always a state apparatus of some kind that could prevent such a move if they truly wanted to. This would just make it explicit.
Yes, but the act of making it explicit shows more forward thinking than CA showed, for example. And unlike some states, the NC schools are all in the system. They wouldn’t have to act on this new authority, but it gives them some leverage and sets up a Carolimony scenario.
LikeLike
Nothing against NC State, but I imagine the discussion will go roughly the same as it did in Oregon and California if the P2 doesn’t want them. “We can either regulate NC State or we can regulate both. So, enjoy the new conference UNC.”
I know the presidents love UNC, but they love Cal and Stanford too. IMO – UNC is farther down TV’s list than most people think. North Carolina is over saturated with FBS (7) and FCS (7) football teams in addition to 20 D1 basketball teams. Throw in the Panthers, Hornets, and Hurricanes and there is a ton of options for the 10 million people in NC.
If there is any movement out of the ACC, I expect UNC will be getting one of the last spots available. That will further erode any leverage anyone thinks they have to force NC State along.
LikeLike
CA and OR were two very different scenarios with very different outcomes. CA came close to holding UCLA back, imposed Calimony, and that was before the P12 imploded. OR wanted at least one school to thrive and let UO destroy the P12 knowing OrSU had no home.
Here we have NC being proactive about it, at least. Any final decision will depend on how many NCSU alumni are on the board if/when a vote comes. The most likely outcome to me seems to be a Calimony equivalent if UNC leaves, with a requirement they keep playing NCSU (and maybe additional NC teams). I also don’t think UNC really wants out since FB isn’t their focus.
The rumors are that Fox has already said yes to full pro rata for FSU and UNC in the B10 (plus a higher number if ND is added, not that that matters). Miami has not been pre-approved yet for full pro rata, so UNC isn’t too far down the list. My guess would be that Fox sees untapped potential for UNC in games against bigger brands since there is no big mid-Atlantic program. Really, the gap from Philadelphia (PSU) to Atlanta (Clemson, UGA) is begging for a brand. VT was on the path to becoming that brand until Beamer retired. UNC would bring a larger state, plus NC is virgin territory for the B10 unlike VA (UMD taps into NoVA a bit). As a bonus they get a hoops blueblood to strengthen the MBB coverage.
You make a good point about the competition, but the whole B10 footprint faces that already – often with more pro competition. The real concern is UNC vs NCSU in football, and add Duke in for MBB. Whoever plays the bigger brands will become the top draw in CFB. If UNC goes P2 and NCSU doesn’t, that battle is over. If they split into the B10 and SEC, then NCSU likely wins by being in the SEC (but it would stay competitive). If they both go SEC, then they stay about the same. But with 10M residents that include a lot of B10 alumni, I think UNC could work for Fox. FSU would be a goldmine for them, but UNC probably could be near the median of the B10 in CFB and well above in MBB.
When I was talking about leverage, I meant for the state with the schools not the schools with other conferences.
LikeLike
Brian: “The rumors are that Fox has already said yes to full pro rata for FSU and UNC in the B10”
Please provide source.
LikeLike
I’ve seen Genetics56 on Twitter post about it quite a bit. Genetics56 did have USC and UCLA before most people, but so did Flugar (who I think got lucky). I don’t believe everything he says. He is for entertainment purposes only.
LikeLike
IF* and it’s a huge IF, NC State’s backers can tie UNC down to the ACC through whatever means (new rule for their shared board, politics, etc.), I do think we end up at a pretty stable Power 2/Middle 2/Group of 5-6 after the next 4 schools move to the Big Ten/SEC:
FSU, Clemson, and Miami are obviously the only 3 ACC schools that are TV value adds to the Big Ten/SEC and obviously UNC was always discussed as perhaps the most desirable ACC school because of its flagship status + largest state outside the Big Ten/SEC with fast growth + the athletics brand which is strong in everything but football and does enough in FB to make them a regular top 4-6 recruiter in the ACC.
The simplest path forward is FSU/Clemson to the SEC and Miami + 1 to the Big Ten.
I think the Big Ten takes Miami if there’s no other path to a southeastern football power, that’s the one gap in the conference and Miami is a pretty obvious way to fill it with an AAU school located in one of the largest states and the most talent rich market in the country and that has enough recruiting power to challenge for titles and be a TV draw regularly (plus its advantage in being located far away from UF/FSU has allowed it to have a strong enough local pull).
If we assume ND stays with an ACC that keeps UNC and everybody except 4, that ACC can just backfill with USF and maybe 1 or 2 other schools if needed.
I don’t see the Big 12 or ACC being strong enough to poach the other if so…, and really the Big Ten and SEC are then functionally in long-term equilibria at least until some other change occurs (big brands wanting even more money?) or something else stirs the pot.
LikeLike
And yes, I know the first response is always going to be “the only constant in CFB is change”, but every “professional” league eventually reaches a stable point where it covers most of the major markets across the country and any shifts are relatively minor and occur after population shifts force future moves (like Las Vegas becoming a major destination for sports teams). The difference here of course is that universities can’t move.
A Power 2 covering all the major FB brands except ND should be stable, especially when they espouse 2 very different models: 1 national league with schools in every region vs 1 regional Southern league.
A Middle 2 with most of the “next 30-40” best schools should also be stable.
Of course the caveat is all this is dependent on UNC remaining a long-term anchor of the ACC, which is obviously in question right now. Not a guarantee that UNC will choose that future or have it chosen for them. If UNC moves, then yes we could see a major cannibalization of the ACC by the Big 12 which would result in a Power 2/Middle 1/G 6-7 setup.
LikeLike
z33k,
IF* and it’s a huge IF, NC State’s backers can tie UNC down to the ACC through whatever means (new rule for their shared board, politics, etc.), I do think we end up at a pretty stable Power 2/Middle 2/Group of 5-6 after the next 4 schools move to the Big Ten/SEC:
To quote a great sage: “The only constant in CFB is change.”
But seriously, it’s true. The major conferences have never all maintained the same membership for even a decade over the last 60 years (maybe longer). People keep saying that after X we’ll reach stability, but it never happens. Maybe if ND joins a conference or if a CFB breakaway happens stability will come, but maybe not.
The NFL is the most stable of pro leagues, and it has only 22 years without expansion (Texans in 2002), and 3 teams have moved since then. Plus they are talking about adding teams in Europe. Nothing stays the same in sports.
FSU, Clemson, and Miami are obviously the only 3 ACC schools that are TV value adds to the Big Ten/SEC and obviously UNC was always discussed as perhaps the most desirable ACC school because of its flagship status + largest state outside the Big Ten/SEC with fast growth + the athletics brand which is strong in everything but football and does enough in FB to make them a regular top 4-6 recruiter in the ACC.
It’s not entirely clear that’s true. The Clemson of a few years ago yes, but if they go back to being an 8-win team regularly? If Miami isn’t elite, does their small alumni base bring enough value? Now that UCF is in the B12, might they become #3 in FL over time? Some are convinced UNC brings value, while others aren’t. I agree all the reporting says they are wanted, but people have been known to lie to reporters.
The simplest path forward is FSU/Clemson to the SEC and Miami + 1 to the Big Ten.
Why is that simplest? Is it any simpler than FSU/Miami to B10 + Clemson/UNC to SEC? I agree the B10 seems less likely to add Clemson, and I’m not sure Miami wants to be in the SEC (but if it’s that or ACC, they’d say yes). FSU and UNC would seem to have their choice of destinations, though UNC would really prefer the ACC unless the financial gap starts hurting their MBB.
I think the Big Ten takes Miami if there’s no other path to a southeastern football power, that’s the one gap in the conference and Miami is a pretty obvious way to fill it with an AAU school located in one of the largest states and the most talent rich market in the country and that has enough recruiting power to challenge for titles and be a TV draw regularly (plus its advantage in being located far away from UF/FSU has allowed it to have a strong enough local pull).
I’ve heard mixed reporting about whether the B10 would take Miami. It’s a lot of travel and a small school that is only a mediocre cultural fit.
As for “the one gap,” I think you’re forgetting a Texas-size hole.
If we assume ND stays with an ACC that keeps UNC and everybody except 4, that ACC can just backfill with USF and maybe 1 or 2 other schools if needed.
But would they? For Olympic sports, I can probably see that. But do they still want 5 football games if FSU, Miami, Clemson and some non-UNC +1 are gone? And without those 5 games, would the ACC keep ND around? Maybe the number drops to 4 or even 3? At what point does the ACC draw a line?
I don’t see the Big 12 or ACC being strong enough to poach the other if so…, and really the Big Ten and SEC are then functionally in long-term equilibria at least until some other change occurs (big brands wanting even more money?) or something else stirs the pot.
Maybe, maybe not. We need several years to do see how they prosper in their new alignments. The B12 could tank with no brands, or they could have some decent CFP success anyway and build new brands. If UCF grows, might they look to jump to the ACC for academic and travel reasons and be welcomed, especially if FSU/Miami leave? WV would certainly consider a move to the ACC.
What if a new ACC power rises? A few years of success could kickstart NCSU or GT or someone. Conversely, the ACC could crumple with the addition of 3 weak brands and losing their CFB powers. If SMU starts winning, the B12 might look very attractive to them.
And what if USF starts winning like UCF did? An AAU school in FL with a solid CFB brand would be attractive to someone.
“long-term equilibria at least until some other change occurs (big brands wanting even more money?) or something else stirs the pot.”
That doesn’t sound long-term at all. Changes are always stirring the pot, especially with upcoming court cases, NRLB decisions, potentially legislation, and the changing media market. Add in population shifts, the rise/decline of certain programs, and unforeseen changes and the length of this “long-term” equilbrium may be very short indeed.
—
A Power 2 covering all the major FB brands except ND should be stable, especially when they espouse 2 very different models: 1 national league with schools in every region vs 1 regional Southern league.
Why should that be stable? You’ve got 1 built-in exception that constantly disturbs the equilibrium, plus the fact that brands rise and fall (Miami, FSU, UO / Pitt, TN, NE). And if the NFL (or Apple/Amazon/etc.) invests in a breakaway league, that will shuffle the deck considerably.
A Middle 2 with most of the “next 30-40” best schools should also be stable.
There is more change in who deserves to be in this level than at the top. You’ll always have a USF, Boise, Memphis, etc. that feels left out and starts winning enough to force their way in while others lose so much they should get dropped but don’t.
Of course the caveat is all this is dependent on UNC remaining a long-term anchor of the ACC, which is obviously in question right now. Not a guarantee that UNC will choose that future or have it chosen for them. If UNC moves, then yes we could see a major cannibalization of the ACC by the Big 12 which would result in a Power 2/Middle 1/G 6-7 setup.
I think UNC prefers the ACC until such time as the financial gap hurts their MBB program. I think they’d be willing to scrimp on CFB costs to keep spending on MBB. They may be very hard to convince to leave.
LikeLike
The NFL is the most stable of pro leagues, and it has only 22 years without expansion (Texans in 2002), and 3 teams have moved since then. Plus they are talking about adding teams in Europe. Nothing stays the same in sports.
Is the NFL the right comparison? The NFL is effectively a “Power 1”, as it has no peer. The calculation for them is starting up brand new teams where there aren’t any. That’s a very different proposition from acquiring new teams that already proved themselves in other leagues.
Since there’s never been a 10-year period without movement among the collegiate conferences, I would be very hesitant to say that any configuration is stable until it’s proven.
LikeLike
Marc,
Is the NFL the right comparison?
For stability in US sports? I think so. It also plays football, a uniquely American sport. Do you have a better one?
The NFL used to be a P2 and showed that form wasn’t stable. The P2 also didn’t work in baseball (AL/NL) or hoops (NBA/ABA). It didn’t even work in minor league football (UFL = USFL/XFL merger). Sports in the US tend to 1 league with antitrust exemptions.
An interesting question is what pro sports would look like in the US if none of the pro leagues had antitrust exemptions of any kind. It’s the future the NCAA faces, but I don’t think it’s really possible. There needs to be some central body creating a level playing field of some sort. Otherwise everything will fracture and lose all of its value.
A P2 only works in politics, and that’s because it’s a winner-take-all vote in the US.
The NFL is effectively a “Power 1”, as it has no peer. The calculation for them is starting up brand new teams where there aren’t any. That’s a very different proposition from acquiring new teams that already proved themselves in other leagues.
NFL/AFL merger? No US pro league pulls up minor league franchises, and promotion/relegation is not coming to US football. The point is that it is the most secure league, and it still has changes rather frequently. The concept of realignment stopping in CFB for a prolonged period is unrealistic if you look at the history.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
“Let’s recall how we got here. For years, transfer rules worked against football and basketball players. They could move from one school to another but had to sit out the next season. The intent was supposedly noble: to prevent players from making rash decisions they would regret. The unspoken intent was to make it easier for coaches and schools to hold on to players. But like so many things in college athletics, after decades of the pendulum tethered in the direction of the coaches and administrators, it eventually swung in the players’ direction.
First came the waiver process. Players could apply to the NCAA for immediate eligibility as long as they had justifiable reasons. Some were legitimate. Others seemed … questionable. Lawyers were involved, which is always lovely. After a few years, the NCAA, understandably tired of it, went to what seemed a fair solution: Everyone gets a mulligan.
The one-time transfer exemption allowed players to move once without sitting a season. If they moved again, they either had to be a graduate student or they had to sit out a season. It seemed like a good solution: Yes, players might make rash decisions, but they also can’t be tethered to a school if things aren’t working out, whether it’s playing time, a coaching change or just not proving the right fit. Coaches might grumble when they lose players, but they like it when they gain players. The portal swings both ways.
The main issue was attaching this to NIL. Players began leveraging the portal to get a better deal, either at their current school or the next one. Pay-for-play, essentially. That’s the main issue college administrators have wailed against, seeking remedies from the federal government. Charlie Baker, the former governor of Massachusetts, was hired as NCAA president basically to lobby for such a bill.
But that always seemed like a stretch. Democrats don’t like limiting young people’s rights. Republicans like free markets. This past week, after yet another hearing on Capitol Hill, the probability of nothing happening was voiced by Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), who told reporters she didn’t see this Congress giving the NCAA an anti-trust exemption, decreeing that athletes can’t be employees or passing any bill at all. Bad news for the NCAA. But maybe not even the worst news that day.
The Department of Justice and three more states announced they were joining a lawsuit against the NCAA rule on transfers, calling it “an illegal restraint on college athletes’ ability to sell their name, image and likeness and control their education.”
The lawsuit in question, originally filed last month by Ohio’s attorney general, already had seen a federal judge issue an injunction. So as the case plays out, the injunction holds: Players can transfer every year and not sit out. The NCAA is fighting it, arguing that if the plaintiffs win, it would “remake college athletics and replace it with a system of perpetual and unchecked free agency.”
And that’s correct, which is why the NCAA has three choices:
• Hope it somehow wins this in court, which would go against everything that has happened in the past decade. After the NCAA lost 9-0 at the U.S. Supreme Court, it can’t be optimistic.
• Hope Congress and the White House agree on something that bails out the NCAA. Good luck with that.
• Be proactive and move toward a solution on transfers and NIL that the courts won’t overthrow.
That means, almost certainly, something like employee status for athletes, leading to contracts and collective bargaining. That’s how the NCAA can get rules on player movement, and possibly even NIL caps, that pass muster with the court system. But will the NCAA do that (or anything) without being forced to? Has it ever?
https://theathletic.com/5218857/2024/01/22/college-transfer-rules/
LikeLike
What I mean by stable is that the past forms of realignment would no longer determine movement (assuming ND doesn’t change its mind).
I don’t know that brands will rise and fall in the future; virtually all of the brands that are big in the present have been major brands for at least multiple decades or at least since CFB became a major TV product.
And now we’re moving to a Power 2 era where the Power 2 schools will own the major TV windows and have far more resources than everyone else, especially in a world where the extra financial resources may soon be directed towards recruits/athletes.
Yes, this is a bit of a leap, but I think the conjecture is becoming clear:
If the Big Ten/SEC have little interest in Big 12/ACC schools and the Big 12/ACC have little interest in G5-6 schools, then there won’t be much movement unless some paradigm shift occurs. It could be very hard for schools to ever move between tiers.
Could a paradigm shift occur? Sure. The NFL could start a minor league paired to the biggest CFB brand universities. Private Equity could come in (though I doubt they’d have the money to shift the values we’ll be seeing for the Big Ten/SEC in 2030s+ if each league is bringing in $2 billion in annual revenue. This isn’t like the Saudis and golf where you can buy a bunch of golfers outright, it’s tough to replace a full schedule and the TV windows that the Big Ten/SEC have.
The one thing that I think helps is that the Big Ten and SEC will look so different *and* will be a lot more equal than the pre-merger NFL.
You can point to the AFL/NFL but they weren’t as regionally distinct in strategy and the AFL was functionally just a much lesser resourced version of the NFL. Both covered the Northeast down towards the center of the country and then Texas to California but the NFL had bigger brands in bigger cities, especially in the Northeast/Midwest outside of shared NYC (and the AFL had Miami). The NFL was always seen as the #1 league by far it’s just that the AFL managed to make an argument of it as a distant 2nd that wouldn’t fold.
Here we’re talking about roughly equal conferences in strength but with vastly different regional strategies and universities:
The SEC is staying as a distinctly Southern conference, the Big Ten is trying to be the Rose Bowl conference (North + West) (but possibly also get some Southern markets).
There may be a big enough cultural gap to ever really prevent the top SEC and top Big Ten schools from coming together to blow up everything (though obviously any time $ is involved it’s possible).
I think a lot of the SEC universities have pride in being attached to their grouping and it’ll be hard to blow everything up. Same applies to the traditional Big Ten universities (especially Michigan which would turn up its nose at being close to most SEC universities).
Schools like USC or Oregon or Washington or perhaps Texas or OU don’t care. They’re just in it for the bag having been through conferences blowing up. I get that. At least for the 4 coming to the Big Ten, they were on the other side of the Rose Bowl pairing so at least that historical relationship ties them to the Big Ten.
But I think enough care on both sides (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa) to keep the sides separate.
LikeLike
z33k,
What I mean by stable is that the past forms of realignment would no longer determine movement (assuming ND doesn’t change its mind).
Haven’t all forms of realignment been chasing the money? That will continue to be true, whether it leads to a breakaway, adding more schools from the M2, or dropping schools from the P2. And even if the P2 are stable, it doesn’t mean the M2 and G5 will be at all.
I don’t know that brands will rise and fall in the future; virtually all of the brands that are big in the present have been major brands for at least multiple decades or at least since CFB became a major TV product.
Programs rise and fall rather frequently. Some risers:
80s – Miami, FSU
90s – UF, WI
00s – BSU, UO
10s – Clemson, UCF
20s – UGA, ?
Certainly there is potential for UCF and/or USF to grow. Likewise some of the other TX schools. And midwestern and western schools could slide like the northeastern schools did.
Stewart Mandel’s lists every 5 years show this change. From 2017 to 2022, he made these changes:
AL becomes Emperor
UGA becomes a King
UF, FSU, Miami, PSU fall to Barons (TN and NE already fell here)
IA becomes a Baron
Stanford, UCLA, VT fall to Knights (Pitt already fell here from a king)
UK, MN, MS become Knights
CU, IL, UMD, SU UVA fall to Peasants (CU was probably a Baron at their peak)
And now we’re moving to a Power 2 era where the Power 2 schools will own the major TV windows and have far more resources than everyone else, especially in a world where the extra financial resources may soon be directed towards recruits/athletes.
Yes, but broad athletic programs, Title IX, the portal, and roster caps prevent the P2 from fully taking financial advantage. Some smaller schools will get the slightly overlooked players with a chip on their shoulders and succeed.
Yes, this is a bit of a leap, but I think the conjecture is becoming clear:
If the Big Ten/SEC have little interest in Big 12/ACC schools and the Big 12/ACC have little interest in G5-6 schools, then there won’t be much movement unless some paradigm shift occurs. It could be very hard for schools to ever move between tiers.
That’s a huge if. It really should be more about Fox and Disney having interest at the P2 level. Besides, we know there is interest in at least a handful of the M2 schools right now and if/when they move, the power vacuum may create new brands at that level that become desirable. Likewise, the M2 know which G5 schools that would backfill with, and the G5 know about the I-AA schools.
We may be reaching the point where conferences are too large to expand without losing someone first, or we may be about to see conferences splinter back into smaller groups that make more geographic sense.
Could a paradigm shift occur? Sure. The NFL could start a minor league paired to the biggest CFB brand universities. Private Equity could come in (though I doubt they’d have the money to shift the values we’ll be seeing for the Big Ten/SEC in 2030s+ if each league is bringing in $2 billion in annual revenue. This isn’t like the Saudis and golf where you can buy a bunch of golfers outright, it’s tough to replace a full schedule and the TV windows that the Big Ten/SEC have.
I think the B10 is looking at a little over $1.4B per year at the end of the current TV deal, plus CFP and NCAAT money. Maybe they get to $2B total in 2030s. The Saudi’s could easily buy the ADs of many schools if it was allowed. It could become a P3 if they choose to support the B12.
The one thing that I think helps is that the Big Ten and SEC will look so different *and* will be a lot more equal than the pre-merger NFL.
You can point to the AFL/NFL but they weren’t as regionally distinct in strategy and the AFL was functionally just a much lesser resourced version of the NFL. Both covered the Northeast down towards the center of the country and then Texas to California but the NFL had bigger brands in bigger cities, especially in the Northeast/Midwest outside of shared NYC (and the AFL had Miami). The NFL was always seen as the #1 league by far it’s just that the AFL managed to make an argument of it as a distant 2nd that wouldn’t fold.
On the field, the SEC has been the NFL to the B10’s AFL over the past 20+ years. But my point was just that the most stable of leagues constantly keeps changing membership, so true conference membership stability in CFB is not likely. But you seem to have shifted your meaning of stable, so it’s a less accurate comparison.
Here we’re talking about roughly equal conferences in strength but with vastly different regional strategies and universities:
The SEC is staying as a distinctly Southern conference, the Big Ten is trying to be the Rose Bowl conference (North + West) (but possibly also get some Southern markets).
For now. The SEC wouldn’t say no to ND or OSU or UM or PSU, though. The B10 wouldn’t say no to UT or UF or TAMU. The B10 is trying to be rich and UT/OU joining the SEC forced the B10 to expand to the west. I don’t think it was strategy beyond that. And a new SEC commissioner in 10-20 years could decide that staying in the south is a bad plan and push for expansion into other regions. Follow the money.
There may be a big enough cultural gap to ever really prevent the top SEC and top Big Ten schools from coming together to blow up everything (though obviously any time $ is involved it’s possible).
I think the B10 schools would be more resistant to it, but ultimately they all are willing to prostitute themselves for TV money.
I think a lot of the SEC universities have pride in being attached to their grouping and it’ll be hard to blow everything up. Same applies to the traditional Big Ten universities (especially Michigan which would turn up its nose at being close to most SEC universities).
I think they’d have more pride at being a tier above everyone else in football. So would the B10 brands. Especially because it means more money.
LikeLike
Brian, your analysis is short-sighted, out-dated and actually quite childish. What happened in the past 50 years is meaningless. We are now in a era of NIL and portal transfers and that actually translates to athletes – oops, student-athletes – going to the schools that offer them the best financial deals.
Recruiting is already an open-market NIL payout system and that took less two years. That isn’t going to get better, it’s going to get worse. Much worse.
LikeLike
I think the B10 schools would be more resistant to it, but ultimately they all are willing to prostitute themselves for TV money.
I think it’s been mostly about money for a very long time. All “tradition” means is “the way I knew it when I started watching.” Tradition keeps changing.
The BCS started in 1998. This means, in round numbers, that if you are 35 or less, you probably cannot remember when the season did not end with a national championship game. In another 30 years or so, what we now know as the traditional Rose Bowl will be about as traditional to most fans as when the forward pass was illegal.
Suppose a new sport were starting up, and the question was how to decide a champion. You show up to the first meeting, and say: “I’ve got a great idea. We’ll play a bunch of games, and then poll a committee of sportswriters to decide who won.” You’d be laughed out of the room.
LikeLike
Marc,
I think it’s been mostly about money for a very long time. All “tradition” means is “the way I knew it when I started watching.” Tradition keeps changing.
The explosion of money is actually fairly recent. In 2005, the B10 was making $60M per year total (not per school).
Traditions can change, but what you are describing isn’t changing of tradition, it’s dropping tradition.
Suppose a new sport were starting up, and the question was how to decide a champion.
No. Why would I ask the least important possible question? “Championships” have never and will never be important in amateur sports.
You show up to the first meeting, and say: “I’ve got a great idea. We’ll play a bunch of games, and then poll a committee of sportswriters to decide who won.” You’d be laughed out of the room.
We do it with politics (voting). We do it with the arts (Oscars, Emmys, Grammy, …). We basically do it with non-objective sports (judging panels – figure skating, gymnastics, extreme sports, …). We do it with PhDs (oral defenses). Is asking a group of supposedly informed people really that crazy?
LikeLike
“Championships” have never and will never be important in amateur sports.
How many college sports can you name that do not have a championship of some kind? It must be a distinct minority.
We do it with politics (voting). We do it with the arts (Oscars, Emmys, Grammy, …). We basically do it with non-objective sports (judging panels – figure skating, gymnastics, extreme sports, …). We do it with PhDs (oral defenses). Is asking a group of supposedly informed people really that crazy?
By design, politics is not a choice of who is best. It’s a choice of whom the voters want, for whatever wise or dumb reasons: a popularity contest. This is exactly what you don’t want the result of a sporting event to be.
Years ago, many of the awards shows introduced the lingo: “And the Oscar goes to…” (or similar), which replaced “And the winner is…” It’s a recognition that the recipient hasn’t “won”, and the others haven’t “lost”, in the same sense as a sporting event.
The non-objective sports have detailed rulebooks that describe the scoring criteria in nauseating detail, and the relatively few people asked to judge them are required to accumulate years of experience before being allowed to do so. Even the sports you’re calling “objective” have judgment calls, such as pass interference, spotting the ball, catch/no-catch, ball/strike, out/safe, foul/no-foul, etc., that can have a huge impact. Obviously there are mistakes sometimes, but it’s not like assigning the task of choosing a winner to people who weren’t even there.
The analogy to Ph.D.’s is totally inapposite. Degrees aren’t contests intended to produce one winner. Schools will hand out as many Ph.D.’s as there are candidates who met the qualifications, just as they do for other levels such as bachelors and masters degrees. Yes, the Ph.D. review panel has an element of subjectivity, but so did your high school English paper.
LikeLike
Marc,
How many college sports can you name that do not have a championship of some kind? It must be a distinct minority.
I said they weren’t important, not that they don’t exist. Their existence doesn’t make them important.
As for the polls, let’s remember their roots. CFB had no interest in a championship, but newspapers wanted to increase sales so they created the AP poll. It actually started as 1 man’s column, but when he declared a 3-way tie others suggested he conduct a poll instead. This all happened right as the 2nd and 3rd major bowls began (Orange and Sugar), so discussion of which teams were best at the end of the season made some sense. But note it was 30 years before the final AP poll officially came after the bowls. CFB didn’t take the postseason seriously and still wasn’t interested in a championship. Then it was another 20+ years before the bowls started trying to match #1 vs #2, and another roughly 10 years before the BCS.
The NCAA started the I-AA championship in the late 70s because there were no bowls for them, not out of some great desire to find a champion.
By design, politics is not a choice of who is best.
No, it isn’t. It may often result in who is best, but that isn’t by design.
It’s a choice of whom the voters want, for whatever wise or dumb reasons: a popularity contest.
It’s who they think is best for the job. People aren’t required to have the same criteria as you for best.
This is exactly what you don’t want the result of a sporting event to be.
It is exactly the result of the types of sports I listed (skating, gymnastics, extreme sports, etc.), and most of those competitors seem fine with that. Winners aren’t always objective.
The result of any football game isn’t a matter of opinion, but the best team in a given season is. I’m 100% fine with that, so it is exactly what I want the result to be. Winning some postseason invitational doesn’t make a team the best unless that’s your personal criterion for best. It isn’t mine.
Years ago, many of the awards shows introduced the lingo: “And the Oscar goes to…” (or similar), which replaced “And the winner is…” It’s a recognition that the recipient hasn’t “won”, and the others haven’t “lost”, in the same sense as a sporting event.
So what? The public discusses winners and losers regardless of how the shows phrase it.
The non-objective sports have detailed rulebooks that describe the scoring criteria in nauseating detail, and the relatively few people asked to judge them are required to accumulate years of experience before being allowed to do so.
Yeah, not so much. At the highest level they have the most experience, but the judges all started out somewhere. And different sports vary greatly in how vague their criteria are. And different judges clearly interpret those rules differently or they wouldn’t need multiple judges. Boxing judges often can’t even agree on who won. Olympic judging varies so much they drop high and low scores in many sports.
The analogy to Ph.D.’s is totally inapposite. Degrees aren’t contests intended to produce one winner. Schools will hand out as many Ph.D.’s as there are candidates who met the qualifications, just as they do for other levels such as bachelors and masters degrees.
It’s not quite that simple. The standards change over time, and committees discuss pass rates and whether things in the department are on track or need adjustment (too low and too high are both bad). Plus politics get involved, and other irrelevant things. But if you don’t like that academic analogy, apply it to fellowships or other things that have strictly limited numbers (often 1) and winners and losers in the process. Ultimately a group of people vote on who wins based on subjective criteria.
The point is, much of life comes down to subjective decisions by a small group of people. You make it sound unique.
LikeLike
The point is, much of life comes down to subjective decisions by a small group of people. You make it sound unique.
Division I FBS college football before the BCS was unique. It was the only college sport that settled its championship with an unofficial poll, rather than a game / meet / contest (whatever you call it) that settled it on the field.
I do realize that the polls originated as a way to sell newspapers, but that’s an awfully long time ago. Football originated as a variant of rugby, but nobody is suggesting to reinstate rugby rules
LikeLike
Division I FBS college football before the BCS was unique. It was the only college sport that settled its championship with an unofficial poll, rather than a game / meet / contest (whatever you call it) that settled it on the field.
1. I-A football technically only existed for 20 years before the BCS.
2. Emerging sports also have no official NCAA championship, and often don’t have any champions at first.
3. Boxing used to use newspaper decisions for “no decision” fights.
4. Hoops pre-1937 (NAIA) or 1938 (NIT)/1939 (NCAAT) had no official champions. Helms retroactively chose champions for 1901-1941. The NIT champ was named the champ over the NCAA champ for quite a while.
What about sports like MMA and boxing where who even gets to compete for the title is chosen by business people? Where fighters are accused of ducking the strongest competition.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/01/peacock-nfl-playoff-ratings-audience-breakdown-smaller-younger-than-other-games/
Even in the NFL, Peacock sucks. It brought a much younger audience at the expense of a much smaller audience.
Last Saturday’s Dolphins-Chiefs AFC Wild Card Game on Peacock finished with a 9.2 rating and 22.86 million viewers, per Nielsen, figures that include local over-the-air simulcasts on NBC affiliates in home markets Kansas City and Miami. Those simulcasts combined to average 1.35 million (855K in K.C. and 490K in Miami), bringing the Peacock-only audience to 21.5 million.
While viewership increased over last year’s Chargers-Jaguars game in the same Saturday night window — rising 11% on a Nielsen-only basis and 6% including last year’s Adobe Analytics audience — the household rating declined 12% from last year’s 10.5. The divergence indicates that there was far greater out-of-home viewing for the Peacock game than last year on NBC.
The bigger change relative to last year is in the key young adult demographics, as the 11% increase in overall viewership pales in comparison to the gains in adults 18-49, 18-34 and 25-54. Dolphins-Chiefs averaged 10.77 million viewers in 25-54, up 31% from last year’s 8.24 million; 10.37 million viewers in 18-49, up 44% from last year’s 7.22 million; and 4.58 million in 18-34, up two-thirds from last year’s 2.76 million.
Note that this is comparing Chiefs/Dolphins, two very popular teams with exciting offensive stars, to Chargers/Jaguars, two of the least popular teams. That was one of the least watched NFL playoff games ever (see below).
The flip side of the growth in younger viewers is that the older audience dropped off by double-digits. The Peacock game averaged 10.47 million among adults 50+, down 14% from last year (12.21M). The 50+ demo, which accounted for a solid 60% of the audience last year, made up 46% this year.
Compared to the rest of this year’s Wild Card games, the Peacock audience was comfortably the smallest of the weekend, but the game fared better in the young demographics — ranking third out of six in adults 18-49 and second in adults 18-34. Despite averaging nearly ten million fewer viewers than Steelers-Bills on CBS Monday afternoon, Dolphins-Chiefs finished half a point ahead in 18-49 (7.9 to 7.4) and a full point ahead in 18-34 (6.5 to 5.4).
…
Overall, the median age for the Peacock game was 47.5 — a year younger than Amazon’s Thursday Night Football (48.5) and far younger than the other Wild Card games. The youngest-skewing of the other games were Packers-Cowboys and Rams-Lions, each at a median age of 55.6. (By virtue of its vastly larger audience of more than 40 million, Packers-Cowboys averaged larger audiences in each of the young adult demographics.) Steelers-Bills had a median age of 56.5 and Browns-Texans of 56.7. For Eagles-Buccaneers on Monday night, the median age was 58.3 on ABC, 47.6 on ESPN and 48.5 for the ESPN2 Manningcast.
In essence, the Peacock audience was a trade-off for the NFL in multiple ways. Not only was the league trading overall reach for a nine-figure rights fee, it traded a broad audience for one that was narrow, but significantly younger.
The relative youth of Saturday’s audience will likely be more than enough for the NFL to disregard just how low — by its standards — the numbers actually were. Of the 140 total Wild Card games played dating back to the 1991-92 season, the 22.86 million for Dolphins-Chiefs ranks in the bottom 30. Moreover, the 9.2 rating is the lowest (by a wide margin) of any NFL playoff game over that span, more than a full point below the previous mark — set by last year’s Chargers-Jaguars game.
LikeLike
Moreover, the 9.2 rating is the lowest (by a wide margin) of any NFL playoff game over that span, more than a full point below the previous mark — set by last year’s Chargers-Jaguars game.
The current situation reminds me of the early Internet days, when startups were breeding like rabbits and most failed — pets.com, anyone? How about myspace and AltaVista?
LikeLike
Yeah, but that is planned gambling by VC firms. They only need 1 out of every 10 or 20 to hit to make a good profit (ands get to write all those losses off on their taxes).
Sometimes it is a bad business model, sometimes it is bad timing, and sometimes it is the wrong leadership (techies acting as executives). Pets.com failed, but chewy.com is doing just fine with a similar idea. Alta Vista did well for a while, and others succeeded. Myspace was huge until it wasn’t. Other industries faced similar things, it just happens faster in the digital world.
LikeLike
Yeah, but that is planned gambling by VC firms. They only need 1 out of every 10 or 20 to hit to make a good profit (ands get to write all those losses off on their taxes).
Despite their bad reputations, VC firms never intend to lose money on any investment, much as a poker player never intends to lose money on any hand. But there’s an unavoidable randomness in the outcome, meaning that even the best players have to lose sometimes. For sure the employees of those firms all wanted to be winners, even if the VC’s spreadsheet model gave them only a 1-in-10 shot.
But in the early days of the Internet, even the smartest people had a very low probability of predicting what would succeed. Any given company could be Google or AltaVista. And I think sports streaming is in a similar place—it’s just a very immature market.
The difference here is that most of the streaming companies (except Netflix) are subsidiaries of traditional media companies. When AltaVista failed, there was nothing left. If Peacock fails, Comcast would still be a viable business.
LikeLike
Ten states, the District of Columbia, and the United States Department of Justice, have now joined the lawsuit challenging the NCAA’s transfer rule as an illegal restraint of trade. An amended complaint joining the new plaintiffs was filed in the U.S. District Court of West Virginia last Thursday, but I just noticed it today.
Seth Emerson of The Athletic argues that the NCAA should admit defeat and fix the problem proactively rather than waiting for the court to do so. It would be surprising if they gave up, since the NCAA has a long history of litigating until it loses. But it’s never too late to learn.
To Emerson: “That means, almost certainly, something like employee status for athletes, leading to contracts and collective bargaining. That’s how the NCAA can get rules on player movement, and possibly even NIL caps, that pass muster with the court system. But will the NCAA do that (or anything) without being forced to? Has it ever?”
I’m not convinced a loss on this issue necessarily requires that the schools treat its athletes like employees. The NCAA could simply go back to the rule it had between 2020 and 2023, when athletes could transfer unlimited times. Coaches didn’t like it, but the sky didn’t fall either.
I do agree with Emerson that the NCAA should admit defeat. It already agreed to suspend the transfer rule for the current academic year. Given its 9–0 loss at the U.S. Supreme Court the last time it took an anti-trust case that far, it’s probably just wasting its members’ money to continue to fight this one.
LikeLike
The NCAA should cancel everything – no championships, no TV deals, no student support, no nothing – and dissolve itself. Make everyone go back to intramurals and let the pros form minor leagues as needed in revenue sports. The only way to win is not to play the game. You cannot administer revenue earning sports in the US without an antitrust exemption (and eventually this will trickle down to Little League, etc.). Literally any rule they ever pass will eventually be defeated in court, so don’t even try. Maybe we can go back to the good ole days of players dying because there isn’t a governing body to enforce any kinds of rules or restrictions.
LikeLike
You cannot administer revenue earning sports in the US without an antitrust exemption (and eventually this will trickle down to Little League, etc.).
The NCAA has a rulebook longer than War and Peace. Only a minuscule percentage of it has ever been challenged in court.
When you study the history of the transfer rule, you find an organization mired in hypocrisy. The alleged and real reasons for the rule were never aligned. That’s why they are getting sued and are very likely to lose. This is the history whenever they are sued and lose: fake justifications that do not pass the laugh test — stifling competition where they should be promoting it.
In contrast, there’s pretty widespread agreement that the NCAA’s rules about player safety really are about safety. You could argue whether a given rule is too lenient or too harsh, but no one disputes that the motivation is sincere. That’s why nobody is suing to overturn the targeting rule. If the NCAA had stuck to legislating safety (its original mission), it might not have such a terrible reputation.
LikeLike
The NCAA has a rulebook longer than War and Peace.
Blame the lawyers and cheaters. Much of it is legalese and detail of due process to avoid even more lawsuits, and much of the rest is clearly drawing boundaries so there is a level playing field. The “spirit of the rule” doesn’t work, so they’ve been forced to include minutiae.
Still, the D-I manual is only 465 pages. That covers every aspect of what they do. Considering how much of it is whitespace because of the organization (naming every sub-sub-subsection), that’s not that long. And various groups only really need to read specific parts of it (ADs vs coaches vs …). Isn’t W&P 1000+ pages?
Only a minuscule percentage of it has ever been challenged in court.
Give it time. The lawyers chased the big money first. But frankly, if they can’t control those aspects, why bother with the rest? End NCAA sports entirely – it’s exactly the result the lawyers, athletes and fans deserve.
The alleged and real reasons for the rule were never aligned. That’s why they are getting sued and are very likely to lose.
No, it isn’t. They’re losing because a college sports regulating body is a walking antitrust exemption. It is a group colluding to make decisions. As soon as big money was involved, some smarmy lawyer was going to go after it and ruin everything.
stifling competition where they should be promoting it.
That’s your opinion, not their mandate.
In contrast, there’s pretty widespread agreement that the NCAA’s rules about player safety really are about safety. You could argue whether a given rule is too lenient or too harsh, but no one disputes that the motivation is sincere.
Sure they do – rules about practice time, game limits, head injuries and COVID are questioned incessantly.
That’s why nobody is suing to overturn the targeting rule.
They would if they could. I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone seek a TRO to block the 1-game suspension for targeting in the future, especially if they’d miss a CFP game.
If the NCAA had stuck to legislating safety (its original mission), it might not have such a terrible reputation.
It’s original mission was regulating college sports period. Safety in football was the primary concern, but every sport needed rules. Then academic rules were needed to keep fair competition. Then recruiting rules.
LikeLike
…stifling competition where they should be promoting it.
That’s your opinion, not their mandate.
No, that’s the courts’ opinion every time they lose.
In contrast, there’s pretty widespread agreement that the NCAA’s rules about player safety really are about safety. You could argue whether a given rule is too lenient or too harsh, but no one disputes that the motivation is sincere.
Sure they do – rules about practice time, game limits, head injuries and COVID are questioned incessantly.
Yes, but that type of question is the second kind — whether a particular rule is too lenient or too harsh, relative to its safety benefit. No one is doubting that the concern for safety is sincere.
But a transfer rule that’s alleged to help players succeed academically, while letting their former coach decide which schools they can transfer to, is pretty obviously not what it claims to be.
They wisely dropped that, but in the current iteration the transferring player is allowed to be a full member of the team and to participate in everything the team does, other than to go on the field on game day. So, to say that the rule is “to give the player time to get his credits sorted out” (an actual statement Charlie Baker made) just doesn’t hold water.
Coaches were unhappy with the Wild West transfer rule that was available between 2020–2023. And you can rest assured their displeasure was not primarily due to academics. This is why they keep failing: they pass a rule that’s meant to do one thing, but state completely different reasons for it.
LikeLike
Marc,
No, that’s the courts’ opinion every time they lose.
Never once have the courts said they need to promote competition.
Yes, but that type of question is the second kind — whether a particular rule is too lenient or too harsh, relative to its safety benefit. No one is doubting that the concern for safety is sincere.
No, it isn’t. The internet is full of people questioning the NCAA’s motivation and commitment to safety.
But a transfer rule that’s alleged to help players succeed academically, while letting their former coach decide which schools they can transfer to, is pretty obviously not what it claims to be.
You are intentionally misrepresenting the rule. The NCAA has never restricted transfers. They have restricted how soon an athlete can play again after a transfer. That’s entirely different.
Letting the coaches decide was up to the individual schools, not the NCAA. The president or AD could overrule them if they chose to make the decision. It was delegated to the coaches with the naive assumption they’d act in the best interest of the athletes.
They wisely dropped that, but in the current iteration the transferring player is allowed to be a full member of the team and to participate in everything the team does, other than to go on the field on game day. So, to say that the rule is “to give the player time to get his credits sorted out” (an actual statement Charlie Baker made) just doesn’t hold water.
Coaches and players argued they needed to be around their teammates for mental wellness. They did worse academically and socially if isolated. So now you want to lambaste the NCAA for listening to the players? Thanks to all the tutoring and monitoring, athletes graduate at a higher rate than comparable students. Not playing in games (and thus not needing rehab sessions or as many film sessions) and not traveling saves a lot of time for the player to study.
Coaches were unhappy with the Wild West transfer rule that was available between 2020–2023. And you can rest assured their displeasure was not primarily due to academics. This is why they keep failing: they pass a rule that’s meant to do one thing, but state completely different reasons for it.
The NCAA’s reason for a rule doesn’t mean the coaches view it the same way. It’s their job to win, and graduate enough players not to get fired. The NCAA is supposed to focus on academics with sports as a bonus.
LikeLike
With regard to academics and eligibility, let’s just stop the farce. When was the last time that you heard about a football or basketball player being academically ineligible? Speaking for my Boilers, it’s probably been 30 years. Back in the 70s, 80s and 90s, it happened multiple times every year. But since circa 2000, I don’t recall a single player who lost eligibility on any Big Ten Team, any sport.
How about you fellow FTTS readers? Have you seen any athlete from Michigan or Iowa or Penn State lose eligibility in the pas twenty years?
LikeLike
Have you seen any athlete from Michigan or Iowa or Penn State lose eligibility in the past twenty years?
Do you ever use Google? It took me thirty seconds to find this one from Michigan. I am pretty sure there were others, but I only needed to find one to answer your query, so I stopped there. This was during the Rich Rodriguez era, so not terribly recent, but still it falls within the twenty-year window you asked for.
Schools do not always say why a player was suspended and/or booted off the team, so there are probably more cases than we know about. It’s not an everyday occurrence, but it does happen.
LikeLike
Never once have the courts said they need to promote competition.
This is a sports blog, not a court opinion. If we are being formalistic about it, you are correct that a court doesn’t tell the NCAA which rules to write; it only tells them which ones it cannot. But if you imagine an NCAA that knew what the law was, and was attempting to follow it, it would very likely be trying to promote competition, because that’s kinda what sports is about.
The internet is full of people questioning the NCAA’s motivation and commitment to safety.
Find one who matters. I am not talking about sportswriters who publish for clicks and fans who have no say. On the Internet, you can find someone who questions just about anything.
You are intentionally misrepresenting the rule. The NCAA has never restricted transfers. They have restricted how soon an athlete can play again after a transfer. That’s entirely different.
Oh, come on. That’s like saying the NCAA never restricted Terrelle Pryor from swapping OSU memorabilia for tattoos — it only restricted whether he could play if he did.
The rule book is full of conditions like “You cannot play unless you do X,” or “You cannot play if you’ve done Y.” It’s evasion and sophistry to say the NCAA is not restricting X and Y.
It was delegated to the coaches with the naive assumption they’d act in the best interest of the athletes.
Oh, come on. No one ever suggested that coaches have any knowledge to help a player decide which school (besides the current one) is suited to his academic needs. The only reason for giving the coach that power was to protect his own team competitively.
Coaches and players argued they needed to be around their teammates for mental wellness. They did worse academically and socially if isolated. So now you want to lambaste the NCAA for listening to the players?
If they’d actually listened to the players, then they’d let the athlete participate in the game as well, given that they’ve allowed everything else. That’s clearly what the players would choose, and is the crux of the 10 states’ (+Feds’) argument. If you actually care about the athlete (and are not just trying to restrict the marketplace), then it makes no sense to have him transfer and do everything with the team except enter the game itself.
LikeLike
Marc,
This is a sports blog, not a court opinion. If we are being formalistic about it, you are correct that a court doesn’t tell the NCAA which rules to write; it only tells them which ones it cannot.
That’s not being formalistic, it’s being honest. They have been told to do certain things, or stop doing certain things, but never have they been told to “promote competition.”
But if you imagine an NCAA that knew what the law was, and was attempting to follow it, it would very likely be trying to promote competition, because that’s kinda what sports is about.
No, it isn’t. You’re talking about business competition, and that has nothing to do with sports. The NCAA promotes athletic competition. Don’t try to switch meanings mid-argument.
Find one who matters.
Move the goal posts farther, why don’t you? You said: “… no one disputes that the motivation is sincere.” I’ve seen media people question it (talking heads, writers, …), plus bloggers and regular fans. Many people seem not to trust the NCAA’s motivations for anything they do.
I am not talking about sportswriters who publish for clicks and fans who have no say. On the Internet, you can find someone who questions just about anything.
So other than the thousands of people who question it, nobody questions it? I’m supposed to read your mind and know which tiny slice of people you consider people who matter for this discussion? Who does count? Players? Coaches? ADs? Presidents? Judges? Lawmakers? Alumni/donors? Fans? Many of them questioned new clock rules. They questioned targeting. They questioned stoppages for injuries. They questioned mandatory concussion protocols. They questioned kickoff changes.
Oh, come on. That’s like saying the NCAA never restricted Terrelle Pryor from swapping OSU memorabilia for tattoos — it only restricted whether he could play if he did.
That’s a complete non sequitur. You (and many others) completely misrepresent the NCAA rule. They have never told a player they can’t transfer, just like any other student can transfer. All they have ever done is regulate when you can participate in sports. People like you rail against the NCAA and say “but a regular student can transfer whenever they want.” So can athletes. And that new school can give them a scholarship if they have one available.
The rule book is full of conditions like “You cannot play unless you do X,” or “You cannot play if you’ve done Y.” It’s evasion and sophistry to say the NCAA is not restricting X and Y.
Not when we’re discussing the freedom of a student to switch schools. Whether they are students or employees is being discussed, so it matters in this case.
Oh, come on. No one ever suggested that coaches have any knowledge to help a player decide which school (besides the current one) is suited to his academic needs. The only reason for giving the coach that power was to protect his own team competitively.
Many players have discussed how their coaches helped them find a new place to play. Coaches don’t know academics, no. But they do know other coaches and can recommend players to them. So in those cases, the coaches are doing the right thing for the player. But I think the schools gave the power to the coaches because the ADs (and presidents) didn’t want to deal with it themselves, so the crap job flowed downhill.
If they’d actually listened to the players, then they’d let the athlete participate in the game as well, given that they’ve allowed everything else. That’s clearly what the players would choose, and is the crux of the 10 states’ (+Feds’) argument. If you actually care about the athlete (and are not just trying to restrict the marketplace), then it makes no sense to have him transfer and do everything with the team except enter the game itself.
The players would all be paid a trillion dollars a year and never have to lift or practice if you blindly listen to them. It’s the role of the adults to try to do what’s best for the players, not give them everything they want. It’s like saying professors shouldn’t give homework or exams because students don’t want them. The NCAA listened to them and met them partway.
It actually makes a ton of sense to maintain certain restrictions that reduce time investment for a transfer student. It gives them the best chance for academic success while maintaining their athletic ability.
LikeLike
Based on all Nielsen-rated games (no ACCN, SECN, Peacock, ESPN+, and BTN only the past 3-4 years) from 2016-23, half of all viewers came from just 18 teams. It’s no shock the SEC leads with the B10 second. It’s also clear why FSU and Clemson want out of the ACC.
SEC (8) – 1, 3, 7*, 8, 10*, 11, 12, 16
B10 (7) – 2, 4, 9, 13, 14*, 17*, 18*
ACC (2) – 5, 15 (next are #25, 30)
Other (1) – 6
* – new additions in 2024
The top B12 team is #22.
This is, of course, skewed by the postseason as CFP games attract a lot of viewers.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39380148/sources-jim-harbaugh-accepts-head-coaching-job-chargers
Now I’m starting to worry, this off-season is going so well. First Saban, and now Harbaugh?
It looks like the OC will take over. All those suspension games he got to coach last season for his cheater boss should give him a head start.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-sports-at-a-critical-juncture-is-project-di-the-answer-everything-is-on-the-table-161809460.html
Baker is meeting with the P5 commissioners about his plan. They haven’t responded positively so far. The B10 has been scathing and the SEC hasn’t even bothered to meet with him yet.
The NCAA should just eliminate D-I and all TV contracts. Only run championships for D-II and below and do not contract for any media coverage. Let the NFL, NBA and other pro leagues (and Congress for the Olympic sports) deal with the rest.
Nearly two months after Project DI’s grand reveal, some of the targets at the center of the proposal — schools in the Power Five or, better yet, Power Two — are not in support of the plan. There is disagreement on the proposal’s implementation; discord about the NCAA’s future in general; growing doubts around congressional action, a necessary component to the proposal; and, most notably, further discussion of NCAA secession from schools residing at the highest level of the sport.
Amidst it all, in one of the most challenging times in college athletics history, the most powerful executives in the sport — the Power Five commissioners — gather this week in the nation’s capital. They are scheduled to meet on Thursday with Baker in a gathering, perhaps, to further explore their differences and chart a course — together or apart? — toward rectifying the various unsolved issues in the industry.
…
Meanwhile, the industry’s own leaders, originating from differing geographic and cultural footprints with wide variation in resources, struggle to find consensus — both among themselves and with the 117-year-old association that presides over them.
All the while, as commissioners and Baker are scheduled to meet, the legal challenges against the NCAA and conferences provide leaders with a ticking clock.
Said Jere Morehead, the president of Georgia and chair of the Division I Board of Directors: “We’re running out of time.”
What is wrong with Project DI?
Nothing, if you ask many of those in the NCAA’s “95%,” as Baker likes to refer to them.
Those in Division III, Division II and many in Division I support a proposal that draws a more official line between the haves and have-nots of the NCAA’s three-division, 97-conference organization. Despite some anxiety, even those within the ranks of the FCS and lower-level FBS (Group of Five) are realistic enough to understand that the model only recognizes the growing gap between them and the football elites, and it incorporates a framework around it.
However, at the Power Five level, there is pushback, especially from those in the Big Ten and SEC. Over the last several weeks, Baker has met with athletic directors from three of the five major conferences about Project DI. Pac-12 athletic directors are not routinely meeting, and Baker has not met with those from the SEC, a conference whose school administrators have privately been critical of the proposal.
Meetings with the ACC and Big 12 were described as banal compared to the meeting held with the Big Ten. Baker’s hour-long in-person meeting with Big Ten administrators last week in Chicago turned into a proverbial airing of grievances about the plan itself.
…
Gripes over the proposal range widely, according to conversations that several administrators held with Yahoo Sports over the last month, at the national championship site in Houston and NCAA convention in Phoenix.
In a way, the NCAA’s own proposal strips away more of its own authority, which, ironically, opens up the organization to questions of its own existence from those in the major conferences: Can’t we enforce our own rules and operate our own championships?
But some take other issues with the proposal.
• There is no cap on any of the compensation avenues to athletes: the NIL payments, educationally related enhancements and subdivision toll. College stakeholders at the highest level — both coaches and administrators alike — are seeking a more regulated system similar to professional sports, which have salary caps and contracts.
• In Baker’s proposal, Title IX is used as a way to regulate direct pay to athletes. A 51-year-old federal law, Title IX requires educational programs receiving federal dollars to provide equal opportunities to women and men students. While the law has produced a robust and successful women’s athletic movement in the United States, it was meant to be applied in an amateurism model. Applying Title IX in a professionalized model means that schools would be compensating a football player, whose sport produces millions in revenue, the same as a women’s player, whose sport loses millions.
• The proposal may slow but will not completely end booster-led NIL collectives, which MAC commissioner Jon Steinbrecher says is the wish of “most” athletic directors. “They’d like to see collectives go away,” he said from Phoenix. But at many schools, collectives will remain as a third-party entity that (1) does not have to abide by Title IX and (2) can offer athletes extra compensation onto their school pay, most believe. “In my view, (collectives) will likely still exist regardless of how institutions are compensating student-athletes or not,” said Florida deputy AD Lynda Tealer, an expert on NIL matters who’s helped lead the NCAA NIL working group now for years.
For these reasons, the proposal, while radical in the historic context of an amateur organization, does not take a big enough leap into a more regulated and professionalized system such as revenue sharing, many administrators say.
There is also one other hurdle with the proposal: It needs help from Congress.
…
What are the SEC and Big Ten up to?
It’s no surprise that SEC and Big Ten administrators have expressed, privately and publicly, the most qualms over Baker’s proposal.
…
There is potentially a pathway to an exit. The 10 FBS leagues and Notre Dame are bound to the CFP television agreement for just two more years, and though they are in negotiations to extend that agreement with ESPN, such an extension has not been struck.
In no secret, the two commissioners of the behemoths, SEC’s Greg Sankey and Big Ten’s Tony Petitti, have developed a close relationship, communicate regularly and hold the power to steer college football’s future.
Its direction is quite clear. Both Sankey and Petitti have expressed an intent to both accelerate NCAA governance and condense the amount of schools operating under a single umbrella. “How do you take larger groups and make them smaller to drive forward?” Petitti asked in an interview last year with Yahoo Sports.
Although administrators from the two leagues have not jointly met, each of them have separately held serious discussions about models for the future of the industry. In fact, SEC athletic directors met in person earlier this month in a roundtable discussion of sorts about the topic.
“Everything is on the table,” said one. “That includes a breakaway.”
LikeLike
It’s practically George Kliavkoff-level incompetence to issue such a proposal without first making sure the Big Ten and SEC supported it.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m not sure how Baker didn’t understand that getting the SEC/Big Ten on board with anything is the key to success right now.
Those 2 hold most of the cards here; not all, but enough to basically control where this all goes.
LikeLike
https://collegehoopstoday.net/rothstein-files/big-ten-planning-to-stay-at-20-league-games-only-have-15-teams-in-big-ten-tournament-in-2024-25/
The B10 will stay at 20 games in MBB, with 15 teams making the tourney.
LikeLike
Will be interesting to see how long that goes on for as teams stay home during conference tournament week.
Conference tourny bids were participation awards of sorts for the bottom parts of leagues, and usually those aren’t taken away.
But 18+ team conferences are more like leagues at this point…
LikeLike
I think it comes down to byes (rewards to the top teams) and being limited to 4 games per day for TV purposes. Maybe they only wanted 3 games on that first day. They could’ve included 16 while keeping all the byes, but all 18 is tough without adding a day or playing 2 games at once. I doubt they’ll ever bother to explain to us why they chose 15 vs 16. Maybe they figure the top half of the B10 deserves at least a single bye since they may all be going to the NCAAT, so 10-15 play on day 1. One could argue this will give more value to regular season games between the lowest teams as they need to fight to make the tournament.
LikeLike
I’m curious to see how BTN deals with the recent expansion. 18 schools with multiple sports per season is a lot to cover, especially with multiple big sports ongoing at once. Clearly BTN+ will have to provide more coverage, but will the number of live events increase?
Other questions:
* Will everyone’s football games still get replayed, or just some? How many will they do the 60 minute version of each week?
* Will there be any classic games from the past? There won’t be a P12N to air them. Perhaps the Pac-2 will sell back those rights to the 4 heading to the B10? Does BTN show any old NE games?
* BTN has a max of 50 football games, and everyone has to play on BTN twice per season. Those mandatory appearances will fill up at least half of those games, probably more because BTN will have to air many OOC games in the first 2-3 weeks. At some point do they relax that requirement?
https://247sports.com/college/ohio-state/longformarticle/big-ten-football-and-basketball-media-deals-examined-with-new-schools-joining-conference-225987515/#2352051
This coming season, there will be roughly 125 football games in Big Ten stadiums that would be covered by the conference’s media partners. Many of those fall in the nonconference portion of the season. There would be 15 Big Ten home games in Weeks 1 and 2 and as many as 11 in Week 3. After that, the number ranges from six to eight games in Big Ten stadiums each week as conference play begins. The final week has 10 games in Big Ten stadiums with USC and UCLA each hosting Week 14 nonleague games.
LikeLike
The BTN no longer has a max of 50 football games. They’ll now have the late night slot on the West Coast.
LikeLike
Will there be any classic games from the past? There won’t be a P12N to air them. Perhaps the Pac-2 will sell back those rights to the 4 heading to the B10?
I don’t know for sure, but I thought the rights to “classic” games stayed with the school.
Does BTN show any old NE games?
They do. I’ve seen a few Big8/12 era Nebraska games on BTN.
BTN has a max of 50 football games, and everyone has to play on BTN twice per season. Those mandatory appearances will fill up at least half of those games, probably more because BTN will have to air many OOC games in the first 2-3 weeks. At some point do they relax that requirement?
I wonder if that was decided in the “new money” Fox agreement for UO/UW
LikeLike
Replying to Mike because I cannot post a new message. New kind of NIL out of Urbana, Illinois. Gift link WaPo: https://wapo.st/48Syagt
LikeLike
Thanks Mike. I figured NE fans would know, and presumably NE is the best model for USC, UCLA, UO and UW. Nobody wants to see classic RU games really.
I think BTN could could benefit from showing more classic games to fill time. There has to be a way to get software to turn the old video into a 60 minute version (or close, then have humans do the rest). All summer long they could show them.
We’ll probably never know what the latest deal is. We still don’t have answers about the value, future USC vs ND games, …
Let’s see if 2023 is instructive:
Wk 1 BTN games (3): PU, UMD, IL vs OOC
Wk 2 (6): IU, OSU, MSU, NW, MN, RU vs OOC
Wk 3 (5): WI, IU, IA, RU, UM vs OOC
Wk 4 (5): IL, NE, IU vs OOC; PU/WI, MN/NW
Wk 5 (4): MN, RU vs OOC; PSU/NW, IU/UMD
Wk 6 (1): NW vs OOC
Wk 7 (2): PSU vs OOC; UM vs IU
Wk 8 (2): IU vs RU, NW vs NE
Wk 9 (2): UMD vs NW, MSU vs MN
Wk 10 (2): WI vs IU, MN vs IL
Wk 11 (2): IU vs IL, RU vs IA
Wk 12 (3): MSU vs IU, PU vs NW, MN vs OSU
Wk 13 (3): IU vs PU, UMD vs RU, NW vs IL
Total = 40 games (21 OOC, 19 B10)
2 – OSU, UM, PSU, NE, IA
3 – MSU, WI
4 – UMD, PU
5 – IL
6 – MN, RU
8 – NW
10 – IU
59 total appearances. It can go up to 50 games, so roughly 75 appearances. If we extend that coverage to the Pac-4: USC would get 2, UO and UW might get 3 each, and UCLA would get 4+. That’s 12 more appearances and about 9 games, so 71 appearances in 49 games.
But those 4 teams mean roughly 28 more games, leaving 19 to be picked up elsewhere. CBS only had 7 games, so they get another 7 (leaves 12). FS1 had 14 games, as did Fox. They get at least 32 games in 2024, so I’ll guess FS1 picks up some Friday night and/or late night games with Fox grabbing a handful of extra games..
It can be done, but it will be tight.
LikeLike
I usually ignore the engagement grifters but this made me laugh.
Yes, Genetics, the FSU legal team is monitoring your Twitter feed for ideas to use in their ACC lawsuit. FSU only learned about the Raycom “scandal” (a staple of message boards for years) thanks to your tweet.
LikeLike
It is good to see the issues finally raised legally, though. Fans have been upset about that deal for years, and this will either shed light on it or force a settlement.
LikeLike
Like everything with this whole case, FSU had to approve each TV deal. Ample opportunity to look into claims of self dealing.
LikeLike
Isn’t that part of their lawsuit, that Phillips did an extension without a vote? It’s what moved back ESPN’s option deadline a few years.
FSU feeling pressured to sign (what options did they have?) doesn’t mean the fans don’t have legitimate concerns. And it is unknown what Swofford did/didn’t disclose to FSU when it was first signed.
Note that I said fans had long had issues with this, not that FSU did. Fans have never had a chance to know the details.
LikeLike
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/01/29/florida-state-acc-lawsuit-grant-of-rights-conference-realignment-fsu-football/
A lawyer’s take on FSU and the GOR. This is the lawyer who wrote the Harvard law journal article about GORs and cited Frank’s blog (https://www.troutman.com/a/web/344419/Wilhelm.pdf). He applied political theory (Duverger’s law) to argue that the CFP should drive realignment to a P5 (death of the Big East/AAC as a power conference in CFB). Perhaps further application with a P2 forming says you should have a P4 as the P2 will often get 3 of the 4 spots, leaving just 1 opening for the rest. But with the expanded CFP, the system should support at least a P5 (4 byes). Too bad for the P12 it came a year or so too late.
If you’re wondering how FSU can escape deals it signed, you’re not alone
“That’s a great question,” Wilhelm said, “and I don’t have a particularly good answer.”
Wilhelm explained a few options to try to escape contracts like a grant of rights — where FSU and the other schools granted their TV rights to the ACC, which sold them to ESPN and distributed the money back to the schools.
….
Remember this word: considerations
….
FSU argues in its complaint that it “received no new consideration” by signing the grant of rights. If a court accepts that argument, then there’s no contract. And if there’s no contract, then Florida State could save hundreds of million of dollars on its way out.
It matters how you slice (and characterize) $572 million
One of the two major chunks, according to FSU, is a $130 million fee to leave the ACC. The other is $429 million in TV money the conference will withhold until 2036.
“I think that when this goes to get litigated, the characterization of these different components is going to be important,” Wilhelm said.
Why? Because if a court thinks they’re both part of one connected withdrawal fee, FSU can argue that half a billion dollars is unreasonable compared to the harm its exit will cause the ACC. Translation: It’s too big. But if a court views the exit fee and TV money separately, FSU could be on the hook for both.
A key question: What was the goal of the grant of rights?
…
A legal homecourt advantage will be discussed
…
“I imagine that Florida State and the ACC will litigate about where they’re going to litigate,” Wilhelm said.
Though the ACC filed its complaint first, Wilhelm doesn’t see it as an easy win for the conference to keep the case in Charlotte (where the league is based). That’s because the difference was only 19 hours, so there are no real efforts that would be wasted if it moved to Florida.
LikeLike
Tennessee and Virginia AGs sue NCAA over NIL.
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/tennessee-virginia-ags-suing-ncaa-nil-related-recruiting-rules
LikeLike
A copy of the complaint can be found here.
I felt the Transfer Rule case was a slam-dunk in the states’ favor. The rule in question is (in my opinion) obviously built upon a pack of lies and shifting justifications with no clear rationale.
This is a closer case, because the NCAA can assert pro-competitive benefits of its NIL rules. Without any restrictions, the wealthy schools could purchase all the best talent, leaving their less wealthy counterparts in the dust. Still, I think the NCAA will lose, because it is on a long losing streak in cases like this, and its NIL policy appears to be directly in conflict with Tennessee and Virginia law.
LikeLike
The NCAA should kick out every school that sues them over these things, and every school in the state when the state sues. If you don’t like the NCAA’s rules, just join another organization or form your own. The NCAA doesn’t have to be the only game in town.
LikeLike
The NCAA should kick out every school that sues them over these things, and every school in the state when the state sues. If you don’t like the NCAA’s rules, just join another organization or form your own. The NCAA doesn’t have to be the only game in town.
That argument has failed in court over and over again. It’s like John D. Rockefeller saying in 1910 that he never prevented anyone from starting new companies to compete with Standard Oil.
The whole point of anti-trust law is that, at some point, you are so large and dominant that no one has a realistic possibility of challenging you without the court’s help. If the NCAA could have won with your argument, they would’ve used it in the cases they’ve already lost. Even they knew that it’s a complete non-starter.
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with the law. I’m saying as practical behavior, stop complaining or leave. It’s not that difficult, unless the NCAA bans playing non-NCAA schools in general (having peer level requirements is fine).
Dozens to hundreds of schools have complained or sued (directly or indirectly). Very quickly a new organization would be as important as the NCAA. Sankey and the SEC keep complaining about revenue splits and decision making – any organization with those 16 as a core would be a true competitor to the NCAA. If the B10, ACC and B12 (or even just 1-2 of them) followed suit, it would match the NCAA in terms of market power.
TN: 12 D-I schools (2 P2, 2 G5, 6 I-AA, 2 non-FB)
VA: 14 D-I schools (2 P2, 3 G5, 5 I-AA, 4 non-FB)
They could join the NAIA (241 members) and build it into a rival, or start their own. It’s not the NCAA’s fault everyone is too lazy to start their own group. It’s not like being a sports organization is capital intensive or anything. It just isn’t profitable at the college level, so nobody wants to bother.
Being a monopoly by default isn’t illegal. The NCAA has done nothing to try to prevent organizational competition. So stop complaining and form a new group. Then you can sue if the NCAA tries to crush you. Frankly, I think many NCAA members would love for the P4 to leave the NCAA and stop screwing things up for them.
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with the law. I’m saying as practical behavior, stop complaining or leave.
Actually, no. What you said was that the NCAA should kick out any school that sues — not that the schools should leave on their own, which they are of course free to do. But there is nothing inconsistent with belonging to something, yet not agreeing with everything it does.
People sue the U.S. government all the time. The government doesn’t revoke their citizenship. It either agrees or it goes to court, where it sometimes wins and sometimes loses.
LikeLike
Marc,
I said both. The NCAA should kick them out (which I’m sure is illegal, but do it anyway), but the schools should have left already. And once told kicking them out is illegal, refuse to let them back in anyway. Then when push comes to shove, close the NCAA rather than allow them back in. Make everyone suffer because of it, and make it 100% clear that it is all their fault.
This isn’t a minor policy disagreement, this is a schism. It’s the Reformation. Go leave and form the semi-pro association of cheaters, where they’ll be happy and everyone remaining will be glad they’re gone. The world would be a better place without people like them in it.
What the government does and what it should do are often different. But the government is fundamentally different from a voluntary association. You literally need legal permission to be in the US. The NCAA doesn’t control all of college sports. You can be a member or not, and there are existing options as well as the ability to create a new one.
LikeLike
<em>The NCAA doesn’t control all of college sports. You can be a member or not, and there are existing options as well as the ability to create a new one.</em>
They control essentially all of it that matters. Courts have found repeatedly that the NCAA is a monopoly as the law defines it. In fact, as I understand, the NCAA has not really tried very hard to contest that they are a monopoly. Rather, they argue that they are a “good monopoly” that ought to be entitled to certain exceptions.
In the 1984 case, for example, they did not deny that they had restricted the market for college football TV broadcasts. They said that the restrictions were in the public interest to keep the sport alive, as no one would go to the games if they were all on TV. That argument, as you know, did not persuade the Supreme Court.
LikeLike
The NCAA only has control over schools who choose to join it. The SEC could leave tomorrow and start a rival group. The NCAA allows member schools to play those outside of the NCAA.
Nobody has ever denied they are a monopoly. So are the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL. So are all the high school athletic associations. Being a monopoly isn’t illegal. Certain uses of that status are considered illegal unless you have an anti-trust exemption, which the major pro sports have.
LikeLike
Breaking news – The SEC-Big Ten Advisory Board officially formed as of Friday afternoon. Gift article WaPo: https://wapo.st/4bmlkZk
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2024/2/2/general-big-ten-conference-southeastern-conference-form-advisory-group.aspx
B10/SEC advisory group statement from B10:
The Big Ten Conference and Southeastern Conference today announced the formation of a joint advisory group of university presidents, chancellors, and athletics directors to address the significant challenges facing college athletics and the opportunities for betterment of the student- athlete experience.
These challenges, including but not limited to recent court decisions, pending litigation, a patchwork of state laws, and complex governance proposals, compel the two conferences to take a leadership role in developing solutions for a sustainable future of college sports.
The advisory group will engage with other constituencies as necessary, including consultation with student-athletes and other key leadership groups from within both conferences.
“The Big Ten and the SEC have substantial investment in the NCAA and there is no question that the voices of our two conferences are integral to governance and other reform efforts,” said Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti. “We recognize the similarity in our circumstances, as well as the urgency to address the common challenges we face.”
“There are similar cultural and social impacts on our student-athletes, our institutions, and our communities because of the new collegiate athletics environment,” said SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey. “We do not have predetermined answers to the myriad questions facing us. We do not expect to agree on everything but enhancing interaction between our conferences will help to focus efforts on common sense solutions.”
The advisory group will have no authority to act independently and will only serve as a consulting body. Its composition, charter and timetable, as well as the specific questions it might examine, have yet to be determined.
A college committee with no set membership, purpose, timetable, or authority? Those are always effective.
LikeLike
Brian, you don’t understand what is happening. The Big Ten and SEC are forming a TV cartel. In the future they will negotiate together like a union rather than against each other.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sec-big-ten-uniting-to-tackle-pervasive-issues-in-college-athletics–pressures-are-mounting-172832810.html
Dellenger on the new group.
Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti calls the joint move a “meaningful step” in an effort to “fix things.” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey described it as a search for “a common-sense solution” that, he hopes, will lead to a “much brighter horizon.”
The commissioners both strongly rebuke any notion that the creation of this advisory board is a move toward a breakaway from the college sports’ governing body. The Big Ten and SEC remain prominent members of the NCAA, both in governance and national competition, they say. The joint board does not hold unilateral authority and they will have “no motivation to simply declare” anything, Sankey said.
“From our perspective, we have a lot that is linked to the NCAA,” he said. “We want to see a healthy national organization. I think that’s very much a need.”
However, “pressures are mounting,” he continued. “We’re going to have conversations about what might a path forward mean for college sports.”
Said Petitti: “You can see the pace that others are getting involved in college athletics is increasing. So the pace of solutions to the problems being identified has to increase.”
…
In Petitti’s first few weeks on the job last spring, he visited Sankey in Birmingham to start a dialogue that reached a crescendo with this week’s announcement. In between was a golf outing together over the summer and multiple meetings at various NCAA and College Football Playoff events — a relationship that seems to have even surpassed the rivalries of their predecessors, Mike Slive and Roy Kramer in the SEC and Jim Delany in the Big Ten.
That’s treason and should be a fireable offense. Sankey (and the SEC) is the enemy and pure evil. He is to be mocked, hated and/or ignored, not buddied up with. If Petitti doesn’t understand that, he has no business running the B10.
Some within college athletics look at this budding bond between the two goliaths as the latest threat on the enterprise. Others describe it as a necessary evil that may generate real, accelerated progress in an era of urgent modernization.
“We thought in the Big Ten that coming together this way to share ideas was the fastest and best way to increase the pace of what we are doing,” Petitti said.
While circumstances have long pointed toward an affiliation between the two leagues, an event just last month triggered the move. While at the NCAA convention in Phoenix, Sankey participated in meetings of the Division I Council, the NCAA’s second-highest ranking DI governance body.
He left meetings realizing that many of these most challenging issues “reside here with us,” he said of the two conferences.
“I was asked in Phoenix (by administrators), ‘When are you and the Big Ten going to tell us what you want?’ That was a motivating factor,” Sankey said.
…
Sankey, however, left open the door for the joint group to grow, possibly incorporating representatives from other leagues.
“We can start it together and I think it can populate itself outward and we can draw people in and work in larger rooms,” he said before pausing, “but having been in a lot of larger rooms, we haven’t seemed to make a lot of progress with bigger numbers.”
…
Project DI will be one of the first topics addressed by the joint advisory group, Sankey said. Project DI, revealed in December, would permit schools to strike NIL deals directly with athletes while also creating a separate subdivision in FBS for high-revenue producing schools. Those schools in the new subdivision will be required to put away into a trust a minimum of $30,000 annually per athlete for at least half of a school’s athletes.
The first portion of the proposal — permissive school-to-athlete NIL pay — is on a fast track for potential adoption as soon as August. However, the joint board is expected to address the project and give feedback to NCAA leaders and/or the Division I Council, which is charged with adopting a framework around the proposal.
Sankey described last week’s meeting with Baker as a “candid conversation” and was encouraged at Baker’s insistence that the proposal is not, in any way, set in stone.
“Charlie seemed open that there is not one predetermined path to accomplish some of the things he suggested,” Petitti said. “There isn’t just one path and he’s open to listening to maybe some other ideas.”
In interviews with Yahoo Sports this week, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips and Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark expressed similar encouragement from the meeting.
“Charlie Baker has a better understanding now of what we need,” Phillips said. “He listened.”
“It was a great meeting. Open and honest,” Yormark said.
Settling on an acceptable athlete compensation model is perhaps the most pressing issue before the Big Ten and SEC’s advisory group, as well as the other FBS leagues. A new model could rectify both the House v. NCAA antitrust case and the current landscape of college football and basketball recruiting — a space which coaches and administrators describe as a pay-for-play, unregulated free agent marketplace.
There is no such things as an “acceptable athlete compensation model.” There is professionalizing college sports or not. Disassociate it from the schools and then do whatever you want. Universities should not be related to this in any way.
LikeLike
Brian, don’t get your panties up into an odiferous wad. This so-called “SEC-Big Ten Advisory Board” is a cartel to goose more money out of the TV networks. It’s a great idea, it will leave the the other conferences eating dust meatballs. But of course they can’t call it a cartel.
LikeLike
https://www.facebook.com/RoseBowlLegacy/
The Rose Bowl Legacy Foundation is going to erect a statue of Archie Griffin and a “Legends Walk” honoring all 19 Heisman winners who have played in the Rose Bowl game. Griffin is 1 of 2 players to start 4 straight Rose Bowls (USC’s Brian Cushing is the other) and is in the Rose Bowl HoF. He gained 412 yds in the 4 games (149 in 1974) and he was named player of the 70s and of the century.
This struck me as a little odd for several reasons:
1. This is the first statue of Griffin anywhere (a replica will be sent to OSU)
2. There are only 4 other statues there – Jackie Robinson (played football at Pasadena CC), Brandi Chastain (WC champ), Keith Jackson, Terry Donahue. Griffin seems like an odd addition to me.
3. Griffin was never the game’s MVP. 4 players have been 2-time MVPs, and they only get mentioned on plaques.
4. UCLA is joining the B10 and an OSU player is getting a statue at their home field.
5. College sports are ending and all traditions being eliminated, meanwhile the greatest college football game chooses now to honor its greatest player ever.
College football’s only two-time Heisman Trophy winner, Archie Griffin, will be celebrated with a statue at the Rose Bowl Stadium in 2024. Griffin, a member of the Rose Bowl Game® (1990) and College Football Hall of Fames (1986), is one of just two players ever to have started in four consecutive Rose Bowl Games® and won the Heisman Trophy in 1974 and 1975.
Adjacent to the Griffin statue in the Stadium’s nearby Court of Champions, a Legends Walk will also be created to highlight and educate visitors on the 19 Heisman Trophy winners that have played in the Rose Bowl Game® up to the current day.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39467904/cfp-agrees-smu-revenue-distribution-less-full-power-5-allotment
The CFP committee can’t decide on anything important, but they have agreed on how little to pay SMU.
Other P5’s get $6M each for their conference while G5’s get $1M, and SMU was counting on the extra money to help cover the lack of TV money.
ACC:
16*$6M + $1M = $97M/17 = $5.7M
SMU’s conference-mates could all give up $300k to make SMU an equal partner, but instead SMU will probably get $3-4M (as a guess). But this is all for just the first 2 years, because there is no revenue-sharing plan after 2025.
This tiny topic took months of meetings and discussion. I’m sure the overall revenue-sharing plan for 2026 and beyond will go quickly.
Meanwhile WSU is holding out on the shift from 6+6 to 5+7. I don’t understand why. Didn’t they already say the Pac-2 wouldn’t qualify as a conference? Nobody is going to agree to guarantee them an equal paycheck to the P4 members in perpetuity.
<i>The College Football Playoff management committee unanimously agreed upon an undisclosed amount of money for incoming ACC member SMU that will go to the conference, but it’s still less than the revenue the CFP typically distributes to Power 5 schools, CFP executive director Bill Hancock said Monday.
…
“I think everybody in the room felt like it was a fair accommodation,” Hancock said. “They’ve spent a long time talking about it — over three meetings.”
The decision is significant because in the past, schools that made the leap from a Group of 5 conference to a Power 5 league also saw an increase in CFP revenue from roughly $1 million to $6 million. In 2022, the CFP voted to give full Power 5 revenue to incoming Big 12 schools UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and BYU. SMU and the ACC were under the impression they would get the same.
…
Hancock declined to say specifically what the monetary agreement was, and ACC commissioner Jim Phillips declined to comment after the meeting, as did SMU athletic director Rick Hart.
The 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, who joined Monday’s CFP meeting in Dallas by Zoom, have been discussing SMU’s revenue situation for months. SMU had already agreed to forgo ACC television revenue for its first nine years in the league.
There is already a glaring CFP revenue gap between the Power 5 (Pac-12, ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Big Ten) and the Group of 5 (Conference-USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt and American Athletic Conference). Currently, about 80% of the CFP revenue goes to the Power 5, while 20% is allocated to the Group of 5. Now the commissioners have to determine how it will be shared amongst the “Power 4,” as the Pac-12 is on the verge of extinction following defections to other leagues.
With the Pac-12 down to Washington State and Oregon State, the CFP’s model for how teams qualify for the new 12-team playoff this fall remains on hold. Except for the Pac-12, there is unanimous support for a 5+7 model that rewards the five highest-ranked conference champions plus the next seven-highest ranked teams. Hancock said that decision is with the board, where Washington State president Kirk Schulz represents the league with a vote on an issue that needs unanimity for approval.
“It’s not done yet because the Pac-12 isn’t prepared to vote on it,” Hancock said.
Schulz has declined comment.</i>
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2024/02/06/new-tv-sports-streaming-service/72498790007/
The streaming bundle is official.
Disney’s ESPN, Fox Corp.’s Fox Sports and Warner Bros. Discovery’s TNT, TBS and other networks will offer a comprehensive package later this year that includes NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL games.
Each company will own a third of the service, which does not yet have a name, pricing information or a specific launch date, and is subject to finalizing agreements. But it’s a further acknowledgment of the splintering of the cable bundle ad more consumers gravitate to streaming.
…
“The launch of this new streaming sports service is a significant moment for Disney and ESPN, a major win for sports fans, and an important step forward for the media business,” said Disney CEO Bob Iger, in a statement. Disney has been mulling plans to create a standalone ESPN streaming service (the current ESPN+ lacks rights to major sports), and the new agreement does not appear to prevent it from doing so in the future.
Note that Fox is included, but there is no mention of CBS (or NBC) or college sports.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/39472710/espn-fox-warner-bros-launch-sports-streaming-platform
ESPN has a more detailed article of how they are planning to screw over fans.
The platform will include games from the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, WNBA, NASCAR and college sports, including men’s and women’s March Madness, as well as golf, tennis and the FIFA World Cup.
It will include offerings from 15 linear networks — ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN+, SEC Network, ACC Network, ESPNEWS, ABC, Fox, FS1, FS2, Big Ten Network, TNT, TBS and truTV .
Subscribers would also have the ability to bundle the product with Disney+, Hulu and/or Max.
…
“The launch of this new streaming sports service is a significant moment for Disney and ESPN, a major win for sports fans, and an important step forward for the media business,” Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger said in a statement. “This means the full suite of ESPN channels will be available to consumers alongside the sports programming of other industry leaders as part of a differentiated sports-centric service.”
LikeLike
ESPN has a more detailed article of how they are planning to screw over fans.
There are a lot of open questions about this service, how these three competitors will work together, and how they will avoid suing each other or getting sued for anti-competitive price fixing. I think there’s a non-trivial chance that the whole thing blows up because they can’t agree on how to divvy up the revenue.
Analysts are expecting a price around $50, which is less than the cable bundle and less than YouTube TV. So, if you subscribe to YouTube TV for practically no other reason than for sports, this might actually be a better deal for you. It allows those who want linear TV for sports and practically nothing else, to get precisely that.
LikeLike
No NBC/USA/CNBC/Peacock and no CBS/CBSSN/Paramount+ so it’s not great for B10 fans, or those of several other conferences (incl. the academies), or of the Olympics (figure skating, gymnastics, …). Also no mention of the professional sports channels (NFLN, …) so they’d be an extra cost.
$50 plus the cost of internet, and that takes it above the cost of low-end cable. Plus add in the cost of other streaming subscriptions (Netflix, etc.) which cable provides some equivalent of.
LikeLike
Andy Katz explains why the B10 went with 15 teams in the hoops tournaments rather than 16.
Basically they want an 8/9 game to help solidify #9 making the NCAAT. A 9/16 game puts #9 at risk with no benefit to them if they win. The assumption is that #8 in the B10 will usually be comfortably in the tournament, and #9 might also be or they might be on the bubble so they want to help them make it. The games for #10-15 are unchanged by this.
https://twitter.com/BigTenNetwork/status/1754970808856744094
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39471385/what-big-ten-sec-partnership-look-accomplish
Pete Thamel explains what the P2 partnership wants to do.
<i>Here’s what’s definitive about this new linking: These leagues don’t want Eastern Michigan having a say in what happens at Michigan or Florida International affecting Florida. They don’t, for example, want the Dartmouth basketball team’s unionization effort to impact the Auburn and Iowa football teams’ futures.
…
One of the reasons the SEC and Big Ten breaking away isn’t rooted in reality comes from the Supreme Court ruling in 2021 in the NCAA v. Alston case. That ruling stresses time and again that conferences are free to forge individual paths forward.
So where could this SEC-Big Ten partnership show up to forge the future of college sports? The simple answers are lawsuit settlement and revenue share.
Multiple sources told ESPN there’s a lot of chatter that this SEC-Big Ten arm-linking could manifest itself amid the thicket of lawsuits facing the NCAA. Some of the wealthiest conferences want to find a way to settle those suits — particularly the billions in potential exposure of House v. NCAA — and use the settlement structure to create a path forward.
This is not simple, nor is it inevitable, as it’s a complicated play that likely would involve Congress. But as one industry source told ESPN on the building settlement chatter: “Congress doesn’t want to save us. They want to help us. There’s a big difference.”
…
“What they need from Congress, to be clear, is clarity,” said Mark S. Levinstein, senior counsel for Williams & Connolly, who has decades of experience in the sports space. “They need a lot of answers. For example, with respect to labor law, can the athletes unionize? If they unionize and choose the labor laws, is everything the universities did now protected from being challenged under the antitrust laws?”
Levinstein added: “The universities would also need some help with Title IX — if the football players receive a percentage of the university’s revenues, what do they have to do for the women’s rowing athletes? And they will need some clarity on any restrictions they impose on NIL. Can they prevent boosters from paying athletes to come to the university? Do you allow the quarterback to receive millions in NIL deals if they’re actually NIL deals and not payments to get him to enroll at a particular university?”</i>
LikeLike
Do you allow the quarterback to receive millions in NIL deals if they’re actually NIL deals and not payments to get him to enroll at a particular university?
This is almost a laughable question. The NIL value of almost all college athletes is inextricably bound up with the university they attend and the team they play for.
Does anyone really believe that NIL deals are not “payments to get him to enroll [or stay enrolled] at a particular university,” regardless of whether they are formally framed as such.
LikeLike
Obviously at least 1 person does. Or that they should be, anyway. He didn’t say anything about paying them to stay enrolled, so you’re distorting his words.
The intention of NIL was to not use it as a recruiting inducement for players. NIL was supposed to provide value the player created for themselves (before or in college) and get companies to pay for it. Collectives are a corrupting force. At least they are losing tax-exempt status (for now – loopholes are appearing).
LikeLike
NIL was supposed to provide value the player created for themselves (before or in college) and get companies to pay for it.
Hence my question — who truly believes that, and if they do, has their medication been checked? Almost none of the players we are talking about have created the value for themselves. The folks who write the NIL check for the Ohio State quarterback are doing it because he plays for OSU, not because he’s an all-around wonderful and talented guy, whom they’d love equally well if he attended Bowling Green.
LikeLike
In theory a starter and star player has created value through actual performance. They have name recognition.
Unlike a HS junior asking for $1M to come to a school, but only a handful of recruiting nerds and bag men know who they are.
LikeLike
In theory a starter and star player has created value through actual performance. They have name recognition.
That might be the theory, but players now are routinely getting substantial NIL deals the day they step on campus, when they’ve done nothing yet.
Last season, every Utah Ute scholarship football player got a Dodge Ram truck. They’re leased on 6-month contracts that are renewed if (and only if) the player stays at the school.
At BYU, the collective paid the tuition of every walk-on. They also inked a deal with every single scholarship player, whether they’d done anything on the field or not.
Obviously these deals are well known — anyone considering these schools will know that this is what they are likely to get. The coaches are not allowed to say it, but if you know how to use Google you will figure it out, or someone will whisper in your ear if you are not that smart.
Of course it happens routinely that if a player is on the fence whether to stay for another season, NIL steps up and makes it worth their while to stay. Given that all of the above is now legal, it’s hardly a big leap to let them pay the high school players too.
LikeLike
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/heres-what-college-football-will-look-like-in-2026
A depressingly accurate prediction of CFB in 2026 written in 2016.
The next window for mass shuffling will start around 2023, when all five* power conferences’ primary rights deals come up within a three-year span. (The Big Ten has not yet formalized its forthcoming TV deals, but reports indicate they will be for six years, ending in 2023. The SEC’s contract with CBS expires in 2024, but its ESPN/SEC Network deal is in place through 2034.) Perhaps more important, the College Football Playoff’s 12-year contract ends with the 2025 season. As I’m about to outline, the next big realignment shift will go hand in hand with the evolution of the playoff.
…
The playoff will inevitably expand to at least eight teams, if not more, when the current deal ends, and it will separate completely from the bowl system. Early-round games will be played on campus, just like in the NFL. In turn, our national focus will narrow almost entirely to teams perceived as playoff contenders, which, if we’re being honest, comprise fewer than half of the 65 Power 5 schools, and certainly none of the other 63 FBS schools. Sorry, but Wake Forest is no threat to pull a Leicester City anytime soon.
Which brings us to consolidation.
As we know, all revolves around the mighty TV dollar, but the TV business is drastically changing. Who knows how we’ll be watching sports in 10 years, but it likely won’t be via the current bundled cable model. At the very least, consumers will be able to decide for themselves which media entities (ESPN, FS1, NCBSN, etc.) they’re willing to pay for. Or perhaps no longer will be a middleman and you will purchase game broadcasts straight from the leagues themselves to stream on your own device.
Whereas the last round of realignment was driven by inventory — bundle together as many schools from as many markets as possible to command the highest possible subscriber fees — the next round will be more about content. Put on the biggest possible games to garner the largest possible audience because the viewers themselves will become the buyers rather than Comcast or Time Warner.
To that end, the best possible way for an Ohio State or Alabama to maximize its value will be to shed the six or so games a year that only its own fans care about and turn every game into a national event. I’m talking one 24-team “conference” of only the biggest names in the sport, funneling exclusively into the College Football Playoff.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39480187/greg-sankey-sec-big-ten-partnership-advise-not-circumvent-ncaa
Sankey says the B10/SEC JAB is meant to advise the NCAA, not replace it.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said Wednesday that the new strategic partnership between his conference and the Big Ten is a response to a need for leadership that can “introduce some new perspective, new ideas, some new thinking or maybe even more important help cut through the bureaucratic tape we face so often in college athletics,” but said the relationship is not intended to circumvent the NCAA.
In an interview on “The Paul Finebaum Show,” Sankey said the partnership with the Big Ten would not act unilaterally but would instead be focused on creating a more streamlined approach to identifying solutions to college football’s biggest issues, including the College Football Playoff; name, image and likeness rules; and the litany of ongoing litigation facing college athletics.
…
“We’re going to try to take that responsibility of leadership and see if we can develop some ideas that can help us,” Sankey said.
…
Sankey later suggested his relationships with some other members of college athletics’ leadership were harmed by the SEC’s addition of Texas and Oklahoma
Gee, Greg, you think? I can’t imagine why backstabbing the B12 and trying to keep it secret while proposing the expanded CFP plan that included ESPN getting all the games might rankle anyone.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/02/08/sec-big-ten-greg-sankey-college-sports-bigger-mess/72528401007/
Dan Wolken thinks Sankey and Pettiti are more likely to make things worse than fix them in college sports.
Whether he wants to admit it or not, Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey has cast himself as the man who will either preserve the big-tent model of college that we’ve known for generations, or the man who will light the fuse that finally implodes the NCAA.
It has come to that through years of passive-aggressive threats toward the little guys of college sports who are just trying to hang on for dear life amidst a tidal wave of changes they have little to do with.
It has come to that through incessant whining and blame-shifting about how badly others – never his mighty SEC, mind you – are screwing up the enterprise with their inaction and failure to see the future.
And finally, it has come to that through the new SEC-Big Ten “advisory group” that is being talked about around the industry as something much more significant than a few college administrators exchanging ideas.
“We have a responsibility for leadership,” Sankey said Wednesday during an appearance on the SEC Network’s “Paul Finebaum Show.”
But what will they do with that responsibility? And do the people assuming it even have the capacity or desire to truly wield it – beyond Sankey’s proclivity to tweet his reading list and the high-minded but mostly vacuous way he speaks about the very real problems facing college sports?
…
On one hand, it is easy to see a future in which those two conferences just go off on their own and form some kind of new enterprise, taking the spoils for themselves and leaving everyone else holding the bag. And they can do it quite reasonably under the guise of the NCAA being too unwieldy to thread the needle between the haves and have-nots, and too slow to react to the litany of lawsuits that are challenging pretty much every facet of the current model.
Sankey practically lays the groundwork for that kind of move every time he opens his mouth, saying Wednesday he left the recent NCAA convention in Phoenix with the feeling that “we’re just not making the kind of progress (necessary) on the really important issues.”
But the other perspective you’ll hear falls along these lines: If the SEC and Big Ten don’t take the lead in figuring this out, who will? The larger NCAA membership? Congress? Good luck with that. At least a system built around the realities of the SEC and Big Ten – revenue-sharing, an athlete employment model or whatever is necessary to stabilize the ecosystem – would give everyone an idea of what’s necessary to fall in line.
Here’s the rub, though: We’re a decade into this slow-moving disaster, and still nobody in a position of power – even Sankey – is willing or able to articulate what actually needs to happen or what they want to do.
…
And now we have the next big thing: The Big Ten and SEC finally partnering up, finally ready to move college sports past its current state of paralysis. The speed bump, though, is not skepticism – it’s their own history of fumbling around on anything and everything except making gobs of money for themselves.
When it comes to expanding their conferences and negotiating huge television deals, Sankey and his colleagues have been undeniably successful. When it comes to building a sports enterprise that treats college athletes fairly, complies with federal antitrust law and acknowledges the reality that amateurism is dead, they haven’t shown that they have the foggiest idea what they’re doing.
Now the Big Ten and SEC are moving closer and closer to putting their hand on the red button. Are they going to save college sports or screw it up even more?
Given their history, best to strap that helmet tight and look out below.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39484535/michigan-warde-manuel-named-chair-cfp-selection-committee
This is so typical of the CFP – they just named Warde Manuel chair of the selection committee. Because of course the guy who all last season ignored then defended cheating by his team should be the face of CFB. I’m sure fans will take him at his word when he explains why a team did/didn’t make the top 12 or is ranked above/below another team.
LikeLike
After the Florida St fiasco, hiring a guy who sticks to the party line despite all evidence and damage to his reputation is probably the right move.
LikeLike
You really think they want to start the 12-team era with everyone assuming they’re lying from the first moment Manuel opens his mouth? Why not start with someone with a clean slate, at least?
Or better yet, don’t have any of the ADs be the spokesperson. Have an AP reporter (not anyone with TV affiliations) allowed to be in the room to report what the discussions were about (no quotes or names used) and what seemed to be the actual decision criteria. Let them then explain what happened and why.
LikeLike
Because of course the guy who all last season ignored then defended cheating by his team should be the face of CFB.
I have not heard from any source that Manual was implicated in the Connor Stalions scandal.
I’m sure fans will take him at his word when he explains why a team did/didn’t make the top 12 or is ranked above/below another team.
All of the CFB committee chairs have been widely ridiculed since the first one. That will probably continue regardless of who speaks for them. To fix it would require fundamental reforms that they are apparently not considering.
However, I have always felt the chair should be someone who was unlikely to have a real or perceived conflict of interest. Warde Manual can’t meet that test, even if his program is squeaky-clean (which it isn’t).
LikeLike
I didn’t say he cheated either. I said he first ignored it and then defended it.
Selecting someone with at least a surface appearance of integrity is still a better starting point than Manuel. The others weren’t ridiculed until they started speaking.
Who isn’t conflicted with 12 teams and 5 (or 6) champs? Back to my idea of an AP reporter?
LikeLike
I said he first ignored it and then defended it.
I didn’t really see much difference from Gene Smith’s performance over the ethical lapses that occurred on his watch.
Who isn’t conflicted with 12 teams and 5 (or 6) champs?
Suppose you choose the Syracuse AD. Everyone’s got conflicts, but it’s not the same as the AD of a king program that made the playoff the last three years in a row.
LikeLike
“Yeah, but what about …” isn’t a great argument.
When have you seen me defend Smith?
LikeLike
I just mentioned Smith because I know you are familiar with him. I have not noticed any widespread commentary that suggests either Smith or Manuel seriously mishandled any wrongdoing that occurred on their watch. Sure, you’ll find some criticism because this is the Internet and people criticize everything. But it’s not widespread. General consensus is that they did the usual things that ADs do.
I am more concerned that the face of the playoff will be someone whose team is a regular contender. I know there is a protocol that ADs recuse when their team is discussed, but he’ll be the guy taking the questions every week. If Michigan’s ranking is at all controversial, it cannot help but look awkward.
LikeLike
Everyone says stuff like this about their conference and colleagues? Saying Harbaugh was suspended because people don’t like Harbaugh or UM? Yes, because poor UM is always being picked on by the B10.
https://twitter.com/RyanEFox2/status/1723376865614733649
LikeLike
I’d like to hear some outside opinions about OSU hiring Chip Kelly as the new OC. Not from a football perspective, but in terms of big picture implications:
* A HC moving to OC in the same conference
* A king hiring away the HC of a borderline baron to be an assistant
* A B10 school hiring away a coach from a school with fewer resources due to a reduced payout (P12 money, then Calimony)
We’ve seen similar things before after a HC is fired, or after a brief time away from CFB (in the NFL, on TV, etc.), but I don’t recall a sitting HC moving directly to an assistant role in the same conference.
I tend to think this is a unique case, but I’m biased. Kelly is really turned off by the new aspects of CFB coaching (NIL, etc.) and has never enjoyed recruiting. He also has deep ties to Ryan Day, and OSU has deep pockets for football. UCLA could afford to keep him, as he’s taking a large pay cut to come to OSU, but he wasn’t winning a ton and fans weren’t thrilled so they are fine with getting a buyout payment of $1.5M.
The P2 already take coaches from the M2, and the kings have always been able to take coaches from lesser brands. But will the P2 kings regularly start building coaching staffs of HC’s from other P2 schools?
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2MsIP70JEQ
John Skipper discusses what the ESPN/Fox/WBD streaming bundle means.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39515554/super-bowl-lviii-sets-tv-ratings-record-1234m-viewers
The Super Bowl set a new viewership record with 123.4M viewers on average, up 7% over last year (115.1M). 202.4M people watched at least part of the game, up from 183.6M last year (+10%).
Many ascribe the jump to Taylor Swift, and she probably was a part of it. But I think this was a larger factor:
Some of the increase can be attributed to a change in the way viewers are counted. Nielsen began including out-of-home viewers in its ratings in 2020, but only from limited markets. That measurement expanded to all 50 states beginning this year.
Out-of-home viewership is huge for the Super Bowl. Counting that everywhere and not just in the large cities should add a lot of viewers who weren’t counted previously. According to SportsMediaWatch this would likely only be #2 or #3 if out-of-home viewing was counted in the past.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/02/super-bowl-record-audience-120-million-cbs-chiefs-49ers/
While this year’s game holds the official records, the largest Nielsen-measured audience in history remains 124.6 million for the 2017 Patriots-Falcons Super Bowl, including 123.9 million on FOX alone. The official 2017 audience is 112 million viewers (111.3 million on FOX), but that does not include out-of-home viewing — which was tracked in 2017, but not included in Nielsen final nationals.
(It should also be noted that out-of-home viewing was not measured at all for the first 50 editions of the Super Bowl, including the 2015 Patriots-Seahawks game that averaged 114.4 million on an in-home basis alone. Given the typical out-of-home lift of 12-13 million viewers, it is likely that game would also rank ahead all things being equal.)
How did people watch?
* CBS – 120M
* Univision – 2.3M
* Paramount+ & Nickelodeon combined (based on ESPN – SMW didn’t say streaming was included) – 1.2M
LikeLike
Brian’s head explodes in 3… 2… 1
ESPN and the College Football Playoff are in agreement on a six-year, $7.8 billion extension that will make the network the home of the 12-team tournament through the 2031-32 season, sources briefed on the deal told The Athletic.
https://theathletic.com/5272749/2024/02/13/college-football-playoff-espn-media-rights-deal/
LikeLike
Also from today’s The Athletic, call it the “Michigan Effect”: Helmet communication in college football nears approval after positive bowl trial run
By Chris Vannini
College football is closer than ever to allowing widespread usage of helmet communication and sideline tablets, finally catching up to the technology available at other levels of the sport.
The NCAA Football Rules Committee meets at the end of February and could come out of that meeting with proposals to allow permissive use of both pieces of tech, meaning whoever wants to use them could use them. Based on the insight gathered by the committee so far, the experimental use of helmet and tablet tech during the 2023-24 season’s non-CFP bowl games was a rousing success.
“We’ve gotten nothing but terrific feedback,” said NCAA national coordinator of officials Steve Shaw.
The NFL has allowed helmet communication to the quarterbacks since 1994, adding the capability for one defensive player per team in 2008 and introducing sideline tablets in 2014. College football hasn’t joined in those steps for several reasons: cost, the logistics of standardizing the change for so many teams, hesitancy from some coaches and liability concerns by manufacturers.
But the Big Ten made a push for progress last summer, led by vice president of football administration A.J. Edds, when it proposed allowing league members to use helmet communication and video technology. Edds is also the co-chair of the NCAA Football Rules Committee.
“The Big Ten has historically led in innovation and technological opportunities going back to instant replay in the early 2000s,” Edds said. “This was the result of feedback from our head coaches, that this progresses and advances operations, and professionalizes what Big Ten football would look and feel like. It’s been a conversation in our coaches group for the last handful of years.”
The rules committee did not approve the request but instead came up with the bowl season experiment for the helmet communication. The Big Ten’s push had nothing to do with the Connor Stalions sign-stealing and scouting scandal at Michigan, which was still unknown at the time. But the revelation of that investigation ramped up a push from coaches around the country for more technology. Later in the fall, the committee approved the use of tablets in bowl games.
Conference football administrators decided that both teams would have to agree on technology being used in their game and what would be used. Six bowl games featured helmet tech and 12 used tablets, Shaw said. In most cases, a pair of teams used the same level of technology. Auburn did not use helmet communication in the Music City Bowl against Maryland but allowed the Terrapins to use it. Because of the quick turnaround to bowl games, teams only had a week or so to practice with it. DVSport (which handles film for most teams) ran the tablets, while CoachComm (which handles coach headsets for most teams) and GSC (which supplies the NFL) provided the helmet communication.
“We practiced with it four times going into the game, and it was probably one of our cleanest operations when it comes to the sideline and communication,” Texas Tech head coach Joey McGuire said of the Red Raiders’ use of CoachComm.
With only a little time to practice with the tech and in the middle of a busy month, most teams passed on the opportunity. Some that did take it up leaned into it and found a difference.
“We’re a huddle team, so talking to the quarterback, we were able to put in more offense, more motions and shifts, make sure everyone was right,” said Northern Illinois head coach Thomas Hammock, who worked as a Baltimore Ravens assistant prior to his hiring at NIU. “It really helped us out. We didn’t have any procedural penalties. We did a lot of offense and stayed clean, a lot of that due to helmet communication.”
For no-huddle teams, helmet communication doesn’t eliminate sideline signaling. Arkansas State head coach Butch Jones, whose Red Wolves played Northern Illinois in the Camellia Bowl, said they didn’t want to alter too much in a short span.
“We still signaled in because receivers gotta get them,” Jones said. “We wanted to keep as minimal change as possible for the flow of the game. We have a system in place of what we do, and with a limited amount of time, we didn’t want to disrupt that.”
Different teams employed different strategies. Texas Tech put the defense’s helmet devices on safeties and linebackers. West Virginia put them on linebackers but has used helmet communication technology for the past few spring practices, so the Mountaineers didn’t have to adjust to the tech.
There were also very few actual rules. The tablets allowed video, a departure from the NFL, where tablets are only used for still images. There was no helmet communication shut-off deadline like the NFL, which turns the helmets off when the play clock hits 15 seconds. As a result, coaches could talk to their players the entire time. They didn’t call out open receivers in the middle of plays, but they reminded quarterbacks about checks and shifts.
“We used it but didn’t over-communicate to the quarterback,” West Virginia head coach Neal Brown said. “Give them the play, maybe a reminder, but we didn’t get carried away. It wasn’t continuous dialogue by any means.”
In the weeks since bowl games, conference administrators and the rules committee have been gathering feedback. Thus far, it’s been all positive. Both Shaw and CoachComm said they’ve gotten no reports of any technological hiccups.
“It went as well as we could’ve hoped,” said CoachComm owner Peter Amos, who said his company is prepared to supply many more schools this spring if widespread use is approved.
One of the biggest hurdles with the tech has been the legal questions about how the technology would affect the helmets’ warranty: If someone sues over head injuries, who would be liable? The helmet manufacturers have historically maintained that putting a third-party device in a helmet would shift liability away from them and toward the schools, which was the case for the bowl games. That stance has typically scared people away. The NFL does its own testing with helmet companies and encodes its standards in the collective bargaining agreement with the players union.
But college officials are optimistic that the manufacturers will get on board if the change is introduced on a large scale at the college level. Helmets used in college football must meet the National Operating Committee on Standards on Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) standard. Riddell, which makes the helmets for 87 percent of college players, said it has and will assist in the process of approving devices.
“Riddell’s assistance will include, among other things, a preliminary evaluation of a coach-to-player communication device sample to review the form factor and installation possibilities,” the company said in a statement to The Athletic. “If the device can be placed in a helmet without compromising protective performance or impeding the existing technologies embodied in the headgear, it will be up to the provider to then deliver additional units to Riddell. The provider will also be responsible for paying associated fees related to the additional testing necessary to readying and certifying the helmet for on-field use. … Riddell welcomes the opportunity to play a part in this exciting development within the game.”
The next step will be solidifying the rules, such as a shut-off time on the helmet devices, the number of devices allowed and the type of images permitted on tablets. Officials also want to make sure tablets can’t be connected to outside offices for remote coaching. Conference football administrators have discussed those topics in recent weeks in hopes of finding a standardization for the rules committee to propose, which would open the door for teams to begin using the tech.
“If we can leave that meeting with a solidified framework that would go to the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, we would like to do that,” Edds said. “But we do not want to rush this. We hope to send the message that this will be permissive, but we don’t want to inadvertently place rules around it that we wish we could undo after spring and the chance to experiment with 15 workouts.”
If it all gets approved, any team would be able to use it. As a permissive technology, it wouldn’t require both teams to have it for it to be used in a game, Shaw said. The rules committee actually approved the use of electronic and video devices in 2016, but the decision was rescinded one month later after commissioners said more time was needed to develop guidelines. This time around, especially after the Stalions fallout at Michigan, officials want something done.
It has been 30 years since the NFL first began using helmet communication. Many states allow sideline video technology at the high school football level. College football has long been stuck in the middle. That may be about to change for good.
“It happens every Sunday,” McGuire said. “Just do that.”
LikeLike
ACC approves helmet communication technology, awaits green light from NCAA
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/acc-approves-helmet-communication-technology-in-game-video-access-now-awaits-ncaa-green-light/
LikeLike
No, I already did that when the rumors first came out. They insist on making enormously idiotic decisions, so they will just have to live with it. I have never watched a CFP game and never will, so it only indirectly screws me. If everyone else wants to let the SEC network be the lone voice of CFB all postseason, and bury all the postseason games on cable, then they deserve what they get. Declare the players pros, separate from the schools and just become USFL v3.0.
ESPN has the “option” to sublicense games. Why would anyone pay ESPN more for the additional games than ESPN paid, and why would ESPN sublicense them for less than they paid? And why would ESPN help a competitor?
I enjoy seeing the CFP being worth half of what some people predicted it would earn ($2B was a common guess, but I saw $2.5B as well). ESPN already owned the NY6 games, so only the 1st round was an addition. Those will be much lower in value due to timing (mid-December including a Friday night) and lesser teams (#5-12 seeds). They are on par with old P5 CCGs (the 12-team playoff devalues those for casual viewers, too).
I’ve about reached the point where I may never watch another non-OSU CFB game (I barely watched any this past year), and might stop watching OSU games too. Almost every ounce of enjoyment has been sucked out of the sport for me. I’ll certainly not donate to OSU’s AD directly or indirectly (through ticket purchases).
A pox on all their houses, from presidents to ADs to commissioners to players to agents to lawyers to judges to legislatures to TV executives. There are no redeeming features left, and no redeeming people either. It might as well be politics.
LikeLike
They insist on making enormously idiotic decisions, so they will just have to live with it.
I am not sure what part of it you feel was idiotic. Bob Thompson says that with ESPN already owning the NY6 for years to come, there was no bidder that wanted to take out ESPN for the least-valuable round.
I know you think the playoff’s very existence is idiotic. But given that it exists, this seems like the outcome you’d expect in light of everything else that’s already determined.
LikeLike
I thought I was pretty clear. Letting Disney own all the games and bury them on cable (or even worse, streaming) for 6 more years is the enormously idiotic decision.
I have no doubt they outbid Fox and others, because why would anyone else pay more since ESPN has the NY6 and final four already locked down for the next 2 years. ESPN gets synergy that nobody else does from the first round. But even then, the CFP could’ve opted for less money but wider exposure through OTA networks and broader CFP discussion all season long since someone else had a stake in the CFP.
But for the additional 6 years? They could’ve gotten guaranteed OTA exposure for the semi and final at least. ESPN is down to about 70M subscribers and looking to move things to streaming. An all-streaming CFP? How exciting for all 12 people that watch it. Did they not learn from the viewership drop when the BCS moved to ESPN, and that was when cable was king. They are hurting their own product by chasing every last penny now. More exposure now would lead to more money later. Instead, the expanded CFP will be hidden from casual viewers. Good thinking. Why not move the entire regular season to Peacock, Paramount+, ESPN+ and FoxSportsApp too?
And all of that would be bad enough if ESPN was a neutral network, but it isn’t. It is an SEC shill that taints all of their coverage all season long across all of their shows. Putting all their eggs in that one basket will come back to bite them.
LikeLike
Anyone else notice that ESPN.com has been the one outlet not to report on this deal? Usually they hop on the coattails of The Athletic or whoever breaks any story. But so far, crickets. They had the initial article a month ago about the general idea of this deal, but nothing new (yet).
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-to-move-on-from-george-kliavkoff-conference-targets-deputy-commissioner-as-replacement-per-report/
The Pac-2 are finally ready to ditch Kliavkoff. His assistant is expected to be the replacement commissioner (until they merge with the MWC, or she leaves for greener pastures).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39540583/pac-12-commissioner-george-kliavkoff-agree-part-ways
Kilavkoff is out at the end of the month.
The Pac-12 and embattled commissioner George Kliavkoff have mutually agreed to part ways, the league announced Friday.
The Pac-12, which is down to Washington State and Oregon State after sweeping conference realignment, said it will have more details about its new leadership next week.
LikeLike
Pac-2 hires new commish, a woman. Here’s her comment:
“I look forward to partnering with Oregon State and Washington State to secure a bright future for their student-athletes that allows them to compete at the highest level of college athletics, while enjoying the benefits of a quality campus experience,” Gould said in a statement. “Working in collaboration with their leadership and our talented staff, I am excited to build a pathway for the future that allows their programs to thrive.”
LikeLike
https://www.on3.com/news/texas-athletics-director-chris-del-conte-confirms-sec-progressing-toward-nine-game-conference-schedule-by-2026-season/
UT’s AD says the SEC is heading toward a 9-game schedule … in 2026, when ESPN will likely pay them more for it.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39526515/tony-petitti-big-ten-wants-more-games-cfp-implications
Tony Petitti wants the B10 to have more games that are meaningful in November. That’s as a step to getting more CFP teams.
I’m guessing coaches disagree, as that often leads to fatigue and injuries. But what is TP’s plan? More big games overall, or just shuffling the calendar? How do you know which games might be meaningful a year in advance when so many B10 programs are unpredictable (see the former B10 West)? Will the TV partners pay more for this? Assuming not, how do you know this is worth it when the revenue sharing model for the expanded CFP doesn’t exist yet. For the next 2 years, each entrant will be $6M more. That’s not much when split 18 ways.
In a wide-ranging interview Wednesday with ESPN, Petitti said he is focused on ensuring the Big Ten, which will increase to 18 members with four West Coast additions this summer, has November schedules packed with games that carry CFP implications, like many of the professional leagues do.
“We’ve got some work to do to figure out what that [future model] is, because obviously, it has real impact on your regular season,” Petitti told ESPN. “You want to make sure that your teams have the ability to have a breakout season and qualify. And we also have to be realistic about what should get you access, in terms of number of wins. Look, we want meaningful games late in the season.
“We want fans to think that you know a game in the second week of November, even if you’ve already lost two or three games, still has a lot of value. That’s the goal.”
…
“When you’re as deep as we are, we’ve got to do things to make sure that we have the access to the postseason that we think we deserve and has to be earned on the field,” Petitti said. “I’m a big believer in that, and that helps your regular season. More teams playing more meaningful games later in the season, I think we still can do more there.”
The fundamental issue is convincing the committee to be consistent about what matters and how much it matters. Then you could plan around that. The SEC gets higher CFP rankings than anyone and they play the worst November schedule of any league with all the OOC cupcakes. That’s the model – fewer conference games, and as many easy November games as possible (one less chance to lose late). Don’t take unnecessary risks and the W/L record will be rewarded regardless of the SOS.
LikeLike
The return of parity-based scheduling? Flex scheduling games in the last few weeks? Forcing the likely blowouts into September (kings vs bottom half)? Is the focus on #3-#5 in the standings (the B10 should average 3+ teams in the CFP based on past performance), or #6-10 with a chance for them to sneak into that top group?
It’s easy to say he wants this, but the mechanics of it are very unclear.
LikeLike
The College Football rules committee is looking at a two-minute warning, similar to the NFL.
The linked article makes clear that this is not intended to give TV partners an extra time-out for ads — they’d use a media break that’s already baked into the game. If it replaces a “touchdown-commercial-kickoff-commercial” sequence, then it could be a good thing. But you have to worry that once it exists, they would take advantage of it.
The NFL’s two-minute warning was not created for TV, much as it might appear that way, because they instituted it in 1942. In those days the official time was kept by the referees, so the “warning” served a useful purpose. Years ago, some announcers would say that the “two-minute notification has been given to the coaches,” as if they really needed the referee to tell them when there were two minutes left. I specifically remember Pat Summerall putting it that way.
There are certain rules that change after there are two minutes left. But it is not clear to me that there is a burning issue that this solves. I wouldn’t be surprised if they scrap the idea, like last year’s proposal of a running clock after incomplete passes.
LikeLike
Not intended to and won’t are not the same thing. Given an inch, TV will take a mile. Note that the article uses the word “could” rather than being definitive.
A two-minute warning as a free timeout runs the risk of lengthening the game, but Shaw said it could simply fill the place of an existing TV timeout. Ahead of last year’s clock rule changes, Shaw said some broadcasters were concerned about fitting in their contractually obligated TV timeouts. Providing a guaranteed break at the two-minute mark could reduce the chances of back-to-back stoppages elsewhere (touchdown, commercial, kickoff, commercial).
“We’d really like to avoid the back-to-backs. Nobody likes that,” Shaw said. “If we did it, the media partner would have to hold their last timeout to that, so they couldn’t get their timeouts in and then get a freebie. It would be the last media timeout and give them assurance they’ll get them all in. I think TV would be supportive of it.”
TV already has signed contracts, so I’m not sure you can force them to save a TV timeout without everyone renegotiating.
The rule doesn’t make sense in the NFL, so why add it to CFB when it doesn’t fix a problem? We have clocks, and most coaches and officials are smart enough to see if the time remaining in a half has reached 2:00. Besides, changing rules at the end of a half is stupid.
LikeLike
Besides, changing rules at the end of a half is stupid.
It’s hard to imagine them rescinding those rules, such as the mandatory 10-second runoff if you commit a pre-snap violation late in the game with the clock running. I don’t love the runoff, but without it there are incentives to commit penalties (or to have “injuries”) deliberately.
LikeLike
Then make it always part of the penalty/injury. There’s no need to start it at 2:00.
But my main point was that there’s no need to force a stoppage at 2:00. Just look at the game clock and apply the rules. It’s just adding a TO to an already too long half. TV wants it because some run-heavy games don’t have enough changes of possession for all the TOs they want.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-sports-at-key-juncture-what-does-the-future-of-the-ncaa-tournament-and-cfp-look-like-164559682.html
People are worrying about the future of the CFP and NCAAT. The P4 commissioners do not seem to be on the same page about football, but mostly are on hoops.
And yet, in the aftermath of the Big Ten and SEC announcement, leaders from the Big 12 and ACC contend that they will very much be part of the significant change lurking on the horizon — a tidal wave of transformational developments that can be viewed in three distinct yet intermingled parts:
• The creation of a new athlete compensation model and further deregulation from NCAA governance.
• The expected overhaul of the College Football Playoff revenue-distribution model, governance structure and, perhaps, even format.
• The inevitable expansion of the NCAA men’s basketball tournament.
…
In a meeting in Washington D.C. on Jan. 25, commissioners of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and, yes, even the Pac-12 opened dialogue with Baker about their wish to examine NCAA tournament expansion. Separately, in a meeting of the CFP Management Committee in Dallas on Feb. 5, Big Ten and SEC leaders opened dialogue with the other eight FBS commissioners and Notre Dame on their intent to see the CFP’s revenue-distribution model and voting structure change.
While the power leagues together team up to push the NCAA to grow the basketball tournament, the two richest leagues are joining forces to modify its football counterpart.
…
However, discussions between the commissioners and NCAA go beyond the topic of revenue and also include the growing wish for more access in the form of at-large spots. In the meeting with Baker, commissioners were transparent about their desire for more access in a 68-team field that includes 32 automatic qualifying spots — 27 of which go to non-power leagues.
“I want to see the best teams competing for a national championship, no different than (the Big Ten and SEC) want to see in football,” Yormark said. “I’m not sure that is currently happening.”
How to expand the tournament is a lingering question, Yormark and Phillips acknowledge.
Do you eliminate automatic qualifying spots to small-conference champions? That move is sure to backfire politically at a time when congressional help is sought.
Do you simply add more at-large spots to the field? That complicates an already crammed schedule.
And if you expand the men’s event, wouldn’t the women’s tournament need expansion, too?
…
During the Feb. 5 CFP meeting in Dallas, leaders began to address the future as it relates to the CFP revenue-distribution model and decision-making structure — two items that may need solving before the playoff inks a reported extension with ESPN through 2031. Inside the meeting, figures were used to make points, such as the SEC accounting for nearly 40% of playoff spots in the CFP era and only earning 17% of the revenue.
…
“The real question on the revenue is how much is going to be concentrated in a handful of conferences,” Aresco told Yahoo Sports. “It’s 80-20 right now to the so-called P5, but there are only going to be four of them. And then the question is how much? The SEC and Big Ten are probably going to want more. It’s understandable. That’s going to get worked out.”
While serious discussion about expanding the 12-team playoff format has not arisen inside CFP meetings, many believe it eventually will. Petitti has privately discussed with commissioners expansion models that include 14 and 16 teams with multiple automatic qualifiers to major conferences, sources told Yahoo Sports. Sankey and his corresponding representative on the CFP Board of Managers, Mississippi State president Mark Keenum, have suggested in the past that the model incorporate only at-large selections.
Aresco, who is set to retire this summer, says that a move to a 16-team playoff could very well be in the future and that such a tournament would “probably” be under a “5+11” format with five automatic berths to league champions and 11 at-large spots. “The truth is, if you went to 16, you’re not going to fundamentally change the playoff,” he said.
Yormark acknowledges that on the heels of the latest realignment change, “we need to think about” the distribution model and possibly the format “differently.” Phillips believes that any format change needs to protect conference champions. “If you don’t have a reward for winning your conference championship, then what’s the point?” he said.
LikeLike
For years the State of Indiana had a high school basketball tourney that included every team in the state. It was a huge success.
The NCAA has 351 Div 1 basketball schools. Just how crazy would it be to have an NCAA tourney that included almost all of them? Well, to expand 64 to 128 would be one round, and from 128 to 256 would be another. That could be done adding only one week using the current March Madness format of two games per week. And it would exclude only the bottom 95 teams in the entire 351-team NCAA.
Yet the number of games for television would explode. The current format is 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 63 games plus four play-ins = 67 games to televise. The expanded format would be 128 + 64 + 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 255 games to televise.
https://www.ncsasports.org/mens-basketball/division-1-colleges
LikeLike
Ohio State fires coach, gift article WaPo. https://wapo.st/42Jmx9l
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/college-football/espn-might-pull-cfp-offer.html
ESPN is tired of the CFP’s dithering, too. Awful Announcing quotes John Ourand from The Puck:
ESPN has agreed to pay $7.8 billion to broadcast the College Football Playoff over six years, as my friend and former work wife Andrew Marchand scooped on Tuesday. But the deal is not signed, and there’s a chance that ESPN could pull its offer in the next few months if the CFP organizational body doesn’t get its act together.
Of course, the always-maligned CFP committee has yet to finalize the new 12-team playoff structure. This process has only gotten more complicated as the PAC-12 has essentially become the PAC-2, with only poor Washington State and Oregon State left behind, and the Big Ten and SEC continually levitating above the NCAA to become their own veritable semiprofessional leagues.
The playoff committee needs to figure out how to placate the conferences, ensure that the larger format is more inclusive, and allow everyone (the conferences, the schools, and their broadcast partner, chief among them) to make enough money so that they play nice—at least for now.
Nothing happens quickly in college athletics, but the committee better not assume that ESPN will wait around. I’m hearing that the network will not only be spending a lot more on NBA rights, but also that its executives have prioritized maintaining UFC rights, too. (Those negotiations kick off in the fall.) Jimmy Pitaro is also looking at MLB rights. All in all, that’s a lot of cash outlay, and the CFP would be wise to accept the deal quickly while it has a bird in hand. Indeed, they need look no further than the Pac-12’s too-cute rejection of an early ESPN bid to recall just how quickly it can all fall apart.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/big-ten-football-projections-for-2024-ohio-state-and-oregon-are-the-clear-favorites-washington-usc-and-ucla-face-tough-roads/
Wilner’s 2024 B10 projections.
1. OSU
2. UO
3. UM
4. WI
5. PSU
6. NE
7. IA
8. USC
9. RU
10. MSU
11. UW
12. UMD
13. MN
14. UCLA
15. NW
16. IL
17. PU
18. IN
Newbies at 2, 8, 11 and 14 – not much improvement there. Rutgers at #9? When were they last projected in the top half of the B10? That would be a tremendous achievement for them.
LikeLike
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/peacock-paramount-plus-comcast-talks-1235913900/
Comcast and Paramount Global have had discussions about merging Peacock with Paramount+. Might the new Disney/WBD/Fox service announcement have led to this?
LikeLike
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/02/16/fsu-football-florida-state-acc-lawsuit-seminoles/
In its latest legal filing, the ACC mentioned the possibility of FSU buying back it’s media rights for the first time. All that really remains is negotiating a price.
“If Florida State wishes to regain control of the rights before the end of the term, it could attempt to repurchase them,” the filing said. “But having to buy back a right which was assigned is not a penalty; it is simply a commercial possibility.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39563282/cfp-unanimously-approves-5+7-model-new-12-team-playoff
5+7 is official now. OrSU and WSU want to continue to be treated like P5 members in the next CFP deal, though.
Tuesday’s meeting was also an opportunity for Washington State and Oregon State to request continued Power 5 revenue and voting rights in the new CFP contract. For the next two years, the remainder of the CFP’s current 12-year contract, Washington State and Oregon State will each continue to receive the full Power 5 revenue distribution, which is $5 million to $6 million per school. They are asking to continue to receive that amount in the next CFP contract, not knowing what their conference affiliation will be.
According to the Pac-12’s proposal, which Schulz shared with ESPN, Oregon State and Washington State are asking for “a distribution share and voting rights equal to the lowest per school pro rata share of the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, or SEC conference’s distribution, regardless of how those four conferences actually distribute CFP distributions to their members.”
…
The CFP’s management committee, which comprises the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, are meeting in Dallas on Wednesday to continue working on the implementation of the 12-team playoff for this fall, along with weighty decisions about the future of the sport’s postseason in the next contract. The top priority, according to multiple sources, is coming to an agreement on a new TV deal, but they will also continue to talk about access and revenue distribution.
One change they are close to agreeing on, according to multiple sources, is eliminating the contracts the New Year’s Six bowls have with respective conferences in the new contract. The Sugar Bowl has a historical agreement with the SEC and Big 12, while the Rose Bowl has long been contractually tied to the Big Ten and Pac-12, and the Orange Bowl with the ACC, Big Ten and Notre Dame.
I can understand not wanting to be beholden to them, but they always go to the extreme and completely ignore them as an alternative. Why not honor them when it makes sense to do so? The B10 might as well go to the Rose every time. Let the ACC have the Orange. Let the B12 be in the Fiesta/Cotton most of the time. The SEC can bounce around as wanted/needed (Sugar, Peach, Orange, Cotton).
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2024/02/20/fubotv-lawsuit-espn-fox-warner-bros-discovery-hulu/72678331007/
Fubo is suing ESPN/Fox/WBD/Hulu over their proposed sports-only streaming package.
“Each of these companies has consistently engaged in anticompetitive practices that aim to monopolize the market, stifle any form of competition, create higher pricing for subscribers and cheat consumers from deserved choice,” David Gandler, Co-founder and CEO of FuboTV, said in a statement. “Simply put, this sports cartel blocked our playbook for many years and now they are effectively stealing it for themselves.”
FuboTV says in its filing that it has tried for years to offer a sports-only streaming service but has been prevented from doing so because of ESPN. Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery have imposed bundling requirements on FuboTV which it says forces “Fubo to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to license and broadcast content that its customers do not want or need.”
“Faced with the threat of disruptive competition from Fubo and other upstarts, Defendants have responded by locking arms (and locking others out) to steal Fubo’s core business idea — a sports-centric package of channels — while blocking Fubo from offering that same package,” the company said in its court filing.
LikeLike
I would have bet my last dollar that such a suit was inevitable.
LikeLike
https://www.elevenwarriors.com/polls/2024/02/what-is-the-ideal-number-of-teams-in-the-college-football-playoff
I found this interesting. An OSU blog ran a fan poll about the CFP:
WHAT IS THE IDEAL NUMBER OF TEAMS IN THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF?
Results with almost 1200 votes:
8 – 52%
12 – 26%
16 – 15%
4 – 6%
Other – 2%
A national poll would likely differ, but it shows that the CFP has not done a good job of selling their vision for the expanded CFP and why the new format is the right one. Perhaps that’s because they still haven’t settled the details so they haven’t made an effort to sell it, and maybe during the off-season/2024 season they will change opinions. But right now a lot of fans aren’t buying it.
I realize that being OSU, the fans are more likely to be fine with a smaller CFP than fans whose teams didn’t frequently make the CFP previously. But I do wonder how the masses feel. Many people say it should be either 8 or 16 so nobody gets byes – they don’t see the upside of byes as outweighing the cash value of 4 more games (since the CFP is all a money grab anyway). Of course, most aren’t thinking about when those games could be played (NFL competition and only 3 good TV windows per day).
What are your fan bases thinking? Are they all onboard for 12, or are they also split? An internet search shows some previous national polls found similar results (8 twice as popular as 12).
LikeLike
The contributors to this message board are atypical. We are much more attuned to the minutiae of “how the sausage is made”. The average fan might be generally aware that the playoff is expanding, but not into the detailed trade-offs that led to the 12-team format being preferred.
You noted that “right now a lot of fans aren’t buying it.” But what’s significant is that only 6% wanted to keep the 4-team format that just ended. Let’s assume that the 2% who voted for “Other” want no playoff at all. That leaves 92% who wanted expansion to some degree, with the only question being how far.
they don’t see the upside of byes as outweighing the cash value of 4 more games (since the CFP is all a money grab anyway).
A “money grab” is just the pejorative term for “revenue I don’t like.” Did you ever change jobs and get a higher salary? Was that a money grab, or was it “making what you felt you were worth?”
College football has been chasing money for a hundred years.
LikeLike
Marc,
The contributors to this message board are atypical. We are much more attuned to the minutiae of “how the sausage is made”. The average fan might be generally aware that the playoff is expanding, but not into the detailed trade-offs that led to the 12-team format being preferred.
That’s all true. I was just curious if that’s what fans everywhere are saying (8 better than 12 better than 16), or if it is just OSU (and other kings)
You noted that “right now a lot of fans aren’t buying it.” But what’s significant is that only 6% wanted to keep the 4-team format that just ended. Let’s assume that the 2% who voted for “Other” want no playoff at all. That leaves 92% who wanted expansion to some degree, with the only question being how far.
I was very particular to include “right now” because I think it may change as we get into the season and people are thinking more about it as an actual thing and not an abstract concept.
A “money grab” is just the pejorative term for “revenue I don’t like.”
No, it is a term for doing something you otherwise wouldn’t do solely for the money.
Did you ever change jobs and get a higher salary?
Yes, but I didn’t change jobs just to get a higher salary.
Was that a money grab, or was it “making what you felt you were worth?”
It was a career change, so neither.
College football has been chasing money for a hundred years.
Yes and no. And I’ve criticized it every time it was only about the money.
LikeLike
A “money grab” is just the pejorative term for “revenue I don’t like.”
No, it is a term for doing something you otherwise wouldn’t do solely for the money.
Many things they do to make money, also happen to be things fans want. For example, the conferences make huge amounts of money from their media deals. But those deals also put the games on TV, which fans want. I doubt that very many fans would prefer the early 1980s, when your team was on TV only 2 or 3 times a year.
The regular season expanded from 10 games in the late ’60s to 12 games now. They make money from the two extra games. But I doubt there are many fans who would prefer to go back to 10. They added CCGs, which most fans seem to like.
I realize you are a traditionalist who would’ve preferred no playoff of any kind whatsoever, which you are entitled to. But most fans appear to have felt that four was not enough. Heck, even a poll of Ohio State fans showed that 92% wanted more than four — and OSU made the four-team field more than any program except Alabama or Clemson.
If ever there were a program whose fans might have been satisfied with four, it would be Ohio State — and yet they want more, because in the 12-team format OSU could be a playoff team nine or ten years out of ten, instead of just five out of ten.
So yeah, they are not giving the extra games away for free. But most fans appear to want expansion to some extent, even if they disagree on whether it should be 8, 12, or 16.
LikeLike
In this case it wasn’t me calling it a money grab, I was describing what many people supporting 16 teams say. They say the whole point of the CFP is the money, so why wouldn’t you add those extra games and get paid more?
I know the CFP is an abomination that risks player safety so TV (and sportsbooks) can make lots of money while doing a worse job of naming the best team for the season.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/potential-proposals-from-big-ten-sec-seek-more-cfp-automatic-qualifier-spots-for-the-conferences-200044214.html
The B10 and SEC want a greater share of the revenue, more voting power, and/or more AQ spots each in the new CFP deal. That leads me to 2 questions:
1. What do people here think is “fair”?
2. What do people here think is the likely outcome (often not the same thing as “fair”)?
Assume that the CFP will stay at 12 teams for the sake of discussion.
1. I think the 5+7 format is fair for access. Every team should have a legitimate shot at making the CFP, and nobody but champs should be guaranteed anything. If the B10 and SEC earn additional spots on the field, then they can have those at-large spots. There’s no inherent reason they should be automatically given multiple spots, even if history shows they would earn them almost every year. I also think the 5+7 plan holds up to legal scrutiny better.
For revenue sharing, I think the path has to be splitting some % of the money among all teams, and the rest based on performance. If the B10 and SEC want a disproportionate share beyond that, then they need to bring in tangible metrics (TV ratings data, etc.) and a formula based on facts. Otherwise the plan won’t survive legal scrutiny, and I assume every financial decision in sports will be taken to court eventually anymore. I think a reasonable path would be 50% of the money is split based on the current model (80% to P5, 20% to G5) with money shared based on the number of schools in each conference currently and then locked in (so nobody gets a diluted share because another conference expanded). So with $1.3B, that’s $650M split into $520M for the P4+ND and $130M for the G5/I-AA/etc. Based on 2024 alignment:
B10 (18)
SEC (16)
ACC (17)
B12 (16)
Pac (2)
ND (1)
That’s 70 teams, or $9.3M each.
For performance-based money, do it with shares like the NCAAT. So the top 4 champs get 2 shares (8 – 2x due to 1st round bye) and seeds 5-12 get 1 share (8). The 1st round winners get another share (4). Quarterfinal winners get another share (4), as do semifinal winners (2). The NCG winner does not get an extra share. That’s 26 shares (paid out over the next 6 years to minimize fluctuations), each worth $25M.
Assuming seeding is perfect:
1-2: 4 each
3-4: 3 each
5-8: 2 each
9-12: 1 each
This is a major flaw, because we know higher ranked teams are being artificially ranked lower. Often a top 4 team is seeded in #5-8, and that skews that shares awarded. I may go back and run the numbers based on actual rankings.
Based on CFP rankings since 2014 and the 2024 alignment (and making top 4 be champs – highest ranked team treated as conf. champ):
1-2: SEC, B10; ACC, SEC; SEC, ACC; ACC, SEC; SEC, ACC; SEC, B10; SEC, ACC; SEC, B10; SEC, B10; B10, SEC
B10 – 5
SEC – 10
ACC – 5
B12 – 0
3-4: ACC, B12; B10, B12; B10, B12; B10, B12; B10, B12; ACC, B12; B10, B12; B12, ACC; B12, ACC; ACC, B12
B10 – 5
SEC – 0
ACC – 5
B12 – 10
5-8: B10, B12, SEC, B10; SEC, B10, ACC, B10; B10, B10, B10, SEC; SEC, SEC, B10, SEC; ND, SEC, SEC, B10; SEC, SEC, B10, B10; ND, SEC, SEC, SEC; SEC, ND, B10, B12; B10, SEC, SEC, B12; B10, SEC, SEC, B10
B10 – 15
SEC – 18
ACC – 1
B12 – 3
ND – 3
9-12: SEC, B12, B12, MWC; ND, ACC, ACC, AAC; B10, B10, ACC, MAC; B10, B10, ACC, AAC; B10, SEC, SEC, MWC; SEC, B10, B12, AAC; SEC, B12, B10, SB; SEC, B12, B10, AAC; B12, B10, B10, AAC; B10, SEC, B10, CUSA
B10 – 12
SEC – 7
ACC – 4
B12 – 6
ND – 1
AAC – 5
MWC – 2
MAC – 1
SB – 1
CUSA – 1
Total shares:
B10: 5*4+5*3+15*2+12*1 = 77 = 7.7/year on average (3.7 teams) = $192.5M = $10.7M/team
SEC: 10*4+0*3+18*2+7*1 = 83 = 8.3/yr (3.5 teams) = $207.5M = $13.0M/team
ACC: 5*4+5*3+1*2+4*1 = 41 = 4.1/yr (1.5 teams) = $102.5M = $6.0M/team
B12: 5*4+5*3+3*2+6*1 = 47 = 4.7/yr (1.9 teams) = $117.5M = $7.3M/team
Pac: 0 = $0
ND: 3*2+1*1 = 7 = 0.7/yr (0.4 appearances) = $17.5M
AAC: 5*1 = 5 = 0.5/yr = $12.5M
MWC: 2*1 = 2 = 0.2/yr = $5M
MAC: 1*1 = 1 = 0.1/yr = $2.5M
SB: 1*1 = 1 = 0.1/yr = $2.5M
CUSA: 1*1 = 1 = 0.1/yr = $2.5M
Average total payout:
ND: $26.8M (but much more fluctuation)
SEC: $22.3M/team
B10: $20.0M/team
B12: $16.6M/team
ACC: $15.3M/team (they are not going to split it equally, but I did)
Pac: $9.3M/team
Based on those results, I’d expect more money to be based on performance. I think the B10 and SEC expect a larger edge over the M2 than that.
Notes:
* The P4 have been the top 4 champs, so they’d basically be giving themselves $50 per year each, with the performance rounds separating the P2 from the M2.
* Sometimes that 4th champ is getting quite a bump. Take last year, when #14 AZ would be the 4th champ.
* The G5 champ often is getting a large bump as well, but at least they don’t get a bye. I think you will see more infighting among the G5 about which champ is ranked highest and bias in the committee.
* The ACC and B12 clearly lack quality depth. That’s where the B10 and SEC separate from them. But with the 2024 realignment, I think the extra losses in the P2 conferences will reduce that advantage a bit. The committee struggles to value SOS over W/L record.
* The SEC always had a top 2 champ, a clear edge over the other P4s. But in the lowest seeds, the B10 actually outperformed the SEC. That’s what keeps the total shares pretty close.
Back to the article:
Washington State president Kirk Schulz says the Pac-12 never planned to “hold up” the College Football Playoff’s latest format change for the 2024 and 2025 events, but he is “worried” about modifications to the format starting in 2026, including potential proposals from the Big Ten and SEC that seek for the leagues to be guaranteed multiple automatic qualifier spots.
“I worry about any league getting a certain number of automatic berths beyond their champion,” said Schulz, a member of the CFP Board of Managers, made up of university presidents from each FBS league and Notre Dame. “I wouldn’t be alone in that.”
…
The CFP Management Committee, the 10 FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame’s athletic director, are scheduled to meet in Dallas on Wednesday in a critical gathering that is expected to produce “ideas” and potentially “proposals” for future revenue distribution, voting rights structure and format — all of them unresolved issues that are delaying the agreement of a new television contract with ESPN.
The SEC and Big Ten are expected to want more revenue in a new distribution model, more authority in a voting structure and, maybe most notably, more access in a new format.
“My commissioner tells me that there was an idea floated of a single league getting four [automatic qualifiers] into the playoff,” Schulz told Yahoo Sports on Tuesday. “You go, ‘Boy that doesn’t seem like it’s going to be well embraced by football fans around the country.’ The commissioners are fantastic but they are paid to look out for the betterment of their conference.”
Schulz believes that presidents should be more involved in such decisions and work “alongside” the commissioner group instead of rubber-stamping recommendations from them.
LikeLike
Going along with the 4 autobids each for the B10 and SEC is this idea to expand to 14 teams. That’s 8 for the P2, and 6 spots for everyone else. If you assume the others also get autobids, that’s 3 more spots taken (ACC, B12, G5). So 3 at-larges. Are the P2 also able to claim those if they rank high enough?
As my numbers above show, the B10 and SEC would’ve gotten 37 and 35 teams in over the past decade (and probably fewer with the new alignment). That means 4 teams each would be a noticeable gain.
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1760430279678738439
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/change-is-coming-to-cfp-what-will-it-look-like-010812039.html
Dellinger with more about the talk of moving to 14 with multiple autobids for the P2 or maybe the whole P4.
Multiple iterations of an AQ structure were proposed, granting a varying number of auto bids to the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12, according to those with knowledge of the discussions. The Group of Five retained its singular automatic qualifying spot in several of the models. As many as 12 automatic qualifiers were discussed in a 14-team field, a playoff that would include byes to the Nos. 1 and 2 ranked teams.
…
More automatic qualifying bids could increase the value of the regular season as teams jockey to position themselves in the conference standings. AQs also remove the subjectivity from a CFP selection committee that came under fire last season for leaving out ACC champion Florida State.
However, the high number of AQs — whether four, three or two — may remove some of the incentive to hold conference championship games. Conference standings are expected to determine AQs, with conference title games — for now — included in that formula. The future of league title games in an expanded playoff is an issue that Yahoo Sports explored in a story in November. Several CFP and college leaders acknowledged that a deeper examination of championship games is necessary.
LikeLike
Fair is a slightly more “biased” (towards Big Ten/SEC) formula of the 5+7 that’s going to be used the next 2 years. “Earn at-large bids through rankings” and all that while the ACC/Big 12 are somewhat close to the Big Ten/SEC school’s CFP payouts.
But reality is going to dictate that the Big Ten/SEC have a much stronger hold over CFB and networks (read ESPN or whoever is airing the playoff) are going to want as many SEC/Big Ten schools in the bracket.
And the Big Ten/SEC are going to want to be paid as if they’re on a true Power 2 tier no longer the old Power 4-5.
So I think 14 with a 3-4 Big Ten/3-4 SEC + 1 Big 12/1 ACC + 1 G5 AQs makes sense.
If you set the Big Ten/SEC at 3 each, that gets you to 9 AQs and 5 at-large bids. If you set it to 4 each for Big Ten/SEC, that gets you to 11 AQs and 3 at-large bids.
The SEC and Big Ten are going to want to be paid on an entirely separate tier as well with the ACC/Big 12 schools likely receiving 50% of the check that Big Ten/SEC schools cash or perhaps a worse split.
Fairness is a tough thing, the reality is that the big brands of the SEC/Big Ten bring the value to the playoff (as does the inherent rivalry between the two leagues).
LikeLike
Assuming ranking is perfect, but top 4 champs still get at least 2 shares:
1-2: 4 each
3-4: 3 each
5-8: 2 each
9-12: 1 each (* 2 if a top 4 champ)
Based on CFP rankings since 2014 and the 2024 alignment (highest ranked team treated as conf. champ due to realignment issues):
1-2: SEC, B10; ACC, SEC; SEC, ACC; ACC, SEC; SEC, ACC; SEC, B10; SEC, ACC; SEC, B10; SEC, B10; B10, B10
B10 – 6
SEC – 9
ACC – 5
B12 – 0
3-4: ACC, B10; B10, SEC; B10, B10; SEC, SEC; ND, SEC; ACC, SEC; B10, ND; SEC, B12; B12, B10; SEC, SEC
B10 – 6
SEC – 8
ACC – 2
B12 – 2
ND – 2
5-8: B12, B12, SEC, B10; B10, ACC, B10, ND, B12*; B10, B10, SEC, B10, B12*; B10, B10, SEC, B10, B12*; SEC, B10, B10, B12; SEC, B10, B12, B10; SEC, SEC, SEC, B12; ND, B10, B12, SEC, ACC*; SEC, SEC, ACC, B12; ACC, SEC, B10, B10, B12*
B10 – 16
SEC – 12
ACC – 4* (1 inflated weak champ)
B12 – 11**** (4 inflated weak champs)
ND – 2
9-12: SEC, B12, B12, MWC; ACC, ACC, AAC; B10, ACC, MAC; B10, ACC, AAC; B10, SEC, SEC, MWC; SEC, B10, B12, AAC; SEC, B12, B10, SB; B12, B10, AAC; B12, B10, B10, AAC; SEC, B10, CUSA
B10 – 9
SEC – 6
ACC – 4
B12 – 6
ND – 0
AAC – 5
MWC – 2
MAC – 1
SB – 1
CUSA – 1
Total shares:
B10: 6*4+6*3+16*2+9*1 = 83 = 8.3/year on average (3.7 teams) = $207.5M = $11.5M/team
SEC: 9*4+8*3+12*2+6*1 = 90 = 9.0/yr (3.5 teams) = $225M = $14.1M/team
ACC: 5*4+2*3+4*2+4*1 = 38 = 3.8/yr (1.5 teams) = $95M = $5.6M/team
B12: 0*4+2*3+11*2+6*1 = 34 = 3.4/yr (1.9 teams) = $85M = $5.3M/team
ND: 2*3+2*2+0*1 = 10 = 1.0/yr (0.4 appearances) = $25M
Pac: 0 = $0
AAC: 5*1 = 5 = 0.5/yr = $12.5M
MWC: 2*1 = 2 = 0.2/yr = $5M
MAC: 1*1 = 1 = 0.1/yr = $2.5M
SB: 1*1 = 1 = 0.1/yr = $2.5M
CUSA: 1*1 = 1 = 0.1/yr = $2.5M
Average total payout:
ND: $34.3M (but much more fluctuation) (+$7.5M)
SEC: $23.4M/team (+$1.1M)
B10: $20.8M/team (+$0.8M)
B12: $14.6M/team (-$2.0M)
ACC: $14.9M/team (they are not going to split it equally, but I did) (-$0.4M)
Pac: $9.3M/team
ND probably wouldn’t get paid quite that much, but doing this did stretch the gap from P2 to M2 a bit. Note that the B12 is really gaining from the top 4 champ byes (an extra $0.625M per team per year).
LikeLike
1. What do people here think is “fair”?
2. What do people here think is the likely outcome (often not the same thing as “fair”)?
The folks in charge usually try to articulate a (purportedly) competitive reason for their decisions, even when the real reason is to make more money.
The 5+7 format has a certain logic to it. It means that winning a power conference confers a tangible benefit (besides just a trophy). And it means that every single Power Four team has a path to the playoff that no committee can take away. Lastly, it means that the G5 are always represented.
These are goals that I think most fans could embrace as desirable, or at least rational, even if the playoff also happens to make gobs of money as well.
But what exactly would be the competitive explanation — even if that explanation is totally fake — for granting two conferences an extra half-dozen auto-bids, simply because they’re the big bullies and can make the others swallow it?
In a totally merit-based system, the Big Ten and the SEC are pretty likely to get 3–4 bids every year anyway. What exactly would be the marginal value of locking that in, when in most years it would happen on its own? Yes, there would be some value, but how much?
It reminds me of Bob Bowlsby’s argument when Kevin Warren was insisting on an AQ for the Big Ten champion. It makes the system look even more rigged than it already is, and it’s totally unnecessary. There is almost no imaginable scenario where the Big Ten champion would not be one of the best five. So why write it into the rules when it’s going to happen by itself?
(When the 12-team playoff format was originally proposed, NCAA rules still required divisions for a CCG. It was at least possible that a 6–6 team would win a weak division like the Big Ten West, then pull off an upset in the CCG. Possibly that 7–6 team would not have been one of the top five conference champs.
But now that the P4 have eliminated divisions, there’s almost no believable way for that to happen: the champ will always be either the team that had the best regular season, or the second-best: that is, a pretty strong team either way.)
LikeLike
Marc,
But what exactly would be the competitive explanation — even if that explanation is totally fake — for granting two conferences an extra half-dozen auto-bids, simply because they’re the big bullies and can make the others swallow it?
It doesn’t make sense to me either. It sounds like the ask you make so you have something you can sacrifice in a negotiation. I could perhaps see asking for 2 each based on size and past performance, but not 4 each.
In a totally merit-based system, the Big Ten and the SEC are pretty likely to get 3–4 bids every year anyway. What exactly would be the marginal value of locking that in, when in most years it would happen on its own? Yes, there would be some value, but how much?
I think both would average 3-3.5 under the 5+7 model. At 14 teams, maybe it’s 3.5-4. So they’d gain a bit but at the cost of angering a lot of people and risking lawsuits. I suppose the true value is in being officially recognized as more important and more valuable than the M2.
It reminds me of Bob Bowlsby’s argument when Kevin Warren was insisting on an AQ for the Big Ten champion. It makes the system look even more rigged than it already is, and it’s totally unnecessary. There is almost no imaginable scenario where the Big Ten champion would not be one of the best five. So why write it into the rules when it’s going to happen by itself?
(When the 12-team playoff format was originally proposed, NCAA rules still required divisions for a CCG. It was at least possible that a 6–6 team would win a weak division like the Big Ten West, then pull off an upset in the CCG. Possibly that 7–6 team would not have been one of the top five conference champs.
That answers your own question. But also because the B10 values championships (not just their own), versus the SEC and B12 wanting 12 at-larges. Winning conferences should mean something, and an autobid for the P5 champs was a way to acknowledge that without it really costing anyone anything (it also helped the B10’s allies in the P12). That’s also a way to also guarantee a G5 team access. With all at-larges, it’s hard to justify forcing a G5 team in if nobody else is guaranteed anything.
I think the only argument for multiple autobids is to point to soccer tournaments like the Champions League, where teams from various associations come together to determine a winner. Based on past performance, each league is awarded a set number of entries in the tournament – the Premier League gets 4 spots in the UEFA Champions League automatically, for example. That’s similar to what the CFP is doing, combining teams from different conferences, so a similar approach may be valid.
LikeLike
Only six P5 schools continue to require the SAT or ACT test for admission. The Big Ten has only one – Purdue – and the SEC has three: Tennessee, UGA and Florida.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/top-colleges-that-still-require-test-scores
LikeLike
Gift link NY Times. Build your own college rankings: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/opinion/build-your-own-college-rankings.html?unlocked_article_code=1.XU0.UZhl.tO4dlJ46NlxT&smid=url-share
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/why-college-football-playoff-needs-modified-system-to-evaluate-contenders-amid-expansion-into-12-team-era/
The CFP committee needs better metrics to inform their decisions for an expanded CFP. Picking the top 4 is fairly easy, but separating #8-15 and #20-30? They have been using W-L vs teams in the top 25 of the previous rankings, but now the difference between 25 and 26 is more likely to impact key decisions.
The writer suggests finding football equivalents of the types of metrics the NCAAT uses to select and seed teams. Frankly, I think they should have a formula and then the committee is given the right to make changes but has to justify them (and then that justification is applied to an improved version of the formula, making sure they apply their logic to everyone). People are terrible at making this sort of decision for a large group of disparate teams with unconnected schedules. I wonder what an AI trained on the past in CFB would suggest as a model.
But when the selection committee is tasked with comparing teams, one of the many pieces of information provided on the team sheet is a team’s record against opponents ranked in the most-recent CFP Rankings, which is the previous week’s top 25 before the most recent weekend of results. There are two issues here, one greater than the other. First, using the previous week’s top 25 is a dated snapshot of strength in the sport. But, most importantly, 25 is an arbitrary number that doesn’t properly reflect a line of demarcation for strength in modern college football.
If teams with losses are going to be judged against each other, and playoff spots will be on the line based on those decisions, the committee needs a way to acknowledge that “top-25 wins” is a flawed statistic for comparison. The committee needs to expand its purview, and in doing so, eliminate the built-in biases of recency and “quality loss” syndrome. When the spots at the bottom of the committee’s top 25 are frequently populated with teams who have lost to contenders at the top, the appearance is that — consciously or subconsciously — the rankings are being reverse engineered to justify the decisions made earlier in the process. There is not much difference, objectively, between the teams with “quality losses” and the 5-10 teams who didn’t make the cut other than having played — and lost — to a title contender.
Objective analysis from across the entire FBS landscape in the form of power ratings and efficiency ratings tells us that the difference between the No. 20 and No. 40 teams in the country is around a touchdown on a neutral field. There’s more separation between No. 1 and No. 10 than there is in that 20-team range, so picking the top four or five teams has always been an easier task. If the margins in that range of good-but-not-elite teams is so small, the committee needs an objective way to give credit for beating the 30th-best team in the same way it does a win over the 23rd-best team.
LikeLike
Supposedly the expanded CFP will increase interest by keeping more fan bases in the hunt. But it includes more teams at the cost of the most successful teams (which are often the most popular – AL, OSU, ND, etc.) knowing they are all but guaranteed a spot – if you had to fight to make the top 4, you can largely coast into the top 12. Those teams will still want to be a top seed, but the pressure isn’t the same.
Let’s look at 2023 as an example. I will assume P4 teams are eliminated with a 4th loss, and out of the running for a P4 CCG after 2 conference losses (ignore divisions, consider all 18 teams for 2024).
Comfortable in preseason: UM, OSU, USC, PSU, UW
Comfortable after Wk 4: UM, OSU, USC, PSU, UW (top 8 in both polls) – UO #9
Comfortable after Wk 8: UM, OSU, UW (top 8 in both polls) – UO #9, PSU #10
Eliminated from CCG after Wk 8: 11 of 18
Eliminated from CFP after Wk 8: 5
Start of CFP rankings (10/31):
Comfortable after Wk 9: OSU, UM, UW, UO (top 6) – PSU #11
Eliminated from CCG after Wk 9: 12 of 18
Eliminated from CFP after Wk 9: 5
Comfortable after Wk 10: OSU, UM, UW, UO (top 6) – PSU #10
Eliminated from CCG after Wk 10: 13 of 18
Eliminated from CFP after Wk 10: 9
Comfortable after Wk 11: OSU, UM, UW, UO (top 6)
Eliminated from CCG after Wk 11: 14 of 18
Eliminated from CFP after Wk 11: 11
Comfortable after Wk 12: OSU, UM, UW, UO (top 6) – PSU #11
Eliminated from CCG after Wk 12: 14 of 18
Eliminated from CFP after Wk 12: 12 (IA is other team alive)
After regular season:
Comfortable after Wk 13: OSU, UM, UW, UO (top 6) – PSU #10
Eliminated from CCG after Wk 11: 16 of 18 (2 undefeated)
Eliminated from CFP after Wk 11: 13 (#20 10-3 IA removed after CCG loss)
But realistically, when did fans of IU, PU, IL, NW, RU, UMD, MSU, IA, MN, NE, WI and UCLA (12 of 18) ever believe they had a chance at the CCG (if we ignore divisions) or CFP? The larger CFP kept PSU fans involved, but that’s it. This isn’t the NFL where almost every game is winnable by either team.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cfp-circulating-new-14-team-model-to-include-3-automatic-spots-for-big-tensec-2-for-accbig-12-231454030.html
14 teams: 3 autobids each for the B10 and SEC, 2 each for the ACC and B12, 1 for the G5, and 3 at-larges. That’s the plan that is being discussed for the future CFP at the moment.
Those briefed on the format discussed its details with Yahoo Sports Wednesday under condition of anonymity. They cautioned that the proposed model is nowhere near finalized and is not the only format option that emerged from a meeting last week of the CFP Management Committee, an 11-member group encompassing the 10 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame’s athletic director.
However, this “3-3-2-2-1” format is being socialized among athletic administrators, usually one of the initial steps in the process of adopting a model. The format would start in 2026 as part of a new CFP television contract.
…
The 3-3-2-2-1 format is seen as a compromise to the Big Ten and SEC’s initial proposal of four automatic berths for those leagues — a model that, in a 14-team playoff, would leave just one at-large spot.
I can’t say I’m a fan of this plan. I get the B10 and SEC wanting the guarantee, but it looks bad and seems likely to draw scrutiny. You’re going to earn those bids anyway, so why demand they be guaranteed? Worse, the ACC and B12 don’t historically earn 2 bids each under the 2024 configuration. Why promise them more bids than they are likely to earn on their own? This only makes sense if it’s tied to a revenue model that further enriches the P2, but they haven’t settled that yet.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39619331/sources-14-team-college-football-playoff-momentum
Supposedly they haven’t modeled future season yet to see what format makes sense. But there are hints at the financial model. I think this explains the 3/3/2/2/1+3 model. Basically, each autobid is worth about 8% of the total – that takes up 88% of the money with at-larges getting a smaller payout. That “justifies” 8% for the G5, 16% each for the ACC and B12, and 24% each for the B10 and SEC (88%).
As for Notre Dame, sources told ESPN that the most likely option being discussed is that the Fighting Irish would earn a spot in the 14-team CFP if the selection committee ranks them in the top 14 on Selection Day.
Sources caution there are other models being discussed, and there needs to be a deeper discussion about how strength of schedule would factor into the 3/3, 2/2 ,1 and 3 model. The CFP isn’t locked into that model, and still has a ways to go.
There has not been significant modeling done yet by Hancock and CFP officials as to how these models would have unfolded in the CFP era. If things change from the AQ distribution that’s been most discussed, it may be because of what modeling would show the outcomes could look like in the upcoming years. Any exercise is difficult, however, because no one knows what a 16-team SEC and 18-team Big Ten are going to look like at the end of the season.
By adding strong programs and weakening other leagues, it’s difficult to project what upcoming years will look like in the SEC and Big Ten. The potential of SEC and Big Ten teams being displaced from the top 14 — as they have 34 teams and a majority of the title-contending programs — is real and will be examined more in the upcoming weeks.
…
… One high-ranking official involved in the discussions told ESPN on Wednesday that the presidents and chancellors in both the SEC and Big Ten are having conversations about whether to continue their NCAA membership. It’s a move that would impact and could possibly derail the TV agreement.
“Those conversations are happening,” the source said, adding some feel “pretty strongly about pulling away. I’d say very strongly.”
…
There’s some leg work to go on the finances and how they are divided, but the picture is getting clearer if a 14-team model passes.
In the old model, about 80% of the CFP revenue went to the Power 5, while 20% has been allocated to the Group of 5. According to the most recent data from the CFP, each of the Power 5 conferences received $79.41 million — a total of almost $400 million — in the spring of 2023. The Group of 5 conferences shared $102.77 million. Notre Dame received a payment of $3.89 million by meeting the NCAA’s APR standard, while the other six independents shared $1.89 million.
The new model promises to be more weighted toward the SEC and Big Ten.
Sources told ESPN that discussions have centered around the SEC and Big Ten earning somewhere between 25% and 30% of the CFP revenue. The ACC and Big 12 would be next, and they’d earn somewhere between 15% and 20%. That leaves a smaller chunk — somewhere around 6% to 10% for the other leagues and nearly 1% for Notre Dame.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/02/29/14-team-college-football-playoff-proposal-big-ten-sec-want-it-all/72786426007/
Dan Wolken hates this proposal.
It would be better for everyone if the SEC and Big Ten laid their cards on the table and took whatever spoils they want from college sports in one fell swoop as opposed to the craven way they’re going to spend the next decade rigging the game while pretending what they’re doing isn’t a choice.
We see what you’re doing, Greg Sankey. You’re not fooling anyone, Tony Pettiti.
So just get on with it, guys, and stop trying to sell college football fans another jalopy disguised as a Rolls Royce.
That’s exactly what this new 14-team College Football Playoff trial balloon is. It’s a lemon. It’s a dud. It’s a disgrace.
And it’s a preview of exactly where the SEC and Big Ten want to take college sports: Into a world where they do what they want and they get what they want, with the inclusion of anyone else serving only as a veneer of protection from the next cluster bomb of antitrust claims.
What is being sold as a compromise — a 14-team playoff with three automatic bids for the SEC and Big Ten, two for the ACC and Big 12 and one for the top team from the lesser conferences — is in reality the most heavy-handed money grab yet from the Power Two.
…
It’s where things seem to be headed. It absolutely stinks. And it falls squarely on the shoulders of Sankey and Pettiti, two men who conduct business by threat disguised as negotiation and heist disguised as leadership.
Make no mistake, these are not ungovernable forces guiding their industry. What happens to college football, and college sports at large, is a choice. They’re choosing themselves. And they’re choosing poorly.
…
In other words, by breaking college sports through their own largesse, the SEC and Big Ten now need to break other institutions in order to fix them — but mostly to their benefit until they’ve gobbled up every morsel worth eating and grabbed every dollar worth spending. In other words, by breaking college sports through their own largesse, the SEC and Big Ten now need to break other institutions in order to fix them — but mostly to their benefit until they’ve gobbled up every morsel worth eating and grabbed every dollar worth spending.
LikeLike
Last week, a federal judge in Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits the NCAA from enforcing its rule against recruits signing NIL deals with booster groups. The judge was siding with the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia, who argued that the NCAA rule was an illegal restraint of trade.
The case must still go to trial unless the parties settle. But before issuing a preliminary injunction, the judge concluded that the states were likely to prevail on the merits. So, the NCAA will be fighting an uphill fight, in a case where the judge has already declared that they have a losing position. And in the meantime, over the many years such a lawsuit could take to litigate, recruits will be free to take as much money as boosters offer.
This means there is not much left of the NCAA’s amateurism rules, except that the schools can’t directly pay NIL money themselves. It probably won’t be very long before that rule falls, as well.
The rule at issue in this case seemed silly to me. NIL deals are legal now — they just can’t be used as a recruiting inducement, according to the NCAA. But recruits very clearly know the types of NIL deals available and consider them in their decisions about where to play. The NCAA rule constrains the timing of payments, not the knowledge of them. So, I don’t think this loss really matters very much, in a world where every big-time recruit already knows they will be getting NIL money eventually.
The question is whether the NCAA will capitulate or keep fighting a long battle in which the odds are stacked against them.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-sec-power-grab-tough-to-stomach-but-difficult-to-argue-amid-college-football-playoff-negotiations/
Dennis Dodd says the CFP committee is to blame for the 3/3/2/2/1 proposal.
There is clearly a lack of trust in the process helmed by the 13-member CFP Selection Committee whose rankings — released every Tuesday night from around Halloween onward — create contrived controversy that generally works itself out … until it does not.
The results of last season’s final CFP Rankings crossed a line for some who watched undefeated Florida State get left out of the top four because its quarterback was injured; this while undefeated Liberty was rewarded with a New Year’s Six berth in the Fiesta Bowl despite a schedule strength that didn’t compare to that of AAC champion SMU.
Even though it did not impact them in the moment, you better believe the Big Ten and SEC were watching. Neither conference wants to put their fate in the hands of a committee that shifts its criteria from one season to the next, sometimes one week to the next.
What would committee do with, let’s say, a 9-3 USC — that challenged itself against the likes of LSU, Wisconsin, Michigan, UCLA, Notre Dame, Penn State and Washington — compared to a 10-2 Cincinnati that played Towson, Miami (Ohio), Colorado, Arizona State and TCU?
Should be an easy decision, right? Well, if you leave that decision up to humans, sometimes they make human decisions — wrong ones.
Hence, the proposed three automatic bids spots for Big Ten and SEC teams and potential for those conferences’ champions to be gifted first-round byes.
…
“There’s not enough data because you only play 12 games. The data doesn’t connect. There is an inherent flaw,” one Power Five athletic director told CBS Sports.
“Multiple AQs make a ton of sense because one of the things that is screwed up about college sports is the way we rely on committees. In turn, it causes us to water down our regular season because people try to game their schedule. If you go strictly off of conference standings, I think it makes your regular season better, and you reduce the role of the committee in a positive way.”
…
As to the notion that the Big Ten and SEC are considering a departure from the NCAA — hand in hand — if things don’t go their way?
“I know they’re having the discussions,” another Power Five AD told CBS Sports. “I know they’re engineering. I think they’re getting prepared [to make a move] if it gets real radical. One of the questions: Is it in response to a failed CFP process?”
The answer is “yes,” and it and cuts to the heart of these discussions.
The CFP is one of the least-transparent championship processes in sports. We never get to see how the committee makes up its mind. AP Top 25 voters are allowed to reveal their rankings each week; voters in the Coaches Poll share their final ballots. Meanwhile, there has always been a “trust us” element to the CFP.
The Big Ten and SEC would rather lean on achievement — translation: schedule strength — than an interpretation of 13 well-meaning people in a room. A group of Power Five ADs saw that day coming and started scheduling accordingly.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
ACC and Big 12 face no-win situation in 14-team CFP proposal. What will they do?
By Chris Vannini Mar 1, 2024
Most of the headlines accompanying the recent discussion of a 14-team College Football Playoff have focused on the Big Ten and the SEC, and understandably so. The two most influential conferences’ consideration of a model in which they receive three automatic qualifying spots each and both first-round byes in a 3-3-2-2-1 AQ format is an unprecedented and obvious power play.
But the fate of the CFP may actually hinge on the other two Power 4 conferences. Only the ACC and the Big 12 had any real power to push back on the initial suggestions of as many as four automatic qualifying spots for the Big Ten and SEC.
Now it’s the ACC and Big 12 with the toughest decisions to make. In the 3-3-2-2-1 model, those two conferences have the most to gain and the most to lose. In exchange for more guaranteed CFP access, they would solidify themselves as second-class conferences. That’s an offer on the table (among other options, yes, but this model has gained the most traction, according to sources familiar with the discussions).
It’s not hard to see why two guaranteed CFP spots each could be appealing to the ACC and Big 12. In 2023, the leagues had just one team from each of their future memberships finish in the top 14 of the College Football Playoff rankings: Florida State (ACC) and Arizona (Big 12). Under this model, the last team left out of a 14-team field last year would’ve been LSU, which finished 13th; meanwhile, Louisville (15th) and Oklahoma State (20th) would have made the cut. In many years, the ACC and the Big 12 could get teams outside the top 14 into the field, likely at the expense of a higher-ranked Big Ten or SEC team.
But there’s the other side of that deal, which requires the ACC and Big 12 to relegate themselves to lesser-than status, admitting that the Big Ten and the SEC are better conferences that deserve more guaranteed spots, more guaranteed money and the only byes. That would still leave them ahead of the Group of 5, yes, but the Power-2/Middle-2 disparity would be an extremely hard sell to fans, many of whom feel insulted that this tiered model is even being discussed. And if you’re the ACC trying to keep Florida State and Clemson from leaving, the admission that more postseason opportunity lies elsewhere definitely doesn’t help.
The perception of equal access and opportunity separates American sports from other sports like European soccer, where the best leagues and teams constantly have rules and formats bent in their favor. But college football has never really acted like U.S. pro sports. Its recent consolidation of power is the latest in a long line of moves leaders have made to narrow the paths of money and influence.
The ACC and Big 12 don’t have enough sway to stop that consolidation in this situation, only to delay it. They face a choice accompanied by a thinly veiled threat that the Big Ten and SEC could leave the current college sports power structure and do their own thing without everyone else.
A month ago, the Big Ten and SEC formed an advisory group with a vague mission statement that seems to be about charting their own course in an uncertain future and making sure they have the money to do it. If you’re the ACC and Big 12, you can’t let them create any further formal separation.
Faced with these options and no perfect way out, the ACC and Big 12 have to at least consider a deal that comes with two guaranteed CFP spots they may not get every year otherwise.
The math and the money say that the Big Ten and SEC hold almost all the cards, and there’s no more pretending after this summer’s realignment. Without a need for unanimity to change CFP rules for 2026 onward, those two can bend this format and future CFP revenue and governance in their favor and threaten to storm off altogether.
The model on the table does have positives beyond the guaranteed bids. It would emphasize conference standings over rankings — a results-based focus. A version of this model might have been the perfect solution 20 years ago when conferences were closer to equal in size and strength. But today, when everyone has a conference title game and intricate standings tiebreaker rules, this idea feels like a mess.
In the summer of 2021, commissioners and presidents praised their new 12-team CFP proposal. Everyone sacrificed something to produce an expanded playoff that helped the entire sport. It was a rare moment of optimism.
A month or so later, Texas and Oklahoma jumped to the SEC, and conferences ripped each other apart with realignment. The Alliance formed and died. Commissioners stopped talking to each other. CFP expansion was put on ice and later revived. The Pac-12 collapsed. By the time the 12-team CFP finally begins next winter, half of the 10 commissioners in place during its proposal will have changed, as well as the Notre Dame athletic director job.
Everyone is out for themselves. It’s been the case for years, and it’s what the ACC and Big 12 have to consider now. Is this the best deal they can get for themselves out of a no-win situation? Or do they hold on to some hope that their football leagues can stay equal to the Big Ten and SEC? Because the Big Ten and SEC look determined to make sure that never happens again.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39633863/big-12-acc-coaches-not-keen-proposed-first-round-cfp-byes-sec-big-ten
The ACC and B12 may be okay with the 3/3/2/2/1 plan and the 2 byes locked to the B10 and SEC, but their coaches aren’t so thrilled with it.
“Automatic first-round byes for the Big Ten and SEC is like the NFL saying the Cowboys get a first-round bye since they have more fans than the Bengals,” TCU coach Sonny Dykes told ESPN. “How preposterous is that?”
Coaches don’t have the power to change the format; that lies with their respective commissioners and ultimately the presidents and chancellors on the CFP board. Their feedback, though, is part of the process along with that of athletic directors and university presidents. Sources have cautioned that nothing is done yet, but several coaches told ESPN they aren’t fans of this new proposal.
“A playoff format that guarantees a first-round bye to any team, division or conference before the season starts is unheard of in any sport as far as I’m aware,” Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy said Friday. “Based on the premise proposed, a team could be undefeated and ranked No. 1 in the country and still not receive a first-round bye because teams were awarded one before the season even began.”
A source told ESPN this week that balancing the desires of the power wielded by the SEC and Big Ten with their combined 34 teams is a delicate juggling act.
“The balance in the room is how to recognize contributions of the Big Ten and SEC while also being fair and collaborative to the collective room,” the source said.
NC State coach Dave Doeren said he is not in favor of having a set number of automatic qualifiers for conferences and expressed concern about the potential for a lower-ranked team to displace a higher-ranked one to meet that criteria.
“The champions from each of those four deserve to be in, and I agree with that,” Doeren said. “… After the four champions, then let those teams that have earned that over the course of their season with strength of schedule, their ranking, quality wins and all that be what matters.”
While that may be far down the road, nothing is as alarming as two teams having their own locked-in bye weeks.
“I feel the four conference champs should be treated equally and all should have a first-round bye,” North Carolina coach Mack Brown told ESPN. “It’s hard to be a champion, so it does matter.”
Gundy said the solution is simple.
“We need to let the teams decide it on the field and reward those who are most deserving,” Gundy said.
LikeLike
Redacted from The Athletic:
“The NCAA Football Rules Committee on Friday created a proposal that would allow FBS teams to use the technology between a coach and one player on the field, who would have a green dot on the back midline of the player’s helmet. Communication between the two would be cut off with 15 seconds left on the play clock or when the ball is snapped, whichever comes first.”
LikeLike
https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/fox-disney-wbd-5-million-subscribers-lachlan-murdoch-1235929225/
Fox only expects the Fox/Disney/WBD sports streaming service to get 5M subscribers in 5 years.
The Fox Corp., Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery sports streaming joint venture is anticipating signing up 5 million customers in the first five years, CEO Lachlan Murdoch said Monday.
The 5 million mark will be where the JV “settles after five years,” Murdoch said, speaking Monday at the 2024 Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco. He was making the point that Fox Corp. expects the sports streaming venture will be incremental to its existing pay-TV revenue base.
…
Murdoch reiterated that the new sports joint venture could have an addressable market of as many as 60 million U.S. households, an audience of “cord-nevers” who have shunned traditional cable and satellite TV. “That’s a huge market,” he said Monday. “That’s half of the television households in this country. And we know that sports is the No. 1 driver… [of] viewership and subscriptions.”
LikeLike
Dartmouth men’s basketball players vote to unionize in landmark moment for athlete rights
By The Athletic Staff Mar 5, 2024
The Dartmouth men’s basketball team on Tuesday voted 13-2 in favor of forming a union in a historic election that could usher in a new phase of the movement for college athletes to be treated like employees.
The election, ordered by the National Labor Relations Board, took place on the college’s campus in Hanover, N.H. The university filed a request for review by the NLRB on Tuesday, a school spokesperson said. That review and any potential appeal to federal court could keep official recognition and collective bargaining months away.
“Today is a big day for our team,” said Dartmouth players Cade Haskins and Romeo Myrthil in a statement. “We stuck together all season and won this election. It is self-evident that we, as students, can also be both campus workers and union members. Dartmouth seems to be stuck in the past. It’s time for the age of amateurism to end. We call on the Dartmouth Board of Trustees and President Beilock to live the truth of her own words and cultivate ‘brave spaces’ in which ‘changing one’s mind based on new evidence is a good thing.’ Let’s work together to create a less exploitative business model for college sports. Over the next few months, we will continue to talk to other athletes at Dartmouth and throughout the Ivy League about forming unions and working together to advocate for athletes’ rights and well-being.”
e university responded to the vote with a statement after the results were announced: “For decades, Dartmouth has been proud to build productive relationships with the five unions that are currently part of our campus community. We always negotiate in good faith and have deep respect for our 1,500 union colleagues, including the members of SEIU Local 560. In this isolated circumstance, however, the students on the men’s basketball team are not in any way employed by Dartmouth. For Ivy League students who are varsity athletes, academics are of primary importance, and athletic pursuit is part of the educational experience. Classifying these students as employees simply because they play basketball is as unprecedented as it is inaccurate. We, therefore, do not believe unionization is appropriate.”
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2024/3/5/big-ten-baseball-television-schedule-released.aspx
I think the BTN baseball schedule reminds us of an upcoming issue in the B10. For 2023, they are planning to air up to 38 games (23 regular season + the entire tournament). They have 16 B10 games set with 7 games TBD.
IU – 3
IL – 2
IA – 4
UMD – 3
UM – 4
MSU – 1
MN – 2
NE – 4
NW – 1
OSU – 1
PSU – 2
PU – 2
RU – 3
3 teams only have 1 game set while 3 others have 4 games. That seems a little unfair. What happens when the 4 newbies join?
A lot of sports will face this same issue – limited TV games spread over up to 18 teams. Will BTN add an occasional later window for live sports? Will they focus BTN coverage on the best teams in each sport, or those with the most fans in each sport, or try to spread them equally? Obviously BTN+ will carry the rest, but being on TV still matters.
LikeLike
https://www.foxsports.com/presspass/blog/2024/03/07/primetime-college-football-hits-friday-nights-this-fall-on-fox/
Fox is promoting their Friday primetime CFB coverage for the upcoming season.
Dedicated Primetime Window Features Elite Matchups from the Big Ten, Big 12 and Mountain West Friday Nights on FOX
“FOX is football, and our new Friday night package will make FOX the leader in America’s game throughout the weekend,” said Michael Mulvihill, President, Insight and Analytics, FOX Corporation. “We’ve built our collegiate business by seizing opportunities in previously underutilized timeslots, first with BIG NOON SATURDAY and now on Friday nights. Our goal this fall is to have the No. 1 college football game on both Fridays and Saturdays and the top NFL game on Sundays.”
Being #1 on F night won’t be difficult, but it’s still a terrible time slot that the B10 will subjected to at least 9 times this season (it was 8 in 2023). My guess is that the Pac4 get Saturday late night games while the eastern 14 get Friday primetime games, to help spread the pain and stupidity.
LikeLike
Call it stupidity if you wish but there is a large herd of schools in the Big-12, ACC and G5 who would love to have these TV schedule problems and resulting revenue.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/cfp-saturday-conflict-puck.html
The NFL wants the CFP to move all their 1st round games off the third Saturday in December so the NFL can monopolize TV that weekend. The idea of putting 2 games on Friday night is laughable. It’s the worst TV night of the week, and they already are wasting 1 game there. So now they should either start a game at 4pm or at 10pm to appease the NFL?
But with the College Football Playoff expanding from four teams to 12 — and thus, three games to 11 — such conflicts are going to become increasingly difficult to avoid. And the two sides are already looking at a major one later this year, with the College Football Playoff set to host three first-round games on Dec. 21, a day the NFL had targeted as a late-season Saturday showcase.
But while the College Football Playoff announced its inaugural 12-team schedule nearly a year ago, the NFL is doing its best to get the entity to reconsider. And while it’s unlikely the CFP will completely overhaul its first-round schedule, according to Puck News’ John Ourand, the league is hopeful that it will move at least one of its Saturday games.
“Sources tell me the NFL knows that it’s unlikely the CFP will move all three games off of that Saturday,” writes Ourand. “Its new tactic is to convince CFP to move at least one of those games from Saturday to Friday. (There is already a game on Friday, and this would allow for two games on each day.) This appears to be the most likely scenario, but it will be fascinating to watch this game of Vulcan chess play out.”
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-football-playoff-format-and-future-revenue-in-flux-heres-whats-on-the-table-171119343.html
Not only is the CFP leaning towards a model that favors the P2 over the M2, but also a financial model that does as well (P2 29% each, M2 15.5% each). That probably roughly fits with the CFP slots teams would’ve earned in the past based on the 2024 alignment, and the extra money the B10 and SEC also got through NY6 bowl ties (both had 1.5 with them alternating in the Orange).
I’m surprised how little of the money will be based on performance, though. I know presidents like guarantees, but I would’ve expected the SEC to push for winning games to pay off more.
At least the idea of the B10 and SEC being locked into the 2 byes is going away.
“You have two leagues asserting their power,” described one college athletics administrator.
Any decision on a playoff format is taking a back seat to a more significant piece: the money.
A revenue-distribution model has surfaced that would distribute annually to the SEC and Big Ten multiple millions in additional revenue than their two power league counterparts. While an expected move, the figures shocked those who have seen the proposal.
In the past structure, the five major conferences mostly split evenly 80% of the CFP’s $460 million in revenue.
In a proposal socialized with administrators this week, the Big Ten and SEC would combine to earn about 58% of the CFP’s base distribution — a figure that will certainly grow in participation distribution as their individual schools earn more revenue for qualifying and advancing through the playoffs. The figure would greatly exceed the ACC and Big 12’s combined distribution number, which is expected to be around 31%. The remaining amount (roughly 10%) will be distributed to Notre Dame and the 64 Group of Five teams.
The difference in distribution between the two sets of conferences — SEC/Big Ten and ACC/Big 12 — will likely exceed $300 million a year. The Power Two will earn around a combined $760 million versus around $440 million for the ACC and Big 12. Roughly $115 million is slotted for the Group of Five.
No school’s revenue will decrease as the CFP is expected to distribute about $1.3 billion annually in a new television contract with ESPN, or three times the amount of its past deal in the four-team version. The participation distribution is only expected to account for $100 million of the overall distribution amount. Teams will earn between $3-5 million each for participation and advancing in the playoff.
Considering the distribution percentages, SEC teams will earn as much as $23 million annually, Big Ten $21 million, ACC around $13.7 million and Big 12 around $12.3 million. Group of Five teams are expected to earn a figure just south of $2 million.
The contract is expected to include a definitive “look-in” provision in 2028. The look-in provision can be triggered before that date from any conference realignment — a provision that Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark encouraged to be added, according to those familiar with the discussions.
…
The concept of the Big Ten and SEC holding exclusive rights over the two first-round byes has received enough pushback that many expect it to be tabled.
…
Now, the trend has reached the national stage. The CFP base revenue-distribution model is mostly based on historic success in the playoff over the previous decade. Considering future realignment moves, the SEC and Big Ten account for 72.5% of CFP participants. The SEC leads all schools with 17 in the four-team field when factoring in Oklahoma and Texas. The Big Ten is next at 12 when factoring in its four new schools. The ACC (seven teams) and Big 12 (two) follow.
…
The format aside, the money split alone is causing anxiety in both the ACC and Big 12, with some of the administrators asking a vexing question:
“Would the Power Two really leave if we say no?”
…
An internal deadline of sorts has been set — by the end of next week — for the conferences to agree or bail on a future CFP framework and, presumably, the ESPN deal entirely. It’s still not completely clear how an agreement will be made as there is currently no contract or voting structure beyond the 2025 playoff. The ESPN deal is the only thing binding the 10 leagues and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39687119/some-fans-frigid-chiefs-dolphins-playoff-game-required-amputations-per-hospital
For those who downplay the risk of CFP games on home fields in the north in December. Yes, this example is from a January game but a polar vortex or equivalent freak weather event can also happen in December. Columbus is the warmest of the midwestern B10 cities, and we had a wind chill of -36 deg Christmas weekend 2022. It won’t be a common occurrence, but it is a real concern.
Some of the people who attended the near-record cold Kansas City Chiefs playoff game in January had to undergo amputations after suffering frostbite, a Missouri hospital said Friday.
Research Medical Center didn’t provide exact numbers but said in a statement that it treated dozens of people who had experienced frostbite during an 11-day cold snap in January. Twelve of those people — including some who were at the Jan. 13 game — had to undergo amputations involving mostly fingers and toes. And the hospital said more surgeries are expected over the next two to four weeks as “injuries evolve.”
…
The temperature for the Dolphins-Chiefs wild-card playoff game was minus-4 degrees Fahrenheit, and wind gusts made for a wind chill of minus-27.
LikeLike
https://www.wweek.com/news/2024/03/06/pork-bowl-lawmakers-propose-to-spend-at-least-435-million-in-last-minute-appropriations-on-sports/
OrSU may get $10M from taxpayers to support athletic scholarships. The funding bill passed and is expected to be signed today by the governor.
…
Tax Fairness Oregon’s Wiser questions whether lawmakers are making the best use of taxpayer dollars.
“I thought housing, housing, homelessness and mental health were our priorities for this session,” Wiser says. “Why are we spending such a huge among of money on sports and sports facilities?”
Senate President Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) says the proposed expenditures are part of a larger package of investments in dozens of entertainment and cultural organizations around the state designed to spur economic growth.
LikeLike
https://billfarley.substack.com/p/espn-and-fox-cant-kill-college-football
Why ESPN and Fox (and the B10 and SEC) can’t kill CFB. Bill Farley argues that public financial support will keep those outside the P2 competitive.
My concern would be that the big boys would then demand equal government support at the state level (or their fans would, especially alumni in the legislature). I could see it at the city level except where there are multiple public schools close together and/or where college sports aren’t all that popular (northeast).
I don’t see private schools getting taxpayer support, so how do those schools keep up?
In this article, I argue that most football programs in the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 2/MWC will not suffer significant damage from changes in media revenue distribution and student-athlete compensation requirements. I start by replacing the tired “have and have-nots” framework with a more useful “big market vs. small market” dichotomy. With this understanding, I provide top-line data on untapped tax revenue currently flowing into lesser-value sports and entertainment offerings in small markets. Finally, I suggest a roadmap, drawn from past practices of professional sports teams and my own experience, on how the untapped revenue will flow from lesser-value entertainment activities into CFB to balance the revenue disparity between big and small market CFB teams.
In the future, I will break down the top-line untapped revenue data into team-specific revenue opportunities. In this granular data, I suspect that some schools in the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 2/MWC will see a brighter future than some of their counterparts in the Big 10 and ACC.
…
From my research and experience, I can confidently state that 1) States and cities with FBS division universities are deriving significant economic and tax benefits from the athletic events held on those campuses, 2) Those economic and tax benefits, for the most part, come with minimal public funding support (free-riding), and 3) States and cities that host FBS division universities use tax dollars to support competing sports, entertainment, and tourism activities that provide far less economic value than college sports.
States and local governments have not fully participated in college sports because they did not have to under the old financial structure of small media contracts and equal revenue sharing. Now, for small market schools they need to, and they will. Politicians and bureaucrats are tethered to the financial success or failure of sports teams in their jurisdiction. Professional sports at every level leverage this dependency. In baseball, every level, from Single-A to the Major Leagues has dipped into the public coffers. Small-market college football will fit right in line, if not move to the front. And oddly, while it seems like another extended hand would irritate politicians, many in this line of work welcome the chance to save the day and rub elbows with quasi-sports celebrities.
…
The strategy for small market CFB programs suffering diminished media revenue contracts is three-fold, 1) Secure additional annual appropriations from your state’s general fund, 2) Shift your revenue source for one-time capital improvements from booster donations and ticket revenues to state funds, and 3) secure annual contributions from hotel taxes by displacing lower value beneficiaries. In a future article, I will detail how each state is positioned to help their university (i.e., UNLV has a better chance of getting hotel taxes than Auburn).
…
To secure a public subsidy we follow the small-market professional team playbook, with a nod to the University of Oklahoma’s departure speech from the Big 12.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39723034/source-texas-expected-hire-nebraska-ad-trev-alberts
Trev Alberts is leaving his alma mater to be the AD at TAMU. Is this due to the presidential change? The deeper coffers at TAMU for NIL? He just got a raise.
Any inside info Mike?
LikeLike
The timing was very bizarre. I would be surprised if the search for the new president had much to do with it. Yes, the job’s been “open” for seven months, but that’s inline with previous searches and from all indications was going to end soon. The system set a goal to get the Lincoln campus back into the AAU so I doubt there is any attempt to hire anyone who isn’t serious about academics and football. Plus, Gov Pillen is a former regent, a pretty generic establishment Republican (he defeated the Trump endorsed candidate in the primary), and a former NU football player so I doubt he’s pushing behind the scenes for someone to rock the boat. It wouldn’t surprise me if Pillen takes some shots at the Regents for political reasons.
My guess, there was reported interest by Alberts in becoming the Big Ten commissioner and one other national level job (that I can’t remember) and he felt he needed to get out of Nebraska to raise his profile. Nebraska is embarking on a $450M stadium renovation that’s going to take a ton of work that will likely keep him from doing too many “national” level things. A lot of the hard work at A&M is already done (Jimbo’s out) and he’ll gain experience in the SEC.
I could be wrong on all of this, since I’m not an insider.
LikeLike
Another interesting hire will be Louisville’s new basketball coach since Kenny Payne got canned. I live near Louisville and some fans here want Rick Pitino back.
LikeLike
Post comment, refresh twitter and there’s Pillen being Pillen:
I don’t know if WordPress will post the tweet or not, but Pillen blames ”failures of University leadership” for Alberts leaving. The job has been “open” (Adm Carter didn’t leave for Ohio St right away) for 206 days. The last search for a NU system president went 214 days. It took OSU 9 months to hire Adm Carter. UM 6 months to Hire Santa Ono and Minnesota 11 months to hire Rebecca Cunningham.
LikeLike
I struggle to see the B10 ever hiring someone like Alberts. Nowadays it’s all about being a former TV sports executive and lawyer, not knowing anything about actual sports. Besides, there are still millions of OSU fans who despise him from his ESPN days. It’s not like he’s done anything especially noteworthy to deserve a commissioner position.
LikeLike
He was interested and Adm. Carter may have brought up his name during the search, but I don’t think he was high on the Big Ten’s list.
I don’t know Alberts and I am indifferent that he left. IMO, Matt Rhule is much more important right now to NU Athletics than Alberts was. That being said:
I think an All-American CFB player, #5 overall NFL Draft pick, TV personality, AD who shepherded a transition from DII to DI, and AD at two P2 schools is a resume that is going to get looks for “important” jobs going forward. Obviously, he’s not perfect. College wrestling fans despise him, he walked out on ESPN, and left Nebraska at a poor time.
Going forward, the commissioner’s job (or head of the CFP, or whatever replaces the NCAA) is going to include doing unpopular things. Collective bargaining with players, a potential breakaway from the NCAA, Playoff AQ’s, and whatever else we don’t know about yet. If you’re looking for someone to do, say, and be the face of unpopular things, well that’s Albert’s wheelhouse. Are those lawyers and TV execs equipped to deal with the public after they limit access to to the playoff or preside over a work stoppage? We’ve seen the current commissioners retreat due to public outcry. Reportedly, the B1G and SEC have backed off some of their CFP AQ demands. I’ve seen Big 12 fans note that Yormark has lowered his profile after the backlash to his criticism of Texas at Big 12 media days last summer.
LikeLike
For important jobs, yes. I just don’t see it for a P2 commissioner, at least not now. If he adds some time as a commissioner elsewhere, or as an exec in a pro league, that would help. I think it would be very tough to go directly from sitting AD to commissioner of that same conference. Gene Smith didn’t get a tone of consideration (he also said he didn’t want the job) and he’s about as renowned as an AD can get. That used to be the profile for a commissioner, but I don’t think it is anymore at the P2 level.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39730943/governor-blames-nebraska-leadership-ad-trev-alberts-exit
NE’s governor blames the BoR not replacing the president as the reason for Alberts leaving. I think it sounds like he was a diva who didn’t like the prospect of having to report to the chancellor as usual for their AD. He wanted his pet president.
206 days isn’t ridiculously long for a presidential search. OSU’s president resigned at the end of November 2022 (left in May 2023), the search didn’t start until February 2023, and OSU didn’t announce a new president until late August 2023. He didn’t start until 1/1/2024.
“I am deeply disappointed by Trev Alberts’ decision to leave so soon after restating his commitment to Nebraska and I don’t fully understand or know his reasons why,” the governor said in a statement. “I do know that the time for reflecting on the failures of University leadership, which led to his decision, must come later. Now is the time to act.”
Alberts signed four months ago a contract extension through 2031. His annual base salary this year was $1.7 million, and a clause in his new contract promised adjustments as necessary to keep him among the top three highest-paid Big Ten athletic directors.
…
Alberts has not responded to requests for comment. In recent interviews, he had expressed frustration that regents had not hired a president to replace Ted Carter, who was named Ohio State’s president last August.
Alberts often praised Carter’s leadership and for helping him land Matt Rhule as football coach in 2022, as well as for work on the plan for a $450 million renovation to Memorial Stadium. Alberts reported directly to Carter rather than the campus chancellor, contrary to tradition.
“It has been 206 days since Ted Carter announced his departure as president,” Pillen said. “It is unacceptable that the University’s elected leaders have failed during this time to appoint permanent leadership. It is imperative that they act urgently and decisively to end this uncertainty. Without any delay, they should support Interim President Chris Kabourek’s efforts to immediately appoint a new permanent athletic director.”
LikeLike
<i>NE’s governor blames the BoR not replacing the president as the reason for Alberts leaving.</i>
Back when Pillen was a regent gearing up for the governor’s race he introduced an attempted ban on CRT to give him some culture warrior bona fides. The measure was opposed by Adm. Carter and the UNL Chancellor at the time Ronnie Green and was voted down by his fellow regents. Obviously, Pillen wasn’t too happy about the response from the NU leadership but, Pillen never struck me culture war true believer. He’s always struck me as a boring Chamber of Commerce establishment Republican. Pillen is only vulnerable to an electoral challenge from the Trumpist right may and feel that a too liberal system president (the kind that would help with the AAU) may cause issues for him. He is probably favoring someone similar to former US Sen Ben Sasse (R-NE) who is President at the University of Florida. I mentioned earlier that I didn’t think he was pushing for someone to rock the boat but its likely there is some disagreement between him and the regents over how liberal the president can be. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is Pillen putting pressure on the regents to hire his preferred candidate.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39717246/cfp-target-sort-new-revenue-split
Sources say the CFP is on track to decide on the revenue split this week as well as the governance structure. It would be nice for them to finally make some decisions. The G5 don’t like the proposed revenue split, but that’s not a surprise. They will still gain in total revenue and I doubt they can convince anyone to give them more than that. There hasn’t been as much talk about the governance aspect publicly, but look for the P2 to gain some power there as well.
Commissioners of the Mountain West Conference, Sun Belt, Mid-American Conference, Conference USA and American Athletic Conference aren’t keen on the proposed revenue distribution, which sources said would limit the Group of 5 conferences from making any substantial increase in revenue in the next contract, which would begin in 2026. One source described it a “slight uptick; nominal.”
The question is if there is enough pushback to delay or derail the progress — or if those leagues are simply in a tough spot and have to acquiesce or risk being excluded from the CFP. Sources have leaned toward the latter.
..
The 10 FBS commissioners are using Tuesday and Wednesday to discuss the details with their athletic directors, presidents and chancellors and gather feedback. One source said that “in a perfect world” they could come to an agreement on the revenue and TV deal as early as Thursday. Regardless of when there is a resolution, multiple sources have said the details of a format in 2026 and beyond — from the number of teams to how they qualify — won’t be settled until after the TV deal is done.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-college-football-playoff-leaders-close-to-finalizing-agreement-for-future-203945069.html
Dellinger says it looks like the P2 will get their preferential revenue split but the model will be a 5+9 with no multiple autobids for anyone. I think this is what the P2 really wanted all along (guaranteed money), especially the SEC which is confident it can earn the most at-large bids. This actually helps them even more since the B10 isn’t promised 3 or 4 spots.
I think it’s a mistake to try to sign a TV deal with ESPN without settling on the format first, unless they are willing to let ESPN dictate the format. How can ESPN give their best bid if they don’t know what the product is? 5+9 is very different from 3/3/2/2/1/3. I’m guessing 5+9 has the most value since it doesn’t lock in any undeserving runners-up from the P4 conferences. I’m not convinced expanding to 14 adds much value, though. It would for the P4 in a 3/3/2/2/1/3 model since they would be guaranteed multiple spots each. But in a 5+9? They’re likely adding weeknight first round games (or else a week earlier) with the lowest teams. It’s early enough in December that I don’t think those games will be all that valuable, especially if it devalues the CCGs along the way.
Presidents in the ACC and Big 12 voted to authorize their commissioners to adopt the future framework related to a new CFP, including a new revenue model and concepts around a playoff format — all of which will be part of a new contract with ESPN. Those with knowledge of the discussions spoke to Yahoo Sports under condition of anonymity.
The two leagues were thought to be the most resistant to a deal. Their presidential vote is viewed as a significant hurdle crossed to reaching an agreement. The Big 12 and ACC votes were unanimous, sources told Yahoo Sports.
…
The expectation, pending the approval from each conference presidential board, is that all 10 conferences will commit to, most notably, a new revenue-distribution model, parameters around a playoff format and new governance structure. Notre Dame is supportive of the framework, multiple sources told Yahoo Sports.
…
In a proposal socialized with administrators over the last 10 days, the Big Ten and SEC would combine to earn about 58% of the CFP’s base distribution. The figure would greatly exceed the ACC and Big 12’s combined distribution number, which is expected to be around 32%. The remaining amount (roughly 10%) will be distributed to Notre Dame and the 64 Group of Five teams.
The difference in distribution between the two sets of conferences — SEC/Big Ten and ACC/Big 12 — could exceed $300 million. The Power Two stand to earn a combined figure that should eclipse $700 million, far more than the ACC and Big 12’s number of around $400 million. Roughly $115 million is slotted for the Group of Five.
No school’s revenue will decrease as the CFP is expected to earn three times the amount it did in the four-team version. Major conference schools currently receive about $6 million in distribution from the CFP. The SEC and Big Ten schools will see their annual distribution triple if not quadruple into the low $20 million range. The Big 12 and ACC are set to see a doubling of their previous amounts. Notre Dame is expected to receive its own annual distribution that is expected to increase significantly from its current distribution.
According to the latest proposal, there is not expected to be a participation-distribution concept as part of the new revenue model — a change that leaders made to the original proposal circulated last week. The current model calls for participating teams to earn revenue by qualifying and then advancing through the field.
The CFP base revenue distribution model is largely based on historic success in the playoff over the previous decade. Considering future realignment moves, the SEC and Big Ten account for 72.5% of CFP participants. The SEC leads all conferences with 17 appearances in the four-team field when factoring in Oklahoma and Texas. The Big Ten is next at 12 when factoring in its four new schools. The ACC (7 teams) and Big 12 (2) follow.
The contract is expected to include a definitive “look-in” provision in 2028, where revenue distribution and format can be re-evaluated. The look-in provision can be triggered earlier by any conference realignment.
A playoff format is further from being settled, but the contract is expected to include several guaranteed protections related to a format. The champions of the four major conferences and the highest-ranked Group of Five champion will earn an automatic qualifying spot into any playoff. Notre Dame is expected to have its own protections related to a format.
Other details of the formula are expected to be finalized after the leagues reach an agreement with ESPN on the television deal, which will run through the 2031 playoff, according to the network’s own reporting. For 2024 and 2025, the format is set as a 5+7 12-team model, which grants automatic qualifying spots to the five highest-ranked champions and seven at-large spots to the next highest ranked teams.
Just like their heavy revenue share, the SEC and Big Ten are expected to hold significant weight in determining a future format. A variety of 14-team formats continue to circulate across the industry.
One in particular — a 5+9 14-team model — is gaining traction. That format mirrors the current 5+7 12-team format but features an additional two at-large spots. Presumably, that model would grant automatic berths to the five highest-ranked conference champions.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39716602/ted-cruz-clock-running-congress-ncaa-legislation
Ted Cruz thinks there’s still a 50-50 chance of college sports legislation passing this year, but time is running out.
“The clock is running,” Cruz said after overseeing a panel on the topic that included former Alabama coach Nick Saban. “It’s not too late to get it done, but we’re getting close to it being too late to get it done. I still think there are elements there of getting bipartisan agreement. We just have not been able to get everyone to the table to sign off.”
Cruz said something will eventually get done to standardize how athletes can be compensated for their names, images and likenesses and to give the NCAA and conferences the ability to govern college sports without the constant threat of lawsuits and state laws undercutting their authority.
…
Cruz, citing the comments made by commissioners of conferences made up of historically Black colleges and universities and concerns about Division II and Division III programs shuttering, does not believe there’s as much interest in classifying college athletes as employees as there was six months ago.
“There are very few people advocating for student-athletes as employees now,” Cruz said. “I think that makes it easier when you have widespread agreement that that’s the wrong solution to have some clarity on that point.”
…
Cruz, who last summer introduced draft legislation to tackle the problems, prefers empowering the NCAA to oversee the landscape rather than the creation of a new governmental or quasi-governmental agency.
Cruz said he felt urgency to pass something sooner than later and found agreement on that point among colleagues, given the current state of confusion in college sports.
“Nobody really likes the direction we’re heading in right now,” Moran said. “I think we’re close. We’re really close, and we need to get it done.”
LikeLike
Standardizing how athletes can be compensated for their names, images and likenesses is a pipe dream. It probably won’t happen, and if it does then you have a hotshot QB filing an anti-trust lawsuit because he’s being compensated the same as the linebackers. It would end up just like free agency in baseball.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/03/13/college-football-head-coaches-power-five-assistants/72960199007/
Dan Wolken sees troubling signs in a new trend – G5 head coaches leaving for P4 assistant jobs. Is NIL driving coaches out of the lower ranks?
Saban’s retirement in January was an inevitability — if not this year, then sometime in the very near future. What flashes like a big red warning light happened further down the coaching food chain when four Bowl Subdivision head coaches walked away from their jobs voluntarily to become assistants at bigger schools. …
Taken individually, each circumstance can be rationalized through a series of unique personal and professional factors.
But on a macro level, this is an almost completely new trend in a business where FBS head coaching jobs — even at the smaller programs — were viewed either as the pinnacle of a career or a launching pad to the big-time. And what it says about college sports right now is far more nuanced and important than Saban pining for the good old days when players didn’t ask about money.
…
The point here is not to deny players the opportunity to make money or transfer to a program on a bigger stage if that’s their goal. That’s how the NCAA operated for decades, and when people began to mount legal challenges to those rules, the house caved in as if its roof was made of tissue paper.
But the current free-for-all has created a different reality for programs like New Mexico State and others in the so-called Group of Five conferences.
…
We’ll never know. But the pool of coaches who want to learn and grow at that level seems to be shrinking.
“The link between being able to be successful and people being able to tolerate the stress, the social media and the dynamics of alumni, donors and everything else you have to deal with, that has shrunk,” Troy athletics director Brent Jones said. “Then you remove transfer restrictions and add NIL on top of that, I think it has become untenable for some people to manage all those things.”
…
“That’s probably the most powerful indictment about the Group of Five right now. If you’re a coordinator at Alabama or Florida or LSU it’s probably a better gig for you to be able to get that next big-time job. It’s an interesting debate. I’m coming to grips with it.”
…
“I’m not here to tell somebody not to take another $150,000 a year, but people used to make decisions more based on their career than the payday,” he said. “But it could be, ‘Hey I’m going to the SEC and that’s the big leagues and you guys are in the minors.’ But I’d argue, hey, Jim Harbaugh came from San Diego. All these coaches came from somewhere.”
…
It’s natural to look at what happened this offseason, though, and wonder if the challenges are becoming too great to overcome — and, by extension, to wonder if the SEC and Big Ten’s ability to offer coaches better money and fewer headaches will eventually crush conferences like the MAC and Sun Belt that have always offered entertaining, high-quality football.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39724097/ncaa-tournament-expansion-future-80-teams-march-madness
Pete Thamel on the future of the NCAAT. He thinks it will expand to 72 or 76 teams.
According to ESPN sources, there are ongoing discussions about expanding the men’s NCAA basketball tournament from the current 68-team format to one featuring no more than 80 teams. There are also fears about what could happen to the all-comers tournament if the power leagues break away from the rest of college athletics, as football decisions continue to define the direction of major college sports.
…
Would expansion make it more unlikely that smaller-conference programs have the opportunity to pull off first-round upsets because they’ll be forced to win their way into the traditional 64-team bracket? Will the monetary pull of football’s expanding power conferences eventually threaten the enduring David vs. Goliath tension that has yielded St. Peter’s beating Kentucky, Fairleigh Dickinson toppling Purdue and UMBC besting Virginia in recent years?
…
There appears to be a recognition among leaders in the sport that a national tournament that features only blue bloods would struggle to resonate as deeply as one that features both small and big programs. NCAA senior vice president for basketball Dan Gavitt said, “There’s very good reason to believe the tournament should stay relatively similar to what we’ve been used to.”
Added Florida athletic director Scott Stricklin: “It’s too much of a public trust for us to blow the thing up. You can do a new model [for college sports] down the road while maintaining a national basketball tournament that’s inclusive.”
…
In a recent phone interview, Sankey acknowledged the tournament is one of the few things that bonds the disparate world of Division I together. “Nothing remains static,” he told ESPN. “I think we have to think about the dynamics around Division I and the tournament.”
He added that recent runs by UCLA from the First Four to the Final Four in 2021 and Syracuse’s run to the Round of 16 beginning with a play-in game in Dayton in 2018 show the caliber of power conference teams on the fringe of the NCAA tournament.
“That just tells you that the bandwidth inside the top 50 is highly competitive,” Sankey said. “We are giving away highly competitive opportunities for automatic qualifiers [from smaller leagues], and I think that pressure is going to rise as we have more competitive basketball leagues at the top end because of expansion.”
…
Ten years ago, there were five so-called power football leagues with an average of 12.6 teams. Next season, the SEC will have 16 teams, the Big Ten will have 18 teams, the Big 12 will have 16 teams and the ACC will have 18 teams. (The basketball-driven Big East has 11 programs.) Gavitt stresses that the NCAA and the men’s basketball tournament committee have spent a lot of time discussing a new model that will be reflective of the new league dynamics without changing the essence of the tournament.
“It’s important not to apply an old model to a new dynamic to keep something special and beloved,” he said. “In any business, you have to evolve and change. That’s what’s being contemplated. It’s not portending an outcome.”
In 1985, there were 282 Division I teams, according to the NCAA. Now there are 362.
…
AFTER CONVERSATIONS WITH sources in and around the sport and around the industry, it seems the tournament, if it expands, will include no more than 80 teams. But other, more modest expansions, like the 76-team bracket Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark floated this week at the Big 12 tournament are also on the table. Expansion by a multiple of four would be the most seamless from a bracket perspective, leaving a 72-team or 76-team tournament as the most likely models.
Multiple conference commissioners have stressed that they still place a premium on league tournaments, which are huge moneymakers for all the leagues and a primary revenue source for smaller conferences. If those tournaments stay in the same time frame, it would be difficult for the NCAA tournament to grow past 80 teams. League tournaments have buildings reserved for years, and so any radical calendar change likely wouldn’t be able to happen until the end of the current CBS/Turner deal in 2032.
…
The current NCAA tournament multimedia rights deal is considered by many around the television industry as one of the most imprudent financial decisions in the history of major televised sports. At the time, NCAA president Mark Emmert and executive vice president Mark Lewis chose long-term security over maximizing the value of the deal.
“The moment they did that deal, it was already under market,” an industry source said. “The NCAA probably knew, but they aren’t in the risk-taking business.”
…
As changes come to the tournament, there’s concern among the leagues that have NCAA units as a primary income source that their access to the NCAA tournament and thus monetary lifelines will be altered. Walker pointed to the conversations about the 14-team College Football Playoff and the expectation that the Big Ten and SEC will get multiple automatic qualifiers.
“It’s not too crazy to think that that kind of application might be future discussions that we expect to have about other big events,” he said. “And the next biggest event is the basketball tournament.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39732645/sources-all-fbs-conferences-expected-agree-next-cfp-contract
More progress on the CFP.
Financial details:
B10 & SEC: over $21M per member (currently $5.5M)
ACC & B12: over $13M per member (currently $5.5M)
ND: over $12M (currently $3.9M), with incentive for actually making it in
G5: just under $1.8M per member (currently $1.5M)
Other indys: probably similar to G5 money, also have incentive for making it in (not true for P4 or G5)
Multiple sources told ESPN on Thursday that each league and Notre Dame are expected to sign a legal agreement by midday Friday. Starting in 2026, the new agreement will codify the further financial separation of the expanded Big Ten and SEC from everyone else in college athletics. The Group of 5 commissioners have been in a difficult position without any negotiating power, but sources indicate they won’t choose being excluded from the CFP.
“It’s like the Godfather’s offer you can’t refuse,” one Group of 5 athletic director told ESPN on Thursday.
…
According to multiple sources, AAC commissioner Mike Aresco has been the most outspoken critic of the plan but hasn’t been able to garner enough support from other commissioners to fight it.
…
The vast disparity in revenue from top to bottom has already elicited discontent and pushback from schools outside of the Big Ten and SEC. To help alleviate some of those concerns, sources said a “look-in” clause for 2028 has been added to give the commissioners and Notre Dame leadership a chance to reevaluate the contractual agreements based on how every league has performed to that point. There’s also a clause that permits that timeline to be accelerated if there is “material realignment” again.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-college-football-playoff-agrees-to-new-contract-with-espn-161830007.html
The CFP has settled on a financial deal amongst themselves and with ESPN. Next they will bother with little details like the format starting in 2026.
Executives from the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame agreed Friday to a new contract with ESPN that will begin in 2026, coming to terms on a new revenue-distribution model and protections related to a future playoff format.
…
A playoff format is not expected to be finalized until a later date, though protections and guarantees related to a 12- or 14-team format are part of the agreement. The champions of the four major conferences and the highest ranked Group of Five champion will earn an automatic qualifying spot into any playoff.
Notre Dame is expected to have its own protections related to a format. The Irish can earn a guaranteed at-large spot based on their CFP ranking. That guarantee is contingent, however, on the number of automatic qualifiers in a finalized format.
…
The Big Ten and SEC will combine to earn about 58% of the CFP’s base distribution (29% each). The figure would greatly exceed the ACC and Big 12’s combined distribution number, which is expected to be around 32%. The ACC will get 17.1% while the Big 12 receives 14.7%. The remaining amount (roughly 10%) will be distributed to Notre Dame and the 64 Group of Five teams.
For those wondering, these splits are based on theoretical performance of the conferences during the CFP era based on the 2024 alignment (assuming 12 or 14 teams in CFP). Note that it isn’t an equal amount per school in either group:
SEC: 1.81% per school (~ $23.5M)
B10: 1.61% (~ $20.9M)
ACC: 1.00% (~ $13.0M)
B12: 0.92% (~ $12.0M)
That’s probably roughly fair, and there will be a look-in in 2028 so they can adjust the percentages if future performance differs greatly or there is major realignment.
Notre Dame, one of the sport’s historical powers that retains its seat in the CFP governance structure, will see its distribution double to $12.5 million annually — with a caveat that includes a financial bonus. The four independents are eligible for a performance-distribution payout. If Notre Dame or other independents qualify for the playoff, they each receive a flat fee of $6 million.
Aside from the provision around independents, the performance-distribution structure, in the past eligible to all teams, has been eliminated in this contract.
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/ChrisVannini/status/1768684178130837722
A key point about the potential expansion to 14 teams in 2026 – ESPN will not pay more for it. They are paying $1.3B per year for 6 years regardless of the number of teams.
Since the P2 got their financial advantage locked in, is there a point to adding 2 more at-larges? It made sense when they were proposing 3 or 4 autobids each, but a 5+7 with the new financial model seems fine. Is anyone really concerned that true contenders are being left out in a 5+7?
LikeLike
Since the P2 got their financial advantage locked in, is there a point to adding 2 more at-larges? It made sense when they were proposing 3 or 4 autobids each, but a 5+7 with the new financial model seems fine. Is anyone really concerned that true contenders are being left out in a 5+7?
Nobody thinks the 12th seed is a likely contender, so the 14th won’t be either. But that is not the only reason that tournaments expand.
Villanova in 1985 is the lowest seed ever to win the NCAA men’s basketball tournament — and they were an 8th seed. Yet, they keep expanding it, even though any team seeded worse than 8 is practically a guaranteed loser. The only question is in which round they’ll lose.
But making the tournament (or not) is the definition of a successful season for most programs, regardless of how deep a run they make. It’ll work that way with football too. Expansion gives more people the right to say, “We are a playoff team.”
It would also give two more teams a chance to host a lucrative extra home game.
This is not an argument to expand. Personally, I’d like to see how 12 works for a while before deciding if expansion is warranted. But I can see the arguments for it.
LikeLike
Yes, but ESPN has already said they won’t pay more for it. That’s the real reason tournaments keep expanding. If TV won’t pay more, then expanding hurts everyone (still have to pay travel and the participation fees, so there’s less left to share) except the 2 schools who get in (and their conferences basically break even).
They originally said 14 to allow for multiple autobids for the P2 while leaving enough at-larges to keep ND appeased (4 each for the P2 required 14 total). I’m just not seeing the value now.
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1768650175692550483
I thought this was interesting. It’s the first time I’ve seen leaked TV ratings for the SECN and ACCN. Surprisingly, BTN seems to have pulled higher ratings in 2022-2023.
LikeLike
Surprisingly, BTN seems to have pulled higher ratings in 2022-2023.
My guess is this is due to higher amount of conference games (9 per team vs 8) that the Big Ten has compared to the SEC. Some good games (Ohio St/Minnesota and Nebraska/Iowa are the two largest on there) end up on the BTN.
LikeLike
The SECN still airs 45 games, with the worst games going on ESPN+. You can see the 2023 list at https://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList/SEC/2023
Most are crappy, but it included games like Florida at LSU and Clemson at South Carolina. Considering that it just means more down south, I thought their numbers might be better than they were.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/39760736/sports-illustrated-continue-operations-new-publisher
Sports Illustrated lives for another year.
Sports Illustrated will continue operations after the company that owns the brand agreed with a new publisher for its print and digital products.
Minute Media took over on Monday after reaching a licensing agreement with Authentic Brands Group. …
Authentic will acquire an equity stake in Minute Media, which also publishes the online sites The Players’ Tribune, FanSided and 90min. Other terms, including the length of the deal, were not announced.
LikeLike
Throes of a dying animal.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39765481/clemson-files-lawsuit-acc-exorbitant-exit-fees
Clemson is suing the ACC over their exit fees and the GOR. This is going to get ugly if the ACC doesn’t settle fairly soon. I think the ACC would lose on the exit fees, as they went from 2x to 3x the annual payout (about a decade ago) while that payout also went up rapidly.
In a filing in the court of common pleas in Pickens County, South Carolina, Clemson calls into question both the ACC’s grant of rights and exit fees, calling the withdrawal penalty “unconscionable” and “unenforceable.”
It also calls the ACC’s view that the league’s grant of media rights would allow the league to own Clemson’s media rights after it left the league a “nonsensical reading,” “wrong” and “inconsistent with the plain language of that agreement.”
Clemson asks in the suit for a declaration that the ACC would not own the rights to Clemson’s games “after Clemson ceases to be a member of the ACC.” Clemson also wants the ACC exit fee – three times the ACC operating budget, an estimated $130 million – ruled as “an unenforceable penalty in violation of public policy.” (The total cost of the exit with the rights and the fee was cast as $572 million in Florida State’s lawsuit.)
LikeLike
IMO Clemson doesn’t do this unless they received some assurance from from a P2 league they’ll be accepted. I wasn’t sure Clemson would make the cut (I would take FSU, Miami, and UNC before Clemson).
LikeLike
I think both Fox and ESPN would pay for Clemson, and the SEC would definitely admit them. The B10? I tend to think not unless they come with other southern schools. Clemson is on the Auburn level of southern schools with strong engineering programs but not AAU (a bit below NCSU and VT, but similar). But packaged with FSU or UNC? Probably, due to their brand.
LikeLike
IMO Clemson doesn’t do this unless they received some assurance from from a P2 league they’ll be accepted.
I’m not so sure of that. I don’t think either P2 league would assure Clemson that they’re guaranteed a spot at an unspecified future date, not even knowing which other schools would be on the market at that time. The most they could give is a general indication weighed down with caveats.
And what is such an assurance even worth? This lawsuit could go on for years, and by that time it could be different people making the decision.
I wasn’t sure Clemson would make the cut (I would take FSU, Miami, and UNC before Clemson).
That’s exactly the problem. The P2 are going to grow in pairs of schools. If the ACC falls apart, there could be two additions better than Clemson available. No conference wants to promise they’d take Clemson when they could potentially have FSU + UNC instead.
I think Notre Dame is the only school that the Big Ten would accept by itself, without a partner. Not that they wouldn’t try to get a partner, but the lack of one would not derail the deal if the Irish were willing.
LikeLike
What if ND insists on bringing Cal and Stanford with them? Isn’t that the implication of ND pushing them into the ACC, over the objections of some ACC members?
LikeLike
Bob,
ND is not joining the B10. I realize neither you nor Marc are saying they will, I just want to be clear.
Marc is saying that they are the only school the B10 would accept without a partner (debatable – I think they’d FSU and UNC without partners, too). But let’s assume the hypothetical to address your point:
Why would ND do that? The ACC needed the extra schools to avoid potential issues if FSU and Clemson left (15 school minimum to keep the ESPN deal), and ND isn’t hurt by the lower value of the ACC TV deal so expansion helped them keep the ACC healthy for their non-FB teams. If ND joined the B10, they would have full schedules in all sports including access to both coasts. ND could schedule Stanford OOC if they wished.
Also, ND has no history playing Cal and limited history with Stanford. They would get regular trips to CA by playing USC and UCLA anyway.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39773257/acc-countersues-clemson-grant-rights-withdrawal-penalty-seeks-monetary-damages
And the ACC countersues Clemson, seeking damages. I fail to see any damages since Clemson hasn’t even asked to leave, let alone actually left. How does that constitute breaking the GOR?
The ACC countersued Clemson on Wednesday in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, arguing that the school is subject to the grant of rights and withdrawal penalty it agreed to as a league member, while also seeking monetary damages.
…
In its suit against Clemson, the ACC used similar language to the suit it filed against Florida State. The ACC argued that Clemson, like Florida State, signed the grant of rights two separate times, in 2013 and 2016, and also voted in 2012 to increase the withdrawal penalty to “an amount equal to three times the total operating budget of the Conference.”
Clemson called into question the league view that it controls its rights even once it leaves the conference, calling it a “nonsensical reading,” “wrong” and “inconsistent with the plain language of that agreement.”
The ACC is asking a judge to declare the plain language of the grant of rights “means what it says” and is “exclusive and irrevocable” through the term.
After the dueling ACC/Florida State lawsuits were filed in December, the ACC said in its suit that Clemson indicated a “desire to work with the conference” regarding its own membership and “requested confidentiality and protections that the ACC would not file a lawsuit against it.”
The ACC said it agreed to seek a solution without resorting to litigation. While it was working to document those assurances, the league claims Clemson filed its lawsuit in Pickens County, South Carolina.
In addition to seeking declaratory judgment on the grant of rights and withdrawal penalty, the ACC is seeking damages from Clemson for its breach of the grant of rights, and its breach of its “duty of good faith and fair dealing.”
LikeLike
Twitter user MHVer3 says that UNC and UVA are also going to sue the ACC.
I’m not sure I buy it. MHVer has a long history of massively failed predictions.
But still, it’s a provocative question whether any other schools are going to jump on. I think Miami and UNC are the only other schools highly likely to get P2 invites. I am not so sure about UVA, so it’s a risky business for them to try to invalidate the GoR.
LikeLike
UNC’s BoT spoke out (see comment below) about this, so they may be close to suing. But in NC the board of governors actually controls the whole system (including NCSU) and they’d have to approve UNC changing conferences. The BoG has made statements that show they’d prefer NCSU also makes the P2 and might prevent UNC from leaving alone, but we’ve heard similar things before and nothing was stopped.
FSU, Clemson and UNC were the 3 schools who voted against the recent ACC expansion, and perhaps the 3 most valuable, so I could understand UNC suing. UVA supported the ACC suing FSU, so I doubt they’d sue the ACC. They also have a VT problem, as VT seems unlikely to have a P2 invite.
I tend to think the other schools will sit back and wait to see what happens with FSU and Clemson, then decide if they also want to leave. Once the first settlements are made, it’s easier for others to make a decision.
LikeLike
I tend to think the other schools will sit back and wait to see what happens with FSU and Clemson, then decide if they also want to leave. Once the first settlements are made, it’s easier for others to make a decision.
If FSU and Clemson win, then others who want to leave get the same benefit “for free,” because obviously the rationale would apply to everybody.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39766079/college-football-playoff-espn-agree-deal-2031-32
The CFP deal with ESPN is official – 6 more years, $1.3B per year (regardless if it’s 12 or 14 teams).
One piece of good news – the NCG will return to ABC:
Beginning in 2026-27, the CFP National Championship game will be broadcast on ABC in addition to ESPN’s MegaCast presentation. The new agreement includes expansive rights to simulcast or MegaCast CFP games across all Walt Disney Company platforms, including TWDC direct-to-consumer offerings.
Dawson said he doesn’t expect much to change in how the public watches these games and that ABC and ESPN will be the “primary vehicles moving forward with the deal.”
“There is a right and flexibility to do early-round games on direct-to-consumer streaming services, but as of now, no decision has been made on our side to even activate that right,” Dawson said. “A lot of this is future-proofing where the world goes over essentially eight years, and we feel really good about the flexibility we have, but in the near term, I don’t think fans would expect to see much difference in terms of how the games are distributed broadly across traditional linear television.”
…
Dawson said the new TV deal specifically addresses 12- and 14-team models, but also includes “a mechanism to address if they expand beyond 14 teams.”
“I do think at some point you start to really impact the regular season and the conference championship games,” Dawson said. “I feel like they’ve done a great job so far of designing the 12-team model, and potentially even the 14-team model, although we’d still need to understand exactly what it looks like. … I do worry that the larger you get beyond that, I think it becomes almost impossible to avoid some damage being done there.”
The CFP has granted ESPN the right to sublicense a select number of games in both the amended two-year agreement and the new six-year extension.
“As we sit here today, no decision has been made on our side whether we’ll even pursue it or not,” Dawson said. “It’s simply a right in the deal as of right now.”
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status/1770272917894344722
The Pac-2 go themselves a better CFP deal, getting $3.6M each for 2026-28. That should help wean them off the big money as they have full shares for the next 2 years, then these reduced ones, then they’d drop to independent levels (if they don’t reform the P12 into a G5 conference).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39772400/sec-sets-conference-opponents-2025-football-season
The SEC is still afraid to play 9 conference games, so they released their opponents for 2025. Maybe once they get 5 teams into the CFP they’ll be willing to take a risk.
The SEC will continue to play eight conference games in 2025, plus one required opponent from the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 or major independent, the league announced Wednesday.
…
“We continue to monitor changes across college sports as they relate to future scheduling,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said in a prepared statement. “Continuing with our current format for the 2025 season provides additional time to understand the impact of the changes happening around us as we determine the appropriate long-term plan for SEC football scheduling.”
LikeLike
The SEC is still afraid to play 9 conference games
I thought it was because ESPN wasn’t going to pay them for the ninth game.
LikeLike
That’s their spin, but I don’t buy it. Why should ESPN pay more?
A 9th SEC game doesn’t create more inventory. It actually reduces it, with 8 SEC games replacing 16 OOC games. Those are most likely to be P4 OOC games they drop (the SEC currently requires 8 + 1 P5 OOC), too.
Do you add enough UT vs UGA caliber games to make up for:
1. 8 lost games,
2. 16 lost P5 OOC games (LSU vs FSU, etc.), and
3. The additional VU vs MsSU games that also get added?
I don’t think ESPN sees any increased value there, especially since they also own ACC and B12 rights so they’ll lose OOC games against the SEC from that side as well.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39770525/sources-troy-dannen-replace-trev-alberts-nebraska-ad
NE steal’s UW’s AD. He is from Iowa and was the AD at Northern IA before so he has midwest ties. He also has a strong football background. It’s a little odd to see a sitting AD change schools within the same conference, but the IA ties and UW’s half-share for a few years probably both factor in. NE’s a bit higher on the brand hierarchy list, but not that much (esp. after being down in FB for so long).
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/college/north-carolina/article/unc-board-of-trustees-chair-clemson-lawsuit-acc-florida-state-tar-heels-realignment-229014980/
UNC’s BoT chair calls for transparency from the ACC. Remember, the NC Board of Governors for the full NC system (UNC + NCSU + ECU + …) actually has final say on things like leaving a conference, not UNC’s BoT. Is UNC next to leave?
… However, the crux of the [Clemson] lawsuit seems to revolve around the matter of disclosure and clarity. The ACC has operated in a clandestine manner with regard to its grant of rights and ESPN agreements that have become central to league discussions pertaining to conference realignment. It’s difficult to understand the intricate details involved because member institutions are limited in what information they can access and share publicly.
The lawsuit states that “the ACC has cast a harmful cloud of doubt on Clemson’s ability to engage in meaningful discussions with other conferences and media providers regarding potential future collaborations and/or to negotiate alternative revenue sharing proposals among ACC members. For Clemson to move ahead and ensure that it may continue to act in furtherance of its institutional mission, that cloud must be lifted.”
…
UNC joined Florida State and Clemson in voting against conference expansion in September. They were outvoted, 12-3, in a decision that extended invites to Stanford, California and SMU to join the league beginning in 2024-25. Opponents have raised concerns about the expansion diluting the voting power of prominent league members willing to challenge the status quo.
“I think that what Clemson is doing is 100 percent proof positive that a significant portion of the membership of the conference is unhappy,” UNC Board of Trustees chair John Preyer told Inside Carolina on Wednesday. “I don’t see how it is in anyone’s interest for the ACC leadership to try and browbeat its member schools from getting access to information and being transparent. And that’s kind of the case Clemson is making.
“I think this shows that what is supposed to be a member-based organization is not being led in a way that represents the best interests of all the members, but instead, it’s really representing the bottom tier of the membership at the expense of the top tier, which is why Clemson and Florida State are doing what they’re doing. I think that’s just obvious.”
…
With two prominent ACC schools electing to sue the ACC pertaining to the grant of rights over the past three months, speculation has turned to UNC’s next steps and if Clemson’s filing on Tuesday has expedited the university’s actions in pursuing all potential options.
“I think it’s too soon to tell,” Preyer said, “but it certainly creates added pressure on the conference to address the concerns of its member schools.”
…
UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham was more cautious in his interview with Inside Carolina last month, highlighting UNC’s obligation in being a great partner in supporting the ACC while the school takes a measured approach amid the current unknowns that exist within the NCAA framework and conference realignment nationally.
There was a clear difference in opinion in the interviews in how to guide UNC through this pivotal moment in collegiate athletics, which suggests a point of contention between the university’s Board of Trustees and its athletic director.
“It is a potential conflict,” Preyer said, “and it’s something that is disturbing based on some of the comments he’s made recently which seem to support the ACC at the expense of Carolina – that’s a bad look. I think we all recognize that change is hard, but sometimes change is exactly what is needed. We all have to fight the comfort of complacency. And I think that now is the time to be very open to pursuing all options, including those beyond remaining in the Atlantic Coast Conference.”
LikeLike
It’s difficult to understand the intricate details involved because member institutions are limited in what information they can access and share publicly.
However, one must remember that the ACC can withhold certain information, only because its members gave it that authority. Up to now, this was considered a competitive advantage, because any trade secrets shared with the state-run schools would be open to FOIA discovery or unintentional disclosure.
That, I think, will be one of the ACC’s arguments: the schools agreed to this arrangement.
UNC joined Florida State and Clemson in voting against conference expansion in September.
Could you imagine the Big Ten making an expansion, or any other significant decision, in which Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State all voted no? The bylaws might mathematically permit that, but it’s not a great idea to alienate your three most powerful members.
LikeLike
Marc,
I’m not so sure. The schools might say we agreed to only have copies at the HQ to avoid sunshine laws, but they didn’t expect the ACC to actively make it hard for them to go look at the documents. It sounds like that’s the issue Clemson and Preyer are discussing.
There was a bit of a fight over restarting football post-COVID, where OSU, NE and IA had to push to get it done but in general you are correct. You only bite the hand that feeds you so many times.
LikeLike
The B10’s favorite NCAA tournament is this weekend. The wrestling championships started yesterday and end Saturday night, with ESPN showing multiple rounds (last night, semis tonight, championships Saturday night). For those who don’t know, college wrestling moved to 3 pts for a takedown this year which has significantly increased the scoring and offensive aggression. Now if only they’d do something about stalling …
PSU is a huge favorite to win it all again (going for 3rd straight title and 11 out of the last 13), and they may tie or break many records along the way (most All-Americans, most champs, most team points scored).
Teams scores after Day 1:
1. PSU – 34.5 (8 in QF, 2 still in losers bracket)
2. IA, ISU – 24.5 (4/5 and 5/4 respectively)
4. UM, NCSU – 22 (5/4 for both)
6. NE – 21 (7/1)
7. OSU – 20.5 (3/5)
8. Cornell – 18.5 (3/5)
9. VT – 17.5 (4/5)
10, MO, OkSU – 14 (3/2 and 3/4 respectively)
Wrestling is a double-elimination sport (hence the losers bracket), but with one loss the highest you can finish is 3rd. 33 wrestlers make it at each of the 10 weight classes, and the top 8 at the end are All-Americans. The B10 had 5 of the top 9 teams including #1-3. The B10 provided 96 of the 330 wrestlers including 6 of the 10 #1 seeds.
LikeLike
The dominance is clear already, and the semifinals haven’t even started yet.
1. PSU – 86.5, 6 in semis/4 still in consolations
2. MI – 50.5, 4/1
3. ASU – 44.5, 4/0
4. ISU – 42, 2/4
5. IA – 41.5, 2/4
6. OSU – 36, 2/2
7. VT – 35.5, 2/4
8. NCSU – 33.5, 1/5
9. MO, OkSU – 33, 2/3, 2/2 respectively
Only 15 teams are still mathematically alive for the title, and PSU might lock up the title tonight.
LikeLike
Not only has PSU already locked up the title, they have 6 finalists (current record is 5 national champs). Now they are chasing history – 170 team points, 5+ champs, 2 4x champs.
1. PSU – 148, 6 finalists
2. MI – 64.5, 2
3. IA – 60, 1
4. ASU, ISU – 59.5, 2/1
6. Cornell – 58.5, 1
7. OSU – 57, 2
8. OkSU – 55, 2
9. VT – 53, 1
10. NE – 52, 0
Finals matches by weight class:
125 – IA vs ASU
133 – OkSU* vs Cornell
141 – OSU* vs PSU
149 – VT vs MI
157 – PSU* vs ASU
165 – PSU vs ISU
174 – OSU vs PSU
184 – UNI* vs OkSU
197 – PSU* vs NCSU
285 – PSU* vs MI
* – #1 seed (6 of 10 made it)
11 of 20 finalists are from the B10. At least 3 champs must be B10, and as many as 8 could be.
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2024/3/23/penn-state-wins-third-straight-ncaa-wrestling-championship.aspx
PSU won the title with a record team score of 172.5 (was 170 for 1997 Iowa). Of course, the NCAA did change the scoring rules for points in matches this year which made it easier to earn bonus points for your team.
PSU also won by a record margin of 100 points (was 73.75 for 1986 Iowa). There were a lot of teams in a close race for 2nd which increased the gap by spreading points around more than usual.
The B10 ended up winning 5 of the 10 individual titles (PSU 4, OSU 1). Two of PSU’s wrestlers won their 4th NCAA titles (only 7 people have ever done that).
30 B10 wrestlers made All-American (out of 80 total – top 8 in each weight class):
PSU 8, NE 5, IA 4, MI 4, OSU 3, MN 2, RU 2, IL 1, WI 1
Team scores:
1. Penn State 172.5
2. Cornell 72.5
3. Michigan 71.0
4. Iowa State 68.5
5. Iowa 67.0
6. Arizona State 64.5
7. Virginia Tech 64.0
8. Ohio State 62.0
9. Nebraska 60.5
10. Oklahoma State 56.0
18. Wisconsin
20. Rutgers
22. Minnesota
26. Indiana
36. Maryland
38. Illinois
44. Michigan State
50t. Northwestern
50t. Purdue
If OSU is healthy next year, we may challenge PSU for the title (along with a few other teams).
LikeLike
https://www.yahoo.com/news/um-disinclined-clemson-fsu-waging-141736577.html
Miami’s AD says they are happy in the ACC and don’t plan to sue and leave.
I will note that not having an invitation is different from not having an implied invitation. The B10 and SEC can’t make official offers to ACC members without getting sued for tortious interference.
In the wake of Clemson joining FSU in a legal battle against the Atlantic Coast Conference, the University of Miami is evaluating the situation but hasn’t prepared any lawsuit and has no plans, at the moment, to take the conference to court, a source told The Miami Herald on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, UM athletic director Dan Radakovich reiterated Miami’s intentions to support the ACC in an appearance with WQAM’s Joe Rose on Thursday.
“Here at the University of Miami we are incredibly solid with the ACC,” Radakovich said. “It’s a great conference, provides great structure, access to the College Football Playoff, which is very, very important. We look at our circumstances here with a very orange and green set of glasses saying, ‘Are we in a good spot, growing our football program?’
“We’ve invested in it, brought Mario Cristobal here; he’s establishing an incredible foundation…. The ACC is still one of the Power Four conferences that are part of the College Football Playoff, a very active and vibrant member of that Power Four. We are very proud to be a part of that — a leading brand within the ACC and will continue to be a part of it.”
…
“I really didn’t see [the Clemson lawsuit] coming at this point in time,” Radakovich said. “Almost every school in the ACC has gone to the home office and looked at the documents and just made sure they understood all the different things associated with the grant of rights, television contracts. I was a little surprised that Clemson did that at this point in time.
“But each of these circumstances are very, very local. Whether you have constituencies on campus making a little more noise that we don’t want to be in a circumstance where we are [at a] disadvantage. I guess Clemson looked at that, said this is an important time to lessen exit fees or [attempt to eliminate] the grant of rights. Same thing with Florida State.”
…
A UM source said the school is evaluating the situation and could respond differently if FSU and Clemson are somehow able to bolt the conference.
At the moment, UM does not have an invitation to join the Southeastern Conference or Big 10, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. The source said UM would listen if either conference called, but its hands are tied at this point.
LikeLike
I will note that not having an invitation is different from not having an implied invitation. The B10 and SEC can’t make official offers to ACC members without getting sued for tortious interference.
The whole “we don’t have an invitation but would listen to offers” comment is pure sophistry. Nobody applies to a conference out of the blue. Background conversations happen all the time. I am sure senior Miami leaders have spoken to senior B10 and/or SEC leaders, even if it was over drinks at a party.
By the time a school “applies,” it’s the end of a long path, and they’ve already been told that approval is a foregone conclusion. You could say that those earlier conversations are not “official,” but did any school ever apply officially and get turned down?
LikeLike
Bob Thompson radio interview where he discusses the CFP TV deal and other media topics.
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/news/2024/3/24/mens-ice-hockey-four-big-ten-teams-headed-to-ncaa-hockey-tournament.aspx
In other winter sport news, 4 B10 teams made the men’s hockey tournament. MSU is a 1 seed, MN and WI are 2 seeds, and MI is a 3 seed.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-women/article/2024-03-24/ohio-state-wins-2024-ncaa-nc-womens-ice-hockey-championship
Also, OSU beat WI to win the women’s hockey national title. OSU and WI have combined to win the title 5 straight times (WI – 2019, 2021, 2023; OSU – 2022, 2024) and this was 2 straight years of them playing each other (WI won 1-0 last year, OSU won 1-0 this year). The women’s hockey tournament has been played since 2001, and B10 schools have dominated it:
OSU (2) – 2024, 2022
WI (7) – 2023, 2021, 2019, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2006
MN (6) – 2016, 2015, 2013, 2012, 2005, 2004
Clarkson (3) – 2018, 2017, 2014
MN Duluth (5) – 2010, 2008, 2003, 2002, 2001
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/and-then-what-plans-for-florida-state-clemson-remain-unclear-if-rivals-successfully-exit-acc/
Dennis Doss is down on FSU and Clemson moving.
Florida State exploring a potential ACC exit was a curious move. After all, should the school even find a way to skirt around the conference’s grant of rights agreement, there’s not a clear path to wrangle itself into a higher payday in the SEC or Big Ten.
Insiders do not believe adding Florida State to one of those conferences makes much sense, financially, despite the program’s strong brand. The Seminoles, by themselves, are not worth messing with the $60 million being handed out in revenue to SEC schools nor the $75 million getting paid out to Big Ten institutions.
Yeah, I don’t buy that. Those “insiders” have an agenda. I think both conferences would take FSU.
That discussion has not only changed, but Clemson joining its conference rival in filing a lawsuit against the ACC this week — challenging the grant of rights — has given new life to another potential round of realignment.
Florida State and Clemson are a dynamic duo that could potentially trigger another shake-up across the college sports landscape. If the ‘Noles and Tigers are deemed unworthy of Big Ten or SEC membership, perhaps even the Big 12 shows interest.
I don’t think they need to go to the same conference. FSU has value in the B10 even with Clemson in the SEC. What seems unlikely to me is Clemson to the B10 without FSU.
Also, they aren’t paying 9 figure exit fees to join the B12 and make a few dollars more per year. They have to join a P2 for this to make any sense….
…
How far does this go without a clear direction for the insurgents? Sources told CBS Sports there is way too much credit being given to boosters, presidents and regents/trustees who are fueling this movement. The assumption, however, is that they know what they’re doing.
Perhaps they don’t, though. It’s one thing to get out of the ACC; it’s another to find a new home in a timely manner that makes financial sense in the long term.
Perhaps too much credit is being given to these “sources.”
…
“If you have five or six other schools file a similar lawsuit, it’s kind of like a pack of hyenas going after a lion,” an ACC source told CBS Sports.
…
It’s become clear that rights holders value matchups and rivalries. Try to name a traditional football rivalry game that the SEC and Big Ten don’t have at this point. Florida State-Clemson is one of the few answers. Miami-Florida State might be another. Other than those two, few aren’t residing under their umbrellas.
That’s why Florida State and Clemson together means so much. Not counting playoff or bowl games, rivalries accounted for 10 of the 11 highest-rated matchups last season. The only one not owned by the SEC or Big Ten — as the leagues will look after realignment in July 2024 — was Colorado-Colorado State. That, however, was pumped up by the Deion Sanders phenomenon.
But is FSU/Clemson really a major rivalry (like OSU/UM or OU/UT), or is it a big game because they are both big brands (like OSU/PSU or ND/AL)? I don’t think most fans nationally consider it a rivalry in the truest sense. UF/FSU, Miami/FSU, and SC/Clemson are rivalries.
If FSU and Clemson join the Big Ten or SEC together, would that be enough to move the dial? Sources told CBS Sports that it’s doubtful — at least in the near term.
I call BS on that. He doesn’t think Fox would pay for that pair to the B10? Disney might be reluctant to pay since they have them for much less in the ACC, but I do think they’d prefer to keep the B10 out of the southeast.
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1772307534402953566
Jon Wilner has the details of the Pac-2 vs departing 10 settlement. The 10 will each have $5M withheld this year, plus write a $1.5M check to the Pac-2. It is not clear to me why they aren’t just withholding $6.5M instead, but I’m sure there’s some legal reason.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/exiting-notre-dame-ad-addresses-expansion-realignment-and-college-sports-immensely-uncertain-future/
Dennis Dodd interviewed Jack Swarbrick about the future of CFB.
You’ve mentioned a need for “academic integrity” in whatever major college sports becomes. Is that possible?
Swarbrick: “Is this activity going to continue to be integrated into the university, or is it going to be something separate? Increasingly, forces are pulling it away. Instead of it letting happen on a de facto basis, we ought to be asking the question and answering it.”
We had this conversation in 2015 when you had a vision of two college athletic associations — one that adheres to the traditional collegiate model and one that is more semiprofessional. Do you still believe that would work?
Swarbrick: “I wouldn’t rule it out. I never cease to be amazed at how much money drives decision making. At some point, you’ve got to think some number of universities are going to say, ‘We have to go back to a model that recognizes the athletes’ rights but is integrated into the university.'”
To that point, what went through your mind when the SEC and Big Ten combined got 58% of the CFP revenue beginning in 2026?
Swarbrick: “I wanted Pete to be on point for that. He represented us. If we’re going to expand the playoff, we always knew there had to be a way of recognizing the lost value of the bowl games to those conferences, right?
“A differential was inevitable. … In addition it was designed to represent performance during the last decade. I thought that one might have been a little more school based. I think you’ll see the conference distribution of CFP money in particular reflect that.”
Since you’re a neutral observer now, what do you favor, 12 playoff teams or 14 beginning in 2026?
Swarbrick: “I don’t think it makes a lot of difference. More opportunities for people is generally good, so I’m fine with 14. I think 12 creates more value in terms of extra [first-round] byes. I could go either way.”
…
You were one of the original architects of the expanded playoff, starting the original work in 2019. When you began with Bob Bowlsby, Craig Thompson and Greg Sankey, could you have imagined where it would be five years later? I’m talking specifically about the fits and starts and delays.
Swarbrick: “I never could have imagined the challenges surrounding adoption [of expansion]. Frankly, we lost a lot because of that. I just think if we’d gotten this resolved more quickly and implemented sooner, I think a number of things might be different. I’m not sure realignment would look the same. Hindsight is 20-20.”
That begs the question With all this realignment, where does it stop — particularly with Florida State and Clemson wanting out of the ACC?
Swarbrick: “My crystal ball is cloudier than it’s ever been. That’s saying something. I don’t see a lot of momentum towards further realignment right now. There are some schools that, if they made a move, might change that. But frankly, we’re probably first among that, but we’re not likely to.
“I don’t see the catalyst right now. The Big Ten and SEC have the assets they need to position themselves for their next media negotiation. I understand the ACC has disgruntled members, but I’m not sure there are better options for them. The ACC’s legal position is a very strong one.”
…
So what’s the next pressure point? The ‘House v. NCAA’ trial is less than a year away.
Swarbrick: “That’s right. There’s got to be a future model that everyone can live with. While settlement discussion are of course about money for past activities, they’re also focused on what the future model looks like. I’ve spent a lot of time on Capitol Hill discussing that. … We don’t need any more catalysts to encourage us to get that model defined.”
Where is that effort on The Hill? NCAA president Charlie Baker and scores of commissioners and ADs are lobbying for some kind of help from Congress.
Swarbrick: “I don’t think anybody has high expectations in a presidential election year, but I must say, there is a clear understanding and sense of urgency. We may not get to legislation until the beginning of next year.
…
The NFL has reacted negatively to playoff games being played on Saturday (Dec. 20, 2024). Your reaction to that?
Swarbrick: “You have to [get past that]. We can’t in the near term. We are not doing a service to the student-athlete or the schools, and we’re not maximizing value at the end of the day if we can’t eventually find a different calendar. Whether that means moving the start of the season back to Week 0 or doing something else, we just have to find a way because that is going to be one cluttered weekend.”
Does moving the start of the playoff up to the second week of December rectify that?
Swarbrick: “Without question. We want to be conscious with the Army-Navy tradition, of course, but if the whole season moved up a week that’s exactly what would happen during [a Saturday in] which the NFL can’t play games.”
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-oregon-state-and-washington-76e
OrSU and WSU are getting a TV deal with the CW. The Pac-12 network will need to produce the games and the CW likely won’t pay them much, but maybe there are incentives (share of the profits above a certain level, etc.). Good for them at least getting some sort of deal.
Oregon State and Washington State are putting the final touches on a television deal involving the broadcast of their 2024 home football games.
The Beavers have seven home games next season and the Cougars have six. The two Pac-12 Conference schools bundled them together in a 13-game offering.
The CW Network is believed to be the primary broadcast partner. The network was in extended talks with the Pac-12 as recently as a week ago, per sources.
Officials at Oregon State and Washington State did not return messages seeking comment. However, several insiders told me the two schools were focused on partnering with a linear provider.
“The goal was a broader reach with exposure than what we previously had on the Pac-12 Networks,” one source told me.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39815184/sources-washington-hire-ad-pat-chun-washington-st
The AD silly season has been interesting for the B10/P5. A lot of lateral moves.
Context:
OSU: Gene Smith announces upcoming retirement (8/9/2023)
USC: Mike Bohn “retires,” hires Jen Cohen from UW (8/21/2023)
UW: hires Troy Dannen from Tulane (10/7/2023)
Cohen hired DeBoer as FB coach at UW, then Dannen hired Jedd Fisch to replace him after DeBoer went to Alabama. So Pat Chun will have no ties to the brand new head coach – that could lead to problems, especially if UW struggles.
Recent changes:
OSU: hires Ross Bjork from TAMU (1/17)
TAMU: hires Trev Alberts from NE (3/14)
NE: hires Troy Dannen from UW (3/20)
UW: hires Pat Chun from WSU (3/26)
WSU: ???
Pat Chun was considered one of the favorites to get the OSU job and he had turned down other offers waiting to get it, so I’m not surprised he took a B10 job on the west coast.
https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/wsu-cougar-football/here-are-possible-candidates-to-replace-pat-chun-as-wsus-ad/
The Seattle Times proposes 2 internal candidates, a MAC AD (worked at WSU before), and 2 local I-AA ADs as possible replacements. You can see how much losing P5 status is hurting their options if the list isn’t even G5 ADs.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39815631/wisconsin-california-play-home-home-series-29-30
I thought this was a little interesting. WI had a home and home with UCLA scheduled for 2029-30, so obviously they needed to drop that. Instead they play UCLA in 2026-27 in B10 play, and will now play Cal in 2029-30.
Adding another CA trip voluntarily is interesting. Clearly travel isn’t a concern for them (it’s football, so understandable). But doubling up on CA exposure was unexpected. WI doesn’t have a strong history of playing out there, and now they have regular trips to LA built into their schedule. I would’ve expected B10 teams to shift more to the south (4 corners, TX, southeast) for OOC games.
I also find it interesting that Cal wanted another eastern game on top of joining the ACC. I would’ve expected them to focus on P12 and MWC schools to reduce travel (in terms of time zones and distance) and play some familiar faces.
LikeLike
I also find it interesting that Cal wanted another eastern game on top of joining the ACC.
It makes you question the arguments that Cal tried to use to prevent UCLA from leaving the Pac-12, when they schedule an extra Eastern trip that they didn’t have to take.
LikeLike
You mean you don’t think Cal had the best interests of student-athletes at heart when it attacked UCLA leaving?
It also makes their need for Calimony questionable if they can afford that trip rather than playing someone closer.
LikeLike
https://www.cleveland.com/osu/2024/03/columbus-trying-to-land-1-of-college-basketballs-biggest-events-in-2025-and-2026.html
At least 6 cities have bid for the B10’s hoops tourneys in 2025-28. There are the usual suspects, a few likely alternatives, and an outlier:
I can see the tournaments going west at some point, but wouldn’t LA (then maybe Seattle and/or Portland) be more likely options at first?
I will also note that Cleveland and Cincinnati also have not hosted any hoops tournaments, and neither Philly nor Pittsburgh have either. That’s every major market in OH, MI and PA. If we’re spreading it around, how about some other core cities?
LikeLike
I think there would be significant blowback if the Big Ten scheduled one of its tournaments in a state where it has no members. DC is alright, because it’s practically a Maryland suburb. But LV can’t really make that argument in the same way.
LikeLike
Blowback? Marc, would you rather go to Minneapolis, DC or Portland? LV would be a great venue for the coast-to-coast Big Ten tourney.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39823544/smu-targeting-usc-andy-enfield-coaching-job-sources-say
Another odd silly season story. SMU is stealing USC’s MBB coach. Why would a coach want to make that move?
LikeLike
I’m almost 100% certain that this is the equivalent of Shaka Smart leaving Texas for Marquette.
Just as Smart was, Enfield was *highly* encouraged to look at other jobs.
Both Smart and Enfield would have likely been fired if they stayed on in the subsequent year.
LikeLike
That’s certainly possible. And it’s not like USC is a hoops blueblood (USC has 21 total NCAAT appearances, and their last final four was in 1954). But SMU is joining the ACC for free. Even with all their rich boosters, doesn’t the LA area to recruit plus a full B10 revenue share seem better placed for success?
https://trojanswire.usatoday.com/lists/report-smu-expected-to-hire-uscs-andy-enfield-as-new-basketball-coach-but-deal-not-yet-finalized/
The Trojans and athletic director Jennifer Cohen were highly unlikely to fire Andy Enfield for a few obvious reasons. One is that he did a generally good job over 11 seasons at USC. He made the NCAA Tournament in 2021, 2022 and 2023. One really bad 2024 season was not going to be enough to push him out the door. A buyout would have been expensive. Cohen had just forked up a lot of money to hire Lincoln Riley’s new football assistants on the defensive side of the ball. The financial expenditure needed to eat the buyout and then get a high-quality coach would have been considerable. USC basketball fans would say that the expense would have been worth it, but it’s entirely fair to note the factors militating against a firing.
He’s been there 11 years with 5 NCAAT appearances including 3 straight before this year when the team was plagued by injuries. He got USC to the elite 8 in 2021, their first since 2001 and second since 1954.
SMU is viewing him as a major upgrade, which should give USC pause. It’s not like they have a great pool of options to replace him with.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think some things this year were just weird (the Bronny injury); the fact that they were super loaded with talent that’s looking to be one and done (or close enough), etc.
Basically, I think Cohen told him that he’s not getting extended and should look around.
Can understand completely USC not wanting to fire him given 1) buyout money and 2) his success is above average for a USC coach so it’d be a bad look to fire him outright.
This is probably what Cohen wanted, but as you note, this is a buyer beware situation for USC because the odds are that the next USC basketball coach may not be as successful as he was.
LikeLike
Agreed. USC couldn’t justify firing him. I’m just surprised he is willing to leave for a move to SMU. Hopefully Cohen has a plan to improve their program.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39875055/sources-usc-hiring-eric-musselman-replace-andy-enfield
Eric Musselman? He just had his worst season at AR. And AR has more hoops tradition than USC, so why is he taking the job?
LikeLike
Exact same reason to be honest. He’s resetting his clock.
LikeLike
He was not in jeopardy.
The Razorbacks finished 16-17 overall and 6-12 in the SEC, but he had led the program to back-to-back Elite Eights and a Sweet 16 appearance the previous three seasons. In 2020-21, Arkansas won 11 of its final 12 games to end the regular season and then advanced to the regional final before falling to eventual national champion Baylor.
AR is not looking to ditch a coach with that much recent success.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39897887/sources-john-calipari-finalizing-5-year-deal-arkansas
Now this sort of hire makes more sense to me. AR takes Calipari from UK, where they were getting upset with his lack of success.
LikeLike
What were really seeing is an evolution of coaching style. In the past five years, Calipari has recruited a total of 16 Rivals 5-stars at Kentucky. Purdue, which is playing for the NC tonight, has recruited zero 5-stars during that period.
The era of the one-and-done is coming to an end. Instead of recruiting kids for one year before they go to the NBA, the top programs are now developing athletes over 4-5 years and emphasizing team play.
LikeLike
Why is Michigan hiring a GM for NIL? ‘Everyone’s feeling like they’re behind’. Selected quotes below:
The transfer portal opened March 18 for men’s and women’s basketball, which meant Rachael Bacchus was having anything but a normal day.
Normal days barely exist for Bacchus, the general manager for NIL at Arizona State. Her job is to stay on top of policy changes, court rulings, portal windows and everything else that goes into the ever-changing world of name, image and likeness. When a season ends and the portal opens, the bidding begins. For Bacchus, that means having in-depth conversations with coaches and players about what the athlete is earning, what’s being offered and what Arizona State can do to retain its players.
“We’re understanding how collectives on the outside are operating, making sure our coaches know our starting forward is being reached out to and DM’ed and having conversations from other collectives,” Bacchus said. “‘Here’s what we’re up against. Here’s what he made last year in NIL through his disclosures.’ In your exit interviews with him, if he says, ‘Hey, coach, I want more NIL,’ here’s how you know what ‘more’ is.”
Bacchus is an employee of Altius Sports Partners, a consulting firm that advises athletic departments on NIL. Altius has general managers overseeing NIL programs at 18 schools, with Michigan soon to become the 19th. It’s an all-encompassing position that involves working with collectives, coaches, athletes, sponsors and administrators to implement a cohesive strategy in an inherently unstable environment.
… …
Michigan’s contract with Altius, obtained via Freedom of Information Act request, includes a $5,000 monthly consulting fee and a salary allocation of $255,754 for the yet-to-be-hired general manager. The consulting agreement gives Michigan access to market data about other schools’ NIL strategies, which helps decision-makers know how Michigan’s NIL offerings measure up.
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1771535547716047003
Tony Altimore created a realignment attractiveness score, similar to Frank’s original expansion index from 2009. Like all such systems, it has flaws. It greatly overrates UCLA based on the LA market, for example (also Stanford and Cal).
He does give some caveats about how different conferences look for different things, and his methodology is described in a separate tweet:
Rankings:
1. Ohio State — 356 -P2
2. Michigan — 337.4 -P2
3. Alabama — 301.4 -P2
4. USC — 296.4 -P2
5. Texas — 282.2 -P2
6. Notre Dame — 279.7 INDY/ACC
7. Georgia — 269.9 -P2
8. Penn State — 263.1 -P2
9. Florida — 261.9 -P2
10. UCLA — 260.4 -P2
11. Oklahoma — 254.2 -P2
12. LSU — 243.5 -P2
13. Texas A&M — 242 -P2
14. Wisconsin — 241.9 -P2
15. Stanford — 225.7 – ACC
16. Washington — 224.5 -P2
17. Michigan State — 223.9 -P2
18. Tennessee — 220.6 -P2
19. Florida State — 216.6 -ACC
20. Clemson — 211.1 – ACC
21. Iowa — 208.9 -P2
22. Cal — 202.8 – ACC
23. Nebraska — 200.3 -P2
23. North Carolina — 200.3 – ACC
25. Minnesota — 199.7 -P2
26. Miami — 198.3 – ACC
27. Oregon — 197.1 -P2
28. Pitt — 181.9 – ACC
29. Maryland — 180.6 -P2
30. Arkansas — 180.5 -P2
31. Auburn — 179.5 -P2
32. Utah — 178 – B12
33. Kentucky — 172.7 -P2
34. Illinois — 176.1 -P2
35. Arizona State — 172 – B12
35. TCU — 172 – B12
37. Oklahoma State — 171 – B12
38. Indiana — 166.5 -P2
39. Purdue — 165 -P2
40. Duke — 164 – ACC
41. Colorado — 162 – B12
42. NC State — 159.7 – ACC
43. Ole Miss — 159.5 -P2
44. Virginia — 158.4 – ACC
45. Northwestern — 158 -P2
46. Virginia Tech — 157.9 – ACC
47. Missouri — 157.6 -P2
48. Arizona — 156.6 – B12
49. Rutgers — 155.5 -P2
50. South Carolina — 153.1-P2
51. West Virginia — 150.5 – B12
52. Georgia Tech — 150.1 -ACC
53. Louisville — 144.2 -ACC
54. Syracuse — 143.1 -ACC
55. Iowa State — 137.1 – B12
56. Kansas — 137 – B12
57. Texas Tech — 136.2 – B12
58. Mississippi State — 130.5 -P2
59. Kansas State — 128.1 – B12
60. Boston College — 127.7 – ACC
61. Army — 124.2 G5
62. Houston — 123.5 -B12
63. Washington State — 123.2 -PAC2
64. Vanderbilt — 118.4 -P2
65. Baylor — 116.7 -B12
66. Cincinnati — 116.4 – B12
67. Navy — 116.2- G5
68. Oregon State — 115.5 -PAC2
69. UCF — 114.4 – B12
70. Wake Forest — 113.9 – ACC
71. BYU — 111.8 – B12
72. South Florida — 104.7 – G5
73. SMU — 102 – ACC
LikeLike
https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/icehockey-men/d1/2024
3 of the 4 B10 teams advanced to this weekend’s elite 8 in men’s hockey:
#4 MSU beat WMU in OT
UM beat North Dakota
MN beat Omaha
WI lost to Quinnipiac in OT
MN plays #2 Boston U tonight
#4 MSU plays UM tomorrow
In the other games, #3 Denver plays Cornell tonight while #1 BC plays Quinnipiac tomorrow.
LikeLike
The Big Ten should expand in hockey for TV just as they did in football. BC, BU, North Dakota, maybe Quinnipiac, Denver and Army too.
LikeLike
Chalk mostly prevailed, as the #1, 2 and 3 seeds all made the Frozen Four. UM upset #4 MSU to become the fourth team in. UM will face #1 BC while #2 BU plays #3 Denver.
LikeLike
The NCAAT bracket included 30 teams from west of the Mississippi. For the first time ever, no western teams made the Elite 8.
https://twitter.com/OptaSTATS/status/1773950979873902732
LikeLike
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-basketball/fox-sports-aeg-launch-new-postseason-tournament-the-college-basketball-crown
Fox and AEG are starting a new MBB postseason tournament. The are working with the B10, B12, and Big East. This seems to undermine the NIT which just agreed to 2 autobids for each of the P6. Will this tournament take the dregs that the NIT passes on, or will the those 3 leagues basically pass on the NIT?
I also wonder if it will pay NIL to players to keep them playing.
FOX Sports and AEG are launching the College Basketball Crown, a 16-team men’s postseason tournament, which will begin in Spring 2025. The event will feature competitive postseason matchups from select conferences, bringing college hoops fans even more compelling storylines during the most exciting time on the college basketball calendar.
The inaugural tournament will feature schools from the Big Ten, Big 12 and Big East, in addition to at-large participants. The event will take place from March 31 to April 6 at MGM Grand Garden Arena and T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas and will air on FOX and FS1.
Teams that did not participate in the NCAA Tournament will be eligible for the event, with two automatic qualifiers coming from each participating conference, and additional teams chosen by a select committee.
LikeLike
This is the beginning of a HUGE problem for college sports. Gift link Wall St Journal.
https://www.wsj.com/sports/basketball/dartmouth-basketball-union-ncaa-34e0ff9e?st=i6ttklg4yy0k7ld&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/5383639/2024/04/03/college-football-super-league-cst-realignment/
A group wants to form a CFB super league. The 70 P5s (incl. ND) in 7 divisions of 10 with 10 G5s (relegation and promotion for the G5s). 16 team playoff with no committee (8 division champs + 8 wildcards), just records and tiebreakers like the NFL. Paid athletes, etc.
One league overseeing college football’s highest level. No more conferences as we’ve known them. Playoff berths being decided solely on the field. Promotion and relegation for smaller schools. Players being paid directly. NIL and the transfer portal, managed.
A group of influential leaders wants to make all this happen soon — and they are pitching it as the best way forward for a sport they believe needs saving.
Several college presidents, Roger Goodell’s primary lieutenant at the NFL and some of sports’ top executives have devised a plan — dubbed by outsiders as a “Super League” — to completely transform college football, those involved in the group “College Sports Tomorrow” (CST) told The Athletic. Although the plan has drawn skepticism from within the sport’s current institutions, the people behind the ideas believe they must be implemented.
…
Thus far, the group is struggling to gain traction with the schools that would play in their proposed “Super League.” The ACC board of directors heard a presentation from the group in February. However, planned dinners with administrators from the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 all were called off. Spokespersons for the Big Ten and SEC said commissioners Petitti and Greg Sankey, respectively, have not met with Perna’s group.
Leagues have been hesitant and canceled meetings so as not to upset their current broadcast partners, including ESPN and Fox, according to one executive briefed on the commissioners’ thoughts.
…
Universities would own a percentage of the league, a model derived from MLS where it was devised by former president Mark Abbott, who is involved with CST. Unlike the soccer league, the revenue distribution would not be an even split among all competitors, as top brands like Alabama and Notre Dame would receive more of the financial pie. CST believes there would be added value in negotiating TV deals as one entity and creating broadcast windows that make more sense, much like the NFL’s approach.
LikeLike
I assume it’s obvious that I do not favor a CFB super league, but I can see how economic pressures may eventually force one. This proposal would solve some of the legal issues by moving to paid players in a union bargaining for a contract, but I think it may exacerbate other legal issues (antitrust, Title IX, non-revenue sports, lower levels of schools, non-profit status, …). On the potentially positive side, such a move may enable other sports to return to regional conferences and amateur competition.
But let’s ignore all that for now. Assuming a super league will happen, when seems like a likely time for it to happen and what form do you think it will take?
https://sports360az.com/wilner-mailbag-the-super-leagues-big-flaw-the-nfl-threat-the-pac-2-and-the-big-sky-power-four-irony-and-more/
In his mailbag, Jon Wilner says 9 years is the most likely starting time and thinks it will be just 24 teams. Timing will be driven by legal decisions, the TV networks, and the P2. His timing seems reasonable.
TV deal end dates:
B10: 2030
CFP: 2031
B12: 2031
SEC: 2034
ACC: 2036
I could see a compromise by Fox and ESPN to have the super league start in 2031. Otherwise they’ll need some short term contracts to get all rights available in 2034 or 2036.
I have seen several sizes proposed:
A. Large
The CST plan of 80 schools in 10 divisions fits this category, with the whole P4 + ND + 10 G5s. So do similar plans that are just the P4 + ND. While this might be easier to get approved by the conferences, I don’t see how it drives much value for TV.
B. Medium
These are plans for 30-40 schools, roughly (P2 + ND + a few others). It matches where the pro leagues are, covering the whole country. It also may be easier to approve since the P2 stay whole. But this would alienate a lot of CFB fans, and doesn’t maximize the TV value.
C. Small
Wilner calls for just 24 schools, and many others have thrown out similar plans. Only the biggest brands would get in, so conferences would need to remain for everyone else.
I have also seen a few proposed formats:
1. Like Champions League soccer, the super league is a few games a year on top of the regular conference schedules. This preserves conferences and their seasons, it just replaces other OOC games with super league games. This seems like just adding a few big OOC games to me, though, so I don’t see the value.
2. A split season, with perhaps 6 super league games and 6 conference games. This can maintain old conference rivalries but drive a super league only playoff, separate from a CFP for the rest of I-A.
3. A separate league for football, with a few OOC games against old foes to maintain traditional rivalries.
4. A completely separate league for football with no games outside of the league.
Then there is the question of who gets in to start, and whether others can earn their way in (relegation/promotion). The answer about the size answers part or all of this, too.
a. For a Small model, the biggest brands get in and there probably is no formal promotion/relegation. It is NFL lite.
b. For a Medium model, likely the P2 get in whole along with a few key others (ND, FSU, etc.). There is more likely to be some mechanism for promotion/relegation to avoid lawsuits. Assuming the super league has its own playoff, maybe the CFP for those left behind determines which team(s) move up. Unlike soccer I would think teams would move up for multiple years, perhaps with a chance to earn an expansion spot in the super league.
c. For a Large model, there may be a promotion/relegation mechanism for the G5. Otherwise the membership is pretty easy to pick (P4 + ND + maybe some G5s).
The only reason to form a super league is to make a lot more money (to cover new expenses), so I don’t think a Large model works. I think the lure of tradition will force them to some sort of a compromise plan. The big brands won’t want to leave their traditional opponents completely behind, plus it would make conference play in all the other sports awkward. I don’t think OSU is willing to stop playing IU, PU, NW, IL, and MN (RU and UMD, yes) for example. They also need to continue playing G5 buy games to keep the smaller programs alive and get some easy wins.
So either it will be a Small plan with a split season or a Medium plan with a few OOC games. Outside concerns may force some pathway for other teams to get into the league.
I would expect a Medium plan with the full P2 (that’s 34 as of now) + ND + FSU + Clemson + Miami (some/most of which may be in the P2 by then) + top 6-10 others (2 ACC, 2 B12, 2-6 ???). That makes 44-48 teams. Everyone plays 8 super league games (6 in conference play for B10 and SEC) + 2 outside games (2 more conference games for B10 and SEC) + 2 OOC games. That allows 8 conference games for the B10 and SEC, with 4 for the ACC and B12 teams (plus what they get in the super league). Teams bring their super league revenue back to their home conference and then split it however they choose.
It’s still clunky, but CFB change is all about compromise. Over time it will likely trend more toward NFL lite.
LikeLike
https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2024/04/03/ncaa-heal-thyself-opinion
Some Faculty Athletic Representatives are pushing for the NCAA to form a new division to speed up reform for the largest programs.
If there is any chance for real reform in college sports, it will have to start with autonomy for the largest, most well-resourced programs.
…
Now, again, the NCAA is set to consider autonomy for the best-resourced institutions. NCAA President Charlie Baker has advanced a “conversation starter” to create a separate self-governing subdivision for them—similar to the idea that the 1A FAR Board pushed for ten years ago. The NCAA is expected to vote on a new divisional structure in January 2025.
…
The major impediment has been with us all along—the resistance of lesser-resourced institutions to a division that excludes them. There is cachet to being included with the major football powers. There also are more revenue opportunities. Currently, for example, a lesser-resourced university in the FBS still makes more money than Division I universities outside it. So, many universities expend beyond realistic budgetary thresholds to try to keep up. Universities that fall behind or attempt to reclassify out of the FBS meet major pushback from fans and donors.
A considerable hurdle to establishing a new division, and one that killed its creation a decade ago, is the men’s basketball tournament. The tournament is open to all comers in Division I, and that is part of its charm and popularity. It produces the great bulk of all NCAA revenues, shared with all NCAA institutions but on a formula that greatly favors Division I. It also produces additional revenues for a university with a team that competes in the tournament, with increased payout the further a team proceeds. A separate division may upend the current revenue formula for Division I institutions. It also very likely will provide more benefits to the new division’s athletes, further increasing the talent advantage of the best-resourced institutions and lessening the possibility for a Cinderella team to advance far into the tournament.
…
A better approach is simply to set a budget threshold for inclusion that could be adjusted upward over time. Baker noted that 59 Division I institutions spend more than $100 million annually on their athletics programs. We’re not saying that’s the magic number, but we think that some such threshold is needed for the new subdivision to succeed.
…
Nonetheless, no viable reform appears possible unless a new subdivision is created. It is an idea well past its time, and we applaud Baker for taking the first step. But we also think the NCAA’s approach is, once again, much too slow. It should not take until January 2025 just to create the subdivision. The Division I Board need only embrace—finally—the concept of a new subdivision and set the criteria for entry. At that point, the new subdivision needs to get to work—quickly.
LikeLike
The major impediment has been with us all along—the resistance of lesser-resourced institutions to a division that excludes them.
I’m sure that’s true. But besides that, no reform is likely to pass unless the Big Ten and the SEC favor it. Those two leagues have had a chilly response to the Baker proposal. This is understandable: when you’re winning the race, you have a lot less incentive to favor rules changes that might harm your already-dominant position.
I suspect the NCAA will move too slowly, because they almost always do.
LikeLike
I don’t see how Baker’s plan immunizes them from litigation. That’s the fundamental change they need. And any attempt to get the P2 to subsidize lots of hangers on in a top division is not going to go over well in a world where “college” athletes get paid better than college presidents.
LikeLike
Charlie Baker runs off at the mouth about two things that are not going to happen:
1. The NIL standard.
2. A new whopperjammer Division 1 subdivision in which the Big Ten and SEC share their TV revenue with the ACC, Big XII and Pac-2.
LikeLike
https://omaha.com/news/state-regional/education/cutting-programs-merging-campuses-nebraska-university-leaders-ponder-bold-changes-to-compete/article_35dabe3a-f435-11ee-bb4b-5360b0e1ccb1.html
NE is worried about their future and their place in the B10 and is looking to make major changes to improve their academic metrics and rejoin the AAU.
I don’t think the B10 is looking to kick them out. We just added UO, and they have worse metrics than NE in many ways. Getting NSF to approve them lumping in UNMC with UN-L for reporting research $ is a nice step, but it doesn’t really change anything. It might have been enough to keep NE in the AAU, but they need to be at or above the AAU’s median in metrics to get added again.
Is it perhaps time, Carter asked, to bring all the university’s campuses under the flagship campus’ well-known brand? All four NU campuses would adopt and align under UNL’s signature block “N” as part of their identity.
“We should carefully consider whether now is the time for a unified University of Nebraska identity — a strategy that, if executed well, would increase the value proposition for all our campuses,” Carter wrote.
…
UNL has long badly lagged its Big Ten Conference peers in key academic metrics like attracting coveted research grants — so much so there has even been talk it could one day lose its place in the prestigious athletic conference.
“Bottom line: improvement in academic and research performance is imperative to our continued membership in the Big Ten,” Carter wrote in that December memo to the regents.
…
As the Big Ten expands next fall to 18 members with the addition of Washington, Oregon, Southern California and University of California-Los Angeles, UNL will stand out as the only Big Ten school that’s not a member of the AAU. Notably, the conference has long taken pride in that association and its strong collective academic reputation — a reason for concern about UNL’s future Big Ten status.
…
But [presumptive future UN-L president Dr. Jeffrey Gold] said he would be open to any changes that help the university better compete for top students and faculty while also preserving affordable access for all.
Hypothetically, he said, he could back merging UNL and UNMC under a single leader — a return to a historical structure — if he came to believe it advanced those goals.
…
The university faces an estimated $58 million shortfall in 2025 due mostly to inflation and enrollment declines. The enrollment challenge only figures to grow in coming years, as the university and all of higher education faces a looming demographic cliff.
Due to a reduced U.S. birthrate in the wake of the Great Recession of 2007 and 2008, the college-bound population is expected to shrink by roughly 15% by 2029.
…
“A principal value of AAU membership is bragging rights,” said John Lombardi, a retired University of Florida president. “AAU membership serves as another token of presumed excellence for institutions that can claim membership, and of course to be ejected from the AAU is a significant prestige loss.”
…
In 2022, UNL ranked 122nd nationally in federal research funding, competitive dollars that are highly sought-after by universities. That put UNL 17th out of the 18 schools in the soon-to-be expanded Big Ten, ahead of only Oregon. Iowa, the next closest, was far above Nebraska at 55th, with nearly three times as much federal research funding.
UNL’s federal research funding has been relatively flat in recent years. In the ultra-competitive world of higher education, if you stand in one place, you fall behind.
While most of the other Big Ten schools boast dozens of faculty who are members of the National Academy of Sciences — another metric valued by the AAU — UNL in recent years has had only two.
To be sure, UNL is hamstrung in such comparisons by its lack of a medical school.
…
Before he left, Carter pushed hard to get the National Science Foundation to agree to allow UNL and UNMC to jointly report their research funding each year. That will allow Nebraska to move up in the NSF’s highly anticipated annual rankings of university research expenditures.
Emails obtained by The World-Herald show Carter had to convince the NSF that UNL and UNMC are truly aligned in terms of leadership.
Carter pointed to an amendment to university bylaws the regents passed last year that clarified the president’s role as the university’s chief executive officer.
…
The NSF gave the go-ahead. And in February, Gold, as the system provost, reported a joint figure for 2023.
If the same figures had been added together in 2022, Nebraska’s flagship campus would have moved up from 122nd to 64th in federal research rankings — considerably closer to its Big Ten brethren.
“We’ve gone from outside the stratosphere to inside the ballpark,” Kabourek said.
The combined figure also would have vaulted Nebraska above some state universities in the AAU that have medical schools, such as Kansas and Missouri.
LikeLike
Including satellite campuses is logical and reasonable. Indiana’s medical school is headquartered in Indianapolis and they have satellite med schools at Notre Dame, Purdue, IUPU Calumet, IUPU Fort Wayne, Ball State, IU-Bloomington, U of Evansville and Indiana State U. Collectively, it’s the second largest med school in the nation. But the AAU doesn’t count any of them for IU except the Bloomington school.
https://medicine.iu.edu/campuses
LikeLike
I think Brian is right: if UNO’s medical campus research had counted with UNL’s, it might’ve been good enough to keep them in the AAU. But getting back in is a tougher problem. They are probably at least a generation away from that, if it could be done at all. I probably won’t live to see it.
Indiana’s medical school is headquartered in Indianapolis and they have satellite med schools. . . . But the AAU doesn’t count any of them for IU except the Bloomington school.
The AAU doesn’t decide these things arbitrarily. There are rules for when satellite campuses count, and when they don’t. The state could combine them, the way Rutgers has done and as Nebraska is considering, and then they’d count.
But reorganizations are a political challenge to pull off. There have to be good reasons to take it on. Nebraska has the incentives to do it. IU does not.
LikeLike
Marc: “The AAU doesn’t decide these things arbitrarily. There are rules for when satellite campuses count, and when they don’t.”
I’m not so sure about that. There is an IU med school on the Notre Dame campus. Non-clinical staff are primarily ND faculty while the clinical staff are on the IU payroll. So does research at the school “count” for IU or ND? Neither? Both?
FYI, the same situation exists at Purdue. The IU med school is across the street from Purdue’s veterinary school and the same faculty teach biochemistry, embryology, toxicology, microbiology, etc, at both schools.
https://medicine.iu.edu/south-bend
LikeLike
I am not sure if geography, per se, is relevant, but the two Rutgers medical schools are in Newark and New Brunswick. RU has campuses in both of those cities and in each case the med school is a reasonably short walk from the main campus.
LikeLike
Geography has never really been relevant AFAIK.
Look at Northwestern for example where the medical school is on a separate Chicago graduate campus while the main campus is in Evanston.
It’s always about governance. As long as the Medical School is part of the same leadership structure sharing the same overarching President/Chancellor, it’s typically going to be allowed.
It sounds as if that’s what Nebraska’s done for the NSF.
And yes, I agree with Brian and Marc that this should have been done prior to Nebraska losing AAU.
They’d have been close enough to the rest of the lower quartile to be able to stick around. Now, they’re already behind a bunch of other schools in line for consideration.
On another note, Oregon should do something similar and reunite with the medical school that it spun off in 1974.
LikeLike
<i>
NE is worried about their future and their place in the B10 and is looking to make major changes to improve their academic metrics and rejoin the AAU.
I don’t think the B10 is looking to kick them out. We just added UO, and they have worse metrics than NE in many ways. Getting NSF to approve them lumping in UNMC with UN-L for reporting research $ is a nice step, but it doesn’t really change anything. It might have been enough to keep NE in the AAU, but they need to be at or above the AAU’s median in metrics to get added again.
</i>
IMO – this is how they’re trying to build public support for the necessary improvements to the University in a red state with the national Republican party being suspicious of academia. Its a much easier to sell “we don’t want to end up like Oregon St” than to convince them to invest in academics to attract more liberal professors.
That being said, I did talk to some people at the University that said the Big Ten is putting some pressure to improve academics. They also said that combining UNMC and UNL would improve some AAU metrics but hurt others.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39909695/acc-motion-stay-florida-state-lawsuit-denied
The dueling lawsuits in NC and FL continue, as a judge in FL denied the ACC’s motion to stay FSU’s lawsuit against them there.
“FSU is pleased with Judge Cooper’s ruling today denying the ACC’s motion to postpone our lawsuit over the mishandling of media rights,” the school said in a statement Tuesday night. “We agree with his conclusions that the ACC’s North Carolina action was an anticipatory filing disfavored by courts, and that the sovereignty of the State of Florida supports the resolution of these matters in Florida.”
Florida law typically gives preference to the party that files the first lawsuit, which in this case is the ACC. But in court Tuesday, multiple media reports suggested that Cooper questioned whether the ACC followed the proper voting protocols to get approval to file the lawsuit. He also questioned whether the ACC brought its case as a way to rush to get it heard first in North Carolina.
If Cooper denies the ACC’s motion to dismiss in Florida, and Florida State’s appeal in North Carolina is denied, both lawsuits will continue to move forward on parallel tracks in two separate states.
LikeLike
https://collegehoopstoday.net/rothstein-files/big-east-big-12-battle-will-not-played-after-2024-25-season/
The BE/B12 battle in hoops will end after next season. The BE also lost the Gavitt Games vs the B10, so I wonder if they will look for some conference matchup or just find their own OOC games. The B12 is moving to 20 games next season which is why they wanted out.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39916877/northwestern-play-most-home-football-games-next-2-seasons-lakefront
While building their new stadium, NW is mostly going to play home games in a temporary stadium where their lacrosse and soccer teams play. Apparently the local MLS stadium and Soldier Field weren’t better options. There will still be a game in Wrigley each year.
I guess having a really small capacity will limit the number of road team fans, but I think the B10 requires 3000 or 3500 tickets for the road team. That could be a big chunk of the stadium if they don’t get a waiver.
Northwestern will play most of its home football games during the 2024 and 2025 seasons at a temporary on-campus stadium flanking Lake Michigan, while construction takes place to rebuild Ryan Field.
The temporary stadium will be built on the site where the school’s lacrosse and soccer teams (men’s and women’s) play and will continue to host events for those sports. Northwestern likely will play some home football games at Wrigley Field — where it hosted games in 2010, 2021 and 2023 — and possibly other Chicago-area venues, but most contests will be held on campus.
…
“We’re thrilled to have something that is truly ours,” Braun said. “It’s playing at home, playing on campus. Part of college athletics and the thing that makes it so special is the campus community involvement. It provides the opportunity for an incredible home-field advantage.”
…
Northwestern did not announce a specific capacity or other details for the temporary stadium, as the configuration is still being designed, other than to note that it will be “considerably less” than both the original Ryan Field (47,130) and the new version (35,000). Season-ticket holders will have the first priority to secure tickets, and students also will have a reserved section in the facility, as construction will begin this summer. Northwestern often has had sizable contingents of visiting teams’ fans at its home games.
The school is partnering with InProduction, which constructed seating for last year’s NASCAR event in downtown Chicago, as well as temporary seating, staging and structures for college teams at Hawai’i and Florida State.
“A lot of things still need to be worked out, but I have a lot of confidence we can troubleshoot,” Braun said. “Credit to other teams that use this space for a willingness to work together to see if this was something that is truly an option. It’s a tight-knit community that supported one another. I’m just really excited.”
LikeLike
https://nusports.com/news/2024/4/10/football-northwestern-football-staying-home-with-temporary-enhancements-to-the-lanny-and-sharon-martin-facility-on-lakefront
The article from NW has a picture of the location. They will be lucky if they can get seating for 20,000 people in there. I’m thinking their games against major opponents (WI and OSU in 2024, UO and UM in 2025) will need to move off campus (Wrigley, Soldier Field, etc.). They’ll need a lot of space just for the TV crew, plus a press box, and don’t forget amenities like a bunch of bathrooms (will NW alumni stoop to using port-a-potties?).
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39930094/new-nebraska-ad-troy-dannen-expects-revenue-distribution-become-more-performance-based
NE’s new AD thinks the new CFP deal presages what future revenue sharing will look like in other sports and within conferences, with more based on winning rather than equal splits. I think the B10 and SEC will try to hold out on equal revenue sharing for as long as its reasonable, mostly to lay claim to being the last conference able to do so.
New Nebraska athletic director Troy Dannen expects revenue distribution in college sports to become more performance-based over time, resulting in an “eat what you kill” model.
…
“There’s going to be some meritocracy versus more of a social approach to revenue distribution,” Dannen said. “You’ll eventually see that within leagues. You’ll eventually see that across sports, maybe other than football. An eat what you kill, in some respects, that mentality. It’s going to be much more performance-based and outcomes, when it comes to generating the revenue necessary to compete.
“The CFP decisions that have been made so far show that.”
…
The Big Ten Conference has operated with an equal revenue distribution model, as higher-profile athletic programs like Ohio State and Michigan share with smaller and less-decorated schools. Dannen noted that other leagues also have prided themselves on equal revenue sharing, but that the CFP model is “a tipping point, maybe, for where the future lies.”
“A lot of things that we’ve historically prided ourselves on are no longer relevant in the new day and age,” he added. “For those who refuse to let go of the embrace of the past, the future is running by us.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39937301/denver-topples-boston-college-win-ncaa-championship
Denver beat #1 BC to win their record 10th NCAA hockey title, moving past UM.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39955336/michigan-reaches-settlement-ncaa-recruiting-violations
UM gets 3 whole years of probation for recruiting violations and impermissible coaching activities and admitting the HC lacked control of his program. This does not include Harbaugh, or the sign stealing scandal.
Michigan will serve three years of NCAA probation, pay a fine and face recruiting restrictions after the university and five current or former football employees reached an agreement with the NCAA’s enforcement staff on recruiting violations and coaching activities by noncoaching staff members, the NCAA announced Tuesday.
The agreed-upon penalties also include a one-year show-cause order for the participating individuals.
The portion of the case that involves former Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh, who was hired by the Los Angeles Chargers in late January, will be considered separately by the Committee on Infractions, and then it will determine its full decision, according to a release from the NCAA.
…
Michigan agreed the underlying violations demonstrated “a head coach responsibility violation and the former football head coach failed to meet his responsibility to cooperate with the investigation,” according to the NCAA. The university also agreed it failed to deter and detect the impermissible recruiting contacts and didn’t “ensure that the football program adheres to rules for noncoaching staff members.”
LikeLike
UM gets 3 whole years of probation for recruiting violations and impermissible coaching activities and admitting the HC lacked control of his program.
Are those penalties atypically lenient for this type of violation?
Note that they elected to separate the Harbaugh violation. I suspect his “penalties” will be fairly severe (by their standards), but he is probably never coaching in college again regardless, so it won’t matter.
LikeLike
Is there such a thing as typical with NCAA enforcement?
It feels light to me because 5 staffers pleaded guilty in addition to what Harbaugh did, and UM admitted to the last part:
The university also agreed it failed to deter and detect the impermissible recruiting contacts and didn’t “ensure that the football program adheres to rules for noncoaching staff members.”
That’s a lite version of lack of institutional control.
My opinion may change a bit if Jim gets hammered by the NCAA, but anytime this many people are involved and the school admits it failed at oversight I think a bit more is in order.
LikeLike
Ohio State paying Chip Kelly a whopping $2 million salary to be OC.
https://theathletic.com/5411167/2024/04/12/chip-kelly-ohio-state-coach-salaries-2/
LikeLike
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-football-super-league-pitch-deck-1234775652/
Sportico has the pitch deck for CST’s super league plan. They have an image showing the 8 divisions of 10 teams.
Sportico recently obtained a “confidential” pitch deck, which was circulated by the group in mid-February. The document contains a number of previously unreported details, including a specific plan for sharing broadcast revenue with players, a 40-game spring football “festival,” and a preliminary look at how the Super League’s 70 permanent members might be arranged in seven geographically aligned leagues.
…
The seven permanent 10-team “Super League” divisions consist of every Power Five school plus Notre Dame, and are organized geographically: west, southwest, plains, midwest, northeast, south and southeast. In large part, the effort appears to preserve or reunite historic rivalries, a number of which have been shattered by conference realignment.
The west division mimics the recently disbanded Pac-12 Conference, but without Colorado and Utah, which would compete in the plains division. The current Big Ten conference would arguably be most impacted, with Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota competing in the plains; Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue and Ohio State playing in the midwest; and Penn State, Rutgers and Syracuse being allocated to the northeast. While the bulk of the current SEC conference would compete in the south division, Florida and South Carolina would be assigned to the southeast alongside more proximate geographical rivals like Florida State, Miami and North Carolina.
The eighth division comprises 10 schools from what the deck calls the “Under League,” the rest of the teams in college football’s top tier. That division rotates every year—eight of the 10 are relegated each season and replaced by the eight teams that play in the Under League’s playoff. The rest of the Under League is organized in eight different divisions of seven teams, which are not detailed in the deck.
So without asking the P2, you propose to splinter them and destroy traditional rivalries. That’s a great start for a plan, certainly. NE might like getting back with some old Big 8 foes, but I’m pretty sure IA, MN and WI would be angry. OSU certainly has no interest in playing MO, UC or UL regularly. And if PSU wanted to be in a northeast league, they already would be. I’m sure ND would just love that division of mostly nobodies.
As for the SEC, UF would object to being basically kicked out and replaced by GT. SC would likely complain as well, and maybe even GT.
The Pac-10 and SWC revivals are obvious, but they went away for a reason. How does spreading out the B10 into groups with non-P2 schools make everyone more money?
How did they arrive at those 10 G5s? Why would you want to 2 MAC schools in Ohio? I assume the others were based on markets or something.
Divisions:
W – UW, WSU, UO, OrSU, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, UA, ASU
SW – TX, TAMU, TT, TCU, BU, SMU, UH, OU, OkSU, AR
Plains – BYU, UU, CU, KU, KSU, ISU, IA, NE, MN, WI
Midwest – IL, NW, IU, PU, UM, MSU, OSU, MO, UC, UL
NE – PSU, UMD, RU, ND, BC, Pitt, SU, UVA, VT, WV
SE – Duke, UNC, NCSU, WF, Clemson, SC, UF, FSU, Miami, UCF
S – UGA, GT, UK, TN, VU, AL, AU, MS, MsSU, LSU
Under – BSU, JMU, Liberty, Miami(OH), NMSU, Toledo, Troy, Tulane, UNLV, UTSA
They propose a 14-game season with a 16-team playoff.
LikeLike
What on earth were they thinking?
LikeLike
All I can think is that this plan is basically from the non-P2 as a way to keep themselves more relevant.
Note how they stick to geography, except for ND. Why do they get special treatment yet again? Is that a weak attempt at making it acceptable to them? I appreciate the concept of revitalizing the old regional conferences (P10, SWC, etc.), but they collapsed for financial reasons. The only way to make this work is to only use those regions as a source of autobids (at least 1 team from each geographic region will get in), not for scheduling.
Even if we had to use their list of teams, there must be a better way to divide them.
LikeLike
Note how they stick to geography, except for ND. Why do they get special treatment yet again? Is that a weak attempt at making it acceptable to them?
Weak indeed. I doubt that ND would feel very special with a schedule like this. It includes only one opponent in their all-time top 10: Pitt. BC also makes some sense. But still, most of that division is schools that the Irish never played with any frequency.
Most of the other suggested divisions are at least plausible attempts at reuniting or preserve historical rivalries, aside from a few oddballs that are clearly dead on arrival. But that doesn’t mean it will ever happen. As Brian said, this proposal tries to resurrect historical versions of conferences that fell apart for good reasons.
The SEC isn’t going to give up the entire state of Florida, any more than the Big Ten will let go of Penn State.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39949024/policy-changes-path-service-academy-athletes-turning-professional
After this year, the US military is returning to their old rule that academy graduates have to serve 2 years before they can go pro in anything, including sports.
LikeLike
The NCAA Division I council approved two notable rules changes yesterday.
First, there is no longer a need to sit out a year of competition (or to obtain a waiver) if an undergraduate athlete transfers a second time. Or a third. Transfers still are not totally unlimited: The student must be in good academic standing and can only transfer during certain “windows,” which vary by sport.
Still, it’s pretty close to the “Wild West” that the NCAA long resisted. Their hand was forced after the Federal government and a bunch of states sued, and a West Virginal court entered a preliminary injunction that prevented enforcement of the previous, more restrictive rule. The NCAA could’ve continued to fight, but they were likely to lose.
In addition, schools can now “increase NIL-related support for student-athletes, including identifying NIL opportunities and facilitating deals between student-athletes and third parties.” The schools still can’t pay NIL themselves, but they can now participate directly in “facilitating” it.
I’ve got to think there’s a lot of fine print, defining exactly what “facilitate” means. Just a few months ago, FSU agreed to a substantial fine because one of their assistant coaches drove a recruit to a meeting with an NIL donor. I assume this would now be permitted.
(Not that this lets FSU off the hook — even bad rules need to be followed until they are changed for everybody.)
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39967961/virginia-law-allows-schools-pay-athletes-nil
The state of VA just passed allow that allows schools to directly pay athletes NIL money.
Schools in Virginia will be able to directly pay athletes via name, image and likeness deals thanks to a state law signed Thursday morning, marking another significant step in the professionalization of college sports.
The new law, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, is the first in any state to make it illegal for the NCAA to punish a school for compensating athletes for their NIL rights. Current NCAA rules prohibit schools from signing NIL deals with their own players. The law could either give Virginia schools a significant recruiting advantage or provide a catalyst for similar changes elsewhere.
…
Administrators from the University of Virginia took a leading role in crafting the legislation with help from colleagues at Virginia Tech, according to its author, commonwealth delegate Terry Austin. Both Williams and Virginia Tech athletic director Whit Babcock declined to share details about how they are planning to use the new opportunities presented by the law.
The law explicitly states that athletes should not be considered employees of their school. Schools in Virginia are still not allowed to pay athletes for their performance in a sport, but starting this summer, they will be able to use university or athletic department funds to pay athletes for appearing in marketing campaigns. Williams said this was “maybe a distinction without a difference, but there’s a distinction there.”
…
Despite its potential to spur a significant change for college sports, Virginia’s new law garnered little attention before it was signed Thursday. Liberty University athletic director Ian McCaw, for example, said he was not aware the law would allow his school to sign NIL deals with its players when he spoke to ESPN less than 24 hours before the bill was signed.
“There are things we can do in terms of assisting with contract review and negotiations and financial management. I hadn’t heard you can actually buy their rights,” McCaw said. “That would be news to me.”
…
Both Williams and Babcock declined to discuss potential NIL budgets their schools are considering for competitive reasons. They both said they do not yet know with certainty how their schools would interpret Title IX laws when figuring out how to equitably share NIL opportunities with men and women athletes.
Title IX requires that schools provide equal opportunity for men and women to participate in sports on campus. While Title IX specifically requires schools to spend a proportionally equal amount of money on scholarships for men and women, it is not clear on whether schools would have to provide equal dollars for endorsement deals.
“It’s still an open question, and it’s a huge question,” Babcock said.
…
Change could instead come from state legislators who want to make sure schools in their state aren’t at a competitive disadvantage. Missouri has a state law that allows schools to pay a third party referred to as an “institutional marketing associate,” which in turn pays athletes for endorsement deals. Virginia’s law goes a step further in simplifying the way money can flow from a school to an athlete.
While at least six other states — South Carolina, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi — have pending legislation that addresses their schools’ ability to pay NIL deals, none is currently as permissive as Virginia’s law. The proposed bills in those states all say that schools could pay their athletes if the NCAA or federal government changes rules to allow it.
LikeLike
What the NCAA needs right now is a NIL standard, just like Charlie promised months ago. Where is it, Charlie?
LikeLike
Charlie has proven that he is capable of moving just as slowly as his predecessors. They obviously chose the right guy.
LikeLike
The term “NIL standard” is actually nonsensical, an oxymoron. If the Ohio St QB is getting $500,000/yr NIL, then is that the “standard”? Does that mean that the QB at Ball State gets the same? And how about the Ohio State linebackers? We have a woman gymnast at LSU making over $2 million/yr in NIL. So what is the “standard” for female gymnasts?
NIL is inherently not standardized. If you’re paying a top QB to commercialize his name, likeness and image in various promotions, then the second string offensive tackle is obviously worth far less. A “NIL standard” is really just an unicorn, a feel-good term that is impossible to achieve.
LikeLike
I am not in favor of Baker’s “standard”. This is not an area where I think Congress is competent to legislate. Anything they do would probably screw it up more.
But at least I have read the proposal — which it seems you have not. If you had, you’d see that there is no intention of legislating the specific amount that different players get, according to what position they play or which school they go to. That is not what they mean by “standard”. They’re referring to rules and regulations without setting particular amounts.
For example, one such proposal would ban athletics boosters and third party groups from compensating college athletes to entice them to play at specific colleges. Another would standardize NIL contracts, under the guise of protecting athletes’ rights. That sort of thing.
LikeLike
Marc: “For example, one such proposal would ban athletics boosters and third party groups from compensating college athletes to entice them to play at specific colleges . . .”
Are you serious? Please tell us how you would ” . . . ban athletics boosters and third party groups from compensating college athletes to entice them to play at specific colleges. . . .” Remember now, these athletes are already getting NIL to play at their current college.
So if they transfer, they can’t get more NIL payouts? Their NIL is locked in at the payout at School #1? Is that what you’re saying?
LikeLike
Are you serious? . . . So if they transfer, they can’t get more NIL payouts? Their NIL is locked in at the payout at School #1? Is that what you’re saying?
I told you I don’t favor the proposal. So if you are wondering how it would work, maybe you ought to ask someone who supports it.
But, if I were to speculate: I believe current NCAA rules ban that exact thing. This would simply be a Federalized version of the identical rule. Of course, the Federal government has enforcement powers that the NCAA does not. That is why the Charlie Baker would love to have government help. The Feds have subpoena power and could punish the boosters directly, something the NCAA could never do.
Obviously no one is suggesting that NIL would be locked if you transfer. NIL isn’t locked even if you stay in the same place. What would be banned is using NIL as an inducement to switch schools. It’s very difficult to enforce, as is true of many recruiting rules. Even now, the NCAA probably catches only a tiny fraction of the violations. But of course, if it were a Federal law I do think it would be highly coercive, as most people do not want the Feds coming after them.
Again, I do not favor it. But I do see how it could work, assuming you wanted such a thing.
LikeLike
It will be fascinating to see what happens next. I cannot imagine that VA will be the last state to do this. At some point the NCAA will cave, because they always do.
LikeLike
We’re on a crash course with a double whammy: (1) Schools paying NIL directly to student-athlete-employees and that Great White Whale, the NIL standard.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39976083/ncaa-approves-helmet-communications-fbs-games
The NCAA finally officially approves helmet communications. They also approved the stupid 2:00 warnings, plus some other minor rule tweaks I’m indifferent to.
LikeLike
https://www.collegehockeyinsider.com/p/state-of-the-game-college-hockey
The state of the game was discussed in a panel session at the Frozen Four. Some of the major concerns:
I think pro players should remain ineligible in the sport they were professional in. They should be eligible in other sports, even if closely related, but not the exact same sport. At the very least, their years as a pro should count against their eligibility.
As for the playoffs, there are 64 D-I teams with 16 making the tournament. They play 4 single-elimination regionals. Teams are usually distributed to have “competitive equity, financial success and likelihood of playoff-type atmosphere at each regional site.” ”Host” teams are put into their local region even if that disrupts the balance or punishes a higher-seeded team in terms of travel. The top 4 seeds are placed to minimize travel.
I think one problem is having “host” teams get preferential treatment. That really messed with this year’s bracket. Either focus on bracket integrity, or focus on regionality. They try to do both and end up with neither.
See https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1bmyg8r/comment/kwfur1d/ for details.
The NCAA’s bracket this year:
Springfield, MA (#14 UMass is host)
3. Denver vs 14. UMass
5. Maine vs 12 Cornell
Providence (Brown is host)
1. BC vs 16. MI Tech
8. WI vs 9. Quinnipiac
Sioux Falls, SD (NE-Omaha is host)
2. BU vs 15. RIT
7. MN vs 11. NE-O
St. Louis, MO (Lindenwood is host)
4. MSU vs 13. WMU
6. N Dak vs 10. UM
Why would you move the top seeds out of their nearest regional to accommodate #14 being a host? They won’t pair teams from the same conference in the first round, so UMass playing host meant BC and BU couldn’t be there. That’s just dumb, especially in the northeast where so many teams are located. It forced Denver to play in MA rather than SD or MO, which is punishment for their fans too.
I understand arranging host cities, but I don’t think host teams are needed. If you want to adjust within groups of 4 teams (1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16) to play closer to home if possible, that’s fine with me. But the top 3 seeds shouldn’t suffer to keep #14 at home. And in a sport with so few conferences (6 autobids), don’t force separation between conference teams.
Either play the bracket straight (ignore conferences and geography):
Springfield – BC, WI, Quinnipiac, MI Tech
Providence – BU, MN, UM, RIT
Sioux Falls – Denver, N Dak, NE-O, UMass
St. Louis – MSU, Maine, Cornell, WMU
Or focus on geography (ignore conferences and seeding):
Springfield – BC, BU, Maine, UMass
Providence – Quinnipiac, Cornell, RIT, MI Tech
Sioux Falls – Denver, N Dak, MN, NE-O
St. Louis – MSU, WI, UM, WMU
Or focus on conferences (ignore seeding):
Springfield – BC, BU, Maine, UMass
Providence – Quinnipiac, Cornell, RIT, MI Tech
Sioux Falls – Denver, N Dak, WMU, NE-O
St. Louis – MSU, WI, UM, MN
I actually like forcing conference foes to play early as a way to drive interest in the first round games and the Frozen Four. No one conference can dominate the Frozen Four, so more regions should be interested, but locally fans will travel for familiar foes.
…
Should players from the OHL, QMJHL and WHL be eligible for NCAA hockey, something they haven’t been eligible for since the early 1980s?
“Those are the discussions we’ve had with the people from the NCAA,” said Minnesota Duluth head coach Scott Sandelin, who is on the NCAA men’s ice hockey committee. “We’ve had a couple of calls with all of the coaches. One in particular, a couple of months ago, to have some discussion about what we really want, what will be the best, right?
“If we can put together a good plan that does help everybody, that includes maybe those players, then I hope we come out of that at some point with a plan.”
…
“I think as a college hockey community — I certainly have no insight into anything that’s happening — but it is a little hard to defend the current system when we have college athletes that are benefiting in a big way from NIL, and yet we’ve said that people playing major junior hockey who are getting meal money or stipend, whatever it is, are professional, not eligible.
…
The most polarizing topic might be the format of NCAA Regionals. Should the NCAA keep neutral sites, or, as some have lobbied, should they move back to on-campus regionals? And if so, in what form?
College hockey is split on the topic, generally across geographical lines though not entirely so. Eastern programs have (generally) favored the current format, and Western programs have generally advocated for a change to on-campus sites, although traditionally it’s been overwhlemingly in favor of neutral sites as a whole. Those attitudes, however, may be shifting.
This topic is something the college hockey body can control.
“For a national tournament, this continues to be the best format,” Hockey East commissioner Steve Metcalf said. “I know there are other formats. The other suggested formats, I think, have fatal flaws for a national tournament. Neutrality is important. The majority of the coaches support the format we currently have.
“One thing that has changed that is forgotten about is the day off between regionals the last two years. It makes the attendance the last two years even more impressive. The day off in between was something that was good for the game, the coaches were in favor of it, but it also pushed games to Thursday. The day off was not good for fans, and it probably wasn’t good for attendance. Buildings don’t like it much.”
The counterargument would be to maximize attendance in front of home fans for the biggest games of the season. Denver coach David Carle has been among the most vocal supporters of an on-campus format.
LikeLike
The Big Ten hockey conference should expand for two reasons: Seven members is an awkward number and too small plus the footprint of the BTN could expand in some densely populated areas with a lot of hockey fans. I propose three options:
(1) West – North Dakota, Nebraska-Omaha, U of Denver, Colorado College, Air Force Academy. According to the first link below that would capture the #2, #3 and #14 all-time best hockey programs plus the Denver TV market.
(2) East – Boston College, Boston U (the best rivalry in hockey), Maine, RPI, Quinnipiac, UConn, Army. The same link says this option would bring in the #5, #7, #11 and #13 all-time best hockey programs plus all the major TV markets in New England.
(3) Ivy League. Six Ivy League teams play hockey and the second link below claims that all six of them are among the top ten hockey programs. This too would capture all the major TV markets in New England.
For logistics of all three options, check out the map in the third link.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/831388-college-hockey-power-ranking-the-top-20-programs-of-all-time
https://www.ncsasports.org/best-colleges/best-division-1-ice-hockey-colleges
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?
mid=1PUNn6zGoyiMGpUHNLMxYYUvMT4M&hl=en&ll=44.11281558742679%2C-98.42584539241375&z=6
LikeLike
As awesome as hockey is, I think that does absolutely nothing for the BTN. Airing basketball games instead of additional hockey games is worth more.
LikeLike
The idea is to expand the footprint of the Big Ten Network, for which subscribers pay $10/month for streaming. In one scenario above, for example, the BTN would pick up Denver, North Dakota, and Boston. Most hockey fans of those areas would probably drop it in the summertime but the college hockey season runs Oct-April. Also, the BTN is broadcast in Canada.
Bear in mind that there are not unlimited basketball games for the BTN. Hockey season starts a month earlier than basketball and the hockey games could be played Saturday mornings, for example, or weekday afternoons. Teams in the Mountain Time Zone could play late at night after basketball double headers. Remember we now have four teams in the Pacific Time Zone.
LikeLike
<i>The idea is to expand the footprint of the Big Ten Network, for which subscribers pay $10/month for streaming. </i>
Are you talking about the BTN cable channel or the BTN+ streaming service? If you’re talking about the BTN cable channel, they’re not going to get $10 a month. Closer to $10 per subscriber a year (https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/adding-usc-and-ucla-could-be-huge-for-big-ten-network.html). If you are talking about BTN+, I don’t think there is enough interest in any of those markets to justify any expansion through BTN+ subscriptions. I love hockey, but its a niche sport that doesn’t move the needle right now.
<i>Bear in mind that there are not unlimited basketball games for the BTN. Hockey season starts a month earlier than basketball and the hockey games could be played Saturday mornings,</i>
There is plenty of football and volleyball to suck up the oxygen until basketball gets going. Saturday morning hockey sounds awful.
<i>Teams in the Mountain Time Zone could play late at night after basketball double headers. Remember we now have four teams in the Pacific Time Zone.</i>
Midnight hockey also sounds awful. NCAA hockey teams make more money off of ticket sales than they do from their media rights. No one is going to kill off their ticketed fan base for an extra 200K or so in media revenue.
LikeLike
https://dailybruin.com/2023/05/11/amys-angle-its-time-for-the-bruins-to-dream-big-with-a-division-i-hockey-program
LikeLike
http://www.btn2go.com/video/brad-traviolia-talks-big-ten-hockey
LikeLike
@Colin M. I’m not sure what you’re trying to convince me of. People like hockey. I like hockey. People think more Big Ten teams would be great. I think more Big Ten teams would be great. The economics of NCAA hockey don’t support it.
LikeLike
The foremost issue is not the overall economics of NCAA hockey. We’re talking about the specific economics of Big Ten Conference hockey and the Big Ten Network. The BTN pays each hockey school $2 million/year and has been doing so for over ten years, so obviously hockey is profitable for the BTN. The BTN ain’t paying $2 million/yr for wrestling, or baseball, or volleyball. No other hockey schools in the country get anything close to that in TV revenue. Now, that isn’t enough money to start up a hockey program from scratch but if you’ve already got a revenue-producing, successful program like North Dakota, that $2 million would be gravy.
Another factor is exposure of the school. The audience of the BTN dwarfs that of any other college hockey TV network plus it is carried in Ontario and Quebec, which is the recruiting base for over half of the hockey players in American colleges.
So again, the primary issue is not the overall economics of NCAA hockey. The BTN has a unique situation with college hockey regarding profitability, recruiting base and conference footprint.
https://www.sbncollegehockey.com/2013/4/30/4286438/examining-the-big-ten-network-and-college-hockey
LikeLike
The foremost issue is not the overall economics of NCAA hockey. We’re talking about the specific economics of Big Ten Conference hockey and the Big Ten Network. The BTN pays each hockey school $2 million/year and has been doing so for over ten years, so obviously hockey is profitable for the BTN.
That $2 million figure is from 2013. I haven’s seen anything recently, but lets say its still a thing. I don’t think the teams in any of your three options would even be a break even addition for media rights. North Dakota sold the rights for their ENTIRE athletic department last year for $500K. Putting UND hockey on BTN and BTN+ isn’t going to generate 1.5 million dollars more.
So again, the primary issue is not the overall economics of NCAA hockey. The BTN has a unique situation with college hockey regarding profitability, recruiting base and conference footprint.
The economics of Big Ten hockey don’t support it either unfortunately. As a fan I think it would be awesome.
LikeLike
U of North Dakota sold their sports rights to Midco Sports Network. Ever heard of them? Their footprint is ND, SD and part of MN.
It’s hard to imagine North Dakota wouldn’t be a profitable addition to the Big Ten hockey league. They have led the nation in attendance for the past 8 years and they are the only hockey school that averages over 10,000 (link). Their average home hockey attendance (11,294) exceeds their average home football attendance (9,750).
https://fightinghawks.com/news/2022/5/20/mens-hockey-north-dakota-paces-the-nation-in-attendance-for-eighth-straight-year.aspx
ND already has its archrival in the conference, Minnesota, and I imagine the entire state would be watching them play either on BTN bundled in some basic package or streaming.
LikeLike
U of North Dakota sold their sports rights to Midco Sports Network. Ever heard of them? Their footprint is ND, SD and part of MN.
It’s hard to imagine North Dakota wouldn’t be a profitable addition to the Big Ten hockey league.
I haven’t heard of Midco. If North Dakota hockey would generate $2 million dollars for BTN/BTN+ it probably would do something similar for ESPN/ESPN+. Why didn’t ESPN bid for the easy profit? Why didn’t NBC/Peacock, WBD/Max or CBS/Paramount+? As awesome as North Dakota hockey is, its not able to generate $2 million in broadcast revenue. Neither can the other 16 schools you mentioned.
They have led the nation in attendance for the past 8 years and they are the only hockey school that averages over 10,000 (link). Their average home hockey attendance (11,294) exceeds their average home football attendance (9,750).
That’s great! It doesn’t move the needle for broadcast revenue, unfortunately.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten is only going to add schools that it considers its academic peers. There are not going to add every half-decent program that happens to play DI hockey where there isn’t a BTN footprint.
The Ivies meet the Big Ten’s academic standards, but I do not see the Ivies as having any interest in leaving the ECAC.
LikeLike
Marc, there is some talk of Big Ten hockey expansion. This example is from Notre Dame’s hockey coach.
https://www.ndinsider.com/story/sports/more-sports/2023/04/06/notre-dames-jeff-jackson-talks-ncaa-hockey-tourney-big-ten-expansion/70082402007/
LikeLike
Do you actually read articles before linking them? Here is what he said about expansion, which doesn’t really support your contention at all:
“It’s really kind of gone quiet since COVID. We were hoping Illinois would be that eighth team. But COVID impacted that whole process. I know it’s a topic of discussion among the higher-ups within the hockey side of the Big Ten. I would be surprised if it happens here in the next few years. But it hasn’t been a real hot topic in the last year.
“But there’s a lot of expansion going on in college hockey right now, which is probably not a bad thing for the potential of us adding another Big Ten member or another affiliate member (like Notre Dame). But they’re going to have to go through the process that we went through, ensuring that they’re a good enough school academically. The (Big Ten) presidents made sure when we came in it was because of our high quality of education.”
Nothing about that makes you think: North Dakota.
LikeLike
Marc, did you read the article? Here is one of the category titles, bold print:
“Expanding the Big Ten to eight teams or more”
LikeLike
FUTURE GROWTH
The next question for many is ‘Who’s next?’ It’s pretty obvious that many within the college hockey world are looking forward to the day that happens based on how rapidly the rumor of Illinois impending move to varsity spread this summer. So, will it be just the six of us for another 50 years? Much has been written on this so I’ll keep it short. My e-pinion:
Most Likely: An associate member with an existing hockey program. I don’t think any other Big Ten school is close to adding hockey (barring significant donations) and I’m still of the opinion that most Big Ten schools will be adding men’s lacrosse before men’s hockey – unless the $2MM per year thing is real. As for an associate member, I am unsure of who brings the academic reputation, hockey reputation, and TV audience that the Big Ten would be looking for. Johns Hopkins was a slam dunk for lacrosse as they easily met all three of those. For hockey, I don’t know who would be a great hockey program that also gains anything for the Big Ten. North Dakota is big time and would add a huge fan base, but doesn’t add much from an academic perspective (#173 to USN&WR). Miami is a great program with good academics (#75) but adds almost nothing as far as markets or fan bases are concerned. A CIS school (like U of Toronto) is an interesting idea but likely a pipe dream.
If further realignment comes our way (like is rumored here), I think North Dakota is most likely.
Next In Line: Nebraska, then Illinois or Rutgers.
Nebraska is in a great place for this but has denied any serious interest. They have great fan support in general, a new arena that can be used for hockey, and a state with three USHL teams. Plus they have a natural rival in UNO. More detail here.
https://mgoblog.com/diaries/history-big-ten-hockey-1922-present
LikeLike
Nebraska is in a great place for this but has denied any serious interest. They have great fan support in general, a new arena that can be used for hockey, and a state with three USHL teams. Plus they have a natural rival in UNO.
Pinnacle Bank Arena at this time can’t support permanent ice. The Huskers also have a huge football roster (130+) that has been causing Title IX issues. They are getting ready to kick off a $300+ million football stadium renovation that will be hitting up donors and most likely the legislature. IMO the price to add hockey (a couple of women’s sports and pulling a significant amount of donations away from a priority project) is too high for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
Mike,
It sounds like a couple of simple ideas could help NE:
Hockey requires a pre-existing arena ready to use or a huge donation to start a program (men’s and women’s). Besides, why compete with UNO? The state doesn’t generate all that many D-I players.
LikeLike
@Brian
Add women’s wrestling
I think they should. Iowa did after getting sued for their Title IX issues. I’ve seen Iowa’s cost estimates per year ranging from 1-2 million which is probably why they haven’t.
Trim the football roster
They have from the Frost era peak of 150+. Matt Rhule likes his “project” players so he’s been stockpiling them using “NIL scholarships.” Nebraskans love the walk on program, so bunch of projectable players being developed fits right in with how the fan base wants the program run.
Hockey requires a pre-existing arena ready to use or a huge donation to start a program (men’s and women’s). Besides, why compete with UNO? The state doesn’t generate all that many D-I players.
I’ve mentioned before that UNL actually owns a 4600 seat hockey arena on campus. It currently used by the USHL’s Lincoln Stars who’s lease runs until 2031. I don’t think a “UNL” team would compete much with UNO for fans/sponsorship/etc. It would be within driving distance of most of the USHL (the primary feeder league for the NCAA) which would be good for recruiting.
LikeLike
Third link appears corrupted. I’ll resend without it. Text follows:
The Big Ten hockey conference should expand for two reasons: Seven members is an awkward number and too small plus the footprint of the BTN could expand in some densely populated areas with a lot of hockey fans. I propose three options:
(1) West – North Dakota, Nebraska-Omaha, U of Denver, Colorado College, Air Force Academy. According to the first link below that would capture the #2, #3 and #14 all-time best hockey programs plus the Denver TV market.
(2) East – Boston College, Boston U (the best rivalry in hockey), Maine, RPI, Quinnipiac, UConn, Army. The same link says this option would bring in the #5, #7, #11 and #13 all-time best hockey programs plus all the major TV markets in New England.
(3) Ivy League. Six Ivy League teams play hockey and the second link below claims that all six of them are among the top ten hockey programs. This too would capture all the major TV markets in New England.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/831388-college-hockey-power-ranking-the-top-20-programs-of-all-time
https://www.ncsasports.org/best-colleges/best-division-1-ice-hockey-colleges
LikeLike
Here’s another option. If Big Ten hockey expanded with North Dakota, Colorado College, Denver, Boston College, Boston U, Army and Air Force, five of the top ten rivalries in college hockey would be on the Big Ten Network.
https://www.echlocker.com/blog/ech-top10-college-hockey-rivalries
LikeLike
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11162-024-09786-7
Research shows starting a FB program doesn’t necessarily have lasting positive impacts on a university. It does for the first 1-2 years when it gets lots of attention in the media, but not after that.
Abstract:
Football teams draw the largest crowds of any American collegiate sport, and with them, both positive and negative attention for colleges and universities. Nearly 50 colleges have added the sport recently, but little research has examined the institutional effects of adding a team. Some of these institutions are regional research universities adding the sport as part of broad plans to transform campus identities, while at smaller public and private institutions, adding a football team (with approximately 100 members) appears to be an attempt to boost racial diversity and the number of male students. This study uses difference-in-difference models to find that adding a football team appears to have a significant, but short-term, effect on enrollment and tuition revenue. The long-term effects of adding the sport do not appear to be statistically significant. This raises questions about the costs and benefits of adding football at a time when higher education faces significant challenges attracting students.
LikeLike
Random internet rumor time. I don’t give it a credence, but just FYI.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40000227/judge-orders-florida-state-acc-mediation-settle-suit
Interesting developments in the FL court for FSU vs the ACC. The judge dismissed FSU’s complaint but gave them 7 days to amend it with more details and re-file. He also ordered both sides to enter (non-binding) mediation.
A Tallahassee judge has ordered Florida State and the Atlantic Coast Conference to enter mediation in hopes of settling a high-profile lawsuit that could dramatically impact the future of the league.
Judge John C. Cooper technically approved the ACC’s motion to dismiss Monday but gave FSU seven days to amend its complaint because the university needs more specificity regarding key facts in a case he said “is worth up to half a billion dollars.” The conference would have 20 days to respond afterward, and another hearing would be set.
“The case is not over,” Cooper said. “The case will continue.”
Cooper ordered the sides to begin mediation within 120 days. But a mediator cannot force an agreement, so the case could end up back in court.
“I send every case to mediation except mortgage foreclosures,” Cooper said. “This is not being done any differently.”
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/group-of-five-playoff-being-pitched-by-derek-dooley-financially-backed-by-private-equity-firms/
Derek Dooley has a plan for an 8-team G5 playoff with the winner getting the G5’s spot in the CFP. It would have private equity backing. I don’t know why the AAC and MWC would agree unless the money was significant, since they are much more likely to get the CFP berth.
And what do Olympic sports have to do with this? Why wouldn’t this plan only effect football?
While Dooley’s idea is in the development stages, sources stressed that financial involvement would be more than just funding a playoff. In one iteration of the proposal, as described to CBS Sports, eight division champions would play at the end of the regular season for the Group of Five’s guaranteed CFP berth. “Significant dollars” would be at stake, according to one source with knowledge of the pitch.
Such an arrangement would require the 62 teams contained in the Group of Five conferences realigning into eight-team divisions.
…
The new divisions would be realigned geographically, in part to benefit Olympic sports. One of the biggest criticisms of conference realignment centers around the long distances those teams are required to travel.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40017711/bears-unveil-5b-proposal-new-domed-lakefront-stadium
The Bears want to build a new domed stadium right next to Soldier Field now. It will cost $5B, with the Bears giving $2B and hotel taxes covering the rest. The mayor is excited, but the governor isn’t.
I think this would be a natural home for the B10 CCG, at the very least rotating with Indy.
The Bears unveiled a nearly $5 billion proposal Wednesday for an enclosed stadium next door to their current home at Soldier Field as part of a major project that would transform the city’s lakefront, and they are asking for public funding to help make it happen.
The plan calls for $3.2 billion for the new stadium plus an additional $1.5 billion in infrastructure. The team and the city said the project would add green and open space while improving access to the city’s Museum Campus and also could include a publicly owned hotel.
…
The proposal calls for $2.025 billion from the Bears, $300 million from an NFL loan and $900 million in bonds from the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority. The funding from the ISFA would involve extending bonds of the existing 2% hotel tax.
The Bears said the project would generate $8 billion in economic impact for the region. It would be built in three phases, and construction would take up to five years. The new stadium would be constructed on a parking lot just south of Soldier Field, the Bears’ home since 1971. The team’s lease at the 100-year-old stadium runs through 2033.
Mayor Brandon Johnson gave a full-throated endorsement, saying the project is in line with Daniel Burnham’s 1909 “Plan of Chicago.” Johnson said there would be no tax hikes or new taxes for Chicago residents.
…
Although Soldier Field’s famed colonnades would be preserved, the spaceship-like stadium that was installed in the renovation two decades ago would be torn out and replaced by playing fields and park space. The plan calls for a pedestrian mall, food and beverage options, a promenade and a plaza.
“My administration insisted that any new project — especially one on public land — must deliver strong public benefit and public use for the City of Chicago, and I am pleased today that this plan does exactly that,” Johnson said.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, however, said he wasn’t on board.
“I remain skeptical about this proposal, and I wonder whether it’s a good deal for the taxpayers,” Pritzker told reporters Wednesday at an unrelated news conference. “I’m not sure this is among the highest priorities for taxpayers.”
LikeLike
Still feels like we are on a glide path to the next 2 major moves:
FSU + Clemson to the SEC
Miami +1 (likely UVA?) to the Big Ten.
UNC is the big wild card in all of this; I used to think they’d be almost certain to grab an SEC or Big Ten invite, but it’s harder to gauge now that the NC board of governors will have a direct say in any plan to switch conferences with NC State having strong representation on that board alongside UNC.
So UNC and NC State may end up being the first actual package deal in all of this, in which case I’d expect that pair to end up in the SEC with UVA going to the Big Ten alongside Miami.
That would get us to a relatively stable pair of 20 team Big Ten (+ Miami/UVA) and SEC (+ FSU/Clemson/UNC/NC State) conferences, and then I’d guess that the Big 12 would pick up another 4 schools as well (Va Tech + Louisville + Pitt + Ga Tech).
ACC would be left with BC, Syracuse, WF, Duke, SMU, Cal, Stanford.
ACC could rebuild with UConn, USF, Memphis, ECU, Tulane, SDSU among other options to try to get back to 12+.
Basically would leave us with a Power 2 + Middle 1 all comprised of 20 teams each. That’d be a relatively stable long-term configuration imo, but we shall see.
I’d assume that ND would either keep its 5 game allotment with the ACC or shift that to the Big 12 which would likely be most willing to take 5 ND games along with the rest of their sports to bolster its TV contract.
Yes it feels a bit too clean for everything to shake out like this, and I’m always skeptical of any sort of “clean ending” to a messy process, but we shall see.
LikeLike
z33k,
I’m not so sure the B10 could get permission to add UVA, and I doubt UVA wants to leave UNC. I lean towards just FSU, Clemson and maybe Miami leaving the ACC. Who would be B10 #20? I don’t know. Nobody but ND (not an option) or UNC seem likely to get Fox’s approval. I’d say just count the IA/ISU game (or ND/USC, or UW/WSU, or UO/OrSU, or 3 of them) as a conference game and thus 19 teams playing 9 games is okay.
But let’s assume your supposition is correct:
SEC + FSU/Clemson and B10 + Miami/UVA
I think UNC would still be inclined to stay in the ACC:
BC/SU/Pitt/UL/VT/UVA/UNC/NCSU/Duke/WF/GT/SMU/Cal/Stanford
With those 14 as a base the B12 wouldn’t be able to raid them except the western 3, but Cal and Stanford don’t want the B12 and the B12 doesn’t want SMU. The ACC could consider USF and UConn to get to 16.
But if UNC and NCSU do leave, then I think the ACC still holds together. The B12 won’t pay enough to cover extra travel and leaving all the coastal schools to play in TX. They’d certainly consider USF and UConn at that point, but I doubt they’d expand westward.
As for ND, I see them reducing their ACC commitment from 5 to 3 or 4 games. At NBC’s encouragement, they’ll play a few more B10 teams (UCLA, UO and UW + traditional ones) instead.
LikeLike
I think Miami + 1 would likely get pro rata increases in the contract as long as they join at the right time when a contract has expired. Miami has enough oomph as a brand, it just hasn’t been up at all the past 20 years.
But I feel like betting on Miami is a somewhat safe proposition; they can always pull in top 10 classes with a good recruiter at coach, play the NIL game, located right in the most fertile recruiting area in the country, etc.
The +1 is harder to gauge, there’s a ton of similar valued schools in the mix whether Cal or Stanford or UVA or Arizona or Arizona State or Colorado or Utah or Ga Tech.
I’m somewhat unsure which is actually the best choice.
LikeLike
Fox wouldn’t even pay $15M for Cal or Stanford last time. Suddenly they’ll pay $80M or more? Miami + a school close to the value line? Okay, I can see that. But not many schools have that value.
Miami +1 options (ignoring ND, FSU and Clemson):
Geographically desirable – UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU, GT
If a larger western block is desired – Stanford, Cal, UA, ASU, CU, UU
Silly options – SU, Pitt, KU
Academically desirable – UVA, UNC, GT, Stanford, Cal
Fine academics – UA, ASU, CU, UU, Pitt, KU
Borderline academics – VT, NCSU, SU
King FB brand – none (OSU, UM, USC)
Barons – none (Miami; PSU, NE, MSU, WI, IA, UO)
Knights – Cal, Stanford, ASU, UU, VT, UNC, NCSU, GT, Pitt (MN, NW, UCLA, UW)
Peasants – CU*, UA, UVA, SU, KU (IL, IN, PU, UMD, RU)
* – maybe this has changed with Deion
All tiers are from Mandel’s list (I’d move PSU and NE up to king)
UNC and KU bring extra value from being MBB bluebloods, too.
We know the B10 wanted Stanford and Cal and Fox said no. The B10 showed zero interest in the four corners schools as the P12 imploded, so we can drop them. I’m ignoring the silly options because I don’t think the interest is there.
That just leaves the traditional ACC 5, and they all have major flaws:
UVA – terrible FB brand, splits state as the lesser brand, UMD already brings parts of NOVA, wants to be wherever UNC is
VT – splits state, UMD already brings parts of NOVA, borderline academics
UNC – mediocre FB brand, splits state as the slightly bigger brand, travel/culture concerns, likely prefers ACC/SEC
NCSU – mediocre FB brand, splits state as the slightly smaller brand, travel/culture concerns, borderline academics, likely prefers ACC/SEC (wherever UNC is)
GT – mediocre FB brand, splits state as the much smaller brand, travel/culture concerns, likely prefers ACC/SEC
I doubt Fox would approve NCSU or GT, so drop them. That just leaves UNC (who wants the ACC to remain together) and the VA schools. Fox probably prefers VT over UVA, but the B10 presidents likely have the opposite preference.
LikeLike
NW is a knight while Purdue and IL are peasants? In the past 50 years NW is 16-28 (36%) vs Purdue and NW is 24-24 vs IL.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree with your analysis of the schools.
I think it basically does come down to the VA schools as well; at least they have basic proximity to the main footprint as a boost (in terms of travel costs for the “original” 14.
I think FOX would basically have it come down to the VA schools as well, and you’re right that FOX would probably prefer Va Tech with its larger fanbase.
Hard to know what the end result would be.
I do think Miami ends up in the Big Ten in the next round of realignment, though Big Ten may wait until 2030s for that. Don’t see any need to rush into anything and try to help them pay $200+ million in an early buyout, that doesn’t work for the VA schools at all since they’re under the average value.
Unless the pair is FSU + Miami, but there’s 0 evidence of that. Seems like FSU and Clemson are working together.
LikeLike
Better than Miami or FSU or Clemson or UNC or UVA is Texas A&M. These Aggie-to-Big-Ten rumors seem crazy but if they have any traction, the State of Texas would be a huge addition to the Big Ten footprint. I was on the A&M faculty for a few years and estimate the college football fan support to be 40% Longhorns, 30% Aggies and 30% all others. Texas has 31 million people and they’re all football fans.
LikeLike
The other wrench in the works is that VT wants to be with UVA, and after UVA got them into the ACC the state may want VT to show gratitude. I don’t think they’d keep VT from moving up to the P2, though.
LikeLike
NW is a knight while Purdue and IL are peasants? In the past 50 years NW is 16-28 (36%) vs Purdue and NW is 24-24 vs IL.
Franchise value is defined by a lot more than just won-lost record. Alabama could go 0–12 for the next five years and they would still be worth more than Purdue. College sports programs build up long-term advantages and disadvantages that tend to endure regardless of whether they are winning.
LikeLike
We’re not talking about Alabama, we’re talking about Northwestern. All-time NW is 34-53-1 (39%) vs Purdue.
Regarding all-time Big Ten football success, NW ranks 13th out of 14 schools in the conference. Purdue ranks 9th.
https://wolverineswire.usatoday.com/lists/big-ten-football-teams-all-time-winning-percentage/
LikeLike
I told you it’s not about W-L records (or at least, not entirely), and you are still spewing out records that anyone, including Stew Mandel, can easily look up.
Of course, I am not suggesting that Mandel’s rankings are guaranteed to be correct. However, he has explained his criteria many times, and it’s fairly obvious that he doesn’t just look up game records. Northwestern generally does better on TV than Purdue does, and it’s in a more valuable market.
LikeLike
Marc: “Northwestern generally does better on TV than Purdue does, and it’s in a more valuable market.”
Why do you fabricate such nonsense? Purdue draws 50% more viewers than Northwestern. (first link)
You and Brian seem to be obsessed with this King/Knight/Peasant gibberish even though it is obviously badly flawed and inconsistent. How about a ranking that is actually based upon a team’s historical performance? (second link) The Big Ten schools fall into four tiers based upon all-time winning percentages:
72-68%: Ohio St, Mich, Neb, Penn St
60-54%: Mich St, Wisc, Minn, Iowa
52-50%: Purdue, Maryland, Illinois
Under 50%: Rutgers, NW, Indiana
Now, it’s obvious that Nebraska ran up most of those wins against lesser competition and hasn’t fared nearly as well since joining the Big Ten, so I’ll knock them down a notch. That gives us:
Kings – Ohio St, Mich, Penn St
Princes: Mich St, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Neb
Knights: Purdue, Maryland, Illinois
Peasants: Rutgers, NW, Indiana
View at Medium.com
https://wolverineswire.usatoday.com/lists/big-ten-football-teams-all-time-winning-percentage/
LikeLike
Marc,
It’s also key to note that W-L record against one team is only meaningful to rivals, which NW and PU aren’t. IU and PU (and IL and NW) may care about their records against each other, but nobody else does.
Mandel does his tiers every 5 years, with the last one written in June 2022. At that time, NW had won the B10 West 2 of the past 4 years and was ranked in the top 25 entering the CCG.
Since then, PU has made the CCG once though they were unranked (1st unranked division champ in B10 history). And NW has gone through their scandal and coaching change. NW might be back down in the Peasants after their 1-11 season, though they did bounce back to 8-5 this past year.
As for W/L records:
Since PSU joined in 1993:
68. NW 0.500
86. PU 0.461
Last 20 years (since 2004):
59. NW 0.528
99. PU 0.424
Last 10 years (CFP era):
68. NW 0.512
105. PU 0.403
Using W/L over the past 20 years:
Emperor – #2
King – #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 21
Baron – #8, 10, 13, 19, 20, 24, 25, 32, 33, 36, 49, 56
G5 (not included in Mandel’s tiers) – #3, 9, 12, 22, 29, …
In lower tiers – 14. TCU, 15. UU, 18. OkSU, 22. UC, 23. BYU, …
So W/L tracks reasonably well with his tiers, especially if you consider major historical success (NE, TN, etc.) as well.
There seems to be a case to be made for NW being on a higher level than PU. That said, Mandel is explicit that it is about more than just W/L.
LikeLike
Brian, your childish, cherry-picked statistics are asinine drivel. There is no reasonable rationale for Northwestern football to be ranked above Purdue, or Illinois. And hey, I thought you weren’t reading my posts. Fess up now . . . .
LikeLike
FSU + Clemson to the SEC
IMO – those two got double secret guarantees from either the Big Ten or SEC (I lean toward the SEC) before they filed their lawsuits.
UNC is the big wild card in all of this; I used to think they’d be almost certain to grab an SEC or Big Ten invite, but it’s harder to gauge now that the NC board of governors will have a direct say in any plan to switch conferences with NC State having strong representation on that board alongside UNC.
I don’t think their board will keep UNC out of the P2 because NC St isn’t getting in. They will try and package NC St, be told no, and then bless the move. IMO almost everyone overrates UNC (just too much going on in the area) and they don’t have the pull everyone thinks they do. UNC might be the second in a pairing (i.e. the SEC is taking FSU and one other with UNC getting first shot).
That would get us to a relatively stable pair of 20 team Big Ten (+ Miami/UVA) and SEC (+ FSU/Clemson/UNC/NC State) conferences, and then I’d guess that the Big 12 would pick up another 4 schools as well (Va Tech + Louisville + Pitt + Ga Tech).
Part of me thinks the ACC will be able to backfill with Big 12 schools. As long as ESPN honors the TV contract (big if) there is a lot of stability in the ACC. The east coast teams may like to cut down travel a bit.
I’d assume that ND would either keep its 5 game allotment with the ACC or shift that to the Big 12 which would likely be most willing to take 5 ND games along with the rest of their sports to bolster its TV contract.
If the ACC implodes ND going to run into the same problem Texas did. Really boring home and road games. Kansas St is a great program. Does anyone get excited if KSU (TT, BYU, OSU, ISU, BU) comes to town? Does anyone want to travel to Manhattan (Lubbock, Provo, Stillwater, Ames, or Waco)? Has ND ever visited a current (2023-24 lineup) Big 12 school? Maybe Provo once or did that get moved to Vegas? I would think the PAC 12 4 would be acceptable to ND but the other teams are not what ND is looking for in a H/H partner. There is going to be lots of SEC or B1G brand on brand games sucking up a lot of oxygen on Saturdays. Notre Dame can’t counter that with 5 Big 12 teams.
LikeLike
Yep that’s the biggest problem with the ND position. Over time, if the ACC loses FSU, Clemson, and Miami, their schedules become mediocre compared to the Big Ten/SEC putting up multiple big brand clashes every week.
ND fans may prefer independence as a matter of principle, but when Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State are enjoying national schedules against big brands, it will hurt that ND doesn’t have that.
LikeLike
ND’s schedules have been weak for decades and it has yet to hurt them. The fans still buy tickets and donate tons of money, and NBC pays them a ton. FSU, Clemson and Miami were only 1 of 5 games each year for them anyway. With a 12 team playoff, ND just needs to go 10-2 to get in. Their schedule is irrelevant for that. So all that really matters is who/where ND wants to play, and the ACC still offers them the mid-Atlantic and southeast (GT) in addition to the northeast. ND knows the B10 will offer them as many midwestern games as they want, plus they have Navy, USC and Stanford (or maybe Cal now). ND can host a playoff game regularly, making millions every time in tickets/merchandise/etc., plus they get a big CFP payout annually with a bonus every time they make the CFP.
LikeLike
ND’s schedules have been weak for decades and it has yet to hurt them.
I don’t know about that. They lost their sell out streak a few years ago. It seems every year there’s an article about ND going to great lengths to keep opposing fans out. NBC still pays them but the deal isn’t a market setter like they used to be.
With a 12 team playoff, ND just needs to go 10-2 to get in.
Will their schedule get so soft they’ll end up unprepared to compete in playoff games? The Big Ten and SEC (2024 line ups) dominated this years NFL draft. Will ND still be seen as a good place for blue chippers in the P2 word?
ND can host a playoff game regularly,
I thought they couldn’t host or did I miss that getting changed?
LikeLike
ND cannot get a first round bye because those are reserved for conference champs who win CCGs. However, ND can host a first round game. See example below.
https://www.si.com/college/notredame/football/college-football-playoff-format-changes-should-benefit-notre-dame
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t know about that. They lost their sell out streak a few years ago.
Only NE puts much stock in sellout streaks since schools counts tickets distributed, not butts in seats.
It seems every year there’s an article about ND going to great lengths to keep opposing fans out.
Yes, but that’s for big games where visitors will pay huge sums to get a once-in-a-lifetime chance to watch at game at ND. ND fans get that chance all the time. It’s like OSU students selling tickets for the UM game – the money is too tempting.
NBC still pays them but the deal isn’t a market setter like they used to be.
It hasn’t been a market setter for a long time. Probably since the BTN started.
Will their schedule get so soft they’ll end up unprepared to compete in playoff games?
How many tough games do they need? They’ll always have USC, and can easily add more. Maybe they’ll be healthier than everyone else and do better in a long playoff.
The Big Ten and SEC (2024 line ups) dominated this years NFL draft. Will ND still be seen as a good place for blue chippers in the P2 word?
Part of that is the luck of the P12 ending on a high note while Clemson was down. But for the most part that same story has been true for quite a while (B10 + SEC + USC/UO/UW/UCLA/UT/OU would dominate).
ND will be a goldmine for NIL with their donor base, and they still pump out players like OT Alt. As long as they are the only school with their own broadcast TV deal, they’ll be fine.
I thought they couldn’t host or did I miss that getting changed?
ND can’t get a bye, but anyone can be seeded 5-8 and host a game. IN ND’s case, anytime they would be a top 4 team, they’d also slide to #5 and host so they are more likely to host a game than anyone else.
LikeLike
Mike,
I agree that FSU and Clemson know they have open invitations to the P2.
You’re probably correct about UNC and NCSU as well, though I don’t think UNC wants to leave the ACC anyway. I think their power is between the common view and your view, though. UNC isn’t ultra-desirable, but I think they could be a 1a rather than a +1. They bring the hoops value, and I think TV sees them as a sleeping giant with a state waiting for a powerhouse to cheer for. But they may end up as the +1 just because FSU, Clemson and Miami are such big brands.
Which B12 schools would consider the ACC? WV, obviously. UCF and UC. But would any of the plains schools go? Maybe KU. Do the 4C schools really want the travel? Maybe, especially if they think they’ll combine with Stanford, Cal and SMU for a bunch of regional games per year.
ND just wants a home for their other sports. They’ve been willing to play 5 ACC football games to get that home. If the ACC loses their big brands, I expect ND will just lower that number to 3 or 4 and play more B10 (and/or SEC) teams instead. Even if the ACC implodes, someone will offer ND’s teams a home. They could join the Big East at worst.
LikeLike
You’re probably correct about UNC and NCSU as well, though I don’t think UNC wants to leave the ACC anyway. I think their power is between the common view and your view, though. UNC isn’t ultra-desirable, but I think they could be a 1a rather than a +1.
It will probably turn out that way. It won’t be the first time everyone sees something I don’t.
Which B12 schools would consider the ACC?
Your list makes sense.
ND just wants a home for their other sports. They’ve been willing to play 5 ACC football games to get that home. If the ACC loses their big brands, I expect ND will just lower that number to 3 or 4 and play more B10 (and/or SEC) teams instead. Even if the ACC implodes, someone will offer ND’s teams a home. They could join the Big East at worst.
IMO – The SEC will go to nine games at some point. IMO, the SOS of the Big Ten and SEC will see most teams back off of their Big OOC games. I think independence or nothing ND fans would be happy playing the remaining ACC schools, but man are those going to be boring games. The “brand” of ND was built playing against the powers, not the also rans. ND will need to be creative to prevent apathy.
LikeLike
Mike,
I agree that the SEC will eventually go to 9 games, but they are waiting for ESPN to pay them more for it.
That doesn’t really make sense to me since ESPN would lose some inventory (1 SEC games replaces 2 OOC games), especially since the SEC is likely to use it as an excuse to drop P4 OOC games and keep the cupcakes. That is likely to hurt ESPN via the ACC losing games against the SEC (not the 4 locked rivalries, but others). At the same time, the quality of games will only improve slightly so there isn’t much value gained. Obviously ESPN and the SEC have more detailed numbers, but I think it’s a wash. The B10 didn’t get paid more for 9 games.
So when they negotiate their new deal in 2030 or so, that’s when I think they’ll move to 9.
Despite adding 4 average to above average programs, I think the SOS will not change much in the B10 due to the scheduling model. The teams in the East were already playing a tough schedule and still kept a big OOC game.
OSU:
2021 – PSU, @UM, @NE, MSU, @RU, UMD, @IN, @MN, PU + UO
2022 – UM, @PSU, @MSU, WI, IA, RU, @UMD, IN, @NW + ND
2023 – PSU, @UM, @WI, MSU, @RU, UMD, @IN, MN, @PU + @ND
2024 – UM, @PSU, NE, @UO, @MSU, IA, IN, @NW, PU + nobody
2025 – PSU, @UM, @WI, UW, UCLA, MN, @IL, PU, @RU + UT
2026 – UM, @USC, @NE, UO, @IA, @IN, IL, NW, UMD + @UT
2021 – 2 kings, 2 barons + 1 baron = 17 (k = 4, b = 3)
2022 – 2 kings, 3 barons + 1 king = 21
2023 – 2 kings, 2 barons + 1 king = 18
2024 – 2 kings, 3 barons + nothing = 17
2025 – 2 kings, 2 barons + 1 king = 18
2026 – 2 kings, 3 barons + 1 king = 21
The view is probably different for teams from the B10 West, and likely the Pac4 as well.
I think most B10 teams would still be thrilled to get a series against ND. It’s too valuable to pass on.
As for ND fans, I don’t think they’d be happy still in the ACC with 5 games. They grumble already about the ACC games, and that’s with FSU, Clemson and Miami included. They want their cake (independence) and to eat it too (big games all the time). They’ll accept 3 games, maybe 4.
LikeLike
That doesn’t really make sense to me since ESPN would lose some inventory (1 SEC games replaces 2 OOC games), especially since the SEC is likely to use it as an excuse to drop P4 OOC games and keep the cupcakes. That is likely to hurt ESPN via the ACC losing games against the SEC (not the 4 locked rivalries, but others). At the same time, the quality of games will only improve slightly so there isn’t much value gained. Obviously ESPN and the SEC have more detailed numbers, but I think it’s a wash.
I think there will end up being a deal being made at some point. It makes too much sense for both parties. IMO – the extra SEC games will be more valuable than the replaced games. Mainly because the extra SEC games are guaranteed (where OOC games may be cancelled) and will have a higher likelihood of being “premium” than what they’ll replace. I don’t remember who said it, but the 4M plus games are exponentially more valuable than 4 1M games.
I think most B10 teams would still be thrilled to get a series against ND. It’s too valuable to pass on.
I think they will, but it its going to get harder and harder to work them in. Other than USC, I’m not sure any B1G or SEC team will be willing to play them in November. If given the choice between and October bye week or playing Notre Dame, I think the majority will take the bye week (I can only think of Northwestern and Purdue playing in Oct off the top of my head). The Original ACC deal was because ND was having trouble finding November games, if the ACC loses its brands, ND is back to mediocre second half schedules.
As for ND fans, I don’t think they’d be happy still in the ACC with 5 games. They grumble already about the ACC games, and that’s with FSU, Clemson and Miami included. They want their cake (independence) and to eat it too (big games all the time). They’ll accept 3 games, maybe 4.
I think the independence above all crowd (don’t tell them they’re part of a conference in everything else and a 5/8 member of ACC football) will happily play terrible schedules as long as they can claim independence. I think anyone looking at the big picture will see trouble. They can still make it work, but they’re going to have to compromise more and more. Maybe that means a November playing a Wake, SMU, Syracuse, and BC. Maybe that means playing in the obscure Big 12 college towns.
LikeLike
Mike, interesting comments about the USC/ND scheduling. USC had a special agreement with the Pac-12 so that the conference would always schedule around the USC/ND game. We don’t know if the Big Ten has agreed to do the same. If you look at future schedules for both USC and ND, neither school has set a date for the rivalry game after 2026.
LikeLike
Mike, interesting comments about the USC/ND scheduling. USC had a special agreement with the Pac-12 so that the conference would always schedule around the USC/ND game. We don’t know if the Big Ten has agreed to do the same.
I imagine the game is valuable enough the Big Ten will work with them if they want to. Like I mentioned though, USC might find that adding a Oct/Nov trip to South Bend might not be worth it especially now that they will be making more cross country flights.
LikeLike
Right, plus the original reason for the scheduling was that USC didn’t want to play in South Bend in the November cold. Now, of course, the Trojans will be playing in colder places than South Bend in November.
LikeLike
Mike,
I think there will end up being a deal being made at some point. It makes too much sense for both parties. IMO – the extra SEC games will be more valuable than the replaced games. Mainly because the extra SEC games are guaranteed (where OOC games may be cancelled) and will have a higher likelihood of being “premium” than what they’ll replace. I don’t remember who said it, but the 4M plus games are exponentially more valuable than 4 1M games.
I’m just not sure on the value side. You’re going to lose opening week LSU vs FSU games and replace them with LSU vs UF games. You’ll lose SC vs UNC games and replace them with SC vs UK. You’d need to look carefully at schedules and ratings data to really know what to expect. Yes 4M+ viewer games are extra valuable, but there’s no evidence the number of them would increase.
I think they will, but it its going to get harder and harder to work them in. Other than USC, I’m not sure any B1G or SEC team will be willing to play them in November. If given the choice between and October bye week or playing Notre Dame, I think the majority will take the bye week (I can only think of Northwestern and Purdue playing in Oct off the top of my head). The Original ACC deal was because ND was having trouble finding November games, if the ACC loses its brands, ND is back to mediocre second half schedules.
Any of the bottom tier of the current B10 would take those ND games (RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL, NW, MN), plus the western schools likely would. The issue is if ND wants to play them.
Modern era late ND/B10 games:
UM – 10/2019
NW – 11/2018
NW – 11/2014
PU – 10/2011
PU – 10/2005
PU – 12/2001
Yes, they are unusual. But a big part of that is the B10 not playing conference games in the first 3-4 weeks until recently.
ND having trouble finding November games was part reason and part excuse (to cover them with the anti-conference crowd). All their G5 opponents would be happy to play them in November. USC and Stanford alternate doing it. The ACC and B12 would make room in a team’s schedule to accommodate a ND game because it would add value to their TV slate. Heck, the B10 will likely make room so USC/ND can continue as is.
…I think anyone looking at the big picture will see trouble. They can still make it work, but they’re going to have to compromise more and more. Maybe that means a November playing a Wake, SMU, Syracuse, and BC. Maybe that means playing in the obscure Big 12 college towns.
With the 12 (then 14) team playoff, they can afford the weak schedule. Fans will still show up because the CFP berth will be at stake. Plus they will always have USC every other November (and either Stanford or a replacement in CA/FL/TX).
We’ll see.
LikeLike
I’m just not sure on the value side. You’re going to lose opening week LSU vs FSU games and replace them with LSU vs UF games. You’ll lose SC vs UNC games and replace them with SC vs UK. You’d need to look carefully at schedules and ratings data to really know what to expect.
I think they’d keep the neutral site “cash” games. I think the games more likely lost are the OOC home and homes. I feel like we’ll see less and less of them anyway, since the “big” OOC games might hurt your playoff chances more than help them. If they goal is top 15, there is a lot of teams that are not going to unnecessarily travel somewhere they might get beat.
Any of the bottom tier of the current B10 would take those ND games (RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL, NW, MN), plus the western schools likely would. The issue is if ND wants to play them.
Depends on how well the Big Ten is willing work on scheduling. I highly doubt anyone is going to give up a second half bye week to play ND. The ceiling for those teams (right now) is probably being ranked in the 10-15 range. Playing 8 – 10 weeks straight vs Big Ten and ND teams most likely means they won’t hit that ceiling.
ND having trouble finding November games was part reason and part excuse (to cover them with the anti-conference crowd). All their G5 opponents would be happy to play them in November. USC and Stanford alternate doing it. The ACC and B12 would make room in a team’s schedule to accommodate a ND game because it would add value to their TV slate. Heck, the B10 will likely make room so USC/ND can continue as is.
I don’t think ND will have trouble finding games, its finding compelling games. IMO G5 games are fine at the beginning of the year when everyone is excited that football is back. In November they’re they’re of little interest. I’m sure the Big 12 will be happy to do whatever it can to accommodate ND. Outside of the four corners, does anyone in the Big 12 offer a compelling game (Texas fans didn’t think so). It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if USC started playing ND earlier in the year so they can spread out those cross country flights.
With the 12 (then 14) team playoff, they can afford the weak schedule. Fans will still show up because the CFP berth will be at stake. Plus they will always have USC every other November (and either Stanford or a replacement in CA/FL/TX).
They can afford it, but playing soft, boring schedules isn’t good for fan engagement or recruiting. If 9-1 ND is playing Kent St in November, I’m not confident the game will sell out.
LikeLike
Mike,
I think they’d keep the neutral site “cash” games. I think the games more likely lost are the OOC home and homes. I feel like we’ll see less and less of them anyway, since the “big” OOC games might hurt your playoff chances more than help them. If they goal is top 15, there is a lot of teams that are not going to unnecessarily travel somewhere they might get beat.
Why keep a riskier money game? They’ll get the big CFP boost, plus ESPN paying them for the 9th game. They’ll drop the P4 OOC game requirement and play 3 cupcakes. They can just move some big SEC games to the early weeks to get TV attention.
Depends on how well the Big Ten is willing work on scheduling. I highly doubt anyone is going to give up a second half bye week to play ND. The ceiling for those teams (right now) is probably being ranked in the 10-15 range. Playing 8 – 10 weeks straight vs Big Ten and ND teams most likely means they won’t hit that ceiling.
The B10 has always been willing to work with ND on scheduling. Fans hate them, but the conference loves their money. Teams don’t have to give up a bye week, they’ll just have a September B10 game instead so they would’ve played someone OOC in October/November anyway.
NW has played ND in November several times recently. RU would. UMD would. PU would. IU would. …
I don’t think ND will have trouble finding games, its finding compelling games. IMO G5 games are fine at the beginning of the year when everyone is excited that football is back. In November they’re they’re of little interest. I’m sure the Big 12 will be happy to do whatever it can to accommodate ND. Outside of the four corners, does anyone in the Big 12 offer a compelling game (Texas fans didn’t think so). It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if USC started playing ND earlier in the year so they can spread out those cross country flights.
Nobody plays 12 compelling games. Frankly, nobody plays 9 compelling games. Most probably don’t play 6. The SEC does just fine with cupcake Saturdays in November, so I think ND could.
I highly doubt ND and USC are moving their game. The B10 already agreed to not give USC back to back eastern games, and that’s easy enough to apply to the penultimate week. They schedule around these sorts of conflicts all the time. USC only needs to come east 4 times per year (including ND) – once each in August, September, October, and November would work.
They can afford it, but playing soft, boring schedules isn’t good for fan engagement or recruiting. If 9-1 ND is playing Kent St in November, I’m not confident the game will sell out.
LikeLike
Brian: “I highly doubt ND and USC are moving their game.”
The rivalry won’t be cancelled but I think they probably will move the end-of-season game in LA. The USC/UCLA game was previously moved every other year to accommodate ND at USC. The Bruins then played either Cal or Stanford for their final regular season game. It’s hard to imagine that the Big Ten would agree to a similar arrangement. Which teams would the Big Ten offer up to do it?
Also, neither ND nor USC lists each other as an opponent after 2026. Both have other opponents listed, either with dates or TBD. But it’s pretty clear that the future ND-USC games haven’t been scheduled yet. My hunch is that it will end up like the Red River Rivalry, always played in mid-season.
LikeLike
Why keep a riskier money game? They’ll get the big CFP boost, plus ESPN paying them for the 9th game. They’ll drop the P4 OOC game requirement and play 3 cupcakes. They can just move some big SEC games to the early weeks to get TV attention.
Those “Kickoff Classic” type games are less risky than doing the away leg of a home and home. Plus, no one ever has enough money.
The B10 has always been willing to work with ND on scheduling. Fans hate them, but the conference loves their money. Teams don’t have to give up a bye week, they’ll just have a September B10 game instead so they would’ve played someone OOC in October/November anyway.
They may try, but we saw this year how hard it was to build a schedule that put bye weeks after cross country flights. I think they will always accommodate ND if they can, but its going to get more difficult.
Nobody plays 12 compelling games. Frankly, nobody plays 9 compelling games. Most probably don’t play 6.
Correct. You still have to build some excitement in your schedule. I keep mentioning Texas. No one was getting excited about their home schedules. (Even worse, the teams no one was excited to watch were beating them). ND has to watch out for fan apathy.
The SEC does just fine with cupcake Saturdays in November, so I think ND could.
Everyone hates it except for the coaches. The games see notable attendance drops. Imagine two or three cupcake Saturdays in November. I don’t want to be the guy running the ND ticket office for that.
Winning is great for recruiting and fan engagement.
Now that a CFP berth is on the line, I’m sure it will. It’s ND’s version of being in the conference title chase.
KSU’s fans might sell it out for the chance to see a game in ND Stadium.
All of those things could happen. However, I don’t think playing games in November vs teams you’re favored by three TDs is going to do much for anyone. Saban used to complain about Alabama’s attendance (they were always in the playoff hunt) during their cupcake weeks.
ND has to schedule aggressively. I’m very interested in what they’ll figure out as we move more and more into the P2 world.
LikeLike
Mike,
Those “Kickoff Classic” type games are less risky than doing the away leg of a home and home. Plus, no one ever has enough money.
The risk depends on the “neutral” site. Some are basically road games. And every neutral site game costs your home town millions in revenue. Fans want to be on campus. And a big name neutral opponent is riskier than a HaH against a lesser brand.
They may try, but we saw this year how hard it was to build a schedule that put bye weeks after cross country flights. I think they will always accommodate ND if they can, but its going to get more difficult.
The pros manage it all the time, dealing with multi-week unavailability of various stadiums/arenas, etc. It’s not that hard. That’s what scheduling consultants are for. I don’t see it getting more difficult going forward.
Correct. You still have to build some excitement in your schedule. I keep mentioning Texas. No one was getting excited about their home schedules. (Even worse, the teams no one was excited to watch were beating them). ND has to watch out for fan apathy.
Your parenthetical was the problem, not the opponents. Fans will turn out if the team is winning. It’s being mediocre that turns them off. ND will always have several big names on their schedule, and a bunch of lesser ones. They always have.
1988: Rice, AF, Navy, Pitt, PU, Stanford, MSU / UM, USC, PSU, #1 Miami
That’s 4 big games and 7 meh ones.
Everyone hates it except for the coaches. The games see notable attendance drops. Imagine two or three cupcake Saturdays in November. I don’t want to be the guy running the ND ticket office for that.
1. I know plenty of SEC fans who like it. First, they like the blowout wins. Second, they like their team getting rested before their rivalry game. Third, they like getting affordable tickets to attend a game.
2. They’ve been playing plenty of November cupcakes at home lately, and 2 of their games are road/neutral anyway so they have at most 2 November home games. Some years it’s just 1.
2023 – WF
2022 – BC
2021 – Navy, GT
2020 – SU
2019 – Navy, BC
All of those things could happen. However, I don’t think playing games in November vs teams you’re favored by three TDs is going to do much for anyone.
See posted games above. Most sold out and all had attendance above 70,000 outside of the COVID year (77,622 is capacity).
Saban used to complain about Alabama’s attendance (they were always in the playoff hunt) during their cupcake weeks.
Saban always complained about literally everything.
ND has to schedule aggressively.
No, they really don’t (in my opinion).
I’m very interested in what they’ll figure out as we move more and more into the P2 world.
It’s a P3 world – SEC, B10, and ND. Those 3 have big TV deals, special CFP carve outs, additional power in deciding the future of CFB, etc. Everyone bends over backwards to include ND and never inconvenience them. As long as they have that TV power, they will be fine.
LikeLike
The risk depends on the “neutral” site. Some are basically road games.
I think the risk is pretty manageable since those games are usually set up a year or two out. You might end up with a home and home with a team that caught lightening in a bottle. Like ND did with Cincinnati a few years ago.
And every neutral site game costs your home town millions in revenue. Fans want to be on campus. And a big name neutral opponent is riskier than a HaH against a lesser brand.
With a nine game conference schedule, you can do a neutral site every other year and still get 7 home games.
The pros manage it all the time, dealing with multi-week unavailability of various stadiums/arenas, etc. It’s not that hard. That’s what scheduling consultants are for. I don’t see it getting more difficult going forward.
It seems everyone in the Big Ten was worried about it enough that it was a priority in scheduling. The Big Ten said adding those constraints made scheduling more difficult. Adding in exceptions for non conference team almost by definition makes it more difficult. I’m not saying its impossible.
Your parenthetical was the problem, not the opponents.
The parenthetical was (IMO) the straw that broke the camel’s back. I had seen Texas fans complaining for years leading up to their exit that their home games were unexciting. The jump in attendance in games against brands at Texas is pretty notable. 2018 Texas 8K drop between USC and TCU in consecutive weeks. 2022 Texas has a 10 jump from ULM to Alabama.
Fans will turn out if the team is winning. It’s being mediocre that turns them off. ND will always have several big names on their schedule, and a bunch of lesser ones. They always have.
I just think finding those top brands is going to get harder and harder for them. Especially if the ACC loses its top brands. I don’t think the Big Ten or SEC will do what the ACC did. I think P2 games are going to be increasingly front loaded on to ND’s schedule. If they don’t win those early games, then playing out the string is really going to kill their attendance.
I know plenty of SEC fans who like it. First, they like the blowout wins. Second, they like their team getting rested before their rivalry game. Third, they like getting affordable tickets to attend a game
Attendance figures disagree and the weather is much nicer in the south than it would be in Indiana. That’s a recipe for finding something else to do.
They’ve been playing plenty of November cupcakes at home lately, and 2 of their games are road/neutral anyway so they have at most 2 November home games. Some years it’s just 1.
2023 – WF
2022 – BC
2021 – Navy, GT
2020 – SU
2019 – Navy, BC
That was worse than I thought. No wonder they’ve been complaining about attendance.
See posted games above. Most sold out and all had attendance above 70,000 outside of the COVID year (77,622 is capacity).
IMO – they just write that number down each game. I suspect the actual number is lower.
Saban always complained about literally everything.
Yes, but he wasn’t wrong about this.
<i>No, they really don’t (in my opinion).</i>
If the ACC loses its brands, they’ll need a lot of P2 games. I don’t think 10 games vs Big 12 and ACC (lite) is going to cut it. We never thought an undefeated P5 champ would be left out of the playoff until it happened with Florida St. Its entirely possible a weak scheduled 10-2 ND team could be left out of the playoff too.
<i>It’s a P3 world – SEC, B10, and ND. Those 3 have big TV deals, special CFP carve outs, additional power in deciding the future of CFB, etc. Everyone bends over backwards to include ND and never inconvenience them. As long as they have that TV power, they will be fine.</i>
It is. However, so much has changed with CFB, I’m not confident any of the old rules apply.
LikeLike
Mike,
… You might end up with a home and home with a team that caught lightening in a bottle. Like ND did with Cincinnati a few years ago.
So what? You can afford that loss with a 12+ team CFP. Playing the tougher OOC game will help your resume with the committee.
With a nine game conference schedule, you can do a neutral site every other year and still get 7 home games.
And still cost my home town a game they could’ve made money from. It also impacts recruiting (no official visits allowed at a neutral site) and takes away your home field advantage (usually a plus for kings).
It seems everyone in the Big Ten was worried about it enough that it was a priority in scheduling. The Big Ten said adding those constraints made scheduling more difficult. Adding in exceptions for non conference team almost by definition makes it more difficult. I’m not saying its impossible.
Of course a constraint has to be a priority in the scheduling process. And of course it makes it at least a little harder. But computers do all the work anyway, so does that really matter? The B10 already deals with IA vs ISU, long scheduled OOC games, and other restrictions so adding in this one game isn’t a big deal. Especially since it is a high value game.
The parenthetical was (IMO) the straw that broke the camel’s back. I had seen Texas fans complaining for years leading up to their exit that their home games were unexciting.
Typical arrogant “big brother” talk. UM said that about MSU right before Dantonio started kicking their ass. Suddenly MSU was interesting again.
Part of it was the conference realignment over the past 30 years. Some older fans want the old SWC foes. AR left, then TAMU left the B12. OU is always at the state fair, and that hurts. ND doesn’t have a neutral site rivalry.
The jump in attendance in games against brands at Texas is pretty notable. 2018 Texas 8K drop between USC and TCU in consecutive weeks. 2022 Texas has a 10 jump from ULM to Alabama.
UT has “only” been winning 67.5% of their games the past 20 years, 17th in the country. Get back to 75% and watch the stands fill again. And besides, ND isn’t UT.
I just think finding those top brands is going to get harder and harder for them.
And I don’t. Who is the last school to say “no” to playing ND?
Especially if the ACC loses its top brands. I don’t think the Big Ten or SEC will do what the ACC did.
5 games for partial membership? No, they won’t. Make room in November for a game or two, with the guarantee ND plays several teams every year? Yes, they would. The TV value is too important. The ACC would certainly keep doing it, even if it drops to 3-4 games due to the big brands leaving.
I think P2 games are going to be increasingly front loaded on to ND’s schedule. If they don’t win those early games, then playing out the string is really going to kill their attendance.
I don’t think they will. USC/Stanford (or whoever replaces Stanford) will stay as October/November games. Lesser P2 schools will also play them late. Losing early P2 games won’t hurt as much because ND can still make the playoff.
Attendance figures disagree and the weather is much nicer in the south than it would be in Indiana. That’s a recipe for finding something else to do.
The SEC’s attendance is just fine even with their cupcakes.
That was worse than I thought. No wonder they’ve been complaining about attendance.
Those were just the cupcakes. I didn’t include Clemson in 2022, for example.
IMO – they just write that number down each game. I suspect the actual number is lower.
The number is generally tickets distributed. As long as ND makes their money, the number means nothing.
Yes, but he wasn’t wrong about this.
Yes he was. The fans owe him and the team nothing.
If the ACC loses its brands, they’ll need a lot of P2 games. I don’t think 10 games vs Big 12 and ACC (lite) is going to cut it. We never thought an undefeated P5 champ would be left out of the playoff until it happened with Florida St. Its entirely possible a weak scheduled 10-2 ND team could be left out of the playoff too.
Anything’s possible, but that is unlikely. Going back historically, almost every P2+ND 10-2 team was in the top 12 of the final CFP rankings. And why would ND be 10-2 with a weak schedule? 10-2 is if they take the risks of playing good teams (or they just don’t belong). ND has been playing a mildly above average schedule for decades, similar to OSU.
It is. However, so much has changed with CFB, I’m not confident any of the old rules apply.
As long as money still rules, ND will always have allowances made for it.
LikeLike
So what? You can afford that loss with a 12+ team CFP. Playing the tougher OOC game will help your resume with the committee.
We’re going to see teams try and build in as much of a schedule advantage as possible to make the playoff. There are too many “big boys” in the Big Ten and SEC to realistically think you’ll go undefeated. If the goal is 10-2, I’m not taking on any “tough” OOC and hoping the committee notices.
And still cost my home town a game they could’ve made money from. It also impacts recruiting (no official visits allowed at a neutral site) and takes away your home field advantage (usually a plus for kings).
I thought we were comparing home and home vs neutral site? I do expect 8 home games to be more common than they are today since the playoff means everything now. Imagine how upset an athletic department would be if they finished 9-3 and missed the playoff because they scheduled a tough away OOC game where a cupcake would have got them in. I don’t have as much faith in the committee as you do.
Of course a constraint has to be a priority in the scheduling process. And of course it makes it at least a little harder. But computers do all the work anyway, so does that really matter? The B10 already deals with IA vs ISU, long scheduled OOC games, and other restrictions so adding in this one game isn’t a big deal. Especially since it is a high value game.
How many exceptions are we talking? One is easy enough. I think ND will need to schedule multiple games vs Big Ten teams every year if the ACC loses FSU, Miami, NC and Clemson. Yes its a high value game, but Purdue (for example) knows they most likely are not making the four team playoff. Playing Notre Dame doesn’t really hurt their chances, so why not take the high value game. Now Purdue knows if they hit their ceiling of 10-2 they’re in the playoff. Playing Notre Dame hurts those chances of them hitting their ceiling. Much tougher call.
Typical arrogant “big brother” talk. UM said that about MSU right before Dantonio started kicking their ass. Suddenly MSU was interesting again.
Yes, but I don’t think they’re wrong. You wouldn’t get excited over an Ohio St home schedule who’s best game is Kansas St or Texas Tech.
UT has “only” been winning 67.5% of their games the past 20 years, 17th in the country. Get back to 75% and watch the stands fill again. And besides, ND isn’t UT.
I tried to cherry pick years where UT fans would be engaged.
Who is the last school to say “no” to playing ND?
I imagine they get told no all the time for various reasons. Dates don’t work out etc.
5 games for partial membership? No, they won’t. Make room in November for a game or two, with the guarantee ND plays several teams every year? Yes, they would. The TV value is too important. The ACC would certainly keep doing it, even if it drops to 3-4 games due to the big brands leaving.
I agree, the ACC will keep doing it no matter what. Will ND want to keep doing it after big brands depart? If the big brands depart, I think ND will need to schedule as many P2 teams as possible. 11-1 with your best win vs mediocre Syracuse and a loss to USC would probably be enough to get you in because you are ND. Lower than that, I would be nervous.
LikeLike
Mike,
We’re going to see teams try and build in as much of a schedule advantage as possible to make the playoff. There are too many “big boys” in the Big Ten and SEC to realistically think you’ll go undefeated. If the goal is 10-2, I’m not taking on any “tough” OOC and hoping the committee notices.
I think we will see a plethora of scheduling approaches. OSU and UM will do different things than USC/UO, which will differ from UW/WI/MSU/NE, which will differ from NW/IL/… The SEC will have different ideas. The ACC and B12 will differ from the P2. ND will have its own approach. Each schools needs to do what it is best for it.
The 10-2 with a tough OOC game was for ND specifically.
I thought we were comparing home and home vs neutral site?
We were, and a neutral site game does cost you a home game (or at least half of one).
I do expect 8 home games to be more common than they are today since the playoff means everything now. Imagine how upset an athletic department would be if they finished 9-3 and missed the playoff because they scheduled a tough away OOC game where a cupcake would have got them in. I don’t have as much faith in the committee as you do.
The SEC may do 8 home games, but the B10 mostly won’t. You have 4.5 road conference games, so at most you could do 7.5 home games. Never playing on the road in an OOC game seems unlikely, and that’s what it would take to play 8 home games regularly. I think you’ll see teams continue playing 1 HaH series, especially with conference expansion. It let’s old rivalries be kept alive and prevents segmenting the sport into regionalism again.
How many exceptions are we talking? One is easy enough. I think ND will need to schedule multiple games vs Big Ten teams every year if the ACC loses FSU, Miami, NC and Clemson. Yes its a high value game, but Purdue (for example) knows they most likely are not making the four team playoff. Playing Notre Dame doesn’t really hurt their chances, so why not take the high value game. Now Purdue knows if they hit their ceiling of 10-2 they’re in the playoff. Playing Notre Dame hurts those chances of them hitting their ceiling. Much tougher call.
The B10 schedules bye weeks all through September and October, so those aren’t really exceptions. Only November is tricky at all, and ND at most needs 1 more B10 game then (on top of USC). On average ND plays 1 of Clemson, FSU and Miami each year and UNC once every 3 years, so at most they need to replace 1.3 games per season. That’s 1 extra B10 game and 1 that can rotate through the B12 (for TX/SW exposure), B10 and SEC.
PU has only ever won 10 games in 1979. PU’s ceiling is more like 9-3, and that was under divisions. Their schedule will get harder now. Their only realistic shot at the CFP is to catch lightning in a bottle and get some big upsets in that rare year when everything comes together. Beating ND could go a long way for them.
Yes, but I don’t think they’re wrong. You wouldn’t get excited over an Ohio St home schedule who’s best game is Kansas St or Texas Tech.
I’m a poor example because I never get excited over the schedule, and I like to watch OSU blowouts over bad teams. Much less stress than playing a good team who might beat us. I always preferred attending MAC games to “big” games.
Other OSU fans complain when the home schedule is weak (2023 – YSU, WKU, UMD, PSU, MSU, MN), but we’ve always got UM or PSU (soon to be rotated with USC, UO, UW, etc.) at home so the best game is never that bad.
As for UT, they always have OU which is half a home game so it’s a little unfair to just complain about the “home” schedule.
I imagine they get told no all the time for various reasons. Dates don’t work out etc.
That’s not what Swarbrick said. He said nobody ever says no, they just talk about which year(s) can work.
I agree, the ACC will keep doing it no matter what. Will ND want to keep doing it after big brands depart? If the big brands depart, I think ND will need to schedule as many P2 teams as possible. 11-1 with your best win vs mediocre Syracuse and a loss to USC would probably be enough to get you in because you are ND. Lower than that, I would be nervous.
If the number of games reduces to 3-4, yes ND will want to keep doing it because they like the ACC for their other sports. The big brands are 1 football game per year, and those are replaceable. The other ACC games get ND exposure in the mid-Atlantic, New England, etc. so it’s valuable to them. Heck, SMU will get them into Dallas and Stanford/Cal get them SF regularly. Now ND just needs a second B10 game to balance the scheduling (it’s what the P12 required, too – hence Stanford). I could easily see UCLA becoming a common opponent for ND, or else in a rotation with UW (and maybe UO).
LikeLike
Ohio State’s filthy NIL machine is exposed – from The Athletic
How Ohio State unlocked its NIL potential and won the college football offseason
By Cameron Teague Robinson
May 3, 2024
COLUMBUS, Ohio — When Gene Smith and Ryan Day met after the season, the athletic director made it clear he was going “all in” on football. Ohio State heavily investing in football is hardly new, but after three consecutive losses to Michigan, Smith wanted to take it up a notch before retiring this summer.
Smith sketched out a long list of donors that the Buckeyes needed to call. He passed it to his sixth-year head coach.
“Ryan, you need to call these guys,” Smith recalled telling Day. “I can answer the questions, but you’re the football coach.”
The program needed some upkeep on the Woody Hayes Athletic Center, and Smith expects to go to the Ohio State board in May with proposed changes before his June 30 retirement date. And whatever coaching changes Day needed to make, Smith was on board for those too. Day’s assistant salary pool is now $11.4 million, up from $9.3 million last season.
But most importantly, Ohio State needed to take a step up in the name, image and likeness realm. After taking it slow the first year or two, Smith and Ohio State more aggressively embraced NIL, with Day freed up to take a lead role.
“If I call, 99.9 percent of the time they know why I’m calling,” Smith said. “But if it’s Ryan, that’s a game-changer.”
After an embarrassing Cotton Bowl loss, Ohio State donors went on a spending spree
Most of Ohio State’s highly touted junior class returned, with the exception of Marvin Harrison Jr. and Michael Hall Jr. Ask people around Ohio State why, and they’ll say it’s a mix of the culture, wanting to beat Michigan and competing for a national championship. After all, nobody in the junior class has beaten the Wolverines.
“I had a first- or second-round grade,” cornerback Denzel Burke said, “but at the end of the day I had no gold pants, no Big Ten, no natty, so it’s just being able to come back with my brothers and do it for the state of Ohio.”
But there’s no denying that NIL helped make it possible to retain players who might have otherwise entered the draft.
“This was the best decision for me and there’s no reason for me to rush to the league — we have NIL now,” Burke said. “We’re not worried about too many things.”
Returning for senior season
Denzel Burke
CB
35
All-Big Ten first team
TreVeyon Henderson
RB
29
All-Big Ten first team
Donovan Jackson
G
26
All-Big Ten first team
JT Tuimoloau
DE
25
All-Big Ten first team
Emeka Egbuka
WR
22
All-Big Ten second team (2022)
Jack Sawyer
DE
16
All-Big Ten second team
Tyleik Williams
DT
12
All-Big Ten second team
In addition to stars like Burke, running back TreVeyon Henderson and receiver Emeka Egbuka deciding to stay, Ohio State hit the transfer portal hard, landing one of the top portal classes in the country in the winter. The Buckeyes signed Freshman All-America safety Caleb Downs from Alabama, All-SEC running back Quinshon Judkins from Ole Miss, Kansas State starting quarterback Will Howard, Alabama starting center Seth McLaughlin and the No. 1 quarterback recruit in the 2024 class in Julian Sayin, who transferred from Alabama after Nick Saban retired.
The portal success wouldn’t have happened without increased alignment at every level, from coaches to administrators to NIL collectives and donors. There’s a sense of urgency inside the program that extends to Ohio State’s primary NIL collectives, The Foundation and The 1870 Society.
The Foundation, which signed an exclusive deal with Downs and also has a deal with Howard, top-ranked 2024 signee Jeremiah Smith and many others, has raised 10 times more than what it raised at this point last year, said Brian Schottenstein, a co-founder and board member of The Foundation.
The success Ohio State is having this offseason isn’t a byproduct of just one thing or one motivating loss. It’s been constant conversations since 2021 on how Ohio State can best approach NIL, and it has the Buckeyes at the forefront of the 2024 national title conversation.
“I think this is what the country was afraid of,” said Ohio State donor Gary Marcinick, founder of the non-profit Cohesion Foundation collective.
CB Denzel Burke is a potential first-round NFL Draft pick. (Tim Heitman / USA Today)
How did Ohio State get here?
When The Foundation started as the first of Ohio State’s NIL collectives in February 2022, skepticism and confusion followed. There was a belief among many that because the Buckeyes were already one of the premier football programs, how much did they truly need NIL to compete?
Many donors didn’t know how NIL worked, either.
“The university wanted to take their time and engage in understanding the dos and don’ts before just fully supporting it, and I would’ve taken the same approach,” said former Ohio State quarterback Cardale Jones, a co-founder and general manager of The Foundation. “The athletic department’s job is to raise money for the university as a whole, and you don’t want to steer dollars away if things aren’t on the up and up with a program or collective.”
Much has changed in NIL in the past three years for people like Jones, who has his hands on everything The Foundation does, even in recruiting. He’s the point person for talking to players, recruits and their families about NIL contracts. Former Ohio State safety Tyvis Powell fills a similar role with The 1870 Society as the director of player engagement.
Ohio State wasn’t against paying athletes at the start — most of its players had NIL contracts with at least one of the collectives — but for a time it wasn’t willing to go all in on NIL in recruiting.
“I think anything new takes time,” Schottenstein said. “Donors might have been confused, a lot of articles made NIL scary, but when it comes down to it, it’s just marketing deals for athletes.”
Ohio State’s growth is a mix of a few things, starting with Day’s evolving focus.
Before Ohio State’s loss to Missouri in the Cotton Bowl, Day began to think about taking on more of a CEO role, stepping back from calling plays on offense. He hinted at the possibility last offseason but didn’t turn the duties over to first-year offensive coordinator Brian Hartline.
He decided this offseason, with financial backing from Smith, that he would hire an experienced offensive coordinator he could trust to call plays.
The first hire was Bill O’Brien, who lasted just three weeks before taking the head coaching job at Boston College. Then came UCLA head coach Chip Kelly, Day’s mentor, who wanted to move in the opposite direction and narrow his focus to running an offense. Now Day gets more free time to manage the big picture.
The impact of Day’s name popping up on a donor’s phone is substantial. Even new men’s basketball coach Jake Diebler has benefitted from his growing fundraising duties.
“We have a big list of contacts, but we’ve had them make the calls because it goes further,” Schottenstein said. “It makes it more real. They can talk about the team and make the donor feel they have the inside access. … It makes them feel part of the team and it helps them want to donate because they are part of the family.”
Mark Stetson, a longtime donor who founded The 1870 Society, said getting a call from the head coach can tip the scales for a donor who may be on the fence. It’s less about Day calling and asking for money than it is him explaining to donors how NIL can impact athletes.
“I think when you are communicating with a coach you can feel the need ,and that’s where you get a lot of the positives of NIL,” Stetson said. “You go across the non-rev sports, there’s kids who work two or three jobs to be able to live, but with NIL they can focus more on athletic and academic hours. Hearing that from the coach is a direct line to see the impact.”
This isn’t the first time Day has pushed for more NIL support. In 2022, Cleveland.com reported that Day told the Columbus business community he believed it would take $13 million to keep the roster intact.
But now with some responsibilities given to Kelly, Day has ramped up his NIL fundraising efforts on a more direct, day-to-day basis.
“It’s become much more of a part of it,” Day said. “You have to be involved with that now, because fundraising has always been important, but I think now it’s even more important.”
Can Buckeyes sustain success?
Being compliant in the NIL world takes a careful balance for football coaches and programs.
In the past, the coaching staff would have to wait for a student athlete or parent to bring up NIL and pass the prospect to the collectives, which is where Jones and Powell came in. Now, after a federal judge in Tennessee granted a preliminary injunction to prohibit the NCAA from enforcing its own rules against pay-for-play recruiting, that’s not the case.
Collectives are allowed to talk directly to recruits for the first time, simplifying the process.
“I think it makes us more powerful because we can talk to portal players when they enter,” Schottenstein said. “We couldn’t do that before, so it makes that donation even more important now because retention is important, but the transfer portal is too.”
There’s an education process that Jones enjoys when he’s talking to recruits. Both Jones and Powell are finding success in their roles because neither put together a long-term NFL career, but they have found a way to build careers off their success at Ohio State.
Powell, who was vocal about Ohio State’s struggles after the Cotton Bowl loss, has given Day credit for the changes he made on his staff and evaluating the program’s mindset around NIL.
“I challenged Ryan Day to look at his staff and figure out who is bringing something to the table and if they’re not, you have to get them out of there because you’re doing the kids a disservice,” Powell said. “I was hopeful he would make some changes and he did. They changed their approach on NIL in the offseason.”
There’s more to transferring to Ohio State than just receiving NIL money, which is something that players like Downs and Judkins have emphasized. Still, the additions of Downs, Judkins, Howard and McLaughlin were part of Ohio State’s NIL budget.
Ohio State transfer additions
Will Howard
QB
Kansas State
All-Big 12 second team
Quinshon Judkins
RB
Ole Miss
All-SEC first team
Caleb Downs
S
Alabama
SEC Freshman of the Year
Seth McLaughlin
C
Alabama
25 career starts
Julian Sayin
QB
Alabama
5-star recruit in 2024
That’s not to say Ohio State just decided to pay every player a million dollars or more. Though no financial terms of NIL deals are disclosed, Powell said that Ohio State has roster construction priorities like any other team.
“If you are the No. 1 player in the country it’s easy to market and sell that, it’s easy to give them a bunch of money. But if you get these three-star kids, maybe they don’t have the big name or game, they aren’t getting a bag,” Powell said. “Now, don’t get me wrong, they’re getting a couple of dollars in their pocket, but I would not call it a bag.
“It goes off of team needs too. If you’re a premier defensive end, those go for more than a center. That’s the nature of the business. If a team needs a premier corner, then they will pay more for that guy than a defensive tackle. It reminds me of the NFL a little bit because when free agency hits, guys will overpay for that position because they need it.”
Though most of its spending goes to football, in part because of the sheer size of the roster, The Foundation has signed every player on the men’s basketball team, including the new transfer additions.
The 1870 Society has only been around since the spring of 2023, so Stetson said they don’t have a lot to compare it to, but this year’s NIL fundraising has been substantial.
“I think there’s been some real extraordinary support,” Stetson said. “There’s been a huge influx of $10 a month and the bigger ticket purchases, as well. Regardless of trending year over year the support has been incredible.”
Everything is working for Ohio State now, but there are constant conversations about what’s coming next and accounting for the possibility of donor fatigue. Stetson said that’s where creativity on part of the collectives comes into play.
‘My gripe is with the system’: Why some fans are resisting giving money to NIL collectives
The Foundation, for a week in January, matched all donations that were made. It ended up matching the $500,000 that fans donated, which also included a donation from former quarterback C.J. Stroud. In total, The Foundation raised more than $1 million in a week. It’s now in the middle of another matching promotion, which will extend to the end of May and has raised around $220,000 as of April 30, according to Schottenstein.
But more than just asking for donations, both Ohio State collectives have hosted events with the proceeds going toward NIL. In July, The Foundation will host what it calls “The Fantasy Experience,” which will allow participants to go behind the scenes like a prospective recruit to see what goes into a game day at Ohio State, meet alumni and more. In March, The 1870 Society, with the help of the football program, sold tickets to a tour of the Woody Hayes Athletic Center, which included meet-and-greets with players and coaches.
Stetson said he sees it as the collective’s job to find creative ways to raise money without always asking donors directly for money.
“It’s about creative events or opportunities for fans to get access or create new content, or being very engaged with the business community across the country, or how can we tap into what NIL is intended to be?” Stetson said. “I would hope that a donor-centric model has built a bridge and on the other side of that bridge is a more sustainable model.”
Regardless of what’s next, Ohio State is in a position to chase a national championship now with one of the best rosters in the country after watching its archrival win one last season. It happened thanks to a combination of strong recruiting, player retention and transfer portal success.
Amid the angst of losing to Michigan, Gene Smith hopes he helped put Ohio State on stable ground as former Texas A&M athletic director Ross Bjork gets set to take over this summer.
“Where we are with football, not winning Big Ten championships, I wanted to make sure that we did everything we could to make sure football has a real chance next year,” Smith said. “When I think about my legacy, I think about that. I hate to leave Ohio State when football is not back to winning Big Ten championships.”
LikeLike
FSU + Clemson to the SEC
IMO – those two got double secret guarantees from either the Big Ten or SEC (I lean toward the SEC) before they filed their lawsuits.
I cannot think of a reason for the Big Ten or the SEC to provide a guarantee, and risk a tortious interference lawsuit if it ever came out. For such a guarantee to have any teeth, quite a few people would’ve had to know about it, and then keep their mouths shut over a period of many years. This is not a wise plan. They aren’t going to take that risk, and they don’t have to. FSU and Clemson have enough reasons to sue without it.
LikeLike
Marc,
Of course the B10 and SEC wouldn’t directly tell them that. But there are a lot of ways to indirectly let them know. The TV networks also have given them the thumbs up without breaking any rules.
Why do it? You can’t add a school like FSU unless they leave the ACC first, and they won’t leave without confidence they have a place to go.
LikeLike
Brian, thank you for dumbing this down for Marc. However, it seems that neither of you understand that the ACC GOR remains rock solid and there is zero incidation that it is going to crack.
A GOR is a pre-condition that a broadcaster will spend much money and dedicate vast resourses to set up a conference as a TV network. If the conference then balks, the network is screwed. It’s just like any other legal contract. If you default, you lose.
LikeLike
UNC is the big wild card in all of this…it’s harder to gauge now that the NC board of governors will have a direct say in any plan to switch conferences with NC State having strong representation on that board alongside UNC.
We’ve seen repeatedly that when state flagships want to separate from their little sisters, they can. The ACC without FSU and Clemson (and probably without ND either) would be a very distant fourth in the money race. No school with the ability to move is going to sit still for that. The choice for the Board of Governors would be stark: they can have at least one financially relevant school in their state, or they can have none. That is an easy decision.
ACC would be left with BC, Syracuse, WF, Duke, SMU, Cal, Stanford.
Is this a conference Cal and Stanford want to be in? A conference without even one strong football program? I don’t think so. They might as well rejoin Washington State and Oregon State in the Pac-whatever.
Basically would leave us with a Power 2 + Middle 1 all comprised of 20 teams each. That’d be a relatively stable long-term configuration imo, but we shall see.
Since there has never been a stable long-term configuration in the history of college sports, I predict that this one won’t be either.
I’d assume that ND would either keep its 5 game allotment with the ACC or shift that to the Big 12 which would likely be most willing to take 5 ND games along with the rest of their sports to bolster its TV contract.
The deal ND was willing to give the intact ACC is not the deal they’d give the ACC stripped of its strongest members.
LikeLike
Fair points, I just think that the next iteration will be a “stable” iteration in the sense that the major realignment change (outside of ND) beyond the Power 2 is the Super League format. Once FSU, Clemson, and Miami are sorted (most likely FSU/Clemson to the SEC, Miami + 1 to the Big Ten), there’s no football power outside the Big Ten/SEC other than ND.
I don’t see the SEC or Big Ten taking schools from each other; the big future realignment would be the big brands all going off and creating a Super League of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Florida, etc.
Maybe they create tiered structures within the Big Ten/SEC (i.e. extra payout incentives to the CFP participants, i.e. mostly big brand favoring payouts).
That’s a fair point re: UNC, but I think the issue is that UNC would likely be joining a conference with a partner.
The NC Board of Governors will see that and say “well if you’re going to the SEC or Big Ten, take NC State with you”.
This could end up like the Va Tech situation and the ACC, where a lot of pressure was successfully put on UVA to bring Va Tech on board in place of Syracuse (IIRC).
There’s no obvious partner for UNC unless they come with Miami to the Big Ten, that is a distinct possibility, but it’s hard to see them choosing to be on an island without any other Carolina/Virginia based school.
And if they’re joining a league as #19, then the board of governors will likely try to at least push NC State as #20.
They might be unsuccessful, but if the choice is UVA vs NC State, would it really matter all that much?
LikeLike
z33k,
Nothing will be stable until all the antitrust and legal issues are settled, players are employees and not students, and NFL lite is fully formed.
I agree realignment may pause if FSU, Clemson and Miami find new homes (UNC doesn’t have to, and ND won’t). But the changes will still be large until the legal picture becomes clear, and that likely requires the super league forming.
LikeLike
The NC Board of Governors will see that and say “well if you’re going to the SEC or Big Ten, take NC State with you”.
This could end up like the Va Tech situation and the ACC, where a lot of pressure was successfully put on UVA to bring Va Tech on board in place of Syracuse (IIRC).
I think everyone at this point knows they will try and do that. Anyone inviting UNC will either be fine with NCST or make it so there is only one spot available and give the board no choice.
LikeLike
The NC Board of Governors will see that and say “well if you’re going to the SEC or Big Ten, take NC State with you”.
The BoG has no ability to force the Big Ten or the SEC to take a school they wouldn’t ordinarily want. And UNC is not so valuable that either conference would act against interest in order to get them.
This could end up like the Va Tech situation and the ACC, where a lot of pressure was successfully put on UVA to bring Va Tech on board in place of Syracuse (IIRC).
The difference is that VA Tech was a desirable addition. Perhaps the ACC would’ve taken a different school. But they weren’t exactly unhappy to get VA Tech.
In contrast, it’s a near-certainty that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC wants N.C. State, any more than the SEC wanted Oklahoma State, or the Big Ten wanted Cal. That would surely be a hard no.
And then the Board would be in the position I mentioned above: either one of their schools punches the golden ticket; or none of them do.
LikeLike
https://billfarley.substack.com/p/espnbig-12-and-pac-12-tampering
Did ESPN tamper with the B12 and P12? Does the P12 have a lawsuit to bring? Do ESPN’s actions create a blueprint for how the ACC might unravel?
I just received the University of Cincinnati’s new member agreement with the Big 12 bringing my total of new member conference agreements to nine (you can download UC’s agreement below). There are three distinguishing characteristics among these nine agreements. These differences suggest ESPN, working through the Big 12, may have violated an undisclosed “telecast” agreement with the Pac 12 when it induced at least two of the four corner schools to jump ship. They also point to strategies ESPN may use to blow up the ACC.
If the Pac 12’s agreement with ESPN was similar to the Big 12/ESPN telecast agreement effective in 2021, these three items may be grounds for a lawsuit by the Pac 12 against ESPN. The lawsuit would be patterned after the Big 12’s threat to ESPN, after the Big 12 accused ESPN of trying to break up the Big 12.
…
One purpose of representations and warranties in legal agreements is to get the party’s story straight in the event of litigation. For example, you may have purchased a house “where is/as-is,” which is a representation by you and the seller that you both understand and agree any problems with the house after title passes are all yours. You don’t pay an attorney to add meaningless representations to an agreement if there is no chance of a future dispute on that aspect of the transaction.
Here is the “we didn’t tamper” language from the Cincinnati-Big 12 Agreement: …
And here is Colorado’s tampering language (identical to Cincinnati’s): …
Here is where the tampering language gets squishy (not a legal term). Utah and Arizona State did not agree to include the straightforward “we didn’t tamper” language found in Cincinnati’s and Colorado’s agreements: …
Utah and ASU could not represent in a legal document that they initiated contact with the Big 12, suggesting the Big 12 made the first move.
In summary, the Big 12 provided the public with a glimpse into the content of secretive telecast contracts when they threatened ESPN with litigation over tampering with their members. New member agreements disclosed by universities since that time indicate how tampering could take place: 1) waivers of application fees, 2) financial assistance from media companies to help universities transition to new conferences, and 3) conferences making unsolicited offers to universities to defect from their current homes. Unsolicited contact seems to be the practice that is most likely to be litigated since this is the practice the Big 12 asked joining members to refute. Since Utah and ASU could not refute that the Big 12 initiated contact, this may be the first place that Scott Barnes throws a counterpunch.
LikeLike
https://theathletic.com/5445422/2024/04/25/florida-ag-suing-acc-espn-contract/
The FL AG is suing the ACC to get a copy of the TV contract with ESPN.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the Atlantic Coast Conference demanding the conference produce the ESPN-ACC television contract as part of a public records request. If successful, the lawsuit could indirectly make public the broadcast agreements other conferences have made with major networks as well.
…
Moody in January submitted a public records request for the contract, which remains at ACC headquarters, where league members are only allowed to view it in-person and cannot make copies. The ACC denied the request that same month.
“The ACC is asking a state entity — Florida State University — to potentially pay and lose more than a half a billion dollars but is refusing to produce the documents related to that outrageous price tag,” Moody said in a statement. “We sent a public records request to the ACC in January, but they failed to fully comply. We are taking legal action against the ACC for wrongfully withholding these important public records.”
…
In its denial of Moody’s public records request on Jan. 19, the ACC cited trade secrets and argued that the contract was between the ACC and ESPN and not a public entity like FSU, which is only a member of the conference. The conference on Thursday declined comment on the new lawsuit.
“These agreements contain commercially sensitive and proprietary information which, if publicly disclosed, would irreparably harm the Conference’s and ESPN’s ability to negotiate future rights agreements,” ACC general counsel Pearlynn Houck wrote in January. “The Conference has an obligation to ESPN, as a party to the agreements, to protect its fundamental business interests as reflected in the agreements. Courts across the country have protected these types of agreements, including the present agreements between the Conference and ESPN, in a variety of lawsuits.
“These agreements further require that ESPN and the Conference take all steps to preserve and protect the confidentiality of these agreements and bar their disclosure to third parties. The Conference has taken appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality of these agreements by limiting access to them and maintaining them only at its Headquarters, which is common practice in the industry for media agreements executed by athletic conferences.”
LikeLike
More expansion rumors including A&M to Big Ten:
https://flywareagle.com/posts/analyst-hints-sec-big-ten-invites-14-schools-b1g-invite-texas-a-m
LikeLike
Do you know how often that guy is right about expansion? Like…once in blue moon.
LikeLike
Marc, I didn’t say that I believed it was going to happen. I posted it to pass along the rumor. My hunch is that A&M stays in the SEC, the ACC schools stay hand-cuffed to their GOR and Notre Dame stays independent in football.
LikeLike
Thanks to NIL, fewer players are declaring early for the NFL draft: How name, image and likeness is impacting NFL draft decisions: ‘That is guaranteed money’. Just 58 underclassmen across college football declared for the draft, the lowest total since 2010 and down from 130 three years ago.
The math is simple. The typical draft bonus for a 7th-round pick is just $118,000, and practice squad pay is $200,000. These are pretty low numbers compared to the NIL dollars that a top college player can get. But NIL money is guaranteed for the season. You can get cut from an NFL practice squad at any time, and then you’ve got nothing.
Obviously the kids with first-round talent are not worried about that, but for players on the fringe it makes a lot less sense to enter the draft.
LikeLike
It seems obvious that having some extra money could sway players on the fence about staying. The transfer portal also has an impact, as a player can chase a productive season elsewhere and try to improve their draft value.
We’re also in the post-COVID years when everyone got an extra year and many games were missed, so numbers might be a little screwy right now.
With a 12-team playoff, more players might stay for a shot at a title before they leave. OSU had roughly 11 players that could’ve gone into the draft this year but didn’t, and they all cited finishing what they started as a reason. Having NIL money helped, I’m sure.
I’m not sure how much NIL money a player that is worried about getting cut in the NFL actually makes. We only hear about the big deals that the elite players get. Most of the rest get chump change.
LikeLike
Brian: “With a 12-team playoff, more players might stay for a shot at a title before they leave. OSU had roughly 11 players that could’ve gone into the draft this year but didn’t, and they all cited finishing what they started as a reason.”
Yeah Brian, that’s why they stayed. They wuz all jacked up about “. . . finishing what they started . . .” They didn’t care nothin’ about them NIL payouts.
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/fsu/fsu-ad-michael-alford-possibly-hints-big-10-move-during-chicago-boosters-event
Make of this what you will.
Florida State Athletic Director Michael Alford recently spoke at an FSU Boosters event in Chicago. According to Todd Helmick of NationalChamps.net, Alford told supporters that he “expects to be in the Windy City much more starting this summer.”
The Big 10 headquarters are located in Rosemont, Illinois, about half an hour by car from Chicago.
…
All in all, with the speed at which these cases have moved (not that lawsuits ever necessarily move quickly) with no clear winner in sight, the idea that AD Alford could be hinting at a Florida State journey to the Big 10 might perk some ears due to the nature in which the legal system has played out.
At the same time, this could be Alford playfully teasing the fanbase. It is possible that he is simply excited about Chicago’s FSU Boosters and wants to continue appearing there.
However, the addition of a time frame from Alford suggests that something is brewing beneath the surface.
LikeLike
Every single indication out of FSU or FSU sources is that the Seminoles prefer the B1G. There is a lot of bad blood between FSU and ESPN/SEC. Even the fans at FSU are resigned to not playing local schools, due to anger at ESPN and the SEC (over the playoff snub in favor of Bama).
I do not understand why people on this board seem so sure that FSU is SEC bound.
As far as the ACC GOR, ESPN has to declare Jan 2025 whether to extend to 2036. In not there is not much left to the GOR. In addition, Clemson and now FSU are arguing that the GOR does not apply to schools that leave the ACC. Since none of us have seen or can see the documents, we have no idea whether this is true.
The litigation by the FL AG in a Florida court can be very important. How likely is the FL court to tell the State AG that it cannot see very important documents relating to a state entity?
LikeLike
Bernie,
Every single indication out of FSU or FSU sources is that the Seminoles prefer the B1G. There is a lot of bad blood between FSU and ESPN/SEC. Even the fans at FSU are resigned to not playing local schools, due to anger at ESPN and the SEC (over the playoff snub in favor of Bama).
I do not understand why people on this board seem so sure that FSU is SEC bound.
As far as the ACC GOR, ESPN has to declare Jan 2025 whether to extend to 2036. In not there is not much left to the GOR.
We’ll see if a judge agrees with that. The GOR could still be valid until 2036 regardless.
In addition, Clemson and now FSU are arguing that the GOR does not apply to schools that leave the ACC. Since none of us have seen or can see the documents, we have no idea whether this is true.
Neither do they know if it’s true. Again, we’ll see what a judge says (if they don’t settle).
The litigation by the FL AG in a Florida court can be very important. How likely is the FL court to tell the State AG that it cannot see very important documents relating to a state entity?
Or it could be totally pre-empted by the NC court. I’ve given up trying to understand or predict what our legal system might do in any particular instance. Common sense doesn’t apply to courts. I could easily see a judge telling the AG that if that’s what the law supports. FSU knowingly signed it and their lawyers have access to it. Maybe the AG is allowed to see it but can’t disclose it, or can only disclose a heavily redacted version.
LikeLike
As far as the ACC GOR, ESPN has to declare Jan 2025 whether to extend to 2036. In not there is not much left to the GOR.
As long as FSU and Clemson remain in the ACC, ESPN is a lock to extend, as they are getting a terrific bargain. Indeed, the fact that it is such a good deal for ESPN, and such a bad deal for the conference, is the very reason the two schools want out.
I am sure there is a way for ESPN to cancel if the ACC loses its two most valuable members. To write a contract and NOT protect yourself for that possibility would be pretty insane, although stranger things have happened.
So, if the lawsuits aren’t resolved by January (which they are unlikely to be), I expect ESPN to extend anyway, and if the worst happens they’ll deal with it.
LikeLike
London Times academic rankings for 2024 has the Big Ten waaaay ahead of the SEC, ACC or B12. In the top 50 US schools, the B1G has (12) UCLA, (14) Michigan, (16) Washington, (19) Northwestern, (22) Illinois, (25) Wisconsin, (30) USC, (32) Minnesota, (33) Purdue, (36) Ohio St, (38) Maryland, (39) Mich St and (42) Penn St. That’s 13 of 18 in the top 50.
As a comparison, the ACC had 6 of 17 in the top 50 and the SEC had only 3 of 14.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-united-states
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/the-expanded-12-team-college-football-playoff-is-here–and-it-already-has-problems-130006008.html
The geniuses behind the 12-team playoff just found another problem with it – conference rematches. They did a typical mock CFP selection for 2022 using the new rules.
First-round matchups — at on-campus sites of the better seed — included No. 8 seed Tennessee hosting No. 9 Kansas State, No. 12 seed Tulane at No. 5 TCU, No. 10 Southern Cal at No. 7 Alabama and … No. 11 Penn State at No. 6 Ohio State.
The latter is a rematch.
That’s Problem No. 1: As it stands now, there is no CFP protocol on avoiding first-round rematches.
They just now realized this could happen? The tourney has been avoiding early round conference matchups for decades. It’s easy to make a rule to prevent it if you wish to.
Enough rules, let’s get to the complaints — chief among them is that no protocol exists for selection members to avoid rematches in the first round. This is a simple, solvable problem. Like the NCAA basketball tournament selection, the CFP could implement a protocol requiring first-round games to feature two teams from separate conferences when possible. With such a small field (12) and conferences steadily expanding, there may be times where it is not possible.
But for the most part, it is. Such a protocol is necessary because modeling shows that this format, combined with realignment moves, produces a lot of rematches. An entire conference dissolved, the Big 12 and SEC swelled to 16 teams and the ACC and Big Ten grew to 18.
While considering realignment, there would have been seven first-round, conference-vs.-conference rematches over the 10 years of the CFP — far too many.
Even commissioners acknowledged as much after their bracketing exercise.
“A lot of rematches,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said.
Sankey evaded repeated questions about the CFP instituting a protocol to avoid rematches, citing the current policy. But this is an easy answer: Yes, avoid rematches.
I tend to disagree with this stance. I understand avoiding immediate rematches (CCG, rivalry week, maybe even all of November), but I’d rather force B10 vs B10 and SEC vs SEC in early rounds than avoid it. That will leave more conferences represented in later rounds, and that will keep more fans interested. Besides, with such large conferences many of those games won’t be rematches, unlike in hoops.
Don’t give us a sequel in the first round. Save that for later. There are three more rounds in which rematches will undoubtedly happen. Avoid the easy one. This isn’t complicated.
No, do the opposite. Force the rematches early so the later rounds don’t involve rematches. The later rounds are more valuable to TV, so they are more important to be exciting matchups. If you have a bad 1st round matchup, there are 3 others to carry the load. Just put the rematch in the worst TV window.
…
Teams in the top four of the final rankings that did not win their conference will be forced to play a first-round game while weaker conference champions earn a bye. Is this a problem? It depends on who you ask. One of the format’s goals was to keep value in the regular season by rewarding conference champions.
I think that’s a feature, not a bug. Rankings are far from precise. Reward the champs.
…
But perhaps the most pressing issue sure to arise with the new 12-team bracket is a lowly ranked G5 champion’s inclusion pushing out a power league team ranked in the top 12. Only three times in the last 10 years would the top 12 ranked teams have all made the field.
…
The selection committee will be faced with the real possibility that no G5 team — even its best champion — is ranked. The question emerged during the bracket exercise, and Hancock confirmed that the protocol is for the committee to choose the best G5 champion among the five league winners — a G5 ranking of sorts.
Imagine a G5 champion that is not ranked in the top 25 earning a bid over more than 10 power conference programs ranked higher than it? It could happen. Sankey reminded reporters after the bracket exercise that such a circumstance is the result of the format decision to award auto bids to the top five conference champions instead of the top four.
Boo frickin’ hoo. The top 12 don’t all deserve a shot at the title anyway. You have to give the G5 a slot for legal/political reasons. Eventually they’ll win a game or 2. Maybe they could require the G5 champ to be in the top 25, but that reeks of a conflict of interest for the committee. Maybe require the computers to have them in the top 25 instead. And let the computers pick the G5 representative if none are ranked. Humans cannot accurately determine #30 from #35. It will save a lot of headaches to let the computers do it, with a chance to override in case of a head-to-head win by the #2 G5 champ.
Want some more complaining? The top four seeds — all having first-round byes — don’t get to host a playoff game. Bowls begin hosting in the quarterfinal round, a gripe from some fan bases and athletic directors who want to extend the on-campus games to the quarters as well (that isn’t in the plans, at least not in the immediate future).
How about they let the playoff happen at least once before complaining about not hosting a game. The first time AL has to play in a snowstorm in NE, everyone will freak out about not using a neutral site that is fair for everyone (with said neutral site always being in the south or west).
LikeLike
They just now realized this could happen?
I think this is the author’s fault. It gives the impression that these problems are only just now discovered, when in fact all of them have been well known for a while.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40053021/college-sports-leaders-deep-talks-settle-nil-antitrust-case-vs-ncaa
The NCAA is making progress on selling its soul.
The leaders of college sports are involved in “deep discussions” to reach a legal settlement that would likely lay out the framework for sharing revenue with athletes in a future NCAA business model, sources told ESPN.
The NCAA and its power conferences are defendants in an antitrust class action lawsuit, House v. NCAA, which argues that the association is breaking federal law by placing any restrictions on how athletes make money from selling the rights to their name, image or likeness. …
Sources indicated that a turning point in the discussions, which have been ongoing, came last week in the Dallas area, where the power conference commissioners, their general counsels, NCAA president Charlie Baker, NCAA lawyers and the plaintiffs’ attorneys met. (They chose the Dallas area because they were already there for the College Football Playoff meetings, which were held in that area last week.)
While sources stressed that no deal is imminent, details about what a multibillion-dollar settlement could look like are expected to be shared with campuses in the near future. There are myriad variables to get to the finish line and still some obstacles and objections at the campus level, but sources indicate that progress has ramped up in recent weeks.
A settlement would provide some legal relief for a college sports industry that’s been peppered by lawsuits. It could also serve as a keystone piece to formulating a more stable future. With the settlement expected to cost billions in back pay for former athletes, it would likely also require the NCAA and conferences to agree to a system for sharing more revenue with some of the players moving forward.
Sources indicated the top-end revenue share number per school — once it’s determined — would be in the neighborhood of $20 million annually, although that’s yet to be settled. Whatever number is set by the settlement, individual schools will be able to opt in to share revenue up to that number with their student athletes at their discretion. (They could choose to share less, but not more.)
Texas A&M athletic director Trev Alberts, for example, recently told the Bryan-College Station Eagle that schools could be adding $15 million to $20 million to their budgets annually for what he termed a “new expense category” in college athletics.
What’s uncertain, for now, are the mechanics of how this could work. Do the schools buy the NIL of their athletes? How would Title IX be impacted?
The House case is one of four active antitrust lawsuits, all of which serve as a threat to some part of the NCAA’s remaining caps on how athletes are paid. In three of those cases, including the House case, athletes are represented by veteran sports labor attorney Jeffrey Kessler.
It sure seems like getting rid of Kessler would be cheaper than settling. They can buy him off for a lot less than multiple billions. Or hire some thugs to send him a message and scare off future lawyers, too.
LikeLike
Further evidence that a “NIL standard” is not possible. It is so absurd that they don’t seem to be talking about it anymore.
LikeLike
https://awfulannouncing.com/nbc/nbc-reportedly-planning-to-outbid-wbd-for-nba-rights.html
NBC (Comcast) has a huge bid for a portion of the NBA rights and TNT (WBD) is likely to struggle to match.
On a relative basis, good for the Big Ten since it shows the dedication NBC has to sports if they add NBA alongside NFL/Big Ten/ND.
But this would absolutely potentially blow up the planned Disney/FOX/WBD sports streaming venture since WBD’s biggest sports property was their NBA package…
Disney/FOX would be better off trying to cut a deal with NBC, but Comcast has been very hesitant in all likelihood on that front because they’re focused on Peacock (whether for anti-trust reasons or because they’re both cable + paytv).
LikeLike
I’m not sure that is good for the B10 or its fans.
1. The NBA season is 17 months long (or at least it feels that way). The regular season starts before Halloween and the playoffs run through June, which is a lot of weekends and weeknights with potential conflicts.
2. Do more B10 games get bumped to Peacock so NBC can show the NBA? After paying all that money, they’d need to earn every penny they could. And how many NBA promos will viewers be forced to watch during B10 games?
3. Do more B10 games get moved to weeknights, or off of weeknights?
4. If all their money is going to the NBA, they won’t have the money to bid high on the CFP or the next B10 contract.
Disney and Fox would be happy to work with NBC, it’s Comcast that presents the problem. I don’t think the government would allow vertical and horizontal integration on that scale.
LikeLike
More here: https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2024/nba-rights-renewal-race-warner-bros-discovery-existential-threat-1234777393/
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/nfl-draft-winners-and-losers-pac-12-shines-before-extinction-while-new-versions-of-sec-big-ten-dominate/
Wilner’s take on NFL draft winners and losers. It’s a fitting swansong for the Pac-12. I cut out most of his list.
The Pac-12 set a conference record with 43 selections in the 2024 NFL Draft and will carry loads of momentum into next — err, never mind.
At least the conference went out on top, breaking its previous seven-round record of 39 selections set in 2015.
That total was second among all conferences — the SEC led the way with 59 selections — and reflects the high quality of play in the Pac-12 last season.
But the backdrop of realignment loomed over the three-day event in Detroit. Both Washington State and Oregon State produced three picks. The other 37 selections played for schools that are departing the Pac-12 this summer.
But if we expand our scope, the future of the sport becomes clear:
Schools that will be members of the SEC and Big Ten next season accounted for 140 of the 257 selections (55.5 percent) — more evidence of their growing dominance.
To be fair, those 34 schools made up 51.5% of the P5 (+ ND) as of 2022. They also housed 16 of Mandel’s 22 emperor/king/baron tier members as of 2022 (72.7%). It will be 19 of 22 going forward (86.4%).
…
In many respects, the NFL Draft serves as the last act of college football’s yearly competitive cycle.
The 2024 version was that and more. It was a window into the future of the sport — a future dominated by two leagues with 34 schools and more resources than everyone else combined. Times two.
Our look at the other winners and losers from the draft …
His B10-related winners: Michigan, Ohio State (for all the returning players), Oregon’s fourth round,
His losers of note:
Loser: Big 12. The conference generated just 31 selections, fewest among the Power Five leagues. Of those, 14 were from the two schools (Texas and Oklahoma) bound for the SEC next season.
Loser: ACC. The conference generated 41 picks, a respectable number — except that 16 came from the two schools (Florida State and Clemson) that have taken legal action against the conference.
Loser: Stanford. Kicker Josh Karty was the lone selection, marking the first time since 2009 that the Cardinal did not have an offensive or defensive player selected.
Loser: USC. Lincoln Riley and Co. had seven players selected — the Trojans’ best output since 2011. But with all that talent, including the top pick at the most important position (quarterback Caleb Williams), they should have won more than five conference games.
Winner: Multi-sport athletes. According to SportSource Analytics, 88 of the top 100 players selected played more than one sport in high school.
Loser: Pac-12 timing. If the conference had been as successful on the field in 2022 as it was during the 2023 season, it would be alive and well.
Instead, it exits the stage with a draft to remember.
LikeLike
https://bigten.org/mbb/article/blt4f64d2b4083acd4b/
B10 MBB opponents for 2024-25 are out. The Pac-4 are grouped for HaH games at least.
OREGON
Home: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Rutgers
Away: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin
Home/Away: UCLA, USC, Washington
UCLA
Home: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin
Away: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Rutgers
Home/Away: Oregon, USC, Washington
USC
Home: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin
Away: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Rutgers
Home/Away: Oregon, UCLA, Washington
WASHINGTON
Home: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Rutgers
Away: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin
Home/Away: Oregon, UCLA, USC
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40065306/some-bowl-leaders-hope-cba-help-lower-number-opt-outs
The bowls are hoping for some sort of CBA with the players as a way to protect themselves. What more evidence do you need that this is bad for the game?
As revenue sharing with college athletes becomes a growing possibility, some bowl leaders are already hoping for a collective bargaining agreement with the players that would help significantly lower the number of postseason opt-outs.
Nick Carparelli, executive director of Bowl Season, told ESPN at the Fiesta Bowl Spring Summit this week that his understanding from speaking with conference commissioners and NCAA president Charlie Baker is that NIL collectives are destined to be brought in-house and there have been discussions about contracts in exchange for NIL payments.
“If you sign a contract and receive compensation, you’re obligated to perform certain duties, in this case, play 12 regular season games and a bowl game or a bowl game and the playoff,” he said. “That’s logical to expect. It’s the way the rest of us working folks operate.”
Fiesta Bowl executive director and CEO Erik Moses agreed, adding that he isn’t insensitive to the risks the players and agents might take.
“Think about the industry that we’re in,” Moses told ESPN. “We put on live events. You come to see the talent. If the main talent isn’t there — you go see the Stones and Mick Jagger’s not playing, are you really seeing the Stones? We want the best talent to be involved in those matchups and those games and those events. That’s what people are paying to see.
“Yes, they care about the name on the front of the jersey probably more than the name on the back — that’s the special thing about college sports and college football,” he said. “But you want to see the best guys play, and I think the only way we get to that is through a collective bargaining agreement and employment contracts that require you to play in the postseason if you’re healthy.”
…
Moses said he expects the new 12-team College Football Playoff to help lower the number of opt-outs this fall because more teams will be playing for the national title — not just another postseason win.
“You’re not just coming to the Fiesta Bowl to win the Fiesta Bowl and that’s it,” he said. “Now you’re going to abandon your brothers, your teammates when you have a chance to win the national championship? That’s something those guys remember for the rest of their lives. You’re a part of history at that point.”
Carparelli said the 12-team format won’t require the elimination of any bowls currently in operation but that if the CFP eventually expands to 14 teams in 2026 and beyond, one might be cut. Bowl Season includes a total of 44 games, including 35 “traditional” bowls, the New Year’s Six bowls, the national title game, the Celebration Bowl and the East-West Shrine Bowl.
“That’ll be interesting to see,” he said. “Certainly, with two extra teams going to the playoff, that may mean one less bowl game involved.”
…
“I think that we are at a point right now where we are challenging tradition of this sport in almost every way possible,” he said. “And the tradition of college football and college athletics, in my mind, is a key element to the affinity that people have for the sport; and I think we need to look for commonsense ways to preserve as much of that tradition as we can, while also giving ourselves the latitude to innovate. I think the expansion of the playoff is a is a great innovation. I think the inclusion of the bowls is the kind of the meat of those playoffs is a great compromise between the consistency of tradition, while still innovating, and in my mind, that’s the sweet spot.”
LikeLike
Nick Carparelli, executive director of Bowl Season, told ESPN at the Fiesta Bowl Spring Summit this week that his understanding from speaking with conference commissioners and NCAA president Charlie Baker is that NIL collectives are destined to be brought in-house.
This is the second time I’ve seen a reference to the idea of “bringing NIL in-house,” and I don’t get it.
Even if you wanted that, it seems like another invitation to court. Any system where the NCAA and the schools “take over” NIL is sure to be challenged as an illegal restraint of trade, by someone who wants to pay or receive NIL outside of that system.
Players will want to make their own NIL side deals. Or, at least some of them will.
LikeLike
Yet another nail in the coffin of the mythical “NIL standard”.
LikeLike
Marc,
I mostly agree, but I think by bringing it in house they mean they want the money and contracts to flow through the school as an intermediary (so they can help players with contract terms, etc.) rather than straight to players with no background in contracts. The schools don’t want to provide the money or necessarily limit it, but they’d rather eliminate the NIL collectives and keep unscrupulous companies from screwing over players.
LikeLike
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/2024/01/09/florida-state-acc-lawsuit-fsu-conference-realignment/
Update: A SC judge has ruled the ACC must give Clemson an unredacted copy of the ESPN contract. Likely FSU will also get one, sooner or later.
The latest (May 3, 2024): The ACC must provide an unredacted copy of its ESPN contract to Clemson within seven days, a South Carolina judge has ordered in an interim ruling. But the contract remains confidential and can only be used for the litigation. That news comes from a filing submitted Friday morning. The contract is central to Florida State’s lawsuits with the ACC, too; last week, Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a legal complaint against the ACC over the document.
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/college/washington-state/article/wsu-and-osu-home-football-games-to-be-on-cw-and-fox-231366991/
WSU and OrSU will have 10 games carried by the CW with Fox picking up 3 games. Only the neutral site UW vs WSU game is undetermined now.
“The Civil War football game (Sept. 14) between OSU and Oregon in Corvallis will air on Fox,” Canzano wrote. “The Washington State vs. Texas Tech game in Pullman on Sept. 7 will also be a Fox broadcast. Fox will also own the rights to the Pac-12 football matchup between the Cougars and Beavers on Nov. 23 at Reser Stadium.”
The announcement will be made “sometime this month,” said Canzano, with 11 of the 13 kickoff times having been settled. That in itself is wonderful news as fans will no longer have to wait for the Pac-12 to decide a mere week or so in advance at which hour the games will be.
…
One thing to note is this only affects the games in Pullman and Corvallis. All road games against Mountain West teams will be carried by the CBS and Fox sports families. Last year, CBS Sports Network televised 27 contests, and Fox Sports aired 17 games, CBS broadcast three non-conference games.
One game that remains in question is the Apple Cup on Sep. 14. It is not a home game for either team by designation with the game set for Lumen Field. So what channel that ends up on is still unclear.
LikeLike
This looks like a home run for the two schools. About as good of an outcome as they could have hoped for.
LikeLike
The money probably won’t be great, but it sounds like good exposure. Will the CW air all the games nationally, or might some air just regionally? I don’t know.
LikeLike
https://footballscoop.com/news/group-of-five-schools-to-unveil-all-new-top-25
Plans are coming together to have a G5-only Top 25 coaches poll starting this year. Is this a good thing because it will get the G5 some extra publicity, or is it a bad thing because it reinforces the idea the G5 is a lower class?
Preliminary groundwork already is underway for the American, Conference-USA, Mid-American, Mountain West and SunBelt conferences to have an official Group of Five Top 25 national poll, with voting open only to head coaches in those leagues. Independent programs UConn and UMass also will be included in the rankings, pushing the number of teams involved to be approximately 64.
Sources tell FootballScoop that the burgeoning movement already has a title sponsor for the rankings.
Organizers of the prospective poll believe that a proprietary ranking for the G-5 leagues, with every head coach receiving a vote, could spark greater interest in potential broadcasting deals and programming.
“If the No. 2 team in the Group of Five is playing at the No. 6 Group of Five team, that’s going to attract more viewers,” as it was told to FootballScoop.
LikeLike
It sounds like a net positive for them. It reinforces that the G5 is a lower tier, but I think almost everyone knew that anyway.
You haven’t touched on the obvious next shoe to drop, a G5 playoff. Currently, the top G5 program will reach the Big Boy playoff, where everyone expects them to lose badly. If you are a G5 program, and if the money is at least equal, would you rather be the champ in a smaller pond or win the right to get trounced 42 to 6 in State College or Tuscaloosa.
Now, a lot depends on how the first few playoffs go. If the G5 representative is competitive, it’ll be hard to kick them out. But if they get destroyed, I expect Greg Sankey to complain that they’re stealing a bid from Mississippi State. Maybe the Big Boys would even throw in a few bucks to make them go away.
A G5 playoff would probably have more memorable games.
LikeLike
Perhaps this proposal should be placed on hold until the ACC GOR lawsuits are concluded. If FSU, Clemson and Miami leave the ACC, the G5 will become the G6.
LikeLike
Marc,
A G5 playoff has been brought up before. It has the same issues – solidifying 2nd-class status, but also providing an actual chance to win.
The G5 CFP money is pretty weak, and maybe they can keep it if they volunteer to give up the autobid (still can get an at-large) and participate in their own playoff instead. But who will pay for it, and who will watch? The I-AA playoff gets very little viewership. If there’s basically no new money, do they do it just for the chance to win? In some ways, it makes sense. Especially now that most of the top G5s have moved up into P4 conferences.
Maybe schools like Boise, Memphis, and the academies would say no, but I can’t see why MAC members would.
LikeLike
But who will pay for it, and who will watch? The I-AA playoff gets very little viewership. If there’s basically no new money, do they do it just for the chance to win?
Most G5 teams with winning records get bowl invitations, so we know what a December game between two of those teams is worth. My hypothesis is that a playoff game would provide a little more than that, but not a TON more.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/cal-stanford-football-programs-at-crossroads-our-to-do-list-for-the-new-campus-leaders-as-the-prepare-for-acc-life/
Wilner has some advice for Cal and Stanford as they head to the ACC. While I mostly agree with his thoughts here, I’m not sure Fox is convincible except when a new contract is starting.
Seize the moment
The move into the ACC, which becomes official on Aug. 2, constitutes a fresh start for both football programs — and the opportunity to remake their images locally.
Marketing efforts have been sorely lacking for years. Stanford has no presence outside a parcel of land on the Peninsula. Cal’s game-day experience needs an upgrade.
The athletic departments serve as the front lines for improvement, but campus support is essential to any material change. Bold thinking is needed.
Of course, that strategy requires campus leaders to confront their deepest fears: That plowing resources into football will turn the universities into jock schools; that embracing football will damage their academic reputations, anger their Olympic sports teams and send the faculty into revolt.
But the current approach, with football kept at a distance and viewed as a necessary evil, will guarantee continued mediocrity, ongoing irrelevance and ultimately, a one-way ticket into the competitive abyss.
…
Lyons and Levin shouldn’t apologize for football. They should embrace it.
Make tough decisions
The Hotline never shies from uncomfortable topics, and eliminating sports is the most uncomfortable topic in college athletics. But Lyons must seriously consider downsizing the scope of Cal’s department.
Only football and men’s basketball are profitable. In that regard, the Bears are no different than dozens of power conference schools across the country. But Cal sponsors far more sports — 30 — than most of its peers.
…
Additionally, Lyons and Levin should embrace NIL, the NCAA-sanctioned process by which athletes can receive compensation for endorsements and promotional work.
But tacit approval isn’t enough. Campus leadership must make clear to every constituent and stakeholder — board members and tenured professors alike — that NIL opportunities are not only acceptable but encouraged and beneficial for athletes in every sport.
Start the lobbying
We saved the most pressing task for last.
The Bay Area schools were caught by surprise when the Pac-12 imploded last summer, according to multiple conference sources. They cannot make the same mistake again.
[ACC could implode]
What then for the Bears and Cardinal?
They would have the option to join Washington State and Oregon State in rebuilding the Pac-12. Or they could attempt to secure membership in the Big Ten alongside USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington, which are entering the conference this summer.
…
Had Fox believed Cal and Stanford were worthwhile, they would be headed into the Big Ten, not the ACC.
Would anything change in a post-ACC world? Maybe not. But the Bears and Cardinal cannot assume a second rejection.
Make the case to network executives that Fox and the Big Ten would benefit from the presence of two world-class schools in the Bay Area, with all its high-tech money and thousands of Big Ten alums.
Make it clear that full revenue shares aren’t necessary. Oregon and Washington are entering the Big Ten as half-share members. The Bay Area schools should be willing to join at 25 percent.
The Big Ten presidents aren’t the hurdle. Given the option, they would love to align with the Nobel Prize heavyweights.
But they won’t admit Cal and Stanford if the move leads to a reduction in the media revenue that flows to each school. Fox would have to cover the expense, as it did with Oregon and Washington.
It won’t be an easy sell. Lyons and Levin are businessmen. But starting this summer, if not today, they need to become lobbyists.
LikeLike
Make it clear that full revenue shares aren’t necessary. Oregon and Washington are entering the Big Ten as half-share members. The Bay Area schools should be willing to join at 25 percent.
The shares for Oregon and Washington gradually go up over time, with the expectation that for the next TV deal they would be at full shares.
I think Cal and Stanford would’ve taken 25% in a hot second, but TV partners need to be convinced that they’d eventually be worth full shares, which they clearly weren’t this time around. If that’s going to change, I think the Bay Area schools will need a paradigm shift, not just “better lobbying.”d
LikeLike
Marc,
UO’s and UW’s shares go up $1M per year for the length of the deal. That barely keeps up with inflation. They do get full shares in the next deal. I could see Calford accepting 25% shares this TV deal (with slow escalation) with the promise of half shares in the next TV deal. That might require current schools theoretically sacrificing a little money in the next deal, but it will mean the deal goes up by $13M per year rather than $16M or something. If combined with the next CFP deal, schools wouldn’t even really notice it.
The bigger question would be what happens in 2036 (or whenever the next TV deal ends). By then they either will have earned full shares or maybe they get permanent partial shares (would the B10 support that?) because Fox says they’ll only pay 50% (or 75% or whatever) for them.
But the other issue is that the B10 already has 18 members, and has higher expansion priorities than Calford. How many schools does the B10 want to add before it finds out which ACC schools might be interested in joining?
Calford strike me now as schools you add if the ACC crumbles and you’ve already accepted whoever you wanted (that also inquired) from that group, or maybe if nobody else leaves the ACC and you decide it will never fracture. But as long as schools like FSU, Miami and UNC are potentially available, why add lesser pieces and risk getting too big?
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/wilner-on-big-ten-football-the-tiebreaker-conundrum-isnt-just-about-the-conference-championship-matchup/
Wilner spoke to the B10’s Kerry Kenny about the tiebreakers.
I don’t see why tiebreakers beyond picking #1 and #2 really matter. The CFP will select at-large teams based on their rankings, not conference order. Bowls have some flexibility in team selection already.
Frankly, I expect CFP ranking to become the last tiebreaker with coin flip only for those outside of the top 25.
The clear path is to create a set of rules then simulate a bunch of seasons, and keep testing until you find the best option. If you start with the old ones and modify them to the lack of divisions:
1. Head to head
2. W% vs the others (2-0 better than 1-0 better than 1-1 …)
3. W% vs all common opponents
4. W% against the highest placed B10 teams in descending order (lump tied teams together; so did anyone beat 1st? 2nd? …)
5. W% of all opponents (toughest SOS)
6. Overall W%
7. Random draw
I’d replace #6 with CFP ranking, so some neutral human judgement is involved.
Big Ten football has a math problem to resolve before it becomes a math calamity: How do you break ties in a league with 18 teams, nine conference games and no divisions?
“We have to reinvent what we had,” Big Ten Chief Operating Officer Kerry Kenny told the Hotline last week at the annual Fiesta Summit gathering for college sports executives.
…
Each team will play nine league opponents and miss eight.
It’s easy to see chaos coming, with multiple teams tied for second place, no head-to-head advantage, a dearth of common opponents and no way to break the deadlock with three or four of the standard tiebreaker steps.
If the issue isn’t at the top of Kenny’s priority list, it’s close. And because the 12-team College Football Playoff begins this year, there’s more to the Big Ten tiebreaker than simply identifying two teams for the title matchup in Indianapolis.
The Big Ten champion will receive an automatic bid to the expanded playoff, but a handful of non-champions could be under consideration for any of the seven at-large berths.
“As we transition to No. 1 vs. No. 2,” Kenny said, “we have to think through the entirety of the tiebreaker because there will be CFP considerations for the teams that finish fourth, fifth, sixth.
“It’s not just about No. 1 and 2. It’s about all of it.”
Kenny went through an intricate process last fall when the Big Ten formulated a conference schedule rotation for the next five years.
After assessing 262 different versions, the conference settled on the so-called “Flex Protect XVIII” model. It took into account travel by distance, regions of the conference and time zones. The model also considered what the Big Ten described as “historic competitiveness and recent competitive trends, including home/away balance of traditionally competitive schools.”
…
“The misses are the biggest issue with football,” Kenny said. “In divisions, you generally don’t have large clusters of teams that look the same.”
At no time during the 13 years of the division format did more than two teams tie for first place — head-to-head settled everything.
Without divisions, and with the likelihood that head-to-head won’t apply because of the misses, the formula starts to look less like subtraction and more like something suitable for Isaac Newton.
“If you have a group with one common opponent,” Kenny said, “it makes you go deeper in the process, and you want to have it figured out before you get to the coin flip.
“We’re looking at whether there are other analytics we can pull in.”
Whatever process the conference eventually implements, it must be ironclad at the top and the middle.
“With the CFP, you have to work up how you go deeper in the process,” Kenny said. “You have to make strong, educated assumptions. The goal is not to get into a situation you can’t resolve.
“We want something that everyone can agree with and allows us to put the best teams forward, to Indianapolis and into the playoff.”
LikeLike
Frankly, I expect CFP ranking to become the last tiebreaker with coin flip only for those outside of the top 25.
The CFP would need to move up its timetable. Currently, the rankings are announced on Tuesday evenings except for the final ranking (after the CCGs), which comes out on Sunday afternoon.
The Big XII formerly had the BCS ranking as a tiebreaker, but the BCS rankings always came out on Sunday.
LikeLike
The timing only matters for determining #1 and #2, and the last tiebreaker is least likely to be needed at the top (or bottom) of the standings. In the rare occasion where it is needed they could fall back to the previous week’s rankings, or wait until Tuesday night to finalize things.
LikeLike
I would like to see the B1G institute a rule forbidding rivalry week rematches in the title game.
LikeLike
They won’t because they are actively hoping for it. Specifically for a Michigan – Ohio St rematch.
LikeLike
jog267,
Me too, but I fear Mike is correct.
I’d go further and say no rematches at all unless a. #2 beat #1 or b. nobody else is within 1 game of #2.
LikeLike
They know this will happen.
LikeLike
Mike: “Under the new super conference setup, Michigan and Ohio State would have played each other in back-to-back weeks each of the last 3 years, and 4 out of the last 6. A 12 team CFP means the likelihood that they’d play 3 times in one season is quite high.”
Yep, I agree. And with the current setup it would not only be 3 times in one season, it would be 3 times in 6 weeks.
The Big Ten should spread these big rivalry games over the entire season. OSU-UM could be mid-October, like the Red River Rivalry. The Old Oaken Bucket Game is currently kicked down to the BTN because there are so many good games on Turkey Weekend. But if that game was on Week 0, here is the entire weekend TV schedule that it would play against in 2024:
Florida State vs Georgia Tech (in Dublin, Ireland)
Delaware State at Hawaii
Montana State at New Mexico
SMU at Nevada
The OOBG would be a national broadcast in prime time. Then during Week 1 we could have Washington-Oregon, Wisky-Minny in Week 2, and so on. The collective TV viewership for the Big Ten would skyrocket and repeat games in the CCG and the CFP wouldn’t be such a problem.
LikeLike
I hope they publish the results.
LikeLike
Usually in May they start publishing TV schedules with the first few weeks locked in for times and the rest just which network. But they won’t even tell us the formula for who picks in what order and how they split up the 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/etc. choices, let alone which weeks the networks pick. I wish they would. I bet BTN could get some decent viewership showing it on a May Thursday night.
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-plotting-in-big-ten-pac-12
Canzano talked with Bob Thompson about it.
Fox, CBS, and NBC will take turns selecting which games they’ll carry from the 18 conference schools. The networks will assemble the early football programming puzzle for the 2024 regular season. There’s a strategy involved — not just with the games the networks want from the Big Ten, but also with inventory from other conferences.
Retired Fox Sports Network President Bob Thompson likened the process to a game of “three-dimensional chess.”
Ohio State at Oregon? USC at Michigan? Michigan-Ohio State? Washington at Penn State? The whole thing has me wondering: Which Big Ten game will be the No. 1 pick by the networks?
Said Thompson: “Fox has the first pick and it will be Ohio State-Michigan. Always has been, always will be.”
…
• OVER/UNDER: Win totals were posted this week by the sports books for Power 4 conference college football teams. Here are some I was interested in:
LikeLike
The Notre Dame at Purdue game on Week 3 will be one of the top games selected. And I’m not pretentious enough to believe that the viewers will be tuning in to watch Purdue.
LikeLike
Mike,
So how would you draft?
Let’s assume the order is (just for the sake of argument):
1. Fox – Wk 14 (UM @ OSU); note: NBC will want 2nd pick for ND @ USC
2. Fox – Wk 2 (UT @ UM); 2nd best = CU @ NE (ride the Deion hype train)
3. Fox – Wk 3 (AL @ WI); note: NBC will want 2nd pick for ND @ PU
4. NBC – Wk 7 (OSU @ UO); 2nd best game = PSU @ USC, 3rd = UW @ IA
5. CBS – Wk 4 (USC @ UM)
6. CBS – Wk 10 (OSU @ PSU)
7. NBC – Wk 12 (NE @ USC, UO @ WI, UCLA @ UW)
8. Fox – Wk 9 (MSU @ UM, NE @ OSU, PSU @ WI)
9. NBC – Wk 13 (USC @ UCLA, WI @ NE, NW @ UM?)
10. CBS – Wk 11 (UW @ PSU, IA @ UCLA, UMD @ UO)
11. Fox – Wk 5 (OSU @ MSU, WI @ USC, MN @ UM)
12. CBS – Wk 6 (UM @ UW, IA @ OSU, UCLA @ PSU)
13. NBC – Wk 8 (IA @ MSU, UM @ IL, UO @ PU)
14. CBS – Wk 1 (Fresno @ UM, Akron @ OSU, )
I did this without checking ND’s schedule. That might alter NBC’s preferences.
LikeLike
@Brian – I don’t think I’m too far off from what you did. I’m very interested in the mechanics. I know they pick weeks where someone gets first choice. Then do they draft second and third choices? I know there are trades for various reasons. All of that would have been fascinating.
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t think anyone knows the mechanics, and like you I wish we did. I assume they still draft by weeks for 1st pick, which I then extended to thinking they would draft weeks for 2nd and weeks for 3rd. But with so many networks involved (Fox, CBS, NBC, FS1, BTN, Peacock), maybe that isn’t true. Or maybe there are exceptions (like NBC getting first chance at ND games).
There are many known complications:
* No Pac-4 games at noon ET
* No/few ET school games at 10:00 ET (but that window is why Fox agreed to UW and UO, so expect them there a lot)
* NBC occasionally wanting ND in primetime
* Fox having other commitments (B12, MLB)
* Everyone having to be on BTN at least twice (at least once in B10 play)
* NBC burying games on Peacock
* Fox burying games on FS1 Friday nights
I haven’t seen any follow-up from the few people who commented on it starting.
Here’s an OSU blog post about it from about a month ago, and his choices:
https://247sports.com/college/ohio-state/longformarticle/big-ten-football-schedule-for-2024-with-media-coverage-226143581/#2353656
Using what we discussed above that FOX may have the first two weekend picks, followed by alternating first picks by FOX, NBC and CBS, here is how that draft could go.
* First Pick – FOX will go with Week 14 (Nov. 30) with the first pick and obviously take Michigan-Ohio State. I’d say Washington-Oregon to CBS and Notre Dame-USC to NBC. Nebraska-Iowa would be a FOX or CBS game on Friday.
* Second Pick – FOX will take the jam packed Week 10 (Nov. 2) with five potential marquee games to choose from. You don’t overthink it and just go Ohio State-Penn State at noon. Oregon-Michigan to CBS and USC-Washington to NBC.
* Third Pick – I have NBC getting the third pick of weekend choice and them taking Week 2 (Sept. 7). This would give them dibs on Texas-Michigan (a good game to pick before somebody’s season goes sideways). CBS could get Colorado-Nebraska and FOX could take Iowa State-Iowa.
* Fourth Pick – CBS finally gets a first pick and they take Week 3 (Sept. 14). Old ties die hard and I think CBS would want that Alabama-Wisconsin game. FOX could take Notre Dame-Purdue. NBC would get UCLA-Indiana or Washington State-Washington.
* Fifth Pick – FOX would then have the fifth pick of weekends and they go with Week 5 (Oct. 5). They could take Iowa-Ohio State at noon. NBC could then pluck Michigan-Washington and CBS would go with UCLA-Penn State.
* Sixth Pick – CBS could then have the sixth weekend pick and could take Week 7 (Oct. 12). They would go with whichever game is best between Ohio State-Oregon or Penn State-USC. So let’s assume it goes Ohio State-Oregon to CBS, Penn State-USC to NBC and Washington-Iowa on FOX.
* Seventh Pick – NBC would then go with Week 4 (Sept. 21). They could have USC-Michigan in prime time. FOX could take Illinois-Nebraska or Iowa-Minnesota. CBS would get Northwestern-Washington.
* Eighth Pick – FOX could then take Week 9 (Oct. 26) with the next pick. They could pick Nebraska-Ohio State, Michgan State-Michigan or Penn State-Wisconsin. Let’s say it goes Penn State-Wisconsin on FOX, Michigan State-Michigan on CBS and Nebraska-Ohio State in prime time on NBC.
* Ninth Pick – The ninth pick would go to NBC, which would take Week 13 (Nov. 23). The obvious pick is USC-UCLA from the West Coast for a prime time game. FOX could take Northwestern-Michigan with Wisconsin-Nebraska on CBS. Figure Indiana-Ohio State for Big Ten Network (possibly).
* 10th Pick – CBS would be next up and could go with Week 12 (Nov. 16). The pick could be Nebraska-USC. NBC could go with UCLA-Washington. FOX could take Ohio State-Northwestern or Oregon-Wisconsin.
* 11th Pick – FOX would take Week 11 (Nov. 9). The pick would be Washington-Penn State. NBC could pull Iowa-UCLA, while FOX could take Purdue-Ohio State.
* 12th Pick – CBS would go with Week 5 (Sept. 28). They could take Ohio State-Michigan State. NBC would grab Wisconsin-USC. FOX would have Minnesota-Michigan. Oregon-UCLA could be a late night game.
* 13th Pick – NBC would pick Week 8 (Oct. 19). There aren’t many good games to choose from. Who knows?
* 14th Pick – That leaves FOX with Week 1 (Aug. 31), where there are literally no compelling first week games in any of the Big Ten stadiums. I assume they could lead out with Fresno State-Michigan. After that, who knows?
LikeLike
My hunch is that * Third Pick * NBC getting the first choice of the weekend will take the Sept 14 game of Notre Dame at Purdue.
LikeLike
Mike,
https://www.foxsports.com/stories/college-football/fox-big-noon-kickoff-slate-includes-michigan-ohio-state-texas-alabama
The games are starting to come out. With the top 3 picks, Fox chose:
UM @ OSU
UT @ UM (already known since they made UT switch home years)
AL @ WI
All for Big Noon. At least I got the first 3 picks correct.
https://www.nbcsports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-saturday-night-on-nbc-and-peacock-returns-with-michigan-vs-fresno-state-nebraska-vs-colorado
NBC announced their weeks 1 & 2 primetime games:
Fresno @ UM
CU @ NE
I haven’t seen anything from CBS yet.
LikeLike
Notre Dame at USC on Nov 30 not chosen by NBC. Maybe CBS snatched it before NBC had a chance.
LikeLike
Here are the Big Ten games CBS selected in the first round. As I suspected, CBS nailed ND-Purdue before NBC could get it.
Notre Dame-Purdue – Saturday, Sept. 14, 3:30 PM ET
USC-Michigan – Saturday, Sept. 21, 3:30 PM ET
https://www.paramountpressexpress.com/cbs-sports/shows/college-football/releases/?view=109819-cbs-sports-announces-select-2024-big-ten-football-games-in-season-that-culminates-with-big-ten-championship-game-on-cbs-and-paramount
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2024/05/08/congress-bill-ncaa-anti-trust-protection-nil/73615463007/
A bill was introduced in the House to give the NCAA anti-trust protection.
Two members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday introduced a bill that would give the NCAA, conferences and colleges the type of protections from lawsuits that they have been seeking as part of legislation aimed at creating federal rules regarding athlete compensation and other college-sports matters.
The move by Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) and Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.) comes against the backdrop of ongoing efforts to settle a set of lawsuits against the NCAA and major conferences that are seeking billions of dollars in damages and challenging the association’s remaining rules regarding athlete compensation. ESPN and Yahoo! Sports reported on the settlement negotiations last week.
In a news release, Fry and Moore — both of whom are members of the House Judiciary Committee — said their bill is “intended to accompany broader legislation establishing a national framework that secures student-athletes’ right to receive compensation and sets a federal standard with guardrails in place.”
LikeLike
https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawhitford/2024/04/29/the-new-ivies-as-employers-sour-on-the-super-elite-these-20-colleges-shine/?sh=513531fe438f
A new (and poorly done) elite college ranking list. The author calls it the “New Ivies.”
So if the Ivies aren’t the Ivies anymore, which schools exactly are? Using an exclusive survey of hiring managers, Forbes introduces the New Ivies—the 10 public universities and 10 ascendant private ones turning out the smart, driven graduates craved by employers of all types.
Our methodology was as follows. After disqualifying the Ivies (and we used the Ivy-plus yardstick, which includes Stanford, MIT, Duke and the University of Chicago, as well as the eight classics Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth and Cornell), we started with 1,743 colleges of at least 4,000 students (understanding that small liberal arts schools have always offered a more boutique experience and are hard to compare with research universities). Using 2022 admissions data, the most recent available, we then screened for schools with high standardized test scores (our New Ivies average a robust 1482 SAT and 33 ACT) and where at least half the applicants supplied the scores, regardless of whether they were required to do so for admission—in other words, places that still rely heavily on objective measures of success.
We also screened with a selectivity yardstick (below a 20% admission rate at private schools, 50% at publics). And then from there, we took the 32 remaining schools and surveyed our hiring manager respondents about each one.
Many of the schools on our list are well known; Johns Hopkins and University of Michigan have long been considered Ivy caliber institutions, while Vanderbilt, Rice and Emory are often referred to as Southern Ivies. Others like New York’s Binghamton University are already respected in their geographic areas, but now are attracting wider notice.
So they eliminated:
That took them down to 32 schools and then they surveyed hiring managers – so the most “famous” win. And since those managers are mostly located in a few big cities, schools near them have an advantage.
That said, here are the 20 winners (10 private, 10 public) including 6 B10 schools:
Publics:
Binghamton University
Georgia Tech
University of Florida
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland-College Park
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Texas-Austin
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Except for Binghamton, those are all likely candidates for such a list. Obviously UCLA and Cal belong as well (UMD and Binghamton would likely drop off to make room for those 2).
Privates:
Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
Rice University
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
Vanderbilt University
Another reasonable list based on their criteria, but eliminating schools like Stanford, Duke, MIT and Chicago seems arbitrary. I’m glad Rice was big enough to be included. Obviously some smaller schools like Caltech belong.
LikeLike
Right, these academic rankings can be easily manipulated depending upon their metrics.
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings
LikeLike
I would distinguish “manipulated” rankings and honest ones that you just happen to disagree with. This list seems rather useless to me, but it seems “accurate” given the stated criteria.
LikeLike
There is no need to distinguish between rankings that I disagree with and manipulated rankings. Both can be true. Here’s an excellent example from a NY Times gift article.
LikeLike
There is no need to distinguish between rankings that I disagree with and manipulated rankings.
Other than they are totally different and unrelated things? Sure, other than that, no need.
LikeLike
Then why did you bring it up?
Marc: “I would distinguish “manipulated” rankings and honest ones that you just happen to disagree with. This list seems rather useless to me, but it seems “accurate” given the stated criteria.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/40115234/amid-portal-era-calipari-hints-limiting-arkansas-roster-8-9-guys
An unintended consequence of selfish players in the NIL era. Coaches are contemplating not filling out their rosters since backups will just leave anyway – why coach them up for someone else to get the benefit?
As he prepares for his first season at Arkansas, John Calipari said he won’t stack his rosters with an abundance of talent, which was his tactic during his lengthy tenure at Kentucky.
On the latest episode of his “Ways to Win” podcast with former Oregon State head coach Craig Robinson this week, Calipari said the turnover in college basketball in the transfer portal era has changed his philosophy on assembling rosters.
“You may think I’m crazy, but I told my staff I only want to have eight or nine guys,” Calipari told Robinson, who is now executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches. “They’re leaving anyway, and why would I develop a kid for someone else? Why would I do that?”
Calipari said he has talked to other coaches who have discussed similar strategies.
…
But Calipari said he wants to use the other roster spots for walk-ons and rely on those non-scholarship players and graduate assistants to help the team prepare for its opponents next season. He noted that women’s college basketball teams often use non-staffers to help them in practice.
“I want those [graduate assistants] to have played in Europe or just got done playing and can still play,” he said. “We can use them in practice. The women’s programs have five guys that they call ‘managers,’ but that’s who they scrimmage against. Maybe I do it that way. We have some walk-ons, we have some [graduate assistants], we have eight or nine guys and that’s it. And if there is a 10th guy, he knows he’s the 10th guy.”
LikeLike
An unintended consequence of selfish players in the NIL era.
Even before NIL, it was already quite common for players to transfer for self-interest. And why shouldn’t they? Most players choose their first school for entirely selfish reasons: they’ve listened to competing recruiting pitches and committed where they believe is best for them. Sometimes that doesn’t work out. If the athlete can be selfish the first time, why not the second?
NIL has amplified all of this, I will grant you. But players have been transferring for selfish reasons for a long time.
LikeLike
It wasn’t anywhere close to as common as it is today. And like many things, what is fine in moderation is bad in excess. When 25% of all players transfer in a year, many of them vacillating between destinations and then moving again later, it’s a problem for them. They have abused the system to the point scholarships may go unfilled, or talented players not offered opportunities because why bother trying to develop a player?
Way to defend being selfish. Most people don’t view that as a positive. “Greed is good” is very 80s of you.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40116701/uc-president-recommends-ucla-pay-cal-full-annual-subsidy
UCLA will pay the max for Calimony, $10M per year for 6 years. This is the first time we have definitively heard a time limit put on Calimony. I wonder if the BOR consider extending it beyond the current TV deal.
The University of California Board of Regents is expected to accept a recommendation that UCLA pay University of California at Berkeley $10 million a year for six years as a result of the Bruins’ upcoming move to the Big Ten and the demise of the Pac-12.
The recommendation was made by UC president Michael Drake and will be voted on during a regents meeting Tuesday at UC Merced.
…
According to a report by UC’s president, the difference between UCLA’s annual media rights distribution from the Big Ten and UC Berkeley’s share from the ACC will be approximately $50 million per year.
Drake is also recommending that if there is a significant change in revenues and/or expenses for either school, exceeding 10% over 2024-25 projections, UCLA’s contribution can be reevaluated by the regents.
Is the new CFP deal factored into their projections? If not, the revenues will change by more than 10%. And with the upcoming lawsuit settlements and “revenue sharing,” their expenses will definitely go up more than 10%. But Drake already picked the max amount allowed and is unlikely to lower it unless UCLA’s expenses explode to the point they are losing money. Is he suggesting the BOR could consider raising it above $10M?
LikeLike
Crunching the numbers:
UCLA’s new expenses:
They were in financial trouble before, and just added $30M in expenses. Their payout was expected to increase by $35M+, so it’s still a net positive but not by much. But remember there were also potential costs like higher coaches salaries and better facilities to compete in the B10. That makes this close to breakeven (assuming if UCLA had stayed, the P12 would’ve stayed together and gotten $30M or so per year), but leaves UCLA at a huge competitive disadvantage. They will be a in a similar position to UW and UO, but without a Phil Knight to cover the gap.
Meanwhile, Cal could actually be making similar money to the others in the ACC (but with the higher travel costs).
What I want to know is if Cal is being required to spend that extra $10M on athlete resources too.
LikeLike
Missouri St to CUSA
LikeLike
WCC adds two!
LikeLike
Any B12 interest in Gonzaga apparently dried up in December. The lack of football was apparently the issue. Now the presidents want to see how the current league of 16 works out before any further expansion.
Maybe that has led to Gonzaga supporting WCC expansion. This will get them to 11 members, plus WSU and OrSU in hoops (for now).
https://www.si.com/college/gonzaga/basketball/gonzaga-was-extremely-supportive-in-wcc-adding-seattle-u-grand-canyon-
“I will say on Gonzaga ‘s behalf they have always behaved throughout the rumors, and the speculation about their departure, they have always behaved as a true and invested partner in the WCC,” Jackson said during a press conference Friday. “And also throughout this process, as we’ve added members, they have been extremely supportive.”
After months of speculation and rumors, it appears Gonzaga to the Big 12 isn’t happening any time soon. CBS Sports reported that Grand Canyon and Seattle “probably solidifies” the Bulldogs’ membership with the WCC for now. Also worth noting in the report, the Big 12 did not discuss Gonzaga at last week’s meeting in Phoenix, Arizona.
…
Talks from both sides stalled in December and haven’t picked up much since. It was thought that Big 12 leaders could possibly vote on the matter at a meeting during Thanksgiving week, though nothing came out of it.
CBS Sports also reported that Washington State and Oregon State are unlikely to remain in the WCC once their two-year affiliation expires in 2026. Jackson said he didn’t consider that “breaking news.”
“Having that two year grace period as granted by the NCAA lends itself to the fact that within those two years, [WSU and Oregon State] will probably figure out where they will land from a football standpoint and most likely take many of their Olympic sports with them,” Jackson said. “That being said, we don’t know what the future holds. We don’t know where Oregon State and WSU will land. We will remain with open arms should they decide that keeping their sports with the WCC is where they want to be.”
LikeLike
The Big 12 is now in a position to be a predator towards ACC if the Big Ten/SEC pull enough schools out (especially UNC) to cause schools like Pitt, Louisville, and possibly even NC State or Va Tech to consider throwing their lot with the Big 12.
That’s a good position to be in for them, so they don’t need to add anyone else.
They may get to add Duke potentially, which would be an even bigger hoops addition plus they have football.
LikeLike
z33k,
I just don’t see it. Even if FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC all leave, how is the B12 an upgrade for any ACC member? Any extra money would be lost to travel costs, plus they’d lose the ACCN and games against ND.
The only travel benefits would be for SMU (who the B12 don’t want), and Cal/Stanford. But the B12 could’ve already had Cal/Stanford if there was mutual interest. I don’t think Cal/Stanford want the money or reduced travel enough to join the B12 and downgrade their academic neighborhood.
If the ACC splinters, presumably that means the GOR is over and ESPN renegotiates with the ACC. We know what they are paying the B12.
B12 = UA, ASU, UU, BYU, CU, ISU, KU, KSU, UC, WVU, UCF, OkSU, TT, TCU, BU, UH
ACC = BC, SU, Pitt, UL, VT, NCSU, WF, Duke, GT, SMU, Cal, Stanford (+ND)
I don’t see significantly more value in the B12.
LikeLike
There is an exit fee AND the Grant of Rights.
“To bolt the ACC, any school would need to pay an exit fee of three times its annual revenue (approximately $120 million) and would need to navigate the grant in media rights to the ACC to be able to broadcast future games. If not, all TV revenue a school generates from a new conference would have to be paid back to the ACC.”
https://apnews.com/article/florida-state-acc-conference-realignment-c10c2ec83dbd59d6281f98a18ebd8bf5
LikeLike
I just don’t see it. Even if FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC all leave, how is the B12 an upgrade for any ACC member? Any extra money would be lost to travel costs, plus they’d lose the ACCN and games against ND.
If it loses those four schools, the ACC would be seriously deficient in football strength—and football pays >75% of the bills. I don’t know what ESPN would pay for such a league, but they’re not going to keep up with the Big 12: that is for sure. The ACCN probably folds. We don’t have the contracts, but I can’t imagine that ESPN is still on the hook if the league loses its four most valuable members.
The Irish might stick around, but they probably wouldn’t commit to 5 football games anymore. ND is likely willing to play Olympic sports with those schools, but without the football commitment — and the denuded ACC would be in no position to demand that.
Contingent on all of the above, I could very well imagine the schools that have a football pulse taking a very serious look at the Big 12. Pitt, Louisville, VT and GT would probably be better off in the Big 12 at that point. We don’t know how large the Big 12 wants to be, but I don’t think they are done looking.
There is an exit fee AND the Grant of Rights.
All such posts have the backdrop that FSU and Clemson are suing the ACC and might win. Or, in the absence of that, people are looking a decade ahead. No serious person thinks any schools are leaving now while the current GoR and exit fees are in place.
LikeLike
Marc: “No serious person thinks any schools are leaving now while the current GoR and exit fees are in place.”
Agreed, my point to z33k was that there are TWO obstacles to Accexit. FSU, for example, may renegotiate the exit fees but still be bound by the GOR.
LikeLike
Marc,
If it loses those four schools, the ACC would be seriously deficient in football strength—and football pays >75% of the bills.
And the B12 isn’t after losing UT and OU and adding a bunch of G5s? How seriously will people take their champion?
If the top ACC teams leave, others suddenly lose fewer games and win the ACC and get CFP berths. VT could return to prominence. UL and GT could get back to winning ways. And they bring valuable eastern markets for ESPN.
I don’t know what ESPN would pay for such a league, but they’re not going to keep up with the Big 12: that is for sure. The ACCN probably folds. We don’t have the contracts, but I can’t imagine that ESPN is still on the hook if the league loses its four most valuable members.
Not keeping up isn’t enough to make the B12 a predator. They would need to pay many millions more to cover the travel costs, and they’d have to think there were ACC schools worth adding.
The ACCN is a sunk cost that is profitable for now, so why cancel it? Supposedly the ACC just has to maintain at least 14 members.
The Irish might stick around, but they probably wouldn’t commit to 5 football games anymore. ND is likely willing to play Olympic sports with those schools, but without the football commitment — and the denuded ACC would be in no position to demand that.
Not 5 games, no, but 3-4.
Contingent on all of the above, I could very well imagine the schools that have a football pulse taking a very serious look at the Big 12. Pitt, Louisville, VT and GT would probably be better off in the Big 12 at that point. We don’t know how large the Big 12 wants to be, but I don’t think they are done looking.
I need to see the numbers that support that. The B12 would need to pay at least $10M more per year just to balance the costs. Then they have to consider losing their remaining rivals and what that does to ticket sales. Then their is the academic/culture consideration. On top of all that, the alumni/donors need to be on board.
LikeLike
If it loses those four schools, the ACC would be seriously deficient in football strength—and football pays >75% of the bills.
And the B12 isn’t after losing UT and OU and adding a bunch of G5s? How seriously will people take their champion?
Assuming they lose the aforementioned schools, the ACC would have zero programs that made the 4-team CFP. The Big 12 would have two (Cincinnati and TCU).
Looking at the list of programs that would have made a 12-team playoff over the last decade, the ACC would have no schools that appeared more than once. If I have counted correctly, the Big 12 would have eight of them: Arizona, Baylor, Cincy, KSU, OkSU, TCU, UCF, Utah.
Now, there’s no telling how those programs will perform in their new conferences. Even allowing for that, I don’t see any serious dispute that the Big 12 would be the far more marketable football conference, if you assume the ACC loses its four best members. I could easily see the Big 12 outearning the ACC by at least $10m per school in that scenario.
If the top ACC teams leave, others suddenly lose fewer games and win the ACC and get CFP berths.
I believe that exact argument was suggested as the reason the Pac-12 would surely stay together, and you know how that turned out.
LikeLike
Marc,
Assuming they lose the aforementioned schools, the ACC would have zero programs that made the 4-team CFP. The Big 12 would have two (Cincinnati and TCU).
That doesn’t make them brands. UC made it as a G5, and most of TCU’s modern success also came as a G5. Once you get far enough down the pecking order, the differences between programs don’t really matter. TV cares if they will regularly pull 4M+ viewers.
50% of CFB viewership comes from 18 programs (https://twitter.com/TJAltimore/status/1749970673085096269):
B10 – OSU, UM, PSU, WI, USC, UO, UW
SEC – AL, AU, UF, UGA, LSU, TN, UT, OU
ACC – Clemson, FSU
Other – ND
Neither the new B12 nor the depleted ACC would have any of them. But both will get a CFP autobid so they may develop some new power program(s) in time.
https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-viewers-did-your-ncaa-team-attract
And when you discuss losing brands, realize UNC was only 7th in ACC viewership. After the obvious 3, UL, VT and NCSU also all averaged more viewers than UNC from 2013-2021. And GT, SU, BC and Pitt were all within 13% of UNC’s average. For a B10 comparison, UNC’s average barely beat PU’s and trailed NW’s considerably. In the new B12, it would be 3rd (behind Baylor and ahead of TCU). I don’t think you understand how poor the viewership is for the bottom half of the B12 already.
UNC’s major brand value is in hoops, as is the ACC’s. Losing FSU, Clemson and Miami barely budges the hoops value, but obviously UNC would be a major blow.
Looking at the list of programs that would have made a 12-team playoff over the last decade, the ACC would have no schools that appeared more than once. If I have counted correctly, the Big 12 would have eight of them: Arizona, Baylor, Cincy, KSU, OkSU, TCU, UCF, Utah.
If they all perform the same going forward. Of the B12’s 8 teams you list, half had their success in other conferences. It is unlikely they all perform the same way when in the same conference, especially the G5s (UCF, UC, Baylor, and TCU all had losing seasons in 2023).
Now, there’s no telling how those programs will perform in their new conferences. Even allowing for that, I don’t see any serious dispute that the Big 12 would be the far more marketable football conference, if you assume the ACC loses its four best members. I could easily see the Big 12 outearning the ACC by at least $10m per school in that scenario.
3 best, not 4. And none of them were as valuable as the 2 the B12 lost. So once neither conference has a major brand left, I don’t see any reason to think one will vastly outperform the other.
I believe that exact argument was suggested as the reason the Pac-12 would surely stay together, and you know how that turned out.
I wasn’t arguing for the ACC staying together, just stating the fact that if the top brands leave someone else must win the conference and now that comes with a CFP autobid (it didn’t before). That structural change in the CFP makes all the difference.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-post-spring-power-rankings-ohio-state-over-oregon-for-no-1-usc-lands-in-top-five/
Normally I wouldn’t bother with post-spring B10 power rankings, but I think it’s a bit interesting with the 4 newbies joining.
LikeLike
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2024/05/12/college-football-playoff-expansion-tennessee-florida-lsu/73662877007/
A different perspective on the expanded CFP: is it good or bad for programs like UF (his example, not mine)? The author’s point is that it is obviously great for programs like PSU who would’ve made many trips and their top rivals/foes already were making it. But what about those who will just miss out but now their rivals will make it? It’s one thing to go to a lesser bowl than your rival, but another to watch them make the CFP while you go to the Mayo Bowl.
Actual CFP appearances
AL – 8
Clemson – 6
OSU – 5
OU – 4
UGA, UM – 3
UW, ND – 2
MSU, UO, FSU, LSU, UT, TCU, UC – 1
That’s 15 schools over 10 years.
Projected CFP Appearances (past 10 years, 14-team field)
10 – AL, OSU
8 – UGA
7 – Clemson, OU
6 – PSU
5 – FSU, UM, ND, UW
4 – MS
3 – Baylor, UF, MSU, UO, TCU, UU, USC, WI
2 – AU, AZ, UC, KSU, LSU, Memphis, UNC, NW, OkSU, OrSU, UCF
1 – BSU, BYU, CC, CU, GT, IA, ISU, IU, UK, UL, ULL, Miami, MsSU, MO, Navy, Pitt, Stanford, UT, TAMU, TN, WSU, WMU
That’s 52 schools over 10 years.
By future alignment:
B10 – 12 schools, 44 bids
SEC – 13 schools, 42 bids
B12 – 10 schools, 20 bids
ACC – 8 schools, 19 bids
G5 – 8 schools, 10 bids
Ind. – 1 school, 5 bids
So which programs really benefit, and which might be hurt?
PSU went from 0 appearances to 6 (UM only had 5). MS went from 0 to 4. Baylor, UF, UU, USC and WI went from 0 to 3.
The lower middle of the B10 (NE, MN, PU, UCLA) suffers by seeing PSU, WI and NW get multiple bids while they get 0 (esp. PU since IU got 1). IA only getting 1 (same as IU) also hurts by comparison.
Year by year:
2014
1. AL, 2. UO, 3. FSU, 4. Baylor (#5); 5. OSU, 6. TCU, 7. MsSU, 8, MSU, 9. MS, 10. AZ, 11. KSU, 12. GT, 13. UGA, 14*. BSU (#20)
2015
1. Clemson, 2. AL, 3. MSU, 4. TCU (#11); 5. OU, 6. IA, 7. Stanford, 8. OSU, 9. ND, 10. FSU, 11. UNC, 12. MS, 13. NW, 14*. Navy (#21)
2016
1. AL, 2. Clemson, 3. OSU, 4. CU (#9); 5. UW, 6. PSU, 7. UM, 8. OU, 9. WI, 10. USC, 11. FSU, 12. OkSU, 13. UL, 14*. WMU (#15)
2017
1. Clemson, 2. OU, 3. OSU, 4. UCF (#12); 5. UGA, 6. AL, 7. WI, 8. AU, 9. USC, 10, PSU, 11. Miami, 12. UW, 13*. ND (#14), 14*. Memphis (#20)
2018
1. AL, 2. Clemson, 3. OSU, 4. UCF (#8); 5. ND, 6. OU, 7. UGA, 8. UM, 9. UW, 10. UF, 11. LSU, 12. PSU, 13*. WSU, 14. UK
2019
1. LSU, 2. OSU, 3. Clemson, 4. Baylor; 5. OU, 6. UGA, 7. UO, 8. WI, 9. UF, 10. PSU, 11. UU, 12. AU, 13. AL, 14*. Memphis (#17)
2020
1. AL, 2. Clemson, 3. OSU, 4. UC (#8); 5. ND, 6. TAMU, 7. OU, 8. UF, 9. UGA, 10. ISU, 11. IU, 12*. CC, 13. UNC, 14. NW
2021
1. AL, 2. UM, 3. UC, 4. Pitt (#12); 5. UGA, 6. ND, 7. OSU. 8. Baylor, 9. MS, 10. OkSU, 11. MSU, 12. UU, 13. BYU, 14*. ULL (#23)
2022
1. UGA, 2. UM, 3. TCU, 4. Clemson (#7); 5. OSU, 6. AL, 7. TN, 8. UU, 9. KSU, 10. USC, 11. PSU, 12. UW, 13. FSU, 14*. OrSU
2023
1. UM, 2. UT, 3. FSU, 4. AZ (#14); 5. UW, 6. AL, 7. UGA, 8. OSU, 9. UO, 10. MO, 11. PSU, 12. MS, 13. OU, 14*. OrSU (#19)
LikeLike
https://www.peacecorps.gov/news/library/peace-corps-announces-2024-rankings-of-top-volunteer-producing-colleges-universities-and-graduate-schools/
I just saw this – a list of the schools producing the most Peace Corps volunteers all-time. 5 of the top 10 are traditional B10 schools, and 1 more is a newbie. 9 of the 10 are P4 schools.
2024 Top Large Colleges and Universities Historically Producing the Most Peace Corps Volunteers
More than 15,000 Undergraduates Enrolled
LikeLike
A frank reflection on Peace Corps
Hey guys. I am a current Peace Corps Volunteer. I want to write a very frank post about the Peace Corps.
I had a lot of questions and concerns about PC before I joined. I asked questions on here. I decided to join PC because I wanted to learn about a new place and do meaningful work. I dont regret joining, but I feel like a lot of people here just say the good stuff. There’s a lot of hindsight bias.
I’m going to be completely honest. PC has the potential to be a huge waste of time. If you want 2 years of cultural exchange it is great, but if you want to do any sort of development work it is not.
Don’t expect to have that much to do or to make a difference. I didn’t come into this expecting to save the world, but I wanted meaningful work. I’m on my ass 90% of the time. Not to toot my own horn, but I have some nice projects going and I do work outside of my sector. Peace Corps has even commended me on my work but i still feel very idle. It’s taboo to admit it…. but all of the other volunteers I have talked to also have too much free time.
Ed volunteers usually have more to do but it’s still usually just a part time job at most. Teaching English is also very difficult and takes special training. Peace corps training, at least in my country, is very lackluster. Very few people in my cohort are actually good English teachers. Some of them have realized they hate teaching English. Oftentimes the Peace corps teachers are better than local teachers and it is hard to get truly good teachers to work without pay. So it’s better than nothing, but still, is it how you want to use 2 years? Just know that speaking English does not mean you will be good at teaching it or like teaching it.
And as for ag volunteers. Do you really think you can teach farming to people that live or die based on the success of their harvest? In my country they can’t take risks. Why would they listen to someone that doesn’t need to farm to live? I’m being a bit dramatic… people do listen to some things, but overall it’s incredibly hard to make any sort of change and for the most part the job is ridiculous. An outside perspective can always be helpful but expect to have very little impact and even less to do. (Edit: yes you can connect people with resources. That is a valuable part about ag that someone brought up in the comments. But being an occasional middleman for 2 years, although important and sometimes fulfilling, leads to a lot of time without having work)
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2024/05/nfl-gives-nbc-extra-game-opposite-cfp-december-21/
The NFL just gave a big FU to the CFP. Hopefully this dissuades anyone who believes the NFL and CFB are more collaborators than competitors. This is what happens when you let ESPN carry all the games.
Faced with a College Football Playoff tripleheader, the NFL is calling up broadcast network reinforcements for Saturday, December 21.
NBC Sports announced Monday that it has acquired an extra NFL regular season game to air in the afternoon on Saturday, December 21, a day that will feature three College Football Playoff first round games. Coverage will air on the NBC broadcast network, Peacock and Telemundo. Later in the day, Fox Sports executive Michael Mulvihill said the FOX broadcast network will also carry an NFL game on that date, presumably another afternoon contest leading into a USC-UConn women’s college basketball game.
The Week 16 Saturday games have traditionally aired on NFL Network, though last year’s matchups aired on NBC and Peacock due to Christmas-related scheduling adjustments.
The NFL had communicated to the CFP its desire that only two playoff games be scheduled for that date, but the league was rebuffed.
Given the sharply lower audience for NFL games on NFL Network as compared to the primary broadcast partners, it is highly likely that any CFP games would have outdrawn the NFL in a prospective head-to-head. Four years ago when college football conference championship games were pushed back to the third week in December, the ACC and SEC Championship games easily outdrew NFL games on NFL Network. By airing the game on NBC, the NFL has a much better chance of winning the ratings matchup.
It should be noted that the December 21 matchups figure to include higher-profile teams than usual. The NFL teams playing on Christmas this year — which falls on a Wednesday, a day of the week when NFL games are rarely played — will have played their previous game on that Saturday. Assuming the NFL will schedule its top-tier teams for its Christmas doubleheader, the December 21 games figure to feature some of the biggest draws in the league.
LikeLike
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-trustees-critical-of-cunningham-to-review-athletic-department-amid-budget-concerns/21428803/
Not all the powers than be in Chapel Hill are happy. Unfortunately for the trustees, in NC the Board of Governors runs things and they want UNC to stay with NCSU.
The UNC Board of Trustees approved an audit of the school’s athletic department Monday morning amid concerns and anger over the Tar Heels’ revenue, management and changes to college sports.
The board plans to meet about athletics in closed session during its meetings Wednesday and Thursday. It approved a top line of $134.97 million for the department as part of its all-funds budget that is due to the Board of Governors this week, but demanded further discussion with athletics director Bubba Cunningham.
“I think it’s imperative for the board to hear all of this in closed session,” chairman John Preyer said during a special meeting Monday. “I don’t think they understand the level of bad data that has been provided, and I think it is incumbent on us to get it right.”
Trustee Jen Evans said the athletic department submitted a preliminary budget proposal with a $17 million deficit for the 2024-25 academic year and $100 million in cumulative deficits moving forward.
“With no plans to address that, to mitigate that,” she said. “I don’t want anyone to think we’re talking in code. There are real issues here, a real concern that one of the most valuable assets and something that really generates revenue is not being managed properly. That is the need for the question and answer and that is the need for the audit.”
…
Trustee Dave Boliek, a former chairman, said after the meeting there was an “imbalance in the budget” that required shifting dollars from other fund balances to cover the cost of athletics. He said the board hasn’t been given a strategy on how UNC will move forward.
“Carolina’s ability to maintain excellence at a high level is going to require really prudent budgeting and revenue models and potential cost cutting,” Boliek said. “A lot of it is due to the revenue or lack there of of revenue that we’re not receiving from the ACC deal.”
…
“It’s not something you can change with the snap of a finger,” Boliek said. “It’s something we’ve got to be cognizant of. We can’t sit back and cross our fingers and pray for pennies from heaven and thinking everything is going to ‘work out.’ We have to actively pursue what’s in the best interests of Carolina athletics.”
…
Boliek said he wants UNC to join a higher-revenue league.
“I am advocating for that,” he said. “That’s what we need to do. We need to do everything we can to get there. Or the alternative is the ACC is going to have to reconstruct itself. I think all options are on the table.”
Preyer told WRAL in March that the ACC was failing its top schools, including North Carolina.
“The conference is not acting as if it is representing the best interests of the member schools including the top tier of those schools – Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina,” Preyer said.
“Instead, it is acting at the expense of those schools to prop up the bottom tier of the conference in a way that I think is a gross abdication of responsibility. And I lay that at the feet of the commissioner.”
LikeLike
Not all the powers than be in Chapel Hill are happy. Unfortunately for the trustees, in NC the Board of Governors runs things and they want UNC to stay with NCSU.
There has never been a state university system that didn’t want the flagship and the lesser lights to stay together—as long as it was an abstraction. But ultimately, there has never been a top-dog school that didn’t move if the money was good enough.
By the end of the current deal, if it lasts that long, the Big Ten and the SEC will be paying more than 2x what the ACC is paying. Now imagine what happens if FSU and Clemson—and maybe Miami too—are gone. What is that league going to be worth?
If you are a trustee, you have only two choices: condemn NCSU permanently to second-tier status or condemn both. It’s like Sophie’s Choice. Ultimately, if UNC has a Big Ten or SEC offer for more than double the money, I don’t see the trustees leaving that on the table.
LikeLike
CA allowed it but imposed a punitive tax such that the flagship is close to second tier for 6 years (and maybe longer as they play catch-up). UT was prevented from leaving without TT for a long time, costing them quite a bit. Politicians/bureaucrats have shown their willingness to hurt a school.
The NC BoG seems to want to force a P2 conference to take NCSU (like CA with Cal). How far are they willing to push it? Will they make them wait to see what happens to the ESPN deal after FSU and Clemson (and maybe Miami) escape the ACC (if they can)? Are they sure UNC is so highly valued that they won’t be passed over even if they drag their feet? Will they risk persisting in using UNC as leverage to help NCSU even if the delay may end up costing UNC?
Most importantly, the BoG considers all 16 schools in the system equally while the BoT is school-specific. Maybe the BoG sees UNC and NCSU staying together (even at diminished revenue) as more important than UNC maximizing its revenue. They may not see a risk of complete ACC failure like the P12.
LikeLike
The Athletic asks, Who is on the Mount Rushmore of college football villains? If you leave out the selections that depend on which school you root for, I thought these were the best ones:
Larry Scott, George Kliavkoff: Their incompetence over many years destroyed the Pac-12.
Mark Emmert: He never wavered from the NCAA’s “amateurism” model, leaving the association on the sidelines as the big decisions were forced on it from the outside.*
Sherwood Blount: Ringleader of the SMU boosters whose under-the-table payments — all of which would be legal today — led to the Death Penalty.
Charlie Weis: Bonus pick. Obviously, the opposing fans never liked him. But in the end his own schools’ fans (at ND and Kansas) didn’t like him either. He might be the most infamous coach fired for being bad at football. (I’m distinguishing coaches fired for misconduct, like Mel Tucker.)
* P.S. on Mark Emmert. Even if he’d had the vision to see what was coming, it’s far from clear that he could have rallied the membership to relent on NIL before they ultimately had no choice. But unless he was saying very different things privately than he did in public, I see no evidence that he ever tried to lead on that issue.
LikeLike
Mount Rushmore of College Football Villans
NCAA President Charlie Baker, creator of tihe NIL Standard myth and works out of his home. Has Charlie even visited the NCAA HQ in Indianapolis?
The University of Louisville. Within a twelve year period, the university president, athletic director, basketball coach and football coach all fired – not for losing – but for filthy misconduct. The Dean of Education was also sent to prison for stealing federal grant money during that time.
LikeLike
Marc,
I don’t see how incompetence makes one a villain, nor why everyone would hate the P12 commissioners.
If you have to go with individuals:
LikeLike
I don’t see how incompetence makes one a villain, nor why everyone would hate the P12 commissioners.
Larry Scott did a lot of incredibly vain, selfish, and borderline corrupt things. He did plenty to earn his way onto the villains list, beyond just getting all of the big decisions wrong. In contrast, Kliavkoff comes across as a decent guy who was in way over his head. But yeah, in sports people are blamed for outcomes, not intent. Boston Red Sox fans vilify Bill Buckner, simply because he didn’t field a routine ground ball when it mattered the most.
I can’t really blame the Supreme Court. The 1984 case was decided 7 to 2, and Alston in 2021 was unanimous. This suggests that the correct interpretation of the law was not a particularly close call. Blame Congress for writing the law the way they did. Or blame the NCAA for repeatedly doing things that were illegal, despite being told repeatedly what the law is. Would you really prefer to go back to having your team on the air only five times every two years?
I can’t really blame Fox and ESPN either. All they did was to declare what they were willing to pay for a certain product. It was the schools who wanted the money.
Now that you mention it, it’s strange that none of the writers came up with Jerry Sandusky — a true villain if ever there was one. Several of your other examples are in the category I was trying to avoid: those that depend on which school you root for.
LikeLike
Marc,
Larry Scott did a lot of incredibly vain, selfish, and borderline corrupt things. He did plenty to earn his way onto the villains list, beyond just getting all of the big decisions wrong. In contrast, Kliavkoff comes across as a decent guy who was in way over his head. But yeah, in sports people are blamed for outcomes, not intent. Boston Red Sox fans vilify Bill Buckner, simply because he didn’t field a routine ground ball when it mattered the most.
Yes, but why would anyone outside the P12 hate them?
I can’t really blame the Supreme Court. The 1984 case was decided 7 to 2, and Alston in 2021 was unanimous. This suggests that the correct interpretation of the law was not a particularly close call.
The outcome doesn’t mean their decision were correct (Dred Scott? 7-2; Plessy vs Ferguson? 7-1). The SC has made plenty of terrible decisions, more so as they get more political.
Blame Congress for writing the law the way they did.
I do, but there are only 4 spots on a Mt. Rushmore list.
Or blame the NCAA for repeatedly doing things that were illegal, despite being told repeatedly what the law is.
I don’t concede that they did anything illegal.
Would you really prefer to go back to having your team on the air only five times every two years?
Yes, as long as all the other changes that came along also go away. I’ll take 1984 CFB over 2024 CFB 10 times out of 10.
I can’t really blame Fox and ESPN either. All they did was to declare what they were willing to pay for a certain product. It was the schools who wanted the money.
But millions of fans do blame them, and that’s what a villains list is for.
Now that you mention it, it’s strange that none of the writers came up with Jerry Sandusky — a true villain if ever there was one. Several of your other examples are in the category I was trying to avoid: those that depend on which school you root for.
I don’t think they do. You don’t need to be anti-ND (and he’s coached many other places) to hate someone who forced a student employee up a scissors lift in high winds to film practice and thus caused them to fall to their death. That has nothing to do with ND, and everything to do with one villain. Even ND fans never really liked him.
Same with Art Briles – the school he coached at was irrelevant, it was what he allowed to happen under him that is the problem. Does anyone who isn’t a diehard Baylor fan actually support him?
And Fielding Yost’s issues are similarly separate from where he was. He was a racist and religious bigot, and even other UM people have said he shouldn’t have done what he did (even allowing for the times he lived in). He blackballed ND because he was anti-Catholic. He wouldn’t let UM’s black player go to the bowl game to appease GT (UM’s alumni protested his decision) and only allowed 1 black player from 1901-1932. UM investigated and a committee recommended they should rename the hockey arena to take his name off of it. It determined that Yost’s contributions to UM football and athletics were inequitably placed above the “profoundly deep and negative impact he had on people of color.” None of that is hating him because of UM.
LikeLike
Larry Scott did a lot of incredibly vain, selfish, and borderline corrupt things. He did plenty to earn his way onto the villains list, beyond just getting all of the big decisions wrong.
Yes, but why would anyone outside the P12 hate them?
I think most CFB fans across the country are sad that the Pac-12 no longer exists, regardless of the conference they usually root for. Heck, even Greg Sankey said he was sad.
Now, a lot of the things you dislike are hard to pin on just one or two people. But for the Pac-12’s demise there’s at least one very clear culprit. Or two at the most.
LikeLike
Or blame the NCAA for repeatedly doing things that were illegal, despite being told repeatedly what the law is.
I don’t concede that they did anything illegal.
You’re free, of course, to continue to believe that. But look at the NCAA’s losing record in court. Many cases, many judges, many jurisdictions, and they keep losing.
You may choose to say that you’re right and the judges nationwide are all wrong. But it becomes increasingly difficult to say it with a straight face.
In sports, when you keep losing like that, you change your strategy or fire the people in charge of it.
LikeLike
Marc,
2 people to blame for the P12? How about the 10-12 presidents who approved Scott’s terrible decisions? The ones who wanted a $50M counter-offer made to ESPN’s $30M offer? As the final say on all major decisions, they are more to blame than the commissioners.
[switch topics]
Many cases, actually not that many judges. Wilkin presided over the O’Bannon, Alston and House cases, for example. Besides, the fly diet argument isn’t convincing.
And no, I have no problem saying with a straight face that judges are politically motivated to decide cases however they want, and then they craft a lengthy statement to justify it. And if you’re the Supreme Court, you literally have the final say no matter how wrong you are. Considering how often they directly overturn precedent, clearly they can make the law say whatever they want it to at the time. I have near-zero respect for what they do and how they do it.
I didn’t say I was right (or that they were wrong). In fact, I didn’t even state a legal opinion of my own. I said I don’t concede that they are right.
Their responses to these lawsuits should be to shut down intercollegiate sports and dissolve the NCAA. That would end all these supposed violations. Let’s go back to anarchy and athletes dying on the field because no central body is allowed to make any rules.
LikeLike
2 people to blame for the P12? How about the 10-12 presidents who approved Scott’s terrible decisions?
The presidents aren’t sports professionals — and in fact, sports occupies a tiny percentage of their time. Overwhelmingly, conference presidents tend to approve the recommendations that their commissioners bring to them, whether they are bad or good.
Many cases, actually not that many judges. Wilkin presided over the O’Bannon, Alston and House cases, for example. Besides, the fly diet argument isn’t convincing.
O’Bannon and Alston both made it to the Supreme Court. (The Court denied review in O’Bannon.) Thus, each case was reviewed by the trial court, a panel of three appellate judges, and nine Justices, for a total of 13. The 1984 Georgia/Oklahoma case was of course completely different people.
Their responses to these lawsuits should be to shut down intercollegiate sports and dissolve the NCAA. That would end all these supposed violations. Let’s go back to anarchy and athletes dying on the field because no central body is allowed to make any rules.
Nobody has sued over the targeting rule. Or the fair catch rule on kickoffs. Or the rule that shortened overtime. Or the running clock after first downs. Or the rule that requires a player to leave the field if his helmet comes off. Or horsecollar tackles. If the NCAA would stick to player safety, they’d do fine.
No, the lawsuits we are talking about are entirely about one thing: antitrust. Even if you believed that the cases the NCAA lost were entirely political and had no basis in law, the fact is they keep losing them. If you kept getting sued about the same thing and kept losing, you’d change your strategy, wouldn’t you?
Besides that, I think the cases where the Supreme Court is accused of acting politically are mostly Constitutional interpretation — as those are the ones where their decision is practically unreviewable. Where the Court is interpreting a statute, Congress could easily overrule it at any time simply by changing the law.
(This is a bit in the weeds, but when the Supreme Court overrules its own past decisions, it is usually on the Constitutional side of the docket. The Court seldom reverses itself on matters of statutory interpretation, because it knows Congress could easily change the law if it thought the Court was wrong.)
LikeLike
Marc,
The western reporters felt the presidents deserved at least as much blame as the commissioners, maybe more.
Wilner said:
Presidents: 51%
Kliavkoff: 25%
Scott: 24%
He’s closer to the situation than we are, so I’ll lean towards his opinion that the presidents deserve significant blame. More importantly, I think most fans agree.
Nobody has sued over the targeting rule. Or the fair catch rule on kickoffs. Or the rule that shortened overtime. Or the running clock after first downs. Or the rule that requires a player to leave the field if his helmet comes off. Or horsecollar tackles. If the NCAA would stick to player safety, they’d do fine.
No, the lawsuits we are talking about are entirely about one thing: antitrust.
Eligibility rules? Grade requirements? Progress towards degrees? Being a current student? Minimum number of course hours? Players already sue over getting suspended.
If you kept getting sued about the same thing and kept losing, you’d change your strategy, wouldn’t you?
I’d end intercollegiate sports. There is no requirement to have them, and the pro leagues can run their own minor leagues. The USOC can pay to train athletes in Olympic sports.
Besides that, I think the cases where the Supreme Court is accused of acting politically are mostly Constitutional interpretation — as those are the ones where their decision is practically unreviewable. Where the Court is interpreting a statute, Congress could easily overrule it at any time simply by changing the law.
All their decisions are unreviewable. They don’t have a code of conduct, they don’t recuse themselves even if they have a connection to the case, they have have lifetime appointments even if they are unable to perform their duties, and lately they’ve taken to reviewing even fewer cases. Must be nice to have a lifetime job with zero oversight where you determine your own workload and get a 3 month vacation every year along with multiple people to do all your actual work for you.
LikeLike
https://sports360az.com/pac-12-media-rights-washington-state-oregon-state-land-tv-deal-for-home-football-games-in-2024/
Wilner’s notes on the Pac-2 TV deal which was officially announced. It’s a bit ironic that Stanford and Cal may end up helping out the Pac-2 by the CW promoting their Pac-2 games during ACC broadcasts.
Eleven of their 13 home games will be shown on the CW, with the other two on either Fox or FS1.
“It’s the best-case scenario,” said a source familiar with the negotiations. “It allows them to stay relevant.”
…
Our four-part reaction to the news:
1. The financial terms were not disclosed, but the deal is expected to generate approximately $1 million per game for the Cougars and Beavers.
That’s a paltry amount compared to what the 10 departing universities will receive under the terms of their agreements with the Big Ten, Big 12 and ACC. But cash was a secondary consideration to exposure for the ‘Pac-2’ schools.
In that regard, the agreement with the CW and Fox represents a massive upgrade.
…
“Given the number of times in recent years they’ve been exiled to the (Pac-12 Networks),” a second industry source said, “it will be good for everyone in the country to have access to all their games.”
2. The CW, which owns the rights to LIV Golf and NASCAR’s Xfinity Series, is steadily adding to its college football inventory after years of standing on the sidelines.
…
The CW is expected to promote its Pac-12 package during ACC broadcasts and use ACC games as a lead-in to WSU and OSU matchups.
…
3. Another key piece for two schools that have played so many night games over the years: The CW kickoff times are favorable.
Two of WSU’s six home games are locked into afternoon windows, while three more could start in daylight. Only one, against San Jose State, is guaranteed to kick off after dinner.
Meanwhile, four of Oregon State’s seven home games have been scheduled for afternoon or early-evening starts; the others could kick in afternoon windows.
“Most of the windows are conducive to ticket sales,” a source said.
4. The windows are also conducive to network studio shows.
…
Because the night games typically ended at 11 p.m. on the West Coast, there were few chances for highlights to appear on the influential ESPN, Fox and CBS studio shows that are produced during peak viewing hours on the East Coast.
By the time football fans in the eastern half of the country rolled out of bed on Sunday morning, the networks had transitioned to NFL coverage.
…
For the schools left behind in the realignment game, relevance is far more important than revenue.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/40149141/uc-regents-committee-votes-halve-ucla-payments-cal
Huge news for UCLA.
The UC BoR athletics committee voted to cut UCLA’s Calimony in half, to $10M per year but for just 3 years instead of 6. The full board does not need to vote on this.
UCLA could pay the University of California at Berkeley $10 million a year for three years instead of six as a result of the Bruins’ upcoming move to the Big Ten and the demise of the Pac-12.
The University of California Board of Regents special committee on athletics voted 7-1 during a meeting at UC Merced on Tuesday to cut down the length of the payments. UC president Michael Drake recommended six years in a report going into the meeting.
…
If there is a significant change in revenues and/or expenses for either school, exceeding 10% over 2024-25 projections, UCLA’s contribution can be reevaluated by the regents.
More from a local source:
https://www.dailycal.org/sports/special-report/uc-regents-approve-calimony-in-7-1-vote-cal-to-get-10-million-a-year/article_18ce1aa0-1265-11ef-adf9-9bf6a465e3d7.html
During the UC Board of Regents’ Special Committee on Athletics’ meeting Tuesday afternoon, however, the committee made the motion to revisit the payments after the 2026-27 academic year rather than having it run until the end of UCLA’s contract with the Big 10 in 2029-30.
Citing the turbulence of the current college sports landscape, the UC Board of Regents aimed to ensure that they could react to any changes Cal or UCLA may experience in their respective conferences.
The motion to revisit the payment was passed unanimously by the eight committee members, and the payment itself was passed 7-1, with Regent Keith Ellis voting no.
So apparently it’s 3 years for sure, but could get extended.
LikeLike
This may have been reported on already but there is another option being discussed for FSU/Clemson.
https://sports.yahoo.com/will-the-acc-hold-together-or-fall-apart-the-sec-and-big-ten-have-cut-us-open-and-theyre-just-watching-us-bleed-out-214121376.html
There is another landing spot for FSU and Clemson: a new, restructured ACC — a similar plan discussed among seven schools last spring.
The idea back then: 8-10 schools vote to break away from the league, end the grant of rights with a majority decision and reform with a TV deal that is just as valuable but with fewer mouths to feed, so to speak.
Administrators from seven schools — FSU, Clemson, UNC, Miami, NC State, Virginia and Virginia Tech — met multiple times last spring over the matter in what was described as a serious endeavor.
It fizzled over legal fears, mostly from university presidents and counsels.
LikeLike
Interesting that the article blames the Big Ten and SEC for the problems that the goofus ACC dickheads brought upon themselves.
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t recall us discussing that article in particular, but the concept of the Magnificent 7 and friends dissolving the conference to trim the dead weight has been discussed. I quoted that same UNC trustee that Yahoo does.
I see several problems:
* Who would be the other schools that agree to dissolve the ACC?
BC, SU, Pitt, UL, WF, Duke, GT, Stanford, Cal, SMU, and ND all seem like solid “No” votes on that. Maybe Duke, UL and GT? But if they need a 2/3 vote, that’s 12 teams. Even before expanding, I don’t think they had the votes.
* ESPN would have to be on board.
* ACC bylaws would have to allow for kicking people out for no reason.
* I’d worry about legal liability too. Playing legal games to break an undesirable contract is usually frowned upon.
One other nugget:
One ACC school is budgeting to spend an additional $30 million annually in a combination of revenue sharing for current athletes, back damages to former athletes and an expansion of scholarships.
Now add in the P2 making $20M+ more per year on media deals, and the CFP also paying the P2 $20M more per year and the ACC is facing a $40M+ gap and expenses increasing by $20-30M. Their unequal revenue sharing will help some, but not enough.
Another:
The league and its TV partner are in active negotiations over what Phillips did confirm is a “look-in” provision.
This may explain why ESPN hasn’t just picked up the extension of the ACC deal.
LikeLike
Select quotations from an article in today’s The Athletic: “Uncertainty hangs over ACC meetings as leaders try to see beyond courtroom drama”
“There appears to be unrest on a third campus as well. During a special meeting of the UNC Board of Trustees on Monday, the board approved an internal university audit of the North Carolina athletics department, and one trustee accused athletic director Bubba Cunningham of mismanaging one of the university’s most valuable assets. During the meeting, multiple trustees expressed concerns about the athletic department facing major deficits in the years to come with no plans to address or mitigate it. UNC has been identified by industry experts as the most valuable school in the nation (outside of Notre Dame) that is not already in the Big Ten or SEC. But the university’s leadership has not been anywhere near as aggressive as Florida State or Clemson to date.”
“Sources briefed on the (CFP) model have told The Athletic that the new revenue breakdown will be roughly 29 percent annually for both the Big Ten and SEC (more than $21 million per school), 17 percent for the ACC (around $13 million each), 15 percent for the Big 12 ($12 million each) and 9 percent for the Group of 5 conferences collectively (around $1.8 million per school). The remainder goes to independents, including more than $12 million for Notre Dame, and the Football Championship Subdivision. There is an additional performance bonus available only to independents for making the CFP field. Notre Dame would receive an additional $6 million for making the Playoff.”
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40151499/virginia-nc-state-play-non-acc-home-home-football-series
UVA and NCSU are scheduling an OOC HaH series against each other for 2025-26. Is this going to become a common thing in the megaconference era? It’s not so bad since they have an 8-game schedule, and maybe the move away from divisions will limit this.
Might some B10 (or B12, or maybe SEC) schools start doing this as well? It could make sense for UCLA, UW or UO to play the other Pac4 teams to keep familiar foes on the schedule and reduce time zone travel. Or maybe Illibuck or the Little Brown Jug need to be played more often, etc.
It still strikes me as weird not to count the game in the standings, though. Teams didn’t always play the same number of conference games in the past and we survived.
ACC schools Virginia and NC State announced Wednesday they would play a home-and-home series in football that will not count as an official conference game.
…
This marks the second time in recent years that a pair of ACC rivals have scheduled a nonconference series. Wake Forest and North Carolina scheduled games in 2019 and 2021 to keep alive a longtime rivalry that had been off the regular league schedule following conference expansion.
…
While the SEC, which expanded to 16 teams starting this season, has toyed with the idea of moving from playing eight to nine conference games in the future, Wake Forest coach Dave Clawson, the chair of the ACC’s coaches committee, said Tuesday the ACC had no intentions of changing its eight-game model.
LikeLike
Brian: “UVA and NCSU are scheduling an OOC HaH series against each other for 2025-26. Is this going to become a common thing in the megaconference era?”
Throes of an inquisition. They smell the Accexit blood in the water.
LikeLike
https://sports.yahoo.com/could-a-new-college-compensation-model-be-the-end-for-football-walk-ons-170937165.html
Another glorious by-product of this new era of paid players – roster limits that may lead to the elimination of walk-ons. The haves want to be able to offer a full scholarship to every player on the roster rather than just the number allowed by the NCAA (11.7 for a roster of 32 in baseball, for example). But with that comes caps on roster size, such as maybe limiting football to 85. The additional 20 walk-ons we currently have would not be allowed.
For those who cite the NFL’s 53-man roster, I’ll remind you that they are fully grown adults, full-time athletes, plus they have 16 more on a practice squad and they can sign players during the season. They also have much larger rosters in the off-season.
My guess is that this actually serves the purpose of making the Title IX balance easier, as football become a much smaller percentage of the total scholarships offered, and the reduced roster spots require fewer women to meet the balance test.
As part of a proposed new athlete compensation model, power conference leaders are considering significantly reducing football rosters, potentially moving from a roster of more than 115 to as few as 85-95 players. That figure (85) aligns with the maximum scholarship number permitted under NCAA rules.
…
News of a potential 85-man football roster was met with backlash over the last week as league commissioners shared the news with athletic directors and coaches. In an odd twist, the NCAA recently increased the football roster limit for preseason camp from 110 players to 120. Most programs normally keep 100-120 players on a team. NCAA rules prohibit more than 70 different players participating in a single game.
…
For instance, the SEC has for years encouraged NCAA leaders to expand the 11.7 scholarship limit on baseball. A removal of such a restriction could see baseball rosters swell with more financial aid. In turn, women’s sports are likely to see their scholarships rise as administrators work to satisfy Title IX.
…
Also somewhat unanswered is the future of equivalency scholarships.
The NCAA differentiates its sports as “head-count” versus “equivalency.” Athletes in head-count sports, such as basketball, football and women’s gymnastics receive only full scholarships (or, for walk-ons, none at all). Those in equivalency sports, such as baseball, track and swimming, can receive partial scholarships.
The NCAA does not cap rosters in most sports like it does scholarships, excluding baseball. Rosters are normally set by institutions themselves. There are only six head-count sports: women’s basketball (13 scholarships), gymnastics (12), volleyball (12) and tennis (8); and men’s football (85) and basketball (13). All other sports are equivalency, normally a small amount of scholarships sprinkled over larger athletic teams. The range is wide, from 20 scholarships for women’s rowing to 3.6 for men’s rifle and everything else in between.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40140124/100-days-college-football-top-games-players-contenders
100 days from the start of next season, ESPN ranks the top games, storylines, players, CFP contenders, etc. In case anyone wants to read about actual football rather than lawsuits, employment status and revenue sharing.
Things of B10 relevance:
1st-time CFP contenders:
4. PSU
OSU, UM, UO and UW have all gone before. Note the lack of USC, or any of the other barons (NE, WI, IA, MSU). IA is the one that might have a shot, if they can keep playing great defense and add a decent offense. They probably shouldn’t make the top 10 list, though.
CFP bye contenders:
2. OSU
4. UO
OSU plays @ UO on 10/12, with the loser likely eliminated from the race for a bye (unless they still finish 1-2 in the B10 and have a rematch).
Breakout players:
3. An OSU WR
7. A USC WR
10. 2 UO DEs
Top new conference games:
3. OSU @ UO
6. UM @ UW
8. USC @ UM
Top games:
2. UM @ OSU
4. OSU @ UO
6. OSU @ PSU
By team:
UGA, OSU, UT – 3
Clemson, FSU – 2
AL, CU, KSU, UM, ND, UO, PSU – 1
I disagree with putting KSU @ CU on the list. The Coach Prime hype can only last so long, and KSU lost their QB. How is UT @ UM not on the list?
LikeLike