With Big Ten expansion seemingly on pause for the moment, let’s take a look at how the scheduling might work in a 16-team Big Ten. Assuming that the Big Ten will have 3 annual protected rivals for each school when USC and UCLA join, I’ve mapped out a couple of different potential matchup lineups: one more heavily based on pure geography and one with more priority to trophy games.
OPTION 1: GEOGRAPHY
Penn State – Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State
Rutgers – Penn State, Maryland, Michigan
Maryland – Penn State, Rutgers, Michigan State
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, Indiana
Michigan State – Michigan, Purdue, Maryland
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers
Purdue – Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan State
Indiana – Purdue, Illinois, Ohio State
Illinois – Northwestern, Indiana, USC
Northwestern – Illinois, Purdue, UCLA
Nebraska – Iowa, Minnesota, UCLA
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, USC
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
USC – UCLA, Wisconsin, Illinois
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Northwestern
Penn State – Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State
- The one school that has 3 clear rivals in all scenarios is Penn State with Ohio State, Rutgers and Maryland. Ohio State-Penn State is now generally the most-watched Big Ten game after Michigan-Ohio State, while the league’s East Coast strategy is based on tying Penn State with Rutgers and Maryland. Notably, that means Penn State-Michigan State goes away as an annual trophy game under both setups. It is a good game, but always felt a bit forced as a rivalry for both sides and the TV networks absolutely 100% need Ohio State-Penn State to continue annually.
- In both scenarios, each school has at least one annual game with a larger brand (assuming that we can consider UCLA to be a brand name) for TV and competitive balance purposes. No one has 3 marquee games or, on the flip side, 3 games destined for Peacock.
- The Geography option took the 2 locked rivals for each school from the 11-team Big Ten era except for PSU-MSU and largely zippered matchups for multi-school states. For instance, each Illinois school plays one California and one Indiana school annually.
- The Trophy Games option would preserve or reinstate all trophy games from the “original Big Ten” era prior to Penn State joining the league. Note that this is only realistically possible if Nebraska has both USC and UCLA as annual rivals (as Nebraska-Iowa would be preserved but Nebraska-Minnesota would be eliminated).
- USC-Wisconsin seems to be the most attractive “western” annual matchup from a national perspective, so that’s in both scenarios.
Go Hawks!
LikeLike
Go Big Red
LikeLike
Hello all-
Everyone at my tailgate is incredibly excited about joining the BIG. Some of us have been talking about it since the UT and OU to the PAC deal fell apart 10+ years ago.
I’m really enjoying this thread. I’m in the Colin and Bernie camp:
Multiple BIG figures on and off the record have stated that maximizing playoff appearances is a top priority for the schedule format, along with fairness and better rotation.
The report from the Athletic about USC not getting OSU or UM as a protected rival makes perfect sense in light of those priorities.
I have thought all along that OSU and UM aren’t going to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage, given their obvious existing rivals. The BIG won’t want top teams getting too many guaranteed losses.
At some point, it’s simple math.
OSU will get UM, PSU and an easier game- maybe IL ?
UM will get OSU, MSU and an easier game- hopefully MN.
TV partners will still be very happy, as they will get USC vs one of OSU/UM every year, on top of all the existing BIG games, and teams with fewer losses and higher rankings will pull better ratings than teams with 2-3 losses.
I don’t see USC getting PSU or MSU either. PSU and MSU will still be matched up on rivalry weekend, right ? Who else would they play ? If they play each other in addition to the above OSU and UM games, having USC as their 3rd game would give them brutal schedules.
So who does USC end up with besides UCLA ? My guess is WI and NW.
If you break the BIG down into tiers of five (excluding USC): WI is in the top tier, along with OSU, UM, PSU and MSU. The other schools (besides WI) will most likely all be playing two of the other four each year.
WI and USC make good dance partners in that sense- it would match the two programs that have the highest likelihood of winning the BIG not named OSU, UM, PSU, or MSU.
TV can sell WI vs USC as a big-time matchup, and I think Fickell would love the CA exposure for recruiting.
WI and Minnesota is the oldest rivalry in D1, so that’s a lock, and WI-IA is probably also a lock. But their third game is much more open.
WI and NW have played a lot, but it’s a very one-sided series, and doesn’t exactly stir up a lot of passion in Madison.
WI would be our top-tier annual BIG game, UCLA would be our mid-tier game, and NW would be our cupcake.
USC and NW are the only two private schools in the BIG, and are the only two in gigantic urban areas besides UCLA.
Some might say USC gets off easy with WI and NW, but WI will be very tough under Fickell, and with ND as an annual opponent, the calculus is different for USC.
The BIG wants to maximize CFP spots, and USC-ND will impact the CFP race in most years, so even though it’s non-con, so I think the BIG will factor that into our rival selection.
PS- What’s up bullet? It’s been a long time sir. Hope you’re well.
LikeLike
Traveler, It’s entirely possible that both USC and UCLA will get paired with Nebraska if the 3-6-6 format is adopted. Nebraska is also a Big Ten newcomer, the Huskers have only one quasi-rival in the conference, Iowa, and it also makes some geographical sense. So we’d have:
USC – UCLA, Nebraska, Wisconsin
UCLA – USC, Nebraska, Northwestern
Nebraska – USC, UCLA, Iowa
LikeLike
USC Traveler,
Welcome, and encourage your friends to come here too. It would be good to get some USC (and UCLA) perspective on goings on. I’m not sure how your comment slipped in way at the top of the page like it did, but that’s probably why nobody responded quickly.
Things I’m curious how USC fans are feeling about:
* The B10 adding more P12 schools
Rumors say USC/UCLA expressly didn’t want others to come along. Others are convinced that the B10 has to ad a western wing to keep you all happy.
* Travel concerns
This ties into the previous point, but how concerned are USC fans about the upcoming travel? Will smart scheduling and remote teaching technology reduce the concerns to a reasonable level?
* Teams of interest
What teams are USC fans looking forward to playing? Ignoring locked vs rotating for now, what teams will sell out the Coliseum? Where will USC fans travel to? Is there any sense of rivalry with anyone?
* Game times
Noon ET games in the midwest or east coast? 7pm PT games at home?
* When to play ND
Typically you host ND in the final week every other year, but the P12 can allow that because Stanford covers the other years, and Cal won’t play Stanford the final week anyway. But the B10 already has set pairs (mostly). Could the ND game move up a week (or to midseason) so you finish with UCLA every year?
* The Rose Bowl Game
What should happen with it? How special is it to you?
* BTN
Have you ever watched it? Did/do you watch the P12N?
* The B10 TV deal
How excited are you about games on Fox, CBS and NBC? Do you worry about Peacock-exclusive games? Friday night games?
* The fate of the P12
Do you care what happens to them after you leave? Will you try to schedule lots of OOC games against certain schools (Cal, Stanford, UO, UW)?
I’m really enjoying this thread. I’m in the Colin and Bernie camp:
Multiple BIG figures on and off the record have stated that maximizing playoff appearances is a top priority for the schedule format, along with fairness and better rotation.
But does anyone know what will maximize CFP appearances in the 12-team CFP? Based on history, any 10-2 B10 team would get in and some 9-3 teams. How much will SOS factor into selection vs winning % (the committee will take the 12/13 borderline more seriously going forward)?
People have crunched the numbers, and which games you lock has minimal impact on SOS since you play everyone 50% of the time anyway and team strength varies considerably. The TV networks will apply pressure to get as many big brand matchups as possible to recoup their costs. Also, the B10 east has been a much tougher division than the west yet teams from the East kept making the top 4. If it was fine to lock MI, PSU, MSU and NE for OSU, why is MI, PSU and USC a stretch? Especially if we’re only taking the first few years as USC and UCLA get integrated in to the conference.
I have thought all along that OSU and UM aren’t going to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage, given their obvious existing rivals. The BIG won’t want top teams getting too many guaranteed losses.
And yet, the top teams aren’t really the ones at risk. It’s the second tier teams (MSU, WI, IA, NE, UCLA, …) who will struggle to make the top 12, and your plan gives them harder schedules to make sure OSU, MI, PSU and USC do well. I’m not sure it actually achieves the stated goal.
OSU will get UM, PSU and an easier game- maybe IL ?
Which would be fine from OSU’s perspective, but the networks will complain. OSU will get at least 3.5 games every year against IL, NW, IN, PU, RU, UMD and MN. They’ll also get at least 2.5 games against NE, WI, IA, MSU, UCLA. Then there’s at least 1.5 games against MI, PSU and USC. That’s 7.5 of 9 games. So locking is about the other 1.5 games per season.
With those locked games, the B10 has many priorities to consider: conserving key rivalries (OSU vs. MI, OSU vs PSU, in-state rivalries, etc.), satisfying the networks, CFP appearances, equity (which is not the same as equality of schedules), integrating new members. Every new member since PSU has been given games vs OSU and MI early on – PSU had both for 10 years with OSU locked permanently. NE has MI in its division with OSU cross-division, then OSU as its locked rival in the parity-based scheduling. UMD and RU joined the East with OSU and MI. It’s not a stretch to think USC and UCLA may see OSU and MI a lot in the first 4-10 years.
I’m not sure how much USC playing ND will factor into the thinking, though it will be considered of course.
TV partners will still be very happy, as they will get USC vs one of OSU/UM every year, on top of all the existing BIG games, and teams with fewer losses and higher rankings will pull better ratings than teams with 2-3 losses.
Will they? The networks always want more big games, especially now that they are split across 3 different companies. They will all want king vs king games (OSU/MI, OSU/PSU, OSU/USC, MI/USC, MI/PSU, USC/PSU), then king vs prince (NE, UCLA, WI, MSU, IA), etc.
And if OSU has MI and PSU locked, then they get USC every other year anyway. So everyone’s saying it’s fine to do to OSU (and MI) every other year, but doing it every year crosses some line? I don’t get it.
So who does USC end up with besides UCLA ? My guess is WI and NW.
Many people have suggested NE and WI as likely options. NW and IL may make sense in terms of travel distance.
If you break the BIG down into tiers of five (excluding USC): WI is in the top tier, along with OSU, UM, PSU and MSU. The other schools (besides WI) will most likely all be playing two of the other four each year.
But those tiers only make sense for USC. From OSU’s point of view, the top 5 are MI, PSU, USC, MSU and WI. OSU will have at least 2 of them locked, and play at least 3.5 of them every year (4 at the most). 0.5 games per year is the difference under discussion.
WI and USC make good dance partners in that sense- it would match the two programs that have the highest likelihood of winning the BIG not named OSU, UM, PSU, or MSU.
NW has won more division titles than PSU and as many as MSU. You never know how things may work out. That year to year variation is another reason not to worry too much about locked games. NE was the most elite program in the mid-90s, and now they are mediocre at best. USC was the best, then fell off. Miami hasn’t been the same since 2002.
TV can sell WI vs USC as a big-time matchup, and I think Fickell would love the CA exposure for recruiting.
Fickell would, but the nation will struggle to see WI as big-time unless they are highly ranked.
WI and NW have played a lot, but it’s a very one-sided series, and doesn’t exactly stir up a lot of passion in Madison.
NW fans care about it, and it’s less 1-sided than you think. NW has won 4 of the last 10.
WI would be our top-tier annual BIG game, UCLA would be our mid-tier game, and NW would be our cupcake.
No, whichever of OSU or MI you got would be your top tier game.
USC and NW are the only two private schools in the BIG, and are the only two in gigantic urban areas besides UCLA.
Rutgers? And depending on how you define gigantic, UMD (DC – #6 metro area).
Some might say USC gets off easy with WI and NW, but WI will be very tough under Fickell, and with ND as an annual opponent, the calculus is different for USC.
No, the calculus isn’t different because you play ND. OSU and others play a huge OOC game every year too (next few years: ND, Texas, Alabama, UGA). That’s just part of being a top program. The B10 can’t factor in OOC games very much into this decision.
LikeLike
Hook ’em!
LikeLike
Geaux Tigers!
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU TIGERS!
LikeLike
Got it, Alan. Can’t have anyone mistake you for a Clemson, Auburn, Mizzou, Memphis, or Princeton fan, after all. 😉
LikeLike
HA!
Actually, I forgot to subscribe with the first regular non-specific “Geaux Tigers!” comment and WordPress kept kicking me out when I tried to resend the same comment and subscribe to this thread.
LikeLike
I don’t subscribe (I use an RSS reader to keep up with comments), however, lately I’ve been getting one comment a week emailed to me. Its usually in a thread I haven’t commented on.
LikeLike
Mike,
It started doing something similar to me, so I had to follow the link in the email to cancel my subscriptions (I don’t subscribe either).
LikeLike
I think something closer to 2 will happen, but with more emphasis on maximizing TV viewership (and also giving MSU that visit to Chicagoland that they want so much):
OSU: UMich, PSU, USC
UMich: OSU, MSU, USC
MSU: UMich, PSU, NU
PSU: OSU, MSU, UMD
UMD: RU, PSU, PU
RU: UMD, IU, NU
IU: PU, UIUC, RU
PU: IU, UIUC, UMD
UIUC: NU, IU, PU
NU: UIUC, MSU, RU
NW quad plays each other except UW and UNL don’t play each other and play UCLA instead.
USC: UCLA, UMich, OSU
UCLA: USC, UNL, UW
In this setup, 8 of the 11 Midwestern schools have an annual game against either an east or west coast school (only Iowa, UMTC, and UIUC don’t; OSU visits both because of their PSU game).
It’s possible that the B10 splits PSU-MSU (and also IU-RU), in which case, MSU-IU and PSU-RU become annual.
Is it possible that the B10, instead of tying UMich and OSU to USC, tie them to either the IN schools or RU&UMD (thus leaving USC for UW&UNL and UCLA for the IL schools)? I suppose it’s possible though given what NBC and CBS paid, I find it unlikely.
LikeLike
I feel pretty strongly that out of any school, Penn State is the most locked-in: they *have* to play Ohio State, Rutgers and Maryland annually. Outside of BTN households, the biggest reason why Rutgers and Maryland are in the Big Ten is because Penn State wanted Eastern teams (with a warning shot when they had some discussions with the ACC). To me, PSU not playing both Rutgers and Maryland annually would be like the Big Ten adding Stanford and Cal but not having USC and UCLA play them annually.
So, a lot of my thinking cascaded from there. As much as the TV matchups are critical (and I certainly wouldn’t put it past anyone that the Big Ten would lock in games like OSU-USC), I do feel that there does need to be some small “p” political service to the West Division schools when such a disproportionate focus has been on the East Division ever since the Big Ten went to 14 schools.
LikeLike
I wonder if TV will dictate UCLA-Ohio St. and Michigan-USC as locked rivalries.
That was my first reaction to talk of 3 fixed rivals.
LikeLike
bullet,
OSU has played USC 24 times and UCLA 9.
MI has played USC 10 times and UCLA 11.
If the B10 were to split them, it would be OSU/USC and UCLA/MI.
LikeLike
I think it would be the other way because Ohio St. needs to play Penn St. Having USC would mean they are playing all 3 of the other top programs. Michigan, Penn St. and USC would not be.
LikeLike
IMO, both OSU and UMich play USC annually (or both don’t and both play IN schools or both play RU/UMD) because otherwise, there would be charges of unfairness between the 2 biggest dogs in the B10.
Yes, OSU plays PSU but UMich plays MSU, and the gap between PSU and MSU often isn’t that wide at all.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think it would be the other way because Ohio St. needs to play Penn St. Having USC would mean they are playing all 3 of the other top programs.”
I think the B10 would see that as a plus – those are 3 huge games for TV.
“Michigan, Penn St. and USC would not be.”
True, but they all have to play OSU, and OSU doesn’t. There’s some balance in that. Don’t get me wrong, plenty of OSU fans would complain. But many years, those aren’t the 3 other best teams.
And OSU/USC really is a bit of a rivalry despite not playing that frequently. Certainly more so than USC/MI or OSU/UCLA.
Besides, I said my plan was intended for the first 10 years. After that, needs will change as USC and UCLA are integrated into the conference. Then USC can play 1 and UCLA the other.
LikeLike
I think at the price point the BCast nets are paying for content, the PRIMARY consideration will be combining the biggest brands and making sure there are enough desirable games, from a ratings perspective, to fill all the available inventory.
So I’m thinking something more like, TOSU, PSU, UM, WI, IA, NB, USC play each other as much as possible, THEN fill in remaining time with other considerations.
But make no mistake, the PSU/MD game will never displace something like PSU/USC. I can see it being as-well-as, but never instead-of.
LikeLike
Eh, a lot of PSU people don’t even acknowledge RU and UMD as rivals. And with where the B10 and ACC are at (especially with the top programs in the ACC leaving when their GOR expires), there’s pretty much no threat of PSU going anywhere now.
LikeLike
It’s not just about Penn St. Nobody recognizes Maryland/Rutgers as rivals, but someone has to play them, and Penn St makes more sense than anyone else. Also, nobody outside of Ohio St considers Penn St to be a main rival.
LikeLike
OSU doesn’t consider PSU a main rival. Big game, important game for recruiting and television, but no not a rival. OSU has one rival.
LikeLike
manifesto: “OSU doesn’t consider PSU a main rival. Big game, important game for recruiting and television, but no not a rival. OSU has one rival.”
Yep.
LikeLike
Frank,
USC has played OSU 24 times, by far the most of any B10 team. Next is IL at 13, with MI, PSU and IA at 10.
The East gets the focus because the East wins more. I’m not sure how IL and NW losing in LA helps the West. When the B10 added PSU, they locked them with OSU and MI for 10 years. When they added NE, they locked them with MI while playing OSU for 2 years. Then when they went to parity-based scheduling, they locked them with OSU. When they added RU and UMD, they locked them with OSU, MI and PSU. I expect TV to push for this trend to continue. PSU is locked in the east, but OSU, MI, WI and NE can go to LA.
LikeLike
Frank, there is yet another option to #1 Geography and #2 Trophy games. We could have variable locked games for each school bases upon true rivalries. Each school doesn’t need to have the same number of rivalry games. Here’s my suggestion . . .
4 Rivalry games: Penn St – Rut, MD, OS, MS
3 Rivalry games:
Illini – NW, PU, Ind
Purdue – IU, UI, NW
NW – UI, PU, Wisc
Wisc – MN, IO, NW
Minn – Wisc, IO, NE
Iowa – Wisc, MN, NE
2 Rivalry games:
Ohio St – UM, PS
Mich – OS, MS
Rut – PS, MD
Ind – Pur, UI
Neb – Iowa, MN
Mary – Rut, PS
Mich St – UM, PS
1 Rivalry game:
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
All other conference games would simply be played Round Robin. And using your own axiom of “think like a college president”, would you as the president of Penn State or Northwestern or Indiana or Iowa or Rutgers prefer the annual schedule of Option 1, Option 2 or my Option 3?
LikeLike
Some of these rivalry game locks don’t make sense and NU-Iowa is a rivalry, but in any case, I doubt very much we will see different schools with different numbers of locked opponents.
LikeLike
Richard: “Some of these rivalry game locks don’t make sense and NU-Iowa is a rivalry . . .”
OK, so you just tweak it to include NU-Iowa and whatever “rivalry game locks don’t make sense” to you can also be changed in the blink of an eye. See how easy that is?
LikeLike
Does MSU want that trip to Chicagoland more than a bunch of other schools? Why do they matter more? Everyone wants it due to the number of traditional big ten alumni in chicago and the big recruiting footprint.
LikeLike
Yeah – I know that MSU has been more vocal about wanting to play in the Chicago area, but everyone in the “original” Big Ten has the exact same interest. That’s why I didn’t assign any more weight to MSU vocalizing that preference since that’s little different to me than SEC/Big 12 schools wanting to play in Texas, SEC/ACC schools wanting to play in Florida, or Pac-12 schools wanting to play in California.
LikeLike
I assign more weight to MSU because they evidently have “visit Chicagoland” as their 2nd highest priority (after the UMich game; they’ve pounded the table on this) and
1. The other programs that are at or above MSU in the clout department have other 2nd priorities that are more important.
2. The other programs that have “visit Chicagoland” as a second priority (probably only the IN schools) do not have as much clout.
LikeLike
Furthermore, we have seen the B10 accommodate MSU in that desire at every turn. First with L&L, when MSU and NU we’re in the same division (UW and the IN schools did not get NU annually), and then when MSU and NU were locked the first 6 years of East/West.
LikeLike
Joe,
I think they do. They were vocal about it before, when nobody else was. OSU and the eastern 3 don’t care about it that much. Neither do the western 2. MI has plenty of other rivals. The western quadrangle (NE/IA/MN/WI) all want to play in Chicago, but they want to play each other more. NW doesn’t count for this, and neither does IL.
That leaves MSU, IN and PU. All have good claims on wanting games in Chicago.
But so many schools are close to Chicago that it doesn’t matter that much.
LikeLike
I think Nebraska playing both USC and UCLA is actually a really good move. Nebraska is a king level program (or just outside of being it anymore), but no natural recruiting grounds. Leaving the Big 12 took them out of Texas. This would give them an annual trip to LA for recruiting exposure and, on the other side, seem like a bigger match-up for those schools.
I think the conference is going to tie one of Ohio State or Michigan (or both) out there still, but I’d take the trophy game set up for sure.
LikeLike
Eric,
NE always recruited nationally. The quality of their recruiting classes actually didn’t change all that much when NE left the B12. Now NE pulls in more players from the B10 footprint and FL than they used to, and fewer from TX and CA. Some of it is coach dependent and where they have connections.
In 2009, NE only had 21 players from TX. Now they have 10. But FL went from 3 to 8, MD + NJ went from 3 to 10, etc.
NE recruiting class rankings:
2007 – #17
2008 – #30
2009 – #28
2010 – #26
2011 – #16
2012 – #32
2013 – #22
2014 – #35
2015 – #30
2016 – #26
2017 – #23
2018 – #23
2019 – #17
NE was already sliding before they left the B12. The coaches after Osborne couldn’t maintain that same level.
LikeLike
I mean, Osborne wasn’t pulling in top 5 recruiting classes either. He managed to win national titles with an S&C program and a system that could utilize short-armed linemen to the best of their potential and a few athletes.
LikeLike
The California schools should not object to Nebraska — at least the way they have been playing recently. They will get enough of OSU, PSU, Michigan, etc. without annual matchups.
LikeLike
Frank, always love your insight. Thank you. As an aside, could the B1G FINALLY move off of the name Big Ten? It’s tradition… right? If tradition were so important, they wouldn’t be poaching schools from their “rival” bowl partners for forever in the PAC12. I’d be very happy to see them break with an outdated/antiquated name and do something new altogether, perhaps with a lean to the new geographical reality that is Coast to Coast.
LikeLike
I suggest calling it the “Intercollegiate Conference”.
But in all seriousness, no, the Big Ten won’t change its name. Too much brand equity in that name.
LikeLike
How about the B1G Intergalactic conference?
The B1G could change the logo to B16 and make the 6 look like a G.
LikeLike
Ha, goot one.
LikeLike
Big 16 is owned by the Big 12, along with Big 14. Thinking ahead, they were.
LikeLike
The B1G could change the logo to B16 and make the 6 look like a G.
That is not very future-proof, since they will probably not be at 16 forever.
If ever asked why they are called Big Ten with 16 members, they can just say “ten are big at any given time.”
LikeLike
Well maybe the original name, the Western Conference applies again?
LikeLike
Or better, the original name, “Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives.”
I think that was in force until 1987, viz.
https://bigten.org/news/2010/6/11/big_ten_membership_history.aspx
LikeLike
Big Ten is a trademark. Nowadays it has nothing to do with the number of schools, hasn’t had since Penn State joined. It’s like “Coca” in Coca-Cola. There’s no cocaine in Coke.
Pendants go bananas over stuff like that. They think a double-negative in English is like multiplying negatives in algebra. It isn’t. English uses repetition for emphasis.
LikeLike
I am shocked its hasn’t been changed to refer to the “Big Ten” pillars of sports. Truth, Justice, Integrity, Sportsmanship, etc.
LikeLike
Amateurism, Leaders, Legends, …
LikeLike
Huge opportunity here:
The Jim Delany Big Ten Pillars of Sports Presented by Citi
The Stagg-Alverez Amateurism Pillar Zested Up by RO-TEL.
The Hayes–Schembechler Sportsmanship Pillar Presented Responsibly by Budweiser.
The Dungy–Thompson Humanitarianism Pillar Discount Double Checked by State Farm.
…
Just let the Big Ten know they can send me the check for this idea.
LikeLike
Little 8: “The California schools should not object to Nebraska. . . . They will get enough of OSU, PSU, Michigan, etc. without annual matchups.”
Of course they will. Each school in the conference will play UCLA with a minimum 50% frequency and USC with a minimum 50% frequency. It could easily be scheduled that each of the “original 14” would play a California school every year.
The foremost problem with our current set-up is two many heavyweights playing heavyweights in the East. Making UM and OSU the annual rivals of USC would only compound the problem.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the powers-that-be see that as a problem.
LikeLike
Bump
LikeLike
I suspect the Big Ten will adopt a hybrid model between geography, trophy games, and the third idea that Richard mentioned above, TV value.
Geography is probably the least important of these. A midwestern conference that just added USC & UCLA is probably not concerned about geographic compactness.
I like the trophy game idea, but it has to be acknowledged that the majority of TV viewers could not tell you what most of those trophies are. I tend to agree with Richard (above) that the Big Ten is not going to care about preserving the silly MSU–PSU rivalry.
If they go with three locked games (not the only model but the simplest), I am sure Penn State will lock Rutgers and Maryland. I suspect there will be some griping that they are getting an easier go of it than the other kings.
LikeLike
The B10 could also go with competitiveness-based ties while taking rivalries in to account (which Alan says the SEC will do)
Say you have 4 tiers:
Tier 1 (4 points):
OSU, UMich, PSU, USC
Tier 2 (3 points):
MSU, UW, Iowa, UNL
Tier 3 (2 points):
UMTC, NU, UCLA, PU
Tier 4 (1 point):
RU, UMD, IU, UIUC
UMich: OSU, MSU, PU (9)
OSU: UMich, PSU, IU (9)
PSU: OSU, MSU, RU (9)
USC: UCLA, UW, UNL (8)
MSU: UMich, PSU, NU (10)
UW: Iowa, UMTC, USC (9)
UNL: Iowa, UMTC, USC (9)
Iowa: UW, UNL, UMTC (8)
UMTC: Iowa, UNL, UW (9)
NU: UIUC, MSU, UCLA (6)
UCLA: USC, NU, UIUC (7)
PU: IU, UMich, UMD (6)
UIUC: NU, UCLA, UMD (5)
IU: PU, OSU, RU (7)
RU: UMD, PSU, IU (6)
UMD: RU, PU, UIUC (4)
All of the top 8 are at or a point away from 9 points.
There’s more variation in the bottom half but all are at or a point away from 6 except for UMTC (because the other 3 schools in the NW quad are natural rivals and are all in the 2nd tier, though UNL is going through a down phase) and UMD.
Maybe RU and UMD can alternate between ties to PSU and PU every 4 years.
LikeLike
Heck, switch UIUC/IU vs UMD/RU every 4 years too.
LikeLike
LikeLike
“Says all 10 will sign a grant of rights if the right deal is put before them.”
That feels like a very confident way of saying nothing of merit.
LikeLike
Looking at these options, most schools would seem to be fine with 2 fixed rivals. The schools who would most object would probably be Rutgers, Maryland, Iowa and Nebraska (since Iowa would not pick them). So I guess you need 3 minimum and it doesn’t seem you need 4. As much as some of the west division schools would like Ohio St. or Michigan as an annual rival, they don’t have that now.
So 3 fixed rivals would seem to be the number.
LikeLike
Iowa has at least 4 (UW, UMTC, UNL, and NU) and UMTC would want the Jug game with UMich too, but many coaches/programs also want to play everybody at least half the time.
LikeLike
Frank,
The 3 locked rivals list is my bailiwick, so I’ve got to chime in.
Start with the mandatory games:
RU – UMD, PSU,
UMD – RU, PSU,
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
OSU – MI, PSU,
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI,
IN – PU,
PU – IN, IL,
IL – NW, PU,
NW – IL,
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
UCLA – USC,
USC – UCLA,
I’ll be very surprised if all of those aren’t in the actual set.
Now add in desirable games:
OSU – USC
MI – UCLA
MSU – IN, NW
IN – MSU
NW – MSU
WI – UCLA
NE – UCLA
UCLA – WI, NE
USC – OSU, MI
These keep MSU’s minor rivalry and preferred NW game, and get the big brands playing the new west coast members. USC gets kings while UCLA gets brand smore on their level, but also with some history.
That gets you to 10 of 16 teams with 3 locked games, leaving RU, UMD, IN, PU, IL and NW with 2 each.
So how to pair them?
RU – NW (NYC vs Chicago, NW has lots of alumni in NYC)
IN – IL (regional)
UMD – PU (good engineering schools? – it’s forced
Other pairings are certainly possible.
My final list (for today)
RU – UMD, PSU, NW
UMD – RU, PSU, PU
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
OSU – MI, PSU, USC
MI – OSU, MSU, USC
MSU – MI, IN, NW
IN – PU, MSU, IL
PU – IN, IL, UMD
IL – NW, PU, IN
NW – IL, MSU, RU
WI – MN, IA, UCLA
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN, UCLA
UCLA – USC, NE, WI
USC – UCLA, OSU, MI
I want to note that this list is deigned for the first 10 years or so to integrate USC and UCLA. After that, the locked games out west could change.
Certainly there is room for change, but I think this hits the goals for the B10 of preserving key rivalries and getting the big brands into LA.
I hope the B10 mostly applies a zipper-like approach to scheduling the non-locked games:
USC/UCLA
NE/IA
WI/MN
NW/IL
IN/PU
MI/MSU
OSU/PSU
UMD/RU
Play one for 2 years, then the other if neither of them is locked with you. Make new “pairs” from the singletons leftover from your 3 locked rivals and your partner.
But wait, those locked games seem unfair some will say. Yes, they are unfair. So are the existing rivalries. They key is to remember that all the other games are played 50% of the time. So while IN, PU and IL aren’t locked with any of the big brands, they’ll play half of them every year.
OSU has 3 locked kings, but OSU also has the best W% and never has to play itself. When you look at the overall schedule strength, it doesn’t vary all that much.
I used conference W% from 1993-2021 to calculate SOS. The highest W% was 0.530 and the lowest 0.478, with an average of 0.506. Only PU and NW are below 0.490 (0.478 and 0.486), with 10 schools between 0.494 and 0.515. MN and UCLA’s SOS are skewed higher since NE is no longer playing at the level they were in the 90s. That leaves MI and USC as the top, but that’s hard to avoid since they play OSU. If I change NE’s W% to 0.500 from 0.614, the new toughest schedule is 0.520 with a low of 0.472, 15 schools are between 0.480 and 0.520, and 8 schools between 0.490 and 0.510.
Obviously year to year fluctuations will have a large impact on these numbers.
For comparison:
FTT’s Option 1:
SOS ranges from 0.490-0.530, with MN, RU, IN and UCLA having the toughest schedules while OSU, NW, PSU, NE and USC have the easiest.
I don’t see why the B10 would lock IL and NW with the LA schools, personally. Those games don’t need to be annual.
FTT’s Option 2:
SOS ranges from 0.484-0.533, with MN, IL, UCLA and RU getting the toughest schedules while OSU, PSU, MSU, NW, PU and UMD have the easiest.
I have a hard time seeing NE get both LA teams locked, and again I’m not sure NW is who the B10 would choose to lock out west.
LikeLike
OK, this looks like my TV-friendly locks except without PSU-MSU (PSU locks both other eastern schools).
The more I think of it, the more USC-OSU and USC-UMich seems likely. It just makes sense for many reasons, and probably the LA schools’ home games are reserved for CBS and NBC to get them to pay up.
LikeLike
^
Should say MI – USC
LikeLike
A couple of tidbits from Canzano:
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-spider-senses-tingling-on
I have a hunch this week could bring some news — or at least some direction — when it comes the Pac-12’s media-rights negotiations and/or expansion.
…
Further, the Pac-12 expansion question is looming. I’ve written about San Diego State, SMU, UNLV, Boise State and Fresno State at length. A few have speculated that the conference might be more aggressive, moving to add a soon-to-be Big 12 member or potentially targeting some Conference USA programs.
I reached out to several high-level sources inside the Pac-12 in the last week, asking about media rights and expansion. Nobody wanted to go on the record. One source told me he couldn’t be quoted “…until we get to the other side.”
It makes me think the “other side” is in sight.
Keep your ear to the ground this week. The Pac-12 members likely have numbers from the bidders on the media rights front. The conference may be weighing a three-pronged dilemma: A) Take a pile of money from a streaming service knowing that you sacrifice distribution; or B) Sign on full-boat with ESPN for less money, but bask in the glow of the worldwide leader’s propaganda machine; or C) Some blend of both.
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-commissioner-breaks
The Pac-12 is knee deep in a critical media-rights negotiation. Conference leadership and its consultants are sorting out a variety of questions. Among them, weighing how much inventory should be sold to a digital streaming service vs. traditional linear-television distributors.
Said Kliavkoff: “You’re thinking about it exactly the right way — it’s a balancing act. That’s the way we’re thinking about it.”
…
In the talk, Kliavkoff spoke candidly about his relationships with other commissioners. He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten.
…
Kliavkoff sounded confident the Pac-12 won’t lose any of the 10 remaining conference members to the Big Ten or Big 12. I mean, he sounded rock-solid certain. It dovetails with what conference athletic directors have said to me over the last couple of months, but I was still a little surprised at the level of unwavering confidence he expressed.
“Listen, I think if schools would have left for the Big Ten, they would have left for the Big Ten already,” Kliavkoff said.
• STREAMERS:
I am 99.9 percent sure that the Pac-12 will end up with a ton of content on Amazon and/or Apple or another streaming service. But I also think the conference knows it’s too soon to go all-in with a digital partner.
“Certainly revenue is at the top of the priority list but we have to also balance that against distribution,” Kliavkoff said. “We really want our content to be available to any of our fans who want to see it. I’ve set a goal that our content should be available to any piece of glass connected to the internet as part of our next media rights negotiation.”
…
• EXPANSION: Kliavkoff talked about Pac-12 expansion, but he didn’t make it sound like a certainty. In fact, he didn’t really say adding schools has even been talked about, at least formally.
The commissioner did provide a rough timeline, though — get the media-rights deals done first, then make conference expansion decisions.
I’d love to see his math for how UCLA will lose money by joining the B10.
LikeLike
Yeah, GK seems to just be blowing smoke for the home crowd to snort up here.
Anyway, I think it’s smartest for the Pac to get their game-of-the-week with the WWL for whatever ESPN will pay them (not much), negotiating a certain number of games (1 a week?) that will absolutely be shown on ESPN/ABC (even if After Dark) and then get as much money as possible from a streamer for the rest.
Fox doesn’t make much sense because FS1 (and ESPN2 too) don’t really offer more exposure than a streamer.
LikeLike
I’d love to see his math for how UCLA will lose money by joining the B10.
USC and UCLA are both coming to the Big Ten with full shares. So if he thinks UCLA will lose money, he must think USC will lose too. He must know a different math than everyone else in the industry.
LikeLike
It somewhat reminds me of when Debbie Yow – then athletic director at N.C. State – was asked in late 2012 for comments on her former school, Maryland, leaving for the Big Ten. She cynically said she hoped Terrapiu basketball teams enjoy playing midweek games in Madison, Wis. Of course, Yow and her famed basketball sisters are North Carolina natives, and I doubt anyone in the College Park business office is complaining about the checks it gets from the B1G.
LikeLike
“He believes UCLA will lose money — not make it — by going to the Big Ten.”
My daughter currently believes Sonic the Hedgehog and unicorns are real. It’s amazing what you can make yourself believe if you want it bad enough.
“Listen, I think if schools would have left for the Big Ten, they would have left for the Big Ten already,” Kliavkoff said.
Change the ‘would’ to ‘could’ and he’s probably accurate here.
LikeLike
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/oklahoma-sooners/bedlam-series-to-be-scrapped-when-sooners-join-the-sec-per-report/
Bedlam is done once OU joins the SEC. OkSU says they just don’t have room to schedule them.
“It (playing Oklahoma) presents logistical issues under our current (scheduling) structure,” Oklahoma State AD Chad Weiberg said, via McMurphy. “We don’t have any openings to play them. We’re full. Unless there are significant undertakings to make the game happen, it can’t happen.”
It should be noted that OkSU just signed an 8 year deal with Tulsa starting in 2024, so that’s 10 games already scheduled for them. They also have series with AR and UO in 2024-27, with an I-AA game to make it all 12 booked (11 in 2025 – no I-AA yet).
https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/oklahoma-state/
Their schedule really doesn’t open up until 2030 unless they start cancelling games, and they already have a major OOC game for 2032-37.
LikeLike
They did say they will continue to play in all other sports, so they are not avoiding each other. There just isn’t a way to play in football.
LikeLike
Note that in a 3-6-6 scheduling framework, the B10 could switch up some of the 3rd locked games every 4 years. I’m pretty certain USC will start the first 4 years with OSU+UMich (leaving UCLA for UNL+UW). But in the next 4 years, OSU&UMich could lock with the IN schools (the IN schools as well as OSU/UMich want that to a degree), UNL&UW switch to USC, and UCLA locks with someone (IL schools?)
LikeLike
Note that in a 3-6-6 scheduling framework, the B10 could switch up some of the 3rd locked games every 4 years.
That is my preferred format, as for many schools that third lock — and sometimes even the second — is kind of arbitrary, and there is no reason to make it permanent. People gravitate to 3-6-6 because it is super-easy to explain.
LikeLike
Personally, I’ve generally been a K.I.S.S. person on various formats (whether divisions, scheduling or playoffs) so that there are consistent and easy to explain.
That being said, I can see the appeal of having only some schools having 3 games locked if they make sense (such as how I believe Penn State needs to be locked with OSU, Rutgers and Maryland while Iowa and Minnesota similarly ought to be playing each other along with both Nebraska and Wisconsin) while making everything else more flexible.
The problem, of course, is how to decide those “flexible” games. I actually like the NFL scheduling format where they based certain games on the prior season’s standings, so there’s a year-to-year strength of schedule component.
I’ve seen some comments before about how the Big Ten locked certain intra-division games over the past few years (such as Northwestern-Michigan State), but note that other than Indiana-Purdue (which is a protected rivalry), all of those other locked intra-division matchups were quite literally chosen randomly out of a hat witnessed by the Big Ten athletic directors. (I’ll have to find the article that described this process, but this is honest-to-goodness how they paired those matchups.)
That’s just evidence that all of us as fans might be thinking way more about the nuances here than the Powers That Be.
LikeLike
Frank, right, that was after they had locked for the first 6 years parity-based. Then to avoid squabbling, they just drew schools out of a hat the second time.
It’s possible that each school would only have 2 permanent locks and the 3rd lock would be parity-based.
So if 2 locks:
USC-UCLA-UNL all lock each other.
UW-Iowa-UMTC all lock each other.
Then a ring that goes PU-IU-UIUC-NU-MSU-UMich-OSU-PSU-RU-UMD-back to PU.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t that be IU-PU-UIUC…? IL and PU have the cannon trophy game.
LikeLike
Brian, true, but do either UIUC or PU care about that game? I never even heard of that trophy (or the Old Brass Spittoon, or the Illibuck) until the B10 split in to E/W and used those trophies as justification.
LikeLike
Richard: “Brian, true, but do either UIUC or PU care about that game?”
That was Purdue’s second-best rivalry for decades we cared a great deal about it. And when the game was in WL, there were bus-loads of Illini fans coming over to fill the stadium. The reason it became lost is that the East-West Divisions eliminated it.
LikeLike
Colin, huh? What are you talking about? PU and UIUC are in the same division and play every year.
LikeLike
One other alternative that isn’t too much non-KISS would be a 3-6-6 where you play 3 every year, 6 twice in 3 years and 6 once in 3 years. That could allow for more made for TV matchups as well as making trophy games a little more frequent.
LikeLike
Possible but unlikely. That doesn’t allow all players to visit every B10 stadium at least once over a 4 year career and the gain is somewhat minimal. Plus it would difficult to make the cutoffs so there would be charges of unfairness, favoritism, etc.
Honestly, I think even my 2 locked opponents for all schools idea is unlikely. But it’s possible that the 3rd lock gets changed around for some schools some of the time.
LikeLike
That doesn’t allow all players to visit every B10 stadium at least once over a 4 year career. . . .
I wonder how important that is anymore. What percentage of players are on the team and travel roster for four years? And among those who are, how high is this on their list of career priorities?
LikeLike
Marc, hmm. Who knows. I know Fitz has brought it up, though, yeah, not sure anyone cares about NU’s opinion.
BTW, an interesting factoid: Devin Gardner played at UMich for 5 seasons but never played against Wisconsin*.
*Wisconsin did visit Ann Arbor in 2010, but due to the wacky schedule changes due to B10 expansion and changing the divisional structure, UMich and UW didn’t play after 2010 and before 2016. No visit to Madison in the years between 2009-2017.
Hmm, I just found out that that series was ridiculously lopsided before 2005.
LikeLike
To be fair, that is something Big Ten leaders (and not just Fitz.) have brought up in the past. But freshmen often are not on the travel roster, unless they are ready to play that early in their careers. And among those ready to play as freshmen, not all last four years (NFL exits, transfers, injuries, academics, etc.).
So the idea that every player saw every stadium over four years was always something of a myth, and is probably even less likely today given the rise of the transfer portal.
LikeLike
Marc – As a non-athlete student back in the day, I would have appreciated the conference’s effort to schedule all teams within a four year period, and would have taken the possibility of football road trips to every conference school as a challenge.
Not to brag, but as a student in the late 80s when the SEC was a 10 team league, I did make a game on every campus except UF and Vandy.
I’m sure all you B1G guys were studying.
LikeLike
Penn State recruits heavily in New Jersey and Maryland. However, they do not consider Rutgers or Maryland rivals. The games are usually not competitive and have had no historical importance to CFB either before or after PSU’s move to the Big Ten. Matchups between MI and MN or OSU and IL have more meaning from a B1G perspective, but don’t show up in schedule suggestions as potential locks. As a PSU alum I have never once heard anyone pound the table for RU or MD. PSU was never considering a jump to the ACC. This always struck me as a Delany strategy to help sell Eastern expansion to the rest of the B1G (and it worked). PSU has played more meaningful games with IA, NE, and others than they have with MD or RU. Personally I’d prefer to lock OSU, UCLA, and MD and just play RU every other year.
LikeLike
The Little Brown Jug is definitely more meaningful but UMTC already has 3 rivals and UMich likely has a bunch of priorities (besides OSU and MSU, visiting the East Coast, visiting the West Coast, IN games for it’s fans to travel to, and visiting Chicago) above visiting MN more often.
LikeLike
Big Ten sources said on-the-record that they feared Penn State leaving for the ACC, and that the Rutgers/Maryland strategy was intended in part to prevent that from happening. That was never cited as the entire reason for doing it.
It never made much sense to me. Penn State and Rutgers only started playing each other regularly in 1977, meaning it existed as an annual game for barely more than a decade before PSU joined. When Rutgers joined the Big Ten, they had not played PSU in almost 20 years.
The PSU–Maryland rivalry had a bit more teeth, as the two played almost annually from 1961 to 1993. Still, PSU did not care enough to schedule it as a non-conference game. As with Rutgers, when Maryland joined they hadn’t played PSU in a bit over 20 years.
That tells you how important those rivalries were to Penn State.
LikeLike
Bob,
Nobody thinks RU or UMD are rivalries for PSU, but PSU is the eastern big brand and the only power school near them. PSU’s fan base is the only one they encounter much, and both are close enough for PSU fans to fill their stadiums. It just makes sense for PSU to keep playing them both.
LikeLike
Marc,
Those were the eastern schools that were available and met the B10’s requirements. They are both near Philadelphia, where much of PSU’s fan base is centered.
Other eastern options (based on most games vs PSU) were Pitt, Syracuse, WV, Temple, Penn, Navy, Bucknell, and Army. Penn and Bucknell are I-AA. The academies would not work. WV isn’t good enough academically. Temple got kicked out of the Big East for sucking, and brings no new territory. Pitt would’ve been redundant for territory (good rivalry, though) back when BTN subscribers were a key factor. That just leaves Syracuse, who left the AAU when NE got booted.
Would SU have been more meaningful? After 1990, they didn’t play again until 2008. SU won twice in 23 games since 1971. Would SU have left the ACC? I doubt it. They fit better there, and it was hard to get UMD to leave.
LikeLike
There are lots of games they could play off the basic 3-6-6 scheme.
A could play B and C 75% of the time (alternating 2 years as 3rd locked rivals with A).
A – R1, @R2, B, no C, (d,e,f,g,h,n)
A – @R1, R2, @B, C, (d,e,f,g,h)
A – R1, @R2, C, no B, (i,j,k,l,m,n)
A – @R1, R2, @C, B, (i,j,k,l,m)
But I tend to think they’ll stick with KISS. Hopefully they will reconsider the third locked games every few years, maybe even pre-design a rotation for them.
LikeLike
A few notes from a Penn State fan:
I don’t generally like the Rutgers/Maryland locks. I’d keep the OSU game and ditch Maryland for whatever other blue blood you could throw this way.
That said…putting on my *think like a university President” hat…the alumni base & good recruiting grounds for PSU are mostly PA, MD, NJ, and VA. There’s some exceptions (everyone loves Florida, Chicago, Southern California) but in general, it’s not westward.
So as much as this is a ho-hum for PSU, I agree with what you wrote. Anyone writing in MSU or whoever else instead of the eastern block is probably not considering the 1,000 foot view from above.
That’s my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Yep. And also, from RU’s and UMD’s POV who else would they want play? PSU is the only big brand school near their fan bases, and the only one near driving distance.
LikeLike
Article on Amazon’s interest in possibly buying some lower-tier Big Ten inventory. Also, will UCLA share B1G revenue with Cal?
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/conference-realignment-amazon-interest-may-affect-big-ten-big-12-pac-12-composition-as-talks-continue/
LikeLike
Amazon in the picture for the B10 only if the B10 expands, and that’s just tough to justify financially. Even if Amazon overpays, someone would have to keep overpaying for ever and ever.
LikeLike
The article notes that: “The likes of Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue and Rutgers would be unlikely to support expansion, ” since they would bear the brunt of games relegated to streaming purgatory.
Dodd cites an unnamed industry source that any streaming deal would exclude 100% of the Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State games. I have to think Warren would need to throw Amazon at least some red meat.
So I guess Warren has some convincing to do, assuming this is something he wants. Money quote:
Approximately 85% of U.S. households have at least one streaming service. However, 85% isn’t 100%.
And not all of those 85% have Amazon. Ratings for Amazon’s first Thursday night game were off the charts, but that might have been due to the novelty factor. No one knows if they can keep it up.
LikeLike
Marc: “The article notes that: “The likes of Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Purdue and Rutgers would be unlikely to support expansion, ” since they would bear the brunt of games relegated to streaming purgatory.”
The likes of Ohio State, Michigan, USC and Penn State would be unlikely to support further expansion because it would further dilute their brands. Marc, do you take the bait every time?
LikeLike
Marc, do you take the bait every time?
I think you meant to address that comment to Dennis Dodd, since those were his thoughts, not mine.
LikeLike
Marc,
“Dodd cites an unnamed industry source that any streaming deal would exclude 100% of the Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State games. I have to think Warren would need to throw Amazon at least some red meat.”
Fox, CBS and NBC already paid for the top cuts. Amazon would get the trimmings at this point. Not only are there the Saturday tripleheaders, but FOX also paid for games for FS1 and BTN, and NBC for Peacock.
Is Amazon going to reimburse them to get better games? Would NBC even want that, if the whole point is to grow Peacock?
“And not all of those 85% have Amazon.”
And of those that do, a large percentage don’t actually use it. They just wanted free shipping.
LikeLike
FS1, BTN, and Peacock would get something, but if the inventory is from more expansion, the increased quality of picks likely would offset them having to work Amazon in to the draft order as well. The problem is, while Amazon may be willing to pay the equivalent of top-3-pick money for non-top-3 picks, are they willing to pay that forever? Because otherwise, expansion would be hard to justify (without ND or any of the top ACC programs coming).
LikeLike
The problem is, while Amazon may be willing to pay the equivalent of top-3-pick money for non-top-3 picks, are they willing to pay that forever?
This is why I am skeptical of any further expansion right now. Even if Amazon pays enough in the current cycle, that money could dry up next time around. Expansion is a forever decision.
LikeLike
Maybe we sell Amazon an auto-renewing membership that can only be cancelled by getting a live B10 representative on the phone, then remove the phone lines from B10 HQ. But we’ll give them free shipping for the games.
LikeLike
Amazon was interested in better games, but the B10 wasn’t. I don’t see that changing unless the new members take less money and play all the Amazon games. Why would any current B10 members want less money and/or less exposure? And I don’t see Amazon wanting just the worst games.
Maybe they can overwhelm the P12 or B12 with cash, but the lack of exposure is a big hurdle. Even the NFL barely dipped a toe in those waters. And NFL cross-promotion only helps if CFB fans watch those NFL games – large parts of those fan bases don’t overlap at all. It’s not like the CFB game would follow the NFL game – that would have big value.
I think UCLA might share a few million with Cal for a few years, their part of how much the TV deal might have dropped in value. More likely, they promise to play Cal OOC every year.
LikeLike
Amazon was interested in better games, but the B10 wasn’t. I don’t see that changing unless the new members take less money and play all the Amazon games. Why would any current B10 members want less money and/or less exposure? And I don’t see Amazon wanting just the worst games.
I don’t expect further expansion in this cycle, but for the sake of argument, let’s say the Big Ten adds Washington and Stanford. Some of those games would be in the top-three rotation (e.g., Stanford @OSU), which would create spare inventory, some of which goes to Amazon. But as I said in another post, Amazon probably needs at least some decent games.
LikeLike
Amazon would want decent games, but nobody playing in a decent game wants to be on Amazon.
Unlike the P12, the B10 isn’t desperate for Amazon’s money right now. It makes no sense for the B10 to agree to it.
LikeLike
It’ll be interesting to see where the 8 Peacock games end up after the NBCUniversal/WarnerDiscovery merger comes to fruition. UNI+?
LikeLike
According to every number I can find, Peacock’s subscriber base is minuscule — roughly about 1/10th of Amazon. And they are practically giving it away.
LikeLike
Which makes the B1G’s decision to make it the conference’s streaming partner all the more bizarre. if NBC demanded it as part of their package, I have to believe there’s some sort of dissolution clause, freeing up those rights in the event Peacock is shuttered or absorbed in a merger. As is, it’s a dead bird walking.
LikeLike
I mean, those are probably the B10 games that have the lowest potential viewership (sadly, that probably means my Wildcats will feature heavily).
LikeLike
Which makes the B1G’s decision to make it the conference’s streaming partner all the more bizarre.
I assume what the Big Ten really wanted was the night game on NBC. A handful of Peacock games was part of the deal, just to give NBC a chance to prove they can make it work.
I have to believe there’s some sort of dissolution clause, freeing up those rights in the event Peacock is shuttered or absorbed in a merger.
I am sure they do, but the bigger worry is that Peacock remains a zombie network — still technically alive, but miles away from the distribution they could have had on Amazon or Apple. Fortunately, this is a short deal, so if it’s a mistake, they aren’t stuck for 20 years, like the (ahem!) ACC.
LikeLike
Marc,
I assume you really mean Peacock Premium (and Premium Plus). They literally give Peacock away, and Comcast subscribers get Premium included in their bill. Just from that Comcast deal, Peacock should have a decent number of subscribers (not viewers, but subscribers). Plus Premium is 60% off this month ($1.99 not $4.99).
https://variety.com/2022/streaming/news/peacock-subscribers-q2-1235326362/
13M paid subscribers, with 27M active accounts. But Comcast has more than 13M T V subscribers, so I’m not sure how that works.
LikeLike
I didn’t even know there were levels of Peacock, which tells you how much attention I am paying to it. But yes, that 60% discount is what I mean by “practically giving it away.”
LikeLike
Of more immediate interest is some details of which 16 teams get screwed with Peacock games each year. When are those games played (F nights?, Saturdays?) and who plays in them (big brands?, medium brands?, RU?)? Are there caps on how often teams play there, or minimum appearance rules?
Which particular streaming black hole they end up in seems less important for now.
LikeLike
Seems like these were just thrown in so I’m quite confident nothing that is top-3-pick quality, so almost certainly no PSU/UMich/PSU. Games between the group of the IN schools, IL schools, UMTC, and RU&UMD when they don’t have winning records are tiny. Sometimes some other matchups too.
And these types of games that currently end up on FS1/ESPN2/BTN draw very few viewers anyway.
LikeLike
I agree with all of that. But there were clear rules about everyone appearing on BTN at least twice per year, limits on night games, ability to refuse night games, etc.
I’d like to see the details about Peacock games, NBC night games, PT night games, and all the other details for the new TV deal.
Then we’ll know if schools have to appear on Peacock every other year or some such. OSU/RU is the sort of BTN game that could be buried on Peacock just as easily.
LikeLike
Again, Brian, I doubt it. Fox and NBC and CBS shelled out a lot of money (and NBC & CBS must be counting on very strong selections for 3rd picks). I doubt that there are restrictions on their top 3 picks besides the BTN appearance one.
LikeLike
Fox and NBC and CBS shelled out a lot of money (and NBC & CBS must be counting on very strong selections for 3rd picks). I doubt that there are restrictions on their top 3 picks besides the BTN appearance one.
Right, but Brian is asking mainly about the Peacock games, which are never going to be top three. After those games, how do the rest get spread around?
LikeLike
Marc, by that time, all the OSU and UMich conference games would already be snapped up*. Most of the PSU conference games too.
*Unless UMich/OSU become bad (again, in the case of the Wolverines).
LikeLike
Marc, by that time, all the OSU and UMich conference games would already be snapped up. Most of the PSU conference games too.
I am not sure how you are counting, but there certainly are weeks when those schools’ games are not among the top three. Hence the question of pecking order (no Peacock pun intended) beyond that level.
I mean…if Peacock is always the sixth choice after the broadcast nets, FS1, and BTN, then I agree they will probably never get a king game. But no one has stated the selection mechanism after the top three.
LikeLike
Marc, these days, OSU games always draw at least decent viewership even when they’re beating up nobodies OOC. Same with UMich when they are good. I believe every OSU game (not taken by BTN) was actually in the top 3 B10 games every week they played. The OSU games that weren’t taken by BTN (there should be 9-10 of them) definitely were in the top 45 B10-controlled games.
In other words, your mental map seems out of date. These days, OSU/UMich are the brands you think ND is while ND isn’t as big a draw as Bama/OSU/UMich.
LikeLike
I see there have been multiple Ohio State and Penn State games on FS1 in recent years. They are also on ESPN sometimes, and I am not quite sure if that necessarily means they were in the top three.
LikeLike
I looked at https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019-college-football-tv-ratings/ and every OSU game they had was 1 of the top 3 most watched B10 games of that week. Including the BTN game.
LikeLike
Same was true in 2017 and 2018, including the 1 FS1 game I saw.
Recall that Fox was putting good games on FS1 in order to grow carriage there.
I think that’s 1 reason why the B10 went with 3 linear carriers this time (no streaming for a top 3 pick either): Because it didn’t want any of its good games buried on FS1 (or streaming), suppressing viewership.
LikeLike
So you believe that every week, the Fox/CBS/NBC line-up will consist of a Michigan game, an Ohio State game, and a Penn State game? (Maybe not in that order.)
Wow!
LikeLike
Marc: Did I say PSU games are always top 3? No.
Plus:
1. Those 3 teams aren’t always playing. The top 3 picks are for 15 games each.
2. Sometimes, they play each other.
3. Some of their games will have to go on BTN.
But yes, OSU, UMich, and PSU would feature disproportionately in the top 3 of a week. I’m not sure why that surprises you.
LikeLike
What was true with 14 teams and what is true with 16 teams may not be the same. You point out FS1 getting some good games because Fox wanted to grow it. Doesn’t that same logic apply to NBC and Peacock? Isn’t that one reason they were willing to pay so much, that they could get some decent games to stream?
Say teams have the following value in games:
Tier 1 (4 pts) – OSU, MI, PSU, USC – Kings
Tier 2 (3) – NE, WI, IA, MSU – Princes
Tier 3 (2) – UCLA, NW, MN, UMD – Decent and/or in big markets
Tier 4 (1) – PU, IL, IN, RU – Bad and/or small market
Now say my set of rivals is used.
8 pt games – 4 locked + 1 = 5 (OSU – 3) running total = 5
7 pt games – 1 locked + 7.5 = 8.5 (OSU – 2) running total = 13.5
6 pt games – 4 locked + 9 = 13 (OSU – 2) running total = 26.5
5 pt games – 7 locked + 12.5 = 19.5 (OSU – 2) running total = 46
4 pt games – 1 locked + 10.5 = 11.5 (OSU – 0) running total = 57.5
3 pt games – 4 locked + 6 = 10 (OSU – 0) running total = 67.5
2 pt games – 3 locked + 1.5 = 4.5 (OSU – 0) running total = 72
That’s just the 72 conference games, so let’s say they are spread over 11 weeks. That means 33 top 3 windows for the networks. Assuming they are spread out optimally, that would be 5 8-pt games, 9 7-pt games, 13 6-pt games, and 6 5-pt games.
If you assume within each level that all OSU games are taken first, then all of OSU’s games would be in the top 3. Likewise for MI, but not PSU and/or USC. But if BTN also gets 1 B10 game from each team, then you might use up all the Tier 1 team games.
But this is in the ideal schedule for TV scenario. We know that doesn’t happen in real life. In reality some weeks have a cluster of big games, while others have fewer. There are going to be some king games available.
I didn’t even look at early OOC weeks when there are many more games.
Why assume BTN gets priority over Peacock for access to teams? Why wouldn’t NBC demand a guarantee (maybe 1 appearance every other year) too?
As I say, I would just like to see all the rules spelled out. How many weeknight games, and when (Wk 1 and T-Day week are different from the regular season)? How many BTN, FS1, and Peacock appearances are required?
LikeLike
Brian, sure, you can posit all sorts of scenarios that I deem unrealistic. We’ll just have to wait and see.
LikeLike
Nobody knows who is is the ACC’s Atlantic and Coastal divisions. Most everyone can figure out the Pac 12 North & South, the B1G East & West, and the SEC East and West, with the exception of Mizzou.
The 3-6-6 model’s beauty is its simplicity. So what if there are a couple of not quite perfect annual games, you get everyone at least fifty percent of the time. That’s about as good as it can get, while still making it easy to understand.
LikeLike
Atlantic & Coastal were uniquely stupid divisions designed to produce the occasional FSU–Miami conference championship game. The football gods punished the ACC by ensuring that this match-up never happened.
The Big Ten tried the same thing with Legends & Leaders, which blessedly lasted only a short time. Adding Rutgers & Maryland gave them a chance to fix it without forcing them to admit how bad an idea it was in the first place.
But divisions are something you see every time you look at the standings. The scheduling format is not like that. I will assume that most fans know that you play every team in your division every year. I suspect most do not know how the other three games are chosen.
LikeLike
Marc – my point is Joe Fan would know the his State U plays X, Y, and Z schools annually, and everybody else twice in a four year period. That’s in line with Frank’s KISS standard, rather than suggestions about some schools having 2 annual games with some others having 4 or 5. No plan will be perfect for everybody, but I’m 100% in the FTT camp that the most simple, easy to understand plan is best, even if you only get to play Team X twice every four years.
LikeLike
Marc – my point is Joe Fan would know the his State U plays X, Y, and Z schools annually, and everybody else twice in a four year period.
I am guessing Joe Fan does not know that, given the amount of ignorance one sees on fan chats. The participants on this forum are dialed into such issues, and might be exaggerating the extent that the average fan is aware of them.
The NFL’s scheduling formula is quite complex, and I suspect very few fans could tell you what it is exactly, other than you play all the teams in your division home & home.
LikeLike
What part of that is unrealistic?
Even in the ideal scheduling scenario, there would be some king games left out of the top 3 picks unless the networks essentially always choose Tier 1 vs Tier 4 games above Tier 2 vs Tier 2 and Tier 2 vs Tier 3 games. That’s simple math. The 4 kings would play 31 B10 games (the other 5 are king-king games already counted).
That would mean only 2 of games like NE/WI, NE/IA, WI/IA, NE/MSU, WI/MSU and IA/MSU would make an OTA network (and none of the other teams not playing a king) because PSU/RU and OSU/IN and MI/IL are being chosen instead. I find that highly unrealistic.
So, the rules for 4th picks and below are also important to know. And scheduling constraints based on BTN or FS1 or Peacock having rights to show certain teams.
LikeLike
Marc,
The B10 had better options but chose L & L instead.
Outer vs Inner and NW vs SE both could’ve worked and made sense.
Outer – PSU, RU, UMD, NE, IA, WI, MN
Inner – OSU, MI, MSU, IL, NW, IN , PU
NW – NE, IA, WI, MN, MI, MSU, NW
SE – OSU, PSU, RU, UMD, IL, IN, PU
Outer vs inner had travel imbalance issues and isolated the newbies.
NW vs SE required two locked crossover rivalries (OSU/MI, NW/IL) but otherwise made decent sense.
LikeLike
Marc,
Marc – my point is Joe Fan would know the his State U plays X, Y, and Z schools annually, and everybody else twice in a four year period.
“I am guessing Joe Fan does not know that, given the amount of ignorance one sees on fan chats. The participants on this forum are dialed into such issues, and might be exaggerating the extent that the average fan is aware of them.”
Back in the 11-team days, how many fans didn’t know who their school’s 2 locked rivals were? It didn’t take long to figure out if you cared at all, and that was true pre-internet.
LikeLike
Back in the 11-team days, how many fans didn’t know who their school’s 2 locked rivals were? It didn’t take long to figure out if you cared at all, and that was true pre-internet.
I think fans generally knew who their locked rivals were, just as NFL fans know the teams in their own team’s division. How the rest of the season was determined, I believe most fans could not have told you.
LikeLike
I find your concern that every team will be forced to be on Peacock unrealistic. BTN being owned by the B10 and Peacock (which may not even exist in its current form) being not is a big difference.
And your simple math doesn’t take in to account that B10 conference games will almost certainly soon be spread over 14 weeks. 45 “top-3” picks total.
Also, you don’t differentiate between kings but really should. Even with the addition of the LA schools, I don’t see any OSU or UMich conference games (assuming OSU and UMich are national title contenders) to fall out of the top 3 picks. Some PSU and USC conference games might.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I think fans generally knew who their locked rivals were, just as NFL fans know the teams in their own team’s division. How the rest of the season was determined, I believe most fans could not have told you.”
Well, there were 6 games left to fill and 8 teams. I think they got the idea. So now with playing half the teams, then the other half, I think they’ll also grok that pretty easily. It’s not like pro schedules, which are much more complicated.
That’s the whole point of 3-6-6 – anyone can understand it easily.
LikeLike
Richard,
It’s not a concern per se, it’s an open question that I want answered. There is precedent for them including rules like that in deals, and NBC made a point of getting some Peacock games as part of their deal, and got 1 less CCG than CBS. There’s been speculation the Peacock games would be Friday nights, but we don’t even know if that’s true. And if it is, do the old rules of refusing to host those games still apply? Lots of unanswered questions.
“And your simple math doesn’t take in to account that B10 conference games will almost certainly soon be spread over 14 weeks. 45 “top-3” picks total.”
If you spread the B10 games out, then you just mix in their OOC games. It doesn’t change much. And I openly said I ignored the 3 OOC weeks. If I didn’t, then I have to include the 12 OOC games played by the kings but those range in opponents so they are harder to categorize. I also need to put in numbers for the princes and even the tier 3 and 4 schools in case they play a king or prince (like ND vs PU).
USC will have 1 8-pt game at least. OSU, MI and PSU will have a 7-pt or 8-pt game each as well. Likely they will all have 2 5-pt games in many years as well. The princes should all have 1 6-pt or better game as well, plus 2 4-pt games. The tier 3 schools also may have some 5-pt games. So that’s 38.5 6-pt or higher games over 14 weeks. That means 3 or 4 of the 5-pt games would be needed.
The 4 kings combine to play 43 games. The OTA networks would have to essentially ignore all other games to show all the king games in their 45 slots. That seems unrealistic.
“Also, you don’t differentiate between kings but really should.”
Right, because any way I did that you were likely to agree with. Besides, I did talk through that.
“Even with the addition of the LA schools, I don’t see any OSU or UMich conference games (assuming OSU and UMich are national title contenders) to fall out of the top 3 picks.”
They already fall to BTN, which is outside the top 3. Why would that end? It’s easy to have a week like: MI/NW, WI/MSU, USC/IA, PSU/UCLA and OSU/RU. No huge games, but several good ones that don’t include OSU. Week 4 last year was similar, with WI/ND, NE/MSU, MI/RU, and OSU/Akron. The OSU game went to BTN and finished 4th for the wee among B10 games.
LikeLike
Man, Brian, you’re a pedant. We both know that BTN takes at least 1 conference game and 1 OOC game from each king, so I didn’t think it was worth mentioning. And yes, some of the OOC games would be dreck. You also like to attack strawmen as I never said all kings would have all their games in the top 3 choices. I said OSU and UMich should (if they are in national title contention) have all their conference games (other than the mandated BTN games) among the top 3. And PSU should have most (assuming that they’re also good and not bad/mediocre). Even if you add up all the OSU and UMich conference games not taken by BTN, that’s only 15 (they play each other). Say another 6 are PSU. There aren’t that many OOC games that would make the top 45 as generally, there aren’t that many attractive Big10-P5 matchups. Maybe 8 of those? And half of them would be owned by the other conference, so only 4 of them. Maybe a couple other OSU/UMich OOC games? You’re still only up to 27, and the other 18 are for USC and the other princes vs each other or some hot/compelling non-royalty team. Not all prince-prince matchups are great TV draws (especially if 1 or both those teams are mediocre/doing badly) and neither is USC when they are not contending for the national title.
I do believe the B10 will spread around the most attractive B10 games smartly before every year so while your proposed scenario is possible, I believe the B10 will work to avoid that.
LikeLike
Richard,
“We both know that BTN takes at least 1 conference game and 1 OOC game from each king, so I didn’t think it was worth mentioning.”
1. We know that’s currently true. Is it part of the new deal? We don’t know. It’s one of those questions I’d like answered.
2. Since that takes out up to 8 king games, it seems relevant to a discussion about what games might end up on Peacock.
3. The point is that OSU already plays in some 4th choice games. Adding USC and UCLA won’t make that less common.
“You also like to attack strawmen as I never said all kings would have all their games in the top 3 choices. I said OSU and UMich should (if they are in national title contention) have all their conference games (other than the mandated BTN games) among the top 3. And PSU should have most (assuming that they’re also good and not bad/mediocre). ”
No, that isn’t what you said. You said this:
Seems like these were just thrown in so I’m quite confident nothing that is top-3-pick quality, so almost certainly no PSU/UMich/PSU.
Assuming one of those PSU’s is OSU, you said 3 of the 4 kings wouldn’t have any games on Peacock. No limitation to B10 games, no qualifications about team quality. You’ve kept moving the goal posts since then.
“I do believe the B10 will spread around the most attractive B10 games smartly before every year so while your proposed scenario is possible, I believe the B10 will work to avoid that.”
The B10 said they will work with TV on this, but they are slightly limited. Teams often have their OOC schedules set many years in advance, and certain games have traditional weeks (like rivalry week). They can also only guess at what will be attractive games. A few teams defy expectations every year. And fans are going to expect to mostly get home and home series in conference play. Plus, it’s not a given that the 3 TV networks will be in agreement.
LikeLike
Brian, I’ve mentioned this before:
IU-PU and UMich-OSU are the only games I can remember (during my lifetime) that have always been played by the B10 rivalry week. All other B10 games have moved around before. That’s not a huge constraint on scheduling.
And the 3 networks don’t have to be in agreement. That’s why they have a drafting order. Then everybody can put the games they choose when they want when it’s their turn.
Dates for OOC games with G5 and FCS schools can also be moved around pretty easily. None of those leagues set their league schedules years in advance. In the future, the B10 may just tell schools not to set dates for those G5/FCS games (or it could tell UMich/OSU/PSU as well as some of the “peasant” class schools to schedule their G5/FCS games for weeks 4&5 while leaving weeks 1-3 mostly free (while telling the prince/middle-class schools to fit all their OOC games in weeks 1-3).
Finally, I see no reason for the BTN requirement to change.
You like to propose scenarios that aren’t likely for some reason. It’s like you’re trolling.
LikeLike
Richard: “IU-PU and UMich-OSU are the only games I can remember (during my lifetime) that have always been played by the B10 rivalry week.”
Prior to circa 1994-95, The Old Oaken Bucket game was played the weekend before the Thanksgiving holiday, not during the 4-day Turkey weekend.
LikeLike
Actually, mixing and matching 4 kings with 4 peons probably works better just in case 1 of the 4 kings is really down. So tell UMich, OSU, PSU, USC & RU, UMD, IU, and UIUC to schedule all their G5/FCS buy games in weeks 5 & 6 (their P5 matchups OK to be in the first 4 weeks). Then tell everyone else to schedule all their OOC games in weeks 1, 3, and 4 (Labor Day weekend week 2 has a lot of slots so probably should feature a full conference slate) or after week 6.
Between MSU, UNL, Iowa, UW, UMTC, UCLA, NU, and PU, you should be able to find 3 good games while the other half of the conference is playing buy games.
LikeLike
Colin, that was rivalry week (last weekend of the season) for the B10 back then, no?
LikeLike
Yes, you are correct. The Ohio St – Michigan game shifted at the same time.
LikeLike
So tell UMich, OSU, PSU, USC & RU, UMD, IU, and UIUC to schedule all their G5/FCS buy games in weeks 5 & 6…
So…you, Brian, and I are not really disagreeing on very much. What you just described is something they could do. But we don’t know what they have actually agreed (or will do), which is what Brian keeps saying.
LikeLike
Marc, right. What _I_ would do if running/advising the B10.
And actually, I’d make an adjustment:
8 teams schedule all their G5/FCS buy games weeks 6&7 (2 conference games spread throughout weeks 1&3-5 along with any P5 OOC games).
Full conference slate Labor Day weekend.
Other 8 teams play conference games in weeks 6&7 and all OOC games in weeks 1&3-5.
So in the last half (7 weeks) of the season, everyone gets 6 conference games and a bye week.
For fairness & and to stop complaints, the group of 8 teams switch positions every few years so everybody has to play buy games on weeks 6&7 (and early-season B10 games) at some point.
The B10 could lay out this scheme for years in the future, allowing schools to plan their OOC schedule.
LikeLike
Stop making up strawmen. I literally said “slightly limited” and you reply with:
That’s not a huge constraint on scheduling.
I never said anything remotely similar to it being a huge constraint.
“Brian, I’ve mentioned this before:
IU-PU and UMich-OSU are the only games I can remember (during my lifetime) that have always been played by the B10 rivalry week.”
So what? Does that mean your memory is correct? Do you assume I read everything you write?
“And the 3 networks don’t have to be in agreement.”
They do if they’re trying to get the B10 to move certain games to certain weeks to spread the games out in a way that helps them. They all may want certain games in a different place based on their other commitments and other games on the schedules of other conferences or teams.
“Dates for OOC games with G5 and FCS schools can also be moved around pretty easily.”
Easy for the P5 schools to say. Maybe the MAC doesn’t want to have 15 games forced on them in random weeks by the B10.
“In the future, the B10 may just tell schools not to set dates for those G5/FCS games (or it could tell UMich/OSU/PSU as well as some of the “peasant” class schools to schedule their G5/FCS games for weeks 4&5 while leaving weeks 1-3 mostly free (while telling the prince/middle-class schools to fit all their OOC games in weeks 1-3).”
Or they could just tell school years in advance to save week 3 here, and week 2 there. You don’t need the whole B10 schedule completed to give some advance notice of these sorts of things.
“Finally, I see no reason for the BTN requirement to change.”
So what? You aren’t party to the negotiations. You not seeing a reason doesn’t mean they didn’t have one.
Again, I’m not saying it did change. I’m simply saying I want to see them lay out all the details. There’s no reason this stuff should be kept secret.
LikeLike
At this point, Brian, I’m going to write you off as a disagreeable argumentative troll with no life as you seem to want to argue for no good reason other than being ornery and disagreeable.
LikeLike
Richard: “At this point, Brian, I’m going to write you off as a disagreeable argumentative troll with no life . . .”
I got me a troll buddy!
LikeLike
Week #3 rating are out.
Only one game cracked the 4m threshold.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
4.05m Penn State at Auburn CBS 3:30p
FOX won the noon slot with Oklahoma at Nebraska (3.41m), nipping UGA at South Carolina on ESPN (3.0m).
The ESPN combination of Miss State/LSU (3.06m) and Miami/A&M (3.40m) eked out a win over the FOX game (Toledo/Ohio State 3.05m) and the ABC game (Mich State/UDub 2.79m).
LikeLike
It’s hard to draw high viewership with so many blowouts.
LikeLike
I’m actually a bit surprised MSU-UW didn’t do better though given it’s 7:30 time slot and that it was a match-up of unbeatens, one of which was ranked somewhat highly. In general, looks like a rough weekend for college football ratings.
LikeLike
It wasn’t a great game to watch, and neither is a huge brand that will draw tons of casual viewers. There were also a lot of simultaneous games of roughly equal quality so the audience was splintered.
Primetime:
Miami/TAMU – 3.49M
LSU/MsSU – 3.06M
OSU/Toledo – 3.05M
UW/MSU – 2.79M
TT/NCSU – 0.75M
IA/NV – 0.35M
UMD/SMU – 0.26M
Plus with the NFL starting, many casual fans have shifted to that.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34632937/wanting-college-football-strong-nationally-sec-commissioner-greg-sankey-optimistic-expanded-playoff
Sankey said the main obstacles in moving up expansion to 2024 remain lining up bowl dates, campus involvement, interaction of TV networks, not bumping up against the NFL and not extending the playoff too far into January.
Not really news, but Sankey lays out all the obstacles to CFP expansion coming early. A lot of those revolve around figuring out the calendar.
LikeLike
Interesting news out of Ames. By mid-2025, the now-empty area between Hilton Coliseum and Jack Trice Stadium will be filled: https://frontofficesports.com/schools-spending-hundreds-of-millions-on-facilities/
LikeLike
https://www.si.com/college/2022/09/21/proposed-college-football-calendar-season-moves-earlier
The commissioners have drafted a new CFB calendar.
However, maybe the most significant item is the notion that officials need to “further explore potentially making Week 0 fully permissive,” the calendar notes. Under current rules, teams need a waiver to play a game during what’s termed “Week 0,” the weekend before the official start to the season. In another proposed change, bowl games would be permitted to start the second Saturday in December—a week earlier than normal.
…
In fact, there are plenty of hurdles left before the calendar is finalized, most notably a collaboration with officials on the NCAA Football Oversight Committee, who themselves have been working on a separate recruiting calendar. Officials with knowledge of the discussions caution that changes to the 365-day calendar are likely.
…
While opening the door for teams to have an additional bye week, lifting the Week 0 waiver process could be the first step in a move to eventually shift up a week the entire regular season. The change would expand a tight December window in which to play additional playoff games, alleviating a cramped timeline that includes conference championship games, NFL regular-season games (some played on Saturday), midyear exams and graduation.
…
Moving bowl games up a week is another sign in the eventual forward shift of the entire season. This year, the first bowl game is scheduled to kick off on Dec. 16. If the proposed calendar were implemented, bowls could start as soon as Dec. 10, the date of the annual Army-Navy game. Moving bowls up provides a larger window to play the 42 bowls as well as the additional playoff games.
Other than the increased risk of heat stroke (for fans, too) with more games in August, this plan sounds good. Shifting the season up a week may be the only path to scheduling the expanded CFP around the NFL.
LikeLike
Heat stroke is less of a risk/concern for B10 schools. Bigger concern in some other areas of the country, yes.
LikeLike
Other than the increased risk of heat stroke (for fans, too) with more games in August, this plan sounds good.
It is also a lot more games played before the students have arrived for the fall semester.
Shifting the season up a week may be the only path to scheduling the expanded CFP around the NFL.
I think either Gene Smith or Barry Alvarez, maybe both, already said that they believe this will have to happen.
LikeLike
As both an undergrad at Maryland in the mid-’70s and a grad student at Iowa State in the mid-’80s, students returned to campus before the final Saturday in August. And since I’m certain every FBS stadium now has lights, what’s the big deal?
LikeLike
As both an undergrad at Maryland in the mid-’70s and a grad student at Iowa State in the mid-’80s, students returned to campus before the final Saturday in August.
That is certainly not true everywhere.
And since I’m certain every FBS stadium now has lights, what’s the big deal?
I don’t know to what extent the heat matters, but I am sure they will spread the games out over the full day, as they do every other week.
LikeLike
The vast majority of American universities now begin the fall semester in mid- to late August, thus allowing the break between fall and spring semesters to coincide with the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. It’s why most commencements now take place in May, rather than June. (There are a handful of exceptions, notably Princeton and Harvard.) This dates back to the early 1970s, when many campuses were awash in anti-war sentiment, and many believed shifting up the calendar would help limit demonstrations and Kent State-like violence.
One by-product of this was that several northern schools ended their baseball programs; for example, Syracuse discontinued the sport in 1975 (perhaps to focus more energy on lacrosse each spring).
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s not true everywhere (my alma mater, for one), but most colleges now are on a semester system where students arrive around mid-August. Even at UMich (with it’s short terms), students should be on campus by Week Zero.
LikeLike
If the season starts in week zero, I assume that means ending the weekend before Thanksgiving, which is much better for students to be able to attend the final game. Iowa allows students to buy a season ticket without the Black Friday game.
LikeLike
greg: “If the season starts in week zero, I assume that means ending the weekend before Thanksgiving, which is much better for students to be able to attend the final game.”
For years, Purdue has tried to move the Old Oaken Bucket game to Lucas stadium in Indy on Turkey Weekend. Both IU and Purdue have more students in Indy than on campus at that time. IU refuses to do it.
LikeLike
Greg: I’d rather have 2 bye weeks.
A lot of schools have traditions surrounding Thanksgiving week.
LikeLike
I’d rather have 2 bye weeks.
Me too, but I do not believe they will be inserting a bye week. Rather, they will likely move up the CCGs to Thanksgiving weekend, to make room for the new first round of the playoff.
LikeLike
Marc,
As vp notes, the autumn semester started 8/23 at OSU. Quarters start much later (late September), but there’s not much you can do about that. Those students already miss a lot of games. I agree it’s not ideal, but that’s just 1 more thing to blame in the CFP.
LikeLike
The Army-Navy should be played on Veterans’ Day. Nov. 11. It should be exclusive to Army-Navy with no other college or NFL games unless it happens to fall on a weekend.
LikeLike
Also, while heat stroke is a concern for players (in hotter climes, though note that the NFL plays preseason games even before then), baseball fans manage to not die from heatstroke. Do they know something football fans don’t?
LikeLike
Richard: “Do they know something football fans don’t?”
My guess is they know to not wear football pads/helmets since they’re two different sports and baseball players spend 60% of a game in the dugout.
Joking aside, I agree that there are plenty of other sports played during the summer that seem to manage. It’s a concern but not a dealbreaker.
LikeLike
Well, it is perhaps relevant that the majority of MLB stadiums are not in the deep south, and most of those that are have fixed or retractable roofs. Also, most MLB stadiums have a portion of seating that is in the shade, while a lot of CFB stadiums do not.
(With that said, I think the safety issue is more about the players.)
LikeLike
Of course it is more about the players. I was just pointing out that it isn’t just them. 85-year old alumni sitting in the sun for 4 hours when it’s 90+ degrees doesn’t always go well.
LikeLike
Yes. They know to stand outside drinking for 6 hours before sitting in the sun for a few more hours watching a game when it’s 100 degrees out.
And the southwest is dangerous even at night. In Phoenix, it was 93 degrees at midnight on 8/25 with a heat index of 100. It felt like 113 degrees at 6pm. That’s dangerously hot for many people.
LikeLike
^ … know not to …
LikeLike
I know you’re all waiting to see how B1G scheduling affects Rice.
It hasn’t yet. Our home/home with Northwestern is still on the schedule for 2029(Houston)/2031(Chicago).
LikeLike
I would not expect any of the B1G’s non-conference games to change, unless anyone had a date scheduled with USC or UCLA (have not checked).
LikeLike
But, you know, if the SEC goes to 9 conference games, a lot of OOC games would have to be cancelled. But the Pac may go to 8 conference games.
LikeLike
BTW, I looked, and in 2021, the B10 only owned 4 OOC games that drew more than even 2mm viewers.
So every year, roughly 40 of the 45 top picks on linear TV will be B10 conference games. Probably 15 of them would have OSU or UMich (they play each other and 1 of each conference slate will be on the BTN). Roughly 5 of the rest would have PSU. That still leaves 20 for everyone else playing schools that aren’t OSU/UMich/PSU.
Yes, I believe the B10 will schedule some conference games in the first 4 weeks of the season.
LikeLike
Yes. They will start patterning their schedule more like the SEC, with an occasional MAC game later in the season with some early season conference games.
LikeLike
Sort of. Almost all OOC games probably would still be played before November because the weather starts turning bad by then up north and while folks are willing to freeze to sit through a high-stakes conference game or meaningful rivalry game, less would be willing to do so for a buy game vs. a patsy.
But I definitely see the B10 making sure there are at least 3 games every week in September (and Week Zero) that should get at least 3mm viewers (so featuring kings, most likely; likely against non-royalty).
Labor Day Weekend offers a lot of possible slots (IMO, up to 6, or possibly even more) between The, F, Sat, Sun, and Mon.
LikeLike
The ACC also does this.
The Pac 12, Big 12 and Big 10 typically haven’t scheduled many ooc games after Septermber.
LikeLike
Which is good, and they should continue that behavior. Chickenshit Saturday in November is a southern thing that nobody else should copy.
LikeLike
Well that is pretty stupid. It is just moving mid-September games to November. Its the equivalent of Big 10/MAC Saturday. But if you are mixing them in with conference games, it provides value to the networks because not every game is garbage. The networks really had very few interesting games this past weekend from any conference and it showed in the TV ratings. There were only 3 or 4 games not involving someone I followed that were of any interest to me.
LikeLike
November is for games that impact the conference race, not pre-season scrimmages. MACtion games work well in September when fans are excited to have football back and see the new team develop. Nobody wants to sit through those in November weather.
The TV ratings were fine this weekend, the viewers were just split over a bunch of different games. Only the early window had any real difference in total viewers from last week. The mid-afternoon and primetime windows were very similar.
LikeLike
Viewers are ALWAYS split over a bunch of different games. Alabama-Texas had as many viewers as the top 3 games this past week. The top game this week would have ranked 4th last week. PSU vs. a struggling Auburn and OU vs. a struggling UNL were the headliners this week along with Miami-Texas A&M. Toledo-Ohio St. was #5 and just behind #4 MSU-LSU.
LikeLike
They are always split, but not as equally as this week. 6 games got 3M+, while 11 games got 2M+ viewers this week. Last week 4 games got 3M+, and 7 games got 2M+.
For a week with a lot of blowouts and no marquee game, the ratings weren’t bad.
LikeLike
The SEC has this thing where most of the league schedules buy games the Saturday before Rivalry Week. You could spread those games out over the whole season, and I see nothing wrong with that. There is no reason necessarily why the non-conference slate has to be packed into the first three weeks.
LikeLike
Part of it was to get the OOC games in the weeks when not all students were on campus. Then the students were there for all the B10 games. With fewer schools on quarters (NW and UCLA), that’s less of a concern now.
It also put the pre-season opportunities early, so teams could develop against inferior foes before facing tougher games. A MAC game in October or November is basically useless for the coaches except to rest players.
There are also scheduling difficulties for the P5 games, so those generally have to stay early. That means you are only moving buy games later. Why not keep those in September? You have 4-5 weeks (maybe even 6 if they move up the season a week) to get 3 OOC games, meaning plenty of teams could also get their first B10 game in so the networks have options. In October and November you mix in the bye weeks rather than buy games.
Note, I didn’t say they should all be the first 3 games. I prefer them that way for OSU, but I didn’t call for it as B10 policy.
LikeLike
“Why not keep those in September? You have 4-5 weeks (maybe even 6 if they move up the season a week)”
That’s not much different from my plan, which would get all OOC games done by week 7 but offers TV partners a few more attractive B10 league games in the first 7 weeks (so that they have at least 3 attractive games a week: remember that the B10 will only control about 5 attractive OOC matchups total every year because there are so many buy games).
So at this point, I’m writing you off as an anti-social disagreeable ornery misanthrope who wants to pick fights and argue mostly for the sake of being disagreeable and ornery.
LikeLike
Also, I don’t think the B10 (and TV partners) will leave scheduling up to chance. I believe that in the first 4 weeks, they’ll have the kings that look to be national title contenders preseason go against the projected weakest teams in the B10 as well as have the few marquee OOC games and everybody else going through their OOC schedule. The next 3 weeks, the kings/natty contenders go through the patsies on their OOC slate while the princes and other promising teams play each other. The last several weeks of the season is when kings will play each other and princes.
LikeLike
Hey Frank, I saw your tweet on the potential issues with CF playoff scheduling (with NFL games, finals, etc.), but IMO, it just isn’t all that difficult to solve:
First round games may have to be on weeknights that are not Sat, Sun, Mon, or Th before Christmas Eve (so Tue, Wed, Fri) or Sat in a time slot when no NFL game is on linear TV.
Quarterfinals on NYD/NYE
Semifinals on MLK Day
Title game the bye weekend before the Super Bowl.
Easy-peasy.
LikeLike
The leaders of the sport say it is not so easy.
LikeLike
They seem to have trouble thinking outside the box. Or thinking. Who knows, man. I suppose I should be use to it as there’s an example of someone on this site who objects to any change to CFB from how it was in the ‘70’s.
LikeLike
TL;DR – Make more money. Minimize locks, play each team at least twice in a 4 year cycle, maximize flexibility (which really isn’t much it turns out).
If the B1G is getting rid of divisions I don’t think there’s a need for the scheduling solution to be a neat and tidy 3/6/6. We’re talking about a conference named the Big Ten that hasn’t had 10 teams in 30 years, they’ll do whatever they want (see “Leaders, Legends”). And by whatever they want, I mean whatever they think will make the most money.
Gene Smith already told us that TV scheduling is going to not just be considered, but that TV partners are going to be part of the scheduling discussion:
““We know it’s a model we have to go to and include our television partners in that process and structure it and have them be a part of the conversation. Now that we have them, we can begin that conversation and determined that type of thing. Is it based upon who’s going to be strong next year or based upon dates or whatever, and go from there.””
https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/football/ohio-state-football-gene-smith-big-ten-will-no-longer-schedule-conference-games-years-in-advance-eliminate-divisions
That implies to me that the likely outcome is to lock as few games as possible to maximize flexibility each year to maximize ratings. And you have to maximize ratings in the first 4 years of USC/UCLA joining because the next negotiation window is in 2028 (or 2029?) meaning the TV partners need to have made good money or else the next deal won’t go up in value.
What games are must lock?
Penn State – Ohio State
Rutgers – Maryland
Maryland – Rutgers
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State
Michigan State – Michigan
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State
Purdue – Indiana
Indiana – Purdue
Illinois – Northwestern
Northwestern – Illinois
Nebraska – Iowa
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa
USC – UCLA
UCLA – USC
I don’t buy that PSU needs to lock Rutgers and Maryland – I know Frank is adamant about this but I’ve never met a PSU fan that thinks that and there’s no way that PSU leaves the B1G at this point. I also assume that Minnesota and Wisconsin would prefer to play Nebraska less and Michigan, MSU, Northwestern, and the LA schools more.
I don’t think it’s lip service when the B1G says play each team home and home in a 4 year span. So apply zippers to ensure each team plays every school at least 2x in a 4 year span (play 1 per year from each pair). Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Minnesota will have a broken zipper each because they locked 1 of the pair, thus replacing the locked school with “[Open]”. Iowa has ZERO open games because they have 3 locked games.
Penn State – Ohio State, RU/MD, MI/MSt, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]/MSt
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]/PSU
Michigan State – Michigan, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Rutgers – Maryland, OSU/PSU, MI/MSt, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Maryland – Rutgers, OSU/PSU, MI/MSt, PU/IU, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Purdue – Indiana, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Indiana – Purdue, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, NU/UIUC, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Illinois – Northwestern, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Northwestern – Illinois, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, UNL/IA, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Nebraska – Iowa, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, UW/MN, USC/UCLA, [Open]
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, USC/UCLA
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, USC/UCLA, [Open]/UNL
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, USC/UCLA, [Open]/UNL
USC – UCLA, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, UW/MN, IA/UNL, [Open]
UCLA – USC, OSU/PSU, RU/MD, MI/MSt, IU/PU, NU/UIUC, UW/MN, IA/UNL, [Open]
So what does that leave in terms of schedule adjustments? Let’s assume that 4-yr cycle, and that the B1G is going to schedule a H&H within said 4 year cycle if it’s a
Penn State – 4 games
Ohio State – 2 games
Michigan – 2 games
Michigan State – 4 games
Rutgers – 4 games
Maryland – 4 games
Purdue – 4 games
Indiana – 4 games
Illinois – 4 games
Northwestern – 4 games
Nebraska – 4 games
Iowa – 0 games
Wisconsin – 2 games
Minnesota – 2 games
USC – 4 games
UCLA – 4 games
If I’m maximizing for TV I’m adding these as the flex pairs (+2 games per 4 years) for the first 4 year cycle:
Penn State – Nebraska, Michigan State
Ohio State – USC
Michigan State – Penn State, Minnesota
Michigan – UCLA
Nebraska – Penn State, UCLA
Wisconsin – USC
Minnesota – Michigan State
USC – Ohio State, Wisconsin
UCLA – Michigan, Nebraska
(Thought about it being USC-MI and UCLA-UW but believe that USC-UW and UCLA-MI would be the better ratings pair in total)
Pair up these remaining 6 teams however since it’s all going to be on BTN/Peacock anyway, so this isn’t scientific:
Rutgers – PU, UIUC
Maryland – IU, NU
Purdue – NU, RU
Indiana – MD, UIUC
Illinois – IU, RU
Northwestern – MD, PU
Ultimately this is why PSU cannot be locked to RU/MD, because that would be forgoing 2 games of PSU-MSt for PSU-RU, and forgoing 2 games of PSU-UNL for PSU-MD. That’s a lot of money left on the table.
Here’s what the above means the “locked” pairs would be for the first 4 years:
Penn State – Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan State
Ohio State – Michigan, Penn State, USC
Michigan – Ohio State, Michigan State, UCLA
Michigan State – Michigan, Penn State, Minnesota
Rutgers – Maryland, Purdue, Illinois
Maryland – Rutgers, Indiana, Northwestern
Purdue – Indiana, Northwestern, Rutgers
Indiana – Purdue. Maryland, Illinois
Illinois – Northwestern. Indiana, Rutgers
Northwestern – Illinois, Maryland, Purdue
Nebraska – Iowa, PSU, UCLA
Iowa – Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Wisconsin – Minnesota, Iowa, USC
Minnesota – Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
USC – UCLA, Wisconsin, Ohio State
UCLA – USC, Michigan, Nebraska
It doesn’t matter that much though, as we’re talking about 1 game per year for 9 schools, 0.5 games per year for 6 schools, and 0 games per year for 1 school. There’s not really much space to optimize within, and frankly optimizing for TV ratings also has the side effects of slightly increased parity (because top teams play each other slightly more) and allowing the B1G office to tell teams making individual requests (e.g. MSU asking for more Northwestern) to cry into their piles of money and that they’ll revisit in a couple years. Which they will revisit, but only to see if they can make even more money somehow.
LikeLike
This is the system I have always preferred, but everyone here says I am wrong — you need a system that could be explained in a sentence or two, which this obviously is not.
And you have to maximize ratings in the first 4 years of USC/UCLA joining because the next negotiation window is in 2028 (or 2029?) meaning the TV partners need to have made good money or else the next deal won’t go up in value.
If your hypothesis is correct, then you don’t stop optimizing for TV after four years, because there will always be another deal after the next one.
LikeLike
If your hypothesis is correct, then you don’t stop optimizing for TV after four years, because there will always be another deal after the next one.
Yep, that’s the kicker. And you use that to keep ADs in line by suggesting that it’s worth $5-$10M/yr to schedule this way and it’ll go away if you don’t. That funds multiple non-rev teams and pays for salary increases in the AD admin so you know they aren’t going to push back too hard.
LikeLike
Scout: The concept you’ve outlined here (along with the idea from others to spread out the OOC P5 games and OOC buy games to maximize the options each week for the TV partners) would be my preferred approach. The number of must have locks is limited, so why reduce good TV matchups. This is especially true once the playoffs expand and the impact of a single loss is reduced.
As I PSU fan I’m happy to watch NE and MSU vs RU and MD. PSU would still play them 2 of 4 years which shouldn’t impact recruiting in those areas. RU and MD would still get a steady mix of OSU/MI/PSU/MSU as they do now with divisions.
LikeLike
Scout,
“If the B1G is getting rid of divisions I don’t think there’s a need for the scheduling solution to be a neat and tidy 3/6/6.”
Fans like simple. They get angry about unnecessary complications. It’s bets to avoid that if it doesn’t cost you much, such as in this case.
“We’re talking about a conference named the Big Ten that hasn’t had 10 teams in 30 years, they’ll do whatever they want (see “Leaders, Legends”). And by whatever they want, I mean whatever they think will make the most money.”
No, they’ve often chosen the less money path. They didn’t allow multiple B10 bowl teams for 30 years after the Rose Bowl deal started. The sat at 11 teams for almost 20 years when they could’ve added a CCG by expanding. They said no to Texas because they were busy integrating PSU.
“Gene Smith already told us that TV scheduling is going to not just be considered, but that TV partners are going to be part of the scheduling discussion:”
Yes he did. In large part, everyone already knows what they generally want – big brand games. But the B10 did parity-based scheduling before to increase that, then stopped doing it after complaints from schools. It didn’t change the TV deal then. Would it now? How much power will the networks have over scheduling?
“That implies to me that the likely outcome is to lock as few games as possible to maximize flexibility each year to maximize ratings. And you have to maximize ratings in the first 4 years of USC/UCLA joining because the next negotiation window is in 2028 (or 2029?) meaning the TV partners need to have made good money or else the next deal won’t go up in value.”
Those two things are in conflict. maximizing ratings for the LA schools requires locking more games. So do certain other B10 priorities, like keeping members happy and preserving important rivalries.
“What games are must lock?
You hit the obvious ones, but I’d argue these aren’t necessary by your definition:
“Rutgers – Maryland
Maryland – Rutgers”
They aren’t rivals in any way. I’d also lock that game, so I’m not against it, I just don’t think it’s mandatory based on your other decisions.
I’d add NE-MN to your list. NE has played MN 62 times, compared to 42 vs IA. For a newish member, that’s an important tie to keep. If RU/UMD is locked, so should this game be locked.
“I don’t buy that PSU needs to lock Rutgers and Maryland – I know Frank is adamant about this but I’ve never met a PSU fan that thinks that and there’s no way that PSU leaves the B1G at this point.”
They don’t, but RU and UMD need to lock PSU. It’s the only longer-term B10 member near them, it’s the one their fan bases interact with from DC to NYC. The newbies need a school that will fill their stadium.
“I also assume that Minnesota and Wisconsin would prefer to play Nebraska less and Michigan, MSU, Northwestern, and the LA schools more.”
But that doesn’t make you correct (or incorrect). NE is a much shorter trip than going to LA for a road game, or even MI and MSU. And frankly, NE is an easier W than MI or MSU right now. I will again point to NE’s long history of playing MN. I agree that NE/WI doesn’t need to be locked. NE?MN doesn’t have to be, but I think it’s highly preferred to be kept locked.
What I think you are missing is the set of games to lock for preserving secondary rivalries/neighbor games. I think these matter to the B10.
“If I’m maximizing for TV I’m adding these as the flex pairs (+2 games per 4 years) for the first 4 year cycle:
Penn State – Nebraska, Michigan State
Ohio State – USC
Michigan State – Penn State, Minnesota
Michigan – UCLA
Nebraska – Penn State, UCLA
Wisconsin – USC
Minnesota – Michigan State
USC – Ohio State, Wisconsin
UCLA – Michigan, Nebraska
(Thought about it being USC-MI and UCLA-UW but believe that USC-UW and UCLA-MI would be the better ratings pair in total)”
I did something similar above, but with different choices. MN/MSU? That’s not a draw. MSU wants to play NW, and that would draw just as many eyeballs. Why does MI get UCLA instead of USC? MI/USC would draw a lot more viewers.
“Ultimately this is why PSU cannot be locked to RU/MD, because that would be forgoing 2 games of PSU-MSt for PSU-RU, and forgoing 2 games of PSU-UNL for PSU-MD. That’s a lot of money left on the table.”
First, they can be locked. It’s not forgoing any money. The TV deal is already signed without any schedule created. And keeping RU and UMD happy is good for the conference.
“It doesn’t matter that much though, as we’re talking about 1 game per year for 9 schools, 0.5 games per year for 6 schools, and 0 games per year for 1 school. There’s not really much space to optimize within, and frankly optimizing for TV ratings also has the side effects of slightly increased parity (because top teams play each other slightly more) and allowing the B1G office to tell teams making individual requests (e.g. MSU asking for more Northwestern) to cry into their piles of money and that they’ll revisit in a couple years. Which they will revisit, but only to see if they can make even more money somehow.”
But if it doesn’t matter much, why upset schools and fans over it? Why not keep more people happy? What is the benefit, since the TV deal is already signed?
LikeLike
Fans like simple. They get angry about unnecessary complications. It’s bets to avoid that if it doesn’t cost you much, such as in this case.
I mean, TV deals have extended games to over 4 hours and wrecked the gameday experience, including crap buy games against FCS/G5 just because people will watch. If fans are taking that on the chin, how many are going to actually complain about B1G scheduling when it results in bigger games for winning teams and more winnable games for teams that want to be bowl eligible? This group is not representative of the majority of fans, which will simply hear that they are playing their biggest rival(s) annually, hear that you’ll play each team 2x in 4 years, shrug, and go back to complaining about their offensive coordinator.
No, they’ve often chosen the less money path. They didn’t allow multiple B10 bowl teams for 30 years after the Rose Bowl deal started. The sat at 11 teams for almost 20 years when they could’ve added a CCG by expanding. They said no to Texas because they were busy integrating PSU.
I think they often choose the long term money path over short term money, and institutional fit matters a lot. That said, I don’t think those bowl games brought in much money at the time, I think they were net losses due to how TV contracts worked then and also they were considered exhibitions. Obviously the schools didn’t care enough to change this or the B1G would have changed that rule sooner.
They sat at 11 teams for 20 years because they wanted ND. They also had a de facto CCG most years in UM/OSU. The presidents use the “busy integrating school x” line as a polite way to say leave us alone we don’t want to talk to you right now, besides adding Texas would have been a mess as they’d forever have been on an island since there’s no one to pair with them for non-revs and it’s not worth dealing with their ego. Rumor has it that the B1G turned down OUT before they went to the SEC.
It didn’t change the TV deal then. Would it now? How much power will the networks have over scheduling?
I think it’s a little different with a TV deal that has 3 specific and exclusive broadcast partners and you’re going up against the SEC on ABC’s 3 slots. I also think this schedule isn’t explicitly parity based (it’s just a beneficial side effect) and also it should be less of a problem without divisions and with the expanded playoffs – plus I’d wager everything it was Michigan that complained the most about parity based scheduling since they (and PSU) were most heavily punished by it in Leaders/Legends, and then also in East/West since 10-2 is NY6 by 9-3 is Citrus Bowl; also Iowa probably complained because Barta whines about everything.
Those two things are in conflict. maximizing ratings for the LA schools requires locking more games. So do certain other B10 priorities, like keeping members happy and preserving important rivalries.
I should clarify, it’s not specific to maximizing rating for the LA schools, just maximizing ratings in the 4 years after they arrive. There’s going to be conflict that’s unresolvable, and they won’t keep everyone happy. So I figure if they are going to keep all members a little unhappy, doing it in the way that also pays them the most money is probably the best justification they’ll find.
They aren’t rivals in any way. I’d also lock that game, so I’m not against it, I just don’t think it’s mandatory based on your other decisions.
I’d add NE-MN to your list. NE has played MN 62 times, compared to 42 vs IA. For a newish member, that’s an important tie to keep. If RU/UMD is locked, so should this game be locked.
Yeah I agree and initially didn’t lock RU/UMD. It just kept ending up as a de facto lock because they are a zipper pair and also it seems like it should be a rivalry 50 years from now when both teams aren’t getting pummeled in the B1G East every year. I figure I could have not locked it but I don’t see a scenario where that’s not scheduled every year so figured meh, might as well.
NE-MN was the pair that I couldn’t decide what to do with. I think Nebraska would prefer playing more national games against UCLA and PSU than playing MN. And I think MN would like more games vs Michigan. So ultimately I wouldn’t lock it but I’d wager that NE-MN is a common flex pair.
They don’t, but RU and UMD need to lock PSU. It’s the only longer-term B10 member near them, it’s the one their fan bases interact with from DC to NYC. The newbies need a school that will fill their stadium.
Eh, it’s one home game every 4 years they are missing out on, and I’d wager they come out ahead from playing a 50/50 game with UIUC or NU instead of taking the near 100% guaranteed L from PSU. I think the money works out better to have PSU have 4 games to play against other big names instead of RU/UMD – simply because I’d assume that’s 15k tickets at $100/pop (PSU @ RU/UMD) once every 4 years so that’s like $1.5M incremental for each of those two schools but that works out to only $375k/yr.
What I think you are missing is the set of games to lock for preserving secondary rivalries/neighbor games. I think these matter to the B10.
I agree with you however I think the B1G crossed the Rubicon on that when it invited RU/UMD, then burned the bridge when adding USC/UCLA. The Little Brown Jug (UM MN), the Brass Spittoon (MSU IU), the Illibuck (OH UIUC), heck even the new George Jewitt trophy (UM NU) are just casualties here. If this was important to the B1G, then the 6-yr cross division locks from 2014 to 2019 would have been trophy games instead of UM/UW, OSU/NE, MSU/MN, etc, and like UM/MN and MSU/UW were RIGHT THERE and they didn’t go with that. So basically history now shows us these secondary rivalries/neighbors games are nice to haves but aren’t a priority, so I’m going to presume TV ratings trumps.
I did something similar above, but with different choices. MN/MSU? That’s not a draw. MSU wants to play NW, and that would draw just as many eyeballs. Why does MI get UCLA instead of USC? MI/USC would draw a lot more viewers.
Yeah that’s a good point on MN/MSU. I think MI/USC draws more views than MI/UCLA, but I thought that MI/UCLA + USC/UW draws more total views than MI/USC + UCLA/UW. But hey, let’s make USC play both MI and OSU in all of their first 4 years (and also ND), that is must see TV and probably more in line with what I’m expecting from the B1G here. Changes result in:
Penn State – UCLA, Michigan State
Ohio State – USC
Michigan State – Penn State, Wisconsin
Michigan – USC
Nebraska – Minnesota, UCLA
Wisconsin – Michigan State
Minnesota – Nebraska
USC – Ohio State, Michigan
UCLA – Nebraska, Penn State
I think my main point is that these pairings will be optimized for TV ratings and we won’t know exact pairings until fall 2023. Actually, lol, given how the zippers work these schedules are going to be awesome. Look at these conference + big OOC game schedules that are possible:
USC – ND, OSU, UM, UCLA, and then 1 each from PSU/MSU, UW/MN, IA/NE, RU/UMD, NU/UIUC, UI/PU.
Michigan – Texas, OSU, USC, Michigan State and then 1 each from PSU/UCLA, UW/MN, NE/IA, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC.
OSU – Washington, UM, USC, PSU, and then 1 each from MSU/UCLA, UW/MN, NE/IA, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC.
PSU – West Virginia, OSU, UCLA, MSU, and then 1 each from UM/USC, UW/MN, NE/IA, RU/MD, PU/IU, NU/UIUC
First, they can be locked. It’s not forgoing any money. The TV deal is already signed without any schedule created. And keeping RU and UMD happy is good for the conference.
But if it doesn’t matter much, why upset schools and fans over it? Why not keep more people happy? What is the benefit, since the TV deal is already signed?
I should have said that it doesn’t matter much in terms of schools not getting scheduling preferences in who they play because of rivalry/alumni/competitive balance since it’s at worst a game a year you’d prefer something else and that’s not really moving the needle that much. The TV deal is signed with certain expectations from the TV partners. If the B1G schedules a pair of games that are projected at 4M total viewers combined (say PSU/UMD and USC/RU) instead of flipping the pair and getting 7M combined (PSU/USC and UMD/RU) then those TV partners are going to be very unhappy at the money they aren’t making, which will effect the next contract. I don’t have the information to run all the scenarios, but it’s clear to me that if I can flip one set of matchups and create $15M more value for just that year (3M incremental viewers * $5/viewer) then we have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake with scheduling decisions and thus that’s what will happen. If the options are better games, more money, happier partners and national hype VS RU/UMD’s happiness about football, I think I know what wins out.
LikeLike
Scout,
“I mean, TV deals have extended games to over 4 hours and wrecked the gameday experience, including crap buy games against FCS/G5 just because people will watch.”
The B10 has played played some terrible teams OOC for decades. TV didn’t drive that, the demand for 7 home games did.
“If fans are taking that on the chin,”
Plenty of fans are complaining already, like you. That’s why you avoid unnecessary aggravations.
“how many are going to actually complain about B1G scheduling when it results in bigger games for winning teams and more winnable games for teams that want to be bowl eligible?”
Fans and the schools complained last time the B10 tried it. Bigger games are great for the other teams, but unfair when it’s your team forced to play them just for TV money. And easier SOS for teams that end of doing well is decried as favoritism that got someone to a CCG.
“I think they often choose the long term money path over short term money,”
You mean like keeping RU and UMD and PSU’s eastern alumni happy at the expense of them being locked with MSU, a game neither side cares about all that much?
“That said, I don’t think those bowl games brought in much money at the time, I think they were net losses due to how TV contracts worked then and also they were considered exhibitions.”
As the only conference not playing multiple bowl games by rule, they hurt the B10’s reputation. A lot of great teams sat home when they were co-champs or 1-loss teams.
“Obviously the schools didn’t care enough to change this or the B1G would have changed that rule sooner.”
They needed enough people to agree, and the B10 put academics first. They chose the less money approach.
“They sat at 11 teams for 20 years because they wanted ND.”
They’ve always wanted ND. That didn’t prevent them from adding PSU, or 3 other schools.
“They also had a de facto CCG most years in UM/OSU.”
No. Just no. That was true in the Big 2 Little 8 years, but not in the CFB CCG era.
From 1993-2004, OSU and/or MI were the only champs just twice. Then from 2010-2016 it happened just once.
“The presidents use the “busy integrating school x” line as a polite way to say leave us alone we don’t want to talk to you right now, besides adding Texas would have been a mess as they’d forever have been on an island since there’s no one to pair with them for non-revs and it’s not worth dealing with their ego.”
The B10 wants to add ND but is worried about UT’s ego? The PSU integration was actually quite painful, and did take a long time. But turning down UT was certainly not the long-term money choice. Being on an island is a fake problem. UCLA is about to handle it, and they are much farther away. Besides, with UT on board other schools might have been invited since then to bridge them in.
“Rumor has it that the B1G turned down OUT before they went to the SEC.”
Rumor says a lot of things. Without a source, it’s BS.
“I think it’s a little different with a TV deal that has 3 specific and exclusive broadcast partners and you’re going up against the SEC on ABC’s 3 slots.”
The TV deal is already signed. How will changing scheduling now impact it? And why would CBS and NBC care more than Disney did back when they had half of the B10’s rights? The B10 went up against the SEC then, too.
“I also think this schedule isn’t explicitly parity based (it’s just a beneficial side effect)”
That’s exactly what you and others have described – having more big names and better teams playing each other. That’s what the parity-based scheduling system did.
“and also it should be less of a problem without divisions and with the expanded playoffs”
How does dropping divisions help? NE didn’t like being locked with OSU for 6 years. It didn’t matter that it was a cross-over game and not a division game.
I get that 1 loss means less with the expanded CFP, but that doesn’t mean most schools want to face a tougher schedule than their competition does. That may work out for OSU, but an extra loss for WI/MSU/etc. could easily be the difference in their postseason destination. And that extra loss also could mean playing a road CFP game rather than hosting or getting a bye.
” – plus I’d wager everything it was Michigan that complained the most about parity based scheduling since they (and PSU) were most heavily punished by it in Leaders/Legends, and then also in East/West since 10-2 is NY6 by 9-3 is Citrus Bowl; also Iowa probably complained because Barta whines about everything.”
https://nebraska.rivals.com/news/moos-talks-future-of-black-friday-games-and-big-ten-scheduling-philosophies
Actually Nebraska was the loudest voice, as I recall. MI had other issues during that period.
“We might have some other schedule news here in a week or so in regards to 2022, on,” Moos said. “It was something I really became a bulldog on in regards to Nebraska and some of the traditional power programs in the Big Ten not beating each other up so bad. Because in my opinion the strength of schedule really hasn’t had much impact on who’s being selected for the College Football Playoff. We are in the process of addressing that to hopefully mine another satisfaction.”
And Moos is not saying Big Ten teams should back down from non-conference scheduling.
He feels the league needs to evaluate their approach and look at what’s best for the long-term health of the conference.
“First of all, we play nine conference games,” Moos said. “Six in the division, and then the crossovers. Like I said, in recent years those crossovers have pitted the powerhouses against each other on a consistent basis. …
“I should clarify, it’s not specific to maximizing rating for the LA schools, just maximizing ratings in the 4 years after they arrive.”
I think the B10’s focus will be integrating them into the B10, and showcasing them in games against the big brands is part of that. Fans in LA know OSU, MI, PSU, etc. Those games will help sell season tickets and ease the loss of their usual foes. It’s the same reason PSU needs to be locked with RU and UMD, no matter how much PSU dislikes it.
“Yeah I agree and initially didn’t lock RU/UMD. It just kept ending up as a de facto lock because they are a zipper pair and also it seems like it should be a rivalry 50 years from now when both teams aren’t getting pummeled in the B1G East every year. I figure I could have not locked it but I don’t see a scenario where that’s not scheduled every year so figured meh, might as well.
NE-MN was the pair that I couldn’t decide what to do with. I think Nebraska would prefer playing more national games against UCLA and PSU than playing MN. And I think MN would like more games vs Michigan. So ultimately I wouldn’t lock it but I’d wager that NE-MN is a common flex pair.”
Well, I locked them with UCLA so they’d still get some of that. On paper, NE would rather play PSU more. But only after they start winning 9+ games a year again. For now, I bet they’d rather take their chances with MN.
Overall, our lists had most of the same locks. Reasonable people will disagree on the edges, and the B10 will doing something slightly different from either of our lists.
“Eh, it’s one home game every 4 years they are missing out on, and I’d wager they come out ahead from playing a 50/50 game with UIUC or NU instead of taking the near 100% guaranteed L from PSU.”
They can’t sell tickets as is. Taking away PSU games hurts them and reduces fan interest even more. A winnable game against IL isn’t a viable substitute for them.
“I think the money works out better to have PSU have 4 games to play against other big names instead of RU/UMD – simply because I’d assume that’s 15k tickets at $100/pop (PSU @ RU/UMD) once every 4 years so that’s like $1.5M incremental for each of those two schools but that works out to only $375k/yr.”
I still don’t see the money increase from having PSU not locked with them. The TV deal isn’t changing value either way. PSU sells out at home either way. The other big brands can play the western schools more so PSU can appease the eastern fans that one extra time. It’s not just ticket sales, either. It’s fan morale, donations, merchandise, concessions, parking, local restaurants and hotels, taxes, …
[preserving rivalries and neighbor games]
“I agree with you however I think the B1G crossed the Rubicon on that when it invited RU/UMD, then burned the bridge when adding USC/UCLA. The Little Brown Jug (UM MN), the Brass Spittoon (MSU IU), the Illibuck (OH UIUC), heck even the new George Jewitt trophy (UM NU) are just casualties here. If this was important to the B1G, then the 6-yr cross division locks from 2014 to 2019 would have been trophy games instead of UM/UW, OSU/NE, MSU/MN, etc, and like UM/MN and MSU/UW were RIGHT THERE and they didn’t go with that. So basically history now shows us these secondary rivalries/neighbors games are nice to haves but aren’t a priority, so I’m going to presume TV ratings trumps.”
But they did listen to MSU about playing NW, and some of these minor rivalries were kept in division. You can’t keep them all, and many of them haven’t been annual for a long time. Except in 1983-84, the B10 hasn’t played a round robin schedule. But when given an easy chance to keep more of them under 3-6-6, why not? Many of them have the lesser programs playing each other more, which let’s the big brands play each other more. Isn’t that what your goal was? By not locking games like IL/PU, you give them more games against the big brands.
“Yeah that’s a good point on MN/MSU. I think MI/USC draws more views than MI/UCLA, but I thought that MI/UCLA + USC/UW draws more total views than MI/USC + UCLA/UW. But hey, let’s make USC play both MI and OSU in all of their first 4 years (and also ND), that is must see TV and probably more in line with what I’m expecting from the B1G here. ”
That’s exactly what my plan was. UCLA gets NE and WI so they have big brands, but the games are more winnable.
“I think my main point is that these pairings will be optimized for TV ratings and we won’t know exact pairings until fall 2023.”
I think they’ll do more of spreading games around the schedule to appease TV than adjust the frequency of scheduling. If you already lock a lot of big brand games, you don’t want to also rotate them through the other big brands too much. At some point everyone goes 9-3 and 8-4.
“Actually, lol, given how the zippers work these schedules are going to be awesome. Look at these conference + big OOC game schedules that are possible:”
Yes, at least on paper it looks like they should be very exciting. I wonder if the fans of the smaller programs also feel that way. Are they excited to have another king to play?
“The TV deal is signed with certain expectations from the TV partners.”
And that is largely based on past experience, and how the B10 normally schedules. They trust the B10 won’t screw them. That doesn’t mean they expect the B10 to crush their top teams with SOS.
“If the B1G schedules a pair of games that are projected at 4M total viewers combined (say PSU/UMD and USC/RU) instead of flipping the pair and getting 7M combined (PSU/USC and UMD/RU) then those TV partners are going to be very unhappy at the money they aren’t making, which will effect the next contract. ”
I don’t think it works on that micro-scale. You have to look at all 72 B10 games, and several years of schedules. They don’t expect USC to play OSU, MI, PSU, NE, WI, IA, MSU and UCLA every year with 1 rotating game for everyone else. They want enough good games to fill at least 3 slots each week.
“I don’t have the information to run all the scenarios, but it’s clear to me that if I can flip one set of matchups and create $15M more value for just that year (3M incremental viewers * $5/viewer) then we have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake with scheduling decisions and thus that’s what will happen.”
This assumes there aren’t other good games. What about the chance for non-USC schools to get some exposure for their big games while USC plays a lesser program? What about the other tough games USC is already scheduled to play?
No conference has ever been forced by TV to try to have all their top brands play each other annually. The networks understand there has to be a balance. The B10 playing 9 games gives them a lot of what they want.
LikeLike
We’re saying like 99% the same stuff which is nice and means we’re pretty much in agreement. It’s fun to pick around the edges though so I do have a couple thoughts:
The B10 has played played some terrible teams OOC for decades. TV didn’t drive that, the demand for 7 home games did.
Yeah but TV makes it so much worse. I remember attending those noon games in the early 00’s and they were snoozers that ended by 3pm. Personally I’d trade 2 snoozer buy games (1 per year) for a H&H that matters. I’d happily pay more than double the ticket price for the 1 game than 2 boring beatdowns. The restaurants and hotels in the area will be fine with one less game every 2 years, I worked in hospitality, those surges on game days just end up in the owner’s pockets and a little bit more tipped cash goes to the service staff.
Plenty of fans are complaining already, like you. That’s why you avoid unnecessary aggravations.
I don’t think fans complaining about playing better games or playing more winnable games is really anything that moves the needle. If anything it’s going to increase their consumption of the product, which is good, vs my complaints about a horrid experience watching live or on TV, which is bad.
Fans and the schools complained last time the B10 tried it. Bigger games are great for the other teams, but unfair when it’s your team forced to play them just for TV money. And easier SOS for teams that end of doing well is decried as favoritism that got someone to a CCG.
I watch my team smash Rutgers out of obligation, I’d prefer they play another top team so there’s some stake in the game. It seems hollow to complain about playing 1 extra game against a King instead of a Prince because it hurts your win total. I’m kind of not worried about someone sneaking into the CCG because they had an easier schedule. It’s just something sore losers say – besides if the argument is that you got jumped for 2nd in the B1G because that team played an easier game, congrats you’re probably 10-2 and going to the CFP anyway, possibly ahead of the 2nd place team which is going to lose the B1GCG anyway.
You mean like keeping RU and UMD and PSU’s eastern alumni happy at the expense of them being locked with MSU, a game neither side cares about all that much?
I’ll take your word for it, but are RU and UMD alumni going to grumble about getting a 2 yr break from their annual 30 point beat down by Penn State? I’ve never met a PSU fan that cares at all about either of those teams and mostly are just annoyed at them.
No. Just no. That was true in the Big 2 Little 8 years, but not in the CFB CCG era.
From 1993-2004, OSU and/or MI were the only champs just twice.
93 – OSU/UW split the title. OSU wins outright if they beat UM. UW and OSU tied in their game against each other.
94 – PSU at 8-0
95 – NU at 8-0. NU beat Michigan, Michigan beat 7-1 OSU.
96 – NU/OSU split the title at 7-1. NU beat UM, Michigan beat 7-1 OSU.
97 – Michigan 8-0
98 – UM/OSU/UW all 7-1. OSU beat Michigan, Michigan beat Wisconsin.
99 – UW 7-1
00 – UM/NU/Purdue all 6-2
01 – UIUC 7-1. 6-2 Michigan lost to OSU and therefore a share of the title (UM beat UIUC…also also this was the Clockgate season).
02 – Iowa/OSU split at 8-0.
03 – Michigan 7-1. Beat 6-2 OSU for the title.
Looks like 98 and 03 were the only outright game where either winner would be the B1G champ. But I see a lot of games where OSU/UM changed the champ or co-champ. Also OSU has 4 co-champs in this period and UM has 2 outright and 2 co-champs.
Also 04 Michigan lost an outright title due to a loss to the buckeyes and in 05 Ohio beat Michigan to share with PSU, and in 06 and 07 were games where the winner is the outright champ. I think that’s 3 years from 93 to 07 where the OSU/UM game didn’t determine at least a share of the B1G title. You’re right that’s it not exactly a de facto CCG, but it’s pretttaaayyyy close.
[All the comments about parity scheduling/tough games]
The Nebraska thing cracks me up. I don’t even get what Moos is complaining about, here’s Nebraska’s B1G records in the preceding 5 years:
2013 5-3 + OOC loss to UCLA
2014 5-3 + OOC win over Miami (didn’t play OSU or UM)
2015 3-5 + OOC losses to BYU and Miami (didn’t play OSU or UM or PSU)
2016 6-3 + OOC win over Oregon (didn’t play UM or PSU)
2017 3-6 + OOC losses to Oregon and Northern Illinois (didn’t play UM)
You could say hey, what about their 7-1 season in 2012 and I’ll chuckle because they lost OOC to UCLA and they only won the division because Denard Robinson got hurt and then 4-4 UW obliterated them 70-31 in the CCG.
Also the B1G had CFP reps in 2014, 2015, and 2016, so that’s 3 of 4. There wasn’t one in 2017 because 12-0 UW lost to 10-2 OSU. Is Moos making this entire whine because in 2017 OSU didn’t make the CFB because they scheduled Oklahoma and lost to them at home before getting embarrassed against Iowa later in the year? Please, someone explain to me what he heck Moos is whining about here because I cannot make heads or tails of it.
[Lots of stuff about PSU/RU/UMD]
Look, I just don’t get this. You point out RU/UMD cannot sell tickets as is. I’d argue that’s because they have at least 4 guaranteed losses on their schedule in OSU/UM/PSU/MSU. But I also don’t get at all how their fans are jazzed to pay to watch PSU kill them instead of a winnable game against IL. Like, is the argument that RU/UMD fans buy their season tickets to enjoy getting smoked by PSU? That PSU fans buy season tickets on the years they play in RU/UMD? Help me understand this I feel like only Nebraska fans have a reputation for selling out year after year to get punched in the dong repeatedly for 4 hours at home every Saturday.
[preserving rivalries and neighbor games]
I think we’re saying the same thing. All things equal, MSU/MN and MSU/NU have the same ratings (as you point out), so that can happen with flex games if NU is agreeable to play MSU more instead of whoever else. But I presume that given the choice (which is what fewer locks does) if you can create 2 games of a spicy TV matchup instead of a minor rival boost (they still play 2 out of 4 years) I think TV wins.
I like that we’re on the same page basically though. I think the only difference we really have is that I think the B1G schedules more games between top programs than you do and that I think the B1G can muzzle the complains with the 2x every 4 years zipper model for all schools whereas the 2x every 6 years was far more untenable.
LikeLike
Scout,
“We’re saying like 99% the same stuff which is nice and means we’re pretty much in agreement. It’s fun to pick around the edges though so I do have a couple thoughts:”
Agreed. The mandatory locks are pretty obvious, and the TV-friendly games are too. We may get there in different ways, but I think all of the various ideas end up fairly similar in the end.
“Yeah but TV makes it so much worse. I remember attending those noon games in the early 00’s and they were snoozers that ended by 3pm.”
Yes, the TV timeouts are killers. And that only has gotten worse. But a lot of it is the increase in the passing game, so we shouldn’t put all the blame on TV. 3 yards and a cloud of dust runs more clock. Fans want their schools to get paid more, the extra timeouts are the part of that cost.
“Personally I’d trade 2 snoozer buy games (1 per year) for a H&H that matters.”
I wouldn’t, because the current system rewards a better record over SOS. Before the BCS, the B10 played more big OOC games. But once you had to be perfect, teams cut back to 1 good OOC game. With 9 B10 games, they are already running more risks. In the past, the goal was just to win the B10 so OOC games couldn’t really hurt you.
Also, ADs need the 7th home game. Local businesses need that revenue, too.
“The restaurants and hotels in the area will be fine with one less game every 2 years, I worked in hospitality, those surges on game days just end up in the owner’s pockets and a little bit more tipped cash goes to the service staff.”
It depends on the location. Some of these businesses literally live or die based on CFB weekends. Part of that’s a bad business model, but the school also makes more money from the 7th game (tickets, concessions, merchandise, parking, donations). Where is the upside to the AD for giving that away?
“I don’t think fans complaining about playing better games or playing more winnable games is really anything that moves the needle.”
Fans complaining about anything doesn’t move the needle. Nobody listens to us.
“If anything it’s going to increase their consumption of the product, which is good, vs my complaints about a horrid experience watching live or on TV, which is bad.”
Does it increase total consumption? And if so, do the ADs care? They sell fewer tickets if they give up 2 sell outs for 1. The TV payout stays as written in the contract even if the viewers increase. And what is the consequence of more losses? It diminishes the rest of the season. The SEC gets the best viewership with 8 SEC games, 1 P5 OOC game, and 3 buy games.
“I watch my team smash Rutgers out of obligation, I’d prefer they play another top team so there’s some stake in the game.”
Would the coach prefer that? I’m guessing he thinks OSU, MI, and MSU are challenging enough that they deserve some RU/UMD/IN games as compensation. This isn’t the NFL. Eventually RU won’t be complete garbage on the field, too.
“It seems hollow to complain about playing 1 extra game against a King instead of a Prince because it hurts your win total.”
It may be, but people that matter (ADs) did complain last time. They know there needs to be a balance. Fans want all big games all the time, and coaches want 12 cupcakes so they keep their job.
“I’m kind of not worried about someone sneaking into the CCG because they had an easier schedule. It’s just something sore losers say – besides if the argument is that you got jumped for 2nd in the B1G because that team played an easier game, congrats you’re probably 10-2 and going to the CFP anyway, possibly ahead of the 2nd place team which is going to lose the B1GCG anyway.”
When divisions go away, I agree it is much less likely. But people complained in the 11-team days when someone won the B10 but missed the other top teams. People complained in the 12-team and 14-team days about disparities in the crossover games.
3rd is decent, but at best it’s a road CFP game. 2nd and hosting a game sounds much better. I think the committee will try to continue the trend of not punishing CCG losers much, if at all, for a risk the other team didn’t have to face.
“I’ll take your word for it, but are RU and UMD alumni going to grumble about getting a 2 yr break from their annual 30 point beat down by Penn State? I’ve never met a PSU fan that cares at all about either of those teams and mostly are just annoyed at them.”
It’s not the alumni nearly as much as the ADs. They need to sell tickets, keep season ticket holders excited, get sponsors, etc. Nobody has ever claimed that anyone on the PSU side cares about these games beyond them being convenient road games for those living in NYC/NJ or near DC. But there are a lot of PSU fans/alumni on the coast they may not easily make it to State College, but can make it to the road game.
“Looks like 98 and 03 were the only outright game where either winner would be the B1G champ. But I see a lot of games where OSU/UM changed the champ or co-champ. Also OSU has 4 co-champs in this period and UM has 2 outright and 2 co-champs.”
I’m not denying The Game has often been important to the title race, but it’s unfair to the other teams that were in the running to say The Game was the de facto CCG.
“You’re right that’s it not exactly a de facto CCG, but it’s pretttaaayyyy close.”
Agreed. But as an OSU fan, I don’t want to be the guy that arrogantly ignores what others have done. OSU has enough true success to not need to inflate its importance.
“The Nebraska thing cracks me up. I don’t even get what Moos is complaining about, here’s Nebraska’s B1G records in the preceding 5 years:
…
Please, someone explain to me what he heck Moos is whining about here because I cannot make heads or tails of it.”
He’s complaining about having OSU as their locked crossover game for 6 years under the parity-based scheduling plan (started in 2016, but ended early) when OSU was elite and NE was struggling anyway.
“Look, I just don’t get this. You point out RU/UMD cannot sell tickets as is. I’d argue that’s because they have at least 4 guaranteed losses on their schedule in OSU/UM/PSU/MSU.”
Getting blown out doesn’t help, but that’s going away already when divisions go away. We’re talking about locking 1 of them, not 4. But they also can’t sell tickets for games against IL, IN, and PU because nobody cares about those teams.
“But I also don’t get at all how their fans are jazzed to pay to watch PSU kill them instead of a winnable game against IL. Like, is the argument that RU/UMD fans buy their season tickets to enjoy getting smoked by PSU? That PSU fans buy season tickets on the years they play in RU/UMD?”
They buy tickets and sell the PSU game tickets to PSU fans. And some PSU fans will buy the season ticket for just that 1 game and try to sell the rest, because it’s cheaper than getting tickets to a PSU home game. OSU and MI fans do the same thing.
“Help me understand this I feel like only Nebraska fans have a reputation for selling out year after year to get punched in the dong repeatedly for 4 hours at home every Saturday.”
Well, IA fans keep showing up to watch that offense every year. Maybe it’s a corn thing.
“I think we’re saying the same thing.”
Similar things, at least.
“But I presume that given the choice (which is what fewer locks does) if you can create 2 games of a spicy TV matchup instead of a minor rival boost (they still play 2 out of 4 years) I think TV wins.”
I doubt TV will much care at that level of game, and I doubt the B10 would let them dictate the schedule for it. I think TV is more focused on the elite games (one reason to lock USC with OSU and MI for a few years), because there are too many variables for other games. How good is each team? What other games are that week? What are the national storylines? Even OSU/MI varies considerably in viewership from year to year. TV also cares more about how games are spread across the season, because that is controllable.
“I like that we’re on the same page basically though. I think the only difference we really have is that I think the B1G schedules more games between top programs than you do and that I think the B1G can muzzle the complains with the 2x every 4 years zipper model for all schools whereas the 2x every 6 years was far more untenable.”
I’m not even sure we differ that much on how many big games, so much as which games those will be and why/how they will be chosen. After all, any unlocked game is still played half the time so these are fairly minor differences. I do think they will use a 3-6-6 model, but some of those games will be chosen for big brands to play each other more. I also think certain lesser games will be locked for other reasons, but those also benefit the B10. And I do believe the 3-6-6 plan for 2024 will be modified after 4-10 years (once USC and UCLA are assimilated) even without expansion. Over time, RU and UMD will become less dependent on PSU for example. Getting out of divisions will help them a bit, and Schiano should get RU back to mediocre. That will help them tremendously.
LikeLike
Scout wins the message board, for this blog post. Sometimes simple is stupid; the 3-6-6 format leads to awkward and unnecessary forced “rivalries.” Scout’s “flex pairs” offer games that fans will want to watch and TV executives will want to program. However, the apparent money grab – “maximizing for TV” – will draw some ire. Running scared from fans who might get angry over unnecessary complications is not a good way to run a multi-billion dollar entity. But, a slightly different approach might muzzle the ignorami, especially if couched in noble and [still-]cherished[?] American values: liberty [for schools to choose their own protected rivalries] and meritocracy [where winners play winners]:
First, divide the schools into quartiles, annually, based upon recent on-field performance, and have each quartile play a round robin [3 games], over the course of each season. This will help to maximize marquee games, but in a way that is merit-based and dynamic. There are myriad ways to divide the schools. My preferences would be to use a weighted, 4-year time frame, and to use an advanced metric, such as Football Outsiders’ F+. Doing so would’ve yielded the following round robins, if this system was in place for the 2022 season:
(1) OSU, UW, UMich, PSU
(2) Iowa, UMinn, USC, UNL
(3) PU, MSU, UCLA, IU
(4) UMary, NU, UI’nois, RU.
This metric also allows a reasonable amount of movement between quartiles. [Note: For the knee-jerkers among us – not Jersey Bernie – I’m purposely not referring to this as promotion-and-relegation. Oops.] In the 11 most recent seasons, for which there is sufficient F+ data to calculate 4-year weighted-averages, the median number of schools switching quartiles would’ve been 4 [i.e. 2 teams promoted from one quartile to another; 2 relegated], the mode would’ve been 4, and the mean would’ve been 3.82, with a maximum of 8 [once, in 2014] and a minimum of 2 [four times]. Perhaps unsurprisingly, OSU would’ve remained in the upper-quartile throughout the past dozen years. Perhaps surprisingly, Bucky would’ve been right there with the Buckeyes, for the past 11 seasons, while Michigan and USC would’ve been the only other schools to never drop into the lower-quartiles, with Iowa (1 season in the 3rd-quartile), PSU (2), MSU (2), and UNL (5) spending some time down below. Conversely, Illinois (10 seasons in the bottom-quartile), RU (9), UMary (9), and PU (8) would’ve spent most of their past dozen seasons among the dregs. In other words, it’s dynamic, but not chaotic; choose a conservative metric, such as all-time CFB wins, if you want more elasticity, or a radical metric, such as the previous season’s conference win%, if you want more dynamism.
Second, allow schools to protect up to three rivalries [zero to 3 games]. Both schools would have to agree to enter into a protected rivalry, and schools could cancel or create protected rivalries, prior to each season. Thus, some schools may have three protected rivalries (i.e. Iowa), while others may have zero (UMary? RU?). Of course, some protected rivalries will be fulfilled through the round robin, as described above, in which case most teams will likely have less than 6 games on their schedule, after this step.
Third, have each school play at least one school from each of the other three quartiles [3 to 6 games]. These inter-quartile matches will ensure a degree of competitive balance, with individual matches selected with an emphasis on visiting campuses that haven’t been visited recently.
Such a system could be scaled-up, in the event of additional expansion. For example, a 20-team league could still use quartiles, with 4 round robin games, up to 2 protected rivalries, and 3+ inter-quartile games: 4-[2]-[3]. A 24-team league would also work, but with only one protected rivalry…unless shifting to a 10-game conference schedule: 5-[2]-[3]!?!
LikeLike
You lock the 3 game round robin – okay. That locks the 6 worst possible games every year, but that’s your choice. It also means the lower programs get less access to the big brands that sell out their stadiums for them and get them better TV exposure. I’m not sure they want that.
Then it’s 0-3 rivalries, which require mutual agreement annually. If they’re rivalries, shouldn’t they last more than 1 year? So now everyone has 3-6 games.
Third, have each school play at least one school from each of the other three quartiles [3 to 6 games]. These inter-quartile matches will ensure a degree of competitive balance, with individual matches selected with an emphasis on visiting campuses that haven’t been visited recently.
Another one from each quartile, or they need at least 1 from each in the final schedule? If they have a locked rival in that quartile, is that sufficient?
Wouldn’t any sort of rotation among the remaining schools also guarantee some competitive balance? I ran the numbers above for my 3-6-6 set up.
In the long run, this seems like a lot of effort to end up with a very similar schedule to what a 3-6-6 would generate.
Games from my list above that your plan would also seem to lock:
RU – UMD, PSU?
UMD – RU, PSU?
PSU – OSU, RU?, UMD?
OSU – MI, PSU,
MI – OSU, MSU,
MSU – MI, IN, NW?
IN – PU, MSU, IL?
PU – IN, IL?,
IL – NW, PU?, IN?
NW – IL, RU, MSU?
WI – MN, IA,
MN – WI, IA, NE
IA – NE, WI, MN
NE – IA, MN,
UCLA – USC,
USC – UCLA,
? are for potential locked rivalries. Not all of them would be kept.
That’s about 2 per school vs my 3, but some of that is dependent on the quartiles. And the differing games would happen 50% of the time in my plan. So in the end, don’t you get about the same schedule?
You could take just your second step above and have a much simpler plan, and one which others have proposed (like Marc). I’m not convinced locking all the quartile games is a net benefit. And I really doubt the B10 would lock UCLA vs both IN and PU when they join the B10.
LikeLike
Maybe I wasn’t clear. The quartiles are not locked. They’re dynamic, based upon recent on-field performance. The only games that are locked are those that two consenting schools agree to lock. Presumably, schools won’t decouple, annually. But, it’s a free country. So, to clarify, what’s your objection?
LikeLike
No, I understand the quartiles aren’t locked long term. But they are locked for that year (to distinguish from the games scheduled against the pool of remaining teams).
My objection to 1-year rivalries? That’s not a rivalry, and it isn’t even a home and home. If a game is important enough to lock in, then it should be that important for multiple years. If it isn’t a game they want for 10 straight years, then don’t lock it at all.
Other objections:
* Quartiles based on advanced metrics. Few people have heard of those stats, and even fewer understand them. Most fans distrust advanced stats and think they are biased against their team.
* Changing quartiles (and thus opponents) annually. The scheduling default should be home and homes, or every other year, not random 1 offs as some stat dictates. It could be really bad for a team like NW which tends to yo-yo in performance.
* It’s fundamentally the same concept as the parity-based scheduling that multiple schools pushed back against just 4 years ago. We should learn from history and have better reasons for scheduling those games.
* It’s s college conference. The goal should be to play everyone frequently and close to equally, but with more important games (rivalries) being annual.
* It seems like an unnecessarily complicated method to achieve essentially the same end result as a simple 3-6-6 plan. What is the upside?
LikeLike
Think of locked rivals as a marriage. The 3-6-6 format that seems to be the consensus around here inevitably leads to arranged marriages that no one really wants: “UMD – PU (good engineering schools? – it’s forced,” as Brian acknowledged. Similarly, Frank concludes, that, “Everyone wants 3 perfectly matched annual games, but that’s impossible for all members.” The latter point is correct; the former is not. I’m simply suggesting that schools should be able to marry whomever they want, and end those marriages whenever they want. Maybe RU and/or UMD doesn’t want to keep their long, storied, 12-game rivalry going. [They played 4 times, before joining the B1G, and 8 consecutive seasons since then.] Apparently, everyone around here would continue to bless that shotgun wedding–even Colin M and Scout, both of whom offer better options than 3-6-6. What if RU and/or UMD decides that ’til-death is too long? Admittedly, it may only be 10-years-to-life, if using Brian’s apparent minimum for a marriage–err, rivalry.
Calling one-off games “locked,” using Brian’s sleight of hand, is like calling a Tinder hook-up a marriage. Yes, “That’s not a rivalry, and it isn’t even a home and home.” You surely didn’t intend the pun; I surely did. A slight tweak could limit promotion-and-relegation – err, tier realignment – to a biennial exercise, to allow for home-and-home matches among the quartiles. But, that isn’t necessary and this is my zig; continue to zag, if that’s your bailiwick.
I will concede that a maximalist position on liberty and meritocracy would not include forcing schools into quartiles, even as a one-off scheduling mechanism. But, that road leads to dissolution of the B1G and independence for all, and not a very interesting comment board post. Instead, think of the quartiles as swinging foursomes. The top-tier round robin includes the two hottest couples in town; that’s premium content that people will pay to watch. The bottom-tier might get some doom-scrolling eyeballs. But, you’d want to maximize the former, if you’re making money off of this analogy.
Misc. pedantry:
–Yes, “locking” – and doom-scrolling – 6 of the worst possible games (i.e. a round robin, involving the bottom-quartile: currently UMary, NU, UI’nois, RU) is a natural outcome of “locking” 6 of the best possible games (i.e. a round robin, involving the top-quartile: OSU, UW, UMich, PSU). But, those bottom-quartile schools are incentivized to improve their standing, and they arguably have the resources to do so. They might climb the ladder and earn better TV exposure, if they find the next Barry Alvarez or P.J. Fleck.
–Brian included 10 question marks next to 5 “rivalries” that he apparently locks. I wouldn’t keep any of those, but it doesn’t matter what I would do, and that’s the point: Would RU and PSU both agree to a marriage? UMD and PSU? MSU and NW? IN and IL? PU and IL? That’s for those schools to decide.
–Using an advanced metric allows for comparing USC and UCLA to the B1G schools, retroactively. Pick a simpler metric, if it suits you or if you fear fans’ distrust; 4-year conference win% would probably work just fine, 4 years after USC and UCLA join.
–We agree that, “The goal should be to play everyone frequently and close to equally, but with more important games (rivalries) being annual.” My proposal does that better than 3-6-6, partly by replacing shotgun weddings with pigskin porn.
–What is the upside? Liberty. Meritocracy. We should learn from history.
LikeLike
Schools don’t join a conference to have liberty in scheduling. It’s the exact opposite, actually.
A meritocracy wouldn’t lock any games based on performance in prior years. Every year is a different team, with huge roster turnover. Giving better teams tougher schedules also goes against that philosophy.
Your plan just locks other “forced marriages,” it doesn’t eliminate them. I see no benefit.
As for RU and UMD, I honestly don’t care if they want to keep playing annually or not. Nobody else wants to play them either. They can always leave the B10 if they don’t like it.
LikeLike
Brian, that’s a desperate and pathetic rhetorical device. You took a factual tenet of my proposal – that no school would be forced to accept a protected rivalry; no forced marriages or shotgun weddings – and claimed the opposite to be true. As a long-time reader and occasional commenter on this blog, I return for the intelligent analysis and respectful commentary. You are capable of both, while remaining prolific and well-informed.
LikeLike
“You took a factual tenet of my proposal – that no school would be forced to accept a protected rivalry; no forced marriages or shotgun weddings – and claimed the opposite to be true.”
The opposite is true. You make the teams in each quartile play a round robin whether they want to or not. Those are forced marriages just as much as an imposed “rivalry” game is.
LikeLike
That’s absurd, Brian; now you’re just trolling. Or, maybe you have been this whole time, and the joke’s on me?!? By your tortured logic, the one-off games that the B1G apparently pulls out of a hat would be considered forced marriages, just as much as a locked, long-term “rivalry” is. Does Tinder have a random hook-up feature, similar to a blind date, but with benefits expected and commitments discouraged? If so, those games pulled from a hat would be that, with your arranged marriages being shotgun weddings. My quartiles have benefits, with no commitments. Figure it out.
LikeLike
Bro, I realize you’re hopped up on Adderall and procrastinating your stats or Matlab homework, but you’re talking about quartiles when the average american is so stupid they thought the quarter pounder was a bigger burger than A&W’s 1/3 pound burger.
https://bettermarketing.pub/the-a-w-third-pounder-failed-because-people-didnt-understand-fractions-a86b966a973a
LikeLike
My kids start enough of their sentences with “Bro” that I’ve learned to be dubious of what comes next. Still, I had to Google “Adderall” and “MATLAB,” to make sure that I wasn’t missing some deeper meaning. Regardless, and to your points, words matter and Bourbon may have been involved, when I typed that. I wouldn’t advise that Kevin Warren ever utter “quartiles,” when standing at a podium, but I was confident that this group wouldn’t get distracted by it. “Tiers” might work, if we think that “zipper” will fly.
LikeLike
“zipper will fly” – we see what you did there.
LikeLike
+1 to “Zipper will fly” I chuckled
LikeLike
Scout, your proposal is actually a form of relegation within the B1G that really could work. I have said that relegation to a different league in college football is impossible for several reasons. (Lower league is less money, loss of coaches, recruits, etc, and virtually no way back up).
Here the weaker teams “drop down” by playing more games against weaker teams, but still get their money and plenty of games among the top teams. If one of the weaker teams, eg Purdue, starts to consistently win 9 or 10 games a year, then their schedule improves, but at all times everything is still the B1G.
LikeLike
Bernie,
The B10 already tried that with parity-based scheduling. We dropped it because schools complained it was unfair. I’m not saying they can’t or won’t try it again, but it’s not unheard of for the B10.
LikeLike
For fun, and after floating promotion-and-relegation [shh!] by quartiles, the following would’ve been the annual quartiles, using 4-year weighted-F+, with the previous seasons weighted at 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% [and with promoted/relegated schools listed in brackets]. In other words, each quartile would’ve played a round robin, in a 3-[3]-[3] format:
2011
OSU, USC, UNL, PSU
Iowa, UW, MSU, UMich
UI’nois, UMary, UCLA, RU
PU, NU, UMinn, IU
2012
[UW+], USC, OSU, UNL
Iowa, MSU, [PSU-], UMich
UI’nois, UCLA, RU, [NU+]
PU, [UMary-], UMinn, IU
2013
UW, USC, OSU, UNL
UMich, MSU, PSU, Iowa
UCLA, NU, RU, [PU+]
[UI’nois-], UMary, UMinn, IU
2014
UW, OSU, USC, [MSU+]
UMich, [UNL-], [UCLA+], Iowa
[PSU-], NU, [UMinn+], [UMary+]
[RU-], UI’nois, IU, [PU-]
2015
OSU, UW, MSU, USC
UCLA, UNL, UMich, [PSU+]
[Iowa-], NU, UMinn, UMary
RU, IU, UI’nois, PU
2016
OSU, MSU, USC, UW
UCLA, UMich, UNL, [Iowa+]
[PSU-], UMinn, NU, [IU+]
[UMary-], UI’nois, RU, PU
2017
OSU, USC, [UMich+], UW
[MSU-], [PSU+], UCLA, Iowa
[UNL-], UMinn, NU, IU
UMary, UI’nois, RU, PU
2018
OSU, UW, UMich, [PSU+]
[USC-], MSU, Iowa, UCLA
NU, UNL, UMinn, IU
UMary, PU, UI’nois, RU
2019
OSU, UMich, PSU, UW
Iowa, USC, MSU, [NU+]
UMinn, IU, UNL, [UCLA-]
PU, UMary, UI’nois, RU
2020
OSU, PSU, UMich, UW
Iowa, USC, [UMinn+], MSU
IU, UNL, [NU-], [PU+]
[UCLA-], UMary, UI’nois, RU
2021
OSU, UW, PSU, [Iowa+]
[UMich-], USC, [IU+], UMinn
NU, [MSU-], PU, UNL
UCLA, UMary, UI’nois, RU
2022
OSU, UW, [UMich+], PSU
[Iowa-], UMinn, USC, [UNL+]
PU, MSU, [UCLA+], [IU-]
UMary, [NU-], UI’nois, RU
LikeLike
Last week’s inaugural Thursday Night Football drew 13.03m viewers, roughly comparable to last year’s Thursday night average of 12.84m per game. Subtracting the local OTA broadcast, the Amazon stream alone attracted 11.87m (according to Neilson).
I do not expect every game to do as well, but it was a good start.
LikeLike
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2022/09/amazon-thursday-night-football-ratings-impressive-debut-chargers-chiefs/
I said in the other thread that I think adding at least two teams (Stanford + Washington?) makes sense. Interested to follow this given the cbs article saying it is still on the table. With the impressive debut from Amazon, plus cross promotional abilities for a Friday and/or Saturday night game, I really think this makes tons of sense, assuming Amazon can sustain the ratings.
Amazon presumably overpays for the last available window. Reduced buy in, plus Amazon, plus the other benefits (expanded playoff payouts, B1G carriage fees, etc)–think this makes a lot of sense for the B1G.
The last window available that B1G can lock down forever, and Amazon will overpay for that. Exposure doesnt seem to be negatively impacted, and the demographics tilt younger.
LikeLike
Yes, but will Amazon overpay forever?
LikeLike
Richard: “Yes, but will Amazon overpay forever?”
I think that’s a more important point than people are acknowledging, at least in the hypothetical situation where Amazon’s overpaying is what drives the B10 to add more teams right now. Once the B10 needs Amazon to have 18-20 teams, Amazon has less incentive to keep overpaying.
LikeLike
I maintain the Big Ten will go whole hog on absorbing the West Coast by adding Washington, Oregon, Cal and Stanford for an even 20, and let Notre Dame become member #21 if it eventually so desires, possibly in the early 2030s. As Frank so often notes, think like a university president; omitting Cal’s elite academics and decent athletics from this equation merely to placate ND’s possible future desires would lead to all sorts of political turmoil. (witness the UC Regents and UCLA). And new media sources will come along that the B1G can financially take advantage of.
LikeLike
I maintain the Big Ten will go whole hog on absorbing the West Coast by adding Washington, Oregon, Cal and Stanford for an even 20….
The fact they have not done this already suggests that the numbers currently are not persuasive.
As Frank so often notes, think like a university president; omitting Cal’s elite academics and decent athletics from this equation merely to placate ND’s possible future desires would lead to all sorts of political turmoil. (witness the UC Regents and UCLA).
Despite the UC Regents political turmoil, nobody thinks that UCLA will actually be prevented from joining the Big Ten. A decade from now, most will not remember that the Regents raised a stink for a couple of months and then gave up. Expansion is forever. You don’t do it because a few minor politicians made an empty protest.
To my knowledge, no conference yet has expanded for academic reasons if the TV revenue wasn’t there. Nobody who has analyzed it has figured out a way to make four more West Coast schools financially accretive if ND does not join.
LikeLike
I suppose the one consideration is the Pac 4 coming at a reduced payout for a while. Slowly equalize them so they full shares in the next deal. That gives time for the expanded CFP numbers to be known.
I still don’t think it’s likely, but that’s the only path I see for it right now.
LikeLike
Reduced payouts are only a bridge to full payouts eventually. So if the conference invites those schools, they have to be sure they’d eventually come out ahead.
LikeLike
Interested to follow this given the cbs article saying it is still on the table.
The article said that Kevin Warren is pursuing it, but he has not persuaded the presidents yet.
I really think this makes tons of sense, assuming Amazon can sustain the ratings.
It probably makes sense to wait a few years and see if the enthusiasm for Thursday Night Football lasts. All we know is they have had one good game.
Exposure doesn’t seem to be negatively impacted, and the demographics tilt younger.
Exposure would be negatively impacted for sure, as it’s another service you are asking people to pay for, so that they can see the maybe one or at most two games per year that their team is on.
LikeLike
Yes, 2 is hard. 4 is impossible. And the original 14 (especially the original 10) would have little desire to fly their non-revenue sports to the West Coast more often and play other Original 10 schools less if the money isn’t there.
I personally wouldn’t mind adding the Bay Area school at all but it’s tough to see how to make the money work unless those schools manage to grow their fanbases a ton.
LikeLike
Is this an old article from a couple of weeks ago or recent, like yesterday? I’ve been looking for it but can’t find it.
LikeLike
It is possible that Colin M is both correct and wrong, when he predicts that, “No one else from the PAC nor B12 nor the ACC nor ND is joining the Big Ten between now and 2036.” That is probably the safe bet. But, ironically, it may be the wrong decision, because people in power are thinking like college presidents, when they should be thinking like CEOs. This is big business, and the B1G is in a position of power, with other conferences vulnerable. And, corporate inertia is typically a vice; not a virtue.
The B1G stands to gain, if there are fewer competitors the next time its television rights go to market. Kevin Warren’s job is to convince the presidents to think like a corporate board of directors, and not like a board of regents. They should collectively set a vision of what they want the B1G to look like, 15 years from now, and then empower the CEO to act on that vision. There is no apparent benefit in letting the PAC and BXII both survive until 2030, when B1G rights next go to market. The B1G should act now and take what is valuable, while positioning themselves for an ACC raid next decade, with the end result being one dominant, national conference; one regional conference that may be dominant at football; and one or two lesser conferences. This interim step would likely be fully subsidized by Amazon or Apple, along with good-faith negotiations with existing partners, if not ESPN-after-dark and/or new conference member buy-ins, so that existing B1G schools actually bring in more money. Then, leak the vision to the extent that ACC, ACC-adjacent [ND], and even SEC schools [Texas, Florida(!?!)] have a few years to think about what is in their best interests.
Could the B1G announce its 2036 membership, before closing on its next TV contracts, prior to 2030? If not, could it negotiate a short-term extension, through 2032 or 2033, for example, and then complete its expansion and negotiate its next deals before the SEC ever goes back on the open market? Regardless, we may have overlearned the think-like-a-president mantra, on this blog. Perhaps the subtitle, not-like-a-fan, was always more important, and we should think-like-a-CEO, going forward.
LikeLike
The problem with this is that if the B1G or SEC starts taking out competitors, eg, eliminating leagues by expansion, Congress is very likely to take a long hard look. In the last few years, politicians have had no problems meddling in college sports without a clue what they are doing.
The CA Bd of Regents is hyperventilating over UCLA. Rumors are around that the legislature in NC are making sure that NC and NC State do not get split, and there are many other such rumors.
If the Regents are upset now, what happens when no P5, 4, whatever wants Cal at all?
If Oregon and UWash are taken elsewhere, I can guarantee that the politicos in both states with be up in arms over the fates of ORState and WAState, though not much can be done.
Repeat that a few more times and there will be an uproar in DC.
College presidents do not view themselves as purely business people. There is an element of collegiality, which is not exactly a highly sought after trait when businesses buy out or destroy competitors.
In addition, at some points the original conference members will barely play each other. Go to 24 teams and how many original ten members will play each other once every three or four years.
There is no analogy to what Amazon, or Microsoft or others have done to wipe out competition by simply buying or destroying anything that might compete with or disrupt the system. I am not an anti-trust expert, but I do think that there should long ago have been actions to stop some of these expansions. I also think that there is small some movement in DC in that direction.
LikeLike
mstinebrink,
“But, ironically, it may be the wrong decision, because people in power are thinking like college presidents, when they should be thinking like CEOs. This is big business, and the B1G is in a position of power, with other conferences vulnerable. And, corporate inertia is typically a vice; not a virtue.”
They aren’t CEOs and shouldn’t be thinking like they are. They are university presidents and should think that way. Money isn’t the only thing that matters to their operations, it’s just really important. They aren’t NFL owners.
“Kevin Warren’s job is to convince the presidents to think like a corporate board of directors, and not like a board of regents.”
No, it isn’t. His job is to be the commissioner and listen to the presidents when they choose to give guidance for the B10’s direction. They run the B10, not him.
“They should collectively set a vision of what they want the B1G to look like, 15 years from now, and then empower the CEO to act on that vision.”
Why do you assume they haven’t? That vision will change every time a new president is hired, but it’s unlikely they don’t share their vision with Warren. Their vision may not match Warren’s. but that doesn’t make them wrong. He came in knowing nothing about college athletics or academia.
“This interim step would likely be fully subsidized by Amazon or Apple, along with good-faith negotiations with existing partners, if not ESPN-after-dark and/or new conference member buy-ins, so that existing B1G schools actually bring in more money.”
Or not. The B10 just talked with all the media companies, so they know exactly what value those companies see with expansion right now. And there is no promise the streamers would continue to pay for it, even if they would overpay now.
“Then, leak the vision to the extent that ACC, ACC-adjacent [ND], and even SEC schools [Texas, Florida(!?!)] have a few years to think about what is in their best interests.”
No SEC school is ever leaving the SEC for the B10 (or vice versa). I don’t know where people get these dreams from.
“Could the B1G announce its 2036 membership, before closing on its next TV contracts, prior to 2030?”
It’s doubtful they’d do it that far ahead. Those would be many awkward years for any schools that are moving. More likely would be 2033-34ish, just like this round.
“If not, could it negotiate a short-term extension, through 2032 or 2033, for example, and then complete its expansion and negotiate its next deals before the SEC ever goes back on the open market?”
I doubt it. I don’t think the networks want a deal that short. I’d guess the next deal would end in 2036 or so.
LikeLike
The B1G should act now and take what is valuable, while positioning themselves for an ACC raid next decade…
Many of us here have run the numbers and cannot see any further Pac or Big XII additions that make money, unless Notre Dame is included. Maybe the numbers presented here are incorrect, but you have not offered any rebuttal to them.
If these schools are not revenue positive, then perhaps the presidents are doing what good CEOs should do, and saying no to any further immediate growth, especially as the latest additions have not been digested yet.
Growth that loses money is not always a great strategy. Adding money-losing Pac schools now does not improve the Big Ten’s position for an ACC raid next decade. They can still do that when the time is right.
LikeLike
Here’s the math in favor of B1G taking four more Pac schools now.
The B1G’s new deal is approximately $1.3B per year for 16 schools or $81.25m per school per year. To add four more schools, new packages have to total $325m/year to break even.
Assuming NBC and CBS are tapped out with one spot each, that leaves FOX (noon & 3:30p) & FS1 (noon, 3:30p, primetime, and possibly After Dark). FOX is prohibited from showing a B1G game against CBS and NBC, and presumably FOX wouldn’t show a B1G on FS1 at noon. That leaves FOX with no windows for additional B1G games and FS1 filling up to three slots with B1G games. The BTN gets two or three games, so when conference play begins, there’s only one extra game to place.
Add four more PAC teams and that give the B1G two more conference games.
What if FOX moves their wrestling programming to Thursday and plays the B1G’s best West Wing game on Friday night? What if the other two games were sold Amazon or Apple?
FOX, CBS & NBC = B1G #1, #2, #3
FOX (Friday primetime) = B1G #4
Amazon/Apple = B1G #5 & #6
FS1 (3:30p) = B1G#7
FS1 (primetime) = B1G #8
BTN = B1G #9 & #10
Is Friday primetime on FOX worth $162.5m/year?
Are two decent games on a streaming service worth $162.5m/year?
FS1’s inventory gets devalued, so maybe FOX only pays $125m/year for the Friday primetime package. If the streaming service is willing to pay $200m/year for its two games, then the B1G breaks even by adding four PAC schools to its West Wing.
FOX only needs to offer another conference – likely the B12 – a two game package to only cover FS1 at noon and FOX at 3:30p, assuming FOX is not interested in having a Saturday primetime package.
LikeLike
The big problem is that the remaining Pac schools are marginal at best at drawing eyeballs. At $150mm for either 15 After Dark or 15 Friday night games, they need to average 2.5mm (or at the very least, 2mm) viewers/game. But no Pac After Dark game did in 2019 or 2021. I’m pretty certain no Friday night game did either (yes, they could improve the top packages as well, though likely not enough to make a difference).
Stanford is close and the B10 may add the Cardinal even at breakeven because of terrific ancillary qualities (same with Cal but they are nowhere near breakeven). But without ND, it’s tough to see how the money is there to add so many Pac schools. 2 is iffy. 4 seems impossible.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten really screwed the pooch when it guaranteed exclusive windows to FOX, CBS, and NBC. This is why we are talking about Friday night and after-dark games.
Now, maybe the nets are paying a little more for exclusivity, but they are not getting my patronage, just because a particular game is a Big Ten exclusive. They would be better off putting some of those games on ABC/ESPN, which is now precluded because of the deal they just did.
LikeLike
Marc: “I think the Big Ten really screwed the pooch when it guaranteed exclusive windows to FOX, CBS, and NBC.”
As a fan. I kinda feel the same way. However when you consider the long-term impact of the huge TV payouts to the Big Ten and the SEC, it’s going to elevate those 32 teams to a tier that will leave all other college football schools in our dust. That revenue, year after year after year, will outdistance the Big Ten and SEC from the rest of the pack in terms of facilities, coaching salaries, recruiting budgets and indirectly as cash works its way into NIL.
Purdue is alreadyplanning a stadium expansion. They are transforming their horseshoe into a complete oval at the end of this season.
The TV contracts are a blessing and a curse. I haven’t missed a Purdue game in years and the revenue guarantess that the Big Ten schools will forever be the Joneses. But TV dictating game times and channels is a bummer.
LikeLike
Marc, CBS and NBC seem to be paying up a fair amount for exclusivity. Either that or they feel the addition of USC will really boost the viewership of the B10’s 2nd and 3rd choice games, because the 4mm+ viewership average that it seems they are looking for (at $4/viewer) is an average that their collection of some 1st choice B10, some second choice, and many 3rd choice B10 games did not historical get.
In any case, the biggest problem is that the remaining Pac teams don’t draw enough eyeballs. Even in one of the best 3 slots, Pac games draw middling viewership.
LikeLike
Richard: “In any case, the biggest problem is that the remaining Pac teams don’t draw enough eyeballs. Even in one of the best 3 slots, Pac games draw middling viewership.”
We all know the Pac-12 network is badly broken business-wise and we also know that football interest west of the Pecos is nothing like the South and Midwest. What if Fox/BTN scooped in and bought the Pac Network media rights for chump change?
That would be a lifeline to the Pac Network, give them a reason to extablish a GOR to stop future deflections, and provide semi-premium content to Mountain Zone and Pacific Zone games. They would own the so-called Late Games in terms of both time and two far-west participants/audience. The BTN and Pac Network could have triple-headers and quadruple-headers every week with shared content. Pac N could do an early morning game with Rutgers-Mich St and the BTN late nighter could be Wash St-Utah.
The B1G could stake out the West without sharing the cash.
LikeLike
Colin, I’m not sure anybody wants the PTN. Running a network isn’t completely free and I’m not sure there is enough interest in it to justify taking it.
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, I’m not sure anybody wants the PTN. Running a network isn’t completely free and I’m not sure there is enough interest in it to justify taking it.”
I certainly agree with that comment but as I said, Fox/BTN should buy up the Pac Network rights for chump change. That would lock up the Mountain/Pacific time zones and invite PAC expansion to UNLV, BYU, AFA, Boise, SDS, whatever. They would capture the entire western TV audience for college football, which we all know isn’t awesome.
LikeLike
It appears that the muckedy-mucks at Amazon, the B1G, and schools currently in the PAC have been reading my posts again.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/pac-12-in-danger-of-eventual-collapse-as-big-ten-considers-further-expansion-big-12-interest-looms/
LikeLike
Unless some folks on this message board are playing coy, no one has “the numbers” to run – and the mathematical mind to run them – to show the net benefit of more PAC additions, even for the lifespan of the recent TV contracts. Beyond that timeframe, no one has definitive numbers, likely including those numbers and models that are not publicly available. This is the fog of business, in which big, consequential decisions have to be made. Thinking like a college president leads to inertia and missed opportunities. Otherwise, the B1G would already extend to Austin.
Perhaps this lesson has already been learned, and the B1G and SEC are already thinking like CEOs – or corporate boards of directors – and the wise move for the B1G is to take a pass on further PAC additions. For example, the recent coups of conference expansion – UT and OU to SEC; USC and UCLA to B1G – may be just as easily explained with a think-like-a-CEO mantra, as explained by our well-learned, think-like-a-president construct. And, it is possible that think-like-a-CEO better explains conference realignment moves, during the 21st century. But, my sense is that presidents still hold sufficient veto power. Further, they lack the humility to assume BoD roles, are generally not good at making big business decisions, may be hobbled by group-think, and lack the instincts that fit the moment. Anecdotally, Jon Wilner hypothesized, in one of the recent Canzano and Wilner podcasts, that the B1G presidents may not want PAC blood on their hands, when suggesting that he thinks that the B1G may not further raid the PAC. As a Midwestern transplant to California, who has since returned home, I don’t want the PAC to die, either. I’d choose to watch the sunset on the Rose Bowl, with a B1G-PAC match-up and log on the fire, on Jan 1, if I was only allowed to watch one college football game per year; there’d be no hesitation on that decision. But, businesses need to look to the future; not the past.
Rhetorically, how much more should the B1G expect to receive in its next TV contracts, if it has already announced its future 24-school membership, and with at least one fewer consolation prize for Disney, et al, than if it is a 16-team conference, with the PAC an BXII both still out there, and only the simmering possibility that the B1G could expand? It’s not all about money, it’s impossible to accurately predict the future, and the 24-team membership surely matters, but my hunch is that the B1G-24 would command a premium that would make our quibbles over whether Amazon/Apple/buy-ins would fully cover any PAC additions in the early-2020s seem petty.
Also, don’t shoot the messenger, lest this message board succumb to group-think, itself. Half-kidding; fire away.
LikeLike
Unless some folks on this message board are playing coy, no one has “the numbers” to run – and the mathematical mind to run them – to show the net benefit of more PAC additions, even for the lifespan of the recent TV contracts.
I believe Marc is referring to the school valuation numbers we have from people like Bob Thompson who did this for a living. Also other numbers like ratings, market sizes, etc. If someone who negotiated CFB deals for Fox tells you that the P12 schools aren’t additive, it makes sense to listen to him.
But, my sense is that presidents still hold sufficient veto power.
Shouldn’t they? They don’t work for the B10, they work for their schools.
Further, they lack the humility to assume BoD roles, are generally not good at making big business decisions, may be hobbled by group-think, and lack the instincts that fit the moment.
They are dealing with multi-billion dollar annual budgets. They make big business decisions regularly. I don’t think you’ve presented any evidence that they are generally bad at it. If they were, you’d think they’d get fired more often. It might be more fair to say that college athletics largely operate outside of their expertise.
But, businesses need to look to the future; not the past.
Universities aren’t just businesses. They have to work together in many other arenas, and the research money at stake in future collaborations (US gov’t pushes for multiple schools to work together for the big grants) may trump the athletics money.
Rhetorically, how much more should the B1G expect to receive in its next TV contracts, if it has already announced its future 24-school membership, and with at least one fewer consolation prize for Disney, et al, than if it is a 16-team conference, with the PAC an BXII both still out there, and only the simmering possibility that the B1G could expand?
We don’t know, but the B10 got some info on those sorts of things during these latest negotiations. The various networks informed them what certain additions might be worth. One potential constraint is that there are really only 3 valuable TV windows, with 2 lesser windows (F night and late Sat.). We really don’t know about the value of the B12 and P12 since they are negotiating now. It’s already B10 vs SEC in all the TV windows anyway.
Is the competition an SEC16 or SEC24? How much are the networks and streamers looking to invest in CFB by then? How has the sports rights market changed by then?
If the goal is maximize leverage, the B10 and SEC negotiating together would seem like the correct approach. That would be essentially all of the valuable games.
I think this is the basic answer:
it’s impossible to accurately predict the future
LikeLike
Amazon outperforming expectations, with its Thursday night NFL games, would also seem to strengthen B1G CEO Warren’s hand, if trying to convince his presidents to support more PAC additions. The Marchand and Ourand Sports Media Podcast includes George Kliavkoff and Brett Yormark among its “Who’s up” segment, “based solely on the first two weeks of Amazon’s Thursday Night Football schedule”–13mm in Week One and 11mm in Week Two, versus that podcast’s preseason projected over/under of 7.5mm/week for the season average. This is certainly good news for the PAC, if it encourages ESPN and/or FOX to increase their bids to block Amazon, but only if the B1G stays at 16. Otherwise, it may prove fatal, if the B1G thinks like a CEO, invites more PAC schools, and goes looking for an additional TV partner.
Also, Marchand’s closing statement on their PAC rights discussion was money: “If I want to stabilize the PAC-12, if I were them, I would not be too greedy.”
LikeLike
At the risk of a heapin’-helpin’ of crow-emoji, I have declared with Indesputable! Irrefutable! certainty that Washington and Oregon WILL be admitted to the B1G (at a bargain price) BEFORE signing any sort of PAC grant of rights. Yes, brothers & brothers, I said OREGON!! the scoffed-at-scourge of the Frank the Tank set (and only bonfire brand of the bunch). Match-ups are all that matter, and the Ducks are good TV. I also believe my beloved Cardinal will be invited, coupled with a yet-to-be determined suitor: the noble Ashley Wilkes (UNC) the Roguish Rhett Butler (Miami), the insufferable Scarlett herself (ND) or the ethereal Melanie (Cal). I tend to think Warren already knows the direction the ACC targets are leaning.
LikeLike
*bona fide brand
LikeLike
You are certainly excited. Is there any factual basis for this excitement?
If the CA Bd of Regents blocks UCLA, I could see the B1G taking Stanford and then maybe also WA and OR, or only Stanford. That could leave the two U Calfornia schools hoping for an invite together from the B1g 12 or leaves them trying to maintain a league with WaState and OrState. It would be amusing to see how the Bd of Regents would explain the last fiasco.
I would hope that the B1G would never take Cal because of pressure from the Bd of Regents.
Other than that scenario, why are you excited now?
LikeLike
Although I do believe W/O will end up in the B1G, I’m not ‘excited’ at all; just having fun at the expense of the outrage brigade who can’t abide an opinion that differs from their own. That Board of Regents isn’t blocking anything.
LikeLike
Well, the P12 is mid-negotiations now so we shall soon find out. Or do you anticipate no GoR for the P12 in their new deal?
I don’t think the money and TV windows make sense for adding them at this point, but anything could happen. I don’t see how Stanford + Cal makes much sense for the B10 (just Stanford maybe), but UNC and Miami are stuck in purgatory for a while and ND isn’t joining any conference.
I will dispute your claim that UO is the only real brand in that bunch. UW has more history and draws similar viewers. UO’s brand has faded since the Kelly era as they’ve been losing more, and more schools wear alternate uniforms.
LikeLike
Endeavor: “I have declared with Indesputable! Irrefutable! certainty that Washington and Oregon WILL be admitted to the B1G (at a bargain price) BEFORE signing any sort of PAC grant of rights.”
I was branded as a “troll” for a less radical statement than that one.
LikeLike
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article264799339.html
““Had a long call with Jim Delany tonight,” Cunningham wrote in his text to Guskiewicz, referencing the former Big Ten commissioner who led that conference from 1989 through 2020. “He preaches patience and planning. No need to rush right now.””
“One of the talking points, as Cunningham described it: “Should we explore a partnership with the Big 12 or Pac 12(?)” Guskiewicz was intrigued: “We could have a super conference both athletically and academically,” he responded. “Probably would need to be called the Atlantic-Pacific Athletic Conference (APAC). Maybe that’s crazy, but if it would get us a better TV deal, it may be worth considering.” “We need to think about what outcomes we want?” Cunningham wrote back. “What are our priorities? Do we want to maintain all teams in the ACC? Is this a new league? Do we want to have the same number of teams at each school? “Should we play a national schedule or regional schedule?””
NC paper got a bunch of text messages via FOIA requests. Nothing really earth shattering, but kind of interesting that it makes clear Delany was talking with UNC this summer in some capacity.
LikeLike
In advance, yes I realize the Presidents decide. Yes I realize ‘indisputable’ has an ‘i’ 😊, and yes I know the precarious nature of Oregon’s AAU status. It’s still happening.
LikeLike
Ha!
Indeed UW and UO, added to USC and UCLA, flips the athletic competition and eyeballs equation.
I keep wondering if there are enough media demand dollars today to make it happen now. The per school payout estimates are already huge and it appears ND is the only one by itself capable of drawing such new $ today as well as come 2030s time. Each BIG school will expect at a minimum what they received in prior contract years.
LikeLike
The top ACC football programs (FSU, Clemson, and probably likely Miami) also draw enough eyeballs to merit addition.
But no one else in the PAC or B12, really.
For the B10 to take 2 PAC schools, they would have to be able to convince someone to pay $150mm for an After Dark package (say of 15 games). At $4/viewer, that’s an average of 2.5mm viewers. At $5/viewer, that’s 2mm viewers, and note that even the NFL isn’t getting $5/viewer.
The big problem is that in 2021, a total of a big fat zero of the 21 After Dark (10PM or later) games hosted by the PAC drew even 2mm viewers. In 2019, it was 0/19. UW-Stanford drew 1.88mm.
LikeLike
I don’t expect the B10 to take two more schools in this cycle, but for argument’s sake I think they have a couple more levers. Their existing deals can be re-opened for more money if the conference composition changes. Also, BTN revenue would go up because they would get carriage in new markets. Maybe playoff revenue too, depending on how that is calculated.
Not saying this will happen, but if we imagine it did, the After Dark package would not have to pay full freight.
LikeLike
The big problem is that none of the remaining schools in the PAC or B12 are slam dunk ratings draws. The 1 borderline program (Oregon) has zero other qualities that recommend it (its a borderline AAU uni in a small state with few B10 grads and little in the way of recruiting grounds and doesn’t even have traveling fans to buy tickets like UNL does). Miami is a similar TV draw but has a lot of compelling ancillary pluses. Stanford and Cal are terrific in all the ancillary aspects but don’t draw enough eyeballs (though Stanford might be close and would come in if ND does).
LikeLike
Marc,
I agree that the CFP revenue sharing might make it more possible in the future. Until that structure is set, you can’t count on it.
Fundamentally I think the problem is the lack of valuable CFB TV windows. The value on Saturday is limited to the 3 eastern windows. The late window is worth considerably less. The NFL has Thursday, Sunday and Monday. Friday’s are normally bad for TV. I don’t think Tuesday and Wednesday are being seriously considered at this point (doable with a bye before and after, I suppose).
What might be an option eventually is shortening CFB games so they fit in smaller windows. If games fit in 3 hour windows, you gain an additional window if you don’t have down time for local news and post-game/pre-game stuff. Shorter games might keep more viewers, helping to balance the loss of time per game. And it would make a blowout less damaging to the entire slate on a network. 11-2, 2-5, 5-8, 8-11 with the late night PT window as a 5th slot. Plus they can try overlapping games (have counter windows at 12, 3, 6, and 9 so there is always action). I just don’t know how much this might be worth – probably very little or they’d be trying it already.
LikeLike
What might be an option eventually is shortening CFB games so they fit in smaller windows.
They have tried a few ways of shortening the games, but they keep failing because the conferences make TV deals that add more commercial breaks. I am surprised they have not eliminated the clock stoppage after first downs, which could shorten the games considerably.
Replay has also made the games a lot longer, or at least the potential if there are a lot of reviews. Some people have suggested that if the replay official does not see overwhelming evidence within 30 seconds, the call on the field should stand. Or maybe go to the NFL model where coaches have a limited number of challenges per game, instead of the booth deciding what to review.
If games fit in 3 hour windows, you gain an additional window if you don’t have down time for local news and post-game/pre-game stuff.
I have always understood that the local news break is something the network affiliates insist on. (Not an issue, of course, for cable and streaming channels.)
LikeLike
Marc,
“They have tried a few ways of shortening the games, but they keep failing because the conferences make TV deals that add more commercial breaks. I am surprised they have not eliminated the clock stoppage after first downs, which could shorten the games considerably.”
I think the only thing that could work is a running clock like in soccer. Have 4 40-minute quarters with a 20 minute halftime, and you have 3 hours. Or use 30-minute quarters with stoppage time for injuries.
“I have always understood that the local news break is something the network affiliates insist on. (Not an issue, of course, for cable and streaming channels.)”
Yes, that’s my understanding as well. But maybe Saturday news is less important/valuable now than it used to be? Maybe they can make more money from showing CFB, and put news on an alternate digital channel? With games at the current length, there’s no reason not to have the break.
LikeLike
They just give a lower take for 6 of the 7 years and all the big 10 schools come out ahead in this cycle. So do Washington and Oregon. I think they do it for strategic reasons, expecting it to pay off in the long run. If it doesn’t, the dilution is still minimal (maybe 4%) and it won’t be noticed because the next contract will be even higher.
I think one thing that is clear is that Cal isn’t getting much interest. Since I think it likely Notre Dame sits this one out, the Big 10 is looking at Washington and either Oregon or Stanford. And I think its pretty likely Warren does find the votes to add 2. We should know before next August and probably much sooner.
LikeLike
They just give a lower take for 6 of the 7 years and all the big 10 schools come out ahead in this cycle. So do Washington and Oregon. I think they do it for strategic reasons, expecting it to pay off in the long run. If it doesn’t, the dilution is still minimal (maybe 4%) and it won’t be noticed because the next contract will be even higher.
The next contract is going up regardless, whether they add W & O or not. It needs to not only go up—but to go up at least 12.5% more than it otherwise would. Otherwise, the rest of the Big Ten is just feeding those two schools forever.
Nobody knows the exact numbers of a contract that is six years in the future, but those are the projections the Big Ten presidents would need to see, and with a healthy margin of safety, since you don’t expand to break even.
I think its pretty likely Warren does find the votes to add 2. We should know before next August and probably much sooner.
The Pac-12 is almost certainly going to have a new TV deal before then, so I cannot see this lasting anywhere near that long.
LikeLike
I’m pretty certain the current B10 schools have little desire to subsidize 2 new additions forever after the new deal ends but who knows?
Possibly for 2 Stanfords (great in all the ancillary aspects and pretty close in the TV money aspect) but there aren’t 2 Stanfords left in the Pac. Cal is also great in all the ancillary categories but terrible as a TV draw. UO is pretty close as a TV draw but terrible in all the ancillary aspects. UW is pretty good in the ancillary aspects, not terrible as a TV draw but not good either.
LikeLike
Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska and probably Wisconsin are subsidizing 9 schools forever. UW is probably less of a subsidy than any of those 9.
LikeLike
MSU is a strong brand on its own
IA is a strong brand and brings a small state
MN brings a state with a decent market in MSP – valuable for BTN and OTA
RU adds NJ and NYC – valuable for BTN and OTA
UMD adds MD and DC – valuable for BTN and OTA
IL and NW combine to bring a big state and Chicago – valuable for BTN and OTA
IN and PU brings hoops success and a medium state
There is some subsidizing going on, but that will always be true unless every school goes independent. And each school brings other forms of value (academic/research, etc.).
I agree UW would probably be in the upper half in terms of value. This is exactly why they should’ve been added with USC and UCLA if the B10 actually wanted them. That way the number doesn’t go up, then back down. Maybe at the start of the next deal, assuming the value will jump again.
LikeLike
Bullet, only OSU and UMich are really subsidizing a lot. The B10 average is pretty high. Yet PSU, UNL, Wisconsin, MSU, and Iowa are all above (or at least at) that median. Northwestern, UIUC, RU and UMD are being subsidized but also bring huge metros and a lot of population. That leaves only IU, PU, UMTC, and they’re all in decent-sized states and so actually draw good viewership when they are good.
However, as the bar has been raised, probably not both of IU/PU would be brought in to the B10 if they were not already inside. My point is that the B10 would have little reason to add 2 new schools from the Pac that draw as many eyeballs as IU and PU.
LikeLike
To build on my point, Bullet and Brian:
Iowa draws more eyeballs than any school left in the Pac:
View at Medium.com
IU outdraws all of the remaining Pac schools besides UW, UO, and Stanford.
That’s why none of them are slamdunks. If the B10 isn’t going to add another IU and Iowa is about the median (7th in the 14 school B10), that makes all of UW/UO/Stanford borderline and breakeven at best.
So the B10 _could_ potentially add 2 breakeven schools that aren’t additive and will increase travel for all the original 14, and maybe they would if there were 2 Stanfords (excellent ancillary qualities and close enough to breakeven) in the Pac, but there aren’t, so that makes further expansion (without ND or an ACC power or several) more unlikely than not.
LikeLike
No need to persuade me. I have never believed the numbers favor adding more P12 teams. If it had happened all at once I would understand, but not after signing the new TV deal.
I think people are underestimating the downside of expanding to 18 or more schools. The travel, the reduced frequency of playing traditional foes, the difficulty in keeping everyone on board for conference decisions.
You don’t do it to break even financially (or lose money with travel costs) unless there is a huge intangible gain for the conference. I don’t see that in this case. At best there are some minor gains for USC and UCLA by retaining familiar opponents that are closer to home.
Going to 18 for ND +1, sure. Maybe for 2 ACC schools for the southern access (recruiting, etc.). Otherwise, something structural needs to change for it to make sense.
LikeLike
If you made a subsidized list in 1992, Wisconsin was surely on it. Forever is a long time.
LikeLike
I certainly don’t pretend to be an expert on the history of Wisconsin football, but I don’t recall them being relevant to the national conversation pre-Alverez.
LikeLike
Alan,
WI was a laughingstock before Alvarez. Only having NW in the B10 kept them from being the worst B10 program. From 1964-1992, WI went 0.376 (#98). IN went 0.406 (#91). But NW went 0.235 (#112 and dead last in I-A), including their 34-game losing streak. WI only had 6 winning records in those 29 years.
LikeLike
Greg and Alan, note what I said:
IU, PU, and UMTC are all in decent-sized states and so actually draw good viewership when they are good. If they had runs of success like the Badgers have, I’m pretty certain their viewership numbers would be up there too. Same for UIUC. Maybe even Northwestern, RU, and UMD.
And what has to concern the B10 about adding any of UO/UW/Stanford is that while they have had recent success (a bunch of divisional and conference titles as well as playoff appearances by UW and UO), their TV numbers _aren’t_ as good as Wisconsin’s. In fact, their viewership numbers haven’t been as good as UNL and Iowa’s even though those schools are in small population states and neither have done as well recently as UO/UW/Stanford (Iowa’s been alright but UNL has been a trainwreck).
LikeLike
Greg, Alan, etc.:
To illustrate my point, let’s compare a couple rivalry games: In 2019, in a meeting of 2 princes that have won conference and divisional titles recently and made the playoffs, #12 UO vs #25 Washington drew 3.6mm viewers. Not very shabby.
But in 2021, unranked non-prince UMTC (that hasn’t won any title in a while) met 18th ranked Wisconsin and drew over 5mm viewers.
It seems that in B10 country, It Just Means More (at least, when compared to the West Coast).
LikeLike
Richard: “The top ACC football programs (FSU, Clemson, and probably likely Miami) also draw enough eyeballs to merit addition. But no one else in the PAC or B12, really.”
It’s amazing how this FTT forum fantasy self-perpetuates. No one else from the PAC nor B12 nor the ACC nor ND is joining the Big Ten between now and 2036.
LikeLike
Subscribe
LikeLike
The NY Times reports that George Kliavkoff wrote a 3-page letter to the California Board of Regents urging it to block UCLA’s move to the Big Ten.
The NYT says it has the letter, but it did not print the text; it mostly paraphrased. The story is behind a paywall, but here are the most relevant asserted facts:
— U.C.L.A. athletes would more than double their time spent in airplanes and increase by nearly half their time on buses traveling to the Central and Eastern time zones, which would affect their physical and mental health and hurt their academic performance
— with 70 percent of U.C.L.A.’s alumni on the West Coast…it would be more arduous and expensive for them — and athletes’ families — to attend away games
—much of the increased TV revenue…would be eaten up by increased salaries for coaches and administrators that would be required to remain competitive, and by the need to charter flights to ensure that softball players are treated the same as football players when they travel.
—U.C.L.A.’s travel costs, which are $8.1 million for its teams to travel in the Pac-12, would nearly triple — to $23.7 million — if all its flights were chartered
— If the regents instructed U.C.L.A. to remain in the Pac-12…it would offset more than half the damage done to Cal in the Pac-12’s impending media-rights deal
—increased travel contradicts the U.C. system’s objectives of helping to reverse climate change
Note that Kliavkoff says that much of the increased TV revenue would be eaten up by travel costs and salaries. He does not actually say that UCLA would lose money by moving, as he apparently said a few days ago.
He also says that if UCLA remained, it would offset “more than half the damage done to Cal.” But apparently he does not address the damage if a different Pac-12 school replaced UCLA in the Big Ten, as would very likely happen.
LikeLike
Stanford would be ecstatic to take UCLAs spot.
LikeLike
You know, Stanford actually isn’t a bad TV draw. Better than UCLA. Close to UO (playing ND helps).
In the ‘30’s, if the B10 can only get Miami from the ACC and ND still refuses to come, if Stanford football is still good, the Cardinal may be added with the Canes.
LikeLike
Stanford actually isn’t a bad TV draw. Better than UCLA.
I think USC and UCLA were presented as a package deal, which they were happy to take. But if someone told the Big Ten, “take any two West Coast schools you want,” I am not sure UCLA would have been the second one.
LikeLike
In the past year, after the Texas/Oklahoma move, when it was obvious the next reasonable option for the Big Ten to consider was USC, I pictured in my head that USC/Washington was the most compelling add. Could see Stanford as an alternative to Washington for certain reasons but would be confident that the Big Ten would get one of those two as an alternative to UCLA if the Reagents forced them to decline the invite.
But the point is that UCLA wasn’t the main point here, USC was. UCLA not joining the Big Ten doesn’t change much beyond making things more annoying for USC in particular by losing a local team they can bus to.
LikeLike
UCLA not joining the Big Ten doesn’t change much beyond making things more annoying for USC in particular by losing a local team they can bus to.
I think the Big Ten would plan road trips (aside from football) so that USC and UCLA teams could sometimes travel together — one of the rare cases where the oft-abused term “travel partner” actually means something. You don’t get that if the second team is Washington or Stanford.
I don’t know how much the two schools care about their football rivalry, but they would almost certainly have to give that up, since USC wants to keep playing Notre Dame.
LikeLike
The current situation does not need to change with B1G membership. That is USC schedules its last home game against Notre Dame and UCLA has its last home game against USC (those are in years USC-ND is in South Bend).
For UCLA, USC is the #1 rival, but it is a distance second to ND for USC. This is like MSU having Michigan as its top rival but being second to OSU for Michigan.
LikeLike
I think they would have been. Too much recency bias here.
Washington would have pushed them, but its still probably UCLA.
LikeLike
I think he put as negative an assumption in every calculation he could. He doesn’t know the B10’s scheduling plans, nor how UCLA would travel to various competitions. We already saw the analysis that many of their teams would barely be impacted at all.
Would it hurt their academic performance? Athletes traditionally outperform the regular student body, and they already have to travel more. Buses and airplanes have wifi. Students use online system for much of their work. They could study while they travel.
https://alumni.ucla.edu/affinity-partners/
As for the alumni, 80% of UCLA alumni live in CA with 60% in SoCal. I don’t see a huge impact there. They can travel to LA for games instead of SF for the 20% not in SoCal.
And he is slamming the P12 at the same time. Why should UCLA need more expensive coaches and administrators to compete in the B10 vs the P12? Is he openly saying they don’t compete as hard or at the same level as the B10?
Why would UCLA need to charter all flights? Airlines exist for a reason.
He’s guessing on the money, and ignores the damage done to UCLA by not going. And as you say, the damage done to both if USC and Stanford leave instead.
Every trip anyone at a UC makes contradicts reversing climate change. Has their faculty stopped attending conferences? Do all the administrators stay in LA 365 days a year and ride public transit to work? Airlines are moving toward green(er) fuels, and electrification. They could drive on green buses. Heck, the midwest is where the corn for their E85 comes from.
If this does work, how does Kliavkoff expect UCLA to feel about him and the conference afterward? They will be a prisoner. Having a member that unhappy is not a good strategy. They will find ways to get back at you.
I’m surprised the NYT didn’t post the letter online if they have it (I understand not printing it).
LikeLike
Click to access full.pdf
The full pdf is up now.
LikeLike
It’s hilarious to me that his argument is basically, “The PAC sucks and UCLA cannot go be more national competitive with more money, and also the UCLA administration that made this decision is stupid and cannot be trusted to look after their athletes health or welfare.” How in the world does he expect this to be a good thing for him, UCLA, or the PAC?
He also makes absurd emotional appeals to gender equity, “It would cost triple to charter all flights in the B1G so that the softball team is treated like the football team.” and climate change “More CO2 emissions are bad.” Which, no one expects the softball team to be treated like the football team and also they aren’t treated that way now so what are you going for here?
He also says that if UCLA remained, it would offset “more than half the damage done to Cal.”
Lol. Alternatively UCLA B1G money + Cal Pac12 money >> UCLA Pac 12 money + Cal Pac12 money. It’s a net gain for the UC system, if anything he’s arguing that UCLA should go and then subsidize Cal. Also, Cal damaged itself since nobody cares about them, not even their alumni, in football or basketball.
Finally, how stupid is Cal here? Do they not remember when UCONN sued BC? How’d that work out for UCONN in the long haul?
LikeLike
Finally, how stupid is Cal here? Do they not remember when UCONN sued BC? How’d that work out for UCONN in the long haul?
It is quite likely they don’t remember that, as the regents and administrators are not necessarily sports historians. (I am not sure the UConn–BC dispute is really analogous anyway.)
But yeah, I would expect a very toxic conference if Kliavkoff succeeds here. Maybe he is trying to send a shot across the bow of Washington and Oregon, which would also be leaving behind in-state sister schools if they move.
LikeLike
Many of you have followed this realignment carousel for far longer than I have.
Has there ever been a league commissioner come out and attack a school for moving in the way that Kliavkoff has?
While the UConn litigation may make it seem like something similar happened with the Big East, it did not.
When the Big East exploded that was very different than this. First the league offices were not attacking a school. Second the attacks came from other schools who felt stabbed in the back, particularly by Miami and BC.
The president of Miami, Donna Shalala, had given a major speech about how joining the BE saved Miami football. Miami had really fallen into a funk. Even worse than recent years. Joining the BE was the catalyst for the return to the glory years of Hurricane football. About a year later, Miami was gone with VaTech and the football league was on the way to being dissolved. The general opinion was that Shalala was a piece of garbage who could not be trusted and by the way, “what have you done for me lately?”.
BC had also pledged its loyalty to the Big East. Partially in reliance on the actions of if big rival, UConn spent a lot of money upgrading its football program. That is why CT Attorney General Blumenthal (now Senator) filed the ill fated action against BC.
No one in the BE actually objected to VaTech going to the ACC, since even though the league was losing a major team, it was pretty well acknowledged by Big East teams that the ACC was the proper home for VaTech.
Syracuse and Pitt were almost an afterthought, since with the other teams all gone, they were simply extra dominos and they fell when it became clear that the basketball schools were going to ignore football.
LikeLike
I don’t think any of us can recall a situation like this. There’s a couple of issues here that make it unprecedented including a sister school of a system leaving the flagship behind in a worse situation.
But this kind of broadside attack by a conference commissioner that a move was completely misguided is one we’ve never seen before.
And that too in an attempt to keep the school in the conference.
LikeLike
Has there ever been a league commissioner come out and attack a school for moving in the way that Kliavkoff has?
Definitely not, and I wonder how the other schools feel about that — given that they would gladly have taken the same deal if it were offered to them?
LikeLike
Even though I think it would never happen, just imagine the relationship afterwards. Every meeting–Any new business-yes UCLA–Fire the commissioner.
LikeLike
Bernie: “The general opinion was that Shalala was a piece of garbage who could not be trusted . . .”
Donna Shalala was a political operative who knew zero about college athletics. Before she was hired at Miami, she was the far-left Sec of HHS under Clinton. Before that, she was chancellor of U of Wisc. From Wikipedia:
“Under Shalala’s chancellorship and with her support, the university adopted a broad speech code subjecting students to disciplinary action for communications that were perceived as hate speech. That speech code was later found unconstitutional by a federal judge. ‘
LikeLike
Schools that get added have to be “additive” to the conference in the long-term, not just the next TV contract. Marc has been making this point above, but I want to restate it:
It’s never just about the next 7 years and making the numbers work financially for 7 years. Yes, 4 schools can take pay cuts for 7 years… but then what? Everyone takes a permanent reduction in distributions at some point? Because you’re not leaving any school at a permanent distribution discount. That may happen eventually regardless, but Northwestern/Purdue/Indiana/etc. are not going to bring that Trojan horse through the gates right now.
Even if cable goes away entirely, Maryland/Rutgers was a good addition for a variety of reasons: gets the Big Ten into two of the biggest markets on the East Coast (which is far more valuable than the West Coast due to the reality of how TV windows work and that 75% of the population is in the East/Central time zones) and all sorts of other reasons related to demographics/fit/location with the Big Ten’s 3 schools in the East being the most prominent in their states.
Saying that ‘sure Amazon will give us a 4th After Dark” window for $200 million a year for 7 years’ so we should take up to 4 more schools isn’t that compelling when you realize that there’s every possibility that Amazon can decide in the future to just drop the 4th window and only offer for the 3 main windows as they just did with the Big Ten in this recent negotiation.
The After Dark window is never going to be as valuable as the main 3 windows. And it is the one most at danger of losing its value at any given time. That also relates to streaming:
We just saw NFLX’s market valuation implode over the past year; that tells you what markets think about the value of the streaming business right now. Doesn’t mean markets are more right now than they were when NFLX was worth 3 times as much, but it’s worth noting that the bubble has collapsed in terms of valuing those companies as “forever growth” businesses.
The NFL producing terrific numbers on Amazon isn’t that compelling. There’s no competition for the NFL. There will be competition for the Pac-12 for their Saturday Amazon games.
There’s upside in terms of Amazon overpaying the Pac-12 but there’s also risk. The risk being that the viewership numbers are bad and everyone seeing that. 7 years later, disastrous ratings on Amazon will matter when it comes time to negotiate the next contract.
Finally, I just don’t see the value in adding 4 more schools right now.
If the UC regents stop UCLA’s move (which still seems extremely unlikely), just grab Washington or Stanford. USC/Washington might even be more valuable a duo than USC/UCLA though it’ll hurt USC a bit to lose that.
Nothing has changed: the next most valuable schools to the TV contracts are ND, FSU, Miami and Clemson. Washington and Oregon come after those and as we already have seen aren’t necessarily additive alone.
LikeLike
When it comes to the idea of an “after dark” window – just as a concept, forgetting about whether it’s really in play – I keep wondering why people talk about grabbing four more teams for that. I would think it would work just fine if the Big Ten were to grab just two more teams from the PAC-12 (presumably two of Washington, Oregon or Stanford). That would add ~14 addition games a year to the inventory which would be enough for 1 after dark game a week and you could sell off a few extra games in the BTN package if needed to make the numbers work (15 games sounds like a reasonable solid number). The after dark games would be coming from four teams at that point (USC/UCLA/two additional ones) which is enough to spread them around so no individual team gets stuck with too many of them. Maybe you could have a provision where some of the after dark could be at 9PM eastern and have some central teams be able to host say 1 a year if needed.
I just think adding two more teams makes this a conceivable endeavor (don’t expect it regardless) but 4 would be far too many mouths to feed.
LikeLike
Agreed 100%.
Just gets very hard to spread the money among 4 more if you’re not getting ND or some major ACC football brand as well.
2 more though can work as you suggest.
Wouldn’t he hard to imagine 14 extra home games and then a mix of 14 After Dark games out of the 28 home games of USC/UCLA + 2 more schools.
Adding 3 is probably the limit out west, as in ND + 3 from the Pac 12.
LikeLike
And do you really want to go beyond 20? If you aren’t committed to that, why go to 20 without Notre Dame? Washington and Oregon or Cal or Stanford would allow you to blanket the west coast. And with 4 west coast schools, you could do 8 “after dark” games with just 2 night games per school. You could do 12 if they were willing to do 3. Dilution with 2 is also pretty insignificant. With 4 it gets bigger.
LikeLike
Right, 2 more is possible for an After Dark window so a possibility. I think it’s impossible to break even while adding 4 more. But even 2 more Pac schools almost certainly wouldn’t be additive, so would the B10 add 2 more just to break even?
LikeLike
SideshowBob, I also agree 100% with your comments. I hope that the Big Ten invites Stanford and Washington for the reasons you mentioned, plus their academics and markets are great long-term assets for the conference.
LikeLike
Separate point to the above:
Since the Big Ten/Pac-12 relationship is basically dead after this USC/UCLA situation, why won’t the Big Ten just play hardball with the Rose Bowl situation in the expanded CFP.
Originally it was suggested that whichever champion was higher in the top 4 would take the Rose Bowl quarterfinal slot (if either was in the top 4 champions):
Why shouldn’t the Big Ten just say, we’ll take the Rose Bowl spot if our champion is in the top 4 regardless of what the Pac-12 champion is ranked. Pac-12 can take the slot if the Big Ten champion doesn’t get a bye.
Pretty sure the Rose Bowl is going to lean to the Big Ten’s wishes at this point.
LikeLike
They have been pretty careful (so far) to avoid doing things that are blatantly anti-competitive. The Big Ten champ has outranked the Pac-12 champ in seven of the Playoff’s eight years. There is no assurance this will continue, but it is fairly likely to. It’s better to let the Pac-12 have the Rose Bowl slot in the rare years they earn it than to do anything that could prompt regulators to get involved.
LikeLike
Yeah, I can see that as a rationale.
I wonder more about SEC/Big 12 and the Sugar Bowl.
Does that relationship continue? Though hard to ever imagine an SEC champ ranked below a Big 12 champ once Texas/OU.
Once divisions are gone, won’t have 3 or 4 loss teams in championship games.
LikeLike
z33k – the Sugar Bowl’s relationship with the B12 is only a recent development. I think it only runs through current CFP agreement. The Sugar Bowl’s relationship with the SEC informally runs back to the 1930s. I’m sure the Sugar Bowl will do whatever the SEC tells them to do.
LikeLike
UNC may lean Big Ten over SEC based on the rumblings out of Chapel Hill from this summer based on that Observer report:
UNC AD/Prez discussed potential ACC-Pac 12 scenarios:
“Guskiewicz was intrigued: “We could have a super conference both athletically and academically,” he responded. “Probably would need to be called the Atlantic-Pacific Athletic Conference (APAC). Maybe that’s crazy, but if it would get us a better TV deal, it may be worth considering.””
Obviously a lot will be made of the Jim Delany angle but more important than that in my mind was the academic prestige of the conference mattering to the leaders there.
Obviously that can change in 10 years. But realistically how much?
Even though their fans may lean towards the SEC, could easily see the leadership pointing to the Big Ten if joining the more prestigious academic grouping matters with the rest of the factors equal.
But I still think it may be impossible for them to move given the size of the Tobacco Road grouping and especially NC State needing to be taken care of along with all their close rivalries.
LikeLike
Eh, the university presidents talk about academic prestige a lot, but conference realignment is still driven by money. If academic prestige mattered a ton, both Stanford and Cal would be in the B10 by now.
In any case, I don’t think the NC and VA schools break from the ACC, but mostly because now (and in the future) they aren’t additive any more to either the SEC or B10. And I can only see the SEC being willing to make nonadditive additions of UNC and UVa for academic prestige (and basketball and reforming the old Confederacy).
LikeLike
Yeah, I meant that more for schools that have a possible choice of where to go.
UNC is probably first and foremost wanting the ACC to work. But if they have to leave, it’s just an interesting discussion.
FSU I can see leaning towards the SEC because of their location/relationship with UF and proximity of other schools in the SEC.
Though the notion of selling FSU on being the “national Big Ten south brand” might appeal to them.
Different schools have different wants and needs. UNC’s wants/needs are very different from FSU or Miami or Clemson.
LikeLike
Yep, FSU could choose to be the premier southern program in the only truly national conference or one of many similar programs located in the same area of the country in the SEC.
LikeLike
I can only see the SEC being willing to make nonadditive additions of UNC and UVa for academic prestige (and basketball and reforming the old Confederacy).
But as you said earlier, realignment is driven by money, not prestige. Nobody in authority talks about reforming the confederacy anymore.
LikeLike
Yeah, I would wager on UNC and UVa staying in the ACC with all the other NC/VA schools if I have to bet.
LikeLike
Richard – I am in agreement with most everything in your post, but please stop with this reforming the Confederacy BS.
If Ohio State or Notre Dame called Sankey today and asked to join the SEC, do you think the New York native Sankey would say, “Sorry, Mr. Buckeye and Mr. Irish, but your ancestors fought to keep the South in the Union 160 years ago, therefore NO THANKS!”?
LikeLike
Well, their states had Confederat sympathizers. 😉
LikeLike
z33k – I’m sure the NC Regents and the NC State supporters in the legislature are watching what’s going on in California. I would expect that if the the NC Regents doesn’t have oversight of conference movement now, they will by 2030. NC State and UNC will stay in the same conference, either the ACC or SEC.
In the unlikely event UNC has the freedom to choose B1G or SEC, the administrators that would prefer the B1G will find out the same thing that the eggheads at Texas found out – that the fans, politicians & recruits prefer the SEC. Ultimately, these are athletic conferences comprised of athletic departments affiliated with academic institutions.
Nobody in the state of North Carolina is going to get blindsided by UNC like the folks in California did with UCLA.
LikeLike
NC State and UNC will stay in the same conference, either the ACC or SEC.
That has been said for multiple states. I recall there was “no way” Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be separated. Also “no way” Texas would leave Texas Tech behind. I suppose if people say it enough, sooner or later it will be true. So far, it has been wrong every time.
LikeLike
Kansas doing something similar right now.
Members of the Kansas Board of Regents are in the process of creating a new policy that would require any Regents university — KU, K-State, Wichita State, Fort Hays State, Pittsburg State and Emporia State — to get approvals from at least three non-university officials before moving to a new athletic conference.
[snip]
Under the proposed policy, [Regents Chair Jon] Rolph, [Regent President and CEO Blake] Flanders and Carl Ice, the Regents’ vice chair, who also is a leader of the Kansas State University Foundation, would be the three people required to grant approval for a conference change.
https://m.kusports.com/news/2022/sep/16/kansas-regents-taking-steps-ensure-ku-other-school/
via @MattBrownEP
LikeLike
“In the unlikely event UNC has the freedom to choose B1G or SEC, the administrators that would prefer the B1G will find out the same thing that the eggheads at Texas found out – that the fans, politicians & recruits prefer the SEC.”
Texas is a football school and UNC is a basketball school. That’s a bold statement to make about fan preference between the SEC and Big Ten for UNC fans.
LikeLike
If the NC legislature pretty much makes it a matter of law that NC and NC State stick together, then the ACC will survive, though almost certainly without the schools which seem to get mentioned here in every other post, Clemson, FSU and Miami.
It does not seem conceivable to me that the SEC would want both NC teams and the B1G will not either.
The ACC will then be a basketball league with a P5 football status attached. This would also save Wake, BC, Syracuse, and perhaps others, from oblivion.
There is another wild card with the State of NC. I am sure that both Duke and Wake have some (perhaps a lot of) influence in the legislature and they will also both be pushing to keep Tobacco Road together in the ACC by packaging NC and NC State.
If the state of NC acts in that direction, I wonder if the VA legislature will do that with UVa and VaTech.
LikeLike
Bernie & PSU hockey – As I wrote previously, I think the ACC in some form with the VA/NC schools stay together.
I agree that UNC is a basketball school that plays football. Their football value doesn’t move the needle for either the SEC or B1G. Perhaps the game of the season involved UNC & App State in week #1. The programmers at Disney, while they couldn’t foresee the crazy game it turned out to be, surely knew it would be a better game than Colorado State/Michigan that they put on ABC. UNC/App State got the U.
After a decade of getting lapped by the bottom-rung B1G and SEC schools, all of the ACC schools will be shells of their current form (which isn’t great), except for the regular playoff participants.
UNC & UVA have only had passing success at football and don’t appear to have a strong commitment to changing that trajectory. With the state of North Carolina’s football rooting interests so Balkanized, its hard to see how any school delivers the state.
Sure UVA and UNC are great schools, but if academics really that important to the B1G, they wouldn’t have the #1 P5 academic school (Stanford) and the #1 public school (Cal) twisting in the wind.
As I have discussed numerous times, IF the SEC and B1G decide to go to 22 or 24, THEN the SEC is the only conference situated to make UNC an offer they can’t refuse: NC Sate, UVA & Duke all get a spot in the SEC along with UNC.
The decision to go to 24, would only be feasible if the SEC & Disney determined that it would be cheaper (for Disney) to not renew the ACC contract in 2036 AND worth it to the SEC to take all the worthwhile parts of the ACC (FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Duke, UVA & VA Tech) and stick them in the SEC.
LikeLike
I think the ACC in some form with the VA/NC schools stay together.
That is my base case as well, but not because the state will intervene to keep them together. As you say, none of them really delivers the state, and none are good enough football brands.
I think FSU will leave the ACC as soon as it can, taking Clemson along if it joins the SEC. If it joins the Big Ten, I am less sure who the +1 will be, but for argument’s sake let’s suppose Miami. Either way, the rest of the ACC likely stays together.
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/just-5-universities-produce-one-eighth-of-the-nations-tenure-track-professors
Speaking of academic prestige, this ranking may be as good as any for that.
Just five universities have produced one-eighth of the tenure-track professors at American doctoral institutions, and 80 percent of such professors earned their Ph.D.s at just 20 percent of the nation’s universities.
The table is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05222-x/tables/3
Quintile 1
1. Cal
2. Harvard
3. MI
4. WI
5. Stanford
6. IL
7. MIT
8. UT
Quintile 2
9. Cornell
10. Columbia
…
13, MN
14. UCLA
15. OSU
19. PU
20. PSU
Quintile 3
22. IN
23. MSU
24. NW
25. JHU*
29. UMD
34. IA
36. USC
41. RU
Quintile 4
62. NE
The quintiles of faculty production include 8, 13, 20, 38 and 308 schools.
LikeLike
Among plausible expansion candidates:
1. Cal
5. Stanford
18. Washington
21. UNC
30. Arizona
31. Duke
38. Virginia
39. FSU
42. Arizona State
44. Colorado
57. Georgia Tech
61. Utah
77. Oregon
84. Notre Dame
87. Miami
LikeLike
+1 for quintiles.
LikeLike
I sure remember a lot of Cal, Harvard, Michigan, Stanford and Illinois PhDs as professors when I went to Texas. I think if you looked at the top 20 in production, you would find an even higher % getting their PhDs from the elite schools.
LikeLike
Interesting list of faculty production. Other notables:
39 FSU
84 Notre Dame
87 Miami
Not in top 100 – Clemson
LikeLike
Obviously brand value (the only thing national audiences/media companies care about) gets short shrift here, but they alone will dictate a conferences rights-value going forward (in the age of streaming). This brings us back to Oregon v Washington. I like Washington as a second-tier brand. I think they would be a great long-term asset to the B1G. They’re very similar to Wisconsin. Steady and reliable with decent national appeal. Still, there is no brand metric I’ve seen, from ratings, to recruiting, to apparel sales to Q score (brand perception) where they score higher that Oregon. Some here claim the Oregon brand is fading. Just the opposite. Oregon’s brand equity rating has actually increased over the last decade in both the 18-24 and 25-34 demographic. This is nationally. People who hold the brand in high regard, irregardless of being an alumni or having a local affiliation. Could their admission be thwarted by the B1G’s weak sisters not wanting the competition, or some academic apprehension on behalf of the Presidents? Yes, but FSU/ND/Clemson notwithstanding, they are the biggest draw left on the board and I have no doubt Warren will find a way to bring them in. We’ll see!
LikeLike
That first statement seems a bit circular. How are you defining brand value, apart from what the conference gets paid for the school? I think a lot of components go into “brand value,” and they don’t apply equally in all cases.
I agree, UW is solidly second tier. Nobody has claimed otherwise, I don’t think.
Still, there is no brand metric I’ve seen, from ratings, to recruiting, to apparel sales to Q score (brand perception) where they score higher that Oregon.
View at Medium.com
Most watched teams over 5 years:
26. Oregon (1.34M)
28. Washington (1.32M)
They are essentially the same.
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/College-football-recruiting-development-NFL-Draft-picks-results-Development-Rating-2021-166233526/#166233526_1
UW was #3 for developing elite talent for the NFL, UO was unlisted.
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Blue-chip-ratio-college-football-2020-Bud-Elliott-15-teams-who-can-win-a-national-title-148079661/#148079661_1
As recently as 2020, UW was ahead of UO on the blue-chip ratio, meaning they were recruiting better for years. Now UO is ahead while UW is rebuilding. These things fluctuate.
I have no doubt Nike sells more UO gear. That’s what the whole program is built around. But since they have different licensing companies (UO isn’t with CLC), it’s hard to find good comparative stats.
They rank similarly in many things.
Brand perception is a lagging indicator of success on the field. If Lanning can’t get them winning a lot again, their brand will slide.
LikeLike
Recruiting 2021: O #6 W#30
Recruiting 2022: O #13 W #97
If using a time machine or talking about the NFL makes you feel better, go for it. Oregon leads in every category I listed.
LikeLike
University presidents have a more than two-year horizon when deciding which schools to invite. If it happened, those would not be the numbers that made the case.
LikeLike
Petersen retired after 2019. Lake lasted 13 games over 2 seasons before being fired. Gregory was interim coach to finish the 2021 season. DeBoer took over this year. I think that might explain UW’s recruiting being a little down lately.
UW is back to the top 25 in 2023 recruiting at the moment (UO #13, UW #25). You also have to factor in retaining players. UO signed 16 more recruits since 2018 than UW. More players equals a higher score for the rankings. UW was #97 last year because they only signed 10 players as a new coach scrambled to fill up a class.
LikeLike
I also want to note, I’m not claiming UO isn’t a brand. I simply disagree when you say it’s the only brand left in the P12. And UO’s brand value was higher when they were winning more. Making the CFP and NCG boost the brand. Just like UW’s is now sliding as they try to recover from Petersen leaving.
LikeLike
The other problem with Oregon is the recency of their brand appeal. Before this century, they were a consistently middling team, with an average finish somewhere around 5th in their conference, and just three all-time Rose Bowl appearances. Are they now perennial contenders: Or will they revert to their historical average once the Phil Knight gravy train dries up, as it eventually must?
LikeLike
So, I have to give props to Dani here for being in touch with what the kiddies think.
UO definitely is seen as cool by HS recruits (hence why they’re ranked by the kiddies in the top 10). But how much of that is empheral?
UNLV basketball and Miami football were cool once upon a time too. Miami at least is a stone’s throw away from crazy amounts of local talent so you can see how they can come back. But UO’s brand is really propped up by Uncle Phil’s largess. When Uncle Phil goes to the Great Beyond, will Nike or someone else still pay for the UO marketing machine? It’s not like UO has much in the way of local talent or really any other good ancillary qualities. They’re like a cooler Nebraska without the history and dependence on one guy instead of a die-hard fanbase. Or UNLV basketball during the Tark era. And even at their current high point, UO has such a terrific brand that their viewership numbers make them a marginal borderline candidate below Iowa.
Stanford’s actually more sustainable (IMO) because they have more crazy rich alums, a few who even care about sports. UW is marginal too but at least in a growing metro and state.
LikeLike
Perhaps I misunderstood your use of “notwithstanding”, but do you actually believe that Oregon would be picked by the B1G ahead of FSU or ND? Everyone knows that ND is the first choice.
Even if Oregon were otherwise a superior choice to FSU (which I do not believe at all), the B1G entry into Florida would eliminate any other comparison. Much bigger market, wonderful recruiting, etc. etc.
LikeLike
Boy, I wish I had the time to play petty semantics games.
LikeLike
It is not a petty semantic game. You wrote that you prefer Oregon over ND or FSU. I was hoping that you did not mean that. I did not even mention your use of irregardless. That would have been a petty semantic game.
LikeLike
As to claims by the Pac10 commish about travel costs, it sure looks like UCLA could travel commercial to most B1G schools. A quick check shows nonstop flights from LAX to:
Chicago 21+ a day
Newark 38+
Baltimore 14+ (BWI, Reagan, Dulles)
Detroit 7+
Minneapolis 7+
So 5 schools for starters, but wait, there’s more! Several schools are within a relatively short bus rides from those air hubs, comparable to the 1.5 to 2 hour bus rides required to reach Oregon St and Washington St from the airports in Portland and Spokane (the latter having just 1 nonstop a day to LA). Air hub to bus for these is probably similar or better timewise than a connecting flight:
Mich St less than 1.5 hours from Detroit on a bus
Wisconsin about 2 hours from Chicago O’Hare
Illinois, and Purdue about 2.5 hours from Chicago
So that’s 9 of the 14 existing B1G schools should be able to reach fairly easily via commercial air. And Ohio St has 4 non-stop options a day if you include Columbus and 2 hour bus rides to Cleveland and Cincy airports.
Indy has 1 nonstop, same for Omaha (KC has 3 more at 3 hours away), Iowa is a 3.5 hour bus ride from Chicago, Penn St 3 hours from Pittsburgh (1 nonstop) or 3.5 hours from Philly (6+ nonstops).
And of course all these have connecting flights. From Chi there are 3 (nonstop) to State Penn, 6 to Cedar Rapids, 8 to Columbus, and 9 to Indy (then an hour on a bus to Bloomington). Lincoln has 3 nonstops to Denver and Omaha has 7 (17 nonstops LAX to Denver).
The point being that while not every B1G school is easy to get to without charter flights, most are. So the P10 commish is full of crap.
LikeLike
As to claims by the Pac10 commish about travel costs, it sure looks like UCLA could travel commercial to most B1G schools.
As Brian noted, he made the most pessimistic assumptions you could imagine.
LikeLike
BTW, I was thinking about the B10 going to 10 conference games as there really aren’t that many B10-controlled OOC games that are top-45 quality (about 5 a year).
But the B10 almost certainly won’t go to 10 conference games until it adds 1-2 southern schools to get some regular trips to the south (realistically, either Miami or FSU+Miami). But going to 10 conference games allows the B10 to stop at 19 (say, Miami, ND, and Stanford) or some other odd number. You could also do parity-based scheduling for 2-3 games a year while still keeping 3 annual series in that case.
One concern is running out of TV slots as the kings (and princes & NU) really don’t want to play on weeknights after Labor Day and before Black Friday. But with Week 0 becoming a regular week, you’d have 14 Saturdays, then you could have a full 3-game slate on Black Friday, 6 more extra slots on Labor Day weekend (spread over Th, F, Sun, and M), and 3 more games Th, F, and M (or W?) Week Zero Week. That gets you up to 18X3=54.
With 10 conference games, the B10 may ask schools to schedule more M3 buy games too (which they start doing anyway for ticket sales as few people want to see games vs G5/FCS).
LikeLike
I would expect a lot of pushback about going to 10 B10 games. It has all the same negatives as going to 9 while the ACC and SEC stuck at 8 (fewer CFP spots, fewer bowl-eligible teams), plus the loss of all the good OOC games. IA and USC would be stuck with 11 games scheduled for them. The other brands want the chance for big OOC games against opponents of their own choosing, and they want 7 home games. I think it would take a lot to convince the schools to move to 10 games in a 12-game schedule.
Not only do the kings not want to play weeknights, the B10 and the networks don’t want to waste those games on weeknights.
Is there reason to think the M3 would agree to buy games? That’s a big blow to their ego, especially the better M3 programs. I think G5 games will last for a long time.
LikeLike
1. Some current B10 schools already want to go to 10 conference games (you can probably surmise that these are not the king/prince programs) even before any expansion.
2. By the time the B10 goes to 10 conference games, the SEC will already have been at 9 conference games for a while.
3. Some M3 programs like ORST and CU already accept buy games. Obviously so have a bunch of the G5 programs joining the B12. Granted, it’s likely that it’s mostly the brands with destination stadiums who can regularly convince M3 schools to accept buy games but by this time (in a Big19/20), schools like USF and Memphis (possibly Boise and/or SDSU too) would also be M3 programs.
LikeLike
1. I’m not doubting you, but I don’t recall seeing that. I’m guessing it is far from a majority.
2. I don’t know your timeline for when the B10 would do it, so who knows? But my point is that playing 1 more conference game than the competition hurts playoff and bowl chances. As long as the committee favors W’s over SOS, it will sacrifice at-large spots. It will also cost some mediocre teams bowl eligibility as they finish 5-7 instead of 6-6.
3. Some do, but not many. Maybe more will in the future, but they’ll be very expensive compared to G5 games.
LikeLike
“As long as the committee favors W’s over SOS, it will sacrifice at-large spots”
Right, but I don’t actually see the committee favoring wins over SOS. Take a look at CFP rankings. Plenty of instances where teams with more losses are ranked above teams with fewer losses.
BTW, Gene Smith is the one saying there are already B10 schools who favor 10 conference games.
LikeLike
Mind you, I don’t think G5 and FCS OOC games would go away. Most OOC games would still be G5/FCS in a B10 with 10 conference games, but also a handful of M3 buy games as well (and a few HaHs).
Oh, and unlike pollsters, I don’t believe the CFP committee would just blindly look at number of losses when picking the 12-team playoff. Plus, if the 10th B10 conference game replaces a OOC P5 game (which would be the case in most instances), I don’t see why the schedule difficulty would increase that much.
LikeLike
Maybe not blindly, but no 2-loss team ever made the top 4. The scrambling starts to happen with 2-loss vs 3-loss teams, but that’s mostly CCG losers (so really also 2-loss teams), or the result of head-to-head play (where the 9-3 team beat the 10-2 team).
It guarantees your conference a loss. That’s 8 more guaranteed losses for the B10 every year (a few more than they would’ve gotten in OOC games). It also reduces the chances to show how your conference compares to others. An OOC win can be the only chance for a middle or lower tier team to really get national respect.
LikeLike
Brian – maybe not in the CFP era, but I’m sure you remember a certain two-loss team (albeit both were in 3OT thrillers) that won a BCS championship …
LikeLike
The B10 isn’t winning all P5 OOC games.
“An OOC win can be the only chance for a middle or lower tier team to really get national respect.”
Huh? Knocking off a B10 power will do more to gain respect than beating the type of P5 opponents UMTC and UIUC can get to agree to HaHs with (schools like CU and KU).
Also, the top 4 isn’t all that important when the playoff is expanding to 12.
LikeLike
Alan,
I do remember. I also know that the only 1-loss team LSU was ahead of was #8 KU. KU was #8 because they lost to MO, the only ranked (at the end of the season) team they played all season. Everyone else in the top 25 had 2+ losses.
LikeLike
I doubt you’ll 10 conference games for any Div I league, whether FBS or FCS, until the schedule is expanded to 13 games. As the NFL now has a 17-game slate, the concept isn’t so far-fetched.
LikeLike
Yeah, it probably won’t fly. There some B10 teams who want a 10-game B10 slate (Iowa is the median B10 program and the IN schools, RU, UMD, NU, UIUC, and UMTC generally can’t find OOC opponents for HaH better than Iowa). Though PSU (and UMD; maybe RU) want to schedule more Eastern teams, Iowa has ISU, if ND joined, they would want more OOC games rather than less, the Pacific schools would want to schedule western opponents, UNL would want to schedule OU OOC often, Northwestern has alums all over the country (as does UMich) and OSU and UMich could do better than Iowa OOC.
LikeLike
I would be very surprised if the bottom quarter of B1G teams wanted 10 B1G games. Those teams are playing to have winning seasons and get bowl invites.
Playing a buy in game against an FBS team (or two) makes the odds of those things happening much more likely than playing an extra game against second quartile BiG teams. Paying Temple to visit is a much more likely win than Wisconsin or Michigan State with a home and home series.
Upper quartile B1G teams never think about whether they will get a bowl invite, the only issue might be whether they refuse a mid level bowl on a bad years.
In addition, as with all other P5 teams, the bottom teams in the B1G want 7 home games, which is not likely with ten B1G games.
Obviously if it became necessary for TV inventory to have 10 B1G games, RU, UMd, IN, ILL, etc., would do it, but I doubt that they would be happy about it.
LikeLike
It is not just the bottom quarter. The top quarter (Michigan, OSU, PSU) generate a lot of money on ticket and other game day sales (they are 1, 2, and 3 in college football attendance). NE, WI, MSU, USC and IA also have good attendance. I doubt a 10th game gets authorized until these teams believe it is worth the tradeoff.
LikeLike
Coaches want Bowl eligibility because it helps them keep their job, but from the perspective of a school administration, I don’t think it’s a big concern. Most of the lower tier bowls pay out so little that schools lose money by going. What the administration (at IU/PU/UIUC/UMTC) is calculating is that an extra B10 game will likely sell more tickets than an OOC game vs the type of opponents they can schedule (like UVa or CU, and definitely Temple or other G5/FCS opponents). They’re in the heart of B10 country, have been part of the conference for over a century, and their fans care more about games vs. traditional B10 opponents.
Now, as I mentioned, the calculations may be different for the Eastern schools who may want to play more Eastern opponents, which they can only do OOC.
LikeLike
I agree that the original 10 teams obviously have a huge interest in traditional rivalries. That is why I really doubt further expansion unless the new teams at the least pay for themselves.
I doubt very much that IN, IL, Purdue, etc., would want a game against Oregon or Washington rather than an extra game against each other, or Wisconsin, Iowa, etc. At least Stanford has a little pazzaz because of the other things that Stanford brings off the football field.
While an extra home B1G will bring in more people, the question is will it bring in more people than two other games. With a 10 game league schedule, it is unlikely to have 7 home games.
LikeLike
Bernie, well, some of those schools don’t require 7 home games, it seems. PU has an away OOC game every year, so won’t have 7 home games every year. UMD will too later in the decade. RU had only 6 home games in each of 2019, 2021, and 2022.
LikeLike
BTW, while the NFL regular season now has 17 games, with a 12 or 16 team playoff, if CCGs still exist, that’s a max of 5 extra games, so the same as what NFL players making 6/7/8 figures a year play. Played by in-theory amateur in-theory unpaid in-theory full-time students who are in theory working towards a degree.
So I think the only way 13 games come about is if everybody plays CCG Week like what the B10 did in 2020.
LikeLike
Well the NFL did it by reducing their preseason games.
LikeLike
I doubt you’ll 10 conference games for any Div I league, whether FBS or FCS, until the schedule is expanded to 13 games. As the NFL now has a 17-game slate, the concept isn’t so far-fetched.
The trend over time has been more games, so a 13-game regular season eventually is probably a good bet. But probably not anytime soon, since they have just agreed to expand the college football playoff. This means some teams could be playing 17 games vs. the current maximum of 15.
Note that the last two expansions of the NFL regular season (from 14 to 16, and now 16 to 17) came at the expense of a shorter pre-season. I realize most of the stars barely play in the pre-season — still, the number of games for the entire team has not changed.
I am sure CFB does not want to eliminate the bye week, and with the 12-team playoff coming there is no extra time available at the end of the season. To add a 13th game, they would probably need to start even earlier in August than they already do.
LikeLike
Unless a 13th game is just everyone playing CCG week.
LikeLike
If super-conferences happen, say 24 members, it is likely that they will not play any OOC games. Every game will be a conference game.
LikeLike
Most schools want some buy games. Almost all want 7 home games, which you cannot have if every game is in conference.
LikeLike
I understand the rationale for most big programs to want 7 home games, and I understand the impact of home weekends on the local economy. However, as the price B1G and SEC teams pay for OOC buy games increases and the TV value of conference games increases, there will eventually be a tipping point where 10 conference games makes financial sense. We aren’t there yet, but I don’t expect 9 game conference schedules to last forever. The net revenue from that one extra home game will eventually be less than the TV value of a better matchup.
LikeLike
It’s a long way off.
OSU athletics is worth about $400M per year in economic impact for the state. OSU directly makes at least $10M per home football game (tickets, donations, concessions, parking, merchandise), with Columbus making millions more.
LikeLike
The breakeven will actually likely come soon.
1. Note that many B10 schools don’t make nearly as much per home game as OSU.
2. If the B10 playing 9 conference games each is worth $75mm/school in TV money in a few years, $150mm/school by the end of the next TV deal after this coming new one isn’t inconceivable. And that’s for 9 conference games a team or $16.7mm a game. Granted, the quality of the OOC games would drop, but only a handful of them are top 3 picks now anyway.
But ND and Miami would almost certainly have to be added at a minimum for 10 conference games (ideally FSU too).
LikeLike
Richard: “If the B10 playing 9 conference games each is worth $75mm/school in TV money in a few years, $150mm/school by the end of the next TV deal after this coming new one isn’t inconceivable.”
This is why the ACC’s long-term TV deal and GOR are so devastationg. The value of their programming may increase dramatically but they are stuck with being paid peanuts until 2036.
LikeLike
Where is the evidence that a 10th B10 game would increase that payout significantly?
The value of the TV deal will increase if nothing changes with the scheduling, and so will the value of a home game.
LikeLike
Math, Brian. If the TV contract the B10 can get with 9 conference games is X, the value with 10 conference games should be roughly 1.11 * X – .
But we know that
1. There aren’t actually that many B10-controlled OOC games that would be worth a top-3 pick (maybe 5 a year).
2. Networks tend to discount OOC games because unlike league games, teams can change opponents and back out of series at any time.
Anyway, I know you’re backwards-looking and won’t consider the possibility of change until it hits you in the face, but just as the B10 went to 9 conference games before the previous TV negotiations to raise its TV payout and the SEC will go to 9 conference games to raise its TV payout, the same economic logic applies to going to 10 league games a team. Especially as all/nearly all the top TV draws eventually consolidate to either the B10 and SEC. The only alternative that could stop a 10-game conference slate (eventually) is a B10-SEC challenge series that the 2 leagues sell off the rights too, but that seems unlikely because even if Clemson and FSU are taken by the P2, UGa still has its rivalry game with GTech.
In short, you can’t be like “I see the economic logic of going to 9 conference games” yet also say “I don’t see the economic logic in going to 10 conference games”.
But it may be a decade or so before 10 league games come. And it’s possible that, to get ND on board, the B10 stays at 9 conference games forever.
LikeLike
“If the TV contract the B10 can get with 9 conference games is X, the value with 10 conference games should be roughly 1.11 * X – .”
That’s a huge assumption with no evidence to base it on. The value of the deal is based on the schools and the number of games much more than the schedule. The B10 isn’t 12.5% ahead of the SEC because of 9 games vs 8. The B12 and P12 aren’t 12.5% ahead of the ACC based on 9 games vs 8.
Most of the money is coming from the 3 exclusive OTA packages. How much marginal increase in value is there for those packages by adding a 10th B10 game, especially if it comes at the expense of good OOC games?
The B10 loses some inventory by going from 9 to 10 games, so the quality has to improve quite a bit to make it worth a lot more. If the difference is the 4th picks (and below) per week improve, that isn’t worth very much. If the B10 schedule is already skewed to have more big games when playing 9, then most of the 10th games will be lesser valued.
Take OSU:
Locked – MI, PSU, USC
Rotating – UCLA/MSU, NE/IA, WI/MN, NW/IL, PU/IN, RU/UMD
The average additional game would be at the OSU/MN level, and it may come at the expense of half of a OSU/ND game.
OSU/ND drew 10.53M viewers. OSU/MN would typically be a 4-5M viewer game at most.
“But we know that
1. There aren’t actually that many B10-controlled OOC games that would be worth a top-3 pick (maybe 5 a year).”
So far this year:
Wk 0/1 – ND@OSU, NE@NW, CSU@MI, PSU@PU, WMU@MSU, IL@IN
An OOC game topped each B10 game. If a buy game tops 2 of the 3 B10 games (including one with a king), it’s a hard sell that the 10th B10 game brings a lot of value.
Wk 2 and 3 had all OOC games, and Wk4’s ratings aren’t out yet.
“just as the B10 went to 9 conference games before the previous TV negotiations to raise its TV payout and the SEC will go to 9 conference games to raise its TV payout, the same economic logic applies to going to 10 league games a team.”
No, it doesn’t. Otherwise the ACC or P12 would just jump to a 10 or 11-hgame schedule to make the money they want. There are different amounts of value added from 8 to 9 vs 9 to 10, and different amounts of internal pushback.
More games helps keep the frequency of opponents high, one of the reasons the B10 went to 9 games after expanding twice. But the value of 7 home games is very high to the upper programs, and so is the ability to have 1 good home-and-home OOC series. A 10th B10 game in a 12-game schedule eliminates one of those things.
I didn’t push back against 9 games, I actively supported it. It made sense for all the right reasons. 10 games doesn’t in the current environment, but environments can and do change. I never said it would never happen, or that it wouldn’t be the right decision at some future point.
You theorize B10 and SEC expansion as part of your argument. While that may well happen, we don’t know which schools will be where so I’m talking the 16 team B10 only. But I’d consider 2036 a long way off at this point anyway.
I did say we’re a long way from when dropping a 7th home game will make financial sense for the large programs. You could, in theory, have 10 B10 games and 7 home games if everyone is happy to only play buy games. USC and IA would be screwed, though.
“Especially as all/nearly all the top TV draws eventually consolidate to either the B10 and SEC.”
Unless they don’t. Or maybe B10 teams want to play some schools from another region of the country.
“The only alternative that could stop a 10-game conference slate (eventually) is a B10-SEC challenge series that the 2 leagues sell off the rights too, but that seems unlikely because even if Clemson and FSU are taken by the P2, UGa still has its rivalry game with GTech.”
Yes, that’s the only possible alternative to 10 B10 games in the foreseeable future.
In short, you can’t be like “I see the economic logic of going to 9 conference games” yet also say “I don’t see the economic logic in going to 10 conference games”.
But it may be a decade or so before 10 league games come. And it’s possible that, to get ND on board, the B10 stays at 9 conference games forever.
LikeLike
Brian:
2 points:
1. Yes, OSU-ND is worth more than OSU-UMTC, but the B10 would control the extra OSU-UMTC games twice in 2 years but only 1 of the OSU-ND games every 2 years. Hence why there are so few OOC games that are top 3 picks.
2. The ACC and Pac wouldn’t make as much by increasing conference games because they have fewer/smaller TV draws in their conference. That is different from the B10 and SEC.
So it probably would enhance the Pac TV money if they went down to 8 conference games and scheduled a bunch of OOC games vs. B10/SEC powers. But if you’re the B10/SEC, you enhance your TV money by having more conference games (or only playing TV draws in other conferences).
LikeLike
In short, you can’t be like “I see the economic logic of going to 9 conference games” yet also say “I don’t see the economic logic in going to 10 conference games”.
Then why not 11?
LikeLike
Marc, 11 or 12 conference games _might_ occur with more expansion and if TV rights for a B10 game keep going upwards.
LikeLike
On a streaming note, #1 with big fan base Georgia was not OTA or cable yesterday vs. Kent St. They were only on ESPN+ and SECN+. Seems like an experiment by ESPN to see how well it works.
LikeLike
Typically those types of games would be on SECN or one of their overflow channels. But not yesterday.
LikeLike
Every SEC school is required to play a game on ESPN+/SEC+.
LikeLike
I don’t remember that before. When did that change?
LikeLike
bullet – I think its been happening for the last few years. After the CBS game, Disney owned the rights to all the SEC games anyways and ESPN+ is part of the ESPN/Disney platform. Programmers have been putting a rent-a-win each week on the streaming service for the last few years. I remember reading somewhere that each school would have one game on ESPN+.
LikeLike
I thought they were just putting them on the SECN overflow channels. I’ve seen 3 different games on the SECN at the same time in the past. Don’t remember how long ago that was. There’s still one overflow channel listed.
LikeLike
I think BIG should dump football divisions as soon as possible. Historical rivalries get annual schedule priority and the generated ones or within division annuals since the first championship game, revert back to conference scheduled rotation.
Divisions date back to 1991 and SEC expansion and are no longer necessary for a conf championship game.
LikeLike
Your wish likely will come true very soon.
LikeLike
From The Athletic:
College football games are taking longer, and everyone, including TV, wants to fix that
By Seth Emerson Sep 23, 2022
There’s a touchdown. That means a timeout is coming. Here comes a replay review. Add on another couple of minutes. The offense just made a first down. So the clock stops. And uh oh, here comes that official in the red hat onto the field, the dreaded indication another TV timeout is coming.
You’re not imagining it: College football games are taking longer. And not a small amount longer.
But the television networks and their annoying timeouts aren’t to blame. Nor are the long replay reviews. It’s not even the epic weather delays, because even if you take those out the average college football game has lengthened by four minutes since 2017, now up to an average of 3 hours, 22 minutes, even though the number of plays is going down.
“Four minutes is a lot,” said NCAA coordinator of officials Steve Shaw, who tracks the data. “The why is very complex.”
Perhaps, but there is one main, overriding reason why game times have gone up so much lately: passing. The evolution of college football offenses toward being more pass-heavy leads to more scoring, which results in clock stoppages but also more first downs and more incompletions — although incompletions are also down because teams are becoming better at passing, thus leading to all those first downs, touchdowns and field goals. It’s not that teams are passing more, it’s that they’re good at it.
FBS-wide per-game averages (both teams)
2002 9.1
2012 9.7
2022 10.3
Meanwhile, the number of running plays, which inherently means more times the clock will run after a play, has gone down. There were 79.0 rushes per game in 2002, then 77.6 in 2012 and 74.6 so far this season.
There’s no evidence this is going away. Passing works. And college football already has gone through a litany of tweaks to clock rules through the years, with a couple of more quick fixes perhaps coming. (More on that later.) But the length of games is a looming issue that everyone involved, including the television networks, is interested in exploring.
“In a perfect world, games could always be 3:15 to 3:30 in length, that would be the wheelhouse,” said Nick Dawson, ESPN senior vice president for programming. “I would say the majority, anecdotally, fits in that window. But certainly, there are exceptions to the rule. It’s hard because there’s a balance. If it’s a great competitive game, 56-52 game that runs four hours, nobody’s complaining, right? If it’s a 60-10 game that takes four hours, then you run into the issues.”
But Dawson said there’s a concern about holding the interest of young viewers, which is why he would be open to exploring more creative ideas, such as more advertising while the game is on air, in exchange for fewer TV timeouts.
“From a TV perspective, I don’t know that we’ve seen a negative impact yet based on game length, based on viewership. But I do think we have enough data on just viewing trends and fandom trends and younger demos to understand that this could be an issue moving forward; it could be an issue in the future,” Dawson said. “Is there a time now for all the stakeholders involved across college football to come together and try to figure some solutions to maybe avoid a problem before it becomes a real problem?”
NFL games do a better job of neatly fitting in their time windows, but college football has a couple of notable differences. Halftime in college is 20 minutes, eight minutes longer than the NFL, but there isn’t much clamor to shorten that at the college level.
“I’ll have band directors coming to burn my house down,” Shaw said. “There’s a pageantry component in college football.”
Average game times
2013
3 hours, 17 minutes
2014
3 hours, 23 minutes
2015
3 hours, 22 minutes
2016
3 hours, 24 minutes
2017
3 hours, 19 minutes
2018
3 hours, 19 minutes
2019
3 hours, 18 minutes
2020
3 hours, 28 minutes
2021
3 hours, 28 minutes
2022
3 hours, 32 minutes
* Includes weather delays
Another is replay reviews: The NFL keeps it to coaches’ challenges and the final two minutes of the half, while college allows the game to stop at any time. While that may lead to some games during which the stoppages seem interminable (and unnecessary), the data shows that on average only two replay stoppages happen per game, with an average delay of two minutes. So that’s four minutes per game, a number that has gone down through the years as replay has become more efficient.
And yet the length of the game has gone up. The average game time, not counting weather delays, was 3:17 only nine years ago. That has increased to 3:28 last year and 3:32 this year. (The number of 3:22 that Shaw cited doesn’t include weather delays, but he says the basic trend is the same.)
The NCAA and its rules committee have tried various tweaks through the years:
• In 2008, they made drastic clock changes, that after an out-of-bounds play, once the ball is ready to play, officials restart the clock, other than the final two minutes of halves. That had a significant impact, according to Shaw.
• In 2017, they decided to make halftime 20 minutes without exceptions. Some teams had been asking for 24-minute halves for a ceremony, for example, or playing loose with the 20 minutes. Now the clock is supposed to start once the first half ends and the second-half kickoff happens on time.
• In 2018, they went to a 40-second clock after a touchdown or kickoff, like any other play, something they had been lax on.
• In 2021, they adjusted replay reviews to check the game clock so they only would look at a play for the final two minutes of the first half and the final four minutes of the game. Then they cut it to the final two minutes of the second half for this year.
But with games still going longer, a couple of more options are on the table:
• Treating incompletions like plays that go out of bounds: The clock stops, but once the ball is set and ready to play, the clock re-starts. Shaw said that’s roughly 10 seconds each time it happens. This could hurt offenses trying to catch up, but if they don’t want to lose time on incompletions, they would know to get to the line and be ready.
• The other is no longer stopping the clock on first downs. But Shaw thinks that won’t have a big impact because the officials have been doing a good job of spotting the ball and moving the chains quickly, after which point the clock re-starts.
“Even though you think, ‘Man you’d save 10 seconds every first down,’ you really probably won’t,” Shaw said. “That probably won’t have as big an impact as re-starting it after incompletions.”
Even that has an asterisk. Shaw pointed out this stat: In 2021, FBS teams set an all-time record for best completion percentage. So that also could make it difficult to speed it up.
“The philosophy has been that we want to work on the edges of the game,” Shaw said. “But we’re kind of at a point where we’ve squeezed it, all the juice is out. There might be something that someone can come with creatively. But we’ve kind of squeezed all the juice out.”
Average plays per game
2013 143.6
2014 144.0
2015 143.2
2016 143.0
2017 140.0
2018 140.6
2019 138.6
2020 139.6
2021 137.4
2022 138.2
* Includes plays that count
That’s where TV timeouts could come into play. Right now they average about 2 minutes, 30 seconds to three minutes per break, and usually, there is an average of three breaks per quarter. (It depends on how many stoppages there are for scoring, injuries, replays, etc.)
Yes, there are contractual rules about how many timeouts need to be reached per game. But that has not gone up “dramatically” through the years, said SEC associate commissioner Mark Womack, who tracks game lengths and other logistics for the conference.
Womack doesn’t blame TV timeouts for why games take longer, using an example of two recent SEC games that were on the SEC Network: Georgia hosting Samford was 2 hours, 51 minutes, while South Carolina hosting Georgia State took 3, 43 minutes. The Georgia-Samford game was shortened into a 12-minute fourth quarter, but that’s only three minutes of game action.
Certainly, many national games, such as SEC on CBS games, have longer ad breaks. But that doesn’t explain the games on smaller tiers that also go long.
“TV probably has the same elements to it then (in 2017) that it has now. Those aren’t changed dramatically,” Womack said. “As a matter of fact, we’ve probably tightened them up by using our timeout clock. The fan looks at it and says, ‘Guys this TV timeout is going on forever, they take five-minute breaks.’ Well no they don’t, and you can see it now.”
But ESPN is open to ideas, according to Dawson. Advertising while the game is on — between plays, coming out of timeouts, etc. — has been tried but could be expanded. This is something that could happen right away, rather than wait until the TV contracts come up, but it’s not a switch that can just be flipped.
“The challenge is you’ve got to get all partners on the same page: The advertisers, do they like that, are they willing to pay for that. The viewer, do we think the viewers like that. There’s a lot of dynamics there that are going to have to come together around creating solutions,” Dawson said. “But I think we probably need to do a better job of coming together as a group of stakeholders and putting ideas on the table, and finding ways to test them, to see hey this one doesn’t work, but maybe this one does, and helps to chip away at potential issues down the road.”
That’s because there’s a realization that pass-heavy offenses aren’t going away. Georgia Tech is a stark example: Four years ago, in the last year it used the option, its average game length was 3 hours, 7 minutes. Last season, the Yellow Jackets averaged 3 hours, 30 minutes.
Everyone is clear they don’t want the game to be homogenized where everyone runs the same kind of offense. That’s part of the “charm of college football,” as Dawson put it. But there’s an examination on what could be done, especially with College Football Playoff expansion coming, to avoid having games become a long slog.
College football has evolved. The clock rules, and other things, may have to adapt.
“It is a tricky balance,” Dawson said. “Where can you find things where you can legislate, through rule-making, to speed up the process of the game, while still allowing for the creativity and the uniqueness of each individual program, each individual philosophy, on offense and defense.”
LikeLike
The article didn’t mention that a few years ago they implemented a running clock on kickoffs as soon as the ball was ready for play. Coaches hated it, and that change was rescinded.
LikeLike
They could definitely cut some TV timeouts and show short 15 second ads (maybe on a split screen, or on the bottom) when teams are huddling to burn clock or there is some stoppage of play (punt/kicking unit coming on), etc.
LikeLike
Do we need a 20-minute halftime? In NCAA basketball, it’s 15 minutes. In high school hoops, it’s 10 minutes.
Do they need to return to the locker rooms for halftime? How about a ten-minute break right there on the sideline?
LikeLike
I don’t know how to measure what is truly “needed,” but halftime with a return to the locker room is a feature at all levels of the sport. The marching band performance is valued by many fans. There is no marching band in basketball, so no comparison there.
As a practical matter, halftime allows time for a bathroom break. The last CFB game I attended, it was a pretty long round trip to the loo. By the time I got back, the game was just about ready to start.
With the season getting longer, they will probably be looking at measures to reduce the amount of game time, which mitigates the stress on players’ bodies. Reducing the halftime does not achieve that.
LikeLike
Halftime is also a concession break which is good for the fans and the schools’ revenues.
LikeLike
Well, actually there is plenty of time for the marching band performance prior to kickoff. And you could make a reasonable argument that a team sitting on its bench for a ten-minute halftime would be more rested than a team running back and forth to the locker room for a twenty-minute halftime.
For some outside-the-box thinking, how about showing a commercial during play reviews? The refs could take a mandatory 60-second time-out during play reviews and this would replace a TV timeout. No one is really interested in seeing the ref look into the TV box on the field. If there has been no play reviews before the half ends, they they could go to a TV timeout in the last two minutes.
LikeLike
Players need to hydrate, use the restroom, get medical treatment (further evaluation, re-taping, wrapping/bracing injuries, etc.), and recover from the conditions sometimes (warm up, cool up, dry off, change gear, etc.). That’s hard to do on the sidelines. So is any team-wide coaching adjustment.
A fixed halftime length that’s enforced isn’t the problem. The passing game and clock rules are. Drop the total game time (12 minute quarters), or use a running clock (like soccer) except for changes of possession or something (so they can get their ads in).
LikeLike
Brian: “Players need to hydrate, use the restroom, get medical treatment (further evaluation, re-taping, wrapping/bracing injuries, etc.), and recover from the conditions sometimes (warm up, cool up, dry off, change gear, etc.). That’s hard to do on the sidelines.”
Actually, it isn’t. With these little sideline medical tents that are now in widespread use, most of those functions can now be done on the sideline. As far as using the restroom, Oregon has sideline pop-up porta potties that players can use at any time during a game.
Brian: “So is any team-wide coaching adjustment.”
I’m not sure there is such an animal. I played four years of HS football and while there are certainly coaching adjustments made during games, each one is targeted to a specific group – linebackers, OL, QBs, etc. That could certainly be done on the sidelines.
LikeLike
As an aside, YouTube TV is nice because you can skip ahead by 15 seconds (press 10 times to skip an entire ads block). And they also have a feature that shows big plays (that mostly works).
LikeLike
Do you get much out of that if you are watching the game “live”? I put that in quotes because there is always a delay, but I think that technique would work for one break at most, before you would be caught up.
LikeLike
With a DVR you can start watching a game from the beginning 60-75 minutes after kickoff and catch up live in the 4th quarter by skipping commercials and half-time.
To shorten games the clock can start after the ball is marked on penalties as well as incompletes.
LikeLike
When you get caught up, you can go through the big plays in other games (or do some chores) before going back to the main game you’re watching.
LikeLike
TV timeouts are a real drag on the in stadium experience. With Georgia, SEC Network games are the worse. They have to have ceremonies celebrating last year’s tennis team and the professors who got awards. That should be limited to halftime.
I’ve got no problem with using the out of bounds rule on incomplete passes and first downs.
And maybe have a time limit on instant replay. If you can’t figure it out in 2 minutes, its not clear and convincing. Ruling on the field stands. Maybe you need a little extra time to adjust the clock.
LikeLike
Was that in stadium or on TV? Usually all of those in game ceremonies are during TV timeouts and are not broadcast. Just something to kill the time while nothing is happening on the field due to a TV timeout.
LikeLike
In the stadium because the TV timeouts are interminable.
LikeLike
Of the 3 1/2 hours of total time, 2 1/2 hours are dead time with nothing happening. This is especially painful if you are attending the game, because you have to sit and take it. At home there are other opportunities to do things. And simply DVRing the game and tuning in an hour or two late lets you cut out all the crab.
The biggest change you could make to improve the experience would be to eliminate the official use of replays. No sport should allow the officials to review replays and revise their calls. If TV, or even the stadium big screens want to use replays to rile up the fans, that’s fine. But don’t change any calls.
People complain about baseball, but the ball is always in play except for inning changeovers. Baseball does move slowly, until the ball is hit, but it is a summer afternoon sport, and it has to be leisurely.
LikeLike
PS. The replay-based decisions are wrong half the time anyway, and they do not improve the quality of the officiating. Shut up and learn the home ump’s strike zone.
LikeLike
Agree re replay. Can’t stand it; mostly it’s about avoiding bad publicity. Ditch it and just have the official (or umpire) make the call and continue play.
As there is a min of TV time outs… how ’bout a maximum?
I’d also like to see the hash marks return to 53′ 4″
Alas, none of the above will happen.
LikeLike
Agree re replay. Can’t stand it; mostly it’s about avoiding bad publicity.
No, it’s about getting the calls right. I think there are ways that replay delays could be further reduced while still leaving it in place so that the most egregious mistakes can be fixed. (I don’t know where Bob Sykes got the purported statistic that replay decision is wrong half the time.)
But if the article Colin quoted is correct, replay is not really the main driver of games getting longer: it’s the shifting emphasis towards passing in modern offenses.
LikeLike
If replay were about getting calls right there wouldn’t be any need for coach’s challenges much less limits on them.
Speed up the game by reverting to rules in use in the 1970s which would have the affect of favoring the run game. (Though keep the time keeping changes and those rules which enhance player safety.) No reason to limit DB-WR downfield contact prior to a pass being thrown for instance.
LikeLike
If replay were about getting calls right there wouldn’t be any need for coach’s challenges much less limits on them.
We are talking about college football here, where almost all replay reviews are initiated from the booth.
Speed up the game by reverting to rules in use in the 1970s which would have the affect of favoring the run game.
So true, because nothing should ever ever ever change. I would far prefer to have the rules Rutgers and Princeton used in 1869. Why allow any evolution of the sport after that?
LikeLike
BTW, re: 10 home games:
I’d expect Iowa (because of the ISU game) and PSU (because they want to play more Eastern opponents) to be most against it.
Also may keep ND from joining or they may be against it vociferously if they’d joined by then.
But I don’t actually expect OSU and UMich to be very against the idea, Brian, when the TV money goes up even more. That’s because I’d expect both to still have 7 home games, so it’s the marquee HaH OOC series going away. But the median B10 team is Iowa and their marquee OOC opponent is usually stronger than Iowa, so they wouldn’t actually be disadvantaged for the playoffs by going to 10 league games (in fact, they may be helped). So it would then come down to flexibility in scheduling vs more money (and in a decade, that “more money” bit likely will be a significant sum).
10 homes games also works much more easily in a 16 or 18 team league that a 20 team league. With 16 or 18 teams, you can have 5 or 6 annual series respectively, so 2 or 3 of them can be semi-locked based on historic strength (parity-based scheduling) (3 permanently locked), changing every 4 or 6 years.
So, I guess we’ll see. With 10 conference games, a 6-5-1 schedule (with the neutral site game being a marquee game) starts to make a lot of sense for many schools. The RRR game likely makes much more for Texas than a regular home game because people have to donate a lot to get the limited tickets to that game and that’s a game people figure to want to get tickets for every year rather than every other year.
The big problem is that there’s really no suitable neutral site stadium in IA for the Iowa-ISU game (though I suppose they could put it in Chicago, the Twin Cities, KC or StL).
PSU could also host a marquee OOC game in DC (vs. VTech/WVU, maybe UVa?). Maybe around NYC/Philly vs Syracuse?
I suppose PSU/OSU could also (potentially) go neutral site, alternating between Cleveland and Pittsburgh.
LikeLike
BTW, my math was wrong.
9 home games work for 16/18/20/22 schools.
10 home games work for 16/19/21 schools.
LikeLike
My original objection above was to the argument that dropping the 7th home game would make financial sense soon. I could see 10 B10 games before I’d think the big programs would drop 7 home games regularly.
I think USC and UCLA would also push back on the 10th B10 game, in addition to the schools you list. Especially USC, since they have ND locked.
I also think OSU and MI would, because they’d rather play a marquee HaH series. They lose that ability to go to regions of interest to them and play other king programs. USC might be a good example – they have toned down their OOC scheduling to mostly be 2 buy games plus ND (essentially a 10th P12 game), with occasional games against big brands.
I don’t know that neutral site games (which usually seem to be in the south vs southern teams) will be their top choice. The other schools not playing a 10-game schedule would prefer HaH’s (even AL has cut back on the neutral site games), so they might be tougher to schedule anyway. We’ll just have to see how that trend goes in CFB.
LikeLike
I don’t see the 10 conference game coming until both the B10 and SEC have expanded again, leading to almost no kings outside the B10 and SEC. I suppose the kings in the B10 and SEC could still schedule each other. And ND may be in the B10 by then too.
And thinking about it more, I still think it makes sense for PSU to schedule neutral site games. It makes no sense for PSU to trade HaHs with schools with much smaller stadiums like Syracuse/WVU/VTech/UVa/(UNC/NCSU). That’s like OSU trading HaHs with WVU and UK.
PSU should at least try to negotiate a 1-1-1, with the neutral site game in DC/Philly/NYC but owned by PSU.
LikeLike
And PSU should make that a permanent neutral site game. Say a permanent neutral site game in DC vs VTech (or maybe rotating opponents VTech/UVa/WVU/UNC/NCSU in DC). But make it a destination game that PSU fans would want to see so would buy season tickets to get. Would get PSU the recruiting exposure in the Tidewater states that they want.
LikeLike
PSU like a lot of college towns has a huge economic dependence on home football games. Sure, the school could make up the revenue with neutral sites, but if they want to make good with all the locals especially the area businesses, they would not want to have fewer home games. That would be a ton of lost revenue for the surrounding area that depends on it.
LikeLike
Just to show how far behind in facilities some schools are, Rutgers just installed a new light system in its football stadium. Can anyone really imagine a B1G school not having the money for a decent light system in its football stadium? Welcome to RU. The wifi system has also just been upgraded.
It is hard to fully appreciate how far Rutgers was, and still is, behind virtually all other B1G schools in “basic” facilities, but they are starting to get there. It was only a few years ago that the men and women soccer teams got their own facilities, without sharing with each other and other sports.
I believe that the Iowa game was the first night home game ever at Rutgers. I am virtually positive that they have played night games at MetLife Stadium, about 35 miles away from campus. MetLife is the name of the stadium co-owned by the Giants and Jets, both of which play all home games there. It replaced Giants Statium. MetLife is about 10 miles from Manhattan.
Rutgers has also dramatically changed the tailgating experience, including the addition of a boardwalk similar to the Jersey Shore (the area not the TV show), with rides and games just like the real thing. Anyone who goes to a game at SHI Statdium (add the T to the name as you wish), must be familiar with the famous Jersey Shore, so it is a nice touch.
By the way, for those who are not aware. New Jersey does not have beaches, it has the Jersey Shore. To get there, one much “go down the shore”. Even cities with Beach in the name are down the shore.
LikeLike