OT: B10 expands/PAC B12 TBD
- Thread starter rutgersguy1_rivals
- Start date
Forde nails a lot of solid points with some great metaphors here:
"It’s all deeply insulting and hypocritical for a bunch of millionaire leaders who bloviate about “student-athlete welfare,” then assign them geographically ridiculous tasks."
"The school presidents, athletic directors and conference commissioners all should be ashamed of their role in tearing asunder the fabric of college sports. But they’re too busy taking orders from TV partners and counting the resulting revenue."
"Stanford and Cal are clearly of greater interest to the university presidents than the TV networks—their academic cachet is immense and their location near Silicon Valley and San Francisco is advantageous, while their athletic followings are small and mostly indifferent."
"Does the Big Ten truly want to add those four schools? Like World War I, an escalation elsewhere can trigger involuntary aggression."
"If an entire region of the country sells out its athletes and fans for a long-distance partnership that in all likelihood would produce fewer victories, greater academic hardship, less tradition and harder travel—all in the name of revenue—the entire enterprise is diminished. More revenue leads to bigger staffs and buildings, makes rich coaches richer, and gives administrators a cushion for financial mismanagement in making hires and rewarding contracts."
"It’s all deeply insulting and hypocritical for a bunch of millionaire leaders who bloviate about “student-athlete welfare,” then assign them geographically ridiculous tasks."
"The school presidents, athletic directors and conference commissioners all should be ashamed of their role in tearing asunder the fabric of college sports. But they’re too busy taking orders from TV partners and counting the resulting revenue."
"Stanford and Cal are clearly of greater interest to the university presidents than the TV networks—their academic cachet is immense and their location near Silicon Valley and San Francisco is advantageous, while their athletic followings are small and mostly indifferent."
"Does the Big Ten truly want to add those four schools? Like World War I, an escalation elsewhere can trigger involuntary aggression."
"If an entire region of the country sells out its athletes and fans for a long-distance partnership that in all likelihood would produce fewer victories, greater academic hardship, less tradition and harder travel—all in the name of revenue—the entire enterprise is diminished. More revenue leads to bigger staffs and buildings, makes rich coaches richer, and gives administrators a cushion for financial mismanagement in making hires and rewarding contracts."
Yes to Oregon and Washington
No to Cal and Stanford. Worthless brands
Yes to UNC and UVA when available.
FSU and CLemson are going to SEC.
No to Cal and Stanford. Worthless brands
Yes to UNC and UVA when available.
FSU and CLemson are going to SEC.
The B1G will add Cal and Stanford because of the disproportional influence that those institutions (America's best public and private institutions with D1 athletics) have on academia, particularly within the actual operation of research universities. Cal is a bit of a loss-leader, but Stanford is recognized as a measurable asset. As a package, their neutral, or even slightly negative, valuation will be more than sufficient for the Presidents to insist on their inclusion with westward expansion, including Oregon and Washington.
I mentioned this somewhere above, Arizona BOR (they oversee Arizona and ASU) meeting today. They just had an executive session a couple days ago. Expectation from Arizona reporters on websites similar to this one is that they will vote to leave the B12 and announce by Friday. We'll see but it could be the next domino that triggers the B10.
I hadn't seen the B12 is also holding a meeting reported anywhere. If the B12 is then that would follow the path of Colorado with BOT meeting and B12 presidents meeting soon after.
I'm not sure the B10 could wait too long either because just like the B12, you need time to prepare and lay the groundwork for additions coming on board in 2024.
From the article:
The Arizona Board of Regents has called for an executive meeting Thursday night to address the situation involving the athletic departments of both schools. The Big 12 is meeting too so the dominoes appear to be lining up.
They really don’t and I don’t think they should. It’s a major brand with a lot of history and there is nothing saying the “Big Ten” name, which accurately reflected the number of teams during a significant portion of its existence, ever has to change.l to reflect the current number of teams.
The article has more points but this is the big one.
The TV math is much more complicated than you might think
Big Ten leaders need to consider a few different financial variables when considering expansion. They need to figure out what new and existing TV partners will pay for the increased inventory, what conditions will be required around that inventory, and what expansion will do for travel and operating costs.I’m told that additional West Coast expansion would likely require the Big Ten to bring in a 4th TV partner, as the three existing partners wouldn’t be able to completely absorb all of the new inventory, but the industry people I’ve spoken to, in and outside the Big Ten orbit, were very confident that finding the right partners and the right price would not be difficult. Reworking deals with existing TV partners would also be a significant lift, but not impossible, I’m told.
The bigger challenge, I’m told, is in executing a newer TV deal.
Adding multiple West Coast schools would open up potentially lucrative new TV windows for the Big Ten, both in the late-night football time slot, and late-night weekday college basketball.
But how valuable those windows become depends, in large part, on who plays in those games. As one media industry professional told me, “nobody wants to pay top dollar to broadcast Cal-Washington seven different times,” an assessment that feels particularly accurate given the soft market demand for a Pac-12 TV deal full of exactly that type of game. The real value of that new Big Ten TV time slot is that it would also involve many other Big Ten teams.
Multiple big-time Big Ten football programs, like Ohio State and Penn State, threw a fit over playing night games, at home, late in the season. Are those teams going to be okay with playing a football game every other season at 10:00 ET? Or basketball games at 9:30 every season? Can the Big Ten manage to convince ESPN or Apple to pay real money for a slate of Stanford/Maryland or Oregon/Purdue games?
Even with any newcomer earning only partial shares for the immediate future, Big Ten leaders will need to think long and hard about what kinds of athletic sacrifices their coaches and fans are willing to make in the name of maximizing broadcast revenue. There will be tradeoffs.
Last edited:
Exactly. Big Ten is a brand, much like the Ivy League is a brand.
Exactly. B1G Presidents want the B1G to remain the "Public Ivy League" 6 days a week so getting arguably the best all around university in the nation in Stanford and arguably the best academic public university in the nation in Cal-Berkeley is a thought that will cream their pants.
The presidents might cream their pants but the networks executives certainly wont and they're the ones who foot the bill not the presidents. I'm not saying they won't make the cut but it's a question mark compared to Oregon/Washington.
But will the Presidents still be enthusiastic if taking on those schools decreases each school's payout? I keep quoting Dylan --"money doesn't talk, it swears!"
Nobody wants to watch Cal-Washington, but surely Rutgers-Cal and Rutgers Stanford will be must see TV.
Great point about B1G blue bloods throwing a fit over playing late night games. My impression on this could be off, but my impression is people on the Left Coast are not the wild college football fanatics found in the B1G environs and on the East Coast and Southeast. Sure, there are some, but not like it is in other regions of the country where it is almost like religion.
This is why I believe FSU and Clemson are on the table. Anything to make that late night package better….
Big ten needs as many big name programs as they can get to sweeten that potential 4th tv deal…
Louisville is a definite fit in the B12. Pitt is a fish out of water there academically, but with WVU and Cincinnati there it wouldn't be a terrible fit.
BC and Syracuse can/will probably join Stanford and Cal in the Academic leftovers conference with Wake Forest.
Yea the passion isn't the same over there but that's part of why bringing the top teams from the east/midwest to the west is important to make those weeknight/after dark package more attractive. That "burden" needs to be shared though so the more attractive names you have in conference the better.
I really only see OSU/Michigan/PSU as exempt from weeknight and after dark. ND as well if they are ever join. But OSU/Michigan/PSU would still obviously be making west coast trips to create attractive games in general.
What does East Coast football look like when all is said and done?
RU -- UMd -- State Penn in the Big 10
Pitt, BC, Syracuse, VT, Temple, UConn -- in the ACC or a breakaway Big East with football? The American isn't sustainable for Temple long term (I wouldn't think). Do Temple and UConn become backfill in the ACC if FSU, Clemson and Miami leave?
Second alternative to the Big 12 taking any ACC schools and limited defections from the ACC.
At some point conferences outside of the B10/SEC will have to limit geography/travel.
RU -- UMd -- State Penn in the Big 10
Pitt, BC, Syracuse, VT, Temple, UConn -- in the ACC or a breakaway Big East with football? The American isn't sustainable for Temple long term (I wouldn't think). Do Temple and UConn become backfill in the ACC if FSU, Clemson and Miami leave?
Second alternative to the Big 12 taking any ACC schools and limited defections from the ACC.
At some point conferences outside of the B10/SEC will have to limit geography/travel.
People keep writing off the ACC and I wouldn't yet. It all depends on how many teams they end up losing. They can be basically on par with the B12. I wouldn't assume WVU/UCF couldn't be coaxed back east as it fits better geographically. Maybe even Cincy. The eastern time zone has value, that's why Yormark was trying to break into it with UConn. UConn could be added to the ACC too down the line.
B10/SEC one tier and ACC/B12 another tier is quite possible in the future.
Nebraska was actually already in the process of losing AAU membership when the invite went out to them. Not that it mattered that much, the program's value made that consideration easy enough to overlook.
Another interesting thing out of the LA Times, apparently USC and UCLA were assured that Oregon would not be invited to the B10. Neither wants the Ducks in conference again.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2023-08-02/commentary-usc-oregon-big-ten
Not a single current BIG school will agree to accept any deal that plays a dollar less than the existing deal. This is all about money, and the decisions about who to accept will revolve largely around what the TV executives are willing to pay for each new university.
Temple is gonna have to make a hard decision if they want to remain FBS in the coming years IMO. Jeffrey Lurie, the Eagles owner, hates having Temple as tenants of the Linc and consistently jacks up the rent costs as a result. With the AAC all Southern schools primarily, does Temple ultimately decide to drop down to FCS level and maybe play at Franklin Field down the road if they can't end up in a minor league level ACC once all the desired ACC schools are picked apart by the B1G/SEC?
but they also consider future revenue, if a program being considered for membership looks like it will increase conference value when time to renew TV rights, that program will be looked on favorably and allowed in, even if it reduces current shares a little.
If the program doesn't bring future value and will lessen shares. more than likly it will not enter unless the presidents feel the prestige it brings with it is worth the price
USC/UCLA are cute if they think they're able to make demands when they are still a year away from joining the B1G, let alone over schools that have been in the B1G for a century. OSU and Michigan are calling the shots over everyone else.
Speaking as a Cal graduate (twice), I don't think it and Stanford bring enough "prestige" to persuade presidents to agree to a reduced payout. Nor do I think these schools bring enough prospect of future value to persuade the presidents to "invest" by agreeing to a reduced payout now. Cal has had every chance over the years to become at least respectable in football and men's basketball, and has blown it. There is no reason to feel sorry for it. Stanford at least has a record of fielding quality teams.
Based on the PAC 12‘s recent media discussions, the average PAC 12 school has an annual value of less than $25 million. Moving a Cal or Stanford to the Big 10 will not suddenly increase their value to $75 million+ a year. I see no economic case for other school. At least with Oregon and Washington, they have top tier football programs, so TV executives can probably get comfortable that ratings against other BIG programs would be good because the marginal fan will be much more interested in watching a quality matchup, but even for them it was have to be at a reduced payout. None of these schools are additive economically to the conference.
Everyone seems to be focusing on the B12 making slightly more than the ACC now, and assuming that disparity will only increase when the B12 gets another chance on the market in six years.
It is very possible that the struggles ESPN and other providers are having makes the next B12 contract negotiation a lot less fruitful than people are assuming.
It sucked to be the ACC locked in as rights were increasing. It might turn out that “locked in” at $30 million is viewed as a feature not a bug in few years.
Do they bring enough for research $ that exceeds or offsets the TV revenue?
It's odd, we hear Football drives the bus
BUT
athletic budget is a small portion of the University 's budget. Would love to see a combined revenue view to see who truly fits or adds value.
I think SEC expands based on football as the primary driving factor, while the B1G it seems secondary to research/AAU funding.
Some small glimmer of hope for the PAC? I'm actually kind of surprised the B10 would be able to offer Oregon/Washington that much as opposed to say 30M give or take (about what the B12 gets).
If only Arizona leaves ( as I said reportedly the B12 is okay for pro rata up to 14 but it's possibly a little murkier beyond that) then the PAC could survive if the B12 can't offer teams 13 and 14 the same deal. Exposure could still be an issue though and what I've though is the bridge too far in addition to the 10M difference in tv money. I'd still probably think exposure and reduced money in the B12 would be better than less exposure and money in the PAC but who knows.
If only Arizona leaves ( as I said reportedly the B12 is okay for pro rata up to 14 but it's possibly a little murkier beyond that) then the PAC could survive if the B12 can't offer teams 13 and 14 the same deal. Exposure could still be an issue though and what I've though is the bridge too far in addition to the 10M difference in tv money. I'd still probably think exposure and reduced money in the B12 would be better than less exposure and money in the PAC but who knows.
Well a note on top of that. Maybe ESPN is enthusiastic to have that late night window through the B12. Fox not so much, so team 13-14 might get enough money to be satisfied.
I just love the fact that RU is the biggest winner in what was formerly the Big East Football Conference. All of those schools that left us high and dry (especially BC) can suck it!
I'm gonna die laughing if they Friday news dump the death of the Pac 12 on a Friday at 4:45 PM EST. It's like getting a meeting from your manager at 4:45 EST on a Friday to tell you that you're being let go and to pack up your stuff before being escorted out by security.
