USC & UCLA to B1G by 2024; conferences react; TV contracts thread
- Thread starter Liontown
- Start date
I think he's worried when they start cutting teams, Nebraska is on the chopping block.
Disguised as the "disruption of the regional brands will be the downfall" schtik, which may be true, but is far from his actual concern if Nebraska was to trade places with Ohio State the past decade.
Wait just a doggone minute....there's a way to get rid of Rutgres and we haven't exercised it yet?
Just a minute yourself. We’re on an island without rutgres and maryland. Let’s remember to thank jim delany for putting our standing in the conference first.
An interesting article about some of the things that went on behind the scenes in the ACC expansion talks, FSU's issues, ND's concerns, etc.
What reason is there to not admit Stanford if they're willing to drop revenue sharing requirements? Absolute no-brainer.
Do they have to bring Cal? I don't have a problem with that.
for the ACC, there would be a few issues. First, just Stanford would cause an unbalanced number of teams. And that would create even bigger issues for non-football, in that ACC teams wouldn't have another CA/West Coast team to play on a weekend out West. Second, the ACC's TV contract isn't competitive, and it's not up for renegotiation until 2036. So unless Stanford would agree to no ACC TV revenue until the next contract (i.e., over a decade, which seems unlikely they'd agree to), then at some point when they receive funds, then the existing ACC schools would be getting even less $$ from a contract that already has them earning much less than the B1G and SEC teams.
for the B1G, they already have 4 West Coast teams. I don't think they'd want an odd number of such teams. The B1G's TV contract doesn't last as long as the ACC's (I think it's up in 2029; not certain), so if they could get The Cardinal to agree to no TV revenue until then, it should at least get them into discussions. Beyond that, I think it's a question of what the B1G wants IF it does expand. I think their preference would still be Notre Dame plus 1 other school (I have no inside info; just speculating as well as reading everything I've linked). ND & Stanford might work (even though it still leaves an odd number of West Coast teams), but I just don't see ND making a move unless their TV contract negotiations go nowhere. While poor TV contract negotiations may happen, I don't think that will be finalized in the coming month, which means the timing isn't great for Stanford. The odd number of WC teams could be resolved with Cal, but that likely makes it final that ND will never be a part of the B1G, which may be tough for some of the B1G execs to stomach. Plus, the B1G has done extensive analysis of the Pac teams, and didn't invite Stanford & Cal when they added Washington & Oregon, which should indicate something.
Yeah, it confirms that smart kids never get invited to the party - only the jocks.
Last edited:
Sources: ACC ramps up Cal, Stanford, SMU talks
The ACC will hold a series of meetings this week to discuss the potential additions of Stanford, California and SMU, including how additional money from the schools would be distributed among ACC members, sources told ESPN..
www.espn.com
I think the NIL disaster could have been delayed a bit, but not sure what could have prevented the conference realignment catastrophe.
Well, once large sums of money started to legitimately go to said students, the focus had to be about making money. I'm not so sure the schools are to blame here. It would seem that the students forced their hands for the most part.
At this point things have gone haywire, so The Big Ten might as well add Stanford and Cal. It makes more sense than them going to the ACC. As if it matters, they do add academic cache. Where would this leave Penn State in that category, 17th of 20 or so?
The schools aren't the ones directly paying the athletes (yet, it's coming eventually), the NIL money is coming from outside donations, boosters, and companies. The current clamoring for money is being driven by changes in the TV models and cord cutting. This is likely the final round of media deals that will be mostly driven by traditional cable and broadcast networks. Cable subscriptions are dropping and everyone is fighting to get what they can now, and is positioning to get into a stable conference for the future since those future GOR deals with the streaming partners is kind of unknown. I expect in the next round we'll see streaming partners really getting into the game. I think the Big 10 is the first major conference up for renegotiation in 7-8 years (ignoring the current PAC-4 negotiation since we don't know how that will end). It will be interesting to see what the Big 10 does then and it's going to be very important to have a good commish in place at that time. If the Big 10 screws up and signs a bad deal it could hurt them for many years, like the ACC is dealing with now. Of course with the brands the Big 10 has now that's less likely to happen.
Meet the man who thinks he 'screwed up' college football with a Supreme Court win
Andrew Coats, the lawyer who convinced the Supreme Court in 1984 to allow universities to maximize football revenue, leading to a sweeping upheaval today, looks back with regret on the landmark case he successfully argued.
www.nbcnews.com
I think we are headed to a future with less total TV money than exists today.
The cable bundling process ensured channels like ESPN were subsidized by tens of millions of people who really didn’t watch sports.
In a world where those people have control over exactly the streaming content they pay for, the total TV revenue pie has to shrink. The die-hard sports fans won’t pay 2-3 times what they do now to see a slew of CFB games.
This may lead to a dramatic thinning of big time CFB programs and conferences. I see 30-40 programs being viable in this future.
Even people like me who watch sports are tired of the ESPN bloat. I've switched to streaming with Sling Blue which offers the Fox Sports channels but not ESPN. It was an easy decision with the new B1G media deal since there's not much left on ESPN which interests me. I love college football and can get my fix from all the other channels which show games. I'll manage to survive if I don't see much of the SEC. If there's something I absolutely must see then I'll go to a bar.
I moved to YouTube TV during the football season. I still pay for ESPN and the sport packages, but these networks get less than half the annual revenue from me that they did 10 years ago. If I were savvy like you and looked at ways to reduce costs more, then it would be even less.
Coats give himself too much credit. The NCAA/university presidents would have found a way to fu@k things up without his assistance.Meet the man who thinks he 'screwed up' college football with a Supreme Court win
Andrew Coats, the lawyer who convinced the Supreme Court in 1984 to allow universities to maximize football revenue, leading to a sweeping upheaval today, looks back with regret on the landmark case he successfully argued.
To be sure. At least one party to the Big Ten's media rights deal already has buyer's remorse.
Latest posts
-
Do you consider Penn State a blue blood in college football?
- Latest: LafayetteBear
-
