Obviously these are two very fine academic institutions but do they really move the needle for the conference?With ND staying independent for a few more years, I think the BIG is gonna lock up California by adding Stanford and Cal.
Obviously these are two very fine academic institutions but do they really move the needle for the conference?With ND staying independent for a few more years, I think the BIG is gonna lock up California by adding Stanford and Cal.
Well they would lock up San Francisco market but would that be enough for both schools to be taken? Probably because I think the Presidents and chancellors wouldn't be able to pass up both schools for academics at that point. They would love to have both of them in the conference even if you only need 1 of them for the SF market.Obviously these are two very fine academic institutions but do they really move the needle for the conference?
I’ve been hearing that too. Lock down SFO, ease travel a bit for USC and UCLA, and give every team in our Midwest contingent a chance to play in CA every year.With ND staying independent for a few more years, I think the BIG is gonna lock up California by adding Stanford and Cal.
Per the article tweeted above:With ND staying independent for a few more years, I think the BIG is gonna lock up California by adding Stanford and Cal.
Do Cal and Stanford have enough of a following to really lock up the Bay area? Yes they are close in proximity but do they really bring that many fans? I should probably phrase my argument as yes they will bring in more fans but would they increase or dilute the money that gets allocated per team?Well they would lock up San Francisco market but would that be enough for both schools to be taken? Probably because I think the Presidents and chancellors wouldn't be able to pass up both schools for academics at that point. They would love to have both of them in the conference even if you only need 1 of them for the SF market.
Per the article tweeted above:
“I honestly think this thing isn’t over yet,” Flugaur says. “There’s still so much pressure to consolidate, for the bad of it, and for the good of it. However you want to phrase it, there’s still that pressure, that proxy war between ESPN and Fox, and the Big Ten presidents want Notre Dame, they want Stanford, and we think that’s going to happen.”
It was an interesting article to read, and who knows how much information he has beyond the USC news, but it's no secret the B1G wants ND. If ND is encouraged to come with Stanford, I imagine that would be a concession the Big Ten makes if it gets them over the hump. That said, I don't know why the B1G would jump on either of those schools without ND. If I'm the B1G, it's Stanford, Oregon, Washington and ND or nothing.
The whole next year deciding things and not "it has already been decided" or "it could happen 5+ years from now" makes me think that the construct of the conference is still forming short term. Until conference divisions/pods/whatever are determined and the scheduling process kicks off, the option is still there.
Then there is the whole media rights deal we just signed. I'm going to assume that if the information above is true, there is still some room to factor this move into the deal should it occur.
Fascinating stuff.
If additional teams dilute the per team allocation, everyone involved on the conference side is a moron. And to be clear, nothing that has happened to date on the contract stuff makes me think that anyone is a moron. I have my doubts about Kevin Warren on other things, but in this he appears to have orchestrated everything wonderfully.Do Cal and Stanford have enough of a following to really lock up the Bay area? Yes they are close in proximity but do they really bring that many fans? I should probably phrase my argument as yes they will bring in more fans but would they increase or dilute the money that gets allocated per team?
Well yes they do. When talking about locking up the bay area it isn't all about how many fans will watch. It is how many people in the Entire SF area/surrounding areas has cable tv/sat tv. How many will now get BTN negotiated and pushed on to basic cable and how much will Fox & B1G be able to make off all those new cable subscriptions that are now getting BTN and paying for it regardless if they actually watch the network or not.Do Cal and Stanford have enough of a following to really lock up the Bay area? Yes they are close in proximity but do they really bring that many fans? I should probably phrase my argument as yes they will bring in more fans but would they increase or dilute the money that gets allocated per team?
"Ample support" aka "ESPN told us we had to"SEC has 'ample support' for 9-game league slate
There is mounting momentum among Southeastern Conference athletic departments to go from eight conference games to nine in football once Oklahoma and Texas join the league, sources told ESPN's Chris Low.www.espn.com
The SF bay area has ~2.5M households. Even if every household got cable and delivered an extra $10 per year for BTN, you only bring in an additional 25M to the conference. This is less than 2M per school which is insignificant compared to the current media rights deal that pays 72M/year on average.Well yes they do. When talking about locking up the bay area it isn't all about how many fans will watch. It is how many people in the Entire SF area/surrounding areas has cable tv/sat tv. How many will now get BTN negotiated and pushed on to basic cable and how much will Fox & B1G be able to make off all those new cable subscriptions that are now getting BTN and paying for it regardless if they actually watch the network or not.
Example: Everyone with cable (that I am aware of now) gets ESPN on basic cable and pays for it in their fees. Not everyone who has cable, has ESPN and paying for it in their fees actually watch ESPN but ESPN is still getting paid. Same with any provider that has BTN on basic cable.
So to answer again. Yes. With the added lure of getting both schools to lower travel costs for USC & UCLA AND the lure of 2 high academic and research institutions to the B1G Presidents and Chancellors, I don't think they could resist taking both schools.
PLUS PLUS: As people reporting and rehashing have also pointed out. By adding more PAC schools this gives them an opportunity to add another TV window. That 10:30pm B1G After Dark game. This is a window they could bring ESPN into the fold as another network showing B1G FB with a similar deal to CBS/Paramount+ that any game shown on ESPN is simulcast on ESPN+. So now are you not only adding more $$ to the pot through BTN on basic cable in the Bay Area you now bring in more revenue in an additional media rights window. And as has been pointed out with at least 2 more teams this gives the chance for ALL B1G schools every year to have at least 1 game on the west coast.
Why didn't that already happen then? Their side would jump instantly at an offer, so what is the holdup and why would the B1G move forward with a new media rights deal without that decided?ND ain't joining yet.
The play seems to be 2 more Cali schools, which gives every non Pac team a trip to Cali every season. Locks up NorCal, the Bay area and makes the administrators/academics really, really happy. Also, provides another late night slot.
Cable viewership still has value but that value is declining. So if you're going to add two schools, it really doesn't make sense to add two schools just to gain one market, unless those two schools also move the needle significantly in gaining viewers, which is the currency of the future (streaming). Stanford may make sense in this regard, especially if they keep their annual ND game. Cal does not. Cal is bottom half in the PAC in viewership, even after USC and UCLA are gone (meaning they are bottom 3rd in the current 12 team conference). They are also bad in both revenue sports and have a very poorly run athletic department that is in a dire financial situation. So if you just need an entry into the SF market for BTN, why not take Stanford, leave Cal, and add Washington or Oregon to gain 1) an additional market and 2) a school that boasts a larger, more dedicated fan base and a profitable athletic department?Well yes they do. When talking about locking up the bay area it isn't all about how many fans will watch. It is how many people in the Entire SF area/surrounding areas has cable tv/sat tv. How many will now get BTN negotiated and pushed on to basic cable and how much will Fox & B1G be able to make off all those new cable subscriptions that are now getting BTN and paying for it regardless if they actually watch the network or not.
Example: Everyone with cable (that I am aware of now) gets ESPN on basic cable and pays for it in their fees. Not everyone who has cable, has ESPN and paying for it in their fees actually watch ESPN but ESPN is still getting paid. Same with any provider that has BTN on basic cable.
So to answer again. Yes. With the added lure of getting both schools to lower travel costs for USC & UCLA AND the lure of 2 high academic and research institutions to the B1G Presidents and Chancellors, I don't think they could resist taking both schools.
PLUS PLUS: As people reporting and rehashing have also pointed out. By adding more PAC schools this gives them an opportunity to add another TV window. That 10:30pm B1G After Dark game. This is a window they could bring ESPN into the fold as another network showing B1G FB with a similar deal to CBS/Paramount+ that any game shown on ESPN is simulcast on ESPN+. So now are you not only adding more $$ to the pot through BTN on basic cable in the Bay Area you now bring in more revenue in an additional media rights window. And as has been pointed out with at least 2 more teams this gives the chance for ALL B1G schools every year to have at least 1 game on the west coast.
Because with the way the UC Regents are talking, the Big Ten might take Cal to keep UCLA in the fold. They're grumbling about being left now but it might quiet them down if they know little brother (in terms of athletics) gets an invite, too.Cable viewership still has value but that value is declining. So if you're going to add two schools, it really doesn't make sense to add two schools just to gain one market, unless those two schools also move the needle significantly in gaining viewers, which is the currency of the future (streaming). Stanford may make sense in this regard, especially if they keep their annual ND game. Cal does not. Cal is bottom half in the PAC in viewership, even after USC and UCLA are gone (meaning they are bottom 3rd in the current 12 team conference). They are also bad in both revenue sports and have a very poorly run athletic department that is in a dire financial situation. So if you just need an entry into the SF market for BTN, why not take Stanford, leave Cal, and add Washington or Oregon to gain 1) an additional market and 2) a school that boasts a larger, more dedicated fan base and a profitable athletic department?
What are the real chances the B1G would make a run at Texas? They’re already leaving the Big 12 and are not “in” the SEC yet.Another good follow. This is pretty darn funny and true (apologies for the verbage):
What are the real chances the B1G would make a run at Texas? They’re already leaving the Big 12 and are not “in” the SEC yet.
If we took them and brought in notre dame would it ever be possible for the sec to catch up financially?
I'll answer the latter question first, cause it's easy: Nope. No chance. Which isn't to say the SEC won't be flush. Just not as flush as the BIG.
As to the former, who knows? I'm pretty sure there's a lot of appeal in a nationwide conference. It wouldn't surprise me if there have been discussions and contractual research.
Anything that isn’t all about them rubs them the wrong way...also, I'm sure there's a ton of appeal in being the only Texas based school too. Having to "share" the state rubs a lot of Horns fans the wrong way.
ESPN is going to get some kind of package, even if it is really small, like a few bowl games.
That potential smaller deal with ESPN involves late night (west coast) games. Another $100M annually?