Why would bringing in UO and UW at full shares be a debacle? UO at least has strong national brand recognition. Another poster posted the most watched football programs and UO was 12th, ahead of USC, UCLA, and even FSU and Nebraska. We’re all acting like we’re throwing them a bone, but we would be lucky to have UO in the fold. Also, 48% of their student population isn’t even from Oregon. UO alumni are all over the country.
As I posted earlier, I really think it's as simple as this ... I am not claiming to know how exactly the powers-that-be calculate exactly what a school brings to the Big Ten financially (I am sure a school's academics is financially additive in some way, getting BTN into a new market isn't AS important anymore but is still a chunk of money, there is probably some type of NPV given to a school's "potential" like the ratings a good Illini team could draw in Chicago, etc.). However, I think it is very clear that no school is getting added with full shares if that school does not increase EACH school's share.
Lightfoot was being used more as an example of the current norm. I just don’t have the desire to look up all the recruits, who they committed to, and their true offer list. That being said, I think just a glance at team recruiting rankings makes it clear that conference affiliation is still weighted toward Group of 5 generally instead of “Big2”. Though I take your point that we are still at the beginning of this.
Sorry to again echo something Gritty already said (which is hard not to do on any topic) but I also wonder about the long term kingmaker effect. It’s like the old proverb, you don’t have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the guy next to you. Membership in the P2 is like having a motorcycle when everyone outside the P2 is on foot. In what way does it serve our interests to hand out more more motorcycles.
AB1G has limited number of prime spots & Prime spots are what is bringing in the big numbers...bring in Oregon and putting them in a prime spot and that pushes someone else down to tier 2 & a tier 2 to tier 3...so the plus value of any school needs to cover their share + lost revenue from pushing someone else to Tier 2 and someone to Tier 3.
Is there no provision for change in membership? Seems like there should be some language to address that given how much change there has been over the last several years. And even if there isn’t, wouldn’t it be possible to negotiate an amendment to the existing contract if there is a mutually beneficial outcome?
But wouldn’t that just mean that a UO matchup might get preferenced over a less interesting matchup? If it draws more of an audience than the original matchup is that a bad thing for the B1G and/or the network?
Another way to look at this is team recruiting for 247 - 2023
Like, kicking teams out?
the point is the bar is not to draw more eyeballs than the replacement, they need to draw enough more eyeballs to cover any loss of revenue from the teams that are pushed down to lower tiers or you are looking at a net loss - adding additional teams at this point don't add more Prime or tier 2 slots...end of the day it will be 1 more game getting pushed to the bottom of Big Ten Network.
If only Northwestern would just voluntarily give up sports!!
I agree with this. Why should the B1G rush to add Washington or Oregon? Doing so won't be accretive financially to the existing B1G members; the most notable advantage is it would make USC and UCLA's travel a bit less onerous (but more onerous for everyone else).
That was not a part of my discussion. I’m asking about adding.
Yes, we all seem to be assuming that we don’t add eyeballs with some teams’ additions. It’s all gut based arguments. I’m not saying anyone is wrong, I’d just want to see the data.
