Obviously these are two very fine academic institutions but do they really move the needle for the conference?
Conference Realignment
- Status
IlliniSaluki
- IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
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.
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.
And that’s not even touching the research and academic side, two of the best schools in the country.
Serious Late
- Peoria via Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque vi
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.
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?
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
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.
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
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.
IlliniSaluki
- IL metro east burbs of St. Louis
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.
Last edited:
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.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
"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
Interesting piece here from ESPN about James Madison and NDSU and the conundrum that FCS powers like NDSU have of staying at that level: https://www.espn.com/college-footba...north-dakota-state-reign-fbs-vs-fcs-conundrum
One of issues that article brings up with NDSU is how they are geographically limited in where they could go. At the same time, the article points out that Bison fanbase may be getting bored with how games are going and would prefer they had more of a challenge.
One of issues that article brings up with NDSU is how they are geographically limited in where they could go. At the same time, the article points out that Bison fanbase may be getting bored with how games are going and would prefer they had more of a challenge.
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.
The after dark games also do not get good ratings compared to the other timeslots and the teams and fans in the central and especially eastern time zones do not want to play in this timeslot. If the ratings are bad the dollars won't follow. For the sake of argument if the entire PAC 10 is worth 300M/year, with ten teams, then Stanford and CAL would need to be worth about half of that total to make the money even, and there is no evidence they bring that much value.
To me this is about either 1 of 2 things.
First, to get Notre Dame you need to either remove their path to the playoff or remove their ability to schedule. Either get them disinvited from all CFB playoff discussions or the conference tells all Big Ten teams they can't play ND anymore and then invite teams ND wants to play (Stanford).
or Second, realize that every President of a Big Ten school would likely quit their job tomorrow to become the President of CAL or Stanford. Therefore, the Big Ten Presidents place a huge value on these schools as academic and peer institutions, and it is the school Presidents that make these decisions.
Serious Late
- Peoria via Denver via Ann Arbor via Albuquerque vi
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 is the only brand with an actual decision to make, the rest of the schools mentioned are just waiting to be told where to go. So maybe it is ND/Stanford/(2 of Cal/Oregon/Washington), but I just don't see why the B1G didn't already move on 2 of them unless ND is holding them up.
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?
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
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.
When you add in the fact that it gives you a school in both the North and South Bay Area, the research money and academic reputations they bring, and that it makes it easier for West Coast teams to travel, it's not as out there an idea as it may first seem.
That being said, I'm sure the Big Ten office has crunched the numbers. If adding Cal doesn't bring in more cash (either in tv/streaming viewership or research grants), they're not getting in. It doesn't matter how hard the UC Regents scream about it. I just could see a scenario where it makes sense and does happen.
illini80
- Forgottonia
I don’t know how the sausage is getting made right now and I don’t think anyone does. If I had to vote on whether to expand further knowing my take could drop $5-10M/y it would be pretty easy to say no. I often wonder which is bigger, the money or the egos.
The only reason is I see to get to 20-24 teams is to tie up the teams you want for a premier league formation. Are the people in power focused on the long term future of college football or are they trying to maximize current income streams? I have doubts “college” football in its current form will exist in 10 years. There will be football, but I doubt the mega conferences will exist in the same format.
Honestly I don’t think the people in power have a consensus on this yet. If they did I think we would see a clearer direction. The speculation and discussion is very thought provoking!
The only reason is I see to get to 20-24 teams is to tie up the teams you want for a premier league formation. Are the people in power focused on the long term future of college football or are they trying to maximize current income streams? I have doubts “college” football in its current form will exist in 10 years. There will be football, but I doubt the mega conferences will exist in the same format.
Honestly I don’t think the people in power have a consensus on this yet. If they did I think we would see a clearer direction. The speculation and discussion is very thought provoking!
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
If it's all about a combination of money and football prowess (or simply just money), no way Cal gets in. But I think the power-that-be are going to throw a bone to our new Pac members. 1 hour flight to the Bay vs 3 to Seattle. Fun fact: flight time to Seattle is approx. equal to Lincoln.
FWLIW, I think the loud noises coming from the UC Regents/politicians mean squat.
FWLIW, I think the loud noises coming from the UC Regents/politicians mean squat.
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?
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
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.
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
...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.
Anything that isn’t all about them rubs them the wrong way
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
That potential smaller deal with ESPN involves late night (west coast) games. Another $100M annually?
Last edited:
ESPN is going to get some kind of package, even if it is really small, like a few bowl games.
You are probably familiar with this at the end of NFL games:
“This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent, is prohibited.”
When you read more closely into ESPN's 2.6B package for Monday Night Football, you'll find that a big reason for the high price was for the rights to show highlights. The NFL had ESPN over a barrel because all of their commentary shows rely on the rights to broadcast NFL video.
While there is a lot that can be covered under fair use, and the Big Ten doesn't have anywhere near the leverage of the NFL, can you imagine the 2024 college football playoff and ESPN can't show video of the Big Ten team during their advertisements for the game?
redwingillini11
White and Sixth
- North Aurora
- Status