The schools still control their schedules, right? Can they decide to forego "home" games against prestige opponents, and instead schedule some of those games as "neutral site" games to which they still control the TV rights? If you wanted to get nasty, lease your home stadium to, say, the B1G, and then lease it back as a "neutral site" location for games against your big rivals.
Conference Realignment
- Status
redwingillini11
White and Sixth
- North Aurora
Really surprised there hasn't been any movement yet. Could the Pac 12 deal have really been good enough to give Arizona pause?
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
There are lots of areas in American law that are potentially vulnerable to these sort of "aha, but if I put on a fake mustache my legal duties no longer apply!" type of gambits.
Courts are extremely hostile to this sort of thing, with good reason. The reliability of contracting is the oil in the engine of capitalism.
Courts are extremely hostile to this sort of thing, with good reason. The reliability of contracting is the oil in the engine of capitalism.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The reporting is that Arizona doesn't want to act alone here. These things take time.
None of these schools are going to like the Apple concept, nor should they. Still, I don't think any of them have any delusions about the amount of security they would receive by creating some 18-20 team nightmare with a bunch of value-less mouths to feed headquartered two time zones away and who only has the last cable TV golden ticket until 2031. It's a delay of catastrophe at best.
These schools have been out of good options from the moment the USC news broke.
Last edited:
me either... along with about 1/2 of the rest of that
redwingillini11
White and Sixth
- North Aurora
I may be in the minority here, but this all seems pointless. It actually all seems like a money grab, but can be viewed as pointless. Everyone wants more money so they go to the 2 conferences that get the most money, but in effect all this does is replace the NCAA with the Big Ten and SEC. I'm no fan of the NCAA but my concern is if you have 24 team conferences, you can't possibly play everyone in a season. In football you won't be playing some teams more than once every 5 years. So what will surely happen is you set up divisions. Well if everyone is in 2 or 3 conferences, why would we not view those new divisions as your conference with a different name?
Then if we say, largely our division is our new conference how many traditional rivalries get skipped over? They surely won't separate a Michigan/Ohio State, but they've already separated Illinois and Indiana in divisions. As more teams are added, it becomes more likely you won't get to play those teams even once a year, certainly not twice in basketball. Rivalries are heavily geographically based. Will we ever have any sort of rivalry with Washington, UCLA, USC? Maybe this is just a conversation because everything is new and in 20 years no one will care, but I do not look forward to a day where our schedule is full of USC, Oregon, Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, etc and we're not playing Michigan, Indiana, Michigan State, Purdue, etc regularly.
Then if we say, largely our division is our new conference how many traditional rivalries get skipped over? They surely won't separate a Michigan/Ohio State, but they've already separated Illinois and Indiana in divisions. As more teams are added, it becomes more likely you won't get to play those teams even once a year, certainly not twice in basketball. Rivalries are heavily geographically based. Will we ever have any sort of rivalry with Washington, UCLA, USC? Maybe this is just a conversation because everything is new and in 20 years no one will care, but I do not look forward to a day where our schedule is full of USC, Oregon, Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, etc and we're not playing Michigan, Indiana, Michigan State, Purdue, etc regularly.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
"The Big Ten’s thinking is that if the Pac-12 is going to be decimated anyway with the departure of Arizona, Arizona State and Utah, and 20-team national conferences are the future, then why not act now when the conference is already in transition? It could just add Oregon and Washington, but at that point, why not bring along Cal and Stanford?
In 2022, the Big Ten agreed to a seven-year, $8 billion media rights deal with Fox, CBS and NBC. Part of the decision will be based on whether those broadcast partners are willing to offer a pro rata share — or something close — with the addition of four more schools."
Asking the right questions.
And adding those four schools would be arriving at the wrong answers, it's pretty much as simple as that.
In the college football Cold War that would be a gift to the SEC and ESPN.
I think the B1G presidents have been reluctant to be seen as the catalyst that sank the PAC12... However, now that the PAC12 is already in trouble and sinking as we type, the presidents might want to appear to be the 'savior' of a couple of those schools... I am sure that they'd love for Stanford and Cal to be part of that picture (for academic reasons) but I would hope WA and OR (my choices) would be on the agenda first... Even if they come in at a lower tier in the money dept., at first... I'd bet both would jump at a $35-$40 mil offer for stability purposes...
One thing for sure... It's going to get really messy, really fast...
When Penn State joined the B1G, it took some getting used to, but games against OSU, Michigan and even Wisconsin provided some excellent and entertaining games and I view PSU a good fit with the Big 10.
When Nebraska joined, that was a bigger adjustment for me. I was used to Nebraska beating plains states teams 70-0. But it seems like Nebraska could and did develop rivalries with Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and even Illinois.
Rutgers and Maryland absolutely didn't move the needle for me and still don't. Those two schools belong in the ACC. While historic, legacy teams, USC and UCLA seem out of place and not a good cultural and traditional fit with the B1G. If the B1G adds more west coast teams that have no history, culture or legacy with the midwest-centered B1G, then what's the point of conferences?
While exciting and interesting news and interesting mind exercises, Conference expansion and realignment is completely out of control.
When Nebraska joined, that was a bigger adjustment for me. I was used to Nebraska beating plains states teams 70-0. But it seems like Nebraska could and did develop rivalries with Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and even Illinois.
Rutgers and Maryland absolutely didn't move the needle for me and still don't. Those two schools belong in the ACC. While historic, legacy teams, USC and UCLA seem out of place and not a good cultural and traditional fit with the B1G. If the B1G adds more west coast teams that have no history, culture or legacy with the midwest-centered B1G, then what's the point of conferences?
While exciting and interesting news and interesting mind exercises, Conference expansion and realignment is completely out of control.
Joel Goodson
- ties will be resolved
I think they'd crabwalk over a bed of hot coals for $35-40M per (and a permanent lifeline).
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
I simply dont see how having a system where some schools are "more equal" than others is a good long term idea
70% of the schools in the B1G right now would be fools to vote for that type of arrangement, as sooner of later, they would be in that tier as well.
its a slippery slope
I can almost see letting Oregon and U Wash in, even it it means a slightly skinnier piece of pie, but I would need to be convinced of some other reasons why
Stanford and Cal ? nope
70% of the schools in the B1G right now would be fools to vote for that type of arrangement, as sooner of later, they would be in that tier as well.
its a slippery slope
I can almost see letting Oregon and U Wash in, even it it means a slightly skinnier piece of pie, but I would need to be convinced of some other reasons why
Stanford and Cal ? nope
Last edited:
I approve this as a literal comment, though I suspect that you may have intended it with sarcasm, and some might take it that way.
mattcoldagelli
- The Transfer Portal with Do Not Contact Tag
I remain surprised at how lukewarm the conference is at Washington and Oregon. Especially Oregon, which has been one of the most dynamic and relevant programs in CFB for the past ~15 years. I believe them when they say the numbers aren’t compelling, just didn’t expect it to be the case.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I'm honestly still skeptical that TV markets "don't matter." Yes, streaming services have shifted things toward looking at pure eyeballs, but I have a hunch that not all eyeballs are created equally ... HuluTV knows that my 60610 zip code I have to enter to use the service is in the Chicago market, and I believe the ad opportunities for this market are still worth more to the powers-that-be than ad opportunities to viewers spread out in smaller markets like Omaha or Portland. This is all hypothetical, but it could be that a Florida State that brings in $10M in revenue right now but draws great ratings in all of the Florida markets (including Miami) is a more appealing prospect to the Big Ten than an Oregon that brings in $15M right now but has its viewers in smaller markets, more spread out and less reliable if they experience a downturn. That is just a guess, though.
With that said, I largely agree with you, as I don't think Oregon fits the narrative I gave earlier about Clemson - that their current success overinflates their value long-term. The big difference is that seemingly endless financial support from Nike, and I do not anticipate that going away. I think Oregon brings real value, and I too am surprised that Oregon and Washington (allegedly) are not seen as home run additions. Of course, very few people seem to know the exact criteria being considered in the decision making rooms besides some vague and broad concept of "money," haha.
We can call it the western 25 states with Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey league
..
sports.yahoo.com
..
Sources: Big Ten has begun preliminary talks to potentially add Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford
The Big Ten has been reluctant to move to 20 teams, even if many in college athletics believe expansive superconferences are inevitable.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
The first season I really remember is 2001 or 2002, so I have always grown up with Penn State in the Big Ten ... and it felt very natural. It was only once I got older, learned more of the history and truly appreciated Pennsylvania as not properly Midwestern that I could see that it would have been a big change for folks in the early 1990s. With that said, I saw Nebraska as much more of a "natural" fit vs. a "value-add" ... I'm still skeptical of whether or not they're any more valuable to the Big Ten than Iowa or Illinois all things considered (they certainly think they are, lol...), but I do think they fit in quite naturally to the Big Ten overall.
I completely agree on Rutgers and Maryland, but I think it's clear their additions sky-rocketed us financially, so it's difficult to complain given this weird, cut-throat landscape we find ourselves in. Oddly enough - and I really cannot explain why - I have sort of mentally accepted Rutgers a lot more easily than Maryland. Again, zero idea why that's the case, but I still view Maryland as much more of a "foreign" element within the conference than I do Rutgers. Maybe it is because Maryland seemed so quintessentially ACC and we had a history playing them in the NCAA Tournament and Big Ten/ACC Challenge.
I have to think that if the conferences blow up any larger that we will see 10 or 12 game conference schedules. The problem with that is most schools still want at least 7 home games which could drive non-conference rivalries like iowa/iowa st. to extinction. Adding schools to a conference to never play them seems silly. At least with 16 teams it is easy to build a schedule to face everyone home and away at least once over a 4 year window.
I agree with pretty much all of this. I'm probably a couple of years older than you; my earliest Illini memories were mid to late 90's. Penn State was always around so they just made sense. Nebraska seems like a B12 team of old, but like Texas or OU, they'd fit right in with the B1G. Rutgers took a little bit of time getting used to, but I do remember playing them in football in back to back years while they were in the Big East; and they weren't really nationally prominent, so I never thought of them as a "big east team."
Maryland is still weird to me. I remember Juan Dixon and Steve Blake beating Indiana for a national title, and their student section taking things too far with Duke and JJ Redick. To this day, they still like a "ACC team."
For Oregon. is the money from Nike or from Phil Knight? Phil Knight is 85 years old, so what happens to Oregon when he isn't around to support the program? Phil Knight is also a Stanford grad and gives a lot of money to them too. I don't think we know if he would do anything that results in Stanford being in a really bad spot.
But then again, T Boone Pickens died 4 years ago, and his foundation just gave Oklahoma State 120 million dollars two months ago. So maybe some billionaire money does go on and on.
Is there a worse worst-case scenario than us ending up in a B1G West division that’s six former PAC-12 schools plus Northwestern, Nebraska, and Purdue?
TentakilRex
- Land O Insects between Quincy-Macomb-Jacksonville
There are no divisions anymore, but I think somehow there will be a grouping of 3 six divisions/pods/some fancy name with the Pac-exes staying together in an unit.
- Status