USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024

Status
Not open for further replies.
#477      
Behind a paywall, but this quote from this article suggests ND already has trouble keeping up with the B1G-SEC payouts without substantial annual support from its Alumni. Personally I don't want ND in the B1G. Would like to see them slowly slip into major debt and irrelevance trying to keep up the 2 big conferences, eventually finding themselves on the outside looking in when the SEC and B1G shut the playoff door for independents.
Notre Dame's endowment would be tops in the Big 10, by about $3 billion. Lotta smart, rich alums, they'll be just fine, whatever direction they chose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wpr
#478      
I agree 100% - this describes college athletics as we’ve known it for over 100 years. With the current state of college sports however, colleges have lost or are losing control of the business model, and as another poster suggested what we have is a budding minor league sports system that is trying to morph into a sustainable business model. If and when this happens, will universities allow themselves to be associated with a model in which they have zero control over anything having to do with the business? There will be a parting of the ways, and without that university link to the tens or hundreds of thousands of alumni, the new minor league teams will simply die as they will be competing for everything with the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB with a product that is not comparable in quality, and will not have all of the money that they seem to have in unlimited amounts today.
College athletics is the biggest marketing tool for many universities. And, the universities make money off of their marketing tool. Most won't give up athletics. Maybe a dozen D1 programs might go all University of Chicago in the next 20 years, but I doubt it.
 
#480      
You're just never gonna get me to shed tears because we might play Michigan less frequently. Michigan could care less about that game. Are we missing out because we don't have our own Iron Bowl-style blood rivalry? Assuredly! But we don't have it, so I can't mourn it, even hypothetically.

So I am earnestly asking for an explanation of the downsides for me, the Illinois fan.
To be glib, we're Michigan's Super Bowl compared to how little USC is gonna care.

But I think there's kind of two flavors to it, depending on if you take my view of it or yours.

I'm someone who has romance for the idea of the Big Ten, a concept that is now just a dead relic of the past, plus a general affinity for the traditions and folkways and weirdness of college football nationally. I loved the 2:30 CBS SEC games back when the SEC sucked. The college game got the lion's share of my interest over the NFL when I was a kid for those reasons and every move down the revenue rationalization pathway makes the Zoomer Me less likely to make the same choice.

For you the "Illinois is all I care about" fan, there's the personal issue of us getting destroyed that much more often by our new football factory conference mates, say goodbye to the underratedly cozy confines of the B1G West. But I think even more importantly, for the sport as a whole, see how the lightbulbs are going to dim and fade for all the "Kansas State is all I care about" and "Cal is all I care about" and "Virginia Tech is all I care about" folks as they are jettisoned from the once rich tapestry of the top level game.

Wouldn't this same logic have kept professional leagues from expansion?
Which is also my answer to this. The Big Ten/SEC duopoly is not more big time college football than existed in 1995. It's much, much less. The opposite effect of adding teams to the NFL or NBA. Bigger slices, smaller pie.
 
#483      
Current status of Big 12 offices:
light saber GIF by Star Wars


 
Last edited:
#485      

mattcoldagelli

The Transfer Portal
I'm someone who has romance for the idea of the Big Ten, a concept that is now just a dead relic of the past, plus a general affinity for the traditions and folkways and weirdness of college football. The college game got the lion's share of my interest over the NFL when I was a kid for those reasons and every move down the revenue rationalization pathway makes the Zoomer Me less likely to make the same choice.

But here's where I revisit my notion that it's a fallacy that "the idea of the Big Ten" is some fixed objectively fixed thing vs. a subjective definition that just so happens to match what it was when you were growing up (and not "you" personally, but "you" as in all of us).

And I would submit further that the "idea of the Big Ten" is still a thing, just an evolved thing. It's still very large, (mostly) public universities that have a shared conception of themselves. This is why there's always been the B1G-PAC12 bromance, because the conferences viewed themselves as some sort of cultural cousins. There was a tweet yesterday that jokingly took maps of the Union and Confederacy and replaced the labels with "B1G" and "SEC" and....it's not wrong.
 
#486      
Are you better yet? Because if you feel bad for Duke under any circumstances for more than 15 minutes you should see a doctor.
"Almost" felt bad for Duke. But no, I shook the feeling pretty quickly.
Now I'm just smiling at the thought, and wishing K was still around to follow the ship down.
 
#487      
But here's where I revisit my notion that it's a fallacy that "the idea of the Big Ten" is some fixed objectively fixed thing vs. a subjective definition that just so happens to match what it was when you were growing up.

And I would submit further that the "idea of the Big Ten" is still a thing, just an evolved thing.
I understand completely what you're saying and take the point, but respectfully disagree.

The Big Ten was a metonym for a certain notion of the Midwest that was deeply rooted and IMO extraordinarily valuable as a brand. And was something I personally had a lot of reverence for, and am left to mourn. Where have you gone, Antwaan Randle-El, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
 
#488      
I really would not like to see Mizzou in the Big Ten, mostly because of inferior academics. In the latest 2022 college academic rankings, they are all the way down at #122. With the exception of outlier Nebraska (#136), the lowest rated Big Ten school is Iowa (#83). We don't need to add a second school dragging down the Big Ten's reputation for academic excellence. Plus, they are Mizzou, with all the scummy behavior their basketball and football programs have been involved with over the years. Any plusses they would bring seem to me to be greatly outweighed by the minuses. I understand it would be a big win for Mizzou, but I don't see where the Big Ten benefits much.
US News ranking don't mean all that much in the grand scheme of things, especially when it concerns any university rankings where arguably a certain set can be clumped together (i.e. not much grand difference in quality between UChicago and Notre Dame - you can't technically lose with either one). If anything, a public university ranking in the 90s isn't all that much better than a school ranked in the 110s or 130s. Mizzou's academics are fine as with Nebraska's (despite many here who give shade to Nebraska's academics). You'd struggle to really find any hard evidence from undergrads that will make you say that the Iowa and Michigan St. (both ranked #83 US News) experience is superior to Mizzou's or Nebraska's. You'd probably have to go from each department to make any meaningful distinguishes - for example engineering or journalism or English or anthropology. Both Maryland and Rutgers are ranked somewhere in the 60s by US News, 20 or so spots ahead of Iowa and Michigan St. That 20 or so spots, whether ahead or behind, are negligible. No one is more impressed with a 60ish ranked Maryland when comparing an 80ish ranked Iowa.

It's like making a big deal out of a medical school that's ranked 50 over one that's ranked 75 to 85. It doesn't really matter given neither are in the top 20 where it might just matter if you want to go into medical academia.

If we want to be picky, Michigan's and N'western's undergrad body are arguably the most competitive. Many a student attending each probably have cross admittance to schools such as Cornell, Dartmouth, UPenn and Notre Dame. Both Michigan and N'western make Illinois' undergrad look like quaint 2nd generation Iowa St. farm/small town kids majoring in business administration or education.

Public flagship universities, especially in the Big Ten, are known for their engineering department as opposed to, say, the Ivy Leagues. I'd rather attend Purdue engineering over Yale engineering despite the latter's Ivy League brand name which is known worldwide - but people in the engineering sector know what Purdue can do, and that's all that matters.
 
Last edited:
#490      
Big Ten West: UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Wash
Big Ten Midwest: Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, Northwestern, ILL
Big Ten Mideast: Purdue, Indiana Notre Dame, Mich, MSU, Ohio State
Big Ten East: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UNC, Virginia, Florida State
In this scenario, the Big Ten still exists with the Midwest and Mideast divisions. Each team plays the five other division teams every year, and two from each of the other divisions on a rotating basis . . . eleven game schedule with room for one non-con game. Four team playoff for the title.
 
#491      
To be glib, we're Michigan's Super Bowl compared to how little USC is gonna care.

But I think there's kind of two flavors to it, depending on if you take my view of it or yours.

I'm someone who has romance for the idea of the Big Ten, a concept that is now just a dead relic of the past, plus a general affinity for the traditions and folkways and weirdness of college football nationally. I loved the 2:30 CBS SEC games back when the SEC sucked. The college game got the lion's share of my interest over the NFL when I was a kid for those reasons and every move down the revenue rationalization pathway makes the Zoomer Me less likely to make the same choice.

For you the "Illinois is all I care about" fan, there's the personal issue of us getting destroyed that much more often by our new football factory conference mates, say goodbye to the underratedly cozy confines of the B1G West. But I think even more importantly, for the sport as a whole, see how the lightbulbs are going to dim and fade for all the "Kansas State is all I care about" and "Cal is all I care about" and "Virginia Tech is all I care about" folks as they are jettisoned from the once rich tapestry of the top level game.


Which is also my answer to this. The Big Ten/SEC duopoly is not more big time college football than existed in 1995. It's much, much less. The opposite effect of adding teams to the NFL or NBA. Bigger slices, smaller pie.

I don't see it. Michigan doesn't even think about Illinois when it comes to football. Thus the Illini have been able to sneak up on them a time or two.
OSU
MSU
PSU
are the teams they think of most.
 
#492      
I pray to God that this info--that the UW and Oregon consideration is not contingent on what ND decides--is correct. I wanted to puke when I saw the first report, which Domers will take as us agreeing with them that the world revolves around them, and that we consider anything else to be just a plan B.
 
#493      
In this scenario, the Big Ten still exists with the Midwest and Mideast divisions. Each team plays the five other division teams every year, and two from each of the other divisions on a rotating basis . . . eleven game schedule with room for one non-con game. Four team playoff for the title.
Play every team twice every six years? Hard to do better than that.
 
#495      
I think there are only about six football brands not yet associated with the SEC or BIG that could truly be deemed "Marquee": Notre Dame, Clemson, Miami, Florida State, Oregon, Washington.

Three P5 basketball schools not yet in the BIG or SEC on the Marquee list: Duke, NC and Kansas. And Stanford gives you academic bragging rights, strength in many non-revenue sports, and entre to the #6 media market.

The remaining P5 programs are all "would be nice to haves," at best. I think the BIG and SEC try to grab as many of the ten schools I list above, maxing out around 20 teams each, and then will call it a day.

I mean, programs like Pitt, West Virginia, Oklahoma St., Syracuse, Virginia all are solid, but are they going to add value to what the SEC and BIG already have sufficient to make it worthwhile to give them a full revenue share? I don't think so. BTW, if Illinois weren't already in the BIG, we'd surely be one of the "outside looking in" schools.
 
#496      
Notre Dame's endowment would be tops in the Big 10, by about $3 billion. Lotta smart, rich alums, they'll be just fine, whatever direction they chose.
Look's like ND is currently pulling low $20 millions from their TV contracts. That is roughly $20 million below B1G current payouts. The B1G payout is expected to balloon with the new TV contract. Taking $20-$50 million out of the $3 billion dollars Universities general endowment every year to keep up with B1G and SEC athletic departments, sure, I guess it is possible, and if any University cares enough about football to do it it would be ND. But I'd find that hard to believe. My understanding is that the endowments can be pretty restricted in what they can be used for. That is why nominally rich schools can't pay their janitors or graduate assistants more.

I would believe for a few years any number of ND donors would step up for "independence" and try to bridge the gap. But over the next decade or so the numbers add up to a lot of money even for the billionaire class, and get beyond the reach of the $100 millionaire class to cover.

The money argument also ignores the B1G and/or SEC essentially creating a new top level division and locking them out of playoffs.
 
#497      

illini80

Forgottonia
What are you talking about? Who is doing the "going" in your comparison?

The entire point here is stability. Not for the NCAA, but for these schools, which is absolutely the basis on which they should be making those decisions.
Oh come on. You can argue it’s a poor comparison and maybe it is, maybe it’s not, but you are informed and most certainly aware of what’s happened to that conference over the years when schools come and go as they please.
For those that don’t know, they have 11 current members and 3 affiliates by my count. They have 4 schools pending joining. BUT they’ve had 17 schools come and go over the years as the opportunities have improved or worsened.

It is what it is and I guess if we can have player free agency and bidding wars every year why can’t schools do the same.
 
#500      
Does anyone think that the B1G would go so far as to kick anyone out to make room for more desirable new blood?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.