Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
Since those are all coaches I'd reckon it's something else.
USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024
- Status
This is all typical click bait we see after every conference expansion.
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Ames is west of Iowa City and so the footprints don't overlap. Sorry if that was confusing I didn't really know how best to say it.
Georgia and Georgia Tech is correct.
1990 was the last year before Arkansas and South Carolina jumped to the SEC and Penn State jumped to the Big Ten, kicking off this whole rodeo.
The 1984 SCOTUS case that gave schools the rights to broadcast their own games to the present day is just one big, stupid mud wrestling match.
Don't know if it's legit, but makes perfect sense that ESPN would be on board with this in a couple ways actually.
First, ESPN is trying to consolidate their most valuable programs into one product. Even if the ACC deal is below market rate, if ESPN really just values 4-6 programs in that conference, it can shift those over to the SEC, bump their pay, and not pay the 6-8 programs it doesn't care about. And I wouldn't be surprised if the operating assumption is that these programs would draw even more eyeballs in the SEC than they do in the ACC.
Second, ESPN values the playoff more than anything. They want to expand the playoff, own the playoff, and shove as many SEC teams in there as they can fit. Having the SEC dominate the playoffs also (theoretically) boosts the viewership of SEC regular season games. The goal is to establish the SEC as the premier league in college football, and the driving force of the postseason. Strong teams in rival conferences are the antithesis of that goal.
Third, it's clear the only possible rival to the SEC's ambitions right now is the B1G. The number of valuable programs outside the B1G and SEC are dwindling, and the SEC is probably wary of B1G expansion to some extent. Figuring that it's a matter if time before the B1G starts looking at ACC schools, the SEC (and ESPN) may have thought it wise to act first and take the most valuable programs off the table.
Not making a value judgment to any of these rationalizations, just pointing out that there are definitely reasons ESPN could be ok with this, if this report is legit (and it might not be - daily caller is a suspect source).
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
Seems arbitrary. There have been changes to conference memberships before that--many of them. Georgia Tech was in the SEC from 1932 to 1964. South Carolina was in the ACC until 1961. The PAC8 became the PAC10 in 1978. MSU didn't join the B1G until 1950. And of course smaller conferences came and went, eating themselves, merging, etc. throughout the entire timeline of college athletics.
Most of us just call it change. And I certainly see it as a very good thing that schools are able to dictate their media rights. I guess some folks would like to go back to the days of leather helmets, fans in fur coats with triangular pennants, and games only available on the wireless.
edited for clarity.
Last edited:
Those were the days!
I hate ESPN.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
I don't know if the numbers work on that. The value of the other 6-8 isn't zero, and ESPN will wind up as a bidder on wherever they go anyway.
Thing is, the ship has sailed on ESPN being the sole rights holder on an expanded playoff. Fox and the B1G will (wisely, for everyone's sake, even the SEC) not allow that to happen. The conference duopoly will be a playoff broadcast duopoly.
And I totally agree that the SEC's angle is total hegemony of national title level football, and so why would UNC and Virginia make any sense? It does not have the odor of truth.
The SEC's dream move would be adding ND and Clemson. Alas, we do not always get what we dream of.
The play ESPN has here is that they have full ownership of the SEC media rights (which no one has ever had before, they've always been split), full ownership of the ACC media rights, and are probably in a position to be the high bidder for whatever shakes out with the Big 12 and Pac 12. Plus their dominant position in broadcasting the lesser contracts. They have a truly national scope and (unlike any other media player) the platforms to deliver it all.
ESPN's move is what ESPN's move always is for sports entities that don't play ball with them: ice them out of the conversation entirely. ESPN is never going to give focused coverage to a Big Ten game again. They are going to cover a college sports nation that doesn't have the Big Ten in it. They are absolutely brazen and shameless about this, as we all know. It's a very different media landscape than it was 10-20 years ago, but over time that can have an effect.
(I kinda can't imagine the B1G selling their non-Fox package to ESPN at this point given the cold war happening, but who knows I guess)
Anyway, you are precisely correct that the action is now Fox/B1G vs ESPN/SEC. That is the only battle that matters, everything else is just deck chairs. I see the analysis flowing from that differently though.
I restate my hatred for ESPN.
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
I mean, it may bring some eyeballs to TV, but not that many to give them a slice of the pie
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The Big Ten didn't "play ball" with ESPN when they started the Big Ten Network, yet ESPN forked over an insane amount of money for the second pick each week during the last round of negotiations.
I will be somewhat surprised, but not shocked, if ABC/ESPN doesn't have some Big Ten games. The Big Ten is too valuable for football and basketball for ABC/ESPN to not make a competitive offer and the conference surely recognizes the value of being on ABC/ESPN.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Which is to say, the Big Ten sold them the rights. And a significant package. I take the point that Fox has become a larger partner, but there's still an incentive for ESPN there.
I agree, tbh. We'll see.
The one thing I hope just from a fan perspective is that they don't offload some B-list package to a streamer. That will alienate existing fans and do nothing to attract new ones. And of course it will be us stuck on Apple+ eight times a year.
They really need to make the CBS 2:30 thing work above all. That's goal #1 for me. That is the Central Park penthouse real estate of the sport.
Last edited:
I would have a hard time seeing schools who are within shouting distance of the Pacific Ocean join the Atlantic Coast Conference.
I've read that Apple could be interested in B1G rights, and if that's the case one might expect both Amazon and Netflix to be considering a bid, too. They say everything's going streaming, and those are the sharks in that pool. If so, the bidding for future rights could leave ESPN an also-ran. All three have a sense of B1G streaming habits and viewer loyalty (although in the case of Netflix they would be interpreting declines in viewership during game times), so could be using a very different calculus than legacy networks.
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
When ND gets off the pot?
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
yea, I dont think the B1G does anything until they know what ND is going to do. could be a little while. Its not a race to see who can get to 18 or 20 first
will Colorado, Utah or Arizona or ASU do something with B12 first ? anyones guess.
they will likely jump if they can get more money with them, then with Pac10. its takes time for these TV driven deals to get figured out.
the USC/UCLA deals were like 4-5 months in the making
DaChief4ever
- Urbana
Rumors of Hawaii to the Big East?
- Status