USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024

ChiefGritty · Jul 22, 2022

FreshlySqueezed said:
Stagnant to a slight decline is a WIN in today's environment. If you don't understand or can't admit that, then there is no point in any further discussion. 25.6M viewers in 2021 >>>>>> 26.1M viewers in 1999.

I mean that's true in a sense, it's absolutely true that sports viewership has been stickier relative to other kinds of programming and people's desire to watch live sports have kept people attached to cable (and cable-like streaming TV options) to a much higher degree, which has made cable channels much more willing to pay big money for those properties since they are holding the whole business model together.

But 25.6 million viewers is still only 25.6 million people to sell life insurance to or to collect monthly subscriber fees from.

And it's not as if advertisers can't find people outside of the friendly confines of TV. There was some of that 5-10 years ago inflating the relative importance of that sports content but not now, advertisers are very comfortable on the internet now.

You could absolutely see a world in 10 years where the ratings on that graph are halved, but their advantage over anything else on linear TV is even larger. I very highly doubt that's a world of TV revenue growth in college football.

FreshlySqueezed · Jul 22, 2022

ChiefGritty said:
I mean that's true in a sense, it's absolutely true that sports viewership has been stickier relative to other kinds of programming and people's desire to watch live sports have kept people attached to cable (and cable-like streaming TV options) to a much higher degree, which has made cable channels much more willing to pay big money for those properties since they are holding the whole business model together.

But 25.6 million viewers is still only 25.6 million people to sell life insurance to or to collect monthly subscriber fees from.

And it's not as if advertisers can't find people outside of the friendly confines of TV. There was some of that 5-10 years ago inflating the relative importance of that sports content but not now, advertisers are very comfortable on the internet now.

You could absolutely see a world in 10 years where the ratings on that graph are halved, but their advantage over anything else on linear TV is even larger. I very highly doubt that's a world of TV revenue growth in college football.

You could cut viewership in half now and TV revenue would still have grown over the last 20+ years.

The Big Ten is on the verge of signing a $1B TV deal. Even at $500M (which it wouldn't be in your scenario, since the advantage is even larger), it would be growth since 1999.

ChiefGritty · Jul 22, 2022

FreshlySqueezed said:
You could cut viewership in half now and TV revenue would still have grown over the last 20+ years.

The Big Ten is on the verge of signing a $1B TV deal. Even at $500M (which it wouldn't be in your scenario, since the advantage is even larger), it would be growth since 1999.

Yeah no doubt. But a $500M deal would be regarded as a catastrophe now.

It isn't a catastrophe, but that's how this industry has become accustomed to thinking and acting. 2% of the next TV deal is the sole purpose of existence, 2070 doesn't exist.

Calvin · Jul 22, 2022

Ill in Cols said:
Sorry, late comment here. This also comes from Columbus Ohio. Not that many years ago, tOSU was bragging about the sold out streak. A recent program on sports radio here said those days are gone. With dynamic pricing, length of games, every game given a better seat in your family room, they can likely expect sellouts for ND, UM, maybe PSU and MSU, but everything else, walk up game day and buy a ticket.

This isn't a pure indication of waning interest, per se, but it suggests the hold sports has over the fan may certainly be more tenuous now.

I think pricing is a big part of it. They want to fill up the stadium, but they want prices high enough to JUST BARELY fill it.

PIT_ILL · Jul 22, 2022

ChiefGritty said:
It's a good question and I see no reason to think that trend will abate (not to mention there being fewer school age kids just in general as the population ages), but I think one has to acknowledge football's existing dominance among fans who never played.

The NFL is not immune to some of the broader trends of the industry, but it sure seems more immune than anyone else.

I do think as I said earlier in the thread that that growth of playing football in various foreign markets combined with contraction in the US is eventually going to become more visible in the player pools at the college and pro level.

I think fantasy football has a lot to do with the popularity of the NFL. It has become quite the big business unto itself. Gives the average fan a skin in the game without learning over/unders and dealing with the traps and pitfalls of Vegas style bookies. Obviously every pro league has fantasy sports but all the others pale in comparison to the NFL

Calvin · Jul 22, 2022

wpr said:
Your comment got me to thinking. First let me say I have not read the posts for the past week or so. It’s possible someone has already mentioned this. If so I apologize for repeating it.
A 32 team super league is intriguing. Who would be in it? Your list of teams that will NOT be including it what really sparked my curiosity.

I looked at the final AP top 25 for the past 5 seasons. There are 16 teams ...

I think there is a parity issue that arises if you get rid of all the weaker teams. In other words, I think there's value to fans to have lesser teams that are below .500, often resulting in wins for the favorites, but still have the potential to knock off a team that's playing for a spot in the playoffs. Everyone wants to follow a winning team. And weak teams have gotten some really big payouts from the big boys to help with scheduling.

I don't know where the tipping point is. College football has a difficult problem because of the format it uses to divide the revenue and try to exclude the smaller programs from getting a share of the pie. Still, I think at least in the short and medium term, programs that usually struggle in the bottom half of the conference will remain welcome.

FreshlySqueezed · Jul 22, 2022

ChiefGritty said:
Yeah no doubt. But a $500M deal would be regarded as a catastrophe now.

It isn't a catastrophe, but that's how this industry has become accustomed to thinking and acting. 2% of the next TV deal is the sole purpose of existence, 2070 doesn't exist.

It would only be a catastrophe because viewership didn't cut in half. You are trying to compare two incomparable scenarios.

If viewers slowly eroded down to half their 1999 levels now, the TV deals would have gone like $100M -> $300M -> $500M instead of $100M -> $500M -> $1B, for example.

Fighter of the Nightman · Jul 23, 2022

wpr said:
Your comment got me to thinking. First let me say I have not read the posts for the past week or so. It’s possible someone has already mentioned this. If so I apologize for repeating it.
A 32 team super league is intriguing. Who would be in it? Your list of teams that will NOT be including it what really sparked my curiosity.

I looked at the final AP top 25 for the past 5 seasons. There are 16 teams that finished on the list at least 3 of the past 5 years. More than likely these teams a re a lock to be in the super league.

Alabama
Clemson
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
LSU
Michigan
Northwestern
NC State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Oregon
Penn State
Texas
The teams I am not sure about are Boise State, Cincinnati and UCF. I am sure their records would be slightly worse if they played a B1G and SEC schedule.

There are 14 more teams that were in the top 25 twice.
Auburn
Baylor
BYU
Kentucky
Louisiana
Memphis
Miami
Michigan State
Texas A&M
Wisconsin
USC
Utah
Utah State
Washington

That’s 33 teams so obviously someone would be left out. Memphis, Louisiana, Utah and Utah State.

There are 26 teams that have been ranked once in the past 5 seasons.
Air Force
Appalachian State
Arkansas
Army
Coastal Carolina
Fresno State
Houston
Indiana
Iowa State
Minnesota
Mississippi (Ole)
Mississippi State
Navy
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
San Diego State
San José State
South Florida
Stanford
Syracuse
TCU
Tulsa
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
Washington State
West Virginia
There will be some interest in the service academies Army, Navy and to a lesser extent, Air Force as they have national appeal. Arkansas, North Carolina, Pitt, Stanford, Syracuse and West Virginia will be in the discussion as well.

Others who have not been mentioned include:
Florida State, (It doesn’t seem like it was that long ago when they were a team that was mentioned every year. Where have you gone Bobby Bowden?)
Arizona
Arizona State
Cal
Missouri
Virginia
UCLA
For the most part, I am ignoring Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt.

In a power league were money talks my guess is:

Alabama
Auburn
Baylor
Clemson
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Kentucky
LSU
Miami
Michigan
Michigan State
Missouri
Northwestern
North Carolina
NC State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Oregon
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Stanford
Syracuse
Texas
Texas A&M
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
UCLA
USC

If the league is going to take shape 10 years from now, Illinois would have a lot of work to do to get on to the list. It’s possible for them to push past a of the few teams on the list but they must start now. They can’t wait and begin 5 years from now.

I suppose what prompted this exercise is, if Northwestern, MSU, Iowa, Mizzou and Pitt don't make your super league, who is a more likely candidate? I have UCLA not because of their record but because of the huge market the represent. While Chicago is a large market, too many other teams already share that market so the Illini can't bring it to the table as a bargaining chip.

Yes we can … that’s not how “delivering” a market works. The channel for whatever league we’d be in would immediately be in the Chicago market.

Old.Edgy · Jul 23, 2022

mattcoldagelli said:
Honest question for anybody - I know we are talking about people watching football, but how does that intersect with people playing football? We're at a point where 50% of Americans think tackle football is not a safe sport for kids. Setting aside some of the Super League-ish scenarios above - won't there necessarily be some contraction anyway if we have less kids playing football across the board? Or will the effects of that remain pretty far into the future?

I have pondered this for quite a while now. Not only the traumatic injuries, but surely the insurance premiums that schools are paying will continue to rise and sooner rather than later, make it near impossible for smaller schools (or those left to wither as described in the thread) to be able to afford....

Guest · Jul 23, 2022

pruman91 said:
For a while they had a dominant starting rotation with Jim Palmer , Mike Cuellar , Dave McNally , and Pat Dobson..............All 20 game winners in 1971.........

WOW..........................

edit :.........also had Frank Robinson , i believe the only player to win MVP's in both leagues.......Brooks Robinson wasn't too bad either .....16 gold gloves....

How could you forget Boog Powell? The name itself is MVP worthy. Also, Paul Blair, great centerfielder. Davey Johnson at second who would later become manager at some point. For some reason I became an Oriole fan back in the 60s even though I am from Chicago area and all my friends were Sox fans. Not that this is off topic or anything.

spotter · Jul 23, 2022

Old.Edgy said:
I have pondered this for quite a while now. Not only the traumatic injuries, but surely the insurance premiums that schools are paying will continue to rise and sooner rather than later, make it near impossible for smaller schools (or those left to wither as described in the thread) to be able to afford....

I’ve said for a few years that moms will determine the future of football.

spotter · Jul 24, 2022

Several tweets but this guy has Stanford and Cal flirting with the Big 12.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551383298399764480

WeWillWhen · Jul 24, 2022

ChiefGritty said:
Excellent question.

And the follow-on question, if you price interested fans out of attending and/or watching, does that interest still remain?

When the Golden State Warriors move from a rickety old 20,000 seat arena to a shiny new 18,000 seat arena better able to monetize the rich tech types interested in attending games, is that a business that's growing?

I think you can cherry pick teams in any sport to either support or contradict the growth point.

Example: LA Dodgers. They play in a league supposedly declining in popularity, their games are rarely on free TV (and for four years recently were not even available on cable in more than half their home market), ticket prices are in the stratosphere … but they set an all-time home attendance record in 2019 and could come close to topping it this year. Because they’re good. Winning draws fans in every sport.

Noblesville Illini · Jul 24, 2022

spotter said:
Several tweets but this guy has Stanford and Cal flirting with the Big 12.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551383298399764480

Guess the Big 12 wants to raise their GPA?

spotter · Jul 25, 2022

Keeler: Get out, CU. If the Big 12 offers Buffs lifeline out of lying, dying Pac-12, they’d be crazy not to take it.

If push came to shove, in six years, Buffs fans, would you rather be in a league with San Diego State, Boise State and Fresno State? Or in a conference with Iowa State, Kansas State, West Virginia …

www.denverpost.com

spotter · Jul 25, 2022

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551569854934634496

ChiefGritty · Jul 25, 2022

spotter said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551569854934634496

A really interesting tension there with those late starts.

ESPN loves them because that's open real estate on the schedule and allows them to have more live football that it can draw an audience to and sell ads against that other providers can't because they don't have the same base of eyeballs. Lots of people live in the Pacific time zone, and that's a prime time telecast window.

But fans and teams from other time zones hate playing in those games, and coaches trying to recruit in Florida (which is to say, every coach in America) hate playing games their recruiting targets are asleep for. And the whole conference has long complained about being underrated because poll voters and playoff committee members and media power brokers are in the east coast fast asleep when they play.

The first thing I thought with that seemingly inexplicable "UA, ASU, Utah, Colorado flirting with Big 12" headline was that it reflected a pathological desire to avoid playing late night west coast kickoffs.

Money will win the day though, I predict.

(Just as a sidebar, how they are going to schedule Big Ten football, or anything, now is beyond me. Fox has gone all out with the Big Noon Kickoff thing. No way they make USC play a home game at 9AM PT, right?)

illinistephen · Jul 25, 2022

DReq said:
I am not sure of your use of Title IX but it relates only to institutional spending. There is no such limit on the booster supported and individually generated NIL. Once you invite institutional spending on what is now NIL the Title IX rules come into play. That is certainly one block to institutions funding the payments directly to athletes (although as shown above the athletic directors can suggest to boosters that they shift some of their money to NIL cooperatives). That may be what you were saying there but I was not certain.

If you look at massive college sports stars like Tim Tebow or Tyler Hansbrough their face was everywhere and they brought in a lot of money. But instead of paying them any of the money they helped earn, the schools used it to subsidize hundreds of other athletes in other sports. If that was unfair, even with NIL, the athletes are still the ones who make the coaches and everyone else rich.
The point with bringing up title IX is to ask what it would take for one school to decide to stop subsidizing non-revenue sports altogether to funnel everything to football and/or men's basketball?
It is a little wacky if the best way to make yourself better is to ask your donors to give their money to someone else instead of to you.

If we get a system where each player has 5 limited edition jerseys that cost 100K each and the schools can "guarantee" payment to recruits from sales through boosters who is harmed? The rich boosters can collect these just like coins or stamps and brag to their friends about how they support the team.

ChiefGritty · Jul 25, 2022

illinistephen said:
The point with bringing up title IX is to ask what it would take for one school to decide to stop subsidizing non-revenue sports altogether to funnel everything to football and/or men's basketball?

For title IX purposes you'd need an equivalent number of scholarships in women's sports, so presumably women's basketball and then some combo of soccer, track, volleyball, whatever to make up the numbers. Not all that much money if you don't want it to be.

I'm a little surprised no one has tried this, and the pressure to head in that direction is only increasing, especially for the ACC/Big 12/Pac 12.

spotter · Jul 25, 2022

If Washington or Oregon want their fair share and part of yours, the PAC-12/10/8 will not survive.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551605573354803200

the juiceman cometh · Jul 25, 2022

spotter said:
If Washington or Oregon want their fair share and part of yours, the PAC-12/10/8 will not survive.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551605573354803200

It's not unprecedented. Part of the reason USC and UCLA weren't happy with the Pac 12 is because they used to get a bigger revenue share than the other schools, then the conference went to an equal share model a few years back. I think equal share is the better way to go, just pointing out that there is precedent, within the Pac 12, of paying the bigger draw schools more, and it may be necessary to keep Oregon and Washington at this point.

Shabasco · Jul 25, 2022

ChiefGritty said:
A really interesting tension there with those late starts.

ESPN loves them because that's open real estate on the schedule and allows them to have more live football that it can draw an audience to and sell ads against that other providers can't because they don't have the same base of eyeballs. Lots of people live in the Pacific time zone, and that's a prime time telecast window.

But fans and teams from other time zones hate playing in those games, and coaches trying to recruit in Florida (which is to say, every coach in America) hate playing games their recruiting targets are asleep for. And the whole conference has long complained about being underrated because poll voters and playoff committee members and media power brokers are in the east coast fast asleep when they play.

The first thing I thought with that seemingly inexplicable "UA, ASU, Utah, Colorado flirting with Big 12" headline was that it reflected a pathological desire to avoid playing late night west coast kickoffs.

Money will win the day though, I predict.

(Just as a sidebar, how they are going to schedule Big Ten football, or anything, now is beyond me. Fox has gone all out with the Big Noon Kickoff thing. No way they make USC play a home game at 9AM PT, right?)

I get that 10:30 pm start times aren't ideal but what time exactly do you think high school kids go to bed on a Saturday night?

Saturdaze · Jul 25, 2022

the juiceman cometh said:
It's not unprecedented. Part of the reason USC and UCLA weren't happy with the Pac 12 is because they used to get a bigger revenue share than the other schools, then the conference went to an equal share model a few years back. I think equal share is the better way to go, just pointing out that there is precedent, within the Pac 12, of paying the bigger draw schools more, and it may be necessary to keep Oregon and Washington at this point.

Without keeping tally I think I’ve generally agreed with you, but I disagree with this. I think that when it comes to these deals the prior arrangements mean practically nothing. Every single school not in the BIG or SEC will accept an invite to the conferences including ND if they were a free agent.

I think the calculus now with ND is they know their seat at the table will be there next round of realignment whether that’s this year or in 10 years, so they’re weighing the gains of joining a conference vs the remaining liabilities of exiting their current arrangements. They’re hoping to offload their risk to NBC with that $75 million demand assuming NBC is desperate enough to avoid being left out of the CFB bonanza.

I think OR, WA, and literally every other team in NCAA will be willing to do whatever it takes to join the SEC or BIG because unlike ND a seat at the table will not be saved for them. OR and WA could each take 25% of the PAC TV revenue and it could still be less than what they’d get from the BIG or SEC. UT had a better TV deal than ND and they still jumped; the PAC, B12, or ACC just can’t compete with BIG or SEC anymore.

Edit: For clarity, I think if the threat being discussed is he PAC losing OR or WA to the BIG or SEC then there is nothing the PAC can do to prevent that move. If the concern is them moving to B12, then I retract my opinion because I don’t know enough to compare PAC vs B12 membership.

the juiceman cometh · Jul 25, 2022

Saturdaze said:
Without keeping tally I think I’ve generally agreed with you, but I disagree with this. I think that when it comes to these deals the prior arrangements mean practically nothing. Every single school not in the BIG or SEC will accept an invite to the conferences including ND if they were a free agent.

I think the calculus now with ND is they know their seat at the table will be there next round of realignment whether that’s this year or in 10 years, so they’re weighing the gains of joining a conference vs the remaining liabilities of exiting their current arrangements. They’re hoping to offload their risk to NBC with that $75 million demand assuming NBC is desperate enough to avoid being left out of the CFB bonanza.

I think OR, WA, and literally every other team in NCAA will be willing to do whatever it takes to join the SEC or BIG because unlike ND a seat at the table will not be saved for them. OR and WA could each take 25% of the PAC TV revenue and it could still be less than what they’d get from the BIG or SEC. UT had a better TV deal than ND and they still jumped; the PAC, B12, or ACC just can’t compete with BIG or SEC anymore.

Agree with all of this but the danger for Pac 12 right now is that even if B1G and SEC don't come for Washington and Oregon, Big 12 and possibly ACC will. Yeah, probably nothing prevents them from leaving for the big 2, but it would probably be worse for the Pac 12 to lose them to the Big 12 at this point, and that may be preventable.

Saturdaze · Jul 25, 2022

the juiceman cometh said:
Agree with all of this but the danger for Pac 12 right now is that even if B1G and SEC don't come for Washington and Oregon, Big 12 and possibly ACC will. Yeah, probably nothing prevents them from leaving for the big 2, but it would probably be worse for the Pac 12 to lose them to the Big 12 at this point, and that may be preventable.

I agree. I actually made my edit while you were responding, so I think we’re on the same page. Long term, B12 vs PAC vs ACC seems like shuffling chairs on the titanic until the next realignment. Not sure it will really matter much beyond the short term financial payments that differ between the 2nd tier leagues.