...along with UO and Udub?

...most likely at 'reduced shares', but still a significant 'bump' from the probable PAC deal...

...that would give the B1G four Western flagships to go along with the two LA schools, resulting in a six-team 'pod' which would reduce 'cross-country' travel to 2-3 FB games a year, at worst...

...obviously Utah and Colorado would be happy in the B1G, academically...

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...

...SO, left with Cal and Stanford... eh... who knows where they end up - perhaps the B1G round it out with them and everybody lands on their feet.

(03-13-2023 07:49 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...along with UO and Udub?

...most likely at 'reduced shares', but still a significant 'bump' from the probable PAC deal...

...that would give the B1G four Western flagships to go along with the two LA schools, resulting in a six-team 'pod' which would reduce 'cross-country' travel to 2-3 FB games a year, at worst...

...obviously Utah and Colorado would be happy in the B1G, academically...

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...

...SO, left with Cal and Stanford... eh... who knows where they end up - perhaps the B1G round it out with them and everybody lands on their feet.

The money is not there in the next ten years, and your smaller revenue schools in the B1G will not vote for unequal revenue sharing that could make it work now. The money could be there in 20 years to do... But they would only be added in a 24+ team scenario.

They should be worried about being in a second tier Power Conference than being in the P2. There is a chance that if they do not make the right decisions, they could get left behind.

(03-13-2023 07:55 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:49 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...along with UO and Udub?

...most likely at 'reduced shares', but still a significant 'bump' from the probable PAC deal...

...that would give the B1G four Western flagships to go along with the two LA schools, resulting in a six-team 'pod' which would reduce 'cross-country' travel to 2-3 FB games a year, at worst...

...obviously Utah and Colorado would be happy in the B1G, academically...

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...

...SO, left with Cal and Stanford... eh... who knows where they end up - perhaps the B1G round it out with them and everybody lands on their feet.

The money is not there in the next ten years, and your smaller revenue schools in the B1G will not vote for unequal revenue sharing that could make it work now. The money could be there in 20 years to do... But they would only be added in a 24+ team scenario.

They should be worried about being in a second tier Power Conference than being in the P2. There is a chance that if they do not make the right decisions, they could get left behind.

I think Mean Green is right. There are a number of reasons both could get in, but the BIG would have to want to go to 24 minimum, in my opinion. It would leave room for ND and anyone from the ACC if they become available with the BiG ending at 28 or 32.

But the problem, as stated above, is the money. It seems that these moves wouldn’t generate enough revenue to get close to the current BIG deal. I don’t think the BIG will adopt unequal revenue sharing. It is an important part of the conference ethos. That said, most (not all) new members did have to pay in to the equity of BTN through reduced payments. That might work in the short term but would have to shake out by the next contract. Don’t know if that works.

Thinking about this more, one thought and I’d like opinions. If ASU, Arizona, WSU and OSU left the conference and the remaining six schools merge the PAC into the BIG, the BIG would now own the PAC Network. What sort of value would that have?

At 22 schools, the new BIG could likely have content for two channels. Could they sell a 51% stake in the PACN for money to offset the revenue gap? Would FOX, NBC, CBS or even ESPN want to buy? Adding that to a fourth window and maybe a Friday streaming package at Amazon, what could the BIG get?

Don’t think too hard: the next 4 on the Big Ten list (at least out of the Pac-12 options) are Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal. They are the 2 most valuable brands and then the 2 best academic schools that are directly located in the Bay Area market that has the largest concentration of Big Ten alums of any area that currently isn’t already in the Big Ten footprint.

Colorado and Utah technically have a chance, but it’s going to require the Big Ten to move to 24.

(03-13-2023 08:28 PM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:55 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:49 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...along with UO and Udub?

...most likely at 'reduced shares', but still a significant 'bump' from the probable PAC deal...

...that would give the B1G four Western flagships to go along with the two LA schools, resulting in a six-team 'pod' which would reduce 'cross-country' travel to 2-3 FB games a year, at worst...

...obviously Utah and Colorado would be happy in the B1G, academically...

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...

...SO, left with Cal and Stanford... eh... who knows where they end up - perhaps the B1G round it out with them and everybody lands on their feet.

The money is not there in the next ten years, and your smaller revenue schools in the B1G will not vote for unequal revenue sharing that could make it work now. The money could be there in 20 years to do... But they would only be added in a 24+ team scenario.

They should be worried about being in a second tier Power Conference than being in the P2. There is a chance that if they do not make the right decisions, they could get left behind.

I think Mean Green is right. There are a number of reasons both could get in, but the BIG would have to want to go to 24 minimum, in my opinion. It would leave room for ND and anyone from the ACC if they become available with the BiG ending at 28 or 32.

But the problem, as stated above, is the money. It seems that these moves wouldn’t generate enough revenue to get close to the current BIG deal. I don’t think the BIG will adopt unequal revenue sharing. It is an important part of the conference ethos. That said, most (not all) new members did have to pay in to the equity of BTN through reduced payments. That might work in the short term but would have to shake out by the next contract. Don’t know if that works.

The money is certainly the issue. The bar is getting raised higher and higher to be able to add value to the Big Ten or SEC. Yet, there’s no one on the table that is as valuable as USC, Texas or Oklahoma except for maybe Florida State. UNC has strategic value with its location and academics, Clemson has the recent history, Washington and Oregon have excellent West Coast brands, but they still aren’t the unambiguous blue blood no-brainer additions as the moves that the Big Ten and SEC just made.

Reduced revenue can be a temporary measure for a few years after expansion, but ultimately, a school needs to be able to pull its own weight in an equal revenue sharing model or else it shouldn’t be added in the first place. I don’t get why these leagues would model themselves after the NFL in realignment but then turn away from one of the very most important core tenets of the NFL: complete equal sharing of TV and league revenue. It’s a big reason as to why the NFL has such strong fan bases top-to-bottom (not just with the elite brands).

I think there will be a hurdle for anyone getting reduced shares going forward. In the past, it was done as a temporary buy in so to speak. It phased out over time. Now there is talk about permanent unequal revenue sharing. I think Washington and Oregon are in fact worth more than a lot of bottom dweller B1G teams. Next contract can potentially start chopping at Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Iowa etc. I don't think they will vote for this because it's a threat for them down the road.

...another question is, how 'flexible' (perhaps 'expandable' is a better word) is the B1G contract? If the net result is 'coast-to-coast' in multiple markets with 'quality brands', would the OVERALL conference be worth a good bit more? More teams - more content, etc... perhaps that answers my question, as there are 'only' four 'prime' windows on a given Saturday, unless they could get some East coasters to do a 'brunch' special - 9 AM EST kickoff? NBC has one of the big soccer leagues on Saturday mornings, I believe, so would perhaps be a FOX thing, or even ESPN?

I refer to the Kansas line as the line between where a team's odds at the Big 10 are slim (5%ish) and completely non-existent.

And I think that Colorado and Utah are behind even Kansas on the Big 10 expansion list, and thus are below the Kansas line.

(03-13-2023 08:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 08:28 PM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:55 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:49 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...along with UO and Udub?

...most likely at 'reduced shares', but still a significant 'bump' from the probable PAC deal...

...that would give the B1G four Western flagships to go along with the two LA schools, resulting in a six-team 'pod' which would reduce 'cross-country' travel to 2-3 FB games a year, at worst...

...obviously Utah and Colorado would be happy in the B1G, academically...

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...

...SO, left with Cal and Stanford... eh... who knows where they end up - perhaps the B1G round it out with them and everybody lands on their feet.

The money is not there in the next ten years, and your smaller revenue schools in the B1G will not vote for unequal revenue sharing that could make it work now. The money could be there in 20 years to do... But they would only be added in a 24+ team scenario.

They should be worried about being in a second tier Power Conference than being in the P2. There is a chance that if they do not make the right decisions, they could get left behind.

I think Mean Green is right. There are a number of reasons both could get in, but the BIG would have to want to go to 24 minimum, in my opinion. It would leave room for ND and anyone from the ACC if they become available with the BiG ending at 28 or 32.

But the problem, as stated above, is the money. It seems that these moves wouldn’t generate enough revenue to get close to the current BIG deal. I don’t think the BIG will adopt unequal revenue sharing. It is an important part of the conference ethos. That said, most (not all) new members did have to pay in to the equity of BTN through reduced payments. That might work in the short term but would have to shake out by the next contract. Don’t know if that works.

The money is certainly the issue. The bar is getting raised higher and higher to be able to add value to the Big Ten or SEC. Yet, there’s no one on the table that is as valuable as USC, Texas or Oklahoma except for maybe Florida State. UNC has strategic value with its location and academics, Clemson has the recent history, Washington and Oregon have excellent West Coast brands, but they still aren’t the unambiguous blue blood no-brainer additions as the moves that the Big Ten and SEC just made.

Reduced revenue can be a temporary measure for a few years after expansion, but ultimately, a school needs to be able to pull its own weight in an equal revenue sharing model or else it shouldn’t be added in the first place. I don’t get why these leagues would model themselves after the NFL in realignment but then turn away from one of the very most important core tenets of the NFL: complete equal sharing of TV and league revenue. It’s a big reason as to why the NFL has such strong fan bases top-to-bottom (not just with the elite brands).

There isn't the same disparity of fanbase sizes in the NFL that there is in CFB. The ratio of Cowboys fans to Jacksonville Jaguars fans isn't the same as the ratio of Ohio State fans to Northwestern fans.

(03-13-2023 09:20 PM)otown Wrote:  I think there will be a hurdle for anyone getting reduced shares going forward. In the past, it was done as a temporary buy in so to speak. It phased out over time. Now there is talk about permanent unequal revenue sharing. I think Washington and Oregon are in fact worth more than a lot of bottom dweller B1G teams. Next contract can potentially start chopping at Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Iowa etc. I don't think they will vote for this because it's a threat for them down the road.

There may be performance based unequal, but not "permanent" unequal. Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are raising a stink about their buy-in when USC and UCLA got in at 100%.

(03-13-2023 09:38 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...another question is, how 'flexible' (perhaps 'expandable' is a better word) is the B1G contract? If the net result is 'coast-to-coast' in multiple markets with 'quality brands', would the OVERALL conference be worth a good bit more? More teams - more content, etc... perhaps that answers my question, as there are 'only' four 'prime' windows on a given Saturday, unless they could get some East coasters to do a 'brunch' special - 9 AM EST kickoff? NBC has one of the big soccer leagues on Saturday mornings, I believe, so would perhaps be a FOX thing, or even ESPN?

Right now, probably not. It took Texas/Oklahoma to expand SEC payment to make 16 feasible. It took the LA market and blue-blood brands in USC and UCLA for 16. I think UNC/FSU makes sense to 18... Notre Dame with any Power program definitely. Outside of that, no one increases payouts.

There are schools that could join that maintains the same payout, but why would the schools who get less exposure (Indiana/Illinois/etc.) want to add better brands who will further decrease their exposure?

The B1G doesn't need more inventory. They already have a ton. Could they for access to streamers? The schools already turned that down when Warren was pushing for a rumored Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford package. I'm guessing the B1G schools' reluctance to expand further is a big reason why Warren left.

As a contrast, the B12 would expand if money is the same, but their past instability has taught the schools to value stability over money and exposure. The B1G is already stable and adding schools will not make them more stable. In fact, it could in the future cause less stability. Why risk it if not for more money?

It just doesn't make sense right now for the B1G to expand. I think they maintain membership until next contract and increase membership by two.

(03-13-2023 10:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 08:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 08:28 PM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:55 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:49 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...along with UO and Udub?

...most likely at 'reduced shares', but still a significant 'bump' from the probable PAC deal...

...that would give the B1G four Western flagships to go along with the two LA schools, resulting in a six-team 'pod' which would reduce 'cross-country' travel to 2-3 FB games a year, at worst...

...obviously Utah and Colorado would be happy in the B1G, academically...

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...

...SO, left with Cal and Stanford... eh... who knows where they end up - perhaps the B1G round it out with them and everybody lands on their feet.

The money is not there in the next ten years, and your smaller revenue schools in the B1G will not vote for unequal revenue sharing that could make it work now. The money could be there in 20 years to do... But they would only be added in a 24+ team scenario.

They should be worried about being in a second tier Power Conference than being in the P2. There is a chance that if they do not make the right decisions, they could get left behind.

I think Mean Green is right. There are a number of reasons both could get in, but the BIG would have to want to go to 24 minimum, in my opinion. It would leave room for ND and anyone from the ACC if they become available with the BiG ending at 28 or 32.

But the problem, as stated above, is the money. It seems that these moves wouldn’t generate enough revenue to get close to the current BIG deal. I don’t think the BIG will adopt unequal revenue sharing. It is an important part of the conference ethos. That said, most (not all) new members did have to pay in to the equity of BTN through reduced payments. That might work in the short term but would have to shake out by the next contract. Don’t know if that works.

The money is certainly the issue. The bar is getting raised higher and higher to be able to add value to the Big Ten or SEC. Yet, there’s no one on the table that is as valuable as USC, Texas or Oklahoma except for maybe Florida State. UNC has strategic value with its location and academics, Clemson has the recent history, Washington and Oregon have excellent West Coast brands, but they still aren’t the unambiguous blue blood no-brainer additions as the moves that the Big Ten and SEC just made.

Reduced revenue can be a temporary measure for a few years after expansion, but ultimately, a school needs to be able to pull its own weight in an equal revenue sharing model or else it shouldn’t be added in the first place. I don’t get why these leagues would model themselves after the NFL in realignment but then turn away from one of the very most important core tenets of the NFL: complete equal sharing of TV and league revenue. It’s a big reason as to why the NFL has such strong fan bases top-to-bottom (not just with the elite brands).

There isn't the same disparity of fanbase sizes in the NFL that there is in CFB. The ratio of Cowboys fans to Jacksonville Jaguars fans isn't the same as the ratio of Ohio State fans to Northwestern fans.

Eh - maybe not quite the same extreme, but it’s still a huge disparity between the Cowboys and Jaguars.

Plus, the Big Ten has the dynamic where its top brands actually *aren’t* in the largest markets in the league (at least until USC joins). NYC, Chicago and DC/Baltimore aren’t covered by the top brands. Those are the places that Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin grads all move to disproportionately. Everyone else other than Iowa and Nebraska also brings in a large pro market, but Iowa and Nebraska have among the most loyal on-the-ground fans to make up for it. So, the balance of power in the Big Ten is more evenly distributed that’s more like the NFL.

(03-13-2023 07:49 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...along with UO and Udub?
....

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...
....

The following could happen. Not before lunch next Friday, but in time.

B1G gets
Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal-Berk
followed by Utah, Colorado

SEC gets
Arizona State, Arizona

The additions of Utah and Colorado help the B1G shore up its current Swiss-cheese footprint. A B1G that has absorbed six PAC schools (UCLA, Southern Cal, Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford) is a B1G that will be much more favourably disposed to invite two more western schools than the B1G we've known up until now.

The Arizona schools look fine in the SEC, which would otherwise expand eastward. But the B1G might want them if it's packing 4 California schools already (pun intended).

(03-13-2023 10:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 09:20 PM)otown Wrote:  I think there will be a hurdle for anyone getting reduced shares going forward. In the past, it was done as a temporary buy in so to speak. It phased out over time. Now there is talk about permanent unequal revenue sharing. I think Washington and Oregon are in fact worth more than a lot of bottom dweller B1G teams. Next contract can potentially start chopping at Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Iowa etc. I don't think they will vote for this because it's a threat for them down the road.

There may be performance based unequal, but not "permanent" unequal. Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers are raising a stink about their buy-in when USC and UCLA got in at 100%.

Yes - that’s a very big difference.

I could see performance-based incentives in the ACC, Pac-12 and other leagues for CFP and NCAA Tournament bids.

What I have a hard time seeing is a group of 10/12/14/16 schools getting in a room and agreeing that X school is worth more than Y school for TV purposes. You certainly do that for expansion candidates, but not for those already in the league. These schools can barely figure out scheduling amongst themselves without total animosity, much less admitting that another school is *inherently* more valuable then their own school (no matter how obvious it might be to the outside world).

(03-13-2023 08:47 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Don’t think too hard: the next 4 on the Big Ten list (at least out of the Pac-12 options) are Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal. They are the 2 most valuable brands and then the 2 best academic schools that are directly located in the Bay Area market that has the largest concentration of Big Ten alums of any area that currently isn’t already in the Big Ten footprint.

Colorado and Utah technically have a chance, but it’s going to require the Big Ten to move to 24.

I agree with Frank that those should be the next 4. But even going to 24, the Big Ten has so many better choices before getting to Utah and Colorado.

(03-14-2023 06:30 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:49 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...along with UO and Udub?
....

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...
....

The following could happen. Not before lunch next Friday, but in time.

B1G gets
Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal-Berk
followed by Utah, Colorado

SEC gets
Arizona State, Arizona

The additions of Utah and Colorado help the B1G shore up its current Swiss-cheese footprint. A B1G that has absorbed six PAC schools (UCLA, Southern Cal, Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford) is a B1G that will be much more favourably disposed to invite two more western schools than the B1G we've known up until now.

The Arizona schools look fine in the SEC, which would otherwise expand eastward. But the B1G might want them if it's packing 4 California schools already (pun intended).

Pretty sure Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State will ultimately be placed in the Best of the Rest National Big 12 Conference.

(03-13-2023 10:37 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 08:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 08:28 PM)NotoriousOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:55 PM)Mean Green Alum Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:49 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...along with UO and Udub?

...most likely at 'reduced shares', but still a significant 'bump' from the probable PAC deal...

...that would give the B1G four Western flagships to go along with the two LA schools, resulting in a six-team 'pod' which would reduce 'cross-country' travel to 2-3 FB games a year, at worst...

...obviously Utah and Colorado would be happy in the B1G, academically...

THEN, Zona, ASU, Wazzou and OSU to the Big XII...

...SO, left with Cal and Stanford... eh... who knows where they end up - perhaps the B1G round it out with them and everybody lands on their feet.

The money is not there in the next ten years, and your smaller revenue schools in the B1G will not vote for unequal revenue sharing that could make it work now. The money could be there in 20 years to do... But they would only be added in a 24+ team scenario.

They should be worried about being in a second tier Power Conference than being in the P2. There is a chance that if they do not make the right decisions, they could get left behind.

I think Mean Green is right. There are a number of reasons both could get in, but the BIG would have to want to go to 24 minimum, in my opinion. It would leave room for ND and anyone from the ACC if they become available with the BiG ending at 28 or 32.

But the problem, as stated above, is the money. It seems that these moves wouldn’t generate enough revenue to get close to the current BIG deal. I don’t think the BIG will adopt unequal revenue sharing. It is an important part of the conference ethos. That said, most (not all) new members did have to pay in to the equity of BTN through reduced payments. That might work in the short term but would have to shake out by the next contract. Don’t know if that works.

The money is certainly the issue. The bar is getting raised higher and higher to be able to add value to the Big Ten or SEC. Yet, there’s no one on the table that is as valuable as USC, Texas or Oklahoma except for maybe Florida State. UNC has strategic value with its location and academics, Clemson has the recent history, Washington and Oregon have excellent West Coast brands, but they still aren’t the unambiguous blue blood no-brainer additions as the moves that the Big Ten and SEC just made.

Reduced revenue can be a temporary measure for a few years after expansion, but ultimately, a school needs to be able to pull its own weight in an equal revenue sharing model or else it shouldn’t be added in the first place. I don’t get why these leagues would model themselves after the NFL in realignment but then turn away from one of the very most important core tenets of the NFL: complete equal sharing of TV and league revenue. It’s a big reason as to why the NFL has such strong fan bases top-to-bottom (not just with the elite brands).

There isn't the same disparity of fanbase sizes in the NFL that there is in CFB. The ratio of Cowboys fans to Jacksonville Jaguars fans isn't the same as the ratio of Ohio State fans to Northwestern fans.

The Jaguars are the one NFL team that one could question if they should have a team in their current area. Not sure if 3 FL teams are necessary, especially with ATL so close.

I would say the only slam dunk, if the Big Ten takes 2 more PAC schools, is Washington. It checks all the boxes. Academics, TV market, strong football history and football attendance.

After that it's not obvious who would be #2 after Washington, and that's why the Big Ten is hesitating. But I would include these schools as candidates for #2

Oregon
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
Arizona St
Utah
Colorado

I would almost favor Colorado as #2, even though it's more recent football performance has been bad. Colorado checks a lot of boxes that Big Ten presidents like.

.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 chance. So yes they can have some hope.