(02-25-2024 11:20 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I mean - I really did think the Big Ten would add Stanford and Cal if they were going to add Washington and Oregon up to the end. From the beginning, Stanford and Cal have everything that the Big Ten could possibly want… except for the money. Those are two schools that the Big Ten presidents were going to try every single way to figure out a way to make it work, yet ultimately, the league isn’t in “investment mode” and likely won’t ever be again. They’re in “unambiguous guaranteed cash mode”.

I guess that’s also why I’m pessimistic about the number of schools that the Big Ten would really want from the ACC and perplexed at these predictions of a 24-team Big Ten or larger. If the networks aren’t paying for Stanford and Cal, are they really paying for a UVA-type (another example of an elite academic large market school)? At the same time, there is no single better academics/market combo that’s better than Stanford/Cal. This round of realignment has shown that such combo isn’t enough anymore (unlike the early-2010s) and we need to adjust our expectations accordingly.

The thing to remember about Cal and Stanford is that their football brands have low value, and they were on the west coast which hurts them more. That's it. No further analysis is needed. Discussions about academics and Olympic success is only relevant as an if and buts discourse like if only that gorgeous woman didn't have the flaming herpes sore on her face I'd be taking her home with me tonight.

Now as to the ACC schools, several ACC schools clearly have bigger football brands than Cal and Stanford, and just being on the east coast enhances their value. Now add to the value of natural rivalries that some ACC schools have, and others that could readily develop, with SEC schools that already have established large brands, and are within traveling distances by car, and a new calculus is formed.

Going back to your Virginia example, I surmise games between the Cavaliers and most SEC teams would get higher viewership than the Golden Bears or Cardinal Tree and most of the B1G schools. Now how many ACC schools add more football value than Cal and Stanford? I would say eight, nine including Notre Dame. Now how many if those eight are still below the mendoza line with Cal and Stanford? None of us knows.

Well, Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson and Miami are more valuable. Duke, Wake Forest and SMU are less valuable. Among the other 9, I suspect Georgia Tech, NCSU, UVA, Pitt, Syracuse and BC are comparable. There is absolutely no way any make the P2 except as filler when the conference wants an even number. Louisville might be more valuable, but I doubt the SEC or Big 10 would take them even as filler, the Big 10 for academic reasons and the SEC for duplication. UL almost certainly doesn't pass the Mendoza line and certainly don't pass it by much. That leaves Virginia Tech and UNC as probably more valuable, but both probably not enough. Maybe FSU and Clemson in the SEC pay for strategic additions of UNC + 1 of UVA/NCSU/VT.

The Big 10 and SEC only lack 5 states in the top half in population, #9 NC, #12 VA, #16 MA, all in the ACC and #14 AZ and #21 CO, both in the Big 12. So NC and VA schools do have some strategic value to the P2.

The Big 10 has 1, 4*(Rutgers in NYC suburbs), 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27, 31 and 37 in population.
The SEC has 2, 3, 8, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33 and 35.

The ACC has P4 exclusivity in 9, 12 and 16.
The Big 12 has P4 exclusivity in 14, 21, 30 (UT), 34 (KS) and 39 (WV).
The MWC has 32, 36, 38, 40 and 50 with no P4 schools.
41-49 have no FBS schools.
The only other state is 29 CT which has an independent/BE school.

California and Stanford were sure they were not B1G-bound even in the near-to-mid future. Or else they would not have accepted an ACC invite. They would've pushed for the XII or stayed to build a PAC with OSU/WSU.

(02-25-2024 08:28 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/02/23/m...-and-more/

It's behind a paywall, but this little nugget from it is not:

Big Ten presidents would have gladly welcomed Stanford and Cal into the conference. Academic Prestige, Olympic Sports, and the Bay Area is home to Tech giants and to thousands of B1G Alumni. The timing was poor, as FOX would not pay for them in 2024.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1a...meAU6KAQAA

My question to Wilner would be: "If they won't pay more for them now, why would they pay more for them in 2030? Wouldn't they just be diluting everyone else's shares?".

After Colorado flipped, The Athletic (Nicole Auerbach) reported that the Big Ten was considering 4 schools: UW, UO, Cal, and Stanford; the first two if the B1G wanted 18, all four if they wanted 20. A couple of days later, UW and UO jumped, which moved Utah, Arizona, and Arizona State to the Big XII. Had Cal and Stanford not had at least some contact with the B1G, they might have expressed more interest in the Big XII, though they would have preferred keeping the PAC-9. Once you are down to the PAC-4 you start exploring other options.

I suspect that there was at least some informal contact between the B1G and all 6 West Coast schools. Just before USC and UCLA announce there was a write-up on coming up on Kliavkoff's first anniversary. He was cleaning up Larry Scott's mess and getting better carriage for the PACN.

Cal and Stanford thought the travel would be a killer, and they were academic institutions, not football factories like Michigan and Ohio State. Oregon and Washington had some interest but nothing formal had been worked out.

After USC and UCLA started talking to each other they realized they could make it work. They would be a convenient travel pair, and they needed money. The President of UC was formerly the President of Ohio State. Before that he was chancellor of UC Irvine, and in that role was the Big West's representative on NCAA bodies. UC had told UCLA they would not subsidize their athletics, but that they could borrow $50 million and pay it back.

Remember that once USC and UCLA jumped, UW and UO immediately and publicly applied for Big Ten admission. They later made a very public visit to Chicago. They likely said, "we'll take the same deal you gave USC and UCLA". The Big Ten said "Um, we'll consider it, we need to work out the logistics of 16 first, but we'll keep you in mind." Fox wouldn't pay for the two.

Once it became evident that the PAC-10 or PAC-9 weren't going to get a decent media contract, UW and UO jumped. The remaining 9 schools were meeting to hear the Apple offer. UW and UO did not show for the meeting. The other presidents checked their Twitter feeds and texted each other, "Anybody got Yormark's number?"

(02-25-2024 09:31 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  More Wilner spin. His point is meaningless. There are a lot of things I’d want if someone else would pay for them. The fact is that Big 10 members weren’t willing to add Cal and Stanford even though it would have reduced their per-member payout by only 9% (the result of splitting the money 20 ways instead of 18), or even less assuming Cal and Stanford had been willing to accept temporary partial shares as Washington and Oregon did.

In short, Cal and Stanford weren’t worth it, which is the same kind of calculus that has kept Oregon State and Washington State from obtaining power conference invitations, and which historically has kept many schools from obtaining invitations to join conferences for which they appeared to be institutional fits.

This is not Wilner spin. It is about timing and about the money. Half of the teams in the Big Ten are not worth what they are getting paid. For example, Indiana is 3-24 in the Big Ten Conference in football the past three seasons. Nebraska has had seven consecutive losing seasons in football, and they lost their AAU status. These schools are fortunate to be in the Big Ten. Oregon and Washington got in at half-shares because FOX approved it. They are worth a lot more than that. As Wilner pointed out, Stanford and Cal were playing mediocre football at the wrong time and even if the Big Ten Presidents wanted to add them, there is only so much money available. It is not about them not being worth it. The networks are paying a full share to some Big Ten schools that are not worth it.

(02-26-2024 01:21 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:31 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  More Wilner spin. His point is meaningless. There are a lot of things I’d want if someone else would pay for them. The fact is that Big 10 members weren’t willing to add Cal and Stanford even though it would have reduced their per-member payout by only 9% (the result of splitting the money 20 ways instead of 18), or even less assuming Cal and Stanford had been willing to accept temporary partial shares as Washington and Oregon did.

In short, Cal and Stanford weren’t worth it, which is the same kind of calculus that has kept Oregon State and Washington State from obtaining power conference invitations, and which historically has kept many schools from obtaining invitations to join conferences for which they appeared to be institutional fits.

This is not Wilner spin. It is about timing and about the money. Half of the teams in the Big Ten are not worth what they are getting paid. For example, Indiana is 3-24 in the Big Ten Conference in football the past three seasons. Nebraska has had seven consecutive losing seasons in football, and they lost their AAU status. These schools are fortunate to be in the Big Ten. Oregon and Washington got in at half-shares because FOX approved it. They are worth a lot more than that. As Wilner pointed out, Stanford and Cal were playing mediocre football at the wrong time and even if the Big Ten Presidents wanted to add them, there is only so much money available. It is not about them not being worth it. The networks are paying a full share to some Big Ten schools that are not worth it.

The networks play no role in determining how conferences choose to internally distribute their revenue. If some Big Ten schools are being paid a full revenue share but aren’t worth it, that’s attributable to Big Ten members having approved the revenue distribution, not a decision by Fox or any other network.

What the networks do decide is how much they’re willing to pay in sum for a conference’s overall broadcast rights given a particular configuration of the conference’s membership. And Fox decided that what it would pay for the broadcast rights of a Big Ten with Cal and Stanford wasn’t significantly more than what it would pay for the broadcast rights of a Big Ten without Cal and Stanford.

Consequently the Big Ten presidents — not Fox — decided to pass on adding Cal and Stanford as new mouths to feed. It was all about them not being worth it, in the eyes of the presidents.

Wilner is doing the same thing he’s been doing a long time: spinning his commentary to make the legacy Pac and its exiting members seem more special than they actually were/are. To say that Cal and Stanford were wanted by the Big Ten presidents but their desire was sabotaged by the mean greedy networks who wouldn’t pay to add them is just pandering to those schools and their fans. It would have been simpler and more to the point for Wilner to say Cal and Stanford weren’t wanted by the Big Ten presidents because adding them wouldn’t have been accretive to the conference’s per-member income.

(02-25-2024 10:43 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 08:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 would gladly take Harvard if the networks would pay for them.

Yes.

Who the Hell wouldn't take Harvard? It's only the most prestigious school in the universe (I do believe in aliens and that they're far more advanced but you get the point).

A better take,/hypothetical is the B1G or SEC would take Huston-Tillotson [sic] if the networks would pay for them. (An NAIA school in Austin)

(02-25-2024 09:31 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  More Wilner spin. His point is meaningless. There are a lot of things I’d want if someone else would pay for them. The fact is that Big 10 members weren’t willing to add Cal and Stanford even though it would have reduced their per-member payout by only 9% (the result of splitting the money 20 ways instead of 18), or even less assuming Cal and Stanford had been willing to accept temporary partial shares as Washington and Oregon did.

In short, Cal and Stanford weren’t worth it, which is the same kind of calculus that has kept Oregon State and Washington State from obtaining power conference invitations, and which historically has kept many schools from obtaining invitations to join conferences for which they appeared to be institutional fits.

The B1G has always been about markets while the SEC has been about brands.

The Bay Area is a huge market. Only time will tell if the B1G whiffed on an opportunity or the conference figured that 18 members was enough AND they couldn't figure on how to give Rutgers and Maryland back.

Everybody here is right.
Were Cal/Stanford wanted by Big Ten Presidents? Yes.
Were they 'worth it' to FOX? No.
Are Cal/Stanford a more valuable pairing than IU/Purdue if both were free agents? Yes.
Are top tier Big Ten teams hypocrites for wanting to maximize their value while at the same time extending contracts tethered to low-rent Big Ten programs? Yes.

(02-26-2024 05:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:31 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  More Wilner spin. His point is meaningless. There are a lot of things I’d want if someone else would pay for them. The fact is that Big 10 members weren’t willing to add Cal and Stanford even though it would have reduced their per-member payout by only 9% (the result of splitting the money 20 ways instead of 18), or even less assuming Cal and Stanford had been willing to accept temporary partial shares as Washington and Oregon did.

In short, Cal and Stanford weren’t worth it, which is the same kind of calculus that has kept Oregon State and Washington State from obtaining power conference invitations, and which historically has kept many schools from obtaining invitations to join conferences for which they appeared to be institutional fits.

The B1G has always been about markets while the SEC has been about brands.

The Bay Area is a huge market. Only time will tell if the B1G whiffed on an opportunity or the conference figured that 18 members was enough AND they couldn't figure on how to give Rutgers and Maryland back.

The Big Ten can add Cal/Stanford whenever they want. It's not like they're a threat to go to the SEC. The bigger risk (if they did want them eventually) is letting their programs deteriorate even further.

Oh well. I guess Rutgers will just have to keep waiting for new friends to join them in the B1G crap house.

(02-25-2024 08:28 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/02/23/m...-and-more/

It's behind a paywall, but this little nugget from it is not:

Big Ten presidents would have gladly welcomed Stanford and Cal into the conference. Academic Prestige, Olympic Sports, and the Bay Area is home to Tech giants and to thousands of B1G Alumni. The timing was poor, as FOX would not pay for them in 2024.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1a...meAU6KAQAA

My question to Wilner would be: "If they won't pay more for them now, why would they pay more for them in 2030? Wouldn't they just be diluting everyone else's shares?".

I’ve heard this about Cal and Stanford multiple times. I also heard that the B1G wanted Virginia to come along with North Carolina but FOX refused to pay for UVa. The B1G apparently also asked FOX about Georgia Tech and the valuation wasn’t there.

(02-25-2024 11:20 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(02-25-2024 09:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I mean - I really did think the Big Ten would add Stanford and Cal if they were going to add Washington and Oregon up to the end. From the beginning, Stanford and Cal have everything that the Big Ten could possibly want… except for the money. Those are two schools that the Big Ten presidents were going to try every single way to figure out a way to make it work, yet ultimately, the league isn’t in “investment mode” and likely won’t ever be again. They’re in “unambiguous guaranteed cash mode”.

I guess that’s also why I’m pessimistic about the number of schools that the Big Ten would really want from the ACC and perplexed at these predictions of a 24-team Big Ten or larger. If the networks aren’t paying for Stanford and Cal, are they really paying for a UVA-type (another example of an elite academic large market school)? At the same time, there is no single better academics/market combo that’s better than Stanford/Cal. This round of realignment has shown that such combo isn’t enough anymore (unlike the early-2010s) and we need to adjust our expectations accordingly.

The thing to remember about Cal and Stanford is that their football brands have low value, and they were on the west coast which hurts them more. That's it. No further analysis is needed. Discussions about academics and Olympic success is only relevant as an if and buts discourse like if only that gorgeous woman didn't have the flaming herpes sore on her face I'd be taking her home with me tonight.

Now as to the ACC schools, several ACC schools clearly have bigger football brands than Cal and Stanford, and just being on the east coast enhances their value. Now add to the value of natural rivalries that some ACC schools have, and others that could readily develop, with SEC schools that already have established large brands, and are within traveling distances by car, and a new calculus is formed.

Going back to your Virginia example, I surmise games between the Cavaliers and most SEC teams would get higher viewership than the Golden Bears or Cardinal Tree and most of the B1G schools. Now how many ACC schools add more football value than Cal and Stanford? I would say eight, nine including Notre Dame. Now how many if those eight are still below the mendoza line with Cal and Stanford? None of us knows.

The other benefit with the ACC schools is the direct competition with the SEC. Virginia and North Carolina are a potential battleground between the two conferences. Both would be able to claim "bragging rights" if they were able to claim the two state flagships. The further south the Big Ten gets then the chances of the Big Ten getting an SEC team to jump ship increases and vice versa the further north the SEC gets. The SEC had no interest in California and once the Big Ten had a stake there Cal and Stanford was just gravy.

(02-26-2024 07:56 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  I’ve heard this about Cal and Stanford multiple times. I also heard that the B1G wanted Virginia to come along with North Carolina but FOX refused to pay for UVa. The B1G apparently also asked FOX about Georgia Tech and the valuation wasn’t there.

The paradigm officially shifted summer 2021. Before, the best approach to understanding conference bids was to think like a university president. Now, it's to think like a network executive.

Both perspectives remain in it. What shifted is the ratio. Very different.

(02-26-2024 07:08 AM)kundrky Wrote:  The Big Ten can add Cal/Stanford whenever they want. It's not like they're a threat to go to the SEC. The bigger risk (if they did want them eventually) is letting their programs deteriorate even further.

If that's true, then the B1G can add FSU or UNC "whenever" they want. But, we don't yet know if that's true, do we?

Cal and Stanford each took crumbs — $7.5M annually til 2030 — to join an unstable conference filled with schools in the Eastern Time Zone.

They'd have jumped at a number well below that to rejoin USC, UCLA and UW in the B1G -- and that ~20% of pro rata figure would've been an easy win for the FOX, CBS and NBC bean counters.

But sequence matters

1. B1G and FOX leadership didn't want any more Pac-12 blood and/or legal mess on their hands. Getting the WSU/OSU/PAC-2 situation settled first was preferable before expanding further

2. A big fish (e.g. ND) needs to be the next addition

3. Stanford and Cal can (and will) be brought in on ND's coattails any time

(02-26-2024 09:58 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Cal and Stanford each took crumbs — $7.5M annually til 2030 — to join an unstable conference filled with schools in the Eastern Time Zone.

They'd have jumped at a number well below that to rejoin USC, UCLA and UW in the B1G -- and that ~20% of pro rata figure would've been an easy win for the FOX, CBS and NBC bean counters.

But sequence matters

1. B1G and FOX leadership didn't want any more Pac-12 blood and/or legal mess on their hands. Getting the WSU/OSU/PAC-2 situation settled first was preferable before expanding further

2. A big fish (e.g. ND) needs to be the next addition

3. Stanford and Cal can (and will) be brought in on ND's coattails any time

A B1G that can add Notre Dame can then afford to add more than just Notre Dame. Yes, indeed. ND's preferences would naturally be taken into consideration.

Wilner claims the B1G actually wanted Cal and Stanford

Of course they did! Those presidents ended up having to admit they love love love money in their pockets more than hobnobbing over light hors d'oeuvres with the presidents of Stanford and Cal Berkeley.

Whores in regalia at their finest!

IMO, saying a conference wanted a school "but" ... is the same as saying they didn't want them.

For example ... the SEC would really love to have USF, if USF had FSU's history of success in football and had Alabama's TV ratings. Well sure they would, but we don't. Similarly, Cal and Stanford didn't bring the money, so the B1G didn't want them.

Etc.

(02-25-2024 09:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I mean - I really did think the Big Ten would add Stanford and Cal if they were going to add Washington and Oregon up to the end. From the beginning, Stanford and Cal have everything that the Big Ten could possibly want… except for the money. Those are two schools that the Big Ten presidents were going to try every single way to figure out a way to make it work, yet ultimately, the league isn’t in “investment mode” and likely won’t ever be again. They’re in “unambiguous guaranteed cash mode”.

I guess that’s also why I’m pessimistic about the number of schools that the Big Ten would really want from the ACC and perplexed at these predictions of a 24-team Big Ten or larger. If the networks aren’t paying for Stanford and Cal, are they really paying for a UVA-type (another example of an elite academic large market school)? At the same time, there is no single better academics/market combo that’s better than Stanford/Cal. This round of realignment has shown that such combo isn’t enough anymore (unlike the early-2010s) and we need to adjust our expectations accordingly.

Except....How much are Stanford and Cal getting from the ACC...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...rd-cal-smu

I'm pretty sure the Big Ten could have afforded that if they really wanted Stanford and Cal that badly.

Stanford's president calls up the Big Ten, "Hey the ACC is giving us pennies to join. We'd be happy to take the same pennies from the Big Ten."

There are other things going on here. Perhaps the Big Ten's current media partners balked at Stanford and Cal because they would dilute the big name match ups?