Big 12 Expansion (new thread)

[cykadelic2]

From an inventory perspective, it would still be a wash. When you play a conference game, two teams are playing in one game, thus one TV timeslot. In an out of conference game, those same two teams are now playing in different games, thus two TV timeslots. While the media company may loose out on the away game being on their network, they would still get the same number of games. The difference is, at least I think, out of conference games may generate more interest and thus viewers because its something different.

No, Fox/BTN loses a significant amount of controllable inventory as a result of the reduction to 8 conference games and I doubt they are fully on board with this.

Do you think ESPN is going to have the SEC stay at 8 conference games? No flippin way and Sankey has admitted that.

 

[ElephantPie]

Divisions are going to be a thing of the past

I don't subscribe to the Athletic so can't read the article but did they say that they would change the NCAA rules for a football conference championship game? I thought earlier in this thread, when new Big 12 divisions were being talked about, that they said the NCAA required divisions for conferences with 12 teams or more. This article says " Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game." Then the article talks about the rule change for conferences with less than 12 members but that won't apply to any P5 conference soon.

 

[Gunnerclone]

Definitely makes our path to Indy much, much tougher, but I'm all for it. It's actually very rough news for anyone hoping for an invite to an expanding B1G, this would all but rule expansion out any time soon.

Look at this guy go. Are then any hoks that are truly not bitter at all times about ISU? Keep clutching those Big 10 pearls while tOSU, PSU, and Michigan sign every check and LOI with a “thanks conference “partners”.”

 

[JM4CY]

Look at this guy go. Are then any hoks that are truly not bitter at all times about ISU? Keep clutching those Big 10 pearls while tOSU, PSU, and Michigan sign every check and LOI with a “thanks conference “partners”.”

The obsession is so weird.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

No, Fox/BTN loses a significant amount of controllable inventory as a result of the reduction to 8 conference games and I doubt they are fully on board with this.

Do you think ESPN is going to have the SEC stay at 8 conference games? No flippin way and Sankey has admitted that.

Fox/BTN own the league members' home games. If they are playing 6/7 home games under 8+2 model and they were playing 6/7 before then it's a total wash.

 

[Hoggins]

I don't subscribe to the Athletic so can't read the article but did they say that they would change the NCAA rules for a football conference championship game? I thought earlier in this thread, when new Big 12 divisions were being talked about, that they said the NCAA required divisions for conferences with 12 teams or more. This article says " Under current rules, FBS conferences must have at least 12 members, and championship games must be between the winners of two divisions within the conference. Each division must play a round-robin schedule during the regular season in order to hold a championship game." Then the article talks about the rule change for conferences with less than 12 members but that won't apply to any P5 conference soon.

It’s expected that the power 5 is going to push for an NCAA rule change. SEC and Big 10 have now openly talked about dumping divisions and just putting the top 2 teams in a championship game.

Plus the whole autonomous thing the power 5 has got. They might not even need an rule change

 

[Daserop]

So ******* stupid. Lets expand and add more teams to our conference, yet play fewer conference games. I get the Big 10 is following the ACC and SEC, but it's still stupid.

Hell why stop at 8. Lets play 0 conference games. That way our conference can be superior to all.

 

[cykadelic2]

Fox/BTN own the league members' home games. If they are playing 6/7 home games under 8+2 model and they were playing 6/7 before then it's a total wash.

Due to existing non con contracts, the odds of fully implementing an 8+2 model for each B10 conference member with the P12 and ACC anytime soon are small or non existent. Again, Fox wants to maximize their controllable inventory and that is done with 9 conference games and not with the contractual risks of 8+2. And I agree with Bowlsby with what he recently stated to CBS Sports:

The Big Ten and Pac-12, at least, are considering playing one less conference game (dropping from nine to eight) to improve their schedule strengths with more high-profile nonconference games. "Conference content is always going to be better than nonconference content," Bowlsby said. "That's a decision we're going to have to make [in the new 12-team Big 12]. But the Pac-12 going to eight games is crazy. They're not going to get nonconference games that are as good as their league games."

Same logic applies to the B10.

 

[Gonzo]

O SNAP!!! Gonzo just said F&CK YOU to the ISU fans wanting a B1G invite.

I was talking about those KU f*ckers.

#mortalenemies

 

[20eyes]

So ******* stupid. Lets expand and add more teams to our conference, yet play fewer conference games. I get the Big 10 is following the ACC and SEC, but it's still stupid.

Hell why stop at 8. Lets play 0 conference games. That way our conference can be superior to all.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but CFB is f&cking stupid now. Realignment, the transfer portal, NIL, bloated and stretched out conferences, erosion of traditional bowl importance, SEC knob polishing, ESPN...it all sucks.

I think the NFL post-season has been outstanding this year. I don't need or want NFL Lite...and it's stupid.

 

[Gonzo]

Due to existing non con contracts, the odds of fully implementing an 8+2 model for each B10 conference member with the P12 and ACC anytime soon are small or non existent. Again, Fox wants to maximize their controllable inventory and that is done with 9 conference games and not with the contractual risks of 8+2. And I agree with Bowlsby with what he recently stated to CBS Sports:

The Big Ten and Pac-12, at least, are considering playing one less conference game (dropping from nine to eight) to improve their schedule strengths with more high-profile nonconference games. "Conference content is always going to be better than nonconference content," Bowlsby said. "That's a decision we're going to have to make [in the new 12-team Big 12]. But the Pac-12 going to eight games is crazy. They're not going to get nonconference games that are as good as their league games."

Same logic applies to the B10.

So Iowa v. Maryland is better than Iowa v. ASU?

 

[cykadelic2]

So Iowa v. Maryland is better than Iowa v. ASU?

Bowlsby's point is that the overall package of conference games retained with the 9 game schedule is better than what can be achieved with an equal number of non con games scheduled to replace them.

 

[Gonzo]

Bowlsby's point is that the overall package of conference games retained with the 9 game schedule is better than what can be achieved with an equal number of non con games scheduled to replace them.

That's a pretty big and generalized stretch. Sure I'd rather watch Indiana v. Purdue than Indiana v. Oregon St. But I'd much rather watch Iowa v. Oregon than Iowa v. Rutgers. Whether it's a ninth B1G conference game or an extra OOC game v. a Pac/ACC team, there are going to be good ones and there are going to be duds. Making the broad claim that one game is automatically better because it's a B1G opponent instead of a Pac/ACC opponent just seems baseless and kind of silly.

 

[Gonzo]

Look at this guy go. Are then any hoks that are truly not bitter at all times about ISU? Keep clutching those Big 10 pearls while tOSU, PSU, and Michigan sign every check and LOI with a “thanks conference “partners”.”

Thank you, thank you. Was hoping you'd notice the extra effort.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Due to existing non con contracts, the odds of fully implementing an 8+2 model for each B10 conference member with the P12 and ACC anytime soon are small or non existent. Again, Fox wants to maximize their controllable inventory and that is done with 9 conference games and not with the contractual risks of 8+2. And I agree with Bowlsby with what he recently stated to CBS Sports:

The Big Ten and Pac-12, at least, are considering playing one less conference game (dropping from nine to eight) to improve their schedule strengths with more high-profile nonconference games. "Conference content is always going to be better than nonconference content," Bowlsby said. "That's a decision we're going to have to make [in the new 12-team Big 12]. But the Pac-12 going to eight games is crazy. They're not going to get nonconference games that are as good as their league games."

Same logic applies to the B10.

There isn’t really a concern about losing dollars with this deal as the OOC games will be set up as home/home games. Projected payout of the next media deal is still 80 mil.

The protected rivalries situation is very interesting because you don’t want to be stuck with 3 great teams to play each year so there is going to be a system in place for that but could become an issue during talks. Most likely from what I have heard is the 3 protected would be from the same current divisions but that is obv constantly shifting.

 

[surly]

Just an observation that there's a whole lot of B10 chatter here on the B12 board.

 

[Hoggins]

Just an observation that there's a whole lot of B10 chatter here on the B12 board.

There's a number of posters here who can't accept reality. The Big 10 doesn't want ISU.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

That's a pretty big and generalized stretch. Sure I'd rather watch Indiana v. Purdue than Indiana v. Oregon St. But I'd much rather watch Iowa v. Oregon than Iowa v. Rutgers.

There are 13 fanbases in the B1G that would rather watch themselves vs. Oregon than vs. Rutgers. But there are only so many Oregons to go around.

Assuming the Alliance will try to pair the USCs, Oregons, Clemsons of the world with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State basically every year, upper middle-class teams like Iowa will be playing NC States and Arizonas most of the time, I imagine. And if someone like an Iowa manages to snag USC in a given year, they're probably getting Wake Forest as well.

 

[Gonzo]

There are 13 fanbases in the B1G that would rather watch themselves vs. Oregon than vs. Rutgers. But there are only so many Oregons to go around.

Assuming the Alliance will try to pair the USCs, Oregons, Clemsons of the world with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State basically every year, upper middle-class teams like Iowa will be playing NC States and Arizonas most of the time, I imagine. And if someone like an Iowa manages to snag USC in a given year, they're probably getting Wake Forest as well.

Agree. I just don't agree with the argument that Iowa v. Rutgers/Indiana/Maryland/Illinois/Northwestern/etc. would be better than Iowa v. Arizona/ASU/NC State/FSU/UCLA/Utah/NC/WF/etc.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Agree. I just don't agree with the argument that Iowa v. Rutgers/Indiana/Maryland/Illinois/Northwestern/etc. would be better than Iowa v. Arizona/ASU/NC State/FSU/UCLA/Utah/NC/WF/etc.

Fair enough although the flip side of this is that you aren't trading only the unexciting games for the Alliance ones. Like if they do the 3+5 thing, and Iowa is playing Neb/Minn/Wisc every year plus 5 of the remaining 10, then you're trading Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State just as much as you're trading Rutgers, Northwestern, Maryland. All for the right to play Virginia and Cal. Not sure that is an upgrade, although it does add more variety.