Honest question—why are the pro sports leagues anti-trust exempt but the nominally amateur college athletics departments are not?All very interesting except for one thing: anti trust
Honest question—why are the pro sports leagues anti-trust exempt but the nominally amateur college athletics departments are not?All very interesting except for one thing: anti trust
I have always thought USC, Stanford and any other 4 PAC schools make the B1G a no brainer for ND eventually if not now.I agree if the Big10 is willing to take at least 4-6 Pac12 schools. Then it is a no brainer for USC to join Big10. It may not take the sports media rights to be 100% accretive because of academic considerations. aka If Stanford is interested in joining Big10, they are in! Even if Stanford is below the top schools in sport media rights value.
24 teams is a lot to manage. I haven’t heard of a single scenario where we go over 20 teams but when the ACC rights deal is up in 10 years who knows.I have always thought USC, Stanford and any other 4 PAC schools make the B1G a no brainer for ND eventually if not now.
The B1G has all of ND's old rivals then USC, UM, MSU, Stanford, Purdue and they could add PSU to that list to build a new one. The B1G could then add NC, VA, & Duke.
It is but if the idea is for the B1G & SEC to go to 20-24 teams and then two leagues of 16-20 paid significantly less to try and at least give the appearance of still being in the club it might happen. It still risks fan alienation but less so than the exclusive idea of a P40 or P48.24 teams is a lot to manage. I haven’t heard of a single scenario where we go over 20 teams but when the ACC rights deal is up in 10 years who knows.
So we are just ignoring Bowlsby stating that OU and UT are worth 14 MM per team and going with our own made up numbers?I think you are approaching this from the wrong network's perspective. It won't be FOX directing or applying pressure. Its much more likely to be ESPN. ESPN wants OU & UT in the SEC right away. I am sure ESPN has in its discussions with OU/UT discussed ways to lighten their revenues withheld by the conference.
IF ESPN wants to lighten exit fees, lawsuits and do the right thing to not try and destroy CFB as a national sport I could see this involving one of two things.
1. play ball with FOX and say ok we will increase our tv revenues with a 4-6 team addition of USC & other PAC schools to the B1G. ESPN still retains the most valuable properties of the PAC going to the B1G. Also, what many B12 fans on this board seem to want to avoid looking at is you can monetize USC, UCLA, Or & UW better against OSU, Mich., PSU, Wisky, Neb & Iowa than you can with the remaining B12 schools. I wish it wasn't true but it is. To argue different is just destroying your credibility. Please note I am not saying this is good for the sport but it is what it is. If UT & OU needed more revenues and better games for NIL I have to believe USC, UCLA, Or & UW do too.
If this happened, then ESPN can most likely move ASU/AZ/CU & Utah to the B12. What can this league get per year? I don't know. 25-30M and I would be ecstatic for ISU, maybe more like 20M. Maybe WVU gets shipped to the ACC and Houston takes their place.
2. The other option that could happen to alleviate above is ESPN works to get everyone placed. Now I don't think the B1G has a lot of motivation to help this get done if they are not getting USC & west partners or somehow the top ACC schools are moved(which seems less likely). So if the B1G decides KU doesn't have enough value on their own and they don't or KU & ISU(unfortunately) lets look at what ESPN could do.
First of all the SEC got the huge prize in this expansion. Is it completely plausible they could not have already discussed be willing to take two more schools to get the B12 dissolved? Its probably not their first choice but plausible. This hasn't been looked at from ISU fans but the SEC got their content kings, what if they agree for two schools that were positive academic schools such as KU & ISU. These two would also fit with Missouri & OU for rivalries. They don't really need another school in Texas or Oklahoma. KU & ISU would also probably take a reduced rate for some time as well. KU & ISU could develop a rivalry of some sorts with Arkansas also.
Then ESPN tells the ACC they will add some net revenue per school to take WVU, TCU & Baylor.
Then ESPN tells the PAC they will add some revenue to take KSU, OSU, TT & one other maybe Houston. They also convince the PAC to do a network with them instead of the route the PAC has been pursuing.
I don't think the ACC has any real power to resist what ESPN tells them to do. ESPN pays all their revenue and the ACC is desperate for an increase. The PAC may have more but if for some reason USC and others don't go to the B1G they need more money and playing ball with ESPN could help that. They still may need to do unequal revenue sharing to get their top 4 paid more to keep the league afloat.
In this second example in the end ESPN gets to move the UT & OU content and own it by itself. It also might not pay much more than it would have in giving the B12 with OU & UT a new deal and continuing the LHN. The B12 did better than the ACC & PAC.
24 teams is a lot to manage. I haven’t heard of a single scenario where we go over 20 teams but when the ACC rights deal is up in 10 years who knows.
No, I think its about the same, but for every trip to OSU, and PSU, they also have to make a trip to Rutgers, Purdue and the rest of the league. If they add 4 to 6 former Big 12 teams, USC is not making the trip to the central time zone more than a couple times a year, but joining the Big 10 means at least 4 trips a year.So you think USC will refuse to fly to the B1G that includes Michigan, Ohio St., PSU, Wisconsin, MSU, Neb & Iowa but they can't wait to add trips to KU, ISU, Oklahoma St., TT, TCU & Baylor? Especially when they can maybe make 30-40M more in the B1G? I arrive at those numbers by thinking the PAC will be hard pressed to get above 40M and the B1G is looking at somewhere between 70-80M with their conference network. Also, where can USC & OR sell recruits on better NIL money? Playing the B1G schools or the B12. yes, I know the B1G will have some dogs besides the better teams but they also have the blue bloods and schools with bigger draws to offset those schools not doing well which the remaining B12 schools don't.
Quit thinking with what you want to happen and what is more likely.
So we are just ignoring Bowlsby stating that OU and UT are worth 14 MM per team and going with our own made up numbers?
Well if 37 is current and OU/UT is worth 14 for each then that leaves us with 23MM. So ESPN would say they are cutting our payment more then what is expected to gain leverage? I would assume Bowlsby is using a larger number to put leverage on ESPN. So it would only make sense that we are probably in that mid 20s as is. Add a few teams and if ESPN wanted to grease the skids, it would make sense to be about what current is.The only numbers I put in there was, I asked what would a B12 that added ASU/AZ/Utah and Colorado get? I said 15M maybe 20M? I was referring to a new tv deal and one where ESPN used as leverage to get the OU & UT content to the SEC right away and limit exit fees and legal expense.
No, I think its about the same, but for every trip to OSU, and PSU, they also have to make a trip to Rutgers, Purdue and the rest of the league. If they add 4 to 6 former Big 12 teams, USC is not making the trip to the central time zone more than a couple times a year, but joining the Big 10 means at least 4 trips a year.
If they pick up those big 12 teams, the money the league brings in by expanding will also increase, so it will not be the 40 million you think but say 50 to 55 million. The current Big 10 gives out about 55 million, can they get to 70 or 80 million by adding USC, maybe, but maybe not.
Like I have said its a great deal for the Big 10, but is it also a great deal of USC? Since they are a private school we have no data on their athletic budget but one would think they are in the top 20 of schools.
Well if 37 is current and OU/UT is worth 14 for each then that leaves us with 23MM. So ESPN would say they are cutting our payment more then what is expected to gain leverage? I would assume Bowlsby is using a larger number to put leverage on ESPN. So it would only make sense that we are probably in that mid 20s as is. Add a few teams and if ESPN wanted to grease the skids, it would make sense to be about what current is.
First of all if USC comes with 5 PAC schools they can play 4 or 5 of them each year. Leagues will deregulate the need for pods/divisions soon. This has been mentioned quite a few times. TV contracts make the big money from big T1 games and solid T2 games next.
Lets compare USC vs a typical B12 merger year and a B1G type schedule.
If the PAC adds 6 B12 teams USC might add to their schedule TT ,OSU &KU. Other years they might have TCU, ISU & KSU.
With the B1G they might have one of these schedules:
1 YR USC vs OSU, Wisky, MN. OR Illinois & Rutgers
2 YR USC vs PSU, Neb., Northwestern OR Indiana, & Maryland
3 YR USC vs Mich., IA. , MSU & Purdue
Which schedules will a network make more off of?
Also, which set of games can USC sell to the their recruits the ability to make NIL money of better?
Its the B1G hands down. There are very few T1 games if any unless some teams are way over performing in the 6 Big 12 teams chosen. The B1G has 1 or 2 of those each year.
Also, don't discount the fact that with conference deregulation it won't only be about pods/divisions but the leagues will be able to have teams play each other at different frequencies to maximize the revenue from their better matchups. With an expanded playoff of 12 the margin for making the playoffs won't be so thin that heavyweights can't risk playing a little tougher schedule, especially when it makes more revenue.
Have none of you paid attention that most leagues now have publicly spoken about conference deregulation? The leagues will be able to have a single division standings, lock in 3-4 rivals and rotate around the rest of the league. And if they are going to "deregulate" conferences, the conferences and networks will have teams play at different frequencies to get the most attractive matchups they can for tv.Well you are talking about USC in a 20 team Big 10. So unless you put them in the east, they won't be playing Ohio State. Ever. Maybe you could do pods of 5 teams so they play Ohio State once every 3 years. That's not going to bring much excitement to anyone (recruits, fans etc,).
New rivalries won't happen in 20 team conferences.
If things continue on the trajectory of the past 10 years then Yes that’s true. I’ve seen the pundits throw out there that the Rutgers and Maryland adds we’re totally worth it because they brought in cable $. If we’re ignoring winning, fan experience, geography, academics, BB branding, fan attendance, etc and solely going off of how can conferences maximize revenue then you’re right. The question is if any of the other factors come into play for future decisions.My guess is this ends with the big ten taking 6 pac schools and calling it good. We end up in some form of a poor mans pac 12.
Reality is there just isn’t anywhere for us to go.
attendance doesn’t matter, winning the big 12 or even winning a national championship this year won’t matter either
this idea that winning will help, it won’t, nothing will help
The big 10 will never give ND the two things they covet most, staying an independent for scheduling and allowing them to keep their NBC contract. If the league would have been willing to cut them the same deal that the ACC did, play half your football games in the conference and the other half on your own and keep your tv deal they would have gone to the Big 10.I have always thought USC, Stanford and any other 4 PAC schools make the B1G a no brainer for ND eventually if not now.
The B1G has all of ND's old rivals then USC, UM, MSU, Stanford, Purdue and they could add PSU to that list to build a new one. The B1G could then add NC, VA, & Duke.
First USC has to convince those other five teams to come with them, but lets say they do. That gives the Big 10 a 20 team league, So they either have to go to 10 team east and west or four pods of five teams each. Thereby placing one Pac 12 team in the Central time zone. So lets say they take Colorado and they do that.First of all if USC comes with 5 PAC schools they can play 4 or 5 of them each year. Leagues will deregulate the need for pods/divisions soon. This has been mentioned quite a few times. TV contracts make the big money from big T1 games and solid T2 games next.
Lets compare USC vs a typical B12 merger year and a B1G type schedule.
If the PAC adds 6 B12 teams USC might add to their schedule TT ,OSU &KU. Other years they might have TCU, ISU & KSU.
With the B1G they might have one of these schedules:
1 YR USC vs OSU, Wisky, MN. OR Illinois & Rutgers
2 YR USC vs PSU, Neb., Northwestern OR Indiana, & Maryland
3 YR USC vs Mich., IA. , MSU & Purdue
Which schedules will a network make more off of?
Also, which set of games can USC sell to the their recruits the ability to make NIL money of better?
Its the B1G hands down. There are very few T1 games if any unless some teams are way over performing in the 6 Big 12 teams chosen. The B1G has 1 or 2 of those each year.
Also, don't discount the fact that with conference deregulation it won't only be about pods/divisions but the leagues will be able to have teams play each other at different frequencies to maximize the revenue from their better matchups. With an expanded playoff of 12 the margin for making the playoffs won't be so thin that heavyweights can't risk playing a little tougher schedule, especially when it makes more revenue.