ISU and PAC12 Attendance and merger idea

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,608
-2,212
63
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.
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.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,712
10,167
113
38
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.
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.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: CyBobby

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,608
-2,212
63
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.
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: deadeyededric

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,765
63,835
113
Not exactly sure.
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.
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?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CyBobby

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,300
4,562
113
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.

My guess if the B1G adds those six Pac-12 schools now: near the end of the ACC GOR, the B1G would also add UVA and UNC and the SEC would get Florida State and Clemson at least (and possibly one or more of NC State or Virginia Tech or Miami or something) and those two leagues would total 40+ schools combined.

then it would be a waiting game to see if they managed to trim the Vanderbilt/Mississippi State/Rutgers/etc. fat before they exited the NCAA to create their own division entirely. Who knows? Maybe the 16 most valuable brands across those two leagues would stab the rest in the back. No honor among thieves.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,989
113
63
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.
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.
 

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,608
-2,212
63
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?

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.
 

StLouisClone

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,026
580
113
St. Louis
If USC was a huge difference maker, then the Pac 12 wouldn't be falling behind the other P5 conferences. Do you think viewers in CA will be more interested in watching USC face Purdue than they were in watching USC face Washington State? And how many incremental viewers in Indiana will tune in to watch Purdue play USC as compared to the viewers who were watching Purdue play Minnesota?

USC's problem is that Californians have a hundred different things to do on Saturdays and moving USC to the Big 10 wont change that. So yes, maybe USC can get an invite into the Big 10 and make more money. But then Californians would have even fewer games to watch in the Pacific timezone causing USC"s brand to suffer. And like the Big 12, the Pac 12 would be destroyed. How does that help ESPN make more revenue?

FWIW, I don't like the idea of Iowa State joining the Pac 12 anymore than I like the idea of USC joining the Big 10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,765
63,835
113
Not exactly sure.
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.
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.
 

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,608
-2,212
63
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.

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.
 

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,608
-2,212
63
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.

I think the comments were meant this way. The 14M is half of the regular season T1 & T2 money, bringing it to 28M total. The 9M or so is for CFP, bowl games, and NCAA tourney money. This money will go down too when new deals are negotiated I'm afraid.

Unfortunately, Bowlsby might be overstating the value per team on the remaining 8. You don't go out and low ball yourself in public.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying the Big 12 plus AZ/ASU/Utah/CU would get around 37M? I'm not sure that league is worth 25M for T1/T2/T3 and playoff, bowl and NCAA money. I'm not even trying to discredit the league, I think I could enjoy watching ISU play in that league. I think add BYU & UH and its even better. The bball could be real solid.

They won't command 37M a year tv deal unless ESPN is paying to get OU & UT moved right away and avoid fees. If they do that the new league better make sure this deal is on the longer side and not a shorter contract, because I think the market value of the new league is more like 20-25M. Maybe the league can get more money if it is willing to play time slots the B1G & SEC don't for live content. Maybe even weeknights like Tues/Wed/Thurs/Fri. each week. Maybe limit each team to 3 of those a year, in order for the league to get paid more.
 

StLouisClone

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,026
580
113
St. Louis
Another problem with the Pac 12 has been losing big games against nonconference opponents. Becoming the western most team in the Big 10 isn't a good idea. Look at Nebraska.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

StLouisClone

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
8,026
580
113
St. Louis
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.

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.
 

cyatheart

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 18, 2008
9,464
6,973
113
49
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
 

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,608
-2,212
63
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.
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.

They are not going to make these additions and then be locked in to how they schedule their games. Instead they will maximize the content they have.
 

cyman05

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 7, 2010
2,138
328
83
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
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.

Not sure how these college athletics programs are going to maintain tax exempt status long term when it becomes clearer it’s all about the money, but whatever.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,989
113
63
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.
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.

But the moment the Big 10 makes that deal with ND, is the day that Ohio State will want at least to chance to make their own TV deal also, thereby weakening BTN.
 
Last edited:

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,989
113
63
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.
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.

USC now has 4 games in their pod, 2 home 2 away, that means 4 to 5 games a year against the other 3 pods. So they are traveling at least 2 or 3 times a year to the central or eastern time zones. But they are also playing Purdue and Rutgers just as many times as they play Ohio St. and Michigan. 2 games against each pod a year, playing everyone every 3 years.

This is all going to down to one simple idea, does FOX want to compete against the ESPN's SEC lineup with one super conference, the now loaded Big 10 or split the Big 12 up with 2 teams going to the Big 10 and the other 4 to 6 going to the Pac 12 and try to improve the Pac 12 with those teams so that they can now have a better chance.