But why would they stretch if the networks are willing to give them 40% more for what they already have?
If somebody hands me $10B, I'm not going to run around looking to add extra ways to spend it when I could keep a larger portion for myself.
I am saying:
- TV folks would be willing to give the Big10 let's say 30% more because of market pricing on the existing 18 team conference.
- Plus there are still schools among ND, ACC and Big12 that in 2030 the networks would pay to televise and be accretive to the exisitng 18 schools- another 10%.
- Plus a wildcard. Do deep pocketed streaming players take the 40% (#1 & #2) and make it a 50% or 60% bump?
IMO the Big10 wanted to add more schools than Oregon & Washington in 2023 and a streaming player like Amazon would have paid enough to make the existing 16 teams more than whole. However, that streaming player would have wanted equal ability to show OSU, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Oregon. But that would have reduced the number of games that FOX, CBS and NBC could televise those 5 schools. NBC & CBS didn't pay hundreds of millions annually to televise Iowa vs. Wisconsin or Michigan State vs. Minnesota.
But the money would be there, if instead of 5 elite properties (OSU, Michigan, PSU, USC and Oregon), there were 8 elite properties with ND, FSU and Clemson added. Plus a new partner might be willing to pay similar $ as NBC and CBS for a dedicated timeslot, maybe Fridays at 7pm.
I just think it's going to be easier for the Big10 to structure a deal for a 20, 22 or 24 team conference that is accretive for the existing 18 teams if they are holding a open auction for their Media Rights in 2030. But again, market forces have make that possible. There's no guarantee networks and streamers are going to be willing to pay 30% more than today.