USC and UCLA Planning to join BIG TEN.

Donate To GopherHole
nitramnaed said:
Did PSU agree to that?
Click to expand...

That’s a good question. My understanding is PSUs argument for joining was that their addition would increase TV revenue significantly.

OTOH Google tells me Nebraska had a weaker hand, was slated to receive $9M per year from the Big 12 if they didn’t jump to the Big Ten which at the time had a tv revenue share of $22M per school (2010 numbers). Even at their sharecropper rate early on Neb came out ahead (though not on the field LOL).
 

Prediction: both Big 10 and SEC go to 20 and a few years later both conferences implode and we’re back to smaller conferences of 8-12.
 

CentralGopher said:
Prediction: both Big 10 and SEC go to 20 and a few years later both conferences implode and we’re back to smaller conferences of 8-12.
Click to expand...
Why would that be more likely than they combine and go to 40? That's my bet.
 

Ope3 said:
Why would that be more likely than they combine and go to 40? That's my bet.
Click to expand...
Who then split off into 4 "divisions of 10" in the West, North/Midwest, Southeast and Mid-Atlantic?
 

howeda7 said:
Who then split off into 4 "divisions of 10" in the West, North/Midwest, Southeast and Mid-Atlantic?
Click to expand...
Quite possible. Divisions could also be based on prior success as well, sort of like the Premier League for soccer.

Maybe football only with perhaps basketball?
 


Here's some straight veiwership numbers prior and into the covid period...



And from last year...


Gotta give Bucky credit...2 million+ is very good for them and the conference.
 
Last edited:

BilldGopher said:
Here's some straight veiwership numbers prior and into the covid period...



And from last year...


Gotta give Bucky credit...2 million+ is very good for them and the conference.
Click to expand...
Purdue ahead of us? Help from Notre Dame and Ohio State games?

We're ahead of FSU, Miami, and USC.
 





BilldGopher said:
Here's some straight veiwership numbers prior and into the covid period...



And from last year...


Gotta give Bucky credit...2 million+ is very good for them and the conference.
Click to expand...

Excellent links. Same guy calculated rough valuation rating for every program. I‘d love to hear an explanation from someone actually ”in the business” on how valuations are derived but these numbers are interesting if nothing else.



No single metric tells the whole story, so I tallied up each program’s ranking in five different categories. Here are the categories:

Home attendance: The number of people attending each home game is one way to measure the size and passion of a fan base. College Football News calculated the attendance average for every FBS school from 2015–19.

Market size/share: In 2011, Nate Silver calculated the number of fans of each college football team using market population and survey data. The data would certainly look a bit different if redone in 2022, but it’s the strongest methodology for determining the number of fans that I’ve seen.

Valuation: After the 2019 season, the Wall Street Journal calculated how much each college football program would be worth on the open market if it could be bought and sold like a professional sports franchise. The valuations take into account revenues and expenses, along with cash-flow adjustments, risk assessments and growth projections.

Social media following: It’s not perfect, but one easy way to measure the size of each fan base is to look at how many people follow each team on social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram). As TV moves over to digital, it’s valuable to look at which teams have the largest followings in the digital space.

TV viewership: Conferences expand with the goal of adding value to their TV deal, so what better metric to look at than TV viewership? I calculated each team’s average TV viewership from 2015–21 (not counting the 2020 season).

If you’re interested in the exact TV viewership numbers, here is the data from 2015–19, and here is the data from 2021.


After calculating each program’s ranking in those five categories, I dropped each schools’ highest and lowest metric, then averaged the rest. Here’s how 90 college football programs ranked from best to worst.

This list focuses strictly football because basketball rarely plays a large role in conference realignment.

I included all of the schools that are currently members of the ACC, AAC, Big Ten, Big 12, Mountain West, Pac-12 and SEC, as well as Army and Notre Dame.

  1. Ohio State
  2. Michigan
  3. Alabama
  4. Notre Dame
  5. Georgia
  6. LSU
  7. Penn State
  8. Texas
  9. Auburn
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Florida
  12. Texas A&M
  13. Clemson
  14. Tennessee
  15. Wisconsin
  16. Nebraska
  17. Michigan State
  18. Florida State
  19. Southern Cal
  20. Iowa
  21. South Carolina
  22. Arkansas
  23. Mississippi
  24. Oregon
  25. Miami
  26. UCLA
  27. Washington
  28. Virginia Tech
  29. West Virginia
  30. Mississippi State
  31. Oklahoma State
  32. Kentucky
  33. Texas Tech
  34. Minnesota
  35. Arizona State
  36. TCU
  37. Utah
  38. Louisville
  39. Missouri
  40. Stanford
  41. North Carolina
  42. BYU
  43. Iowa State
  44. Georgia Tech
  45. Pittsburgh
  46. Indiana
  47. California
  48. NC State
  49. Kansas State
  50. Baylor
  51. Purdue
  52. Arizona
  53. Northwestern
  54. Illinois
  55. Colorado
  56. Maryland
rest at the link




 
Last edited:

Thanks Pompous. Good stuff.

Based on this have to give I-O-W-A some props too along with Wisky. Iowa City is not Cedar Rapids but they are getting the eyeballs too.

As for possible future B1G entrants, GT at 44 actually puts them higher than Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, and Maryland. With the ATL market as the big enchilada in the SEC, plus there's a LOT of B1G alumni down there too, might bode well for them in a market-based new entrant model (that the B1G appears to be employing).
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Excellent links. Same guy calculated rough valuation rating for every program. I‘d love to hear an explanation from someone actually ”in the business” on how valuations are derived but these numbers are interesting if nothing else.



No single metric tells the whole story, so I tallied up each program’s ranking in five different categories. Here are the categories:

Home attendance: The number of people attending each home game is one way to measure the size and passion of a fan base. College Football News calculated the attendance average for every FBS school from 2015–19.

Market size/share: In 2011, Nate Silver calculated the number of fans of each college football team using market population and survey data. The data would certainly look a bit different if redone in 2022, but it’s the strongest methodology for determining the number of fans that I’ve seen.

Valuation: After the 2019 season, the Wall Street Journal calculated how much each college football program would be worth on the open market if it could be bought and sold like a professional sports franchise. The valuations take into account revenues and expenses, along with cash-flow adjustments, risk assessments and growth projections.

Social media following: It’s not perfect, but one easy way to measure the size of each fan base is to look at how many people follow each team on social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram). As TV moves over to digital, it’s valuable to look at which teams have the largest followings in the digital space.

TV viewership: Conferences expand with the goal of adding value to their TV deal, so what better metric to look at than TV viewership? I calculated each team’s average TV viewership from 2015–21 (not counting the 2020 season).

If you’re interested in the exact TV viewership numbers, here is the data from 2015–19, and here is the data from 2021.


After calculating each program’s ranking in those five categories, I dropped each schools’ highest and lowest metric, then averaged the rest. Here’s how 90 college football programs ranked from best to worst.

This list focuses strictly football because basketball rarely plays a large role in conference realignment.

I included all of the schools that are currently members of the ACC, AAC, Big Ten, Big 12, Mountain West, Pac-12 and SEC, as well as Army and Notre Dame.

  1. Ohio State
  2. Michigan
  3. Alabama
  4. Notre Dame
  5. Georgia
  6. LSU
  7. Penn State
  8. Texas
  9. Auburn
  10. Oklahoma
  11. Florida
  12. Texas A&M
  13. Clemson
  14. Tennessee
  15. Wisconsin
  16. Nebraska
  17. Michigan State
  18. Florida State
  19. Southern Cal
  20. Iowa
  21. South Carolina
  22. Arkansas
  23. Mississippi
  24. Oregon
  25. Miami
  26. UCLA
  27. Washington
  28. Virginia Tech
  29. West Virginia
  30. Mississippi State
  31. Oklahoma State
  32. Kentucky
  33. Texas Tech
  34. Minnesota
  35. Arizona State
  36. TCU
  37. Utah
  38. Louisville
  39. Missouri
  40. Stanford
  41. North Carolina
  42. BYU
  43. Iowa State
  44. Georgia Tech
  45. Pittsburgh
  46. Indiana
  47. California
  48. NC State
  49. Kansas State
  50. Baylor
  51. Purdue
  52. Arizona
  53. Northwestern
  54. Illinois
  55. Colorado
  56. Maryland
rest at the link
Click to expand...
You can post however you want .... but it would be nice if you italicized the stuff that you're copy-pasting from a link, as opposed to it being something that you wrote yourself. ;)
 




Have no idea what this is worth. There are so many "just throw something out there, they'll eat it up" Tweets and articles on this subject.



The number is six.

There’s talk around the ACC that there doesn’t have to be a major upheaval for the league’s demise. If just six current members decide they want out and legally challenge the league’s grant of rights, the rest of the conference — and the deal that tethers it together — could come crumbling apart.

That’s not a guarantee that the contract signed by every ACC member, originally in 2013 then again for an amended version in 2016, can be broken. And a litigious process and potential negotiated exit fee wouldn’t happen quickly.
 

Gophers_4life said:
You can post however you want .... but it would be nice if you italicized the stuff that you're copy-pasting from a link, as opposed to it being something that you wrote yourself. ;)
Click to expand...

I will definitely never take the time to ever research or compile something like that but your comment is appreciated and understood. Props to Mr. Miller for entertaining bored college football fans.
 

Ope3 said:
Why would that be more likely than they combine and go to 40? That's my bet.
Click to expand...
Because there will be some schools that feel others in the conference that do nothing yet still get the same cut and think they can get a larger cut without them and would be better off without the dead weight.
 

Speculation absent real leaks has this topic appropriately losing steam. Came across another AAU analysis from when Rutgers/Maryland joined the B1G (posted recently at a GT fansite originally posted at MGoBlue).

Although one might find the realpolitic and mechanics a little low, I for one would hope this or similar is actually a factor. You be the judge:

B1G Expansion Dollars: The Research Edition | mgoblog

There has been a lot of talk about the sense, or nonsense, of adding Rutgers and Maryland to the B1G in 2014 from a purely athletic point of view (verdict: non-sense), and also from a BTN TV market point of view (verdict: debatable). Whether the strategy will pan out or not, the consensus seems...
mgoblog.com mgoblog.com
 

It seems more and more likely that the SEC won't add, the Big Ten is good at 16 and letting the dust settle, the ACC won't lose anyone due to the GoR, the Big 12 will stick with its remainder 8 plus the 4 incoming, and that the PAC remainder 10 will stick together. For now.

The only further move amongst the P5 would be if the PAC looks at adding someone like San Diego State, to try to have a SoCal presence. The rest of the Mountain West would be very wild cards, for various reasons. Hawaii and Colorado State are the highest research schools, but travel and being blocked by CU would make them unlikely, I guess. A super, duper wild card would be if Kansas (and/or K-State, Iowa State) decided they wanted to join old Big 8 foe CU in the PAC.


Could pick back up again in the 2025-ish time frame.
 


CentralGopher said:
Because there will be some schools that feel others in the conference that do nothing yet still get the same cut and think they can get a larger cut without them and would be better off without the dead weight.
Click to expand...
Somebody has to lose games for them to win games. So I would say be careful what you wish for if programs are actually thinking that way...I don't think they are.
 


nitramnaed said:

UCLA's Big Ten entry is receiving political blowback like none other​


saturdaytradition.com

UCLA's Big Ten entry is receiving political blowback like none other

UCLA's impending move to the Big Ten isn't winning over fans in California, from its own Board of Regents up to the Governor.
saturdaytradition.com saturdaytradition.com
Click to expand...

Good lord, that is quite a read. The UC board cannot block the move. It is delicious that the state that kicked off the feel good NIL fiasco a few years ago is facing some capitalistic blowback at one of its most deranged campuses. What could UCB offer to make UCLA stay?

Next CA should legislate athletes as employees LOL
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Good lord, that is quite a read. The UC board cannot block the move. It is delicious that the state that kicked off the feel good NIL fiasco a few years ago is facing some capitalistic blowback at one of its most deranged campuses. What could UCB offer to make UCLA stay?

Next CA should legislate athletes as employees LOL
Click to expand...
Frankly ... I don't really see UCLA as any sort of prize in major college athletics if you've already got USC. I don't buy the marketing angle that it was the two of them coming together that was the earth shaking move.

USC was the prize.

All this realignment is for TV ratings for college football. UCLA doesn't add anything there, any more than adding Arizona would. Both are fantastic men's bball programs and great research schools ... but nothing compared to USC (and Oregon) when it comes to football.


Do I think there is any chance in hell that the Newson, the state of Calif., or the UC system/regents will be able to prevent UCLA from joining the Big Ten? "Should" be slim to none. If they did, I feel like UCLA should be able to sue any of those three entities in order to have a judge block the action? I'm not really sure how that works, on either end, just trying to imagine stuff.


But back to my original point. If, somehow, UCLA "chose" to withdraw and stay in the PAC, and the Big Ten instead invited Stanford .... would anyone be disappointed? I would not. Adds another market (Bay Area) with a lot of Big Ten alumni, another great school, and another team that Notre Dame plays yearly.
 

Have read some conspiracy theories that this is being driven by Stanford and Cal (alumni) in order to force the Big Ten to take both Bay Area schools, too.

Stanford, of course, would be fine in that scenario, or in the scenario where they simply replace UCLA.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Frankly ... I don't really see UCLA as any sort of prize in major college athletics if you've already got USC. I don't buy the marketing angle that it was the two of them coming together that was the earth shaking move.

USC was the prize.

All this realignment is for TV ratings for college football. UCLA doesn't add anything there, any more than adding Arizona would. Both are fantastic men's bball programs and great research schools ... but nothing compared to USC (and Oregon) when it comes to football.


Do I think there is any chance in hell that the Newson, the state of Calif., or the UC system/regents will be able to prevent UCLA from joining the Big Ten? "Should" be slim to none. If they did, I feel like UCLA should be able to sue any of those three entities in order to have a judge block the action? I'm not really sure how that works, on either end, just trying to imagine stuff.


But back to my original point. If, somehow, UCLA "chose" to withdraw and stay in the PAC, and the Big Ten instead invited Stanford .... would anyone be disappointed? I would not. Adds another market (Bay Area) with a lot of Big Ten alumni, another great school, and another team that Notre Dame plays yearly.
Click to expand...

Substituting Stanford, Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington all fine by me. USC diehards probably disagree. Rivalry interest.

I am not a fan of what’s become of college football but it’s interesting to watch the trainwreck. IMO the greed of administrators, coaches precipitated the players, media, some fans to point out the inconsistency. Fair enough. TV revenue could have been socially/communistically redistributed to academic support, scholarship support as part of the, you know, college mission (LOL)…rather than absurd facility, staff, coaching arms races. Would that have silenced the critics? You don’t see rank and file students filing lawsuits for a piece of the general fund because they’re paying handsomely, putting in 80 hour weeks as bloated underutilized and probably disposable administrative staffs are earning 6 figures..fairness in eye of beholder
 

And again, in such a case of 18, having two divisions for scheduling probably makes the most sense:
West - Cal, Stan, USC, UCLA, Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, ILL
East - NW, IU, Pur, MSU, Mich, OSU, PSU, Rut, Mary

Just from playing everyone in your division (8 games) .... you preserve almost all trophy/rivalry games that matter.
 



BilldGopher said:
Here's some straight veiwership numbers prior and into the covid period...



And from last year...


Gotta give Bucky credit...2 million+ is very good for them and the conference.
Click to expand...

Lots to do with the matchups and the networks. Looking at the 4+ million games.....these numbers make some more sense. We got big numbers with the Thursday OSU game. Wisconsin had crossovers with Michigan and Penn State....while also having a non-con against ND.

Definitely like seeing the Gophers/Badgers game at #26 most viewers with a little over 5 million.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom