Are We Headed Towards 4 Conferences?

Donate To GopherHole
Gophers_4life said:
Yep, I'll get that link to the public article where private, closed door discussions between the Big Ten and NBC, CBS, and FOX occurred, with in-depth details of trade secrets, is published.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
"Burden of proof rests squarely on you, to prove the quote you claim exists actually exists. If you refuse, no one should believe you or lend any credibility to your claims."
 

swede2 said:
"Burden of proof rests squarely on you, to prove the quote you claim exists actually exists. If you refuse, no one should believe you or lend any credibility to your claims."
Click to expand...
I never claimed there existed a quote proving it.

It's common sense. There's nothing to link to.
 

@swede2

I am purely curious and want to know your thoughts, link free, spin free zone.

Why didn't the Big Ten add Washington, Oregon, and/or any other PAC team at the time they added USC and UCLA? What is the explanation?

It's so obvious, right? And I'm not saying the need for more Western teams isn't obvious, it actually makes a great deal of sense from a practicality/geography/markets standpoint.


You're allowed to use the "they didn't want to destroy the PAC" one, if that's really all you're going on. Fine, if so, but that one strikes me as particularly weak. Because the Big Ten already was eviscerated as doing exactly that when they took the two SoCal schools. So I really don't think the Big Ten gives a damn about saving the PAC, if it thinks it can make itself stronger overall.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I never claimed there existed a quote proving it.

It's common sense. There's nothing to link to.
Click to expand...
Anything anyone posts here is purely conjecture, theory or reckless speculation, your tired drivel included. But you represent your reckless speculation as fact, which, when held to the same standard presented by you to other reckless speculators, is no more substantiated by actial knowledge. Common sense is not substantiation.
 

swede2 said:
Anything anyone posts here is purely conjecture, theory or reckless speculation
Click to expand...
Well, there's not much actual info to go on, is there!

swede2 said:
But you represent your reckless speculation as fact
Click to expand...
:sneaky: because I used "#facts"? Come on dude, you never believed that in the first place, per your line above.

I used a hashtag for a reason. Ever hear of humor and sarcasm?
 



Gophers_4life said:
@swede2

I am purely curious and want to know your thoughts, link free, spin free zone.

Why didn't the Big Ten add Washington, Oregon, and/or any other PAC team at the time they added USC and UCLA? What is the explanation?

It's so obvious, right? And I'm not saying the need for more Western teams isn't obvious, it actually makes a great deal of sense from a practicality/geography/markets standpoint.


You're allowed to use the "they didn't want to destroy the PAC" one, if that's really all you're going on. Fine, if so, but that one strikes me as particularly weak. Because the Big Ten already was eviscerated as doing exactly that when they took the two SoCal schools. So I really don't think the Big Ten gives a damn about saving the PAC, if it thinks it can make itself stronger overall.
Click to expand...
Why didn't the Big 10 add Nebraska when it added Penn State? Or Rutgers and Maryland when it added Nebraska? Or USC or UCLA when it added Rutgers and Maryland?

The Big 10 obviously takes a very measured approach to expansion. My guess is that for very many years, decades probably, the Big 10 and its media partners has undertaken periodic evaluation of other sports properties ("vetted" in your words). With the advent of Big 10 Network and Grant of Rights, colleges athletics was cemented as a business, and in business, the status quo just doesn't cut it. The Big 10 certainly knows and has known where expansion would bring added value and where it wouldn't.

Notre Dame, as a national brand and in the Big 10 foot print has always been a no brainer. Large and emerging east coast markets were reportedly on the Big 10 radar when Maryland and Rutgers came on board (UVA, UNC, GT reportedly). Texas, which would be a no brainer well, was rumored a number of years ago. I believe in the past, though, there was still an illusion of amatuer athletics, tradition and rivalry that prevented further Big 10 expansion, probably on both sides of any transaction.

I think those illusions are out the window now. By many appearances, the USC/UCLA expansion was initiated by USC, with UCLA being brought along after the initial overture by USC. The LA market is obviously valuable and the addition is an economic no brainer.

But the status quo is no longer viable. The trend will be to increase the size of the conference until its geographic reach is coast to coast, southern to northern border. But the Big 10 is still ponderous and I think that there is validity to the idea that no one, whether it be the Big 10, Colorado, Oregon, Washington or any other actor, that wants to break the dam on the Pac. I think that is still a valid point. But at the same time, when USC and UCLA came on board, neither Udub or Oregon were in a position to negotiate an entrance to the Big 10, nor was the Big 10 in a position to offer reduced share invites. If there were any discussions between the Big 10 and the NW schools at the time of the USC and UCLA addition, the NW schools no doubt would have asked for something like a full share, if not a full share.

But by all indications, USC/UCLA caught the rest of the PAC off guard. The Big 10 wasn't kicking the tires on the rest of the league. As time drags on, and the Pac 12 position the Big 10's negotiating position improves and the NW schools weaken. They can be had a price that makes sense the the Big 10 institutions and the NW schools and media partners.

Nobody is arguing that UW and UO add value or even equal value to media rights. But that doesn't mean there isn't value there. Seattle is a large market, Oregon is a big brand. That puts Big 10 network in two more states.

As for those schools - despite your assertions to the contrary, $10,000,000 or more per year is real money and if you think that a 10% or greater revenue bump isn't significant, you know nothing about business. Even 5% revenue growth is cause for celebration. Once the dam does break, Oregon and UDub will agree to reduced shares. But neither the Big 10, Oregon or Udib want to pull their finger out of the crack in the dam.
 
Last edited:

Gophers_4life said:
Well, there's not much actual info to go on, is there!


:sneaky: because I used "#facts"? Come on dude, you never believed that in the first place, per your line above.

I used a hashtag for a reason. Ever hear of humor and sarcasm?
Click to expand...
None of your fan forum fascism wreaks of humor or sarcasm.
 

Gophers_4life said:
You're allowed to use the "they didn't want to destroy the PAC" one, if that's really all you're going on. Fine, if so, but that one strikes me as particularly weak. Because the Big Ten already was eviscerated as doing exactly that when they took the two SoCal schools. So I really don't think the Big Ten gives a damn about saving the PAC, if it thinks it can make itself stronger overall.
Click to expand...
I think this goes to a mindset that's not related to the public per say, but more to potential lawsuits and/or congressional involvement. Say a conf member that gets left behind or someone pushing an antitrust agenda or maybe something similar to what congress is looking at concerning the PGA. If they can keep the perception of not creating this, just reacting to what is presented to them, it may help them in any future litigation. Just spitballing.
 



swede2 said:
Why didn't the Big 10 add Nebraska when it added Penn State? Or Rutgers and Maryland when it added Nebraska? Or USC or UCLA when it added Rutgers and Maryland?

The Big 10 obviously takes a very measured approach to expansion. My guess is that for very many years, decades probably, the Big 10 and its media partners has undertaken periodic evaluation of other sports properties ("vetted" in your words). With the advent of Big 10 Network and Grant of Rights, colleges athletics was cemented as a business, and in business, the status quo just doesn't cut it. The Big 10 certainly knows and has known where expansion would bring added value and where it wouldn't.

Notre Dame, as a national brand and in the Big 10 foot print has always been a no brainer. Large and emerging east coast markets were reportedly on the Big 10 radar when Maryland and Rutgers came on board (UVA, UNC, GT reportedly). Texas, which would be a no brainer well, was rumored a number of years ago. I believe in the past, though, there was still an illusion of amatuer athletics, tradition and rivalry that prevented further Big 10 expansion, probably on both sides of any transaction.

I think those illusions are out the window now. By many appearances, the USC/UCLA expansion was initiated by USC, with UCLA being brought along after the initial overture by USC. The LA market is obviously valuable and the addition is an economic no brainer.

But the status quo is no longer viable. The trend will be to increase the size of the conference until its geographic reach is coast to coast, southern to northern border. But the Big 10 is still ponderous and I think that there is validity to the idea that no one, whether it be the Big 10, Colorado, Oregon, Washington or any other actor, that wants to break the dam on the Pac. I think that is still a valid point. But at the same time, when USC and UCLA came on board, neither Udub or Oregon were in a position to negotiate an entrance to the Big 10, nor was the Big 10 in a position to offer reduced share invites. If there were any discussions between the Big 10 and the NW schools at the time of the USC and UCLA addition, the NW schools no doubt would have asked for something like a full share, if not a full share.

But by all indications, USC/UCLA caught the rest of the PAC off guard. The Big 10 wasn't kicking the tires on the rest of the league. As time drags on, and the Pac 12 position the Big 10's negotiating position improves and the NW schools weaken. They can be had a price that makes sense the the Big 10 institutions and the NW schools and media partners.

Nobody is arguing that UW and UO add value or even equal value to media rights. But that doesn't mean there isn't value there. Seattle is a large market, Oregon is a big brand. That puts Big 10 network in two more states.

As for those schools - despite your assertions to the contrary, $10,000,000 or more per year is real money and if you think that a 10% or greater revenue bump isn't significant, you know nothing about business. Even 5% revenue growth is cause for celebration. Once the dam does break, Oregon and UDub will agree to reduced shares. But neither the Big 10, Oregon or Udib want to pull their finger out of the crack in the dam.
Click to expand...
Now that is common sense.

I will add this, going back to Penn St joining the Big 10 & Arkansas & South Carolina jumping to the SEC in the early 90s, when it comes down to Change vs Status Quo in big time college sports...it's pretty obvious which usually wins out. The past 15 years it's even more dramatic.
 

I'd also venture that schools know that the Power 2 will overtake the NCAA completely at some point. And you want to be part of the group that is setting the rules, procedures, anything else the NCAA is supposed to be doing so as to have some control over your future. That is also worth making a change for beyond money.
 

and just to stir the pot -

the Colorado Board of Regents meeting is back on - now set for Monday, June 19th.

Gentlemen - start your speculation........

(Yes - odds are this has nothing to do with conference relocation.)
 

short ornery norwegian said:
and just to stir the pot -

the Colorado Board of Regents meeting is back on - now set for Monday, June 19th.

Gentlemen - start your speculation........

(Yes - odds are this has nothing to do with conference relocation.)
Click to expand...
A half hour meeting in the morning on the Juneteenth Federal Holiday.

Guaranteed it's not anything important. Next
 




mngolf said:
I think this goes to a mindset that's not related to the public per say, but more to potential lawsuits and/or congressional involvement. Say a conf member that gets left behind or someone pushing an antitrust agenda or maybe something similar to what congress is looking at concerning the PGA. If they can keep the perception of not creating this, just reacting to what is presented to them, it may help them in any future litigation. Just spitballing.
Click to expand...
Sure, fair enough.

We already saw a considerable amount of what you're describing out in California, with Cal being left behind while UCLA got the invite. I'm sure you know how that all went down, so no need to rehash.

And that proves my point: just taking USC and UCLA already wreaked havoc on the Big Ten's perception of "destroying" the PAC and put them at a potential to face a lawsuit or the ire of a state government. They went ahead, and didn't offer Cal to appease the state of California either.


So I doubt they would have been worried about the states of Oregon and Washington, with OSU and WSU being respectfully left behind.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
media rights

total conference payout

these are not the same thing.

because total conference payout includes other sources of revenue.

which is spelled out very clearly in the post you just mentioned.

the chart in post #295 clearly states total payout.
Click to expand...
I see, thanks for the clarification.

So, with $31.7M per school being the meat of the revenue for the new 12 team Big 12 (once Texas and OU are gone), the $42 to $45M per school figure could well still be valid. It depends of course how the new CFP deal works out and what that contribution is -- but that will be the same for the Big 12 and PAC. Big 12 will likely have more March Madness and regular season basketball TV money than PAC, but that's very minor relative to football. Bowl games probably a wash since again we're talking per school.

And so we see, according to your chart the PAC already now is paying each school up to $7M a year less than the Big 12. WHAT?!!?!?!

I was told that even such an amount would immediately trigger all schools to abandon ship, even if in the middle of the ocean.
 

First of all, awesome post. Thank you. I really appreciate it when folks actually take the time and put it out there. It's 1000x easier for me to sit back in the peanut gallery and nitpick. Which I will now do.

swede2 said:
Why didn't the Big 10 add Nebraska when it added Penn State? Or Rutgers and Maryland when it added Nebraska? Or USC or UCLA when it added Rutgers and Maryland?
Click to expand...
Those weren't available at those times.

Also, 1991, 2010, and 2014 might as well be 1900 compared to 2023/24?

swede2 said:
The Big 10 obviously takes a very measured approach to expansion. My guess is that for very many years, decades probably, the Big 10 and its media partners has undertaken periodic evaluation of other sports properties ("vetted" in your words). With the advent of Big 10 Network and Grant of Rights, colleges athletics was cemented as a business, and in business, the status quo just doesn't cut it. The Big 10 certainly knows and has known where expansion would bring added value and where it wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Agree.

And this is an odd way to make the case that the Big Ten didn't add Washington and Oregon this summer, when it easily could have ..... because it's really good at knowing where expansion would bring added value??

swede2 said:
Notre Dame, as a national brand and in the Big 10 foot print has always been a no brainer. Large and emerging east coast markets were reportedly on the Big 10 radar when Maryland and Rutgers came on board (UVA, UNC, GT reportedly). Texas, which would be a no brainer well, was rumored a number of years ago. I believe in the past, though, there was still an illusion of amatuer athletics, tradition and rivalry that prevented further Big 10 expansion, probably on both sides of any transaction.

I think those illusions are out the window now.
Click to expand...
Hmm, interesting. OK, I guess I could buy something like this. "It wouldn't be the Gentleman thing to do."

swede2 said:
By many appearances, the USC/UCLA expansion was initiated by USC, with UCLA being brought along after the initial overture by USC. The LA market is obviously valuable and the addition is an economic no brainer.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the Big Ten wasn't looking to expand, and then out of the blue USC came and knocked on their door saying "hey ... how about you add us and UCLA?"

They would then need to evaluate the monetary implications of that with their TV partners. And since the Big Ten was negotiation the next TV contract with those partners, it was the ideal time to have those explorations.

swede2 said:
But the status quo is no longer viable. The trend will be to increase the size of the conference until its geographic reach is coast to coast, southern to northern border. But the Big 10 is still ponderous and I think that there is validity to the idea that no one, whether it be the Big 10, Colorado, Oregon, Washington or any other actor, that wants to break the dam on the Pac. I think that is still a valid point.
Click to expand...
They already broke the dam by taking USC and UCLA.

swede2 said:
But at the same time, when USC and UCLA came on board, neither Udub or Oregon were in a position to negotiate an entrance to the Big 10, nor was the Big 10 in a position to offer reduced share invites. If there were any discussions between the Big 10 and the NW schools at the time of the USC and UCLA addition, the NW schools no doubt would have asked for something like a full share, if not a full share.
Click to expand...
Rutgers and Maryland both came into the conference with very protracted vesting periods. I have little doubt that Wash and Oregon would've accepted the same, if that was actually on the table.

"Nor was the Big Ten in a position ..." Why not?


swede2 said:
But by all indications, USC/UCLA caught the rest of the PAC off guard. The Big 10 wasn't kicking the tires on the rest of the league.
Click to expand...
It doesn't take much time to ask the TV partners how much taking an additional, national college football brand like Oregon would be worth.

swede2 said:
As time drags on, and the Pac 12 position the Big 10's negotiating position improves and the NW schools weaken. They can be had a price that makes sense the the Big 10 institutions and the NW schools and media partners.

Nobody is arguing that UW and UO add value or even equal value to media rights. But that doesn't mean there isn't value there. Seattle is a large market, Oregon is a big brand. That puts Big 10 network in two more states.

As for those schools - despite your assertions to the contrary, $10,000,000 or more per year is real money and if you think that a 10% or greater revenue bump isn't significant, you know nothing about business. Even 5% revenue growth is cause for celebration.
Click to expand...
According to SON's chart, the PAC with USC/UCLA already pays out $7M per year per school less than the Big 12 (with Texas and Oklahoma). But Colorado left the Big 12 for the PAC.

I have no doubt that if it were Big Ten invites on the table, longtime rivalries would be cast aside. That's serious money.

I think you and others greatly overestimate the "worth" of even $10M a year to some of the PAC schools, over throwing everything their fans have known in the trash. Lot of risk, in lost ticket sales and donations. Teams these fans have never heard of let alone watched.

swede2 said:
Once the dam does break, Oregon and UDub will agree to reduced shares. But neither the Big 10, Oregon or Udib want to pull their finger out of the crack in the dam.
Click to expand...
Not permanently. That will never be a thing, in a conference like the Big Ten.

IE, a collection of peer institutions. They share in revenue equally. That's what it is. Or at least, that's what the Big Ten is.

Lesser associations (*cough*ACC) may think otherwise, that is their prerogative.
 
Last edited:

Athletic Directors don't make the decision to change conferences, that's done by school presidents and Boards of Regents.

That said, Arizona State's AD is a firm no on the Big 12.

 

listened to the new episode of the 'Marchand and Ourand' Sports Media podcast. (two of the top sports media reporters in the country).

on the Pac-12, they went through a list of potential media partners, and wound up with the same two questions as everyone else - where is the money coming from, and what does it mean in terms of exposure? FWIW, when listing media partners, they said ESPN was "unlikely" and Apple was "probably not." They did say ESPN might do a deal at $20-million per school tops. the conclusion - Pac-12 will likely "have to cobble a number of things together" and even then are unlikely to get close to the Big-12 deal.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Athletic Directors don't make the decision to change conferences, that's done by school presidents and Boards of Regents.

That said, Arizona State's AD is a firm no on the Big 12.

Click to expand...
My opinions on Ray are tainted by his time representing Dennis Green.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
listened to the new episode of the 'Marchand and Ourand' Sports Media podcast. (two of the top sports media reporters in the country).
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:

Self declared! Love it.

How many reporters are there even who focus on sports media deals??

short ornery norwegian said:
when listing media partners, they said ESPN was "unlikely" and Apple was "probably not."
Click to expand...
They didn't even bother to waive their hands when they came up with this.

Who can possible challenge them on this, right? "Well, that's what my sources say! I can't reveal my sources."

So we can only judge you on how often your predictions are correct, then? "Well, these things change so fluidly, it's really impossible to be right consistently unless you're in the room."

You can't make it up.


Hey, people keep clicking, now matter how often they're wrong. What a gig!
 



Yeah, definitely weird.

The real thing seems to be that SDSU asked the MWC if they'd be willing to extend the due date from June 30 by one month, or otherwise agree to a longer exit fee repayment date or a reduced exit fee.

I suspect the MWC all had a hearty laugh at that.

What is possibly "in it" for the MWC?? If SDSU decided to stay, that's good I suppose, but none of this is happening without strong feelings that they're going to have an invite from PAC or Big 12.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Yeah, definitely weird.

The real thing seems to be that SDSU asked the MWC if they'd be willing to extend the due date from June 30 by one month, or otherwise agree to a longer exit fee repayment date or a reduced exit fee.

I suspect the MWC all had a hearty laugh at that.

What is possibly "in it" for the MWC?? If SDSU decided to stay, that's good I suppose, but none of this is happening without strong feelings that they're going to have an invite from PAC or Big 12.
Click to expand...
You honestly think the Big12 would extend an offer?
 

So the PAC can't get a deal signed by June 30.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom