Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 12:05 PM, FartingDreamer said:

Why would they drop BYU?  It's the biggest brand outside of OU and Texas in the Big 12 with a national following.  And they actually also bring the SLC market.  

Expand  

Stahp.

  On 7/16/2022 at 12:54 PM, hookemATL said:

Nah utes own that market and are better team historically. 

Expand  

F’real.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach/which-college-football-programs-bring-in-the-most-tv-viewers-efc03c689e50

Posted (edited)

Lolz at TCU ahead of Tech.  They can’t even fill their own goddamn stadium

Edited by slorch
Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 10:53 AM, Al_4_ISU said:


True, but given the ACC’s current TV contract, they’d be taking a bath financially and putting themselves in a league more likely to be poached.

Expand  

Interesting comments from some ACC leaders.  Basically begging ESPN to give them money for nothing  https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2022/07/15/josh-heird-louisville-acc-looking-for-espn-to-look-at-media-rights-deal/65373480007/

 

"...University of Louisville interim president Dr. Lori Gonzalez declined an interview request from the Courier Journal on the subject, a spokesman said, because “she thinks there are too many unknowns at this time to speculate on the future of the ACC...."”

Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 2:42 PM, bullet said:

Interesting comments from some ACC leaders.  Basically begging ESPN to give them money for nothing  https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/louisville/2022/07/15/josh-heird-louisville-acc-looking-for-espn-to-look-at-media-rights-deal/65373480007/

 

"...University of Louisville interim president Dr. Lori Gonzalez declined an interview request from the Courier Journal on the subject, a spokesman said, because “she thinks there are too many unknowns at this time to speculate on the future of the ACC...."”

Expand  

ESPN has no motivation to renegotiate the ACC's media rights anytime soon. It was the best deal available when signed and they got fair market value. Otherwise, the deal wouldn't have been consummated. 

Get in bed with the devil...

Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 1:14 PM, 'stache said:
Expand  

Byu fans don't believe in facts. You're pissing into the wind. They get 10 million eyeballs on every game, Notre Dame is the only school that might....might, have a larger national following and Zach Wilson's moms bestie wants to soak with them. Just ask. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 12:05 PM, FartingDreamer said:

Why would they drop BYU?  It's the biggest brand outside of OU and Texas in the Big 12 with a national following.  And they actually also bring the SLC market.  

Expand  

With a pods/divisions the PAC4 (UW/UO/Stanford/Cal) can minimize their association with the Big2 schools that they find unappealing.  Throwing BYU in the mix messes with having PAC4/4corner division/pods and a SWC4/Big8-4 division/pods.

Having these schools all be members of the Big8/SWC also gives the conference more legitimacy as these school have national brand recognition and were long time conference members with (UT/OU/Mizzou/Nebraska) which is likely important in securing a NY6 bowl.  Not sure they could keep the Rose but locking down a spot in the Fiesta/Cotton opposite the B1G/SEC should be doable (PAC/Big12 and ACC get 2 spots, SEC/B1G get 3 spots, that leaves 1 bowl for the G5 champ and the best remaining at large).

I think the internal politics will also be important here as the PAC12 schools and Big 12 school will be split 50/50 at 8 each with possible swing votes coming from newer members with less loyalty to the old guard (Utah, Colorado, TCU, Houston)

Besides Stanford/Cal having to grudgingly accept Baylor (which may get bypasses after they talk with the TV executives) they worst thing about this conference is including both Kansas schools however the logical benefits of divisions/pods and their history likely makes this a moot point.

This conference could be very successful assuming they don’t tie up rights with a long term GOR as no borderline school will want to agree to that as they think the B1G/SEC could come calling.  They also should aggressively lock down long term contracts for OOC rivalry games to sell.

Apple Cup, Civil War, Bedlam, Border War, Holy War, UC/UCLA, USC/Stanford, Stanford/ND, Iowa/Iowa St, any TX school vs UT or aggy and even lesser games like CU/CSU, TCU/SMU, UH/Rice (though these should not count as their big OOC game) would help give the networks some inventory to sell, promote, generate interest. Anything they can do to get CBS or NBC to carry their tier 1 content on broadcast they need to do.  The whole Bill Snyder easy OOC scheduling will have to die. Nine conference game, a pair of power 5(4) matchup, and a single G5 game (no FCS) should be the new standard.

If they do this then this conference could thrive as it would have more eyeballs than anything the ACC could piece together and their schools could be more attractive for future SEC/B1G expansion than they currently are.  This shouldn’t be viewed as a long term marriage, it’s simply a marriage of convenience that gets the mid tier schools a chance to show their value and the lower tier schools a chance to improve their position so that they are better prepared for the next time realignment comes knocking.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 1:56 AM, billfromlaketravis said:

You can't run for president if you don't insert yourself into every single national news story. 

Expand  

Here comes Newsom: Governor roasts UCLA for lack of transparency in Pac-12 to Big Ten move, vows UC regent action The Bruins will begin play in the Big Ten in 2024

By Jon Wilner | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: July 15, 2022 at 6:35 a.m. | UPDATED: July 15, 2022 at 3:44 p.m.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday blasted the lack of transparency behind UCLA’s move to the Big Ten conference and said the University of California Board of Regents is “looking into it.”

The Bruins announced on June 30 that they had accepted an invitation, along with USC, to join the Big Ten in 2024.

The stunning departure after a century in the Pac-12 has consequences for Cal and other universities in the state, both public and private.

“Trust me when I say this,” Newsom told FOX 11 Los Angeles, “we’re not going to be looking into it. We already are looking into it, within minutes after reading about this in the newspaper.”

The Hotline reported on Tuesday that UCLA’s move is on the agenda for the UC regents meeting in San Francisco on July 21.

As governor, Newsom is an ex officio member of the board, which oversees the prestigious university system’s 10 campuses.

When asked about the secretive process that culminated on June 30, Newsom said:

“No big deal, I’m the governor of the state of California. Maybe a bigger deal is I’m the chair of the UC regents. I read about it.

“Is it a good idea? Did we discuss the merits or demerits? I’m not aware that anyone did. So it was done in isolation. It was done without any regental oversight or support …

“I have strong opinions about this, for no other reason than as a member of the regents, we were never consulted, never asked for an opinion, and they didn’t even have the decency to provide (a) heads-up.”

In the July 21 agenda notice about UCLA on the regents’ website, the following description was included:

“Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code 92032(b)(5)]”

Section 92032 of the California education code broadly refers to procedural matters.

— Part “b” states:

“The Regents of the University of California may conduct closed sessions when they meet to consider or discuss any of the following matters:”

— Part “5” states:

“Matters involving litigation, when discussion in open session concerning those matters would adversely affect, or be detrimental to, the public interest.”

It was unclear whether the regents would attempt to block the move or whether they themselves could be facing litigation for allowing the Bruins to leave the conference that has been their home for more than a century.

Given Newsom’s comments, it appears the regents could be considering legal action.

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

The Hotline also asked about the level of involvement, if any, of UC system president Michael Drake.

According to the spokesperson:

“UCLA leadership informed President Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations. UCLA remains best positioned to answer your questions as decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus-level.”

 

Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 8:57 PM, Hagbard Celine said:

Here comes Newsom: Governor roasts UCLA for lack of transparency in Pac-12 to Big Ten move, vows UC regent action The Bruins will begin play in the Big Ten in 2024

By Jon Wilner | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group

PUBLISHED: July 15, 2022 at 6:35 a.m. | UPDATED: July 15, 2022 at 3:44 p.m.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday blasted the lack of transparency behind UCLA’s move to the Big Ten conference and said the University of California Board of Regents is “looking into it.”

The Bruins announced on June 30 that they had accepted an invitation, along with USC, to join the Big Ten in 2024.

The stunning departure after a century in the Pac-12 has consequences for Cal and other universities in the state, both public and private.

“Trust me when I say this,” Newsom told FOX 11 Los Angeles, “we’re not going to be looking into it. We already are looking into it, within minutes after reading about this in the newspaper.”

The Hotline reported on Tuesday that UCLA’s move is on the agenda for the UC regents meeting in San Francisco on July 21.

As governor, Newsom is an ex officio member of the board, which oversees the prestigious university system’s 10 campuses.

When asked about the secretive process that culminated on June 30, Newsom said:

“No big deal, I’m the governor of the state of California. Maybe a bigger deal is I’m the chair of the UC regents. I read about it.

“Is it a good idea? Did we discuss the merits or demerits? I’m not aware that anyone did. So it was done in isolation. It was done without any regental oversight or support …

“I have strong opinions about this, for no other reason than as a member of the regents, we were never consulted, never asked for an opinion, and they didn’t even have the decency to provide (a) heads-up.”

In the July 21 agenda notice about UCLA on the regents’ website, the following description was included:

“Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code 92032(b)(5)]”

Section 92032 of the California education code broadly refers to procedural matters.

— Part “b” states:

“The Regents of the University of California may conduct closed sessions when they meet to consider or discuss any of the following matters:”

— Part “5” states:

“Matters involving litigation, when discussion in open session concerning those matters would adversely affect, or be detrimental to, the public interest.”

It was unclear whether the regents would attempt to block the move or whether they themselves could be facing litigation for allowing the Bruins to leave the conference that has been their home for more than a century.

Given Newsom’s comments, it appears the regents could be considering legal action.

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

The Hotline also asked about the level of involvement, if any, of UC system president Michael Drake.

According to the spokesperson:

“UCLA leadership informed President Drake that discussions between UCLA and the Big Ten were occurring but he was not involved at all in those discussions or in any negotiations. UCLA remains best positioned to answer your questions as decisions related to athletics are formulated and executed at the campus-level.”

 

Expand  

How does UCLA leadership not include on some level, the president of the UC system?

Posted
  On 7/11/2022 at 1:18 AM, Texas Wahoo said:

 

Expand  

So apparently it only takes 8 votes to dissolve the ACC conference?

If that's correct, that really changes things.  You can go 4 to the B1G and 4 to the SEC and networks could pretty much wash their hands of any future liabilities for the P12 or ACC.

 

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 12:20 AM, billfromlaketravis said:

I do think Texas fortunate to have a Texas Ex in the governor’s mansion. An Aggy/Baylor/Tech/TCU governor would spend every waking moment trying to block Texas to the SEC. 

Expand  

Yea, Wheels has been really good for UT so far. Especially restoring funding and ending that aggy cheerleader fuck's $10,000 degree shit.  

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 1:19 AM, hawkfan said:

So apparently it only takes 8 votes to dissolve the ACC conference?

If that's correct, that really changes things.  You can go 4 to the B1G and 4 to the SEC and networks could pretty much wash their hands of any future liabilities for the P12 or ACC.

 

Expand  

The problem being the SEC and Big 10 don’t want all 8, the B1G only seems to want UNC and UVA, the SEC seems to be less picky and would take UNC, UVA, Clemson, FSU and Miami with NC state or VT being a consolation prize if UNC and UVA go north. But that means at most only 7 schools are getting picked up if you include ND.

Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 10:04 PM, DFW Horn said:

California governance = Clusterfuck

Expand  

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the UC president to expect to be part of decision making process  that has significant political and financial impacts on the state.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 2:24 AM, Satchel said:

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the UC president to expect to be part of decision making process  that has significant political and financial impacts on the state.

Expand  

Exactly

No announcement should've been made without his review, input, or approval. How does that happen? Communication breakdown or UCLA broke protocol. Or maybe Cal went full aggy after the fact?

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 2:33 AM, DFW Horn said:

Exactly

No announcement should've been made without his review, input, or approval. How does that happen? Communication breakdown or UCLA broke protocol. Or maybe Cal went full aggy after the fact?

Expand  

Furtive communication between UCLA, USC and the B1G would be my guess.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 2:33 AM, DFW Horn said:

Exactly

No announcement should've been made without his review, input, or approval. How does that happen? Communication breakdown or UCLA broke protocol. Or maybe Cal went full aggy after the fact?

Expand  

ucla knew that if they followed the rules it would never happen

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
  On 7/16/2022 at 9:27 PM, Satchel said:

How does UCLA leadership not include on some level, the president of the UC system?

Expand  

The article indicates the president of the UC system was kept informed. It would have been up to the president of the UC System to inform the Board of Regents. However, from what I can tell there is no oversight role for the regents of campus athletic programs and their individual contracts. doesn't seem to be within the role of the Regents.
The UC System is enormous. 10 UC campuses, 5 large public hospitals, numerous large research entities like Lawrence Livermore and even Los Alamos, so it's not surprising that certain roles are delegated. 

  Quote

 

21.9 Role of Regents.

It is the responsibility of the Board to set policy and the responsibility of the University administration to implement and carry out policy, which includes responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the University. Except as requested by the President of the University, individual Regents shall not involve themselves in day-to-day administrative matters, such as specific personnel, contract, investment or other operational decisions, other than serving on search committees for senior leadership positions, or as otherwise specified in the Bylaws...

 

Expand  

The Board of Regents has a number of Committees that help them establish statewide policies. But none of those committees pertains to athletics. The BOR's role in governance and a full list of the BOR committees is here

.

 
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
  On 7/17/2022 at 2:33 AM, DFW Horn said:

Exactly

No announcement should've been made without his review, input, or approval. How does that happen? Communication breakdown or UCLA broke protocol. Or maybe Cal went full aggy after the fact?

Expand  

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

Simple as that.  Why would they inform or involve the political fuck.

Edited by Wade
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 4:39 AM, Wade said:

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

Simple as that.  Why would they inform or involve the political fuck.

Expand  

Because it’s a pretty big political issue that has caught the attention of the governor who could very well gum up the works, politically speaking, of course.

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 1:43 AM, Not a Sock said:

The problem being the SEC and Big 10 don’t want all 8, the B1G only seems to want UNC and UVA, the SEC seems to be less picky and would take UNC, UVA, Clemson, FSU and Miami with NC state or VT being a consolation prize if UNC and UVA go north. But that means at most only 7 schools are getting picked up if you include ND.

Expand  

The Big Ten would take new markets with academics.  Outside of ND, the other candidates are Miami and GT (Atlanta) in addition to UNC, Duke, UVA and they could even make a BC just for the market alone and there is an outside shot they look at Syracuse (NY state) again like they reportedly did last time.

Unofficially I could see a handshake deal where the Big Ten gets gets ND/Miami while SEC get UNC/UVA.

B1G: ND, Miami, GT, and BC (ND and 3 top 10 metros in top 15 states; put the B1G in 8 of the top 10 metros missing only Houston and DFW)(if they go to 24 they could add Seattle, Phoenix, and San Francisco and have 14 of the top 16).

SEC: UNC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson (2 fb powers and the flagships of the only two Southern states missing from the SEC)

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 4:39 AM, Wade said:

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

Simple as that.  Why would they inform or involve the political fuck.

Expand  

Seems odd.  One man is empowered to sign away billions in state assets?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
  On 7/17/2022 at 5:39 AM, notre dame joe said:

Seems odd.  One man is empowered to sign away billions in state assets?

 

Expand  

There's the AD. There's the president of UCLA. As the article mentions, they kept the president of the UC System advised. That's not "one man" and additionally there would have been several other high-level UCLA officials involved.

And "sign away billions in state assets" -- what are you talking about? The responsibility of the UCLA president is to UCLA. The responsibility of the president of the UC System is to all UC schools. The only other UC school impacted by the b10 move is UC-Berkeley. What are their media rights worth? "Billions" as you say?? LOL. (oh shit I just realized I'm responding to catholic aggy) Won't they eventually either come out ahead or decide to disband football? Even if you assume they've lost all of their media value (a huge stretch) the impact is slightly negative to Berkeley and a huge plus overall to the UC System.

Edited by Chopper
Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 5:36 AM, TKthunder2 said:

The Big Ten would take new markets with academics.  Outside of ND, the other candidates are Miami and GT (Atlanta) in addition to UNC, Duke, UVA and they could even make a BC just for the market alone and there is an outside shot they look at Syracuse (NY state) again like they reportedly did last time.

Unofficially I could see a handshake deal where the Big Ten gets gets ND/Miami while SEC get UNC/UVA.

B1G: ND, Miami, GT, and BC (ND and 3 top 10 metros in top 15 states; put the B1G in 8 of the top 10 metros missing only Houston and DFW)(if they go to 24 they could add Seattle, Phoenix, and San Francisco and have 14 of the top 16).

SEC: UNC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson (2 fb powers and the flagships of the only two Southern states missing from the SEC)

Expand  

UVA was reportedly very interested in the B1G back when the B1G added Maryland, and I think UVA/UNC go together either way.  If the B1G wants to get to that national footprint, extending it all the way to Florida would make sense, and ironically, once you get to 24, you can create geographic 6 school divisions and get back to a semi-geographical model.  I think the B1G would make a hard push for UVA/UNC if they went that route though.

If all it takes is 8 votes to dissolve the ACC, you could send UVA/UNC/GT/Miami to the B1G, FSU/Clemson/Va Tech/Duke to the SEC - then I could see the B1G rounding out west coast travel partners for USC/UCLA - adding Stanford/Oregon/Washington to finish off the P12 (with ND) to get to 24.  With 6 school divisions, you'd pretty much have to go to 11 conference games, but the networks would also probably be willing to pay more for that, and that's probably where we're headed anyway.

It feels to me more likely that the B1G could go to 24 and the SEC could go to 20 IF the money would work, and I wonder if it could should BOTH the PAC12 & ACC contracts basically get nuked, then a third 20-ish school conference forms between the desirable left behinds in the P12/B12/ACC.  Basically take your current expanded B12, add Utah, Az, ASU, Colorado + Lousiville, Syracuse, Pitt, NC State?  That gives you a third 20 school conference that would be competitive and interesting and gets you to 64 total schools in the top division.  The only ones that get left out of the above scenario would be:

- Oregon State

- Washington State

- California

- Boston College

- Wake Forest

They would have been replaced in the final alignment by schools with more recent football success and/or better demographics, but if we get to a place where the ACC can be dissolved, we might get to a final alignment that looks something like the above more quickly than we would have previously thought.

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 5:36 AM, TKthunder2 said:

The Big Ten would take new markets with academics.  Outside of ND, the other candidates are Miami and GT (Atlanta) in addition to UNC, Duke, UVA and they could even make a BC just for the market alone and there is an outside shot they look at Syracuse (NY state) again like they reportedly did last time.

Unofficially I could see a handshake deal where the Big Ten gets gets ND/Miami while SEC get UNC/UVA.

B1G: ND, Miami, GT, and BC (ND and 3 top 10 metros in top 15 states; put the B1G in 8 of the top 10 metros missing only Houston and DFW)(if they go to 24 they could add Seattle, Phoenix, and San Francisco and have 14 of the top 16).

SEC: UNC, UVA, FSU, and Clemson (2 fb powers and the flagships of the only two Southern states missing from the SEC)

Expand  

The Big 10 is signing their own death warrant if they take even more garbage programs like GT, BC, Cal, and ASU or they take wild cultural outliers like Duke and Miami all in the pursuit cable boxes. It’s not 2010 cord cutting is eating into that pie and cable adoption is basically zero and reaching the point when the average cable subscriber is 60 and the only ad revenue is from Medicaid supplement insurance companies. At that point the networks will derive most their value from the ad space they can sell in big match ups, OSU vs USC or UM vs ND is something that the networks will be willing to payout the ass for. But what happens when 50% of the inventory the Big 10 is trying to sell the networks is worthless garbage like Rutgers vs GT or Boston College vs Cal? Now these teams do nothing but eat into the pie that OSU, PSU, UM, ND, USC generate as they bring nothing to the table as programs themselves.

Posted

Bold predictions:

I think the SEC and BIG will stay at 16. ESPN makes the money work to keep the PAC 10 afloat. ESPN+ could have some interesting programming with the PAC 10 and Big 12’s second and third tier game. The top ACC teams have to eat shit until 2036. Notre Dame makes a deal with one of Fox and ESPN’s competitors, and remains independent. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
  Reveal hidden contents

 

Posted

The pac 12 without significant representation from the southern half of California is boring af and seems worth very little to a broadcaster.  Also it's more valuable and a better fit for the b12 to add some p12 schools than it would be for the p12 to add schools from the b12. Perhaps ESPN overpays the p12 to keep it together but I think they'll prefer to beef up the b12 and force the hand of the ACC schools to separate sooner rather than later. Prediction: The sun will soon set on the p10/12.

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 3:37 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

Bold predictions:

I think the SEC and BIG will stay at 16. ESPN makes the money work to keep the PAC 10 afloat. ESPN+ could have some interesting programming with the PAC 10 and Big 12’s second and third tier game. The top ACC teams have to eat shit until 2036. Notre Dame makes a deal with one of Fox and ESPN’s competitors, and remains independent. 

Expand  

Yep, everyone but the Big 10 and Fox benefits from ND staying independent. The SEC, ACC and ESPN are going to fight to keep ND from ending up in the B1G and any path for an independent ND opens up a path for the Big 12 and Pac as well.

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 4:34 PM, Chopper said:
The pac 12 without significant representation from the southern half of California is boring af and seems worth very little to a broadcaster.  Also it's more valuable and a better fit for the b12 to add some p12 schools than it would be for the p12 to add schools from the b12. Perhaps ESPN overpays the p12 to keep it together but I think they'll prefer to beef up the b12 and force the hand of the ACC schools to separate sooner rather than later. Prediction: The sun will soon set on the p10/12.

The issue for the Pac12 if they lose Az, Azs, Utah, and Co to Big12 is the TV reality vs TV potential market. The cold hard facts are that the only draw for TV is it’s time slot; folks watching late games because nothing else is on. These schools don’t draw shit for eyeballs or attendance in their markets. It’s easily solved by paying teams a bonus in other conferences for late kickoffs. Guarantee Memphis and Arkansas State or ilk will play at 11pm for an extra $50.

The real deal is that more folks will watch the Big12 games than a mini Pac12 game. The decision makers in LA and NY have a hard time with this reality of flyover country. Same reason they hated Duck Dynasty and Live PD. Eventually money wins out.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 4:34 PM, Chopper said:

The pac 12 without significant representation from the southern half of California is boring af and seems worth very little to a broadcaster.  Also it's more valuable and a better fit for the b12 to add some p12 schools than it would be for the p12 to add schools from the b12. Perhaps ESPN overpays the p12 to keep it together but I think they'll prefer to beef up the b12 and force the hand of the ACC schools to separate sooner rather than later. Prediction: The sun will soon set on the p10/12.

Expand  

ESPN allegedly wants more games on West Coast. They’re looking at scheduling alliances with the ACC to get it done, with a defacto play in game in Vegas between the top ACC and PAC 10 teams. 
 

Seems a little awkward, but it would be fun to watch Oregon/U Dub vs Clemson in Vegas. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 4:39 AM, Wade said:

A spokesperson for the UC Office of the President told the Hotline that the regents have no authority to prevent UCLA’s move:

“There is no requirement for a decision from the University of California Board of Regents or the Office of the President.”

 

Simple as that.  Why would they inform or involve the political fuck.

Expand  

Ah, so hair gel Newsom is just howling at the moon. Big surprise

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 3:37 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

Bold predictions:

I think the SEC and BIG will stay at 16. ESPN makes the money work to keep the PAC 10 afloat. ESPN+ could have some interesting programming with the PAC 10 and Big 12’s second and third tier game. The top ACC teams have to eat shit until 2036. Notre Dame makes a deal with one of Fox and ESPN’s competitors, and remains independent. 

Expand  

So, NBC keeps Notre Dame and CBS gets the Big 12's T1 rights?

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 5:33 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

ESPN allegedly wants more games on West Coast. They’re looking at scheduling alliances with the ACC to get it done, with a defacto play in game in Vegas between the top ACC and PAC 10 teams. 
 

Seems a little awkward, but it would be fun to watch Oregon/U Dub vs Clemson in Vegas. 

Expand  

Maybe! I don't see Clemson, FSU or Miami being excited about that but it's just my feeling.

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 3:31 PM, Not a Sock said:

The Big 10 is signing their own death warrant if they take even more garbage programs like GT, BC, Cal, and ASU or they take wild cultural outliers like Duke and Miami all in the pursuit cable boxes. It’s not 2010 cord cutting is eating into that pie and cable adoption is basically zero and reaching the point when the average cable subscriber is 60 and the only ad revenue is from Medicaid supplement insurance companies. At that point the networks will derive most their value from the ad space they can sell in big match ups, OSU vs USC or UM vs ND is something that the networks will be willing to payout the ass for. But what happens when 50% of the inventory the Big 10 is trying to sell the networks is worthless garbage like Rutgers vs GT or Boston College vs Cal? Now these teams do nothing but eat into the pie that OSU, PSU, UM, ND, USC generate as they bring nothing to the table as programs themselves.

Expand  

While this isn’t 2010’s cable market, multiple media analysts still confirm that new states and markets matter.  USC/UCLA are bringing in over $100 million revenue just by converting existing Big Ten Network fees in Southern California from out-of-region charge which is less than $1, to in-region which is more than $3.  They add more when more local cable providers pick up the network, and that doesn’t include the inventory bump (which is why this was such a great move).

Miami is a TV/streaming draw, not sure why you’re down on them. Yes their fan base doesn’t attend games when they aren’t great but the rating show that they watch. Miami vs any of the bluebloods would bring eyeballs. They’d be a second level B1G similar to Michigan St, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa.

BC and GT would be market plays but these are two areas of the country with lots of B1G grads.  I personally wouldn’t like this approach but it seems on brand for the Big Ten expansion mindset.

Cal would only make it if ND requires Stanford and they in turn require Cal, or the state pulls something over on UCLA.

Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 5:57 PM, DFW Horn said:

So, NBC keeps Notre Dame and CBS gets the Big 12's T1 rights?

Expand  

The Big 12 on CBS is a win-win for both sides.  CBS gets a good product that they don't have to pay a ton for, and a partner that will be flexible about CBS's other TV obligations.  CBS would also get a bigger share of arguably the best CBB conference in the country - which would be a good lead in for the  March  Madness tourney they host on their network.  The Big 12 gets a ton of positive exposure and promotion. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
  On 7/17/2022 at 11:58 PM, DFW Horn said:

Yeah, and it makes sense that they'd want CFB inventory. But, Disney & FOX have the ACC, SEC, and B1G locked up. Leaves the PAC and and Big 12, maybe both, for the 3:30 EST afternoon slot.

Expand  

Somebody said upthread CBS is trying to get a BIG game of the week. I’d imagine FOX will have first pick regardless. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...