Realignment talk not going away

[DFW Horn 6125]

I'll be shocked if the SEC doesn't adopt a 9-game conference schedule. 

The additional inventory is worth millions to the league and its members. Otherwise, what is the point to adding UT and OU? They help "balance" the schedules. A meaningless bowl game isn't worth as much.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

They won’t join the MWC. The PAC12 will have significantly more postseason credits, long term sponsorships, bowl contracts, and it’s still part of the ruling Autonomous 5 within the NCAA. Even if it’s down to just Oregon St the rest of the MWC would ditch San Jose St and Wyoming to join them.

I didn't say they'd join the MWC, I said the remaining for would invite the rest to make Pac 2.0.   There's no world where the the Pac brand isn't larger than the MWC.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

54 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

I'll be shocked if the SEC doesn't adopt a 9-game conference schedule. 

The additional inventory is worth millions to the league and its members. Otherwise, what is the point to adding UT and OU? They help "balance" the schedules. A meaningless bowl game isn't worth as much.

To keep pace with the B1G, they'll need to.   Non-con inventory is worthless outside made for TV match-ups.

[billfromlaketravis 11518]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think 2-7 makes the most sense, even more so than 3-6. It just allows for more rotation if they decide to go with 9 conference games. 

I could be talked into the 2-7 model. An annual game with piggy doesn’t do much for me. It’d be kind of cool for the sake of history, but they need that game a lot more than Texas does. 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

9 hours ago, bullet said:

Rutgers is in the NYC metro area.  Syracuse or Buffalo in upstate NY don't do as much.

They don't really do much for anyone, most states are just a few metros and a lot of nothing.   The Rutger's DMA is roughly the size of Dallas, Houston and Atlanta, combined.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

15 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I could be talked into the 2-7 model. An annual game with piggy doesn’t do much for me. It’d be kind of cool for the sake of history, but they need that game a lot more than Texas does. 

Agree, having Oklahoma and the Ags every year would be ideal and having Arkansas every few years would be way more intense and hyped.

[Laxtonto 12090]

My biggest issue with the B10 poaching more schools from the P12 is that they are essentially conceding that the dream that is ND is dead. The great white whale will never be caught and the last big cash cow will either by default stay with the ACC or their will have to be language for independents and another ND style clause for the for the expanded CFP.

At some point expansion hits a cap even with a 9 conference game schedule. Until rules make a 13 game schedule a permanent possibility, you really can’t expand beyond probably 18 (5 games in division, rotating 2 in other division and get home and away every 6 years) and keep the fans happy.

Now if you are looking at a 10 game conf schedule all sorts of possibilities open up but at some point the saturation of teams make scheduling a headache and consistent rivalries diminish and lose  tv value.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

10 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Do you really think I haven't read that article??? He worked at FOX, which should tell you all you need to know about his reliability in this matter. 

And John Skipper said the ACC and PAC would make so much money by joining together! It's like magic! It just happens!

Look at the hard numbers, B1G and B1G Network. Look at what Oregon vs. Wisconsin/Iowa/Nebraska is going to bring to the network. Look at how many people live in Seattle and how the B1G Network leverages these situations. It's not hard, but just like politics, you can't just believe whatever you want to believe.

Yes, the Big Ten Network is a money printing machine, the only conference network that is metered and is basically nationwide, just below FS1 in households for a Fox property.  And, while there are better markets than the Lincoln DMA's whopping 287k, Nebraska's brand, while greatly diminished in the past two decades, greatly eclipses either the Ducks or Huskies.  

When Fox added USC/UCLA to the B1G, the Big Ten Network did play a role, as increased carriage/advertising in the market will likely increase about $70-80m/year.  Not enough for both teams though to be paid $75m a year on the new contract.   Most of this increase is USC's football brand and the opportunity to match it up with a lot more brands in a lot more area's than the Pac could provide.  Of that $150m, I'd wager two thirds was USC, with UCLA being worth half as much, but bringing in a basketball blue blood to increase inventory in LA and allow a travel pair was an easy financial decision.

Washington and Oregon have neither of these advantages.  

Oregon doesn't reside in the Portland metro, but like all teams, will pull from outside its footprint.   Generally, though, increased carriage bumps in the home dma, then they have to work more for the surrounding.  The Eugene DMA is 50k smaller than Lincoln and Oregon, while feasting on Nike's marketing dollars, isn't Nebraska.  Even if you counted Portland, BTN would likely net about $22m/year from adding Oregon, if Oregon plays on BTN.   That leaves over $50m left to make up to match the current B1G.  If UCLA was $50m, Oregon is not, but they're not far off.    I'm pretty confident on a valuation I had on them earlier which is between $40-45m.

Washington has more people nearby, giving BTN a boost of around $28m/year in increased carriage and advertising.  But their brand isn't USC, nor UCLA, nor Oregon.  I'm not even sure they'd match Indiana or Purdue nationally.   Being stuck in the corner doesn't help them, but Seattle does, also worth about $40-45m in total.

So to add them both, the B1G would need to give up $5m/year per team in revenues AND receive less highly coveted T1 spots as they'd have to have OU/UW on their T1 windows to pay for them.  

Consider instead another west coast possibility.    Currently the B1G basically owns all of Notre Dame's inventory and NBC is now a Big Ten Partner.  There actually could be possibilities where Notre Dame plays on NBC in home AND aways.   If that's the case, the only big name (excluding the academies) left is Stanford.   That's a match up that would rival USC/UCLA.   The Bay area is bigger than both Seattle and Portland and Notre Dame out brands them all.   They would come in even money to the current deal and, perhaps, increase everyone's yearly by $2-5m.

The Irish's deal runs out in 2025 and they'd need bought out of the ACC deal/GoR, which won't be cheap.   Or they need to only add football until 2036.  Going to 18 with Notre Dame is a win, it will be unanimous.   If they believe they have a chance, and why wouldn't they now that they are in bed with NBC, why would they grab Oregon/Washington, who aren't equal value, when could wait a year and try and swing at ND?

OU/Washington are kind of fucked.   No one needs them immediately, except the Pac.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

16 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

My biggest issue with the B10 poaching more schools from the P12 is that they are essentially conceding that the dream that is ND is dead. The great white whale will never be caught and the last big cash cow will either by default stay with the ACC or their will have to be language for independents and another ND style clause for the for the expanded CFP.

At some point expansion hits a cap even with a 9 conference game schedule. Until rules make a 13 game schedule a permanent possibility, you really can’t expand beyond probably 18 (5 games in division, rotating 2 in other division and get home and away every 6 years) and keep the fans happy.

Now if you are looking at a 10 game conf schedule all sorts of possibilities open up but at some point the saturation of teams make scheduling a headache and consistent rivalries diminish and lose  tv value.

Ha read this after my novelette, agree completely.

[billfromlaketravis 11518]

54 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Agree, having Oklahoma and the Ags every year would be ideal and having Arkansas every few years would be way more intense and hyped.

If we're playing everybody, every other year, that's plenty of games with piggy. Yeah, I guess I'm more in favor of 2-7 now. 

[Al_4_ISU 12469]

I think something that's kinda out there but not really being mentioned all that much is that the recent reporting indicates that a lot of Big 10 Presidents are opposed to further expansion.  It seems like Warren had to drag all but maybe the power brokers into adding USC/UCLA. 

If you're anyone not named Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, adding big brands just creates another barrier between you and relevance.  Every Iowa fan I know, while quick to brag about the Big 10 TV deal, will privately acknowledge that Iowa's at a major risk for being completely irrelevant inside of the new league.  I would imagine this sentiment is shared by almost everyone else in the league other than the 3 schools I mentioned before and maybe Wisconsin.

Outside of Notre Dame, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the majority of Big 10 schools didn't want to add anyone, even though it seems like some of the ACC brands make a lot of sense.  If you're outside the Top 5 brands in that league, the money is pushing diminishing returns.  If you're a program that was used to winning 8-10 games on a regular basis and now you're hovering from 4-7 wins a year depending on how the schedule shakes out, cashing big checks isn't going to keep your fans engaged.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

If we're playing everybody, every other year, that's plenty of games with piggy. Yeah, I guess I'm more in favor of 2-7 now. 

So something like the following +7

Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee
Arkansas: LSU, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia
Florida: Georgia, Tennessee
Georgia, Auburn, Florida
Kentucky: Miss State, Vanderbilt
LSU: Arkansas, Texas A&M
Missouri: Oklahoma, South Carolina
Ole Miss: Arkansas, Miss State.
Miss St: Alabama, Ole Miss
Oklahoma: Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia
Tennssee: Alabama, Florida
Texas: Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Tennessee

 

Edited April 19, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[Hurtlocker 2213]

30 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So something like the following +7

Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee
Arkansas: LSU, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia
Florida: Georgia, Tennessee
Georgia, Auburn, Florida
Kentucky: Miss State, Vanderbilt
LSU: Arkansas, Alabama
Missouri: Oklahoma, South Carolina
Ole Miss: Arkansas, Miss State.
Miss St: Alabama, Ole Miss
Oklahoma: Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia
Tennssee: Alabama, Florida
Texas: Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Tennessee

 

I like, may be able to get more regional flair in though by having Mizzou be Oklahoma/Arkansas, switch LSU's Arky slot to Florida, and Tennessee's to SC.  Blows the Third Saturday in September, but I doubt Tennessee is going to cry about not having to play both Florida and Bama yearly.   And it keeps the swamp bowl going.

Sucks to be Auburn 

[billfromlaketravis 11518]

31 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So something like the following +7

Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee
Arkansas: LSU, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia
Florida: Georgia, Tennessee
Georgia, Auburn, Florida
Kentucky: Miss State, Vanderbilt
LSU: Arkansas, Alabama
Missouri: Oklahoma, South Carolina
Ole Miss: Arkansas, Miss State.
Miss St: Alabama, Ole Miss
Oklahoma: Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia
Tennssee: Alabama, Florida
Texas: Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Tennessee

 

Good list. aggy is going to want piggy as their permanent rival. I don't want to throw this thing into disarray, but I'd flip LSU to aggy and Bama, and aggy to LSU and Texas. 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

4 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Good list. aggy is going to want piggy as their permanent rival. I don't want to throw this thing into disarray, but I'd flip LSU to aggy and Bama, and aggy to LSU and Texas. 

Yeah it's kind of difficult and I can see why they are having trouble developing a plan but agree with the adding Aggies to LSU. Only reason I have Arkansas/Texas for A&M is because of their annual game in Dallas. 

 

[TKthunder2 4992]

35 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I could be talked into the 2-7 model. An annual game with piggy doesn’t do much for me. It’d be kind of cool for the sake of history, but they need that game a lot more than Texas does. 

How does 2-7 work?

Oklahoma and aggy every year then…

year 1: Alabama, Miss St, Florida, Tenn, Mizzou, SC, and Arkansas

year 2: Auburn, Ole Miss, Georgia, LSU, Vandy, UK, and NOT Arkansas?so who?

 

To play everyone evenly it has add up to 15 (3-6-6=15 or 1-7-7=15). 2-7-7=16

Am I missing something here? Yes you could rotate teams but that seems like it would be more difficult on your home and away schedule and allows people to bitch and moan when they catch the toughest non rival team in that extra rotation 2 years in a row.

It also would slowly over the years adjust the schedule. If they set it as a predictable  repeatable rotation the SEC can make sure to try and balance home/away schedules for the conference members to try and avoid extremely tough schedules one year and weak schedules the next and give them good home schedules year after year. If you’re slowly adjusting the schedule by one team a year there is a chance that you end up with a home schedule of SC, UK, MSU, Vandy.

[hook me 2103]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So something like the following +7

Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee
Arkansas: LSU, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia
Florida: Georgia, Tennessee
Georgia, Auburn, Florida
Kentucky: Miss State, Vanderbilt
LSU: Arkansas, Alabama
Missouri: Oklahoma, South Carolina
Ole Miss: Arkansas, Miss State.
Miss St: Alabama, Ole Miss
Oklahoma: Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia
Tennssee: Alabama, Florida
Texas: Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Tennessee

 

Your list needs some help. How do some teams play a team every year but the other team doesn't? In other words, MSU plays Bama every year but Bama doesn't have them? Same thing with LSU. OM has Arky but Arky doesn't have them, SC doesn't have Mizzou..

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

2 minutes ago, hook me said:

Your list needs some help. How do some teams play a team every year but the other team doesn't? In other words, MSU plays Bama every year but Bama doesn't have them? Same thing with LSU. OM has Arky but Arky doesn't have them, SC doesn't have Mizzou..

It's literally just based on rivalries and tying the most historic rivals in the SEC to each other. But as noted you can see why they're having a tough time scheduling. 

Edited April 19, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[hook me 2103]

42 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

How does 2-7 work?

Oklahoma and aggy every year then…

year 1: Alabama, Miss St, Florida, Tenn, Mizzou, SC, and Arkansas

year 2: Auburn, Ole Miss, Georgia, LSU, Vandy, UK, and NOT Arkansas?so who?

 

To play everyone evenly it has add up to 15 (3-6-6=15 or 1-7-7=15). 2-7-7=16

Am I missing something here? Yes you could rotate teams but that seems like it would be more difficult on your home and away schedule and allows people to bitch and moan when they catch the toughest non rival team in that extra rotation 2 years in a row.

It also would slowly over the years adjust the schedule. If they set it as a predictable  repeatable rotation the SEC can make sure to try and balance home/away schedules for the conference members to try and avoid extremely tough schedules one year and weak schedules the next and give them good home schedules year after year. If you’re slowly adjusting the schedule by one team a year there is a chance that you end up with a home schedule of SC, UK, MSU, Vandy.

If the SEC is serious about protecting their rivalries they're going to have the 3-6-6. You're going to choose between the Iron Bowl & Bama/TN? I don't think so. RRS or UT/a&M? UGA/FL or UGA/Auburn? Why would you choose to destroy rivalries within your own conference when there's no need to? Very Big 12ish.

It just doesn't make sense & like you said, 2-7-7, while helping but not completely solving the rivalry problem, doesn't make sense from a general scheduling standpoint.

There's too much money to not go to 9 conference games & there's not a better way to do 9 conference games than 3-6-6 to protect rivalries & have a somewhat balanced schedule. The expanded CFP helps assuage worries about missing the playoffs because of a tough schedule, you still have 2 patsy OOC games you can split up to help break up the schedule, & you can charge much more for home tickets because you're seeing every team from the SEC much more often & UT/OU have been added to that mix.

[TKthunder2 4992]

27 minutes ago, hook me said:

If the SEC is serious about protecting their rivalries they're going to have the 3-6-6. You're going to choose between the Iron Bowl & Bama/TN? I don't think so. RRS or UT/a&M? UGA/FL or UGA/Auburn? Why would you choose to destroy rivalries within your own conference when there's no need to? Very Big 12ish.

It just doesn't make sense & like you said, 2-7-7, while helping but not completely solving the rivalry problem, doesn't make sense from a general scheduling standpoint.

There's too much money to not go to 9 conference games & there's not a better way to do 9 conference games than 3-6-6 to protect rivalries & have a somewhat balanced schedule. The expanded CFP helps assuage worries about missing the playoffs because of a tough schedule, you still have 2 patsy OOC games you can split up to help break up the schedule, & you can charge much more for home tickets because you're seeing every team from the SEC much more often & UT/OU have been added to that mix.

I agree completely. 3-6-6 is the obvious solution.

Was just trying to understand why people think 2-7-7 works better other than “we don’t need to play Arkansas every year”.

[bullet 1597]

5 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think 2-7 makes the most sense, even more so than 3-6. It just allows for more rotation if they decide to go with 9 conference games. 

I don't think anyone has more than 2 "must haves."  However some schools "must have" is #3 on another school's list.  For example, Kentucky probably wants Tennessee most but they are behind Alabama and Vanderbilt at least.  South Carolina wants Georgia but they are behind Auburn and Florida.  LSU wants Alabama but they are behind Auburn and Tennessee.

[USC Traveler 488]

7 minutes ago, bullet said:

I don't think anyone has more than 2 "must haves."  However some schools "must have" is #3 on another school's list.  For example, Kentucky probably wants Tennessee most but they are behind Alabama and Vanderbilt at least.  South Carolina wants Georgia but they are behind Auburn and Florida.  LSU wants Alabama but they are behind Auburn and Tennessee.

100% correct, and you picked two perfect examples.

It will be 3-6-6 when all is said and done.

Too much money to be made (increases in tv and ticket sales) by going to 9, and 3-6-6 is the right format.

Can't wait to see what the SEC and BIG permanent rivals are.

[bullet 1597]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So something like the following +7

Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee
Arkansas: LSU, Texas A&M
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia
Florida: Georgia, Tennessee
Georgia, Auburn, Florida
Kentucky: Miss State, Vanderbilt
LSU: Arkansas, Texas A&M
Missouri: Oklahoma, South Carolina
Ole Miss: Arkansas, Miss State.
Miss St: Alabama, Ole Miss
Oklahoma: Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Georgia
Tennssee: Alabama, Florida
Texas: Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Arkansas, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Tennessee

 

That looked kind of good until I realized you had several schools playing 3.  You've got UGA for S. Carolina, Florida and Auburn.  Alabama for Tennessee, Auburn and Miss. St.  Maybe some others.  You have South Carolina for Missouri but not Missouri for South Carolina.

[Magus Ossis 2802]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

How does 2-7 work?

Oklahoma and aggy every year then…

year 1: Alabama, Miss St, Florida, Tenn, Mizzou, SC, and Arkansas

year 2: Auburn, Ole Miss, Georgia, LSU, Vandy, UK, and NOT Arkansas?so who?

 

To play everyone evenly it has add up to 15 (3-6-6=15 or 1-7-7=15). 2-7-7=16

Am I missing something here? Yes you could rotate teams but that seems like it would be more difficult on your home and away schedule and allows people to bitch and moan when they catch the toughest non rival team in that extra rotation 2 years in a row.

It also would slowly over the years adjust the schedule. If they set it as a predictable  repeatable rotation the SEC can make sure to try and balance home/away schedules for the conference members to try and avoid extremely tough schedules one year and weak schedules the next and give them good home schedules year after year. If you’re slowly adjusting the schedule by one team a year there is a chance that you end up with a home schedule of SC, UK, MSU, Vandy.

This right here. 2-7-7 means you will have a (presumably rotating) intermediate frequency opponent. 3-6-6 is clean, but 2-7-7 would work if the league were at 17 teams.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

Ok, I'll play:

2-7 trying to keep traditional first, then regional:

3-6, adding any games missed, then regional, then any "made for TV"   Added Bama/Texas to piss off Aggy.

Pretty sure I got them all

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

I think the reason why 2-7 works best is because the frequency and ease of scheduling year in year out. It would create a schedule like Georgia for instance  at home once every 2-4 years or something of that nature. Has the Aggies yet to host Georgia at home? Using your above chart that was more thought out and well put together looks a lot better than my on the whim though. And couple that with not having divisions and top two teams playing for conference title would be pretty nice.

Edited April 19, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[hook me 2103]

9 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think the reason why 2-7 works best is because the frequency and ease of scheduling year in year out. It would create a schedule like Georgia for instance  at home once every 2-4 years or something of that nature. Has the Aggies yet to host Georgia at home? Using your above chart that was more thought out and well put together looks a lot better than my on the whim though. And couple that with not having divisions and top two teams playing for conference title would be pretty nice.

How is 2-7-7 easier? As @TKthunder2 pointed out above it makes scheduling more complicated because it doesn't come out even

TEXAS: a&m, OU

Year 1: Arky, LSU, Bama, Auburn, MSU, OM, Mizzou

Year 2: UK, Vandy, UF, TN, UGA, SC.... and....?

You have an empty spot that you have to fill with one of the teams you played in year 1. Is it an impossible solution? No. Is it an added headache that is completely unnecessary? Absolutely. With the 3-6-6 you're already playing every team every other year just like the 2-7-7, you're protecting more rivalries than the 2-7-7, and it makes it easier to balance the schedule, & it comes out perfectly even unlike the 2-7-7. I don't see a world where the 2-7-7 makes sense in a 16 team conference. 1-7-7 which they won't do because it's only 8 conference games, or 3-6-6.

[USC Traveler 488]

15 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Who is voting them in? Money is voting them in! It takes time to get all the selfish, jealous competition on board, but they eventually have no choice. Following realignment, you should know that by now.

Canzano wants UO and UW in the PAC; therefore, he doesn't want them to be worth it for the B1G. Thompson worked at FOX, which has all the leverage right now. PAC is toast and FOX can get Oregon and Washington at a discount for the first contract (whenever that is)

I trust Murphy before anyone else in expansion, but even he will fall for some propaganda. Everyone's source in media (not just sports) has an agenda.

You can simply look at the numbers in Seattle and the price of the B1G Network and see they are worth more than $30 million. You can look at Oregon's TV ratings when they play teams similar to B1G teams and see they are worth quite a bit. And it's been going on for a long time now, through many different coaches. They also recruit at a high level, which brings prestige to the conference. Oregon and UW give the PAC more late games (and the West Coast schools more prime-time games), which will allow the B1G to add another TV package. That's extremely valuable to the league. It will probably be a streaming package and added late games on ESPN, so it will take time to get all whiny programs on board and to figure out the best way to approach the TV packages.

Anyway, I'm too busy to keep going back and forth. It will happen within the next 10 years. Could be any day or it could take a bit to get all the babies in line to vote.

There's nothing in realignment that has been all that surprising. This stuff could easily have been predicted 30 years ago. The only somewhat surprise is Missouri to the SEC, but the B1G turned them down.

Texas and USC were always either starting their league together or going exactly where they ended up. 

The only thing up for grabs right now is where Virginia and UNC end up.

 

They've had 9 months to get the lower and mid tier BIG schools on board.  If the PNW schools were worth what you think they are, they'd be in by now.

And that's even assuming OSU, UM, PSU want to travel to the PNW every other year, which is highly doubtful.

The money's not there.  That's what Thamel, Auerbach, Olson, etc have all reported.  

//

The guy you trust the most (McMurphy) had no inclination that USC and UCLA were going to the BIG.  No legacy media people knew.

The BIG added USC and UCLA in complete silence, just like they did Nebraska, RU and MD, - 100% stealth.

But a month after USC was added, all of a sudden McMurphy has sources letting him know minute details of the BIG's deliberations about UW/UO ? 

Yes- every source has an agenda, so the question is always "Who benefits from this leak ?"  The answer is the B12.

Ever notice that McMurphy and Dodds are the media guys who have promoted "BIG talking to UW/UO" consistently ? They're both B12 guys.

Yormark has skillfully used the media as a disinformation tool to destabilize the PAC by keeping the Four Corners schools nervous about UW/UO leaving.

//

 

I agree that most of this stuff you can see coming for miles, and that UT and USC were either going to team up in a conference or go SEC/BIG respectively.

Also agree that UNC and UVA are going to be a battle between SEC and BIG.  The two biggest states that don't have an SEC or a BIG team currently.

 

 

 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

6 minutes ago, hook me said:

How is 2-7-7 easier? As @TKthunder2 pointed out above it makes scheduling more complicated because it doesn't come out even

TEXAS: a&m, OU

Year 1: Arky, LSU, Bama, Auburn, MSU, OM, Mizzou

Year 2: UK, Vandy, UF, TN, UGA, SC.... and....?

You have an empty spot that you have to fill with one of the teams you played in year 1. Is it an impossible solution? No. Is it an added headache that is completely unnecessary? Absolutely. With the 3-6-6 you're already playing every team every other year just like the 2-7-7, you're protecting more rivalries than the 2-7-7, and it makes it easier to balance the schedule, & it comes out perfectly even unlike the 2-7-7. I don't see a world where the 2-7-7 makes sense in a 16 team conference. 1-7-7 which they won't do because it's only 8 conference games, or 3-6-6.

Get ND, easy.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

On 4/15/2023 at 6:31 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

I just want to point out that it’s ridiculous that TCU didn’t get any formal recognition for winning the round robin outright.  They really should have been Big 12 champs, but the networks insist on a completely pointless rematch.  I’ll always be bitter that the 10 team Big 12 didn’t recognize a regular season champ after adding the CCG.  I fail to see how it’s any different, logically, than how they have a regular season champ and tournament champ in hoops.

TCU is the reason the Big 12 even started having a championship game with 10 teams, so I don't feel even a little bit bad for them. Their regular season was good enough to get them into the playoffs, and hats off to them for that, but they did not win the conference because they couldn't win the championship game.

[USC Traveler 488]

16 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Yep, don’t disagree with your takes. Went off existing rivalries and then filled in the blanks. The only current rivalry in that setup that would no longer play every year is Nebraska/Wisconsin who have only played 13 times. All the other old Big Ten rivalries have played 90+ times with the exception of Michigan/Northwestern (76 games, which you point out might be a candidate to be dropped for USC) and Indiana/Michigan State (65). Little Brown Jug was already sacrificed to the realignment gods so I left it alone.

For the expansion schools:

Nebraska gets the two teams it’s played the most historically and UCLA as the Western most of the current B1G footprint.

Maryland gets the only team it can vaguely claim as a rival in Penn St and Rutgers as the Eastern most teams.

Penn State keeps its two big new Big Ten rivalries in Ohio St and Michigan St plus Maryland.

Rutgers gets Maryland and whoever is left.

Fill out the historical and geographically rivals and you basically had multiple games from the Eastern and Western additions plus the Indiana/Purdue/Illinois and a single game from breaking up Nebraska/Wisconsin.

 

For USC (let’s assume you’re right about Northwestern as your 3rd rival) your home schedule would be something like:

Year1: Wisconsin, Ohio St, Purdue, Rutgers, Notre Dame

Year2: UCLA, Northwestern, Michigan, Nebraska, Maryland 

Year 3: Wisconsin, Penn St, Minnesota, Illinois, Notre Dame

Year 4: UCLA, Northwestern, Michigan St, Iowa, Indiana

Two blah games a year, and a weak Year 4 but still not a bad schedule.

It's really clean the way you have it set up, and accomplishes the main goals: maximize CFP slots (by not overloading the big dogs), preserve rivalries, and achieve competitive balance (when the rest of the schedule each year is factored in).

As for USC's schedule, your scenario is a huge improvement over the PAC in 3 out of the 4 years, but I think the BIG will alternate two years on and two years off for the non-rival teams.  I also think they'll have ND @ USC in the years when OSU and UM aren't @USC, so there's one top tier matchup on the home schedule every year.  Having ND + Wiscy and UCLA +OSU/UM is great balance in terms of fan interest, and by flipping Nebraska and Iowa, even year four looks great.

Year 1: Ohio St, Purdue, Rutgers, NW, UCLA

Year2: ND, Wisconsin, Penn St, Minnesota, Illinois,  (USC plays OSU at the Horseshoe)

Year 3:UM, UCLA, Northwestern, Iowa, Maryland 

Year 4: ND, Wisconsin, Michigan St, Nebraska, Indiana (USC plays UM in the Big House)

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

9 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Also agree that UNC and UVA are going to be a battle between SEC and BIG.  The two biggest states that don't have an SEC or a BIG team currently.

Living in the tidewater, I can guarantee you that while people are mildly interested when these teams win, the vast majority of the population could give a shit.   Its similar to Cali.   Both schools are like Cal, huge potential, but football is like this fun thing for the kids, as they churn out doctorates.   At both schools students have to go to football games to get priority tiering to the basketball games.   The stadiums are nice, but smaller than the likes of WVU, ISU, South Carolina, or the four corners.

They're in the right spot, but they're more like Kentucky than Tennessee

[Josef Pwag 1738]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

To play everyone evenly it has add up to 15 (3-6-6=15 or 1-7-7=15). 2-7-7=16

 

Thank you - this has been bothering me.

 

It will be 3 - 6 / 6. 

No other way makes sense.

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yes, the Big Ten Network is a money printing machine, the only conference network that is metered and is basically nationwide, just below FS1 in households for a Fox property.  And, while there are better markets than the Lincoln DMA's whopping 287k, Nebraska's brand, while greatly diminished in the past two decades, greatly eclipses either the Ducks or Huskies.  

When Fox added USC/UCLA to the B1G, the Big Ten Network did play a role, as increased carriage/advertising in the market will likely increase about $70-80m/year.  Not enough for both teams though to be paid $75m a year on the new contract.   Most of this increase is USC's football brand and the opportunity to match it up with a lot more brands in a lot more area's than the Pac could provide.  Of that $150m, I'd wager two thirds was USC, with UCLA being worth half as much, but bringing in a basketball blue blood to increase inventory in LA and allow a travel pair was an easy financial decision.

Washington and Oregon have neither of these advantages.  

Oregon doesn't reside in the Portland metro, but like all teams, will pull from outside its footprint.   Generally, though, increased carriage bumps in the home dma, then they have to work more for the surrounding.  The Eugene DMA is 50k smaller than Lincoln and Oregon, while feasting on Nike's marketing dollars, isn't Nebraska.  Even if you counted Portland, BTN would likely net about $22m/year from adding Oregon, if Oregon plays on BTN.   That leaves over $50m left to make up to match the current B1G.  If UCLA was $50m, Oregon is not, but they're not far off.    I'm pretty confident on a valuation I had on them earlier which is between $40-45m.

Washington has more people nearby, giving BTN a boost of around $28m/year in increased carriage and advertising.  But their brand isn't USC, nor UCLA, nor Oregon.  I'm not even sure they'd match Indiana or Purdue nationally.   Being stuck in the corner doesn't help them, but Seattle does, also worth about $40-45m in total.

So to add them both, the B1G would need to give up $5m/year per team in revenues AND receive less highly coveted T1 spots as they'd have to have OU/UW on their T1 windows to pay for them.  

Consider instead another west coast possibility.    Currently the B1G basically owns all of Notre Dame's inventory and NBC is now a Big Ten Partner.  There actually could be possibilities where Notre Dame plays on NBC in home AND aways.   If that's the case, the only big name (excluding the academies) left is Stanford.   That's a match up that would rival USC/UCLA.   The Bay area is bigger than both Seattle and Portland and Notre Dame out brands them all.   They would come in even money to the current deal and, perhaps, increase everyone's yearly by $2-5m.

The Irish's deal runs out in 2025 and they'd need bought out of the ACC deal/GoR, which won't be cheap.   Or they need to only add football until 2036.  Going to 18 with Notre Dame is a win, it will be unanimous.   If they believe they have a chance, and why wouldn't they now that they are in bed with NBC, why would they grab Oregon/Washington, who aren't equal value, when could wait a year and try and swing at ND?

OU/Washington are kind of fucked.   No one needs them immediately, except the Pac.

You're hitting on something that most people don't think about- there is an opportunity cost for the BIG (and the networks) to expand further.

A big part of why the BIG is moving to a 3-6-6 is so the networks get annual rotating games between the big brands.  

With 16 teams, it's the perfect format.

At 18 teams, you can still have that rotation with a 3-7-7 schedule, and teams can still have 7 home games (including 2 OOC games).

If it's ND and Stanford to 18, BIG (and tv partners) would be guaranteed OSU-UM, USC-ND, plus USC-OSU/UM and ND-OSU/UM every year.

That's four blockbuster games, plus games with PSU, MSU, Wisc, etc.  That is the perfect scenario for the BIG/tv partners.

 There's no rush to add anyone before ND is ready, as no one else delivers anywhere near the value that ND and a partner do at 17 and 18.

 

[Hurtlocker 2213]

1 minute ago, USC Traveler said:

You're hitting on something that most people don't think about- there is an opportunity cost for the BIG (and the networks) to expand further.

A big part of why the BIG is moving to a 3-6-6 is so the networks get annual rotating games between the big brands.  

With 16 teams, it's the perfect format.

At 18 teams, you can still have that rotation with a 3-7-7 schedule, and teams can still have 7 home games (including 2 OOC games).

If it's ND and Stanford to 18, BIG (and tv partners) would be guaranteed OSU-UM, USC-ND, plus USC-OSU/UM and ND-OSU/UM every year.

That's four blockbuster games, plus games with PSU, MSU, Wisc, etc.  That is the perfect scenario for the BIG/tv partners.

 There's no rush to add anyone before ND is ready, as no one else delivers anywhere near the value that ND and a partner do at 17 and 18.

 

Yeah man, the sweet spot is 16.   The math hasn't changed much, you need like 30-40% of your total to be big brands to max the regular season contract.   So at 16 that means you need 5; Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, USC, and maybe Wisconsin.   Or, Bama, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Florida and maybe Tennessee.   That means they don't have to play each other, but they all can at least get two together and you fill your T1 with love.   

At 18, you almost need seven brands to do that math.    There is only one of those left on the board and they're located on the corner of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.

Outside that, the only expansion that makes any sense or increase current payouts any longer is the B12's 13-16.   It won't hit B1G/SEC levels, but they could likely get to $40m with Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Arizona (maybe $35-37m if its ASU/someone else if OU/UW aren't in).   Its kind of the only place left with growth opportunities.

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Living in the tidewater, I can guarantee you that while people are mildly interested when these teams win, the vast majority of the population could give a shit.   Its similar to Cali.   Both schools are like Cal, huge potential, but football is like this fun thing for the kids, as they churn out doctorates.   At both schools students have to go to football games to get priority tiering to the basketball games.   The stadiums are nice, but smaller than the likes of WVU, ISU, South Carolina, or the four corners.

They're in the right spot, but they're more like Kentucky than Tennessee

Unless it has changed in the last few years, UVA gives priority basketball tickets to students that go to non-revenue sports games, not football games.

Also, it doesn't really matter, but Scott Stadium (61,500 capacity) is bigger than WVU and the same size as ISU - but much smaller than South Carolina, which has a pretty big stadium.

I know that UVA does value winning in football, but they just have not figured out how to do it consistently.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

26 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Unless it has changed in the last few years, UVA gives priority basketball tickets to students that go to non-revenue sports games, not football games.

Also, it doesn't really matter, but Scott Stadium (61,500 capacity) is bigger than WVU and the same size as ISU - but much smaller than South Carolina, which has a pretty big stadium.

I know that UVA does value winning in football, but they just have not figured out how to do it consistently.

Yes it is for all sports as you get points to scan your ID into the games.   Most non-revenue games are 1 point each in.   However, the football games provide at least 5, some games, like conference games, give 5 for scanning in and 5 for scanning out.   So you get a massive bonus for basketball tickets by going to football games.

And, sorry I don't mean they don't like to win, they were number one a few decades ago.   But, in this conversation of being a big dog, they don't value winning like Ohio State, or Penn State, or Tennessee, or Florida, let alone schools like Oklahoma State or Arkansas, or Ole Miss or Oregon etc etc.  It isn't viewed as the same priority to invest in the sport as the schools generating massive TV audiences.   

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah man, the sweet spot is 16.   The math hasn't changed much, you need like 30-40% of your total to be big brands to max the regular season contract.   So at 16 that means you need 5; Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, USC, and maybe Wisconsin.   Or, Bama, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Florida and maybe Tennessee.   That means they don't have to play each other, but they all can at least get two together and you fill your T1 with love.   

At 18, you almost need seven brands to do that math.    There is only one of those left on the board and they're located on the corner of Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.

Outside that, the only expansion that makes any sense or increase current payouts any longer is the B12's 13-16.   It won't hit B1G/SEC levels, but they could likely get to $40m with Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Arizona (maybe $35-37m if its ASU/someone else if OU/UW aren't in).   Its kind of the only place left with growth opportunities.

This isn't the reason for expansion. The networks and bluebloods (listening to the fans) want more conference games against like-minded competition. They're tired of seeing OOC games scheduled against glorified high schools. There will be more than a 9 game conference schedule in the future of this sport. We aren't stopping at 16. We aren't stopping at 18 either. It's going to take time because everyone is greedy and selfish and only looking out for themselves. We are nowhere close to the financial ceiling of college football. 

The 3 biggest brands left on the board:

Notre Dame (who may insist on saving Stanford)

 

 

 

Florida State

Oregon

And then it's filling in state flagships like UW, UNC, etc as well as Clemson and Miami.

They will all end up at the Big Boy's table.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

3 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

They've had 9 months to get the lower and mid tier BIG schools on board.  If the PNW schools were worth what you think they are, they'd be in by now.

And that's even assuming OSU, UM, PSU want to travel to the PNW every other year, which is highly doubtful.

The money's not there.  That's what Thamel, Auerbach, Olson, etc have all reported.  

There are too many teams whining about travel, recruiting territory, and competition. I also stated they are currently worth on the low end at $55 million. This means it isn't an immediate revenue boost when they enter. It will be once they start playing all the other brands in the B1G every year.  It takes time. None of these moves have added a bunch of teams at once. There are too many cooks in the room for things to happen swiftly or with any kind of normalcy. It took a year to add a blueblood like USC.

3 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

The guy you trust the most (McMurphy) had no inclination that USC and UCLA were going to the BIG.  No legacy media people knew.

The BIG added USC and UCLA in complete silence, just like they did Nebraska, RU and MD, - 100% stealth.

But a month after USC was added, all of a sudden McMurphy has sources letting him know minute details of the BIG's deliberations about UW/UO ? 

Yes- every source has an agenda, so the question is always "Who benefits from this leak ?"  The answer is the B12.

Ever notice that McMurphy and Dodds are the media guys who have promoted "BIG talking to UW/UO" consistently ? They're both B12 guys.

Yormark has skillfully used the media as a disinformation tool to destabilize the PAC by keeping the Four Corners schools nervous about UW/UO leaving.

 

//

I knew the B1G was expanding waaay before they added those teams. I'm not sure what you mean. It was well known the B1G was expanding. There was no stealth move whatsoever. McMurphy's reputation was built before this realignment. I trust him more because he's the only one who proves he's unbiased with his reporting over of a number of years in the business. He does not post for the sake of posting. But I also said I don't trust him or anyone on conference realignment. I know where this is going because it has played out for nearly 40 years and I've followed it since the 80s. Did you notice how Oregon was a top 15 to top 20ish power (as a program) by nearly every financial metric from revenue to TV ratings to Facebook shares, etc. until Bob Thompson's fake report? Yep, that happened.

3 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 

I agree that most of this stuff you can see coming for miles, and that UT and USC were either going to team up in a conference or go SEC/BIG respectively.

Also agree that UNC and UVA are going to be a battle between SEC and BIG.  The two biggest states that don't have an SEC or a BIG team currently.

 

Yep! Notre Dame is going to feel the squeeze and then it's up to those 2. I do think UNC would be a lock to the SEC, but there's always the possibility that there is some ego-driven, authoritarian-style president who could go against what the alumni, fan base and the entire state prefer, which is the SEC. It could have happened to Texas as well. Different situations but with some similarities (UNC/Texas)

[Trojan Man 429]

7 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think something that's kinda out there but not really being mentioned all that much is that the recent reporting indicates that a lot of Big 10 Presidents are opposed to further expansion.  It seems like Warren had to drag all but maybe the power brokers into adding USC/UCLA. 

If you're anyone not named Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, adding big brands just creates another barrier between you and relevance.  Every Iowa fan I know, while quick to brag about the Big 10 TV deal, will privately acknowledge that Iowa's at a major risk for being completely irrelevant inside of the new league.  I would imagine this sentiment is shared by almost everyone else in the league other than the 3 schools I mentioned before and maybe Wisconsin.

Outside of Notre Dame, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the majority of Big 10 schools didn't want to add anyone, even though it seems like some of the ACC brands make a lot of sense.  If you're outside the Top 5 brands in that league, the money is pushing diminishing returns.  If you're a program that was used to winning 8-10 games on a regular basis and now you're hovering from 4-7 wins a year depending on how the schedule shakes out, cashing big checks isn't going to keep your fans engaged.

This is true with respect to the B1G potentially adding Oregon and Washington since those two would be above at least 10 B1G schools on the football totem pole as soon as they joined, but I don't think it would be a barrier to adding ACC teams.  Nobody is worried about competing against the football programs at North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech and Miami.  Those are a bunch of schedule filler teams and Miami is the only one with potential to rise above that.  Florida State is the one significant ACC football brand that could end up in the B1G.  They're still a longshot and if they join it would be alongside enough beatable teams that it wouldn't upset the ratio of wheat to chaff.  Just like the have nots don't want too many haves around keeping them perpetually down the haves also don't want to be in a conference where it feels like they don't have enough peers and they are burdened by a bunch of have nots who are just there to cash checks.

[CustersDoctor 584]

There is a lot of credence to the idea that the eastern block wants to see how the west coast travel stress affects their teams, especially in the non revenue sports and the sports with 30 or more games in a season like softball, baseball and basketball. If the BIG stands pat with two Interstate 5 schools then only NINE BIG football teams will travel out west every year. How do you decide who those nine schools will be? Of course USC can't wait to host UM, OST, MST, WIS, PENNST. Just imagine the disappointment when two or three of the 5 BIG games that you host are Northwestern, Rutgers, Illinois, Minnisota or Maryland or even the moderately successful or previously successful schools like Purdue, Indiana, Iowa & Nebraska. The reality is that the BIG will have to send some real crappy football teams to Cali every year. Teams that you have ZERO history with, teams that are NOT your rivals. And in turn USC & UCLA will each make 4-5 trips east every season. And some of those trips will be to play the lower two thirds of the conference.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

6 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

There is a lot of credence to the idea that the eastern block wants to see how the west coast travel stress affects their teams, especially in the non revenue sports and the sports with 30 or more games in a season like softball, baseball and basketball. If the BIG stands pat with two Interstate 5 schools then only NINE BIG football teams will travel out west every year. How do you decide who those nine schools will be? Of course USC can't wait to host UM, OST, MST, WIS, PENNST. Just imagine the disappointment when two or three of the 5 BIG games that you host are Northwestern, Rutgers, Illinois, Minnisota or Maryland or even the moderately successful or previously successful schools like Purdue, Indiana, Iowa & Nebraska. The reality is that the BIG will have to send some real crappy football teams to Cali every year. Teams that you have ZERO history with, teams that are NOT your rivals. And in turn USC & UCLA will each make 4-5 trips east every season. And some of those trips will be to play the lower two thirds of the conference.

Good point.

B1G has been on a 30-year expansion plan for two primary reasons (excluding the money-driven reasons by TV/Bluebloods):

1. B1G is desperate for brands and competitive teams to fill their league. This is why they will not bypass Oregon and Washington long-term.

2. They're looking for recruiting territory and growing economies to help the middle-of-the-pack and lower-tier programs in their conference and keep their league viable.

B1G understands their league would not have survived as a top dog for another 50 years without expansion. They are a few behemoth programs, a few rabid fan bases with average success, and some deadweight. The time was right to take advantage of their huge audience before it started to erode and tOSU, Michigan, and PSU eventually left to play with like-minded programs.

[Al_4_ISU 12469]

4 hours ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

TCU is the reason the Big 12 even started having a championship game with 10 teams, so I don't feel even a little bit bad for them. Their regular season was good enough to get them into the playoffs, and hats off to them for that, but they did not win the conference because they couldn't win the championship game.

Baylor was the 2014 champion, full stop.

But the Big 12 added the game because of network pressure.

[bullet 1597]

5 hours ago, hook me said:

How is 2-7-7 easier? As @TKthunder2 pointed out above it makes scheduling more complicated because it doesn't come out even

TEXAS: a&m, OU

Year 1: Arky, LSU, Bama, Auburn, MSU, OM, Mizzou

Year 2: UK, Vandy, UF, TN, UGA, SC.... and....?

You have an empty spot that you have to fill with one of the teams you played in year 1. Is it an impossible solution? No. Is it an added headache that is completely unnecessary? Absolutely. With the 3-6-6 you're already playing every team every other year just like the 2-7-7, you're protecting more rivalries than the 2-7-7, and it makes it easier to balance the schedule, & it comes out perfectly even unlike the 2-7-7. I don't see a world where the 2-7-7 makes sense in a 16 team conference. 1-7-7 which they won't do because it's only 8 conference games, or 3-6-6.

Its not complicated.  its just not nice and neat.  You have a 13 year rotation (7 times in 13 years) instead of 2 (1 in 2 or 2 in 4).

Big 10 is currently locking IU/PU but nothing else.  So you play everyone 6 in 14 years except for IU/PU who you get 6 in 18.  Big 10 is considering teams having a different number of locked rivals.

[Trojan Man 429]

14 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

There is a lot of credence to the idea that the eastern block wants to see how the west coast travel stress affects their teams, especially in the non revenue sports and the sports with 30 or more games in a season like softball, baseball and basketball. If the BIG stands pat with two Interstate 5 schools then only NINE BIG football teams will travel out west every year. How do you decide who those nine schools will be? Of course USC can't wait to host UM, OST, MST, WIS, PENNST. Just imagine the disappointment when two or three of the 5 BIG games that you host are Northwestern, Rutgers, Illinois, Minnisota or Maryland or even the moderately successful or previously successful schools like Purdue, Indiana, Iowa & Nebraska. The reality is that the BIG will have to send some real crappy football teams to Cali every year. Teams that you have ZERO history with, teams that are NOT your rivals. And in turn USC & UCLA will each make 4-5 trips east every season. And some of those trips will be to play the lower two thirds of the conference.

I understand not every game in the B1G will be against Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State.  That's fine.  I'll gladly trade crap Pac 12 games for crap B1G games in exchange for huge B1G games that aren't possible in the Pac 12.  Makes zero difference to me if USC's middling and bottom tier conference opponents are Arizona, Colorado and Washington State or Indiana, Rutgers and Minnesota.  Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are all bigger games than any Pac 12 opponent USC could ever play and most years in the B1G USC will host one of them while traveling to one of them.  I can live with games against Maryland and Illinois in between the games I look forward to just like you can live with games against Mississippi State and Vanderbilt in between the games you look forward to against Alabama and LSU.  There are years when USC gets zero Pac 12 home games I give a fuck about, like 2022.  That won't ever happen in the B1G.

38 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Good point.

B1G has been on a 30-year expansion plan for two primary reasons (excluding the money-driven reasons by TV/Bluebloods):

1. B1G is desperate for brands and competitive teams to fill their league. This is why they will not bypass Oregon and Washington long-term.

2. They're looking for recruiting territory and growing economies to help the middle-of-the-pack and lower-tier programs in their conference and keep their league viable.

B1G understands their league would not have survived as a top dog for another 50 years without expansion. They are a few behemoth programs, a few rabid fan bases with average success, and some deadweight. The time was right to take advantage of their huge audience before it started to erode and tOSU, Michigan, and PSU eventually left to play with like-minded programs.

You can't say "The B1G is desperate for Oregon" and "The B1G is looking for recruiting territory" in the same post.  Those two points are at odds with each other.  Oregon offers fuck all in terms of recruiting territory.  You won't get a single pipeline from their backyard but they'll happily use P2 prestige and money to take players from your fertile recruiting territories.  Washington is better from that perspective because Seattle produces some talent but nobody is looking at the state of Oregon when they are building their class.

This is half the reason USC fans want nothing to do with Oregon joining the B1G.  In a lifetime of Pac membership alongside Oregon they benefited massively from being affiliated with USC/LA while USC gets absolutely nothing from being affiliated with Oregon.  They want yearly games in LA, USC and UCLA are happy to never play another game in Oregon after 2023.  They don't bring academic prestige.  They aren't a basketball powerhouse.  They don't have a huge market, and like I already said they are a net negative in recruiting territory.  There is nothing valuable about Oregon beyond the heaps of money Phil Knight and Nike have dumped into their football program, and that value relies on having good players.  Why let them continue to recruit good players you also want when you could just cut them out and get those players yourself?  It should be easy in the near future for B1G programs (not just USC and UCLA) to win recruiting battles against Oregon once the reality of the B1G being on a totally different level than Oregon's league sink in.  One of Oregon's recruiting pitches in California was "Come here and play against the LA schools," which was pretty effective.  They no longer have that pitch and now B1G teams do.

All the benefits of this relationship flow one way and it's time to put a stop to that.  If they ever once acknowledged how much they relied on USC and LA and showed a little gratitude I wouldn't feel so strongly about this, but for many years they fucked over USC and UCLA with policies to help themselves all while claiming everyone in the conference was an equal.  Fuck 'em, Oregon can have fun seeing just how equal they are without being able to leech off LA anymore.

[bullet 1597]

5 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

They've had 9 months to get the lower and mid tier BIG schools on board.  If the PNW schools were worth what you think they are, they'd be in by now.

And that's even assuming OSU, UM, PSU want to travel to the PNW every other year, which is highly doubtful.

The money's not there.  That's what Thamel, Auerbach, Olson, etc have all reported.  

//

The guy you trust the most (McMurphy) had no inclination that USC and UCLA were going to the BIG.  No legacy media people knew.

The BIG added USC and UCLA in complete silence, just like they did Nebraska, RU and MD, - 100% stealth.

But a month after USC was added, all of a sudden McMurphy has sources letting him know minute details of the BIG's deliberations about UW/UO ? 

Yes- every source has an agenda, so the question is always "Who benefits from this leak ?"  The answer is the B12.

Ever notice that McMurphy and Dodds are the media guys who have promoted "BIG talking to UW/UO" consistently ? They're both B12 guys.

Yormark has skillfully used the media as a disinformation tool to destabilize the PAC by keeping the Four Corners schools nervous about UW/UO leaving.

//

 

I agree that most of this stuff you can see coming for miles, and that UT and USC were either going to team up in a conference or go SEC/BIG respectively.

Also agree that UNC and UVA are going to be a battle between SEC and BIG.  The two biggest states that don't have an SEC or a BIG team currently.

 

 

 

Dodds hates the Big 12.  He's a Missouri guy.

[bullet 1597]

2 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

This isn't the reason for expansion. The networks and bluebloods (listening to the fans) want more conference games against like-minded competition. They're tired of seeing OOC games scheduled against glorified high schools. There will be more than a 9 game conference schedule in the future of this sport. We aren't stopping at 16. We aren't stopping at 18 either. It's going to take time because everyone is greedy and selfish and only looking out for themselves. We are nowhere close to the financial ceiling of college football. 

The 3 biggest brands left on the board:

Notre Dame (who may insist on saving Stanford)

 

 

 

Florida State

Oregon

And then it's filling in state flagships like UW, UNC, etc as well as Clemson and Miami.

They will all end up at the Big Boy's table.

That's it.  There are actually 6 big dogs left.  Clemson, UW and Miami are also.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 minute ago, Trojan Man said:

I understand not every game in the B1G will be against Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State.  That's fine.  I'll gladly trade crap Pac 12 games for crap B1G games in exchange for huge B1G games that aren't possible in the Pac 12.  Makes zero difference to me if USC's middling and bottom tier conference opponents are Arizona, Colorado and Washington State or Indiana, Rutgers and Minnesota.  Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are all bigger games than any Pac 12 opponent USC could ever play and most years in the B1G USC will host one of them while traveling to one of them.  I can live with games against Maryland and Illinois in between the games I look forward to just like you can live with games against Mississippi State and Vanderbilt in between the games you look forward to against Alabama and LSU.  There are years when USC gets zero Pac 12 home games I give a fuck about, like 2022.  That won't ever happen in the B1G.

You can't say "The B1G is desperate for Oregon" and "The B1G is looking for recruiting territory" in the same post.  Those two points are at odds with each other.  Oregon offers fuck all in terms of recruiting territory.  You won't get a single pipeline from their backyard but they'll happily use P2 prestige and money to take players from your fertile recruiting territories.  Washington is better from that perspective because Seattle produces some talent but nobody is looking at the state of Oregon when they are building their class.

This is half the reason USC fans want nothing to do with Oregon joining the B1G.  In a lifetime of Pac membership alongside Oregon they benefited massively from being affiliated with USC/LA while USC gets absolutely nothing from being affiliated with Oregon.  They want yearly games in LA, USC and UCLA are happy to never play another game in Oregon after 2023.  They don't bring academic prestige.  They aren't a basketball powerhouse.  They don't have a huge market, and like I already said they are a net negative in recruiting territory.  There is nothing valuable about Oregon beyond the heaps of money Phil Knight and Nike have dumped into their football program, and that value relies on having good players.  Why let them continue to recruit good players you also want when you could just cut them out and get those players yourself?  It should be easy in the near future for B1G programs (not just USC and UCLA) to win recruiting battles against Oregon once the reality of the B1G being on a totally different level than Oregon's league sink in.  One of Oregon's recruiting pitches in California was "Come here and play against the LA schools," which was pretty effective.  They no longer have that pitch and now B1G teams do.

All the benefits of this relationship flow one way and it's time to put a stop to that.  If they ever once acknowledged how much they relied on USC and LA and showed a little gratitude I wouldn't feel so strongly about this, but for many years they fucked over USC and UCLA with policies to help themselves all while claiming everyone in the conference was an equal.  Fuck 'em, Oregon can have fun seeing just how equal they are without being able to leech off LA anymore.

Why? I never said you had to have recruiting territory to get in the B1G. I did not say they were taking Oregon because of recruiting territory. I said they are #1 looking for competitive teams. Oregon is one of the most competitive teams in all of America. 

Very few schools meet all requirements. Oregon's recruiting prowess trumps the need for recruiting territory; not to mention its revenue, TV ratings, social media presence, AAU standing, relationship with the B1G (PAC/B1G), and consistency on the field. It doesn't get much better than that.

Much of your own reasoning is proof they're going to take them. You've said teams are basically scared of the competition that Oregon brings to the table but wouldn't mind UNC, UVA, and Georgia Tech because no one is threatened by the competition on the field. That makes no sense. Conference realignment is not based on wanting to add the least competitive teams. It's never been based on that. That's not to say UNC, UVA, and GT aren't going to the B1G, but it won't be based on wanting a cupcake schedule. B1G already plays a cupcake schedule and they are trying to fix that.  

[bullet 1597]

	AP Poll rankings in the modern era (1968-present, 5 pts for 1st, 4 for 2nd, etc.)	1	2	3	4	5	places	points
1	AL	9	4	1	3	4	21	74
2	OSU	3	5	3	8	5	24	65
3	OU	4	2	9	1	5	21	62
4	USC	3	5	4	3	0	15	53
5	FSU	3	2	5	4	2	16	48
6	Miami	5	4	2	0	1	12	48
7	NE	4	2	3	2	1	12	42
8	PSU	2	3	4	1	3	13	39
9	ND	3	3	0	2	4	12	35
10	TX	2	2	3	2	3	12	34
11	FL	3	1	3	1	3	11	33
12	GA	3	2	1	3	1	10	33
13	UM	1	1	4	2	3	11	28
14	Clemson	3	2	1	1	0	7	28
15	LSU	2	2	1	0	1	6	22
16	AU	1	2	1	1	1	6	19
17	OR	0	3	1	1	1	6	18
18	TN	1	0	1	3	1	6	15
19	CO	1	0	2	1	1	5	14
20	WA	0	2	1	1	1	5	14
21	TCU	0	2	1	0	0	3	11
22	Pitt	1	1	0	1	0	3	11
23	AZ St.	0	1	0	2	0	3	8
24	Utah	0	1	0	1	0	2	6
25	BYU	1	0	0	0	1	2	6
26	Stanford	0	0	1	1	0	2	5
27	SMU	0	1	0	0	1	2	5
28	Mich St.	0	0	1	0	1	2	4
29	Arkansas	0	0	1	0	1	2	4
30	VT	0	1	0	0	0	1	4
31	GT	0	1	0	0	0	1	4

 

All others-15 schools  0-0-1-10-10 21 33

Oregon is 17.  Washington tied for 19.  Then there is a gap to TCU and Pitt.

[bullet 1597]

Those top 20 have 53 of 55 MNCs,. 47 of 55 2nd place finishes and 50 of 55 3rd place.  Only TCU and Pitt outside that group have more than 1.