Realignment talk not going away

[camel at sea 589]

11 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

Not a terrible look at it, but...

I can't see UNC staying in that conference if FSU/Clemson leaves for the SEC. And if UNC leaves, UVA is probably going with them.

Short term, the ACC could dissolve and kick out Wake Forest, Duke and Boston College (maybe one more), play a 9-game conference schedule and probably add $10+ million dollars per team to a "new" ACC. It would be a short-term stopgap. 

The closer we get to the end of cable, the less UNC is worth to a conference media deal.  They're basically Kansas if they can't point toward "in-state subs" tied to cable.  

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

Just now, Not a cat said:

Perhaps this is covered in one of the 545 other pages I'm not going to read, but how was UCLA able to just leave Cal Berkeley behind like that?  You'd think the UC system with 2 crown jewels would make sure to protect each one.  The answer may be as simple as the UC system doesn't give a shit about football, but damn this is going to cost Berkeley a lot of money going forward.

I'll give a few:

Because Cal cares about CR more than football.

Because politics shouldn't be allowed in these decisions.

Because the UC system includes nine campuses and Cal is already one of the most privileged of those nine.

Cal-Berkeley wipes their ass with money. Any issues they're having are of their own stupidity. Maybe the politicians should ask why Cal needs the money so badly. 

And because UCLA is only going to the B1G because USC got an invite and the B1G wants 2 teams in LA. In other words, UCLA doesn't have much say in this and the PAC is dead man walking.

Despite all that, the politics in California did get involved and may force UCLA to give B1G revenue to Cal every year., which should be against the damn law.

 

[Trojan Man 429]

24 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Perhaps this is covered in one of the 545 other pages I'm not going to read, but how was UCLA able to just leave Cal Berkeley behind like that?  You'd think the UC system with 2 crown jewels would make sure to protect each one.  The answer may be as simple as the UC system doesn't give a shit about football, but damn this is going to cost Berkeley a lot of money going forward.

UCLA learned from past realignment mishaps.  They shot the arrow first then painted the target around where it landed instead of painting a target first and asking politicians for permission to shoot the arrow.  The UC system and Gavin Newsom still interfered and got some alimony for Cal but ultimately they were powerless to stop UCLA leaving for the B1G after it was in motion.  If UCLA asked for permission instead of forgiveness they might be stuck while Stanford takes their place in the B1G.  Also, Cal isn't the only UC school that desperately needs money.  Covid really did a number on UCLA's finances.  They need the B1G pay day just as badly.  Getting that huge check for 1/2 UC schools is better than 0/2.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

3 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

The closer we get to the end of cable, the less UNC is worth to a conference media deal.  They're basically Kansas if they can't point toward "in-state subs" tied to cable.  

Their football program has way more potential than Kansas, although it isn't a power player. Their basketball program is one of probably 2 or 3 in America big enough to make a difference. 

North Carolina and Kentucky, maybe Syracuse and Kansas. UCLA could be there but they just don't care enough

Not even Duke basketball has a fan base large enough to make a difference 

UNC can recruit and play solid football. In a better conference, they will produce solid football numbers for such a powerhouse in basketball.

Kansas spends too much time getting blown out in a high school stadium in a state of 3 million. If they could fix that issue, they'd be in the SEC/B1G.

UNC's value would actually go up with no cable TV.  That massive, rabid basketball fan base in a state of 11.5 million and growing, not to count their national following. 

They will reach borderline top 25 football attendance numbers in the SEC/B1G. They typically average 50k to 55k in attendance while playing a terrible ACC schedule. I think they see the importance of their football program moving forward. They don't need to win championships, but just remain competitive in order for UNC basketball to pull the rest of the weight. They are an upgraded version of Kentucky in the SEC.

[LTbear 4161]

2 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I never said Arizona, Utah or Colorado were going to the B1G, btw. 

 

You said "a coast to coast conference with continuous borders." That does not happen without some combo of Colorado/ Utah/ Arizona/ ASU/ etc. And that is the entirety of what I called bullshit on. The B1G will not take programs that don't bring in the money just to fill out a map. So if you're now going back on that statement, then we have no disagreement.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

2 minutes ago, LTbear said:

You said "a coast to coast conference with continuous borders." That does not happen without some combo of Colorado/ Utah/ Arizona/ ASU/ etc. And that is the entirety of what I called bullshit on. The B1G will not take programs that don't bring in the money just to fill out a map. So if you're now going back on that statement, then we have no disagreement.

I said that has always been their plan and they would take a REHABBED Colorado and Arizona from the Big 12 IF those programs showed any progress. To add to it, they wouldn't take them, even rehabbed, if they were located in Boise, Idaho. And they've already done it! They've taken a bunch shitty schools that bring nothing without the big programs in the B1G. You're reading what you want to read and selectively avoiding certain facts that appease the Big 12. 

"a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders" isn't really my thing. It's what the B1G prefers and it's been the case for a very long time. It doesn't mean it will happen, but they are going to try and make it happen. 

I've never seen someone not only change what someone said but also dispute prior facts.

Nebraska did not bring in the money. UCLA did not bring in the money. Rutgers did not really bring in the money. Maryland most certainly did not bring in the money. The B1G brands brought in the money and it helped them create chaos and eventually land USC and will help them eventually land Notre Dame. 

The B1G had to expand to survive. They could see the future and they needed more than the Rust Belt.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

36 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I said that has always been their plan and they would take a REHABBED Colorado and Arizona from the Big 12 IF those programs showed any progress. To add to it, they wouldn't take them, even rehabbed, if they were located in Boise, Idaho. And they've already done it! They've taken a bunch shitty schools that bring nothing without the big programs in the B1G. You're reading what you want to read and selectively avoiding certain facts that appease the Big 12. 

"a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders" isn't really my thing. It's what the B1G prefers and it's been the case for a very long time. It doesn't mean it will happen, but they are going to try and make it happen. 

I've never seen someone not only change what someone said but also dispute prior facts.

Nebraska did not bring in the money. UCLA did not bring in the money. Rutgers did not really bring in the money. Maryland most certainly did not bring in the money. The B1G brands brought in the money and it helped them create chaos and eventually land USC and will help them eventually land Notre Dame. 

The B1G had to expand to survive. They could see the future and they needed more than the Rust Belt.

Rutgers brought in a metric shit ton of money.   Maryland brought in just shy of a metric shit ton of money.   

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

13 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Rutgers brought in a metric shit ton of money.   Maryland brought in just shy of a metric shit ton of money.   

They brought in that money because B1G/Fox had the power and the leverage to force it down cable providers' throats. It wasn't Maryland and Rutgers. If a powerful entity with all the leverage wants to make something work, it can usually find a way to make it work. Rutgers would not bring that money to the ACC Network or the PACN because they can't really bring that market. If the B1G wants to add a team, and as long as they can just find a slither of an argument to sell it, they'll make it happen. It's why Texas got $300 million for the LHN, which had no real value in any unleveraged business deal. That's my point.

Nebraska LULZ

UCLA? a sidekick

If the B1G lands UNC/UVA (UVA is actually a loss leader as well) and Notre Dame, they would take a rehabbed Colorado/Arizona and make it work. They would no doubt consider Georgia Tech. That's a long, long way away anyway. They have enough leverage and they want the borders closed. You can't sell it in its current state, but any kind of revival (CU, Arizona) and they will force it some way or another. There are 3 million people in the Denver metro alone and over 7 million in the state of Arizona.

We see this kind of stuff play out in the business world every day. Leverage and power can sometimes trump reality.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

14 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

They brought in that money because B1G/Fox had the power and the leverage to force it down cable providers' throats. It wasn't Maryland and Rutgers. If a powerful entity with all the leverage wants to make something work, it can usually find a way to make it work. Rutgers would not bring that money to the ACC Network or the PACN because they can't really bring that market. If the B1G wants to add a team, and as long as they can just find a slither of an argument to sell it, they'll make it happen. It's why Texas got $300 million for the LHN, which had no real value in any unleveraged business deal. That's my point.

Nebraska LULZ

UCLA? a sidekick

If the B1G lands UNC/UVA (UVA is actually a loss leader as well) and Notre Dame, they would take a rehabbed Colorado/Arizona and make it work. They would no doubt consider Georgia Tech. That's a long, long way away anyway. They have enough leverage and they want the borders closed. You can't sell it in its current state, but any kind of revival (CU, Arizona) and they will force it some way or another. There are 3 million people in the Denver metro alone and over 7 million in the state of Arizona.

We see this kind of stuff play out in the business world every day. Leverage and power can sometimes trump reality.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

7 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

They brought in that money because B1G/Fox had the power and the leverage to force it down cable providers' throats. It wasn't Maryland and Rutgers. If a powerful entity with all the leverage wants to make something work, it can usually find a way to make it work. Rutgers would not bring that money to the ACC Network or the PACN because they can't really bring that market. If the B1G wants to add a team, and as long as they can just find a slither of an argument to sell it, they'll make it happen. It's why Texas got $300 million for the LHN, which had no real value in any unleveraged business deal. That's my point.

Nebraska LULZ

UCLA? a sidekick

If the B1G lands UNC/UVA (UVA is actually a loss leader as well) and Notre Dame, they would take a rehabbed Colorado/Arizona and make it work. They would no doubt consider Georgia Tech. That's a long, long way away anyway. They have enough leverage and they want the borders closed. You can't sell it in its current state, but any kind of revival (CU, Arizona) and they will force it some way or another. There are 3 million people in the Denver metro alone and over 7 million in the state of Arizona.

We see this kind of stuff play out in the business world every day. Leverage and power can sometimes trump reality.

Rutgers and Maryland bring in well over $100m a year to BTN alone due to allowing it to charge in-market rates for NYC and Baltimore/DC DMAs for the millions of Big Ten alums in those areas.  Rutgers couldn't have done it alone, but Rutgers playing Ohio State and Michigan and Penn State all in NYC does.   Same holds true for USC/UCLA.

Colorado is in Denver's DMA of 1.7m households, but that's less than half of what Maryland brings and less than a quarter of Rutgers.   Arizona is in the Tuscon DMA, which is the size of Des Moines/Ames.  ASU has a better argument in the Phoenix DMA, which is still half of Maryland's households.

Nebraska is a brand add.   Even with decades of mediocrity, they're Big Red.   They make you money on T1 negotiations.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

Rutgers and Maryland bring in well over $100m a year to BTN alone due to allowing it to charge in-market rates for NYC and Baltimore/DC DMAs for the millions of Big Ten alums in those areas.  Rutgers couldn't have done it alone, but Rutgers playing Ohio State and Michigan and Penn State all in NYC does.   Same holds true for USC/UCLA.

Colorado is in Denver's DMA of 1.7m households, but that's less than half of what Maryland brings and less than a quarter of Rutgers.   Arizona is in the Tuscon DMA, which is the size of Des Moines/Ames.  ASU has a better argument in the Phoenix DMA, which is still half of Maryland's households.

Nebraska is a brand add.   Even with decades of mediocrity, they're Big Red.   They make you money on T1 negotiations.

I understand those numbers and I get it. It was still a leverage move and doesn't work any other way. The same goes for Maryland. 

How does Nebraska make T1 revenue anywhere near the B1G per team numbers? For the most part, they have a regional following in the modern era. The national titles are never coming back. The B1G was originally planning to take Missouri until Nebraska got on its knees and begged.

There will come a point when the B1G is in enough states across the country that they will start charging everyone the tier 1 price. The states of Colorado and Arizona are doable. This is something I've been arguing about since they first expanded. That's one of the goals IMO. Charge everyone a premium for the B1GN. Also, a revived Colorado/Arizona brings in some decent T1 value. It's not B1G money, but they both have fanbases waiting for wins. Arizona and Colorado had solid ratings in the 90s and even through part of the 2000s. They would be playing bigger programs in the B1G.

Arizona State is worth more, but the B1G won't consider them unless they make strides in the classroom.

I'm not saying these programs are going to get added, but under the right circumstances, they will be considered.

[Lou_Sassle 2865]

2 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I understand those numbers and I get it. It was still a leverage move and doesn't work any other way. The same goes for Maryland. 

How does Nebraska make T1 revenue anywhere near the B1G per team numbers? For the most part, they have a regional following in the modern era. The national titles are never coming back. The B1G was originally planning to take Missouri until Nebraska got on its knees and begged.

There will come a point when the B1G is in enough states across the country that they will start charging everyone the tier 1 price. The states of Colorado and Arizona are doable. This is something I've been arguing about since they first expanded. That's one of the goals IMO. Charge everyone a premium for the B1GN. Also, a revived Colorado/Arizona brings in some decent T1 value. It's not B1G money, but they both have fanbases waiting for wins. Arizona and Colorado had solid ratings in the 90s and even through part of the 2000s. They would be playing bigger programs in the B1G.

Arizona State is worth more, but the B1G won't consider them unless they make strides in the classroom.

I'm not saying these programs are going to get added, but under the right circumstances, they will be considered.

I dont know why... but I just get the feeling you're not very fun to be around at parties. 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

10 minutes ago, Lou_Sassle said:

I dont know why... but I just get the feeling you're not very fun to be around at parties. 

You'd be correct! Next week I'm leaving on a six-month road trip through parks, mountains, and geological formations. I'd be miserable at a party at this point in my life. 

[Trojan Man 429]

45 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

They brought in that money because B1G/Fox had the power and the leverage to force it down cable providers' throats. It wasn't Maryland and Rutgers. If a powerful entity with all the leverage wants to make something work, it can usually find a way to make it work. Rutgers would not bring that money to the ACC Network or the PACN because they can't really bring that market. If the B1G wants to add a team, and as long as they can just find a slither of an argument to sell it, they'll make it happen. It's why Texas got $300 million for the LHN, which had no real value in any unleveraged business deal. That's my point.

Nebraska LULZ

UCLA? a sidekick

If the B1G lands UNC/UVA (UVA is actually a loss leader as well) and Notre Dame, they would take a rehabbed Colorado/Arizona and make it work. They would no doubt consider Georgia Tech. That's a long, long way away anyway. They have enough leverage and they want the borders closed. You can't sell it in its current state, but any kind of revival (CU, Arizona) and they will force it some way or another. There are 3 million people in the Denver metro alone and over 7 million in the state of Arizona.

We see this kind of stuff play out in the business world every day. Leverage and power can sometimes trump reality.

It's a little ridiculous to laugh off the value of Nebraska and UCLA then hype up the potential of a rehabbed Arizona or Colorado.  They are all the CFB equivalent of run down homes waiting to be flipped, except Nebraska and UCLA are in the nicest neighborhoods with deep-pocketed investors attempting to flip them while Arizona and Colorado are on the outskirt part of town that may or may not boom in 10-20 years and their flips are carried out by weekend warriors using YouTube guides.

If all of those programs went on a decade-long run of consistently playing at a CFP-level with a few years as legit title contenders Nebraska then UCLA would have much higher ratings and value than Arizona and Colorado, and not just because of conference affiliation.  Nebraska will always have some of the best fan support in all of CFB, which translates to NIL nowadays.  UCLA is in a great recruiting territory and will soon be one of only two P2 schools west of Texas.  With some success they should be able to build and maintain it easier than Arizona or Colorado would.  We don't know if any of these programs will ever be rehabbed, but you're writing off the two with the most upside as negative value while trying to sell everyone on the two with less upside and longer odds to pull off a flip.

Personally, I wouldn't have any interest in Colorado to the B1G even if they did rehab.  Their football team has been flaming dogshit almost every year beginning with a 2 and their AD was apathetic to it.  They do nothing in basketball.  They don't bring much in recruiting and they don't have a rabid fanbase.  They wouldn't help USC/UCLA with travel.  If you're going to be in the air that long from LA you might as well fly the extra 45 minutes or so until you get to Lincoln.  They were perfectly content to do the bare minimum required to get that sweet conference revenue sharing check.  They only started to give a fuck about onfield performance when the gravy train they were living off departed for the B1G, which isn't something I'd like to reenact after Prime Time gets poached by the SEC and they hire another Dorrell.  Arizona would be alright as a "last flight out of Saigon" invitation to put a bow on B1G realignment.  They have elite basketball, AZ recruiting is better than CO recruiting and they actually do help LA schools with travel, unlike other schools that call themselves LA travel partners.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

2 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

It's a little ridiculous to laugh off the value of Nebraska and UCLA then hype up the potential of a rehabbed Arizona or Colorado.  They are all the CFB equivalent of run down homes waiting to be flipped, except Nebraska and UCLA are in the nicest neighborhoods with deep-pocketed investors attempting to flip them while Arizona and Colorado are on the outskirt part of town that may or may not boom in 10-20 years and their flips are carried out by weekend warriors using YouTube guides.

If all of those programs went on a decade-long run of consistently playing at a CFP-level with a few years as legit title contenders Nebraska then UCLA would have much higher ratings and value than Arizona and Colorado, and not just because of conference affiliation.  Nebraska will always have some of the best fan support in all of CFB, which translates to NIL nowadays.  UCLA is in a great recruiting territory and will soon be one of only two P2 schools west of Texas.  With some success they should be able to build and maintain it easier than Arizona or Colorado would.  We don't know if any of these programs will ever be rehabbed, but you're writing off the two with the most upside as negative value while trying to sell everyone on the two with less upside and longer odds to pull off a flip.

Personally, I wouldn't have any interest in Colorado to the B1G even if they did rehab.  Their football team has been flaming dogshit almost every year beginning with a 2 and their AD was apathetic to it.  They do nothing in basketball.  They don't bring much in recruiting and they don't have a rabid fanbase.  They wouldn't help USC/UCLA with travel.  If you're going to be in the air that long from LA you might as well fly the extra 45 minutes or so until you get to Lincoln.  They were perfectly content to do the bare minimum required to get that sweet conference revenue sharing check.  They only started to give a fuck about onfield performance when the gravy train they were living off departed for the B1G, which isn't something I'd like to reenact after Prime Time gets poached by the SEC and they hire another Dorrell.  Arizona would be alright as a "last flight out of Saigon" invitation to put a bow on B1G realignment.  They have elite basketball, AZ recruiting is better than CO recruiting and they actually do help LA schools with travel, unlike other schools that call themselves LA travel partners.

I'm not writing off anyone. it's not me trying to say that all these added programs bring big bucks to the B1G on their own merit. That's where this argument got started. That the B1G will only add teams that bring massive value to the conference with no help from their bluebloods. My argument is some of the teams they've already added don't really carry their own weight. One poster basically thinks it's Notre Dame and I guess no one else. Maybe FSU? I'm arguing the opposite. B1G is going to grow and it's not going to be just about every program adding some massive amount of money to the conference. And they absolutely want to go coast to coast if they can make it work.

I agree and disagree with you. If the wins are equal, UCLA, Arizona and Colorado blow Nebraska out the door. But the wins aren't equal. If UCLA, Arizona and Colorado won at old Nebraska's pace for many decades, they would have a massive following that Nebraska could not match. But none of that is ever happening for any of the 4 programs. Just like there's a 0% chance Nebraska ever wins another national championship and their so-called diehard fan base will continue to shrink. They can win again, but not like the old days and there will be way more ups and downs, which doesn't help their cause in a state in the middle of nowhere with less than 2 million people.

[Magus Ossis 2784]

The benefit of cable market coverage is fool’s gold long-term. Heaven knows in what form cfb will exist by the time the current acc deal expires, but it will likely have evolved to a much more streaming-oriented model for distribution. As a result, clicks and downloads will matter far more than generic subscribers. Ad buyers pay for viewers, hence media companies for blue bloods. Rutgers, UH, and all the other schools that ‘bring markets’ may look good in 2023, but in 2033 they’ll be 80% dead weight. Owning a share of a cable network won’t be nearly as lucrative. Texas, ND, Bama, UGA, OU, SC, tosu, etc: these will still command good deals when espn has been spun off by Disney and gets most its views by streaming. With distribution so granular, it will be easier for hybrid revenue models for conferences in which things more closely resemble ‘eat what you kill.’

[LTbear 4161]

3 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I said that has always been their plan and they would take a REHABBED Colorado and Arizona from the Big 12 IF those programs showed any progress. To add to it, they wouldn't take them, even rehabbed, if they were located in Boise, Idaho. And they've already done it! They've taken a bunch shitty schools that bring nothing without the big programs in the B1G. You're reading what you want to read and selectively avoiding certain facts that appease the Big 12. 

"a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders" isn't really my thing. It's what the B1G prefers and it's been the case for a very long time. It doesn't mean it will happen, but they are going to try and make it happen. 

I've never seen someone not only change what someone said but also dispute prior facts.

Nebraska did not bring in the money. UCLA did not bring in the money. Rutgers did not really bring in the money. Maryland most certainly did not bring in the money. The B1G brands brought in the money and it helped them create chaos and eventually land USC and will help them eventually land Notre Dame. 

The B1G had to expand to survive. They could see the future and they needed more than the Rust Belt.

That's the longest-worded walk back of a statement I've ever seen. And selectively reading to appease the Big XII? What?

Edited May 17, 2023 by LTbear

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

3 minutes ago, LTbear said:

That's the longest-worded walk back of a statement I've ever seen. And selectively reading to appease the Big XII? What?

My original wording was on the previous page. The one where I mentioned Colorado:

B1G (24 to 28): Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke (basketball only)

*I could see the B1G adding Stanford, Arizona (rehabbed), Utah and Colorado (rehabbed) down the road. The B1G will have 4 of the 5 behemoths in tOSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. This allows them to finish their 30+ year plan for a national conference that stretches coast-to-coast with continuous borders. They can afford to take Georgia Tech, and Stanford and fill in geographic territory with a Colorado and Arizona.

 

You are full of shit. I hope you aren't a real professor as you claim.

[LTbear 4161]

Just now, Sandbagging Steve said:

My original wording was on the previous page. The one where I mentioned Colorado:

B1G (24 to 28): Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke (basketball only)

*I could see the B1G adding Stanford, Arizona (rehabbed), Utah and Colorado (rehabbed) down the road. The B1G will have 4 of the 5 behemoths in tOSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. This allows them to finish their 30+ year plan for a national conference that stretches coast-to-coast with continuous borders. They can afford to take Georgia Tech, and Stanford and fill in geographic territory with a Colorado and Arizona.

 

You are full of shit. I hope you aren't a real professor as you claim.

Again, you said "coast to coast conference with continuous borders." I call bullshit on that statement. They won't take "filler" schools they "can afford" just for the sake of filling in a map. If they all make more money by leaving out UA or ASU or whoever, they will leave them out. 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 minute ago, LTbear said:

Again, you said "coast to coast conference with continuous borders." I call bullshit on that statement. They won't take "filler" schools they "can afford" just for the sake of filling in a map. If they all make more money by leaving out UA or ASU or whoever, they will leave them out. 

You said I walked back what I said and that is false. All I've ever said is they would like to go coast to coast with a continuous border and if those programs get rehabbed they may get added. It is that simple. I have never wavered from that statement.  This is the reason for my last reply. It's not a secret they would in fact like to do that. It doesn't mean it will happen. I never said it will happen. It would take the right circumstances but it is something they've always wanted to do.

Other than that, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. For one, I'm pretty sure the B1G would have made more money by leaving out UCLA and Nebraska but they added them anyway.  There is no way UCLA is worth anywhere near 60, 70, or 80 million dollars right now with USC in the fold. But UCLA was a good addition to the conference and probably helped secure USC as well as allowed more teams to play in LA for recruiting purposes. It wasn't just about revenue. They wouldn't be chasing UVA if that was their concern. UVA has never had the numbers to bring that kind of revenue to the B1G. But they will chase them at some point in time. It's always been one of their top priorities (UVA/UNC).

Which programs are going to bring $80 million to the B1G? Notre Dame? Yes. Florida State:? I don't think FSU can even get that high. So the B1G is done with expansion forever once they land Notre Dame? Maybe they force the cable providers to pay a premium for the B1GN in San Fran? Bring in tiny little Stanford? And then you believe they are done? Couldn't they just force cable providers to pay a premium in every B1G state at this point? They have more leverage now. That changes the value of more teams moving forward.

What teams do you think are worth $80 million per year right now that the B1G will eventually add? Because from what you are saying, that's the requirement.

[Hagbard Celine 10763]

did anything happen today?

[TKthunder2 4981]

21 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

For one, I'm pretty sure the B1G would have made more money by leaving out UCLA and Nebraska but they added them anyway. 

You should really drop it, the facts are not in your side.

Nebraska was one of the only blueblood schools interested in going it alone and changing conferences at the time. Yes they’ve gone severely downhill, but it’s revisionist history at best to frame their additions as anything less than one of the best realignment moves in the BCS era at the time. Even now with Nebraska as shitty as they have been they are still have a following and are clearly in the top half of the B1G, in that second tier with Wisconsin and Michigan State.

UCLA is a blueblood basketball school that is also an amazing academic institution in a great media and recruiting market with good enough football appeal to get 6th best ratings of their expansion candidates (ND, Clemson, Oregon, USC, Florida St, UCLA). It doesn’t really matter what your thoughts on the matter are, but FOX/CBS/NBC all agreed that they/USC and the total ownership of the 2nd biggest media market in the nation was worth the price. If the PAC12 had retained UCLA and added SDSU it absolutely could have lowered the total valuation of the Big Ten’s TV deal since they’d have a divided market where they could be in direct competition with each other splitting the total viewership.

2 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

did anything happen today?

Nothing new since the report about 7 ACC schools trying to dissolve their conference and/or break their GOR.

[USC Traveler 488]

8 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

The only conference who can add to their current contract by addition with this chaos is the Big 12 and maybe, MAYBE, the B1G with Notre Dame.   

ND is the only school that has a specific escalator clause that the BIG and the tv partners agreed to put into the new BIG media deal.  

The number has already been agreed to, so I'm assuming it's substantially additive.  Otherwise, why go through the trouble of working out the numbers to add the clause ?

[USC Traveler 488]

From the Athletic today:

If Florida State, Clemson, Virginia, North Carolina and Miami were to become available, that’s a real and major domino to fall in conference realignment. As one Big Ten source put it, “Those schools are where the real value is.”

That person was particularly interested in Virginia and North Carolina as new states and/or markets for the Big Ten to extend down the East Coast. This Big Ten source believes expansion out East makes far more sense than expanding into the Pacific Northwest, which has not had nearly enough support internally or among the league’s media partners since the idea was first broached. 

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

15 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

You should really drop it, the facts are not in your side.

Nebraska was one of the only blueblood schools interested in going it alone and changing conferences at the time. Yes they’ve gone severely downhill, but it’s revisionist history at best to frame their additions as anything less than one of the best realignment moves in the BCS era at the time. Even now with Nebraska as shitty as they have been they are still have a following and are clearly in the top half of the B1G, in that second tier with Wisconsin and Michigan State.

UCLA is a blueblood basketball school that is also an amazing academic institution in a great media and recruiting market with good enough football appeal to get 6th best ratings of their expansion candidates (ND, Clemson, Oregon, USC, Florida St, UCLA). It doesn’t really matter what your thoughts on the matter are, but FOX/CBS/NBC all agreed that they/USC and the total ownership of the 2nd biggest media market in the nation was worth the price. If the PAC12 had retained UCLA and added SDSU it absolutely could have lowered the total valuation of the Big Ten’s TV deal since they’d have a divided market where they could be in direct competition with each other splitting the total viewership.

Nothing new since the report about 7 ACC schools trying to dissolve their conference and/or break their GOR.

 

1. B1G was all set to add Missouri before Nebraska talked them out of it.

2. In 2021, Nebraska was hanging out below Iowa and right there close to Mississippi St., Stanford, TCU. They are clearly in the third tier with close to a dozen teams. And they've been trending downwards for nearly two decades.

3. I'm not arguing anything other than the B1G isn't just adding teams worth their own weight. It's the guy I'm responding to that is saying that. The fact of the matter is, there's very little that separates 15 to 20 teams in the third tier. LTBear seems to think none of these teams have a shot at going to the B1G. The B1G has already taken some of them. Nebraska and UCLA are two of them.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

19 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

From the Athletic today:

If Florida State, Clemson, Virginia, North Carolina and Miami were to become available, that’s a real and major domino to fall in conference realignment. As one Big Ten source put it, “Those schools are where the real value is.”

That person was particularly interested in Virginia and North Carolina as new states and/or markets for the Big Ten to extend down the East Coast. This Big Ten source believes expansion out East makes far more sense than expanding into the Pacific Northwest, which has not had nearly enough support internally or among the league’s media partners since the idea was first broached. 

Exactly my point.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

21 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

From the Athletic today:

If Florida State, Clemson, Virginia, North Carolina and Miami were to become available, that’s a real and major domino to fall in conference realignment. As one Big Ten source put it, “Those schools are where the real value is.”

That person was particularly interested in Virginia and North Carolina as new states and/or markets for the Big Ten to extend down the East Coast. This Big Ten source believes expansion out East makes far more sense than expanding into the Pacific Northwest, which has not had nearly enough support internally or among the league’s media partners since the idea was first broached. 

And they will eventually expand to the west

[USC Traveler 488]

9 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

And they will eventually expand to the west

We'll see what happens.

Everything that I just quoted indicates otherwise, which is consistent with what Thamel, Auerbach, Feldman and others have been saying for the last 11 months.

The only people who have been pushing the idea that the BIG is going to add UW and UO are Dodds and McMurphy.

The bottom line:  if the PNW schools aren't additive now, why do you think they'll be additive in the future ?

 

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

You'd be correct! Next week I'm leaving on a six-month road trip through parks, mountains, and geological formations. I'd be miserable at a party at this point in my life. 

That sounds like an awesome trip.  Where are you going ?

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 minute ago, USC Traveler said:

We'll see what happens.

Everything that I just quoted indicates otherwise, which is consistent with what Thamel, Auerbach, Feldman and others have been saying for the last 11 months.

The only people who have been pushing the idea that the BIG is going to add UW and UO are Dodds and McMurphy.

The bottom line:  if the PNW schools aren't additive now, why do you think they'll be additive in the future ?

 

The same reason they've been adding and subtracting teams for over 40 years. In reality, for around 100 years. Oregon and Washington bring value to the conference. It may not be $70,000,000 to $80,000,000 but they are healthy additions. They're just in a geographical outlier of this country and it will take time.

The former commissioner didn't want to add the PNW for the sake of adding them. CEOs don't operate that way. There's a reason he wanted to add them. And he gets info from the TV execs. I believe this issue has to do with travel and jealousy more than anything else. And the stats back up that UW/UO are worth more than UVA.

ACC is a dogfight with the SEC and it includes Notre Dame. The PAC is a geographic outlier for the SEC, so there is no competition and they can wait and even negotiate down on the amount given the first contract.

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

9 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

That sounds like an awesome trip.  Where are you going ?

All over North America, mainly camping and doing work from my laptop. Climbing, hiking and rockhounding. I'm going to extend it to a year if I can pull it off. I will be heading to Yellowstone next week and then 10 days in Glacier to get things started.

[USC Traveler 488]

9 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

All over North America, mainly camping and doing work from my laptop. Climbing, hiking and rockhounding. I'm going to extend it to a year if I can pull it off. I will be heading to Yellowstone next week and then 10 days in Glacier to get things started.

That will be an epic trip!

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 minute ago, USC Traveler said:

That will be an epic trip!

Thanks, buddy! I'm really excited to get started as I haven't been able to even see our national parks much to this point in my life. I'm very excited to get to Glacier. It's kind of why I'm heading straight in that direction from the start. After that, I will be doing some rockhounding in Montana and Canada before heading to the Dakotas and then circling back down thru Nebraska to fossil hunt on some private land in the White River Formation. 

I will have to check back here at times to see what happens this summer. Lots of possibilities in realignment this year, which probably means nothing will happen!

 

[statsman 5425]

15 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

The long-term goal isn't about a conference. It's about consolidating brands to create rules by like-minded programs and create a much more exciting brand of football. The long-term goal is to take the schedule out of the hands of the universities in order to maximize profits by playing more conference opponents. It just takes time to get there because there are a lot of different agendas with some say in the process. When push comes to shove, the bluebloods, commissioners and TV execs always get their way.

You realize- most of the B12 programs have adopted the Snyder strategy of scheduling east non-conference games to ensure they always have winning seasons, hoping to catch lightning in a bottle some year (like TCU did this year)

[gatormarc 904]

8 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

did anything happen today?

$10 M doesn't cut the gap. If that's something seriously being considered by everyone then:

1) It's confirmation that the GoR is tougher to break and just dissolving the conference doesn't make it much easier

2) FSU and Clemson lose most of their Magnificent 7 votes when just a bit more money is offered.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, gatormarc said:

$10 M doesn't cut the gap. If that's something seriously being considered by everyone then:

1) It's confirmation that the GoR is tougher to break and just dissolving the conference doesn't make it much easier

2) FSU and Clemson lose most of their Magnificent 7 votes when just a bit more money is offered.

I'd guess that the primary goal is getting FSU north of Big 12 payouts (i.e. UCF payouts) - even if they're only a couple million in front.  

[gatormarc 904]

27 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I'd guess that the primary goal is getting FSU north of Big 12 payouts (i.e. UCF payouts) - even if they're only a couple million in front.  

Take that, Citronauts!

- Chief Osceola, probably.

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, gatormarc said:

$10 M doesn't cut the gap. If that's something seriously being considered by everyone then:

1) It's confirmation that the GoR is tougher to break and just dissolving the conference doesn't make it much easier

2) FSU and Clemson lose most of their Magnificent 7 votes when just a bit more money is offered.

I'm shocked that this was all posturing to get unequal postseason revenue.

I was also shocked to find gambling in Casablanca.

[Hurtlocker 2208]

7 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I'm shocked that this was all posturing to get unequal postseason revenue.

I was also shocked to find gambling in Casablanca.

Also shocked it was "overblown" since he was the one crying the most.

I will love if they set up an unequal sharing system and then Pitt or UVA or Cuse or someone goes on a tear and wins the ACC several years in a row.   The risk of getting more in performance based, is you can also get less too

Edited May 17, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[BurntOrange&White 39661]

2 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Also shocked it was "overblown" since he was the one crying the most.

I will love if they set up an unequal sharing system and then Pitt or UVA or Cuse or someone goes on a tear and wins the ACC several years in a row.   The risk of getting more in performance based, is you can also get less too

 

They're pretty updity

[bullet 1596]

16 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

I understand those numbers and I get it. It was still a leverage move and doesn't work any other way. The same goes for Maryland. 

How does Nebraska make T1 revenue anywhere near the B1G per team numbers? For the most part, they have a regional following in the modern era. The national titles are never coming back. The B1G was originally planning to take Missouri until Nebraska got on its knees and begged.

There will come a point when the B1G is in enough states across the country that they will start charging everyone the tier 1 price. The states of Colorado and Arizona are doable. This is something I've been arguing about since they first expanded. That's one of the goals IMO. Charge everyone a premium for the B1GN. Also, a revived Colorado/Arizona brings in some decent T1 value. It's not B1G money, but they both have fanbases waiting for wins. Arizona and Colorado had solid ratings in the 90s and even through part of the 2000s. They would be playing bigger programs in the B1G.

Arizona State is worth more, but the B1G won't consider them unless they make strides in the classroom.

I'm not saying these programs are going to get added, but under the right circumstances, they will be considered.

As tough as Nebraska has had it, they were still #19 in that Sic-em TV analysis.  They're a big name.  If they were winning, they would have been higher.

That put them ahead of USC and behind only 5 Big 10 schools (UM, tOSU, PSU, WI, MSU).  They were a plus to Tier I.

[gatormarc 904]

21 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

24 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Also shocked it was "overblown" since he was the one crying the most.

I will love if they set up an unequal sharing system and then Pitt or UVA or Cuse or someone goes on a tear and wins the ACC several years in a row.   The risk of getting more in performance based, is you can also get less too

 

They're pretty updity

Alford has been pretty public for months outlining why FSU is worth more than the other schools, showing TV ratings, etc.

It would be interesting if the whole thing was sidestepped by shifting it to completely merit based.

1) Clemson is in because based on recent history, they'll get the cash.

2) FSU can't really back down now without stating that they don't have confidence in Norvell. At least to me, the overwhelming overconfidence that developed last season for Norvell feels very forced. They rushed the field after beating a 6 win Florida team last season.

[bullet 1596]

14 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

You should really drop it, the facts are not in your side.

Nebraska was one of the only blueblood schools interested in going it alone and changing conferences at the time. Yes they’ve gone severely downhill, but it’s revisionist history at best to frame their additions as anything less than one of the best realignment moves in the BCS era at the time. Even now with Nebraska as shitty as they have been they are still have a following and are clearly in the top half of the B1G, in that second tier with Wisconsin and Michigan State.

UCLA is a blueblood basketball school that is also an amazing academic institution in a great media and recruiting market with good enough football appeal to get 6th best ratings of their expansion candidates (ND, Clemson, Oregon, USC, Florida St, UCLA). It doesn’t really matter what your thoughts on the matter are, but FOX/CBS/NBC all agreed that they/USC and the total ownership of the 2nd biggest media market in the nation was worth the price. If the PAC12 had retained UCLA and added SDSU it absolutely could have lowered the total valuation of the Big Ten’s TV deal since they’d have a divided market where they could be in direct competition with each other splitting the total viewership.

Nothing new since the report about 7 ACC schools trying to dissolve their conference and/or break their GOR.

A side note--of the top 63, 58 are P5, 3 are future P5, 2 are military academies.  The other 8 current and future P5:

67 Colorado

70 BC

71 Arizona St.

76 Virginia Tech (surprise)

78 Houston

79 Virginia

91 Duke

Vanderbilt I didn't see listed.

[bullet 1596]

13 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

We'll see what happens.

Everything that I just quoted indicates otherwise, which is consistent with what Thamel, Auerbach, Feldman and others have been saying for the last 11 months.

The only people who have been pushing the idea that the BIG is going to add UW and UO are Dodds and McMurphy.

The bottom line:  if the PNW schools aren't additive now, why do you think they'll be additive in the future ?

 

Wilner seems convinced.  Just doesn't believe its happening now.

[bullet 1596]

13 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

All over North America, mainly camping and doing work from my laptop. Climbing, hiking and rockhounding. I'm going to extend it to a year if I can pull it off. I will be heading to Yellowstone next week and then 10 days in Glacier to get things started.

Sounds great.  My top 3 parks are Rocky Mnt., Yellowstone, then Glacier.

Research in case you haven't already.  In many parks (Rocky Mnt., Glacier and Arches to name 3 I'm sure of), you have to have reservations to get in during normal hours.  Pretty much impossible if you don't plan 6 months in advance.  They do allow people in early in the morning and later at night.  A couple years ago we went to Glacier and had to enter before 6 am.  After leaving we tried to go into one of the remote entrances on the other side that didn't require reservations, but they had closed it temporarily because they didn't have enough parking.

[bullet 1596]

https://richmond.com/sports/college/teel-babcock-says-vt-moving-forward-with-acc-but-has-explored-potential-options/article_81175fea-f416-11ed-b385-d3c7ffcc2fc4.html

Interesting interview with VT AD.

 

"...Babcock confirmed that he and colleagues from the six other schools McMurphy mentioned have discussed possible options.

 

“I would classify it as a number of conversations,” Babcock told The Times-Dispatch, “usually in small groups, on interpretations of grant of rights, of bylaws of the league, of options that may be out there. But as you know, the grant of rights has been looked at a lot of times by a lot of people.”

 

Virginia AD Carla Williams politely declined an interview request, joking that “Whit speaks for both us.”

 

Babcock said the conversations weren’t as organized as many interpreted Monday and that several included subsets of the seven. Topics included not only the grant of rights, but also ACC bylaws to ascertain what is required to change the revenue-sharing formula — at least 10 of 15 presidents must approve...."

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Also shocked it was "overblown" since he was the one crying the most.

I will love if they set up an unequal sharing system and then Pitt or UVA or Cuse or someone goes on a tear and wins the ACC several years in a row.   The risk of getting more in performance based, is you can also get less too

I don't think it's just posturing.  If the goal is leaving the ACC before the GOR expires, whether it's through litigation or voting to dissolve the ACC or paying a buyout, they have to say exactly what they just said.  Much like the administration has to publicly support the head coach until the minute they fire him they also have to publicly support the conference until the minute they leave.  If FSU went around saying "Fuck the ACC we want to leave this shithole yesterday" they wouldn't be allowed to vote on dissolving the conference.  Also, these are professionals.  They know how to say a lot of words without saying what they really mean because professionals generally don't burn bridges.  Even after all their exits were made official there hasn't been a single negative word about the Big 12/Pac 12 out of the administrations at Texas, Oklahoma, USC or UCLA.

[Hagbard Celine 10763]

14 hours ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

B1G was all set to add Missouri before Nebraska talked them out of it.

source plz?

[thunderlounge 7758]

9 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

source plz?

If, and that’s a big if, that were the case, Missouri may have not been willing to take the pay-cut corn did when they joined. I say this as I can’t see how corn could have had their skirt raised any higher for the b1g than missouri did. They wanted it so bad that I would be shocked if they wouldn’t leave the SEC if they came calling now.

It was a shitshow on their end in that respect. Then poof, SEC.

 

[Hurtlocker 2208]

There was no world where the B1G was "talked out of" taking Mizzou for Nebraska.   Mizzou lifted its skirt at the B1G for years without even getting past the bouncer.   Nebraska just batted its eyelashes and was escorted through the VIP entrance without a second thought.  

36 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

I don't think it's just posturing.  If the goal is leaving the ACC before the GOR expires, whether it's through litigation or voting to dissolve the ACC or paying a buyout, they have to say exactly what they just said.  Much like the administration has to publicly support the head coach until the minute they fire him they also have to publicly support the conference until the minute they leave.  If FSU went around saying "Fuck the ACC we want to leave this shithole yesterday" they wouldn't be allowed to vote on dissolving the conference.  Also, these are professionals.  They know how to say a lot of words without saying what they really mean because professionals generally don't burn bridges.  Even after all their exits were made official there hasn't been a single negative word about the Big 12/Pac 12 out of the administrations at Texas, Oklahoma, USC or UCLA.

I meant more he's claiming its no big thing, after making it a big thing.