... those schools will pretty much take whatever dollar figure they're offered since the B1G is a far better landing spot than the Pac-whatever or Big XII.

Does Kevin Warren and the B1G's braintrust want UW, Oregon, Cal and Stanford? Absolutely ... great markets and great insitutional fits that mesh perfectly with USC and UCLA and more or less lock up a West Coast region with a population of 52M.

All this "will they or won't they be invited" is nothing more than posturing

The Pacific Northwest 2 and Bay Area 2 will gladly accept their half-shares (or whatever the valuations are deemed to be) for membership in a Super Two conference.

And every other school in the Pac-12 would do the same

Makes sense for Western wing. But just like others state, why are they waiting? I hope it happens since it's give LA their old rivals

(07-05-2022 05:01 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Makes sense for Western wing. But just like others state, why are they waiting? I hope it happens since it's give LA their old rivals

Maybe waiting on Notre Dame to say yes or no and if it is a yes one of the above listed schools could be out of luck (probably Cal)

(07-05-2022 05:01 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Makes sense for Western wing. But just like others state, why are they waiting?

Got to get Big Dogs squared away first

OU and UT — √

USC and UCLA — √

Notre Dame — waiting

North Carolina — waiting

Everybody else in some kind of orderly fashion

(07-05-2022 04:55 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... those schools will pretty much take whatever dollar figure they're offered since the B1G is a far better landing spot than the Pac-whatever or Big XII.

Does Kevin Warren and the B1G's braintrust want UW, Oregon, Cal and Stanford? Absolutely ... great markets and great insitutional fits that mesh perfectly with USC and UCLA and more or less lock up a West Coast region with a population of 52M.

All this "will they or won't they be invited" is nothing more than posturing

The Pacific Northwest 2 and Bay Area 2 will gladly accept their half-shares (or whatever the valuations are deemed to be) for membership in a Super Two conference.

And every other school in the Pac-12 would do the same

But we do need to bear in mind that a conference is not organized like a typical for-profit corporation, but rather is organized more akin to a co-operative corporation -- member owned, member controlled, member benefits -- so the individual preferences of individual current members do have some weight.

And it's not necessarily the case that the incumbent "little stadium" Big Ten schools want to open the door to unequal revenue sharing within the Big Ten.

I think the Big 10 is done with the Pac-12 because they already have who they want from the West Coast and neither of the new additions favors adding any more.

Remember who approched who in all this. USC and UCLA wanted a seat at the biggest big-boy table and the value-add was too good for the Big 10 to pass up. That doesn’t mean the Big 10 is prepared to take any further steps to undermine its probable long-term strategic priority of further expanding down the Atlantic coast with ACC plums that don’t actually dilute its per-member revenue, as any further Pac-12 additions almost certainly would.

(07-05-2022 05:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But we do need to bear in mind that a conference is not organized like a typical for-profit corporation, but rather is organized more akin to a co-operative corporation -- member owned, member controlled, member benefits -- so the individual preferences of individual current members do have some weight.

And it's not necessarily the case that the incumbent "little stadium" Big Ten schools want to open the door to unequal revenue sharing within the Big Ten.

This isn't about the B1G's football lightweights taking a smaller share.

Nothing of the sort.

This is about the new members having their media rights shares set at their "valuation" (or some similar metric) as opposed to being granted a full share out of the box.

Notre Dame, USC and (perhaps) UCLA get a full share or something close to it.

UW, UO, Stanford or Cal — something (a good bit) less ... and, again, they'll be more than happy to take it considering the scary alternative

There's no way that USC and UCLA would stay content to be on a lonely non-revenue-sport island by themselves for the foreseeable future. The Big Ten almost has to further expand to keep the USC-UCLA expansion stable.

A valuation metric for other new members seems like a good solution to help the Big Ten and its network to further expand across the West Coast and to make the USC-UCLA homerun expansion feasible and enduring.

(07-05-2022 05:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  There's no way that USC and UCLA would stay content to be on a lonely non-revenue-sport island by themselves for the foreseeable future. The Big Ten almost has to further expand to keep the USC-UCLA expansion stable.

Exactly. All of this "USC and UCLA want the West Coast to themselves" stuff is nonsense. Having a half-dozen B1G institutions in CA/OR/WA is good for everyone involved: UCLA + USC and the current B1G members (all of whom would travel less) and the media rights holders.

(07-05-2022 05:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  A valuation metric for other new members seems like a good solution to help the Big Ten and its network to further expand across the West Coast and to make the USC-UCLA homerun expansion feasible and enduring.

Simple as that.

Everyone in the process has gotten smarter about these sorts of massive financial decisions.

(07-05-2022 06:10 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 05:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  There's no way that USC and UCLA would stay content to be on a lonely non-revenue-sport island by themselves for the foreseeable future. The Big Ten almost has to further expand to keep the USC-UCLA expansion stable.

Exactly. All of this "USC and UCLA want the West Coast to themselves" stuff is nonsense. Having a half-dozen B1G institutions in CA/OR/WA is good for everyone involved: UCLA + USC and the current B1G members (all of whom would travel less) and the media rights holders.

(07-05-2022 05:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  A valuation metric for other new members seems like a good solution to help the Big Ten and its network to further expand across the West Coast and to make the USC-UCLA homerun expansion feasible and enduring.

Simple as that.

Everyone in the process has gotten smarter about these sorts of massive financial decisions.

I think the B1G’s endgame might be 24 schools, which I’ll split into 4 groups of 6, even though I’m not necessarily proposing these as divisions:

B1G Pacific: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington
B1G Plains: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois
B1G East: PSU, OSU, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue.
B1G Atlantic: UNC, Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, Notre Dame.

They won’t.

(07-05-2022 05:37 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 05:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But we do need to bear in mind that a conference is not organized like a typical for-profit corporation, but rather is organized more akin to a co-operative corporation -- member owned, member controlled, member benefits -- so the individual preferences of individual current members do have some weight.

And it's not necessarily the case that the incumbent "little stadium" Big Ten schools want to open the door to unequal revenue sharing within the Big Ten.

This isn't about the B1G's football lightweights taking a smaller share.

Nothing of the sort.

This is about the new members having their media rights shares set at their "valuation" (or some similar metric) as opposed to being granted a full share out of the box.

"Out of the box" is one thing ... saying that Notre Dame, USC & UCLA don't have to buy into equity in the BTN because the value they add to the main Big Ten contracts is sufficient to cover their equity shares is one thing. That would allow for schools that do not boost the media valuation per school by any significant amount to have to buy into their BTN equity, as Rutgers and Maryland had to.

But while we loosely talk about that as Rutgers and Maryland "waiting to receive their full share", they were "earning" an equal share from the start, where, like a new Partner at a partnership, some of those earnings went to fund their equity stake in the BTN.

Quote: UW, UO, Stanford or Cal — something (a good bit) less ... and, again, they'll be more than happy to take it considering the scary alternative

It might seem splitting hairs, but existing smaller Big Ten schools will balk at anyone being slated to earn less than anyone else because they have a lower valuation. Because that is, indeed, something of the same sort as incumbent schools that have a valuation below the Big Ten average being told it is time for them to take a bit less gravy if they want to keep riding the gravy train.

(07-05-2022 05:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  There's no way that USC and UCLA would stay content to be on a lonely non-revenue-sport island by themselves for the foreseeable future. The Big Ten almost has to further expand to keep the USC-UCLA expansion stable.

A valuation metric for other new members seems like a good solution to help the Big Ten and its network to further expand across the West Coast and to make the USC-UCLA homerun expansion feasible and enduring.

But that does not pin down how large the West Coast island will have to be. If the "foreseeable future" extends past the early 2030s, then how many West Coast schools get an invite may well hinge on how things shake out when the ACC GOR is within two to five years of expiration.