With USC athletics leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten Conference, some question the streaming equity of sports that don’t always get the attention. Dana Hammerstrom of USC Annenberg Media reports:

https://www.uscannenbergmedia.com/2022/1...e-big-ten/

Good article - thanks for posting

"The most obvious downside for student-athletes on the West coast is travel. Competing against teams who are between a four and six hour flight from LA has consequences, for both student-athletes individually and the teams as a whole."

Welcome to Hawaii's world. I'm sure it will be an eye-opener.

Maybe? USC baseball would have still struck out (again) in their attempts to hire away Andrew Checketts even if they were a B1G member.

Not exactly hard hitting, but I like the topic under discussion. A couple things I wish she had explored in more detail:

1. How much harder is it on your body to increase average travel time from, say, 4 hrs currently to 6 hrs in the b1g (I made up the numbers bc we don’t have that data now)?
2. How will this change impact sophomores and juniors in socal right now who are at the top of their sport and likely USCLA targets in the future? Will, say the top swimmers and golfers be more, less, or equally likely to choose to attend one of the LA schools? You could ask football players too, but that answer seems self-evident.

It will make USC and UCLA a lot less weaker to compete in the Big 10 because the athletes will be fatigue from all that travel.

Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

(10-04-2022 04:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

$500 million a year? Thought the number I saw was $100 million a year. Maybe I misread it?

(10-04-2022 06:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 04:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

$500 million a year? Thought the number I saw was $100 million a year. Maybe I misread it?

$100 mil a year per school is what I heard. So, 4 more schools equals $400 mil to break even. I added $100 mil more so the other 16 schools would have incentive to say yes.

(10-04-2022 06:39 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 06:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 04:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

$500 million a year? Thought the number I saw was $100 million a year. Maybe I misread it?

$100 mil a year per school is what I heard. So, 4 more schools equals $400 mil to break even. I added $100 mil more so the other 16 schools would have incentive to say yes.

Dodd made it sound like less than 100 million total not per was the number.

(10-04-2022 07:12 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 06:39 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 06:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 04:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

$500 million a year? Thought the number I saw was $100 million a year. Maybe I misread it?

$100 mil a year per school is what I heard. So, 4 more schools equals $400 mil to break even. I added $100 mil more so the other 16 schools would have incentive to say yes.

Dodd made it sound like less than 100 million total not per was the number.

If it's a $100 million for 4 schools, I fail to see how the B1G makes money on adding 4 more PAC 12 schools. Granted, you're talking about the bottom 2 games a week which should be worth less than the $300 mil per year that CBS and NBC are paying and $350 mil that Fox is paying. What that really does is make the top 3 tiers more valuable as there's more high end content and the lowest end games get relegated to streaming.

So how does the B1G monetize that? They would have to have built in increases already into the top 3 tiers for added schools (which I don't think they have) or they'd be requiring the next 4 PAC 12 schools to have to be willing to take an average of $25 mil per school per year which is 1/4 of what has been advertised for the B1G average media rights.

Which if that's true would be why the B1G wants the PAC 12 to consolidate with the B12. So the PAC 12 schools that want to join with the B1G have no leverage and take almost nothing for 8 years.

Gangster ****.

And that's to break even. $100 mil more in media rights and $25 mil per school for 4 schools doesn't make the B1G anything extra. So the B1G would have to either get a $120 million increase or get the 4 PAC 12 schools for $20 mil each for all the other schools to make $1mil more per year. I can't believe that is worth it.

(10-04-2022 07:44 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 07:12 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 06:39 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 06:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 04:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

$500 million a year? Thought the number I saw was $100 million a year. Maybe I misread it?

$100 mil a year per school is what I heard. So, 4 more schools equals $400 mil to break even. I added $100 mil more so the other 16 schools would have incentive to say yes.

Dodd made it sound like less than 100 million total not per was the number.

If it's a $100 million for 4 schools, I fail to see how the B1G makes money on adding 4 more PAC 12 schools. Granted, you're talking about the bottom 2 games a week which should be worth less than the $300 mil per year that CBS and NBC are paying and $350 mil that Fox is paying. What that really does is make the top 3 tiers more valuable as there's more high end content and the lowest end games get relegated to streaming.

So how does the B1G monetize that? They would have to have built in increases already into the top 3 tiers for added schools (which I don't think they have) or they'd be requiring the next 4 PAC 12 schools to have to be willing to take an average of $25 mil per school per year which is 1/4 of what has been advertised for the B1G average media rights.

Which if that's true would be why the B1G wants the PAC 12 to consolidate with the B12. So the PAC 12 schools that want to join with the B1G have no leverage and take almost nothing for 8 years.

Gangster ****.

And that's to break even. $100 mil more in media rights and $25 mil per school for 4 schools doesn't make the B1G anything extra. So the B1G would have to either get a $120 million increase or get the 4 PAC 12 schools for $20 mil each for all the other schools to make $1mil more per year. I can't believe that is worth it.

I'd say it's a matter of perspective. The B1G's new media deal alone will pay more per team than what their past total revenue did. Pre-covid the most recent full share distribution was over $54M. They will get more than that just from TV. We still don't know the potential extra money the B1G could get having more teams that make bowl games, the expanded playoff (currently $6M per team in the semifinals), NCAA basketball tournament, etc.

But focusing on the media part, there could still be an adjustment in the new deal along with a deal for a fourth window. We know there's a specific clause for ND, but they can still negotiate extra for new additions. Let's say we round what Dodd said to $100M and the B1G got maybe $20M/yr extra on the new deal for the teams added. There's the $120M. And if that chunk was split among the PN4, that's $30M/yr for a partial share just from media. Personally I think their partial share from media would be less than that amount when considering Maryland's and Rutgers' past partial shares from total revenue.

The new deal that will pay much more than before hasn't started. To me it doesn't feel like the usual line of thinking where they need to be additive for the others schools applies like it would have in most situations.

The B1G should believe it's worth it for the potential increase from the things I said above. Mainly because more teams making the expanded playoff will likely lead to a larger share of playoff money for the conference.

(10-04-2022 04:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

Dennis Dodd had the number at about $100 million a year.

I'm sure the Pacific Northwest teams will reach that threshold. The main question is if some presidents will just be totally opposed to a conference as big as 20 teams.

(10-04-2022 10:38 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I'd say it's a matter of perspective. The B1G's new media deal alone will pay more per team than what their past total revenue did. Pre-covid the most recent full share distribution was over $54M. They will get more than that just from TV. We still don't know the potential extra money the B1G could get having more teams that make bowl games, the expanded playoff (currently $6M per team in the semifinals), NCAA basketball tournament, etc.

But focusing on the media part, there could still be an adjustment in the new deal along with a deal for a fourth window. We know there's a specific clause for ND, but they can still negotiate extra for new additions. Let's say we round what Dodd said to $100M and the B1G got maybe $20M/yr extra on the new deal for the teams added. There's the $120M. And if that chunk was split among the PN4, that's $30M/yr for a partial share just from media. Personally I think their partial share from media would be less than that amount when considering Maryland's and Rutgers' past partial shares from total revenue.

The new deal that will pay much more than before hasn't started. To me it doesn't feel like the usual line of thinking where they need to be additive for the others schools applies like it would have in most situations.

The B1G should believe it's worth it for the potential increase from the things I said above. Mainly because more teams making the expanded playoff will likely lead to a larger share of playoff money for the conference.

Thanks for responding. I know I'm questioning things that have been taken as fact for 500+ posts on the Dodd's thread but it doesn't add up to me.

I went through that thread and read Frank_the_Tank and JRSEC posts and a few others and don't feel like Amazon or AppleTV would be smart to shell out even $100 Million dollars for 4th tier content when they might get the whole Pac 10 for $250 to $300 mil with all their premium games.

And if they did, why would the various conflicting interests of the B1G vote to add Ore Wash Stan and Cal when it's going to give the west a regional voting block, devalue many of the lesser B1G programs games to streaming and have to fly all the way across the country for a minimum 6 games per sport. I don't see the B1G getting the votes together for what might be $2 mil more per school per year.

And just because you get those last 4 PAC 10 schools for $20mil per school per year for 8 years, when that 8 years is up you're stuck with them making less than you would have per school than had you never added them. They're not going to agree to a 1/4 revenue stream for the remainder of all time no matter how desperate they are.

Any way, I don't see the B1G adding more PAC 10 schools this year.

I'm pretty sure that this move will harm USC and UCLA recruiting for non-revenue sports. What athlete is going to want to take these ridiculous road trips?

Not that USC and UCLA care.

(10-04-2022 11:02 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 04:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

Dennis Dodd had the number at about $100 million a year.

I'm sure the Pacific Northwest teams will reach that threshold. The main question is if some presidents will just be totally opposed to a conference as big as 20 teams.

If the threshold is $100mil, that means the B1G expects to get the 4 other PAC 10 schools for less than that. So, 20 mil a school and that only adds $1.25 million more for the existing 16 schools. Is that worth it to blow up your conference to an unwieldy 20 schools and saddle yourself with 4 dead beats that are only worth 1/4 the value of everyone else for the next media rights deal?

(10-04-2022 11:16 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 11:02 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 04:03 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Not a new take but.... it may benefit all sports as institutions in that they get more money, more visibility, more over air network broadcasts, better facilities and better match ups but it's detrimental to the athletes who actually play these sports having to fly 4-6 hours each way every week or every other week to play a series of games on the East coast. If USC and UCLA joined assuming other PAC 12 schools would join also giving them a west coast voting block for conference decisions, I don't think that's guaranteed.

Several B1G (presidents or athletics directors, I can't remember which) said any new additions would have to make financial sense. And the only way that happens is if Amazon or AppleTV offer ~$500 mil a year for the bottom 2 games every week for exclusive streaming after Fox, CBS, and NBC have all had their picks. First off, I don't see that happening. Second, teams like MD, Illinois, Northwestern etc. who would have a larger percentage of their games fall to streaming would have to agree to be demoted like that and I don't see that happening either.

Dennis Dodd had the number at about $100 million a year.

I'm sure the Pacific Northwest teams will reach that threshold. The main question is if some presidents will just be totally opposed to a conference as big as 20 teams.

If the threshold is $100mil, that means the B1G expects to get the 4 other PAC 10 schools for less than that. So, 20 mil a school and that only adds $1.25 million more for the existing 16 schools. Is that worth it to blow up your conference to an unwieldy 20 schools and saddle yourself with 4 dead beats that are only worth 1/4 the value of everyone else for the next media rights deal?

Not really sure what you're saying. The threshold is $100 million in all, or $25 million a per school. (Not sure why you're saying $20 million.) I have a very hard time imagining the Northwest teams wouldn't meet that threshold.


There might be some presidents who view 20 teams as unwieldy, but frankly I'm sure that some presidents have viewed 14 or 16 teams as unwieldy too. (And possibly even 12 if you go way back in time.) I don't think there will be additions announced during football season since that seems to be bad PR, but I expect more PAC teams to be added in January or so.

(10-04-2022 11:07 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 10:38 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I'd say it's a matter of perspective. The B1G's new media deal alone will pay more per team than what their past total revenue did. Pre-covid the most recent full share distribution was over $54M. They will get more than that just from TV. We still don't know the potential extra money the B1G could get having more teams that make bowl games, the expanded playoff (currently $6M per team in the semifinals), NCAA basketball tournament, etc.

But focusing on the media part, there could still be an adjustment in the new deal along with a deal for a fourth window. We know there's a specific clause for ND, but they can still negotiate extra for new additions. Let's say we round what Dodd said to $100M and the B1G got maybe $20M/yr extra on the new deal for the teams added. There's the $120M. And if that chunk was split among the PN4, that's $30M/yr for a partial share just from media. Personally I think their partial share from media would be less than that amount when considering Maryland's and Rutgers' past partial shares from total revenue.

The new deal that will pay much more than before hasn't started. To me it doesn't feel like the usual line of thinking where they need to be additive for the others schools applies like it would have in most situations.

The B1G should believe it's worth it for the potential increase from the things I said above. Mainly because more teams making the expanded playoff will likely lead to a larger share of playoff money for the conference.

Thanks for responding. I know I'm questioning things that have been taken as fact for 500+ posts on the Dodd's thread but it doesn't add up to me.

I went through that thread and read Frank_the_Tank and JRSEC posts and a few others and don't feel like Amazon or AppleTV would be smart to shell out even $100 Million dollars for 4th tier content when they might get the whole Pac 10 for $250 to $300 mil with all their premium games.

And if they did, why would the various conflicting interests of the B1G vote to add Ore Wash Stan and Cal when it's going to give the west a regional voting block, devalue many of the lesser B1G programs games to streaming and have to fly all the way across the country for a minimum 6 games per sport. I don't see the B1G getting the votes together for what might be $2 mil more per school per year.

And just because you get those last 4 PAC 10 schools for $20mil per school per year for 8 years, when that 8 years is up you're stuck with them making less than you would have per school than had you never added them. They're not going to agree to a 1/4 revenue stream for the remainder of all time no matter how desperate they are.

Any way, I don't see the B1G adding more PAC 10 schools this year.

My view on Amazon is that they do it to set themselves up for bidding the next go around. The info that came out said Amazon bid more than NBC and CBS, but the B1G turned them down due to exposure concerns. So by taking that 4th tier now they can work on breaking those concerns directly. That should increase their potential of winning some of those top tier games at the next deal. I think it would be low risk for both sides as Amazon starts out with a lower financial investment and B1G presidents/ADs use it as a trial run to alleviate those exposure concerns.

With the smoke around this situation I would think Amazon knows that the PN4 will jump to the B1G as soon as the opportunity is there. So why spend that on a conference that might die on them in the middle of their contract?

I'm not sure why the regional voting block would be an issue. Considering the direction we are probably going to see in CFB, I'm not seeing the concern from that. The lesser teams were always going to get limited exposure. Travel might be the best counterargument to expansion.

When it comes to what they can earn, I don't think any of the parties involved would expect them to stay on a partial share forever. If Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers were/are on partial shares for a limited time then I would expect the same for any future B1G add that doesn't start out as a full member.

In the future the only way I could see B1G teams earning less once the PN4 became full members is if there was some kind of economic downturn or a sizeable drop in ratings once when it's time for a new deal.

I'd be surprised if we see anymore announcements this year, but I do feel it eventually happens. I think it makes more sense for the B1G to add the PN4 (and SEC to expand) than stop at 16.

(10-05-2022 07:04 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 11:07 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-04-2022 10:38 PM)Alanda Wrote:  I'd say it's a matter of perspective. The B1G's new media deal alone will pay more per team than what their past total revenue did. Pre-covid the most recent full share distribution was over $54M. They will get more than that just from TV. We still don't know the potential extra money the B1G could get having more teams that make bowl games, the expanded playoff (currently $6M per team in the semifinals), NCAA basketball tournament, etc.

But focusing on the media part, there could still be an adjustment in the new deal along with a deal for a fourth window. We know there's a specific clause for ND, but they can still negotiate extra for new additions. Let's say we round what Dodd said to $100M and the B1G got maybe $20M/yr extra on the new deal for the teams added. There's the $120M. And if that chunk was split among the PN4, that's $30M/yr for a partial share just from media. Personally I think their partial share from media would be less than that amount when considering Maryland's and Rutgers' past partial shares from total revenue.

The new deal that will pay much more than before hasn't started. To me it doesn't feel like the usual line of thinking where they need to be additive for the others schools applies like it would have in most situations.

The B1G should believe it's worth it for the potential increase from the things I said above. Mainly because more teams making the expanded playoff will likely lead to a larger share of playoff money for the conference.

Thanks for responding. I know I'm questioning things that have been taken as fact for 500+ posts on the Dodd's thread but it doesn't add up to me.

I went through that thread and read Frank_the_Tank and JRSEC posts and a few others and don't feel like Amazon or AppleTV would be smart to shell out even $100 Million dollars for 4th tier content when they might get the whole Pac 10 for $250 to $300 mil with all their premium games.

And if they did, why would the various conflicting interests of the B1G vote to add Ore Wash Stan and Cal when it's going to give the west a regional voting block, devalue many of the lesser B1G programs games to streaming and have to fly all the way across the country for a minimum 6 games per sport. I don't see the B1G getting the votes together for what might be $2 mil more per school per year.

And just because you get those last 4 PAC 10 schools for $20mil per school per year for 8 years, when that 8 years is up you're stuck with them making less than you would have per school than had you never added them. They're not going to agree to a 1/4 revenue stream for the remainder of all time no matter how desperate they are.

Any way, I don't see the B1G adding more PAC 10 schools this year.

My view on Amazon is that they do it to set themselves up for bidding the next go around. The info that came out said Amazon bid more than NBC and CBS, but the B1G turned them down due to exposure concerns. So by taking that 4th tier now they can work on breaking those concerns directly. That should increase their potential of winning some of those top tier games at the next deal. I think it would be low risk for both sides as Amazon starts out with a lower financial investment and B1G presidents/ADs use it as a trial run to alleviate those exposure concerns.

With the smoke around this situation I would think Amazon knows that the PN4 will jump to the B1G as soon as the opportunity is there. So why spend that on a conference that might die on them in the middle of their contract?

I'm not sure why the regional voting block would be an issue. Considering the direction we are probably going to see in CFB, I'm not seeing the concern from that. The lesser teams were always going to get limited exposure. Travel might be the best counterargument to expansion.

When it comes to what they can earn, I don't think any of the parties involved would expect them to stay on a partial share forever. If Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers were/are on partial shares for a limited time then I would expect the same for any future B1G add that doesn't start out as a full member.

In the future the only way I could see B1G teams earning less once the PN4 became full members is if there was some kind of economic downturn or a sizeable drop in ratings once when it's time for a new deal.

I'd be surprised if we see anymore announcements this year, but I do feel it eventually happens. I think it makes more sense for the B1G to add the PN4 (and SEC to expand) than stop at 16.

Ok, thanks. After reading more of the Dodds thread, B1G expansion after the season seems more likely. I don't see how the SEC can expand with the ACC GoR still in effect unless they want to take B12 schools or ND.

IMO, the USC move to the B1G is bad for USC in every way and for every sport, save for the huge paycheck from the B1G.

That's why they made the move, the huge paycheck. Everything else IMO is a negative for them.

Not that anyone at USC cares what I think, LOL.