Media around the country starting to pick up on the implications of the SEC's big move.

https://www.denverpost.com/2021/07/31/te...-football/

Quote:And yeah, yeah, we know where the Buffs’ financial bread gets buttered. Roughly 1 in every 10 out-of-state CU undergrads hails from California. Denver may be a petri dish of Midwesterners and Pacific Coast types trapped on I-25, but Boulder’s soul and donor base lie to the west.

But know this, too: If it’s about money, if it’s about the brand, if it’s about survival, the Big Ten is the only yacht left that can seriously keep up with the SEC. It’s not going anywhere.

Since the tail is officially wagging the dog these days, FOX may be looking to counter ESPN’s SEC gambit with a super league of its own. Merging the Pac-12 with the Big Ten into some NFL-style, multi-division giant, given their shared football and academic alliances, isn’t the looniest schematic on the table.

“I think from afar, the Big Ten looks like it has a greater chance of surviving than the Pac-12, and that’s from afar,” Barnett said. “I think with general (comparison) of those two, you would say the Big Ten would have a much better chance — Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, all that tradition — of surviving, based on what the Pac-12 has done over the last 10 years.”

Kansas and Colorado is the only move I could see the B1G doing without completely raiding the Pac-12. However, I think they will stay pat.

And so it begins for the PAC-12.

Their nine AAU schools, plus maybe KU, to the B1G is my (and others') prediction. Not happy with all the changes, but that's the ultimate direction.

I wrote this at the Big Ten board:

>Interesting parallel: The Pac 12 (then Pac 10) in the 2010's added Colorado and had bigger sights in mind: Texas. They were successful in getting Colorado but missed on Texas. I would have to think the Big Ten might have their eyes on California and see Colorado as a stepping stone to California (the state, not necessarily and/or just Berkeley) just like the Pac 10 saw Colorado as their stepping stone to Texas. If 10-20 years from now the California schools never come and the Big Ten is stuck with just Colorado (and Kansas), will that be worth it?

(08-01-2021 03:26 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  And so it begins for the PAC-12.

Their nine AAU schools, plus maybe KU, to the B1G is my (and others') prediction. Not happy with all the changes, but that's the ultimate direction.

That would make a lot of sense in every way except financial. Unless there is a reason why adding the PAC would increase the value of the existing B1G schools, I don't see it. There would be substantial dilution of the per school media payouts to the B1G members unless the ten new members agreed to continue to receive their current payouts. I don't think that would happen.

But, unlike the idea of a G5 conference like the AAC expanding from coast to coast, a conference of P5 AAU schools doing it could be a media giant. The addition of the PAC schools would significantly improve the average on field strength of the B1G (despite the recent perception that the PAC is weak). PAC teams aren't so much weak as they are evenly balanced. Contrast that with a B1G that has a strong top and a bottom that is both weak and deep.

Could the PAC 9 be worth significantly more as B1G members than they are now? That's a question for people with a better handle on the media market than I have. The practical result, though, would be that the football schedules of the 24 team B1G-PAC would look a lot like they do today. There wouldn't be a lot of crossovers that we don't already see in OOC schedules.

(08-01-2021 03:42 PM)schmolik Wrote:  I wrote this at the Big Ten board:

>Interesting parallel: The Pac 12 (then Pac 10) in the 2010's added Colorado and had bigger sights in mind: Texas. They were successful in getting Colorado but missed on Texas. I would have to think the Big Ten might have their eyes on California and see Colorado as a stepping stone to California (the state, not necessarily and/or just Berkeley) just like the Pac 10 saw Colorado as their stepping stone to Texas. If 10-20 years from now the California schools never come and the Big Ten is stuck with just Colorado (and Kansas), will that be worth it?

The B1G would probably do something similar to what the Pac-10 did when they were trying to become the Pac16, offer an invitation to Colorado and whomever else they might have interest in that would be conditional on the California schools accepting invitations. If the California schools accept then any other schools the B1G invited would then have their offers approved and if the CA schools declined then the conditional invites to everyone else are no longer valid.

(08-01-2021 03:26 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  And so it begins for the PAC-12.

Their nine AAU schools, plus maybe KU, to the B1G is my (and others') prediction. Not happy with all the changes, but that's the ultimate direction.

Outside of Notre Dame the money move would be to skip the Cali publics:
Arizona, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, and take Colorado.

This move takes all of the markets save Utah, and takes 4 of the top 6 earners. Beyond that you are losing revenue.

The SEC faces the same issue with further expansion. 20 can still NET a profit and beyond that no.

Kansas earns more now than Arizona, Oregon or Colorado. And arguably Kansas is a more recognizable sports brand than Colorado or Arizona. But the downside is the total population and the fact the B10 penetrates Kansas markets already, just nowhere nearly as much as if they had the Jayhawks.

But know this, only Washington at $137 million and Stanford at $133 million add to the Big 10 average total revenue of $130 million. So as Ken D points out this venture even at 6 loses money, just not nearly as much as taking 9. Some of this is made up for with markets, but only if the disinterested potential viewers of the PAC tune in.

If I am Ohio State (and I am far from a fan) I would not want this at all. OSU already is in a conference with some FB lightweights, why add one of the worst FBS programs in the country and a program that hasn’t been consistently good since Seinfeld was still on the air.

I've said for some time that Colorado makes sense for the Big Ten.

Colorado makes about as much sense for The Big Ten as Louisville does for The ACC. This nonsense needs to stop before they destroy the sport in search of the almighty dollar.

(08-02-2021 05:49 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This nonsense needs to stop

Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago.

The B1G will expand soon, big-time, to counter the SEC -- to prevent the SEC from dominating the country/world in FB. And to tell potential recruits "We will give you coast-to-coast NIL exposure, from Broadway to Hollywood! No one can do that in the podunk South. You'll literally be a star! Even after your FB/BB career."

So they'll expand, even if the existing teams have to take small financial and exclusivity hits in the short term. Their economists will predict a much greater, permanent annual loss if the SEC is allowed to dominate, and to potentially steal any remaining powerhouse teams from a weakened B1G in the long-term.

However, take some solace in that when the oil runs out -- or its use is prohibited by the environmental police -- the Mega conference(s) will eventually breakup into small regional ones where teams can travel by electric trains and buses.

(08-01-2021 08:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  If I am Ohio State (and I am far from a fan) I would not want this at all. OSU already is in a conference with some FB lightweights, why add one of the worst FBS programs in the country and a program that hasn’t been consistently good since Seinfeld was still on the air.

Having not been chosen by the remaining Great Plains Kings ... or even worse, having been chosen by one of them but turning them down ... the cupboard for the Big Ten between the Appalachians and the Rockies seems to be quite bare, with the one obvious exception of Notre Dame.

Kansas may be worthwhile in a breakaway, when college basketball is 40% of conference revenues, but at the current revenue split, it seems like any school (other than ND) that is worth expanding for would be on the East or West coast.

(08-02-2021 05:49 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Colorado makes about as much sense for The Big Ten as Louisville does for The ACC. This nonsense needs to stop before they destroy the sport in search of the almighty dollar.

You don't like Louisville in the ACC? Assuming they can't be in the SEC, where should they be?

(08-01-2021 07:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Outside of Notre Dame the money move would be to skip the Cali publics:
Arizona, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, and take Colorado.

But would USC move without their genuine rival? USC is the linchpin, after all ... get USC and UCLA to agree to move, and the Big10 is close to being able to take their pick of the rest.

(08-02-2021 06:53 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(08-02-2021 05:49 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This nonsense needs to stop

Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago.

The B1G will expand soon, big-time, to counter the SEC -- to prevent the SEC from dominating the country/world in FB. And to tell potential recruits "We will give you coast-to-coast NIL exposure, from Broadway to Hollywood! No one can do that in the podunk South. You'll literally be a star! Even after your FB/BB career."

So they'll expand, even if the existing teams have to take small financial and exclusivity hits in the short term. Their economists will predict a much greater, permanent annual loss if the SEC is allowed to dominate, and to potentially steal any remaining powerhouse teams from a weakened B1G in the long-term.

However, take some solace in that when the oil runs out -- or its use is prohibited by the environmental police -- the Mega conference(s) will eventually breakup into small regional ones where teams can travel by electric trains and buses.

If the oil and gas run out, there is no electricity. Bigger problems than travel.

(08-02-2021 10:10 AM)bullet Wrote:  If the oil and gas run out, there is no electricity.

There are a lot of ways to generate electricity. Little oil is used now, but a good amount of natural gas. Solar and wind still small, but increasing rapidly. Look for a resurgence in nuclear generation too. Hydro holding fairly steady.