Reports are saying adding the four corner schools to the Big 12 would not bump up tv deal any better. It would just add more mouths to the table.

(08-13-2022 05:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Reports are saying adding the four corner schools to the Big 12 would not bump up tv deal any better. It would just add more mouths to the table.

Those teams would leave if 2-4 more teams go to the B1G. Im sure they would prefer whatever deal they can get instead adding a slew of MW schools and making less than 20M a year.

(08-13-2022 04:38 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 04:29 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 04:23 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 04:05 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 03:39 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  I hope not. We don't need another Northwestern in the conference

I love how out of touch fanspeak is. University presidents love Northwestern. University presidents love Stanford.

“We” in this context only represents people who don’t matter, don’t understand, and are not relevant to realignment. The university presidents’ “we” (the only “we” that matters) has a much different opinion.

I get what you're saying but I think the whole idea of thinking like a university president is no longer as relevant as it once was. I would agree that university presidents mattered most when schools were making 20 or 30 million a year from TV revenue. With the level of revenues that are coming in now, I'm not so sure. I believe thinking like a TV executive is now how college realignment should be viewed. As a TV executive, I don't see how adding Stanford adds any value to the TV contract.

The BIG presidents still have complete agency. This isn’t the PAC or Big 12 hoping to survive.

And adding a Bay Area franchise fits with the NFL model FOX is building the BIG into.

The presidents do have complete control of who enters the conference. But why would they make a decision that puts their own universities at a competitive disadvantage in terms of television revenue by taking a university that will decrease the per share amount?

Any of the universities in the B1G can work directly with Stanford in research without admitting them to the athletic conference.

Okay, so now you’ve pivoted to it is the presidents that don’t want it. At least you’re now being genuine and not hiding behind the networks.

It wouldn’t put them at a disadvantaged, it would lessen their annual tv rights advantage from the max it could be. That’s a notable difference.

The same way UCLA did. Adding BOTH UCLA and USC represents something lower than what the AAV advantage could have been in adding USC and a few other options. Perhaps even USC and Stanford. But it was added as a transaction cost, knowing on a net level revenue is still going up, just not as much as the revenue maximizing permutation.

This is also ignoring the macro benefits. In an expanded playoffs, adding 1-3 more schools that results in it being more likely the BIG gets a much bigger share of base and participation CFP revenue, if not prevents the risk of ESPN gaining control, offsets the rather small AAV delta.

The BIG prides itself in being the bastion of collegiality. In terms of expansion, adding just USC/UCLA is purely corporate M&A at the behest of Fox to match market share moves to ESPN. They are a P2 and at least equal to SEC regardless. Disfiguring and disabling long time partner in PAC, rather than mercifully killing the PAC, possibly by rolling the best of it into a PAC brand under the BIG umbrella.

(08-13-2022 04:05 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 03:39 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  I hope not. We don't need another Northwestern in the conference

I love how out of touch fanspeak is. University presidents love Northwestern. University presidents love Stanford.

“We” in this context only represents people who don’t matter, don’t understand, and are not relevant to realignment. The university presidents’ “we” (the only “we” that matters) has a much different opinion.

Per usual, you are spot-on with your take, IWULT. I agree fully.

(08-13-2022 07:00 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 04:38 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 04:29 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 04:23 PM)Jeff Smithers Wrote:  

(08-13-2022 04:05 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I love how out of touch fanspeak is. University presidents love Northwestern. University presidents love Stanford.

“We” in this context only represents people who don’t matter, don’t understand, and are not relevant to realignment. The university presidents’ “we” (the only “we” that matters) has a much different opinion.

I get what you're saying but I think the whole idea of thinking like a university president is no longer as relevant as it once was. I would agree that university presidents mattered most when schools were making 20 or 30 million a year from TV revenue. With the level of revenues that are coming in now, I'm not so sure. I believe thinking like a TV executive is now how college realignment should be viewed. As a TV executive, I don't see how adding Stanford adds any value to the TV contract.

The BIG presidents still have complete agency. This isn’t the PAC or Big 12 hoping to survive.

And adding a Bay Area franchise fits with the NFL model FOX is building the BIG into.

The presidents do have complete control of who enters the conference. But why would they make a decision that puts their own universities at a competitive disadvantage in terms of television revenue by taking a university that will decrease the per share amount?

Any of the universities in the B1G can work directly with Stanford in research without admitting them to the athletic conference.

Okay, so now you’ve pivoted to it is the presidents that don’t want it. At least you’re now being genuine and not hiding behind the networks.

It wouldn’t put them at a disadvantaged, it would lessen their annual tv rights advantage from the max it could be. That’s a notable difference.

The same way UCLA did. Adding BOTH UCLA and USC represents something lower than what the AAV advantage could have been in adding USC and a few other options. Perhaps even USC and Stanford. But it was added as a transaction cost, knowing on a net level revenue is still going up, just not as much as the revenue maximizing permutation.

This is also ignoring the macro benefits. In an expanded playoffs, adding 1-3 more schools that results in it being more likely the BIG gets a much bigger share of base and participation CFP revenue, if not prevents the risk of ESPN gaining control, offsets the rather small AAV delta.

The BIG prides itself in being the bastion of collegiality. In terms of expansion, adding just USC/UCLA is purely corporate M&A at the behest of Fox to match market share moves to ESPN. They are a P2 and at least equal to SEC regardless. Disfiguring and disabling long time partner in PAC, rather than mercifully killing the PAC, possibly by rolling the best of it into a PAC brand under the BIG umbrella.

To start off, I never pivoted. I believe that thinking like a TV executive is more important than thinking like a university president. UCLA had a 62.5 million deficit last year. They were leaving the PAC12, whether it was the B1G or the SEC, they were leaving. From a TV executive position, it would be better to lockdown the number 2 media market in the country by taking both USC and UCLA than letting a rival station take one of the schools.

Stanford gets good TV ratings when they play schools that people are interested in. They get good ratings playing Oregon, Notre Dame, and USC not because people want to see Stanford, but because they want to see Oregon, Notre Dame, and USC.

The only way the Big is going to take anyone from Pac is if ND switched, and that isn't happening

Then the Pac-12 adds San Diego State and goes on with life with 10 schools.

Think you are underrating the value of UCLA. They have been on a 2 decade slump in football, but they were a top 10-15 program prior to that. They have lots of upside.

(08-13-2022 05:16 PM)Poster Wrote:  Interesting that you brought up the M and R additions that the Big 10 invited a decade ago, because I actually think that Stanford would be a better addition than those two were. (In particular the R addition.) But I think the Big Ten now regrets its M & R additions, and half the reason why the Big Ten is hesitant to add more PAC teams is because the Big 10 learned its lesson and realizes you need to do some research before adding random warm bodies to the conference.


But the M&R expansion might have caused the Big 10 to now go too much to the other extreme, where they now hesitate to add schools like Washington and Oregon that actually probably are good adds.

Actually, I was thinking Nebraska and Maryland as the "problem" pickups. They were said to be quite difficult within their former conferences. Stanford would be far worse.

But I wouldn't consider either of those two as "wasted" spots. You chase after both of those programs. It's the thought that because of Rutgers' spot that someone else must do without that really stinks.

Stanford is the biggest chip on the board in conference realignment behind ND. It has to be the number one target for the B1G. I don't know what people are smoking. You could perhaps argue UNC/FSU, but that's only because the SEC is a threat to take them. There are no other schools that are close, comparatively, than the ones I just mentioned. They don't have to be tied at the hip with Cal either.

Now, let's say ND doesn't come in. You could take UW/Stanford (not that they would). Or you can bide your time. The only way it makes sense NOT to take them is if there is some 4D chess move where keeping the PAC10 alive is in the best interest of the B1G. What could that angle be? My guess is they don't want to see a Big 12/Pac 10 consolidation, which emboldens ESPN and allows them to control three major conferences (subsequently dictating the playoff format). Other than that, I have no idea. The Rose Bowl is irrelevant at this point. I have no interest seeing USC/UCLA playing 9-10 B1G games a year. It's good as a once in a blue moon novelty, and the Rose Bowl of course. But unless there is some playoff system that works better with the PAC alive, it really doesn't make sense to leave the PAC hanging around.

As of now, the PAC is going to compete with the B1G H2H on a rival network for one (they are not going to a 10pm ET exclusive airing window Fridays/Saturdays for every game so Saturday afternoons will be in play). The B1G is leaving valuable prime time content on the table for a rival network to exploit. None of this makes any sense. As soon as ND makes a decision for independence, I would expect Stanford to be in within weeks. UW/UO will be #2, or they could take all four. The only thing preventing this is if the PAC rushes into a TV deal and takes a safe, short term GoR. Then the B1G will be in no hurry.

Not to mention, scheduling arrangements will be very difficult between the B1G/PAC for USC/UCLA to play their former conference rivals OOC. Especially when it's split among multiple networks. Maybe you can arrange at least two games a year involving UCLA/USC vs PAC10 teams where ESPN gets one game and CBS/NBC get the other. That's not enough content for NBC and their B1G/primetime slate.

I Just don't see Big moving again for a few (3to 5) years. There is no reason for them to rush in.

(08-14-2022 12:51 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Then the Pac-12 adds San Diego State and goes on with life with 10 schools.

Exactly my thought as well. If they only lose Stanford that means they still have Oregon & Washington (and they'd have nowhere else to go). It would also take away the issue of "who comes in with SDSU?" and allow them to just bring them along, get back into SoCal, and not have to figure out someone else to include just to keep it an even number.