Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Big 10 should get BIG
Author Message
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,879
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #21
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
Oregon is really a singular entity in the CFB landscape. It does not have the conventional success factors of a strong demographic base, a strong local talent pool, or exceptionally strong academics. It has one big corporate/personal donor. That together should raise massive red flags.

Except the corporate donor is the biggest brand in athletics. It’s a complete wild card that makes Oregon difficult to fit into any conventional appraisal model.
01-24-2023 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,435
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 491
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #22
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 11:04 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Oregon is really a singular entity in the CFB landscape. It does not have the conventional success factors of a strong demographic base, a strong local talent pool, or exceptionally strong academics. It has one big corporate/personal donor. That together should raise massive red flags.

Except the corporate donor is the biggest brand in athletics. It’s a complete wild card that makes Oregon difficult to fit into any conventional appraisal model.


With the prime driver an 84 year old man.
01-24-2023 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCbball21 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,923
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: New York, New York
Post: #23
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
B1G expansion targets

High Priority: Notre Dame, UNC
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson, UVA
Low Priority: Oregon, Washington, Stanford
Maybe (with the right partners): Duke, Cal, Miami

SEC expansion targets:

High Priority: UNC, UVA
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson
Low Priority: Miami
Maybe (if high priority targets go B1G): NC State, VTech

If the B1G and SEC ever expand to 24 teams each and separate themselves from the rest of CFB with an NFL model there may be a few other programs that sneak in.
01-24-2023 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fresno Fanatic Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 304
Joined: Apr 2021
Reputation: 22
I Root For: Fresno State, MWC, MAC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-23-2023 05:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve said this on another thread, but I’ll reiterate it again here. While I think the SEC could add 8-10 of the following, creating a mighty, Pan-Southern hegemony, I don’t think the Big 10 can have the same success by swallowing an equal number of PAC 10 programs and duplicate the same financial might.

FSU, Clemson, UNC, then some combo or all of UVA, VT, NC St, Duke, Louisville, GT, and/or Miami I believe would serve to bolster the SEC and I think the expansion schools would GAIN in fan support and value by such a move.

For the Big 10 on the other hand, I don’t think the West Coast brings the same sort of value added. Washington and Oregon might be sensible moves but I doubt going beyond 20 with exclusively Western moves behooves the Big 10. I think the Big 10 would need Notre Dame, Miami, and potentially others to justify a jump from 16 to 24.

Or the BigTen and sec will be at 16 for the next 20 years. Because sports networks won’t bump up tv contract enough to account for more mouths to feed.

So it’s more up to the networks than the conferences. Albeit, the conferences’ presidents have the final say.
01-24-2023 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,208
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #25
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 11:17 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  B1G expansion targets

High Priority: Notre Dame, UNC
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson, UVA
Low Priority: Oregon, Washington, Stanford
Maybe (with the right partners): Duke, Cal, Miami

SEC expansion targets:

High Priority: UNC, UVA
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson
Low Priority: Miami
Maybe (if high priority targets go B1G): NC State, VTech

If the B1G and SEC ever expand to 24 teams each and separate themselves from the rest of CFB with an NFL model there may be a few other programs that sneak in.

uh, no.

Without diving into the subjective hierarchy...

Clemson is not AAU, and thus is not on the BIG10'S shopping list.

And they just recently flat out rejected Cal, both as a single and as part of a package.

And GT and Kansas and Colorado, should be on the list.

As for ACC, you left off GT, Louisville, and Kansas. Plus Texas Tech and TCU.

And this without talking about "second in the state/region" schools like OK state, IA state, KS state, etc...
01-24-2023 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
utpotts Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,864
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Toledo
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Post: #26
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 11:51 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:17 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  B1G expansion targets

High Priority: Notre Dame, UNC
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson, UVA
Low Priority: Oregon, Washington, Stanford
Maybe (with the right partners): Duke, Cal, Miami

SEC expansion targets:

High Priority: UNC, UVA
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson
Low Priority: Miami
Maybe (if high priority targets go B1G): NC State, VTech

If the B1G and SEC ever expand to 24 teams each and separate themselves from the rest of CFB with an NFL model there may be a few other programs that sneak in.

uh, no.

Without diving into the subjective hierarchy...

Clemson is not AAU, and thus is not on the BIG10'S shopping list.

And they just recently flat out rejected Cal, both as a single and as part of a package.

And GT and Kansas and Colorado, should be on the list.

As for ACC, you left off GT, Louisville, and Kansas. Plus Texas Tech and TCU.

And this without talking about "second in the state/region" schools like OK state, IA state, KS state, etc...

The Big Ten does not give two stinky ***** about Kansas.

Stop with that hot steamy garbage.
01-24-2023 11:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,888
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 465
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #27
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
It will be interesting to see who the next Big Ten Commissioner ends up being (I'd think it would be Jim Phillips, but I also thought he would have been the favorite to replace Delaney). It sounds like Warren very much wanted to continue westward and add more PAC schools (namely Washington and Oregon), but the Presidents and ADs very much wanted to pause and wait. If it is Phillips, and with the new TV deal running through 2029/2030, I'd think the priority becomes adding ACC schools (namely Florida State, UNC, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Miami and/or Duke, as a filler). The PAC schools, respectively, aren't going anywhere (and if they are, it would be to the Big 12, which would still not shield any members from defections).

Long-term, I still view Stanford as a likely addition at some point. They, now, fit the B1G like a glove between academics, athletics and brand. Washington and Oregon could be added, but they wouldn't be added as travel partners for UCLA/USC; Stanford could come with Cal, but Cal doesn't move the needle, at all. Arizona would only make sense, in my mind, if they came with ASU, as ASU has a larger enrollment and a strong presence in the LA market. Does a western PAC wing make sense? Historically and geographically it does, but unless it makes financial sense (and right now it doesn't), it will just be a wish.

I think the ACC is the next target, which is also the same for the SEC. This will pretty much be the first time both leagues come head-to-head over select schools (I think the Big Ten was after UT/OU, but I think both preferred the SEC). ESPN needs to play this out carefully, as if they don't protect the top ACC brands when the SEC and Big Ten are making significantly more, these ACC schools may prefer to jump to Fox and the Big Ten. Time will tell. Today, I think most of the ACC brands end up in the SEC, with the Big Ten moving west. ND won't join a conference, but I could see them joining the B1G in a partial membership in the 2030s for bowl/matchup purposes.
01-24-2023 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,208
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #28
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 11:55 AM)utpotts Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:51 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:17 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  B1G expansion targets

High Priority: Notre Dame, UNC
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson, UVA
Low Priority: Oregon, Washington, Stanford
Maybe (with the right partners): Duke, Cal, Miami

SEC expansion targets:

High Priority: UNC, UVA
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson
Low Priority: Miami
Maybe (if high priority targets go B1G): NC State, VTech

If the B1G and SEC ever expand to 24 teams each and separate themselves from the rest of CFB with an NFL model there may be a few other programs that sneak in.

uh, no.

Without diving into the subjective hierarchy...

Clemson is not AAU, and thus is not on the BIG10'S shopping list.

And they just recently flat out rejected Cal, both as a single and as part of a package.

And GT and Kansas and Colorado, should be on the list.

As for ACC, you left off GT, Louisville, and Kansas. Plus Texas Tech and TCU.

And this without talking about "second in the state/region" schools like OK state, IA state, KS state, etc...

The Big Ten does not give two stinky ***** about Kansas.

Stop with that hot steamy garbage.

I appreciate your opinion, but you could be very much incorrect on that : )
01-24-2023 03:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,208
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #29
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 12:36 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It will be interesting to see who the next Big Ten Commissioner ends up being (I'd think it would be Jim Phillips, but I also thought he would have been the favorite to replace Delaney). It sounds like Warren very much wanted to continue westward and add more PAC schools (namely Washington and Oregon), but the Presidents and ADs very much wanted to pause and wait. If it is Phillips, and with the new TV deal running through 2029/2030, I'd think the priority becomes adding ACC schools (namely Florida State, UNC, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Miami and/or Duke, as a filler). The PAC schools, respectively, aren't going anywhere (and if they are, it would be to the Big 12, which would still not shield any members from defections).

Long-term, I still view Stanford as a likely addition at some point. They, now, fit the B1G like a glove between academics, athletics and brand. Washington and Oregon could be added, but they wouldn't be added as travel partners for UCLA/USC; Stanford could come with Cal, but Cal doesn't move the needle, at all. Arizona would only make sense, in my mind, if they came with ASU, as ASU has a larger enrollment and a strong presence in the LA market. Does a western PAC wing make sense? Historically and geographically it does, but unless it makes financial sense (and right now it doesn't), it will just be a wish.

I think the ACC is the next target, which is also the same for the SEC. This will pretty much be the first time both leagues come head-to-head over select schools (I think the Big Ten was after UT/OU, but I think both preferred the SEC). ESPN needs to play this out carefully, as if they don't protect the top ACC brands when the SEC and Big Ten are making significantly more, these ACC schools may prefer to jump to Fox and the Big Ten. Time will tell. Today, I think most of the ACC brands end up in the SEC, with the Big Ten moving west. ND won't join a conference, but I could see them joining the B1G in a partial membership in the 2030s for bowl/matchup purposes.

I don't see much of anything to disagree with here. (I've said much of this myself, as well : )

In particular - the notion that if B10 expansion happens in the next year or so, it'll be looking west. 2030s? - looking east.

Which is also why I think it's not a good idea for ACC and SEC to sit and wait.
01-24-2023 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
utpotts Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,864
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Toledo
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Post: #30
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 03:49 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:55 AM)utpotts Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:51 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:17 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  B1G expansion targets

High Priority: Notre Dame, UNC
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson, UVA
Low Priority: Oregon, Washington, Stanford
Maybe (with the right partners): Duke, Cal, Miami

SEC expansion targets:

High Priority: UNC, UVA
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson
Low Priority: Miami
Maybe (if high priority targets go B1G): NC State, VTech

If the B1G and SEC ever expand to 24 teams each and separate themselves from the rest of CFB with an NFL model there may be a few other programs that sneak in.

uh, no.

Without diving into the subjective hierarchy...

Clemson is not AAU, and thus is not on the BIG10'S shopping list.

And they just recently flat out rejected Cal, both as a single and as part of a package.

And GT and Kansas and Colorado, should be on the list.

As for ACC, you left off GT, Louisville, and Kansas. Plus Texas Tech and TCU.

And this without talking about "second in the state/region" schools like OK state, IA state, KS state, etc...

The Big Ten does not give two stinky ***** about Kansas.

Stop with that hot steamy garbage.

I appreciate your opinion, but you could be very much incorrect on that : )

[Image: gjx1b.jpg]
01-24-2023 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,879
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #31
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
I don’t get the KU love either. Unless basketball becomes a driver, it’s not appealing. KU is basically Cal’s football, Utah’s market, and Oregon’s academics. Basically the things that keep each of those schools from being B1G candidates.
(This post was last modified: 01-24-2023 04:40 PM by jrj84105.)
01-24-2023 04:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 57,918
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2477
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #32
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 11:16 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:04 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Oregon is really a singular entity in the CFB landscape. It does not have the conventional success factors of a strong demographic base, a strong local talent pool, or exceptionally strong academics. It has one big corporate/personal donor. That together should raise massive red flags.

Except the corporate donor is the biggest brand in athletics. It’s a complete wild card that makes Oregon difficult to fit into any conventional appraisal model.


With the prime driver an 84 year old man.

But if you develop enough of a tradition, you can overcome that.
01-24-2023 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,879
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #33
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
Fans tend to massively overemphasize the importance of on-field success, but in the case of Oregon which is sort of squishy with the metrics, I do wonder if winning a NC with Chip would have made a difference? Or even at least going back to the CFP in 2021? I don’t think the timing where they seemed to have peaked helped.
01-24-2023 08:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Poster Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,056
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Auburn
Location:
Post: #34
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 11:17 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  B1G expansion targets

High Priority: Notre Dame, UNC
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson, UVA
Low Priority: Oregon, Washington, Stanford
Maybe (with the right partners): Duke, Cal, Miami

SEC expansion targets:

High Priority: UNC, UVA
Middle Priority: FSU, Clemson
Low Priority: Miami
Maybe (if high priority targets go B1G): NC State, VTech

If the B1G and SEC ever expand to 24 teams each and separate themselves from the rest of CFB with an NFL model there may be a few other programs that sneak in.


I can't believe anybody would seriously put UVA higher than Miami on a conference expansion list.


I have a hard time taking UVA that seriously as a P2 candidate, especially when Stanford with more sporting success and even better academics hasn't gotten a BIG invite yet. And UVA is sure as hell not ahead of Miami.
01-24-2023 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Poster Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,056
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Auburn
Location:
Post: #35
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 11:27 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 05:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve said this on another thread, but I’ll reiterate it again here. While I think the SEC could add 8-10 of the following, creating a mighty, Pan-Southern hegemony, I don’t think the Big 10 can have the same success by swallowing an equal number of PAC 10 programs and duplicate the same financial might.

FSU, Clemson, UNC, then some combo or all of UVA, VT, NC St, Duke, Louisville, GT, and/or Miami I believe would serve to bolster the SEC and I think the expansion schools would GAIN in fan support and value by such a move.

For the Big 10 on the other hand, I don’t think the West Coast brings the same sort of value added. Washington and Oregon might be sensible moves but I doubt going beyond 20 with exclusively Western moves behooves the Big 10. I think the Big 10 would need Notre Dame, Miami, and potentially others to justify a jump from 16 to 24.

Or the BigTen and sec will be at 16 for the next 20 years. Because sports networks won’t bump up tv contract enough to account for more mouths to feed.

So it’s more up to the networks than the conferences. Albeit, the conferences’ presidents have the final say.


FSU is probably the only remaining team that would be a certain revenue generator for the SEC or Big 10.

I honestly am relatively certain that adding teams like UVA and Georgia Tech would actually be dilutive for SEC or BIG TV contracts. I don't understand why everybody is so high on their P2 odds, especially when the Pacific Northwest teams, three of which (the possible exception being Cal) are more valuable than UVA and Ga Tech, haven't gotten a Big 10 invite yet.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2023 04:46 AM by Poster.)
01-25-2023 04:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 6,275
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 419
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #36
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-24-2023 11:53 PM)Poster Wrote:  I have a hard time taking UVA that seriously as a P2 candidate, especially when Stanford with more sporting success and even better academics hasn't gotten a BIG invite yet. And UVA is sure as hell not ahead of Miami.

Distance favors Virginia over Stanford and they are a public university.
01-25-2023 07:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,208
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #37
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-25-2023 04:40 AM)Poster Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:27 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 05:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve said this on another thread, but I’ll reiterate it again here. While I think the SEC could add 8-10 of the following, creating a mighty, Pan-Southern hegemony, I don’t think the Big 10 can have the same success by swallowing an equal number of PAC 10 programs and duplicate the same financial might.

FSU, Clemson, UNC, then some combo or all of UVA, VT, NC St, Duke, Louisville, GT, and/or Miami I believe would serve to bolster the SEC and I think the expansion schools would GAIN in fan support and value by such a move.

For the Big 10 on the other hand, I don’t think the West Coast brings the same sort of value added. Washington and Oregon might be sensible moves but I doubt going beyond 20 with exclusively Western moves behooves the Big 10. I think the Big 10 would need Notre Dame, Miami, and potentially others to justify a jump from 16 to 24.

Or the BigTen and sec will be at 16 for the next 20 years. Because sports networks won’t bump up tv contract enough to account for more mouths to feed.

So it’s more up to the networks than the conferences. Albeit, the conferences’ presidents have the final say.


FSU is probably the only remaining team that would be a certain revenue generator for the SEC or Big 10.

I honestly am relatively certain that adding teams like UVA and Georgia Tech would actually be dilutive for SEC or BIG TV contracts. I don't understand why everybody is so high on their P2 odds, especially when the Pacific Northwest teams, three of which (the possible exception being Cal) are more valuable than UVA and Ga Tech, haven't gotten a Big 10 invite yet.

Please explain "dilutive" in this context.
01-25-2023 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,890
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1907
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #38
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-25-2023 08:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-25-2023 04:40 AM)Poster Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:27 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 05:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve said this on another thread, but I’ll reiterate it again here. While I think the SEC could add 8-10 of the following, creating a mighty, Pan-Southern hegemony, I don’t think the Big 10 can have the same success by swallowing an equal number of PAC 10 programs and duplicate the same financial might.

FSU, Clemson, UNC, then some combo or all of UVA, VT, NC St, Duke, Louisville, GT, and/or Miami I believe would serve to bolster the SEC and I think the expansion schools would GAIN in fan support and value by such a move.

For the Big 10 on the other hand, I don’t think the West Coast brings the same sort of value added. Washington and Oregon might be sensible moves but I doubt going beyond 20 with exclusively Western moves behooves the Big 10. I think the Big 10 would need Notre Dame, Miami, and potentially others to justify a jump from 16 to 24.

Or the BigTen and sec will be at 16 for the next 20 years. Because sports networks won’t bump up tv contract enough to account for more mouths to feed.

So it’s more up to the networks than the conferences. Albeit, the conferences’ presidents have the final say.


FSU is probably the only remaining team that would be a certain revenue generator for the SEC or Big 10.

I honestly am relatively certain that adding teams like UVA and Georgia Tech would actually be dilutive for SEC or BIG TV contracts. I don't understand why everybody is so high on their P2 odds, especially when the Pacific Northwest teams, three of which (the possible exception being Cal) are more valuable than UVA and Ga Tech, haven't gotten a Big 10 invite yet.

Please explain "dilutive" in this context.

I tend to agree with the other poster - I don't think networks would pay the B1G or SEC extra money equal to the current per-school payout for additions like GT or UVA.

That said, I think UVA in particular would be a good add for either conference, because IMO media payouts aren't everything. GT, no.
01-25-2023 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Poster Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,056
Joined: Sep 2018
Reputation: 95
I Root For: Auburn
Location:
Post: #39
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-25-2023 08:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-25-2023 04:40 AM)Poster Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:27 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 05:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve said this on another thread, but I’ll reiterate it again here. While I think the SEC could add 8-10 of the following, creating a mighty, Pan-Southern hegemony, I don’t think the Big 10 can have the same success by swallowing an equal number of PAC 10 programs and duplicate the same financial might.

FSU, Clemson, UNC, then some combo or all of UVA, VT, NC St, Duke, Louisville, GT, and/or Miami I believe would serve to bolster the SEC and I think the expansion schools would GAIN in fan support and value by such a move.

For the Big 10 on the other hand, I don’t think the West Coast brings the same sort of value added. Washington and Oregon might be sensible moves but I doubt going beyond 20 with exclusively Western moves behooves the Big 10. I think the Big 10 would need Notre Dame, Miami, and potentially others to justify a jump from 16 to 24.

Or the BigTen and sec will be at 16 for the next 20 years. Because sports networks won’t bump up tv contract enough to account for more mouths to feed.

So it’s more up to the networks than the conferences. Albeit, the conferences’ presidents have the final say.


FSU is probably the only remaining team that would be a certain revenue generator for the SEC or Big 10.

I honestly am relatively certain that adding teams like UVA and Georgia Tech would actually be dilutive for SEC or BIG TV contracts. I don't understand why everybody is so high on their P2 odds, especially when the Pacific Northwest teams, three of which (the possible exception being Cal) are more valuable than UVA and Ga Tech, haven't gotten a Big 10 invite yet.

Please explain "dilutive" in this context.


That the per school payout would actually go down if the SEC or Big Ten added UVA or Ga Tech. (Not even that they'd be fairly revenue neutral like Oregon, Washington or Stanford seem to be-I suspect Ga Tech or UVA would actually bring down the payout.)
01-25-2023 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,208
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 154
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #40
RE: The Big 10 should get BIG
(01-25-2023 11:24 AM)Poster Wrote:  
(01-25-2023 08:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(01-25-2023 04:40 AM)Poster Wrote:  
(01-24-2023 11:27 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  
(01-23-2023 05:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve said this on another thread, but I’ll reiterate it again here. While I think the SEC could add 8-10 of the following, creating a mighty, Pan-Southern hegemony, I don’t think the Big 10 can have the same success by swallowing an equal number of PAC 10 programs and duplicate the same financial might.

FSU, Clemson, UNC, then some combo or all of UVA, VT, NC St, Duke, Louisville, GT, and/or Miami I believe would serve to bolster the SEC and I think the expansion schools would GAIN in fan support and value by such a move.

For the Big 10 on the other hand, I don’t think the West Coast brings the same sort of value added. Washington and Oregon might be sensible moves but I doubt going beyond 20 with exclusively Western moves behooves the Big 10. I think the Big 10 would need Notre Dame, Miami, and potentially others to justify a jump from 16 to 24.

Or the BigTen and sec will be at 16 for the next 20 years. Because sports networks won’t bump up tv contract enough to account for more mouths to feed.

So it’s more up to the networks than the conferences. Albeit, the conferences’ presidents have the final say.


FSU is probably the only remaining team that would be a certain revenue generator for the SEC or Big 10.

I honestly am relatively certain that adding teams like UVA and Georgia Tech would actually be dilutive for SEC or BIG TV contracts. I don't understand why everybody is so high on their P2 odds, especially when the Pacific Northwest teams, three of which (the possible exception being Cal) are more valuable than UVA and Ga Tech, haven't gotten a Big 10 invite yet.

Please explain "dilutive" in this context.


That the per school payout would actually go down if the SEC or Big Ten added UVA or Ga Tech. (Not even that they'd be fairly revenue neutral like Oregon, Washington or Stanford seem to be-I suspect Ga Tech or UVA would actually bring down the payout.)

Is that because you feel that their media deal dollars to the conference would not be adjusted (so more mouths to feed = less money per school) or that you don't think an updated media deal with the conference is possible to pay for the extra schools? Or some other reason?

I'm trying to better understand your use of "dilutive" in context of a media deal.
01-25-2023 11:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: jimrtex, 9 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2023 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2023 MyBB Group.