A bonus with Stanford is that they could bring another Notre Dame game to the conference TV deal every other year.

If USC and Stanford have annual games with Notre Dame - plus Notre Dame's upcoming games with Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Indiana - the Big Ten could have four games against Notre Dame in most seasons...and 2 of those as part of the conference TV deal.

(03-06-2023 11:16 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 10:46 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(03-06-2023 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 07:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I would not be surprised if USCw is favoring UW and UO to be admitted to the BIG. However, the assertion in that brief video is loud and unconvincing. The BIG thoroughly knows the situation and options. It’s not a surrogate lobbying matter.

My understanding has been the opposite. USC seems to be the one that wants to be the "lone wolf" out west to have the financial, recruiting and branding advantages of the Big Ten over schools like Oregon.

UCLA is the school with much more heartburn over leaving their other West Coast brethren (albeit staying with USC is still more critical to them than anything else).

Yes.

Which is why I think Stanford may get an invite - it's a nice compromise move that also adds a prestigious academic school that also gains (some) more of the California market.

And then the Big10 can decline any other West Coast schools, to make USC (and really the rest of the conference too) happy about recruiting options.

For 18, it's likely either Kansas or Colorado (AAU but not West Coast).

A bonus with Stanford is that they could bring another Notre Dame game to the conference TV deal every other year.

If USC and Stanford have annual games with Notre Dame - plus Notre Dame's upcoming games with Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Indiana - the Big Ten could have four games against Notre Dame in most seasons...and 2 of those as part of the conference TV deal.

Very true. And might even help entice ND to move their ACC deal over to the Big10 : )

(03-06-2023 10:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 07:48 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 07:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2023 05:40 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...I'm sure this is probably posted elsewhere, but I figured this thread is the most 'relatable' to this info - in a nutshell, USC may be 'championing' Oregon and Udub to the B1G (per Monty, the purveyor of all things sketchy... ):

Monty link - USC bringing UO/UW to B1G?

You should never believe or trust the Full Monty!

I would not be surprised if USCw is favoring UW and UO to be admitted to the BIG. However, the assertion in that brief video is loud and unconvincing. The BIG thoroughly knows the situation and options. It’s not a surrogate lobbying matter.

My understanding has been the opposite. USC seems to be the one that wants to be the "lone wolf" out west to have the financial, recruiting and branding advantages of the Big Ten over schools like Oregon.

UCLA is the school with much more heartburn over leaving their other West Coast brethren (albeit staying with USC is still more critical to them than anything else).

USC going all in on PAC being off brand in west. If true, no wonder networks have low offers and there’s already no future for PAC, a conference that was decaying even when owning the west.

Otherwise, there is still enough pull of PAC brand that some resources will prefer PAC over being a BIG satellite.

My feeling is USC doesn’t give up much by adding 1-2 more schools to BIG, but gains a lot from collapsing PAC to mountain west 2.0.

Huge reveal from Arizona president Robbins in Dodd's article today:

Quote:Where exactly do the interests of the Ducks and Huskies stand?

"USC started this whole thing [to move to the Big Ten]. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But [USC] needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense," Robbins explained. "If Oregon calls Washington up and says, 'I can double the amount of money you're getting; come with me to the Big Ten,' Washington is going to say, 'OK, I'm in.' They would love to have gone.

"When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon [to the Big Ten]. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That's where I would have started this thing off.

"I think Fox wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in [with USC-UCLA]. I think it's brilliant. Well played."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-and-more/


I'm shocked no one else has picked up on this. It would sure be a good subject for an alternative history thread if the original plan had happened.

(03-16-2023 11:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Huge reveal from Arizona president Robbins in Dodd's article today:

Quote:Where exactly do the interests of the Ducks and Huskies stand?

"USC started this whole thing [to move to the Big Ten]. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But [USC] needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense," Robbins explained. "If Oregon calls Washington up and says, 'I can double the amount of money you're getting; come with me to the Big Ten,' Washington is going to say, 'OK, I'm in.' They would love to have gone.

"When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon [to the Big Ten]. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That's where I would have started this thing off.

"I think Fox wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in [with USC-UCLA]. I think it's brilliant. Well played."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-and-more/


I'm shocked no one else has picked up on this. It would sure be a good subject for an alternative history thread if the original plan had happened.

That isn’t the first time I’ve heard the original plan was USC and Oregon before Fox started pushing UCLA, although it’s the first time I’ve heard that from a person with actual inside knowledge.


USC by itself should have been enough to get BTN carriage fees for Southern California. I'm not really sure why doubling up in the LA market with LA's less popular team was supposed to be beneficial for the BTN.

If there was a goal of getting the BTN in market in California as a whole, the Twitter maps actually show Oregon to be more popular in northern California than UCLA is. It really is pretty hard for me to see why UCLA is immediately getting full BTN shares, especially when Nebraska did not get full shares. Fox seems to buy into a market that UCLA doesn't really carry.

I think another important part of this interview that people are missing is how the Arizona president says that a half-streaming deal is the very most he'd even be willing to tolerate. (And claims he's "confident" that the deal won't be any more than half streaming.) He says that $2 million by itself won't be enough to get Arizona to move to the Big 12. But what if it's $2 million + an exposure issue?

(03-16-2023 12:01 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 11:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Huge reveal from Arizona president Robbins in Dodd's article today:

Quote:Where exactly do the interests of the Ducks and Huskies stand?

"USC started this whole thing [to move to the Big Ten]. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But [USC] needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense," Robbins explained. "If Oregon calls Washington up and says, 'I can double the amount of money you're getting; come with me to the Big Ten,' Washington is going to say, 'OK, I'm in.' They would love to have gone.

"When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon [to the Big Ten]. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That's where I would have started this thing off.

"I think Fox wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in [with USC-UCLA]. I think it's brilliant. Well played."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-and-more/


I'm shocked no one else has picked up on this. It would sure be a good subject for an alternative history thread if the original plan had happened.

That isn’t the first time I’ve heard the original plan was USC and Oregon, although it’s the first time I’ve heard that from a person with actual inside knowledge.


It seems to me like USC by itself should have been enough to get BTN carriage fees for Southern California. But I guess Fox felt differently.

If there was a goal of getting the BTN in market in California as a whole, the Twitter maps actually show Oregon to be more popular in northern California than UCLA is. It really is pretty hard for me to see why UCLA is immediately getting full BTN shares, especially when Nebraska did not get full shares. Fox seems to buy into a market that UCLA doesn't really carry.

To make it pay what they wanted FOX couldn't leave UCLA as an option into the Los Angeles market. And USC likely wanted their rival with them anyway. The combo was a value kill shot on the entire PAC 12 (1st & 4th in revenue based on numbers we've just learned, but numbers visible in the books of the schools under a NDA). Guess whose 2nd and 3rd, Stanford and Washington. Oregon is now 5th. The Big 10 is likely to take at least 2 of those and quite possibly all 3.

If that happens Robbins discussion is moot.

(03-06-2023 11:16 AM)YNot Wrote:  A bonus with Stanford is that they could bring another Notre Dame game to the conference TV deal every other year.

If USC and Stanford have annual games with Notre Dame - plus Notre Dame's upcoming games with Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Indiana - the Big Ten could have four games against Notre Dame in most seasons...and 2 of those as part of the conference TV deal.

As XLance is fond of pointing out, ND and Stanford have no games scheduled with each other after 2026 (I believe).

(03-16-2023 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 12:01 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 11:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Huge reveal from Arizona president Robbins in Dodd's article today:

Quote:Where exactly do the interests of the Ducks and Huskies stand?

"USC started this whole thing [to move to the Big Ten]. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But [USC] needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense," Robbins explained. "If Oregon calls Washington up and says, 'I can double the amount of money you're getting; come with me to the Big Ten,' Washington is going to say, 'OK, I'm in.' They would love to have gone.

"When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon [to the Big Ten]. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That's where I would have started this thing off.

"I think Fox wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in [with USC-UCLA]. I think it's brilliant. Well played."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-and-more/


I'm shocked no one else has picked up on this. It would sure be a good subject for an alternative history thread if the original plan had happened.

That isn’t the first time I’ve heard the original plan was USC and Oregon, although it’s the first time I’ve heard that from a person with actual inside knowledge.


It seems to me like USC by itself should have been enough to get BTN carriage fees for Southern California. But I guess Fox felt differently.

If there was a goal of getting the BTN in market in California as a whole, the Twitter maps actually show Oregon to be more popular in northern California than UCLA is. It really is pretty hard for me to see why UCLA is immediately getting full BTN shares, especially when Nebraska did not get full shares. Fox seems to buy into a market that UCLA doesn't really carry.

To make it pay what they wanted FOX couldn't leave UCLA as an option into the Los Angeles market. And USC likely wanted their rival with them anyway. The combo was a value kill shot on the entire PAC 12 (1st & 4th in revenue based on numbers we've just learned, but numbers visible in the books of the schools under a NDA). Guess whose 2nd and 3rd, Stanford and Washington. Oregon is now 5th. The Big 10 is likely to take at least 2 of those and quite possibly all 3.

If that happens Robbins discussion is moot.

I guess USC might have been pushing UCLA, but that would seem to contradict the rumors that USC is now attempting to block any more PAC teams. If USC is going to block Oregon and Washington for recruiting reasons, wouldn't they even moreso want to block their biggest potential recruiting rival- a team that's located in their own city?

(03-16-2023 12:47 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 12:01 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 11:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Huge reveal from Arizona president Robbins in Dodd's article today:

Quote:Where exactly do the interests of the Ducks and Huskies stand?

"USC started this whole thing [to move to the Big Ten]. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But [USC] needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense," Robbins explained. "If Oregon calls Washington up and says, 'I can double the amount of money you're getting; come with me to the Big Ten,' Washington is going to say, 'OK, I'm in.' They would love to have gone.

"When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon [to the Big Ten]. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That's where I would have started this thing off.

"I think Fox wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in [with USC-UCLA]. I think it's brilliant. Well played."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-and-more/


I'm shocked no one else has picked up on this. It would sure be a good subject for an alternative history thread if the original plan had happened.

That isn’t the first time I’ve heard the original plan was USC and Oregon, although it’s the first time I’ve heard that from a person with actual inside knowledge.


It seems to me like USC by itself should have been enough to get BTN carriage fees for Southern California. But I guess Fox felt differently.

If there was a goal of getting the BTN in market in California as a whole, the Twitter maps actually show Oregon to be more popular in northern California than UCLA is. It really is pretty hard for me to see why UCLA is immediately getting full BTN shares, especially when Nebraska did not get full shares. Fox seems to buy into a market that UCLA doesn't really carry.

To make it pay what they wanted FOX couldn't leave UCLA as an option into the Los Angeles market. And USC likely wanted their rival with them anyway. The combo was a value kill shot on the entire PAC 12 (1st & 4th in revenue based on numbers we've just learned, but numbers visible in the books of the schools under a NDA). Guess whose 2nd and 3rd, Stanford and Washington. Oregon is now 5th. The Big 10 is likely to take at least 2 of those and quite possibly all 3.

If that happens Robbins discussion is moot.

I guess USC might have been pushing UCLA, but that would seem to contradict the rumors that USC is now attempting to block any more PAC teams. If USC is going to block Oregon and Washington for recruiting reasons, wouldn't they even moreso want to block their biggest potential recruiting rival- a team that's located in their own city?

Donor bases are consistently set up to prioritize donations for tickets to key away games, but especially rivals. The blocking mentality is fan fiction. Pastides at South Carolina wanted to include Clemson in 2011 as did Machen at Florida with FSU. These schools make each other money. Money is the norm, not competition, and not recruiting. To be sure competitiveness and recruiting play a hand in moves, but not moves that separate you from your alter ego which drives your, and their, donations. Fans worry about these things, but not administrations.

And that doesn't even get into how legislators feel about separation. That riles constituents and might leave one less funded which impacts appropriations. It is why Boren, a politician before becoming president at OU, was hellbent on including Oklahoma State.

(03-16-2023 12:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 12:01 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(03-16-2023 11:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Huge reveal from Arizona president Robbins in Dodd's article today:

Quote:Where exactly do the interests of the Ducks and Huskies stand?

"USC started this whole thing [to move to the Big Ten]. I think UCLA was a reluctant follower in this whole thing. But [USC] needed a travel partner close by so it makes sense," Robbins explained. "If Oregon calls Washington up and says, 'I can double the amount of money you're getting; come with me to the Big Ten,' Washington is going to say, 'OK, I'm in.' They would love to have gone.

"When I heard it first, the deal was going to be USC-Oregon [to the Big Ten]. That makes sense. … Their TV market is not that big, [but] they play in different colored uniforms, and they win. That's where I would have started this thing off.

"I think Fox wanted to consolidate L.A. and not let anybody else in [with USC-UCLA]. I think it's brilliant. Well played."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...-and-more/


I'm shocked no one else has picked up on this. It would sure be a good subject for an alternative history thread if the original plan had happened.

That isn’t the first time I’ve heard the original plan was USC and Oregon, although it’s the first time I’ve heard that from a person with actual inside knowledge.


It seems to me like USC by itself should have been enough to get BTN carriage fees for Southern California. But I guess Fox felt differently.

If there was a goal of getting the BTN in market in California as a whole, the Twitter maps actually show Oregon to be more popular in northern California than UCLA is. It really is pretty hard for me to see why UCLA is immediately getting full BTN shares, especially when Nebraska did not get full shares. Fox seems to buy into a market that UCLA doesn't really carry.

To make it pay what they wanted FOX couldn't leave UCLA as an option into the Los Angeles market. And USC likely wanted their rival with them anyway. The combo was a value kill shot on the entire PAC 12 (1st & 4th in revenue based on numbers we've just learned, but numbers visible in the books of the schools under a NDA). Guess whose 2nd and 3rd, Stanford and Washington. Oregon is now 5th. The Big 10 is likely to take at least 2 of those and quite possibly all 3.

If that happens Robbins discussion is moot.

Those 3 (Stanford, Oregon, and Washington), plus Colorado and Kansas, are pretty much what the Big10 would be looking at, at least unless/until ACC schools are available for invite.

And yes, definitely moot - if the Big10 takes any 2 of those first 3, I think the AZ schools run to the Big12.

It was Warren who was pushing for more grabbing the PAC 12. There is one time zone he did not get yet, and that is Mountain. He misspoke that he said his conference is in 4 time zone. U. Of Nebraska does not count as theyare Central time zone.

An invitation.

(02-18-2023 03:11 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Moving the two campuses much closer to the East Coast/Chicago?

A huge population boost to the Pacific Northwest making these schools worthwhile to add?

Either of these schools winning a national championship in football or men's basketball

A mere 50% could well do it.

What it would take is interest from a supermajority of Big Ten Presidents.

(03-18-2023 06:28 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  It was Warren who was pushing for more grabbing the PAC 12. There is one time zone he did not get yet, and that is Mountain. He misspoke that he said his conference is in 4 time zone. U. Of Nebraska does not count as theyare Central time zone.

The western ~third of NE is in the mountain time zone, so technically he was not wrong.