Assuming 9 conference games and that all Western teams play each other every year . . .

2 Western teams = 4 Eastern football trips per Western school.

4 Western teams = 3 Eastern football trips per Western school.

6 Western teams = 2 Eastern football trips per Western school.

8 Western teams = 1 Eastern football trip per Western school.

10 Western teams = 0 Eastern football trips per Western school.

(05-23-2023 04:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m glad someone took the time to illustrate this. 4 or 6 more west coast teams doesn’t actually improve travel for the 14 eastern/central teams. It only reduces the travel for the western block.

While true, even at 12 Western trips that's about 1 per school. Less when the B1G raids the ACC.

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

(05-24-2023 01:49 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

ND's value would have covered and "paid for" additional West Coast expansion.

When ND said no, that killed that idea

(05-24-2023 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 01:49 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

ND's value would have covered and "paid for" additional West Coast expansion.

When ND said no, that killed that idea

It's not wise to put the cart before the horse.

(05-23-2023 03:00 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 02:40 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  If you have 6-8 teams out west it definitely means less travel.

This is the key here.

4 west coast teams doesn't make less travel than 2. I think someone earlier broke it out and showed that it reduced slightly at 6, then more at 8, and then stayed about the same after that.

So simply adding in Washington and Oregon won't be enough for travel, which is why people are talking about adding 4 more west coast teams when they get to expanding again.

That's the play, I think.

Like most everyone here, I hope it happens soon. I'm eager to get the conference shuffling over with so everyone can move on.

(05-24-2023 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 01:49 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

ND's value would have covered and "paid for" additional West Coast expansion.

When ND said no, that killed that idea

Could be. There's always someone who has to learn the hard way.

(05-24-2023 08:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:00 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 02:40 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  If you have 6-8 teams out west it definitely means less travel.

This is the key here.

4 west coast teams doesn't make less travel than 2. I think someone earlier broke it out and showed that it reduced slightly at 6, then more at 8, and then stayed about the same after that.

So simply adding in Washington and Oregon won't be enough for travel, which is why people are talking about adding 4 more west coast teams when they get to expanding again.

That's the play, I think.

Like most everyone here, I hope it happens soon. I'm eager to get the conference shuffling over with so everyone can move on.

I think the Big Ten made the LA move to make a quick buck and everyone was hyped up. It was a great response to the SEC and ESPN.

Now they are beginning to realize it might not be built for the long haul. You take on more West Coast schools, guess what? You can't get rid of them. They are now Big Ten schools forever and you have to somehow come up with enough money so the Ohio States and Michigans of the world are not seeing their future paychecks reduced. The pie will be sliced more ways and the pie is in danger of getting smaller in the 30's.

Meanwhile people here are predicting 24-team conferences? 24 slices of a potentially smaller pie? Yikes. Can you say Mountain West Airport Meeting?

By 2040 the Big Ten might look like:

Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA


Be careful what you wish for.

(05-24-2023 08:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  That's the play, I think.

Like most everyone here, I hope it happens soon. I'm eager to get the conference shuffling over with so everyone can move on.

I know everyone has their own scenarios (and we even had threads on what you personally think should happen), but the cleanest way out of this mess is:

Wave 1 (24-25'): Furd, Cal, UO, UW to B1G, 4C to Big 12, Wazzou OreSt to MWC
Wave 2 (27'-30'): FSU Clemson to SEC
Wave 3 (30-36'): UNC, UVa, GaTech, Duke to B1G, Miami VaTech to SEC
Wave 4 (30-36'): UL Pitt WF NCSU to Big 12, Cuse' BC to Big East

We could go from a P2 M2 setup to the P3 scenario with a full breakaway by 36'.

(05-24-2023 08:46 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 08:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:00 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 02:40 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  If you have 6-8 teams out west it definitely means less travel.

This is the key here.

4 west coast teams doesn't make less travel than 2. I think someone earlier broke it out and showed that it reduced slightly at 6, then more at 8, and then stayed about the same after that.

So simply adding in Washington and Oregon won't be enough for travel, which is why people are talking about adding 4 more west coast teams when they get to expanding again.

That's the play, I think.

Like most everyone here, I hope it happens soon. I'm eager to get the conference shuffling over with so everyone can move on.

I think the Big Ten made the LA move to make a quick buck and everyone was hyped up. It was a great response to the SEC and ESPN.

Now they are beginning to realize it might not be built for the long haul. You take on more West Coast schools, guess what? You can't get rid of them. They are now Big Ten schools forever and you have to somehow come up with enough money so the Ohio States and Michigans of the world are not seeing their future paychecks reduced. The pie will be sliced more ways and the pie is in danger of getting smaller in the 30's.

Meanwhile people here are predicting 24-team conferences? 24 slices of a potentially smaller pie? Yikes. Can you say Mountain West Airport Meeting?

By 2040 the Big Ten might look like:

Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA


Be careful what you wish for.

I'm down with that.

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

Curious, does the lack of coordination within the Big Ten cause you to do any rethinking about your conviction that ESPN and the SEC are working from a thirty year old master plan?

I think we can now safely say that Fox and the Big Ten are not coordinating their end of things from a worked out blueprint. The plan five months ago or five years ago might not be the plan today. Are the SEC and ESPN different?

You'd probably have to have at least six PAC teams to really have a pod where they could travel among themselves. I don't think UO and UW (coupled with USC and UCLA) could really form a pod.

I was not in favor or expansion, but get it made sense from a financial perspective for the conference. UCLA and USC signed up knowing they would travel a lot. For everyone else, it is only for two schools and the extra revenue was apparently considered worth it. I think travel is being somewhat overrated here. I don't think the Big Ten expands again for that reason alone.

(05-24-2023 09:21 AM)Poster Wrote:  You'd probably have to have at least six PAC teams to really have a pod where they could travel among themselves. I don't think UO and UW (coupled with USC and UCLA) could really form a pod.

4+5/5/5 is the most cost friendly way to play it:

USC: Stanford, UCLA, UO, Cal
UCLA: USC, Nebraska, UW, Cal
Stanford: USC, Cal, UO, UW
Cal: USC, UCLA, Stanford, UW
UO: UW, USC, Stanford, Nebraska
UW: UO, UCLA, Cal, Stanford
Nebraska: Iowa, UO, UCLA, ???

If Nebraska is willing to absorb the west coast trips, it's workable. There is no reason to send tOSU and UM out there more than 2x three years.

(05-24-2023 09:35 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 09:21 AM)Poster Wrote:  You'd probably have to have at least six PAC teams to really have a pod where they could travel among themselves. I don't think UO and UW (coupled with USC and UCLA) could really form a pod.

4+5/5/5 is the most cost friendly way to play it:

USC: Stanford, UCLA, UO, Cal
UCLA: USC, Nebraska, UW, Cal
Stanford: USC, Cal, UO, UW
Cal: USC, UCLA, Stanford, UW
UO: UW, USC, Stanford, Nebraska
UW: UO, UCLA, Cal, Stanford
Nebraska: Iowa, UO, UCLA, ???

If Nebraska is willing to absorb the west coast trips, it's workable. There is no reason to send tOSU and UM out there more than 2x three years.

I bet Nebraska is. They need natural recruiting grounds like they used to have in the Big 12 with Texas and going to southern California a lot would help them.

That said, even if travel is enough to think about expansion (I don't think it is), football would not be the reason for it. You are talking one west coast trip for most teams and 4 trips to the Midwest/east coast for USC/UCLA each year. Something like basketball would involve a lot more travel.

(05-24-2023 08:46 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think the Big Ten made the LA move to make a quick buck and everyone was hyped up. It was a great response to the SEC and ESPN.

Now they are beginning to realize it might not be built for the long haul. You take on more West Coast schools, guess what? You can't get rid of them. They are now Big Ten schools forever and you have to somehow come up with enough money so the Ohio States and Michigans of the world are not seeing their future paychecks reduced. The pie will be sliced more ways and the pie is in danger of getting smaller in the 30's.

Meanwhile people here are predicting 24-team conferences? 24 slices of a potentially smaller pie? Yikes. Can you say Mountain West Airport Meeting?

By 2040 the Big Ten might look like:

Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA

Be careful what you wish for.

Also plausible.

The B1G reach into LA does have a hasty look--as if a sudden desire to look 'proactive' got exploited after the shock move of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC.

The LA move made a hash of the B1G's long-time insistence on a contiguous footprint, and that in turn makes future B1G expansion problematic.

(05-24-2023 09:55 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I bet Nebraska is. They need natural recruiting grounds like they used to have in the Big 12 with Texas and going to southern California a lot would help them.

That said, even if travel is enough to think about expansion (I don't think it is), football would not be the reason for it. You are talking one west coast trip for most teams and 4 trips to the Midwest/east coast for USC/UCLA each year. Something like basketball would involve a lot more travel.

It's ugly... no doubt. I'm wishing for an ESPN front page headline later this summer, "What just happened??? USCLA return to the PAC 12", while ESPN and others engineered a deal in the background to have them come back for more money. Work out a tiered payout... 80 million for USCLA, 20 million for Wazzou OreSt, 40 million for the rest, where the pay gap gradually scales back over a 6-7 year GoR.

(05-24-2023 08:46 AM)esayem Wrote:  Meanwhile people here are predicting 24-team conferences? 24 slices of a potentially smaller pie? Yikes. Can you say Mountain West Airport Meeting?

That's exactly why I put little credence in anything above sixteen. At sixteen, yes, airport, bang, two eights, see ya.

Keeping 8 POVs aligned is hard; keeping 12 is worse; 16 makes herding cats seem like an easier task. And folks think 24 would work?

For contextual reference only (no disrespect), it seems that there is an imminent reckoning that is in motion that some (media, BOT) are and have been aware of and it is only a question of who gets onto the Carpathia.

It seems that there was a very aggressive option on the table to move things along more quickly by Warren (with full awareness/support by B1G leadership), but when it actually started playing out it may have felt ruthless due to maybe a lack of ambassadorship. So after the initial dominoes were pushed, rather than a bunch of other schools immediate movements the dominoes stopped falling due to there not being clear options for all (other conference mates, etc) but only an "every man for himself" approach being left.

These are after all decisions that have massive impacts on people's lives, and that's why there are apologetic phone calls and emails. So no one wants to be in a rush to tell someone it's been nice being in a conference with you for 50 plus years etc., but if you'll excuse me I think I better grab my seat on the Carpathia.

The money pie won't get smaller for those on the boat, but it will be a lot less if anything left for everyone else. Hence all the hand wringing and double talk.

(05-24-2023 01:49 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

(05-24-2023 09:01 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

Curious, does the lack of coordination within the Big Ten cause you to do any rethinking about your conviction that ESPN and the SEC are working from a thirty year old master plan?

I think we can now safely say that Fox and the Big Ten are not coordinating their end of things from a worked out blueprint. The plan five months ago or five years ago might not be the plan today. Are the SEC and ESPN different?

Yes. The SEC is different. We've just about acquired all primary objectives and things which were secondary in 1992 are now on the table. So far only Missouri was a surprise, and an ESPN interest. If we wind up with Kansas or another school to the West that will be ESPN's idea as well. And John we were not working with ESPN in 1991. We were in 2011.