(12-10-2023 01:37 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 12:13 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:23 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:48 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  I would add in Duke for good measure. Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and UConn can join Cincinatti and West Virginia in the Big XII.

I don’t think Duke packs as much punch as any of those other 3 I mentioned as potential last-in candidates.

Sure they have a basketball audience but they do nothing for football. With the basketball season being longer, I think the UNC-Duke rivalry could remain alive OOC.

The Big 10 on the other hand would have no path to 24. Notre Dame and Kansas would make 20, but beyond that you’re looking at the 4 Corners and maybe Pitt—not great options.

The Big Ten would be wise to add Cal and Stanford on partial shares, they fit the academic standards and Olympic sports standards. Kind of shores up the West Coast island that has been created.

It probably would be a wise investment, but I'm sure the B1G knows that they can snap up the Bay Area 2 any tine they want. This allows them to go after some strong football stock, IMO.

But with who that meets B1G academic standards, add to the conference, and wants to be in the B1G:

Presuming 6 available spots:
- California & Stanford
- Florida St? Miami?
- Arizona? Arizona St? Colorado? Utah?
- North Carolina? Duke? Virginia? Georgia Tech?
- Pittsburgh? Syracuse? Notre Dame?
- Kansas? Missouri?

My guess is: California, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, Notre Dame, Stanford
SEC + Clemson, Florida St, Kansas, Louisville, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Virginia, Virginia Tech

I think Arizona & Zona State meet those requirements. ASU wants to join the B1G.

(12-09-2023 06:23 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:48 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I maintain that it makes financial sense to add:

Florida St
Clemson
UNC
NC St
UVA
VT
+2 of: Louisville, Miami, or GT

This move consolidates content and I think it invigorates football at all of these new schools as they shake the stigma of being in an “off brand” football league now that they are associated with the SEC banner.

I would add in Duke for good measure. Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and UConn can join Cincinatti and West Virginia in the Big XII.

I don’t think Duke packs as much punch as any of those other 3 I mentioned as potential last-in candidates.

Sure they have a basketball audience but they do nothing for football. With the basketball season being longer, I think the UNC-Duke rivalry could remain alive OOC.

The Big 10 on the other hand would have no path to 24. Notre Dame and Kansas would make 20, but beyond that you’re looking at the 4 Corners and maybe Pitt—not great options.

The Big Ten would be wise to add Cal and Stanford on partial shares, they fit the academic standards and Olympic sports standards. Kind of shores up the West Coast island that has been created.

I think it would be very UNwise to add them on partial shares b/c they'll eventually need to be bumped up to full shares, full shares that will cost everyone else milliion$ yearly. Oregon and Washington came in on partial shares b/c they were admitted a year after new contract was signed, if they'd come in with USCLA then they'd have been worth full shares (as Matt Brown attested last year). Calford wouldn't bring a full share between the 2 of them.

If the B1G ever adds Calford, it will be as non-FB members.

(12-10-2023 11:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:23 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:48 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I maintain that it makes financial sense to add:

Florida St
Clemson
UNC
NC St
UVA
VT
+2 of: Louisville, Miami, or GT

This move consolidates content and I think it invigorates football at all of these new schools as they shake the stigma of being in an “off brand” football league now that they are associated with the SEC banner.

I would add in Duke for good measure. Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and UConn can join Cincinatti and West Virginia in the Big XII.

I don’t think Duke packs as much punch as any of those other 3 I mentioned as potential last-in candidates.

Sure they have a basketball audience but they do nothing for football. With the basketball season being longer, I think the UNC-Duke rivalry could remain alive OOC.

The Big 10 on the other hand would have no path to 24. Notre Dame and Kansas would make 20, but beyond that you’re looking at the 4 Corners and maybe Pitt—not great options.

The Big Ten would be wise to add Cal and Stanford on partial shares, they fit the academic standards and Olympic sports standards. Kind of shores up the West Coast island that has been created.

I think it would be very UNwise to add them on partial shares b/c they'll eventually need to be bumped up to full shares, full shares that will cost everyone else milliion$ yearly. Oregon and Washington came in on partial shares b/c they were admitted a year after new contract was signed, if they'd come in with USCLA then they'd have been worth full shares (as Matt Brown attested last year). Calford wouldn't bring a full share between the 2 of them.

If the B1G ever adds Calford, it will be as non-FB members.

Right, it seems incredibly too hard to restructure a contract for full shares vs creating some partial share step system. If Notre Dame wanted to join, I’m sure they’d be getting a partial share as well.

(12-10-2023 02:39 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 11:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:23 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:48 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  I would add in Duke for good measure. Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and UConn can join Cincinatti and West Virginia in the Big XII.

I don’t think Duke packs as much punch as any of those other 3 I mentioned as potential last-in candidates.

Sure they have a basketball audience but they do nothing for football. With the basketball season being longer, I think the UNC-Duke rivalry could remain alive OOC.

The Big 10 on the other hand would have no path to 24. Notre Dame and Kansas would make 20, but beyond that you’re looking at the 4 Corners and maybe Pitt—not great options.

The Big Ten would be wise to add Cal and Stanford on partial shares, they fit the academic standards and Olympic sports standards. Kind of shores up the West Coast island that has been created.

I think it would be very UNwise to add them on partial shares b/c they'll eventually need to be bumped up to full shares, full shares that will cost everyone else milliion$ yearly. Oregon and Washington came in on partial shares b/c they were admitted a year after new contract was signed, if they'd come in with USCLA then they'd have been worth full shares (as Matt Brown attested last year). Calford wouldn't bring a full share between the 2 of them.

If the B1G ever adds Calford, it will be as non-FB members.

Right, it seems incredibly too hard to restructure a contract for full shares vs creating some partial share step system. If Notre Dame wanted to join, I’m sure they’d be getting a partial share as well.

Actually, ND is a member of the B1G...in hockey!

(12-09-2023 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I maintain that it makes financial sense to add:

Florida St
Clemson
UNC
NC St
UVA
VT
+2 of: Louisville, Miami, or GT

This move consolidates content and I think it invigorates football at all of these new schools as they shake the stigma of being in an “off brand” football league now that they are associated with the SEC banner.

Bottom line on all of this nonsense is this: It really doesn't matter who goes where if you end up with two conferences of fewer than 67 teams all teams will make more than when Networks paid for 67 teams in 5 conferences. How? All of the new playoff money goes to 2 conferences. A large portion of all basketball tourney money goes to 2 conferences. End of story. We could do the math, but what is the point?

Is this even unfair? No. You play with the opt ins that meet the requirements without subsidy. Likely it would be 56 schools with 28 in each Super Conference (League). All entrants split all media revenue. Schools making the playoffs or tourney get to pocket extra as incentive.

JR, what about the school that opts in for a few years, but then decides to opt out. Can it opt on again, or is it banned from ever coming back??
Are there some schools that could choose not opt in initially, but choose to opt in at a later time?

(12-10-2023 09:43 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I maintain that it makes financial sense to add:

Florida St
Clemson
UNC
NC St
UVA
VT
+2 of: Louisville, Miami, or GT

This move consolidates content and I think it invigorates football at all of these new schools as they shake the stigma of being in an “off brand” football league now that they are associated with the SEC banner.

Bottom line on all of this nonsense is this: It really doesn't matter who goes where if you end up with two conferences of fewer than 67 teams all teams will make more than when Networks paid for 67 teams in 5 conferences. How? All of the new playoff money goes to 2 conferences. A large portion of all basketball tourney money goes to 2 conferences. End of story. We could do the math, but what is the point?

Is this even unfair? No. You play with the opt ins that meet the requirements without subsidy. Likely it would be 56 schools with 28 in each Super Conference (League). All entrants split all media revenue. Schools making the playoffs or tourney get to pocket extra as incentive.

JR, what about the school that opts in for a few years, but then decides to opt out. Can it opt on again, or is it banned from ever coming back??
Are there some schools that could choose not opt in initially, but choose to opt in at a later time?

If you opt out after starting in, I would suspect that getting back in would be difficult, not necessarily impossible. Standards for inclusion may change. But a choice is a choice and exercising it has consequences because once leaving someone else may have opted for your place.

(12-10-2023 02:39 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 11:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:23 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 04:48 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  I would add in Duke for good measure. Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and UConn can join Cincinatti and West Virginia in the Big XII.

I don’t think Duke packs as much punch as any of those other 3 I mentioned as potential last-in candidates.

Sure they have a basketball audience but they do nothing for football. With the basketball season being longer, I think the UNC-Duke rivalry could remain alive OOC.

The Big 10 on the other hand would have no path to 24. Notre Dame and Kansas would make 20, but beyond that you’re looking at the 4 Corners and maybe Pitt—not great options.

The Big Ten would be wise to add Cal and Stanford on partial shares, they fit the academic standards and Olympic sports standards. Kind of shores up the West Coast island that has been created.

I think it would be very UNwise to add them on partial shares b/c they'll eventually need to be bumped up to full shares, full shares that will cost everyone else milliion$ yearly. Oregon and Washington came in on partial shares b/c they were admitted a year after new contract was signed, if they'd come in with USCLA then they'd have been worth full shares (as Matt Brown attested last year). Calford wouldn't bring a full share between the 2 of them.

If the B1G ever adds Calford, it will be as non-FB members.

Right, it seems incredibly too hard to restructure a contract for full shares vs creating some partial share step system. If Notre Dame wanted to join, I’m sure they’d be getting a partial share as well.

If you are talking the Big Ten (which I hope never happens), ND is the only school in the country with a specific dollar value stated in the Big Ten TV contracts.

I doubt very seriously that ND would have to accept a partial share to join the Big Ten (Saints preserve us).

(12-10-2023 09:21 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 02:39 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 11:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:23 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t think Duke packs as much punch as any of those other 3 I mentioned as potential last-in candidates.

Sure they have a basketball audience but they do nothing for football. With the basketball season being longer, I think the UNC-Duke rivalry could remain alive OOC.

The Big 10 on the other hand would have no path to 24. Notre Dame and Kansas would make 20, but beyond that you’re looking at the 4 Corners and maybe Pitt—not great options.

The Big Ten would be wise to add Cal and Stanford on partial shares, they fit the academic standards and Olympic sports standards. Kind of shores up the West Coast island that has been created.

I think it would be very UNwise to add them on partial shares b/c they'll eventually need to be bumped up to full shares, full shares that will cost everyone else milliion$ yearly. Oregon and Washington came in on partial shares b/c they were admitted a year after new contract was signed, if they'd come in with USCLA then they'd have been worth full shares (as Matt Brown attested last year). Calford wouldn't bring a full share between the 2 of them.

If the B1G ever adds Calford, it will be as non-FB members.

Right, it seems incredibly too hard to restructure a contract for full shares vs creating some partial share step system. If Notre Dame wanted to join, I’m sure they’d be getting a partial share as well.

Actually, ND is a member of the B1G...in hockey!

Remember...."This far and no further" is the mantra, for any conference.

(12-11-2023 09:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 02:39 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 11:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:23 PM)Realignment Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:15 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don’t think Duke packs as much punch as any of those other 3 I mentioned as potential last-in candidates.

Sure they have a basketball audience but they do nothing for football. With the basketball season being longer, I think the UNC-Duke rivalry could remain alive OOC.

The Big 10 on the other hand would have no path to 24. Notre Dame and Kansas would make 20, but beyond that you’re looking at the 4 Corners and maybe Pitt—not great options.

The Big Ten would be wise to add Cal and Stanford on partial shares, they fit the academic standards and Olympic sports standards. Kind of shores up the West Coast island that has been created.

I think it would be very UNwise to add them on partial shares b/c they'll eventually need to be bumped up to full shares, full shares that will cost everyone else milliion$ yearly. Oregon and Washington came in on partial shares b/c they were admitted a year after new contract was signed, if they'd come in with USCLA then they'd have been worth full shares (as Matt Brown attested last year). Calford wouldn't bring a full share between the 2 of them.

If the B1G ever adds Calford, it will be as non-FB members.

Right, it seems incredibly too hard to restructure a contract for full shares vs creating some partial share step system. If Notre Dame wanted to join, I’m sure they’d be getting a partial share as well.

If you are talking the Big Ten (which I hope never happens), ND is the only school in the country with a specific dollar value stated in the Big Ten TV contracts.

I doubt very seriously that ND would have to accept a partial share to join the Big Ten (Saints preserve us).

That furthers my point that UW and UO were not important enough to FOX to distribute a full share. They weren't important enough to the Big Ten to be invited initially, in fact, there was significant resistance (much to my own surprise). It was a move done in order to prevent those two from joining the ACC.

Actually see opposite of further SEC & BIG expansion happening. I see major fractures and contraction coming as soon as early 2030s.

This attempt to consolidate powerhouse brands within conference will fail miserably. Conference needs to be balanced to work efficiently. The SEC had the correct mix until now.

The big12 became too big for their station. The ACC, with Cal and Stanford is rather silly.

It’s a house of cards. This whole enterprise is headed downhill , watch new smaller conference emerge in the mid 2030s.

It’s starts with the BIG in 2030 and reemergence of a west coast oriented conference anchored by USC ,UCLA. The BIG should have signed a longer deal.

(12-11-2023 09:56 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-11-2023 09:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 02:39 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 11:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(12-09-2023 06:23 PM)Realignment Wrote:  The Big Ten would be wise to add Cal and Stanford on partial shares, they fit the academic standards and Olympic sports standards. Kind of shores up the West Coast island that has been created.

I think it would be very UNwise to add them on partial shares b/c they'll eventually need to be bumped up to full shares, full shares that will cost everyone else milliion$ yearly. Oregon and Washington came in on partial shares b/c they were admitted a year after new contract was signed, if they'd come in with USCLA then they'd have been worth full shares (as Matt Brown attested last year). Calford wouldn't bring a full share between the 2 of them.

If the B1G ever adds Calford, it will be as non-FB members.

Right, it seems incredibly too hard to restructure a contract for full shares vs creating some partial share step system. If Notre Dame wanted to join, I’m sure they’d be getting a partial share as well.

If you are talking the Big Ten (which I hope never happens), ND is the only school in the country with a specific dollar value stated in the Big Ten TV contracts.

I doubt very seriously that ND would have to accept a partial share to join the Big Ten (Saints preserve us).

That furthers my point that UW and UO were not important enough to FOX to distribute a full share. They weren't important enough to the Big Ten to be invited initially, in fact, there was significant resistance (much to my own surprise). It was a move done in order to prevent those two from joining the ACC.

I think one of the key reasons that Oregon and Washington weren't hurriedly added to the Big Ten is because the SEC wasn't a threat to take them. Fox and company could afford to bide their time.

The ACC sniffing around might well have been a factor, but there were others as well. Colorado bailed first, technically, and I think a lot of it comes down to the PAC leadership simply not being competent enough to put together a reasonable contract. The pressure became too much and several schools ultimately did what they didn't necessarily prefer to do.

(12-11-2023 10:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-11-2023 09:56 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-11-2023 09:29 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 02:39 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2023 11:18 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I think it would be very UNwise to add them on partial shares b/c they'll eventually need to be bumped up to full shares, full shares that will cost everyone else milliion$ yearly. Oregon and Washington came in on partial shares b/c they were admitted a year after new contract was signed, if they'd come in with USCLA then they'd have been worth full shares (as Matt Brown attested last year). Calford wouldn't bring a full share between the 2 of them.

If the B1G ever adds Calford, it will be as non-FB members.

Right, it seems incredibly too hard to restructure a contract for full shares vs creating some partial share step system. If Notre Dame wanted to join, I’m sure they’d be getting a partial share as well.

If you are talking the Big Ten (which I hope never happens), ND is the only school in the country with a specific dollar value stated in the Big Ten TV contracts.

I doubt very seriously that ND would have to accept a partial share to join the Big Ten (Saints preserve us).

That furthers my point that UW and UO were not important enough to FOX to distribute a full share. They weren't important enough to the Big Ten to be invited initially, in fact, there was significant resistance (much to my own surprise). It was a move done in order to prevent those two from joining the ACC.

I think one of the key reasons that Oregon and Washington weren't hurriedly added to the Big Ten is because the SEC wasn't a threat to take them. Fox and company could afford to bide their time.

The ACC sniffing around might well have been a factor, but there were others as well. Colorado bailed first, technically, and I think a lot of it comes down to the PAC leadership simply not being competent enough to put together a reasonable contract. The pressure became too much and several schools ultimately did what they didn't necessarily prefer to do.

What do you mean couldnt put together a reasonable contract? They could only accept offers made to them by the potential TV partners. Apparently the absolute best offer they had was 30m per school from ESPN. That wasnt going to make schools like Oregon or Washington happy long-term. As it stands, multiple or maybe even all schools rejected that deal thinking they could get more.

There are a lot of reports FSU and Big 10 are talking and that Miami is talking to the Big 12 right now.

(12-12-2023 12:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There are a lot of reports FSU and Big 10 are talking and that Miami is talking to the Big 12 right now.

So you’re saying Miami is going to buy their way out to make less money? Or Miami (OH)?


Lol

(12-11-2023 09:56 AM)esayem Wrote:  ... That furthers my point that UW and UO were not important enough to FOX to distribute a full share. They weren't important enough to the Big Ten to be invited initially, in fact, there was significant resistance (much to my own surprise). It was a move done in order to prevent those two from joining the ACC.

A less rosy view of what went on in the Big Ten is that the small stadium "it has to make sense on the bottom line" schools knew very well that there was a modest amount of money available from adding UW/Oregon on full shares, but also foresaw that UW/Oregon would be willing to take partial shares once the likely final streaming contract offer came in. and saw a bigger increase in their distribution as better than a smaller increase in their distribution.

_________________

(12-11-2023 10:25 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(12-11-2023 10:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ... I think one of the key reasons that Oregon and Washington weren't hurriedly added to the Big Ten is because the SEC wasn't a threat to take them. Fox and company could afford to bide their time.

The ACC sniffing around might well have been a factor, but there were others as well. Colorado bailed first, technically, and I think a lot of it comes down to the PAC leadership simply not being competent enough to put together a reasonable contract. The pressure became too much and several schools ultimately did what they didn't necessarily prefer to do.

What do you mean couldnt put together a reasonable contract? They could only accept offers made to them by the potential TV partners. Apparently the absolute best offer they had was 30m per school from ESPN. That wasn't going to make schools like Oregon or Washington happy long-term. As it stands, multiple or maybe even all schools rejected that deal thinking they could get more.

And the ESPN offer could well have had an look-in clause for UW/Oregon exit, so if the Big Ten needed to offer a slightly higher partial share to get UW/Oregon, that is what would have happened, and then the ESPN contract wouldn't have been $30m anymore.

(12-12-2023 12:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-11-2023 09:56 AM)esayem Wrote:  ... That furthers my point that UW and UO were not important enough to FOX to distribute a full share. They weren't important enough to the Big Ten to be invited initially, in fact, there was significant resistance (much to my own surprise). It was a move done in order to prevent those two from joining the ACC.

A less rosy view of what went on in the Big Ten is that the small stadium "it has to make sense on the bottom line" schools knew very well that there was a modest amount of money available from adding UW/Oregon on full shares, but also foresaw that UW/Oregon would be willing to take partial shares once the likely final streaming contract offer came in. and saw a bigger increase in their distribution as better than a smaller increase in their distribution.

Yes, 100%.

I don’t think FOX is your next partner. I think it’s Amazon and possible expansion west. I think Amazon will want exclusive rights to a national super league and y’all are up next.