Why. Because you are playing the long game. Getting Oregon and Washington locks up the west coast for the big ten and both schools are the marquee schools in state with a big alumni base for the eventual steaming play and big ten network programming. You structure a deal as a 5 year runway to a full share so they get reduced money to start years 1 through 4. So the payout for current big ten teams really won’t change much. Then big ten is set up perfectly when the ACC disintegrates to have the only national coast to coast conference .
The gist is being seen as responsible for the dissolution of the whole conference. By taking just two (to start), the conference survived. Now if more bail to the B12 and the conference dissolves that way, then the B1G wasn't responsible.
Exactly. They know what they have. They want ou uw. But being the one to kill it. Plus OSU/WSU might try to piggy back. But if the conference is going under it might be easier to ignore those 2 as it gives the 2 main schools a landing spot
I'm pretty sure that escalator clauses were written into the new TV deal. As in, "Hey, tv partners, there's a good chance expansion isn't done, so you are going to give us 100 mil (total) for each new team we add." And the TV partners said yeah. I remember hearing that when the Big Ten announced their deal and expansion was still abuzz.
Plus cherry-picking. USC and UCLA give the B10 a huge TV market in southern Cali. It lets them force B1G network onto cable systems, which is the whole revenue model. No other PAC school offers anything similar.
Other problem is that you probably need to take Cal and Stanford as well - don't be surprised if Congress starts getting involved once some of these conferences start imploding.
Congress? If Congress isn’t concerned about the wild west NIL and transfer portal, they surely will not care about conference realignment.
They are getting there...
apnews.com
It's like the NFL Draft for a good team. You take the best available, and that's OR and WA. This is nothing more than an arms race with the SEC.
These superleagues are just going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. And it is going to get worse when the contracts come up in the early 30s and the money isn't there to pay the Indianas of the world $100M. ESPN thinks they are going to be able to break away from cable and ask for $30 to $50 month for direct to consumer. Wait until they see how many people couldn't care less about sports for that price.
I don't disagree with you. But it looks like it's the way it's heading.
Of course they want out, I can't blame them.
This is good news, for college football fans IMHO. I've read that a bunch of NIL donors (buyers) didn't pay up when the kid didn't pan out. So the kid's only recourse is civil litigation and most have no idea how to navigate that. This kind of thing will force the players into creating some kind of collective or union. That union can then negotiate with the college football powers and settle on a Collective Bargaining Agreement. That CBA will, then, establish rules of engagement that will be better for both colleges and the majority of college football players.They are getting there...
Congressional hearing targets 'NIL chaos' in college sports
A congressional hearing targeting what one lawmaker called “NIL chaos” in college sports drifted into the consequences of college athletes being deemed employees.
If I were the Big 10 commish I would go Oregon, UW, and Stanford. Northern Cali isn't much for football but having the flagship school there with the prestige Stanford brings academically (presidents will love that) then gives you the entire West coast. Also gives you more reasons for ND to join (Stanford, USC, MSU, Michigan, PSU as all traditional rivals). Then the Big 10 has locked in the West coast, midwest, through the mid atlantic. Then Big 10 can completely focus on ACC disruption and I like the idea of going to Texas A&M (although I hate them) as A&M would be a great fit into the Big 10 to get a big school Texas that somewhat fits the profile of the Big 10 (A&M is a huge school with research).
I like it, and prefer to get to 20, which is a good number for football scheduling possibilities. You're right that the presidents would absolutely love being associated with Stanford. In fact, a few would drool on themselves. That new contingent of schools may be enough to pull in ND. If it is not enough, I would consider inviting one of the following western schools at significantly reduced revenue to get to 20: Cal (lock up the state in totality), Utah (located in the fastest growing state and a very solid school overall), ASU (big market with a lot of retired B1G alums), or totally of the box UNLV (obvious weakest choice only making sense at a very low revenue share, but a destination spot for retired and vacationing B1G alums with a domed NFL stadium providing possibilities like championship games, etc.)
Cal Berkeley just doesn't give you much of anything so don't like that move. I think Utah might be gone to Big12 with Colorado and Arizona schools soon (If I were the Big12 I would be actively courting those guys). I think the issue with Utah or Arizona is that you still have BYU or ASU who divides up the state so getting one school doesn't really dominate the state (like Oregon and Washington do to their states).
Seems like the conference is already too big from a fan's perspective. Not looking forward to (5-5) UCLA and (4-6) Indiana battling it out in early November for the right to maintain bowl eligibility from a cloudy and windswept Bloomington, IN.
OK but this is just conference affiliation. How is that any different from a 5-5 Indiana battling it out with a 5-5 MD or Rutgers or NW?
Now do PSU vs USC, Oregon or Washington to get into the conference championship game. Is that conference too big?
It's not. I wouldn't have added either MD or Rutgers.
I understand. I think, in this case, the B1G can cherry pick and get teams that people want to see. I'd much rather see UCLA than Rutgers, MD or Purdue. Plus, they'll bring eyes from the west coast to the B1G that wouldn't normally be there. For UCLA, it breaths life into a program that has struggled for some time but shouldn't have to. By that, I mean they have a great name so it is baffling that they can't put together and sustain a better program.
Respectfully, you are evaluating this based on your current understanding of the NCAA and FBS conferences. NCAA football as it has existed for 50 years is about gone.
Won't disagree with anything you said and it will be interesting to see if Klatt's scenario plays out. If they do end up kicking out the 'pie eaters', whom do you think would be left in today's B1G??Respectfully, you are evaluating this based on your current understanding of the NCAA and FBS conferences. NCAA football as it has existed for 50 years is about gone.
Assume that in a decade, there is no NCAA football and the entire landscape of college football is different.
Assume that the B2G and SEC have become super conferences and agreed on how to stage a championship. View every realignment conversation as a step toward that. The Big boys will all join the SEC or B2G
Also assume that the big boys in each conference get tired of paying for the little boys. Assume there is either a 2nd tier of the super conferences who get a lower payout or assume the big boys find a way to kick out the little boys, as Joe Klatt has suggested.
Joel Klatt predicts future realignment will involve conferences looking at teams to drop
Joel Klatt shared his thoughts on conference realignment.www.saturdaydownsouth.com
I can’t see Texas A&M or any other school ever leaving the SEC.
that's an interesting viewpoint. if a conference wants to "drop" a school, I am pretty sure the lawsuits would fly. Who would the B1G want to drop if they had to drop a team or two? My guess is Purdue. But there would be fallout if the B1G pursued that.Respectfully, you are evaluating this based on your current understanding of the NCAA and FBS conferences. NCAA football as it has existed for 50 years is about gone.
Assume that in a decade, there is no NCAA football and the entire landscape of college football is different.
Assume that the B2G and SEC have become super conferences and agreed on how to stage a championship. View every realignment conversation as a step toward that. The Big boys will all join the SEC or B2G
Also assume that the big boys in each conference get tired of paying for the little boys. Assume there is either a 2nd tier of the super conferences who get a lower payout or assume the big boys find a way to kick out the little boys, as Joe Klatt has suggested.
Joel Klatt predicts future realignment will involve conferences looking at teams to drop
Joel Klatt shared his thoughts on conference realignment.www.saturdaydownsouth.com
here is the potential issue. Let's say SEC just goes all in and offers UNC, NC State, UVA, Va Tech, FSU, Miami and Clemson. They would literally checkmate Virginia through Florida over to Texas. And then they get ND just as ND wants to throw the middle finger to the Big Ten. The entire Southeastern quadrant of the USA would be SEC and that is where a bulk of the growth in the USA is headed. It would be nightmare scenario for Big Ten to essentially be locked out.
I agree that it is very important the B10 gets into high growth states like NC and FL when the ACC falls. The B12 is not stupid. For the same reason they want to lock up high growth Utah and Arizona. There is a strong possibility the B10 is locked out of all the high growth area in the U.S.
