ADVERTISEMENT

Report: B2G has vetted Oregon and Washington

How is a "massively discounted deal" from the Big Ten not the BEST choice?

For the PAC 12 teams, sure.

What incentive does the Big 10 have to add them now? The new contract isn't going to get renegotiated just because we add teams. Perhaps they aid in the NBC dilemma, but they are still going to want Big 10 teams in those matchups (otherwise they would have bid on PAC 12 games).

But who knows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doctornick
For the PAC 12 teams, sure.

What incentive does the Big 10 have to add them now? The new contract isn't going to get renegotiated just because we add teams. Perhaps they aid in the NBC dilemma, but they are still going to want Big 10 teams in those matchups (otherwise they would have bid on PAC 12 games).

But who knows.
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 .
 
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 .

Why weren't they pursued with USC and UCLA? Could have beefed up the current contract and fixed the November primetime problems.
 
I'm curious but what exactly is that? And why didn't it apply to the 2 schools the Big took?
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.
 
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
 
For the PAC 12 teams, sure.

What incentive does the Big 10 have to add them now? The new contract isn't going to get renegotiated just because we add teams. Perhaps they aid in the NBC dilemma, but they are still going to want Big 10 teams in those matchups (otherwise they would have bid on PAC 12 games).

But who knows.
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.

And Oregon and Washington are AT LEAST as appealing to TV partners as Purdue, Northwestern, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana...so the new match-ups they'd be receiving would up the Big Ten's value.

(A slate of UW and Oregon vs. WSU, ASU, Stanford, Utah, etc...is NOT appealing on the whole for the TV partners...therefore they didn't bid much money on the Pac-12 deal.)
 
Seriously ? Let me put it this way ----- Rockne, the Gipper, the Four Horsemen and on and on, Every CF program wants to play Notre Dame, the most iconic and legendary program of all time. Conferences need Notre Dame --------- Notre Dame doesn't need a conference. When any CF fan starts thinking of overrated, the very first school that pops into their mind is Notre Dame
ND Heaven…The 40’s are calling. They want their leather helmets back.

BTW-FIFY
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Delco Lion
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.
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.

When B1G took Rutgers and Maryland the thinking was it would give them, with PSU, the extended basic tier of cable systems of the NY to DC megalopolis, and it did. Extended basic means you don't need to beg people to subscribe, you can just force cable users to pay for you in the bundle.

But Washington just gives them greater Seattle and change, Oregon gives them greater Portland and change. Northern California would be a prime market but northern Cali couldn't care less about college football. (And arguably Seattle and Portland are declining college football markets)

B1G has cut the heart out of the PAC-12 and nobody else is going to be able to put together the rest of the west coast schools into anything very compelling.
 
Last edited:
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.

When B1G took Rutgers and Maryland the thinking was it would give them, with PSU, the extended basic tier of cable systems of the NY to DC megalopolis, and it did. Extended basic means you don't need to beg people to subscribe, you can just force cable users to pay for you like a tax (which is how Fox News makes money).

But Washington just gives them greater Seattle, Oregon gives them greater Portland. Northern California would be a prime market but northern Cali couldn't care less about college football. (And arguably Seattle and Portland are declining college football markets)

B1G has cut the heart out of the PAC-12 and nobody else is going to be able to put together the rest of the west coast schools into anything very compelling.
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax
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 .
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.

If any of the SEC big boys are rumored to be unhappy, you bet the BIG would be on the phone immediately. TAMU comes to mind. I read they left the B12 cause of Texas. Would they jump from the SEC now that Texas is joining?
 
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.

If any of the SEC big boys are rumored to be unhappy, you bet the BIG would be on the phone immediately. TAMU comes to mind. I read they left the B12 cause of Texas. Would they jump from the SEC now that Texas is joining?
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.
 
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.

I still wonder if the BIG amd SEC have some big plans once all the movement stops. There is money to be made and the NCAA is the unnecessary middle man right now.

Plus there are too many rumblings of ACC and PAC12 schools that want out. Relatively speaking, those are 2 easy conferences to win for the upper teams, Clemson especially.
 
Plus there are too many rumblings of ACC and PAC12 schools that want out. Relatively speaking, those are 2 easy conferences to win for the upper teams, Clemson especially.
Of course they want out, I can't blame them.

The PAC 12 teams are looking for stability. Their inability to secure a TV deal by this point indicates that what's left of the PAC 12 after the departure of USC and UCLA has little value to the networks. This is also an indication as to why the Big 10 may not bother with further expansion with PAC 12 teams. Teams with any semblance of value are going to look to get into another P5 conference as a way to stay afloat and keep the checks coming.

The ACC teams want out because they see the gap with the Big 10 and SEC growing year by year. If they wait until their GOR expires a decade from now they will be so far behind it may be impossible to catch up, and they risk fading into obscurity while the Big 10 and SEC dominate. They want to close that revenue gap immediately so they don't become an afterthought.

From a Big 10 perspective I'm not sure there are any programs not in the SEC that would be a net addition for the conference aside from Notre Dame. With so many member schools now, each subsequent addition needs to bring more to the table to be a net increase per school. Notre Dame is still the big fish the Big 10 would want the most.
 
Last edited:
B1G needs to grab ND, close out the west (the obvious 4 other schools), penetrate the south (Va., 2 NC, Ga., and 2 Fla.) and Texas (Tex and A&M do not play well in the same sand box). That would make 28 schools. Don’t really need any others.
 
They are getting there...
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.
 
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.
You really want our Congress involved in this? LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeatherHelmets
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.
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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax
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.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NedFromYork
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).
 
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.)
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.
 
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LMTLION
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.
Now do PSU vs USC, Oregon or Washington to get into the conference championship game. Is that conference too big?
 
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?
It's not. I wouldn't have added either MD or Rutgers.

To summarize my perspective, once you get over twelve teams, the idea of a conference really loses its meaning. Granted, that genie is out of the bottle.
 
It's not. I wouldn't have added either MD or Rutgers.

To summarize my perspective, once you get over twelve teams, the idea of a conference really loses its meaning. Granted, that genie is out of the bottle.
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.

Regardless, I think this is a 1 + 1 = 3 situation. The teams that get left out of teams like Colorado, Cal, AZ and ASU. The conference may cease to exist and they'll have to go to a different conference. Clearly, the trend looks like two super conferences: B1G and SEC
 
Football-wise we already have 2 super conferences. There is a huge drop-off to the PAC & ACC. the only thing that is muddy-ing this perception is Clemson.
 
It's not. I wouldn't have added either MD or Rutgers.

To summarize my perspective, once you get over twelve teams, the idea of a conference really loses its meaning. Granted, that genie is out of the bottle.
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.
 
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.
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??

PSU, OSU, Mich, MSU, WI, Corn, Minny, MD, Iowa, Illinois, UCLA, & USC - anyone else make the cut line?
 
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.

If any of the SEC big boys are rumored to be unhappy, you bet the BIG would be on the phone immediately. TAMU comes to mind. I read they left the B12 cause of Texas. Would they jump from the SEC now that Texas is joining?
I can’t see Texas A&M or any other school ever leaving the SEC.

Right now the Big Ten needs to be all focused on Florida State, Notre Dame, Clemson, and maybe UNC/ Miami. Those are the schools the SEC will be going after and the Big Ten should be ready to strike first.

Now, clearly, all those teams aren’t coming to the Big Ten. If the SEC gets Clemson, and Florida State while the Big Ten gets UNC and Virginia then the Big Ten comes out on the short end of that battle. Oregon and Washington can be dealt with later depending on the payout numbers.

Teams like Stanford, Cal, Georgia Tech, and even UVA (IMO) should be nonstarters. They add nothing and only dilute current payouts (and talent level of the conference).
 
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.
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.

I think Klatt may be thinking down the road. Right now, I think it is a land grab. You take all you can and build the conference's power, leverage and viewership. When we are down to two or three major conferences, then you start to maximize. Its like when Apple and Android started with phones. It was new and was simply a land grab. There were the Apple lovers and haters. Now, most of the real innovation is done. Phones are now becoming commodities. You aren't going to be able to charge unlimited monies for differentiated features. So the phone makers have to find a new way to innovate or drop prices. They are now in the "it is a fashion accessory to show you have the Apple iPhone ++Max Super-Duper". But that will fade.

So I can see the B1G getting to 20 or 24 teams and then looking to see who they can drop to add a better draw. If ND becomes available and you have 24 teams, do you drop Purdue to get ND? of course you do if you can find a way to make it work legally.
 
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.

I think Klatt may be thinking down the road. Right now, I think it is a land grab. You take all you can and build the conference's power, leverage and viewership. When we are down to two or three major conferences, then you start to maximize. Its like when Apple and Android started with phones. It was new and was simply a land grab. There were the Apple lovers and haters. Now, most of the real innovation is done. Phones are now becoming commodities. You aren't going to be able to charge unlimited monies for differentiated features. So the phone makers have to find a new way to innovate or drop prices. They are now in the "it is a fashion accessory to show you have the Apple iPhone ++Max Super-Duper". But that will fade.

So I can see the B1G getting to 20 or 24 teams and then looking to see who they can drop to add a better draw. If ND becomes available and you have 24 teams, do you drop Purdue to get ND? of course you do if you can find a way to make it work legally.
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.

on the opposite end of the spectrum. Big 10 goes out and gets Stanford, Oregon and Washington to lock up west coast and then goes and sells hard to UNC, UVA, Clemson, Ga Tech, and FSU. At that point, they checkmate out the SEC as they own the entire country practically and are fighting the SEC mano a mano in their own area with programs on every east coast state down south.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obliviax
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.

on the opposite end of the spectrum. Big 10 goes out and gets Stanford, Oregon and Washington to lock up west coast and then goes and sells hard to UNC, UVA, Clemson, Ga Tech, and FSU. At that point, they checkmate out the SEC as they own the entire country practically and are fighting the SEC mano a mano in their own area with programs on every east coast state down south.
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.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT