There will be a second tier but unlikely relegation. Teams may be voted out and replaced if they don't continue to add value/contribute but no true relegation system.
Rumor Swirling That Big Ten Will Be Adding 4 New Schools This Week
- Thread starter Chickadee34
- Start date
Top teams by actual viewers removing SEC because they aren't in play and teams lower than Rutgers.
Top available teams are Oregon, FSU, Utah, Washington. Cal & Stanford equate to Purdue and Syracuse. B1G presidents love their academics, but tv companies and ADs know that they add nothing.
Ohio State — 5.80M
Michigan — 4.37M
Notre Dame — 3.30M
Penn State — 3.05M
Clemson — 2.59M
Oregon — 2.21M
TCU — 2.20M
Southern Cal — 2.07M
Florida State — 2.03M
Nebraska — 1.98M
Michigan State — 1.91M
Maryland — 1.864M
Oklahoma State — 1.68M
UCLA — 1.591M
Wisconsin — 1.587M
Iowa — 1.50M
Baylor
Kansas State — 1.23M
Indiana — 1.19M
Illinois — 1.17M
Utah — 1.16M
Washington — 1.15M
Northwestern — 1.13
Minnesota — 1.05M
BYU — 997K
Navy — 976K
Washington State — 907K
Iowa State — 882K
NC State — 881K
Purdue -870K
California — 857K
North Carolina — 849K
Stanford — 846K
Syracuse — 841K
Georgia Tech — 837K
Missouri — 793K
West Virginia — 774K
Kansas — 732K
Army — 681K
Texas Tech — 680K
Cincinnati — 653K
Pittsburgh — 650K
Oregon State — 625K
Rutgers — 618K
Top available teams are Oregon, FSU, Utah, Washington. Cal & Stanford equate to Purdue and Syracuse. B1G presidents love their academics, but tv companies and ADs know that they add nothing.
Ohio State — 5.80M
Michigan — 4.37M
Notre Dame — 3.30M
Penn State — 3.05M
Clemson — 2.59M
Oregon — 2.21M
TCU — 2.20M
Southern Cal — 2.07M
Florida State — 2.03M
Nebraska — 1.98M
Michigan State — 1.91M
Maryland — 1.864M
Oklahoma State — 1.68M
UCLA — 1.591M
Wisconsin — 1.587M
Iowa — 1.50M
Baylor
Kansas State — 1.23M
Indiana — 1.19M
Illinois — 1.17M
Utah — 1.16M
Washington — 1.15M
Northwestern — 1.13
Minnesota — 1.05M
BYU — 997K
Navy — 976K
Washington State — 907K
Iowa State — 882K
NC State — 881K
Purdue -870K
California — 857K
North Carolina — 849K
Stanford — 846K
Syracuse — 841K
Georgia Tech — 837K
Missouri — 793K
West Virginia — 774K
Kansas — 732K
Army — 681K
Texas Tech — 680K
Cincinnati — 653K
Pittsburgh — 650K
Oregon State — 625K
Rutgers — 618K
If FSU is available then why isn't Clemson the top team available?
This is the metric that guides it all. I would think any further expansion will occur in pairs for scheduling and such. Oregon and Washington make sense today and that investment today will only grow with additional visibility being in the B1G in the future. I am not sure how Utah can fit into an expansion duo as a pair with Stanford or Cal to generate enough tv revenue, but I really think the B1G presidents will try their best to get Stanford into the conference.
2 reasons
1) fsu has been relatively down and still draws well. Clemson is riding a very successful past 5 years which may not continue if they jump.
2) the btn in Florida brings more $$$$ regardless if viewers watching fsu. That dwarfs Clemson
Yes and look at my last paragraph, that is what I'm saying about the long term financial boom that could or should happen. And that is why you need to look at it longer term. If you are PSU, wouldn't you agree to drop your share from $75 mil to $70 knowing it could go to $100 mil by 2030? Or it could go up sooner. Why can't the Big Ten go to their 3 media partners and say we just added UDub and Oregon, the current deal is undervalued and we need it to increase say $150mil per year to not have any dilution per school. Or at least by an amount that keeps the current schools whole while giving UDub and Oregon $40 million for 7 years.
I'm not saying they should be (I don't think the Big Ten wants either) but if we're basing it on that list Clemson should be first.
Remember one thing. These numbers are affected by opponents also. Any PAC12 team's average viewership would increase by joining the B2G, just as Rutgers, Purdue, Illinois would decline by joining the PAC12 and not playing PSU/tOSU/scUM.
Pac 12 teams UDub and Oregon ratings stay flat or go up marginally if they are playing a Rutgers or Illinois or Purdue vs an Arizona, Utah or Oregon State for example if they stay put. The big win here is they are now also playing all big ratings teams like OSU, Mich, PSU and USC if they join the Big 10 versus none of those teams exist in the Pac 9.
From the Big Ten standpoint, now you have bigger ratings games because instead if Rutgers vs Illinois you get Rutgers vs Oregon, for example. That is leverage with the media partners.
I would go further and say those Oregon vs Iowa, Nebraska, or Wisconsin are likewise big ratings games as well (and fascinating as well with the clash of styles.)
Yep, good point. Both Oregon and UDub elevate games with the current 2nd tier (from ratings perspective) B10 teams you reference, Iowa, Wisky, Nebby and throw in Sparty.
You are right. I neglected Sparty. Overall, there is definitely lots of potential to create more excitement.
I fully support the inclusion of UW and Oregon. The West and East coast teams need some relief in constantly traveling way more than they would with just UCLA and USC. We all know we'll get slammed with multiple West coast games based on the B1G scheduling shafting us yet again.
Would anyone not want an annual Penn State-Oregon game? Let's create interesting matchups instead of living in the past or thinking regionally.
College football likely eventually has a set up similar to the NFL. And most younger fans and those open to change will love the better games.
College football likely eventually has a set up similar to the NFL. And most younger fans and those open to change will love the better games.
I agree. I listed them as money losers just because that’s what’s been implied in reporting so far but you may be right about their increased value in a new conference. To be honest I have no problem with UDub or Oregon joining. Washington is a great road trip.
For the life of me, I just can’t understand the love many have for Cal and Stanford.
Academics definitely matter, but they don’t trump everything in this decision. You have to also have a pulse in football/ basketball for marketability. There needs to be a balance.
Academics don't truly matter at this point. This is a business and has been for decades. They're just finally getting g close to admitting that.
Although it's better to be in the Big 10 or SEC position right now in all of this, I think we should remember that there is no guarantee all this craziness turns out well in the long run. The college football that was very popular in the past is going to be very different in the future, so I see no guarantee that it will maintain its level of popularity. I'm not saying it won't either, I'm just saying I don't know.
Pretend for a minute PSU was not in one of the two glory conferences and was going to be left behind in all this. Here's the question to ask yourself. How interested would you be in watching the SEC and Big 10 in the future? Not very. What would be the point? Because it's better quality football, you say? Well the NFL is better quality football but lots of people like watching college football anyway and some of them don't even like watching the better quality football that is the NFL.
Since a lot of schools are going to be left behind, that's a lot of fans that may simply not be very interested. What would happen if they broke off and formed their own group?
Let''s use rough numbers. There are currently 133 FBS teams. Suppose the Big 10 and SEC stopped at 20, which is 40 total. And since new schools come up to FBS now and then, suppose 7 more did, making 140 total.
So we have 40 in the Big 10 / SEC and 100 others. What if those 100 others formed their own group, had their own playoffs and bowls and just declined to play Big 10 and SEC schools? Every Big 10 and SEC school would be forced to play two non-BCS opponents each year to get 7 homes games.
Also, that would be fans of 100 schools that aren't interested in the Big 10 and SEC. Of course, it's also fans of 40 Big 10 and SEC schools that aren't interested in those other 100, and many of those 40 are big name schools with a larger national following than most of the ones in the 100. But they got that national following not by playing only 39 other schools, but by being in the NCAA and playing or potentially playing anyone.
While the quality of play of the 40 teams would be higher, it would be less of a "national" league simply due to numbers. And 40 teams playing each other would probably get old more quickly than 100 teams playing each other.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer. I'm just saying that while it feels good to be in one of the two king conferences right now while everyone else is crapping their pants, big changes are afoot. Like Jim Morrison said, "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
Pretend for a minute PSU was not in one of the two glory conferences and was going to be left behind in all this. Here's the question to ask yourself. How interested would you be in watching the SEC and Big 10 in the future? Not very. What would be the point? Because it's better quality football, you say? Well the NFL is better quality football but lots of people like watching college football anyway and some of them don't even like watching the better quality football that is the NFL.
Since a lot of schools are going to be left behind, that's a lot of fans that may simply not be very interested. What would happen if they broke off and formed their own group?
Let''s use rough numbers. There are currently 133 FBS teams. Suppose the Big 10 and SEC stopped at 20, which is 40 total. And since new schools come up to FBS now and then, suppose 7 more did, making 140 total.
So we have 40 in the Big 10 / SEC and 100 others. What if those 100 others formed their own group, had their own playoffs and bowls and just declined to play Big 10 and SEC schools? Every Big 10 and SEC school would be forced to play two non-BCS opponents each year to get 7 homes games.
Also, that would be fans of 100 schools that aren't interested in the Big 10 and SEC. Of course, it's also fans of 40 Big 10 and SEC schools that aren't interested in those other 100, and many of those 40 are big name schools with a larger national following than most of the ones in the 100. But they got that national following not by playing only 39 other schools, but by being in the NCAA and playing or potentially playing anyone.
While the quality of play of the 40 teams would be higher, it would be less of a "national" league simply due to numbers. And 40 teams playing each other would probably get old more quickly than 100 teams playing each other.
I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm not trying to be a Debbie Downer. I'm just saying that while it feels good to be in one of the two king conferences right now while everyone else is crapping their pants, big changes are afoot. Like Jim Morrison said, "The future's uncertain and the end is always near."
I'd watch elite college football even if Penn State wasn't a part of it just like I watch other big games now.
40 teams playing each other is for better than 9 of our games coming from the Big Ten with two games against layups and a mid-level P5 team most years. It can only be better.
Getting in additional west coast teams makes travel worse not better for all of the Big Ten. It means many more games heading out that way for each team. And the conference doesn’t want to create any “division” or the like because the value for those teams is unlocked by playing the historical Big Ten teams, not other pacific coast teams.
Also bringing in UW/OU doesn’t help travel for the LA schools that much. Those are still plane rides.
Academics does matter but probably more as a baseline (the Big Ten wouldn’t invite Boise St) or maybe a tiebreaker between options than anything driving expansion. FSU not being AAU isn’t anything of consequence given they are a decent school.
If they bring on UW/OU, they should be able to sell the additional inventory as another package - I don’t even think the current partners would even have room except for Peacock. Could they sell something like 15 football games and 30 basketball games to ESPN exclusively for cable and get like $120-150M? Seems possible to me.
Well, you definitely have to be drinking to watch Stanford or Cal football.
If offered, Oregon Ducks will accept Big Ten invite, source says
UO would not hesitate in accepting the invite, according to sources.
UA approved to join the Big 12.
www.yahoo.com
Report: Big 12 approves Arizona’s application to join conference
Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger reported on Thursday evening that Big 12 executives met to approve Arizona’s application to the conference.
I mean no one is inviting Boise State but that has nothing to do with academics. If Boisr State had actual value (say Notre Dame had their level of academics) they'd be invited.
ESPN just went through a round of layoffs and Disney is looking to sell an ownership stake in order to raise funds…
Last edited:
Not sure I agree with either of those takes. First, what is a steep discount? I've heard $45 million thrown around with the ability to get to full share status later. That's way more than UW or Oregon could get anywhere else.
Can the Big Ten add UW and Oregon later? I don't think that's a given depending on what happens. And given the situation, this might be the best time to make the move.
I really don't agree. I was a road warrior for 30 years and I don't see it that way. the reality is that from the time you get up until the time you arrive at your hotel to rest again, the in-flight portion is minimal. I'd get up at 4am to get 6am flights. If I flew to Chicago, an hour in the air, total travel time was about 5 hours. (4am until 8am central time). If I went to LA or SFO, it was up at 4, leaving at 6 and landing at 7:30 Pacific, in the hotel at 8:30 am. About 4.5 hours in the air.
total up to the destination hotel for Chicago was 4 to 8 or 4 hours. total for LAX is 7.5 hours. Not only is that only a 3.5 hour difference, it is easy hours because I sat in a nice chair, watched a movie and surfed the internet.
jet lag is a bigger issue. But when I was between 18 and 23, lack of sleep was never an issue.
Which media partner have you heard that money is coming from?
No one here saw that coming. But it does signal the end of the PAC 7 or whatever is left. Oregon and Wash will be quickly looking for safe harbor from the storm. The B2G would be their best bet if invited……UA approved to join the Big 12.
Report: Big 12 approves Arizona’s application to join conference
Yahoo Sports’ Ross Dellenger reported on Thursday evening that Big 12 executives met to approve Arizona’s application to the conference.
Last edited:
Exactly. Would have been close to legal malpractice for the BIg lawyers not to seek escalator clauses or a right to re-negotiate the essential terms , ie. money, if the conference adds teams. What if we could pull off adding Notre Dame (a possibility, at least). Do you think that adds value to the TV rights contract? Would like to think there are contingencies in place in the TV contract given the fluid nature of conference realignment.
College football expansion: Oregon, Washington will leave Pac-12, join Big Ten
Before college football fans went to sleep on Thursday night, they learned that the Big 12 had voted to add Arizona to its conference, that Arizona State and
www.si.com
Extra 5 million in PAC contract now. Give or take.
Why didn't Big 12 go after Oregon and Washington?
Why didn't Big 12 go after Oregon and Washington?
My guess is that O and W didn’t want to be small fish in the Big lake. They are kings of the hil in the PAC… why give that up?
I don’t think Oregon and Washington are interested in the Big 12. They realize that being in the Big Ten at a discounted rate is better than being in the Big 12 as full members. And they don’t want to sign the GOR to be locked into the Big 12. They are fine with doing that for the PAC because that’s where they want to be.
