CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on August 02, 2023, 10:19:53 AM
-
With Colorado and the LA schools leaving for the B12 and B1G and the announcement of the Pac's pathetic proposed TV deal, every school in the league is certainly looking to abandon ship if they can find something better. The remaining members after the announced departures are:
- Arizona
- Arizona State
- Utah
- California
- Stanford
- Oregon
- Oregon State
- Washington
- Washington State
Each of them would of course love a B1G or SEC invite but IMHO the only plausible chances of that are the B1G taking some or all of California, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington.
The B12 is now at 13 members (once OK and TX depart and Colorado rejoins) with:
- Baylor
- BYU
- UCF
- Cincy
- Houston
- ISU
- Kansas
- KSU
- OkSU
- TCU
- TxTech
- WVU
- Colorado
So it is the B12's move. What will they do?
-
No good options for the remaining PAC teams. I would bet the PAC adds a few teams. The B12 might add a couple like Arizona, WSU, and SMU. The PAC is kind of like where the B12 was just after Texas and Oklahoma announced their departure.
-
If I were B12 commish I'd love to trim some of the weakest from the league but assuming that will not happen, I expand to a 20-team conference by adding:
- An easternish school ideally Pitt but Louisville and others would be considered.
- Air Force
- Either New Mexico or NmSt (whichever is a better brand)
- Either Arizona or Arizona State (better brand)
- Either Nevada or UNLV (better brand)
- SDSU
- Either Oregon, Washington, Stanford, or California depending on which is available and brand strength.
Split into four pods of five teams each:
Easternish pod:
- Pitt (or whatever school is added)
- WVU
- Cincy
- ISU
- UCF
Greater Texas pod:
- OkSU
- Baylor
- Houston
- TxTech
- TCU
Plains/Rockies pod:
- Kansas
- KSU
- Colorado
- Air Force
- BYU
West pod:
- NmSt/New Mexico
- Zona/ASU
- Nevada/UNLV
- Oregon/Washington/Stanford/California
- SDSU
That isn't going to keep up with the B1G/SEC but I think it would at least close to match the ACC and be definitively ahead of all others.
-
If I were B12 commish I'd love to trim some of the weakest from the league but assuming that will not happen, I expand to a 20-team conference by adding:
I'm sure every commish from every league would like to do that, but at $40M per year over 12 years, there's no way a "trimmed" school is going to walk away from half a billion dollars without a major legal battle. And that's just B12 dollars, when you move up to B1G money, you're talking more like a full billion dollars over that same 12 year span.
It's something that internet message board posters always like to suggest, but in reality it's an absolute non-starter.
Anyway looks like the B12 is trying to add AU and ASU for sure. Beyond that, it's unclear. Utah makes sense geographically with BYU already in the fold, but the Utes claim they're not going anywhere.
I'm sure the B12 would also find room for Oregon and Washington, but both of those schools are clearly hoping for an invitation to the B1G.
-
- Arizona - XII
- Arizona State - XII
- Utah - XII
- California - MWC
- Stanford - B1G
- Oregon - XII
- Oregon State - MWC
- Washington - XII
- Washington State - MWC
5 more to the XII.
1 B1G.
3 MWC.
-
I'm sure every commish from every league would like to do that, but at $40M per year over 12 years, there's no way a "trimmed" school is going to walk away from half a billion dollars without a major legal battle. And that's just B12 dollars, when you move up to B1G money, you're talking more like a full billion dollars over that same 12 year span.
It's something that internet message board posters always like to suggest, but in reality it's an absolute non-starter.
I agree completely, that was why I assumed that it would not happen in my post.
The B1G and SEC have some dead wood that they would be better off to trim as well:
- Tennessee doesn't warrant two major conference schools.
- Mississippi doesn't warrant two major conference schools
- Indiana doesn't warrant two major conference schools (three if you count ND but they have a more national appeal)
- Michigan probably doesn't warrant two major conference schools
- Illinois might not warrant two major conference schools
That said, the SEC and B1G have enough revenue that a few schools like these aren't a big issue. For the B12, supporting secondary schools in Iowa, and Kansas is more problematic.
Anyway looks like the B12 is trying to add AU and ASU for sure. Beyond that, it's unclear. Utah makes sense geographically with BYU already in the fold, but the Utes claim they're not going anywhere.
I'm sure the B12 would also find room for Oregon and Washington, but both of those schools are clearly hoping for an invitation to the B1G.
If I were B12 Commish I'd pass on one of the Arizona schools and take a New Mexico school instead. I'd also pass on Utah because BYU already brings in the Mormon/Utah market and probably has a lot more reach beyond locally.
5 more to the XII.
1 B1G.
3 MWC.
Five more to the XII takes them to 18.
I guess divisions of nine would work. Then you'd play eight divisional games and probably one cross-over.
-
I think it's a race to 20 for the XII.
You mention New Mexico. I'd say pass on that and take UNLV. Then take Boise State.
-
don't give a damn as long as none of them come to the B1G with the exception of Stanford. That's the only school from the dead Pac that potentially adds anything at all to the B1G and doesn't hurt the B1G. Adding Washington adds literally nothing and adding Oregon actually just hurts the B1G helmet brands like OSU, M, PSU, USC. A weakened Oregon in a subpar conference that eventually falls back to the wayside and in their rightful place as a back water is only a good thing for the B1G. Giving Oregon a lifeline and adding them to the B1G would be a disaster.
-
don't give a damn as long as none of them come to the B1G with the exception of Stanford. That's the only school from the dead Pac that potentially adds anything at all to the B1G and doesn't hurt the B1G. Adding Washington adds literally nothing and adding Oregon actually just hurts the B1G helmet brands like OSU, M, PSU, USC. A weakened Oregon in a subpar conference that eventually falls back to the wayside and in their rightful place as a back water is only a good thing for the B1G. Giving Oregon a lifeline and adding them to the B1G would be a disaster.
100 percent agree on all counts.
-
I think it's a race to 20 for the XII.
You mention New Mexico. I'd say pass on that and take UNLV. Then take Boise State.
Maybe New Mexico doesn't have the population to warrant adding either New Mexico or NmSt but Idaho is even less populous so I don't see Boise as a logical addition.
The City of San Diego has a population of 1.4M (would be #41 as a state) while San Diego County has 3.3M which would be #30 as a state, just ahead of Utah, Iowa, and Nevada and well ahead of Idaho. That is why I think the XII would be wise to add SDSU.
UNLV probably makes more sense than Nevada simply because Vegas is a lot bigger than Reno.
Utah's population is about equal to Iowa's. Granted, Utah is growing a lot faster but I don't think taking a second school from a state that size makes sense. The XII already has BYU and they probably have more national reach than Utah.
Apparently the Arizona schools have a common governing board so they might insist on both or neither but if the XII called their bluff and invited only one would they fold?
-
SDSU over Boise would be a better move, probably.
-
Apparently the Arizona schools have a common governing board so they might insist on both or neither but if the XII called their bluff and invited only one would they fold?
Yeah this is why I suggested both would be pursued by the B12. But if you didn't HAVE to take them both...
But the other thing to keep in mind, is that the weaker the PAC becomes, the better it is for the B12's long term survival. So in that sense, it might be worth taking both AZ schools, just to keep firing nails into that coffin.
And I'll also note that as a traditionalist, I hate having survival of the fittest conversations about college football conferences. I grew up watching and enjoying PAC football and the traditions and pageantry in that conference. But this is where we've landed in 2023.
-
As a Mountain Time Zone resident I was hoping that the Pac would add BYU and Boise, but now I have to root for Utah and the Arizona twins' migration to the craptastic Big 12.
-
Yeah this is why I suggested both would be pursued by the B12. But if you didn't HAVE to take them both...
But the other thing to keep in mind, is that the weaker the PAC becomes, the better it is for the B12's long term survival. So in that sense, it might be worth taking both AZ schools, just to keep firing nails into that coffin.
And I'll also note that as a traditionalist, I hate having survival of the fittest conversations about college football conferences. I grew up watching and enjoying PAC football and the traditions and pageantry in that conference. But this is where we've landed in 2023.
Same. And it's Larry Scott's fault that the PAC is where it is.
15 years ago, I could not imagine this happening. We are about to enter a time where there is no more PAC. Sad.
Probably just as sad as when the SWC crumbled.
-
Yeah this is why I suggested both would be pursued by the B12. But if you didn't HAVE to take them both...
But the other thing to keep in mind, is that the weaker the PAC becomes, the better it is for the B12's long term survival. So in that sense, it might be worth taking both AZ schools, just to keep firing nails into that coffin.
And I'll also note that as a traditionalist, I hate having survival of the fittest conversations about college football conferences. I grew up watching and enjoying PAC football and the traditions and pageantry in that conference. But this is where we've landed in 2023.
I agree on both counts. I'd rather TX and OU stay in the XII, the LA twins stay in the Pac, etc but that ship has sailed and these, as you so aptly put it, "survival of the fittest conversations about college football" are what is left.
I agree that weakening the Pac is in the general interests of the XII but I see that as a shorter term consideration. The Pac is on life support, I think the XII already won that battle. When the dust settles they are, IMHO, going to have two concerns:
- Being strong enough that the ACC can't poach from them, and
- Being as close to competitive with the SEC/B1G as possible.
That is where I think you want the strongest collection of teams going forward.
Arizona is the 14th most populous state with 7.2M. That is roughly equivalent to Indiana (#17 with 6.8M) and I already said that I don't think Indiana warrants two major conference schools. Arizona is growing faster but I also don't know that even a much more populous state like Ohio (#7 with 11.8M) or even Illinois (#6 with 12.8M) warrants two major conference schools.
I guess if I'm the XII after reconsidering I'd add:
That gets them to 16 with a footprint of:
- California, SDSU
- Arizona, probably Zona
- Nevada, UNLV
- Utah, BYU
- Colorado, UC
- Oklahoma, OkSU
- Kansas, KU, KSU
- Texas, TCU, TxTech, Houston, Baylor
- Florida, UCF
- West Virginia, WVU
- Ohio, Cincy
- Iowa, ISU
Then I'd offer Oregon, Washington, California, and Stanford. I'd assume that the B1G would probably take at least one of those but I'd be happy to get any that I could. If I lost one of those last four to the B1G, I'd probably replace them with Air Force but I'd have to look at Air Force's ratings #'s. Maybe Boise or another California school.
-
Same. And it's Larry Scott's fault that the PAC is where it is.
15 years ago, I could not imagine this happening. We are about to enter a time where there is no more PAC. Sad.
Probably just as sad as when the SWC crumbled.
Yup I grew up with the SWC through all of my formative years, plus the legends of that conference echoing around from the 50 years before I was born. I was definitely sad to see it go.
-
If I am an Arizona fan, why am I going to tune into an Arizona State game. Sure, it is on my cable system, but my team isn't playing.
-
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-big-ten-has-begun-preliminary-talks-to-potentially-add-oregon-washington-cal-and-stanford-173934989.html
This does not mean it's happening it just means they are talking
-
And I'll also note that as a traditionalist, I hate having survival of the fittest conversations about college football conferences. I grew up watching and enjoying PAC football and the traditions and pageantry in that conference. But this is where we've landed in 2023.
This reminds me of the old History Channel show "The Real West" where at the start the indian voice narrates:
"In that time when there were only simple ways I saw with my heart the conflicts to come and whether it was to be for or for bad what was certain was that there would be change"
They have really faffed up a good thing - they couldn't leave well enough alone.Had to destroy all of the natural/regional/time honored traditions and rivalries. Never enough is there? - not for the corporate whores,let's faff up just one thing there may be money in it
-
I look at realignment as the ultimate competition. It's one thing to win actual games its another to have what it takes to be a member of one of the highest rated conferences. In this case I guess highest rated means who makes the most money, unless you decide you don't want to play by those rules like the Ivy League did.
-
https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-big-ten-has-begun-preliminary-talks-to-potentially-add-oregon-washington-cal-and-stanford-173934989.html
This does not mean it's happening it just means they are talking
would be a disaster. please, god no.
-
If I were B12 Commish I'd pass on one of the Arizona schools and take a New Mexico school instead.
Uhhhhhhh....what?
There's ZERO reason to do this unless you have OCD and want that pretty, filled map. None whatsoever. It's the worst idea, ever.
-
This reminds me of the old History Channel show "The Real West" where at the start the indian voice narrates:
"In that time when there were only simple ways I saw with my heart the conflicts to come and whether it was to be for or for bad what was certain was that there would be change"
They have really faffed up a good thing - they couldn't leave well enough alone.Had to destroy all of the natural/regional/time honored traditions and rivalries. Never enough is there? - not for the corporate whores,let's faff up just one thing there may be money in it
Amen.
I'd peg 1993 as the best year of college football organization.
A fully-formed Big East, Pac-10, Big 10 w/ PSU, Big 8, SEC, ACC w/ FSU, the SWC was still around, with BYU in the WAC.
.
Could have had an 8-team playoff with the 7 major conference champs and the "G5-type" highest-ranked team hosting a big-boy at-large team as a play-in game.
-
no need to ruin the 93 season with a playoff
-
no need to ruin the 93 season with a playoff
Then ND fans could shut up.
1. FSU (ACC champ)
2. Nebraska (Big 8 champ)
3. West Virginia (Big East champ)
4. Notre Dame (ind, hosts at-large in play-in game)
5. Auburn (probation, could be at-large, or not, if you want them ineligible)
6. Tennessee (would be at-large if Auburn isn't)
7. Texas A&M (SWC champ)
8. Florida (SEC champ)
9. Wisconsin (Big Ten co-champ, tied OSU, but UW went to RB)
10. Miami OUT
11. OSU OUT
12. UNC OUT
13 Penn St OUT
14 UCLA (PAC-10 champ)
That's the top 14 in the AP poll. Your 8 teams are within the top 14. If I put Auburn in:
Auburn @ ND play-in game
(winner is seeded where they're ranked, not screwing the 1 seed)
1 FSU vs 8-seed UCLA
4 ND (say they won) vs 5 Texas A&M
3 WV vs 6 Florida
2 Nebraska vs 7 Wisconsin
.
ND beat A&M in real life, as did Florida over WV (big).
FSU would whip UCLA and Nebraska-Wiscy is a good game.
-
Can I ask a "holy shit" question?
.
Before signing anything or announcing anything, would the B1G at least make a phone call to say, Florida and Texas?
Athletic/academic programs that would melt everyone's minds if they got them.....
.
Could you imagine?
-
I can still see Boo Hoo Lou with his neck brace on whining from 93
the Domer fans can just STFU
Husker fans didn't whine
too much
Well, not about the MNC, just about a handful of calls in the Orange Bowl
-
yup, the Big Ten commish should always make a couple calls to better options before doing anything
Maybe Texas and Oklahoma would like to talk
-
If you're adding anyone at all (and they should jettison teams, not add), I'd be fine with Oregon and Washington. Each has something to offer from a football front and passable history in basketball.
Cal and Stanford should probably go the WAC, or Big XXIV if it will take them. OrSU and WSU are in the same boat, though probably more attractive to to the Big XXIV.
The issue with all of this is that it creates a product that appeal to a broad "college football fan" while ignoring that the sport lives and dies with team-specific fans. And to maintain your proper volume of happy and therefore donating fans, bodybag games have a crucial value. It's like expanding the old SEC West problem.
-
I always see Stanford linked with Cal and Washington linked with Oregon.
If I was the B1G, I'd want Stanford and Washington.
I think Warshington's academics + football puts it a step above Oregon (as a B1G person valuing academics so much).
-
If you're adding anyone at all (and they should jettison teams, not add), I'd be fine with Oregon and Washington. Each has something to offer from a football front and passable history in basketball.
Lol no. Neither one adds jackshit at all. And Oregon actually detracts and hurts the helmets of the league- you know the teams that bring in all the tv dollars and prop the whole damn thing up....
B1G needs to look to the Southeast- that's where the growth in this country is. Not the fking Pacific Northwest.
-
Those ACC teams, despite recent talk, are still tied up until 2036.
Idk what FSU thinks it's doing, but I doubt it's going to do it.
-
I'm pretty sure that FSU's attorneys would very much like FSU's administrators to STFU.
-
I think Warshington's academics + football puts it a step above Oregon (as a B1G person valuing academics so much).
Who are we bullshitting when it comes to sports? We can take the sharpest kids and they will lose a lion's share of time in pratice/work outs/conditioning/playbook - at Div.I level. Time other students would be dedicating/applying to class load and studies. So athletes involved are way behind the 8 ball in cracking books to begin with,I never understood that position
-
Illinois should move to Destin
-
I'm not sure what the endgame is, but keep this in mind:
Washington and Oregon are not tied together at all.
UW has historically treated WSU and the Oregon schools the same way the U of Michigan has traditionally treated Michigan State: with rank contempt. Stanford and Cal are a package deal. UW has always considered themselves peers with the California Pac schools.
-
Lol no. Neither one adds jackshit at all. And Oregon actually detracts and hurts the helmets of the league- you know the teams that bring in all the tv dollars and prop the whole damn thing up....
B1G needs to look to the Southeast- that's where the growth in this country is. Not the fking Pacific Northwest.
I’m sure the answer will be amusing, but why does Oregon detract from the helmets?
-
UW has always considered the other Pac schools in the Northwest to be gassed up, overgrown truck driving schools that don't even belong with the local community colleges. And having been to Eugene, if Phil Knight wasn't cutting large checks to the university, they'd be right.
-
I’m sure the answer will be amusing, but why does Oregon detract from the helmets?
Recruiting with Nike money.
-
Recruiting with Nike money.
So the UW-Maryland issue of yesteryear?
-
UA money does not equal Nike money and it hasn't helped MD all that much anyway.
Oregon has a national brand because of Nike money. They do not need to be in this conference.
Let the XII have them.
-
UA money does not equal Nike money and it hasn't helped MD all that much anyway.
Oregon has a national brand because of Nike money. They do not need to be in this conference.
Let the XII have them.
Ahh, so of a feelings thing. Got it.
-
What does Oregon do for the B1G?
-
hell, UCLA does nothing
USC is good, Notre Dame is good
the rest take more than they give
-
hell, UCLA does nothing
USC is good, Notre Dame is good
the rest take more than they give
UCLA can legitimately be called out as a necessary "travel partner" for USC. I'd be surprised if USC were willing to break without them, so the B1G didn't have any choice there.
But the idea that Oregon or Washington could also be called out as legitimate "travel partners" for the LA schools, with distances between them of ~1000 and ~1100 miles, is silly.
Sure they're in the same timezone, but that timezone is undesirable for the broadcast of college football, which is among the driving reasons for the failure of the PAC in the first place. Nobody out there watches football, they just don't care.
-
not much value in a travel partner
-
hell, UCLA does nothing
USC is good, Notre Dame is good
the rest take more than they give
FSU adds value.
Miami adds value.
-
their TV ratings are much better than the B1G average?
if so, is it significant enough to leverage contract negotiations with the networks?
-
What does Oregon do for the B1G?
Washington is the 13th most populous state with 7.7M.
Oregon is the 27th most populous state with 4.2M.
In between them are the following B1G states:
- #17 IN, 6.8M
- #18 MD, 6.2M
- #20 WI, 5.9M
- #22 MN, 5.7M
Less populous than both are two B1G states:
Both Washington and Oregon saw their populations grow by double digits from 2010-2020. Washington and Oregon were 8th and 12th respectively in rate of population growth from 2010-2020 with growth rates of 14.6% and 10.6%. By way of comparison the fastest growing B1G state over that period was Minnesota at 7.6%. Illinois lost population from 2010-2020 while Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were among the slowest growing states with growth rates of <3%.
In terms of research spending (2021 figures):
- Washington was #5 at $1.5B
- Stanford was #9 at $1.3B
- California was #32 at $0.8B
- Oregon was #149 at $0.1B
Current B1G schools and B1G schools to be:
- #3 Michigan, $1.6B (note, #1 and 2 do not have FBS football)
- #6 UCLA, $1.5B
- #8 Wisconsin, $1.4B
- #12 Ohio State, $1.2B
- #17 Maryland, $1.1B
- #22 Minnesota, $1.1B
- #26 Penn State, $1.0B
- #28 USC, $1.0B
- #30 Northwestern, $0.9B
- #37 Illinois, $0.7B
- #39 Michigan State, $0.7B
- #40 Indiana, $0.7B
- #41 Purdue, $0.7B
- #45 Rutgers $0.6B
- #50 Iowa, $0.6B
- #87 Nebraska, $0.3B
I'd say take Washington and Stanford.
-
not much value in a travel partner
Y'all wanted USC, you had to take UCLA to get them. No different than wanting to drive the BTN onto cable networks in NY, and having to take Rutgers to get that done. Just business. Not sure why all you B1G types keep on thinking you should be able to get the benefit without paying the price. It's odd.
-
Washington is the 13th most populous state with 7.7M.
Oregon is the 27th most populous state with 4.2M.
In between them are the following B1G states:
- #17 IN, 6.8M
- #18 MD, 6.2M
- #20 WI, 5.9M
- #22 MN, 5.7M
Less populous than both are two B1G states:
Both Washington and Oregon saw their populations grow by double digits from 2010-2020. Washington and Oregon were 8th and 12th respectively in rate of population growth from 2010-2020 with growth rates of 14.6% and 10.6%. By way of comparison the fastest growing B1G state over that period was Minnesota at 7.6%. Illinois lost population from 2010-2020 while Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were among the slowest growing states with growth rates of <3%.
In terms of research spending (2021 figures):
- Washington was #5 at $1.5B
- Stanford was #9 at $1.3B
- California was #32 at $0.8B
- Oregon was #149 at $0.1B
Current B1G schools and B1G schools to be:
- #3 Michigan, $1.6B (note, #1 and 2 do not have FBS football)
- #6 UCLA, $1.5B
- #8 Wisconsin, $1.4B
- #12 Ohio State, $1.2B
- #17 Maryland, $1.1B
- #22 Minnesota, $1.1B
- #26 Penn State, $1.0B
- #28 USC, $1.0B
- #30 Northwestern, $0.9B
- #37 Illinois, $0.7B
- #39 Michigan State, $0.7B
- #40 Indiana, $0.7B
- #41 Purdue, $0.7B
- #45 Rutgers $0.6B
- #50 Iowa, $0.6B
- #87 Nebraska, $0.3B
I'd say take Washington and Stanford.
I'd perform the analysis with television ratings normalized by school, rather than state population or research dollars, which are irrelevant to conference realignment.
Despite growing populations on the West Coast, the television ratings aren't following. And that's been the biggest problem leading to the PAC's failure.
-
I was reading something last night somebody shared on FB (so we know 90+% gotta be lies) about private groups getting in this "game"... the idea being a group could sponsor and become a conference by poaching schools from whatever conference(s) and build a true super conference... nothing to do with geographics nor tradition- all on the money...
Right now the conferences are weak in terms of susceptibility to realignment... its as good an opportunity as any. If there is any validity to this, weird stuff could happen and the game as we know it could truly be wrecked.
-
What does Oregon do for the B1G?
When I look for an expansion candidate, I look for two things. Consistent ability to feel good and occasionally great teams and a fan base that will give/watch/support. having a good number of people who give a shit is important in my mind.
Of the remaining Pac 12 teams, Oregon is probably second in that regard. Certainly higher than UCLA. (Utah would be fun for stylistic reasons, but obviously struggles on the support front)
obviously if the choice was between Oregon and certain southern teams, I’m probably going with the southern team. Although I would be wary of Miami (not many fans, only modest recent success). FSU is interesting because I think the power of its alumni base is only gonna grow, even if it comes attached to FSU nonsense.
-
Why does the Big Ten, or anybody want to move so fast on all this? When it comes to the Pac 12’s leftovers, the ball is in the conference’s court; the conferences can play the waiting game if they want.
In the bigger picture the conference hierarchies are already established within college football and the Big 10 is a clear cut #2 outside of striking range from #1 or falling to #3 no matter what schools end up where. Why not sit back and watch the dust settle? Having a quick-strike meeting to potentially invite Oregon, who adds nothing to the Big Ten, seems an unecessary and even regrettable arms race.
https://twitter.com/jasonscheer/status/1686865543050166278
-
Why does the Big Ten, or anybody want to move so fast on all this? When it comes to the Pac 12’s leftovers, the ball is in the conference’s court; the conferences can play the waiting game if they want.
Ed Zachery
the Big can take any B12 team it wants at anytime in the future
the only teams that are safe from the B1G are teams in the SEC
the SEC isn't interested in ANY PAC programs or any programs west of the Mississippi river
-
Yeah, we wanted Oklahoma and had to take Texas in the deal, travel partner or something.
-
https://twitter.com/RedditCFB/status/1686946798902857729?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1686946798902857729%7Ctwgr%5E6bf63d99b52134cb3aca261a0cb59df0fc821de5%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fredditcfb%2Fstatus%2F1686946798902857729%3Fs%3D4626t%3D3XI9MY1N4HCvyGOQstrA7A
-
Ron Swanson is my spirit animal.
-
Big Ten Doesn't Want To Deliver 'Final Blow' To The Pac-12 (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/big-ten-doesn-t-want-to-deliver-final-blow-to-the-pac-12/ar-AA1eHuON?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=77ab8910380b4fc68bd72ee18edab202&ei=16)
Ummm... they did that last year.
-
Big Ten Doesn't Want To Deliver 'Final Blow' To The Pac-12 (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/big-ten-doesn-t-want-to-deliver-final-blow-to-the-pac-12/ar-AA1eHuON?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=77ab8910380b4fc68bd72ee18edab202&ei=16)
Ummm... they did that last year.
Yeah I've seen a lot of opinion pieces saying similar dumb things. The B1G poached USC and UCLA. The death blow has already been delivered.
-
I guess one could call that the major blow, and then there would be the final blow ...
The Pac could survive if they don't lose more teams as a something, but if two more leave ...
-
Yeah I've seen a lot of opinion pieces saying similar dumb things. The B1G poached USC and UCLA. The death blow has already been delivered.
Huh, I've never seen an opinion piece saying dumb things ...
(I'm sure you notice how they get a lot more play by saying dumb things than not.)
-
This is a ranking of research spending by institutions (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd).
There are some things that are goofy. For instance, every time we discuss this, @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) points out that Texas and their medical school are listed separately.
This matters, IMHO, because the B1G is not just an athletic conference but also a research consortium. When we B1G types talk about academics, this is what we are talking about. Undergraduate rankings are nice (and generally loosely follow this) but that is not where the big money is. The money, way more than football even, is in research.
When making the list below, I've left out institutions that do not field FBS teams (such as #1 John's Hopkins) and tried to combine things like the aforementioned Texas and their medical school.
2021 Research spending by schools that compete at the FBS level in football:
- $1.9B, Texas (their med school is #19 at $1.1B and the rest of the school is #35 at $800M) SEC
- $1.6B, Michigan B1G
- $1.5B, Washington Should be invited
- $1.5B, UCLA B1G
- $1.4B, Wisconsin B1G
- $1.3B, Stanford Should be invited
- $1.2B, DOOK ACC
- $1.2B, Ohio State B1G
- $1.2B, North Carolina Should be invited
- $1.1B, aTm SEC
- $1.1B, Maryland B1G
- $1.1, PITT ACC
- $1.1B, GaTech ACC
- $1.1B, Minnesota B1G
- $1.0B, Vanderbilt SEC
- $1.0B, Penn State B1G
- $1.0B, Florida SEC
- $1.0B, USC B1G
- $913M, Northwestern B1G
- $847M, California PAC
- $770M, Arizona PAC?
- $766M Baylor (includes medical which is nearly all of the total)
- $731M, Illinois B1G
- $710M, Michigan State B1G
- $695M, Indiana B1G
- $679M, Purdue B1G
The B1G absolutely dominates this list. USC and UCLA further that dominance. Washington and Stanford would as well.
-
obviously if the choice was between Oregon and certain southern teams, I’m probably going with the southern team. Although I would be wary of Miami (not many fans, only modest recent success). FSU is interesting because I think the power of its alumni base is only gonna grow, even if it comes attached to FSU nonsense.
fans in the stadiums don't matter. tv market size & recruiting should be the only concerns, period.
Miami is literally always just one good coach away from being an elite football program. why? they are sitting on the most fertile recruiting grounds in the entire fkn country.
Miami should be #1 on the B1G's wishlist with a bullet. And it's not even remotely close.
Again, Oregon adds LITERALLY NOTHING and only hurts USC, M, OSU, PSU. B1G needs to figure out how to drive Oregon football into the fkn ground and let them die the death they deserve. Why on EARTH would anyone with half a brain cell ever think about throwing Oregon a life line and letting them into the B1G? Would be absolutely retarded. Beyond retarded.
-
@Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) , please stop holding back and tell us how you really feel.
-
It's funny because it is now exactly what I expect the B1G to do... :)
-
Two things I still think do not matter are recruiting grounds and research spending, and yes, I could be way off on that.
-
Two things I still think do not matter are recruiting grounds and research spending, and yes, I could be way off on that.
On the research spending front, the rumor that yhe B1G is considering Oregon supports your theory. If it matters, they will NOT be seriously considered as their research spending is even worse than Notre Dame.
-
Could making the idea public that Oregon is on the table be a veiled threat to Stanford? I.e. "We really want you and Washington, but we'd take Oregon and Washington, and there are only so many possible seats on this bus. So if you don't want to be left out in the cold, the clock is ticking to say yes..."
-
Two things I still think do not matter are recruiting grounds and research spending, and yes, I could be way off on that.
tv revenue is all that matters. that will drive the expansion. California is the most populous state in the US and LA is a massive tv market- second only to NYC. Florida is already the 3rd most populous state in the US and is also maybe the fastest growing state- and the South FL tv market has got to be a top 5 or 10 in the entire US. Those things matter. Oregon and Washington do not offer jackshit in the way of tv markets, population, or growth. Therefore they offer nothing when it comes to expansion. Adding either of them makes zero sense.
research spending for sure does not and should not matter.
recruiting factors in the equation, for sure, but it is obviously secondary. if you don't think B1G adding UCLA & USC to tap into LA 'crootin didn't factor at all in that decision you're sadly mistaken.
lockdown FSU & Miami and B1G footprint/presence is entrenched in the #1 (Florida) and #3 (California) states for football talent (you know- the only sport that matters- and drives this whole damn thing) and in the #1 (Miami) and #2 (LA) metros for football talent.
-
Could making the idea public that Oregon is on the table be a veiled threat to Stanford? I.e. "We really want you and Washington, but we'd take Oregon and Washington, and there are only so many possible seats on this bus. So if you don't want to be left out in the cold, the clock is ticking to say yes..."
honestly think it could be a smokescreen. B1G made huge splash move by adding USC/UCLA. I think they are going to swing for the fences. That's ND, that's Miami/FSU. That is NOT motherfkn Oregon or Washington....
-
Could making the idea public that Oregon is on the table be a veiled threat to Stanford? I.e. "We really want you and Washington, but we'd take Oregon and Washington, and there are only so many possible seats on this bus. So if you don't want to be left out in the cold, the clock is ticking to say yes..."
No one should want Stanford.
-
No one should want Stanford.
I've heard folks float the idea of bringing Stanford in as an enticement to Notre Dame. I have no idea whether or not that's something that might really draw Notre Dame, but internet rumors are gonna rumor. :)
-
I heard a rumor that most rumors are made up silliness ... I don't know if that is true.
-
sports is literally the only thing people watch on live tv anymore. out of the top 100 most watched programs on live tv last year, 87 of them were football games. 87%. 82 NFL games and 5 college games. 6 of the top 10 most watched live tv programs- were- you guessed it football games.
football tv ratings and football tv ratings alone will drive this crap. research dollars mean nothing. basketball means nothing- for fk sake Duke- yes Duke- makes more money from football than they do basketball.
this article from a year ago...some of the info is a few years old, but my guess is the #'s for today would be pretty similar.
these are the top 25 most viewed college football programs (weekly average viewers) on tv from 2015-2019 (https://chopchat.com/2022/07/02/fsu-football-tv-viewership-still-top-15-nationally-depsite-last-five-years/);
1) Ohio State (5.19M)
2) Alabama (5.09M)
3) Michigan (4.18M)
4) Notre Dame (3.61M)
5) LSU (3.22M)
6) Auburn (3.12M)
7) Georgia (2.91M)
8) Oklahoma (2.90M)
9) Clemson (2.67M)
10) Penn State (2.55M)
11) Florida (2.46M)
12) Wisconsin (2.27M)
13) Texas (2.269M)
14) Florida State (2.23M)
15) Michigan State (2.20M)
16) Southern Cal (1.98M)
17) Texas A&M (1.851M)
18) Tennessee (1.849M)
19) Oklahoma State (1.64M)
20) Mississippi (1.61M)
21) Iowa (1.57M)
22) Nebraska (1.51M)
23) Miami (1.503M)
24) TCU (1.495M)
25) Stanford (1.43M)
FSU & Miami both have remained top 25 in this time period, despite mostly sucking from 2015-2019 and really both sucking since about 2004- with exception of FSU having a couple great years with Jameis Winston. Either of them ever get really good again, their tv ratings would easily surge. Stanford in the top 25 is a bit of a surprise. Clemson was elite as it gets during this run- yet still barely cracked the top 10. Weird....don't see Oregon or Washington lol.
-
fans in the stadiums don't matter. tv market size & recruiting should be the only concerns, period.
Miami is literally always just one good coach away from being an elite football program. why? they are sitting on the most fertile recruiting grounds in the entire fkn country.
Miami should be #1 on the B1G's wishlist with a bullet. And it's not even remotely close.
In the era of cord cutting and the end of the cable bundle, TV markets will lose their value. And I’m not talking about fans filling stadiums, I’m talking about fans who consume and put money into the product. That has value.
Miami is a set of insane rich fans, no one else giving a shit and stories about the “state of Miami,” from back before the internet. They might be a good add, but they’re not as good an add as FSU because they are dysfunctional and lack a base of actual humans who care how they do. Shit, they’re in a dogshit division and have made one conference title game. Pitt and Wake each have twice as many. And the big ten’s gotta slurp slurp slurp because man that 2001 team was something. It’s a rickety program that steps on its own dick.
As for recruiting, you can recruit Miami from afar just fine. The SEC does pretty well. UNC isn’t grabbing good South Beach talent because it’s goes there twice a year. Go pay up like Bama has been for a long time.
(That’s not to say they wouldn’t have value, but not this raging hard on value I’m seeing here)
-
No one should want Stanford.
they have better weekly average tv ratings than either Oregon or Washington, and they are in a much larger more important metro/tv market than either Washington or Oregon. Stanford is a MUCH more attractive option than those other two shitholes, if we're talking strictly the dead Pac scraps here.
-
they have better weekly average tv ratings than either Oregon or Washington, and they are in a much larger more important metro/tv market than either Washington or Oregon. Stanford is a MUCH more attractive option than those other two shitholes, if we're talking strictly the dead Pac scraps here.
They’re basically the same. Oregon is one spot back. Washington three.
Here’s a question, you watch more Hurricanes football than Michigan football, right? And probably watch some FIU football too?
-
In the era of cord cutting and the end of the cable bundle, TV markets will lose their value. And I’m not talking about fans filling stadiums, I’m talking about fans who consume and put money into the product. That has value.
Miami is a set of insane rich fans, no one else giving a shit and stories about the “state of Miami,” from back before the internet. They might be a good add, but they’re not as good an add as FSU because they are dysfunctional and lack a base of actual humans who care how they do. Shit, they’re in a dogshit division and have made one conference title game. Pitt and Wake each have twice as many. And the big ten’s gotta slurp slurp slurp because man that 2001 team was something. It’s a rickety program that steps on its own dick.
As for recruiting, you can recruit Miami from afar just fine. The SEC does pretty well. UNC isn’t grabbing good South Beach talent because it’s goes there twice a year. Go pay up like Bama has been for a long time.
(That’s not to say they wouldn’t have value, but not this raging hard on value I’m seeing here)
wrong. they aren't losing their value- they have already lost their value for everything except....live sports- but more specifically football. Football is literally the only thing people watch live in the US anymore. that makes it a MORE valuable commodity, not less. 87% of the top 100 most watched live programs in US last year? Football games. why do you think the money for the B1G and SEC in their new tv rights deals have been record breaking? Bc those two entities control the media rights to football programs that people watch the living fkng shit out of.
Miami despite it's lackluster success and sucking ass for the last 20 years still brings in top 25 weekly average ratings. that makes them one of the 25 most valuable assets in college football and a prime target for expansion. Unlike Washington or Oregon- couple a dogshit options they are.
-
They’re basically the same. Oregon is one spot back. Washington three.
Here’s a question, you watch more Hurricanes football than Michigan football, right? And probably watch some FIU football too?
No, they're not basically the same. They are both behind Stanford. Stanford. A small private research school that only the elite and fking nerdiest of nerds get into, that has sucked ass at football for fking ever with the exception of an 8 year run started by Jeem and continued on for 5-6 years by Shaw before he inevitably crashed and burned. They legit have no business whatsoever averaging higher weekly tv ratings than public state schools that most anyone can get into like Oregon or Washington- that both have better track records of winning in football than Stanford. That tells me one thing; that Washington and Oregon are dogshit options.
You're kidding yourself if you don't think TV/B1G execs aren't salivating at FSU-Ohio State/Mich/PSU/USC or Miami-Ohio St/Mich/PSU/USC matchups. Both of those type of series would bring in FAR more eye balls than Washington or Oregon vs Ohio State/Mich/PSU/USC. And that is what will drive this next round of tv expansion- potential for higher ratings.
-
wrong. they aren't losing their value- they have already lost their value for everything except....live sports- but more specifically football. Football is literally the only thing people watch live in the US anymore. that makes it a MORE valuable commodity, not less. 87% of the top 100 most watched live programs in US last year? Football games. why do you think the money for the B1G and SEC in their new tv rights deals have been record breaking? Bc those two entities control the media rights to football programs that people watch the living fkng shit out of.
Miami despite it's lackluster success and sucking ass for the last 20 years still brings in top 25 weekly average ratings. that makes them one of the 25 most valuable assets in college football and a prime target for expansion. Unlike Washington or Oregon- couple a dogshit options they are.
That first part is true. But I didn't say it was less valuable. I said "TV markets" are less valuable. And the reason for that is because this isn't 2010 when you were limited by your cable setup. It's 2023. If you want to watch CFB, you an do it from anywhere. You're in Miami, more than a thousand miles from the Big Ten. And you can watch every Michigan game you want. Even the ones on the "regional" network. The value is that people will pay for this product, so it helps to bring in more people who will pay for it.
And Miami is not all that higher in terms of people who seek out and pay for it. They're a lovely brand for the casual viewer. And people might pay if they play like it's 1991. But for the moment, they don't
And even more beautifully, those TV numbers you listed tell us that. Miami is No. 23. Stanford 25 (honestly WTF), Oregon 26 and Washington 28. Now you might babble on about how those few spots are meaningful, but in reality, they point out what fools gold Miami is. See, that ranking is average ratings. And we can go back to the basics and remember that ratings of West Coast games have a certain penalty because they kick off at 10:45. So Miami, playing when the whole country is awake is slightly edging out teams that play 75% of their games when well over half the country is in bed. That would be bad.
I'm not here arguing if it comes down to one team, Oregon should be in over Miami. On that front, I'd maybe lean Miami. Maybe. But if Miami is the crown jewel, best close up shop. Ain't much selection in the market today. Go steal the Gators or something.
-
I personally would rather have FSU and Clemson than Miami in "my" conference. But we don't care none about dem akademicals.
-
I personally would rather have FSU and Clemson than Miami in "my" conference. But we don't care none about dem akademicals.
my guess here is Florida would do everything in it's power to block FSU from ever joining the SEC.
oh...and you are correct akademicals and research $$$ mean nothing in the expansion talks. it's all about tv dollars.
ND is the crown jewel out there for any conference because they bring the largest tv audience. But man do I just really hate them.
-
Greg McElroy nails it here. West coast = useless, worthless to the B1G. Southeast = where the $$$$$ at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzpbcbDuyGU
-
ND is the crown jewel out there for any conference because they bring the largest tv audience. But man do I just really hate them.
Even though I gave up on the Bears a long time ago, I still root against the Packers.
Even though I gave on having an active college sports fandom a year and a half ago, I still hate ND.
-
Even though I gave up on the Bears a long time ago, I still root against the Packers.
Even though I gave on having an active college sports fandom a year and a half ago, I still hate ND.
and therefore you might watch their game hoping for a loss
adding value to their product
probably similar to the Canes
-
I'm not sure what the biggest name left on the board is, but Notre Dame is not it.
Miami is a do not want. The only thing they add to the league is contraband and tropical cyclone research.
As for research funding, the reason we keep bringing it up is that it dwarfs the athletics budgets by at least a full order of magnitude.
-
Research funding can be large, and entirely irrelevant to the discussion. University A does not benefit from having University B with some huge research budget in the same conference. That isn't how it works.
-
yup, Notre Dame is easily the biggest name on the board
because TV ratings. That is the goal here. TV $$$ is shared by the conference.
If a program's TV ratings aren't above average for the conference there's little reason to invite them.
Perhaps their TV ratings will improve dramatically with membership?
UNL is getting more research $$ today because of membership in the Big 10. But that is a main reason UNL wanted membership, not the reason the B1G wanted UNL.
-
Edit: Arizona is now almost gone, moving to the Big 12 in 2024. They have decided to leave and the Big 12 has accepted their application.
The main thing holding up an official announcement is they are waiting for Arizona State to make a decision. They want to make sure that if ASU wants to join the Big 12, the Big 12 would have to take the 2 as a package.
-
Arizona to Big 12? Wildcats expected to soon follow Colorado in leaving Pac-12 for greener pastures - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/arizona-to-big-12-wildcats-expected-to-soon-follow-colorado-in-leaving-pac-12-for-greener-pastures/)
Not quite yet.
-
I'm not sure what the biggest name left on the board is, but Notre Dame is not it.
Miami is a do not want. The only thing they add to the league is contraband and tropical cyclone research.
As for research funding, the reason we keep bringing it up is that it dwarfs the athletics budgets by at least a full order of magnitude.
Yes, we all get that, but:
UNL is getting more research $$ today because of membership in the Big 10. But that is a main reason UNL wanted membership, not the reason the B1G wanted UNL.
The B1G didn't target Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, UCLA, or USC, because of their research money. It's a reason the B1G is attractive to schools, but it's not why schools are attractive to the B1G.
-
https://twitter.com/CFBHome/status/1687229539137540096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1687229539137540096%7Ctwgr%5E51a4bc4dd64e67cc1612298857deb838aadffb43%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fcfbhome%2Fstatus%2F1687229539137540096%3Fs%3D4626t%3DjepIaY3zAiVyYCJq36en9w
-
@847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55)
Hey, do we want to merge this thread with the UW/UO to the B1G by Memorial Day thread, into one big Realignment Meta Thread? They're basically discussing the same topics at this point.
-
A PAC 7 conference could work. Six conference games and 6 non-conference games most of which could be cupcakes consumed at home.
-
The main thing holding up an official announcement is they are waiting for Arizona State to make a decision. They want to make sure that if ASU wants to join the Big 12, the Big 12 would have to take the 2 as a package.
The Arizona Board of Regents, who oversees the affairs of University of Arizona, Arizona State, and Northern Arizona University, held a vote last night to approve Arizona's move to the Big 12. Results of the vote aren't yet known, and the BoR wants to make a formal announcement to release the results.
What's holding matters up is ASU's president, who's a Pac 12 loyalist and was very onboard with Larry Scott's tenure, raising a lot of drama during last night's BoR meeting. He wants to slow-walk Arizona's exit to buy more time to win over a Pac-8 (or Pac-9 if Arizona somehow stays) deal with Apple.
https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1687434637985853442
As of this morning there's another meeting amongst university presidents and surprising momentum behind the Pac-8/9 rallying behind an Apple streaming deal. Support included from Oregon and Washington who's brief push into the Big Ten seems to have fizzled.
https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/1687453350135005184
And right as I wrote that above, Oregon and Washington twist the plot:
https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/1687478811313451009
-
And right as I wrote that above, Oregon and Washington twist the plot:
https://twitter.com/Brett_McMurphy/status/1687478811313451009
god I really hope all the Washington/Oregon talk from "insiders" is just B1G leaking crap info as a smokescreen to operate quietly in the shadows and go and poach some combo of FSU/ND/Miami/Clemson/UNC
cause idk if you guys noticed or not, but if not imma be fkn pisssssssed if they add Oregon and Washington. might be so mad I actually stop watching B1G games for awhile.
-
The B1G is so totally gonna screw this up and actually poach Oregon and Washington. And I'm gonna laugh, heartily, out loud. :)
-
The B1G is so totally gonna screw this up and actually poach Oregon and Washington. And I'm gonna laugh, heartily, out loud. :)
100%. Except I'm not going to laugh. I'm going to just curse a lot.
This new dipshit B1G commish is totally about to have his Larry Scott moment- where he makes an epic mistake in the game of expansion and he hurts the long term health of his conference.
-
Think this move is a bit mistake. We had a good scheduling format. Now truly a national conference and some form or rotating divisions (pods) is almost necessary (miss too many teams without them).
-
god I really hope all the Washington/Oregon talk from "insiders" is just B1G leaking crap info as a smokescreen to operate quietly in the shadows and go and poach some combo of FSU/ND/Miami/Clemson/UNC
cause idk if you guys noticed or not, but if not imma be fkn pisssssssed if they add Oregon and Washington. might be so mad I actually stop watching B1G games for awhile.
Lot of information firing back and forth this morning. My guess is the Big Ten "resorted" to inviting Oregon/Washington after realizing how air tight these ACC contracts are. Apparently ESPN has the ACC locked down for another twelve or so years, has no intention of letting the conference get raided, and has aggressive legal teams ready to fight tooth and nail to keep the ACC and their corresponding TV deal with the ACC intact.
-
Lot of information firing back and forth this morning. My guess is the Big Ten "resorted" to inviting Oregon/Washington after realizing how air tight these ACC contracts are. Apparently ESPN has the ACC locked down for another twelve or so years, has no intention of letting the conference get raided, and has aggressive legal teams ready to fight tooth and nail to keep the ACC and their corresponding TV deal with the ACC intact.
Getting a team out of the ACC was gonna run well past nine figures.
-
FSU reportedly working with JPMorgan Chase to figure out how they can finance a buyout so they can leave the ACC...
https://twitter.com/Sportico/status/1687468928086237185?s=20
-
Dan Wetzel reporting it's almost a done deal...FML.
https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/1687503794383331334?s=20
-
They’re basically the same. Oregon is one spot back. Washington three.
Here’s a question, you watch more Hurricanes football than Michigan football, right? And probably watch some FIU football too?
Do you have a link for this?
@Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) provided a link but it is an FSU site that only lists the top-25.
-
So, if this is so, the Pac is pretty much toast, right? Do they migrate en masse to the B12? Turn out the lights? Asking for an enemy.
-
Florida State officials contemplate break from ACC: 'Not a matter of if ... but how and when,' trustee says - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/florida-state-officials-contemplate-break-from-acc-not-a-matter-of-if-but-how-and-when-trustee-says/)
McCullough went on to say the Seminoles "will at some point consider leaving the ACC" barring "radical change in revenue distribution." Other trustees were even more candid on a potential exit from the conference. FSU trustee Drew Weatherford (https://twitter.com/brett_mcmurphy/status/1686828556142157825?s=46) stated, "it's not a matter of if we leave [the ACC], but how and when we leave." FSU trustee Justin Roth (https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1686831335770370048) additionally called for an exit to come within the next year.
-
Florida State officials contemplate break from ACC: 'Not a matter of if ... but how and when,' trustee says - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/florida-state-officials-contemplate-break-from-acc-not-a-matter-of-if-but-how-and-when-trustee-says/)
McCullough went on to say the Seminoles "will at some point consider leaving the ACC" barring "radical change in revenue distribution." Other trustees were even more candid on a potential exit from the conference. FSU trustee Drew Weatherford (https://twitter.com/brett_mcmurphy/status/1686828556142157825?s=46) stated, "it's not a matter of if we leave [the ACC], but how and when we leave." FSU trustee Justin Roth (https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1686831335770370048) additionally called for an exit to come within the next year.
FSU is talking with JPMorgan Chase about financing their exit...it's gonna happen and sooner rather than later.
-
So, if this is so, the Pac is pretty much toast, right? Do they migrate en masse to the B12? Turn out the lights? Asking for an enemy.
Pac was already toast, this really changes nothing if Washington & OU go to the B1G. Not adding Texas & OU when they had the chance sealed their fate. B1G poaching USC & UCLA put two bullets in the head. It's been a zombie conference on life support the second the LA schools left. Colorado already announced they were leaving for the B12 before this OU/Wash to the B1G stuff and the AZ schools were reportedly right on the heels of jumping over to the B12 as well. Pac was already toast.
-
https://twitter.com/TomMarsLaw/status/1687449434915762176?s=20
-
Do you have a link for this?
@Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) provided a link but it is an FSU site that only lists the top-25.
It’s one of the first links in that article.
-
So, if this is so, the Pac is pretty much toast, right? Do they migrate en masse to the B12? Turn out the lights? Asking for an enemy.
As many as can get to the big 12 are going to go there. Then a call to the American. And if that doesn’t work, I guess the WAC?
-
Florida State officials contemplate break from ACC: 'Not a matter of if ... but how and when,' trustee says - CBSSports.com (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/florida-state-officials-contemplate-break-from-acc-not-a-matter-of-if-but-how-and-when-trustee-says/)
McCullough went on to say the Seminoles "will at some point consider leaving the ACC" barring "radical change in revenue distribution." Other trustees were even more candid on a potential exit from the conference. FSU trustee Drew Weatherford (https://twitter.com/brett_mcmurphy/status/1686828556142157825?s=46) stated, "it's not a matter of if we leave [the ACC], but how and when we leave." FSU trustee Justin Roth (https://twitter.com/NicoleAuerbach/status/1686831335770370048) additionally called for an exit to come within the next year.
If the Wac still exists, then the Pac will carry on in some form.
You could eliminate a govt agency easier than you can get rid of a conference.
-
As many as can get to the big 12 are going to go there. Then a call to the American. And if that doesn’t work, I guess the WAC?
Essentially you're correct, but the difference will be that IMHO the remainders of the PAC will raid the AAC/WAC/MWC or whoever they can to remain the PAC in name, just not in spirit.
Boise State will finally get their PAC invite!
-
Boise might get an invite to the 12
-
It’s one of the first links in that article.
Thanks, I see it now.
-
Boise might get an invite to the 12
Doubtful. The 12 would rather pick up the scraps of the PAC than Boise State IMHO. All the reasons that have so far kept Boise from being invited to either the PAC or the 12 are the exact same reasons than PAC leftovers are more attractive to the 12.
-
geez, Boise must suck
-
The hideous blue turf didn't clue you in?
(https://i.imgur.com/TvdKNhL.jpg)
-
Clemson and FSU to the SEC - bank on it
-
Clemson and FSU to the SEC - bank on it
It "sounds" logical, but I read somewhere that UF and USCe would vote no. I wonder what the thinking is in Chapel Hill and Charlottesville.
-
I'd prefer UNC and UVA.
Florida, UGA, and USCe have a sort of pact to vote 'no' on FSU, GT, and Clemson. But with an expanded conference and a lack of other SEC programs in a similar situation, I don't think they could block it anymore. A&M had been in the same boat, but no longer. Maybe OU is now.
Anyways, UNC and UVA bring academics, recruiting grounds, expanded footprint (still in the south), and average football programs to kind of act as fodder for the football-crazy schools.
These conferences need to be wary...if all you add are elite football schools, you're going to have perennial powers dropping like flies.
Add UNC and UVA for those legit reasons, and let them take on the additional losses new teams cause.
-
It "sounds" logical, but I read somewhere that UF and USCe would vote no. I wonder what the thinking is in Chapel Hill and Charlottesville.
I've read before that UF, SouthCar, and UGA all had a "gentleman's agreement" to all vote as a block to prevent any potential expansion target in any one of their states in.
-
I've read before that UF, SouthCar, and UGA all had a "gentleman's agreement" to all vote as a block to prevent any potential expansion target in any one of their states in.
I think it works if they get 25% voting "no." As long as OU joins the trio keeping OK State out, they have that.
-
Oregon State's 2025 schedule:
vs San Jose St
vs Los Angeles Harbor College
@ UNLV
Colorado School of Mines
Coastline College
@ Washington St
@ Columbia Gorge Community College
Blue Mountain Community College
@ Frenso St
Cascadia College
Yakima Valley College
@ Boise St
-
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1687575233111187456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1687575233111187456%7Ctwgr%5Ec189bc49268901b5735815bf7cdfadd539b0246d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fpetethamel%2Fstatus%2F1687575233111187456%3Fs%3D4626t%3DEn8iZKNAMK5b0kjRipqzNA
-
IMO, The Big conference understands that football tv contracts supplies the income for all sports at the University. But income from research keeps the educational reason for the school's to exist.
Other than Iowa and Nebraska, sports fans have professional teams to route for, so they aren't as opinionated to college football as the SEC fans. (I am trying to be very diplomatic and no offense intended).
Anyway, to appease football fans and the University's in the Big my addiction for sports and research would be Washington, Stanford, Florida State and North Carolina.
After that just for tv value it would be Miami and Notre Dame.
-
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/status/1687575233111187456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1687575233111187456%7Ctwgr%5Ec189bc49268901b5735815bf7cdfadd539b0246d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fpetethamel%2Fstatus%2F1687575233111187456%3Fs%3D4626t%3DEn8iZKNAMK5b0kjRipqzNA
This is all happening at plaid speed. The Spaceballs kind, not Tesla.
-
https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/arizona-arizona-state-utah-join-big-12-leave-pac-12 (https://www.actionnetwork.com/ncaaf/arizona-arizona-state-utah-join-big-12-leave-pac-12)
From Brett McMurphy
BREAKING: Arizona, Arizona State & 2-time defending Pac-12 champion Utah joining Big 12 in 2024 pending Big 12 formal approval in next 24 hours. Big 12 will be 3rd league w/at least 16 schools, while Pac-12 down to 4 schools
-
Other than Iowa and Nebraska, sports fans have professional teams to route for, so they aren't as opinionated to college football as the SEC fans. (I am trying to be very diplomatic and no offense intended).
this is actually a great point, bc as big as college football is- and it's the 2nd biggest sport in the US- it's still a midget compared to the NFL. 94 of the top 100 most watched live tv programs in the US in 2022 were live sports (https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/2023/01/09/Upfront/top-100-telecasts.aspx). Of those 94, 82 were NFL games and only 5 were college football games. 9 of the top 10 most watched? NFL games. The #9 most watched event and the lone non-NFL game? The President's state of the union address. 28 of the top 30 most watched programs? NFL games. The other lone non-NFL game? The Beijing Olympics at #30.
College football doesn't crack the list til #35 (UGA-Bama CFP Final), #36 (UGA-Ohio State CFP Semis), #41 (Michigan-TCU CFP Semis), #71 (Michigan-OSU- only regular season CFB game on the list), and #76 (OSU-Utah Rose Bowl).
College basketball final four tournament makes the list at #64 (UNC-Duke Final Four) and #65 (UNC-Kansas National Championship).
The four sporting events remaining in the top 100? #67 (Argentina-France World Cup Final), #86 (Kentucky Derby), #87 (Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony), and #93 (US-England World Cup).
-
The Big 12 was a little short sighted, adding a bunch of G5s in the not too distant past, as it turns out.
-
was holding out hope they wouldn't add Oregon and Washington and hold out for FSU/Miami/Clemson....ship has sailed...
might as well invite Stanford and squeeze ND's balls to join and get it over with and get to 20 at this point...
-
What are the Big 12 divisions going to look like, with the Utes and the Arizona twins?
https://twitter.com/utahathletics/status/1687637093957464064?s=20
-
The Big 12 was a little short sighted, adding a bunch of G5s in the not too distant past, as it turns out.
Agreed. It’s gonna look really weird.
-
I disagree. Without knowing the future and that the B1G was going to poach USC and UCLA to destroy the PAC, the B12 did the only thing it could to survive. Adding those G5 schools, strengthening itself, and getting a better TV contract than both the PAC and the ACC, is precisely why it was in the position to throw a lifeboat to the PAC leftovers, after the B1G killed that conference
Sure it might look a little weird, but that's the only reason it survived in the first place.
-
this makes me think of how Fox winning the NFC package obliterated the CBS network affiliates for a number of years.
Well, the Pac did take a bite at the apple.
-
What are the Big 12 divisions going to look like, with the Utes and the Arizona twins?
https://twitter.com/utahathletics/status/1687637093957464064?s=20
If I coached any other Big 12 school, I’d be real mad about that.
-
As a Mountain Time Zone resident I was hoping that the Pac would add BYU and Boise, but now I have to root for Utah and the Arizona twins' migration to the craptastic Big 12.
It couldn't've happened without my help, rooting for it from my couch. The top 5 schools from the Mountain time zone, consolidated into one conference at last, for the first time ever. Plus the games will actually be on TV, unlike when four of them were in the Pac 12.
-
Big 12 benefited from timing too. They basically reupped old contract with FOX/ESPN rather than negociate new ones. Some thought they were leaving money on the table. The PAC-12 took the opposite approach. Since this year ended up being a really bad year to negociate a new contact (higher interest rates and profitably being bigger concerns than market share compared to a year ago), it hurt them a lot.
In a vaccum, the PAC-12 was probably similar value to the Big 12, but since it locked up early, secured funding that would be tougher later, and had an exit fees while the PAC-12 didn't, it was suddenly in position to attack and it had a commioner who understood it.
The turn around is still amazing though.
-
The Big 12 was a little short sighted, adding a bunch of G5s in the not too distant past, as it turns out.
Bided time and was necessary. The PAC TV deal could have been close enough to the XII's so that nobody jumped ship.
Looking back, it wasn't shrewd, but as it was necessary, it worked out.
-
What are the Big 12 divisions going to look like, with the Utes and the Arizona twins?
https://twitter.com/utahathletics/status/1687637093957464064?s=20
I'd put the new schools out west with the Texas schools and throw CU in with it's old Big 8 friends + the eastern newbies:
Utah, BYU, ASU, Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston
CU, Kansas, KSU, OK State, ISU, Cinci, WV, UCF
.
Or you could do North/South:
Utah, BYU, CU, Kansas, KSU, ISU, Cinci, WV
ASU, Arizona, OK State, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, UCF
.
Or some other crazy shit.
-
I heard that in the Arizona meeting last night, Arizona said they were leaving, Utah was going to join them and ASU, but the ASU guy reversed course and wanted to wait for a GoR meeting this morning. He had been gung-ho for leaving until that meeting. It was so bizarre, such a change of direction, that people in the meeting were asking if he was okay.
So they had the GoR meeting this morning and the only schools to vote for it were WSU and ASU. So for whatever reason, in some 11th hour reversal, ASU is reluctantly leaving with Arizona and Utah.
-
Cal-Berkley is in some serious trouble.
(https://i.imgur.com/rDBmL36.png)
-
Cal-Berkley is in some serious trouble.
(https://i.imgur.com/rDBmL36.png)
jesus christ they are $440 million in debt and with no tv $$$$ to help pay it off. they are seriously fkd.
-
Cal-Berkley is in some serious trouble.
(https://i.imgur.com/rDBmL36.png)
not sure what this number represents
is it total expenses per year
is it amount owed after applying current year income making it a carry forward debt
-
UT makes about $20 million a year more then annual expenses so Im not sure how they have any debt outstanding
-
UT makes about $20 million a year more then annual expenses so Im not sure how they have any debt outstanding
The debts are related to capital expenditures-- I don't know about all of them but in the cases of UT, A&M, and Cal-Berkeley, I know for a fact that it's coming from recent stadium renovations/reconstructions within the past 10 years that are still being paid off. In UT's case these are not paid for by operating revenue and don't show up on the income statement.
But for Berkley I found this blurb from 2013:
The stadium cost $321 million to renovate and the athletic center cost $153 million, according to a San Francisco Chronicle report. Stadium debt already absorbs 20 percent of intercollegiate athletics' annual income, or roughly $18 million of its $89 million budget.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1680579-cals-stadium-renovation-debt-shows-schools-need-to-keep-football-in-perspective#:~:text=The%20stadium%20cost%20%24321%20million,of%20its%20%2489%20million%20budget.
The fact that ten years later they still have $440M of the original $493M outstanding, and they have lost pretty much their entire TV revenue that was being used for debt service, is a real problem.
-
The debts are related to capital expenditures-- I don't know about all of them but in the cases of UT, A&M, and Cal-Berkeley, it's coming from recent stadium renovations/reconstructions within the past 10 years that are still being paid off. These are not paid for by operating revenue and don't show up on the income statement.
the last stadium expansion has about $174 mill of outstanding debt so I guess thats the answer to my question
-
the last stadium expansion has about $174 mill of outstanding debt so I guess thats the answer to my question
Yup. And read above where I edited, it looks even more dire for Berkley than I had previously thought. They still owe $440M on their $493M facilities debt from 2013, and they were basically using their entire TV revenue for debt service. They're in a very, very scary position right now.
-
Yup. And read above where I edited, it looks even more dire for Berkley than I had previously thought. They still owe $440M on their $493M facilities debt from 2013, and they were basically using their entire TV revenue for debt service. They're in a very, very scary position right now.
Is UT servicing its stadium debt from athletic income or does it come from other sources
-
Cal caught the wrong end of all that something fierce:
"You can't compete with old facilities."
"TV will pay for some level of facilities improvement"
"Oh, s$#*"
Cal's setup was positively ancient before they fixed things up. But they were also at the bottom level of a certain kind of program. They were a team that did football because they've always done football and if you have the stupid stadium, might as well play (plus they had a decent run of competence for maybe 8 years). But it's a school with a low passion level for football with a student body that is both interested in sports way less than an average P5 team and not really trained up on being interested in football. Also in a pro sports area, also lacking in a crazy alum who just invests for the hell of it.
It's a nerd school, but not one in the south, where the area's natural football culture will lift all boats. I wouldn't be surprised if it was gone in the next decade, and I don't totally know if it's the worst thing. And I say that as someone who went to a LOT of Cal games in high school. They were fun, but the world and school are VERY different now.
-
Use their endowment, cut a check. :57:
-
Is UT servicing its stadium debt from athletic income or does it come from other sources
Of that I'm not sure, it's been a while since I perused UT's financials. But if Texas is servicing the debt through athletic income, the point is that it can still afford to do so. Cal-Berkley, on the other hand, can't. And looking at just the high level pro forma of their athletic budget, it seems crazy that they ever attempted to do so, at least on that kind of scale.
-
academic folks don't live in the real world of finances and accountants
-
academic folks don't live in the real world of finances and accountants
In that case, they said yes to the athletic folks.
-
Of that I'm not sure, it's been a while since I perused UT's financials. But if Texas is servicing the debt through athletic income, the point is that it can still afford to do so. Cal-Berkley, on the other hand, can't. And looking at just the high level pro forma of their athletic budget, it seems crazy that they ever attempted to do so, at least on that kind of scale.
We all talked about the arms race. There’s the loser right there.
-
We all talked about the arms race. There’s the loser right there.
No doubt, to your point a few posts upthread, more than anyone else Cal really got stuck out in all of this. Just terrible timing regarding their decision to improve facilities. Ten years ago it was unfathomable that the PAC contract would become essentially worthless.
HOWEVER
It also seems somewhat less than prudent, that they decided to embark on one of the most expensive facilities upgrades for ANY FBS school, knowing how tepid their own fan support has historically been. I mean, this is Berkley-- they're supposed to be among the smartest in the room. This was a major misjudgment from them, when there was plenty of evidence to support a cautious approach rather than a foolhardy one. I mean, they spent as much as Texas A&M did on their stadium renovation, and the ags had just joined the SEC and had plenty of big money donors of their own who are actually rabid about college football rather than... well... whatever Cal boosters appear to be.
Just a massive miscalculation from the eggheads in Berkley.
-
Are these the new divisions?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2veWZkawAANJDV?format=jpg&name=small)
-
It's west and east....so probably.
-
It also seems somewhat less than prudent, that they decided to embark on one of the most expensive facilities upgrades for ANY FBS school, knowing how tepid their own fan support has historically been.
Well, you know costs here in CA. All that debt was probably just renovating a supply closet...
-
It also seems somewhat less than prudent, that they decided to embark on one of the most expensive facilities upgrades for ANY FBS school, knowing how tepid their own fan support has historically been. I mean, this is Berkley-- they're supposed to be among the smartest in the room. This was a major misjudgment from them, when there was plenty of evidence to support a cautious approach rather than a foolhardy one. I mean, they spent as much as Texas A&M did on their stadium renovation, and the ags had just joined the SEC and had plenty of big money donors of their own who are actually rabid about college football rather than... well... whatever Cal boosters appear to be.
Just a massive miscalculation from the eggheads in Berkley.
So I think there's a few elements here.
-Just because you can mint high-quality lawyers, physicist and engineers, does not make you a good decision maker. They do have a good business school, but a good business student will know that college admin is not the most profitable use of the degree.
-I think a kind of undergirding of college sports is that foolhardy financial decisions are a hallmark of successful programs. The ones that made money literally had to throw it out the window to avoid the illusion of profit. Coaches are given deals to assuage their fears of being fired, then fired to placate the bonkers money people. Facilities are built and rebuilt, nonsense is added, baseline standards rose over stupid nonsense.
-Cal also got caught in the classic spending trap. They had success, but it started to wane. When that happens, the explanation is always the same: You don't look serious about this. And the only way to be serious is spend money.
-The school was also sort of trapped because it hadn't participated in this before. The stadium still felt like it was from 1923. They had very little in the way of football infrastructure. There's a story about the team going out to practice, running into the band, learning the band reserved the multi-use field and just having to leave. Then you throw in a 90-year-old stadium on a massive fault line, so even if you're more conservative, it's still a boat load of money (and you're still 5-7 years behind everyone else).
Now of course, this all comes back to the main thing. You can be irresponsible if a lot of irrational folks with money have your back. Cal aspired because you can't get those without good product, but the reality of CFB hit them: for the most part, you are who you are.
-
https://pac-4.com/ (https://pac-4.com/)
-
https://pac-4.com/ (https://pac-4.com/)
It felt mean spirited to laugh, but that was funny.
-
The only thing it's missing is an OF link.
-
This is pretty good too.
https://twitter.com/redditcfb/status/1686946798902857729?s=46&t=USeRp_KFCCpQS8kYfKvwzQ
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ymHfLDf.png)
-
So I think there's a few elements here.
-Just because you can mint high-quality lawyers, physicist and engineers, does not make you a good decision maker. They do have a good business school, but a good business student will know that college admin is not the most profitable use of the degree.
-I think a kind of undergirding of college sports is that foolhardy financial decisions are a hallmark of successful programs. The ones that made money literally had to throw it out the window to avoid the illusion of profit. Coaches are given deals to assuage their fears of being fired, then fired to placate the bonkers money people. Facilities are built and rebuilt, nonsense is added, baseline standards rose over stupid nonsense.
-Cal also got caught in the classic spending trap. They had success, but it started to wane. When that happens, the explanation is always the same: You don't look serious about this. And the only way to be serious is spend money.
-The school was also sort of trapped because it hadn't participated in this before. The stadium still felt like it was from 1923. They had very little in the way of football infrastructure. There's a story about the team going out to practice, running into the band, learning the band reserved the multi-use field and just having to leave. Then you throw in a 90-year-old stadium on a massive fault line, so even if you're more conservative, it's still a boat load of money (and you're still 5-7 years behind everyone else).
Now of course, this all comes back to the main thing. You can be irresponsible if a lot of irrational folks with money have your back. Cal aspired because you can't get those without good product, but the reality of CFB hit them: for the most part, you are who you are.
So all that to pretty much restate what I said. :)
Berkley isn't a major athletic power, they haven't been for many decades, their alumni don't care about athletics, and embarking on the most expensive college athletics facilities renovation in the entire country, was folly.
They are, who they are.
There are no surprises here, except I suppose, to the Cal-Berkley administrators.
-
Way upthread @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) and @bayareabadger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1571) directed us to a link that displayed a rank order of average viewers per game from 2015-2019. My school, Ohio State, was #1 followed by Bama then Michigan. Also note that Ohio State averaged just over 1M more viewers per game than Michigan.
It would be easy (and fun) for me to simply say "tOSU is #1, rah rah, we rule, you suck." Unfortunately, I think that misses an important point. Viewership is going to be swayed by how good a team is, particularly whether or not that team is in the NC conversation. To wit, Ohio State:
2015:
- Defending National Champions, preseason #1.
- Maintained #1 until November 8 when they dropped to #2, passed by Clemson.
- Lost to MSU on 11/21 and dropped to #8 in the 11/22 poll. Even at #8, however, the Buckeyes were still very much in the NC race because MSU already had a league loss so had they lost to PSU, tOSU would have gone to Indy to face Iowa with a CFP berth likely on the line.
- Climbed to #6, dropped to #7, beat #8 Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl and finished #4.
2016:
- Defending Fiesta Bowl Champions and #4 in prior final poll, preseason #6.
- Climbed to #4 without playing a game (#3 OU and #5 LSU lost early).
- Climbed to #2 before losing to PSU on 10/22.
- Climbed back to #2 a few weeks later when #2 Michigan (Iowa), #3 Clemson (Pitt), and #4 Washington (USC) all lost.
- Remained #2 into the CFP.
- Finished #6 after getting blanked in CFP.
2017:
- #6 in prior final poll, started #2.
- Dropped to #8 and eventually #11 after an early loss to Oklahoma.
- Climbed steadily to as high as #3.
- Lost badly to Iowa on 11/4 and dropped to #11. They were, however, still realistically in the NC conversation as evidenced by the end-of-year moves when there was some controversy over 11-1 non-Champion Bama getting the final CFP slot over 11-2 B1G Champion tOSU.
- Settled at #5, beat #8 USC in the Cotton Bowl and finished #5.
2018:
- #5 in preseason poll as Defending Cotton Bowl Champions and #5 in prior final poll.
- Climbed to #2.
- Lost badly at Purdue and dropped to #11.
- Climbed to #5 and could have made CFP with a bit of help here or there.
- Beat #9 Washington in the RoseBowl and finished #3.
2019:
- #5 in preseason poll as Defending RoseBowl Champions and #3 in prior final poll.
- Went 12-0 in regular season and won B1GCG to enter CFP as #2.
- Lost CFP semi-final and finished #3.
The Buckeyes were realistically in the NC race for every game from 2015-2019 except:
- A #7/8 Fiesta Bowl against Notre Dame
- A #5/8 Cotton Bowl against USC
- A #5/9 RoseBowl against Washington
Compare Michigan:
2015:
- No votes in prior final poll (finished 5-7), received votes in preseason poll.
- Lost their opener to Utah.
- Climbed to #12 before losing to MSU ON 10/17 and were effectively out of the NC picture from then on.
- Lost badly to tOSU, beat #19 Florida in the Citrus Bowl and finished #12
2016:
- Preseason #7, climbed to #2.
- Lost to Iowa on 11/12 but only dropped to #4.
- Entered THE GAME as #3 and lost to #2 tOSU thus missing the B1GCG and CFP.
- Lost as #6 to #10 FSU in the Orange Bowl and finished #10.
2017:
- Preseason #11.
- Climbed to #7.
- Dropped to #17 after losing to MSU on 10/7.
- Dropped another two spots after needing OT to beat Indiana on 10/14.
- Dropped out of the poll and NC picture completely after getting blown out by PSU on 10/21.
- Climbed to #19 before losing to Wisconsin on 11/18.
- Lost to tOSU then lost Outback Bowl to USCe and finished unranked.
2018:
- Preseason #14.
- Lost opener to Notre Dame and dropped to #21.
- Won 10 straight and climbed to #4.
- Entered THE GAME at #4 and lost badly to #10 tOSU to fall to #8.
- Lost badly to #10 Florida in the Peach Bowl and finished #14.
2019:
- Preseason #7.
- Dropped to #10 after needing OT to beat Army.
- Lost badly to Wisconsin on 9/21 and dropped to #20.
- Climbed to #16 then lost to PSU on 10/19 and dropped to #19. At this point, with two B1G losses, they were effectively out of the NC picture.
- Climbed to #10 before losing badly to tOSU on 11/30 and dropping to #17.
- Lost Citrus Bowl to #9 Bama badly and finished #18.
My point here isn't to recount tOSU's successes and Michigan's struggles from 2015-2019 (that was fun though).
My point is actually more complimentary to what we tOSU fans call TSUN, The School Up North. They had 1M less viewers per game than tOSU from 2015-2019 but Ohio State was a NC Contender for nearly that entire time while Michigan was some of the time but they also spent some time unranked and spent large portions of the 2015, 2017, and 2019 seasons completely out of the NC picture.
-
Way upthread @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) and @bayareabadger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1571) directed us to a link that displayed a rank order of average viewers per game from 2015-2019. My school, Ohio State, was #1 followed by Bama then Michigan. Also note that Ohio State averaged just over 1M more viewers per game than Michigan.
It would be easy (and fun) for me to simply say "tOSU is #1, rah rah, we rule, you suck." Unfortunately, I think that misses an important point. Viewership is going to be swayed by how good a team is, particularly whether or not that team is in the NC conversation. To wit, Ohio State:
2015:
- Defending National Champions, preseason #1.
- Maintained #1 until November 8 when they dropped to #2, passed by Clemson.
- Lost to MSU on 11/21 and dropped to #8 in the 11/22 poll. Even at #8, however, the Buckeyes were still very much in the NC race because MSU already had a league loss so had they lost to PSU, tOSU would have gone to Indy to face Iowa with a CFP berth likely on the line.
- Climbed to #6, dropped to #7, beat #8 Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl and finished #4.
2016:
- Defending Fiesta Bowl Champions and #4 in prior final poll, preseason #6.
- Climbed to #4 without playing a game (#3 OU and #5 LSU lost early).
- Climbed to #2 before losing to PSU on 10/22.
- Climbed back to #2 a few weeks later when #2 Michigan (Iowa), #3 Clemson (Pitt), and #4 Washington (USC) all lost.
- Remained #2 into the CFP.
- Finished #6 after getting blanked in CFP.
2017:
- #6 in prior final poll, started #2.
- Dropped to #8 and eventually #11 after an early loss to Oklahoma.
- Climbed steadily to as high as #3.
- Lost badly to Iowa on 11/4 and dropped to #11. They were, however, still realistically in the NC conversation as evidenced by the end-of-year moves when there was some controversy over 11-1 non-Champion Bama getting the final CFP slot over 11-2 B1G Champion tOSU.
- Settled at #5, beat #8 USC in the Cotton Bowl and finished #5.
2018:
- #5 in preseason poll as Defending Cotton Bowl Champions and #5 in prior final poll.
- Climbed to #2.
- Lost badly at Purdue and dropped to #11.
- Climbed to #5 and could have made CFP with a bit of help here or there.
- Beat #9 Washington in the RoseBowl and finished #3.
2019:
- #5 in preseason poll as Defending RoseBowl Champions and #3 in prior final poll.
- Went 12-0 in regular season and won B1GCG to enter CFP as #2.
- Lost CFP semi-final and finished #3.
The Buckeyes were realistically in the NC race for every game from 2015-2019 except:
- A #7/8 Fiesta Bowl against Notre Dame
- A #5/8 Cotton Bowl against USC
- A #5/9 RoseBowl against Washington
Compare Michigan:
2015:
- No votes in prior final poll (finished 5-7), received votes in preseason poll.
- Lost their opener to Utah.
- Climbed to #12 before losing to MSU ON 10/17 and were effectively out of the NC picture from then on.
- Lost badly to tOSU, beat #19 Florida in the Citrus Bowl and finished #12
2016:
- Preseason #7, climbed to #2.
- Lost to Iowa on 11/12 but only dropped to #4.
- Entered THE GAME as #3 and lost to #2 tOSU thus missing the B1GCG and CFP.
- Lost as #6 to #10 FSU in the Orange Bowl and finished #10.
2017:
- Preseason #11.
- Climbed to #7.
- Dropped to #17 after losing to MSU on 10/7.
- Dropped another two spots after needing OT to beat Indiana on 10/14.
- Dropped out of the poll and NC picture completely after getting blown out by PSU on 10/21.
- Climbed to #19 before losing to Wisconsin on 11/18.
- Lost to tOSU then lost Outback Bowl to USCe and finished unranked.
2018:
- Preseason #14.
- Lost opener to Notre Dame and dropped to #21.
- Won 10 straight and climbed to #4.
- Entered THE GAME at #4 and lost badly to #10 tOSU to fall to #8.
- Lost badly to #10 Florida in the Peach Bowl and finished #14.
2019:
- Preseason #7.
- Dropped to #10 after needing OT to beat Army.
- Lost badly to Wisconsin on 9/21 and dropped to #20.
- Climbed to #16 then lost to PSU on 10/19 and dropped to #19. At this point, with two B1G losses, they were effectively out of the NC picture.
- Climbed to #10 before losing badly to tOSU on 11/30 and dropping to #17.
- Lost Citrus Bowl to #9 Bama badly and finished #18.
My point here isn't to recount tOSU's successes and Michigan's struggles from 2015-2019 (that was fun though).
My point is actually more complimentary to what we tOSU fans call TSUN, The School Up North. They had 1M less viewers per game than tOSU from 2015-2019 but Ohio State was a NC Contender for nearly that entire time while Michigan was some of the time but they also spent some time unranked and spent large portions of the 2015, 2017, and 2019 seasons completely out of the NC picture.
Agree with all of this. I was going to say something similar (but a lot shorter ;) ).
I think it also says something that my favorite school has been absolutely awful for almost 1.5 decades, and is still in the Top 10 for viewership. THAT is an example of the helmetosity that we all talk about-- deserved or not, it leaves a lasting impression on fans.
-
Way upthread @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) and @bayareabadger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1571) directed us to a link that displayed a rank order of average viewers per game from 2015-2019. My school, Ohio State, was #1 followed by Bama then Michigan. Also note that Ohio State averaged just over 1M more viewers per game than Michigan.
It would be easy (and fun) for me to simply say "tOSU is #1, rah rah, we rule, you suck." Unfortunately, I think that misses an important point. Viewership is going to be swayed by how good a team is, particularly whether or not that team is in the NC conversation. To wit, Ohio State:
2015:
- Defending National Champions, preseason #1.
- Maintained #1 until November 8 when they dropped to #2, passed by Clemson.
- Lost to MSU on 11/21 and dropped to #8 in the 11/22 poll. Even at #8, however, the Buckeyes were still very much in the NC race because MSU already had a league loss so had they lost to PSU, tOSU would have gone to Indy to face Iowa with a CFP berth likely on the line.
- Climbed to #6, dropped to #7, beat #8 Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl and finished #4.
2016:
- Defending Fiesta Bowl Champions and #4 in prior final poll, preseason #6.
- Climbed to #4 without playing a game (#3 OU and #5 LSU lost early).
- Climbed to #2 before losing to PSU on 10/22.
- Climbed back to #2 a few weeks later when #2 Michigan (Iowa), #3 Clemson (Pitt), and #4 Washington (USC) all lost.
- Remained #2 into the CFP.
- Finished #6 after getting blanked in CFP.
2017:
- #6 in prior final poll, started #2.
- Dropped to #8 and eventually #11 after an early loss to Oklahoma.
- Climbed steadily to as high as #3.
- Lost badly to Iowa on 11/4 and dropped to #11. They were, however, still realistically in the NC conversation as evidenced by the end-of-year moves when there was some controversy over 11-1 non-Champion Bama getting the final CFP slot over 11-2 B1G Champion tOSU.
- Settled at #5, beat #8 USC in the Cotton Bowl and finished #5.
2018:
- #5 in preseason poll as Defending Cotton Bowl Champions and #5 in prior final poll.
- Climbed to #2.
- Lost badly at Purdue and dropped to #11.
- Climbed to #5 and could have made CFP with a bit of help here or there.
- Beat #9 Washington in the RoseBowl and finished #3.
2019:
- #5 in preseason poll as Defending RoseBowl Champions and #3 in prior final poll.
- Went 12-0 in regular season and won B1GCG to enter CFP as #2.
- Lost CFP semi-final and finished #3.
The Buckeyes were realistically in the NC race for every game from 2015-2019 except:
- A #7/8 Fiesta Bowl against Notre Dame
- A #5/8 Cotton Bowl against USC
- A #5/9 RoseBowl against Washington
Compare Michigan:
2015:
- No votes in prior final poll (finished 5-7), received votes in preseason poll.
- Lost their opener to Utah.
- Climbed to #12 before losing to MSU ON 10/17 and were effectively out of the NC picture from then on.
- Lost badly to tOSU, beat #19 Florida in the Citrus Bowl and finished #12
2016:
- Preseason #7, climbed to #2.
- Lost to Iowa on 11/12 but only dropped to #4.
- Entered THE GAME as #3 and lost to #2 tOSU thus missing the B1GCG and CFP.
- Lost as #6 to #10 FSU in the Orange Bowl and finished #10.
2017:
- Preseason #11.
- Climbed to #7.
- Dropped to #17 after losing to MSU on 10/7.
- Dropped another two spots after needing OT to beat Indiana on 10/14.
- Dropped out of the poll and NC picture completely after getting blown out by PSU on 10/21.
- Climbed to #19 before losing to Wisconsin on 11/18.
- Lost to tOSU then lost Outback Bowl to USCe and finished unranked.
2018:
- Preseason #14.
- Lost opener to Notre Dame and dropped to #21.
- Won 10 straight and climbed to #4.
- Entered THE GAME at #4 and lost badly to #10 tOSU to fall to #8.
- Lost badly to #10 Florida in the Peach Bowl and finished #14.
2019:
- Preseason #7.
- Dropped to #10 after needing OT to beat Army.
- Lost badly to Wisconsin on 9/21 and dropped to #20.
- Climbed to #16 then lost to PSU on 10/19 and dropped to #19. At this point, with two B1G losses, they were effectively out of the NC picture.
- Climbed to #10 before losing badly to tOSU on 11/30 and dropping to #17.
- Lost Citrus Bowl to #9 Bama badly and finished #18.
My point here isn't to recount tOSU's successes and Michigan's struggles from 2015-2019 (that was fun though).
My point is actually more complimentary to what we tOSU fans call TSUN, The School Up North. They had 1M less viewers per game than tOSU from 2015-2019 but Ohio State was a NC Contender for nearly that entire time while Michigan was some of the time but they also spent some time unranked and spent large portions of the 2015, 2017, and 2019 seasons completely out of the NC picture.
yep. call it the fair weather fan effect. when you're really good- you're gonna get more eye balls. also....more people going to watch you just because they hate you and want to see you lose. I've watched Bama games before just to root against them. Not gonna lie. also: going to get more betting action when you're really good- and you're going to get more bettors laying money on your team and therefore watching more of your games.
my guess is Michigan's viewership has gone up in 2021 and 2022 because: they been winning the B1G and making the playoff.
-
ND get's some "I hope they lose" viewers
-
ND get's some "I hope they lose" viewers
there is no doubt about that. I watched the last half of the Marshall game laughing at those catholic freaks with joy the entire time.
-
there is no doubt Ohio St and Michigan both have massive fan bases that stretch the nation. their regular season match up was the only regular season college football game to make the list of the top 100 most watched tv programs in the US. The other 4 college games in the top 100 most watched tv programs were playoff/bowls; UGA-OSU semis, Michigan-TCU semis, UGA-BAMA title game (from the 2021 season but played in calendar year 2022), and OSU-Utah Rose Bowl (same situation as UGA-BAMA).
So to recap....OSU involved in 3 of the most watched CFB in all of tv and Michigan involved in 2. That's why the B1G tv contract is so fkn fat. They have the big brands that bring the eye balls. Which is why if I had to guess they probably want ND desperately. Only team out there to potentially grab that brings eye balls at super high clip.
-
Agree with all of this. I was going to say something similar (but a lot shorter ;) ).
I think it also says something that my favorite school has been absolutely awful for almost 1.5 decades, and is still in the Top 10 for viewership. THAT is an example of the helmetosity that we all talk about-- deserved or not, it leaves a lasting impression on fans.
yep. call it the fair weather fan effect. when you're really good- you're gonna get more eye balls. also....more people going to watch you just because they hate you and want to see you lose. I've watched Bama games before just to root against them. Not gonna lie. also: going to get more betting action when you're really good- and you're going to get more bettors laying money on your team and therefore watching more of your games.
my guess is Michigan's viewership has gone up in 2021 and 2022 because: they been winning the B1G and making the playoff.
So when looking at these numbers we need to make some kind of mental "how good were they relative to their normal" adjustment. I agree with @utee94 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=15) , Texas being top-10 here despite not being very good is impressive. I think @Mdot21 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1595) has part of it when he calls it the fair weather fan effect but there is more than that. As he went on to state, the extra viewers when you are really good are not just fair weather fans, they are also anti-fans and just general CFB fans. If I have no dog in either fight, I'm going to watch a top-5 matchup over a top-10 matchup and a top-10 matchup over a game between unranked teams.
A great example is the bowl games played by tOSU and Michigan at the end of the 2017 season. Neither team made the CFP. Ohio State was barely out at #5 while Michigan was completely out. Michigan lost to USCe in a completely inconsequential Outback Bowl between two unranked teams. Ohio State beat the USC in a Cotton Bowl between #5 tOSU and #8 USC. We don't need to look it up to confidently assume that a LOT more people watched tOSU/USC in the Cotton Bowl than M/USCe in the Outback Bowl but that doesn't "prove" that tOSU has more viewers than M because we also need to adjust for the facts that:
- USC has more viewers than USCe,
- The Cotton Bowl has more viewers than the Outback Bowl, and
- #5 vs #8 is almost always going to out-draw nr vs nr.
I don't think there is enough information here to confidently say that tOSU has more viewers than M. However, there are some adjustments that obviously need to be made. For example:
- Clemson was #9 from 2015-2019 with 2.67M viewers per game. I actually think that is pretty weak when you consider that 2015-2019 is pretty clearly the best five-year stretch in Clemson Football history.
- Oregon was #26 from 2015-2019 with 1.34M viewers per game. That is also pretty weak considering how good Oregon was relative to their normal over that stretch.
That brings me to my underlying point. We quite simply bought high with respect to Oregon.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ymHfLDf.png)
Stanford has won the NACDA Director's Cup 26 times since it was started in 1993-94. I would call Stanford an athletic powerhouse that should be welcomed into the Big Ten.
-
That brings me to my underlying point. We quite simply bought high with respect to Oregon.
Yup, for sure.
I won't say it "boggles my mind" because I understand what the B1G was trying to do here, it just seems like a really unnecessary stretch. I've been almost as candid with my opinion of how poorly Oregon fits the B1G, as MDot has. Like many others around here, I thought expansion to the SE made a lot more sense than further consolidation out west, for the B1G's future plans.
So my question is, why NOW for Oregon? Why not wait a bit and digest the UCLA/USC addition and see how things shake out. All I can think of is that:
A) The B1G powers that be don't think they're going to be able to spring any of the ACC schools any time soon and
B) They were worried that if they didn't snag Oregon and Washington now, those two schools would get locked into another GOR with the PAC and their window for any expansion at all, would close.
I guess.
-
Yup, for sure.
I won't say it "boggles my mind" because I understand what the B1G was trying to do here, it just seems like a really unnecessary stretch. I've been almost as candid with my opinion of how poorly Oregon fits the B1G, as MDot has. Like many others around here, I thought expansion to the SE made a lot more sense than further consolidation out west, for the B1G's future plans.
So my question is, why NOW for Oregon? Why not wait a bit and digest the UCLA/USC addition and see how things shake out. All I can think of is that:
A) The B1G powers that be don't think they're going to be able to spring any of the ACC schools any time soon and
B) They were worried that if they didn't snag Oregon and Washington now, those two schools would get locked into another GOR with the PAC and their window for any expansion at all, would close.
I guess.
I think it was a colossal mistake based on shortsightedness. I referred to is as "buying high" borrowing that term from the financial world because IMHO, it is perfectly analogous. Oregon athletics have been VERY good lately but that is largely because of the financial and other support of one VERY wealthy alum who happens to be 80+ years old. Phil Knight isn't going to live forever and there is no guarantee that Oregon's athletics will continue to perform at their recent level without his backing.
That wouldn't be so bad if Oregon was from a more populous (and preferably more CFB-interested) state where we'd at least get a slew of CFB fans but they aren't. Oregon is the #27th most populous state and we all know that CFB isn't as big on the Pacific Coast as it is in the midwest and SE.
All of that wouldn't be so bad if Oregon had great academics but they don't. First I should state that I have no idea what Oregon's undergrad academics look like and I don't care. When we B1G types talk academics we are talking about research because there is where the money is. Oregon's research is worse than Notre Dame's.
We we added a school from a fairly low-population state that has dubious long-term athletic prospects and terrible academics. WTF?
I completely agree with @Temp430 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=131) , see above. Stanford has a LONG history of solid athletics. They are also REALLY good academically, and they are in the Bay Area which it would be nice to have a toehold in even though those folks generally aren't much into CFB.
It should have been Stanford and Washington.
-
That wouldn't be so bad if Oregon was from a more populous (and preferably more CFB-interested) state where we'd at least get a slew of CFB fans but they aren't. Oregon is the #27th most populous state and we all know that CFB isn't as big on the Pacific Coast as it is in the midwest and SE.
I do think Oregon is a more CFB-friendly situation than either California or Washington. USC/UCLA was a lot bigger in SoCal before the Rams came back and the Chargers moved north. UW football is IMHO by FAR second fiddle to the Seahawks. But Oregon doesn't have an NFL team. So there is a little bit less competition for eyeballs/attention.
The question, IMHO, is whether they can sustain the "brand" that they built on the back of Phil Knight's money when that flow stops. I noticed that when you look at that CFB fandom by zip code web site that we all used to talk about, here in SoCal, Oregon was typically the #3 school behind USC/UCLA in almost every listed zip code. Their brand is strong.
-
I think it was a colossal mistake based on shortsightedness. I referred to is as "buying high" borrowing that term from the financial world because IMHO, it is perfectly analogous. Oregon athletics have been VERY good lately but that is largely because of the financial and other support of one VERY wealthy alum who happens to be 80+ years old. Phil Knight isn't going to live forever and there is no guarantee that Oregon's athletics will continue to perform at their recent level without his backing.
That wouldn't be so bad if Oregon was from a more populous (and preferably more CFB-interested) state where we'd at least get a slew of CFB fans but they aren't. Oregon is the #27th most populous state and we all know that CFB isn't as big on the Pacific Coast as it is in the midwest and SE.
All of that wouldn't be so bad if Oregon had great academics but they don't. First I should state that I have no idea what Oregon's undergrad academics look like and I don't care. When we B1G types talk academics we are talking about research because there is where the money is. Oregon's research is worse than Notre Dame's.
We we added a school from a fairly low-population state that has dubious long-term athletic prospects and terrible academics. WTF?
I completely agree with @Temp430 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=131) , see above. Stanford has a LONG history of solid athletics. They are also REALLY good academically, and they are in the Bay Area which it would be nice to have a toehold in even though those folks generally aren't much into CFB.
It should have been Stanford and Washington.
10000000%
-
It should have been Stanford and Washington.
No doubt. The B1G really f'd this up.
I was in LA all weekend and the people there could not believe Oregon got it. The USC people are NOT happy with this.
-
If you ranked B1G members in terms of VALUE to the conference, where would Oregon rank? At the bottom? In the middle?
-
If you ranked B1G members in terms of VALUE to the conference, where would Oregon rank? At the bottom? In the middle?
Near the top in the MWC.
-
yes, cause Stanford is good at women's volleyball and college baseball and maybe a few Olympic sports????
of course those turn on more TVs than research spending!
-
Stanford would be an interesting vanity project.
I’m kind of fascinated what happens to them. In theory they can fund whatever they want for as long as they want. They could be a weird independent. Maybe he Big Ten takes them in the drive for 20. Maybe the ACC uses them as a stopgap.
-
Stanford would be an interesting vanity project.
I’m kind of fascinated what happens to them. In theory they can fund whatever they want for as long as they want. They could be a weird independent. Maybe he Big Ten takes them in the drive for 20. Maybe the ACC uses them as a stopgap.
Speak of the devil:
https://twitter.com/PFF_College/status/1688630605242585088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1688630605242585088%7Ctwgr%5E9dcbf46cdd66925ddd2d283ac3deff6b2cb8a4ce%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FPFF_College%2Fstatus%2F1688630605242585088%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc255Etfw257Ctwcamp255Etweetembed257Ctwterm255E1688630605242585088257Ctwgr255E07e0cee76d0c5ac3d2ed47541fd86b28bcd3a826257Ctwcon255Es1_26ref_url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fbearinsider.com%2Fforums%2F1%2Ftopics%2F115730%2F2
-
https://twitter.com/Pete_Nakos96/status/1688588432770056201?s=20
-
Speak of the devil:
https://twitter.com/PFF_College/status/1688630605242585088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1688630605242585088%7Ctwgr%5E9dcbf46cdd66925ddd2d283ac3deff6b2cb8a4ce%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.surlyhorns.com%2Fboard%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FPFF_College%2Fstatus%2F1688630605242585088%3Fref_src%3Dtwsrc255Etfw257Ctwcamp255Etweetembed257Ctwterm255E1688630605242585088257Ctwgr255E07e0cee76d0c5ac3d2ed47541fd86b28bcd3a826257Ctwcon255Es1_26ref_url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fbearinsider.com%2Fforums%2F1%2Ftopics%2F115730%2F2
I saw that and secretly hope it happens.
It’s very silly, but I wouldn’t mind being able to drive to a Cal game, and a lot of the other fall out would be very amusing.
-
I saw that and secretly hope it happens.
It’s very silly, but I wouldn’t mind being able to drive to a Cal game, and a lot of the other fall out would be very amusing.
I mean, why not? At this point why not just root for utter chaos and nonsense?
-
that's where I'm at
-
I mean, why not? At this point why not just root for utter chaos and nonsense?
Forget UGA, Utter Chaos & Nonsense is the 2-time defending champs.
-
yes, cause Stanford is good at women's volleyball and college baseball and maybe a few Olympic sports????
of course those turn on more TVs than research spending!
Big Ten membership is not all about football and TV money. At least, it shouldn't be. The barn door is open.
-
Big Ten membership is not all about football and TV money. At least, it shouldn't be. The barn door is open.
what fantasy fairy tale world do you live in? what shouldn't be is not what it is. sorry to burst your bubble and tell you that santa clause doesn't exist....but yeah the what is is that B1G membership expansion has only been about football and tv money. That's it. Why do you think we got stuck with fkn Rutgers and why do you think they just took a hard pass on adding Stanford- you know....arguably the greatest academic powerhouse in the entire fkn world....
-
He said "it shouldn't be", which is tacit admission that it is.
-
$$$money$$$ shouldn't make the world go round either, but............ it does
-
$$$money$$$ shouldn't make the world go round either, but............ it does
yup.
as the saying goes...money talks. bullshit walks.
-
yes, cause Stanford is good at women's volleyball and college baseball and maybe a few Olympic sports????
of course those turn on more TVs than research spending!
Speaking of the Olympic Sports, one of the unintended (though not necessarily unforeseen) consequences will be the strain on and potential breakdown of the niche, non-revenue sports.
Pac 12's Softball players are already bemoaning the travel distances -
An Arizona State infielder:
(https://i.imgur.com/s7R4yMg.png)
And two Oregon Ducks infielders:
(https://i.imgur.com/hJx1Nxb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/QCwZGz0.png)
-
it sucks, but w/o the football revenue those other sports might not exist
-
it sucks, but w/o the football revenue those other sports might not exist
would not exist. those ladies need to stfu. no one cares.
-
Speaking of the Olympic Sports, one of the unintended (though not necessarily unforeseen) consequences will be the strain on and potential breakdown of the niche, non-revenue sports.
Pac 12's Softball players are already bemoaning the travel distances -
An Arizona State infielder:
(https://i.imgur.com/s7R4yMg.png)
And two Oregon Ducks infielders:
(https://i.imgur.com/hJx1Nxb.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/QCwZGz0.png)
Yeah, because Tempe to Eugene, or Pullman, is "close to home" and family can see you play.
GTFOH
-
They have a perfectly legitimate point.
Sure money runs everything, and that money has created this madness. I have no problem with them pointing it out.
The current status of collegiate athletic conferences is completely ridiculous. It's not going to change and will in fact likely only get worse, but that doesn't change the fact that it's already absolutely absurd as it is.
-
I was on a plane coming back from Hawaii that had the NMSU lady's soccer team on it. I didn't mind because they were pretty much all attractive.
-
They have a perfectly legitimate point.
Sure money runs everything, and that money has created this madness. I have no problem with them pointing it out.
The current status of collegiate athletic conferences is completely ridiculous. It's not going to change and will in fact likely only get worse, but that doesn't change the fact that it's already absolutely absurd as it is.
Sure they do.
But this isn't one of them.
Pac 12's Softball players are already bemoaning the travel distances -
-
They have a perfectly legitimate point.
Sure money runs everything, and that money has created this madness. I have no problem with them pointing it out.
The current status of collegiate athletic conferences is completely ridiculous. It's not going to change and will in fact likely only get worse, but that doesn't change the fact that it's already absolutely absurd as it is.
honestly- I still think they should just be quiet. they are lucky they even have a softball program to participate in. the only reason they have that is because: football.
without the money that football generates- and these moves are obviously being made to secure football money- none of them would be able to be on scholarship playing softball or any other dumbass sport that no one gives a single flying fkn shit about.
if teams in the PAC had stayed put and they are only getting $25 million a year from AppleTV+ - and I believe they would've only gotten that $25 million per school per year IF they met added subscription requirements - which they never would have met in a billion years - how would those schools afford to fund anything other than football? they wouldn't be able to. you want to play softball? well guess what...we need money from football TV rights.....or you don't get to play softball. so shut up.
my opinion has always been the same on this: these women should be GRATEFUL they even get to play anything...womens sports are all money pits that are 100% subsidized by football and to a lesser degree men's basketball. if I was emperor of the US and it was all up to me they wouldn't get shit. you want a program? self fund it. make money selling tickets, tv rights, and merchandise to your stupid softball games to pay for it.
-
Ultimately, I see football and hoops breaking away. Big Ten football and hoops comprise the current schools after expansion. In other words, USC, UCLA, Oregon and UDub will be football and hoops members only in the B1G.
The rest of the sports can go back to their PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC and call it a day.
-
Ultimately, I see football and hoops breaking away. Big Ten football and hoops comprise the current schools after expansion. In other words, USC, UCLA, Oregon and UDub will be football and hoops members only in the B1G.
The rest of the sports can go back to their PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC and call it a day.
100% should happen. And 100% let them try to make their own money and self fund...lol.
not a believer in hand outs or communism- even if all those snot nosed dumbass kids studying Marx in college are. football program should keep it's money and sink it into paying the players a base salary and upgrading facilities.
-
Ultimately, I see football and hoops breaking away. Big Ten football and hoops comprise the current schools after expansion. In other words, USC, UCLA, Oregon and UDub will be football and hoops members only in the B1G.
The rest of the sports can go back to their PAC, XII, B1G, SEC, ACC and call it a day.
I wish they'd breakaway, but think the conference entanglements are just too thick for that really to happen.
-
I wish they'd breakaway, but think the conference entanglements are just too thick for that really to happen.
me too. football should breakaway. SEC/B1G should just get together and plan to go to 24 teams each and start a 48 team minor league. start a bunch of new entities LLCs or what not- let the schools have ownership in them or have the schools sell them to rich fks and wall street and license their names/logos and get % of ticket sales for the stadiums from said entities- try to get NFL owners to invest. teams pay the schools for players education, rent, and food- plus have a base salary where every player makes the same. $100k/year would be a good starting point. get a commissioner of the new super league and call it a day. Idk.
-
We're speculated on these super conferences turning into effectively two separate conferences in effect.
-
the ladies and the men's tennis team can do whatever they want
they don't have to take the $$$ that comes from football
they can go back to zero scholarships, no meals, no facilities
then they can play close to their families
-
the ladies and the men's tennis team can do whatever they want
they don't have to take the $$$ that comes from football
they can go back to zero scholarships, no meals, no facilities
then they can play close to their families
Not really true though, because of Title IX I think the revenue form sports has to be split equally. Unless you're saying they drop football and then it is what it is with no football.
-
Folks can drop a few sports if they have to do so if travel is that onerous. I do think for sports that play a lot of "matches" it will be tough on the athletes.
They will like it at first ...
-
Title IX gives them the right to the $$$
they have the right to refuse the $$$ because of their glistening principles
-
Title IX gives them the right to the $$$
they have the right to refuse the $$$ because of their glistening principles
This is such a silly argument.
These athletes were recruited into an environment that was much different, and much better for them, than the one they're about to shift into. They have a right to complain, and I agree with them, because the "new normal" for conference make-ups is simply dumb as shit.
Defending stuff that's dumb as shit, is dumb as shit.
-
Maybe I'll invest in Delta and AA.
-
This is such a silly argument.
These athletes were recruited into an environment that was much different, and much better for them, than the one they're about to shift into. They have a right to complain, and I agree with them, because the "new normal" for conference make-ups is simply dumb as shit.
Defending stuff that's dumb as shit, is dumb as shit.
I agree it's dumb as shit. Not defending it.
Just reminding the folks from other sports that they had an environment that was much better because of football $$$
They didn't need the transfer portal. They've been free to move around and find the best environment for themselves for years.
They are free to do so now. SDSU or Cal or Frenso st would probably take them in.
It's inconvenient and not what they signed up for, but......... life's a bitch
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Jg4ucnh.png)
-
I agree it's dumb as shit. Not defending it.
Just reminding the folks from other sports that they had an environment that was much better because of football $$$
They didn't need the transfer portal. They've been free to move around and find the best environment for themselves for years.
They are free to do so now. SDSU or Cal or Frenso st would probably take them in.
It's inconvenient and not what they signed up for, but......... life's a bitch
Sure, true enough. I guess I just have more sympathy for them, than others do. The system's totally fucked up and I'm AOK with anyone who calls that out.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Jg4ucnh.png)
This is the same thing I was getting at. Now I need a shower, for agreeing with Chip Kelly.
-
I'm guessing there are plenty of football players that feel the same way.
basketballers, coaches, athletic dept staff, alumni, boosters, casual fans
Hell, I don't like it.
Let's all call it out and bitch!
-
Chip knows ed zachery why this doesn't happen.
Revenue sharing!
The SEC and the Big programs are getting more money and they don't want to share
-
This is the same thing I was getting at. Now I need a shower, for agreeing with Chip Kelly.
Oh yeah, I think it makes sense... mostly.
I just don't think there's any real way to disentangle football from the other conference sports. The conferences themselves certainly don't want to lose football.
So each individual school would have to break their current legal agreements and leave the conference for football-only, and then somehow keep all their other sports in that conference, except what conference would agree to losing the revenue-generating profit-center sport and keeping all of the cost centers?
So in reality you'd have to kill all of the existing conferences by breaking all legal agreements with them, re-form into some football-only league, and then create new conferences to harbor the non-revenue sports. Of course, those new conferences with all of the non-revenue sports would still need to be paid for somehow, and the only way to pay for them is to use... football revenue.
So break up the current system where football funds all the non-revenue sports, to create a new system where football funds all the non-revenue sports.
What could possibly go wrong??? :)
-
Oregon athletics have been VERY good lately but that is largely because of the financial and other support of one VERY wealthy alum who happens to be 80+ years old. Phil Knight isn't going to live forever and there is no guarantee that Oregon's athletics will continue to perform at their recent level without his backing.
We we added a school from a fairly low-population state that has dubious long-term athletic prospects and terrible academics. WTF?
Phil Knight's age is a great point. Does Nike’s bankrolling stop after Uncle Phil's ashes are sifted over a Kaepernick jersey?
Guessing Knight leaves a sizeable portion of his estate to Oregon's athletic department?
Another point where Oregon is more than fortunate is with coaching hires given how often they leave:
-Chip Kelly 4 years; 46–7; 2009 - 12
-Mark Helfrich (fired) 4 years; 37–16; 2013 - 16
-Willie Taggart 1 year; 7-5; 2017
-Mario Cristobal 4 years; 35–13; 2018 - 21
-And Dan Lanning (10–3) is a goner once the first big Southern job calls
None remained beyond the graduation cycle of their first recruiting class yet despite those self-sustaining W/L trends, it's asking a lot to continue hiring as routinely well once Oregon takes on the B1G.
And beware, Duck (and Huskies) fans make for a thinned skinned, overmedicated, plant-based, neurodiverse, infantile, and insufferably whiny fanbase:
(https://i.imgur.com/yI7T1k5.png)
-
Terrible additions, especially Oregon.
-
B1G now has a wart on both ends. (Let's dump Oregon and Rutgers.)
-
B1G now has a wart on both ends. (Let's dump Oregon and Rutgers.)
Can't believe you didn't call out another wart in the middle, up north. ;)
-
So Wazzu and OrSU are playing a MWC schedule but are not eligible for the CCG.
My recollection is that the PAC-2 holds all of the rights and assets of the Pac-12.
Those two should convince the 10 best programs of the MWC to join them in a new Pac-12.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ch8QjoN.png)
Which two would you cut?
AFA, Boise, CSU, Fresno and USU to me are obvious takes.
I think I'd cut New Mexico and either Nevada or Hawaii (travel costs on the latter).
-
I've said all along that they shouldn't bend to being f***ed by the greed. The playoff should have stayed the top 6 conference champs. Those two should hold the Rose Bowl automatic.
Screw the powers that be that ruined college football, and realized their last money grab is costing them money in their current money grab