Demise of Pac 12 now inevitable?
YES ANOTHER CONF REALIGNMENT POST... but not about hockey.
I am having trouble finding a big-name media outlet with the news (whether "big name" equates to "credible" is another debate), but the Internets have various reports from the past two days that the Pac 12 has been unable to negotiate a media contract. As a result, the Pac 12 is thinking about going to a "D2C" model -- "direct to consumer" -- meaning, producing all of its own games through Pac12Network, and then doing streaming sales (or sales to local TV stations etc.). The P12N already produces games for ESPN etc. so the assets already exist and in a way it's cost-saving. But it's also totally unpredictable what kind of revenue they'd get, and there's no guarantee of revenue so there goes the concept of a "budget."
So... Colorado and Arizona apparently are out the door. Collapse of the conference would seem imminent. Paul Bigears predicted the Pac12 will not exist in the 2026 season. (Although, I'd think the MWC or WAC would be smart to rebrand as the "Pac [N]" on the other side of this, once the conference name becomes a free agent too.) Big10 allegedly waiting for Pac12 implosion before grabbing moar assets, possibly the Ducks and Huskies.
Some links I could find on this (they look and read like normal online news sites but I can't vouch for their reliability): https://clutchpoints.com/big-12-colorado-college-football-expansion-conference-realignment, https://www.sportskeeda.com/college-football/is-pac-12-s-collapse-inevitable-big-ten-plans-expansion-top-suitors-include-oregon-stanford-utah-among-others, https://basicbluesnation.com/big-ten-waiting-for-pac-12-to-implode-for-conference-expansion/
it would appear that the time is right for the B1G to pluck the ducks and leash the huskies.....
should we also cage the cardinal? tame the wildcats? form a treaty with the utes?
Question is, does the B10 offer limited outlays like UMd and Rutgers received? LIke 10+ years of a 50% share of revenue? Where else is UW going to go? Oregon I could see to the B12 or even the SEC, but even the SEC won't be too keen on travelling to OR all the time for all the sports.
As also discussed many times, unequal revenue sharing begets jealous malcontents, which in turn leads to conference instability. Therefore not viable. Either schools add sufficient value to earn their equal share or they don't get invited. That's why UW and UO aren't part of the cool kids club.
You're ignoring OP's point that the B1G did exactly what you said was not viable (offer non equal revenue shares).
Perhaps Oregon is salty that they get paid 50% of what Indiana and Purdue make, but on the other hand that 50% is better than any other offer they are going to get and also is probably 2-3x what they make currently.
Right. If the B1G rescues UW and Oregon from a collapsing conference, they're not going to peace out in the next few years when they have even fewer alternatives. Barring a spite bid from the SEC, their BATNA is a smaller Big 12 deal, going independent, or dropping down to the Mountain West.
Lots of good points being made. The best point in my opinion is that schools that join, don't necessarily have to get an equal share of the revenue (to start anyway). I think it all depends on what they bring to the table ie. viewership, brand value, market growth potential. . .
I didn't go to business school but I always thought that you buy or build low and sell high. It seems like the Big 10 is in a position to add some pretty attractive pieces to the portfolio for the low. Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, BYU, Syracuse, N. Carolina, Duke, Ga Tech, Miami, Fl. State, Virginia, Clemson, Notre Dame, Kansas, U. Conn, Boston College, Ok. State, and a Texas school, I would strongly consider.
I wouldn't take them all but going nation-wide and having the best brands, would increase the Big-10's value. Why argue about having to split 100 million with 12 additional teams when you could be splitting 10 billion. The addition of some pretty valuable brands that have viewership and/or expected market growth could give you that.
Did Maryland and Gers get limited outlays? I thought that was only for like the first year?
As discussed 100x, UO and UW, despite bringing some great competition to the B10, do not bring in enough revenue and eyeballs to increase overall conference payouts.
It really seems like there's only small handful of teams the B10 can even consider at this point.
Joel Klatt just had a segment on his show about the whole "size of market" a school is in. He made it sound like TV execs and advertisers have now shifted their mindset away from caring about how many TVs are in a given market and instead are now focused on quality of matchups. It doesn't matter how big of a market Eugene is if you have a matchup of Oregon vs Michigan because everyone throughout the Country is watching that matchup and advertisers are willing to pay more to have the eyeballs.
If that is indeed the case, the Big 10 will gobble up Oregon and Washington as fast as possible because it would now mean assets/inventory is much more valuable than location.
I think his bigger point was market size will give way to eyeballs. If Oregon and Washington will bring more eyeballs to the B1G then they will get an invite, if the conference feels they don't do much for the bottom line then they will stand pat. Yes Oregon and Michigan might do numbers but will Oregon and Illinois? We know USC will have people tuning in regardless of who they play. Im not sure Oregon and especially Washington will have that pull.
Not sure I'm following your detective work there, friend. Oregon is a national brand. Illinois is not. Pretty much any big-league team Oregon plays will draw viewers; pretty much any big-league team Illinois plays really won't. Illinois-Penn State won't draw a ton of national viewers, either. It would draw roughly the same as Oregon-Illinois.
Oregon isn't really a national brand, though. How many Oregon games have you watched against teams other than USC or Washington? I think the point is that Oregon is big within the Pac-12 but not big enough nationally to really make the Big Ten any more money.
Also, Illinois-Penn State will draw national viewers because of Penn State (also Illinois, while generally bad at football, is a large state school that has it's own large fanbase). If Oregon isn't a Penn State-level draw, they're not adding to the conference. Which is why it has not yet been invited.
I don't know if I agree with this. I don't think there's 15-20 schools with a bigger national brand (for football) over the last 10-15 years than Oregon. Are they a national brand at the level of Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, USC, Notre Dame etc? No. Are they at the same level as your Penn State, Wisconsin, Auburn, Florida etc? I think they are. Are they a bigger national brand than Florida State, Miami, Michigan State, UCLA, Iowa? Without a doubt.
If they joined the Big 10 and I were to rank the top teams in the Big 10 in order of what I think people throughout the Country would have an interest in watching I would say:
1a1b1c - Michigan, Ohio State & USC
4 - Penn State
5 - Oregon
6 - Wisconsin
7 - Michigan State
8 - Iowa
9 - UCLA
Are you kidding? Oregon is very much a national brand. It's one of the Top 10 biggest:
https://247sports.com/longformarticle/college-footballs-25-biggest-brands-in-2022-ranked-190591771/#1928157
That article is just one reporter's subjective ranking. What the conference cares about is TV viewership, and Oregon is not a top-10 TV brand. Perhaps they would be if they played in the Big Ten against better teams in better time slots. But perhaps not. And the Big Ten probably isn't going to take that risk, unless and until they're confident Oregon will add enough value to cover their share of revenue.
But big brands do draw lots of national viewers even when they play lesser brands. Michigan-Illinois last year was the 2nd most watched game of that week. Ohio State-Northwestern was the 3rd most watched game of its week. Here's all of last year's TV ratings if you want to peruse.
Most of the value in the new Big Ten comes from Michigan, Ohio State, USC, and Penn State. Oregon and Washington are certainly bigger brands that many Big Ten teams, but unless they draw viewership similar to the top brands, they are unlikely to add enough value to not dilute each team's share of the revenue.
You mean this isn't a good national TV draw?
I think you're missing his point of assets and inventory. If you have Duke, N. Carolina, Kansas, U. Conn, Mi. State, UCLA, Gonzaga and Arizona in your conference, you essentially have a lock on those who watch college basketball wherever they live in the country. College basketball is the dominant sport on tv from January through April so adding blue bloods from other sports besides football, can add tremendous value to the Big 10's brand, despite what the viewership in a metropolitan area is. Of course viewership in the region is important because it goes with licensing hats T-shirts and other apparel, which I'm sure the conference gets a piece of.
That theory only works for the big matchups. Yes, you can outweigh market size for the premier matchups. But Oregon-Indiana isn’t going to have that same national draw. Are the 2-3 prime matchups a year going to be enough? I couldn’t say for certain.
I doubt matchups with Indiana football are considered much when weighing if a team is worth adding to the conference.
Considering the argument was how many people would watch Oregon play the likes of UM, OSU and PSU nationally, and that is more valuable than the market they play in, then we need to acknowledge that they won’t be playing UM, OSU or PSU weekly. And we have to consider matchups against the likes of Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc. Yes, those matchups have to be equally considered alongside the primetime matchups.
People often forget this isn't happening in a vacuum. The question is not only "what do UW and UO add individually", but also what else can their addition add synergistically?
Their additions reinforce USC & UCLA with more local rivals, but also possibly entices other schools to join later (Stanford and maybe ND). It also gives the Big Ten more CFB clout as a whole.
The immediate revenue per school calculation is not the only consideration.
Yeah, these schools aren't fixed in amber. Some markets are projected to grow, some shrinking. CA is losing a thousand people a day, in a state where interest in college sports was already minimal. Lots of better-off people moved themselves and their elective affinities to smaller jurisdictions over the last five years, and some of that growth--to midsize and small towns--is accelerating. Having strong universities, we have already seen, is part of the consideration. Setting up fun games that take in big swaths of the country, as opposed to MN traveling to IA, is going to provoke interest, especially once we are down to two/three big conferences; the stakes will be higher for such games--USC v M won't just be a fun tilt, but affect the B1G standings.
CA is losing a thousand people a day...
No comment beyond:
Their additions reinforce USC & UCLA with more local rivals
LA to Seattle is roughly the same distance as LA to Lincoln. “Local rivals” is pretty generous when you’re still talking about 1200 miles.
Staying in the same timezone (not to mention similar culture/demographic) should not be underestimated. Fans of LA schools are more likely to be found in and travel to travel to cities such as Seattle & Eugene rather than Minneapolis & Lincoln.
Heading up the coast is not the same thing as heading to flyover country.
Othernel, which handful of schools do you think qualify? I understand the point about the payoff right now. A school like Oregon, Stanford, or BYU shouldn't expect to join a conference and take away $$$ from what's already been earned or negotiated, from the existing teams. No matter how discontent they may be, the Big 10 isn't giving away money to any school who wants to join up.
A solution could be that they join and get paid what they would have earned from their previous conference, until the Big 10's contract expires. When negotiations begin for the Big 10's next contract, they could add them to the equation and seek a deal that provides equally or at a rate commensurate to the schools value or the conferences growth, after they joined. That would be fair and a win win for everyone if you think about it.
The Big 10 becomes THE MOST attractive and powerful athletic conference in college sports, hence commanding more money (depending on the schools they add). The new-comer gains stability, a voice and the ability to earn a greater return in the future but New-comers have to be patient and reasonable.
No formidable conference is going to give a school a portion of what they have already made and promised to their current members, unless they're desperate to have them join. Not even N.D. is worthy of that and there are some very attractive schools that would jump at the chance. The Big 10 needs to act quickly and decisively by adding the best T.V. markets and (football/basketball) brands available from the Pac 10 and ACC. Why pick up crumbs left over from the Mountain West or the Big 12 and allow them to become stronger and have more of a say in the future of college athletics?
Agree 100%. Pulling in a couple of more West Coast markets - Portland and especially Seattle - would be huge.
A treaty with the utes? Don’t you mean “youths?”
should we also cage the cardinal?
Cardinal refers to the color of their uniforms, not the bird. That's why it's singular.
So ... paint the Cardinal?
Wouldn't it then be paint with?
Haha, "form a treaty". Nice effort, there.
I feel like at this point, we're just creating a whole new league. Instead of the power 5, there's a power 2 -- made up of just SEC, B1G and the few worthy schools from other conferences (plus fuckin' Notre Dame).
I think it's time for pro/rel in college football and I'm here for it. You want to be in the B1G? well we've got 24903280498 teams and only 10 places. Earn it.
THAT's what we can call Division 1 -- and it's temporary. msu would be in at least Division 4 and that makes me happy.
The big ten should add Colorado because I live in Denver.
I know you're half-joking, but I always thought CU would fit almost perfectly in the B1G.
Solid academics (AAU). Decent-size and quickly growing TV market all along the Front Range. Nebraska rivalry. History with us that will go unspoken. World-class campus. Reasonable travel distance from even East Coast. Etc.
and with coach prime..... Jim wouldn't be the most polarizing coach in the B1G.
I don't think Coach Prime wants to be in the B1G...lol
Jim wouldn't be the most polarizing coach in the B1G.
I'm still ticked that the Harbaugh & Bo Pelini tenures missed each other by just 30 days. I would love to have seen the fireworks between the two of them.
And for sure, whenever we play CU we will be force-fed the Kordell Stewart hail mary highlight, much like they do with The Horror highlights.
BTW, Blake “Tipper” Anderson got married in Boulder last Saturday, with his dad Dick Anderson of the Champagne toasting undefeated ‘72 Dolphins, and lots of their CU football buddies in attendance.
c’mon, it was 29 years ago, and a pretty cool play at that! I shook Blake’s hand and I’m ready to move on.
Go Blue!
I could have done without the gif, thank you very much.
too soon
I really do question how long the current conference format will last. I know there is big money, big contracts, and big agreements in place, but right now the conference format is as non-sensical as bowl season. It is almost satire.
I think college football is going to have to go a route in which the football teams are still economically tied to each individual athletic department, and maybe to conference in some format as well, but in which the conference designation is not related to opponent and scheduling, with the exception of serious rivals but then that will be up to the school and not the conference.
I resisted it for a long time because get off my lawn, but the evolution of college football now does require a complete overhaul of the schedule and post-season. I think they got it right with the 12 team playoff, but in what world does a conference title game make sense now? Not to mention that the conference title game criteria seems to be "we will take a look at the teams and make a call."
It makes no sense to have UCLA or Colorado in the Big Ten (which has like 18 teams). None of this makes sense anymore.
It'd be great to get that Black Friday Nebraska v Colorado game going again.
I must be really old, because I always think of Oklahoma vs Nebraska on Black Friday.
Adding CU makes a lot of sense, actually. It's profile is big right now, its culturally sympatico with the B10, and geographically it's a natural bridge state to the Western schools.
Sad. The geographical presence of conferences is eroded.
Agree to a degree but it all comes down to big markets and money - just the way it is in 2023