(04-09-2023 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 07:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 06:47 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 03:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 01:42 PM)Poster Wrote:  The theory pushed by more credible sources is that Kevin Warren pushed all 4 of Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford, and that the presidents didn’t want Stanford and Cal. This supposedly ended up halting expansion altogether and preventing Oregon and Washington from being added.

There's no source (other than Flug) that claims that Warren's departure helps Cal and Stanford's odds. The argument is that Warren't departure helps Oregon and Washington's odds.

Fluguar always said Stanford was the 5th, tied with Notre Dame. He said he heard nothing about Cal.

I do agree there is more opposition than anti-Warren sentiment. But it was around the issues of digestion (two at a time is preferred) and having the increased revenue to justify it. But leaving partners of high value stranded due to a Pac-12 collapse changes the equation; meaning the opposition might be a lot less in that scenario, combined with a willingness of the schools to take less money and the stepping up of a provider (Comcast/Peacock or Amazon or even ESPN) for a Friday night game package that would only need a $100M or so, instead of the $200M they required last summer to make the numbers work. But it can't just be shunting 12 games onto BTN, it must be an exposure value to get the schools worried they'd lose a broadcast game or two (e.g., Rutgers, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, Maryland, et al). Even begging is not enough, that extra package is required.

That's why I wonder if the B1G goes to ESPN asking for a Friday night ABC or ESPN game as part of a package if Oregon and Washington are added and the rest go to NBC in the 2:30 timeslot when ND is away. In addition to additional money (expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase), the lesser value B1G schools get more chances of exposure on linear networks, and ESPN would get up to 60 games for basketball.

If expansion won't happen if there isn't a revenue increase then we might as well shut this forum down, because there are no whales big enough left on the board. The B1G's and SEC's contracts are high enough that virtually any add but Notre Dame would either be neutral or almost surely dilutive. And nobody the other three conferences would want would want to leave. If PAC schools want to leave for the Big 12 they won't increase either the B12s revenue or the ACC's.

1. None of you are looking at the value of these schools within the correct context. It's not about what the schools have earned within their current contexts. It's about what markets they add to the new groupings, what reach they extend, and what content value they add to the potential match ups in their new associations.

Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Notre Dame, North Carolina, a Virginia school all add markets. Florida State adds markets to the Big 10 and market dominance to the SEC. Should Florida State head to the SEC Miami will have value to the Big 10, and could be worth SEC interest to keep the Big 10 totally out of the Florida markets. Kansas has value in market reach in another season.

2. The real money is to be made from the CFP expansion (about 18 million per school in an upper tier) and 2.25 x old tourney creds, (paid annually, and not spread out over 6 years).

The money is already there.

3. The option briefly considered was one Conference of about 24 to 30 schools paid 120 million to 150 million each and nobody else in the upper tier. The networks are holding off on that to see if a more inclusive format (think 72) can work.

4. I don't know if smaller shares will be accepted by some or not. My assumption, and it is one, is that the 3rd conference, perhaps 3rd and 4th conferences will be paid less for football, more for basketball and will remain competitive as a result. We'll see.

But I fully expect the Big 10 to add at least 4 more and for the SEC to likely follow suit.

Whether there is a Big 12 of 20 or more, or a Big 12 of 16 full members with more all but football schools, and an ACC comported the same way remains to be seen.

Maybe culling all the way to an NFL sized 32 teams would be too much at once. Get everyone used to 72 then cull the SEC and B1G down to a P1 and all the culled schools have the B12(M West) and ACC(M East) to land in.

(04-09-2023 12:54 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-09-2023 08:54 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-08-2023 06:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-08-2023 05:46 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(04-08-2023 05:35 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Is Flug credible? A 24 team conference doesn’t seem very likely.

Well he's not saying that expansion is imminent, all he said was that Warren was what put the breaks on further expansion. The schools in the B1G did not trust the man and it shouldn't be that surprising if true, look how fast he's leaving the conference.

As far as credibility is concerned, take everything he says with a healthy dose of skepticism. That said, I would put him above numerous others people like to post stories about here.

Well, I don’t see much economic incentive. UO and UW’s TV rating is well below the BIG average. Their attendance is not much better than the BIG average. And it’s not like they own huge market like NY or LA.

Unless Amazon or another network is willing to pay a lot of money…

The BIG and networks aren’t evaluating Oregon and UW on how they pull playing in PAC

Oregon vs OSU was a top-10 rated regular season game. Beating nearly all BIG vs BIG game

The top PAC brands are greatly devalued playing in PAC

Is the Big 10 bump enough to get added? Potentially

It’s likely high enough to justify if Amazon or ESPN pay up to create late night or help with ND

Yes UO’s and UW’s rating would increase in the BIG. But it’s not going to be much higher than the BIG average if not lower. Look at Rutger’s and UMCP ratings.

Rutgers and Maryland would have even lower TV ratings if they weren't in the Big 10. I do agree that it's doubtful the Big 10 would have added Rutgers and Maryland if they had known that, even with the bigger opposing fanbases, they'd still rank third to last and last in TV viewership, with Rutgers being almost 50% behind second to last place. (And Maryland falling behind Illinois into second to last place if you exclude games vs Ohio State and Michigan.)
https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-vi...am-attract

But a move to the Big 10 would pretty much have to increase the TV viewers for a team's games, just because their opponents will have bigger fanbases if nothing else. (Even if a move to the BIG doesn't increase the number of fans a team itself has.) Remember, a team's TV ratings are determined 50% by the size of their own fanbase, and 50% by the size of their opponent's fanbase.

Where the move to the Big 10 seems like it might have hurt Maryland is attendance, but attendance is a very different calculation than TV viewers. Attendance is determined about 95% by the size of your fanbase and 5% by the size of opposing fanbases.