More Oregon/Washington talk
Brett McMurphy indicating Oregon and Washington are vetted and cleared to join the B1G, but it sounds predicated on someone else making the first move...
At this point it seems like the B1G and SEC should start their own collegiate sanctioned body for sports and walk from the NCAA. Bring in all of the P5 schools and go from there.
All honesty, this doesn't pass the smell test. They were vetted a year ago and were found short of the $$$ requirements.
Unless they both take a severe cut for a long tie, I don't see it happening. And I don't see either taking the same cuts UMD and Rutger took. I think they both still only get a 50% share.
That’s about 49% too high for Rutger
"They were vetted a year ago and were found short of the $$$ requirements."
So the Pacific Northwest market doesn't bring in enough eyeballs and dollars for a conference that has schools in the huge metropolises of Bloomington, Lincoln, Happy Valley, West Lafayette, and Iowa City.
That's a false comparison though.
3 of those 5 schools were in the B1G well before the era of TV and media markets mattering.
And the 2 that weren't, they were programs that did pass the "add sufficiently incremental eyeballs and $$$" test.
And Happy Valley may be a remote small city, but it is the biggest program in a very populous state filled with a lot of football fans.
And Penn State has the largest alumni base in the country iirc
Very fair point.. PSU drawing both Pittsburgh and Philly.
Small sample size here, but in 2022 Oregon was #12 in TV views, but Washington was #34. Which means Washington got less views than 10 of 14 BigTen schools including 3 of the 4 schools you mentioned. They barely edged out Northwestern.
Washington would add a new market, but Washington might not add as much as other potential schools.
Compared to the huge metropolises that are Tuscaloosa, College Station and Columbia, MO?
You’re looking at it the wrong way. First of all 3 of those 5 have been members since the late 1800s. LONG before there was an emphasis placed on TV markets. They’re grandfathered in. The Big Ten isn’t going to kick any schools out that are already there just to chase media markets.
Second, schools don’t have to be IN the large cities to bring the markets. Just close enough that they bring the TV market with them, which Happy Valley accomplished with Pittsburgh and Philly. This is why Rutgers was added, to bring the NYC market with them despite Rutgers being located in NJ and about 40 miles from the city. That’s why Maryland was added, Baltimore (40 miles) and DC (15 miles). But also, Nebraska and Penn State are huge national brands. Their worth is more than just the eyeballs they bring from their local markets but it was again, before the TV market rush anyway.
Now, adding any schools has to make financial sense. Oregon and Washington do add to the overall value of the conference, BUT you’re also increasing the shares from 16 to 18 schools. However much money the conference is getting will be split with two additional teams. They have to bring ENOUGH value to not lower the average payout for the rest of the conference. Do the Seattle and Portland markets accomplish that?
Lots of cord-cutters make the region unattractive for a business built on TV advertising.
Besides, we spend half the football season out hiking on weekends.
Dear B1G,
I live in the Pacific NW. I will watch the games. This is a good idea. Please do it.
/signed
Maizinator
(I won't mention that I'm watching from a shared YTTV account)
It's not about the size of cities Don. It's about the size of alumni bases and their passion to support their programs with $$$.
It could be that Tony Petitti is using different metrics than Kevin Warren. Or something happened in the meantime (USC/UCLA lobbying for more West Coast schools?).
He isn't just referring to the BIG10 vetting. He is meaning all factors to be dealt with in the whole process are now done.
It's just a matter of time now, waiting for who draws first.
Maryland and Rutgers got full share 2020-21 athletic year.
Unless you have verified inside knowledge that this happened, no one actually knows what the process has been regarding those schools. It's just a bunch of reports saying mostly different things.
“I’m told that the Big Ten and FOX do not want to have blood on their hands for being the reason the Pac-12 blew up. In a way, they’re sitting back and waiting to see what happens with Colorado or Arizona. If they leave for the Big 12, that opens the flood gates,” McMurphy added.
This seems odd to me considering USC and UCLA leaving made the Pac12 unstable and schools looking for the exits.
Maybe they didn't like any of the bad PR they got for that.
If Brett McMurphy is saying it, it's real. Colorado and Utah want into the Big12. If it is also Arizona, what is left of the Pac12?
Snatching up the High Value Assets of the Pac 12 (UCLA and USC) was like pouring some sugar in their gas tank. Snapping up the next two best properties is like running Gravedigger over their car.
Yeah, Fox and the conference may well feel that way, but taking USC and UCLA cut the heart out of the Pac-12.
It's weird that more people aren't seeing that it's pretty clear that 2/3 Pac12 teams will eventually join the B10. I really doubt the B10 went and got 2 SoCal teams and plan on leaving them on an island out there. Eventually there will be roughly 5 West Coast teams.
Yeah this is not a small matter. We tend to focus only on football but if you consider all men's and women's sports, and the fact that USC and UCLA will have NO west coast conference opponents, the logistical reality becomes clear. Traveling to the central and eastern time zones for most conference games in basketball, softball, track and field, you name it, is a big problem.
In the NFL teams from the east coast who have two west coast games in a row on their schedules will sometimes stay out west for the week in between. But these are obviously college kids who attend classes so that's not an option. The obvious solution is to add more Pac 12 schools to make it work.
this is fine with me. avoid florida and get colorado to go with nebraska. Get one more team from the rust belt (cinci, nd or pitt) and stop at 20 (10W and 10E) for awhile, preferably a long while. boulder is a great place for a road trip or two.
Ohio State would never let Cincinnati into the B1G.
I don't think it is up to theOSUthe. Unless they have a security council veto like russia.
PSU would definitely block Pitt.
I would be fine with FSU/ Miami. Road trips to Florida would be fun.
driving to fsu is totally reasonable, driving to miami is another story. not a fan of the miami airport.
florida is still wildly popular and a tourist mecca deep in the region that is naturally going to be dominated by the sec and while it lasts the acc.
Florida teams in the big ten would always have heavily divided admin's and alumni who would want them to leave as soon as they join...right?
Miami is fine. Fly to Fort Myers (RSW), a delightful airport. Hang out on the Gulf, drive across Alligator Alley for the game. Win-win.
Or just fly into FLL, which is basically a suburb. Ft. Meyers is hours away.
Also, Colorado and Utah are likely going to the Big12.
These are the real reasons there is delay in the Pac12 media deal.
I like the idea of inviting Utah and Colorado. Stanford too. Colorado isn't exactly fanatical about sports but both make geographic, demographic, and cultural sense. Ratings and contracts are great but having multiple games throughout the day and night is a very unique proposition plus the B1G and Pac have been competing OOC and postseason for decades. How many times has UM played Colorado, Utah, UW, or Oregon in football in the last 25-30 years?
UM only played Colorado once. Ever. It happened in 1997. If you try to tell me any other game against Colorado ever happened, you are lying and you need to feel badly for being such a wretched individual.
The’95 game worked out ok
"The’95 game worked out ok"
Well, yeah. I was exaggerating for effect. Common device in any narrative.
Except there was no game in '95. We played them in '94, '96 and '97.
Admit it - you forgot about the game in Boulder.
Michigan also beat Colorado 31-0 in 1974.
Also, how concerned should I be that people are forgetting we played them in 2016?
"Except there was no game in '95. We played them in '94, '96 and '97.
Admit it - you forgot about the game in Boulder."
I admit to not remembering the year of the game in Boulder. As for the rest of the alleged events, no, I can neither confirm nor deny any memory thereof. I was at the game in '97 and took great glee in the proceedings. But why that victory was exceptionally sweet is now beyond my ability to recollect.
Why didn’t the 1996 game happen?
Interesting sideline gear. Did Nike think we were playing in Hawaii?
From what I've read Utah wants to stay in the Pac 12, although if the Pac 12 collapses they would obviously need a Plan B. Assuming the Pac 12 sticks around as a lesser version of itself, I've seen Arizona mentioned with Colorado as a possible B1G joinees. I know it doesn't make geographical sense, and what about UW and UO, but I guess it goes to show that anything could happen and nobody knows.
This came up on the Roundtable and I think the take Seth had is probably correct. Yes, they're vetted and cleared in the academic sense. But they don't increase revenue and might even be a net negative revenue-wise so they're probably not going to get an invite.
These reports are all probably coming from the UW/Oregon side as they're hoping to jump from the sinking ship. The B1G and Fox are just using not blowing up the PAC as an easy way to say it's not you it's me.
Very much agreed. There is no way these leaks are coming from the Big Ten--look at how well they kept other expansion announcements secret until the day they happened. If there are rumors about Big Ten expansion, they are started by people who are interested in starting rumors, not by people who know something important.
If they are going to increase the size of the Big Ten by 12.5 percent, they will only consider bringing in 2 teams that will increase the conference's revenue by at least 12.6 percent.
At what point do they realize that none of this works until major college football is governed by a separate concept from the rest of the sports. A league concept, not a conference concept.
All this drama is rearranging deck chairs when all the little sports can be saved by moving football off to its own battleship.
There are about 500,000 college athletes in the United States. About 5,000 are in the pool that constitutes major college football. Why are we continually screwing the 99% to try and keep that 1% in a format that just doesn't work for them?
USC and UCLA in the Big Ten? Why?
Only one reason.
