Like herpes
Can't wait till ten years from now when they go back to the old Big8
Really hope Oregon and Washington aren't going to end up following them due to the uncertainty of them ever getting a Big Ten offer. That would be a major missed opportunity for the Big Ten and with the current uncertainty in the Pac 12 they may feel like they have to make a move sooner than later.
I don't get the Big Ten infatuation with Notre Dame. The other sports are in the ACC and the football team plays half Big 10 and half ACC so it doesn't make sense from the TV market perspective as well since they're in the midwest.
I agree with you that Oregon and Washington are the most logical additions to the conference. They get PNW market as well as natural pairings to go with USC/UCLA.
Doesn’t make sense from a TV market? Half the catholics in Chicago would tune in every Saturday.
20 years in Chicago and it’s a pro team town all the way. College football is for alumni and transplants. Add ND and you at the very least take a chunk out of fall baseball, Bulls & Hawks ratings.
It's not about who watches the game. B1G Network already has Chicago market and their office is in downtown Chicago.
They need to expand the TV blueprint which is why PNW makes more sense than ND. Much greater potential for TV contracts. Adding ND doesn't do much in terms of getting more subscribers.
I just don't think this is true. Advertisers want eyeballs which means networks want a product that will bring the most eyeballs. The goal from a network perspective is to be able to fill 3-4 timeslots per day with marque matchups that attract the most eyeballs possible. More high quality programs = more high quality matchup combinations = more demand for advertising = higher revenues for networks = bigger tv contracts for conferences = bigger distributions for member programs.
Its the same reason that I've never understood people thinking Cal would be a good fit in the Big Ten. Sure, it puts another very good academic school from a huge market it California. But nobody watches Cal football so if I'm an advertiser why would I give a shit? Hell, I put Stanford in the same boat and would only want to take them if I knew it could be leveraged to add Notre Dame.
For context, Oregon averaged about 2.21 million viewers per game last year, which is actually higher than USC averaged at 2.07 million. Cal is at like 800k which would put them only above Rutgers in the Big Ten and I would argue that their average is skewed by higher viewerships they get credit for when they play the USCs and Oregons of the world. On the flip side, I would argue Oregon's average viewership would increase because now all of the sudden they have more marque matchup combinations that people would be drawn to.
Just my two cents but I work in banking not TV so someone that works in TV could rightfully tell me I'm full of shit.
It's about footprint and eyeballs both, and several other things, including the financial solvency and long-term promise of programs under scrutiny. But real eyeballs carry less value than theoretical eyeballs, especially people who can be made to pay to watch, under the programs they purchase, whether they watch them or not, in markets that (it is presumed) will continue to expand. Hence the value of footprint over week-to-week numbers in long term evals.
Every time another league acts it arouses anxiety on the part of B1G fans, but that doesn't mean the issue isn't being studied--and moved on--behind the scenes. The other actors, the Washingtons and Oregons, have their own say in these matters. Personally, I would have reached for Stanford, Cal, Washington, and Oregon immediately, gained coast to coast reach and stature, too--and left the SEC looking limited, regional, and southern. Hell, I'd have gone for Miami and FSU, too. Twenty teams, two divisions, The American National League.
Lots of Problems with Oregon (and Washington). Biggest issue is that right now, TV networks don't see the value, and won't offer pro rata for those schools to The Big Ten. And Presidents have made it very clear they do not want to lose a single dollar if they are adding a school.
Reportedly, the FOX contract has a pre-negotiated addition for adding exactly one school: Notre Dame.
Additionally, in many of the broad academic/research metrics that The Big Ten uses, (and assuming Washington joins as a pair), Oregon would rank around 17th or 18th in the Big Ten.
Finally, the state of Oregon would add very little to Michigan and Big Ten schools as far as available student body, football and athletic recruiting, alumni, etc.
Pretty much, all Oregon has to offer The Big Ten is a strong football program over the last 25 years, that has been mightily propped up by Phil Knight.
Washington would be an excellent addition to The Big Ten based on many factors, except probably the most important right now: They don't increase value to the TV contracts. It also doesn't help that their location helps no one - including USC/UCLA.
"They don't increase value to the TV contracts."
I don't understand the thinking that adding the entire Pacific Northwest, including Seattle and Portland, doesn't add any value to the Big Ten TV contract.
How much value do Iowa City or Bloomington or West Lafayette add?
The value for TV contracts is very, very top heavy. The Fox noon, CBS 3:30 pm, and NBC prime time games are all that really matters. The value of FS1, Peacock, and BTN games pale in comparison (as does Men's basketball games, let alone the rest of the sports teams)
That gives (usually) six Big Ten teams a premier nationwide audience each week. Michigan, Ohio State, USC, and Penn State are going to hoard those games. Historically, games like Michigan or Ohio State vs bottom tier teams like Northwestern and Indiana generally get selected by FOX and ESPN over games like Wisconsin-Iowa or Michigan State-Nebraska unless both teams are top 15.
The networks don't see Oregon and Washington on the level of Michigan/Ohio State. I think Gene Smith made the comment that Oregon and Washington "didn't pencil out". Only Notre Dame brings that high end brand that compares to UM/OSU (although Florida State might - I haven't seen it definitively stated one way or another).
Oregon and Washington would be above average brands amongst Big Ten teams, and bring more value to the league than an average team. But that doesn't matter because the value of Michigan, Ohio State, and USC is exorbitant, bringing up the average substantially. The additions of USC/UCLA, and current market forces have combined to make the bar much, much higher now than it was for Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers.
You don't think the Big 10 wouldn't dump one of the Indiana schools if they could? They are grandfathered in, so it's a non-starter.
I do wonder if 10 years down the road and the revenue numbers stop increasing that doesn't change, they might revisit that, but not right now.
I'm not sure how Washington's location doesn't help USC and UCLA. Although it's still a rather long distance trip, it's not 2 or 3 time zones away, a much bigger factor for the West Coast schools.
I'm not pro-further expansion, but if it happens (which is eventually much more likely than not), add UW and Stanford or Oregon ---but not both. I think Stanford might also be a potential replacement academically if Northwestern drops their program. And adding the Cardinal just might be the lure that finally topples ND staying independent, while simultaneously capturing the Bay Area TV market, a bigger market than that of Oregon.
If the argument is for travel for LA schools, I believe the LA schools would prefer adding either Stanford/Cal or ASU/UA. They can visit both schools in a weekend without a connecting flight, and the flights are much shorter. The other 14 Big Ten schools, though, would now need to double our west coast travel. Which so far, Presidents and ADs do not want to do.
Along with UNC/UVa, I think Washington is the best "fit" for The Big Ten. I just think that The Big Ten isn't expanding "just to expand". So between that, and the added travel, and the tv value that they bring it's not enough to get Washington into The Big Ten.
As for Stanford... I know they have historically butted heads with USC in the PAC. So I'm not going to guess as to how that would play out politically, and if USC would be totally against Stanford and Cal (or Washington and Oregon) joining. Also, Stanford doesn't carry the SF market. It would connect B1G schools to alums in SF, like Rutgers does in NYC, but that doesn't mean the average fan in SF cares about Stanford.
Well, Notre Dame is the biggest no brainer take left in college football right now. The ideal scenario would be for the Big Ten to land Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Notre Dame. The TV contract would be insane and the inventory of games available would be awesome.
We don’t need Stanford or Cal, their best days are long over. They have poor attendance. They are like adding a slightly better Rutgers that will dominate all the lesser sports.
I think you're right, but to play devil's advocate - "if" the conference is going to 20 teams, wouldn't it be nice to add a few punching bags in a new market (northern California) as opposed to just heavy weights?
Notre Dame, along with Michigan, is an historic football program. Of course we should get them if we can.
Could the big ten then dump MSU?
To hell with Notre Dame.
ND makes sense as a truly national brand, and from a market perspective that's huge. On the field they'd probably slot into top 4-5 in the conference depending on where UM, USC, OSU, and PSU shake out, and at that point you could argue the Big 10 has a strong top group than the SEC. The other sports are whatever but it's not like Oregon or Washington are titans in hoops.
Them going to the big 12 wouldn’t stop the big ten from being able to get them
I am rooting for Oregon and Washington to go to the Big 12 and end the speculation that they will join the Big Ten. While I can agree that they are the most logical additions available now, I still hate the idea of adding them. The conference is better with 16 teams than with more. And I feel confident the Big Ten isn't going to settle for less desirable expansion candidates after turning them down.
When ACC teams can finally break away, maybe the Big Ten will revisit further expansion. Who knows what the market for TV contracts will look like when the ACC media rights deal expires. I still think it's unwieldy going past 16, but UNC and Florida St are at least as good potential candidates.
I agree...I would prefer the conference stand pat at 16, although I would like to add ND. I don't know how much value is really left, and adding PNW schools or UVA/UNC or FSU/Miami honestly doesn't move the needle for me.
Now the if we could swap out a few schools...
I’ll never understand people who want to add other top or near top tier programs to have to go through just to win the conference. I like winning conference championships so give me more Maryland and Rutgers types and save the others for the playoffs.
Honestly I don't understand folks who want expansion - I was excited back in 2011 when we added Nebraska but honestly the perfect size for a conference is 8, with a max of 10 being ok. Round robins to decide the champ, with lots of interesting out of conference games to schedule. I really dislike conference championships games, and would prefer co champs to that. I guess 16 is ok, but once you start dropping conference mates it makes co champs more likely and scheduled more complicated
If I were to have a magic wand, Michigan would be in a conference with MSU, OSU, PSU, ND, Minnesota, Northwestern, and Iowa. Wisconsin could come too. Maybe Purdue.
Obviously this won't work - Purdue wants Indiana and Notre Dame wants USC so fine they can take a hike. We will schedule them as regular OOC opponents. This is my dream scenario. An 8 team conference of Michigan, our rivals, and our rivals' rivals. So Yea I'd prioritize ISU over USC and Maryland.
But whatever. It's about the TV dollars. And I hope Oregon and Washington get a seat at a table. And kinda hope Stanford and Cal do too.
I really like your perspective here.
It is not my dream scenario. I look forward to the fun of playing USC and UCLA with some regularity (despite how little sense as it makes for many reasons). And I must admit a distinct attraction to seeing the BIG as the best conference in the land someday (against my more rational takes).
But you're pointing towards the best stuff in college football - intense regional rivalries within a geographic and culture footprint (or into neighboring footprints). It's too bad that much of that is lost to expansion as everyone chases the dollars.
I dont trust the decision makers in the slightest.
The last time they did this they changed our schedules from much less Minnesota and Iowa to yearly diets of Maryland and Rutgers.
To think we play Rutgers on an annual basis and a graduating senior gets one game vs Minnesota is ridiculous.
Greed is going to kill CFB.
I don’t really see why Washington and Oregon wouldn’t proactively join the Big 12. Future offers to join the B1G seem very unlikely, as you suggest, and the future of the Pac 12 is obviously fragile. The Big 12 would take them in a heartbeat and they would receive full media rights shares from the get-go.
My guess is they are reluctant due to poor cultural fit in the Big 12. Unfortunately their reluctance might cost them dearly.
Many think Arizona is next to the Big 12 but it’ll be a game of chicken. If one more Pac “12” school secedes from the conference there will be a mad game of musical chairs.
Big XII in 2024.....Woof
It does kinda give off late Big East vibes, doesn't it?
They’re like AAAA baseball. Not quite major league, not the minor leagues either.
Very deep conference that is lacking a true premier program
In football yes, but in basketball they're probably the top conference in the country. Not that it matters to most people but it's going to be like the SEC in football more often than not
It was a long time ago...but I feel like this is what people said about the big east after Miami, VT and BC left too
I've never seen a conference so excited to add a bottom feeder. At least Rutgers brought in extra $$$ for the B1G. What, exactly, does adding Colorado do for the Big 12?
Stability, foremost for now.
Growth later.
It doesn't matter if Colorado (and others) is a middle tier revenue power program - you band enough together it's still significant market share. Quantity is a quality all its own.
Zilch. The Big 12 won't be around in 5 years
Where are texas tech, tcu, baylor, colorado, kansas, kansas st, oklahoma state or Iowa state going? You would need to have a reason to leave a conference and "not a lot of money and no conference" isnt the solution to "not a lot of money and a conference".
PRIMETIME
Time is a flat circle.
Sort of like the earth???
/s
Kyrie is in the Big 12's footprint, so yes.
Seems like a lose-lose for Big 12. If Prime is a legit coach and wins significantly, any power 5 in these top conferences will come calling. Based on how he is, he will accept, especially FSU. The sustainability for CU to be a national prominent team depends solely on Prime and I wouldn’t trust that.
"Based on how he is, he will accept"
Huh...you mean like damn near every other coach...or even most people...ambitious?
Great. Now Colorado can go suck in the Big 12. Or should I say go back to sucking in the Big 12?
Coach Prime Time will have something to say about that.