|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 26, 2023 18:45:08 GMT -5
Just *brutal* for the PAC 12. Not a death blow, but close to it. Blood in the water.
|
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 26, 2023 18:49:17 GMT -5
Would the Big 12 be interested in Oregon and Washington? Geographical doesn’t make sense but if the Big 12 had any interest in being a coast to coast conference, UO and UW make sense more than SDSU. I think Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal have snubbed their noses at joining the Big 12. Maybe things will change as their options dwindle. |
|
|
|
Post by brooselee on Jul 26, 2023 19:06:42 GMT -5
Would the Big 12 be interested in Oregon and Washington? Geographical doesn’t make sense but if the Big 12 had any interest in being a coast to coast conference, UO and UW make sense more than SDSU. I think Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal have snubbed their noses at joining the Big 12. Maybe things will change as their options dwindle. The Big 12 could make a western and an eastern division. All the PAC 12 4 corner schools along with BYU, Houston, Baylor, TCU, TTU could make up the west and the rest can make up the east. |
|
|
|
Post by milkmandan on Jul 26, 2023 19:47:21 GMT -5
The PAC-12 is dying. The Big 12 leap frogging them to get their media deal done first might’ve been the death knell.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2023 19:47:26 GMT -5
The funny thing is that Colorado has way more history with several Big 12 schools than anyone in the Pac-12, much less Utah. In retrospect, they were always the most likely school to jump. They were in the same conference as Kansas, Oklahoma State, Iowa State and Kansas State for over 60 years. Edit: Actually, Colorado and Utah were in the same conference a long time ago. But you have to go back to the 1940s. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 26, 2023 19:57:45 GMT -5
So what would be the next likely dominoes? Arizona also to the Big 12? B1G have any interest in Oregon / Washington / Stanford now? The B1G has said they will "be back for more" in the coming years wanting to protect their investment in USC / UCLA. Washinton, Oregon, Stanford and Cal being the top choices. But I take that with a grain of salt at this point. Specifically on the investment of USC/UCLA, I think the Big 10 is going to look back on that acquisition and find that it was negligible, at best. Unless UCLA can turn around the prestige of its football program, and both LA schools can actually leverage interest from the younger population of the Southern California basin to produce more eyes and interest overall, I just don't see the upside. With the decline in cable subscription, simply being in a media market isn't going to cut it anymore - you also need engaged viewers within that market to make it truly lucrative. It's why after USC and UCLA bolted to the Big 10 and the prognosticators put out the projected loss value numbers in the Pac-12 and benefit to the Big 10, USC is actually the valuable program, while losing UCLA was mostly a wash, despite them BOTH being in the LA TV market. But long term I have big questions. USC wasn't even in the top 20 nationally in actual attendance last year, despite being in the 2nd biggest population center in the country and actually having a very good season (top 10 for much of the year). One of the untold stories around college sprots viewership is that younger people are losing interest. They aren't going to the games and they aren't the demographic most likely to watch games on TV. It's all the legacy USC/UCLA baby boomers that is keeping USC, and to a smaller extent UCLA, relevant in the talks of big money football, and they aren't going to be around forever. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2023 20:17:11 GMT -5
Would they offer a smaller payout? Any school agreeing to unequal revenue sharing would be going back in time, IMO. B1G has never done that. But, I guess there could always be a first time. Is that true? I could have sworn that Rutgers, Maryland and even Nebraska didn't get full shares right away. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 26, 2023 20:22:05 GMT -5
Would they offer a smaller payout? Any school agreeing to unequal revenue sharing would be going back in time, IMO. B1G has never done that. But, I guess there could always be a first time. That is 100% not true. Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers all received unequal revenue sharing for at least six years upon joining the Big 10.... and I'm sure if the powers that be had their way, it would be an indefinite unequal revenue sharing, in particular for Rutgers and Maryland. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Buckeye on Jul 26, 2023 20:45:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 26, 2023 20:50:28 GMT -5
Any school agreeing to unequal revenue sharing would be going back in time, IMO. B1G has never done that. But, I guess there could always be a first time. Is that true? I could have sworn that Rutgers, Maryland and even Nebraska didn't get full shares right away. That's not what I meant. That was temporary until they were deemed "full members" and began receiving equal revenue. They never joined as part of unequal revenue sharing for the long haul. Who would do that? |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 26, 2023 20:54:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 26, 2023 21:03:36 GMT -5
So, per the article you just posted - "Rutgers is not going to receive a full share of its revenue distribution until 2027"... which is 13 years after joining the conference. Seems to contradict your comment of: Any school agreeing to unequal revenue sharing would be going back in time, IMO. B1G has never done that. But, I guess there could always be a first time. I have no idea when or even if the Big 10 is going to expand further west, but this idea that it can't or won't be at a reduced revenue doesn't carry much merit. We are in a new era of college sports, and before long, unless teams start agreeing to longer periods (perhaps indefinite) of unequal revenue sharing, you are going to see the bigger conferences shed the dead weight. I'll put good money on that. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 26, 2023 21:09:09 GMT -5
Is that true? I could have sworn that Rutgers, Maryland and even Nebraska didn't get full shares right away. That's not what I meant. That was temporary until they were deemed "full members" and began receiving equal revenue. They never joined as part of unequal revenue sharing for the long haul. Who would do that? Oh, I see. Well, in that case, I suppose you're right. It should also be noted that the four new Big 12 schools are only getting a half share for the next two seasons, but they will get a full share as soon as the new contract kicks in for the 2025 season. |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Jul 26, 2023 21:11:54 GMT -5
So, per the article you just posted - "Rutgers is not going to receive a full share of its revenue distribution until 2027"... which is 13 years after joining the conference. Seems to contradict your comment of: Any school agreeing to unequal revenue sharing would be going back in time, IMO. B1G has never done that. But, I guess there could always be a first time. I have no idea when or even if the Big 10 is going to expand further west, but this idea that it can't or won't be at a reduced revenue doesn't carry much merit. We are in a new era of college sports, and before long, unless teams start agreeing to longer periods (perhaps indefinite) of unequal revenue sharing, you are going to see the bigger conferences shed the dead weight. I'll put good money on that. Believe what you want. They did not sign to be unequal revenue sharing members for the lifetime of their membership. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 26, 2023 21:16:34 GMT -5
So, per the article you just posted - "Rutgers is not going to receive a full share of its revenue distribution until 2027"... which is 13 years after joining the conference. Seems to contradict your comment of: I have no idea when or even if the Big 10 is going to expand further west, but this idea that it can't or won't be at a reduced revenue doesn't carry much merit. We are in a new era of college sports, and before long, unless teams start agreeing to longer periods (perhaps indefinite) of unequal revenue sharing, you are going to see the bigger conferences shed the dead weight. I'll put good money on that. Believe what you want. They did not sign to be unequal revenue sharing members for the lifetime of their membership. I don't need to "believe" anything, I'm taking what you actually said at face value, which was that "any school agreeing to unequal revenue sharing would be going back in time, IMO. B1G has never done that". There wasn't any qualifiers in there like "lifetime". Your statement is false, Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland all had at least 6 years on agreed unequal revenue sharing. And "lifetime" conference members is a fleeting concept anyway - clearly. Conferences do not stay together indefinitely, and I see little reason to believe why that wouldn't be the case in the future. At the end of this TV contract, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State et al. could say bye to the teams that bring little value to conference (Northwestern, Indiana etc.) and go form its own conference taking Notre Dame and some ACC teams once the GOR is over, and be perfectly within their right to do so. |
|
