|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 25, 2023 12:25:18 GMT -5
That’s what an extra $50 million per year from the conference can pay for. At least I would hope so. I thought the point was to make more money, not to spend more money. None for profit organizations need to spend as much as they can... now that goes to 4th assistants, charter flights, smoothie bars and new scoreboards. However, at some point a switch will flip and they will pinch every penny they have to pay the best quarterbacks and small forwards. I'd like to see the other sports split off now rather than grow with the money and then have to cut back. There's no reason every sport needs to be in the Big 10. Let non-revenue sports play a local/regional league schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on May 25, 2023 12:31:08 GMT -5
It’s a chartered 5-hour flight versus a commercial 2.5 hour flight every other weekend. The difference in travel schedule and ability to be a college student is negligible. 10 hours round trip as long as there are no delays plus time in vans or other from airport to arena or hotel add another 2 hours. So every other week they spend at least 12 hours traveling on top of being full time students with heavy work loads. No big deal. You’re saying that’s considerably more than the PAC-12. I don’t think that’s true because they fly commercial and get to the airport two hours in advance. Then have to schedule their flight home with room to spare in case their match runs long. Whereas a charter sits on the runway, ready to takeoff as soon as they are. |
|
|
|
Post by jgoodson on May 25, 2023 12:52:12 GMT -5
I was not saying that the non-revenue PAC sports would be donated to the Big Ten. I was talking about after the PAC schools were added to the Big Ten the sports other than football would be scheduled based on divisions to reduce travel. The other PAC schools would be members of the Big Ten like USC and UCLA. Like Maryland and Rutgers though, they would go in at a reduced rate that over time would ramp up.
That is what the Big Ten Presidents were talking about. Oregon and Washington clearly want to be in the Big Ten. And I would be surprised if Utah and at least one of the Arizona schools would not like to as well. Not sure about Stanford.
As far as what is driving this, it is obviously the revenue disparity between the Big Ten, SEC and everyone else combined with the fact that USC and UCLA bring more value to a TV contract than the other Pac teams. USC and UCLA wanted to leave because of that. That is not the Big Ten’s fault. Once approached by USC, if the Big Ten would have said no, USC would have gone to the SEC. To protect its position relative to the SEC, the Big Ten had to say yes.
After that I am looking at this from a what’s done is done perspective and admittedly from a Big Ten point of view. If addition of some other PAC teams to the Big Ten would make for a more travel friendly experience for USC and UCLA athletes in the non-revenue sports, I am for that. That is what the Nebraska and Northwestern Presidents were talking about. The greed I was referring to was in reference to some Big Ten athletic directors reluctance to add any new members if the per school payout would decline. I think that would be short sighted as I think that it would be good for the Big Ten in the longer run to more firmly establish its presence out west.
Washington and Oregon seem likely to eventually be in the Big Ten. They are just waiting for an invitation. I believe there will be at least two more teams to get to 20 teams and two 10 team divisions. It will be interesting to see what actually happens. And when the next domino falls. What will the PAC media deal look like?
|
|
|
|
Post by vollectator on May 25, 2023 13:01:55 GMT -5
seeing the title of the thread is sad for someone born and raised in socal. if any of the p5 had to unravel, i wish it'd be the big 12
|
|
|
|
Post by pointtexas on May 25, 2023 13:59:53 GMT -5
seeing the title of the thread is sad for someone born and raised in socal. if any of the p5 had to unravel, i wish it'd be the big 12 Ummm...Texas and OU are leaving the big 12, believe me it's unraveled! |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 25, 2023 14:05:52 GMT -5
The other PAC schools would be members of the Big Ten like USC and UCLA. Like Maryland and Rutgers though, they would go in at a reduced rate that over time would ramp up. Why? Why would they accept a deal that is designed to make sure they can not compete fairly with the rest of the conference? Especially since USC/UCLA did *not* get that deal? Here you are arguing that this is for the benefit of the Big 10 to help ease travel problems, but you expect the schools to subsidize the rest of the Big 10 while they help them out? |
|
|
|
Post by HawaiiVB on May 25, 2023 14:29:52 GMT -5
The other PAC schools would be members of the Big Ten like USC and UCLA. Like Maryland and Rutgers though, they would go in at a reduced rate that over time would ramp up. Why? Why would they accept a deal that is designed to make sure they can not compete fairly with the rest of the conference? Especially since USC/UCLA did *not* get that deal? Here you are arguing that this is for the benefit of the Big 10 to help ease travel problems, but you expect the schools to subsidize the rest of the Big 10 while they help them out? Welcome to the mid-majors. jk. |
|
|
|
Post by jgoodson on May 25, 2023 14:55:47 GMT -5
The other PAC schools would be members of the Big Ten like USC and UCLA. Like Maryland and Rutgers though, they would go in at a reduced rate that over time would ramp up. Why? Why would they accept a deal that is designed to make sure they can not compete fairly with the rest of the conference? Especially since USC/UCLA did *not* get that deal? Here you are arguing that this is for the benefit of the Big 10 to help ease travel problems, but you expect the schools to subsidize the rest of the Big 10 while they help them out? If you were on the Titanic would you refuse to get on a life boat if it were not as nice as some of the life boats that left earlier? Washington and Oregon will not join the Big Ten if they think that the deal they are offered is not as good of option as staying in the PAC. The question they have to answer is if they believe the long term financial viability of their athletic departments are better staying in the PAC or moving to the Big Ten. They will be free to do whatever they believe to be in their best interest. Just like USC and UCLA did. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 25, 2023 15:08:55 GMT -5
Why? Why would they accept a deal that is designed to make sure they can not compete fairly with the rest of the conference? Especially since USC/UCLA did *not* get that deal? Here you are arguing that this is for the benefit of the Big 10 to help ease travel problems, but you expect the schools to subsidize the rest of the Big 10 while they help them out? If you were on the Titanic would you refuse to get on a life boat if it were not as nice as some of the life boats that left earlier? Washington and Oregon will not join the Big Ten if they think that the deal they are offered is not as good of option as staying in the PAC. The question they have to answer is if they believe the long term financial viability of their athletic departments are better staying in the PAC or moving to the Big Ten. They will be free to do whatever they believe to be in their best interest. Just like USC and UCLA did. Dude. They are not "on the Titanic". It's stupid to take on the obligations that they would take on by joining the Big 10 and allow themselves to be hamstrung by not getting an equal distribution of money. Maryland and Rutgers learned that. I mean, if you want lifeboat metaphors, it's as if the people in the lifeboat told some of the other people that they will allow them to stay in the water and push the lifeboat to shore for them. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 25, 2023 17:17:19 GMT -5
I was not saying that the non-revenue PAC sports would be donated to the Big Ten. I was talking about after the PAC schools were added to the Big Ten the sports other than football would be scheduled based on divisions to reduce travel. The other PAC schools would be members of the Big Ten like USC and UCLA. Like Maryland and Rutgers though, they would go in at a reduced rate that over time would ramp up. That is what the Big Ten Presidents were talking about. Oregon and Washington clearly want to be in the Big Ten. And I would be surprised if Utah and at least one of the Arizona schools would not like to as well. Not sure about Stanford. As far as what is driving this, it is obviously the revenue disparity between the Big Ten, SEC and everyone else combined with the fact that USC and UCLA bring more value to a TV contract than the other Pac teams. USC and UCLA wanted to leave because of that. That is not the Big Ten’s fault. Once approached by USC, if the Big Ten would have said no, USC would have gone to the SEC. To protect its position relative to the SEC, the Big Ten had to say yes. After that I am looking at this from a what’s done is done perspective and admittedly from a Big Ten point of view. If addition of some other PAC teams to the Big Ten would make for a more travel friendly experience for USC and UCLA athletes in the non-revenue sports, I am for that. That is what the Nebraska and Northwestern Presidents were talking about. The greed I was referring to was in reference to some Big Ten athletic directors reluctance to add any new members if the per school payout would decline. I think that would be short sighted as I think that it would be good for the Big Ten in the longer run to more firmly establish its presence out west. Washington and Oregon seem likely to eventually be in the Big Ten. They are just waiting for an invitation. I believe there will be at least two more teams to get to 20 teams and two 10 team divisions. It will be interesting to see what actually happens. And when the next domino falls. What will the PAC media deal look like? I'm not sure why the Big Ten needs to be in a hurry to add additional Pac-12 schools when more valuable schools in the ACC will be available at some point. I also don't think the existing schools really care about how much USC and UCLA will be traveling. As Don Draper said, that's what the money is for. |
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on May 26, 2023 20:42:18 GMT -5
And now, it's time for another episode of.... WHAT'S RIGHT FOR COLORADO!Colorado AD Rick George in interview with BUFFZONE |
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on May 26, 2023 21:15:00 GMT -5
I was not saying that the non-revenue PAC sports would be donated to the Big Ten. I was talking about after the PAC schools were added to the Big Ten the sports other than football would be scheduled based on divisions to reduce travel. The other PAC schools would be members of the Big Ten like USC and UCLA. Like Maryland and Rutgers though, they would go in at a reduced rate that over time would ramp up. That is what the Big Ten Presidents were talking about. Oregon and Washington clearly want to be in the Big Ten. And I would be surprised if Utah and at least one of the Arizona schools would not like to as well. Not sure about Stanford. As far as what is driving this, it is obviously the revenue disparity between the Big Ten, SEC and everyone else combined with the fact that USC and UCLA bring more value to a TV contract than the other Pac teams. USC and UCLA wanted to leave because of that. That is not the Big Ten’s fault. Once approached by USC, if the Big Ten would have said no, USC would have gone to the SEC. To protect its position relative to the SEC, the Big Ten had to say yes. After that I am looking at this from a what’s done is done perspective and admittedly from a Big Ten point of view. If addition of some other PAC teams to the Big Ten would make for a more travel friendly experience for USC and UCLA athletes in the non-revenue sports, I am for that. That is what the Nebraska and Northwestern Presidents were talking about. The greed I was referring to was in reference to some Big Ten athletic directors reluctance to add any new members if the per school payout would decline. I think that would be short sighted as I think that it would be good for the Big Ten in the longer run to more firmly establish its presence out west. Washington and Oregon seem likely to eventually be in the Big Ten. They are just waiting for an invitation. I believe there will be at least two more teams to get to 20 teams and two 10 team divisions. It will be interesting to see what actually happens. And when the next domino falls. What will the PAC media deal look like? I also don't think the existing schools really care about how much USC and UCLA will be traveling. As Don Draper said, that's what the money is for. Exactly. If North Carolina and Virginia were available right now, Washington and Oregon wouldn't even get a sniff from the B1G. |
|
|
|
Post by jgoodson on May 26, 2023 22:33:31 GMT -5
I'm not sure why the Big Ten needs to be in a hurry to add additional Pac-12 schools when more valuable schools in the ACC will be available at some point. I also don't think the existing schools really care about how much USC and UCLA will be traveling. As Don Draper said, that's what the money is for. Exactly. If North Carolina and Virginia were available right now, Washington and Oregon wouldn't even get a sniff from the B1G. The ACC grant of rights has the ACC schools tied to ESPN through 2036. The agreement is considered legally strong and no one has yet to find a way out of it. I agree that the Big Ten would like to have North Carolina and Virginia. As well as Notre Dame. I do think that the Big Ten would also like Washington and Oregon and a couple more teams out west. If the Big Ten could become a 24 team conference with teams spanning coast to coast it would be set as a diversified sports content provider. There is no path out now for the ACC teams. Out west, the Big Ten is not in a hurry. Just waiting for events to occur where it makes sense to add Washington and Oregon. Maybe more. |
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on May 26, 2023 23:36:48 GMT -5
UCLA women’s volleyball having to drive themselves in their own cars to Long Beach St for their scrimmage because the school couldn’t shell out to provide transport is pretty embarrassing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 27, 2023 9:52:52 GMT -5
And now, it's time for another episode of.... WHAT'S RIGHT FOR COLORADO!Colorado AD Rick George in interview with BUFFZONE We'll see what happens, but if Colorado is the first to exit, I guess it makes sense. I always thought it would be Arizona because of basketball, but Colorado was a member of the Big 12 for longer than they've been a member of the Pac-12 (and they were a Big 8 member for much longer). And they originally thought that Texas, Oklahoma, and some others would be joining them rather than going alone. Plus, the move to the Pac-12 has not been great for them from a financial or athletics standpoint, particularly in football. Granted, they've made their own mistakes with coaching hires, but still. |
|
