bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 13,466 
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 9, 2023 9:38:58 GMT -5
I remain skeptical that the Big Ten is truly interested in Oregon and Washington, and they're only holding back because they want the Pac-12 to survive. If the Big Ten was willing to poach USC (and their little brother, UCLA), which they had to know would jeopardize the Pac-12, I don't see why they would hold off on adding anyone else they really want. I also doubt that ESPN cares as much about Oregon and Washington as they do about, say, Texas and Oklahoma. You make a good point that if Oregon and Washington have been assured safe passage to the Big Ten in the event of the Pac-12 imploding, they would be incentivized to kill the Pac-12. But again, I'm skeptical, and it's risky if they blow up the conference only to find out that the Big Ten isn't actually interested. I am also skeptical that ESPN is holding off on signing a deal because of optics. And that quote came from Wazzu, one of the schools with the most to lose if the Pac-12 collapses. I agree about much of this - except - if WA/OR go to the B1G, ESPN will have lost access to pretty much all relevant football in the pacific time zone. This may not be a big deal - it may not concern them at all. Or - they have some preference to have access to that late window that isn't just AZ/ASU - Utah/BYU. This *could* be working to keep the PAC viable for ESPN. It may not be a lot of money, but it could be enough for the PAC to survive. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the B1G has interest in the PAC survival - I most certainly don't think they care. I just wonder why these multiple reports that they are waiting for someone else to leave before they would consider adding any more? Is it legal reasons - I don't think it is because they care about the PAC survival. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 9, 2023 11:53:04 GMT -5
I would like to think that Oregon and Washington would not be interested in joining the Big 10 (because I don't desire the Huskies to join the Big 10), but I have no real evidence of this either way. Both schools also have the same problem that UCLA had, namely that it is unlikely their state school sisters would be invited, and that might cause them political consequences at home. The dynamics are probably different in Oregon, but in Washington the UW is firmly rooted in Seattle while WSU is in Eastern Washington, and that is *the* big political divide in the state.
The idea that the Seattle school was leaving behind the Eastern Washington school in order to get more money and a higher national profile would be political high explosive.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on May 9, 2023 11:54:02 GMT -5
I remain skeptical that the Big Ten is truly interested in Oregon and Washington, and they're only holding back because they want the Pac-12 to survive. If the Big Ten was willing to poach USC (and their little brother, UCLA), which they had to know would jeopardize the Pac-12, I don't see why they would hold off on adding anyone else they really want. I also doubt that ESPN cares as much about Oregon and Washington as they do about, say, Texas and Oklahoma. You make a good point that if Oregon and Washington have been assured safe passage to the Big Ten in the event of the Pac-12 imploding, they would be incentivized to kill the Pac-12. But again, I'm skeptical, and it's risky if they blow up the conference only to find out that the Big Ten isn't actually interested. I am also skeptical that ESPN is holding off on signing a deal because of optics. And that quote came from Wazzu, one of the schools with the most to lose if the Pac-12 collapses. I agree about much of this - except - if WA/OR go to the B1G, ESPN will have lost access to pretty much all relevant football in the pacific time zone. This may not be a big deal - it may not concern them at all. Or - they have some preference to have access to that late window that isn't just AZ/ASU - Utah/BYU. This *could* be working to keep the PAC viable for ESPN. It may not be a lot of money, but it could be enough for the PAC to survive. BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the B1G has interest in the PAC survival - I most certainly don't think they care. I just wonder why these multiple reports that they are waiting for someone else to leave before they would consider adding any more? Is it legal reasons - I don't think it is because they care about the PAC survival. Is the Big 10 actually interested in adding more teams at the moment? For many of these "reports", you can find another one on the same day that says just about the opposite. Appears a lot of what's floating is misinformation or embellished. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 9, 2023 12:26:08 GMT -5
Is the Big 10 actually interested in adding more teams at the moment? Is a shark interested in eating? Maybe it's not hungry, but if food swims right in front of it.... |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on May 9, 2023 12:30:46 GMT -5
Is the Big 10 actually interested in adding more teams at the moment? Is a shark interested in eating? Maybe it's not hungry, but if food swims right in front of it.... If Fox is not interested in adding approximately 100 million per team for each additional team, they would be reducing their amount per school. I doubt they would be intererested in adding teams if it results in reduced revenue for each existing school. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 9, 2023 12:50:54 GMT -5
Is a shark interested in eating? Maybe it's not hungry, but if food swims right in front of it.... If Fox is not interested in adding approximately 100 million per team for each additional team, they would be reducing their amount per school. I doubt they would be intererested in adding teams if it results in reduced revenue for each existing school. Right. I think the Big Ten would be interested in certain schools (e.g. Notre Dame), but I don't think the list is very long at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on May 9, 2023 13:25:48 GMT -5
If Fox is not interested in adding approximately 100 million per team for each additional team, they would be reducing their amount per school. I doubt they would be intererested in adding teams if it results in reduced revenue for each existing school. Right. I think the Big Ten would be interested in certain schools (e.g. Notre Dame), but I don't think the list is very long at the moment. If the networks thought Washington and Oregon were worth $100 million in rights fees, the Pac 12 wouldn't be having trouble getting a contract. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 9, 2023 13:35:40 GMT -5
Do the networks think Northwestern is worth $100 million in rights fees? Iowa? Purdue?
When does the Big 10 start kicking out members in order to get more money per school for those that remain?
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 9, 2023 13:37:16 GMT -5
Right. I think the Big Ten would be interested in certain schools (e.g. Notre Dame), but I don't think the list is very long at the moment. If the networks thought Washington and Oregon were worth $100 million in rights fees, the Pac 12 wouldn't be having trouble getting a contract. I agree. If they were worth that much, then USC wouldn't have wanted to leave in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 9, 2023 13:39:51 GMT -5
Do the networks think Northwestern is worth $100 million in rights fees? Iowa? Purdue? When does the Big 10 start kicking out members in order to get more money per school for those that remain? That's different because those schools are already there. But yes, I think something like that (more likely than the Big Ten and SEC kicking teams out would be for the most valuable brands in all the conferences to just create a new conference) will happen eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 9, 2023 13:43:19 GMT -5
So is it all about network money or is it not? You can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 9, 2023 13:48:41 GMT -5
So is it all about network money or is it not? You can't have it both ways. It's different because it's a lot easier to just decline to offer membership to a school than to kick them out (or create a new conference). I'm not trying to "have it both ways." That's just the reality of the situation. And like I said, I do think something will be done about those schools eventually. |
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on May 9, 2023 14:07:40 GMT -5
So is it all about network money or is it not? You can't have it both ways. Quite likely as "traditional" Big 10 schools, those schools likely provide as much or more value to a Big 10 TV contract than Washington or Oregon. Almost surely they wouldn't as additions to other conferences. However in a discussion on the possibility of "kicking out" existing schools, a more reasonable argument would be if Washington/Oregon would have more value to a Big 10 contract than Rutgers/Maryland. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 9, 2023 14:30:57 GMT -5
I'm sure the networks salivate over the chance to showcase the traditional Purdue/Northwestern matchups.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on May 9, 2023 14:59:30 GMT -5
So is it all about network money or is it not? You can't have it both ways. It's different because it's a lot easier to just decline to offer membership to a school than to kick them out (or create a new conference). I'm not trying to "have it both ways." That's just the reality of the situation. And like I said, I do think something will be done about those schools eventually. You are trying to have it both ways, though. You are a modernist when it comes to poaching from other P5 conferences for football money, but you are a traditionalist when it comes to loyalty to your historical members. That is having it both ways. There is plenty of dead weight in the B1G as far as football and basketball and in market size. |
|
