Jump to content

hawkfan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hawkfan

  1. 1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

    Is he suggesting that (1) he has sources saying different things or (2) Oregon and the Big Ten are having discussions, but the leaders of both organizations are not involved?

     

    Seems to me both?

    It seems like a near certainty that Oregon would have called the B1G after the UCLA/USC news broke, it also seems likely the talks wouldn't start at the presidential level.  Not sure that report tells us anything that couldn't have already been assumed.

    The only real questions in the near term are:

    1.  What does ND want to do?  If they can still fill their schedule without joining a conference, it seems likely that's what they'll do.  I think we'll get to a point where the B1G/SEC increase the number of conference games to the point where ND will be forced to join, in the end I think it will be irrelevant though.  More on that in a minute.

    2. Is the ACC's GOR rock solid?  It's clear Oregon/Washington would immediately jump at a B1G invite, and Stanford too probably (maybe not quite as eager).  If ND doesn't move, the only other thing that would create more fireworks in the short term would be an out in the ACC's GOR.

    I don't think any of this will matter in 10-15 years because I think what will eventually happen after the B1G/SEC pick who they want out of the PAC/ACC, they'll eventually just combine into a single "league" for TV purposes that will be split between FOX/NBC/CBS/Disney and they'll share games with each other via a mega deal for all members who only play each other for the most part - maybe 10-11 conference games, while allowing a game or two against left behinds from the B12/ACC/PAC and maybe an NFL style preseason game or two (against G5/FCS), which will finally lead us to a place of stability longer term.

    If you got down to where 44 total got in, you could do a 44 school conference with four divisions of 11 schools - 10 conference games and full round robin with top seed auto-qualifiers going to each "division" champion.  For the last 50 years it's been as easy as following consolidation and TV money, I kind of view something like that as the inevitable conclusion of all this.

  2. 11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

    No they wouldn’t. Try thinking like a commissioner or an AD, not as a fan.

    I get pretty tired of fans bitching that it was a bad idea to add Rutgers because they’re not very good at football. Well, they had a better record than Nebraska last year. They beat Michigan in their first year in the conference. (I also think it’s kind of cool that their addition makes Michigan the second oldest team in the league but that’s the partisan in me talking.) When it comes to the product on the field, I don’t think it’s fair to expect too much too soon. Let’s see where they are after they’ve been in the conference for 20 years. There’s talent in New Jersey and New York. Penn State, OSU, and Michigan have recruited great players from there. If Rutgers can convince some of that talent to stay closer to home, they could be a lot more competitive. Building a program takes time.

    But there’s another reason Rutgers and Maryland were added beyond the expanded tv markets. There was a real concern that PSU might leave to join/form an eastern conference. They’ve been clamoring for rivals on the east coast since JoePa was there. That’s real too. I get it. “Fuck JoePa! Fuck Penn State!” But think like a businessman. You’ve got to think in terms of future generations, not just recent history. Penn State is a name brand, top 10 in all time winning percentage, with a huge fanbase. They’re a valuable commodity. Losing them would be a very bad thing for the conference.

    Also, the B1G is more than just an athletic conference and Rutgers fits in academically.

    TV subscribers aren't going to be as relevant moving forward as content that produces ratings, that much seems very clear.  The B1G has large enough alumni bases in NYC without Rutgers, Rutgers might have pushed that over the finish line for the BTN 6 years ago, but in the current media climate, I don't believe they have the same value they had 6-7 years ago.

    You have to remember that the final B1G pry only has 20-24 spots in it, I'm not prioritizing Rutgers over any of the following:

    Oregon

    Washington

    Stanford

    North Carolina

    Virginia

    Georgia Tech

    Miami

    Florida State

    Notre Dame

    That's easily 9 schools who would offer more athletically than Rutgers, with probably only 8 spots left (if we assume the B1G/SEC end up taking what they want from the ACC).  Academically, all of the above are a similar add to Rutgers with the exception of Miami, FSU, and ND.

    EDIT: And all the ACC schools above would end up protecting PSU, I know that's hindsight, but again, that's why I'm sure in hindsight they aren't thrilled about Rutgers.

  3. 17 hours ago, camel at sea said:

    It'll be interesting to see what direction the Big Ten goes in getting to 20 if they land the Irish.  I assume there would be more western additions but that's probably more complicated than it seems.  If you add Stanford, then there's a ton of pressure (academic, political, logistical, new member preference, etc.) to also add Cal.  They might also want to add a team from the southeast, too.    

    Honestly, I wonder if the political drama playing out in a way that forces UCLA to stay wouldn't work out best for the B1G, you pretty much get LA with USC, and if UCLA is forced to stay you could grab Stanford instead to get the bay area exposure, then add Oregon/Washington and one of Colorado/Utah (in addition to ND) - both AAU members and add an entirely new time zone/state to the footprint.  I feel like USC pretty much delivers LA.

    You could also stop at 18 with Oregon/Washington/Stanford if UCLA backed out and wait for ND.

    I highly doubt the politicians are going to force UCLA to stay back and bankrupt their athletic department, but it's a possible outcome.

  4. Yeah, the obvious difference being that USC/UCLA are coming in the year a new TV contract starts and that contract is being negotiated on the open market with knowledge of their membership.  Once the new deal was negotiated, they got the full share just like everyone else.

    That wasn't the case for any of Rutgers, Nebraska, or Maryland.  And if any of them want to complain, I'm sure the conference would let them leave.  Especially Rutgers, I'm sure the B1G front office would like a do over on that one anyway.

    • Like 1
  5. Been saying, this is what will eventually force ND to make a decision - if we go to a 12/16 school playoff, there's margin for error for the top teams to lose a couple games, going to 10+ conference games and getting rid of the cupcakes will make the TV partners happy, but will make it tough for ND to fill a schedule if both the B1G & SEC go to 10+ conference games:
     

     

  6. 11 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

    That's the part that doesn't make sense. They're wanting to expand their footprint west and that's fine but a 9 am PST kick off isn't going to do that.  The general population isn't going to watch football at 9 in the morning.

    I think it's more about blending the Oregon/Washington/Stanford types with better time slots in central/eastern time zones where they will see the biggest boost.  Those schools will all rate much more highly playing a B1G school at 3:30 EST than they will playing each other at 10PM EST.

    • Like 1
  7. 23 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

    I don't think there's any urgency from Fox, the Big 10 or the schools themselves to get USC and UCLA to the Big 10 earlier.  You need to keep in mind USC and UCLA aren't tied to the Pac 12 as long as Texas and Oklahoma are to the Big 12.  The LA schools are only in the Pac 12 through the summer of 2024, meaning fall of 2024 is the first season in the Big 10.  One more academic year, then we're gone with zero fees or penalties or buyouts.  I have no idea what the buyout would look like, but I'm guessing the people who are supposed to know that kind of thing have done the math and determined it makes the most sense to stay in the Pac 12 one more year and leave freely when the GOR expires.

    Frankly, from a football perspective, I'm fine with it.  I'm happy with another year of Riley rebuilding the program and restoring our reputation in the Pac 12.  Year 3 is when you can expect big things from new hires at rebuilds and 2024 will be year 3 for Riley, so it all lines up nicely.  Also, in 2024 USC and LSU play in Las Vegas week 1 so we'll see which program made the better hire last fall and how much validity there is to the Sooner conspiracy theory that Riley is scared of the SEC.

    I'm also not sure how eager the Big 10 is to add more Western schools.  If they wanted more Pac teams they would already have received invitations.  If you want Oregon and Washington why wait to invite them until after they negotiate a new TV deal and sign a new GOR with somebody else?  Stanford is the only one I can see getting an invitation in the near future and that's only if Notre Dame insists on dragging them along.  I think the Big 10 is going with either 16 or 18 teams for the next decade or so, along with the SEC staying at 16 during the same time.  They're both waiting for the ACC's GOR to expire or get overturned in court or reach a point where the buyout isn't financially devastating for the schools that leave for their next feeding frenzy.

    I agree there's no real urgency from the B1G at this point, there doesn't need to be, the new deal doesn't start until 2024.

    I disagree with your assessment on adding additional western schools though - the main reasons they haven't invited Oregon/Washington as of now is that they don't pay for themselves.  The math changes though (I think) if you completely kill the PAC12 (thus eliminating their media contract entirely) & add ND/Stanford.  I still think USC/UCLA being on a complete island would be a massive geographical clusterfuck for non-revenue sports, so adding a few more teams out west seems inevitable.  If USC wants to tell Oregon to fuck right off it could be Colorado/Utah instead of Oregon/Washington (as there probably isn't that much of a difference - ND/Standford would be driving the revenue on the way to 20).

    I think the B1G going to 20 with ND + Stanford/Ore/UW makes a lot sense, then just sit and wait until the ACC GOR is close to over and take your pick of ACC schools to eventually get to 24 and get a presence in Florida/Georgia/North Carolina/Virginia.  Ironically, once you're at 24 you can go back to four divisions of six schools that make a lot of geographic sense (for the most part), and scheduling works really well with 11 conference games (5 in division games + 6 from an opposing division that rotates every year).

  8. 39 minutes ago, mdmost said:

    Notre Dame values their independence more than an extra 20 million. Autonomy means more to them than money, which they have plenty of thanks to their donor base. Any network would fall all over themselves to pay Notre Dame market value. They get eyeballs and that's all that matters. You have to stop thinking Notre Dame is like other programs. Everything you attest to the motivations of another program do not apply to Notre Dame.

    And I'll believe the move to 10 conference games when I see it. Everyone loves their cupcakes. 

    They love money more, as the events of the last 40 years have shown.

    When the networks offer to pay them more to get rid of the cupcakes and increase ratings, they will.  There will be significantly less resistance to that once the playoff expands to 12/16 and everyone has more margin for error to play for the national title.

  9. Like I said, ND won't make the decision based on money, they'll make it when conferences go to 10 conference games and they can't fill a schedule anymore outside the left behinds.

    They're not in a position where they have to make the move.... Yet.

  10. 11 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    On ND - I'm not buying the Flugar tweet.  But there is smoke here.   Either it allows ND to stay Indy because if they're going to pay $300m for Big Ten shoulder games, they'll give ND the money they want.   If ND only needs $75-100m, they get $12m from the ACC, so why wouldn't NBC pay them $75ish mill a year?

    However, that is leaving half of ND's games on ESPN, as they play 5 against the ACC.   The way to up ND's payment is to get all of ND's games on NBC, even the away games, so all you have on NBC on 3:30 eastern every saturday, is Irish football.    If they play Army, they're on.   If they play Indiana, they're on.   If they play USC, at USC, they're on.  They can only do that if in an agreement with the Big Ten and that would allow NBC to pay more for Big Ten games.   If they do this, no way Fox doesn't grab Stanford for the ND game and NoCal BTN homes.

    They'd just wouldn't be able to broadcast all their other sports until 2036 without writing a check to the ACC.   ESPN would also lower the ACC's valuation without 5 ND games a year, so its not necessarily a slam dunk, even if its way cheaper for them to move than say, Clemson.

    On Pac/B12 - Yeah, this isn't a bad plan for ESPN.   If they're getting nothing, they're not going to want to give more to the Big Ten.   I'd fully expect Oregon/Washington to get the Texas/OU conversation about moving to the Big 12.   Its a shame they didn't do that first, but I don't think they expected UCLA/USC to move.   They have a couple ways they could deal with it:

    • Leave the Pac/B12 alone and split timing, giving the Big 12 noon/afternoon slots on ESPN/ESPN2 and a Thursday night feature on ABC, then give the Pac 12 Prime/Latenight and the Friday feature.   Guessing you'd see about a $45-50m deal there for each.
    • Pluck the Pac.   The B12 is in a safer place having a year longer to wait for a deal.  With 3 big players off the market, that really only leaves the Mouse.  Why pay for Oregon State/WSU/etc.   You want Oregon/Washington.   The question becomes who has value with them in the Big 12 to get to 16.
    • Go all in.    The world ante'd up big to get the Big Ten, so take the rest and reshuffle the deck a bit.   If ND leaves, the ACC has 14.   Move UCF/WVU to the ACC to take them to 16, then take 6 from the Pac to have the Big 12 lean more west.  Then the ACC gets noon, the Big 12/ACC split mid afternoon, and the Big 12 gets late night.   You only have to pay 32 teams to do that instead of 36, which while not massive, still amounts to around $160m a year, or $10m more to the teams you keep.   Increase the payout to both by having H/H scheduling between the two conferences.

    The thing that will eventually force ND's hand won't be money or the playoffs, it will be the networks squeezing the B1G/SEC to ditch the shitty non conference games, plus 9/10 game conference schedules, which will inevitably lead to ND not having any (or many) opponents left in either league.  That might seem far fetched today, but this entire thing has always been as easy as following the money, and conference games are where the money is at.

    ND can either join a league now, get paid along the way, and have a say in what their future conference looks like, or they can wait until it becomes really tough to fill their schedule and join then.  I think the result ends up being the same either way.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  11. 3 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

    I probably don't have to tell you how a large share of Irish fans would appreciate an end to night games, and no standing allowed. 

     

    One thing I don't quite get.  We went from 'FOX owns the BUG' to a buffet table shared with two of their competitors?

    I assume the OTA networks all want a piece of the expanded CFB playoff coming in a few years, wouldn't be shocked if the networks all want to work through the B1G to assure they get the number of games they want out of that deal.

    I'm convinced the biggest reason the expanded playoff didn't happen was because Fox wanted it to go to bid instead of expanding it and letting ESPN control the entire thing.

    Part of the B1G's numbers are likely that FOX/CBS/NBC are tired of ESPN owning the entire sport... Cutting ESPN off from the B1G changes that dynamic considerably, even more so if the B1G expands to 20 with ND and 3 additional partners.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  12. 3 hours ago, camel at sea said:

    I wonder if there's something brewing beneath the surface with additional Big Ten expansion.  Maybe they've got ND on the hook.  

    Agreed, I just don't see the B1G having the lineup to fill out 3 national OTA games for the type of numbers being thrown around unless the networks know something we don't.

    It's either ND or maybe the B1G has agreed to play more conference games to increase ratings.  It seems like we're missing something.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  13. 8 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Eh, no.   If NBC is bidding on the B Prime game for the Big Ten, it means their 3:30 A slot is dedicated to ND.   ND has already said they need $75m a year to stay Indy.   They get $12m from the ACC, so NBC just needs to pay them a bit over $50m for that slot, which they made more valuable by adding a game after.

    If the Big Ten had taken the NBC 3:30, then ND would be having issues.  

    The Big Ten is likely waiting until closer to 2034 for the next ND talk, which also means Oregon/Washington/Stanford aren't getting a lifeline.

    Snap judgement on the Big 12 though may be wrong.   the mouse needs to fill 6 games on ESPN/ABC per Saturday.   I'm confident they'll get 4 from the SEC/ACC, leaving a couple to pick up for either the Big 12/Pac12.   I'd expect that we see the Big 12 get Noon/3:30 openings, along with a Thursday ABC package, while the Pac 12 grabs a Prime/late night dual, with a Friday ESPN.

    NBC national has never been the kind to go for "B prime" anything. 

    I suspect they're being guaranteed the exclusive national B1G night game and that will be the #2 or #3 game each week.

×
×
  • Create New...