Jump to content

USC Traveler

Full Members
  • Posts

    373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by USC Traveler

  1. More gold from the CU247 board.  Pure delusion!🤣

    https://247sports.com/college/colorado/board/104133/Contents/poll-pac-12-or-big-12-210935416/?page=1

     

    Quote

    Tell them both we won't head their way until they put something close to $40 million on the table. Somebody will dig deep for Coach Prime, AAU status, the Denver media market, a fast growing population, a wealthy and large alumni base, and the Mountain Time Zone. And tell them both there's no deal with an exit fee, and a GOR can't go beyond 2029. Somebody will jump. We're one of only a couple of schools that have some bargaining power.

     

     

    • Haha 8
  2. 18 minutes ago, mdmost said:

    B1G getting ready for COCKING IT UP! ON THE PEACOCK NETWORK!

    tumblr_lh5sgeyjuo1qzgjdr.gif

     

     

    There are three OOC games so far that are only on Peacock.  East Carolina and Delaware are two of the visiting teams.  The 3rd ?

    The BIG broadcast partners think so highly of UW that they've got UW at MSU on Peacock only.  Ouch.

    The good news for UW is that this will give them a sneak preview of what life will be like under a deal with Apple deal if they stay in the PAC.

     

     

    There have been rumblings about UW being more open than people think about going B12.  If UW jumped, UO and UU would be forced to follow.

    What's the best scenario for the B12?  Add UW, UO plus 4C and stop at 18 until the ACC comes apart ?  

    Or add those schools plus Cal and SDSU, then stop at 20 until ACC schools become avail ?

  3. 2 hours ago, bullet said:

    Its a Wilzano talking point that the Big 12 didn't get as good a deal as they could by renewing instead of waiting until the exclusive period expired as the Pac is doing.

     

    These CU people are just repeating that unsubstantiated self-serving speculation.

    Right.  I'm just amazed anyone believes it at this point.

    Given the PAC's inability to get an acceptable deal, Yormark made a smart deal to lock up good money and linear exposure, both of which are limited quantities.

    Klownkoff believed his own BS about the WAC10 being close to the BIG in value, and that delusion let the B12 jump in front of them to close their deal, which is going to  cost the WAC10 schools (and Klownkoff) dearly.

    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  4.  

    The level of delusion in Boulder is incredible.  There's some CU fans who  think Prime is going to stay for a long time, dominate the B12, get to the playoffs regularly and use that success to jump to the BIG in 2030.    And there's one PAC diehard still contending that Yormark left money on the table by agreeing to the ESPN/Fox extension.  😂😂😂   You can't make this stuff up.  I'll let the posts from the CU247 board speak for themselves:

    https://247sports.com/college/colorado/board/104133/Contents/anyone-think-prime-is-pushing-for-b12-move-210920911/?page=1

     

    Quote

     

    I kind of hate the B12. I’m the type of guy that doesn’t like to look back either. We did that and moved on.

    But I’m just looking at this objectively. You have to think CP would love this and May even be pushing for it.

    And if CP would love it, he may stay long term, will be happier by going to TX more often, will dominate TX recruiting and probably do even better in the South and in the end we will win a lot and be a regular candidate to make it to the CFP.

    That’s enough for me to get behind it even though I don’t like the conference.

     

     

     

    Quote

    If CP is pushing for the Big 12 that means he is looking at this job for more than just the two years some are speculating he will stay at CU.

     

     

    Quote

    Yes, I think Prime is all in on a move to the Big 12. If Deion Sanders is sticking around for quite a while, I’m sure he sees this as an opportunity to further improve his recruiting and accelerate CU’s opportunity of playing in the CFP. Until there’s another overhaul of conferences, and Big 12 is no longer guaranteed an automatic bid, I’m on board with the move. I want the path of least resistance to the CFP. This feels like it would be just that and a real chance to restore our football brand. I think CU could climb to the top of that conference and I hope that Twitter handle posts this.

     

     

    Quote

    We dont know about the big 12 leadership. We dont know how the stuff BY has done will play out. He extended a deal and by all accounts left money on the table. I have no desire to move a home game to Mexico in bball or football. He is a salesman and he is selling hard. I dont trust salesmen and till we find out what the deal is we dont know how GK is doing. Just for everybodys info, before Larry Scott and the presidents screwed the pac 12 over it was the most lucarative confernce in the country and even though it had uneven revenue sharing it was good enough that most of the teams thrived.

     

     

    Quote

    If it comes to it, retaining CP is much more important than what conference we're in. It would be an agonizing choice for me if I had to choose between the B12 with CP vs B1G without CP. To me, he's that important. I think our chances of winning an NC in the B12 with CP are greater than our chances of winning one in the B1G without him.

     

    • Haha 3
  5. 5 hours ago, closetojumping said:

    Can you imagine speaking to a person in real life like that? Louis CK had a bit on things he says in his car and then comparing it to doing it in person to someone and it’s hilarious.

    Just imagine walking up to someone in public and saying “You are a fucking shit stain cum rag.” I think I would explode into laughter if some lunatic did that. 

     

     

    Phyllis and/or Tammy maybe ?  I could see them lighting someone up in an elevator.  They seemed to not care what anyone thought.

     

    RIP ladies- they're probably up in Heaven arguing Bama vs Auburn on a daily basis.

     

     

  6. 10 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

    That line of thinking just blows my mind.  Maybe being in the PAC got them the nomination/sponsorship from a PAC AAU school and the votes from other PAC AAU schools, but the way the AAU works is you have to have the research dollars first to even qualify to be nominated.  Joining an athletic conference does not provide a mechanism to increase your research dollars.  And I seriously doubt Cal, Stanford, or one of the other AAU PAC schools gave a shit that Utah was in their athletic conference when it came time for AAU consideration.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems the AAU thing is only related to athletic conference alignment if you have it to begin with.

    I honestly don't know how it works with becoming AAU, although I'm sure there's a good amount of politics and personal relationships involved.

    Utah fans definitely believe PAC membership is a big factor in all of it, and I feel like there may have even been quotes from their admin about how being in the PAC has helped the school overall.  

    For whatever reasons, Utah seems to be "Ride or die-PAC to the end."

  7. 7 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

     

    And I love that you left out UU in that.  I didn't know or think much about Utah before all this happened, but I have grown to dislike their fanbase quite a bit the past few months.  They appear to be more delusional and arrogant than aggy...and that's saying something.

    I don't know if I'd go quite that far, as aggy seems to be in a world of their own, but the fact that we're even discussing it speaks volumes.

    Utah fans are completely delusional, and their arrogance is hilarious- they've won back to back PAC titles in a historically weak conference, but in their eyes, it only shows how powerful the program has become.  

    They don't seem to understand that until they can beat OSU's B-team, win a game vs a mediocre UF squad in the Swamp, or beat "3rd place in BIG" PSU in a watered-down Rose Bowl, they are nowhere near the top tier of the sport.  

    They've beaten Mario C's overrated Ducks and a USC team that was rebuilt on the fly after nearly 15 years of neglect and incompetence (and still has an incompetent DC), but had Utah on the ropes until the QB pulled his hammy.

    They've accomplished nothing but moving up and improving their program in the worst "Power Conference" over the last 12 years.  Kudos to Whittingham- he does a great job there, and getting them to this point is a huge accomplishment for him.  But their fans act like they've been winning the BIG or SEC.

     

    //

     

    I fully expect Utah to go down with the PAC ship.  Their admin's public statements have been the most aggressively pro-PAC outside of maybe WSU and the Beavs.  They clearly like the "prestige" of being in the PAC.  Their fans talk about how being in the PAC got them into the AAU and increased their research $ substantially.  If that's how their big cigars feel also, I don't see where the impetus to move would come from.  Their fans are now telling themselves how great an all-streaming media package would be.  😂

    Like the Zeros from Eugene, they celebrate the idea of an easy path to the playoff, and don't seem to want any part of the B12.  They also seem to think that being in the PAC gives them a way to look down on BYU.  (Narrator:  "It doesn't.")

    I think the only thing that would change UU's desire to be in the PAC would be if the other 4C schools AND the PNW schools went to the B12.  At that point, there would be no value in the conference.  There's not a lot of value currently, but it might be enough that UU can tell themselves they're smart to stay.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  8. 1 hour ago, 'stache said:

    In 2021, OSU's highest rated game outside of U/TX was v ISU, drew 2.8 million. OSU v Tech later that year drew 2.1 million. I have the chart saved somewhere and posted it here eons ago. It was basically that our highest rated games were about 50%-75% that of our games v. UT/OU, and we now see that our payout will be about half or a little more than OU/TX/SEC. The numbers make sense. 

    Also notable is that OSU-Baylor CCG game drew I think 8 million viewers, double the ACC and PAC title games. KSU-TCU last year drew I think 9 million, also way above PAC and ACC. It certainly helped that both were really close games with exciting endings. There is interest, especially when it matters. As long as the Big 12 has an automatic playoff bid, the games will be relevant, and draw enough viewers to keep the networks happy with the deal we were able to reach.

    That's a good way of looking at it.  The numbers do make sense, and even moreso if you factor in two more things:

    1. There's a bit of a premium in the deal to grease the wheels for UT and OU to the SEC a year early.  That's just smart business for everyone. 

     2. By paying the B12 at this rate, it becomes easy to kill the PAC by lowballing them.  Schools will essentially be forced to jump.  If they get CU, UA and ASU, when you combine them with BYU, you've got enough late-night games to give ESPN the "After Dark" window by only paying 3 PAC teams instead of 10.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  9. 1 hour ago, utee94 said:

    I forget where, but a few days back I read some B10 boot-licker mediots declaring that the B1G was avoiding taking UW and UO because they didn't want to be seen as the ones that killed off the PAC.  But they'd be okay with the B12 doing it.  As if, taking USC and UCLA wasn't already the death blow.  Laughable.

     

     

    Laughable describes it perfectly.

    If the PNW schools added value, the BIG wouldn't have hesitated to take them at any time over the last 11 months.

    The idea is so ridiculous , I wonder if this is part of the destabilization campaign to keep PAC members nervous.

    Most of the campaign has been directed at the 4C schools- keep them on edge with constant rumors of the PNW schools going BIG.

    Could this be aimed at the PNW schools ?  "Keep dragging your heels on a GOR.  As soon as the 4C leave, the BIG will be ready to scoop you up."

    The longer this plays out, the more likely the 4C schools are to jump, which in turn makes UW and UO to the B12 a possibility.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Napoleon said:

    Ike wanted to show the world the four ladies that he was banging on the regular.

    Would have been a dream to sleep with any one them and he probably had all four for months, if not years.

    Sometimes good things happen to bad people, BECAUSE they are bad people. 
    R.I.P. Tina

    Yeah- he was a real piece of work.

    I was thinking about it from Phil Spector's end.  It must have been immediately clear that Tina had the potential to be a true star.  

    If I'm running the record company, I'm showcasing Tina in that promo, with much less of Ike and the Ikettes.

    But with Ike controlling everything, maybe Spector felt like he had to humor him.

    Oh well- I'm grateful for Tina and the song, and for the half of the video where we do see her.

  11. 7 hours ago, G650 said:

     

    The irony is this song was kind of a flop at first and basically broke Phil Spectors will. He was out of the charts for awhile and it was supposed to be his big comeback

    It will always be my favorite Tina song- pure power from her.

    I had no idea about the Phill Spector part.  Didn't realize he started going downhill that long ago.

    I can understand why, though.  If you wrote the song and produced that record and it flopped- that would be crushing.

     

    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  12. 1 hour ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

    If you're not playing River Deep, Mountain High turned up to eleven right now you're doing it wrong.

    RIP Anna Mae.

    100%

    River Deep is one of the greatest pop songs ever- Tina’s voice with Phil Spector’s “Wall of Sound” production. Just incredible.
     



    Half the video inexplicably shows Ike and the backup singers, but Tina’s raw power and beauty jumps off the screen whenever they show her.

     

    RIP Anna Mae Bullock- a true icon.

  13. 11 hours ago, bullet said:

    Decided to go all the way back to 1936.  All the AP titles:

    ()-not part of top 20 programs over last 55 years
    2024 SEC AP titles 1936-2022
    Alabama 13  
    Oklahoma 7  
    Texas 3  
    Florida 3  
    LSU 3  
    Georgia 3  
    Tennessee 2  
    Auburn 2  
    (Texas A&M) 1  
        37
    2024 Big 10    
    Ohio St. 5  
    USC 5  
    Nebraska 4  
    Penn St. 2  
    Michigan 2  
    (Minesota) 4  
    (Michigan St.) 1  
    (Maryland) 1  
        24
    Potential Big 10/SEC  
    Notre Dame 8  
    Miami 5  
    Florida St. 3  
    Clemson 3  
    Colorado 1  
    Oregon 0  
    Washington 0  
        20
    Others    
    (Pitt) 2  
    (Army) 2  
    (TCU) 1  
    (Syracuse) 1  
    (BYU) 1  
        7

    That format makes it very clear.  Out of 120+ FBS schools, only 30 have won at least a share of an AP or Coaches poll title.

    Only 20 have won multiple national titles.

    Only 7 have won five or more national titles: Bama, ND, USC, OU, OSU, Miami, Nebraska.

    //

    The other thing that really jumps out is what Saban has done.  Bama had seven titles before he got there.  If you add in the coaches poll split titles, Bama was one behind ND, tied with USC and OU at 7, and one ahead of OSU, which had 6.  

    In 15 years, Saban has put Bama in a place where they have almost doubled their closest competitors.  Incredible.

  14. 56 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    The 14 team SEC last year during conference play averaged 3 games a week on CBS or ESPN and 3 games a week on the SEC Network. Only 2 games fell to ESPN2/U (Mizzou/UF, MSU/Aub).

    Texas and Oklahoma accounted for 8 games on ABC/ESPN while in the Big12 (and many also were in FOX). Their addition easily equates to an extra game a week which would give the SEC 4 quality games worthy of an ABC/ESPN broadcast.

    I suspect we’ll see push back from the B12/ACC from showing 3 SEC games back to back to back on ABC so I’d guess we’ll see 2 on ABC most weekends and a 3rd and highly likely 4th game on ESPN in a Noon/Prime kick.

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t think ESPN aggressively bid to get the SEC’s Tier One rights from CBS and help orchestrate expansion with UT/OU just to throw more SEC games on ESPN2/U.

    I agree.  ESPN is going to want max ROI, and the SEC will want max exposure.  Neither side will want SEC games on ESPN2/U.  ACC/B12 will get the scraps, including the noon ABC game so that it's not wall to wall SEC on ABC.

    We both think the SEC will have 4 games most weeks worth a good tv slot, but how do they maximize that ?  Does having SEC games on both ABC and ESPN in primetime cannibalize the audience ?  That's what I was getting at in the other post- I find it really interesting to forecast how this will all play out.

    As part of giving the SEC more money for a 9th SEC game, does ESPN get some Thursday night games in return ?  

    What would get a better rating ?  Thursday night vs mediocre NFL game on Amazon, or Sat night ESPN vs another SEC game on ABC ?

    My gut feeling is that they'd be better off with a really good Thursday game than having two really good SEC games competing with each other in primetime.

    A Thursday night SEC game could actually do well vs the NFL, as there are a lot of SEC fans and a lot of people like me, who aren't SEC fans per se, but enjoy watching SEC games and would rather watch an SEC game than an NFL game.

     

  15. 33 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    The 330 window on ABC is an exclusive window for the SEC, no SEC games can be on any other network (including ESPN) at that time. The only exception to this exclusive clause is for a game on the SECN.

    At least that’s how the contract was setup when CBS had the SEC’s Tier One rights. Maybe they change it but I think splitting your audience during the biggest game of the week isn’t the best strategy.

    Assuming it didn’t change, once fully into conference play that’s 1 game on ABC at 330, 3 games on the SECN, and up to 4 other games that can be slotted into the Noon/Prime slots on either ABC or ESPN. Those will be in competition with the Big12 and ACC so some will likely drop to ESPN2/U or at worst SECN alternate/ESPN3.

    Odds are the #2 and #3 SEC games of the week will lock up 2 of those 4 spots most weeks, which leaves 2 slots for the Big12/ACC to fight for.

    Will be interesting to see how ESPN programs those slots.  How many SEC games vs B12 and ACC games ?

    Will they put SEC in both primetime slots ?

    Will the ACC and B12 get one game each on ESPN/ABC every week ?  I'm assuming so, but don't know the details of their deals.

  16. 4 hours ago, bullet said:

    There are about 20 teams who are contenders.  You can go all the way back to 1960 and the only teams outside the P2 to win an AP title are Miami, FSU, ND, Clemson; along with Colorado in '90, BYU in '84 and Pitt in '76.  Washington '91 and Georgia Tech '90 shared titles by winning the coaches poll.  For that matter, going back to TCU's 1938 title, the only other schools to win the AP were Syracuse in '59 and Army twice during WWII.

    I knew about the 1960 stats from some of your previous posts, but bringing it back to 1938 with only Syracuse and Army added to the list is eye-opening.

    In total, over the last 84 years, 77 out of the 84 national titles have been won by teams who are in the P2 or will be within 10 years (ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson).

    Of the other 7 titles, 5 occurred before 1985, with 1990 and 1991 being the only times in the last 38 years where schools outside the group referenced above won a National Title, and both of those occurrences were over 30 years ago.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 4 hours ago, Crockett said:

    Did you feel this way before the expansion to a 12 team playoff? More big time matchups could mean more losses, but getting into the playoff will be a bit easier now, so that dynamic has changed. 

    I did.  I always felt like you have to beat the best to be the best, and I grew up mostly watching SC kick various BIG teams’ asses in the Rose Bowl in the ‘70s, and then seeing Pete’s teams beat BIG and SEC teams, so it’s not like it’s intimidating to go to the BIG.  IF the program is being run correctly, we can play with anyone.
     

    I wanted the PAC16 to happen because I loved the idea of playing UT and OU regularly.  Once that door closed, my friends and I started talking about going BIG.  We knew, as did a number of folks from Shaggy who are in this thread, that with UT and OU off the board, the PAC was going to eventually fall too far behind the SEC and BIG.  There were a number of posts from various people about it in the Shaggy thread 10 or so years ago.

    We all knew there would eventually be too big of a revenue gap to overcome.  I didn’t think it would grow as fast as it did, but it was clear where it was headed.  Once UT and OU went to the SEC, in combination with the media deal projections that were coming out of Navigate, the level of urgency to make a move skyrocketed.

    All the USC people I know have always felt we have more in common with OSU and UM (football is the priority, National Title aspirations, epic Rose Bowl games, big dog in the conference, etc) than we do with Wazzu or the Eugene Community College Zeros.

    IRL, I know more UM and OSU people in LA than I do people from half the PAC.  I know lots of SC, UCLA and Stanford grads, but I don’t know anyone who went to WSU, UO, Oregon St, and UW, and only a couple of people who went to UA, ASU, CU, Utah and Cal.

    I think Stanford is pretty much of a given to get into the BIG as ND’s partner, and once that happens, there is literally no school from the PAC that I ever care about playing again, outside of kicking any of their asses in a playoff game.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. 7 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

    I think it's a realization they're going to be on the hook for more than 1/12th of the reimbursement for that 50M cable partner overpayment.  USC and UCLA are trying to get out of it by saying it's a conference fuck up, not a USC/UCLA fuck up, and we won't be in the conference when you repay it so we're not pitching in.  If that's successful, schools leaving for the Big 12 could make the same argument.  50/12 = 4.167M owed per team, which is painful for Washington State even in the best of times.  It becomes a lot more painful with an uncertain future, especially if more teams get out of paying for the overpayment.  50/10 = 5M, 50/8 = 6.25M, 50/6 = 8.33M, 50/4 = 12.5M.

    It's really hard to kill off a conference and I thought the Pac 12 would survive by left behind teams absorbing midmajors because the Pac 12 brand is more valuable than the MWC brand, but it's possible the Pac 12 dies because of this.  The left behind teams will have to decide if the Pac 12's brand value outweighs paying off that 50M.  If not they might euthanize the Pac 12 and join the MWC or create a new conference with their favorite G5 teams.

    It sounds like the revenue crunch is happening now, which would indicate Comcast has been holding back money this year, possibly since the story broke, which is what I would do if I was running Comcast, in addition to suing all the PAC schools to get my money back asap.

    I'd also be going after Larry Scott and the other fraudsters personally, since as fraud is one of the few ways to pierce the corporate veil and go after the individual's assets, iirc.  Will be happy to be corrected by any Shaggy/Surly legal types. 

  19. 3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    There are going to be a lot of Big 10 games that end up boring the shit out of you.  Why play those boring games on the other side of the country?

     I want to play against schools that are close to mine, similar to mine, and who's fans I will casually interact with.  

    Trojan Man explained it well, but since your cognitive dissonance is seemingly impenetrable, I'll take another shot.

    Your worldview revolves around playing schools that are close to your school and similar to your school.  We get it.

    Understand this: UT and USC want to play schools that are similar to our schools.  Those schools are named UGA, tOSU, UM, Bama, ND, LSU, etc.

    UT's most important rival is in another state.  

    USC's only true rival is in the Midwest.  (UCLA is an annoying little brother.)  We've been traveling across the country to play for almost 100 years.

    UT and USC folks don't give a fuck about the schools that are close to us because we want to compete against the best.

    We'll happily trade unexciting matchups in the B12/PAC (that make up the majority of the schedule) to play unexciting schools in the BIG/SEC (that make up a smaller part of the schedule) because we get to play other bluebloods and near bluebloods.  Games that we will be excited for and that will be memorable.

    When you're sitting on your tractor making a list of divisions that looks almost exactly like the way things were 50 years ago and acting like it would be some kind of CFB nirvana, you're only looking at it from your point of view.  You somehow can't understand that your pov is very different from the pov of someone who has seen his team win multiple National Titles  and lives less than 20 minutes from an airport that has nonstop flights to any road destination that we would want to visit.  

    //

    Short version- for USC and UT, we don't care about travel because we're going to be playing more schools that are our peers, and we don't care about playing schools that are closer to us because we have never cared about playing them.  

    We're going to have more games that are exciting to watch, make more money, and have better exposure for recruiting.  It would be crazy not make the BIG/SEC move.

    • Hook 'Em 8
  20. 1 hour ago, Jabberwocky said:

     

    This is the clown who has said multiple times how great the new WACPAC tv deal is going to be, while coming up with a new excuse each time to explain why nothing has happened yet.

    Yeah- these look like the actions of a school that is about to sign a tv deal on par with what the B12 is getting.  😂

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  21. 8 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:


    Here. Just do this8c80110f553818d9b92124bc6c4d363f.jpg

    If you move a few schools around and get rid of one of those divisions, it looks a lot like the CFB world I remember growing up in the '70s.

    With a few minor changes, you'd have the PAC8, the WAC, Big 8, SWC, BIG, SEC, ACC and the Eastern Seaboard independent schools who eventually became the Big East.  Everything was pretty stable back then, but there's a reason we're not there anymore.

    Once the 1984 SCOTUS ruling took broadcasting out of the hands of the NCAA, schools and conferences started looking out for their own financial interests, and capitalism/market competition created an inevitable consolidation that has seen us go from 8 conferences that matter to 5 (and soon to be 3).

    Success in CFB is driven by $$$ more than any other sport because of the costs involved- hiring top coaches, size of the rosters, cost of recruiting, etc.

    Fan interest was always going to lead to the clustering of tv money and top ratings draws in 2-3 conferences.  Like Thanos, this was inevitable.

    Outside of the SWC, which had a unique set of issues, the conferences that are either dead or dying are those with the least passion for football and lowest levels of fan interest (Big East, PAC, ACC, ).  Are/were there schools that were exceptions to the rule in those conferences ?  Yes.  And they all have or will find homes in the BIG/SEC/B12 when everything shakes out.  So I'm not going to cry about the fact that not enough people in New England, the mid-Atlantic or Northern CA care about CFB.

    The money is going to the places where people care the most.  The BIG, SEC and B12 deserve to be the surviving conferences because they have the most fans and the highest level of passion.  The B12 won't have the blue bloods of the other 2, so they won't make as much money, but they're going to make a lot more than any other conference because the B12 will have a lot of great matchups between schools with similar resource levels that will be fun to watch.

    And while the $$$ differential will make it hard for a B12 team to win a national title, as we saw with TCU vs UGA this year, in a one game playoff setting, anything can happen, as we saw with TCU vs UM.

    We're in the transition phase now, but when we end up with a BIG20-24, SEC16-20 and a 20-28 team B12, I think it will actually be a very good setup.  Three conferences of like-minded schools that want to play each other, and a lot of built-in drama/hate for future playoff matchups between teams from the different conferences.  Assuming UW and UO end up in the B12, think about playoffs that included the following types of games on top of UM vs UGA type games:

    UT vs Tech/Baylor/TCU

    OU vs OSU

    Iowa vs ISU

    USC vs UO/UW

    PSU vs WVU/Pitt

    For CFB who didn't go to either school, the interest level in those games in the playoffs would be off the charts in a way that they wouldn't be if they were in the same conference, because the playoff format creates "win or go home" stakes, and the hard feelings, anger, etc that have built up for years between those schools will create must-see tv.  At least it will for me.

     

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  22. 2 hours ago, Uncle Nate said:

    And the sad thing is, we have posters right here at Surly who welcome this new paradigm.  They want NFL 2.0, or NFL Minor League, or NFL Light....whatever you want to call it.

    Just another example of people not understanding their brand and their market position.  College football was unique from the NFL, and it was that uniqueness that appealed to so many.   Yet, it is that uniqueness that people are wanting to eliminate in favor of a 32 team super league (maybe, just maybe, if they would expand it to 64 teams they can retain some of what people love about college football, but I'm doubtful they will and even at 64 it may still be such a change that the uniqueness of college football will still be lost).   A lot of that college atmosphere that people loved has already been eliminated via mega jumbotrons, less band playing in favor of more canned music through the jumbtron, advertising in the stadium everytime the clock stops, etc.

    I agree that a 32 team superleague would be terrible, and I say that as someone who thinks USC to the BIG and UT/OU to the SEC are great moves for fans of those teams and conferences because we're going to get more games that are compelling every year in those conferences with 3-6-6 scheduling.  

    But I also enjoy B12 games, and look forward to the B12 absorbing PAC schools and whichever worthwhile ACC schools don't go BIG/SEC.

    Cincy, WV, Pitt and UL would be a great division in a 20-24 team B12.  Same with a division that has TX schools (and possibly OSU).  There are a lot of games in a 20-24 team B12 that people will tune in to watch, so there is real value to the networks.

    Sankey and Petiti are smart guys who would understand the negative consequences of a 32 team superleague, so a BIG/SEC/B12 breaking away from the G5 with 60-64 teams is much more likely.  That wouldn't feel much different than what we already have.  I almost never watch G5 games.  I just don't care.  And 99% of the time, G5 vs P5 games aren't competitive.  We might see one-two G5 games on most teams' schedules anyway as tuneup/cupcake games each year.

    If we do end up with BIG/SEC/B12 in a division of their own, would that really be much different ?  

     

  23. 1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

    And here we thought the Big 10 tv deal was signed and sealed when Warren left the conference.  Turns out, the conference still has no final TV deal:

     

    https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

     

     

     

     

     

      Hide contents

    Kevin Warren took over as Big Ten commissioner in January 2020, and in just three years at the helm, he dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic, helped bring USC and UCLA into the conference in a landscape-altering deal, and secured the massive TV payday before heading back to the NFL as team president and CEO of the Chicago Bears.

    When he accepted that job, he said he was leaving the Big Ten in a "demonstratively better position," which was true financially as its schools project more revenue than any league over the course of the deal. His work adding USC and UCLA, who join the conference after the 2023-24 season, was widely praised by members and provided a financial jolt to the television deal.

    On campus, it's a bit more muddled. Big Ten schools have seen potential revenue disappear the past few months from a contract that was announced back in August as being worth an average of nearly $1 billion per year through the 2029 football season. More than $70 million in total is suddenly in flux -- nearly $5 million per school -- and it has left administrators around the league seeking answers and calling for financial accountability.

    Recently, schools have found out:

    They are going to have to pay back nearly $40 million to Fox because, according to sources, Warren delivered NBC the Big Ten football title game in 2026 without the full authority to do so. This all has unfolded under the complicated backdrop of the Big Ten conference not actually controlling the rights to the inventory of this latest deal -- the Big Ten Network does, which is majority owned by Fox. (More on that below.)

    They are going to have to pay $25 million total for a deal to pay Fox back for lost 2020 football game inventory. This came after an arrangement between Fox and the conference that was unable to muster the lost revenue from the COVID-19 season.

    There's tens of millions of dollars of value of the NBC primetime deal in flux, as Petitti has been racing to ensure it keeps as much of its original value as possible. Historically in the Big Ten, after the first weekend in November, schools were not required to play night games for myriad reasons -- health, recovery and campus logistics among them. These were known in league circles as "tolerances," and prior television contracts accounted for them.

    Multiple sources told ESPN there's been pushback from a number of schools, including Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, to play those late-November night games under the new contract. That leaves Petitti to figure out how to uphold a deal for hundreds of millions of dollars for primetime games without cooperation from some of the league's marquee teams for part of the regular season's most important month.

    Athletic departments and coaches around the Big Ten say they were surprised November night games would be part of the deal. They weren't asked for permission to play them prior to the deal or informed of the change ahead of the deal, according to sources. At the same time, NBC wasn't aware until well after the initial contract was signed this summer that these big-brand schools had historic tolerances that were part of the prior television arrangements and would resist being available.

    "NBC was surprised, and I was surprised," said Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel. "We had not discussed, and I had not discussed with anyone in the league to change the tolerances we had agreed upon years ago."

    Within the industry, though, there was an expectation that, considering the scope of the deal, all schools would play in prime time.

    "The fault here is with the administrators on campus," said another industry source. "How did the presidents, chancellors and athletic directors not know this? The universities all signed off on the deal."

    While this is being worked through, Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan State recently agreed to concessions to make short-term sacrifices to help the league make up for some lost revenue from the NBC deal.

    Penn State will play on the road in a short week on Black Friday against Michigan State, a game that was scheduled before Penn State agreed to it. Ohio State will host Michigan State on Nov. 11, the latest-ever home night game in Ohio State history, which is viewed as another concession to help the league through this moment.

    "This is what he's walking into right now," another industry source said of Petitti. "Tony is trying to save it, and what Penn State and Ohio State are doing is actually trying to minimize the losses."

    Warren did not return requests for comment.

    "We're excited to start our Big Ten deal this fall," an NBC Sports spokesman told ESPN. "We had a great relationship with Kevin Warren, and same with Tony Petitti. We're confident that any and all outstanding issues are well on their way to being resolved."

    A full understanding of the deal Warren helped negotiate with NBC, CBS and Fox begins with a bizarre twist -- the Big Ten didn't technically own the rights. (Hence the tension over Warren using the Big Ten title game without Fox's permission.)

    In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

    This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

    What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

    "It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

    That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission.

    The league and Fox had also been in talks with Amazon about the deal that ultimately went to NBC, but according to sources, there was late pushback by key campus stakeholders that some of the biggest brands weren't ready for part of a marquee package to only be available on streaming. That set up the push to get as much money as possible from NBC.

    And it leaves the league facing a decision on a potential bonus for Warren, who didn't have a bonus clause tied to a television deal in his contract. Warren's predecessor, Jim Delany, got a bonus of more than $20 million that was announced in 2017, and he's still getting paid for it because he led the negotiation that sold all of the rights through this decade. (The bonus had been in Delany's contract prior to the deal.)

    The league has brought in an outside search firm, Korn Ferry, to determine whether Warren's work with this television deal should bring him a bonus.

    One certainty is that the Big Ten television deal, despite the size, has not satisfied many coaches around the league.

    In a Big Ten Zoom call with Warren and the league's men's basketball coaches this summer after the deal was announced, sources say, Michigan State basketball coach Tom Izzo was critical of Warren for the lack of transparency and consultation on the deal.

    Izzo recently said coaches weren't consulted by the league prior to the deal: "One thing about coaches, you're almost asking the wrong people because we're the last to know anything," Izzo told ESPN.

    Izzo added that he has "concerns" on the amount of games available only on streaming and said that would be among his first questions to Petitti, as "it was not discussed with us [coaches] at all."

    "Those are some things I'd like to see with the new commissioner, that there's some transparency in working together," Izzo said.

    Izzo's concerns reverberate among the rest of the Big Ten coaches, as Ohio State coach Chris Holtmann added: "For our league to continue to grow and evolve in this new era, I think at the very minimum the veteran coaches like (Izzo and Purdue's Matt Painter) should have a direct line of communication and a voice in the conversation."

    Ohio State football coach Ryan Day echoed Izzo's sentiment about communication and transparency.

    "There was a collective disappointment among coaches on how the night game issue was handled," Day said. "We were surprised when it emerged, and there was no consultation on the change with coaches as a group prior to the television contract being announced."

     

    Thanks for posting.  Some crazy stuff in there. 

    Backs up what a lot of BIG people have said about Warren- politician who is all about appearances.

    It's crazy that the BIG is even considering paying him a bonus after the way this was handled.  

    Also- where was the BIG's general counsel and the Presidents when Warren was giving NBC night games and the CCG without the ability to do so ?  

    It's stunning that no one caught this.  Did no one read the deal ?

  24. 2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

    haha, and this:

    Texas A&M clarifies its cheap 'championship' claims, in fine print ...

    Looking pretty barren the last dozen years. Hmmmm.

    The fact that they commemorate a 3-way tie for the B12 South in 2010 tells you everything you need to know.*

     

     

     

    *except for the other half of the story- milkmen, jizz jars, fake army, etc, etc.😂

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
×
×
  • Create New...