I like it! How about just calling it B1G? And have the pac-10 division and the Big ten division
Conference Realignment
- Status
Yeah, It will never happen for a number of reasons. I only did it to see what was possible. Surprised how well it worked out. As others have rightly pointed out Iowa State will never happen but I like them (son attending this Fall) and want them to find a good landing spot. I mean who can’t like the enemy of your most despised enemy?
And from a fan perspective to have a West division of IL, NW, Wisc, Minn, Iowa, Iowa State, Neb and Kansas. Play 7 in your division with 2 crossovers playing each team once every 4 years.
hooraybeer
- Pittsburgh, PA
pittsburgh is a top school academically. haven’t seen much about them but if we are talking raiding the ACC id like them too.
overall think some sort of PAC merger makes most sense. playing teams outside of the PST time zone would increase exposure for those programs. a lot of great academic institutions in the PAC as well, UCLA, stanford, cal, colorado, washington.. i have always viewed the PAC as the west coast B1G and the SEC/Big 12 as something separate
us news PAC 2021 rankings: https://www.usnews.com/education/be...ges-rank-among-the-2017-us-news-best-colleges
overall think some sort of PAC merger makes most sense. playing teams outside of the PST time zone would increase exposure for those programs. a lot of great academic institutions in the PAC as well, UCLA, stanford, cal, colorado, washington.. i have always viewed the PAC as the west coast B1G and the SEC/Big 12 as something separate
us news PAC 2021 rankings: https://www.usnews.com/education/be...ges-rank-among-the-2017-us-news-best-colleges
Last edited:
I have to wonder if this plays out well. You have a handful of elite teams with an attractive revenue profile (i.e. much higher than the average team), where they could make more money joining the SEC than staying in their current conference. Teams like Clemson, FSU, Miami come to mind in the ACC, but there are others. The SEC isn't going to want the bottom tier programs diluting their media rights, so you would wind up with a reshuffle of the haves and have-nots that ignores the traditional geographic links. Would a team like tOSU be off limits? If the payout is higher, what's to stop them from jumping ship? Same for other high profile football programs in the BIG.
From a competitive standpoint, the P5 were the haves, everyone else was the have nots, and P5 sliced up the CFP pie to keep out the have nots for the most part. Another point is that I think most of the leagues benefited from having a couple lowly teams to help get through the schedule with enough wins for the post season. Concentrating elite teams in one league seems like a recipe for more divisiveness in the championship format. It won't surprise me if the entire landscape as we know it falls apart in the chase to bring in the most money --essentially an attempt to relegate more schools to a lower tier to keep them out of the playoff payouts.
From a competitive standpoint, the P5 were the haves, everyone else was the have nots, and P5 sliced up the CFP pie to keep out the have nots for the most part. Another point is that I think most of the leagues benefited from having a couple lowly teams to help get through the schedule with enough wins for the post season. Concentrating elite teams in one league seems like a recipe for more divisiveness in the championship format. It won't surprise me if the entire landscape as we know it falls apart in the chase to bring in the most money --essentially an attempt to relegate more schools to a lower tier to keep them out of the playoff payouts.
With this pac merger talk, what kind of money are they bringing to the table?
Obviously the big is in a great position financially in terms of payouts to schools from the conference. What does the pac 12 offer from that angle?
More specifically to my thoughts, does the west coast inflation help us in this instance? Everything is more expensive out there, more money gets thrown around because it has to. I’m wondering if that’s also true for tv contracts, broadcast rights, advertisements, conference payouts etc. If it is, the same amount of money goes further in the Midwest than the west coast. And the B1G schools could really reap some rewards if pac money is higher if only to cover west coast inflation.
Obviously the big is in a great position financially in terms of payouts to schools from the conference. What does the pac 12 offer from that angle?
More specifically to my thoughts, does the west coast inflation help us in this instance? Everything is more expensive out there, more money gets thrown around because it has to. I’m wondering if that’s also true for tv contracts, broadcast rights, advertisements, conference payouts etc. If it is, the same amount of money goes further in the Midwest than the west coast. And the B1G schools could really reap some rewards if pac money is higher if only to cover west coast inflation.
NEIlliniFan
- No longer in New England
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Ohio State AD Gene Smith says 'pause button should be hit' on CFP expansion. Others fret over ESPN's grip on football.
The notion among many leaders around the sport: Why allow ESPN access to the most valuable set of rights around the sport without other bidders to drive up the price?
sports.yahoo.com
Even if they aren't quite putting their finger on the real problem, I am encouraged to see college football leadership starting to sense doom on the path they're heading down.
There are certainly some brand names in the PAC but it’s more about reach and breadth of the television deal. More marquee games = more money. In theory with this merger you could have at least 4 marquee games every Saturday for noon, 3, 7,and 9pm eastern.
Interesting musings. I tend to agree that what's needed from the BIG standpoint is to work with the media partners (FOX in particular) to raid the PAC-12 of it's top programs. That IMO would be able to compete with anyone, even if they have more powerhouse programs. The worst case would be the SEC doing the same thing to the BIG. The BIG seems pretty cohesive at the moment, but you have to know that any conference can break apart if the money is there. The AAU and academics bring an interesting angle to it. Brings a larger merger into play.
I know this will never Happen, but I would like to see all of the remaining colleges tell the SEC and ESPN to piss off. Start our own national championship with all the other conferences. Let the SEC and ESPN have there own championship with themselves. Don't even schedule any games with the SEC period.
I think future expansion by the B1G is inevitable.
I also think its gong to be a MEGA type deal that will involve multiple schools from the PAC , AND other wild cards like ND and A&M. It will be a new conference that will not only rival SEC, but exceed it.
National in scope and much larger in terms of money .
Just my opinion
I also think its gong to be a MEGA type deal that will involve multiple schools from the PAC , AND other wild cards like ND and A&M. It will be a new conference that will not only rival SEC, but exceed it.
National in scope and much larger in terms of money .
Just my opinion
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The idea that the Big Ten is strengthened over the long term by the destruction of the Pac 12, again, I just don't understand how people don't see the problem there.
Just to put the most direct point on it, if all things in college sports are to be directed toward maximizing per-school revenue distribution in the next TV deal above all else, conferences themselves are an anachronism to be discarded on the way to an eventual College Football Super League that, among other sport-destroying problems, is absolutely 100% certain to not include Illinois. Look at this with some self-interest, if nothing else.
We've reached the point where there is more baby being thrown out than bathwater with every additional step taken.
One thing to keep in mind is that talk and speculation about realignment and mergers and super-conferences will thrive so long as it remains in the oxygen-rich social media imagitorium where nothing actually happens. The NCAA is arguably the most litigious institution in America. Any real proposal that tries to emerge from the conversation bubble will be immediately met by a phalanx of lawyers holding preliminary injunctions and demanding case studies to measure the impact that the hypothetical BIG/ACC/PAC-48 would have on a class-action consortium of three dozen women's lacrosse teams. I'm not saying that college sports doesn't blow itself up in the end, probably within all of our lifetimes. But the football money is too attractive for conferences to satisfy themselves for too long by simply absorbing Iowa State and Texas Tech. I think it's much more likely and logical that major college football will eventually detach and separate from all the other college sports and their Title IX shackles and blow itself up much faster and spectacularly, all alone, streaming into your home on its proprietary premium network.
mattcoldagelli
- Script Illinois Enthusiast
I think this was the case until earlier this year. The SCOTUS case was a sea-change moment for the battles the NCAA is going to try to fight, IMO.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Schools have been moving and conferences have been expanding all over the place and nothing of the sort has happened.
Title IX is imposed upon the Universities themselves by the federal government, it has nothing to do with the NCAA.
But yes, it is important to point out that a 24-team Super League broadcast on some $150 per season exclusive streaming platform would extinguish the sport within 20 years. We know that won't work, but why? Start there and work backwards.
That's probably less than a single tailgate, and a lot of folks will head to bars if they don't want to pay for the season. There's a lot of money in college football. For as much as they've tried to kill it with increasing prices, they still haven't made a big dent.
I don't have anything clever to say, but I've always thought UT in the Big 10 made a ton of sense, so this is really a disappointment.
Joel Goodson
- dawgville
It definitely does, but football and hubris are driving their bus.
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
Part of the reason the NFL is the most profitable sport in the US is that it's extremely easy to watch. You can see your local team and multiple out-of-market teams every weekend without even needing a cable subscription. When you put up barriers to entry, you're hurting your ability to reach new audiences and keep the ones you already have.
Look at MLB. Once the national pastime, now a distant second in terms of popularity with a rapidly aging fanbase. Their games used to be on local television and easy to watch. Now, you need the sports tier on most cable packages to get the obscure local channel that carries the game. Then you look at boxing. It once was one of the most popular sports, but now, pay-per-view has relegated it to extremely niche. A very select few have profited but to the detriment of the sport at large.
Yes, there's money to be made in college football, but putting it behind a paywall is gonna hurt it in the long run. Personally, I love my alma and will waste way too much time on a message board devoted to it, but, frankly, I don't love football. I'll watch a game if it's easily accessible, but there is a zero percent chance I'll drop $150 for college football each season.
Go Nats 88 Illini
Fairfax, VA
You need the the sprots tier here - in DC - to see the Illini. I have to have the Big Ten network or I would see probly 0 - 1 Illini games each year. This hads been going on for a long time. If I have to pay an extra subscription, I'll probably have to think about it and likely only will if the team is cooking. I like Big Ten fottball and love Illinois football. College football is okay, but I do not watch most anything that is not Illinois related (meaning in conference). In the olde days, I woudl watch the bowls. Noe I watch a couple and the national championship game.
You used to never be able to see MLB games when I was a kid. Monday Night baseball was a big thing. Sunday afternoon was bigger. Seeing the old Senators or the Orioles after they left was only when you could get it. But baseball ruled then (though not in DC as the Redskins dominated). The world has changed.
There are barriers to entry everywhere. Agree with you on boxing. Never would fo a PPV and stopped watching, as I was a casual observer, once in was inaccessible.
Guess I do not have a point. Just rambling, because I can...
You used to never be able to see MLB games when I was a kid. Monday Night baseball was a big thing. Sunday afternoon was bigger. Seeing the old Senators or the Orioles after they left was only when you could get it. But baseball ruled then (though not in DC as the Redskins dominated). The world has changed.
There are barriers to entry everywhere. Agree with you on boxing. Never would fo a PPV and stopped watching, as I was a casual observer, once in was inaccessible.
Guess I do not have a point. Just rambling, because I can...
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
Growing up in the DC area in the late '80s and early '90s you could watch about 75% of Orioles games on channel 20 and channel 50, zero cable required. I loved Cal Ripken, Jr. and watched every game possible. Now, as a cord cutter, I only watch baseball when I'm at the game.
Some barriers for entry can be okay, but the harder you make it to see your product, the more you ultimately harm it.
Go Nats 88 Illini
Fairfax, VA
I don't doubt you. I just remember in the ealry 70's the Senators were on Saturday I think on channel 5 (I was very young) - opening theme song was the begining of 25 or 6 to 4, but I do remmebr adjusting the antenna to watch O's games I think on channel 13 from Baltimore after that. My dad and I would watch whoever was on Sunday afternoon with Joe Garagiola (sp?) announcing and then Monday Night with my dad. I never say 75% of the teams until years later. NFL was on every Sunday with several games and Monday night. Baseball was king at the time even though Football had better coverage. I never had cable until my sophomore year at Illinois, but things definitely changed.
This is a great observation, I became a Cubs fan for a while as a kid because I could watch every game on WGN. The Atlanta Braves experienced popularity when all their games were on TBS. The harder you make it to watch a team or sport the less popularity it will become.
Not disputing your opinions, but some comments:
1. Making a sport more exclusive, by definition is hurting the fanbase --agreed. However, we're talking about University Presidents, most of whom are far into their careers with maybe a 3-5 year timeline. As we've seen time and time again, they're looking to max out revenue over the near to mid-term. It would be great if they consider the long term future, and no doubt some will, but I think history has shown they won't look that far out. They all have their eye on the next media rights, and the windfall of an expanded playoff.
2. Paywall is kind of a fuzzy thing. Whether it's advertising, subscriptions, or something else, there will a charge the consumer pays. If you make it too much, you start to lose fans, and conversely, you can provide a lot of value that grows the base. A smart operation has multiple price packages --e.g. Hulu has an ad free and ad based model for their basic stations. I can recall back in the day, bleacher seats at Cubs games were incredibly cheap, and it made for a great fan experience. Organizations usually figure out how to bring in low-price point consumers eventually, while maintaining high margin options.
3. Destroying the PAC-12 will make sense under certain assumptions. I'm not suggesting it's the right thing to do, but I am saying there are scenarios you can cook up where it will make sense. IF you believe a 12 team playoff is most likely, and you project revenue based on cutting up the pie favorably to the remaining super-conferences, there will be a play there to raid the PAC-12, taking the better programs, and leaving the weaker programs out in the cold. It's not any different in theory to what happens today, just a different split of who's included and who's not.
4. The media partners are going to have a lot of clout in how this plays out. They know the numbers, or at least have the most persuasive idea of what they will be, since they'll be bidding on the rights. There's going to be a huge battle behind the scenes to take advantage of a new landscape and expanded playoff. There for sure will be winners and losers. Kinda wish Delany was at the helm.
- Status