Matt Brown: B1G convos with Ore/UW/Cal/Stanford are only "exploratory"
Matt Brown, at his Extra Points blog, has talked to a bunch of his sources, who say that the B1G discussions with Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford are real, but being overhyped:
Multiple sources with direct knowledge of the situation have told me that internal conversations within the Big Ten, with administrators, Big Ten staffers, etc., about expanding are not new. Oregon and Washington were considered last summer, and Big Ten leaders have ‘run numbers’ on other potential candidates as well. This particular sub-group of presidents is new, as is the reported instability with the Pac-12, but the conversations themselves, I’m told, are not.
B1G doesn't believe they'll get great value financially for adding these teams, as before, and there are other logistical and political problems with adding West Coast teams:
But how valuable those windows become depends, in large part, on who plays in those games. As one media industry professional told me, “nobody wants to pay top dollar to broadcast Cal-Washington seven different times,” an assessment that feels particularly accurate given the soft market demand for a Pac-12 TV deal full of exactly that type of game. The real value of that new Big Ten TV time slot is that it would also involve many other Big Ten teams...
He concludes:
I’m told that these conversations, right now, really are exploratory in nature, rather than trying to expedite the expansion process.
I’m simply sharing all of this to convey that the math and political calculus really is complicated. If this was as simple as “well, adding Oregon gives every school an extra four million bucks, let’s do it”, it would have happened last year. Or this winter. Or this spring.
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:13 AM ^
It honestly wouldn't shock me - based on how this has all played out so far - if the Big 12 is pushing these rumors in order to make Arizona and co. jump and join them.
I think those schools could be convinced to stay in the Pac if the current Pac stays together and adds a couple schools, but of course if Oregon/UW leave it's over and they need a landing spot.
So for the Big 12 it's pretty important that Arizona, Utah and so forth believe that Oregon and UW's departure is all but guaranteed.
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:20 AM ^
I think you’re spot on. FSU/Clemson make more sense, and why should we take on the BURDEN of Stanford/Cal?
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:48 AM ^
Yeah, who wants the burden of having a top 5 university in academic ranking. (Arguably, first, second or third nationally, depending on where you look.) Stanford would leapfrog Northwestern and UofM and instantly become the Big 10’s premier academic institution.
Stanford wins the Directors’ Cup just about every year. They bring everything but football revenue. But at what point do the Indianas and Minnnesotas of the Big 10 say enough is enough to adding these schools just to bash their heads in on the football field? Rutgers and Maryland were obvious additions to offset the imbalance caused by adding Penn State and Nebraska. For every USC/UCLA type addition, there should be a Cal/Stanford to maintain some competitive balance, lest the bottom half gets tired of going 4-8 every year and decides to drop football.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:35 PM ^
While this is a plausible thought, it is not why UMD and Rutger were added. The sole reason for those two teams is the ~14M cable households between Washington/Baltimore and New York. There is no other reason.
Exactly it’s all about how many TV viewers they can add. It has nothing to do allowing the lower half of the conference a couple of easy games. When they talk expansion the only question is how big is the TV market and will it put more money in everyone’s pocket
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:14 PM ^
Does anyone really still have cable?
Rutgers and Maryland were obvious additions to offset the imbalance caused by adding Penn State and Nebraska.
What? Rutger and Maryland weren't added to give Indiana and Minnesota someone to beat on. Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1990. So the Big Ten added bad teams 30 years later to offset PSU? And what imbalance has Nebraska caused? Minnesota has been beating them without breaking a sweat.
Rutger and Maryland were brought in to get the B1G channel added to east coast cable packages--more eyeballs = more cash money. Of course the broadcast environment has changed with cord-cutting and streaming dominating now.
Because this is about football revenue, not academics.
I am saddened that this had to be said. Thank you for stating the obvious (as others contributed above.)
"Because this is about football revenue, not academics."
Succinct, perfect summary. Those who pretend otherwise are delusional. This is about money. And, frankly, if you scan the blogs of the other schools, most everyone recognizes M and OSU generate revenue like few others can. Let's accept the compliment.
The only question worth asking is: "Which schools can help Michigan and Ohio State garner more revenue for the media franchise that places all their chips on those two teams?"
It would be nice if academics matter, but they don't in this conversation. They matter for where I want my kid to go to school. But that is NOT what this kerfuffle is about.
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:14 AM ^
My Big Ten expansion wish list is Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson, Oregon, Washington in that order. Cal and Stanford can join the Big Sky
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:28 AM ^
It may be just me, but I am not on board with Washington/ Oregon. They aren’t great academically, won’t increase our average revenue, and will be those type of teams that are occasionally a bee in our bonnet (aka MSU).
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:38 AM ^
Can't speak for Oregon, but Washington is consistently ranked as a top 25 public university, and Seattle-Tacoma is a top 15 TV market. But I agree with you completely about the bee-in-bonnet factor.
According to the 2022-23 Nielsen TV market ratings, Seattle is #12. Detroit is #14. Seattle is one down from Phoenix and one up from Tampa. Portland is no slouch at #22. Both would suffice the B1G eyeball exposure metric.
What to with Notre Dame, they could solidify the Chicago market at #3 and fit the original B1G geographic footprint in the Midwest. I know ND is a lightning rod to the many on this website. Whatever, but ND has more to lose than to gain by not joining the B1G (IMO).
I was reading an article from someone who looked at tv markets and which schools move the needle and could generate even more revenue for a conference.
The only school that really fit the bill out there is Notre Dame. Schools like Washington Oregon FSU and Clemson really don’t bring a lot when it comes to expanding the TV market
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:39 AM ^
Washington isn’t?
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:39 AM ^
I think Oregon is a bit more than a bee in our bonnet. I still have nightmares of Dennis Dixon...Even ignoring that one game, they played in the National Championship twice more than we have this century. And while Chip Kelly was the program's high point they've continued to be a 10+ win team more often than not since he's left.
What are you talking about? Washington is a highly ranked university. Oregon is more toward the middle but fine; it's a better school than Nebraska or MSU. It's more in line with OSU or PSU -- more middle of the road.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:01 AM ^
Swap Oregon for Stanford and I’m good.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:24 AM ^
I'm probably in the minority, but I saw FUCK NO to having notre dame join. They are too self absorbed and think their shit don't stink, so let them remain independent and play Army & Navy each year.
They are too self absorbed and think their shit don't stink
Yes, all true... but this is also 100% accurate for USC. If ND does join, they become just another blue-blood with no special status.
That's exactly where Penn State saw themselves 25 years ago. The years continue to prove them wrong. Notre Dame would follow that same path,
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:18 AM ^
I don’t see what Cal and Stanford offer from a financial boost perspective.
Yes, they are elite academic institutions that would fit perfectly in the Big Ten from that perspective, they are very well-rounded athletic institutions, but do they really offer any additional eyeballs? Do they really generate additional revenue without dragging everyone else’s piece of the pie down? My money is on no.
I don’t think people in the Bay Area really care about those school’s respective sports programs. Much less does a national audience.
If this decision is being made based on money, which let’s be honest, everything in college sports today is decided based on money, then I don’t see how Cal or Stanford fit anywhere into this equation. P
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:06 AM ^
Spot on!
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:17 AM ^
Isn't it more of the TV market than anything? Like, who cares how many people actually watch versus how much value they can squeeze out of the networks based on subscriptions? I could be wrong. I'm just thinking aloud.
You are right. Why else would Jim Delany (former B1G commish) add Rutgers? He wanted a piece of the biggest US TV market of NYC. He included MD at the same time to get the #8 TV market of Washington DC. No coincidence.
Adding two Pac NW markets of Seattle and Portland, the B1G TV footprint covers most of the nation, except for Texas, the Southern States (SEC country) and maybe New England.
That was unquestionably the logic behind adding Rutgers and Maryland.
It isn't likely true anymore. Cord-cutting continues. TV Execs realize this.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:39 AM ^
Money is leading factor, but these decisions aren't made by Athletic Directors -- they're ultimately made by University Presidents and Board of Regents (who are either elected or appointed by governors). And that means politics & prestige also come into play.
For example, UCLA was only allowed to go to the B1G by the Board with the stipulation they will give some of their new B1G money to Cal. If Cal joins the B1G, UCLA no longer has to do that and it will make the Board happy that they're back together again -- so UCLA (and v likely USC) are going to be very in favor of adding West Coast schools for a number of reasons.
Plus, the B1G are academic snobs. It's part of our brand. If the B1G adds a university that is one of the handful of schools considered the best of the country (it's always Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford or MIT -- in some order) that also has a $36 billion endowment (only Harvard and Yale is bigger) and perhaps the wealthiest alumni base in the world (again, outside of Harvard), they're going to add them. And Cal Berkeley is one of the top 5 (if not top 1) public universities in the US. Sure, Florida State would likely bring in an extra $5-$10 million per year in TV revenue, but most B1G athletic depts are already awash in cash due to the new TV deal; they're in a position of strength. They can be picky.
In any case, I don't think it's complicated (from the B1G's perspective):
- Arizona, ASU and Utah are on the clock. If they aren't impressed by the Pac 12 / Apple offer (and it seems they are not), they'll go to the Big 12.
- If that domino falls, the Pac 12 is done. Then, the B1G moves in and takes UW, Oregon, Cal and Stanford. If it doesn't fall, the B1G keeps its options open (eg they'll take calls from FSU, Clemson, Virginia, etc and say "Let's keep in touch.").
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:58 AM ^
I’m in total agreement. Now, let’s continue the thought exercise. Say the Big 10 has added Stanford and Cal. That gives the Big Ten 4 California schools. There’s a lot of travel involved for non-revenue sports that play more than 12 games a season. So what if, (Bob Slydell voice) and believe me this is a hypothetical, the big 10 added the rest of the UC system for the non-revenue sports. Just call that the 12 member Big10 West division. Champions of the West play the Champions of the current member schools. Travel is reduced, regional rivalries are maintained and TV gets the big ticket football games it wants.
Regarding academic snobbery, I think every UC school is top-100 in most academic rankings. Maybe Merced is the exception? But UCI, UCSD, UCSB and UCD would be top half or top third academically in this new Big24. UCLA, Cal and Stanford would be top 5 with Michigan and Northwestern.
(OK, maybe I’m just trying to get my UCR-attending son into the Big10, but it makes more sense than USC playing home and homes with Rutgers in Tennis.)
You think the B10 leaders were "academic snobs" when they let in Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland? One bad school, two middling ones. Don't kid yourself, dude.
Rutgers and the University of Maryland are tied in the US News rankings (caveats apply,) - coincidentally, with Florida State - at #55 nationally. Calling them “middling” reveals your own academic snobbery.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:07 PM ^
I don't understand why people think these situations are static, though. Don't you assume that schools grow, change, make commitments to grow their programs? It's like the way fans say a player stinks but the coach continues to believe in them whatever their stats, and then--sometimes--they blossom. If the presidents are making the final decisions, I hope they want both great and growing programs, and to make the whole stronger. Also, why do they all have to be great right now? You do need some balance in divisions, etc.
I get that FOX wants this and that, but FOX just shouldn't be dictating what a great university like Michigan or Stanford does right down the line. And we're getting to the point with digital and smaller tech where--yes--we could broadcast a game locally and online so that those who care actually get to see their teams while a marquee matchup goes out more widely.
I think we're going to two ten-team divisions, and the question becomes who the final/for now four are. I see FSU and somebody (UNC? Clemson?) and two West Coast teams as being an answer.* Then you're a national conference, the SEC is much more regional and narrow in ambit--which can speak for itself--and you're drawing a wider audience. We forget that Illinois-NW doesn't look too delectable from a national standpoint, either. The B1G, for now, has been very limited geographically; with UCLA and USC, we kicked down the door: What does that dictate for future additions? I'd be delighted if those were Stanford and somebody like Washington.
Also, the impact on other sports can really be healthy. I know a lot of people don't care, but I certainly care that UCLA gives basketball a nice jolt; that FSU women's soccer would demand that everyone up their game. . . And (back to football) USC is going to be causing some little embarrassments here and there for B1G programs. All this sounds like fun to watch, to me.
*I'm okay if ND's left sucking wind.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:09 PM ^
Supposedly some of the academic powers that be would love to have Cal and Stanford in the old CIC now BTAA for better research opportunities and grant leverage.
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:37 AM ^
“nobody wants to pay top dollar to broadcast Cal-Washington seven different times,”
Purdue and Indiana and Illinois should be thankful they're already in the conference because nobody would be in favor of admitting them in 2023 based on who gives a shit about watching them play football.
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:44 AM ^
See also: Northwestern and Vanderbilt.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:26 AM ^
Would rather not.
Kinda crazy that Mizzou got a spot in the SEC, and in 2012 at that!
Mizzou is the only FBS school in a state with 2 major metro areas and a state population bigger than all others in SEC territory other than FL, GA, and TN. It is all about TV revenue. Made total sense in 2012 to accept them into the SEC.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:58 AM ^
I haven't finished it yet but there was a very interesting discussion on the latest Shutdown Fullcast pod (the internet's only college football podcast) where they were discussing the inevitability of conferences dropping poor performers and picking up schools who at that moment might have more to offer. Indiana was the school they were using for the discussion and how schools like Indiana, Vandy, NW, etc won't be able to rely on inertia (history) to keep them in a conference if they aren't worth it. It strikes me as a crappy way to do relegation for the basement dwellers...
I hadn't considered it before but if schools can just up and join a conference for no other reason than money (and to hell with historical ties), than conferences can jettison schools for no other reason than money.
End game is a Magnificent 7 and a Southern 8 - the 15 most watched programs
M-OSU-PSU-FSU-USC-Oregon-Nebraska
UT-OU-LSU-Bama-Tennessee-UGA-UF-Clemson
At first it sounds horrible. And then you realize you've lots of OOC games and the TV people will be happy and then it's slightly less horrible and maybe better than the 20-team "conferences" we currently have.
August 3rd, 2023 at 10:55 AM ^
Washington and Oregon were looked at earlier and found wanting for their TV markets.
the B1G shares revenue equally (at least eventually), so they would actually cut the revenues of each school because they would take up more than what they bring in. The broadcasters are not going to pony up another 50m per school x 10 years for Oregon/Washington much less Cal/Stanford.
Having a west "pod" does help in that it reduces the cost of travel for the Olympic sports. If the B1G is set on full integration of all sports, this would be revenue 'addition by subtraction'. Would non full shares be enough to mitigate things? Not really sure.
that's the economics of it.
Culturally and academically they are good fits. Cal and Stanford being slam dunks.
Its not great timing, but looking at a looming implosion of the Pac12, I understand why the B1G is doing their due diligence.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:02 AM ^
I don't know how Stanford is quite a cultural 'slam dunk' given that it's a private school in the Bay Area, and the Big Ten even now is primarily a conference for big public universities in the Midwest and increasingly East.
You could say that Stanford being a wealthy school with elite pedigree and a focus on things elite people care about makes them culturally fairly close to the self-image of many Michigan alumni, but then this is also a conference of an Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State and Ohio State which are much more 'broad church' type schools.
Stanford falls in the same category as USC really as somewhat of a deviation from the B1G theme, except they're not a college football powerhouse.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:19 AM ^
Northwestern? I also thinking you're underselling Wisconsin.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:34 AM ^
I'm not saying any of those are bad schools, but they're also flagship state schools which get a lot of their power from the broad support they enjoy from the community at-large which of course features many of their alumni in all sorts of positions throughout the cities and towns of the state.
That's not exactly what Stanford is..which has a much narrower focus on both attracting the wealthy and producing the even more wealthy, and also perhaps unsurprisingly doesn't enjoy broad support in California beyond their alumni base. Of course, their alumni base is a major asset and even if only a relatively small % of them are big on athletics, that is a lot of money. But that's not the Big Ten culture. Exceptions like Northwestern (which really has been grandfathered in more than anything) notwithstanding.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:39 PM ^
I agree about the flagship school part, though I'm also not sure how much influence schools like Rutgers and Purdue have in their states, for example. They're much bigger that Stanford in terms of alumni but in terms of alums actually caring about their athletics I'm not sold there's a demonstrable difference between Stanford and Rutgers football tradition, for example.
I do agree that Stanford is a weird outlier but also, that's sort of what is left in terms of expansion options outside of ND, which is a whole other can of worms.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:20 PM ^
With 'culture' is was more in terms of the school itself as opposed to the broader locations...so the culture on campus is more what I was alluding to.
the administrative levels of Stanford/Cal would undoubted mix well with those at a similar level in the B1G conference.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:31 PM ^
Stanford doesn't make sense in any conference if we're talking about them being a rich private school in NoCal; currently they share a conference with Arizona, ASU, Wash St., and Oregon St., schools that known either as party-school meccas and/or cow-town schools. I might not be understanding what you mean but "broad church" but they don't feel that different.
Academically and non-revenue sports Cal and Stanford make a ton of sense for the Big 10 vs., say, the Big 12 or SEC. But they don't really bring in a huge market and don't expand the national footprint, plus (and this is the damning part) they aren't consistently good at men's basketball (Stanford is very good at women's basketball, a growing sports nationally), the other sport that has some skin financially in realignment. I don't really like the idea of Kansas joining the Big 10 but when that was bandied about you could point to Jayhawks ball as a reason to add them. There really isn't that with any of the 4 Pac-12 teams mentioned as looking.
Broad church is a concept from the Anglican/Episcopal church that means the church should incorporate all religious tendencies in the country in order to have a broader national appeal, in other words doctrinal purity is sacrificed for unity. You could also say 'big tent' to borrow a term from American politics.
The idea being that Big Ten schools generally try to both be academically excellent and represent their states as a whole. That's the real power of the Big Ten brand, the fact there's millions of residents in big states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania invested in the universities as part of the general community fabric.
Stanford isn't like that.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:33 PM ^
The revenue split is the rub. Money is too important a factor in all this. There is just no reason to add any school who won't raise the average payout. Stanford and Cal would almost certainly lower the tide for everyone, unfortunately. Washington and Oregon would be no change, even in the most optimistic scenario.
August 3rd, 2023 at 11:08 AM ^
Just got done listening to Sam's Podcast this morning on the Ticket and he is noting a different tune (siting sources - 247 reporter for UA).
Sam laid out the $$$$ (which is really driving all this). The upcoming TV contract for the PAC 12 is only going to payout ~$25M / team. Per Sam's sources, even before the Zoom call ended, UA and ASU AD's were already calling the BIG12. Plus the BoT for UA is meeting. Bottom line, the PAC12 is offering $25M / year IF the current conference sticks together. The BIG12 apparently are offering $35M / year. Doesn't take a genius to see the better option.
IF this happens, then UW and Oregon are now sitting there with no real conference, a dwindling TV contract and few options. So they either A) Take a BIG 12 contract to get at least the $35M or B) negotiate with the BIG TEN to take a cut rate for this contract (say $50M / year) which would be lower than the rest of the BIG TEN AND apparently they are ready to do (source: Forde?, Thamel?), yet more than what you can get from anyone else. It just comes down to whether the BIG TEN wants to bring them in based up potential...
Something is coming down and change is coming, that is certainly going to happen. What happens and when it happens will be a good watch...