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 12:11 PM ^
Yes, the issue is why did the B10 pass on those two a year ago? They won't bring in the $$$ in year 1-2-3. But now they have no power to negotiate entrance and the reality is their value is the same (par with an even share) is now at a discount (a 66% share for X years and then 100% share thereafter).
This is how Rutgets and UMd came in (I think they just got to 100% share like in the last year). I think Neb even had the same/similar deal but I don't recall.
IMO, I think the B10 should take them both at anything like <75% share for > 5 years. Maybe 8-10 years? Then see where the ACC schools are re: GoR.
I can see 18 -24 schools in the B10 with E-W divisions in most sports
Pending on one's viewpoint and how much someone values 'potential' and "better here then there". If (when) UA, ASU and Utah bolt to the BIG 12, UW and Oregon will be desperate to find a landing spot. So, yes, they lose some leverage....
However, they can play a little leverage in the fact that A) They have to move, sitting in the defunk PAC12 is not an option, but B) The BIG12 will be anxious to add them, so how much of that helps UW and Oregon? That will be the factor that determine what cut of TV revenue they get.
Does the BIG TEN just sit on their cash and watch UW and Oregon go to the BIG 12? I believe (pure speculation on my part) the BIG TEN want UW and Oregon in their conference, it is just a matter of agreeing on what that price tag is.
Outside of the ACC, they are good programs that would draw some TV eyeballs (Seattle #12 TV market, Portland #22) on a weekly basis (either regular TV or streaming), plus keeps the BIG 12 has a "B" conference and blocks the SEC from going national.
Finally, this positions them well when the ACC fails and they can pick and chose from FSU / UNC / Virginia to round out the conference and be a coast to coast conference. Something the SEC will not be able to claim and the BIG 12 appears to be a B listed conference...
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:05 PM ^
With all the rumors about these other teams, being added, like Oregon, Washington, Florida State, Clemson, etc. plus the ones we already know who are in (OSU, PSU, USC), it feels like there’s a possibility that winning Big Ten championships would be incredibly rare with that many top teams, potentially in conference.
I believe that you are onto something here. Not only will it be difficult for a power team to consistently win the conference. I believe that only a handful of teams will be in position to challenge while the rest of the conference will be stuck in a quagmire.
Lets take Sparty for example (cause I love picking on them). As of today, Sparty ranks somewhere between 7th - 9th program in terms of BIG TEN programs (I lean more towards to 9th, but work with me here). Next year, that drops to 9-11 with USC and UCLA coming in (both have higher profiles).
Now, there is talk of adding UW, Oregon, FSU, and Clemson? That would only push Sparty further down the list (13th - 15th) in the new conference. Making it only more difficult to move up the conference standing. Much harder to back door your way into conference titles (like Mork did early on) thus more difficult to establish a program prestige...
If / when UW and Oregon join the BIG TEN, that will make 6-8 teams that will be battling to gain one of the new CFB playoff spots with the SEC and BIG 12 / ACC clamoring for their spots...
There will be some distribution of power from the BIG 3 (Bama, UGA, OSU) but that only will shift to ~20 schools that will be able to consistently challenge for a playoff spot. That is what will take priority over trying to win the actual conference title (unless the make the playoffs heavily reward a team for winning their conference...)
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:12 PM ^
Supposedly USC was under the impression that Oregon would get left behind and USC would stand out as a west coast power in the BigTen.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:39 PM ^
The USC fans I know --- universally --- all have an attitude of "F*** Oregon."
They don't like Oregon's "new $$$ attitude" and they want to marginalize Oregon's access to SoCal kids (especially Orange County).
USC plays in Eugene this year and all those USC fans I know plan on making the trip. They're dreaming of winning and then being able to forever wave "bye-bye" to the Ducks.
I always liked the Ducks a bit and always disliked the trojans a bit. But this...makes it so much more. I really hope USC doesn't win the league they cratered this year. I hope it's the Ducks, Huskies, or Beavs (I don't believe in the Utes for some reason this year, and don't think anyone else really has a shot). The Beavers would be the best - just because they're the ultimate forgotten, left behind here. It would be delicious if they win their 3rd ever Pac10/12 title (6th if you include the PCC) right before the league ends.
Prior to moving to LA, I generally had an "eh, I have no opinion on them" feeling towards USC fans.
What I'm realizing now --- their alumni fans have a significant "we are awesome, nobody else matches us" attitude about them. All those USC fans I mentioned with the "F** Oregon" attitude: not coincidentally, they're alumni (my colleagues and such).
The non-alumni portion of their fan-base is tribal and really loves USC, but it's in a more FUN (and admittedly somewhat front-running) way. Much like Lakers and Dodgers fans. Again not coincidentally, there's a lot of overlap there.
Anyway, we'll see how USC and B1G fans mix in the years to come. But that's been my initial perception. They're sort of like the "anti-Ohio State": the alums are the obnoxious ones and the non-alums are more cool and fun.
I've met a few non-alum and alum fans - the non-alum fans when I went to the Rose Bowl. The non-alums were awesome - they were all chill and friendly. I think they get their crazy out for the Dodgers and USC is just a relaxed time for them.
The alums I've met do seem a bit snooty, but I did go to Michigan so I'm kinda used to that and can't hate on it too much. They did feel more snooty to me tho, but that's probably just maize and blue tinted glasses.
TAMU says Hi
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:12 PM ^
Unless the west coast teams agree to play all their conference games at noon or 3:30, they're a hindrance to B1G TV viewership. Let's face it, due to the time zone differences, any team in Mountain or Pacific is at a disadvantage when it comes to national viewership.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:24 PM ^
With the B1G schedule often being noon heavy, that's less of an issue. The only Pac games that are really an issue are evening games starting at 10 pm or later in the East, but there's no need for marquee games hosted by the B1G's West Coast teams being night games local time.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:30 PM ^
The issue isn't for us. The issue is for them. They have to start games at 9 am to hit the noon eastern slot. I can't remember the last time I saw a west coast team play a home game at noon. It just doesn't happen. Maybe they get an exemption from the noon slot, although the networks will have a say in that. Otherwise, in order to satisfy the viewers and networks, they have to only play 3 pm / noon games or 8 pm / 5 pm games.
I don't think that's a problem. This is more NFL than NHL. The reason NHL, MLB and NBA teams play night games so much even out West is that so many games are on weekdays and local TV matters a ton.
But USC/UCLA will play 99% on Saturdays now and CFB fans are used to watching their teams in the afternoon on Saturday. I would be shocked if they are mad about having few games starting at 7-7.30 pm Pacific.
Somewhat different story in other sports, but then this is all about football.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:36 PM ^
If USC had their choice, EVERY home game would start at 4:30 or 5 PM PT (7:30 or 8 PM ET).
UCLA (for various reasons) is more amenable to a 7:30 PT/10:30 ET game, and I expect to see a couple B1G games annually put there. But USC really doesn't love those games, and I don't expect to see them at all.
If Oregon and co. join - they almost certainly are going to fill in "After Dark" games against each other and against local teams. They'll also be the preference for home night games late in the season against anyone.
I dunno if the money for the extra package is enough - as Matt Brown talks about, the easing of logistical concerns on other sports helps, the difficulties in the TV business hurts - but there's definitely a timeslot for them to play. No idea if the money makes sense tho. For the record, more people watched Oregon on TV than USC last year, and both had decent seasons with USC being in the national title race.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:22 PM ^
This is good confirmation of what a lot of the reports spoke to - these schools are all talking because the Pac-12 looks to be falling apart and everyone wants a life-raft. In reality the ACC seems like the better area to explore picking from because schools like UVa and UNC make sense geographically, academically, financially, and athletically way more than Cal or Washington. Yes Oregon and Washington provide some PNW markets but...the current Pac-12 is trying to sell that already and even Apple TV is saying "meh".
I do suspect we'll see teams changing conferences this time next year, and I wouldn't be shocked if a couple of Pac-12 teams come this way. But the math really hasn't changed since the time USC and UCLA showed up, and it is well known than USC doesn't want any of the other WC teams to come along to the Big 10 so that'll be another impediment.
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:48 PM ^
https://twitter.com/petethamel/status/1687129001762942977?s=46
B10 meetings this am instructed the commish to present expansion details re: ore and wash
August 3rd, 2023 at 12:29 PM ^
Expansion wish list - Notre Dame, Florida State, Stanford and Cal (if you take one you have to take both), Boston College, and Virginia. I'm not too keen on FSU academics and culture but FSU is on par w/ Maryland/Rutgers academically so it works. Intrigued w/ Boston College b/c it gives the Big Ten access to the New England market.
From my sources “Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, FSU, Clemson, Miami, Duke, UNC, Virginia, Pitt & ND are all into the Big Ten by 2026”
I can’t stand mega conferences. Every conference was at its best when everyone played everyone, every year. No team had a more favorable schedule than another, which made for the fairest way to determine a champion. For me, the quest to squeeze every last possible dollar out of college sports is making it less enjoyable to be a fan.
Brian was fantastic on The Roundtable today on this topic. I never liked Brian as much as I did today hearing him speak on the state of college football.
I agree, but unfortunately (or fortunately), I keep watching and still enjoy watching Michigan play. So apparently they haven't squeezed me out yet. I hate super conferences but honestly I hate the TV Timeouts more. And so they're going to keep squeezing us until they see an actual drop that threatens their bottom line.
It's straight greed. I guess for competitive reasons - more money means better coaches, more staffers, and nowadays better players - but yea. I hate it but ultimately, I don't hate it enough. And I think I'd hate seeing Oregon and Washington go to the Mountain West more than I'd hate a 20 team Big Ten.
I agree, but the counterargument is that in the old days a team would have 8 regular conference games and 3 or 4 out of conference games with 1 or 0 big match ups in the OC games.
With super conferences we might possibly get more bug match ups more often.
How often have we had weekends in September where every game seems boring?
As a lifelong UM fan and EMU alum I have long understood that there was a massive gap in money at the highest level of college football. There is no better physical example of this than the seven miles between Michigan Stadium and Rynearson. It’s New York City versus Jamestown,New York.
The difference now is that fans of some P5 schools are seeing their programs being shunted aside like MAC and Sun Belt programs in the process of creating an NFL-style bifurcated league and they don’t like it.
But for me what makes college football great is still there. Young athletes prone to making mistakes and/or spectacular plays in high pressure environments surrounded by the unique pomp and pageantry in places as different as Lincoln, Nebraska and Los Angeles, California.
Plus, I think having more equitable divisions makes sense. How can an UNLV seriously compete with a Michigan when the latter has a massive advantage in every aspect? They can’t.
Big Ten schools probably shouldn’t be playing Richmond or MAC schools. They should be playing programs with peer or near peer funding and support. There is still plenty of support for smaller schools. They just need to think creatively.
I think the part that stings is flagship state schools who want to compete at the highest level find themselves being left behind. And we're not talking small states like Wyoming or New Hampshire - Oregon State and Wazzu are being left behind by in-state rivals they've played against for a generation. For a long time, most of the 25 largest states had major college football teams. Now it looks like it's only a given for the 10 largest state - and even then, California, which still has 10M more people than Texas - is seeing their flagship school begging for a spot.
Everything you say is true. "Fair" is a really strange word to define. What's fair to small schools may not be to the athletes and fans. But I can definitely sympathize with how it stings if you went to a school that's always been pretty competitive but is somehow deemed not good enough
Speaking of fair, the honest truth is about 80% of colleges lose money on varsity sports. They fund it by raising tuition money on all the students.
Schools like WMU and EMU charge every student more than $1,000 per year to fund their D1 sports. LINK I know that a lot of people love MAC sports, but is it fair if a kid goes to EMU for 5 years he'll get an extra $6,000 in student debt so EMU can have D1 sports when financially they shouldn't?
The truth is, schools like Washington State and Oregon State are closer to WMU and EMU's athletic finances than they are to Michigan.
Is it fair that Washington State is getting left behind? Is it fair that Washington State charges extra tuition money to fund their sports?
I understand that, but let’s be honest how often has Washington State and Oregon State been Pac 12 contenders versus UW and Oregon? Not very often.
Reality is often harsh. Programs are getting a face full of reality now.
Nothing you're saying is wrong, but I'm still sad about it. I LOVED seeing Michael Crabtree and Mike Leach upset Texas. I loved it when Ryan Leaf took the Cougs to the Rose Bowl and brought their high powered offense against Michigan. I think it's awesome that Oregon State was a Pac12 contender last year, and very likely could win it this year. That West Virginia was 4 points from playing for a national title in '07 - and that the school that stopped them was their old rival, Pitt.
The game is changing. I'm happy Michigan doesn't just have a seat at the table but is setting the table. But I can't help but think the numbers these wizards are using may suffer from a "garbage in garbage out" problem. The value of college football has been those smaller schools - even one from Boone, NC - toppling the giants of the game when we least expect it. What made the last 2 years so special is that we didn't realize it was special until it was already happening - 2021 didn't feel special until Erick All had "lots of running room." 2022 until Cornelius Johnson became a "WIDE open receiver!" And the NFL just doesn't have that - and if College football goes down to 40 "major" teams, or even fewer - it still will be fun. But it'll be less quirky and loveable. Less small town cow colleges. More these big behemoths that do a lot of good and also churn out elite athletes - both olympians and professional football/basketball/baseball players - as if they're some sort of sports factory.
It has always been this way. Reality can be harsh. But damn if there wasn't some charm to watching some crazy Thursday night Big East game, to watching private schools from Boston and Miami play games with national significance, to watching Kenny Pickett fake a slide, to watching Cyclones end the Cowboy's national title dreams in the middle of the night at Jack Trice Stadium.
I mean it sucked when it happened to us. But the fact that it hurt made the fun so much more. I dunno, the game is changing. It's fine. It's awful. I'll keep watching and loving it.
Money is quickly turning this sport into the European Super League that so many Europeans refused to allow.
They have kept their Champions League and preserved the importance of their domestic leagues.
College football is quickly killing all of that and instituting the super league.
You are 100% right. The quirkiness is being killed... with prejudice... To justify administrators' salaries and raises.
It’s turning into the EPL which is to be honest is formalizing what has been reality for decades.
Those programs will still be there. They aren’t going away.
Yea that's true - and the expanded playoff may give them and the Boise's more of a chance for a chaotic run then they had in the old "every week is a playoff" era. But on the flip side - Princeton and Harvard still have football programs too. SMU claims a couple of national titles from the 1980s - but while they still play football, we can't pretend they have the same shot as they did in the old Southwest.
I'm not apocalyptic about it. But I am skeptical and sorta sad.
All this crap sux.
I feel for Wazzus and Oregon States here. They are getting poned with all this trash and by coincidence the Rutgers and Northwesterns and Purdues stay golden by coincidence of already being in the conference that will eat others. Even though they add nothing. Nothing.
Not one of those schools deserves better than a Stanford here. They are at most on par.
So much is being destroyed and only those with perceived additional monetary value from outside the mega-conference survivors will survive and many will lose.
I too couldn't care about Illinois v. Indiana. And neither could America.
So why not just pay every school on a tier and screw all those who deserve it? Northwestern deserves to take in five percent of what Michigan gets paid each year.
If we are going to screw lots of schools let's make it graded based on merit and not coincidental in its nature.
At least we can screw over millions of fans more fairly.
College football has been tiered for decades which was the point I was making.
Feel bad all you want, but I think most people forget that UIdaho was in the P12 back in the day. Montana too.
Having been to the Palouse, I can tell you that the difference b/t WSU and UId is not as much as the difference b/t UCLA and WSU.
Ore/UW/Cal/Stanford -> Sign me up, this would be great
The Pac-12 has offered one 3:30 (all times Eastern) slot nationally, the rest at 10:30pm Friday and Saturday. And apparently with USC/UCLA going to the Big Ten, they won't even get the 10:30 Saturday slot on broadcast television.
I don't see the additional value of adding schools, diluting the pool further. We could have Leaders, Legends and Luminaries, I guess.
The best case for UW/Oregon is taking them so that the ACC doesn't. The case for Cal/Stanford is that our professors and their professors have a lot in common.
Having lived on the west coast for several years, I just don't think college sports is on their radar the way it's on ours. Same with the northeast.
A hell of a lot more people would pay to watch Washington vs Oregon than Rutgers vs. Maryland.
Have you ever been to a Rutgers vs Maryland sporting event?
Neither have I…
Is dating considered exploratory?