You are assuming it would shut them out (anymore than it does now) and you are assuming that the P2 wouldn't just create their own level to avoid that. The G5 have no real claim here, the "National Tournament" does not guarantee them a spot even now. They have an opportunity which they will still have if there is just two conferences. As long as the rules don't expressly say "Only P2 conference teams are eligible" or make the barriers of entry so high no one could make them unless they were in those conferences no court is going to stop the NCAA over this. And again, if the Court did decide to, there is no rule that says the P2 would need to compete at the same level as the G5 just like they don't compete on the same level as FCS. You are way overthinking this.
The GOR issues with the ACC have been talked about for quite a while (since rumors a couple years ago of UNC jumping ship) and pretty much everyone in the past has said that if they conference implodes the GOR no longer is truly enforceable. At best ESPN would be able to force a payoff but they would never get the full amount nor would they likely fight for it. Half the teams will be going to the SEC anyways so it would be pointless and a severe waste of resources. If say FSU and Clemson decided to head North...they would work out a much smaller penalty that would likely be paid by the partial payments from the Big Ten contract they would get. (note: I don't buy any ACC squads are leaving for the Big Ten...unless there is a ton that are thinking of ditching for the SEC)
The problem is you are treating NCAA Football like it is a normal situation. In a normal case with normal people involved you are likely correct. That has almost never been the case in sports especially with the NCAA. Contracts between anyone aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
We won't know for like 5 years anyways...by then everything will have changed multiple times most likely.
Totally agree with your conclusion!
What is going to be interesting here are the actions of ESPN, who is clearly in a cost-cutting mode at present. Will they try to force the ACC to stay together in efforts to get cheap content as compared to the SEC? How do streaming packages affect this situation? Those guaranteed TV dollars are the goal, and it's pretty clear the TV market sees the situation as a SEC/B1G and then everyone else. But what happens next?
As to the B1G/SEC adding schools-- I think both are at a point now where any potential member needs to add more value than the split would be. If the payout per school is currently $75MM, then a potential member needs to bring in more than that to be added to the pie. We aren't going to be adding a school that is only worth $60MM to the equation and reduce our share accordingly. Among remaining P5 schools (non-B1G/$EC) only one school can be said to fit that bill- Notre Dame.
But both the $EC and B1G need to protect their markets for the future, and that is what makes some of these PAC-12 schools/ACC schools interesting-- while Georgia Tech isn't a great football school they do give a foothold into the southeast into the B1G, and there is value in making that connection.
Drew Weatherford (FSU trustee and former QB) was quoted in The Athletic as saying it's not if but how and when they leave the ACC. The BOT wants out within a year.
Drew Weatherford (FSU trustee and former QB) was quoted in The Athletic as saying it's not if but how and when they leave the ACC. The BOT wants out within a year.
Lots of ways to look at the FSU situation.
- Maybe they are trying to negotiate a higher share of the ACC revenue split, which was promised 6 months ago but no details have been announced. Certainly the FSU football market is big, but the team hasn't been all that successful recently-- and compared to Clemson, Notre Dame, and Miami, I am not sure that they otherwise would earn a bigger payout on the field. So "burn it all down" might be a strongarming negotiating tactic as to the rest of the ACC.
- Maybe they are soliciting bids from the B1G and the $EC to see who is more interested in the school with the intention of using that to pay the exit fee to the conference;
- Maybe they are trying to tell ESPN that we will blow this thing up if you don't allow us into the $EC and it will cost ESPN a lot more otherwise to keep the team unless ESPN comes to the table to grease their skids a bit.
- Maybe it is whining by a Board of Trustees who aren't in a position of control over the situation (yes, they control the school, but cannot do anything to put their school in a better place).
- Maybe they are pandering to their community who are scared that their local rivals are going to fly by in terms of resources.
- Maybe it is a combination of these.
Again, ESPN seems to hold the cards as to the ACC. But since keeping the ACC together instead of ponying up more to put some of these schools into the $EC is a cheaper proposition, I don't see them moving a whole lot right now. And if the B1G isn't really interested because it doesn't fit the academic profile, it is an endeavor that will fall flat for FSU.
But if ESPN takes it seriously and perhaps allows the ACC to break up, then all bets are off the table. Big scramble ensues, and look out.
I'm still amazed that conference addition discussions include academics. It seems to me that we are long past the point that sports and academics should be separate discussions.
Other than historical reasons, anyone have a thought on why colleges are still banging together academically and athletically? They are already spilt internally with athletic departments being their own entity. Like any other business couldn't they be 'spun off'?
Here is one of the big issues for everyone involved, and likely what FSU is thinking at least in part:
With the imminent collapse of the Pac-12 there is going to be a seismic shift in how the conferences end up. The Pac-12 was already failing before the LA schools left and with the supposedly mediocre TV deal that is apparently in play (a deal with Apple TV+ that is incentive laden and still pretty weak moneywise) it is in its death spiral. The Big 12 (when it comes to demos and name cache) is about to get a nice boost. The Big Ten likely is as well. The ACC is sort of stuck because they have no real areas to expand to and no schools with real cache they can add to strengthen their brand. The SEC is choking the life out of them and has the power to raid them at will if they want to. ESPN, which is having all sorts of financial issues because Di$ney is just EvilCorp with Princesses, is only going to want to prop it up so long because of its basketball tradition. The fact is a time will come, probably soon, when it will become more economically viable to just let the ACC implode and take the best parts and put them in the SEC to try and compete with the Big Ten which may not win National Titles but crushes viewership and demos.
FSU knows that if any 2 of FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami leave that conference becomes the new Pac-12...hanging on for dear life praying to stay a major. They basically at this point are the Pac-12 when they had USCLA in that it was a very top heavy conference with a lot of secondary brand names that have cache elsewhere. My guess is that FSU (at least the BOT) would rather be proactive than wait to see what happens. They are basically UND after the Big Ten left the WCHA...out to protect their own interests. (not that I blame them)
The speed at which we have the shakeup will depend on how fast the Pac-12 disintegrates and what happens with the fallout. If say Oregon and Washington join the Big Ten and the Arizona schools join the Big 12 that is bad news for the ACC. Then you have Utah and Cal and Stanford...where do they land? (my guess is Utah goes Big 12 and Cal and Stanford go Big Ten)
For the record I hate all of this, I think conferences should have stayed regional but we are well past that. Money controls everything and someone is going to be the weakest left when the Pac-12 is gone and that will be the ACC. They are a regional outfit in a national landscape...
I'm still amazed that conference addition discussions include academics. It seems to me that we are long past the point that sports and academics should be separate discussions.
I totally agree. Shocks me every time.
I'm still amazed that conference addition discussions include academics. It seems to me that we are long past the point that sports and academics should be separate discussions.
Other than historical reasons, anyone have a thought on why colleges are still banging together academically and athletically? They are already spilt internally with athletic departments being their own entity. Like any other business couldn't they be 'spun off'?
The academic B1G controls about $12B annually of grant-funded research. The SEC (for example) is less than half of that; U Washington alone brings in 1.5B annually in grant-funded research, as does UCLA; Stanford brings in about 1.3B annually in the same, which is a hair more than UW-Madison (1.2B). Minnesota is in the top 25 nationally at 1.1B.
College sports is a discussion of about $1B annually of shared funds for the B1G. Nothing to sneeze about, but 12B shared across a conference funds schools while 1B shared funds a department.
When looked at as a whole, it makes a big deal.
@skiumahlaw I get why academics is discussed but not why it isn't a separate discussion. In hockey terms, the WCHA was separate from the Big Ten. Most people don't know or care about the academic side of these conferences. It surprises me that the Big Ten hasn't tried to split the athletic and academic sides of this so they can try and maximize money on both. Unless I'm wrong, athletic department budgets are separate from research dollars.
@skiumahlaw I get why academics is discussed but not why it isn't a separate discussion. In hockey terms, the WCHA was separate from the Big Ten. Most people don't know or care about the academic side of these conferences. It surprises me that the Big Ten hasn't tried to split the athletic and academic sides of this so they can try and maximize money on both. Unless I'm wrong, athletic department budgets are separate from research dollars.
What makes the B1G unique and perhaps strong as a conference is that tie on the academic side. We aren't just talking about playing games when schools play each other, but the academic partnerships that are also used to bolster research dollars. That collaborative approach makes the entire group more competitive for grants (because the grants can fund not isolated research, but components thereof doled out in different places).
Where the B1G schools see each other as peers and partners instead of transactionally rivals, the conference weathers the inevitable ebbs and flows and cycles that sports brings. It is a far stronger association as a result-- compare that to pretty much any other conference in college sports. Between 1946-2011 we saw one member leave sports and two members join. That stability over that same time frame was very rare.
Remember, school presidents make decisions on conferences, not ADs. School presidents have to worry about more than the athletic sides of their schools.
I'm glad this discussion is going on instead of the sports wagering s*@t show that is happening in Iowa at both universities.
I am the official Iowa Hawkeye football fan of GPL!
@skiumahlaw Thanks for engaging in this discussion. I'll admit I'm one of those fans that doesn't fully appreciate the academic funding on Saturday afternoons. This has been a good discussion.
As to @g-manpuck, our neighbor to the south is a s*@t show now. I'm proposing our new state flag should be an arrow with text that reads "I'm with stupid". That way any direction the wind blows the flag is correct.
Academics does play a part but make no mistake the Presidents of quite a few of the schools will vote in a lesser academic school (non AAU for example) if they think it will help the brand more than it hurts. It has been talked about openly in the past. That has never really had to be a choice though so for now they don't have to worry.
The Big Ten gets the pick of the litter because every school wants in on the AD money. (And the exposure) The academic stuff is usually secondary but ends up being a major boon. Meanwhile The Big Ten can sit back and wait...like the hot chick before the prom.
The SEC can have all their fake tourney titles...The Big Ten is the class of college athletics on almost every front especially academic.
In case anyone is wondering why this is happening:
https://twitter.com/BenScottStevens/status/1686475747114815488?t=rDcDhEjL56l7iT6mmVwYyg&s=19
I mean the Pac deal is trash but the ACC is not much better. The Big 12 will get a better deal later with the Zona schools and Colorado added. And remendar the Big Ten deal has escalator clauses for expansion.
Oh and to back up skiumah on the research money reasons to let in the PAC schools:
That is astounding! The next 4 conferences COMBINED barely beats the research money the Big Ten would be using.
Every time this comes up I'm thankful the U of M has been in the big ten for decades. Id hate to think how this would play out of we were on the outside looking in.
As a fan of Parks and Rec this is perfect!
Just to tell you how well today is going for the clickbaiters:
So, a half-share from B1G is more attractive than full share from PAC12... ouch.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
Oregon State and Wazzu are in deep trouble.
“When your best friend is the son of God, you get tired of losing every argument.”
― Christopher Moore, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a big game of chess. Once the B1G gets all the teams assembled that they want in the conference, the top earning teams will bolt to form a new conference leaving behind the "have nots."
A new super power conference of Michigan, OSU, PSU, Note Dame, USC, UCLA, FL State, etc. And they'll pull in NFL money.
So, a half-share from B1G is more attractive than full share from PAC12... ouch.
A half share from the Big Ten is roughly $35 million depending on if escalators kick in making it higher. PAC was looking at around $20 million and since at least part of that was tied to streaming and incentives it is not a very attractive deal. The audience for college football is much more age diverse than it is for say the MLS they are not going to get AppleTV+ to watch the games.
Earlier it sounded like Washington was hoping for a bit more to cover travel expenses but it sounded like a weak attempt at negotiating a small addition. The truth is even if they basically break even with what the PAC deal would be the exposure will pay off in spades over what they would be agreeing with to stay. Throw in billions in research dollars and honestly they would be stupid not to go.
Oregon on the other hand hasn't been hiding they are looking to get out. There is the little twitter love affair between the Duck and whatever the name of the stupid Ohio State Buckeye mascot is and the jerseys recruits wear now when they post on Twitter does not have the PAC-12 patch.
Hey, I grew up in the 60's and 70's, so I loved the "Good Old Conference Days". Big 10, Pac 8, Big 8, SWC, SEC. Rose, Sugar Orange and Cotton were THE bowl games; all the others were just fluff. The list of Independents seemed like it was a mile long. It WAS fun. I don't even mind folks lamenting the loss of that era. But the number of people today on GopherHole, Twitter, The Athletic and so on, wailing and gnashing their teeth that nowadays "It's just about the money" is hilarious. What a gigantic news flash. Sure, the athletic side is huge. But, as pointed out earlier, over $24 BILLION in research funding? Of course it's about the money.
We started with all teams being part of the NCAA. They grouped themselves into conferences based on geographical location. We are moving to all teams being part of a single conference. They will then be grouped in divisions based on geographical location.
It is a big game of chess. Once the B1G gets all the teams assembled that they want in the conference, the top earning teams will bolt to form a new conference leaving behind the "have nots."
A new super power conference of Michigan, OSU, PSU, Note Dame, USC, UCLA, FL State, etc. And they'll pull in NFL money.
If that happens, what happens with B1G hockey?
Hey, I grew up in the 60's and 70's, so I loved the "Good Old Conference Days". Big 10, Pac 8, Big 8, SWC, SEC. Rose, Sugar Orange and Cotton were THE bowl games; all the others were just fluff. The list of Independents seemed like it was a mile long. It WAS fun. I don't even mind folks lamenting the loss of that era. But the number of people today on GopherHole, Twitter, The Athletic and so on, wailing and gnashing their teeth that nowadays "It's just about the money" is hilarious. What a gigantic news flash. Sure, the athletic side is huge. But, as pointed out earlier, over $24 BILLION in research funding? Of course it's about the money.
I wont lie, realignment has pretty much killed my love of NCAA football. The money in and of itself isn't the problem though it is the dumb decisions made in the effort to make that money that did. There could have been teams the Big Ten added that would have kept the regionality of the conference in play. Those decisions weren't made though because it is more important to say add NY to the network than a second school in Iowa or Kansas. (those are just hypothetical examples) There were ways to strengthen the brand that didn't involve adding schools that have no business being in the conference.
That is why I hope for the super conference, at this point the only shot of going back to the way things were is by turning the NCAA into the NFL-Lite. Two super conferences divided up into regions.
Stanford and Cal it's your move. The Big Ten would seem to be move wouldn't it?
I literally can't believe Oregon got the invite.
I literally can't believe Oregon got the invite.
Oregon was a given, it was just the matter of time.
Keep your stick on the ice...
I'm still amazed that conference addition discussions include academics. It seems to me that we are long past the point that sports and academics should be separate discussions.
Other than historical reasons, anyone have a thought on why colleges are still banging together academically and athletically? They are already spilt internally with athletic departments being their own entity. Like any other business couldn't they be 'spun off'?
The academic B1G controls about $12B annually of grant-funded research. The SEC (for example) is less than half of that; U Washington alone brings in 1.5B annually in grant-funded research, as does UCLA; Stanford brings in about 1.3B annually in the same, which is a hair more than UW-Madison (1.2B). Minnesota is in the top 25 nationally at 1.1B.
College sports is a discussion of about $1B annually of shared funds for the B1G. Nothing to sneeze about, but 12B shared across a conference funds schools while 1B shared funds a department.
When looked at as a whole, it makes a big deal.
It's the biggest deal.
Stanford and Cal it's your move. The Big Ten would seem to be move wouldn't it?
Personally, Kansas/Colorado or Duke/UNC are better fits.
Keep your stick on the ice...
I’ve been saying it and posting it for years on serval social media sites. Athletics brings in pennies to the dollar what research does. And the BIG will always be a academic conference over a athletics (football) conference.
Keep your stick on the ice...
I literally can't believe Oregon got the invite.
Oregon was a given, it was just the matter of time.
not really. They are one step below North Dakota in NSF research dollars. Portland is a tier 2 tv market. They bring very little to the table.
They are AAU and bring the NIKE swag to the table.
Keep your stick on the ice...
It's got to be the shoes.
I literally can't believe Oregon got the invite.
Oregon was a given, it was just the matter of time.
not really. They are one step below North Dakota in NSF research dollars. Portland is a tier 2 tv market. They bring very little to the table.
This is actually not true...it has been discussed by experts. Oregon was a lock.
Unless Nike starts giving jerseys for free to all the programs, there's literally zero they bring to the table.
And once Phil Knight goes tits up, so does that relationship with Oregon.
im sure the Knight family and Bowerman family will disagree.
Keep your stick on the ice...
I doubt the B1G ever wanted to leave the LA schools out on an island. Washington and Oregon will be nice additions to the conference especially at the reduced rates. Not to mention they have a late night TV slot for football that these teams will easily help fill. Minnesota wouldn’t be in a Washington State (paging Indiana) situation if the shoe was on the other foot because our TV market is top 20, but I’m so glad we’re a part of conference we are.
'29, '40, '74, '76, '79, '02, & '03
GPL's Resident Cabin Enthusiast & Cadets Hockey Fan
I’ll be happy to have a few games vs west coast teams to get out of that stupid ass 11 am time slot.
What am I missing with the B1G not going after Cal and Stanford? Both elite institutions that bring San Fran/San Jose market. Stanford is more consistent (although in a down cycle currently) than can and Cal is kind of crazy, but with the grant/research dollars they would help bring and I would assume somewhat of a national following given the reaches of their alumni bases?
The viewership in San Fran is not very high. You are adding a market that honestly won't bring a lot of eyes.
I think Stanford will come at some point but Cal I feel is a D2/3 school.
What am I missing with the B1G not going after Cal and Stanford? Both elite institutions that bring San Fran/San Jose market. Stanford is more consistent (although in a down cycle currently) than can and Cal is kind of crazy, but with the grant/research dollars they would help bring and I would assume somewhat of a national following given the reaches of their alumni bases?
I think both are attractive, but not enough to move the direct financial needle.
As Handy notes, neither really brings the promise of eyeballs to TV sets in the San Fran area. As a result, it is unlikely that Fox/CBS/NBC is willing to pay more for the B1G games just to have those schools under the umbrella. Thus, including them would be asking current teams to take a haircut just to bring them in. So why would the B1G do that?
Neither is really interested in the Big XII, and neither are good SEC fits either. I don't see the ACC wanting to bring in two Bay Area schools and create an island way out of their geographic footprint. So there really isn't any urgency for the B1G to act with them.
Both have stellar academic profiles and bring in lots of research dollars, so there is certainly an interest to pull them in. So it is more a question of "when" in my mind. If the B1G doesn't bring them in until later, it is less to have to share the pot with now-- though I suspect the B1G will treat both as affiliate members without access to revenue or TV for scheduling purposes in the interim.
If both came to the table and said they would join the B1G for no current share, I think the B1G would jump to sign them up. So it is a matter of finding the right price point to bring them on board.
Both need to do some soul-searching, however, about their own future in athletics. Cal has struggled for a long while, and Stanford needs Notre Dame level of commitment to continue their football operations to be successful-- without an alumni network that lives and breathes football.
From the BTN's perspective is actual viewership more important than number of subscribers available on a regions cable/dish options? For some reason I thought it was subscriber since the network gets paid based on that number.
“When your best friend is the son of God, you get tired of losing every argument.”
― Christopher Moore, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm surprised the Big Ten would take Oregon over Stanford.
Have Cal and/or Stanford expressed interest in joining another conference yet? Obviously they should but I don't think I've seen anything indicating they have made themselves available for a conference speed dating session.
“When your best friend is the son of God, you get tired of losing every argument.”
― Christopher Moore, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------