A step the Big East could take

[pepband99]

Walk us through the incremental money the Big 10 will make by adding USC and UCLA. The Big 10 was going to make a lot of money without adding USC and UCLA. How much extra did it get by adding those two schools?

Now you're just showing your schtick.

The answer to your question is: FOX thinks it will make them more money, either now, or at the next contract. The share percentages on this interim step may never be known. Do we even know ours, on the NBE, with FOX, years in?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Now you're just showing your schtick.

The answer to your question is: FOX thinks it will make them more money, either now, or at the next contract. The share percentages on this interim step may never be known. Do we even know ours, on the NBE, with FOX, years in?

If ESPN/Fox is going to pay the Big 10 an extra $200 million to add USC and UCLA, and those two schools will get $100 million each, then why would the Big 10 add the schools?

 

[Rufus]

If ESPN/Fox is going to pay the Big 10 an extra $200 million to add USC and UCLA, and those two schools will get $100 million each, then why would the Big 10 add the schools?

USC and UCLA were worth $200 million to the PAC 12. Since the B1G has more big brands than the PAC 12, USC and UCLA will be worth much more than $200 million to the B1G.

 

[ScottVib]

Reportedly the $1B deal went to $1.147B so actually a little less than $200M to the BigTen in part because they won’t have the same impact in elevating games that wouldn’t normally have value. I.E. if you can show Ohio State @ Northwestern or USC @ Nebraska in the same time slot you’re taking the OSU game… as a result the USC presence didn’t elevate the game. Now adding USC does add new time slots for content with a solid name as the anchor, which is where that incremental value starts to come in. Plus the potential to increase carriage fees in the LA DMA.

It still added more than enough value to pay for their addition and increase the pot for everyone each year.

 

[UConnJim]

I have thought the natural play for the Big East was to approach the Big 10 and FOX about showing some Big East Basketball games on the Big 10 Network. It seems like 29 BE games were shown on FS2 and 16 were shown on CBSSN so there is content to push to the BTN. Also, it would make sense for the BTN to show UConn football games and have Connecticut become a full priced BTN market. I checked UConn's football schedule from last year and compared it to open TV slots on the BTN and basically, could have played 4 out of 6 games in the same time slot including the MTSU game which could have been moved to Saturday instead of Friday night. The HC game could have been moved to 3:30 PM and the Wyoming game could have been moved to 7:30 PM.

 

[McLovin]

Walk us through the incremental money the Big 10 will make by adding USC and UCLA. The Big 10 was going to make a lot of money without adding USC and UCLA. How much extra did it get by adding those two schools?

The conference gets to add 2 of the best college brands period without reducing the payout to any of their current members. Overall, that will make the conference more money.

And like I said, the shots are called by FOX, who believes adding the schools will make their investment worth their while. They are not paying for media rights because of goodwill or charity…

 

[freescooter]

MSG.


I don't get the Texas move either. Texas is filthy rich and basically owned its own P5 conference.

UCLA fans waking up for a 9 am kickoff against Maryland. Must see TV for sure.

The Big can get MSG any time they want it. Plus, only NewBig East fans fetishize it. For most others it’s just another venue.

I think the Texas/Oklahoma move will be bad for both. I doubt either will be particularly successful And it opens Texas recruiting even more widely than the A&M move did. Not sure an 7-5, 5-7 Texas does anybody much good.

UCLA fans aren’t going to be going wild over playing Rutgers or Maryland even with 4 o’clock kickoffs. But the problem for the PAC has always been the same. The further east you get the fewer fans will stay up for an 7 o’clock west coast time game. Back in the day, they were the 4 o’clock east coast game, but now there is just too much competition.

As far as the original idea, a NEWBIE-ACC-PAC Alliance, it doesn’t give the other leagues anything. UNC-Butler in mid-January generates zero buzz except for Butler.

 

[billybud]

And...adding USC, a Notre Dame primary traditional rival, is a great top water jig to troll past Notre Dame hoping for a bite.

 

[BigTenFan]

I have thought the natural play for the Big East was to approach the Big 10 and FOX about showing some Big East Basketball games on the Big 10 Network. It seems like 29 BE games were shown on FS2 and 16 were shown on CBSSN so there is content to push to the BTN. Also, it would make sense for the BTN to show UConn football games and have Connecticut become a full priced BTN market. I checked UConn's football schedule from last year and compared it to open TV slots on the BTN and basically, could have played 4 out of 6 games in the same time slot including the MTSU game which could have been moved to Saturday instead of Friday night. The HC game could have been moved to 3:30 PM and the Wyoming game could have been moved to 7:30 PM.

Would have liked to see UConn in BigEast v B1G Ten challenge for this year....

 

[Rufus]

And...adding USC, a Notre Dame primary traditional rival, is a great top water jig to troll past Notre Dame hoping for a bite.

And Notre Dame rival Stanford is ripe for the taking as well.

I’m assuming the B1G, Notre Dame, FOX and NBC are all negotiating right now. Stanford could be Notre Dame’s +1 joining the B1G.

Kind of interesting the Notre Dame admin is still silent publicly about their intentions. This leaves me to believe they are negotiating right now. It’s also interesting that Stanford (and Cal for that matter) have been silent while other PAC schools are more vocal.

 

[businesslawyer]

What does adding two schools that are 10 miles apart in a city that doesn't care about sports get the Big 10? Who knows why these conferences are getting bigger, but if the ACC and Pac 12 are talking about an alliance, then the Big East should be talking to someone.

You want a theory? In my experience dealing with non-profits (and the conferences themselves (I'm not talking about the schools but the organizations of the conference administrations are non-profits), the first rule of explaining decisions is what will be good for the staff. Why is the Big Ten growing? Because decisions are being led by the Big Ten offices and the bigger the top line for conference revenue, the bigger the raises the administrators get.

I am not claiming that is the only reason behind this. But if you're looking for a reason why the Big Ten keeps growing even when you don't see a benefit to its member institutions, ask yourself if growth is good for the Big Ten offices itself.

 

[Rufus]

Here is another reason for expanding to CA that isn’t discussed…..

By adding New Jersey, Maryland and California to the B1G footprint, those three states combined account for 1 out of every 5 college students who go to a different state for college. In an age where demographically the Midwest will have fewer high school grads to choose from for college admissions, the B1G schools can now market themselves to these out of state kids in a way no one else can.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone on this board ever played Monopoly.

The BIG added schools with a goal far beyond what the immediate financial return will be.

1 - if they continue to fall behind the SEC in terms of assets, their long term prospects get weaker.

2 - If they (along with the SEC) distance themselves further from the remaining conferences (both in current, comparative financial return and in brand value of their assets), it will become far easier down the road to further distance themselves financially from the other conferences.

If you look at what has happened since the end of the 1980's one thing is clear: while most conferences have added members beyond merely replacing lost assets, the BIG and SEC have been far more deliberate and far more discerning when it came to increasing membership. They are looking decades ahead while everyone else has been looking weeks ahead.

The increase in membership for the two most significant conferences will continue but it won't happen in a manner similar to how we've seen the B-12, ACC or any lesser conference behave. They will take their time and when they are done (likely more than a decade from now) there will be 24-28 members in each conference (four divisions of either six or seven schools).