if espn gets to decide whether or not there is a revenue effect then that's very interesting... but a neutral 3rd party would have to conclude losing clemson and fsu would significantly impact the conference's revenue.
It's not the teams alone. It's the matchups. More eyeballs. More Ad dollars.
Worth more money how though? Who is making more money? The conferences? The teams? ESPN would be going up against itself in bidding so they wouldn't be adding any money there. If you are talking about ESPN, how would they make more money?
What does it matter when you also control the playoff? You can put as many of "your teams" in as you like.
Sure.. but as I said, even if you accept that adding Clemson/FSU is worth enough to increase the SEC TV deal by at least another per-team amount.. then you've also established that the majority of the value in the ACC deal is gone (unless you, for some reason, don't think that FSU and Clemson were the main drivers of the current ACC contract value).
The only way this would make any sense would be if it were truth to the Big Ten absorbing the Big East rumor from the St. John's board.
I think they would be paired with Colorado not us.
Kansas won't improve recruiting much in the B1G. They will only have two legitimate regional rivalries (Colorado and Nebraska) and it will be a much more difficult conference for them. They went 6-83 in the Big 12 in the last decade. It could be even worse in the B1G.
I’ve seen some messageboard chatter that suggests that being the dominant basketball conference, while not as valuable as being the dominant football conference, has value.
i was talking about bball since it would be purely a bbal move
it wasnt for the BE
The Big East "rumor" is one random message board post.
what? i meant the old big east being the best bball conference ever wasnt worth a damn in the end so for the big10 to make a purely bball based decision now at the expense of football...just doesnt make sense
Gotcha. Kind of agree, although the old Big East did have value. Most of the original and early members did well.
i agree the new paradigm is different i.e. subscribers matter more than markets, but ratings should somewhat translate to subscribers and KU bball gets a fraction of the ratings/subscribers that big10 football gets.
Agree, but the Big Ten isn’t looking to get what it already has, it’s looking to pick up value wherever it can.
agree again but unless KU bball brings in $55 million a year then they won't even be paying for themselves and will end up decreasing the other teams' splits. they could offer KU a fraction of a share but i don't understand the economics of that. plenty of programs would be willing to join for less than a full share, including UConn.
Not just that, you have a minimum of 8 conference-related games per week. With OOC let’s say you average 10 instead. There are 3 time slots on Saturday. There has to be diminishing returns to overlapping games. You can’t just compete with yourself.
Somebody on the board talked about the next wave of expansion being fractional shares. I can’t see the B1G doing that as it is inherently divisive.
That rumor is all subterfuge anyway. Does anyone believe the Big 10 is countering Texas and Oklahoma with Kansas? No. No. They're making their own power move. Kansas City.
Then why did they stay in the ACC and let South Carolina get an invite? They already had a title by then.