They have to as USC and UCLA are getting full shares and will never drive in revenue like Maryland and Rutgers brought in two huge media markets. USC and UCLA are just bringing in the same big market which in the past 5 years has been a disaster.
NBC Proposing Big Plans For Big Ten???
- Thread starter RU-Kidding
- Start date
I don't look at just in terms of immediate value. Such and such school doesn't bring in 70-100M so they won't get in. On its face that makes sense.
But I look at it in terms of potential long term value and the value added to the collective group being national and reaching all parts of the country and having leverage in negotiations with size. You want top quality national CFB, the B10 is the one and only place to get it. I don't think long term they want to leave USC/UCLA as a lone outposts. You can also take over the late night windows and have more inventory to chop up among media partners. I think there will be more teams (1-3) added from out west. Whether that's within 2 years (my guess) or 5-7 (possible length of a PAC10 deal) I don't know but I think it will happen sooner or later. Every time a tv deal comes up, it's pressure point for movement if it hasn't happened already. I think a move to the east will happen at the ACC GOR expiration. IMO the end game, whenever that is, a 20-24 team national B10 conference that is "NFL-like" and super premium sports property.
Not responding to the above post but the post below that you made in the northeast football thread. It seemed more appropriate to respond in a media deal thread rather than the divert the subject over there.
-----
ESPIN is losing power. They are no longer the go-to for sports (or no longer the sports hegemon they once were).
Their decline WILL continue.
-----
I've said similar to your post above in the past about ESPN losing its monopolistic grip on CFB. The market is becoming more fragmented. If the B10 does decide to split inventory among the broadcast networks and AMZN that's another step in that direction. It gets more players involved. I think the SEC (and possibly other conferences) would follow in that direction when they get the chance. More players involved also means the playoffs are likely to be split among networks. It's good for all the conferences. ESPN is still a big megaphone in sports and CFB. Putting inventory there is still a good idea if one chooses, but it's better to have them be one of many rather than one and only.
How dare you? 😜 This guy has to be totally legit. Seriously, he worked at USA Today for 13 years, Sports Illustrate, Sporting News and other major outlets. Four-time national award-winning journalist.
Also:
"McCarthy has also served as a journalism professor at Rutgers University since 2015. He’s based in New York. "
If this comes to fruition, Warren will come out smelling like $1.5 billion worth of roses.
Senior Writer
frontofficesports.com
Didn't look up the authors' credentials. Good to know. If they're legit then the story could be legit too.How dare you? 😜 This guy has to be totally legit. Seriously, he worked at USA Today for 13 years, Sports Illustrate, Sporting News and other major outlets. Four-time national award-winning journalist.
Also:
"McCarthy has also served as a journalism professor at Rutgers University since 2015. He’s based in New York. "
If this comes to fruition, Warren will come out smelling like $1.5 billion worth of roses.
Senior Writer
If he's a Rutgers professor who is not a member of the Rutgers 1000, then as one of our old posters used to say--take it to the bank.
There is a danger in overreach here given the still limited geographic coverage of the Big Ten. Its teams are mostly Midwestern and an awful lot of matchups will have limited audiences. Will Ohio State, Michigan and maybe USC be featured over and over? If so will they make more noise about getting a larger share of revenue?
If the B1G is in danger of overreaching due to limited geographic coverage, what is the SEC? The B1G has teams from different part of the country that appeals to a larger national audience. We are talking midwest, east coast, and west coast schools. The SEC is as regional as you get, which screams I don't care about the rest of the country outside of the southeast.
They're both in danger of overreach in their zeal to dominate college football and fill their coffers. Lots of viewers don't want to see Purdue vs Minnesota or Kentucky vs Vanderbilt. If college football becomes geographically limited in the teams you can watch, and the number of teams, then it will become geographically limited in who watches and networks will pull back. And the teams in those conferences that are national draws might demand more money.
Look, if the Big Ten wants 1.5 BILLION total per year, not one network can afford to pay all of that, so you will need to spread the love around and may need to use peaCOCK for that.
Agree with that but to spread the love around, you need the inventory to spread and that means having enough teams. I don't think 16 is enough longer term for a variety of reasons which I've given a bunch of times.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
And the SEC and most of its fans are frankly quite happy with that. Heck A&M MU and OUT are a bit of a stretch for traditionalists. Also many SEC games are a lot more appealing to a national audience than B1G games not including OSU UM and state Penn.
Not true. LSU and Alabama have been the two teams with national appeal for the SEC. Lately, Georgia has stepped up. Each conference has other teams stepping up from time to time. Florida was big with their run on 'chips. Michigan State is a national brand like it or not. Nebraska, like Florida, had a run in the national spotlight.
I would say it's equal in national appeal with the top-tier teams. The difference is with secondary teams. It's a hard sell for Mississippi or Arkansas teams to a national audience. It's easier to push Wisconsin or Northwestern to the masses on a national level.
I agree with your first paragraph, but not with the second. The thing the SEC can say that we can't is that several teams have won it all in recent years- Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Florida. They're not all good every year, of course, but other than Bama's unique run of excellence, every year there's a different team or two that can challenge. The Big ten hasn't had that yet. Is it the coaching philosophy? The players? Is the NIL era bringing the soft money out into the open going to change that dynamic? It's not the conference payouts to the schools- the Big Ten has been getting as much or more than the SEC for many years.
The SEC has a lot more recent National Championship winners--Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Auburn--than the Big Ten.
Perception rules the day. Florida, like Nebraska, is living on its name. Georgia has been good the last few years, but before that, you had to go back a few decades to when they held the national stage with Hershel Walker.
The B1G isn't focused only on football and paid professionals. I will say this, several big-time coaches are complaining about the NIL and the lack of control over it, and it's coming from every power conference. I believe it will be regulated as a way to save college sports because they won't survive. Any conference that carries the former SouthWest Conference (Sure Will Cheat) has died on the vine (SWC) or is damaged beyond repair (Big XII). Even some SEC coaches are b*tching about uncontrolled NIL.
Some of the reasons fans everywhere hate ESPN is the role it plays in overhyping SEC teams. That does factor into which teams are selected. We start the season with talk of two SEC in the playoffs every year. At the end of the season, it may not be the same two teams from the beginning, but the bias created by ESPN and their lapdogs make it difficult not to select two SEC teams. Also, the committee is heavily influenced by who is on it and its relationships. The year LSU won with two losses, they should have never been included in the playoffs.
If you think about it, the SEC (& ESPN) want to control the content (CFP) for the next TV contract and decide how many teams make the playoffs. They don't want each conference to have a representative because it reduces the chances of the SEC winning another national championship. We've heard the cry from the SEC if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't even be in the discussion for the playoffs. How many times have we seen SEC not win their league but win a national championship, plenty.
I don't have an issue with the SEC other than they try to move the goalpost to fit their narrative. The sad part is that plenty of people outside the SEC are drinking the kool-aid. The bottom line, not everyone plays by the same rules.
Alabama did not win their DIVISION but was included and won the 2 games necessary to be called national champion. That is what I heard but I didn't see it myself as I had no interest in the fraud.
I usually agree with you posts, but it is kind of hard to argue they are overrated when they win almost every year. In the past 7 or so years, Clemson is the only program that has been competitive with the top SEC teams.
My response is more anger than anything. I'm tired of everyone kissing the SEC (& ESPiN) *ss. 😁
