Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

nerdvana

UCLA and USC Joining the Big Ten

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Southside said:

The numbers are the numbers. You can say the championships are a long ways back, but the runners up are not. It's not skewed. It is what it is. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative or preferred system. 

At the end of the day, AZ and Oregon have been the best two programs in the PAC the last 10 years. Sean Miller grew up under Matta, and does a lot of the same things Izzo does. So you could say he was B10ish in the PAC. Aside from his press, I don't know much about Altman at Oregon, so can't really say one way or another about system or style. 

But heck, if you want to talk about what recruits like, or don't like.... I'd be more interested in how many guys each conference goes in the top 10 or 15 (lottery-ish) each year in the draft. I'd guess if you look back in the last 10 years, not much difference. And I'd expect a lot of the PAC guys are from Miller's system.

You're champion numbers are absolutely skewed. You choose the last 22 years to get MSU's championship in there. If you had said 25 years that wouldn't included Arizona's and 20 would've been neither.

Then you tried to count Maryland's championship or to count Michigan as the champion even though they lost. In the last 22 years the B1G has won 1 championship, not the 2 you say.

I get it. You don't think the B1G's style is hurting it abd that Final Fours and runners up is good enough. Agree to disagree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, go iu bb said:

You're champion numbers are absolutely skewed. You choose the last 22 years to get MSU's championship in there. If you had said 25 years that wouldn't included Arizona's and 20 would've been neither.

Then you tried to count Maryland's championship or to count Michigan as the champion even though they lost. In the last 22 years the B1G has won 1 championship, not the 2 you say.

I get it. You don't think the B1G's style is hurting it abd that Final Fours and runners up is good enough. Agree to disagree. 

Dude, start where you want. Include whatever you want. 

Tell me how any of your complaints make the PAC system better than the B10 in terms of champs/runner ups. And tell me if there's a significant difference between the conferences in terms of top 15 draft picks the last 10 or so seasons (feel free to start wherever you want lol)... 

And what about Sean's team being arguably the best in the PAC since he's been there, given he's a Matta tree guy, and does a lot of what Izzo does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Southside said:

I used to be a 60-70% travel guy (domestic and intl). The flight duration itself didn't really bother me. On quick trips (WC), so long as I kept my home TZ sleep schedule, I was more than fine. If I was out there for a week, I'd bite the bullet, stay up super late, and hope on PST. A little sleepy the next day, but I wouldn't call it fatigue. Not a frequent user of 5 hour energy, but it works very well when I do need it. Always carry a few when heading to the WC or across the pond. 

I'm assuming the games will mostly be noonish PST / 3-4 PMish EST. Get out there the day before, hit the pillow early, play, and can leave that night or early the next day. 

I agree about the duration of a flight not being a big deal but when it comes to flying across  3 time zones I don’t think it’s that easy getting young guys to hit the pillow early (ie 9:pm PST) to try to be fresh as a daisy the next day for intense physical activity. Maybe we will agree to disagree but I think it’s a fairly big deal, especially if UCLA/USC have to do that multiple times a season. I still think, however, that will be mitigated as the BT will pick up 2-4 more PAC12 schools (Washington and Oregon seem inevitable).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2022 at 12:47 AM, DChoosier said:

I agree about the duration of a flight not being a big deal but when it comes to flying across  3 time zones I don’t think it’s that easy getting young guys to hit the pillow early (ie 9:pm PST) to try to be fresh as a daisy the next day for intense physical activity. Maybe we will agree to disagree but I think it’s a fairly big deal, especially if UCLA/USC have to do that multiple times a season. I still think, however, that will be mitigated as the BT will pick up 2-4 more PAC12 schools (Washington and Oregon seem inevitable).

I had it down to a science most trips, and I'm sure the schools will be even more structured in their approach. I've worked intl and multi time zone for 20 years, so perhaps I'm overly diminishing the impacts because I'm simply used to it. 

Regardless, just not really concerned. They'll adapt. Given they are the ones that instigated things, I'm sure they already have considered all angles and have plans in place to mitigate the issues. Optimal schedule, optimal game times, private planes, etc.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Southside said:

I had it down to a science most trips, and I'm sure the schools will be even more structured in their approach. I've worked intl and multi time zone for 20 years, so perhaps I'm overly diminishing the impacts because I'm simply used to it. 

Regardless, just not really concerned. They'll adapt. Given they are the ones that instigated things, I'm sure they already have considered all angles and have plans in place to mitigate the issues. Optimal schedule, optimal game times, private planes, etc.. 

I agree they will figure it out the best they can. As for assuming "they" have a plan in place though? I think that is pretty optimistic since all indications are "they" are making this up as they go and justifying it as required to keep up with the SEC. Specious argument, IMO. Doing stupid things may be profitable, but doesn't make them less stupid. Anyway, some things can't be mitigated- they just suck. Football is all that is being considered and that is the least impacted. All the other sports are gonna pay the price in this brave new world of continental scheduling. Granted, I don't care about the vast majority of non-revenue sports either, but let's not pretend this isn't entirely football-centric. 

I guess my thought is the whole super-conference idea is epically retarded and short-sighted and will be regretted sooner than later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hardwood83 said:

I agree they will figure it out the best they can. As for assuming "they" have a plan in place though? I think that is pretty optimistic since all indications are "they" are making this up as they go and justifying it as required to keep up with the SEC. Specious argument, IMO. Doing stupid things may be profitable, but doesn't make them less stupid. Anyway, some things can't be mitigated- they just suck. Football is all that is being considered and that is the least impacted. All the other sports are gonna pay the price in this brave new world of continental scheduling. Granted, I don't care about the vast majority of non-revenue sports either, but let's not pretend this isn't entirely football-centric. 

I guess my thought is the whole super-conference idea is epically retarded and short-sighted and will be regretted sooner than later. 

Per some of my WC buddies (mostly USC and Stanford fans), they've been thinking about this for a long long time. One of my USC pals predicted USC to the B10 2 or 3 years ago when there was a ton of chatter about the possibility. And all those schools literally pay folks to sit around and think about this stuff, and they've had committees for years looking at expansion, playoffs, and just the changing landscape. So IMO, nothing about this lacks thought. They've likely been overthinking about every possible outcome for years. And someone, or some group, finally hit the tipping point and made a call. 

I honestly don't like all the crap either. I don't like NIL, I don't like super teams or super conferences, I don't like bag men, I don't like big shoe/apparel deals... But screaming "get off my lawn" or getting frustrated isn't going to stop anything. It's been a business for a long time. Now, they're simply not trying to hide it anymore.

I halfway thought, and hoped, that the big FB teams would just form their own league and leave the NCAA (basically leaving the Olympic sports out of the equation and unimpacted). Oh well, to late, lol. I still think it's likely we end up with 3 super conferences, maybe 4, and ultimately the FB side of that will abandon the NCAA and do their own thing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the pearl clutching on this.  It's brilliant business, it keeps the Big Ten relevant, and it brings some excitement to the conference on a national level.

Most of the people who are crying about the poor kids are not listening to the kids opinions on this.  Instead they're using the kids as an excuse to promote their own interests.  

All the interviews I've heard with the athletes have positive opinions.  

This is progress, boomers.  Embrace it or die off like the Big 12 and Pac 10 are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hardwood83 said:

I agree they will figure it out the best they can. As for assuming "they" have a plan in place though? I think that is pretty optimistic since all indications are "they" are making this up as they go and justifying it as required to keep up with the SEC. Specious argument, IMO. Doing stupid things may be profitable, but doesn't make them less stupid. Anyway, some things can't be mitigated- they just suck. Football is all that is being considered and that is the least impacted. All the other sports are gonna pay the price in this brave new world of continental scheduling. Granted, I don't care about the vast majority of non-revenue sports either, but let's not pretend this isn't entirely football-centric. 

I guess my thought is the whole super-conference idea is epically retarded and short-sighted and will be regretted sooner than later. 

I can assure you they are not making it up as they go along.  A someone who used to be very active in the Alumni Association, we were told years before they joined that the Big 10 wanted Rutgers and Maryland.  They have been chasing Notre Dame for decades, and wanted Texas for many, many years.  Just because you aren't privy to something doesn't mean it hasn't been happening.  Will they regret it later?  Time will tell, but it's been in the works, and in fact actually been happening, for a long time, and nobody regrets it yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Josh said:

I really don't understand the pearl clutching on this.  It's brilliant business, it keeps the Big Ten relevant, and it brings some excitement to the conference on a national level.

Most of the people who are crying about the poor kids are not listening to the kids opinions on this.  Instead they're using the kids as an excuse to promote their own interests.  

All the interviews I've heard with the athletes have positive opinions.  

This is progress, boomers.  Embrace it or die off like the Big 12 and Pac 10 are.

I will admit to pearl clutching, but I am NOT a boomer!!

You state "it's brilliant business" as if that is irrefutable,  but I remain unconvinced. Adding X number of teams to your media rights package might equal more $$ in the short term. That doesn't automatically equate to a better product or experience. Have Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska made the B1G objectively better? Has IU benefited in any tangible way?  

I wasn't one of those "crying about the poor kids" but you are correct that I don't give much weight to the athlete's opinions on this particular subject.  

So, no, I am not mesmerized by the shiny object of never-ending expansion or believe it is the only possible path to college sports nirvana. No reason to argue though, it's happening and only time will tell if it's the right decision. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hardwood83 said:

You state "it's brilliant business" as if that is irrefutable,  but I remain unconvinced. Adding X number of teams to your media rights package might equal more $$ in the short term. That doesn't automatically equate to a better product or experience. Have Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska made the B1G objectively better? Has IU benefited in any tangible way?  

Yes!  Big Ten Network revenue per school is expected to be $100 million per year with the new contract.  That's so tangible I can smell it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Josh said:

Yes!  Big Ten Network revenue per school is expected to be $100 million per year with the new contract.  That's so tangible I can smell it.

Can we stop watching wrestling re runs and watch live baseball then? Holy cow that network has gone down hill. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Josh said:

Yes!  Big Ten Network revenue per school is expected to be $100 million per year with the new contract.  That's so tangible I can smell it.

I don't think all, or even most, of that expected $100M media money is from the BTN. I saw Fox was expected to pay the B1G $1B/year for media rights for games not on the BTN. That was a long time ago, like a week ago, before USC and UCLA announced that they wanted to join the party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

I don't think all, or even most, off that expected $100M media money is from the BTN. I saw Fox was expected to pay the B1G $1B/year for media rights for games not on the BTN. That was a long time ago, like a week ago, before USC and UCLA announced that they wanted to join the party. 

Sounds like Fox knew about this merger before we did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, go iu bb said:

I don't think all, or even most, off that expected $100M media money is from the BTN. I saw Fox was expected to pay the B1G $1B/year for media rights for games not on the BTN. That was a long time ago, like a week ago, before USC and UCLA announced that they wanted to join the party. 

Gotta be careful when looking at the moving parts. The deals are typically for the Tier 1 games, and also may have conditions that are different for FB and BB. 

Also keep in mind that the B10's current deal is split between Fox and ESPN. Fox wanted it all and was willing to pay 1B. NBC reportedly outbid them a bit. Now with USC/UCLA joining, the value no doubt increased. 

Regardless of who wins it, there will likely be Tiers established. T1 for instance national on whatever network. T2 perhaps regional. T3 to be only only on the B10 Network.

Also keep in mind that Fox Corp is the majority stakeholder (like 60% IIRC) of the Big10 Network. That may make things awkward if NBC should win the bid for the T1 stuff. 

Also, if NBC wins the deal, what will that mean to ND, who currently is on NBC primetime for all their home games. I doubt ND is going anywhere that won't allow them to be nationally televised as a T1 game every week when at home. Might be some hinky type of deals made to get them guaranteed nationally.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Southside said:

Also keep in mind that the B10's current deal is split between Fox and ESPN. Fox wanted it all and was willing to pay 1B. NBC reportedly outbid them a bit. Now with USC/UCLA joining, the value no doubt increased. 

That was my point. Even before USC/UCLA, the B1G media rights outside of the BTN we're with $1B. That works out to ~$70B/school (assuming an even split). Now it'll be worth even more.

This is all on top of the BTN. I don't think that network is expected to produce $100M pretty school. It's the combined media payments which are that number.

USC and UCLA joining undoubtedly increases the sold media rights value and will also increase BTN subscriptions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, go iu bb said:

That was my point. Even before USC/UCLA, the B1G media rights outside of the BTN we're with $1B. That works out to ~$70B/school (assuming an even split). Now it'll be worth even more.

This is all on top of the BTN. I don't think that network is expected to produce $100M pretty school. It's the combined media payments which are that number.

USC and UCLA joining undoubtedly increases the sold media rights value and will also increase BTN subscriptions. 

Still likely below the SEC once TX and OK join even with USC/UCLA.

Need to keep making moves. ND is the big prize in just about every way, especially media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×