Why expansion economic hurdles could be lower…
One idea I was thinking about is that the P2 may be motivated to expand to 24 at minimum. This could be due to non revenue generating Olympic sports. Leave the cross country charter flights to football and basketball but bus rides to more closely aligned geographic conference members for Olympic sports. Saves money and time but means you need to expand to get some closer schools. That could change the economic hurdles perhaps for some schools in smaller markets. Just a thought.
** Edited by vtjonboy at 7/5/2022, 9:14:32 AM
5 Replies
V
vtka93
4y
you know for sure that the teams you bring in will at minimum contribute enough to keep each school getting the current payout? if each big 10 school is on course to get 100 mill, do they invite any school/combo that does not contribute that much to the tv deals? i guess when do you stop adding because the extra schools you add will start to decrease the amount the others get each year
(In response to this post by vtjonboy)
4y
There are two sides to a balance sheet, revenue and expenses. My point was that Olympic sports travel costs are probably fairly high. So, perhaps by having some closer geographic schools it will lower the cost of Olympic sports travel by some amount which then means revenue does not need to be equal to current payouts. Probably a long shot but that is just a thought.
(In response to this post by vtka93)
E
EDGEMAN
4y
...the southeast, while the SEC concentrates on territory from Texas east to the mid-Atlantic, which one will have more expensive olympic sports travel?
Geographically looks like the B1X may be a little overextended geographically, but $100M+ per year should cover the costs...lol
(In response to this post by vtjonboy)
S
Stech
4y
teams play for the Conference finals. That’s why I think more teams will join the P2.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
4y
UCLA/USC will have a tough time when the closest away games are a 4 hour flight.
(In response to this post by Stech)