Oregon and Wash taking half shares to join the Big Ten
plus, to a lesser extent, the deals with Cal, Stanford and SMU to the ACC, seems to be a bad precedent for the Clemson and FSUs.
I think FSU and Clemson are more similar to Univ of Washington and Univ of Oregon than to a Notre Dame. If you are looking at a half share, plus a huge exit penalty, why even make a move?
37 Replies
S
Stech
2y
TIA if so.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
My understanding was that OU and UW receive half rights until 2031 when they become full members (https://saturdayoutwest.com/pac-12/oregon-washington-to-t...
FSU and Clemson would likely have more value than OU and UW. More football history and significantly larger populations (22.2 + 5.3 million) vs (7.8 + 4.2 million)... Even with Clemson and FSU not being the dominant school in the state, the larger populations, likely higher football fervor in their respective states, and generally higher play likely makes them more valuable to TV execs.
We will find out.
(In response to this post by Stech)
The state of Florida is worth more than the states of Washington and Oregon
combined. I'd be surprised if FSU doesn't already have a back door deal with the B1G to come in at full price. They also have the value to bring Clemson along at full price too, like USC did with UCLA. But I am less certain of this second point.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
...their teams lost because they had to play in the frigid Midwest in November.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
Florida is a great market obviously, but it's a big state and Gators are #1 and lots of Miami, UCF and USF fans/grads as well.
U Washington is a billion miles ahead of Wash State as is U Oregon over Oregon State.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
H
hokieZ71
2y
This is why USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon were added. If they are in a big game, their support and brand can generate a big viewership number. USC games can tap into the LA market and deliver ratings. Oregon and Washington can deliver high market share in solid
TV markets.
Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers, Minnesota, Maryland, Northwestern, Indiana?? nah…. Purdue isn’t grabbing a big share of the Indianapolis market. Northwestern isn’t tapping into the Chicago market. Maryland ain’t pulling DC in. (I’d argue VT could pull as much DC market share as Maryland)
You add in USC, Oregon, Washington, UCLA to that mix and it just supercharges the amount of high viewer games on a weekly basis. USC vs Michigan State would do a number. Washington vs Nebraska would do a number. Oregon vs Wisconsin would be big. UCLA vs Penn State…
I’m fairly certain that the ability of a school to tap heavily into a large viewership market is really big to the Big Ten.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
S
Stech
2y
That’s why IMHO they are acquiring close by NFL markets. The big money is the NFL. That said, ESPN wants great rivalries in new states. They already own Florida, South Carolina etc.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Will it help fuel NFL viewership? Sure, but College football draws in ratings that surpasses basically everything but the NFL. So, this is basically about money and the earnings potential of college football.
You have quite a few regular season games getting up in the 10 million viewer range. That is above the average viewership for NBA Finals games post Covid. Fox is using the NFL model to fuel their Big Ten expansion expecting a similar ratings boon. Ohio State vs Michigan got almost 20 million viewers last season.
However, the viewership for college football is largely based on loyalty of fanbases to schools. If they don't regulate this NIL game and transfer portal, and soon, they'll be losing quite a bit of money before long.
ESPN wants the same thing, but the SEC viewership is based on regional loyalty, yes. Expanding further into the Southeast is probably very important to the SEC. And NC/VA is basically all that's left there. It'll be very interesting to see all of this revealed, most likely this summer.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 4/2/2024, 6:15:26 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
basically let ESPN have it. My point is these Companies like to leverage their assets and not get too deep if they can’t leverage it with a current asset. That’s why you grab Maryland, Rutgers and two teams near NFL cities. They aren’t doing this randomly, it’s a strategy they are using to build up both.
ESPN on the other hand has gone with schools with large rabid football fans. Two very different strategies for expansion.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
The proximity to NFL teams was not the primary reason they were targeted.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
of emphasis on ratings and advertising starting to circle back up. Also it’s not coincidence that there are NFL teams close by to Rutgers, Maryland, USC, UCLA and Washington. They can promote their Sunday NFL games on Saturday in these markets.
(In response to this post by Red Hokie)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Now that Fox is driving the boat, things have changed. Appears it's about market share now. The B1X has a different business plan from the SEC. B1X is about having the most teams all over the country, where the SEC is focused on it's region, and having the biggest and best fan bases to drive interest in matchups.
(In response to this post by Red Hokie)
S
Stech
2y
They are looking at the multiple streams of income. Back then Cable Hookups were big, but everyone knew ratings would come back in play to get Ad income, streaming subscriptions and leveraging another business.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
H
hokieZ71
2y
They'll be some of the first to go when schools start getting cut. (And they will)
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
think like a business trying to sell products. You don’t just walk away from the NYC area and DC area, that you would love to have both Saturday and Sunday for live sports, where the research shows that people are way more likely to watch ads, and buy products.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
The 4 west coast schools are going to play what, ~10 home games against eastern/central teams? Schedule those earlier in the day.
And the games hosted eastern/central...it doesn't matter. I've lived in Pacific and Mountain time zones the last few years...having shorter times to wait for my football has been great.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
Eighty percent of the national audience is in the Eastern half of the US. USC will always deliver strong national ratings, but the others will need a good matchup to outdo an Eastern vs. Eastern game. Late windows give the Western schools an extra shot, but the ratings are weak.
Dallas Cowboys have always enjoyed their Eastern affiliation.
(In response to this post by Pylons)
Big Ten network subscriptions in Florida.
Plus, mega recruiting territory.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
T
Truthahn
2y
UCLA and USC did that, as would Clemson and FSU. Wash and Oregon did not (the PAC was already there).
This is why the PAC and ACC should have raided the B12 after the SEC did. If the PAC taken four B12 teams, and the ACC just taken WVU, we would both be much better off right now.
** Edited by Truthahn at 4/1/2024, 11:51:43 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
The Big 12 was dead in the water and was let off the hook.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
2y
USC/UCLA was the kill shot that freed up money that would have gone to the P12 for the B1G. FSU and Clemson would be that kill shot for the ACC; it likely allows the B1G to partner again with ESPN as they will have a new list of highly valuable games sell and ESPN will likely screw the ACC over again.
** Edited by GALOISGROUP at 4/1/2024, 1:35:34 PM
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
S
Stech
2y
The only reason Louisville got in is that FSU and Clemson threatened to go to the B12, and there wasn’t a GOR back then.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
2y
Acc commissioner had to always respond to them in a defense instead of having 2 members embaracing membership.
Sorta like texas and rhe old big 12
(In response to this post by Stech)
Yup. UO and UW were already damaged goods by the time the B1G circled back
for them. And IMO, this was done on purpose by the B1G. After swiping the LA market, they just waited (and stoked the flames) for Colorado to jump back to the BigXII. Then they came in and low-balled UO and UW.
Some real Robber Baron sh*t by the B1G.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
2y
was at the edge of the cliff. We know why the PAC passed on the B12 teams, and it had nothing to do with football. At the time, the ACC did the same.
Texas and Oklahoma voted against expanding when they were in the B12 (except for WVU). USC and UCLA in the PAC voted against expanding with B12 schools. FSU, Clemson, UNC voted against expansion recently, and I bet they were also against adding any B12 schools when they were available (including WVU).
I'm finding it interesting that the schools moving to the P2 were the ones against expanding with pretty much all of the schools currently in the B12.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
H
HOO86
2y
The ACC could add members at Pro Rata share for the addition, but that didn't increase payouts to existing members. What made Stanford, Cal, and SMU work is that ESPN will pay the Pro Rata, and then those 3 take less than that each. Plus they get subscribers in big states added to the ACC Network. Wouldn't have been a bump from any Big 12 Texas option other than Texas - Austin, who provided that bump to the SEC instead. And from what you have been saying, UT Austin may be just as big a pain to deal with as Florida State.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
what I don't know, is how the Big 10 contract is written up, or whether the ACC or the B12 can add more teams as they see fit. All I have to go on are "reports", and I don't remember OU Washington.
There have been reports that the B12 could only add 4, and there have been reports that the ACC can't - but then they did.
Wouldn't it be helpful if those contracts were made public, because every time I turn around, it's something different.
(In response to this post by HOO86)
H
HOO86
2y
And the ACC added 3. Now if the ACC loses I believe it can replace to stay above 14/15 or so.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
vote for a decreased revenue distribution. Look at the dates of the SEC and BIG contracts. It seems to me that conference realignment especially as it relates to Oregon and Washington, has gotten ahead of the negotiated contracts.
The guaranteed playoff revenue is another sticking point, but with the look in in 2028, teams in the BIG and SEC may take a short term hit on that money if it puts them in a position to gain. If the ACC implodes (not a prediction), then there is a lot of guaranteed playoff money to be divided up with the P conferences that remain. It could also increase the money the P2 get, which makes it even more attractive to pluck national title holders and competitors for the P2.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)