College Football--Big Ten Expansion

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think UNC is the school that is the most coveted by both the SEC and BIG10.

As an ACC fan I hope they make a play to bring in Notre Dame (as full time member) and two of its traditional rivals (Stanford and Navy) at the same time as a package deal.

Fingers crossed.



Not sure whether the above quoted post was intended as a joke.

UNC is definitely NOT coveted by either the SEC or the Big Ten.

Stanford would never join the ACC as the constant cross country travel would exhaust their athletes.


I predict the BIG10 will add Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal. Under an agreement with the UC Board of Regents, UCLA will be obligated to pay Cal millions each year to offset the harm caused by the diminished value of the existing tv deal with the Pac12. Bringing in these 4 west coast schools will allow USC and UCLA for better travel for their athletes. As for Stanford joining the ACC, that makes no sense since the ACC is on the ropes as well. Should Stanford join the BIG10 it will have to travel to the east coast for games against Rutgers and Maryland.


The problem with these (or any) additions is that, under the B1G’s equal revenue sharing model, the existing teams *lose* money with the additions. Any marginal increase in tv money is more than offset by dividing the pie by x additional members. ND is the only real exception that would be viewed as ultimately worth it.

When Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska joined they had to wait 6 years to get their full shares, so maybe something similar happens here, even though USC/UCLA got full shares right away.


+1 Aside from ND, no team adds enough revenue for either Big 10 or SEC to expand. Therefore expansion is probably over.


The world of big time college football has changed. Streaming revenue & CFP revenue are the primary focus of the SEC & of the Big Ten.

Expansion has just begun. Over the next two years there will be at least a dozen D-1 football schools switching conferences.


I don’t get the several references in this thread to everything being about streaming now. The conferences are still trying to avoid streaming and want traditional over-the-air networks. The Big Ten just signed the most lucrative media deal in the history of CFB and it is primarily Fox, CBS and NBC. There are a handful of games on Peacock. The BigTen reported turned down more $ from Amazon in favor of NBC for better exposure. The PAC 12/10 is desperately trying to avoid more than half of their games on a streamer. No way the SEC wants to be on ESPN+ over ABC. The highest viewed games are on the traditional networks. Even ESPN doesn’t draw the viewers on ABC.

This more than just money, it is marketing for the schools. They will take slightly less money for more viewers. Maybe in 10 years they will do a subscription model through a streamer, but we are nowhere near that point.
Anonymous
It really is who is attracting eyeballs period! "Streaming" numbers don't just mean via a streaming-only service like Peacock either (it looks like there was a misunderstanding there).
Anonymous
Why are Big Ten and SEC donors still willing to pay so much to upgrade facilities? That arms race is just about dead in terms of importance to recruits. Unfortunately for the schools themselves, the $$ should go to the NIL collectives at this point.

Recruits aren't going to Clemson to play putt putt in 2023. Old school ADs who haven't really worked in the outside business world, like Maryland and several other places have, are slow to adjust to change.
Anonymous
Big Ten Conference likes AAU (American Association of Universities) schools. There are 19 AAU member schools (out of 69 US member universities and 2 Canadian universities) which do not belong to either the Ivy League, Big Ten or SEC and play Division 1 football. Below is a ranking of those 19 universities by average weekly viewership during the 2022 regular season:

The schools rank for viewership out of 119 total teams is:

#6 Notre Dame
#12 U. Oregon
#33 Univ. Utah
#34 U Washington
#45 UCal-Berkeley
#46 UNC
#47 Stanford
#49 Georgia Tech
#52 U Kansas
#56 U Pittsburgh
#59 U Miami
#62 U Arizona
#65 Tulane
#67 U Colorado
#71 ASU (Arizona State)
#79 U Virginia
#91 Duke
#95 USF (South Florida)

Among the 16 Big Ten member schools, Rutgers at #58 is the lowest performer in terms of number of weekly viewers during the regular football season (12 games). Next lowest is Purdue at #44 followed by Minnesota at #37. The average ranking for all 16 Big Ten teams for average weekly regular season viewership is between #24 & #25 (24.625).

Assuming the Big Ten Conference wants to add teams that will increase that average rank, targeted teams would perform better than disappointing #58 Rutgers. 11 of the 19 teams average higher weekly regular season viewership than Rutgers. Those 11 teams are:

#6 Notre Dame
#12 Oregon
#33 Utah
#34 Washington
#45 UCal-Berkeley
#46 UNC
#47 Stanford
#49 Georgia Tech
#52 U Kansas
#56 U Pittsburgh (which would resume the traditional rivalry with Penn State)

From among the above 10 teams, the Big Ten Conference has vetted the top 8 teams for potential membership. The Big Ten Conference has also vetted #59 U Miami and #79 U Virginia.

Some schools may be attractive to the Big Ten Conference for their men's basketball programs. This is an angle that supports Duke, U Kansas, and UNC.
Anonymous
CORRECTION: 18 schools, not 19.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Big Ten Conference likes AAU (American Association of Universities) schools. There are 19 AAU member schools (out of 69 US member universities and 2 Canadian universities) which do not belong to either the Ivy League, Big Ten or SEC and play Division 1 football. Below is a ranking of those 19 universities by average weekly viewership during the 2022 regular season:

The schools rank for viewership out of 119 total teams is:

#6 Notre Dame
#12 U. Oregon
#33 Univ. Utah
#34 U Washington
#45 UCal-Berkeley
#46 UNC
#47 Stanford
#49 Georgia Tech
#52 U Kansas
#56 U Pittsburgh
#59 U Miami
#62 U Arizona
#65 Tulane
#67 U Colorado
#71 ASU (Arizona State)
#79 U Virginia
#91 Duke
#95 USF (South Florida)

Among the 16 Big Ten member schools, Rutgers at #58 is the lowest performer in terms of number of weekly viewers during the regular football season (12 games). Next lowest is Purdue at #44 followed by Minnesota at #37. The average ranking for all 16 Big Ten teams for average weekly regular season viewership is between #24 & #25 (24.625).

Assuming the Big Ten Conference wants to add teams that will increase that average rank, targeted teams would perform better than disappointing #58 Rutgers. 11 of the 19 teams average higher weekly regular season viewership than Rutgers. Those 11 teams are:

#6 Notre Dame
#12 Oregon
#33 Utah
#34 Washington
#45 UCal-Berkeley
#46 UNC
#47 Stanford
#49 Georgia Tech
#52 U Kansas
#56 U Pittsburgh (which would resume the traditional rivalry with Penn State)

From among the above 10 teams, the Big Ten Conference has vetted the top 8 teams for potential membership. The Big Ten Conference has also vetted #59 U Miami and #79 U Virginia.

Some schools may be attractive to the Big Ten Conference for their men's basketball programs. This is an angle that supports Duke, U Kansas, and UNC.


While only #6 Notre Dame and #12 U Oregon would enhance the big Ten Conference overall average ranking for weekly viewership, any team currently ranking higher than #58 Rutgers would most likely enjoy greater viewership numbers if a member of a mega conference such as the Big Ten or the SEC.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think UNC is the school that is the most coveted by both the SEC and BIG10.

As an ACC fan I hope they make a play to bring in Notre Dame (as full time member) and two of its traditional rivals (Stanford and Navy) at the same time as a package deal.

Fingers crossed.



Not sure whether the above quoted post was intended as a joke.

UNC is definitely NOT coveted by either the SEC or the Big Ten.

Stanford would never join the ACC as the constant cross country travel would exhaust their athletes.


I predict the BIG10 will add Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal. Under an agreement with the UC Board of Regents, UCLA will be obligated to pay Cal millions each year to offset the harm caused by the diminished value of the existing tv deal with the Pac12. Bringing in these 4 west coast schools will allow USC and UCLA for better travel for their athletes. As for Stanford joining the ACC, that makes no sense since the ACC is on the ropes as well. Should Stanford join the BIG10 it will have to travel to the east coast for games against Rutgers and Maryland.


The problem with these (or any) additions is that, under the B1G’s equal revenue sharing model, the existing teams *lose* money with the additions. Any marginal increase in tv money is more than offset by dividing the pie by x additional members. ND is the only real exception that would be viewed as ultimately worth it.

When Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska joined they had to wait 6 years to get their full shares, so maybe something similar happens here, even though USC/UCLA got full shares right away.


+1 Aside from ND, no team adds enough revenue for either Big 10 or SEC to expand. Therefore expansion is probably over.


The world of big time college football has changed. Streaming revenue & CFP revenue are the primary focus of the SEC & of the Big Ten.

Expansion has just begun. Over the next two years there will be at least a dozen D-1 football schools switching conferences.


I don’t get the several references in this thread to everything being about streaming now. The conferences are still trying to avoid streaming and want traditional over-the-air networks. The Big Ten just signed the most lucrative media deal in the history of CFB and it is primarily Fox, CBS and NBC. There are a handful of games on Peacock. The BigTen reported turned down more $ from Amazon in favor of NBC for better exposure. The PAC 12/10 is desperately trying to avoid more than half of their games on a streamer. No way the SEC wants to be on ESPN+ over ABC. The highest viewed games are on the traditional networks. Even ESPN doesn’t draw the viewers on ABC.

This more than just money, it is marketing for the schools. They will take slightly less money for more viewers. Maybe in 10 years they will do a subscription model through a streamer, but we are nowhere near that point.


Well said.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:It really is who is attracting eyeballs period! "Streaming" numbers don't just mean via a streaming-only service like Peacock either (it looks like there was a misunderstanding there).


+1 This thread is filled with erroneous information.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think UNC is the school that is the most coveted by both the SEC and BIG10.

As an ACC fan I hope they make a play to bring in Notre Dame (as full time member) and two of its traditional rivals (Stanford and Navy) at the same time as a package deal.

Fingers crossed.



Not sure whether the above quoted post was intended as a joke.

UNC is definitely NOT coveted by either the SEC or the Big Ten.

Stanford would never join the ACC as the constant cross country travel would exhaust their athletes.


I predict the BIG10 will add Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal. Under an agreement with the UC Board of Regents, UCLA will be obligated to pay Cal millions each year to offset the harm caused by the diminished value of the existing tv deal with the Pac12. Bringing in these 4 west coast schools will allow USC and UCLA for better travel for their athletes. As for Stanford joining the ACC, that makes no sense since the ACC is on the ropes as well. Should Stanford join the BIG10 it will have to travel to the east coast for games against Rutgers and Maryland.


The problem with these (or any) additions is that, under the B1G’s equal revenue sharing model, the existing teams *lose* money with the additions. Any marginal increase in tv money is more than offset by dividing the pie by x additional members. ND is the only real exception that would be viewed as ultimately worth it.

When Rutgers, Maryland, and Nebraska joined they had to wait 6 years to get their full shares, so maybe something similar happens here, even though USC/UCLA got full shares right away.


+1 Aside from ND, no team adds enough revenue for either Big 10 or SEC to expand. Therefore expansion is probably over.


The world of big time college football has changed. Streaming revenue & CFP revenue are the primary focus of the SEC & of the Big Ten.

Expansion has just begun. Over the next two years there will be at least a dozen D-1 football schools switching conferences.


I don’t get the several references in this thread to everything being about streaming now. The conferences are still trying to avoid streaming and want traditional over-the-air networks. The Big Ten just signed the most lucrative media deal in the history of CFB and it is primarily Fox, CBS and NBC. There are a handful of games on Peacock. The BigTen reported turned down more $ from Amazon in favor of NBC for better exposure. The PAC 12/10 is desperately trying to avoid more than half of their games on a streamer. No way the SEC wants to be on ESPN+ over ABC. The highest viewed games are on the traditional networks. Even ESPN doesn’t draw the viewers on ABC.

This more than just money, it is marketing for the schools. They will take slightly less money for more viewers. Maybe in 10 years they will do a subscription model through a streamer, but we are nowhere near that point.


Well said.


Disagree.

The Big Ten Conference is very interested in streaming numbers and revenue from streaming It is a current and future growing source of revenue.

Do Big Ten Conference schools really need to market themselves ?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It really is who is attracting eyeballs period! "Streaming" numbers don't just mean via a streaming-only service like Peacock either (it looks like there was a misunderstanding there).


+1 This thread is filled with erroneous information.


Then feel free to offer your corrections to the supposedly erroneous information.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It really is who is attracting eyeballs period! "Streaming" numbers don't just mean via a streaming-only service like Peacock either (it looks like there was a misunderstanding there).


+1 This thread is filled with erroneous information.


Then feel free to offer your corrections to the supposedly erroneous information.


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It really is who is attracting eyeballs period! "Streaming" numbers don't just mean via a streaming-only service like Peacock either (it looks like there was a misunderstanding there).


+1 This thread is filled with erroneous information.


Then feel free to offer your corrections to the supposedly erroneous information.




That's what I thought.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why are Big Ten and SEC donors still willing to pay so much to upgrade facilities? That arms race is just about dead in terms of importance to recruits. Unfortunately for the schools themselves, the $$ should go to the NIL collectives at this point.

Recruits aren't going to Clemson to play putt putt in 2023. Old school ADs who haven't really worked in the outside business world, like Maryland and several other places have, are slow to adjust to change.


It is the arms race. No one wants to try to attract recruits to "substandard" facilities. Indoor and outdoor practice facilities, weight room, study rooms, eating hall, the nutritionist, trainers etc. It is the whole package on top of NIL money, fan base, what is it like in the stadium, what are my non-collective NIL like local endorsements etc.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It really is who is attracting eyeballs period! "Streaming" numbers don't just mean via a streaming-only service like Peacock either (it looks like there was a misunderstanding there).


+1 This thread is filled with erroneous information.


Then feel free to offer your corrections to the supposedly erroneous information.




That's what I thought.


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Currently, there are 14 universities in the Big Ten:

Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Northwestern
Nebraska
Purdue
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Iowa
Rutgers
Maryland
Minnesota
Illinois
Indiana

Next Year USC & UCLA will become members.

In 2025, possible/likely new members include: Univ. of Oregon, Univ. of Washington, Stanford, UCal-Berkeley, & Notre Dame.

In 2025, possible new members: UNC, Virginia, Georgia Tech.

If all join, then the Big Ten will be a 24 team mega-conference. Easy to divide into 4 six team divisions.

If both the Big Ten & the SEC expand to 24 teams, then the conferences may disassociate with the NCAA.


Why is this opinion being posted repeatedly?


To give the entire list of current & prospective members in one post.


Are you making things up? You cannot be serious that, for example, GA Tech football is anything like Big 10 Penn State, Ohio State, etc.


Georgia Tech has won 4 national championships in football--although 1990 was the most recent.

Georgia Tech is in the heart of the best football recruiting grounds in the country.

Georgia Tech fits in with Big ten academics.

Georgia Tech offers a new TV market to the Big Ten (Atlanta & the South).

Once Georgia Tech joins the Big Ten, the most fertile college football recruiting grounds become more open to all Big Ten teams.

But, yes, this is speculation although it has been discussed & considered over the last few years.

Long ago, Heisman (Heisman Trophy) coached football at Georgia Tech.

If Georgia Tech becomes a member of the Big Ten, it can compete with SEC teams for the top talent in the nation during recruiting season.


Dream on


https://si.com/college/georgiatech/could-georgia-tech-be-a-target-for-big-ten-or-sec-expansion

The above is just one of many articles regarding the Big ten's possible interest in adding Georgia Tech.


A more recent article written within the last month claims that the Big Ten has vetted 10 teams for possible membership including Georgia Tech:

https://onthebanks.com/2023/6/7/23752497/big-ten-reportedly-vetted-10-schools-with-eyes-on-expansion

The ten teams are:

Oregon
Washington
UCal-Berkeley
Stanford
Georgia Tech
UNC
Duke
U Miami
Univ.of Utah
Univ. of Virginia

According to many articles speculating on Big ten expansion, Georgia Tech is a serious target school due to TV market & fertile recruiting grounds in addition to the academic match.


If these teams were valuable assets in the current college athletics landscape, then their current conferences wouldn’t be behind financially as they are.


Interesting thought.

The Pac 12 has a time zone problem and the Pac 12 Network college football productions were of poor quality.

ACC is college basketball country.


Agreed, which is why some make the argument their (Pac 12 or ACC) teams don’t seem to be a good fit for the football obsessed Big Ten or SEC. Others disagree, fair enough.


USC, UCLA, Oregon, & Washington all have outstanding football programs which would/will benefit greatly from Big Ten Conference membership.

With added revenue from Big Ten Conference membership, ACC schools can afford to attract better coaches, players, and build top notch facilities.


This is why all these names being thrown around won't end up being invited anywhere. No existing B1G or SEC members would agree to give a slice of their revenue pie to another team/rival only to make the competition stronger.


if the TV contract is big enough, yes they will.


ND is the only non-Big Ten or SEC team that would shift the needle.


I’m not so sure that anything changes that much for the Big 10 w/without ND.


Per Wall Street Journal, ND is #5 on the list of most valuable college sports brands, which is the highest rank not already in SEC or Big Ten.


DP. Why Notre Dame ranks so high is unclear to me. Endlessly overrated teams.
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: