College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[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:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Not one source is named and not one "source" claims that there is not a contract in effect. Displeasure at some of the details and that there are details yet to be resolved is to be expected when there are about 20 parties to a contract. That is why the Big Ten teams authorized the Big Ten Commissioner to negotiate on their behalf.

[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:This could spell trouble for the B1G

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-expansion-big-ten-problems-money-schedule-report

A one-time obligation of $5 million per team (current 14 teams) should not pose a problem as the average payout to each team from the Big Ten Conference was $58.8 million last year & expected to rise substantially this year.

Scheduling issues were to be expected under new TV/media rights contracts--especially so when expanding the number of member teams.

Look for more teams to be added to the Big Ten next year in addition to USC & UCLA as the Pac-12 TV contract expires in 2025 and no new agreement has been reached.

If you read the source article that SI summarized (anyone remember when SI was a real news source), it seems like a bigger complication. Fox owns 61% of the Big10 network which owns the rights to big10 games.

"In 2016, when the Big Ten announced its long-term television deal with Fox and ESPN, the announcement didn't include all the details. One of the things that didn't get disclosed at the time, nor as the new deal was being discussed in recent months, was that the Big Ten Network had acquired all of the league's programming rights back in 2016 through an undisclosed date. The length of that deal with the Big Ten Network from 2016 is carried at least through the current deal, which has been announced through the 2029-30 season.

This relationship was known by athletic directors, television executives at rival networks and officials in other leagues, even if it wasn't announced publicly. It flashed out into the public at various times, including Sports Business Journal reporting in April 2022 that two Fox senior executives were in the room when various media companies -- ESPN, Amazon, NBC and others -- met with the league about their television packages.

What this also essentially meant was the latest round of Big Ten television deals were effectively sub-license arrangements, in which both the Big Ten Network and Fox essentially controlled the rights and worked with the Big Ten to sub-license them off. That meant a majority of the value of the deal had already been sold.

"It was a joint negotiation with the conference and FOX working together and doing deals with these other networks," said an industry source. "They both needed each other to do the deals."

That factor is key to understanding the issues Petitti faces. There are two new partners -- NBC and CBS -- attempting to work out their longform deals. There's a familiar partner, Fox, that's riding shotgun on this bumpy ride, including being upset Warren promised a title game Fox controlled without permission."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Well stated, this is a much larger issue than some want to admit.

Please back-up your claim: Why is it a much larger issue than some want to admit ?

I disagree with your assertion, but want to learn the basis of your position.

The commissioner included a game in the deal that he didn't have rights to. Fox owns the majority of the big 10 network which owns the big10 grant of rights. Most of the increased money is going to get siphoned off by Fox. NBC and CBS are paying a ton of money and they want marquee games and it seems like that might not happen unless Fox gets paid off which negates to point of bringing in NBC and CBS

Exactly correct.

Only the first two sentences of the quoted post are "exactly correct". The last two sentences are misleading at best.

Well then offer your rebuttal to that poster.

The division of money is stated in the contract.

"unless Fox gets paid off" = there is a contract in place with specific details. NBC & CBS are big enough to protect their interests through contractual terms.

The contract controls the relationships with the parties to the contract.

The contract that the previous commissioner didn't have fully approved.

Please stop trying to derail the thread with misinformation. The contract has been fully approved by all parties to the contract.

"Nearly three months before the season kicks off and those TV deals begin, the Big Ten does not have completed longform contracts, which include the fine print details."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

The contracts are signed. The longform just clarifies details remaining to be worked out.

"These deals aren't done, and they aren't what they were represented to be from the standpoint of the NBC deal and the availability of all members to participate in November games in primetime," said an industry source.

Interviews with nearly a dozen sources in and around the Big Ten and the college sports industry paint a picture of Petitti sprinting to navigate details left unresolved from his predecessor.

As a result, there's a trail of unhappy athletic directors seeing money disappearing from their bottom line, frustrated television executives and big-name coaches irked about the lack of transparency in details that weren't communicated to them.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/37693310/big-ten-new-commissioner-television-deal-coaches-uncertainty

Not one source is named and not one "source" claims that there is not a contract in effect. Displeasure at some of the details and that there are details yet to be resolved is to be expected when there are about 20 parties to a contract. That is why the Big Ten teams authorized the Big Ten Commissioner to negotiate on their behalf.

Go through any paper, sources are never named when the matter is still confidential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, asserting that "these deals are not done" because some details need to be worked out is quite different than alleging that there is no contract. There is an agreed upon, signed contract.

Then show us the signed contract and be sure to inform ESPN too.

Contracts are private property. Businesses do not show their contracts to others--especially to other competitors.

Interesting that you mention ESPN as that network reported on August 18, 2022 that the "Big Ten completes 7-year, $7 billion media rights agreement with Fox, CBS, NBC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, asserting that "these deals are not done" because some details need to be worked out is quite different than alleging that there is no contract. There is an agreed upon, signed contract.

Then show us the signed contract and be sure to inform ESPN too.

Contracts are private property. Businesses do not show their contracts to others--especially to other competitors.

Interesting that you mention ESPN as that network reported on August 18, 2022 that the "Big Ten completes 7-year, $7 billion media rights agreement with Fox, CBS, NBC.

True, contracts are private property, which is baffling considering you claim to know so much about a contract. You’re also using an article from 2022 as a rebuttal to an article from 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

Then why did they just sign a 6-year contract with Fox, CBS and NBC with almost no streaming?

Are you seriously asking why universities need to market themselves?

[Anonymous]

Not to highjack this thread, but Texas moving to the SEC is huge. "The UT athletic department is a self-sustaining operation. No public money is used for any aspect of UT athletics.'' And in total, specific to the football program, the University of Texas has $41.8 million in expenses (quite a budget) but $146.8 million in football revenue. And that profit of almost $105 million is the financial foundation for all other programs in the athletic department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

Then why did they just sign a 6-year contract with Fox, CBS and NBC with almost no streaming?

Are you seriously asking why universities need to market themselves?

Cord-cutting is real and these schools with the exception of Notre Dame will more or less do what tv execs tell them to do. With that said, we will see how long Notre Dame holds out. If NBC Sports does not provide the money they are hoping for they will be joining another conference sooner than alter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

Then why did they just sign a 6-year contract with Fox, CBS and NBC with almost no streaming?

Are you seriously asking why universities need to market themselves?

Cord-cutting is real and these schools with the exception of Notre Dame will more or less do what tv execs tell them to do. With that said, we will see how long Notre Dame holds out. If NBC Sports does not provide the money they are hoping for they will be joining another conference sooner than alter.

+1 live streaming is increasing on platforms like YouTube too.

[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: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 ?

Then why did they just sign a 6-year contract with Fox, CBS and NBC with almost no streaming?

Are you seriously asking why universities need to market themselves?

Cord-cutting is real and these schools with the exception of Notre Dame will more or less do what tv execs tell them to do. With that said, we will see how long Notre Dame holds out. If NBC Sports does not provide the money they are hoping for they will be joining another conference sooner than alter.

+1 live streaming is increasing on platforms like YouTube too.

It’s emerging, but doesn’t have near the revenue generation of OTA broadcasting.

It will be important to introduce to the next generation of fans who will come to see it as normal, and it can eventually be like ESPN.

But it’s not there yet.

[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: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 ?

Then why did they just sign a 6-year contract with Fox, CBS and NBC with almost no streaming?

Are you seriously asking why universities need to market themselves?

Cord-cutting is real and these schools with the exception of Notre Dame will more or less do what tv execs tell them to do. With that said, we will see how long Notre Dame holds out. If NBC Sports does not provide the money they are hoping for they will be joining another conference sooner than alter.

+1 live streaming is increasing on platforms like YouTube too.

It’s emerging, but doesn’t have near the revenue generation of OTA broadcasting.

It will be important to introduce to the next generation of fans who will come to see it as normal, and it can eventually be like ESPN.

But it’s not there yet.

You can live stream ESPN on YouTube now. It’s not either/or.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to highjack this thread, but Texas moving to the SEC is huge. "The UT athletic department is a self-sustaining operation. No public money is used for any aspect of UT athletics.'' And in total, specific to the football program, the University of Texas has $41.8 million in expenses (quite a budget) but $146.8 million in football revenue. And that profit of almost $105 million is the financial foundation for all other programs in the athletic department.

There are quite a few self sustaining athletic departments. That’s not unusual at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to highjack this thread, but Texas moving to the SEC is huge. "The UT athletic department is a self-sustaining operation. No public money is used for any aspect of UT athletics.'' And in total, specific to the football program, the University of Texas has $41.8 million in expenses (quite a budget) but $146.8 million in football revenue. And that profit of almost $105 million is the financial foundation for all other programs in the athletic department.

There are quite a few self sustaining athletic departments. That’s not unusual at all.

Can you post the self sustaining departments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to highjack this thread, but Texas moving to the SEC is huge. "The UT athletic department is a self-sustaining operation. No public money is used for any aspect of UT athletics.'' And in total, specific to the football program, the University of Texas has $41.8 million in expenses (quite a budget) but $146.8 million in football revenue. And that profit of almost $105 million is the financial foundation for all other programs in the athletic department.

Agree.

Texas & the University of Oklahoma is even more newsworthy. Within the past few years, the Big Ten wanted Texas but not its biggest traditional rival Oklahoma. The SEC agreed to take both schools.

Oklahoma's football program has been very successful from a financial viewpoint:

https://si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football-rankings/college-football-rankings-valuable-programs-alabama-oklahoma-texas-michigan-notre-dame-georgia

Based on 2019-2020 college football revenue, Oklahoma was # 1 followed by #2 Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to highjack this thread, but Texas moving to the SEC is huge. "The UT athletic department is a self-sustaining operation. No public money is used for any aspect of UT athletics.'' And in total, specific to the football program, the University of Texas has $41.8 million in expenses (quite a budget) but $146.8 million in football revenue. And that profit of almost $105 million is the financial foundation for all other programs in the athletic department.

There are quite a few self sustaining athletic departments. That’s not unusual at all.

Can you post the self sustaining departments?

The schools getting the fat TV contracts through their leagues have self-sustaining Athletic departments. UT is not unique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to highjack this thread, but Texas moving to the SEC is huge. "The UT athletic department is a self-sustaining operation. No public money is used for any aspect of UT athletics.'' And in total, specific to the football program, the University of Texas has $41.8 million in expenses (quite a budget) but $146.8 million in football revenue. And that profit of almost $105 million is the financial foundation for all other programs in the athletic department.

There are quite a few self sustaining athletic departments. That’s not unusual at all.

Can you post the self sustaining departments?

Basically all of the big football and mens basketball schools are self sustaining and then some.