College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At these prices, I think that the Big Ten needs to consider adding ASU (Arizona State University). Not on equal footing with the current 16 Big Ten member schools, but at a significant payout over every other option that ASU has now or in the near future.

The Big Ten Conference should not hesitate about offering U Washington & U Oregon. If that is the end of Big Ten expansion, then all Big Ten member schools are winners. But, a true coast-to-coast conference along with the possible purchase of ESPN from Disney by the Big Ten Conference is a victory that few, if any, saw coming.

U-Arizona is the better academic fit for the B1G.

Just sayin'

("Just sayin'" ???? Not an impressive expression.)

Yes, U Arizona is a better academic fit, but ASU has an enormous alumni base and is located in a significant media market.

Arizona, UNC, Uva all have a split market with larger state schools. They have issues.

Agree.

Much depends upon the Big Ten Conference's long-term vision.

How much control does the Big Ten want ?

If the vision is to replace ESPN and the NCAA, then schools such as ASU, UNC, & Virginia become more valuable to the Big Ten Conference.

The Pac12 is dissolving in part because they didn't want to partner the Pac12 network with Espn or Fox and decided they could make more on their own. They were wrong. People who aren't fans of a given school or whose school isn't playing in a given timeslot watch whatever is on the networks. Any conference dumb enough to launch their own subscription product would find out how narrow actual interest is pretty fast.

The quality of the Pac-12 Network was/is very poor. The viewing experience was not up to today's TV standards.

It was one of a string of misfires (the bigger one being not taking Texas and Oklahoma in 2011) that led to this. If they had brought on ESPN or Fox as partners in the Pac12 network, they would be in a very different position now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CURRENT RUMOR RE: FSU LEAVING ACC:

The current rumor is that FSU has negotiated an exit fee of $300 million to be paid in ten annual installments of $30 million per year. The numbers work as FSU would be stuck for the next 12 or 13 years (through 2036) earning about $40 to $60 million less per year than if it joined the Big Ten.

Clemson also wants out of the ACC now.

These are rumors being floated by long-time college football insiders/analysts.

Same folks are stating that both FSU & Clemson are headed to the Big Ten Conference.

I find this difficult to believe as it seems more like a ploy to get ESPN & Disney to give more money to FSU & Clemson to keep the ACC intact. Nevertheless, that's the rumor.

Other talk is that U Utah & ASU want to remain in the Pac-12. Supposedly U Utah does not want to be in the same conference with arch-rival BYU. Seems silly to me, but that is the rumor. Not clear about ASU's alleged reasons.

Any new Pac-12 contract will pay about $20 million per year per team if there are no other departures from the Pac-12. This is a huge pay cut. The contract would contain escalator clauses for TV ratings and for hitting certain subscription target goals.

The 300 million is not near the amount the ACC will want.

The current deal is $150 million plus all the tv revenue from home games in the new conference for 13 years. The Big Ten for example is at 100 million per school in 2 years and increasing rapidly so home games only will be 50 million and maybe up to 100 million by 2036 so let’s say 75 million per year average plus the 150 million exit fee. That would be 1.215 BILLION to the ACC. Why would they accept less than 1/3 of that?

These rumors are total nonsense.

I have to agree. The number would be a lot higher. But there will not be a number. BC and Duke will not sign off. Period. None of the others will sign off unless they also have new homes.

Maybe you have never dealt with lawyers and contracts, but the ACC may have agreed on a negotiated exit fee in order to avoid litigating the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At these prices, I think that the Big Ten needs to consider adding ASU (Arizona State University). Not on equal footing with the current 16 Big Ten member schools, but at a significant payout over every other option that ASU has now or in the near future.

The Big Ten Conference should not hesitate about offering U Washington & U Oregon. If that is the end of Big Ten expansion, then all Big Ten member schools are winners. But, a true coast-to-coast conference along with the possible purchase of ESPN from Disney by the Big Ten Conference is a victory that few, if any, saw coming.

U-Arizona is the better academic fit for the B1G.

Just sayin'

("Just sayin'" ???? Not an impressive expression.)

Yes, U Arizona is a better academic fit, but ASU has an enormous alumni base and is located in a significant media market.

Arizona, UNC, Uva all have a split market with larger state schools. They have issues.

Agree.

Much depends upon the Big Ten Conference's long-term vision.

How much control does the Big Ten want ?

If the vision is to replace ESPN and the NCAA, then schools such as ASU, UNC, & Virginia become more valuable to the Big Ten Conference.

The Big Ten research money dwarfs athletic money. UMD for example 1.2 billion vs about 100 million. Research money is king with or without the NCAA. Washington May get an invite just as a research giant and a huge school with big alumni base.

Yeah, I'm sure the NIH is awarding grants on the basis of athletic conference affiliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CURRENT RUMOR RE: FSU LEAVING ACC:

The current rumor is that FSU has negotiated an exit fee of $300 million to be paid in ten annual installments of $30 million per year. The numbers work as FSU would be stuck for the next 12 or 13 years (through 2036) earning about $40 to $60 million less per year than if it joined the Big Ten.

Clemson also wants out of the ACC now.

These are rumors being floated by long-time college football insiders/analysts.

Same folks are stating that both FSU & Clemson are headed to the Big Ten Conference.

I find this difficult to believe as it seems more like a ploy to get ESPN & Disney to give more money to FSU & Clemson to keep the ACC intact. Nevertheless, that's the rumor.

Other talk is that U Utah & ASU want to remain in the Pac-12. Supposedly U Utah does not want to be in the same conference with arch-rival BYU. Seems silly to me, but that is the rumor. Not clear about ASU's alleged reasons.

Any new Pac-12 contract will pay about $20 million per year per team if there are no other departures from the Pac-12. This is a huge pay cut. The contract would contain escalator clauses for TV ratings and for hitting certain subscription target goals.

The 300 million is not near the amount the ACC will want.

The current deal is $150 million plus all the tv revenue from home games in the new conference for 13 years. The Big Ten for example is at 100 million per school in 2 years and increasing rapidly so home games only will be 50 million and maybe up to 100 million by 2036 so let’s say 75 million per year average plus the 150 million exit fee. That would be 1.215 BILLION to the ACC. Why would they accept less than 1/3 of that?

These rumors are total nonsense.

I have to agree. The number would be a lot higher. But there will not be a number. BC and Duke will not sign off. Period. None of the others will sign off unless they also have new homes.

Are their signatures or approval needed ?

No one knows whose signatures are needed, arguably Disney would have to agree because they now own the rights to air the games. Here is the original text, but it was extended through 2036

https://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/asset/colleges/ncsu/2022/07/05/20361238/ACC-Grant-of-Rights-1-DMID1-5vgd1w2if.pdf

Does the agreement specify any exit fee or any method by which to calculate an exit fee ?

(While skimming the agreement, I thought about what were formerly thought of as ironclad non-compete agreements/clauses/provisions.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At these prices, I think that the Big Ten needs to consider adding ASU (Arizona State University). Not on equal footing with the current 16 Big Ten member schools, but at a significant payout over every other option that ASU has now or in the near future.

The Big Ten Conference should not hesitate about offering U Washington & U Oregon. If that is the end of Big Ten expansion, then all Big Ten member schools are winners. But, a true coast-to-coast conference along with the possible purchase of ESPN from Disney by the Big Ten Conference is a victory that few, if any, saw coming.

U-Arizona is the better academic fit for the B1G.

Just sayin'

("Just sayin'" ???? Not an impressive expression.)

Yes, U Arizona is a better academic fit, but ASU has an enormous alumni base and is located in a significant media market.

Arizona, UNC, Uva all have a split market with larger state schools. They have issues.

Agree.

Much depends upon the Big Ten Conference's long-term vision.

How much control does the Big Ten want ?

If the vision is to replace ESPN and the NCAA, then schools such as ASU, UNC, & Virginia become more valuable to the Big Ten Conference.

The Big Ten research money dwarfs athletic money. UMD for example 1.2 billion vs about 100 million. Research money is king with or without the NCAA. Washington May get an invite just as a research giant and a huge school with big alumni base.

Yeah, I'm sure the NIH is awarding grants on the basis of athletic conference affiliation.

Your comment does not make sense in light of the other poster's accurate observation.

[Anonymous]

Interesting article:

https://sports.yahoo.com/whats-next-in-college-sports-conference-realignment-heres-where-the-shaky-landscape-stands-030444592.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CURRENT RUMOR RE: FSU LEAVING ACC:

The current rumor is that FSU has negotiated an exit fee of $300 million to be paid in ten annual installments of $30 million per year. The numbers work as FSU would be stuck for the next 12 or 13 years (through 2036) earning about $40 to $60 million less per year than if it joined the Big Ten.

Clemson also wants out of the ACC now.

These are rumors being floated by long-time college football insiders/analysts.

Same folks are stating that both FSU & Clemson are headed to the Big Ten Conference.

I find this difficult to believe as it seems more like a ploy to get ESPN & Disney to give more money to FSU & Clemson to keep the ACC intact. Nevertheless, that's the rumor.

Other talk is that U Utah & ASU want to remain in the Pac-12. Supposedly U Utah does not want to be in the same conference with arch-rival BYU. Seems silly to me, but that is the rumor. Not clear about ASU's alleged reasons.

Any new Pac-12 contract will pay about $20 million per year per team if there are no other departures from the Pac-12. This is a huge pay cut. The contract would contain escalator clauses for TV ratings and for hitting certain subscription target goals.

The 300 million is not near the amount the ACC will want.

The current deal is $150 million plus all the tv revenue from home games in the new conference for 13 years. The Big Ten for example is at 100 million per school in 2 years and increasing rapidly so home games only will be 50 million and maybe up to 100 million by 2036 so let’s say 75 million per year average plus the 150 million exit fee. That would be 1.215 BILLION to the ACC. Why would they accept less than 1/3 of that?

These rumors are total nonsense.

I have to agree. The number would be a lot higher. But there will not be a number. BC and Duke will not sign off. Period. None of the others will sign off unless they also have new homes.

Maybe you have never dealt with lawyers and contracts, but the ACC may have agreed on a negotiated exit fee in order to avoid litigating the matter.

The ACC can do what they want, but that doesn't prevent Disney or members from litigating. There is no number that Clemson can agree to that can both be palatable to Clemson and put the rest of the members in the same position they would have been in if Clemson had stayed. Disney can also try to void the agreement if Clemson and FSU bolt because their inclusion was the reason for the payment to be as high as it is. Absent those schools, the ACC is basically a G5 conference with G5 level national interest

[Anonymous]

Well written article:

https://palmbeachpost.com/story/sports/college/football/2023/08/02/are-florida-state-clemson-washington-oregon-arizona-next-for-realignment/70505366007/

[Anonymous]

Big 10 graduate here, but I would rather watch D3 than this sh*tshow. As always, greed raises it's ugly head and destroys everything. So tired of the media deals and the obsession with recruiting stars and leaving after three years. Show me some guys playing for the live of the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well written article:

https://palmbeachpost.com/story/sports/college/football/2023/08/02/are-florida-state-clemson-washington-oregon-arizona-next-for-realignment/70505366007/

It's Palm Beach Post, so nothing unexpected, but the ACC section is FSU talking points that seem to be grounded in a combination of hope and desperation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big 10 graduate here, but I would rather watch D3 than this sh*tshow. As always, greed raises it's ugly head and destroys everything. So tired of the media deals and the obsession with recruiting stars and leaving after three years. Show me some guys playing for the live of the game.

What you refer to as "greed" others may view as "necessary for survival" to be competitive.

Then you must hate ACC basketball where it is not uncommon for a prized recruit to turn pro after just one year.

As for playing big time college football "for the love of the game", many do despite the health risks. But, in order to do so, universities need to fund these activities.

Feel free to watch D-3 football in lieu of D-1 games. Your desire to do so is understandable as many are uncomfortable with change.

[Anonymous]

Bring back Raycom sports

[Anonymous]

Re: Arizona and Pac-12 Apple streaming deal:

https://outkick.com/arizona-future-big-12-pac-12-robert-robbins-streaming/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At these prices, I think that the Big Ten needs to consider adding ASU (Arizona State University). Not on equal footing with the current 16 Big Ten member schools, but at a significant payout over every other option that ASU has now or in the near future.

The Big Ten Conference should not hesitate about offering U Washington & U Oregon. If that is the end of Big Ten expansion, then all Big Ten member schools are winners. But, a true coast-to-coast conference along with the possible purchase of ESPN from Disney by the Big Ten Conference is a victory that few, if any, saw coming.

U-Arizona is the better academic fit for the B1G.

Just sayin'

("Just sayin'" ???? Not an impressive expression.)

Yes, U Arizona is a better academic fit, but ASU has an enormous alumni base and is located in a significant media market.

Arizona, UNC, Uva all have a split market with larger state schools. They have issues.

Agree.

Much depends upon the Big Ten Conference's long-term vision.

How much control does the Big Ten want ?

If the vision is to replace ESPN and the NCAA, then schools such as ASU, UNC, & Virginia become more valuable to the Big Ten Conference.

The Big Ten research money dwarfs athletic money. UMD for example 1.2 billion vs about 100 million. Research money is king with or without the NCAA. Washington May get an invite just as a research giant and a huge school with big alumni base.

Yeah, I'm sure the NIH is awarding grants on the basis of athletic conference affiliation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Academic_Alliance

[Anonymous]

When UMD monetized it’s location and research budget the ACC hyperventilated and drafted a bulletproof GOR. None of the schools that think they are too good for the ACC can escape without losing more money than they would by staying. Plus the B1G and SEC don’t want or need the drama of getting involved with the insane litigation that will be involved. The ACC schools are thrashing around having a fit and throwing everything against the wall shocked by their powerlessness. The conference used to be pretty arrogant and raided other conferences plus acted elitist. It’s really a bad look academically how their administrators were so stupid and now are so childish and panicky. The ACC schools look like losers and need to start acting dignified.