College Football--Big Ten Expansion

[Anonymous]

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.

My best guess is that both the Big Ten and the SEC have moved beyond trying to entice Notre Dame to join. If ND wants to join either conference, then it will have a spot, but neither the SEC nor the Big Ten need Notre Dame.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any chance that under-performing Big Ten teams are at risk of getting thrown out? I'm an Indiana fan, but I'm not under any illusions where we fit in the football pecking order. We're terrible and, with a few brief and mild exceptions, have basically always been terrible at football.

I go to the games to watch my kid in the marching band. Last year, against a couple of the better teams, I felt like the QB was just running for his life. There are tons of empty seats. Anyway, if we're just talking about football revenue, IU has to be taking a lot more than it's generating. (Obviously, basketball is a different story. IU has good crowds and draws a lot of viewers.)

But if there is a school that's more or less dead weight, can the Big Ten force them out and make way for a better revenue generator?

I would say no chance. College football is evolving into even more of the "haves" and "have nots" - the big 10 will likely go to 24 teams with pods of 6.

Cal/UCLA/Wash/Ore/USC/Colorado
Nebraska/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa/Ill/Northwestern
MSU/Michigan/Purdue/Indiana/Ohio State
Penn State/Maryland/Rutgers/UVA/UNC/UMiami

and one other.

The pods play within each other every year and rotate to the other pods, home and away. The non-rev sports save on travel and for football, basketball. volleyball etc the end of season tournaments play against the 24 team SEC and those are your general national championships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any chance that under-performing Big Ten teams are at risk of getting thrown out? I'm an Indiana fan, but I'm not under any illusions where we fit in the football pecking order. We're terrible and, with a few brief and mild exceptions, have basically always been terrible at football.

I go to the games to watch my kid in the marching band. Last year, against a couple of the better teams, I felt like the QB was just running for his life. There are tons of empty seats. Anyway, if we're just talking about football revenue, IU has to be taking a lot more than it's generating. (Obviously, basketball is a different story. IU has good crowds and draws a lot of viewers.)

But if there is a school that's more or less dead weight, can the Big Ten force them out and make way for a better revenue generator?

I would say no chance. College football is evolving into even more of the "haves" and "have nots" - the big 10 will likely go to 24 teams with pods of 6.

Cal/UCLA/Wash/Ore/USC/Colorado
Nebraska/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa/Ill/Northwestern
MSU/Michigan/Purdue/Indiana/Ohio State
Penn State/Maryland/Rutgers/UVA/UNC/UMiami

and one other.

The pods play within each other every year and rotate to the other pods, home and away. The non-rev sports save on travel and for football, basketball. volleyball etc the end of season tournaments play against the 24 team SEC and those are your general national championships.

Stanford probably will be cleared to join the Big Ten; U Colorado is going to the Big 12.

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

It’s about brand value. No others brands add more value than they would take.

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

No

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

It’s about brand value. No others brands add more value than they would take.

Partially correct.

Conference expansion is about securing the most spots in the highly luctative CFP (college football playoffs).

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

It’s about brand value. No others brands add more value than they would take.

Partially correct.

Conference expansion is about securing the most spots in the highly luctative CFP (college football playoffs).

The teams that will win moving forward are already in the B1G and SEC.

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

It’s about brand value. No others brands add more value than they would take.

Partially correct.

Conference expansion is about securing the most spots in the highly luctative CFP (college football playoffs).

The teams that will win moving forward are already in the B1G and SEC.

The University of Oregon. University of Utah. Clemson. FSU has a strong football culture. U Miami. Notre Dame. The University of Washington is capable of making the playoffs--maybe not consistently, but it is a solid D-1 program.

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

It’s about brand value. No others brands add more value than they would take.

Partially correct.

Conference expansion is about securing the most spots in the highly luctative CFP (college football playoffs).

The teams that will win moving forward are already in the B1G and SEC.

The University of Oregon. University of Utah. Clemson. FSU has a strong football culture. U Miami. Notre Dame. The University of Washington is capable of making the playoffs--maybe not consistently, but it is a solid D-1 program.

ND is the only team either conference would take.

[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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

It’s about brand value. No others brands add more value than they would take.

Partially correct.

Conference expansion is about securing the most spots in the highly luctative CFP (college football playoffs).

The teams that will win moving forward are already in the B1G and SEC.

The University of Oregon. University of Utah. Clemson. FSU has a strong football culture. U Miami. Notre Dame. The University of Washington is capable of making the playoffs--maybe not consistently, but it is a solid D-1 program.

ND is the only team either conference would take.

False.

The Pac 12 TV contract expires in less than 2 years. Both Oregon & Washington are headed to the Big Ten. Stanford & Cal will then follow.

The SEC wants Clemson, FSU, U Miami, and possibly UNC.

[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: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.

There will be switching beneath the SEC/Big 10. No teams are left that would add more value than they would take from existing members upon joining the 2 top conferences.

Clearly, you are stuck in the old revenue model. That changed a couple of years ago. There will be substantial growth in both the SEC & in the Big Ten--probably to 24 teams in each conference.

Remember, this is also about replacing the NCAA oversight.

It’s about brand value. No others brands add more value than they would take.

Partially correct.

Conference expansion is about securing the most spots in the highly luctative CFP (college football playoffs).

The teams that will win moving forward are already in the B1G and SEC.

The University of Oregon. University of Utah. Clemson. FSU has a strong football culture. U Miami. Notre Dame. The University of Washington is capable of making the playoffs--maybe not consistently, but it is a solid D-1 program.

ND is the only team either conference would take.

False.

The Pac 12 TV contract expires in less than 2 years. Both Oregon & Washington are headed to the Big Ten. Stanford & Cal will then follow.

The SEC wants Clemson, FSU, U Miami, and possibly UNC.

False.

[Anonymous]

Fit & athletic quality is going to be secondary to #of cable households for the Big 10. They already got burned by Nebraska.

I live in midwest, where B1G expansion has been a hot topic for decades. For a long time I seem to recall the 2 names that always came up when expansion was discussed were Texas & UNC. So I don’t get the guy who said B1G wasn’t interested in UNC.

Dark horse to Big 10 is Boston College, which would bring in every TV in New England. That’s another one that has been discussed for a long time. It’s easy to scoff at this one, but it must gnaw at their greedy guts to see a cluster 6 states unsullied by B1G slobber.

Re the Stanford athletes are going to get tired on long plane rides. Yeah, cuz these decision makers are sweating whether the swim team gets their beauty sleep.

Kinda cruel how early in the thread the Midwest geography snobs toyed with the slicker who thought Iowa was in Ames. Congrats to whoever finally stepped forward & put a stop to the tormenting by pointing out Iowa is in Iowa City.