Why? The Big10 just added Rutgers (and Maryland) in 2015.When do we start to see leagues contract underperforming members? I’m sure the Big 10 would love to kick out Rutgers now
Because someone in every conference is going to try to maximize the value of each member in the conference (if you assume that there is an upper bound on how many schools can be in a conference). Schools that were never thought to be possible members have become possible - the geographic (and traditional rivalry/membership) concerns are basically gone.Why? The Big10 just added Rutgers (and Maryland) in 2015.
Doesn’t this go directly against the theory in this thread that the good teams in these leagues want teams they can beat? The strong teams aren’t looking for parity.When do we start to see leagues contract underperforming members? I’m sure the Big 10 would love to kick out Rutgers now
Twenty years ago, when the Big East kicked out Temple?When do we start to see leagues contract underperforming members? I’m sure the Big 10 would love to kick out Rutgers now
Everyone is happy beating up on Vanderbilt and Vanderbilt is happy to be beat up on, but the members are looking for revenue. Right now, there are increases to be had with adding schools. But that will soon reach its limit, and the next way to make the slices of pie bigger will be to cut fewer slices.Doesn’t this go directly against the theory in this thread that the good teams in these leagues want teams they can beat? The strong teams aren’t looking for parity.
I'm not following -- what value does that add to the other SEC schools?Vanderbilt sucks at football but their endowment is 10X that of, for example, Clemson. Not a bad school to have in your league.
Their alums can hire the alums from the other SEC schoolsI'm not following -- what value does that add to the other SEC schools?
This seems like an argument to boot out RutgersExactly.
Also I think that it is generally good to have high-reputation and very financially stable partners. Northwestern and Vanderbilt seem like excellent last-place teams.
Every data point is a reason to kick Rutgers out.This seems like an argument to boot out Rutgers
Once Newsom is done grandstanding and the Regents see what this means financially for UCLA (which has been operating deep in the red forever) and that Berkeley has no path to an invite, everyone will move on and allow this to happen as planned.Back when the news dropped, there were some questions about how all this might affect UC Berkeley and whether that had been taken into account when UCLA bolted. I just recently left UC's system office and had some knowledge, so I made some vague post about how UC's system gives the individual campuses autonomy over athletics matters. But the shitstorm is now public:
https://edsource.org/2022/newsom-says-ucla-owes-explanation-over-its-decision-to-join-big-ten/675746
So, UCLA consulted virtually nobody at the system office and basically none of the non-UCLA-affiliated Regents. The Berkeley alumni community is PISSED. Governor Newsom (who is a UC Regent by virtue of his office) made his first in-person appearance at a Regents meeting in a while just to essentially say "what the fuck?" The Regents have now asked for a review of the impact and will consider whether to claw back authority over future athletics decisions.
I don't think any of this has a chance of unwinding the deal, although I also wouldn't be stunned if UCLA suddenly voluntarily decides to share some of the future B1G TV deal money with Berkeley and maybe also voluntarily commits to playing Berkeley OOC in every sport annually forever until the earthquake comes and claims the state.
Maybe not....https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-evaluating-cal-oregon-stanford-and-washington-from-pac-12-as-further-expansion-considered/Once Newsom is done grandstanding and the Regents see what this means financially for UCLA (which has been operating deep in the red forever) and that Berkeley has no path to an invite, everyone will move on and allow this to happen as planned.
How do college sports teams travel these days?It’s beyond ridiculous now.
After UCLA puts 300 people on a red eye to play Rutgers in a parking lot in front of 19000 people in Piscataway, get back to me about how this is all about education snd these athletes are students first.
Pre-pandemic I ran into the BC softball team sitting in a gate in Raleigh-Durham airport, buying bags of Funyuns and Bugles in Hudson News like everyone else, so yeah.How do college sports teams travel these days?
I’m sure P5 football teams fly charter. The difference between a 2-hour charter and a 6-hour charter might matter to old farts like us, but it’s not a big deal for college kids.
I have to think that Olympic sports fly commercial though. That’s going to be a lot of long flights for the UCLA and USC teams. Rutgers isn’t even the worst of it — how the fuck do you get to Champaign or State College from LAX?
Yeah, I think this is the real issueHow do college sports teams travel these days?
I’m sure P5 football teams fly charter. The difference between a 2-hour charter and a 6-hour charter might matter to old farts like us, but it’s not a big deal for college kids.
I have to think that Olympic sports fly commercial though. That’s going to be a lot of long flights for the UCLA and USC teams. Rutgers isn’t even the worst of it — how the fuck do you get to Champaign or State College from LAX?
It sounds like you're thinking about the NCAA as the league and the conferences as the divisions rather than the conferences as the leagues and the divisions as the divisions. The NCAA is not in a position to organize the schools geographically. This is more analogous to when the Giants and Dodgers moved west.Pro leagues with players getting paid millions don’t submit their players to this kind of travel- divisions exist precisely to make as many road-trips as possible, as reasonable as possible
I think you're not being creative enoughI believe that under UC policy in effect at the time, this can't be "killed" by Newsom/the Regents (maybe by UCLA itself, not sure what it signed). But UCLA could be strong-armed into giving up some of the money. And in particular, I wouldn't expect the Regents to sign off on Jarmond's next round of incentive payments.
The Regents could shut down the move without even resorting to games like that. But they are not going to want to actually stop this.I think you're not being creative enough
The UC Regents could absolutely do things that completely screw UCLA over with (and would essentially force the athletic dept to pull out of) this decision (e.g., cracking down on gaming the 'does travel time count as team/practice time' rules ala https://www.2adays.com/blog/flaws-of-the-20-hour-rule/ , or putting UC-specific rules in place about requiring chartered flights for travel above X time).
If the UCLA athletics dept wants to play rule lawyer about 'well technically we can do this unilaterally', I see zero problem with UC's Regents implementing policies to ensure that 'student athletes' maintain proper ability to succeed academically
On the one hand, yes, absolutely.Seeing that it's college football 100% driving this bus, wouldn't it make sense to uncouple football from every other sport and go back to more sensible conferences for the rest of the sports to increase the likelihood of geographic rivalries and limit costs for travel for the other sports while creating these megaconferences solely for football?
View: https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1556825650559721472In 2020, ESPN paid $300M a year for the No. 1 game currently on CBS. In 2022, CBS is reportedly paying $350M a year for, at best, No. 2 Big Ten game to fill that spot. There is no inflation quite like sports TV rights inflation.
Not to derail the thread, but more prime time NBC games means more start time delays for new SNL episodes, which drives the olds like me crazy. I'm sure Lorne Michaels doesn't like it either, but football rules the TV universe.Someday sports rights will go down but not anytime soon. The Big 10 is about to sign their tv deals and will be getting over 1 billion a year. Looks like FOX will have a noon game. CBS the 3:30 and NBC a prime time game. And as of now ESPN will be out of the Big 10. Potentially good news for The PAC and Big 12 as ESPN will need some content. I would think despite the money the Big 10 basketball programs won’t be thrilled with no ESPN coverage.
One mIchigan gameThat deal to me makes it seem Big 10 expansion isn't done. I don't see how they cal fill 3 national OTA games a week with that money without a ND or something.
Preseason. Unless they're killing a precon game.One mIchigan game
One Ohio state game
One Iowa or Penn state game
That was announced back in Dec '20.ESPN now gets the 3:30 SEC game?
Out of conference?Preseason. Unless they're killing a precon game.
ESPN has pulled out of Big Ten media rights negotiations entirely, ending one of the longest sports media relationships in the business. That move clears the way for CBS and NBC to join Fox Sports as Big Ten broadcasters starting with the 2023-24 school year. A formal announcement could come as early as this week. It could push into next week. As part of the deal terms, CBS is expected to carry a football game in the 3:30pm ET window on Saturdays, and NBC would carry one in primetime. NBC’s Peacock streaming service will carry an undetermined number of games per year exclusively. Peacock also will simulcast the games that air on NBC. ESPN said no to the conference’s final offer of a seven-year deal, sources said. That package was for linear-only games and did not have any direct-to-consumer rights. ESPN execs believed that they would have had to pay upwards of $380M per year to keep the package, which was much higher than they were willing to go.
It's normally the home team. So I'd assume Texas in 2023 and Michigan in 2027.Who has rights to the Michigan Texas game?