Conference Realignment
- Thread starter BulldogBillyCrash
- Start date
I don’t hate it, but man that seems like a pain in the *** logistically. Would make a lot of sense if it was 4 teams (Oregon & Stanford?) along with USC and UCLA.
I wonder if we’ll see some crossover between the leftover B12 and P12.
I wonder if we’ll see some crossover between the leftover B12 and P12.
Here’s a thought. To maintain at least some semblance of tradition…we should consider having the Big10 West Champ play the Big10 East Champ in a Big10 Championship Game that kicks off at 2pm pacific time on New Year’s Day at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.
I didn't see this happening in any way, shape or form in the immediate future. I don't see why either team needs this. They can already go out and play a big OOC game any time they want.
I was also dead wrong about Texas and Oklahoma. So whoever is making these decisions is absolutely not thinking like me (I firmly believe my thinking is in the best interest of college football). Quick money grabs.
I was also dead wrong about Texas and Oklahoma. So whoever is making these decisions is absolutely not thinking like me (I firmly believe my thinking is in the best interest of college football). Quick money grabs.
Last edited:
They don’t need it. They want it. They are off loading small market teams who don’t drive much tv value (Oregon State, Stanford, Washington State, etc.) to join a league with many more big market teams (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, etc.). USC and UCLA and the rest of the Big 10 make more money. The Pac12 teams left behind make significantly less money. This is the same logic behind Texas/Oklahoma moves to the SEC.
this is 100% tv revenue driven, both are in LA area, so +18.5M (% of those that subscribe to TV with ESPN) Big 10 Network subscribers instantly.
I would guess about 10M new monthly subs of Big 10 network at approx $2.50/month ($30/year) so thats +$30M / year
I would guess about 10M new monthly subs of Big 10 network at approx $2.50/month ($30/year) so thats +$30M / year
Rumor is they are trying to get to 20 teams. They are courting Notre Dame with the addition of USC. If the SEC decided to expand to 20 teams, what 4 teams would you like to see added? I’d prefer to add 5 and send Mizzou to the Big Ten but that’s probably not possible. I’d like to see all of the rivals join the conference: Oklahoma State, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Louisville.
17ing Rutgers and UCLA in the same “conference”. This has gotten so comical. College football has become a walking punchline.
I've always seen Georgia Tech as a great opportunity for the B1G. I don't think GT really cares anymore, but they are in ATL, have the academic pedigree and add a huge recruiting and TV footprint. So that's 17, I'd probably try and add Oregon, Washington and North Carolina.
If I'm SEC, FSU and Clemson are always attractive for football quality. I wouldn't have a problem with the Pokes and Ville but not sure what they add except that L'ville adds a pretty good city. I'd guess they try to get into NC and VA myself.
It's what happens when a bunch of selfish baby boomers just continually go after the short-term money grabs with ABSOLUTELY no forethought about the general value of the sport. Just straight up reaction to the current market, over and over again.
College football (and all sports in a way) used to be about representing a city, state, region, whatever. That was the beauty of it. And that is just gone now.
I'd like to see Miami and Ok state added along with Fla. State and UNC. If you get rid of mizzou add Clemson in their place.
It seems we are moving towards having 2 power conferences. I don’t think it’s a terrible idea but just ahead and rip the bandaid off and do it. Make it somewhat like the NFL and have two conferences with divisions within. But the lack of leadership and structure in college football is killing peoples interest in it
Imagine being the UCLA women’s tennis team who suddenly has to make back-to-back weekend flights to away matches at Rutgers and Penn State. What a joke.
There's no real "movement" or even a general plan. It's just sort of happening. Consolidation of power, because there's zero regulation, never really has been, in football. Nobody was really thinking about where they want it to go, and how to preserve the greatness of it. And you can't really go back to any one point, because it's been going on forever, but to me it was fine until the Nebraska/Texas A&M/Mizzou departures. That signaled the end. Playoff came after that, and since then the decline has been exponential.
Now don't hear me wrong, I'm not saying the playoff is bad, or any potential conference is bad. But the system was still great until that point. But ideally the NCAA would have fixed the situation back in the 80s.
Last edited:
I don’t see the SEC adding teams that don’t bring anything new from a TV market perspective. So I don’t see any of those teams being helpful in that regard. If the sec expands, I’d expect someone like Virginia, North Carolina
College sports started dying in the late 2000s when Nebraska, A&M, Mizzou, Colorado started flirting with leaving the Big 12. That was the first domino to fall into this pit of chaos
UCLA vs. Rutgers is now a conference matchup. Or USC vs. Maryland...that'll put butts in the seats.
God help the olympic sports. I can't imagine having to fly a volleyball or basketball team 5 hours cross country for a Wednesday night matchup.
God help the olympic sports. I can't imagine having to fly a volleyball or basketball team 5 hours cross country for a Wednesday night matchup.
Universities are just following the lead of the athletes and coaches, going to where they can get the best deal.
Whether it's on rabbit ears, cable, or streaming - folks tend to watch the local college team.
The medium doesn't dictate what viewers in a given market are most interested to watch. This... isn't complicated.
I'm fairly certain the Rose Bowl was probably in the know here, considering we're talking about two LA schools.
Either way, this is going to cease to exist as a Pac-12/Big Ten deal. It's going to be a part of the expanded playoff.
Tell us you’re an idiot without telling us you’re an idiot**
It does not matter if someone is watching espn on direct tv or you tube tv, the SEC is able to provide ESPN a more valuable product if there are more viewers in more locations. So adding Georgia tech would not really be accretive to the sec’s current network because of Georgia. However, adding North Carolina brings Charlotte and Raleigh markets.
It does not really matter how people are consuming the product. Do you think espn cares if someone is watching a game on streaming or a cable provider?
There’s some truth here. As cable platforms have fragmented - this is becoming more about “eyeballs” than strictly Nielsen ratings.
The numbers I posted are in response to the quote I also posted that cable is dead
And Utah, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington. And I'd be regretting bringing in UCF, Cincy, Houston and BYU.
I'm a big USC fan but I'll admit to not following them that close the last couple of years. I had heard a few rumbles but I dismissed it a lunatic fringe stuff. Those flights from LA to Newark for midweek games are going to suck for basketball, but at least USC and UCLA can afford to probably do it fairly well, for all their sports. Think about the flights from Newark to LAX for the Rutgers mens gymnastic team. Those 6am flights for a Thursday evening meet and the red eye back, on a commercial flight, in basic economy, are going to suck.
If you want to get to the real root of this it's two things: 1) The west coast is increasingly pro sports oriented. 2) the structure of the PAC 12 network is absolutely STUPID. It's a horrible product.
If you want to get to the real root of this it's two things: 1) The west coast is increasingly pro sports oriented. 2) the structure of the PAC 12 network is absolutely STUPID. It's a horrible product.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.