Why not?
That gives them the late night slot they need.
They don’t need anything else.
Because there isn’t enough inventory. If those two teams are down you have no inventory.
It becomes the late night Longhorn Network.
They already have the biggest TV contract as is.
No need to add more.
Obviously their current mix with only two on the West Coast is optimal.
Only ND would TRULY add value.
It doesn’t mean it couldn’t be bigger.
It is not the money per se, it is the need for inventory.
Two teams aren’t enough.
1 Like
The B1G thus far has said otherwise.
Thus far they have, hence forth I am sure they will say something different.
We’ll see.
They got what they wanted, it was just a rushed dumb ego-fueled move UNLESS they plan to add a western wing which they may be forced to now.
Either that, OR all they really wanted was to a) answer the SEC expansion with one of their own, b) add the two biggest brands (football and basketball wise respectively) on the West Coast, c) get them a filler for that late night time slot, and d) in doing all of the above, ensure that they remained on top as far as TV money goes.
Given that their subsequent actions suggest that MY explanation as to what they want…which does NOT include your “adding a Western wing” hypothesis… is correct…I stand by it.
This, in turn, seems to make further West Coast expansion by the B1G unlikely.
If they absolutely were going to expand, they would have expanded last year. It’s entirely possible they do expand in the further at a later date.
“Let’s wait and see how it goes” is a pretty reasonable course of action here. Nobody really knows how it’s going to go.
1 Like
To be clear, the B1G likely doesn’t care whether UCLA is losing money – that’s a budget question, not a brand one. The biggest brands in the world can lose money if they outspend their earnings. (And they often do! check Amazon’s net income for last year.)
I don’t think the B1G had any intention of expanding at the given time. But, when USC and UCLA called, YOU TAKE THE CALL!! UCLA making $$$ is irrelevant to the B1G, it’s the schools that have to deal with it, not the conference. How many major sports championships has the PAC won that were not USC or UCLA? How many Heismans? It’s a really short list, two.
In terms of pedigree, it would be like Michigan and Ohio State calling the SEC. The SEC has said they’re done expanding for now, but if UM and OSU call, they’re getting in. Markets matter, but not like they did once. Brand matters more now.
Oregon is Phil Knight’s toy. Phil is old and not around much longer. When he’s no longer with us, let’s see if Oregon reverts to their proverbial doormat status before Phil started pumping money in.
Washington has had a couple of periods of prosperity, back when Warren Moon was playing and a few years ago, but that’s been it.
Brand is important, its why UH is in the Big-12 and Rice is not.
Market is essential.
Did the Big-12 get a large market when it added TCU?
Did the Big-10 get large markets when it added Rutgers and Maryland?
Did the PAC add OU and OSU in spite of OU’s brand?
Did the SEC add a large market when it added UOT?
Did the Big-10 add a big market when it added USC and UCLA?
Did the Big-12 add big markets when it addied BYU, UC, UCF, & UH?
Did the AAC add only large markets?
Brand is important but market size is decisive. Media companies want viewers, Advertisers want populations. That combination provides money to conferences.
Name the schools added that are not in a large markets.
As an exception, Notre Dame proves the rule.
1 Like
OU has never been a member of the Pac, and UO and OSU were founding members of the Pac-8, so I’m not sure what this is about.
Further, the AAC added ECU and Tulsa, which certainly are not large market schools.
No, OU (Oklahoma) and OSU (Okie State) were not added to the PAC - despite OU’s Top 10 brand.
And the AAC is not a P5 league so it seems to me that talking about their weaker additions isn’t very relevant to the current discussion of brands vs market area reach. Bottom line is both are important!
1 Like
Brand and market are essentially a sliding scale. If your brand is big enough, the market is not as important (though it likely impacts one or more major markets, i.e. much of Notre Dame’s following is in the northeast, not just Indiana/Chicago). If you are in a large market, your brand can be grown (i.e. UCF, TCU, UH, etc.) enough to justify inclusion in an autonomous conference.
1 Like
OU has a great brand but its market is small. OU and OSU attempted to join the PAC, they were rejected. The PAC would not benefit from their small market.
If UT and another school attempted to join the PAC they probably would have been accepted. The PAC wanted UT. The PAC would have gained a large market.
1 Like
In the B1G there are MANY schools that are not in large markets, mostly because they are “charter” members.
Case in point. My grad school alma mater Illinois. Urbana-Champaign is located in the middle of nowhere, about three hours from Chicago, up near the Indiana border.
Purdue? West Lafayette, Ind.
Indiana? Bloomington
Michigan State? East Lansing.
Penn State? STATE COLLEGE, Pa.
Even Ohio State…Columbus, OH isn’t exactly a small market, but it’s not a big market either. But their BRAND SIZE…is HUMONGOUS!!!
Hell, look at the SEC.
MANY of its members aren’t located in large markets…but their brand size in many cases is HUGE!!! Look at the top 25 college football brands.
MANY of them are SEC or B1G schools located in small town/college towns. In the case of the SEC, many are located in relatively small towns in states with relatively small populations. Think Alabama, Ole Miss. etc. But their BRANDS…are GINORMOUS!!! THAT’S what matters!!!
Just think…OU and aTm!!! Located in small towns, but HUMONGOUS football brands with HUGE fan followings!!!
I realize that most of the schools I mentioned do have a large number of alumni and fans that live in big cities/large markets nearby or within those states.
But the are NOT…LOCATED in large markets. That DOESN’T MATTER the way that many people here insist that it does. It’s the brand…which dictates their FAN FOLLOWING that is most important now. That fan following/brand size, thanks to STREAMING MEDIA is decisive. Doesn’t matter where your school is located so much anymore. It’s which schools have the best brands with either the largest fan following…OR the type of program strength pedigree that will quickly generate large fan following and interest, that matter. That is what is going to get people to TUNE IN, regardless of media source.
Now then, it’s interesting that you bring up ND.
Why?
Because even assuming, just for argument’s sake, that you are right about “markets” being decisive…can you guess which school has the largest fan following in the huge…CHICAGO market?
Yuck Yuck Yuck…YOU GUESSED IT!!!
NOTRE DAME…which is located only a few hours away.
Their fan following in the Windy City far exceeds that of local P5 Northwestern or the nearest P5 state flagship: Illinois.
But then again…their fan following NATIONALLY…IS HUMONGOUS!!!
Easily the biggest in college football in terms of “subway” alumni. And they tune in to watch games, whether on TV or by streaming media ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. It’s that BRAND that drives that fan following, not the Chicago market, per se.
As I said, BRANDS are decisive today, NOT markets.
If we’ve said it once…we’ve said it a thousand dang times.
Markets were “decisive” (as you would say)…10 or 15 years ago when cable TV subscriptions and number of TV sets were everything in media negotiations.
They are NOT “decisive” today.
BRANDS are decisive today, thanks to streaming media and other factors.
As I said, if markets were decisive, then Rice, Temple, Tulane, and Georgia State would all be in the P5.
Obviously markets are NOT decisive, because those schools are not…nor will they likely ever be during our lifetimes, in the P5. If SMU makes it into the PAC, then it’ll show just how DESPERATE the PAC is.
Gang,
This is a DAMNING Op-Ed on the PAC…from a very MAINSTREAM news source.
1 Like