I don’t think conferences will determine a university’s academic standing. It seems that Chicago, Emory, Colorado School of Mines, Harvard, Princeton, etc. haven’t been kicked to the curb academically because they aren’t in power conferences.
Former Commish Warren of B1G on record saying they could expand to 20 teams at some point. Flugaur saids it could go to 24.
Don’t you think that’s heavy on a relative basis? The whole issue with the PAC wasn’t the programs, but the fact they they had no national exposure and therefore could not fully realize their value. Why would you do this again?
Warren is a commissioner.
Greg Fluglaur is a journalist.
1 Like
PAC-12 didn’t have exposure because it had awful TV contracts, including ZERO DirecTV representation, which is majority of Bars.
Inviting Stanford and SDSU doesn’t bring that problem because Big12 has much better exposure plus On-demand upside with ESPN+.
6/20 or 6/24 isn’t overkill.
I’m also not the one saying to invite Stanford. Im saying if you do, you should further solidify reach in California with a growing brand in an ideal market size with an elite recruiting base competitive historically & recently in 3 major sports WITHOUT large conference exposure and resources.
2 Likes
Believe what you will about Flugaur the man is plugged into the B1G happenings. Said the OU and UW were coming to the B1G months ago they did. Said Stanford and Cal are not coming to B1G anytime soon, I believe him.
I guess its possible that the top 2 conferences go to 24 schools but eventually it becomes financially untenable to expand…money will be the limiting factor.
1 Like
McMurphy reported that B1G were vetting Oregon and Washington a year ago. Oregon/Washington to the B1G was already thing for a year now. The fact of the matter was the financial side of things, not if they fit or not.
Anyone can assume Stanford and Cal aren’t going to the B1G anytime soon. Both the B1G and SEC are most likely not making anymore moves until the ACC implodes
Man, you are contradicting yourself.
Do you want competitive programs? Then why not a top-10 in Football and Basketball Southern California school with a history of baseball success?
Because they haven’t been P5? That makes their success even more impressive and all the more reason to feed them resources and exposure given market, state affiliation, and recruiting upside for power 3 Men’s and women’s sports (Football/Basketball/Baseball and Volleyball/Basketball/Softball) and not to mention Golf.
2 Likes
I’ve said nothing bad about SDSU.
What im telling you is the contractual fact that ESPN/FOX will not add a G5 team because it would dilute / hinder the available revenue to the P5 teams.
The escalator clause only applies to P5 teams, not G5 which is why Houston, UCF, Cincy and BYU aren’t getting full shares until 2025. Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah will get full shares right away.
Houston, UCF and Cincy got extremely lucky here. It can be argued that the Big 12 would have had the fate that the PAC 12 did should the have not invited us last year, but they did and it’s why the Big 12 is alive.
SDSU isn’t in that predicament. Adding them to any conference would benefit them for than it does the overall conference.
Fair enough. Im going off the reports that ESPN wants more PST game options and I think SDSU would be a cheap add because they don’t need to demand a full share, because they are used to 4 million per from TV.
4 Likes
SDSU isn’t going to pay their 30 million exit fee and travel across the country just to get a permanent reduced share.
Houston, Cincinnati, and BYU specifically had geographical advantages to join the Big 12. UCF not really geographical, but the Florida market and recruiting bed is much more valuable than what SDSU provides. Not saying SDSU is bad, but I’m just telling you truth.
Also - keep in mind that the escalator clause to add P5 teams at full share ends at the end of this year. We most likely don’t renegotiate the media deal unless a big event happens like the ACC imploding. I’m not even entirely sure how we would add Stanford at this point, but Stanford despite their lack of athletic success is still more valuable due to academics alone because it would help the overall conference attract high quality ACC schools.
1 Like
We’ve already discussed this.
That exit fee can be negotiated down.
And they can borrow against future earnings to pay it off over time. This is done frequently.
You can easily bring them in at half share and they can use half their share to operate and half it to pay off the exit fee over 4-5 years.
1 Like
JM I think they might have a problem - media guys. They’d love to have the current collection on linear. I don’t know if that would be true for Stanford vs SDSU (and no one will watch it guaranteed). Sounds like they’re back where they started.
As you’ve seen from my views, would love to have Stanford, but not San Diego, amazing as they might be. Stanford’s huge value is being relevant across the country in a way they could not be confined to a regional network.
And that’s the issue with pro-rata thoughts about network distribution, which is what you brought up. That’s not how the population works, which is clearly skewed east. There literally was a market arbitrage going on and the PAC didn’t see it unfortunately. Otherwise they would have remedied it, I.e very aggressive expansion into other time zones.
I promise you that will never happen, and SDSU isn’t at the luxury to really negotiate in their favor. Any negotiation would have to favor the conference.
It still dilutes the available revenue for the current Big 12 teams.
It doesn’t matter. SDSU is never getting into the Big 12. If we add any G5 team going forward, it’s going to be basketball only schools like UConn or Gonzaga.
The people that watch the games on TV don’t give a flip about the academic standing of the teams, they are interested in good games and football or basketball standing. The networks are interested in how many eyeballs they will pull.
1 Like
Cal…
Do you think the networks care about Rutgers or Maryland or Northwestern?
Stanford does not pull eyeballs obviously, but it would add to the conference’s overall academic reputation which could help attract top tier schools from the ACC.
1 Like
They were interested in the east coast market where there are concentrations of eyeballs.
Fair enough, but you could argue the reverse that if the B1G no longer cares about the market that Rutgers and Maryland brings, then it shouldn’t be the sole factor for an elite of the elite institution like Stanford