Around the Big Ten

[THE_WIZARD_]

You need to stop this you ridiculous reprobate.

AA... wisdom has been chasing you....but you've always been faster....

[AlabamAlum]

You’re a mewling idle-headed puttock. Task me no further.

[iam416]

They would consider Cal and Stanford to try and include the central California San Fran TV market.

I think it’s silly because while SanFran is the #10 TV market in the US there are only 7 people there who follow Cal sports and 9 who follow Stanford sports and that’s only if they aren’t preoccupied with watching hobos shit in the street and shoplift.

It's not a TV market thing any more. Or, rather, it's way less important. It was only a TV market thing when the model was getting the BTN included in cable packages.

Clemson is much, much better than Stanford or Cal.

[AlabamAlum]

The only reason to take Cal would be the SanFran market for negotiating the next conference TV deal. It would a big mistake, though.

[Mike]

It's not a TV market thing any more. Or, rather, it's way less important. It was only a TV market thing when the model was getting the BTN included in cable packages.

Clemson is much, much better than Stanford or Cal.

This is where I'm at. The only thing that matters is BRANDS. Take geographic location, cultural fit, AAU membership, TV markets, traditional rivalries and throw them all out the window. The leagues are run by TV execs and they want to compile as many lucrative properties as possible in order to create big name matchups on a weekly basis.

Take the scenario where the Big Ten goes to 20 teams with Washington and Oregon almost certain to be included. Instead of Cal/Stanford, which would be moronically stupid, say they land FSU and one of Clemson or Miami. The "Big Ten", or the media rights deal known as such, would include:

Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Nebraska
USC
Washington
Oregon
Florida State
Clemson/Miami

UCLA
Wisconsin
Iowa
Michigan State

The top group of teams alone would provide a marquee primetime game for much of the season. Then you mix in the 2nd group and you would still have some pretty cool matchups.

I think other than Washington and Oregon, the ACC is the place to go poaching. FSU is making no bones about how pissed they are. Indiana and Northwestern will make $300M more over the life of FSU's current grant of rights deal with the ACC and the Noles' brass is being very vocal about their disdain for that situation. I think they should be the #1 target for the Big Ten. Offer them a full share from the jump because of their large buyout. If you pry them away it makes landing a Clemson or Miami a little easier.

[iam416]

Right. Consumer options are now way more granular. They don't have to get bundled into oblivion which was the old, detestable model that brought us Maryland and Rutgers. It's all about the games -- and thus the brands. That's it.

The SEC has enough rock solid brands with enough other higher ceiling type brands that they really don't need to add much.

The B10 needs more because no one outside the footprint gives two fucks about any team in the West Division (as currently constituted). OSU, M, PSU and USC give them 4 bedrock brands. UCLA/Sparty/Wisky/Iowa -- maybe 4 higher ceiling brands. They need a few more, IMO.

[THE_WIZARD_]

You need more STFU.

[iam416]

That’s like just your opinion, man

[Mike]

Can't wait for USC at Florida State in a Big Ten showdown!

[THE_WIZARD_]

Some other epic battles....

Cal-Northwestern in The Nerd Bowl

Oregon-FSU in the Free Shoes Bowl

Stanford-Anybody in the Who Gives a Flying Fuck Bowl

[Da Geezer]

Right. Consumer options are now way more granular. They don't have to get bundled into oblivion which was the old, detestable model that brought us Maryland and Rutgers. It's all about the games -- and thus the brands. That's it.

The SEC has enough rock solid brands with enough other higher ceiling type brands that they really don't need to add much.

The B10 needs more because no one outside the footprint gives two fucks about any team in the West Division (as currently constituted). OSU, M, PSU and USC give them 4 bedrock brands. UCLA/Sparty/Wisky/Iowa -- maybe 4 higher ceiling brands. They need a few more, IMO.

Correct

I wonder what the rules are for the B10 to ask Northwestern, Minnesota, Indiana, and Nebraska to leave. or at least cut their share. IMO shares should be apportioned by the quality of the brand. Northwestern adds nothing to the TV appeal of the B10, but FSU and Clemson certainly do.

[Mike]

I wouldn't lump Nebraska in with the dregs of the conference just yet. Anyone over the age of 75 remembers them as a national power.

[THE_WIZARD_]

touche'

[Tom W]

This is where I'm at. The only thing that matters is BRANDS. Take geographic location, cultural fit, AAU membership, TV markets, traditional rivalries and throw them all out the window. The leagues are run by TV execs and they want to compile as many lucrative properties as possible in order to create big name matchups on a weekly basis.

Right. As much as I detest the abandonment of regional conferences and TV execs turning CFB into "NFL Lite", at least a fraction of the blame lies with the schools for stocking tomato cans into their September schedules.

[WingsFan]

Oregon and Washington were identified as the priority targets in the event that the Big Ten seeks to add only two new schools. Cal and Stanford would be next in line if the Big Ten seeks to add four new members and bring its total membership to 20. The Washington Board of Regents is scheduled to conduct a meeting Thursday evening that centers on an executive session "to discuss with counsel present pending or potential litigation." A UW spokesperson, in a statement to the Tacoma News Tribune, said "no action will be taken" during the meeting.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-ten-examining-potential-additions-of-oregon-washington-california-and-stanford-to-conference/