Bigger acquisition Texas/Oklahoma or USC/UCLA
- Thread starter bowlhawk
- Start date
I mean.......one of those things at least kind of makes sense. Not to mention that one is what led to the other.
It’s all about tv $$.
Can we give nebraska back?
Pretty good to have the LA marketing to go along with NY and Chicago markets. Pretty big TV money coming I'm sure.
Some are estimating it at $100 million/yr/school.
Fyi - acc is app $35.
This. many just look at the athletic-academic sides of a program but the mind-boggling TV money is also looked at. With the Los Angeles market added, the B1G now have the 4 biggest TV markets in the country in their footprint and a ton of others in the top 35 or so - by far more than any other conference. Here's a link that lists the top TV markets
Top 100 Television Markets - Station Index
The largest 100 television markets in the United States.
www.stationindex.com
I think the Nebraska brass are the only people who think sticking it out in the Big Ten is still worth it, just because of the money and their desperate desire to cling to their waning relevance.
Even their own fans are about ready to be done with the Big Ten. And in all honesty, I think the best move they could make right now, is to slide back over to the Big 12, even though they risk finding out the hard way just how much clout they've lost since their glory days.
Once Texas and Oklahoma leave, that will put the new Big 12 up for grabs and would be the perfect opportunity for a school like Nebraska to capitalize, if they still cared about that (which as we've established, those in charge in Lincoln do not anymore, deep down).
Oh and for those wondering, the Big 12 can easily fill in another school, or several if the Pac 12 outcasts come calling, in order to even out their numbers.
Nebraska leaving would also allow Notre Dame to come into the Big Ten without forcing the conference to get even more crowded by adding another team to make it 18 or 20 or whatever it's gonna be once this nonsense with the Pac 12 is done.
(but really the main thing is we need to trade Nebraska for Notre Dame
)Don't just look at the programs - also consider the massive West Coast TV money - in particular Los Angeles........there's no comparison. The B1G is absolutely dwarfing the SEC in this area
One is a contiguous addition of two blue bloods in college football crazy states.
The other is two remote teams, one that is a blue blood when playing well, in a state that doesn’t really care about college football.
The other is two remote teams, one that is a blue blood when playing well, in a state that doesn’t really care about college football.
Pac 10 had a crappy tv deal to begin with. Thus the move by usc and ucla.I think the Nebraska brass are the only people who think sticking it out in the Big Ten is still worth it, just because of the money and their desperate desire to cling to their waning relevance.
Even their own fans are about ready to be done with the Big Ten. And in all honesty, I think the best move they could make right now, is to slide back over to the Big 12, even though they risk finding out the hard way just how much clout they've lost since their glory days.
Once Texas and Oklahoma leave, that will put the new Big 12 up for grabs and would be the perfect opportunity for a school like Nebraska to capitalize, if they still cared about that (which as we've established, those in charge in Lincoln do not anymore, deep down).
Oh and for those wondering, the Big 12 can easily fill in another school, or several if the Pac 12 outcasts come calling, in order to even out their numbers.
Nebraska leaving would also allow Notre Dame to come into the Big Ten without forcing the conference to get even more crowded by adding another team to make it 18 or 20 or whatever it's gonna be once this nonsense with the Pac 12 is done.
(but really the main thing is we need to trade Nebraska for Notre Dame
If you think boise state and san diego state will move the needle i have some land i’d like to sell you.
for sheer numbers of fans - texas and oklahoma. Just not nearly as much to do in okieland or most of texas than california.
For media markets - easily USC / UCLA.
For national interest - easily USC / UCLA Pits the midwest and east against the west coast every single week. Like bowl games all season long! A fan's saturday dream.
For demographics, targeting more wealthy and influential audiences - easily USC / UCLA. It's like the difference between advertising during NASCAR versus The Masters or Wimbledon. Dollar General versus Target. Kia versus Tesla.
For research and academic prestige - easily USC/UCLA. Two of the leading universities in the country. A level above OU and UT.
For media markets - easily USC / UCLA.
For national interest - easily USC / UCLA Pits the midwest and east against the west coast every single week. Like bowl games all season long! A fan's saturday dream.
For demographics, targeting more wealthy and influential audiences - easily USC / UCLA. It's like the difference between advertising during NASCAR versus The Masters or Wimbledon. Dollar General versus Target. Kia versus Tesla.
For research and academic prestige - easily USC/UCLA. Two of the leading universities in the country. A level above OU and UT.
Big Ten now has the major time zones covered. Early day football all the way into late night.
But Texas adds everything. I voted for those two only because of Texas. They make money that no other school can.
Sounds like you'd be trying to sell me back the land I already sold to you........
The sec already had a presence in the state of Texas. Texas joining enhances that but not as much as the big gets from so cal market.
USC and UCLA are the bluest of blue-bloods in football and college basketball respectively. They're from a rich region of media markets, recruiting, and have rich athletic and academic traditions. Their conference has held them back so badly, not even just from a financial standpoint, but a competitive standpoint, and the atmosphere in that conference is bad. Now they'll be facing Ohio State, Iowa, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, etc. Worthy opponents that bring their A game and bring fans in droves. It is the jolt those institutions badly needed. Long term these are schools that are capable of matching the financial impact of Texas and Oklahoma as long as their donors are made to care - they have plenty of billionaires and rich alums to go hat-in-hand to.
The big thing that just can't be underestimated is that USC/UCLA are bringing LA to the fold. That market is going to care a lot more about B1G football now, and you're going to see the media there start to talk about and even cheerlead this conference. Its a massive coup. Texas in general is a great state and market, but don't forget, they are a state with divided loyalties and transplants to a much higher degree than California will be for the B1G. LA is a much more national media presence than anything right now in Texas too.
Texas basically is equivalent from a relevancy standpoint, but doesn't bring good football tradition if we're being honest. Oklahoma does bring that, but thats the only thing they really have- and they just lost their coach and best recruits to USC. Oklahoma is probably looking at turning into a glorified Arkansas long-term in that conference. Oklahoma really doesn't bring forth good academics, media markets, or good recruiting grounds. Lastly, long-term, Texas may not be the financial powerhouse that it is now, a huge number of their whale donors are oil men, some of which are dying off and that industry probably doesn't have much of a future past 2030 or so.
The big thing that just can't be underestimated is that USC/UCLA are bringing LA to the fold. That market is going to care a lot more about B1G football now, and you're going to see the media there start to talk about and even cheerlead this conference. Its a massive coup. Texas in general is a great state and market, but don't forget, they are a state with divided loyalties and transplants to a much higher degree than California will be for the B1G. LA is a much more national media presence than anything right now in Texas too.
Texas basically is equivalent from a relevancy standpoint, but doesn't bring good football tradition if we're being honest. Oklahoma does bring that, but thats the only thing they really have- and they just lost their coach and best recruits to USC. Oklahoma is probably looking at turning into a glorified Arkansas long-term in that conference. Oklahoma really doesn't bring forth good academics, media markets, or good recruiting grounds. Lastly, long-term, Texas may not be the financial powerhouse that it is now, a huge number of their whale donors are oil men, some of which are dying off and that industry probably doesn't have much of a future past 2030 or so.
Exactly. Texas is legislating themselves into less and less relevance. Same with Florida and the rest of the SEC. Christian Talibanland.
Was this a trick question? Nothing but steers and queers in Oklahoma...and Texas...well...Texas is Texas. I love Austin...but I don't think Austin belongs in Texas because it's actually full of normal people and it's really cool...everything else in Texas is a mess. Anywhere Ted Cruz lives is off limits.
The UCLA / USC membership is the deal of the century. Huge TV market...incredible traditions and history...they will elevate so many of the B10 programs because you have to get better to compete. I'm not talking about Football, Basketball, and Wrestling...but pretty much everything else.
The UCLA / USC membership is the deal of the century. Huge TV market...incredible traditions and history...they will elevate so many of the B10 programs because you have to get better to compete. I'm not talking about Football, Basketball, and Wrestling...but pretty much everything else.
With the addition of USC and UCLA the tv market is going to be huge. Th BIG not only gets the LA market but a rising share of the west coast market. Also look for a rising share of the KC and STL markets. Also recruiting budgets will have to get bigger to encompass a much bigger recruiting map.
Recruiting budgets won’t increase much. These guys can’t travel much more than they do already.
BirdistheWord
HR Heisman
I can see the argument that USC/UCLA provide more of a bump RELATIVE to where they are landing. The B1G has struggled to add much of anything meaningful for football since Penn State almost 30 years ago. USC honestly has not done much since Pete Carroll, but is primed to get back in the limelight. UCLA is not currently a true blue blood, but are getting close again. The B1G needs some more sizzle, which these two should provide.
As for Texas and OU, they are both powerful and each have tons of potential. OU has been incredible consistent and almost always inthe CFP discussion. OU, while having to navigate the Lincoln Riley departure, will be fine. But I do believe they will be an upper middle of the pack team in the SEC, given how ultra competitive it is. Texas certainly has underachieved for the past 15+ years, and likely will not sniff the top of the heap in the SEC but they should be competitive, and hell, it might light a bit of a fire into that program. They have all the advantages to be elite.
I will say that the oil comment is a bit misguided, as Texas (the state at least) has the MOST FORTUNE 500 company headquarters of any state. More than CA and NY (not by much, will admit, its like 53, 51 and 50 IIRC). But the point is that the Texas economy continues to diversify and rely less on oil and gas. UT will have plenty of wealthy donors from different industries for many years to come.
BirdistheWord
HR Heisman
Yeah, thats why people keep pouring into both states (from other states).
I'd say Texas-Oklahoma. If UCLA could get back to their top 15 days in college football it would make a huge difference. Their other athletic programs seem to do just fine.
I'm very curious if OU would be included in that jump if they hadn't snagged Bob Stoops from our grasp in 98. Hard to tell but they were not good most of the 90's and he brought them right back to elite status almost instantly. The wrong hire there and they might be a lot more like okie st or even nebraska these days. Nebraska was clearly the way better program when he took over in Norman. Stoops will always be the one that got away for me
Edit: Nebraska still would probably be a decent program had they stayed in that powder puff b12 so maybe a bad comparison
Last edited:
Damn there is something seriously wrong with you. You need to get help
Texas and Oklahoma are in sport crazy states. Los Angeles doesn't care about college sports anymore.
Massive amounts of homeless people: Tie between LA and Austin
Attendance: LOL Texas/Oklahoma.
TV Markets: Los Angeles is huge. However, Texas has Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin. Look at the current largest 15 cities in the US. Might be some surprises on there.
I am interested in the recruits in California that have been streaming to the SEC like crazy the last few years. Will the Big 10 pick up some of these recruits. Hint: They like playing in front of large, loud crowds in states that care about football.
Massive amounts of homeless people: Tie between LA and Austin
Attendance: LOL Texas/Oklahoma.
TV Markets: Los Angeles is huge. However, Texas has Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin. Look at the current largest 15 cities in the US. Might be some surprises on there.
I am interested in the recruits in California that have been streaming to the SEC like crazy the last few years. Will the Big 10 pick up some of these recruits. Hint: They like playing in front of large, loud crowds in states that care about football.
If USC leads to Notre Dame in the BigTen, then the answer is USC/UCLA. If not, then I think it’s a toss up. I’d be shocked if this California move is all the BigTen has planned here.
Oklahoma ... in most recent history has been one of the more regular faces contending for playoff championships. As a proven commodity that way ... they are the "biggest" acquisition.
In terms of zeal of fans, market value, and all that ... it is really hard to beat Texas. However, as a legitimate football contender ... the Longhorns are arguably just as dysfunctional as Auburn (if not moreso).
In the 2000s, with Pete Carroll at the helm, USC was a juggernaut ... not too unlike our contemporary Saban-led Crimson Tide.
UCLA is quite the enigma - some years they can be quite good. However, quite regularly they also hang up some really "stinker" seasons.
There actually is a decent amount of football talent that southern California schools can tap into ... so with the right folks at the helm ... either of those program could be quite good.
In terms of zeal of fans, market value, and all that ... it is really hard to beat Texas. However, as a legitimate football contender ... the Longhorns are arguably just as dysfunctional as Auburn (if not moreso).
In the 2000s, with Pete Carroll at the helm, USC was a juggernaut ... not too unlike our contemporary Saban-led Crimson Tide.
UCLA is quite the enigma - some years they can be quite good. However, quite regularly they also hang up some really "stinker" seasons.
There actually is a decent amount of football talent that southern California schools can tap into ... so with the right folks at the helm ... either of those program could be quite good.
On the flip side ... in terms of acquisitions ... UCLA and USC definition will lend a lot of interest. There is a lot of Rose Bowl history there ... between those teams and their B1G foes. That will lead to some really fun matchups.
I think that folks could look at the addition of UCLA and USC and claim that it will help strengthen the B1G west. Furthermore, folks will argue that USC might be able to waltz in and contend for the division.
In contrast, where is Texas and Oklahoma going to land in terms of "divisions" in the SEC? Texas doesn't have a prayer to contend. The only good thing about their addition there is the revival of their rivalry with Texas A&M. If Oklahoma gets pitted in the SEC East ... then they might have a shot to contend for their division. However, Lincoln Riley's exit from Oklahoma makes the future of Oklahoma seem on thinner ice than some might guess. He seemed to think that USC was a more attractive landing spot than OU.
If you look at the current state of programs ... USC has Lincoln Riley ... still considered one of the "risers" in the coaching world. If you look at UCLA ... they have Chip Kelly ... a guy who was perceived as a mastermind during his time at Oregon.
OU currently has a pretty unproven guy in Venables ... he's never been a P5 head coach before. Could work out ... could turn out to be pretty bad. Texas has Sarkisian ... who showed some promise while at Washington ... and he's definitely a strong offensive mind. However, Texas is likely too dysfunctional for him to turn around.
I think that folks could look at the addition of UCLA and USC and claim that it will help strengthen the B1G west. Furthermore, folks will argue that USC might be able to waltz in and contend for the division.
In contrast, where is Texas and Oklahoma going to land in terms of "divisions" in the SEC? Texas doesn't have a prayer to contend. The only good thing about their addition there is the revival of their rivalry with Texas A&M. If Oklahoma gets pitted in the SEC East ... then they might have a shot to contend for their division. However, Lincoln Riley's exit from Oklahoma makes the future of Oklahoma seem on thinner ice than some might guess. He seemed to think that USC was a more attractive landing spot than OU.
If you look at the current state of programs ... USC has Lincoln Riley ... still considered one of the "risers" in the coaching world. If you look at UCLA ... they have Chip Kelly ... a guy who was perceived as a mastermind during his time at Oregon.
OU currently has a pretty unproven guy in Venables ... he's never been a P5 head coach before. Could work out ... could turn out to be pretty bad. Texas has Sarkisian ... who showed some promise while at Washington ... and he's definitely a strong offensive mind. However, Texas is likely too dysfunctional for him to turn around.
In terms of "fit' ... both additions were great for their respective conferences.
OU and Texas are zealous about football ... so they likely "fit" that the SEC in that regard. Given that Texas has a history of not really playing well with others ... it will be interesting to see how that all works out.
As many have mentioned the addition of these programs really doesn't impact the SEC as it relates to recruiting territory.
As for USC and UCLA ... they bring value on MANY fronts ... well beyond just football. Academic reputation is at play. UCLA is one of the more storied programs in basketball (although that is a little bit in the rear-view). It IS still true that basketball DOES still command A LOT of interest in the greater LA area.
Lastly, only the storied programs in the B1G really have a track-record recruiting Cali. Thus, if California can become B1G recruiting territory for the rest of the conference ... then this is a development that simply wasn't really there before.
OU and Texas are zealous about football ... so they likely "fit" that the SEC in that regard. Given that Texas has a history of not really playing well with others ... it will be interesting to see how that all works out.
As many have mentioned the addition of these programs really doesn't impact the SEC as it relates to recruiting territory.
As for USC and UCLA ... they bring value on MANY fronts ... well beyond just football. Academic reputation is at play. UCLA is one of the more storied programs in basketball (although that is a little bit in the rear-view). It IS still true that basketball DOES still command A LOT of interest in the greater LA area.
Lastly, only the storied programs in the B1G really have a track-record recruiting Cali. Thus, if California can become B1G recruiting territory for the rest of the conference ... then this is a development that simply wasn't really there before.
