If Colorado rejoins the Big12 then expect Nebraska to leave the BIG10 for their beloved brethern in the Big12. The TV money will not be a bargin for the Huskers in the long run - they will bolt.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Link?Reports that NBC may triple the domers payout. Keeping them out of the big.
Big 12 could be in serious trouble. There's increasing smoke out there about a Pac-ACC partnership in the short term, which could effectively blunt any immediate moves the Big 12 wants to make. The ADs of the Pac and ACC are good friends and would probably work well together. It's pretty clear in this new world of college sports that geography doesn't have to matter. And I think programs like Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Washington would prefer aligning with programs like Clemson, UNC, Duke, Miami than those left in the Big 12.I don't see Nebby leaving the B1G for a watered-down B12 that is losing Texas and Oklahoma.
If I were a Big 12 supporter I'd be hoping that ACC programs were allowed to wiggle out of the GoR so the SEC could take Clemson, Miami, FSU, etc., and the B1G could take UNC. I'd also be hoping that ND accepts its B1G invite, because that would then limit the number of Pac teams the B1G may come calling for to get to 18 or 20.
I would hate to see the precedent of uneven payouts in the B1G. First, it sets the precedent for only getting what your "worth". Second, it was this type of disparity that killed the B12.That's definitely where this is going.
If I'm Oregon or Washington, I think I'd be willing to agree to some concessions as a way to get my foot in the door with the B1G. For example, agreeing to a lesser payout from the TV deal. This could work on two different levels. First, a lesser payout from the B1G will still tens of millions more than what they are currently making or would make in the PAC/Big 12.0. Second, this could also keep the current member schools happy if it means their shares won't be reduced.
Oregon and Washington get a considerable pay raise, but at a lesser rate than their peers. They also get a seat at the table, which is paramount. The B1G expands it's footprint in some very important areas (Nike and Seattle). Not to mention helps with scheduling logistics for the LA schools. It also keeps the pressure on the SEC.
Good points. I was just thinking from Oregon/Washington's perspective. A seat at the table is worth more than not getting a full share.I would hate to see the precedent of uneven payouts in the B1G. First, it sets the precedent for only getting what your "worth". Second, it was this type of disparity that killed the B12.
I know that's something many outside the B1G are hoping for, but I highly doubt you'll see anything like that in the B1G or SEC. New members already receive a reduced share for X number of years.I would hate to see the precedent of uneven payouts in the B1G. First, it sets the precedent for only getting what your "worth". Second, it was this type of disparity that killed the B12.
Giant LOL to this one. He runs a swimming blog. He has just about as many connections as Dennis Dodd does. Hell I might listen to Bob Nightengale on baseball before those clowns.
a 3 fold increase is still only $45 million. This shit is getting more and more laughable at these "sources" people are quoting.
I'll assume you find MHver3 a reliable source.
I'll assume you find MHver3 a reliable source.
It would make sense for NBC to save their "Golden Goose," however, NBC would need to immediately put that in writing b/c the new B1G deal will be completed within the next six weeks. I'm not doubting that this is true, but ND is working with real $$$ deals in writing with the B1G, not hypotheticals. ND may tell the B1G, "Thank you, but not right now." That's okay.
However, the B1G is still signing their TV deal without ND, and they'll add (or, not add) teams that are cost effective. The new B1G deal will probably be for about ten years, right? Nobody needs ND; they're a "nice to have, but not necessary" for the future.
What is the trend line on Notre Dame’s value as a conference member?
Im sure there’s a ton of value there, but what has it done over, say, the past 10-15 years. Feels like it isn’t what it once was. But I don’t study these things.
I don't think B1G/Fox is sharing that info...but, I'd sure like to know it, too.What is the trend line on Notre Dame’s value as a conference member?
Im sure there’s a ton of value there, but what has it done over, say, the past 10-15 years. Feels like it isn’t what it once was. But I don’t study these things.
FOX is thinking for the Big Ten as witnessed by USC and UCLA reaching out to the Big Ten and not the other way around.What matters is what the Big Ten thinks the landscape will look like in 3-4 years. Do they agree with the assessment that there would be 2 super conferences of about 24 teams. If the SEC and the Big Ten both agree with that assessment then you will see a lot more movement this Summer.
The way things were handled with USC and UCLA, shows us we really have no idea what the B10 is thinking. A week ago it may have been they were just adding those two. Now with possibly ten schools calling asking to be added, things may be different.
Unless they guaranteed them well over 100 million a year one would think they would listen to an offer from the B1G
Except, its NOT a precedent. Correct me if I'm wrong here but The Terps and the Scarlet Knights did NOT get a full payout right away. I'm not sure if even now they have passed whatever threshold to getting a full share. Point being these additions may not be paid a full share for the first several years, and since its been done this way in all the conference realignments, the terms may be somewhat fluid....I see where your going here that a "pay what your worth" could be an issue for Iowa, but thats not what were talking about. As for the Texas Ten, thats not the same thing at all either. Texas was taking a bigger cut period, and that was ongoing not something where other schools were going to work their way up the pay ladder after a few years....I would hate to see the precedent of uneven payouts in the B1G. First, it sets the precedent for only getting what your "worth". Second, it was this type of disparity that killed the B12.
All the recent adds have started with a reduced payout. It's not in perpetuity though.Except, its NOT a precedent. Correct me if I'm wrong here but The Terps and the Scarlet Knights did NOT get a full payout right away. I'm not sure if even now they have passed whatever threshold to getting a full share. Point being these additions may not be paid a full share for the first several years, and since its been done this way in all the conference realignments, the terms may be somewhat fluid....I see where your going here that a "pay what your worth" could be an issue for Iowa, but thats not what were talking about. As for the Texas Ten, thats not the same thing at all either. Texas was taking a bigger cut period, and that was ongoing not something where other schools were going to work their way up the pay ladder after a few years....