Phil Knight Cold Calling The SEC and B1G

[trojanfan12]

It won't matter truly what either conference does, IMO. You've removed the flag ship programs with the largest television markets from each conference. It includes 3 blue blood programs and 4 programs with national brands.

And UCLA is a basketball blue blood.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah, uhh, I was actually talking about the fifty or so teams that don’t have an ugly, bright, red field.

I thought Boise's blue field was bad.

Then I saw that red field.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Not really. The LA television market adds about $20 million per year to the B1Gs revenue. With the next contract that will almost be a rounding error. They took USC because they have the potential to add to their TV deal, they could generate very large 4 million viewer games (although they haven't in the past decade), and they might add CFP money if they get back to their glory. The LA market helps to justify USC and UCLA, but not as much as you think .

I think they took USC for two reasons:

1. It was a respectable counter to the SEC adding TX and OU.

2. They won’t admit it but they just basically castrated the PAC and probably by design.

I hate the terms blue bloods but if you were making a list these are the ones that were in play:

1. USC - football
2. ND - football
3. UCLA - basketball
4. Kansas - basketball

Now we know basketball really doesn’t matter but public perception does. You can’t really take Kansas because football is that bad. ND isn’t going to come (and we know they have tried and tried to get them) so USC was a must and UCLA just made sense. The revenue would be there because the total of the league boost the value as well.

The SEC and B1G are done until someone figures out how to defeat the ACC GOR.

Now if Phil Knight, who is worth 40 billion per Forbes) really wants Oregon in the B1G would he strike a check for 100mm to free ND as long as Oregon came along? He could afford it and could just pay it in stock more than likely. Now that’s assuming he wants it that bad and ND would be interested which is a long shot. That’s the only wild card out there and it’s a made up proposition that just popped in my brain.

Other than that it’s down to the PAC and Big 12 and I think the Big 12 has better cards.

 

[Wild Turkey]

It is the 2nd largest television market in the country. The B1G just brought on the two teams which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the market share in LA.
It is the same reason we added Rutgers for the NY market, but instead of a throw in team, USC is a blue blood and UCLA is still a national brand.

I don't see how it wouldn't help tremendously adding them to the conference? I guess we won't know until the numbers are out on the television deals, but adding road games in the Rose Bowl and Colosseum is only going to make the deal they demand even higher. And the ratings for those games will be thru the roof, as it will be new matchups -- same as it will be any time Texas or OU plays a SEC power. Stations will be salivating to get a piece of that action.

And you think adding the 2nd largest television market is going to only add $20 million to the television rights? I could see if we added two bottom feeders, but USC and UCLA are national brands.

Don’t under value that by castrating the PAC it defacto increases the B1G value by a considerable sum. This was a cold assassination that will reap potentially billions in the future as far as value as concerned. They just took a major player off the board and will benefit greatly from it. UCLA was worth it for that alone.

 

[Deep Creek]

Don’t under value that by castrating the PAC it defacto increases the B1G value by a considerable sum. This was a cold assassination that will reap potentially billions in the future as far as value as concerned. They just took a major player off the board and will benefit greatly from it. UCLA was worth it for that alone.

What is the difference in the B1G assassinating the PAC 12 by taking USC/UCLA and the SEC assassinating the Big 12 by taking Texas/Oklahoma? Same, same IMO.

 

[outofyourmind]

What is the difference in the B1G assassinating the PAC 12 by taking USC/UCLA and the SEC assassinating the Big 12 by taking Texas/Oklahoma? Same, same IMO.

Texas, Duh

So much more drama

 

[trojanfan12]

Now we know basketball really doesn’t matter but public perception does. You can’t really take Kansas because football is that bad. ND isn’t going to come (and we know they have tried and tried to get them) so USC was a must and UCLA just made sense. The revenue would be there because the total of the league boost the value as well.

Yes and no on basketball. Football is king obviously, but the NCAA Tournament is also huge and conferences want as many of their teams as possible playing in it.

So, while USC football was the must get for the B1G, UCLA is a basketball blue blood with a competitive football program. So their basketball program raises the B1G's profile in that sport a good bit while not hurting their football profile.

 

[Hu War Yu]

I thought Boise's blue field was bad.

Then I saw that red field.

Gitta loada Coastal Carolina's teal field:

 

[trojanfan12]

Gitta loada Coastal Carolina's teal field:

View attachment 77872

Not good...but better than that red field. lol

 

[Wild Turkey]

What is the difference in the B1G assassinating the PAC 12 by taking USC/UCLA and the SEC assassinating the Big 12 by taking Texas/Oklahoma? Same, same IMO.

Both Texas and Oklahoma can arguably bring the 100mm value to the SEC and make complete geographic sense and UCLA does not bring that type of value nor does it make geographic sense. For example, Texas or Oklahoma would have been added without the other so they were both must-haves that I don't think the SEC was actively seeking and fell into their lap. Now the end result is the Big 12 got neutered just as the PAC did.

I think for the B1G to take USC and UCLA, it did factor into their thinking that it would devastate the PAC brand and increase the brand of the B1G. I don't think the SEC takes USC and UCLA even if they hadn't done the Texas/OU expansion because it didn't make sense geographically, this was a reactionary move on the part of the B1G. I don't blame them but it feels more like a forced assassination than the SEC move.

So there is a difference but I'm not suggesting the SEC has pure intentions either.

 

[trojanfan12]

Both Texas and Oklahoma can arguably bring the 100mm value to the SEC and make complete geographic sense and UCLA does not bring that type of value nor does it make geographic sense. For example, Texas or Oklahoma would have been added without the other so they were both must-haves that I don't think the SEC was actively seeking and fell into their lap. Now the end result is the Big 12 got neutered just as the PAC did.

I think for the B1G to take USC and UCLA, it did factor into their thinking that it would devastate the PAC brand and increase the brand of the B1G. I don't think the SEC takes USC and UCLA even if they hadn't done the Texas/OU expansion because it didn't make sense geographically, this was a reactionary move on the part of the B1G. I don't blame them but it feels more like a forced assassination than the SEC move.

So there is a difference but I'm not suggesting the SEC has pure intentions either.

I think it's safe to say that neither conference was exactly being "altruistic" with these moves. The SEC and B1G had kind of separated themselves from the other 3 P5 conferences.

The SEC bringing in Jexas and OU and the B1G standing pat would have created a divide between the B1G and the SEC. This move does a good job of countering that. The only thing that could have been better for the B1G would have been if the could have grabbed the Domers along with USC. UCLA is a really good ''consolation prize'' for them.

 

[OlyDuck]

You aren't suggesting USC wasn't the highest value target in the Pac are you? And there was a lot of reasons for the packaged deal, but UCLA also was quite high in added value for the conference. When you package them together there were no other two that would have added as much.

value yes.
but at current would USC vs Ohio State or Michigan excite me? no
will those games be better eventually hopefully and hopefully sooner than later. but not right now

 

[OlyDuck]

I agree with UCLA, not so much with USC. You hate them, I get it. I hated them when they were good in the early 00s because their bandwagon fans were insufferable. That said, USC simply has a swag about them that matters. It's LA, it's Hollywood. They have hot dancing girls (even though your Oregon Duck cheerleaders and dancers are about as hot as they get). USC against tOSU/UM/PSU is must-watch football.

and then we get usc vs Texas 2018 and Alabama 2016 and USC was even a solid team by the end of 16
its the same with any team that likes to proclaim they are back
Miami and texas also come to mind.
all the hype pumped up games because of the names not the product on the field.

 

[Thiefery]

and then we get usc vs Texas 2018 and Alabama 2016 and USC was even a solid team by the end of 16
its the same with any team that likes to proclaim they are back
Miami and texas also come to mind.
all the hype pumped up games because of the names not the product on the field.

duuuhhh we are bluebloods for a reason you flash in the pan homeless duck

 

[outofyourmind]

and then we get usc vs Texas 2018 and Alabama 2016 and USC was even a solid team by the end of 16
its the same with any team that likes to proclaim they are back
Miami and texas also come to mind.
all the hype pumped up games because of the names not the product on the field.

Well, yeah
What do you think this is all about.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I think it's safe to say that neither conference was exactly being "altruistic" with these moves. The SEC and B1G had kind of separated themselves from the other 3 P5 conferences.

The SEC bringing in Jexas and OU and the B1G standing pat would have created a divide between the B1G and the SEC. This move does a good job of countering that. The only thing that could have been better for the B1G would have been if the could have grabbed the Domers along with USC. UCLA is a really good ''consolation prize'' for them.

I honestly think the alliance could have worked and I liked the potential of conference cooperation that gave us more cross-over games.

I don't think the B1G actually did need to counter the SEC because I can assure you the SEC is going to cannibalize itself and beat the living crap out each other. The league is too strong and even if there was a money divide it wouldn't have been that large. The B1G programming is too valuable and there are more bidders right now than there have ever been with streaming platforms. The SEC has always been first out of the gate with a massive deal that locks them up, the B1G comes up later and uses the SEC deal to make them even more money and then the SEC comes up again and we do it over and over.

In a perfect world we would have 4 sixteen team conferences for a total of 64 teams that have cross over games amongst all of them. That dream is dead and we are headed to two conferences of 20 to 24 teams and I don't think anyone is going to be truly happy that remembers what it used to be like.

 

[OlyDuck]

Well, yeah
What do you think this is all about.

its like bringing home the aging stripper.
does she still got it or are they past their prime.
Big Ten already did it once before with Nebraska

 

[Thiefery]

its like bringing home the aging stripper.
does she still got it or are they past their prime.
Big Ten already did it once before with Nebraska

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

and then we get usc vs Texas 2018 and Alabama 2016 and USC was even a solid team by the end of 16
its the same with any team that likes to proclaim they are back
Miami and texas also come to mind.
all the hype pumped up games because of the names not the product on the field.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I honestly think the alliance could have worked and I liked the potential of conference cooperation that gave us more cross-over games.

I don't think the B1G actually did need to counter the SEC because I can assure you the SEC is going to cannibalize itself and beat the living crap out each other. The league is too strong and even if there was a money divide it wouldn't have been that large. The B1G programming is too valuable and there are more bidders right now than there have ever been with streaming platforms. The SEC has always been first out of the gate with a massive deal that locks them up, the B1G comes up later and uses the SEC deal to make them even more money and then the SEC comes up again and we do it over and over.

In a perfect world we would have 4 sixteen team conferences for a total of 64 teams that have cross over games amongst all of them. That dream is dead and we are headed to two conferences of 20 to 24 teams and I don't think anyone is going to be truly happy that remembers what it used to be like.

I don't see this happening for two reasons:

(1) there isn't an economic model that exists for the B1G or the SEC to add 4-8 more teams each and maintain their per team payout. There simply aren't teams that add enough value to justify their share which means the other teams would have to reduce theirs. They aren't going to do that just to grow for the sake of growing.

(2) limiting the sports to 2 conferences takes away from the sport and will make less people watch it. The idea is to make more people watch it, not less. There comes a point of diminishing returns on growth. We are close to that point.