Phil Knight Cold Calling The SEC and B1G

trojanfan12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are right that the SEC is not altruistic, but you are wrong that they "moved." The facts are really straightforward - UT and OU, two of the most valuable brands in the game, asked to join the SEC. They said yes, just as all the other conferences would have done. It made sense geographically, financially, and defensively. I am not sure there are many other schools today that do that for the SEC.
 
trojanfan12 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that these media rights deals are more than football.

Although the NCAA keeps the majority of the 'Big Dance' (media) revenue, they're not getting the regular season or conference tournament media revenue.
Not counting national broadcasts, BTN has literally 2 basketball games on every night from December - March.
BTN is in most cable, satellite, and streaming packages. As are the ACC and SEC Networks.

There are arguably 6 basketball bluebloods in Kentucky, UCLA, UNC, Kansas, Duke and Indiana.

Teams play 30 basketball games in a regular season, and anywhere from 1 - 5 in their tournaments.
So anywhere from 30 - 35 games before NCAA Tourney play.

The better Big 10 basketball programs are typically Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Illinois, Ohio St, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland.

Not counting OOC games, UCLA against any of those teams is going to get eyeballs.

If Lance Leipold can get Kansas football back to being competitive (bowl eligible) they'll be a no brainer to the Big 10 come 2025.
2021 was Leipold's first season and Kansas got better as the season went along. They got blown out their first 9 weeks, but they beat Texas in week 10, lost to TCU in week 11 (28-31), and lost to WVU in week 12 (28-34).
Kansas is also a great regional fit.

I don't see another Big 12 team going to the Big 10 (Iowa St on the extreme edge), so the question is who from the PAC goes with Kansas in 2025?

I could see Colorado (regional), but Washington would be next on the list if just looking at football total wins. They're 18th.

Outside of WVU (15th), Washington is the next available (for football wins) that aren't already BIG 10, SEC, or ACC.
 
Last edited:
WhosYourDawggy said:
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.
Click to expand...
So you’re of the opinion that the B1G and SEC are done at 16 teams each?

I’m not sure that’s true as I think eventually they are coming for the ACC.

I think the below brands can economically work for the conferences:

ND
UNC
FSU
Miami
Clemson

I also think that the SEC will want to be in the state of Virginia so that puts Virginia and VT in play. I think Duke will be in potential play as a partner to UNC to capture that rivalry.

On the B1G side I think AAU network has tremendous value to the point they will look seriously at Virginia, GT, Duke (if they come with UNC).

The fact is the ACC will never pull the money of the B1G and SEC and we know FSU and Clemson are ready to move now. I just don’t think the ACC survives past the current GOR.

If the ACC does pull a rabbit out of the hat and stays together along with ND then I feel we are done.

The next NBC/ND network deal becomes very interesting because if they pay ND close to the money of the B1G (note it doesn’t have to be 100mm because that includes other sports and ND does participate with the ACC as a full member in those plus they’ve proven they will take less to stay independent) they won’t join a conference.

Nobody is really talking about NBC but they don’t have anyone else and I imagine now that CBS is losing the SEC they will want to get into the bidding as well. That one deal could be the difference in the ACC surviving or not.
 
OlyDuck said:
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.
Click to expand...
Product on the field doesn't have a damn thing to do with any of this. If it did, there would have been several teams kicked out of their conferences.
 
If there's a question about the value of basketball revenue to the Big 10, look no further than the covid year 2020/2021.

Kevin Warren had to be drug along kicking and screaming to play a football season. Even then it was a shortened season/in-conference only.

Basketball (with as much if not more physical contact as football) played an entire season to include out-of-conference.

Baseball (of which there would be the least amount of physical contact) didn't even hold a Big 10 Tournament.
 
Red_Alert said:
I agree with you that these media rights deals are more than football.

Although the NCAA keeps the majority of the 'Big Dance' (media) revenue, they're not getting the regular season or conference tournament media revenue.
Not counting national broadcasts, BTN has literally 2 basketball games on every night from December - March.
BTN is in most cable, satellite, and streaming packages. As are the ACC and SEC Networks.

There are arguably 6 basketball bluebloods in Kentucky, UCLA, UNC, Kansas, Duke and Indiana.

Teams play 30 basketball games in a regular season, and anywhere from 1 - 5 in their tournaments.
So anywhere from 30 - 35 games before NCAA Tourney play.

The better Big 10 basketball programs are typically Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St, Illinois, Ohio St, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland.

Not counting OOC games, UCLA against any of those teams is going to get eyeballs.

If Lance Leipold can get Kansas football back to being competitive (bowl eligible) they'll be a no brainer to the Big 10 come 2025.
2021 was Leipold's first season and Kansas got better as the season went along. They got blown out their first 9 weeks, but they beat Texas in week 10, lost to TCU in week 11 (28-31), and lost to WVU in week 12 (28-34).
Kansas is also a great regional fit.

I don't see another Big 12 team going to the Big 10 (Iowa St on the extreme edge), so the question is who from the PAC goes with Kansas in 2025?

I could see Colorado (regional), but Washington would be next on the list if just looking at football total wins. They're 18th.

Outside of WVU (15th), Washington is the next available (for football wins) that aren't already BIG 10, SEC, or ACC.
Click to expand...
football total wins? how is that a criteria?

would you rather have high win total for years past vs the last 5/10/25 years?

college football is just as much about what have you done for me lately as it is history and tradition.
coach that wins 10 to 13 games for 5 years straight, conference title playoff spots then cant get over .500 3 years is soon for being shown the door.
history only buys you so much time
 
OlyDuck said:
football total wins? how is that a criteria?

would you rather have high win total for years past vs the last 5/10/25 years?

college football is just as much about what have you done for me lately as it is history and tradition.
coach that wins 10 to 13 games for 5 years straight, conference title playoff spots then cant get over .500 3 years is soon for being shown the door.
history only buys you so much time
Click to expand...

I'm not making the rules, but if you can't fucking see what's going on then you're blind as a bat.

Oklahoma, Texas, and USC (the latest grab) are all time winningest blueblood programs.
Only Oklahoma has been consistent in the span of years you point out.

Yes. All-time wins matters and Oregon is way down that list.

Outside of West Virginia and Washington, 18 of the Top 20 in all-time wins will ALL belong to the Big 10, SEC, and ACC come 2024/2025.
 
Red_Alert said:
Oklahoma, Texas, and USC (the latest grab) are all time winningest blueblood programs.
Only Oklahoma has been consistent in the span of years you point out.
Click to expand...
Look at this top 10
Think of the Billions of Dollars they have pumped into College Football for the last hundred years.

That's why they have a 'seat at the table'



Where was Oregon
 
Red_Alert said:
I'm not making the rules, but if you can't fucking see what's going on then you're blind as a bat.

Oklahoma, Texas, and USC (the latest grab) are all time winningest blueblood programs.
Only Oklahoma has been consistent in the span of years you point out.

Yes. All-time wins matters and Oregon is way down that list.

Outside of West Virginia and Washington, 18 of the Top 20 in all-time wins will ALL belong to the Big 10, SEC, and ACC come 2024/2025.
Click to expand...
last 5 years
Oregon 42-18
Washington 35-21
WVU 32-28

and over the last 10 years
oregon is 91-27
washington 78-45
WVU 68-56

sorry dont have the time for 25
 
gobigred said:
Damn. Ruining all the fun being all sensible and shit. What kind of Michigan fan are you?!
Click to expand...
As I said -- I'm not the normal UM fan. I'm a realist and understand the landscape of CFB. The days of teams taking rosters fill with unranked or two/three star recruits and winning a title is long over. If you aren't getting the elite recruits (the 5 star, the top 100, the top 150 type recruits in bunches every cycle) you are only falling further and further behind.

With the high school level now filled with advanced coaching, high level national camps, 7 on 7's, strength and conditioning programs, etc. -- You may find one or two guys who make a big jump in college, but that isn't the norm. Michigan fans are blinded by our recruiting classes that say top 10, but when you look at the breakdown of the difference between a top 10 class and a top 5 class it is ENORMOUS. Two years ago -- UM had the #9 class, OSU had a top 5 class, cant remember if it was 3, 4 or 5. Our #1 recruit in our class was AJ Henning. He would have been the 10th or 11th best recruit in OSU's class. Yet, we were only 4 or 5 spots in the rankings from them.

Our ONLY shot to recruit like the truly elite programs right now is NIL deals -- having our boosters with more money than they know what to do with, to start throwing money at recruits. If that doesn't happen -- UM will continue to be what they are. A 2nd or 3rd place team in our own division.
 
outofyourmind said:
Look at this top 10
Think of the Billions of Dollars they have pumped into College Football for the last hundred years.

That's why they have a 'seat at the table'



Where was Oregon
Click to expand...

Let's go Top 20.

Notre Dame #10
Clemson #14
Florida St #15
Miami, Fl #17

That is why the mouth drooling over poaching the ACC and not Oregon at #33.
 
UCLA #22
Oregon #33

UCLA brings a blueblood basketball program for icing on the cake.

This is not hard to figure out.
 
Red_Alert said:
"aLL TiMe wInS DoN't mAttEr" - duck fan

18 of the Top 20 winningest programs are ALL either Big 10, SEC, or ACC. LMAO!!!
Click to expand...
reading comprehension matters

i never said it doesnt matter
my question is why?
why does winning hundreds of games in the 50s and 60s mean more than in the 2000s?
no body is worried about how much money was made back then vs how much money can be made now.
 
Wild Turkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it brings tremendous value to the B1G -- I just didn't understand how the one poster stated that it didn't? UCLA may not bring the value they could have in the past from Football, but they bring it in other sports, especially basketball. And by locking down the LA television market and taking two of the premiere schools from the Pac 12 -- it could only be viewed as a huge win.
 
OlyDuck said:
reading comprehension matters

i never said it doesnt matter
my question is why?
why does winning hundreds of games in the 50s and 60s mean more than in the 2000s?
no body is worried about how much money was made back then vs how much money can be made now.
Click to expand...

See post #136
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top