B1G's Commish Warren ...

Kburjr said:
Finally moved to the Blame Game level.

Who cares who is to blame? There is football to be played.
Click to expand...
The winner of the Blame Game is Texas. Errrrrrryything is Texas' fault.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Funny, but for some reason I think you guys are going to come out of this ok. I know it sucks losing UT and OU, but I think you add AZ schools, Colo and Utah and have a damn nice conference. Lots of different teams winning the title, with no dominant team. It won't be SEC/B1G but you'll be better than the ACC, and the PAC will be dead. Play an exciting brand of football. I've always been a B12 fan ... and whatever else you have been called. You guys moving from the G5 will have a shot each year when the do AQs, and I think you guys are a rising team with a really good coach!
Click to expand...
Mixed feelings.... moving to the Big 12 was definitely a good move. My cousin is a major WV fan so we are looking forward to that renewed rivalry and going to games. Higher profile conference, better exposure, access to the CFB Playoff, increased revenue.

The downside is, conferences are very shaky ground right now. It almost feels similar to the housing market as of late. With the instability and NIL I feel something is going to explode
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
It is quite humorous to hear you ask if someone is 15, while making posts like this one. I'm not sure what is more embarrassing -- your attempt at trolling or Nebraska's record since joining the B1G.
Click to expand...

You're flailing like a 15 y/o.

That's nothing new.
 
NewPhoneWhoDis said:
The destabilization of CFB only started when the SEC swiped the flagship programs of the Big 12, Texas and OU.
Click to expand...


Deep Creek said:
Im Not No Way GIF

Not even close. About 12 years late. Destabilization started in 2010. Swiping started with the PAC, then the B1G and then the SEC. The SEC was the last to swipe....and that wasn't even with OU and Texas.
2010 Colorado joins the PAC
2011 Nebraska joins B1G
2011 Longhorn Network launched
2012 Texas A&M and Missouri join the SEC
Click to expand...

WhoPhoneDis (a.k.a. TrustMeIAmRight) is an ignorant cad that thought USC and UCLA are in the Big 12.

ray-liotta-laughing.gif
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I agree, and don't get me wrong ... Sankey is all business and if it was something that would help the SEC, he would do it. I just find this an odd way for a commissioner to act. They are typically more deliberate in the things they say. You will note he gets some criticism in the article about saying things that perhaps were better off not said. If, for example, they don't do anything more he has unnecessarily made a lot of things more complicated and complex.

Some really good quotes in that article about the finances of expansion and why it may not make sense to continue with other teams:

While not confirming expansion activities with those specific schools, Warren told CBS Sports the addition of any teams beyond USC and UCLA (joining in 2024) would come after the current media rights deal is finalized in August.

"We're not 'targeting,'" said Warren when CBS Sports directly inquired about the candidacy of those four programs. "Like I said, my focus is on taking care of our 14 institutions."

Talk about introducing uncertainty.

However, it's uncertain whether any of the Big Ten's future rightsholders would find value in such a move.

Financially, those four programs are not worth near the money now expected to be distributed to Big Ten schools with USC and UCLA in the fold ($80 million to $100 million annually). Competitively, though, it would be a lifeline for the Pac-12's next-best football brands.

Yeah, where's the money coming from?

It would also give pause to a collegiate enterprise trying to figure out its future these days. Warren used some form of the word "bold" eight times on Tuesday. "Aggressive" was used three times in his address. Unlike SEC commissioner Greg Sankey last week, Warren lobbed a veiled warning: The Big Ten may not be done.

"From an expansion standpoint, the answer is … we're not in the market, but we're always looking for what makes sense," Warren told CBS Sports.

It's like he's purposefully trying to make things uncertain ... the opposite of The Alliance, LOL.

Industry sources tell CBS Sports that Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington would not bring requisite value as the 16 teams that will make up the league in 2024 with USC and UCLA in the fold. That could lead to the four programs taking substantially less revenue than existing members just to have long-term security in the Big Ten.

The revenue cut taken by Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington in joining the Big Ten -- compared to other conference members -- would need to be "significant," industry sources say. That would present a headache to rightsholders trying to restructure a deal already in place.

The inclusion of those four programs would trigger "dilution," an industry term referring to the proportion of attractive games being lessened by the addition of substandard inventory.

Yeah, because having teams getting different amounts works so well for conferences.

College athletics sources reached out to CBS Sports concerned with the tenor of Warren's address Wednesday. They believed, even if Warren was going to be aggressive in further expansion, keeping it to himself instead of sending ripples of worry through college athletics might have been a sounder move.

No kidding ... I am sure everyone is elated with this. I for one hope they expand. I can't imagine it is a good thing for them in the long run. Sankey continually shows he is the best.
Click to expand...

Deep Creek said:
They wouldn't be happy. If all B1G teams are getting $100 million/year and they agree to a reduced amount of $75 million/year, that might make them less unhappy if they were only going to receive $50 million/year if they stayed in the PAC. Isn't the $50 million/year range what the ACC, PAC and Big 12 are projected to get?
Click to expand...

I think there's a misconception on B1G revenue sharing. All new members have been on provisional status for the first few years of their inclusion into the conference. Their payouts were less than the other members during their "trial" period.

For Nebraska, it took 6 years for them to begin receiving full shares.

www.dailynebraskan.com

UNL to receive full Big Ten benefits after six years

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln will soon see the full benefits of the Big Ten Conference: big green.
www.dailynebraskan.com www.dailynebraskan.com
 
Deep Creek said:
Why not? Hell you got two teams in Mississippi (population 2.982 million), Alabama (population 4.89 million) and Tennessee (population 6.772 million). Florida has 21.22 million people and only one team. Florida is more populous than all three of those states combined!
Click to expand...
Politics
 
Wild Turkey said:
Politics
Click to expand...
Damn! It is okay for Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee (and soon to be Texas) to have two teams from the same state in the SEC...but not for Florida?

You've got to be right then. That is political. :beer2:
 
Deep Creek said:
Damn! It is okay for Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee (and soon to be Texas) to have two teams from the same state in the SEC...but not for Florida?

You've got to be right then. That is political. :beer2:
Click to expand...
Mississippi wouldn’t get two teams today (probably not one). No way Vandy would get an invite today.

aTm was added when Markets were the number one consideration and it was a huge boom. Now it’s eyeballs and ratings and Texas passes that test.

Florida wants no other Florida teams but they’ll suck it up and take one particularly since they play FSU annually anyway. Miami they shun and no way will Florida go along with it so the SEC will split the baby with them.

Politics
 
Red_Alert said:
WhoPhoneDis (a.k.a. TrustMeIAmRight) is an ignorant cad that thought USC and UCLA are in the Big 12.

ray-liotta-laughing.gif
Click to expand...
What a shock -- even with the gif's you choose, they are from movie's 25-30 years ago.

Makes sense - everything else Nebraska fans talk about is from 25-30 years ago too, when their football program was relevant. Now, just like Ray Liotta, the Nebraska football program is dead. But hey -- you will always have the 90's to talk about.
 
ralphiewvu said:
This is very worrisome
Click to expand...
I don't see this happening any time soon. College football is good because all regions are represented and people pull for their region, at some level. If you wipe out large swaths of teams and fans it becomes less interesting. The SEC and B1G walk a fine line between getting as big as they can to be profitable, and so big they actually diminish the product they are trying to derive revenue from. This is why I think the SEC, at least, slows down on expansion.

For example, would the SEC actually make more money by bringing in Clemson, FSU, Miami, and UNC if that means the ACC is destroyed? Maybe, but it's risky losing fans in the states and for the teams that don't come in.

What the post you are responding to is alluding to is the idea that it might be a better product if only those who truly can compete at the highest levels are in one Tier competing against each other, and everyone else is in another. We already have that with P5 and G5. Do we break up the P5 ... that's what the post is getting at. That may happen, and it may make sense some day. But that day is a long way away, IMO.
 
Tharvot said:
I think there's a misconception on B1G revenue sharing. All new members have been on provisional status for the first few years of their inclusion into the conference. Their payouts were less than the other members during their "trial" period.

For Nebraska, it took 6 years for them to begin receiving full shares.

www.dailynebraskan.com

UNL to receive full Big Ten benefits after six years

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln will soon see the full benefits of the Big Ten Conference: big green.
www.dailynebraskan.com www.dailynebraskan.com
Click to expand...
It was announced that USC and UCLA will get full shares immediately. I am sure Rutgers and Maryland are totally on board with that.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I don't see this happening any time soon. College football is good because all regions are represented and people pull for their region, at some level. If you wipe out large swaths of teams and fans it becomes less interesting. The SEC and B1G walk a fine line between getting as big as they can to be profitable, and so big they actually diminish the product they are trying to derive revenue from. This is why I think the SEC, at least, slows down on expansion.

For example, would the SEC actually make more money by bringing in Clemson, FSU, Miami, and UNC if that means the ACC is destroyed? Maybe, but it's risky losing fans in the states and for the teams that don't come in.

What the post you are responding to is alluding to is the idea that it might be a better product if only those who truly can compete at the highest levels are in one Tier competing against each other, and everyone else is in another. We already have that with P5 and G5. Do we break up the P5 ... that's what the post is getting at. That may happen, and it may make sense some day. But that day is a long way away, IMO.
Click to expand...
IMHO the P5s have been split into three levels the past 10+ years.
Tier 1 - SEC
Tier 2 - B1G
Tier 3 - ACC, Big 12, PAC 12

And the G5s as well
Tier 1- AAC
Tier 2- MWC
Tier 3- C-USA, Sun Belt, MAC
 
Deep Creek said:
IMHO the P5s have been split into three levels the past 10+ years.
Tier 1 - SEC
Tier 2 - B1G
Tier 3 - ACC, Big 12, PAC 12

And the G5s as well
Tier 1- AAC
Tier 2- MWC
Tier 3- C-USA, Sun Belt, MAC
Click to expand...
Based on money, it's
Tier 1 - SEC/B1G
Tier 2 - ACC, B12, PAC

But, you might see stratification in Tier 2 if the PAC disappears.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
It was announced that USC and UCLA will get full shares immediately. I am sure Rutgers and Maryland are totally on board with that.
Click to expand...

Maryland actually got the biggest payouts early on because the B1G was helping them with their other obligations as they transitioned over. Rutgers got by far the least.

If I'm Rutgers, im not as concerned about the payout...I'm just thanking my lucky stars I somehow managed to outkick my coverage so hugely.
 
Deep Creek said:
I was basing it on CFP performance.
Click to expand...
I agree ... even with USC when it comes to on the field performance the SEC is Tier 1. Do you think this move by the B1G will make a difference in the quality of the football?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top