USC and UCLA planning to leave for B10 by 2024!

Thiefery said:
rumor is that Texas is in talks with psu to replace the UGA series.. Texas has Bama ('23), UM x2, tosu x2 on the horizon.
Click to expand...
We will have to replace our games with you guys and OU. Then we have the 2023 OU game ... no way we are going to Norman without a return visit. It will have to go to a neutral site (NOLA, Nashville, even Houston - but not Dallas or Atlanta), or simply be canceled.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Over all the years we've heard any number of asshole politicians (but I am being redundant) say they are going to do something like this. I've never seen it come anywhere near a problem. If anything, UCLA has to move to the B1G as they are in 30 million of debt. It would be fiscally imprudent to not allow them to go.
Click to expand...
reminds me of Baylor always throwing it's lawyers on the case.. UCLA wants out..state won't be able to do anything about it.. politician just trying to look good for the media
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Over all the years we've heard any number of asshole politicians (but I am being redundant) say they are going to do something like this. I've never seen it come anywhere near a problem. If anything, UCLA has to move to the B1G as they are in 30 million of debt. It would be fiscally imprudent to not allow them to go.
Click to expand...
Well... there's this little problem of "egos" that politicos seem to have! :heh:
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
We will have to replace our games with you guys and OU. Then we have the 2023 OU game ... no way we are going to Norman without a return visit. It will have to go to a neutral site (NOLA, Nashville, even Houston - but not Dallas or Atlanta), or simply be canceled.
Click to expand...
they can still do a home and home.. they can ensure that they play in the regular season at whichever venue needs it
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Over all the years we've heard any number of asshole politicians (but I am being redundant) say they are going to do something like this. I've never seen it come anywhere near a problem. If anything, UCLA has to move to the B1G as they are in 30 million of debt. It would be fiscally imprudent to not allow them to go.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But I've spent some time digging deep into the details of UCLA's financial situation and the whole !@#$ school is in financial trouble (not just its athletic department). I'm surprised but then again it is in California so anything is possible. Look at this excerpt from the Academic Planning and Budget February 2022.

General Funds are the primary source of support for UCLA’s core academic activities and central services. The main components of UCLA’s General Funds are permanent (ongoing) State funding, base tuition and fees, and Nonresident Supplemental Tuition (NRST). UCLA’s General Fund expenditures are primarily personnel-based, totaling $1.3 billion in 2021-22. State general funds appropriated to UCLA last year comprised 42% of its budget.

42% of $1,3000,000 is $546,000,000.

Think about that. The state holds a lot of power over UCLA, unlike USC. If the Governor and/or the state legislature decide to play politics, then the B1G money is going to look a lot less attractive if it cost UCLA even a modest amount of state appropriations. We stopped doing business in CA about 15 years ago because we got tired of the BS and it's even worse now. Don't put anything past CA politicians. They're stupid, mean and incompetent.
 
Goldbug said:
Maybe. But I've spent some time digging deep into the details of UCLA's financial situation and the whole !@#$ school is in financial trouble (not just its athletic department). I'm surprised but then again it is in California so anything is possible. Look at this excerpt from the Academic Planning and Budget February 2022.

General Funds are the primary source of support for UCLA’s core academic activities and central services. The main components of UCLA’s General Funds are permanent (ongoing) State funding, base tuition and fees, and Nonresident Supplemental Tuition (NRST). UCLA’s General Fund expenditures are primarily personnel-based, totaling $1.3 billion in 2021-22. State general funds appropriated to UCLA last year comprised 42% of its budget.

42% of $1,3000,000 is $546,000,000.

Think about that. The state holds a lot of power over UCLA, unlike USC. If the Governor and/or the state legislature decide to play politics, then the B1G money is going to look a lot less attractive if it cost UCLA even a modest amount of state appropriations. We stopped doing business in CA about 15 years ago because we got tired of the BS and it's even worse now. Don't put anything past CA politicians. They're stupid, mean and incompetent.
Click to expand...
So, Stanford it is.
 
Goldbug said:
Maybe. But I've spent some time digging deep into the details of UCLA's financial situation and the whole !@#$ school is in financial trouble (not just its athletic department). I'm surprised but then again it is in California so anything is possible. Look at this excerpt from the Academic Planning and Budget February 2022.

General Funds are the primary source of support for UCLA’s core academic activities and central services. The main components of UCLA’s General Funds are permanent (ongoing) State funding, base tuition and fees, and Nonresident Supplemental Tuition (NRST). UCLA’s General Fund expenditures are primarily personnel-based, totaling $1.3 billion in 2021-22. State general funds appropriated to UCLA last year comprised 42% of its budget.

42% of $1,3000,000 is $546,000,000.

Think about that. The state holds a lot of power over UCLA, unlike USC. If the Governor and/or the state legislature decide to play politics, then the B1G money is going to look a lot less attractive if it cost UCLA even a modest amount of state appropriations. We stopped doing business in CA about 15 years ago because we got tired of the BS and it's even worse now. Don't put anything past CA politicians. They're stupid, mean and incompetent.
Click to expand...
Typical Cali politicos... "cut their nose off to spite their face"! :crazy:

I can understand the "butt hurt" egos, but UCLA's Athletic Dept has been (as I undestand it) deep in debt to the school's "general fund" anyway so wouldn't it make sense to allow this move that would allow them to pay down that AD debt which would then help their "general fund" out? Still the better deal than what The PAC is likely to come up with.

I mean, how badly can the UCLA "football" move REALLY hurt the state university system itself? USC (as a private Univ) is still gonna be GONE and the PAC is likely to have many issues afterwards anyway.

A shame the Cali people weren't able to "recall" this whack job Guv... :twitch:
 
CorpRebel said:
Typical Cali politicos... "cut their nose off to spite their face"! :crazy:

I can understand the "butt hurt" egos, but UCLA's Athletic Dept has been (as I undestand it) deep in debt to the school's "general fund" anyway so wouldn't it make sense to allow this move that would allow them to pay down that AD debt which would help their "general fund" out? Still the better deal than what The PAC is likely to come up with.

I mean, how badly can the UCLA "football" move REALLY hurt the state university system itself? USC (as a private Univ) is still gonna be GONE and the PAC is likely to have many issues afterwards anyway.

A shame the Cali people weren't able to "recall" this whack job Guv... :twitch:
Click to expand...
I say let them go because of the money.
But Gavin will get something for it.

We'll probably never know what.
 
Volbound1700 said:
I made a joke in one of these threads about a new conference called the Socialist league referencing the Portland/Seattle mess. (I added Minnesota to that league to get Minneapolis as well).

Growing up, San Francisco used to be the liberal city everyone laughed at. Now SF seems tamed compared to Portland or Seattle.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you spent significant time in San Francisco?
 
CorpRebel said:
Typical Cali politicos... "cut their nose off to spite their face"! :crazy:

I can understand the "butt hurt" egos, but UCLA's Athletic Dept has been (as I undestand it) deep in debt to the school's "general fund" anyway so wouldn't it make sense to allow this move that would allow them to pay down that AD debt which would then help their "general fund" out? Still the better deal than what The PAC is likely to come up with.

I mean, how badly can the UCLA "football" move REALLY hurt the state university system itself? USC (as a private Univ) is still gonna be GONE and the PAC is likely to have many issues afterwards anyway.

A shame the Cali people weren't able to "recall" this whack job Guv... :twitch:
Click to expand...
I think what you're missing is the amount of money the B1G could be paying UCLA compared to the amount the State of California is already providing to UCLA. It's dollars to donuts. Newsom can burp $100,000,000 in California and half the state cheers WTF he just did. A wink and some cheesy shit under the table and voila! UCLA's athletic debt could be done away with and the masses would either cheer or be oblivious. Will it happen? Don't know. Could it happen? Oh yeah, definitely if Gruesome Newsom senses some political advantage in doing it.
 
Wild Turkey said:
1. ND has given the rights to their basketball and other sports to the ACC as a full participant so that is off the table. NBC can't broadcast those games period.

2. ND average a 4.8 rating per game in 2020 but in 2021 no game drew more than a 4 and the best game was vs Cincinnati at 3.8 which people watched to see you lose. Those are good ratings and why ND is the most attractive on the board but at 75 million a year NBC is paying top dollar for 7 games a year and 700K more than networks pay to air neutral site games. Last year the only game that made it into the Top 10 highest rated was ND vs FSU but it was an FSU home game so NBC didn't get it. If you were pulling 10 million plus viewers for your games then all of them would be top 10 games. To put it in perspective for you the Auburn vs Alabama game was number 2 last year and 10.4 million watched it (that game went to 4 OTs and the entire world was wanting Bama to lose). You just aren't pulling those numbers or 75 million would be a no-brainer.

Cincy being your highest-rated home game isn't going to move the needle much.
Click to expand...

1) I realize. I was just playing hypothetical scenarios.

2) 2021 was a very weak home schedule, and probably not a true indicator of what can be reached from a rating perspective. USC was awful, UNC had a down year, and the Navy and GT games were over from the start. 2026 has an ND "home" game with Wisconsin(Lambeau Field), which will be broadcast on NBC if they get the rights, and MSU. UVA, UL and Cuse are the other scheduled home games as of now. I'd expect Stanford to be added, and another home game(likely G5). It's also why it's important for someone else to come on board, from a promotion perspective. The ND/Wisconsin game drew 5.4 million, ND/UVA drew 3.3 and ND/Stanford drew 2.7. The latter two were against bad team's and still drew well because they get promotion throughout the week/day. And then you mentioned the ND/FSU game(helps that it was a stand-alone)

Will ND get 75 million? Probably not, but 60 is well within reach.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Your numbers are substantially off.

ND @ Stanford - 2.7
ND GT - 1.5
ND @ UVA - 3.7
ND Navy - 1.8
ND UNC - 2.3
ND USC - 2.9
ND Cincy - 3.8
ND @ Wisky - 5.4
ND Purdue - 2.6
ND Todledo - na
ND @ FSU - 7.8
12th game not measured

Home average - 2.12 million.
No home Four Million Club games.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.
www.sportsmediawatch.com www.sportsmediawatch.com
Click to expand...

In 2020 the avg ND was 4.1 million viewers. Last year wasn't a great schedule. We'll see what happens this year with Clemson at home, to help the overall numbers.
 
ericd7633 said:
In 2020 the avg ND was 4.1 million viewers. Last year wasn't a great schedule. We'll see what happens this year with Clemson at home, to help the overall numbers.
Click to expand...
Those are Covid inflated numbers. Go look at 2019 ... same as 2021.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

2019 college football TV ratings

College football television ratings for the 2019 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.
www.sportsmediawatch.com www.sportsmediawatch.com

No one is saying ND isn't attractive. They truly are. But I am actually surprised at the lack of viewers unless you are playing a really top team.
 
outofyourmind said:
Did those numbers have anything to do with Covid ??
Click to expand...

There is probably slight inflation just because the B1G didn't start till late October. But even when they came back, they still drew good numbers, overall. In 2019 the avg game was 3.62 million.
 
Here are the numbers for 2021 and from a quick glance, this is consistent with 2019, 18 and before.

  1. Ohio State — 5.22M
  2. Michigan — 4.74M
  3. Alabama — 4.64M
  4. Penn State — 3.87M
  5. Georgia — 3.61M
  6. Oklahoma — 3.46M
  7. Auburn — 3.22M
  8. Michigan State — 2.89M
  9. Notre Dame — 2.84M
  10. Oregon — 2.57M
  11. Wisconsin — 2.41M
  12. Nebraska — 2.29M
  13. Texas — 2.26M
  14. Florida — 2.21M
  15. Arkansas — 2.03M
Those are good numbers, but you aren't at a 4 million a game average.
 
ericd7633 said:
There is probably slight inflation just because the B1G didn't start till late October. But even when they came back, they still drew good numbers, overall. In 2019 the avg game was 3.62 million.
Click to expand...
Your numbers, and everyone else's, were hugely inflated by Covid. People couldn't attend, and we were starved for sports.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
Those are Covid inflated numbers. Go look at 2019 ... same as 2021.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

2019 college football TV ratings

College football television ratings for the 2019 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.
www.sportsmediawatch.com www.sportsmediawatch.com

No one is saying ND isn't attractive. They truly are. But I am actually surprised at the lack of viewers unless you are playing a really top team.
Click to expand...

Just did 2019. It was 3.62 million viewers. I'm guessing 2018 is similar. And their numbers are going to be lower, in general because all of their games minus 1 are trackable. SEC Network and ACC Network games aren't tracked. Even still the stinker games for ND rate pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top