So NU SHould Have Went Back to the Big 12?

Another way to look at potential teams is to look at their athletic department revenues. An obvious caveat, though: a lot of that comes from a team's conference and its TV contracts, which would change if the school changed conferences. So it's only really an apples to apples comparison if you compare two teams from the same conference - you're looking more for potential revenue than anything.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

Couple things that stand out from that: the Pac-12 only has one team in the top 25. Trying to run a network on their own (without partnering with one of the big networks) hasn't paid off. That alone should be enough incentive for teams to jump. Also, despite their football success, Clemson is only the third highest in ACC revenue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toe said:
Another way to look at potential teams is to look at their athletic department revenues. An obvious caveat, though: a lot of that comes from a team's conference and its TV contracts, which would change if the school changed conferences. So it's only really an apples to apples comparison if you compare two teams from the same conference - you're looking more for potential revenue than anything.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

Couple things that stand out from that: the Pac-12 only has one team in the top 25. Trying to run a network on their own (without partnering with one of the big networks) hasn't paid off. That alone should be enough incentive for teams to jump. Also, despite their football success, Clemson is only the third highest in ACC revenue.
Click to expand...
One thing that has hurt the Pac 12 and their network is not being on Directv.  The former commissioner failed because he wanted all 7 channels on Directv and Directv only wanted the main channel.  What is strange is the commissioner allowed the Dish Network to carry only the main channel but didn't offer that to Directv.  So Directv said no and the commissioner was too proud to offer them the same deal.  Hopefully the new commissioner isn't as stupid.  

 
Thanks for posting. I have been saying it all along, it has to make financial sense to bring schools in. The people scared the B1G is gonna fall behind if the Pac12 adds the B12 leftovers are sorely mistaken. Neither the P12 or the B1G are going to dilute their current members money share just to bring in the likes of Oklahoma St and Iowa St. B1G probably has one move, add ND and KU (needs to be both). Well looks like ND doesn't want to lose independent status, and there is no elite football program to pair with KU - the move right now is sit on your hands. Warren gets a lot of much deserved flack, but refusing to add teams that will dilute the conference is the right move. 

 
Would be a welcomed change for both the Pac 12 and B1G to do away with having to pay millions to other schools to come play their teams in their non-conference schedule.  Now we can be on a rotation of Pac 12 teams each year for our non-conference games and not pay out a single cent.  This also gives the Rose Bowl more credence given that it is between a Pac 12 school and a B1G school.  So we will basically have a union between these two conferences yet remain separate at the same time.  I wonder if the ACC and SEC will being doing the same thing?  Losing at home to a team like Troy or Appalachian State while also paying them millions has been a problem the conference has been wanting to correct for some time now.  Now the solution is here.  No more millions to the smaller programs.  The gap between the haves and have-nots will get even bigger.  No more national TV embarrassments.  Our money stays in-house.  Our strength of schedule improves dramatically (for those who will determine who is in and who is out for the tourney).  It is win-win-win. 

 
Bledred said:
Would be a welcomed change for both the Pac 12 and B1G to do away with having to pay millions to other schools to come play their teams in their non-conference schedule.  Now we can be on a rotation of Pac 12 teams each year for our non-conference games and not pay out a single cent.  This also gives the Rose Bowl more credence given that it is between a Pac 12 school and a B1G school.  So we will basically have a union between these two conferences yet remain separate at the same time.  I wonder if the ACC and SEC will being doing the same thing?  Losing at home to a team like Troy or Appalachian State while also paying them millions has been a problem the conference has been wanting to correct for some time now.  Now the solution is here.  No more millions to the smaller programs.  The gap between the haves and have-nots will get even bigger.  No more national TV embarrassments.  Our money stays in-house.  Our strength of schedule improves dramatically (for those who will determine who is in and who is out for the tourney).  It is win-win-win. 
Click to expand...
But it doesn't solve those problems at all.

1. Dramatically increasing the strength of schedule will do nothing to reduce national TV embarrassments. Even more people might watch it happen. No one cares who the opponent is when you lose by 30+. There are also plenty of embarrassing losses to be had, i.e. Rutgers, Oregon State, etc.

2. The reason for paying the smaller schools is to get seven home games. The entire fiscal model is based on that. They only pay because they make ridiculously more. Having a partnership with another conference doesn't solve that problem. It actually makes it worse because you have schools with more negotiating power all arguing for the seventh home game. Any media agreement would be shared with PAC12. Likely far better for the PAC12 than the B1G. Also likely at the cost of a home game and a net loss for Nebraska.

3. . The SEC has proven beyond doubt that SOS only matters with equal records. The B1G has proven that cannibalizing your conference with more conference games leads to obvious inclusion/exclusion and exactly zero edge cases getting in.

I think it is lose-lose-lose. 

 
Mentioning because it's not been said, but with the "no rush" view" [which I like], I still think if Kansas is added that it brings Mizzou into the mix.  It at least increases the chances.  And, if there is no rush then it is something that could be pursued.  I'm a Missouri boy, so I know how much that Missouri/Kansas rivalry is.  If the money is equal for Mizzou between the $EC and the B1G, the addition of Kansas adds Mizzou as a possible add.  Hey, they wanted to get into the B1G before we did.  It grabs a more local market and also renews some old rivalries.  Then, if there is any more need for expansion you can decide if you want to go the more local route and grab an ISU or OU Lite or K-State or decide to bring in the Buffs and or go toward two bigger/better PAC schools.  

Obviously, I'm stating this from the perspective of what I would want verses the "selling out" for the almighty dollar.

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
Thanks for posting. I have been saying it all along, it has to make financial sense to bring schools in. The people scared the B1G is gonna fall behind if the Pac12 adds the B12 leftovers are sorely mistaken. Neither the P12 or the B1G are going to dilute their current members money share just to bring in the likes of Oklahoma St and Iowa St. B1G probably has one move, add ND and KU (needs to be both). Well looks like ND doesn't want to lose independent status, and there is no elite football program to pair with KU - the move right now is sit on your hands. Warren gets a lot of much deserved flack, but refusing to add teams that will dilute the conference is the right move. 
Click to expand...
We can add Kansas on its own. 
 

And comparing one-time viewing numbers of basketball and football events is disingenuous at best, as there are significantly more games/opportunities for basketball to sell ad time than football.  

 
VectorVictor said:
We can add Kansas on its own. 
 

And comparing one-time viewing numbers of basketball and football events is disingenuous at best, as there are significantly more games/opportunities for basketball to sell ad time than football.  
Click to expand...
I think KU is lucrative. But we're not gonna add just 1 team. And there is no one to pair with them that is equally or more lucrative...

 
FrantzHardySwag said:
I think KU is lucrative. But we're not gonna add just 1 team. And there is no one to pair with them that is equally or more lucrative...
Click to expand...


Depends. How long did the B1G limp along with 11 teams? And if there's concern that Kansas may be snatched out from under the B1G, and the B1G actually wants them...why not just move now and make do with the uneven team numbers? Hell, you can throw the East a bone and move Pur-f*****g-due over, and the West has one more crossover to compensate (just spitballing--not sure if the logistics hold). 

But Kansas did have a vetted moving buddy in Oklahoma under the old university President--he wanted to see the academic side of Oklahoma grow, not just the athletic side. Myopic fans wanted Oklahoma to go the SEC route, and when the old President retired...so did the hopes of Kansas/Oklahoma going to the B1G, it seems. 

And I know you're not the one who made those tweets, so I didn't mean to make it sound like I was calling you out. I just hate it when the people covering expansion think comparing basketball to football is an apples to apples comparison, when it's not. 

Kansas is probably tired AF of having to make this same argument too, I wager. 

 
zeWilbur said:
But it doesn't solve those problems at all.

1. Dramatically increasing the strength of schedule will do nothing to reduce national TV embarrassments. Even more people might watch it happen. No one cares who the opponent is when you lose by 30+. There are also plenty of embarrassing losses to be had, i.e. Rutgers, Oregon State, etc.

2. The reason for paying the smaller schools is to get seven home games. The entire fiscal model is based on that. They only pay because they make ridiculously more. Having a partnership with another conference doesn't solve that problem. It actually makes it worse because you have schools with more negotiating power all arguing for the seventh home game. Any media agreement would be shared with PAC12. Likely far better for the PAC12 than the B1G. Also likely at the cost of a home game and a net loss for Nebraska.

3. . The SEC has proven beyond doubt that SOS only matters with equal records. The B1G has proven that cannibalizing your conference with more conference games leads to obvious inclusion/exclusion and exactly zero edge cases getting in.

I think it is lose-lose-lose. 
Click to expand...
Lots of words but no valid points.  Playing Power 5 teams will always look better than the lower conference teams in terms of strength of schedule.  A loss to Oregon State looks a lot better than a loss to Appalachian State!  The rest of your issue is centered on the loss of home games.  I am sure that everyone in both conferences will be getting the same amount of home games every two years is being negotiated.  One year you will be short a home game and the next year you will be up a home game.  It all evens out.  Between the two conferences hundreds of Millions will be saved on no longer paying to play lower tier schools for non-conference games.  Only a fan perspective could see all of this as a loss.  From each athletic department's perspective and conference perspective, this is a home run and is going to happen. 

 


OK, but it's worth remembering that basketball season has three times as many games as football.

 
KU basketball is good. 

If Lance Leipold turns them around in football, ain't nobody gonna want Kansas anymore lol

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top